Where did the holiday Christmas come from?
- Thread starter thelord's_pearl
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
atpollard
Well-Known Member
There are also no organs playing “Amazing Grace” in the Bible or Stained Glass Windows … are they of man and to be avoided?
You're not making good sense. The question is about the origin of Christmas, which has been turned into a supposed religious holiday with it's origin being scriptural, which it isn't and untrue. You can believe the falsehoods if you like and give undue reverence to that day if you like, but that doesn't make it true.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Christmas was not originally a "Christian" event for two reasons....
1) It was not commanded by Christ to celebrate the anniversary of his birth, because it is not known what day or even what month he was born. The date was not recorded because Jews did not celebrate birthdays, due to their association with spiritistic customs among the pagans.
There are no birthday celebrations among God's worshippers recorded in the Bible at all....meaning that because Jews did not celebrate birthdays, Jesus wouldn't have celebrated his own birthday.
2) God's people were warned NOT to adopt the ways of the pagan nations and to have nothing to do with things that were spiritually "unclean" (connected to the worship of other gods). (Deuteronomy 18:9-12) Christians were to have no share in fusing paganism and Christianity. (2 Cor 6:14-18) It didn't "Christianize” the paganism.....but it did “paganise” the “Christianity”...
The Encyclopedia Americana states....“The reason for establishing December 25 as Christmas is somewhat obscure, but it is usually held that the day was chosen to correspond to pagan festivals that took place around the time of the winter solstice, when the days begin to lengthen, to celebrate the ‘rebirth of the sun.’ . . . The Roman Saturnalia (a festival dedicated to Saturn, the god of agriculture, and to the renewed power of the sun), also took place at this time, and some Christmas customs are thought to be rooted in this ancient pagan celebration.”
Humans might like the trappings of Christmas, but it is based on lies because the so called "wise men" (magi) were Babylonian astrologers who were led by a star...not to Jesus at the stable, but to a wicked King who tried to kill him. After this king had been informed of Jesus' birth, he had all the infants two years of age and under, put to death.
Then the "star" led them to the "house" where Jesus was living with his parents.
These men were worshippers of other gods so God would never have led pagans to his newborn son. He informed Jewish shepherds of the joyous event, who journeyed to Bethlehem to see the child after his birth. The magi didn't visit Jesus at the stable...they were never there. The "star" was not from God. Only one person wanted Jesus dead.
Then there are the lies parents tell their children about "santa"....don't get me started....
How many poor kids wonder why santa is so stingy to them, and so generous to the rich kids?
Last edited:
You asked if you were right and I merely added my prospective based on what I knew along with many others. It appears that their are mixed opinions, thoughts and facts.
I stand by what I said but each of us have to weigh up our own thoughts on the matter of Christmas, it’s never right to go on what one other persons says anyway.
I still celebrate Christmas as I have a family and there are just some things that are so ingrained within our cultures that it’s difficult to just let go of in some way.…
Rita
atpollard
Well-Known Member
You jumped in and seemed to imply that anything not in scripture was "bad/wrong/evil" so I pointed out other "Christian" things that are not in scripture.
So, to address you HEAD ON:
Which post claimed the Christmas Holiday was "scriptural"?
Last edited:
BIRTHDAY:
By: Cyrus Adler, S. Roubin
There are no positive data in the Bible or in rabbinical literature concerning birthday festivals among the ancient Jews. This silence on the subject is, however, no warrant for the conclusion that the Jews altogether abstained from following a custom which was general among the Egyptians (Gen. xl. 20), Persians (Herodotus i. 133), Syrians, and Greeks. Even if not common among the people, yet kings and princes probably practised it, following the custom of their heathen contemporaries. Birthday festivals were not considered by the Rabbis as "ḥukkot ha-goyim" (customs of the heathen; see Maimonides, Yad ha-Ḥazaḳh, 'Akkum we-Ḥuḳotehem, xi. 12), although Lightfoot held a contrary opinion ("Horæ Hebr." on Matt. xiv. 6).
Biblical References.
A close study of the Biblical text shows that the Bible is not altogether wanting in references to the subject; for, while it lacks positive accounts, it contains passages from which it may be inferred that the custom of remembering birthday anniversaries was not wholly unknown among the Jews. "The day of our king" (Hosea vii. 5), on which the princes made the king sick with bottles of wine, and the king himself "stretched out his hand with scorners," alludes more probably to a birthday festival than to a solemn occasion, such as the anniversary of his installation, which would have been observed with more decorum (see Josephus, "Ant." xv. 9, § 6).
Birthdays might not have been celebrated by the common people with great solemnity, yet they did not pass wholly unnoticed, and were remembered by congratulations, as in modern times. Jeremiah not only cursed the day of his birth, but wished that it should not be blessed (Jer. xx. 14), as though such had been the custom.
It is said of Job, "and he cursed his day" (Job iii. 1). The emphatic and determining expression "his day" implies the idea that he, like everybody else, had a certain day of the year singled out for a certain purpose, which we learn further was the anniversary of his birth.
Weaning on Second Birthday.
The second or third birthday of a child whose coming into the world was very much desired by his parents was usually made the occasion of a feast, because the child was then weaned, and had consequently passed the dangerous and uncertain stage of infancy. Abraham made a great feast on the day Isaac was weaned (Gen. xxi. 8). This occurred, according to Rashi, at the expiration of twenty-four months. Bishop Ely ("Holy Bible Com." l.c. on the passage) says: "By comparing I Sam. it would seem that this was very probably a religious feast." Hannah postponed the yearly family feast at Shiloh until she had weaned Samuel, in order to celebrate his birthday at the same time (I Sam. i. 23, 24). According to Rashi and Midr. R. Samuel, l.c., this also occurred at the end of twenty-four months. Yet from II Chron. xxxi. 16 it may be inferred that Samuel was weaned at the end of his third year; for only from that age were children admitted to the service of the Temple.
In Post-Biblical Times.
Two instances of birthday celebrations are mentioned in post-Biblical literature, from which it may be assumed that this was customary in the Herodian family. They used to celebrate birthdays with great pomp, and in the same manner as the Egyptian kings had done more than 2,000 years earlier (Gen. xl. 20), by extensive public entertainments, which were made the occasions of granting favors to friends and pardons to those in disgrace. Agrippa I. solemnized his birthday anniversary by entertaining his subjects with a festival, and decreed the recall of his banished general Silas, which recall, by the way, the latter stubbornly declined (Josephus, "Ant." xix. 7, § 1). Herod the Tetrarch celebrated his birthday with a great feast, at which the daughter of Herodias danced before the guests, the king promising "to give her whatsoever she would ask" (Matt. xiv. 6).
The Bar Miẓwah.
The Jewish people in general may have had reasons to avoid feasting on birthdays in the times of the Tannaim and Amoraim: first, because they had been at one time grievously offended on such festivals (according to II Macc. vi. 7, the Jews were forced, in the time of Antiochus, to eat of the sacrifices which were offered "in the day of the king's birth every month"); secondly, because no "Talmid ḥakam" would attend as a guest at such a feast, since the Rabbis condemn the Talmid ḥakam who partakes of a meal or feast which is not a "se'udat miẓwah" (commendable meal). And to the son of him who frequented feasts were applied opprobrious epithets, such as "son of an oven-heater," "son of a market-dancer," etc. Since the fifteenth century (Löw, "Lebensalter," p. 210) the thirteenth birthday of a boy has been made the occasion of a family feast because it coincides with his religious majority (Bar Miẓwah).
Special Birthdays of Scholars.
In modern times the widely spread custom of celebrating some particular birthday of a great man by a banquet or by some literary production has enriched Jewish literature with many gems of Hebrew learningand poetry. Jewish scholars of great renown have become the recipients of marks of deference and homage on the part of their friends and admirers on their seventieth or eightieth or ninetieth birthday by the publication of a jubilee-book, to which scholars from far and near have contributed some of their best work. Of these publications are: (1) "Jubelschrift zum Neunzigsten Geburtstag des Dr. L. Zunz," Berlin, 1884, produced on the occasion of Dr. Zunz's ninetieth birthday; (2) "Jubelschrift zum Siebenzigsten Geburtstag des Prof. Dr. H. Graetz," Breslau, 1887, in celebration of Graetz's seventieth anniversary; (3) "Festschrift zum Achtzigsten Geburtstag des Dr. Moritz Steinschneider," Leipsic, 1890, on the eightieth birthday of Dr. Steinschneider; and (4) "Shay la-Moreh" (A Present to the Teacher), Berlin, 1890, dedicated to Dr. Israel Hildesheimer by his friends and students on his seventieth birthday.
Some have confined themselves to the sending of a letter of homage or a poem. Smolenskin remembered Dr. Zunz on his ninetieth birthday with a letter of congratulation, "Miktab Shalom" ("Ha-Shaḥar," xii. 327). H. S. Slonimski was greeted on his seventieth birthday by a letter of homage, "Iggeret Ḥen," signed by twenty-eight of his friends, all poets and "maskilim" ("Ha-Ẓefirah," vii.). S. Scherschewski wrote a magnificent poem on the same occasion (ib.). There is a poem by A. Gottlober dedicated to the famous ḥazan and musical composer, Solomon Sulzer, on his seventieth birthday ("Ḳol Shire Mahallal," vii. 29). Gottlober also wrote six poems on several birthdays of his own (ib. pp. 31-40). There are several birthday poems in the "Shire Sefat Ḳodesh," by A. Lebensohn ha-Kohen, most of them dedicated to his son Michael Joseph (ib. i. 220; ii. 162, 163-184).
The birthday anniversaries of heathen kings, , are considered by the rabbis of the Talmud as legal heathen holidays, which count among those holidays on the three days preceding which Jews are by Talmudic law required to abstain from concluding any business with a heathen (Mishnah 'Ab. Zarah i. 3).
About the meaning of of the Mishnah, which seems to correspond with ἡμέρα γενεσεώς (LXX., Gen. xl. 20), some doubts have been raised because, by the side of ("birthday of the king") mention is also made of ("the day of birth and the day of death"). In the Babylonian Talmud ('Ab. Zarah 10a) the decision is reached in favor of as meaning "the day of coronation." It is accepted by Maimonides (see Commentary to the Mishnah, and Yad ha-Ḥazaḳah, 'Akkum we-Ḥukotehem, ix. 5). The glossary "Kesef Mishneh," ad loc., thinks that Maimonides may have read ("assembly") for . Rasḥi explains as equivalent to "the birthday of the king"; while the Talmud Yerushalmi ('Ab. Zarah i. 39) explains as "birthday." This agrees with the use made of the word in many instances (Gen. R. lxxxviii.; Ex. R. xv.; Yer. R. H. iii. 8; Yalḳ., Job. 584; Compare Rashi, Gen. xl. 20). Graetz (in "M. G. Y." 230) is of the opinion that means the day of death of the king.
All these difficulties and differences may be obviated if be explained as indicating Christian festivals of the early Church. By may be understood the Nativity, or Christmas, and by Easter, or the Resurrection. Cave (in "Primitive Christianity," part 1, vii. 194, cited in McClintock and Strong's "Cyclopedia," s.v. "Christmas ") traces the observance of Christmas to the second century, about the time of the emperor Commodus. According to David Ganz ("Ẓemaḥ David," i., year 3881), Commodus reigned 183-185, at the time of Rabbi Meïr of the Mishnah, who counted those days as legal holidays.
BIRTHDAY - JewishEncyclopedia.com
Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.
John 21:25
Conclusion
Now, there are many other things that Jesus did. If they were all written down one by one, I suppose that the whole world could not hold the books that would be written.
Not even everything about Jesus was written in the Bible. Thus there can be many things about people not in the Bible too. Thus the leap to your conclusion is unfounded.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
We better stop meeting in Church Buildings ... you would not BELIEVE where that tradition comes from!
[AND THERE ARE NO PANTS IN THE BIBLE!!!!!]
Hi Rita, those who are against Christmas uses the illogical Copycat Thesis. As believers, we can do all thing unto God for his glory. The copycat thesis now days has been used to claim that Jesus is a false story from pagn sources. As Christians we have freedom to celebrate church designed holidays. No Christian I know uses Christmas or Easter to celebrate pagan gods. We do it unto Jesus.
They are also guity of parallelism.
The book
Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament
- M. Boring, K. Berger, C. Colpé has been used to claim everything in the NT was copied from Hellenistic Sources.
par·al·lel·ism
/ˈperəˌlelˌiz(ə)m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the state of being parallel or of corresponding in some way.
"Greek thinkers who believed in the parallelism of microcosm and macrocosm"
the use of successive verbal constructions in poetry or prose which correspond in grammatical structure, sound, meter, meaning, etc.
plural noun: parallelisms
"parallelism suggests a connection of meaning through an echo of form"
Colossians 3:17
Good News Translation
17 Everything you do or say, then, should be done in the name of the Lord Jesus, as you give thanks through him to God the Father.
Romans 14
J.B. Phillips New Testament
Don’t criticise each other’s convictions
14 1-4 Welcome a man whose faith is weak, but not with the idea of arguing over his scruples. One man believes that he may eat anything, another man, without this strong conviction, is a vegetarian. The meat-eater should not despise the vegetarian, nor should the vegetarian condemn the meat-eater—they should reflect that God has accepted them both. After all, who are you to criticise the servant of somebody else, especially when that somebody else is God? It is to his own master that he gives, or fails to give, satisfactory service. And don’t doubt that satisfaction, for God is well able to transform men into servants who are satisfactory.
People are different—make allowances
5-9 Again, one man thinks some days of more importance than others. Another man considers them all alike. Let every one be definite in his own convictions. If a man specially observes one particular day, he does so “to God”. The man who eats, eats “to God”, for he thanks God for the food. The man who fasts also does it “to God”, for he thanks God for the benefits of fasting. The truth is that we neither live nor die as self-contained units. At every turn life links us to God, and when we die we come face to face with him. In life or death we are in the hands of God. Christ lived and died that he might be the Lord in both life and death.
10-12 Why, then, criticise your brother’s actions, why try to make him look small? We shall all be judged one day, not by each other’s standards or even our own, but by the standard of Christ. It is written: ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God’. It is to God alone that we have to answer for our actions.
This should be our attitude
13 Let us therefore stop turning critical eyes on one another. If we must be critical, let us be critical of our own conduct and see that we do nothing to make a brother stumble or fall.
14-20a I am convinced, and I say this as in the presence of Christ himself, that nothing is intrinsically unholy. But none the less it is unholy to the man who thinks it is. If your habit of unrestricted diet seriously upsets your brother, you are no longer living in love towards him. And surely you wouldn’t let food mean ruin to a man for whom Christ died. You mustn’t let something that is all right for you look like an evil practice to somebody else. After all, the kingdom of Heaven is not a matter of whether you get what you like to eat and drink, but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. If you put these things first in serving Christ you will please God and are not likely to offend men. So let us concentrate on the things which make for harmony, and on the growth of one another’s character. Surely we shouldn’t wish to undo God’s work for the sake of a plate of meat!
20b-23 I freely admit that all food is, in itself. harmless, but it can be harmful to the man who eats it with a guilty conscience. We should be willing to be both vegetarians and teetotallers if by doing otherwise we should impede a brother’s progress in faith. Your personal convictions are a matter of faith between yourself and God, and you are happy if you have no qualms about what you allow yourself to eat. Yet if a man eats meat with an uneasy conscience about it, you may be sure he is wrong to do so. For his action does not spring from his faith, and when we act apart from our faith we sin.
Me: The meat that offends some, was that offered to idols. The person offended may have been a worshipper of that idol before coming to Jesus. The drink back then would have been wine or strong drink. Today, former alcholics who came to Christ would be that weak in faith person. The day in mind was worshiping on Saturday (formal Sabbath) on the Lord's Day(Sunday).
Romans 14 relates to prinicles in those situations.
Hi Rita, this is last post continued.
creation.com
The Babylon Connection?
Ralph Woodrow
The Babylon Connection? shows that the claims about Babylonian origins often lack connection, takes a closer look at the oft-quoted The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, and provides some much needed clarification on this subject. Was Nimrod a deformed, ugly black man, married to Semiramis, a beautiful white woman with blue eyes and blond hair? Was Semiramis the originator of Soprano singing and priestly celibacy? Was she the mother of Tammuz? Is the cross a symbol of Tammuz? Are round communion wafers sun-symbols? Are candles, black clergy garments, the letters I.H.S., the fish symbol, halos, and church steeples of pagan origin? Does the Pope wear a crown with 666 on it? Was the papal mitre copied from the fishhead of Dagon? Does the Book of Revelation describe the Roman Catholic Church as "Mystery Babylon"?
Mitrha vs Jesus *** best link ***
"
Christian and Jewish scholars have used the concept in a number of cases and areas. Thomas Schreiner (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) applies it to over-generalization of the simple use of the verb "see" used as a participle to refer to a casual act of observation, to extending its meaning to have deeper spiritual contexts in order to construct parallels.[7] Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner has stated that some portrayals of Aphrahat as someone who cherry picked from Rabbinical literature are based on weak parallels which fall within Sandmel's characterization of parallelomania.[8] Joseph Fitzmyer, a priest of the Society of Jesus (SJ), states the analyses of the Pauline epistles have at times suffered from parallelomania through the construction of unwarranted analogies with prior traditions.[9] Gerald O'Collins, SJ states that most scholars are now aware of the pitfalls of parallelomania which exaggerate the importance of trifling resemblances.[10]"
Hellenistic commentary to the New Testament : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
633 p. ; 26 cm
archive.org
Pagan copycat thesis refuted
The idea that the gospels copied its stories about Jesus from pagan myths, called the copycat thesis, is utter nonsense.
The Babylon Connection?
Ralph Woodrow
The Babylon Connection? shows that the claims about Babylonian origins often lack connection, takes a closer look at the oft-quoted The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, and provides some much needed clarification on this subject. Was Nimrod a deformed, ugly black man, married to Semiramis, a beautiful white woman with blue eyes and blond hair? Was Semiramis the originator of Soprano singing and priestly celibacy? Was she the mother of Tammuz? Is the cross a symbol of Tammuz? Are round communion wafers sun-symbols? Are candles, black clergy garments, the letters I.H.S., the fish symbol, halos, and church steeples of pagan origin? Does the Pope wear a crown with 666 on it? Was the papal mitre copied from the fishhead of Dagon? Does the Book of Revelation describe the Roman Catholic Church as "Mystery Babylon"?
The Babylon Connection?: Woodrow, Ralph: 9780916938178: Amazon.com: Books
The Babylon Connection? [Woodrow, Ralph] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Babylon Connection?
www.amazon.com
Pagan Copycat Theories | The Raglan Reduction
A look at the theories of Lord Raglan.
jesus-always-existed.com
"
Parallelomania[edit]
The concept was introduced to scholarly circles in 1961 by Rabbi Samuel Sandmel (1911–1979) of the Hebrew Union College in a paper of the same title, where he stated that he had first encountered the term[4] in a French book of 1830, but did not recall the author or the title.[5] Sandmel stated that the simple observations of similarity between historical events are often less than valid, but at times lead to a phenomenon where an author first notices a supposed similarity, overdoses on analogy, and then "proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying a literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction".[1] Martin McNamara, MSC (Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy) stated that Sandmel's initial paper has proven to be "highly influential".[6]Christian and Jewish scholars have used the concept in a number of cases and areas. Thomas Schreiner (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) applies it to over-generalization of the simple use of the verb "see" used as a participle to refer to a casual act of observation, to extending its meaning to have deeper spiritual contexts in order to construct parallels.[7] Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner has stated that some portrayals of Aphrahat as someone who cherry picked from Rabbinical literature are based on weak parallels which fall within Sandmel's characterization of parallelomania.[8] Joseph Fitzmyer, a priest of the Society of Jesus (SJ), states the analyses of the Pauline epistles have at times suffered from parallelomania through the construction of unwarranted analogies with prior traditions.[9] Gerald O'Collins, SJ states that most scholars are now aware of the pitfalls of parallelomania which exaggerate the importance of trifling resemblances.[10]"
more Rita
Parallelomania
Author(s): Samuel Sandmel
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Mar., 1962), pp. 1-13
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3264821 .
theaquilareport.com
Parallelomania, Bad Scholarship, and Fake History
Posted on December 14, 2021 by Roger Pearse
There are pyramids in Egypt. Indeed if we know anything about Egypt, we know it has pyramids. Almost as well-known are the massive pyramids of Mexico. This tells a certain sort of person that the two are connected! Either the Mexicans travelled to Egypt, or the Egyptians sailed to Mexico, or … inevitably … a now vanished continent in mid-Atlantic held a civilisation notable for its pyramids. This Atlantis would, of course, have a high technology. Inevitably spacefaring aliens must be involved. It is easy to find examples online.[1]
All of this is twaddle, based on nothing more than a vague perception of similarity. If we look at the details, the two sorts of pyramids are different in almost every way beyond the general shape. The Mexican pyramids are temples, while those of Egypt are tombs, and so on. But our friend is not influenced by this. “They’re both pyramids,” he will cry, and no amount of information will shake his conviction that the two “must” be connected. The lack of any evidence will be met with reiteration, elaboration and rhetoric.
In a way he is right. There is a connection. But the connection is human nature plus gravity. Human beings find it convenient to build stuff out of square blocks. They also find it convenient to pile up building materials. Because of gravity these piles will always tend to a pyramidal shape. There is no need for any more complex explanation.
This type of mad argument from a “parallel” has been named “parallelomania”. Broadly it states that if this looks like that, then this IS that, and that this, if later, is copied from that, or otherwise connected directly to it.
Obviously this is bunk. The similarities are often trivial. Often they are very selectively chosen! Two things may have certain similarities, arising quite independently, because of human nature. And even if two things are indeed similar, this is no evidence of connection or derivation, unless the parallel is nearly unique. It’s a false way to argue.
For instance, some parallelomaniacs like to claim that the Christian communion meal “must” be the same as pagan ritual meals. A few days ago one of them kindly informed me that Christmas “must” be borrowed from paganism because Christmas involves a big meal and ancient events like Saturnalia – they thought – did also.
The parallelomaniac will never reflect that human beings will naturally come together for a meal while doing something else, without any need to copy the idea from others. I wonder if they could be convinced that the modern business breakfast is copied from communion? Or the other way around? But of course these “parallels” are deployed only selectively, and for convenience.
Indeed nothing is funnier than watching a parallelomaniac trying to force the facts into a parallel in which they will not fit. He may start with “Christmas is a stolen pagan holiday. Jesus was not born on 25 Dec.” If you call his attention to the fact that in 336, when Christmas is first recorded, there is no record of any Roman holiday, he will merely respond with “around the time of the solstice”; for thereby he can introduce Saturnalia! If you point out that Saturnalia was not a solstice festival, because it was originally one day, on December 17, he will engage in further slipperiness. Christmas must be “stolen” from Saturnalia. And from “Yule”. If you a little cynical, and ask our friend to tell us whether Yule is stolen from Saturnalia, or the other way around, on the same grounds, then you will get no answer. That isn’t the point, you see.
It is easy to laugh at such antics. Most parallelomaniacs are lacking in education, and not a few are lacking in good faith either. But many are perfectly sincere, especially on things like pyramids, and simply lacking the education that we are lucky enough to possess. We need not always presume bad faith.
As a method, parallelomania is a subset of the general way in which fake history deals with historical data. This is:
Selection. Only those bits of data that fit the argument will be used.
Omission. Those bits that don’t will be discarded. Arguments will be found to ignore them.
Misrepresentation. Of course the pyramids in Mexico are like those in Egypt.
These failures will be found in very many older academic works. Again, these are not always undertaken in bad faith. But they are a failure of methodology.
This is one reason why arguments based on a claim that a literary text is interpolated are made less often today. In the 19th century the claim was very often made, based on subjective grounds, as a way to dispose of evidence. But it was always made selectively. The same arguments were not made about text that the writer found convenient. Thus in Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy, which created a fantastical picture of early Christianity in the near east, the testimony of Eusebius was against him. So Bauer calmly claimed that the relevant passage was interpolated. In fact it was not, as can be shown from 5th century Syriac witnesses that he knew about but conveniently neglected to consult. We have reached the more sensible position of never asserting interpolation without compelling evidence.
It is the same with any case of parallels. A parallel must be very limited, very striking, and clearly non-trivial. Even then, I find, today we usually comment that it is “interesting”, rather than a basis for argument. Otherwise we introduce parallelomania.
www.roger-pearse.com
Parallelomania
Author(s): Samuel Sandmel
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Mar., 1962), pp. 1-13
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3264821 .
Parallelomania
Parallelomania, Bad Scholarship, and Fake History
Posted on December 14, 2021 by Roger Pearse
There are pyramids in Egypt. Indeed if we know anything about Egypt, we know it has pyramids. Almost as well-known are the massive pyramids of Mexico. This tells a certain sort of person that the two are connected! Either the Mexicans travelled to Egypt, or the Egyptians sailed to Mexico, or … inevitably … a now vanished continent in mid-Atlantic held a civilisation notable for its pyramids. This Atlantis would, of course, have a high technology. Inevitably spacefaring aliens must be involved. It is easy to find examples online.[1]
All of this is twaddle, based on nothing more than a vague perception of similarity. If we look at the details, the two sorts of pyramids are different in almost every way beyond the general shape. The Mexican pyramids are temples, while those of Egypt are tombs, and so on. But our friend is not influenced by this. “They’re both pyramids,” he will cry, and no amount of information will shake his conviction that the two “must” be connected. The lack of any evidence will be met with reiteration, elaboration and rhetoric.
In a way he is right. There is a connection. But the connection is human nature plus gravity. Human beings find it convenient to build stuff out of square blocks. They also find it convenient to pile up building materials. Because of gravity these piles will always tend to a pyramidal shape. There is no need for any more complex explanation.
This type of mad argument from a “parallel” has been named “parallelomania”. Broadly it states that if this looks like that, then this IS that, and that this, if later, is copied from that, or otherwise connected directly to it.
Obviously this is bunk. The similarities are often trivial. Often they are very selectively chosen! Two things may have certain similarities, arising quite independently, because of human nature. And even if two things are indeed similar, this is no evidence of connection or derivation, unless the parallel is nearly unique. It’s a false way to argue.
For instance, some parallelomaniacs like to claim that the Christian communion meal “must” be the same as pagan ritual meals. A few days ago one of them kindly informed me that Christmas “must” be borrowed from paganism because Christmas involves a big meal and ancient events like Saturnalia – they thought – did also.
The parallelomaniac will never reflect that human beings will naturally come together for a meal while doing something else, without any need to copy the idea from others. I wonder if they could be convinced that the modern business breakfast is copied from communion? Or the other way around? But of course these “parallels” are deployed only selectively, and for convenience.
Indeed nothing is funnier than watching a parallelomaniac trying to force the facts into a parallel in which they will not fit. He may start with “Christmas is a stolen pagan holiday. Jesus was not born on 25 Dec.” If you call his attention to the fact that in 336, when Christmas is first recorded, there is no record of any Roman holiday, he will merely respond with “around the time of the solstice”; for thereby he can introduce Saturnalia! If you point out that Saturnalia was not a solstice festival, because it was originally one day, on December 17, he will engage in further slipperiness. Christmas must be “stolen” from Saturnalia. And from “Yule”. If you a little cynical, and ask our friend to tell us whether Yule is stolen from Saturnalia, or the other way around, on the same grounds, then you will get no answer. That isn’t the point, you see.
It is easy to laugh at such antics. Most parallelomaniacs are lacking in education, and not a few are lacking in good faith either. But many are perfectly sincere, especially on things like pyramids, and simply lacking the education that we are lucky enough to possess. We need not always presume bad faith.
As a method, parallelomania is a subset of the general way in which fake history deals with historical data. This is:
Selection. Only those bits of data that fit the argument will be used.
Omission. Those bits that don’t will be discarded. Arguments will be found to ignore them.
Misrepresentation. Of course the pyramids in Mexico are like those in Egypt.
These failures will be found in very many older academic works. Again, these are not always undertaken in bad faith. But they are a failure of methodology.
This is one reason why arguments based on a claim that a literary text is interpolated are made less often today. In the 19th century the claim was very often made, based on subjective grounds, as a way to dispose of evidence. But it was always made selectively. The same arguments were not made about text that the writer found convenient. Thus in Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy, which created a fantastical picture of early Christianity in the near east, the testimony of Eusebius was against him. So Bauer calmly claimed that the relevant passage was interpolated. In fact it was not, as can be shown from 5th century Syriac witnesses that he knew about but conveniently neglected to consult. We have reached the more sensible position of never asserting interpolation without compelling evidence.
It is the same with any case of parallels. A parallel must be very limited, very striking, and clearly non-trivial. Even then, I find, today we usually comment that it is “interesting”, rather than a basis for argument. Otherwise we introduce parallelomania.
Parallelomania, Bad Scholarship, and Fake History
There are pyramids in Egypt. Indeed if we know anything about Egypt, we know it has pyramids. Almost as well-known are the massive pyramids of Mexico. This tells a certain sort of person that th…
www.roger-pearse.com
more Rita
unrelated looks interresting https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Behold-the-Lamb-of-God.pdf
unrelated looks interresting https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Behold-the-Lamb-of-God.pdf
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Posts #21 to #23 was his and my exchange before this.
Post #21, while brief, implied it is wrong to celebrate Christmas because it is not in the bible (which suggests that someone claimed that it was).
In Post #23, he explicitly states that someone claimed the origin of Christmas was Scriptural.
Last edited:
It's wrong when those that claim it's of a scriptural origin when it isn't. It has nothing to do with posts. The original post asked where Christmas came from to which I replied not the bible but man. And mankind that reveres Christmas do so with the false understanding that it's origin is the bible and try to bind that erroneous thinking on everyone else. I personally like the Christmas holidays and season, but I'm well aware that it's by no means religious nor is validated by scripture.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Justification apparently requires a lot of explanation.....but two scriptures tell us what is acceptable to God, regardless of whether it is acceptable to man......Deuteronomy 18:9-12 tells us how God feels about pagan practices......and 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 tells us NOT to fuse paganism with true worship.
All those explanations fall in a hole when you just apply scripture in its pure simplicity. Pagan customs and the traditions of men do not belong in Christian worship....period. (Matthew 15:7-9)
Human nature plays right into satan’s hands.....make the thing look appealing...and you’ve got ’em......this worked for Eve.....and he’s been using that tactic ever since.
All those explanations fall in a hole when you just apply scripture in its pure simplicity. Pagan customs and the traditions of men do not belong in Christian worship....period. (Matthew 15:7-9)
Human nature plays right into satan’s hands.....make the thing look appealing...and you’ve got ’em......this worked for Eve.....and he’s been using that tactic ever since.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Very telling reply.....your knowledge of scripture is vast.......just hidden in ridicule. Right?We better stop meeting in Church Buildings ... you would not BELIEVE where that tradition comes from!
[AND THERE ARE NO PANTS IN THE BIBLE!!!!!]
When you can’t defend...attack. (Passive aggressive) Human nature is so predictable....
atpollard
Well-Known Member
... but NOBODY made that claim. That was my point and the source of confusion.
The actual question was: "Christian" or "Pagan" origin?
Similar threads
