Why I Think Christmas is Not Biblical (Please read OP before posting).

[Apple Sky]

Christ's

So it was Christ's church who first gave the date for Christmas ? I thought it was Pope Julius I in the 4th century.

 

[prodromos]

So it was Christ's church who first gave the date for Christmas ?

Yes

I thought it was Pope Julius I in the 4th century.

No, he was just establishing the date in his local jurisdiction

 

[Apple Sky]

No, he was just establishing the date in his local jurisdiction

And for whom was he establishing the date for ? Christs Church or Constantine ?

 

[prodromos]

And for whom was he establishing the date for ? Christs Church or Constantine ?

You seem unwilling or unable to understand simple statements. There was only one Church, whether it be the Church in Ephesus or the Church in Antioch or the Church in Rome or the Church in Philippi.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Honoring God is Biblical. Remember too that in early Christianity there was no Bible.

Sure there was...the TaNaKh ;-)

 

[JSRG]

So it was Christ's church who first gave the date for Christmas ? I thought it was Pope Julius I in the 4th century.

In truth, we do not know for sure exactly who or when December 25 was first given or celebrated as the birth of Jesus.

The latest possible date for Christmas was 354. That's because the Chonograph of 354 (named so because it's... well, from 354) mentions in a list of martyr celebrations that December 25 was the date on which the birth of Jesus ("natus Christus in Betleem Iudaea"); the "VIII kal. Ian" (eighth day of the kalends of January) is the needlessly convoluted way the Romans said December 25; thankfully, we have subsequently adopted the simple way of just saying the number day of the month.

Now, the first mention of a tradition or holiday in the historical record does not mean it was the first time it was done, just the first time we have record of it. This is especially important in time periods where we have lost the vast majority of documents from. Thus, celebration was almost certainly celebrated prior to whatever the first mention is... the question is how much prior.

Coming back to Julius, he was pope from around 337 to 352. So this would have been before 354. However, the actual source that Julius did so is apparently a spurious letter of Julius (that is, not actually by Julius) from centuries later. Additionally, while the Chonograph of 354 as a whole is dated to 354, the portion mentioning Christmas is believed to have been a reproduction of a document from 336, which would put it before Julius.

There are earlier possible references, but they are more disputed. Hippolytus's commentary on Daniel from the early third century identifies the date of Jesus's birth as being on December 25, though he does not specify there was any celebration on that date yet. The reason this is considered less definite is that there is some dispute as to whether this was in the original or inserted later on. One article arguing it is legitimate is this one by Thomas Schmidt, which seems to have done some to turn the tide in favor of people considering it authentic. There is also a letter supposedly from Theophilus Caesarea (second century) referring to Christmas as December 25... but this is actually a later creation. That said, this article (by Kurt Simmons) puts forward the argument that even if written later, it still gives correct information about the second century. I find his arguments a bit speculative on that point, but they are worth considering.

At any rate, December 25 being the date of Jesus's birth at least appears to predate Pope Julius, and the idea that he was the one who did it comes from a spurious source from much later.

 

[DamianWarS]

So it was Christ's church who first gave the date for Christmas ? I thought it was Pope Julius I in the 4th century.

I'm no Catholic or defender of Papal authority, but it would be irresponsible to not acknowledge or be educated in our history. The Nicene Creed was also made in the 4th century... are you going to protest that too? simply saying some sort of sentiment that you don't agree with papal authority or Constantine's motivations doesn't make something valid or not. This is not a critical way of engaging a subject.

Papal authority was also a developing concept in the 4th century still, aside from that, who coined the date is a bit of a red herring. In the end this is the date that Christians of the day chose to celebrate. Chosen through a top-down hierarchy structure of the undivided church of the day, (passed down from the apostle's teachings) then the date precipitated throughout all Christendom and is a custom still widely practiced. There certainly are various reasons, influences or motivations why the date was chosen, and some of them political or from old pagan structures. We can argue about the reasons but it doesn't change our motivation today.

we are to work within the structures and systems we are called in. December 25th as a recognized celebrated day for the birth of Christ is part of these systems. We can choose to celebrate the day or protest it but whatever you do, be aware of how that impacts those around you and how you can show Christ in your actions to others. It is of no benefit to estrange ourselves to our mission because we want to protest a principal from 1600 years ago. who cares. what does the day mean today? react to that meaning and use it to show others Christ.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The first mention we have of the word "Christmas" I am aware of comes from the 11th century (the first usage the Oxford English Dictionary lists is a homily by Wulfstan, an 11th century English bishop). This is obviously long after the holiday had been celebrated. Attempting to say it's "Catholic in origin" because of a name given centuries upon centuries after the fact is questionable. In many languages, the word for Christmas derives from the word birth, such as Spanish where the word is Navidad, ultimately coming from the Latin word Nativitas (birth). Greek is even more explicit, with the word being Χριστούγεννα (Christougenna), meaning "Christ birth".

Holidays evolve. Wulfstan I didn’t invent the word "Christmas"—he used an existing term in his writings. By his time, the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25 was centuries old, formalized by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. The phrase "Cristes mæsse" likely evolved naturally in Old English Christian communities, combining "Crist" (Christ) and "mæsse" (Mass, from Latin "missa"). Wulfstan I’s homilies, written in the vernacular for English audiences, simply reflect its adoption by the early 11th century.

On December 25, 336 AD, during the reign of Emperor Constantine (the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity), the first recorded celebration of Christ’s Nativity took place in Rome, as noted in the Chronograph of 354, a Roman document. This date was likely chosen to align with existing Roman festivals, such as the winter solstice celebration (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun") or Saturnalia, both of which occurred around late December. By adopting this date, Church leaders could ease the transition for pagan converts while reframing the celebration around Christ. Pope Julius I (reigned 337–352 AD) is often credited with officially endorsing December 25 as the date, though the decision likely emerged from earlier traditions in the Roman Church.

In other words, I am not incorrect to say that the word "Christmas" is tied to the term "Christ mass" (which is Catholic). To ignore this is to ignore history.

 

[JSRG]

Holidays evolve. Wulfstan I didn’t invent the word "Christmas"—he used an existing term in his writings. By his time, the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25 was centuries old, formalized by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. The phrase "Cristes mæsse" likely evolved naturally in Old English Christian communities, combining "Crist" (Christ) and "mæsse" (Mass, from Latin "missa"). Wulfstan I’s homilies, written in the vernacular for English audiences, simply reflect its adoption by the early 11th century.

I agree that the word predated Wulfstan. Due to us lacking many documents from the past, the first instance we have of a particular word in the historical record was most likely not its first usage; it is entirely possible that it even goes back several centuries prior. But it comes so late that we can be reasonably certain that the word only originated well after the establishment and celebration of the holiday--and only in Britain, at that.

On December 25, 336 AD, during the reign of Emperor Constantine (the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity), the first recorded celebration of Christ’s Nativity took place in Rome, as noted in the Chronograph of 354, a Roman document. This date was likely chosen to align with existing Roman festivals, such as the winter solstice celebration (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun") or Saturnalia, both of which occurred around late December. By adopting this date, Church leaders could ease the transition for pagan converts while reframing the celebration around Christ. Pope Julius I (reigned 337–352 AD) is often credited with officially endorsing December 25 as the date, though the decision likely emerged from earlier traditions in the Roman Church.

The problem with the assertion that it was chosen to "align with existing Roman festivals" in regards to Dies Natalis Solis Invicti is that the first mention we have of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti is in the Chronograph of 354, the very document you refer to in regards to the first Christmas. There is no record of it being celebrated prior to that. Of course, it could have been celebrated prior... but the same applies for Christmas. Thus, it is entirely possible that it post-dated the celebration of Christmas. (it is not even certain that the Chonograph of 354's vague mention of "Natalis Invicti" is Dies Natalis Solis Invicti given Sol not being mentioned, and if so it would only enter the historical record even later than that). There are also some possible, albeit disputed, references to December 25 as the date of Jesus's birth prior to the Chronograph. At any rate, even if we ignore those and consider the Chronograph as the first mention of it, it is entirely possible, if not probable, that Christmas predated Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, and that pagans chose the date in imitation of Christmas.

Moving on from that to Saturnalia, here there is no question as to which came first. Saturnalia predated Christmas, and in fact it predated Christianity. However, Saturnalia never fell on December 25. If the argument is simply that December 25 was picked because it was close to Saturnalia, we run into the problem that just about any date one picked for Christmas would fall close to some Roman holiday.

As for the idea of the goal being to "ease the transition for pagan converts", the problem of the lack of crossover in customs of Saturnalia and Christmas at the time. People attempt to draw parallels, but they mostly fail because they either aren't things that were actually true in Saturnalia, or were only Christmas customs developed far later. For example, gift giving. It is absolutely true gift giving was a part of Saturnalia, and it is a part of Christmas... modern Christmas. But there is, as far as I am aware, no reference to it being a custom of Christmas until long after Saturnalia observation had completely ceased.

As for Pope Julius, I discussed that in a prior post. Clearly Pope Julius did not pick the day, as he was pope starting in 337, and we have a record of Christmas celebration the year prior to him. I suppose it's possible he just took a preexisting festival and made it official, but it obviously predated him--which, in fairness, you acknowledge.

In other words, I am not incorrect to say that the word "Christmas" is tied to the term "Christ mass" (which is Catholic). To ignore this is to ignore history.

But the argument that it makes it Catholic is to ignore the fact that Christmas is nevertheless not a term people used originally for the holiday, and developed later--and in only Britain. A name applied to a holiday well after its creation and in a place that does not appear to have even been its originator does not say much about the origin of the holiday.

 

[prodromos]

As for the idea of the goal being to "ease the transition for pagan converts", the problem of the lack of crossover in customs of Saturnalia and Christmas at the time. People attempt to draw parallels, but they mostly fail because they either aren't things that were actually true in Saturnalia, or were only Christmas customs developed far later. For example, gift giving. It is absolutely true gift giving was a part of Saturnalia, and it is a part of Christmas... modern Christmas. But there is, as far as I am aware, no reference to it being a custom of Christmas until long after Saturnalia observation had completely ceased.

Given the effort that went in to stamping out heresies that had arisen within the Church, it would have been totally counter productive for the Church to include elements of pagan celebrations to "ease the transition" of converts from paganism. I suspect people began making this argument after uncritical acceptance of Alexander Hislops arguments, not realising that he had made up all his 'historical connections' between pagan beliefs and what he perceived to be Catholic errors

 

[DamianWarS]

In other words, I am not incorrect to say that the word "Christmas" is tied to the term "Christ mass" (which is Catholic). To ignore this is to ignore history.

Since the church was undivided in the 4th century (with the exception of Arianism) there isn't much meaning in saying something was Catholic or not Catholic. The Nicene creed is also Catholic, the Trinity is Catholic, the dual nature of Christ is Catholic too.... and yes Christmas can be called Catholic too.

In the reformation Protestants would choose to separate what they would consider incompatible with the faith or what they wanted to value. The things separated would be retroactively separated from the faith and its history implicitly rejected as bad doctrine. The things valued would also be valued since its inception as good doctrine (even if it was a pope who originally degreed it). Perhaps there were some movements that rejected Christmas during the reformation but by in large it was adopted into mainstream protestant movements and so implicitly valued all the way back to its origins.

Perhaps your faith community doesn't value Christmas... I really don't know but X protestant group that does value it (which are most) also implicitly accept its history and includes it as part of their practice of faith. It's not something you can just call Catholic and pretend it's a mike drop argument. Most of our faith would be erased if it wasn't for the first 7 ecumenical councils. The textus receptus which the KJV is translated from was complied by a Catholic so does that make the KJV Catholic too? These are a much part of our history as it is there's. Doctrine developed before the great schism or the later Reformation should be considered of our own (protestant's) fingerprints if it is not related to the causes detailed in said schisms.

 

[Jipsah]

In other words, I am not incorrect to say that the word "Christmas" is tied to the term "Christ mass" (which is Catholic). To ignore this is to ignore history.

I knew it was unlikely to have been the Methodists.

 

[FredVB]

Your claim that those practices arose out of paganism is false.

The practices arose from cultures apart from Christianity, which is not a source for them. Christianity has the Bible, and the Bible has days in it mentioned for observance. It is with much said about those.

 

[prodromos]

The practices arose from cultures apart from Christianity, which is not a source for them.

The practices arose within Christian communities, blood bought, Spirit filled members of the body of Christ.

Christianity has the Bible, and the Bible has days in it mentioned for observance. It is with much said about those.

Last I heard, people were not required to become Jews first before becoming Christians.

 

[Jipsah]

The practices arose from cultures apart from Christianity, which is not a source for them. Christianity has the Bible, and the Bible has days in it mentioned for observance. It is with much said about those.

The practices arose from cultures apart from Christianity, which is not a source for them. Christianity has the Bible, and the Bible has days in it mentioned for observance. It is with much said about those.

So only pre-Christian observances, none of which center on our Lord Christ, are allowed. Nah, that’s a Fail

 

[The Liturgist]

the first recorded celebration of Christ’s Nativity took place in Rome, as noted in the Chronograph of 354, a Roman document. This date was likely chosen to align with existing Roman festivals,

This is inaccurate. As my dearly beloved @prodromos @FenderTL5 @Jipsah @MarkRohfrietsch @Yeshua HaDerekh and @jas3 can confirm, prior to the fourth century the Feast of the Nativity (which is what every church not predominantly English speaking calls Christmas) absolutely was celebrated, but it was celebrated together with the Baptism of Christ on January 6th, and this ancient custom remains in the Armenian Apostolic Church*.

Separating the feasts was logical in response to Arianism, as a means of further stressing the doctrine of the Incarnation*, and the date for the Feast of the Nativity was obvious. At the time the other principle feast of the Incarnation was the Annunciation on March 25th (which for many centuries was used in the former Western Roman Empire as the first day of the civil year, just as September 1st was the start of the civil and ecclesiastical year in the Eastern Roman Empire (and still is the start of the church year among the Eastern Orthodox). So if you take the Annunciation, which is the celebration of St. Gabriel the Archangel announcing to our glorious lady Theotokos and ever virgin Mary that she had been selected to give birth to Christ our True God (see Luke ch. 1 and Matthew ch. 2), to which she consented, becoming glorified as the Mother of God, and add nine months to it, which is the approximate duration of a human pregnancy, you get December 25th.

Since the Feast of the Annunciation substantially predated the fourth century separation of the Feast of the Nativity from the Feast of the Baptism of Christ, we can assert that the feast of the Nativity was dated from the feast of the Annunciation, and not dated based on an attempt to disrupt the Saturnalia (an idea which many historians have pointed out is problematic, and indeed inaccurate with regards to the precise dating of the feast of Sol Invictus and the supposed parallels between them).

The morale of this story is to not rely on centuries old tracts criticizing the Roman Catholic church, particularly on issues where the question is not specific to the Roman Catholic Church, but involves all of the ancient churches, most of which were never under the control of Rome and never accepted Papal Supremacy or Papal Infallibility (indeed, the Oriental Orthodox severed communion with Rome before the Bishop of Rome even adopted the title Pope; for 300 years prior to the adoption of the title Pope in the 530s AD, the title was exclusively used by the Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, being held by such illustrious defenders of the Christian faith as St. Athanasius the Great and St. Cyril of Alexandria, as well as martyrs and confessors such as St. Paul of Alexandria, martyred in the Diocletian persecution, and St. Alexander of Alexandria, who was tortured during the Diocletian persecution.

+ + +

* Here follows footnotes concerning the Armenians, on the 110th anniversary of the brutal Turkish genocide against the Armenians, which is being commemorated by several Eastern Orthodox churches in addition to the Oriental Orthodox sister churches of the Armenians. Please pray for the Armenians, who once again are threatened by genocide from Azerbaijan, which recently conquered all of the Armenian Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, and now is threatening to invade and conquer Armenia itself, who they are referring to as “Greater Azerbaijan.”

The Armenian church, newly established by St. Gregory the Illuminator, who was blessed in his efforts to convert the Armenians by an appearance of Christ our True God, on which the Armenian cathedral of Holy Etchmiadzin was built**, did not have major problems with Arianism on the scale of what was being experienced in the Greek, Latin and Syriac churches and also with the conversion of the Visigoths to the false Arian religion (later, many Visigoths, who had settled in North Africa and who had oppressed the Christians, would convert to Islam, which was not a great leap for them, since the main heresy of Arianism, the denial of the Incarnation of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, the assertion being He was a created being, inferior to and of a different nature from God the Father, is embraced by Islam, which embellishes it by also adding that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah (apparently this is the Mahdi***), but rather just one of the numerous prophets leading up to the supreme prophet Mohammed.

**This being one of the three oldest surviving cathedrals I am aware of (the others being the Hagia Sophia, which the Ottoman Muslims stole from us, and which Ataturk turned into a secular museum, but horrifically Erdogan has resumed the practice of desecrating it with Islamic worship), and the other being the cathedral on the site of the martyrdom of St. Thomas the Apostle in India, which dates to the first century, but unfortunately this was defaced by the Portuguese when they forcibly converted a large number of the Mar Thoma Christians to Roman Catholicism (they had previously been associated with the Church of the East, and a very large number wound up refusing to accept the Roman church and instead became Syriac Orthodox, with a small number later joining the Assyrian Church of the East or the Ancient Church of the East - there is some reason to believe that Christologically, the Church of the East in India was influenced by Nestorius, which is why they converted to Syriac Orthodoxy so smoothly; likewise, being relatively out of touch, they reached out in Syriac Aramaic directly to the Patriarch of Antioch, and by this time sadly the Antiochian Orthodox Church no longer used Syriac Aramaic, (although another dialect of Western Aramaic was and is used in the isolated village of Maaloula), and its doubtful the Antiochian Patriarch could have responde).

*** This poses a bit of a problem for Islam since Muhammed Ahmed al Mahdi, who appeared to meet all of the prophetic qualifications for being the Mahdi, died of typhoid fever three months after brutally conquering the city of Khartoum and massacring all of the Egyptians, including women and children - he was opposed by the eccentric Christian military engineer General Charles Gordon, who had been reinstated as Pasha - viceroy or governor-general of the Sudan, in a desperate attempt by the Khedive to thwart the Mahdi after his army led by the incompetent General Hicks was destroyed by the Mahdi and its modern weapons, including artillery, captured. In many respects, Muhammed Ahmed al Mahdi could be regarded as the prototypical Islamic fundamentalist terrorist.

 

[Jerry N.]

Trying to stop Christians from celebrating Christmas because it is not scriptural and originates as a pagan holiday misses the meaning of Christmas. Of course, many celebrate it wrongly or poorly, but it can be a wonderful holiday. After the Resurrection and possibly exodus, the birth of Christ is very important. The gospels make that clear. Winter solstice and Yuletide are indeed pagan, but they celebrate hope before the coming winter that life will resurrect in the spring with the strengthening of the sun. What better metaphor for the gift of life with the resurrection of Christ in the spring? Jews didn’t make a big deal out of birthdays, but Europeans do. Taking a pagan holiday and dedicating it to God’s sending of His Son to redeem mankind was a brilliant idea. It has been corrupted, but it still has great meaning for millions of people who praise God.

 

[The Liturgist]

Trying to stop Christians from celebrating Christmas because it is not scriptural and originates as a pagan holiday misses the meaning of Christmas.

And also ignores the fact that it did not originate as a pagan holiday, but rather was celebrated on January 6th, together with the Baptism of our Lord (and still is among the Armenians), before in response to Arianism, the heretical rejection of the Incarnation and the deity of Christ, being moved to a separate day, which was predetermined by the other feast of the Incarnation, the Annunciation (on which the miraculous conception of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is celevrated), on March 25th. March 25th + 9 months is December 25th, and the Annunciation feast predated the separation of the Feasts of the Baptism and Nativity (Christmas).

There are several other reasons for rejecting the idea that Christmas is related to Sol Invictus or the Saturnalia, for example, the fact that in most ancient churches where the Feast of the Nativity is celebrated, the other major churches of antiquity which were independent of the Roman Catholic churches, these holidays were not a thing. If the sole reason for moving the feast was to stamp out a pagan celebration in Rome, the change would have remained specific to the Roman church (the Roman liturgy was, and still is, highly idiosyncratic, with many differences in the calendar and other aspects of the liturgy compared to the other ancient churches, even to those in France and Spain using Latin Gallican and Mozarabic liturgies in Latin).*

* Further to this point, many things introduced in the Roman church never spread to other churches, except for those Protestant churches which based their liturgy on the Roman Rite. These include the presanctified mass on Good Friday (other liturgies had a pre-sanctified Eucharist, but never on Good Friday), the hymn Agnus Dei, the Stations of the Cross, and many other things Western Christians take for granted, but not the date of Christmas.

 

[Jerry N.]

And also ignores the fact that it did not originate as a pagan holiday, but rather was celebrated on January 6th, together with the Baptism of our Lord (and still is among the Armenians), before in response to Arianism, the heretical rejection of the Incarnation and the deity of Christ, being moved to a separate day, which was predetermined by the other feast of the Incarnation, the Annunciation (on which the miraculous conception of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is celevrated), on March 25th. March 25th + 9 months is December 25th, and the Annunciation feast predated the separation of the Feasts of the Baptism and Nativity (Christmas).

There are several other reasons for rejecting the idea that Christmas is related to Sol Invictus or the Saturnalia, for example, the fact that in most ancient churches where the Feast of the Nativity is celebrated, the other major churches of antiquity which were independent of the Roman Catholic churches, these holidays were not a thing. If the sole reason for moving the feast was to stamp out a pagan celebration in Rome, the change would have remained specific to the Roman church (the Roman liturgy was, and still is, highly idiosyncratic, with many differences in the calendar and other aspects of the liturgy compared to the other ancient churches, even to those in France and Spain using Latin Gallican and Mozarabic liturgies in Latin).

Thank you for your response. I read it over several times and am a bit confused. I am not Catholic and my knowledge of Catholic liturgy is very limited. The conversion of pagans in northern Europe and Great Britain and the transference of their holidays into Christianity is something I know about to some degree, and many of the practices have remained to this day. Are you taking issue with the dates? I didn’t know how prevalent the celebrations of Christ’s birth were in southern Europe, and I thank you for your help. However, I seem to be missing your main point.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is inaccurate. As my dearly beloved @prodromos @FenderTL5 @Jipsah @MarkRohfrietsch @Yeshua HaDerekh and @jas3 can confirm, prior to the fourth century the Feast of the Nativity (which is what every church not predominantly English speaking calls Christmas) absolutely was celebrated, but it was celebrated together with the Baptism of Christ on January 6th, and this ancient custom remains in the Armenian Apostolic Church*.

Separating the feasts was logical in response to Arianism, as a means of further stressing the doctrine of the Incarnation*, and the date for the Feast of the Nativity was obvious. At the time the other principle feast of the Incarnation was the Annunciation on March 25th (which for many centuries was used in the former Western Roman Empire as the first day of the civil year, just as September 1st was the start of the civil and ecclesiastical year in the Eastern Roman Empire (and still is the start of the church year among the Eastern Orthodox). So if you take the Annunciation, which is the celebration of St. Gabriel the Archangel announcing to our glorious lady Theotokos and ever virgin Mary that she had been selected to give birth to Christ our True God (see Luke ch. 1 and Matthew ch. 2), to which she consented, becoming glorified as the Mother of God, and add nine months to it, which is the approximate duration of a human pregnancy, you get December 25th.

Since the Feast of the Annunciation substantially predated the fourth century separation of the Feast of the Nativity from the Feast of the Baptism of Christ, we can assert that the feast of the Nativity was dated from the feast of the Annunciation, and not dated based on an attempt to disrupt the Saturnalia (an idea which many historians have pointed out is problematic, and indeed inaccurate with regards to the precise dating of the feast of Sol Invictus and the supposed parallels between them).

The morale of this story is to not rely on centuries old tracts criticizing the Roman Catholic church, particularly on issues where the question is not specific to the Roman Catholic Church, but involves all of the ancient churches, most of which were never under the control of Rome and never accepted Papal Supremacy or Papal Infallibility (indeed, the Oriental Orthodox severed communion with Rome before the Bishop of Rome even adopted the title Pope; for 300 years prior to the adoption of the title Pope in the 530s AD, the title was exclusively used by the Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, being held by such illustrious defenders of the Christian faith as St. Athanasius the Great and St. Cyril of Alexandria, as well as martyrs and confessors such as St. Paul of Alexandria, martyred in the Diocletian persecution, and St. Alexander of Alexandria, who was tortured during the Diocletian persecution.

+ + +

* Here follows footnotes concerning the Armenians, on the 110th anniversary of the brutal Turkish genocide against the Armenians, which is being commemorated by several Eastern Orthodox churches in addition to the Oriental Orthodox sister churches of the Armenians. Please pray for the Armenians, who once again are threatened by genocide from Azerbaijan, which recently conquered all of the Armenian Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, and now is threatening to invade and conquer Armenia itself, who they are referring to as “Greater Azerbaijan.”

The Armenian church, newly established by St. Gregory the Illuminator, who was blessed in his efforts to convert the Armenians by an appearance of Christ our True God, on which the Armenian cathedral of Holy Etchmiadzin was built**, did not have major problems with Arianism on the scale of what was being experienced in the Greek, Latin and Syriac churches and also with the conversion of the Visigoths to the false Arian religion (later, many Visigoths, who had settled in North Africa and who had oppressed the Christians, would convert to Islam, which was not a great leap for them, since the main heresy of Arianism, the denial of the Incarnation of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, the assertion being He was a created being, inferior to and of a different nature from God the Father, is embraced by Islam, which embellishes it by also adding that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah (apparently this is the Mahdi***), but rather just one of the numerous prophets leading up to the supreme prophet Mohammed.

**This being one of the three oldest surviving cathedrals I am aware of (the others being the Hagia Sophia, which the Ottoman Muslims stole from us, and which Ataturk turned into a secular museum, but horrifically Erdogan has resumed the practice of desecrating it with Islamic worship), and the other being the cathedral on the site of the martyrdom of St. Thomas the Apostle in India, which dates to the first century, but unfortunately this was defaced by the Portuguese when they forcibly converted a large number of the Mar Thoma Christians to Roman Catholicism (they had previously been associated with the Church of the East, and a very large number wound up refusing to accept the Roman church and instead became Syriac Orthodox, with a small number later joining the Assyrian Church of the East or the Ancient Church of the East - there is some reason to believe that Christologically, the Church of the East in India was influenced by Nestorius, which is why they converted to Syriac Orthodoxy so smoothly; likewise, being relatively out of touch, they reached out in Syriac Aramaic directly to the Patriarch of Antioch, and by this time sadly the Antiochian Orthodox Church no longer used Syriac Aramaic, (although another dialect of Western Aramaic was and is used in the isolated village of Maaloula), and its doubtful the Antiochian Patriarch could have responde).

*** This poses a bit of a problem for Islam since Muhammed Ahmed al Mahdi, who appeared to meet all of the prophetic qualifications for being the Mahdi, died of typhoid fever three months after brutally conquering the city of Khartoum and massacring all of the Egyptians, including women and children - he was opposed by the eccentric Christian military engineer General Charles Gordon, who had been reinstated as Pasha - viceroy or governor-general of the Sudan, in a desperate attempt by the Khedive to thwart the Mahdi after his army led by the incompetent General Hicks was destroyed by the Mahdi and its modern weapons, including artillery, captured. In many respects, Muhammed Ahmed al Mahdi could be regarded as the prototypical Islamic fundamentalist terrorist.

At the end of the day there is no biblical practice for Christmas. But you believe in tradition, and believe that is equally authoritative. But I and a few others can come up with a new tradition tomorrow, and people can think thousands of years from now that it is authoritative. Besides one verse in Scripture (the KJV) that can be read or interpreted in your favor, the word "tradition" is also used many times in a negative sense, too. What I am driving at is that Jesus says in John 12:48 that if we do not receive His words, those words will judge us on the last day. Do you feel comfortable that some tradition by your church is sufficient to meet that criteria? I don't feel comfortable with that because I see the Orthodox church as having similar practices to the Catholic Church (Which I believe violates Scripture in several places). But you are free to believe as you wish (of course). I just don't believe your church is biblical. My encouragement to you is to ask God for the truth beyond what you think you know. If you keep asking, and you are a real truth seeker, then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.