Easter, Yule, and Pagan Christmas

[cj.23]

Right, in another thread the claim has been made that Easter derives from both a Jewish and pagan roots - something I find extremely unlikely - it seems to me to clearly come from the Christian response to the Resurrection and the existing Jewish Passover, and I know of no pre-Christian roots for a celebration at the time - but given it's variable quality that would not be hard to find one.

I throw open the challenge to anyone to demonstrate from primary sources any of these things, or a pagan origin for Christmas.

Let's dispose of a few dodgy claims first. We have all heard that Easter derives from an Anglo-Saxon festival dedicated to the Goddess Eostre - but no one has ever found any evidence for the existence of this Goddess, outside of the Christian monk Bede, who in De temporum ratione wrote


Eostur-monath has a name which is now translated Paschal month, and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance

This was his attempted etymology of Easter - which si only called that in English of course. The problem is that as the Goddess in question is completely unknown otherwise, and Bede was an enthusiast for adopting pagan customs in to Christianity or allowing them to persist where it did not impact on Christian doctrine where possible out of kindness and a desire to allow people to keep their old ways, this propoised etymology is probably spurious. In the 19th century a German antiquarian invented Osatra, as the german form, using Bede as his source.

Everyone knows this is true now that Easter is named after Eostre - but it is not. It's a myth, just a veyr persistent one. If you look up the real proposed etymology of Easter i think you will find it is through the Gothic from albinus, but I have not bothered yet. I will if anyone is interested.

On Yule, Bede is our culprit again it seems -- there is no evidence of it being celebrated at Christmastime in pre-Christian times. It was probably part of the Winter Nights, in October. Bede thought it may have been at Christmastime - but our first early native source suggesting Yule was anything to do with December is Snorri Snorrison in the C13th. Of course it is now, as Jul is simply the Danish word (and similar in Swedish and Norwegian AFAIK) for Christmas - but there is no evidence of a Yule holiday there before Bede - sorry.

I'll have a look at the links offered in the other thread later, but really just provide me with any primary sources and I'll cheerfully concede defeat.

On Christmas, the earliest reference to any pagan religious celebration on December 25th is from the Chronography of 254CE, which lists games in honour of the Natali Invicti - birth day of the unconquered - which may be a reference to a Sol Invictus celebration. the Festival of Sol Invictus was in October, and biannually games were held in late summer. We have our earliest reference to Christians celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ on that day in 221CE, 130 years before. No Roman festival occurred between Saturnalia and the Roman New Year, and Saturnalia at it's broadest never hit December 25th...

Still, bring on the evidence. :)
cj x

[ddt]

I have not really anything original to add, but a couple of remarks:


Let's dispose of a few dodgy claims first. We have all heard that Easter derives from an Anglo-Saxon festival dedicated to the Goddess Eostre - but no one has ever found any evidence for the existence of this Goddess, outside of the Christian monk Bede, who in De temporum ratione wrote
[...]
This was his attempted etymology of Easter - which si only called that in English of course.
The German word for Easter is also an odd one out: Ostern. It can be cognate to the English word; the German wiki page gives also some alternative proposed etymologies.
All other Germanic languages, and all Romance languages, use a cognate of the Hebrew word Pesach (= Passover).


The problem is that as the Goddess in question is completely unknown otherwise, and Bede was an enthusiast for adopting pagan customs in to Christianity or allowing them to persist where it did not impact on Christian doctrine where possible out of kindness and a desire to allow people to keep their old ways, this propoised etymology is probably spurious. In the 19th century a German antiquarian invented Osatra, as the german form, using Bede as his source.
That antiquarian would be the brothers Grimm - the same of fairy tale fame - who collected all kind of folklore and also compiled a German dictionary and a work on Germanic mythology. In their entry on Ostern (http://www.woerterbuchnetz.de/woerterbuecher/dwb/wbgui?lemid=GO02447) (in German), they mention Bede, and that he might have invented Eostre, on which the supposed goddess Ostara is based. Furthermore, they say that
certain is only, that the underlying Old Germanic word "austrô" is derived from "aust" (sie "ost" = East) and is formed like the Latin word "auster" (morning red).

Furthermore, here (http://www.northvegr.org/lore/grimmst/013_10.php) and here (http://www.northvegr.org/lore/grimmst/013_11.php) is an English translation of the chapter in Grimm's "Deutsche mythology" about Eostre/Ostara. This work precedes their dictionary, btw.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Far be it for me to take on an Anglican apologist but, having a few minutes to spare at this time of the Winter Solstice Festival, I did a bit of Googling on Easter. I don't have the time or inclination to track down primary sources but I did try to filter out wooish sites.

Highlighting is mine.

===============
United Church of God

Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, in its entry "Easter," states:

"The term 'Easter' is not of Christian origin. It is another form of Astarte, one of the titles of the Chaldean goddess, the queen of heaven.

The festival of Pasch [Passover] held by Christians in post-apostolic times was a continuation of the Jewish feast . . . From this Pasch the pagan festival of 'Easter' was quite distinct and was introduced into the apostate Western religion, as part of the attempt to adapt pagan festivals to Christianity" (W.E. Vine, 1985).

That's a lot of information packed into one paragraph. Notice what the author, W.E. Vine-a trained classical scholar, theologian, expert in ancient languages and author of several classic Bible helps-tells us:

Easter isn't a Christian or directly biblical term, but comes from a form of the name Astarte, a Chaldean (Babylonian) goddess known as "the queen of heaven." (She is mentioned by that title in the Bible in Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17-19, 25 and referred to in 1 Kings 11:5, 33 and 2 Kings 23:13 by the Hebrew form of her name, Ashtoreth. So "Easter" is found in the Bible-as part of the pagan religion God condemns!)

Further, early Christians, even after the times of the apostles, continued to observe a variation of the biblical Passover feast (it differed because Jesus introduced new symbolism, as the Bible notes in Matthew 26:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-28).

Moreover, Easter was very different from the Old Testament Passover or the Passover of the New Testament as understood and practiced by the early Church based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles.

And again, Easter was a pagan festival, originating in the worship of other gods, and was introduced much later into an apostate Christianity in a deliberate attempt to make such festivals acceptable.
http://knol.google.com/k/united-church-of-god/what-are-the-real-origins-of-easter/okntpffreubl/57#
==============
Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine,
Hosted by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies

Easter is the principal spring festival (see Spring rituals), and a series of rites have become centered around it that, in the distant past, were connected with the Annunciation, with Saint George, and even with the rites of the winter cycle, especially those of New Year's Day.

Easter rites preserve traces of pre-Christian rites, which in general show a striking similarity to those of Christmas and New Year's. These rites are closely related to agriculture, to the remembrance of the dead, and to the marriage season; during their performance, praise is given, ritual songs are sung, and there is much well-wishing.
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages/E/A/Easter.htm
==============
United Church of God, an International Association

Celebrating the resurrection of a deceased deity in a springtime festival also long predates Christianity. Chief among such celebrations were those in honor of Tammuz, the Babylonian "god of pasture and flocks...and of vegetation. He was husband and brother of Ishtar (Asherah), goddess of fertility. Babylonian epics preserve the saga of the annual dying of Tammuz in the autumn when vegetation withered; his departure to the underworld; his recovery by the mourning Ishtar; and his springtime return to the fertilized upper world" (Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1961, article, "Tammuz").

The Babylonians taught that Tammuz was mystically revived from death in the spring by the anguish and crying of Ishtar, who was the same as the pagan goddess Ashtoreth referred to in Scripture (Judges 2:13; 10:6; 1Kings 11:5). This ancient custom of mourning for the return of a dead god is mentioned in Ezekiel 8:14, where we read that women are "weeping for Tammuz." His supposed resurrection marked the end of winter and the beginning of spring, with its new life and vegetation. http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn003/gn003f05.htm

==============
Catholic Encyclopedia

In the rest of the empire another consideration predominated. Every Sunday of the year was a commemoration of the Resurrection of Christ, which had occurred on a Sunday. Because the Sunday after 14 Nisan was the historical day of the Resurrection, at Rome this Sunday became the Christian feast of Easter.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05224d.htm

Let me just say, additionally, that the effort that Christian Church has made over the centuries to destroy "pagan" records, I am surprised that there are any documents left what-so-ever that could potentially cast doubt in the minds of the Shepard's sheep in the "uniqueness" of Christian belief.

Remember the Cathars.

[qayak]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus

According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, article on Constantine the Great:

"Besides, the Sol Invictus had been adopted by the Christians in a Christian sense, as demonstrated in the Christ as Apollo-Helios in a mausoleum (c. 250) discovered beneath St. Peter's in the Vatican."

[Gord_in_Toronto]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus

According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, article on Constantine the Great:

"Besides, the Sol Invictus had been adopted by the Christians in a Christian sense, as demonstrated in the Christ as Apollo-Helios in a mausoleum (c. 250) discovered beneath St. Peter's in the Vatican."

So. Similar to co-option of Hermes and his lamb? Explains those earlier statues with the baa-lamb and the lack of any cruciform symbols for the first couple of centuries AD.

[cj.23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus

According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, article on Constantine the Great:

"Besides, the Sol Invictus had been adopted by the Christians in a Christian sense, as demonstrated in the Christ as Apollo-Helios in a mausoleum (c. 250) discovered beneath St. Peter's in the Vatican."


Yes: this is the kind of stuff that has led people to cite Cumont as backing the idea that Christianity was based on Mithraism. Nobody, not even I, dispute that Christian Iconography (which really means fourth century onwards-- I doubt that mosaic is third but have not checked) stole heavily from the prevailing Classical iconography (which includes Mithraic imagery) . Yet iconography, artistic trends are not theology, and bibles illustrated in the 1960's are obviously influenced by 60s art and graphic design, etc, etc!

Now Mausoleum M is late 3rd to early 4th -- ok I just checked-- and the depiction of Christ is that of "light of the world" - from John's Gospel, as are the vine leaves using contemporary iconography of Helios sure. No evidence of doctrinal borrowing here - and we have to be very careful about such claims. My favourite is this

"According to the Realencyclopaedie, the inscription "Chrestos" is to be seen on a Mithras relief in the Vatican."

You will find this on many woo websites - and it actually sounds plausible enough, chrestos meaning "good"

Unfortunately it's nonsense - the claim is made in Duke, Johann Jakob (ed.): Real-Encyklopädie for Protestant theology and church, Vol 1-22, Hamburg 1854-1866

However apart from this 143 year old Protestant Encyclopedia's claims, there is absolutely no substantiating evidence before or since,for the inscription? I can find no trace of it in the standard works on Mithraism, or any other source? In does not feature in any guidebook, any travellers account I can find, any Vatican publication (and they claim no knowledge of it) or any other source apart from websites recycling this century and a half old slander about the Papacy being closet pagans. :) (I'm a Protestant myself as it happens and no great fan of the Papacy, but this is nonsense!)

Problem is that EVEN if it sis exist, so what? My guess is it is a garbled account of the tomb of the julii/mausoleum M mosaic you describe - but actually that has tremendous implications -- in an odd way. Recall I said that the only evidence for a Sol Invictus (sort of related to mithraism, but not the same) celebration was the Chronography of 354? The inscription there is
B G VIII N·INVICTI·CM·XXX
N. Invicti - the "Birthday of the Unconquered". Wikipedia on Sol Invictus adds to this a little -- or rather shows us the confusion


Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman state-supported (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_religion) sun god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_god) created by the emperor Aurelian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian) in 274... Although known as a god, the term Unconquered Sun God is not found on any Roman document.
The Romans held a festival on December 25 of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun." December 25 was the date after the winter solstice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice), with the first detectable lengthening of daylight hours.


The first part is true - Sol Invictus is known to us though the title does not appear anywhere. But wait! Surely it does in the Chronography of 354? No, because all we know about those games is that commemorate the "birthday of the unconquered". Rather odd in the Christian Rome of 354 don't you think? So what is going on? Well maybe the title "unconquered" was now in use for the Christian messiah Jesus Christ - after all Christ is a title with a long antiquity - using superlatives to describe him hardly uncommon. If so the last piece of evidence for a December 25th pagan celebration disappears. I'll think some more on this, and ask around a bit. Pearse things lit likely Sol Invictus was a title applied to a specific deity, I'm not so sure - I am certain I have seen Invictus applied to other deities as an appellation. Still most importantly, in this source we still have no "Sol Invictus"- the sun never gets a mention anywhere. :)


Right, guess i'd better reply to Gord.


cj x

[cj.23]

So. Similar to co-option of Hermes and his lamb? Explains those earlier statues with the baa-lamb and the lack of any cruciform symbols for the first couple of centuries AD.

Lambs were common owing to the shepherd symbolism. Not aware of any Hermes with lamb statues can you point me to one? However one of the earliest Christian symbols was the anchor, and of course the famous fish. There are claims of evidence of a crucifix having been mounted in a chapel at Pompeii (pre-79CE) but the Alexamenos graffito is the earliest known depiction of a crucifix. :)

cj x

[tyr_13]

So where did the name Easter come from? The tradition of painting eggs and hiding them in the nests of rabbits (common for Celtic life goddess celebrations) just happened to coincide with the 'unique' tradition of Christianity?

And what about the tree for Christmas? How about just about all the parts of just about all Christian holidays besides going to Church? Why for 300+ years was Christmas not celebrated?

And what, exactly, makes you doubt Bebe?

[cj.23]

Far be it for me to take on an Anglican apologist

Cut to Lambeth Palace, where ArchDruid Rowan Williams sits with Cardinal Biggles of the Anglican Inquisition in the comfy chairs.
Archdruid: "What news Cardinal?"
Cardinal Biggles: "CJ.23 is busy smiting the Heathens my satanic majesty, and he has not even employed St. Izzards 'Cake or Death' argument!"
Archdruid: "how so then- how does he further the Great Anglican Jihad and deceive the unbelievers?"
Cardinal Biggles "he has ruthlessly employed real history and facts Your Ominousness, to confuse them! A new weapon in our diabolical arsenal, maybe one we should have employed before - the TRUTH!"
FX: both men cackle evilly in to their goblets, as thunder crashes and lightning outside the window casts eerie shadows across the room....


but, having a few minutes to spare at this time of the Winter Solstice Festival, I did a bit of Googling on Easter. I don't have the time or inclination to track down primary sources but I did try to filter out wooish sites.

I appreciate the effort - really we need primary sources, as so much utter nonsense is in circulation - even in the Catholic Encylopedia! Still lets have a look...

Your first source is quite incredible - Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words - it's not a bad resource for New Testament Greek I guess, but this book, published between 1920 and 1940 by W.E.Vine i am afraid just reflects Plymouth Brethren theology on this point - not anything to do with fact. :( (The Plymouth Brethren are the folks responsible for that oddity of North American Protestantism known as Dispensationalism, and the unique belief in the Rapture, now common across the USA though unknown to Christianity almost everywhere else and for most of the religions history. I often think it might be why US Protestantism is so odd (I almost said heretical :) ). Anyway - the Brethren believe Easter and Christmas are pagan customs. I can't take the proposed link with Astarte seriously, but I guess it sounds similar - Astarte (that's Ashtoreth to you and me). The problem is of course finding a link between the Greek Astarte, a minor goddess, and the use of Easter many centuries later. The reference to her as "Queen of Heaven" is a little worrying too - I figure it might be a dig at Roman Catholicism, where that title has been applied to the Virgin Mary, a usage that becomes common in the 12th century. The Canaanite Asherah, referred to by Jeremiah as the "queen of heaven" worshipped by ye dodgy pagans was Asherah, who may or may not be the same goddess as Ashtoreth/Astarte - but it is not as certain as Vines implies. Vines provides us with no etymological progression from Astarte to Easter, or explanation as to why people in Anglo-Saxon England would choose to name their festival after a minor Middle Eastern goddess anyway! :) I am afraid it's a historical nonsense, spun for theological reasons - to attack Easter as pagan.

The other sources simply repeat the usual nonsense, without primary citations. A good way to spot woo here is the suggestion that the solstices were considered major religious festivals in pagan antiquity. They weren't. In fact the notion they were really only dates to the last decades of the 19th century, and has more to do with occultism than history. Frazer popularized a lot of this with his Vegetation Gods crap in the infamous The Golden Bough, and the ideas have become as ingrained in popular understanding as say Freudianism has, with even less supporting evidence.

The reference to Tammuz is interesting - he is indeed the only dying and reborn God of the Frazerian vegetation type i can think of who actually can hold up to any scrutiny. Tammuz is killed, passes in to the otherworld, and is rescued by his wife in a sort of reverse of the Orpheus myth. All good stuff - but nothing to do with Easter, or the Christian story of the Resurrection, though over a millennium earlier. (Ezekiel mentions him so he was still worshipped in the 500s BCE).

I'll dig out my notes on him actually - some intertesting stuff. Anyway, keep looking - may find something I have missed (though I have been assidously searching for a long time now...)


Let me just say, additionally, that the effort that Christian Church has made over the centuries to destroy "pagan" records, I am surprised that there are any documents left what-so-ever that could potentially cast doubt in the minds of the Shepard's sheep in the "uniqueness" of Christian belief.

Please cite examples of this alleged destruction, and evidence it was a general trend? I feel rather the opposite is true...


Remember the Cathars.

I do - I have written an awful lot on them. The 13th century is my period remember? :) Talking of which - I'd better get back to work...

cj x

[ImaginalDisc]

I rarely put anyone on ignore, and those few people I have are usually banned shortly afterwards. cj.23, I put you on ignore because, despite posters clearly and patiently explaining how your claims are either refuted by all evidence, or how your claims have no supporting evidence at all, you continue to repeat them and deny any refutations even exist. I dispair of your ever learning.

[cj.23]

So where did the name Easter come from?

`
From the Anglo-Saxon word for East, being East, most likely, or as some have argued through a corruption of a term used for the white surplice used in the period n Easter though the Gothic word therefore. I think the Saxon looks strongest? Typing Etymology +Easter in to Google should find many article son this issue.


The tradition of painting eggs and hiding them in the nests of rabbits (common for Celtic life goddess celebrations) just happened to coincide with the 'unique' tradition of Christianity?

No, because it never happened. Find me any primary source for this. I am aware of no pre-13th century account of painted eggs etc? Maybe you can surprise me with a primary source? The classic study is Newell's 1971 book - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Egg-Easter-F...9384936&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Egg-Easter-Folklore-Study/dp/071006845X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229384936&sr=8-1) Besides its not a Christian practice is it? Well if Santa coming down your chimney is then yes. Anyway I am pretty certain you will find no evidence of pre-Christian Goddesses, especially Celtic ones, getting folks to hunt painted eggs down rabbit holes. One often sees this claim about the Anglo Saxon Goddess Eostre, but her worshipers were hampered in this practice by not existing in the first place, outside of Bede's imagination. It's all woo. :)


And what about the tree for Christmas? How about just about all the parts of just about all Christian holidays besides going to Church?


The Christmas Tree is a German custom dating from the first half of the sixteenth century, and popularized widely in the 18th onwards. Decorating churches with evergreens had been a feature of Christmas and Easter worship since the 14th century. No historian has ever found any evidence of a pagan origin thereof - Hutton, himself a pagan decries the notion in his magisterial Stations of the Son (Oxford University Press, 1996). Give me other specific examples of customs and i'll tell you when they entered our Christmas celebrations.


Why for 300+ years was Christmas not celebrated?
[/quote]
Which 300 years did you have in mind?


And what, exactly, makes you doubt Bebe?

Bede admits this idea is his speculation - he is not actually aware of a goddess called Eostre, he just thinks there was one. There is not a single reference to her, from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, any of the other writings we have from the period, or from inscriptions. No depiction - no amulets - nothing. Her Germanic version was invented completely in the 19th century, and again has no evidence whatsoever from history or archeology to back it up. So Bede was, as he often was, wrong - but in line with his own slightly odd but very humane prejudices. Read the first couple of chapters of his Ecclesiastical History and you will get the picture :)


cj x

[cj.23]

I rarely put anyone on ignore, and those few people I have are usually banned shortly afterwards. cj.23, I put you on ignore because, despite posters clearly and patiently explaining how your claims are either refuted by all evidence, or how your claims have no supporting evidence at all, you continue to repeat them and deny any refutations even exist. I dispair of your ever learning.

Actually I would be surprised if I am banned for my comments on this. I am rather surprised you think I did not offer supporting evidence - I have bothered to spend several years familiarizing myself with the primary sources and modern secondary literature, and critiquing the mountains of nonsense spouted about these topics. I think you will find my claims have got supporting evidence - and if asked I will always cheerfully provide relevant bibliographic references for my assertions.

Still if you think you can refute my statements please be my guest, though as you have put me on ignore I don't think that is an option. I rather suspect you are not interested in facts - merely in maintaining your position regardless of any contrary evidence - but I hope to be proved wrong. :) As it is, feel free to believe whatever woo pleases you -- maybe you'd enjoy a copy of Zeitgeist or Freke & Gandy's latest? :)

cj x

[ParrotPirate]

Actually,your Christianity is all woo,too. All religion is equally woo,as all religion is invented in the heads of humans.

[tyr_13]

`
From the Anglo-Saxon word for East, being East, most likely, or as some have argued through a corruption of a term used for the white surplice used in the period n Easter though the Gothic word therefore. I think the Saxon looks strongest? Typing Etymology +Easter in to Google should find many article son this issue.

So the Teutonic goddess of Spring, Eastre, never existed? What does the word 'East' have to do with the resurrection? Besides, all my Google fu yields are articles exactly opposite your position and supportive of mine.



No, because it never happened. Find me any primary source for this. I am aware of no pre-13th century account of painted eggs etc? Maybe you can surprise me with a primary source? The classic study is Newell's 1971 book - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Egg-Easter-F...9384936&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Egg-Easter-Folklore-Study/dp/071006845X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229384936&sr=8-1) Besides its not a Christian practice is it? Well if Santa coming down your chimney is then yes. Anyway I am pretty certain you will find no evidence of pre-Christian Goddesses, especially Celtic ones, getting folks to hunt painted eggs down rabbit holes. One often sees this claim about the Anglo Saxon Goddess Eostre, but her worshipers were hampered in this practice by not existing in the first place, outside of Bede's imagination. It's all woo. :)


"Even the early Egyptians and Persians dyed eggs in spring colors and gave them to friends. Ancient religions commonly held such festivals including the Greek legend of the return of Persephone, daughter of Demeter, goddess of the earth, from the underworld to the light of day. Her return symbolized to the Greeks the resurrection of life in the spring after the desolation of winter."
-Jim Walker

I know, primary sources. Interesting enough, at http://www.eggs.ca/allabouteggs/briefhistory.aspx, it repeats the same thing. Also on the name, wikipedia's sources include, "Ronald Hutton states that: "Modern scholarship finds her name cognate with many Indo-European words for dawn, which presents a high possibility that she was a dawn-goddess, and so April as the Eostre-month was the month of opening and new beginning, which makes sense in a North German climate.""


The Christmas Tree is a German custom dating from the first half of the sixteenth century, and popularized widely in the 18th onwards. Decorating churches with evergreens had been a feature of Christmas and Easter worship since the 14th century. No historian has ever found any evidence of a pagan origin thereof - Hutton, himself a pagan decries the notion in his magisterial Stations of the Son (Oxford University Press, 1996). Give me other specific examples of customs and i'll tell you when they entered our Christmas celebrations.


Actually the origins of the Christmas tree goes way back, why do you think the Germans of the sixteenth century were doing it? http://www.christmas-tree.com/where.html and http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm have good stuff about that, and references. The roots, as it were, go all the way back to at least ancient Egypt. So to claim that the Germans of the 1500's came up with it, is just, well, silly.





Which 300 years did you have in mind?


From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm, "Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts; Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday; Arnobius (VII, 32 in P.L., V, 1264) can still ridicule the "birthdays" of the gods."


Bede admits this idea is his speculation - he is not actually aware of a goddess called Eostre, he just thinks there was one. There is not a single reference to her, from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, any of the other writings we have from the period, or from inscriptions. No depiction - no amulets - nothing. Her Germanic version was invented completely in the 19th century, and again has no evidence whatsoever from history or archeology to back it up. So Bede was, as he often was, wrong - but in line with his own slightly odd but very humane prejudices. Read the first couple of chapters of his Ecclesiastical History and you will get the picture :)


cj x

No evidence, besides the mouth named for her, the fact the word means the beginning of spring, and that even if the goddess never existed, that doesn't make Easter Christian.

[qayak]

Right, guess i'd better reply to Gord.

No, you had better go back and try again. What you have completely missed, or ignored, here is that the quote I posted is the Vatican itself admitting that the festival of Sol Invictus had been taken over by christians for christian purposes.

You also missed the part in the article where the Rat tried to refute the claim that christmas was adopted from the Sol Invictus festival.

You will also note where Pope Leo I states:

"But this Nativity which is to be adored in heaven and on earth is suggested to us by no day more than this when, with the early light still shedding its rays on nature, there is borne in upon our senses the brightness of this wondrous mystery."

He is clearly stating that the Dec. 25 was chosen because it is the day of the birth of the sun.

I am also looking for the quote where an early christian leader trying to persuade pagans to follow Jesus states that it shoudl be easy for them because they are simply swapping their sun god for the new christian sun god.

[cj.23]

Actually,your Christianity is all woo,too. All religion is equally woo,as all religion is invented in the heads of humans.

In the same way all art, all languages, and all mathematics is? They were all invented in the heads of humans too. :) Regardless of that, none of this has any reference to the truth of Christianity - everything I said could be completely true, and Christainity completely false. Among those who agree strongly with me on the authorities on this issue are pagan and Chrisian and non-Christian of other faith historians. This is not a faith issue - it's a historical one. :) (hence in history sub-fora)

cj x

[Mojo]

In the same way all art, all languages, and all mathematics is? They were all invented in the heads of humans too.


Art, languages and mathematics don't claim that their imaginary friends are real.

[This Guy]

No, you had better go back and try again. What you have completely missed, or ignored, here is that the quote I posted is the Vatican itself admitting that the festival of Sol Invictus had been taken over by christians for christian purposes.

You also missed the part in the article where the Rat tried to refute the claim that christmas was adopted from the Sol Invictus festival.

You will also note where Pope Leo I states:

"But this Nativity which is to be adored in heaven and on earth is suggested to us by no day more than this when, with the early light still shedding its rays on nature, there is borne in upon our senses the brightness of this wondrous mystery."

He is clearly stating that the Dec. 25 was chosen because it is the day of the birth of the sun.

I am also looking for the quote where an early christian leader trying to persuade pagans to follow Jesus states that it shoudl be easy for them because they are simply swapping their sun god for the new christian sun god.

Is this what your thinking of? -

Chapter 21. Analogies to the history of Christ
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Æsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Cæsar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.

This is from Justin Martyr's (born c. 100, Flavia Neapolis, Palestine [now Nāblus] died c. 165, Rome [Italy]; feast day June 1) First Apology, which can be found here (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm).

ETA:

This was written to Emperor Titus.

Chapter 1. Address
To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Cæsar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Cæsar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them. From the same link.

[cj.23]

So the Teutonic goddess of Spring, Eastre, never existed? What does the word 'East' have to do with the resurrection? Besides, all my Google fu yields are articles exactly opposite your position and supportive of mine.

You mean it finds dozens of articles supporting the fact that Bede said Easter derived from Eostre. No one denies that fact - what is a problem is the lack of an Eostre. Any Anglo-Saxon culture and religion authorities on the forum? If not I will go find a few for you. Has it not struck you as odd that Bede, living in a Christianized country long after the demise of the worship of said Goiddess might be aware of a Goddess we have absolutely no evidence for elsewhere? And why would the early Saxon Church choose to name the festival after a goddess anyway? All you have to do to falsify this theory is to find actual worship of this entity, or a reference to her, before Bede. :)



"Even the early Egyptians and Persians dyed eggs in spring colors and gave them to friends. Ancient religions commonly held such festivals including the Greek legend of the return of Persephone, daughter of Demeter, goddess of the earth, from the underworld to the light of day. Her return symbolized to the Greeks the resurrection of life in the spring after the desolation of winter."
-Jim Walker

I know, primary sources. Interesting enough, at http://www.eggs.ca/allabouteggs/briefhistory.aspx, it repeats the same thing. Also on the name, wikipedia's sources include, "Ronald Hutton states that: "Modern scholarship finds her name cognate with many Indo-European words for dawn, which presents a high possibility that she was a dawn-goddess, and so April as the Eostre-month was the month of opening and new beginning, which makes sense in a North German climate.""

I don't think there is any primary evidence for the eggs things - certainly eggs appear in early inscriptions, with cup and ring symbols, in the British Isles - and were doubtless involvedin some way in religion. What nobody can demonstrate is any connection between say second millenium BCE depictions of eggs on rocks and the 13th century habit of painting eggs at Easter in Germany. Or if they can academic folklorists and historians have missed the link: I'm always open to new evidence.

The quote from Hutton is genuine, but hoping Ron does not mind (and I doubt he will - he is an excellent chap and as it happens a pagan who I have enjoyed meeting at many a moot, the very fact of which probably tells you I'm no pagan-basher!) I'll cite the rest of the passage, as it may be misleading as cited on said website... in fact it is misquoted rather badly. I doubt the author of the article intentionally did this - he has paraphrased Hutton, but not really accurately - I happen to be very good friends with one of the White Dragon bunch, and like the mag a lot, though I have never met the chap who wrote this.


The other is that the Anglo-Saxon eastre, signifying both the festival and the season of spring, is associated with a set of words in various Indo-European languages,signifying dawn and also goddesses who personified that event, such as the Greek Eos, the Roman Aurora, and the Indian Ushas. It is therefore quite possible to argue that Bede's Eostre was a German dawn-deity who was venerated at this season of opening and new beginnings. It is equally valid, however, to suggest that the Anglo-Saxon "Estor-monath"simply meant "the month of opening", or the "month of beginning", and that Bede mistakenly connected it with a goddess who either never existed at all, or was never associated with a particular season, but merely, like Eos and Aurora, with the Dawn itself."

compare and contrast with --


"Modern scholarship finds her name cognate with many Indo-European words for dawn, which presents a high possibility that she was a dawn-goddess, and so April as the Eostre-month was the month of opening and new beginning, which makes sense in a North German climate.""

Hutton footnotes a 1993 publication by Alby Stone in the magazine Talking Stick - I have not seen it but would like to. If anyone can help drop me a pm - it's issue 10 I'm after. Stone apparently "asserts the case against Bedes identification with considerable force." I will note that it was actually my time involved in Anglo-Saxon studies that I first came to accept the lack of a goddess |Eostre - we have no evidence at all, apart from Bede. Fine me some and i will reconsider, for the moment i'm sticling with the mainstream opinion among Dark Age scholars on this isue - she never existed.


Have to grab a coffee then will continue with the reply. Good research though, but still to falsify the current scholarly hypothesis which I'm presenting we need primary evidence.

cj x

[cj.23]

Art, languages and mathematics don't claim that their imaginary friends are real.


We would not get very far if we did not treat our "imaginary friends" of numbers and words as real though, or as signifying real external things? Still this is another discussion! :)

[Mojo]

We would not get very far if we did not treat our "imaginary friends" of numbers and words as real though, or as signifying real external things? Still this is another discussion! :)


Well, you brought the analogy up. You're welcome to treat mathematics as an arbitrary construct, of course, but if you do I would rather you don't attempt any engineering projects.

[cj.23]

Well, you brought the analogy up. You're welcome to treat mathematics as an arbitrary construct, of course, but if you do I would rather you don't attempt any engineering projects.

But I don't regard it as an arbitrary construct - I think our mathematics points to an external reality - just as our reality points to an external reality. The map is not the territory, and we must not confuse the sign and the signified. :)

cj x

[cj.23]

Actually the origins of the Christmas tree goes way back, why do you think the Germans of the sixteenth century were doing it? http://www.christmas-tree.com/where.html and http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm have good stuff about that, and references. The roots, as it were, go all the way back to at least ancient Egypt. So to claim that the Germans of the 1500's came up with it, is just, well, silly.

Right saturnalia involved lights and evergreen boughs. I'm not disputing that (see my reply to the excellent and pragmatic Randfan elsewhere on the origins of Christmas trees). What you are missing is the millennium or so between the Roman custom and the development of the Christian custom. What we have here is a classic case of the so called "pagan survival hypothesis", where medieval customs of the type none as Sacramentals were seen by 19th century British folklorists as evidence of pagan survival. Unfortunately it's all nonsense - show me a clear pagan survival? Hutton again is the authority here is you wish to understand the development of the intellectual milieu in which this idea grew and was accepted by many neo-pagans and academics s true -- his The Triumph of the Moon, a truly superb book, is invaluable reading for anyone interested in learning the actual history of these things. :)


From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm, "Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts; Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday; Arnobius (VII, 32 in P.L., V, 1264) can still ridicule the "birthdays" of the gods."

All true - but we know by the time of Origen the celebration of Christmas was extant. Clement of Alexandria mentions it around 200 - and in 221 the Chronographai of Sextus Julius Africanus gives us the first suggestion of widespread celebration. You might also consider the words of St. Augustine --



For he is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.

So it seems highly probable this is why the date was chosen! :) March 25th + 9 months = December 25th. Nothing at all to do with paganism, everything to do with Judaism as it happens...

Right, time to dash -- will reply to Qayak later

cj x

[cj.23]

No, you had better go back and try again. What you have completely missed, or ignored, here is that the quote I posted is the Vatican itself admitting that the festival of Sol Invictus had been taken over by christians for christian purposes.

You think the Vatican claiming something makes it true???:eek: :eek: :eek: I don't believe that, hell most catholic theologians I know would have problems with that, and this is not even doctrine - it sure as heel is not infallible, even to a Catholic! Right, if you are really interested in how they came to make this claim trace it back to the earliest Catholic Encyclopedia ot mention it, as I did - New Advent 1911 as i recall - and check the citations for the article. Note the source cited is Cumont: well then do what I did and get a copy of Cumont and read it. There is a thread called Alternate Messiahs, in which I describe my research therein, what I found, and my checking out the modern scholarship on Mithras and Sol Invictus. It was in response to a genial discussion with Randfan on a similar matter. If you don't want to search for it I will reprise it here, and write more on Cumont and what he actually said.


You also missed the part in the article where the Rat tried to refute the claim that christmas was adopted from the Sol Invictus festival.

You are right I did - I'll go read it now. :)


You will also note where Pope Leo I states:

"But this Nativity which is to be adored in heaven and on earth is suggested to us by no day more than this when, with the early light still shedding its rays on nature, there is borne in upon our senses the brightness of this wondrous mystery."

He is clearly stating that the Dec. 25 was chosen because it is the day of the birth of the sun.


Did you actually look it up? http://www.1holistic.com/Prayer/Christianity/hol_Christianity-sermon-nativity-of-christ-thoughts.htm He says no such thing. He says that the sun is hedding its light on this wonderful day - a day when to quote from the same sermon (and inclusing your quote italicised in context) --


Christmas morning is the most appropriate time for thoughts on Nativity.

On all days at all times, dearly beloved, does the birth of our Lord and Savior from the Virgin-mother occur to the thoughts of the faithful, who meditate on divine things, that the mind may be aroused to the acknowledgment of its Maker, may employ its spiritual insight on the fact that God the Son of God, begotten of the co-eternal Father, was born by a human birth.

But this Nativity which is to be adored in heaven and on earth is suggested to us by no day more than this when, with the early light still shedding its rays on nature, there is borne in upon our senses the brightness of this wondrous mystery. For the angel Gabriel's converse with the astonished Mary and her conception by the Holy Ghost as wondrously promised as believed, seem to recur not only to the memory but to the very eyes.



For to-day the Maker of the world was born of a Virgin's womb, and He, who made all natures, became Son of her, whom He created.


To-day the Word of God appeared clothed in flesh, and That which had never been visible to human eyes began to be tangible to our hands as well.


There is more - you can read it all in the link I posted above. As you can see there is no doubt at all that Leo I believed Christmas Day to be the incarnation date of Jesus Christ, and no reason whatsoever to believe that he felt it was a stolen festival. Someone is pulling your leg, by grabbing a sentence out of context and then trying to make it say something it clearly does not. It's just pseudo-historical woo - so much of the stuff you find on teh web about this is. Iam surprised that your are not embracing my questioning of it as a sceptic with more enthusiasm? You want to perpetuate bollocks masquerading as history?


I am also looking for the quote where an early christian leader trying to persuade pagans to follow Jesus states that it shoudl be easy for them because they are simply swapping their sun god for the new christian sun god.

ThisGuy has kindly provided you with the quote from Justin Martyr already -- if you wish to discuss it I will happily do so. :) It's not directly related, but it is interesting - Justin Martyr usually is... Thanks to ThisGuy for the excellent reference - beat me to it! :)

cj x

[cj.23]

Missed a bit in my haste to reply earlier!


No evidence, besides the month named for her

We don't know that si so - that is rather the whole point of the etymological argument. We don't even know she existed - because Bede is our only source - yet she has appeared in many books, as Osatra, and variations - but all trace back to Bede. There is no other evidence. If Bede was an expert on Saxon paganism, I might think it was good enough to hold it - but he wasn't, and what he writes is entirely in line with his preconceptions as clearly expressed in other books as to "how things should be". This is just a false etymology, a folk etymology if you like - we can find them as far back as the Old Testament, and European folklor is filled with them.


the fact the word means the beginning of spring,


Does it? :) What makes you say that?


and that even if the goddess never existed, that doesn't make Easter Christian.

In what sense?

Anwyay cheers for the interesting discussion - I'll reply later as time permits.

cj x

[cj.23]

WTF? Qayak I looked at the wiki article you cited, and found the quote out of context you gave from Leo I and which I addressed two posts up - you suggested this showed that Leo believed that Christmas Day derived from a solar festival...

What you ignored or failed to mention for some reason is another quote from another of his speeches, Sermon 22, given in the next paragraph, which already would allow us to see this was a misinterpretation...


Having therefore so confident a hope, dearly beloved, abide firm in the Faith in which you are built: lest that same tempter whose tyranny over you, Christ has already destroyed, win you back again with any of his wiles, and mar even the joys of the present festival by his deceitful art, misleading simpler souls with the pestilential notion of some to whom this our solemn feast day seems to derive its honour, not so much from the nativity of Christ as, according to them, from the rising of the new sun . Such men's hearts are wrapped in total darkness, and have no growing perception of the true Light: for they are still drawn away by the foolish errors of heathendom, and because they cannot lift the eyes of their mind above that which their carnal sight beholds, they pay divine honour to the luminaries that minister to the world.

Why did you not cite the quote which clearly demonstrates the assertion made before about Leo's beliefs was utter nonsense? Maybe you stopped reading before this point, or maybe it was just unconscious confirmation bias, but you can see that this does look rather bad - still I will assume you simply overlooked it in your haste to reply, rather than deliberately omitted something fatal to your own case. It's easily done - no hard feelings...

cj x

[neltana]

In regards to Christmas, cj.23, I'm unclear exactly what your position is. You challenge folks to demonstrate a pagan root for Christmas...what exactly would that mean? Clearly, there were older holidays celebrated around the same time of year. I don't think that is in dispute. Surely, they would have an influence on how this new holiday was celebrated. I doubt you would deny this.

So, what are you saying?

[tyr_13]

M

Does it? :) What makes you say that?


The same way that April is. Of course even that seems to be argued, but whatever. That is a commonly accepted meaning.


In what sense?

Anwyay cheers for the interesting discussion - I'll reply later as time permits.

cj x


You seem to believe that if we cannot prove Easter was a goddess that it makes the holiday completely Judaism/Christian in origin. Yet you have offered no proof of this. What Christian tradition are the eggs drawn from? How about the rabbits? Painting eggs? What part of the bible or other Christian writings prescribe these things? The same goes for Christmas.

Why are we the one's having to produce archeological or literary evidence?

What makes you say these things have no pagan roots? Pagan seems more likely than not pagan, because not pagan is a very limited field of beliefs to draw from.

[bjornart]

Right, in another thread the claim has been made that Easter derives from both a Jewish and pagan roots - something I find extremely unlikely - it seems to me to clearly come from the Christian response to the Resurrection and the existing Jewish Passover, and I know of no pre-Christian roots for a celebration at the time - but given it's variable quality that would not be hard to find one.

What exactly is your idea? That no celebrations of mid-winter and spring excisted before the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter? That they did exist but that they timing of Christmas and Easter have nothing to do with them? That they did exist but Christmas and Easter have no traces of previous pagan traditions?

And are you asking us to prove, with pre-christian sources describing such celebrations and traditions, the case for any and all of these?

Sure there's a lot of overzealous linking of holiday traditions to flimsily evidenced pagan roots, but disregarding all of it?

It's fairly clear that there was a Yule celebration around mid-winter before Christianity. The Viking kings didn't just baptize the country by threat of death and then invent a new word for the celebration of the nativity. It's also fairly clear that ancestor worship was still a part of Scandinavian culture at the time, and that this survived in the form of offerings of food to the spirits and supernaturals of the farm on feast days. Today only setting out porridge to the "fjøsnisse" (barn-gnome) on Christmas eve is left, and very few people do so, with the few who do being influenced by and confused by the non-Scandinavian, and much younger tradition of putting out cookies for Santa (Julenissen - the Yule gnome).

[TX50]

This was written to Emperor Titus.


To Antoninus Pius, not Titus.

[This Guy]

To Antoninus Pius, not Titus.

Please see the bottom quote in the post. It's Chapter 1 of the Apology, and says who it was addressed to. I just took the first name. The full name appears to be - "To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Cæsar". Yes, I shortened it :)

[cj.23]

What exactly is your idea? That no celebrations of mid-winter and spring excisted before the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter? That they did exist but that they timing of Christmas and Easter have nothing to do with them? That they did exist but Christmas and Easter have no traces of previous pagan traditions?

That Christmas and Easter were dated for reasons quite independent of existing pagan festivals, if any, and in fact in the case of Easter for reasons that are absolutely obvious and explicit - from the Jewish Passover.


And are you asking us to prove, with pre-christian sources describing such celebrations and traditions, the case for any and all of these?

I believe there were festivals in Spring and Winter sure - but I'm not convinced they were related to Solstices, as seems ot be generally accepted post-Frazer by everyone who has not looked at the actual evidence. Obviously regional seasonal festivals might exist - but in fact my studies across a number of pagan religions have not yet established that the proposed Equinox patter or the state of the sun really mattered anywhere. In Egypt, it was the flooding of the Nile that mattered, and in Mesopotamia, the seasons are very different. Even in the Middle East we can't really apply our Spring/Summer/Autumn/Winter model. The basic problem is that we apply a temperate European model to relighions all over the place, and assume that all religious beliefs and festival cycles should follow our weather and growing patterns. They don't, and while the ancients clearly were interested in astronomy, they were more interested in celebrating certain days for totally abstract reasons, or because of local agricultural reasons, etc, etc. A classic example of a religious calendar which has nothing to do with the solstices, seasonal celebration etc,, is the ancient Jewish one. Some events are lunar, most as i recall, and the whole thing does not in any way match up to the model we impose on antiquity.

Yet this solstice thing is now almost completely unchallenged, despite a complete lack of strong evidence to support it. We can find isolated solstice celebrations sure, but no more than we might expect by chance. Yet everyone knows that "primitive man" (women were never primitive it seems :) ) celebrated the solstices... SO the easiest way for me to poke holes in the whole thing, and to show how pernicious and prevalent the myth has become, is to point out the Christian-Pagan examples and show how they are myths...

In summary of those
1. Easter derives from the Jewish Passover, as when Jesus was supposedly crucified. That is why it is when it is. If you want to try and make a case for the Passover being a "spring festival" feel free, but maybe look in to seasonal variations and agricultural practices in the region first? :) The fact that Easter derives from Pasover, stated in the bible, and absolutely obvious, seems irrefutable.
2. We do not know Jesus was born on the 25th December, though it is at least a 1 in 365 chance, assuming (as I do) he existed. We do know why that date, became of the many dates of Christmas (I'm surprised no one has pointed out all the different Christmas that arise from different calendars and different churches choices), this one is explained by several early authors as arising from a tradition about the Creation of Adam - see Augustine On The Trinity, cited above. Owing to the early Christian theological concept of Jesus as Second Adam - explicit in the authentic Paulines - there is little reason to doubt why that arose. Furthermore the evidence for a "pagan" Sol Invictus festival on the date is one hundred and fifty years after the Christian celebration, and weak anyway for reasons discussed.


Sure there's a lot of overzealous linking of holiday traditions to flimsily evidenced pagan roots, but disregarding all of it?

Haven't really got on to specific practices, but yes, things like Easter Eggs, Well Dressing, Maypoles, Hobby Horses, Wassailing, and all this stuff popularly assumed to be pagan survivals -- I'm afraid not. Osme of it comes from those traditions of the Medieval Church we call Sacramentals (not Sacraments), and much is secular, but hardly any of it is more than a few centuries old. IF we look at specific cases I can show by example...


It's fairly clear that there was a Yule celebration around mid-winter before Christianity. The Viking kings didn't just baptize the country by threat of death and then invent a new word for the celebration of the nativity. It's also fairly clear that ancestor worship was still a part of Scandinavian culture at the time, and that this survived in the form of offerings of food to the spirits and supernaturals of the farm on feast days. Today only setting out porridge to the "fjøsnisse" (barn-gnome) on Christmas eve is left, and very few people do so, with the few who do being influenced by and confused by the non-Scandinavian, and much younger tradition of putting out cookies for Santa (Julenissen - the Yule gnome).

Godt NytÅr! Most scholars of Scandianian pre-Christian religious practice place it originally as part of the Winter Nights, in October, the term being adopted for Christmas. I can dig out quite a lot on this I think if you are interested. I think my dad might well put out porridge - I'll have to ask him - his stories of Christmas in Danmark in the twenties and thirties are always worth hearing. :) Mind you I have an Ars Magica project to complete today, so I'd better get back to work...

cj x

[cj.23]

In regards to Christmas, cj.23, I'm unclear exactly what your position is. You challenge folks to demonstrate a pagan root for Christmas...what exactly would that mean? Clearly, there were older holidays celebrated around the same time of year. I don't think that is in dispute. Surely, they would have an influence on how this new holiday was celebrated. I doubt you would deny this.

So, what are you saying?

Hi Neltana - good point. Christmas Day would have been celebrated in line with local prevailing methods of celebration - probbaly religiously though, in a Christian context as well. In would not surprise me if for examples Romans exchanged gifts, base don Saturnalia customs.

Now the problem is that people then believe our modern gift giving comes from Saturnalia. It doesn't - in fact, almost all our Christmas customs have arisen in the last five hundred years, and Christmas has been not celebrated at all, and celebrated in all kinds of wildly different ways, even in that period.

A great example i think would be Christmas Trees. People suggest they go back to pagan times. Nope, not at all - they are qite modern really - but sure, in ancient Israel the Prophets condemned the worship of Asherah trees, and the notion is perhaps similar, except I have never seen anyobne offer sacxrifice to a Christmas Tree or bow down and worship it - still the idea of a decorated tree is similar. Yet there is no connection - a thousand years passed between the two - and this is just a coincidence, because as you suggest people celebrate in similar manners - there is no continuity, and the practice is one shared by ancient pagans and us today. Ancient pagans also took baths, but few would say "bathing is a pagan practice" - and that has continued down the ages! :)

Again with the Sataurnalia gifts - gift giving diesout for centuries, then becomes fashionable again. It's a human practice, not a "pagan practice". Romantic 19th century writers wanted to make everything "pagan" and "ancient" and they did a good job of convincing many -- I am truly surprised that no one has ever argued that Christmas Cards are ancient pagan survivals...

cj x

[cj.23]

You seem to believe that if we cannot prove Easter was a goddess that it makes the holiday completely Judaism/Christian in origin.

What the holiday is now is certainly not Christian - it's a publicly celebrated festival of chocolate eggs and a few days off work. Just because somethings origins lie in Judeo-Christianity in no way means that is has to or should be that now - most of my pagan friends enjoy Easter Eggs, even those who know longer believe they are ancient pagan symbols. (Though one of my Wiccan friends actually did think my debunk of the Mithras Day/Christmas "ruined Christmas for me, making it all Christian" but he eventually became so unutterably disillusioned by the fictions about the roots of Wicca that he went off and became an Orthodox Christian. The world is full of cynical ex-Wiccans it seems...) So this is not a discussion of what Easte ris now, or should be, but of what it's origins are.

Now we usally see the Eostre argument formulated something like "Easter is actually a Pagan holiday hijacked by the christians, because they took the name (and sometimes allegedly the date!) from Eostre."

Even if Eostre was real, that whole sentence above is untrue. The name would have derived from the pagan goddess, the festival did not. Yet one sees this confusion all the time. My friend drives a Ford KA - is she some kind of ancient Eyptian spiritualist? Does the KA contain an animistic spirit? If she goes to Apollo and buys a Hermes fridge has she become a Pagan Roman? The etymology of a word used to trannslate a concept in to a foreign language is not proof of any "pagan survival". Even if Eostre existed, it just tells us that Easter was a term loosely linked to the former Goddess of the Eastern Sky/Dawn. :) However she almost certainly di dnot, so the question is really academic.


Yet you have offered no proof of this. What Christian tradition are the eggs drawn from? How about the rabbits? Painting eggs? What part of the bible or other Christian writings prescribe these things? The same goes for Christmas.

These practices are not Christian - they are however from a Christianized culture, and not religiously pagan. I thought I had mentioned the origins of painting eggs already in this thread - if not i'll go through it again - the Easter bunny is actually a Hare and comes from 17th century Germany, making it to the States where it became the Easter Bunny and hence to Britain in the 20th century, being massively popularized by G.I's during the Second World War, but found as far back as Victorian times.


Why are we the one's having to produce archeological or literary evidence?

Have i not given it throughout? I'll cheerfully rovide sources for any given claim if you want - I'm typing quickly so I'm not footnoting or referencing here, but you can easily check my assertions. Just ask what sources you require...


What makes you say these things have no pagan roots? Pagan seems more likely than not pagan, because not pagan is a very limited field of beliefs to draw from.

If by "not pagan" you include "secular", as I do, and if by "pagan" you mean "a religious practice of antiquity not from a monotheistic tradition" the reason I don't think these things have pagan roots is because there is bugger all evidence to support them having pagan roots. The idea develops in the 19th century, and is popularised by folklorists and anti-clericals and Christian sects who think their particular dour version of things "Kills all Paganism 100% dead" and used the claim Christmas was pagan to beat on other Christians. We still find the claims today, in Islamic apologetics and Jewish apologetics from time to time. IT's rot though, just very popular rot...

cj x

[TX50]

Please see the bottom quote in the post. It's Chapter 1 of the Apology, and says who it was addressed to. I just took the first name. The full name appears to be - "To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Cæsar". Yes, I shortened it :)

Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Cæsar is emperor Antoninus Pius, not emperor Titus.
Emperor Titus was a different person entirely (Titus Caesar Vespasianus Augustus).

[neltana]

cj,

Well, I certainly agree that the date of Easter derives primarily from Passover. I would even go so far as to say that the connection there is "obvious."

As for the naming of Easter...I think it is a bit of a mystery. We have some indication that it is related to the day of dawn (which could be the solstice, could be hand soap awareness day, i don't know...). You don't find this persuasive. Fine...it may not be persuasive...do you have an alternative explanation for the naming?

You also seem to maintain that no symbolic aspect of Easter is related to pagan practice. In particular, you seem to reject a reading of Easter as a holiday celebrating the rebirth of the sun god (I think I got that right...apologies if I didn't).

Why wouldn't pre-Christian holidays celebrated around the same time that dealt with the theme of rebirth end up being equated with a spring holiday whose theme is resurrection when a culture converted to Christianity?

Certainly, modern "neo-paganism" grew out of an idealized, quaint view of ancient religions. But that doesn't mean that neo-pagans got it 100% wrong either. Spring and winter holidays may not have been pegged exactly to the solstices, but they were certainly related to the growing cycle.

[cj.23]

cj,

Well, I certainly agree that the date of Easter derives primarily from Passover. I would even go so far as to say that the connection there is "obvious."

No disagreement here then. :)


As for the naming of Easter...I think it is a bit of a mystery. We have some indication that it is related to the day of dawn (which could be the solstice, could be hand soap awareness day, i don't know...). You don't find this persuasive. Fine...it may not be persuasive...do you have an alternative explanation for the naming?

Two competing ones - both dodgy as far as i am concerned. I have no real idea: insufficient data. Maybe we ill know if new sources appear, or the argument is better argued by someone, but why the term Easter was adopted by the Saxons -- dunno. I'll outline the two main proposed etymologies later..


You also seem to maintain that no symbolic aspect of Easter is related to pagan practice. In particular, you seem to reject a reading of Easter as a holiday celebrating the rebirth of the sun god (I think I got that right...apologies if I didn't).

You got that right. Of course it is associated with those things today - and quite rightly so, because the symbolism makes sense. Most Easters I celebrate with pagan friends, and while I don't think there reading of the event is historically based - that fact does NOT matter, any more than our modern Christmas not being the historic Christian festival matters. I am free to pay, sing, go to Church and do as I will - but I see no reason why historical features should impede people finding new meanings in old festivals. So I would say the neo-pagan reading is completely valid - but we should not allow that to colour our sense of history - it is not historically valid.


Why wouldn't pre-Christian holidays celebrated around the same time that dealt with the theme of rebirth end up being equated with a spring holiday whose theme is resurrection when a culture converted to Christianity?

Cos I can't find any -- and believe me i have tried. You would have to go to Zoroastrinaism (a monotheism, hence not included in my "paganism") to find a convincing solstice festival as far as i can see. Sure some holidays will coincide roughly with the solstice - Saturnalia - but the roots of that were nothing to do with the Sun. The festival of a Roman god was just the anniversary of the date of the dedication of the temple - in this case December 17th. Saturnalia was a topsy turvy wonderful festival ,and one i happen to prefer in some ways to our modern Christmas - but not a solstice celebration. :(


Certainly, modern "neo-paganism" grew out of an idealized, quaint view of ancient religions. But that doesn't mean that neo-pagans got it 100% wrong either. Spring and winter holidays may not have been pegged exactly to the solstices, but they were certainly related to the growing cycle.

Yep - the problem is that the growing season throughout most of the world does not follow the Northern European/Northern US pattern - our seasons are simply meaningless there. We have imposed a monomyth on all societies based upon our locally prevailing customs. Now it can happen - I'm sure in the heat of the Australian summer some of our forum readers are ironically listening to Bing croon about a White Christmas and sparking up the barbie with fake snow glistening by the image of santa in his sleigh - but generally the Frazerian model is not much less anachronistic.

One thing I truly despise though is the "culture wars" mentality which wants to make Christmas exclusively Christian. Celebrate what you find meaning in, for who is to say modern interpretations are worse than ancient ones? It's a historical issue, not a modern one...

cj x

[Mojo]

In particular, you seem to reject a reading of Easter as a holiday celebrating the rebirth of the sun god (I think I got that right...apologies if I didn't).


Wouldn't that be more likely to be around the solstice (i.e. Christmas)?

[neltana]

You know, I hedged for a reason...had a feeling that I was misstating something, but couldn't put my finger on it.

[cj.23]

Wouldn't that be more likely to be around the solstice (i.e. Christmas)?

Dunno - Spring seems as good as time to me, so I think nelltana has a sound point. :)

cj x

[sophia8]

(The Plymouth Brethren are the folks responsible for that oddity of North American Protestantism known as Dispensationalism, and the unique belief in the Rapture, now common across the USA though unknown to Christianity almost everywhere else and for most of the religions history. I often think it might be why US Protestantism is so odd (I almost said heretical :) The Plymouth Brethren were also responsible for Aleister Crowley. His family were all Brethren and he was bought up in the faith; as a teenager he started calling himself 'The Great Beast' chiefly to annoy his mother. So it's quite possible that without the Plymouth Brethren, modern Satanism wouldn't have developed.

[cj.23]

The Plymouth Brethren were also responsible for Aleister Crowley. His family were all Brethren and he was bought up in the faith; as a teenager he started calling himself 'The Great Beast' chiefly to annoy his mother. So it's quite possible that without the Plymouth Brethren, modern Satanism wouldn't have developed.


yep, good Old Crowley's Ales of Leamington - his father was a teetotal brewer. I'm not sure I would blame Uncle Al for modern Satanism though - I'm a big fan - though sadly my beloved cat Crowley died this week, aged 17 years.

Maybe unusual interests for an "Anglican Apologist" - actually probably not. :)

Happy new year Sophia8!

cj x

[This Guy]

Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Cæsar is emperor Antoninus Pius, not emperor Titus.
Emperor Titus was a different person entirely (Titus Caesar Vespasianus Augustus).

I'm not sure of your point.

The entire name was in the post. If you read the entire post I'm sure you saw that I provided the dudes full name in the lower quote. I did that expressly to show exactly whom the apology was addressed to. My "short" name was just to make the point that it was addressed to the Emperor (of course the Senate and others were addressed also).

If anyone was stupid enough to only read part of the post, and draw conclusions from that part, rather than the whole, that's their problem. I assume no responsibility ;)

[neltana]

Dunno - Spring seems as good as time to me, so I think nelltana has a sound point. :)

cj x

Well, in that case I'll defer to your obviously greater wisdom!

[Z]

I just wanted to toss in my view, as a somewhat-pagan.

From what I can tell, Eostre was an invention of Bede's to reconcile a festival name with his predilection for grafting Christian holy days to pre-existing festivals. Yes, there were many spring festivals, and a few may have referred to Astarte or Astoroth or whatever name this god/dess/demon carried where he resided, but the details he expounded were largely manufactured.

As to Yule, this is a very ancient celebration in many cultures, though usually under different names, and the exact connection to Christmas has always been a bit vague. After all, if the church really wanted to co-opt the holiday, why place it 3-4 days after the solstice? By then, the pagan celebrations were done with and the bonfire ashes long since scattered.

Always remember this about modern neo-pagans: it's not the antiquity of a deity they're interested in, only its practical attributes. That's why more pagans are honoring Caffeina these days... :D

[cj.23]

Always remember this about modern neo-pagans: it's not the antiquity of a deity they're interested in, only its practical attributes. That's why more pagans are honoring Caffeina these days... :D

Well said - and that is what is so attractive about neo-pagans. I must say I find them generally pragmatic and fun, and sensible. :)

cj x

[Z]

Well said - and that is what is so attractive about neo-pagans. I must say I find them generally pragmatic and fun, and sensible. :)

cj x

The problem I keep running into - and part of what's turning me away from the movement as well - is that for every pragmatic, fun, sensible n-p I know, I meet two or three other neo-fundie Wiccans who swear by Gardner or Buckland or some other source, who are just as close-minded and miserable as any Christian Bible-thumper out there.

Oh, and most of the pagan women I meet tend to be over 40 and around 300 lbs... Kind of turns you off the whole 'skyclad ritual' thing.

[Nogbad]

CJ

I am not sure I agree entirely. There are have been many religions down through the ages and only 365 days in a year. I don't think one can argue that there is no cross over between older celebrations and those adopted by the Christian Church. Especially those adopted once the Church was fully established in the late 4th century.

European traditions are bound up in the ecclesiastical calender be it a mid winter celebration, Spring rites or Harvest Home (probably one of the scary Pagan festivals). Yes Passover is an important factor but so was the Spring Equinox to northern Europeans. The two generally happen quite close together. There is absolutely no justification for choosing the 25th of December as Jesus' birthday other than "why not". Many stricter Calvinist types will not celebrate Christmas because it is unbiblical (think the Jovial Witnesses are the same)

The Church took existing customs and holidays and put their own interpretation on them perhaps most obviously with Halloween. The co-opting of Isis temples and dedicating them to Mary is another. This ensured the local populace were not too discombobulated by changes in the order of things and allowed the authorities to maintain a degree of control.

[Big Les]

I must say I'm surprised at some of the reactions to CJ's scepticism here. Most seem to just want to equate pagan and christian festivals because it makes intuitive sense and does down christianity. Well, that shouldn't be good enough for sceptics. If there's a real body of evidence connecting the festivals beyond convergence and analogy, it should stand on its own.

[Nogbad]

I must say I'm surprised at some of the reactions to CJ's scepticism here. Most seem to just want to equate pagan and christian festivals because it makes intuitive sense and does down christianity. Well, that shouldn't be good enough for sceptics. If there's a real body of evidence connecting the festivals beyond convergence and analogy, it should stand on its own.

I agree but there isn't much evidence for a 25th Dec birth date for Jesus so the start point is not exactly an easy one. All we know is that there was, from archaeological evidence, feasting at neolithic sites on the winter solstice. What this was called is academic. Feasting in the gloom of a northern winter just makes good sense from an agricultural point of view.

[tyr_13]

I must say I'm surprised at some of the reactions to CJ's scepticism here. Most seem to just want to equate pagan and christian festivals because it makes intuitive sense and does down christianity. Well, that shouldn't be good enough for sceptics. If there's a real body of evidence connecting the festivals beyond convergence and analogy, it should stand on its own.

How does it down Christianity? That they can't be credited with coming up with everything?

Sorry that I kind of forgot about this thread.

[bjornart]

Godt NytÅr! Most scholars of Scandianian pre-Christian religious practice place it originally as part of the Winter Nights, in October, the term being adopted for Christmas. I can dig out quite a lot on this I think if you are interested. I think my dad might well put out porridge - I'll have to ask him - his stories of Christmas in Danmark in the twenties and thirties are always worth hearing. :) Mind you I have an Ars Magica project to complete today, so I'd better get back to work...

cj x

Most scholars of Scandinavian pre-Christian religious practice would know that we have practically no sources to it. What little we have is in works like Snorre, collected well into the Christian period. Still, I'd be interested in what sources your mentioned scholars use to place Yule in October.

As to the practice of putting out porridge, the first references we have are from Christian times condemning those who follow the practice as worshipping, or at least placating, demons. I think that, along with other surrounding evidence, such as local naming of the supernaturals as the residents of burial mounds, or original settlers of a farm, proves to sufficient extent that this is the remainder of a pagan ritual of ancestor worship. Do you disagree?

[Hawk one]

I agree but there isn't much evidence for a 25th Dec birth datefor Jesus so the start point is not exactly an easy one.
Change that to "no evidence at all".

Heck, nobody even knows what -year- this supposed Jesus was born, as Dionysios didn't even get that right when he tried to re-engineer the Roman calendar for his own purpouses. Heck, probably the one thing we can be fairly confident about is that this alleged birth, if it happened like in the stories, probably wasn't in December at all, since that wouldn't be a season for shepherds to stay outside all night with their sheep (would be bloody cold if they did).

[GreNME]

As far as I'm aware, the December 25th date derives at least somewhat from some guesses made by early Christian leaders about when the birth took place. Some opined it may have been around the start of the new year, some guessed it to be in November, and I think one or two may have even guessed June-July or even around Easter as the birth time. I think that the date of December 25th won out in the debates for two reasons: 1. more Christian leaders in the fourth century probably thought it was around that time (though some argued January 6th, hence the "12 days of Christmas"), and 2. there was already celebrations based on non-Christian celebrations that the Christian churches could supplant with little resistance from the populace of people converting to the religion. Sure, it was likely a calculated move, but also a move that put an end to a somewhat divisive debate that had by that time lasted around two centuries-- keep in mind that in the fourth century wheels were being set into motion to unify the different sects into a single (Catholic - Universal) entity.

As for the Easter thing, I'm curious about the comment that the Egyptians painted eggs for the springtime, as this is a practice I'm not aware of as being part of Egyptian custom. Could it perhaps have been one of the many Hellenized customs the Egyptians adopted from the Greeks after Alexander's conquest and the Ptolemaic Dynasty? I do know the Persians had a practice of painting eggs, but this wasn't only for the springtime celebrations and the corresponding month on our gregorian calendar would have placed the celebration in late February to early March, not necessarily on the equinox and not corresponding to the Jewish Passover.

[arthwollipot]

I'm a little surprised no-one's brought this up yet:

Jeremiah 10

1 Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:

2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

source (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2010:1-10:5&version=9)

The Bible itself says that the christmas tree is a "heathen" tradition.

[cj.23]

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer :)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128959

cj x

[ImaginalDisc]

So, the preponderance of evidence remains that Christmas is a direct rip-off of pagan rites? Good to know.

[GreNME]

So, the preponderance of evidence remains that Christmas is a direct rip-off of pagan rites? Good to know.

If you wanted to word it in the worst manner possible-- almost.

[arthwollipot]

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer :)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128959

cj xUnconvincing, sorry. For most of the reasons that were discussed in that thread.

[neltana]

Unconvincing, sorry. For most of the reasons that were discussed in that thread.

With all due respect, I don't see where cj's contention that Jeremiah 10 wasn't referring to a Christmas tree is refuted in that thread. It seems to veer off into a discussion of mail order burning crosses almost immediately.

I'm just sayin'....

[arthwollipot]

With all due respect, I don't see where cj's contention that Jeremiah 10 wasn't referring to a Christmas tree is refuted in that thread. It seems to veer off into a discussion of mail order burning crosses almost immediately.

I'm just sayin'....There were a couple of reasons discussed before it was derailed - in particular by The Man and by Greediguts. I'd be perfectly happy to discuss them again here though.

[cj.23]

Go for it, I'm interested. My probblem si while you might perfectly well argue that the Old Testament prescription applies ot modern Christmas trees -- I don't, for reasons i staed over there - on theological grounds, no one can in the slightest show a link between a first half of the second millenium BCE custon in the Ancient Near East and a second half of the second millenium custon in Northern Europe. Correlation is not causality, and christmas trees in my opinion owe as much to shrines to Sshtoreth or Ashereh as say Horus has to do with the festival - bugger all

cj x

[arthwollipot]

Let me clarify -

Jeremiah 10 refers to a tree being a pagan symbol. It also refers to other pagan symbols, and is, as was pointed out in that thread, a warning for Israelites who find themselves in other cultures not to adopt the traditions of those cultures.

Personally I'd find it a bit of a stretch to think that a tree, cut down and brought inside, decked with silver and gold, and nailed down to stop it moving (?) does not describe the Christmas tree as we know it.

[Slayhamlet]

There were a couple of reasons discussed before it was derailed - in particular by The Man and by Greediguts. I'd be perfectly happy to discuss them again here though.

The Man's post seems more like an off-topic polemic against Christianity than any sort of historical refutation. He doesn't address the historical origin of the Christmas tree at all. Greediguts's post disputes that the biblical passage is even making any reference to a tree being set up after it was cut down, but rather to its being used as material for making idols.

What am I missing here?

[arthwollipot]

Nope, I think that pretty much sums it up. :)

I responded to cj from memory, without first re-checking the thread. In retrospect that was a mistake. There is no serious historical discussion there. However, I haven't done a great deal of research on the matter. So far as I can tell, the origin of what we today think of as the christmas tree goes back to ancient Persia (http://www.iranchamber.com/culture/articles/persian_roots_christian_traditions.php), where it was a Mithraic tradition.

I feel that it is quite reasonable to suggest that Jeremiah is referring to pagan traditions in general, and will concede this portion of the discussion.

[Big Les]

How does it down Christianity? That they can't be credited with coming up with everything?

Sorry that I kind of forgot about this thread.

Confusion here I think. I said "does down" in the sense of "to do down". IOW to latch onto pagan origins for christian rituals in order to do them down - to slag them off, to criticise them. I'm not saying that it actually achieves this, I just suspect that as a motivation (I know I had it as one when I would say "it's all nicked from the pagans").

[godless dave]

cj.23, how about you find where in the Bible it says Jesus was born in December?

You won't find one. You will, however, find plenty of evidence that Roman pagans had a holiday on December 25, and that Germanic pagans celebrated Yule around the Winter Solstice.

[cj.23]

cj.23, how about you find where in the Bible it says Jesus was born in December?

You won't find one. You will, however, find plenty of evidence that Roman pagans had a holiday on December 25, and that Germanic pagans celebrated Yule around the Winter Solstice.

Dave, did you read the thread? :) Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus was born in December - I explained how the tradition arose. And if you have plenty of evidence of that second paragraph, that is exactly what I want. Go on post it - primary sources please! :)

cj x

[AWPrime]

Go for it, I'm interested. My probblem si while you might perfectly well argue that the Old Testament prescription applies ot modern Christmas trees -- I don't, for reasons i staed over there - on theological grounds, no one can in the slightest show a link between a first half of the second millenium BCE custon in the Ancient Near East and a second half of the second millenium custon in Northern Europe. Correlation is not causality, and christmas trees in my opinion owe as much to shrines to Sshtoreth or Ashereh as say Horus has to do with the festival - bugger all
cj x
I can't even see why you can argue this on theological grounds. Abrahamic religions have a strong element of forcing the worship of god and not creation (a constant struggle for monotheism). Although some sects have a very paganistic view of monotheism. Things like tree decoration and other seasonal celebrations clearly violate this core principle.