Pasko: Ang Pag-aalaala ng mga Kristiano sa Kapangananak ni Cristong Manunubos

Originally posted at Iglesia ni Cristo 33 AD blog

Tuso ang mga aral ng mga huwad na sugo ng Iglesia Ni Cristo® 1914. Napaniwala niya ang ilan sa mga Katoliko na salat sa kaalaman na ang PASKO ay hindi dapat ipinagdiriwang sapagkat 'wala' (o hindi literal na nakasulat) sa Biblia.

Ang PASKO NG PAGSILANG ni Jesus noong una ay TINATANGGAP ng INC™ 1914. Katulad ng mga Katoliko at halos lahat ng ibang Kristiano, ang Iglesia Ni Cristo® 1914 ay itinuring ang Pasko bilang KAARAWAN ng kapangananak ng Manunubos.

Ngunit hindi nagtagal ay tahasang TINUTUTULAN at PINUPUNA nila ito sapagkat ito ay PAGDIRIWANG ng mga KATOLIKO na kanilang itinuturing na mga kaaway. Sa katunayan, mismong ang kanilang opisyal na magasing Pasugo ang nagpapatotoo kung ano nga ba ang kahulugan ng PASKO para sa mga NAGDIRIWANG nito.

PASUGO Disyembre 1957, p. 28: (sinulat ni Emeliano I. Agustin) (Patula)

“Ang diwa ng Pasko ay kapayapaan;
Nang mundong naglunoy sa lusak ng Buhay;
Mabuting balita sa kinalulugdan;
Pagsilang ni Jesus sa abang sabsaban."

Kaawa-awang mga nilalang!

Hindi naman maikakaila ng mga Kristiano na ang Christmas o Pasko ay hindi nakatitik sa Biblia. ngunit hindi nangangahulugan na pinagbabawal itong ipagdiwang.  Sa katunayan maraming mga bagay-bagay ang hindi nakasulat sa Biblia ngunit BULAG-BULAGANG PINAPANIWALAAN ng mga kaanib sa kulto ni Ginoong Felix Y. Manalo.

Halimbawa! 

• Biblia - ang salitang 'biblia' ay hindi natin nababasa sa Biblia. Ngunit dito halos humuhugot ng tagpi-tagping aral ang INC™ 1914 para makabuo ng saknong.

• Felix Y. Manalo - ang pangalan ni Ka Felix ay hinding-hindi nasusulat sa Biblia, maging ang kanyang anak na si Eraño at si Eduardo ay hindi sila nakatitik sa Biblia. Ngunit naniniwala silang si Ka Felix Manalo ay hinulaan sa Biblia sa Isaiah 46:11.

• Huling Sugo - walang mababasa sa Biblia ukol sa pagdating ng 'huling sugo'. Tanging ang pagdating ng manunubos ang hinulaan ng mga Propeta noong una ~ ang Diyos na magkakatawang-tao o Emmanuel Sumasaatin ang Diyos.

• Pagtalikod na Ganap ng Iglesia - dito nakabatay halos lahat ng aral ng INC™ 1914. ang kanilang aral na ito ay may pagkakahalintulad sa mga Mormons na itinatag ni Ginoong Joseph Smith Jr. noong 1830. Sinasabi ng mga Mormons na kinakailangang itatag muli ni Ginoong J. Smith ang iglesia ayon sa utos ng Diyos Ama matapos na ito ay tumalikod-na-ganap noong namatay ang huling apostol (110 A.D.)  Kinopya ba ni G. Manalo ang kanyang aral sa mga Mormons?

• Pilipinas - at lalong walang mababasang 'Pilipinas' sa Biblia. Ngunit naniniwala ang mga kaanib ng INC™ 1914 na ang bansang Pilipinas raw ang tinutukoy na "pulu-pulong dagat" (Isaiah 24:14)

• Iglesia Ni Cristo - ang 'Iglesia Ni Cristo' (na may malaking titik na I-N-C)  ayon sa official registration nito sa Pilipinas at sa buong mundo ay hindi nakatitik sa Biblia. Ang nakasulat sa Biblia ay 'mga iglesia (o iglesya) ni Cristo' at hindi 'Iglesia Ni Cristo'. Ito ay Roma 16:16 sa Tagalog Version lamang natin mababasa. Ang pinagmamalaking "iglesia ni Cristo" raw sa Mga Gawa 20:20 (Lamsa Translation lamang mababasa) ay 'Iglesia ng Diyos' sa orihingal na salin at hindi 'Iglesia Ni Cristo'

Ang MUNDO ay HINDI NASASAKOP sa Iglesiang tatag ni Ginoong Felix Y. Manalo kundi sa Iglesiang TATAG mismo ni Cristo ~ ang Iglesia Katolika (Pasugo Abril 1966, p.46). Ang mundo ay umiikot sa KATOTOHANAN at hindi sa mga BULAANG PROPETA na sumulpot lamang nitong nakaraang 105 taon.

ANO BA ANG 'PASKO' (CHRISTMAS) AYON SA KATOTOHANANG ALAM NG BUONG MUNDO?

Katulad ng pagkakaalam ng mundo sa Iglesia Ni Cristo® bilang TATAG NI FELIX MANALO, ang PASKO o Christmas ayon sa pang-unawa ng BUONG MUNDO ay IISA lamang ang pakahulugan. Mula Asia, Africa, America, Europa at maging sa mga bansang hindi-Kristiano tulad ng India, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain at sa Saudi Arabia, ANG PASKO ay PAGDIRIWANG ng KAPANGANAKAN ni CRISTO.

Hindi po sabi-sabi lamang ito. Umpisahan natin sa Wikipedia ay ganito ang sinasabi:

Christmas is an annual festival commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, observed primarily on December 25 as a religious and cultural celebration among billions of people around the world.

Ito naman ang sabi ng Brittanica Encyclopedia Online:

Christmas, Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus.

Ayon naman sa Christmas.com ay ganito:

Christmas is celebrated to remember the birth of Jesus Christ, who Christians believe is the Son of God.

Ito naman ang sinasabi ng History.com

Christmas, a Christian holiday honoring the birth of Jesus...

Ayon sa CNN:

The story of Jesus Christ's birth is told in New Testament's gospel of Saint Luke and Saint Matthew.

History.com

Christians celebrate Christmas Day as the anniversary of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, a spiritual leader whose teachings form the basis of their religion.

Ito ang buod ng katotohanang mababasa natin sa lahat ng mga Encyclopedia o talasalitaan sa buong mundo ukol sa Pasko.

Ito naman ang sinasabi ng The New Webster Encyclopedia Dictionary of the English Language, ©1984

CHRISTMAS ~ /kris'mas/, n. [Christ, and mass, A.Sax. maessa, a holy day of feast.] The festival of the Christian church observed annually on the 25th day of December, in memory of the birth of Christ... 

Semplang na po ang mga INC™ 1914. Sila lamang kasama ang mga Protestanteng kalaban ng Iglesia Katolika ang nagsusulong na ang Pasko ay isang paganong pagdiriwang. Ibinibintang ng mga kaaway ng Iglesia na si Sol Invictus raw ang pinagdiriwang sa kapaskuhan. Kung iyan ang kanilang paniniwala ay hindi natin tututulan. Karapatan nilang paniwalaan ang gusto nila. Ngunit ang KATOTOHANAN ay mananatiling naka-SULAT sa lahat ng mga aklat-pangkasaysayan at aklat-kaalaman na ang PASKO AY ANG PAG-AALALAALA SA KAARAWAN NG MANUNUBOS NA SI CRISTO!

KAPAG WALA SA BIBLIA AY HIND NA BA TOTOO?

Mali ang pananaw ng INC™ 1914 na kung hindi nakasulat sa Biblia ay hindi na totoo... tutulungan tayo online upang patunayang maling mali ang mga bulaang propeta ng INC™ 1914.

• Bible - the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.

• Felix Y. Manalo - founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) in the Philippines in 1914

• Iglesia Ni Cristo - a church founded by Felix Y. Manalo in 1914

• Last Messenger of God - online search shows Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and not Felix Manalo, holds this self-proclaimed title

• Total Apostasy - this doctrine is originally claimed by the member of the Mormon church for its founder Joseph Smith Jr, not the Iglesia Ni Cristo of Felix Manalo.

Mga kababayan namin na nagsusuri pa lamang sa kung alin sa maraming umaangkin ng pagka-Iglesia ni Cristo, dito na po tayo sa KATOTOHANAN. Na ang Iglesia Katolika lamang ang tanging tunay na IGLESIA NI CRISTO na TATAG NI CRISTO!

Kung mayroon mang mga nagsisulputang mga INC at tinatawag nila ang kanilang sarili bilang 'Iglesia Ni Cristo' sila ay hindi tunay kundi mga peke o HUWAD lamang! (Pasugo Mayo 1968, p. 7).

BREAKING: A Virgin gives birth to a Child (Inq.net)

Source: Inquirer.net

By: Dr. Jose Mario Bautista Maximiano - @inquirerdotnetINQUIRER.NET U.S. Bureau / 09:00 AM December 24, 2019

A woman remains a virgin before and after giving birth – as the Christmas songs go: “The virgin Mary had a baby boy” (African American spirituals, since 1867) and “O Come, All Ye Faithful.” I love Andrea Bocelli’s rendition of Adeste Fideles, which, BTW, has the following excerpts in English that mentions the virgin birth:

…True God of true God, Light from Light Eternal,

Lo, he shuns not the Virgin’s womb;

Son of the Father, begotten, not created… (Adeste Fideles)

Such belief is beyond the most famous Beatles, who had abandoned their Christian upbringing but came out with several Christmas albums in the 1960s. In 1965, after John Lennon (1940-1980) made a sarcastic remark that the Beatles had become “more popular than Jesus,” he became extra-careful to choose his Christmas songs, that is, without the mention of Jesus at all. The Beatles disbanded in 1970 but celebrated Christmas with friends, family, and fans every year without fail. Lennon sang “So This Is Christmas” but without acknowledging that the season reminds everyone of the birthday of Jesus.

Of course, global atheists say that “Christians don’t own Christmas” and prefer to teach their children the Johnny Mathis version of “Frosty the Snowman.” Of course, the increasingly secularizing and consumeristic “no-religion” generation annually enjoys “the most wonderful time of the year” and prefers more to sing Michael Bublé’s “Santa Claus Is Coming to Town” than to admit that a virgin conceived and gave birth to the Son of God.

But the historical fact remains: The virgin birth of Jesus (see Wikipedia) happened 2,019 years ago and that singular event affected human history like no other. It means, even if the Beatles refused to sing “Hark! The herald angels sing, glory to the newborn King,” Jesus so deeply marked the future of all humankind that the chronology of history is defined by His birthday, the undeniable landmark of which is the acronym BC and AD or Anno Domini, the Year of the Lord.

When the First Christmas happened in Bethlehem, Mary appeared to have had a husband, Joseph, for otherwise Mary would had been stoned to death. Since a pregnant virgin was unnatural or “beyond the ordinary,” and therefore socially unacceptable, Joseph played a silent, albeit important, role in God’s big plan. Yet, it is a breaking good news to those who believe, then and now: A woman remained a virgin before and after giving birth.

The Christian calendar

December 8 – Mary was conceived by St. Ann;

September 8 – Mary was born, exactly nine months after;

March 25 – Jesus was conceived by Mary without a biological father;

December 25 – Jesus was born, exactly nine months after.

Mariah Carey’s “O Holy Night… It is the night of our dear Savior’s birth” is one of my favorites as it narrates our dear Lord’s birth on December 25, which is exactly nine months after March 25, the day of the Annunciation, when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. It’s not a legend. It’s not a make-belief. Every normal child stays nine months in the womb before birth, right?

Our Lady’s birthday falls on September 8 having been conceived in the womb of St. Ann exactly nine months before, on December 8, the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. Drawing a parallelism, I venture to say that we cannot celebrate the Annunciation without celebrating the Immaculate Conception nor can we celebrate Christmas without celebrating the Nativity of Mary. Can a child be conceived and born without a mother?

At 12 noon at SM Malls, staff and some shoppers keep still for a while when the Angelus is prayed over the PA system. The Angelus is a perennial reminder of the Annunciation, also known as the Incarnation of the Son of God or Pagkakatawang Tao ng Anak ng Diyos, when the Son of God became the Son of Man in Mary’s womb.

Once in a while it’s nice to jog our memory of that special event in history when God’s love in the Flesh is closely linked to the personal decision of one woman set apart from all the rest. In the Angelus, when Mary said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to Thy Word,” the virgin becomes pregnant! That, for me, is always a breaking news.

Jose Mario Bautista Maximiano (facebook.com/josemario.maximiano) is the author of MDXXI (1521): Ecclesia semper purificanda (Claretian, 2020) and 24 PLUS CONTEMPORARY PEOPLE: God Writing Straight with Twists and Turns (Claretian, 2019).

Merry Christmas!

Pope Francis Celebrate His First Simbang-Gabi Mass at the Vatican

Dwight Longenecker: Pagans, a Pope, & the Fall of Sauron: How We Got New Year’s Day

Article Source: The Imaginative Conservative
By Dwight Longenecker
Also featured at Patheos

Some atheists, Muslims and Christian fundamentalists like to grumble and gibe that the celebration of Christmas and Easter are “pagan.” They are right and they are wrong. They are right inasmuch as the wellsprings of our Western culture are deep in the pre-Christian cultures of Europe. They are wrong because the early Christians, like the Hebrews before them, saw their religion as a contrast and a corrective to the prevailing pagan culture.

Like cultural iconoclasts shall we seek to purge all vestiges of paganism from our modern world? Must we give up our Christmas tree and cast out our Easter eggs? If so, then we must also re-name the days of the week and refuse to honor the pagan deities Tiu (Tuesday) Wotan (Wednesday) Thor (Thursday) Frige (Friday) and Saturn (Saturday) not to mention the worship of the Sun and Moon (Sunday and Monday)

Our cultural cleansing must continue, and we must demand that the names of the months of the year be purged of their demonic and absurd pagan associations! Out Janus, the two faced god of January! Begone Mars for March, the goddess Maia for May and Juno to follow. New Years’ Day! The horror! That the beginning of the year should be celebrated at the beginning of January is pagan through and through!

Imaginative conservatism is never iconoclastic. It affirms the past as the foundation for the future. Our Western culture is deeply rooted in the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome, but also in the pre Christian pagan cultures of Europe. The ancient customs have merged, developed and adapted to changing times, but they are not to be scorned simply because they are pagan or because they are from the past. A good example of how an originally pagan custom has developed into a modern celebration is New Years’ Day.

The earliest records of a New Year celebration are from Mesopotamia around 2000 BC. Then about the time of Father Abraham, the new year was heralded not in mid winter, but at the Spring equinox in mid-March. Following these already ancient customs, the first Roman calendar had ten months and also recognized March as the beginning of the year. This is why September, October, November and December have their names: from March they were the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth months.

The second king of Rome, Numa Pompilius added January and February to the calendar and in 153 BC we have the first record of January first being celebrated as New Years’ Day. The change was decreed for civil reasons (the consuls began their term at that time) but many people still recognized March as the start of the year.

The Daily Guardian: Why INC members don’t celebrate Christmas

Originally posted at Iglesia ni Cristo 2000 blog.

By: Ma. Beatriz Monteverde
The Daily Guardian

(The author is a Grade 12 student-intern of the Iloilo National High School)

IT is irony, some may say, the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC), a church that preaches to be of Christ does not celebrate His birthday every December 25. After all, the birth of Christ the Savior was a day which brought great joy to all people.

The INC is often accused of refusing to remember and glorify Christ, but its members do remember Christ, glorify God, and wish peace- but in accordance with the biblical mandate.

Thus, it is known to everyone that Christmas is considered as special holiday for Roman Catholics, but for the INC members, it is just another normal day.

[Christmas is NOT about the "DATE" (December 25), but rather it IS the CELEBRATION of HIS BIRTH, nothing more, nothing less.  Thus Christians (of all denomination) and non-Christians UNDERSTOOD it very well that CHRISTMAS is not about the "date" (December 25) but it's about the birth of the SON OF GOD MADE FLESH.  This is why most Islamic jurisprudence DO NOT directly celebrate Christmas as it "goes against the tenets" of their belief ~ that GOD BECAME MAN. 

In the following summary of a YouTube video it says, "It’s no coincidence that this holiday period happens around Christmas, as traditionally it was a time to celebrate the birth of Jesus."

No sane person would think that Christmas is a celebration OF the date (December 25) but rather it is a "coincidence" that the Church of Christ marked HIS BIRTHDAY on December 25. If we celebrate LIFE by celebrating our birthday, what's stopping Christians to celebrate the BIRTH OF THE SON OF GOD MADE FLESH (John 1:1-4,14; Phil. 2:2-11)]

According to an article published at God’s Message, the official magazine of INC, there is nothing wrong with birthday celebrations, but INC stands firm that there is no biblical verse that says Christ demands for His birthday to be celebrated.

The apostles also made no mention of Christmas celebration but taught how Christ wanted to be remembered.

[True to His Word, God did not command us everything. His commandment is simple: LOVE. It's all about love. If celebrating one's birthday is all about love, then there is nothing wrong with that.  Birthday celebration no matter how simple or extravagant it may be celebrated always boils down to one thing: OUR LOVE OF LIFE. God has given us LIFE and out of this we are able to LOVE because we live.  Do you think, God in his immense wisdom would enumerate to us every detail of what should we do? If God would have done that then even we combine all national libraries in the world, the Bible couldn't fit.

Our God is NOT DUMB as these false preachers of Manalo's Church would imply. Logic would lead us to the TRUTH. How could the evangelists record the EXACT DATE of Christ's birth when HIS BIRTH precedes the GREGORIAN CALENDAR which was only introduced by POPE GREGORY XIII in October 4, 1582. This 2019, the Gregorian Calendar is just 436 years old while His birth has been remembered for more than 2,000 years. Take note, the Gregorian Calendar is the "most widely used civil calendar in the world" according to Wikipedia and it is so convenient for the INC™ to use it as their tool in measuring date including their birthdays and even their founding anniversary.

Let me throw the same question back to these false preachers: If it was not in the Bible, and the Apostles DID NOT teach Christians to remember Christ's birth then (a) Why are they celebrating Felix Manalo's birthday every May 10th of each year, Eraño Manalo every January 2 each year and Eduardo V. Manalo every October 31 every year? (b) Why are they celebrating every July 27th of their founding anniversary if God or the holy apostles DID NOT command them to celebrate?

I am sure, their answer would be the same as OUR ANSWER. Birthday celebrations are all celebrated out of LOVE which is the very heart of the Gospel.]

Jesus Christ commanded to remember Him in his death, not on His birthday, it stated.

[If this would be our very basis on how to know which among the many churches claiming to be Christ's "true" Church including the Iglesia Ni Cristo®  (INC™) they would fall short.  In their own liturgy, INC™ celebrates Christ's death (Santa Cena) ONLY ONCE A YEAR which coincidentally celebrated on December 25 (see Rappler).  Their December 25 too was not even in the Bible.  Was December 25 randomly chosen as their "Santa Cena (Huling Hapunan)" celebration or sinasamantala lamang nila ang malaki at kilalang okasyon sapagkat ito ay araw na may pagdiriwang na ang sankakristianuhan? Who would buy their shallow reasoning while Catholics and non-Catholics (including non-Christians) are celebrating CHRISTMAS as Christ's birthday, they'd celebrate Christ's death instead!

True to Christ's commandment the CATHOLIC CHURCH faithfully remembers His Passion and Death EVERYDAY in EVERY PARISH around the world "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes" (I Corinthians 11:26). And the TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST ~ which is the CATHOLIC CHURCH (according to history and the Pasugo 1966, p. 6; July-August 1988 p. 6, March-April 1992, p. 22) will CELEBRATE HIS DEATH as He commanded UNTIL HE COMES AGAIN.]

Moreover, the article said that “there is no reliable historical that exists pinpointing the exact date or month of Christ’s birthday.”

[That was because there was no calendar yet when He was born but that does not stop us from appointing a fitting date to celebrate THE OCCASION OF HIS BIRTH.]

It claimed that the focus of Christmas had shifted from Christ to Sta. Claus and from “so-called spirituality to materialism.”

[The Iglesia Ni Cristo® shouldn't fault the Catholic Church if some people are replacing Christ's birth celebration to Santa Claus or it turned to be focused more on materialism.  The truth remains that CHRISTMAS IS ALL ABOUT THE BIRTH OF THE SON OF GOD MADE FLESH, not Santa Claus or the snow or Reindeers or Yuletide.]

December 25 isn’t specified as the exact birth of Christ but is originally called ‘Birthday of the Sun’ and the great pagan religous celebration of the Mithras cult celebrated all through the Roman Empire, an article published at Iglesia Ni Cristo blogspot said.

[The Iglesia Ni Cristo® hates the Catholic Church and they accuse her as a PAGAN CHURCH. There is nothing good in the Catholic Church as the Iglesia Ni Cristo® looks at it in any angle even they benefited a lot from the Catholic Church. Evidently, they attack the Catholic Church in radio, TV or in print. Wala nang bago sa kanila. Instead we pray for our persecutors and bless those who hate the TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST which is the Catholic Church.]

Members of the INC continue to abide with the teachings of the Holy Bible.

[Every member of the INC™-1914 should know that WITHOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH there is no Bible. And they should always remember that THE CHURCH CAME FIRST BEFORE THE LIST OF THE BOOKS IN OUR PRESENT BIBLE WAS FINALLY FORMULATED IN 382 A.D.]

Eureka Rodriguez, 13, stands firm with her faith.

“Sa age ko, makita ko ang iban nga sadya sa Christmas Party nila. Pero sa bata pa nga edad, natudluan na kami sang insakto nga duktrina. Wala man ko mahisa kay may paagi man kami magpasalamat kag mag-glorify through Year End Thanksgiving namon. Amo na ang ginaka-excitedan namon kung December,” she said.

Christmas Urbi et Orbi Blessings from Vatican City

SOLEMN MASS AT THE VATICAN FOR THE SOLEMNITY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST THE SON OF GOD MADE FLESH

Merry Christmas Everyone! God Bless!

Ang Pasko Natin…

Tula ni Kapatid na EMILIANO I. AGUSTIN

Pasugo Dec. 1956, p 10

Sumilang si Hesus sa abang sabsaban

Tinubos tayo sa dilim ng buhay…

Tayo’y nagkasala at mga naligaw

Nawalan ng Diyos at kapayapaan…!

Si Hesus ang ating Maligayang Pasko

Ang Kapayapaang dapat na matamo…

Liwanag ng buhay sa patay na mundo

Biyaya ng Diyos sa handog na Cristo…!

Tanggapin ni Cristo ng buong pag-ibig

Tanging Aginaldo ng Diyos sa Langit…

Sa salang marumi’y mabisang panlinis

At magiging dapat sa dugong natigis…!

Sumunod kay Hesus ang mga naligaw

Maamong pasakop sa Kanyang paanan…

Tumatawag Siya’t lagging naghihintay

May laang PATAWAD sa magbagumbuhay…

Iwan na ang sama at magbalikloob

At buong pagsuyong lumapit kay Hesus…

Kung hindi sa Kanya na Dakilang Handog

Walang kaligtasan sa Hatol ng Diyos… !

Oh ! ang PASKO natin, puno ng pagsuyo

Ang Dakilang Cristong sa sala’y umako…

Sa Paskong marilag tanggapin sa puso

Ang Kapayapaang mahigit sa ginto… !

Ang Kapayapaan o tunay na Pasko

Tatanggapin nating Iglesia Ni Cristo…

Iglesya;y Katawan at Siya ang Ulo

Sa sumpa ng utos tinubos na tayo…!

Maghari sa puso ang KAPAYAPAAN

At sa MANUNUBOS huwag hihiwalay…

Sa Kanyang Iglesya’y manatiling saklaw

May buhay at langit pagdating ng Araw…!

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!

Was Christ really born on December 25th?
Source: Catholic Straight Answers

One would think that if anyone’s date of birth were remembered exactly, it would be that of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, the gospels do not pinpoint the date of Christ’s birth. The reason is probably that the focus of the gospels is on the kerygma or mystery of redemption– the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ. This focus is also probably why St. Mark’s Gospel does not even include the Christmas story but begins with the Baptism of the Lord at the River Jordan. Easter, on the other hand, can be better dated because of its linkage with Passover.

Prior to the legalization of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine in the year 313, no universal date or even formal celebration of Christmas is found. For instance, Origen (d. 255), St. Irenaeus (d. 202), and Tertullian (d. 220) do not include Christmas or its date on their lists of feasts and celebrations.

After legalization, the Church was better able to establish universal dates for feasts and to organize their public celebration. Moreover, we now see the Church addressing controversies concerning Jesus as true God and true man, and how He entered this world. Such concern about the mystery of the incarnation would focus more attention on the importance of celebrating Christmas, the birth of our Lord.

On the more “practical” side of this issue, Roman pagans used to gather at the hill where the Vatican is presently located to commemorate the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun.” This pagan feast was celebrated throughout the Empire either on December 25th (according to the Julian Calendar) or on January 6th (according to the Egyptian calendar). Although not proven with certainty, some historians credit Constantine, who declared Sunday as a day of rest in the Empire, with replacing the pagan festival with that of Christmas. Interestingly, since the 200s, Jesus was honored with the title, “Sun of Justice.”

Somehow all of these elements converged to the formal celebration of Christmas on December 25th. For instance, Christmas was celebrated in Rome by Pope Liberius (352-66) on December 25th. On December 25, 379, St. Gregory Nazianzus (d. 389) preached a Christmas sermon in Constantinople. In the Cathedral of Milan, St. Ambrose (d. 397) celebrated Christmas on December 25. Therefore, by the year 400, generally, the birth of Christ was set on December 25th with the exception of Palestine, where it was celebrated on January 6th until the mid-600s when it was then transferred to December 25th.

As an aside, the Feast of the Epiphany also emerged in Gaul (the Roman province of present day France) about the year 361. This feast was moved to January 6th which remains the official date.

While the concern for exact dating may preoccupy us at times, the most important point is celebrating the birth of our Lord and meditating on His incarnation. Remember that the title Christmas is derived from the Old English title Cristes Maesse which means “The Mass of Christ.” Each time we celebrate Mass and receive the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, we celebrate Christmas, when He, true God, was born as true man.

YES! JESUS WAS BORN IN DECEMBER 25! MERRY CHRISTMAS!

In one his articles in a local broadsheet, Rev. Fr. Ben San Luis, SVD, in my opinion publicly conceded to one or two lists of objections raised by Protestant anti-Catholics on the issue of Jesus' birth date.

My source HERE

Since December 25 as the birth date of our Lord Jesus IS NOT a doctrine, it is always open to friendly and intelligent discussion (by experts only). Therefore no ordinary Catholic should accuse Fr. Ben of schism or declare his opinion 'anathema'. 

Below is Dr. Taylor Marshall's brilliant defense on WHY ALL CATHOLIC MUST not succumb to historically unfounded Protestant objections on Jesus' birthdate (DECEMBER 25). His argument is more plausible compared to Fr. Ben's opinion. MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Yes, Christ Was Really Born on December 25: Here’s a Defense of the Traditional Date for Christmas
by Dr Taylor Marshall

The following is adapted from Taylor Marshall’s new book: The Eternal City: Rome & and Origins of Catholic Christianity.

The Catholic Church, from at least the second century, has claimed that Christ was born on December 25. However, it is commonly alleged that our Lord Jesus Christ was not born on December 25. For the sake of simplicity, let us set out the usual objections to the date of December 25 and counter each of them.

Objection 1: December 25 was chosen in order to replace the pagan Roman festival of Saturnalia. Saturnalia was a popular winter festival and so the Catholic Church prudently substituted Christmas in its place.

Reply to Objection 1: Saturnalia commemorated the winter solstice. Yet the winter solstice falls on December 22. It is true that Saturnalia celebrations began as early as December 17 and extended till December 23. Still, the dates don’t match up.

Objection 2: December 25 was chosen to replace the pagan Roman holiday Natalis Solis Invicti which means “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun.”

Reply to Objection 2: Let us examine first the cult of the Unconquered Sun. The Emperor Aurelian introduced the cult of the Sol Invictus or Unconquered Sun to Rome in A.D. 274. Aurelian found political traction with this cult, because his own name Aurelian derives from the Latin word aurora denoting “sunrise.” Coins reveal that Emperor Aurelian called himself the Pontifex Solis or Pontiff of the Sun. Thus, Aurelian simply accommodated a generic solar cult and identified his name with it at the end of the third century.

Most importantly, there is no historical record for a celebration Natalis Sol Invictus on December 25 prior to A.D. 354. Within an illuminated manuscript for the year A.D. 354, there is an entry for December 25 reading “N INVICTI CM XXX.” Here N means “nativity.” INVICTI means “of the Unconquered.” CM signifies “circenses missus” or “games ordered.” The Roman numeral XXX equals thirty. Thus, the inscription means that thirty games were order for the nativity of the Unconquered for December 25th. Note that the word “sun” is not present. Moreover, the very same codex also lists “natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae” for the day of December 25. The phrase is translated as “birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea.”[i]

The date of December 25th only became the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” under the Emperor Julian the Apostate. Julian the Apostate had been a Christian but who had apostatized and returned to Roman paganism. History reveals that it was the hateful former Christian Emperor that erected a pagan holiday on December 25. Think about that for a moment. What was he trying to replace?

These historical facts reveal that the Unconquered Sun was not likely a popular deity in the Roman Empire. The Roman people did not need to be weaned off of a so-called ancient holiday. Moreover, the tradition of a December 25th celebration does not find a place on the Roman calendar until after the Christianization of Rome. The “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” holiday was scarcely traditional and hardly popular. Saturnalia (mentioned above) was much more popular, traditional, and fun. It seems, rather, that Julian the Apostate had attempted to introduce a pagan holiday in order to replace the Christian one!

Objection 3: Christ could not have been born in December since Saint Luke describes shepherds herding in the neighboring fields of Bethlehem. Shepherds do not herd during the winter. Thus, Christ was not born in winter.

Reply to Objection 3: Recall that Palestine is not England, Russia, or Alaska. Bethlehem is situated at the latitude of 31.7. My city of Dallas, Texas has the latitude of 32.8, and it’s still rather comfortable outside in December. As the great Cornelius a Lapide remarks during his lifetime, one could still see shepherds and sheep in the fields of Italy during late December, and Italy is at higher latitude than Bethlehem.

Now we move on to establishing the birthday of Christ from Sacred Scripture in two steps. The first step is to use Scripture to determine the birthday of Saint John the Baptist. The next step is using Saint John the Baptist’s birthday as the key for finding Christ’s birthday. We can discover that Christ was born in late December by observing first the time of year in which Saint Luke describes Saint Zacharias in the temple. This provides us with the approximate conception date of Saint John the Baptist. From there we can follow the chronology that Saint Luke gives, and that lands us at the end of December.

Saint Luke reports that Zacharias served in the “course of Abias” (Lk 1:5) which Scripture records as the eighth course among the twenty-four priestly courses (Neh 12:17). Each shift of priests served one week in the temple for two times each year. The course of Abias served during the eighth week and the thirty-second week in the annual cycle.[ii]However, when did the cycle of courses begin?

Josef Heinrich Friedlieb has convincingly established that the first priestly course of Jojarib was on duty during the destruction of Jerusalem on the ninth day of the Jewish month of Av.[iii]Thus the priestly course of Jojarib was on duty during the second week of Av. Consequently, the priestly course of Abias (the course of Saint Zacharias) was undoubtedly serving during the second week of the Jewish month of Tishri—the very week of the Day of Atonement on the tenth day of Tishri. In our calendar, the Day of Atonement would land anywhere from September 22 to October 8.

Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist immediately after Zacharias served his course. This entails that Saint John the Baptist would have been conceived somewhere around the end of September, placing John’s birth at the end of June, confirming the Catholic Church’s celebration of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on June 24.

The second-century Protoevangelium of Saint James also confirms a late September conception of the Baptist since the work depicts Saint Zacharias as High Priest and as entering the Holy of Holies—not merely the holy place with the altar of incense. This is a factual mistake because Zacharias was not the high priest, but one of the chief priests.[iv]Still, the Protoevangelium regards Zacharias as a high priest and this associates him with the Day of Atonement, which lands on the tenth day of the Hebrew month of Tishri (roughly the end of our September). Immediately after this entry into the temple and message of the Archangel Gabriel, Zacharias and Elizabeth conceive John the Baptist. Allowing for forty weeks of gestation, this places the birth of John the Baptist at the end of June—once again confirming the Catholic date for the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on June 24.

The rest of the dating is rather simple. We read that just after the Immaculate Virgin Mary conceived Christ, she went to visit her cousin Elizabeth who was six months pregnant with John the Baptist. This means that John the Baptist was six months older that our Lord Jesus Christ (Lk 1:24-27, 36). If you add six months to June 24 you get December 24-25 as the birthday of Christ. Then, if you subtract nine months from December 25 you get that the Annunciation was March 25. All the dates match up perfectly. So then, if John the Baptist was conceived shortly after the Jewish Day of the Atonement, then the traditional Catholic dates are essentially correct. The birth of Christ would be about or on December 25.

Sacred Tradition also confirms December 25 as the birthday of the Son of God. The source of this ancient tradition is the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. Ask any mother about the birth of her children. She will not only give you the date of the birth, but she will be able to rattle off the time, the location, the weather, the weight of the baby, the length of the baby, and a number of other details. I’m the father of six blessed children, and while I sometimes forget these details—mea maxima culpa—my wife never does. You see, mothers never forget the details surrounding the births of their babies.

Now ask yourself: Would the Blessed Virgin Mary ever forget the birth of her Son Jesus Christ who was conceived without human seed, proclaimed by angels, born in a miraculous way, and visited by Magi? She knew from the moment of His incarnation in her stainless womb that He was the Son of God and Messiah. Would she ever forget that day?[v]

Next, ask yourself: Would the Apostles be interested in hearing Mary tell the story? Of course they would. Do you think the holy Apostle who wrote, “And the Word was made flesh,” was not interested in the minute details of His birth? Even when I walk around with our seven-month-old son, people always ask “How old is he?” or “When was he born?” Don’t you think people asked this question of Mary?

So the exact birth date (December 25) and the time (midnight) would have been known in the first century. Moreover, the Apostles would have asked about it and would have, no doubt, commemorated the blessed event that both Saint Matthew and Saint Luke chronicle for us. In summary, it is completely reasonable to state that the early Christians both knew and commemorated the birth of Christ. Their source would have been His Immaculate Mother.

Further testimony reveals that the Church Fathers claimed December 25 as the Birthday of Christ prior to the conversion of Constantine and the Roman Empire. The earliest record of this is that Pope Saint Telesphorus (reigned A.D. 126-137) instituted the tradition of Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. Although the Liber Pontificalis does not give us the date of Christmas, it assumes that the Pope was already celebrating Christmas and that a Mass at midnight was added. During this time, we also read the following words of Theophilus (A.D. 115-181), Catholic bishop of Caesarea in Palestine: “We ought to celebrate the birthday of Our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen.”[vi]

Shortly thereafter in the second century, Saint Hippolytus (A.D. 170-240) wrote in passing that the birth of Christ occurred on December 25:

The First Advent of our Lord in the flesh occurred when He was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, a Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, which is five thousand and five hundred years from Adam. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls.[vii]

Also note in the quote above the special significance of March 25, which marks the death of Christ (March 25 was assumed to corresponded to the Hebrew month Nisan 14 – the traditional date of crucifixion).[viii] Christ, as the perfect man, was believed to have been conceived and died on the same day—March 25. In his Chronicon, Saint Hippolytus states that the earth was created on March 25, 5500 B.C. Thus, March 25 was identified by the Church Fathers as the Creation date of the universe, as the date of the Annunciation and Incarnation of Christ, and also as the date of the Death of Christ our Savior.

In the Syrian Church, March 25 or the Feast of the Annunciation was seen as one of the most important feasts of the entire year. It denoted the day that God took up his abode in the womb of the Virgin. In fact, if the Annunciation and Good Friday came into conflict on the calendar, the Annunciation trumped it, so important was the day in Syrian tradition. It goes without saying that the Syrian Church preserved some of the most ancient Christian traditions and had a sweet and profound devotion for Mary and the Incarnation of Christ.

Now then, March 25 was enshrined in the early Christian tradition, and from this date it is easy to discern the date of Christ’s birth. March 25 (Christ conceived by the Holy Ghost) plus nine months brings us to December 25 (the birth of Christ at Bethlehem).

Saint Augustine confirms this tradition of March 25 as the Messianic conception and December 25 as His birth:

For Christ 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.[ix]

In about A.D. 400, Saint Augustine also noted how the schismatic Donatists celebrated December 25 as the birth of Christ, but that the schismatics refused to celebrate Epiphany on January 6, since they regarded Epiphany as a new feast without a basis in Apostolic Tradition. The Donatist schism originated in A.D. 311 which may indicate that the Latin Church was celebrating a December 25 Christmas (but not a January 6 Epiphany) before A.D. 311. Whichever is the case, the liturgical celebration of Christ’s birth was commemorated in Rome on December 25 long before Christianity became legalized and long before our earliest record of a pagan feast for the birthday of the Unconquered Sun. For these reasons, it is reasonable and right to hold that Christ was born on December 25 in 1 B.C. and that he died and rose again in March of A.D. 33.

Taylor’s new book The Eternal City also makes an argument in defense of the traditional BC/AD dating as being 100% accurate.

______________________________________________

[i] The Chronography of AD 354. Part 12: Commemorations of the Martyrs. MGH Chronica Minora I (1892), pp. 71-2.

[ii] I realize that there are two courses of Abias. This theory only works if Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist after Zacharias’ second course – the course in September. If Saint Luke refers to the first course, this then would place the birth of John the Baptist in late Fall and the birth of Christ in late Spring. However, I think tradition and the Protoevangelium substantiate that the Baptist was conceived in late September.

[iii] Josef Heinrich Friedlieb’s Leben J. Christi des Erlösers. Münster, 1887, p. 312.

[iv] The Greek tradition especially celebrates Saint Zacharias as “high priest.” Nevertheless, Acts 5:24 reveals that there were several “chief priests” (ἀρχιερεῖς), and thus the claim that Zacharias was a “high priest” may not indicate a contradiction. The Greek tradition identifies Zacharias as an archpriest and martyr based on the narrative of the Protoevangelium of James and Matthew 23:35: “That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.” (Matthew 23:35)

[v] A special thanks to the Reverend Father Phil Wolfe, FSSP for bringing the “memory of Mary” argument to my attention.

[vi] Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, De origine Festorum Chirstianorum.

[vii] Saint Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel.

[viii] There is some discrepancy in the Fathers as to whether Nisan 14/March 25 marked the death of Christ or his resurrection.

[ix] Saint Augustine, De trinitate, 4, 5.

Do you enjoy reading Canterbury Tales by Taylor Marshall? Make it easier to receive daily posts. It’s free. Please click here to sign up by Feed or here to sign up by Email. Please also explore Taylor’s books about Catholicism at amazon.com.

A Muslim Imam says saying "Merry Christmas" is worst than fornication and murder!

Christmas Midnight Mass from Bethlehem 2015

CBCP News: What if Jesus wasn’t born on Dec. 25?

Source: CBCP News

QUEZON City, Dec. 21, 2014—Amid the uncertainty surrounding the real date of Christ’s Nativity, a Catholic lay evangelist highlights the one thing that cannot be denied: “The Savior of the world was born and it was a cause for joy” (cf. Lk. 1:10).

“It is the event that we celebrate, and it is the joy that we relive,” stressed Marwil N. Llasos of the Company of Saint Dominic (CSD), a lawyer by profession and preacher by vocation.

Llasos made the statement in response to criticisms that Catholics and other Christians who have taken up the practice, cannot celebrate Christmas because not a single verse in the Bible supports Dec. 25 as the Lord’s birthdate.

Christmas is traditionally celebrated on December 25, but uncertainties
regarding the accuracy of the date  remain(Photo: CBCP News)

True. But the lawyer-preacher shares the Church sees the significance of Christmas in a different light.

“Jesus Christ may or may not have been born on Dec. 25, but we have more reasons to believe that He was born on, or within the vicinity of Dec. 25. But it really doesn’t matter because what we celebrate is not a date but an event. The choice of Dec. 25 to celebrate the Birth of Christ is not dogmatic or doctrinal, it is liturgical,” Llasos explains.

“Besides, there can never be any apodictic way to determine dates in the Bible. Even the exact year of Christ’s birth is not known. We can only intelligently guess. Why? Because the calendar has changed! The Jews had their own lunar calendar. Then we had the Julian calendar. Now we follow the Gregorian calendar. On the year the Gregorian calendar was promulgated by the Pope, ten days were taken from October,” he says.

In defending Christmas and similar Catholic traditions, Llasos raises the alarm on the danger that may arise in declaring as true what the Church has not dogmatically settled.

“The Church has no dogmatic pronouncement regarding that [Christmas], so we cannot go beyond what the Church affirms. Otherwise, our enemies will take our word and pass it off [as] Church’s official teaching which is not. It’s more prudent not to affirm what the Church does not affirm,” he shares.

It means the Church is the first to point out that Christmas-on-Dec. 25 is not an article of Faith.

But again, it’s The Event, not the date. (Raymond A. Sebastián/CBCP News)

Christmas Was Never a Pagan Holiday

Source: Traditional Catholics
By Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
Posted Date: December 15, 2010

Around this time of year we are bombarded with anti-Catholic propaganda questioning the blessed day of Christ’s birth as December 25. This date, we arrogantly are told, was originally a pagan holiday. The Early Church “chose” it to “Christianize” a Roman feast of the Sun. According to this theory, the Christmas date was only established in the 4th century, when we have the first evidence of the Nativity being celebrated in Rome in 336. The conclusion: The origins of Christmas are pagan, and we do not really know the date the Savior of mankind was born.

Let us not be too quickly impressed with these lies whose aim is solely to diminish the homage we pay Our Lord Jesus Christ and to denigrate the Catholic Church. In fact, the opposite is true. It is the thesis of the pagan origins of Christmas that is a myth without historical substance.

No ancient Roman festivals on December 25

The notion that Christmas had pagan origins began to spread in the 17th century with the English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians, who hated all Catholic things. The Puritans hated Catholicism so much that they revolted against the so-called Anglican church because, even with their heresies, they considered it still too similar to the Catholic Church.

A colonial Puritan governor, stops the merrymaking
Christmas festivities (1883)

They abhorred the feast days and in particular, they detested the Christmas feast with its joyous ceremonies, celebrations and customs. Since the Bible gave no specific date of Christ’s birth, the Puritans argued that it was a sinful contrivance of the Roman Catholic Church that should be abolished.

Later, Protestant preachers like the German Paul Ernst Jablonski tried to demonstrate in pseudo-scholarly works that December 25 was actually a pagan Roman feast, and that Christmas was yet another instance of how the medieval Catholic Church ‘paganized’ and corrupted ‘pure’ early Christianity. (1)

Around the same time, the Jesuit Jean Hardouin with his eccentric theory of universal forgery that put in doubt every historical source known, backed the Puritans on their theory of Christmas having pagan origins. But his research was largely discredited given his absurd affirmations. For example, he maintained all the Church Councils that took place before Trent were fictitious and almost all the classical texts of ancient Greece and Rome were false, made by monks in the 13th century. Such assertions are blatantly absurd, given the countless source documents demonstrating the opposite.

The two principal claims for Christmas having pagan origins pretend that the early Church chose December 25 in order to divert Catholics from Roman pagan festival days. The first claim pretends that it replaced the ancient Roman holiday of Saturnalia, a time of feasting and raucous merry-making held in December in honor of the pagan god Saturn.

Now, the Saturnalia festival always ended on December 23 at the latest. Why would the Catholic Church, to diverge the attention of her faithful from a pagan celebration, choose a date two days after that party had already ended and whoever wanted had already overindulged? It makes no sense. No serious scholar believes this claim.

Christmas established before the pagan Sun festival

The second claim is that the Catholic Church established Christmas on December 25 to replace a solar feast invented by Emperor Aurelian in 274 AD, the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (Birth of the Unconquered Sun).

The fact that Christmas entered the world calendar (the accepted Roman calendar) in 354 – which was after the establishment of the pagan feast – does not necessarily mean the Church chose that day to replace the pagan holiday. Two principal reasons concur with this conclusion:

Aurelian instituted the sun festival to bolster a
dying Roman Empire

First, one must not simply assume that the early Christians only began to celebrate Christmas in the 4th century. Until the Edict of Milan was published in 313, Catholics were persecuted and met in catacombs. Hence, there was no public festivity. But they celebrated Christmas among themselves before that Edict, as hymns and prayers of the first Christians confirm (2).

Second, this claim is based on unsound assumptions. As scholar Thomas Talley points out in his book The Origins of the Liturgical Year, Emperor Aurelian inaugurated the festival of the Birth of the Unconquered Sun trying to give new life – a rebirth – to a dying Roman Empire. It is much more likely, he argues, that the Emperor’s action was a response to the growing popularity and strength of the Catholic religion, which was celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25, rather than the other way around. (3)

There is no evidence that Aurelian’s celebration preceded the feast of Christmas, and more reason to believe that establishing this festival day – which never won popular support and soon died out – was an effort to give a pagan significance to a date already of importance to Roman Catholics.

Dates based on the Scriptures

But let us leave the realm of conjecture and return to historical records. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that, even though the Christmas date was not made official until 354, clearly it was established long before Aurelian instituted his pagan feastday.

The conception of St. John the Baptist is the historical anchor to know the date of Christmas, based on the detailed and careful calculations on dates made by first Fathers of the Church.

The date of Elizabeth's conception sets the base for
knowing Christ's birth

The early tractatus De solstitiia records the tradition of the Archangel Gabriel appearing to Zachariah in the High Temple when he was serving as high priest on the Day of Atonement (Lk 1:8). This placed the conception of St. John the Baptist during the feast of Tabernacles in late September, as the Archangel Gabriel said (Lk 1:28) and his birth nine months later at the time of the summer solstice. (4)

Since the Gospel of Luke states that the Archangel Gabriel appeared to the Virgin Mary in the sixth month after John's conception (Lk 1:26), this placed the conception of Christ at about the time of the spring equinox, that is, at the time of the Jewish Passover, in late March. His birth would thus be in late December at the time of the winter solstice.

That these dates, based on Tradition and Scripture, are trustworthy is confirmed by recent evidence taken from the Dead Sea Scrolls, whose authors were very concerned about calendar dates, essential for establishing when the Torah feasts should be celebrated. The data found in the Scrolls make it possible to know the Temple’s rotating assignment of priests during Old Testament times and show definitely that Zachariah served as a Temple priest in September, thus confirming the tradition of the Early Church. (5)

The Catholic Church determined March 25 as the date of Our Lord’s Conception long before Aurelian decided to make his solar feast. For example, around 221 AD, Sexto Julio Africano wrote the Chronographiai in which he affirmed that the Annunciation was March 25. (6) Once the date of the Incarnation was established, it was a simple matter of adding nine months to arrive at the date of Our Lord’s birth - December 25. This date would not be made official until the late fourth century, but it was established long before Aurelian and Constantine. It had nothing to do with pagan festivals.

We can be certain that the first Catholic apologists and Fathers of the Church, who lived very close to the time of the Apostles, were fully aware of the dates associated with the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. They had all the calendar sources at hand and they would not allow any untruth to be introduced in the Catholic liturgy. The date of Christ’s birth was transmitted by them as being December 25, a Sunday.

Addressing the verse of Luke 2:7, Fr Cornelius a Lapide comments on the architecture of this choice: “Christ was born Sunday, because this was the first day of the world. … Christ was born on Sunday night, in keeping with the order of His marvels, so that the day on which He said Let there be light, and there was light, was the same day on which, at night, the light shone in darkness for the upright of heart, that is, the sun of justice, Christ the Lord.” (7)

1. Thomas Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), p. 88.
2 Daniel-Rops, Prières des Premiers Chrétiens, Paris: Fayard, 1952, pp. 125-127, 228-229
3. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year, pp. 88-91.
4. The tract is entitled 'De solstitiia et aequinoctia conceptionis et nativitatis domini nostri iesu Christi et iohannis baptista,' in Ibid., p. 93-94. Talley also provides other historical documents of early Church writers showing that the dates of the Conception and Death of Our Lord had been established very early.
5. Shemaryahu Talmon, Professor Emeritus at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a top Scroll scholar, published an in-depth study of the Temple’s rotating assignment of priests in 1958 and the Qumran scrolls to see the assignment during New Testament times. Martin K Barrack, “It Comes from Pagans,” Second Exodus online
6. Ibid.
7. Cornelius a Lapide, Commentaria in Scripturam Sanctam, Paris: Vives 1877, Luke 2:7, vol 16, p. 57.

The Myth of the Pagan Origins of Christmas

Source: Intellectual Take-Out 

It’s generally accepted that early Christians adopted December 25th as the day of Christ’s birth to co-opt the pagan celebration of the winter solstice. Some believe this fact undermines Christianity.

But according to Professor William Tighe, this “fact” may actually be a myth.

Based on his extensive research, Tighe argues that the December 25th date “arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.” He also goes so far as to claim that the December 25th pagan feast of the “’Birth of the Unconquered Sun’… was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance of Roman Christians.”

Tighe explains…

In the Jewish tradition at the time of Christ, there was a belief in what they called the “integral age”—that the prophets had died on the same days of their conception or birth. Early Christians spent much energy on determining the exact date of Christ’s death. Using historical sources, Christians in the first or second century settled on March 25th as the date of his crucifixion. Soon after, March 25th became the accepted date of Christ’s conception, as well.

Add nine months—the standard term of a pregnancy—to March 25th, and Christians came up with December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth.

It is unknown exactly when Christians began formally celebrating December 25thas a feast. What is known, however, is that the date of December 25th “had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian’s time (Roman emperor from 270-275), nor did the cult of the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him.” According to Tighe, Aurelian intended the new feast “to be a symbol of the hoped-for ‘rebirth,’ or perpetual rejuvenation, of the Roman Empire…. [and] if it co-opted the Christian celebration, so much the better.”

As Tighe points out, the now-popular idea that Christians co-opted the pagan feast originates with Paul Ernst Jablonski (1693-1757), who opposed various supposed “paganizations” of Christianity.

Of course, to Christians, it really doesn’t matter that much whether or not they co-opted December 25th from the pagans, or vice versa. The Christian faith doesn’t stand or fall on that detail. But it’s nevertheless valuable for all of us to give closer scrutiny to shibboleths—such as that of the pagan origins of Christmas—which are continually repeated without being examined. ​

KATHRYN BERNARDO-- an Iglesia Ni Cristo® member wearing a cross?

Kathryn Bernardo, ABS-CBN actress, an Iglesia Ni Cristo® member wearing what her church hated most -- THE CROSS!
Source: TheSplendorOfTheChurch Blog

Christmas song recording with Kathryn Bernardo, an Iglesia Ni Cristo® member, doing what her church forbid its members to participate -- |"PAGAN" CHRISTMAS CELEBRATION. Pure HYPOCRISY!

And ANTHONY TABERNA, another Iglesia Ni Cristo®, member!

The central claim of Christianity is that God became one of us 2000 years ago

Prophetic writings several hundred years before His birth called Him Mighty God, Prince of Peace, Mighty Counselor, Father Forever, God With Us. He referred to Himself as the Way, the Truth, the Life. St. Paul said that in Him we live, and move, and have our being. -NewAdvent Blog

Catholic Defender Wishes you a very Merry Christmas!

Photo Credit: Couples for Christ Facebook Page

INC of Manalo were Busy Celebrating CHRISTMAS

Was it coincidental that I did not receive any comment from members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (1914) during the Christmas Day?

The reason why I am smiling about it is because I normally receive (nasty) comments (plural) from members of Manalo's cult on a daily basis. But yesterday till today I received none.

I can only assume that these Iglesia ni Cristo were not in their computers: THEY WERE BUSY CELEBRATING CHRISTMAS too.

Indeed, have a BLESSED CHRISTMAS to all the Iglesia ni Cristo (1914) members. Hopefully you enjoyed our CHRISTMAS. We know that you don't celebrate Christmas doctrinally but PRACTICALLY you do.

^_^

PASUGO Disyembre 1957, p. 28: (sinulat ni Emeliano I. Agustin) (Patula)

“Ang diwa ng Pasko ay kapayapaan;

Nang mundong naglunoy sa lusak ng Buhay;

Mabuting balita sa kinalulugdan;

Pagsilang ni Jesus sa abang sabsaban."