Can we be certain that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th? The Bible gives no exact date for His birth, so why celebrate on a date tied to pagan traditions?
Because it really isn't tied to pagan traditions.
Before we get into the specifics, I want to note something very important. These pagan tradition arguments always go the same way: "Pagans did this, and Christmas has that in common, so they took it from pagans." But this argument
only works if:
1) the pagans actually did this (a lot of these claims are straight up made up)
2) the pagans can be shown to have done it before Christians
3) the pagans did it in a time and place where it
could influence Christmas
4) the Christmas tradition in question actually came out at a time when pagan influence was a possibility. The actual point of fact is that most of what we think of as Christmas traditions are only the creation of the last few centuries, long after paganism was extinct!
So whenever someone says "look at this thing pagans did and how it's totally similar to something in Christmas" the argument means absolutely nothing if they cannot prove all of the above things. Show a primary source demonstrating pagans did this
in a time and place that could have influenced Christianity, then demonstrate that the Christian tradition in question started at a point that it could have been plausibly influenced by it (e.g.
before paganism went extinct), and that the pagan tradition can be shown to predate Christianity. Otherwise, the supposed parallels mean nothing.
With that in mind, let's look at what you have to offer.
The first recorded instance of December 25th being celebrated as Christ's birth comes from a Roman calendar in AD 336, long after it was used to celebrate Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun”).
The date is probably the most plausible link to paganism, but it still has some problems.
The claim that it was "long after it was used to celebrate Dies Natalis Solis Invicti" is actually a pretty big speculation. The first definite reference we have to this festival being celebrated on December 25 is the very Roman calendar you refer to (called the Chronograph of 354, due to it being from 354... though the mention of Christmas is believed to be an earlier document from 336 AD that was re-used in the Chonograph). Since it refers to both Christmas and that festival, it leaves it unclear which came first.
There are a few ambiguous references that might indicate prior celebration of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti... but they're speculative. Sure, Aurelian dedicated a temple to the sun on December 25 in the third century, but (contrary to what various people claim) there seems no evidence he did so as part of any annual holiday or that any holiday started as a result.
Similarly, while the calendar you refer to is the first
definite reference we have of Christmas being December 25, it of course does not mean that was the first one. A work of Hippolytus from the third century made a reference to Jesus's birth being December 25. While some have argued this is a alter interpolation, Thomas Schmidt--who translated the work in question into English--puts forward what seems a reasonable (albeit lengthy) argument
here that it was indeed something Hippolytus said.
There is also an alleged letter of Theophilus from the second century referring to it... but this letter is regarded as a much later writing. Still, I did find
this article which argues that while the letter itself is of later origin, it is drawing on accurate historical information; I am not fully persuaded of this, however.
In any event, with the information we have, it is not possible to determine for sure whether Christmas on December 25 or Dies Natalis Solis Invicti on December 25 came first. Thus, while it is
possible that December 25 Christmas post-dates Dies Natalis Solis Invicti being on this date, it is far from certain. It is entirely possible that they put Dies Natalis Solis Invicti on
that date in imitation of the Christian festival!
But as for why Christians would choose this date, if not in imitation of this? There are several theories, but one that seems plausible is that of computation. There is some evidence that early Christians Jesus to have been conceived on or around March 25 (e.g. see
this article by Schmidt). As is commonly known, pregnancies last 9 months, which would put the birth at December 25.
This date is speculated to have origins in ancient Babylon (approx. 2000 BC), marking the birth of Tammuz, and is celebrated after a woman’s typical gestation period following the pagan fertility festival of Easter. By aligning Christ’s birth with this pagan festival, we risk blending the worship of God with sun worship, which the Bible condemns (Romans 1:25).
Yes--
speculated. As in without real evidence. Because there isn't real evidence of this idea (similarly, Easter being a "pagan fertility festival" is simply speculation without backing). These claims are just speculations without actual evidence.
Let’s also remember the abominable practices described in Ezekiel 8:16-18, where the people were worshipping the sun in God’s temple—an act of rebellion against God. As Ecclesiastes 1:9 reminds us, “There is nothing new under the sun”, and such practices persist even today.
Additionally, Jeremiah 10:2-5 warns against the customs of the nations, such as cutting, fastening in place and decorating trees with silver and gold—practices still reflected in today’s December 25th tradition. This mirrors an ancient pagan ritual that elevates the tree to the status of an idol.
Jeremiah 10:2-5 is referring to taking out a tree and
sculpting it into an idol. That's why it specifies "they cannot speak"--this would be an odd statement to make about a tree, but it makes sense if referring to a humanoid idol. It should be noted that I have been unable to find a single person who associated Jeremiah 10:2-5 with Christmas trees prior to the 20th century. Even people who
opposed Christmas didn't seem to draw this connection.
More importantly, it is extremely unlikely that Christmas trees were taken from paganism, simply because Christmas trees appear to have first emerged around the 15th/16th century,
far too late for any plausible pagan influence.
This picture is largely just repeating the same problems already discussed... though it should be noted that the idea of December 25 being a birthday of Mithra was
really just a speculation of Franz Cumont that, unfortunately, a lot of people took for granted as accurate for quite a while because Cumont was considered such an authority on Mithraism.
