ShareThis Page
Christmas is fact, not fable |

Christmas is fact, not fable

Alex McFarland
| Saturday, December 25, 2004 12:00 a.m

The Christmas season is accompanied by many things: mistletoe, evergreens and Santa Claus. And while most Americans accept the store-bought image of Christmas, there remains an on-going debate on one of the season’s most sacred symbols –the Nativity.

Sooner or later, as Dec. 25 approaches, the same stories invariably appear. This year, the stories made a splash on the covers of Newsweek and Time. Each year the media turn to “religious scholars” as they attempt to paint a very different picture of the first Christmas — one that was invented by early Christians using existing mythology as their mold.

While writers and editors theorize that Christ’s birth is rooted more in fable than in historical fact, they fail to mention that these doubt-inspiring disclaimers simply do not measure up to the scrutiny of historical investigation.

Variation on a theme?

The premise behind these stories is that the early Christian beliefs about Jesus were really just variations on older religious themes. Pagan “mystery religions” had emerged from Roman, Greek, and Egyptian cultures, with teachings that focused on mythical hero-gods such as Osiris, Mithra, and others. Some writers suggest that Jesus was an invented figure, patterned after such gods.

It is hypothesized that Christian doctrines developed through a repackaging of existing legends. The recent Newsweek article asserts that the New Testament writers were “confronted with a literary problem that had to be solved,” and thus created the story of Christ’s birth. The apostle Paul also is frequently cited as a likely reviser and partial “founder” of Christianity, allegedly having meshed prevalent paganism with teachings about Jesus.

The implication is that the core beliefs of classical orthodoxy are inventions of men rather than revelation from God.

But consider the facts revealed upon closer examination:

The New Testament deals with actual people and historical events open to investigation. The mystery religions dealt with mythical figures , having no historical ties whatsoever.

In contrast, Jesus’ birth is tied to such things as real people (Herod of Judea), real places (Bethlehem, Egypt, Nazareth), actual events (“a census by Caesar Augustus”), and is corroborated by verifiable details (“when Quirinius was governor of Syria”).

Further, none of the myth-based ancient religions ever claimed to be reported via eyewitnesses, as does the New Testament’s presentation of Christ.

Flawed assumptions

The belief that early Christians borrowed from the paganism of their times rests on the assumption that mystery religions were pervasive and influential in Palestine during the first century. But concluded even the skeptical Albert Schweitzer of those who interpret Christianity in this manner: “They manufacture out of the various fragments of information a kind of universal mystery religion which never existed, least of all in Paul’s day.”

C.S. Lewis rejected the mystery religion thesis, observing that Christianity originated “in a circle where no trace of the nature religion was present.”

Famed religion scholar Mircea Eliade concluded, “There is no reason to suppose that primitive Christianity was influenced by the Hellenistic mysteries.”

Why is it important that we consider such things at this time• The difference between Christianity and ancient myth is worth noting, because it illustrates how unique the Christian message truly is.

Even 2,000 years ago the mystery tales were known to be fables. On the other hand, Christmas reminds us that at a precise point in history, Christ came bearing the gift of himself. 2 Peter 1:16 demonstrates the solid base on which Christian faith rests: “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.”

Here we have eyewitness testimony to actual events. It does not matter that many years separate us and the earliest Christians; we, too, may personally meet history’s most important figure, who bears life’s most relevant message.

The real deal

The Gospels present a genuine savior, demonstrating genuine love, coming to a world possessing genuine spiritual need. None of the so-called “savior gods” of the myths died for someone else. It is important to note also that Jesus died once and for all. The mystery religions portray gods which died repeatedly, depicting cycles of nature. Unlike the mythical heroes, Jesus died voluntarily, and his death was a triumph, not a defeat! Christ’s death provided atonement for sin, a concept utterly foreign to the mystery religions.

The Christmas story is that God loved people enough to come into the world and be their savior. The words of Charles Wesley’s hymn frame the facts in complete accuracy:

“Mild He lays His glory by / Born that man no more may die / Born to raise the sons of earth / Born to give them second birth.”

Almost 2,000 years ago, Christ quietly entered human history through a manger in Bethlehem. Today, Jesus lovingly enters human hearts through simple faith. In this way, historical fact can become present reality for all who will believe.

Alex McFarland is the director of teen apologetics at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.