Debunking Wes Huff’s Viral Video: “Christmas Isn’t Pagan & Here’s Why”

Why Many Christians Believe Christmas Is Idolatry

Before dealing with Wes Huff’s historical claims, it’s important to understand why many sincere, Bible-loving Christians believe Christmas is not just unwise, but actually idolatrous. This isn’t about being grumpy, “anti-joy,” or trying to be different for the sake of it. It’s about the question: Does God accept worship that borrows from altars once dedicated to other gods?

Pagan Origins of December 25

Long before Rome ever called December 25 “Christmas,” that date and surrounding season were filled with pagan meaning:

• Saturnalia (Dec. 17–23) – riotous Roman festival in honor of Saturn, marked by feasting, drunkenness, and gift-giving.

  
  

• Sol Invictus (Dec. 25) – “The Unconquered Sun,” a solar festival officially fixed to December 25 under Emperor Aurelian in A.D. 274, marking the rebirth of the sun at the winter solstice.

Therefore, Christians who reject Christmas argue that you cannot take a day created and consecrated to honor false gods and then repurpose it for Christ without corrupting worship. They point to God’s explicit warning:

“Take heed… that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God…” (Deu 12:30–31)

The issue isn’t: “Do you love Jesus?” The issue is: “Can we honor Jesus using forms, dates, and symbols that were historically used to honor other gods?” Scripture’s answer is consistently: No.

God Rejects Pagan Forms—Even with “Good Intentions”

Two prominent examples:

• The Golden Calf (Exo 32)

  Israel did not say, “Here are new gods instead of Yahweh.” Aaron literally proclaimed: “Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD” (Exo 32:5). It was “for Yahweh”—but using a pagan form. God called it idolatry and judged them.

  
  

• Nadab & Abihu (Lev 10)

  They brought “strange fire” before the Lord—worship directed to the true God, but in a way He had not commanded. Result: immediate judgment.

The principle is clear: God cares not only that we worship Him, but how we worship Him. We are not free to borrow from paganism and then slap “for Jesus” on top of it.

Christmas Blends Christ with Folklore and Worldliness

Whatever its defenders say, modern Christmas is a fusion of:

• Santa Claus mythology

  
  

• materialism and covetousness

  
  

• sentimentalism and seasonal emotionalism

  
  

• pagan-derived symbols (trees, holly, mistletoe, solstice themes)

This looks like exactly what Scripture warns against:

• Mixing holy and profane

  
  

• Letting man-made tradition replace God-ordained worship

  
  

• Giving the most energy, money, and emotional focus of the year to a day Christ never commanded and the apostles never practiced.

  
  

Is This Concern Biblically Legitimate?

Yes, it absolutely is. Scripture repeatedly warns about:

• Borrowing pagan practices – “Learn not the way of the heathen” (Jer 10:2).

  
  

• Substituting man-made traditions – “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mat 15:9).

  
  

• Going beyond what is written – (1 Cor 4:6).

  
  

A Christian who concludes, “This holiday is compromised and dishonors Christ”, has solid biblical grounds to abstain.

Is Every Christmas-Observer Automatically an Idolater?

We must be careful here.

• Most Christians who celebrate Christmas intend to honor Christ.

  
  

• They are not consciously bowing to Saturn, Mithras, or Sol Invictus.

  
  

Idolatry, however, is not only about conscious intent; it is also about disobedience, mixture, and using forbidden forms in the worship of the true God (Exo 32; Lev 10; Deu 12). So while we don’t presume to judge every individual's heart, knowing that judgment is according to knowledge (Jas 4:17), we still have to ask: Is the system and practice itself—“Christmas”—a syncretistic, man-made religious tradition built on pagan foundations?

That’s the question this article is addressing.

The Real Issue: God’s Authority vs Human Tradition

Ultimately, this isn’t just “Christmas vs no Christmas.” It’s about the principle behind all worship:

• Regulative Principle – We may only worship God in the ways He has commanded.

  
  

• Normative Principle – We may do whatever is not explicitly forbidden, even if it originated in paganism, as long as we “mean well.”

  
  

Wes Huff’s video stands firmly in the normative camp. This article argues that Scripture does not give us that freedom—especially when it comes to borrowing from pagan holy days and symbols.

What This Article Will Do

Wes Huff’s viral video, “Christmas Isn’t Pagan & Here’s Why”, makes several strong historical claims:

• That Christians were celebrating December 25 as Christ’s birthday before pagans used that date.

  
  

• That there are “ancient manuscripts” proving Christmas was celebrated before A.D. 336.

  
  

• That Christmas trees and other customs aren’t historically connected to paganism but arise from Christian practice.

  
  

• That alleged connections to Nimrod, Tammuz, Sol Invictus, etc., are basically made-up nonsense.

  
  

In the following sections, we will:

1. Demonstrate that there is no evidence of Christians celebrating Christ’s birth on any date for the first three centuries.

   
   

2. Show that the sources commonly used to defend an early Christian Christmas are misquoted, interpolated, or outright spurious.

   
   

3. Show that December 25 was a well-established solstice / sun-festival date in pagan antiquity long before the church adopted it.

   
   

4. Expose the legendary nature of popular Christmas-tree origin stories and show the deeper continuity with pagan evergreen customs.

   
   

5. Briefly address the misuse of New Testament “liberty” passages to justify adopting pagan days and forms in worship.

   
   

The purpose is not to attack people—but to expose bad history and dangerous theology underpinning the “Christmas isn’t pagan” narrative.

Did Early Christians Celebrate Christ’s Birth?

Contrary to Huff’s claim, there is no evidence that the early church celebrated the birth of Christ—on December 25 or any other date—before the 4th century.

Yes, some early writers tried to calculate when Christ might have been born:

• Hippolytus of Rome (c. A.D. 204) wrote in his Commentary on Daniel:

  “The first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when He was born in Bethlehem, took place eight days before the Kalends of January [December 25], on a Wednesday…”

  
  

• Sextus Julius Africanus (c. A.D. 221) also attempted to harmonize biblical chronologies and arrive at a date.

  
  

But note carefully:

• These are chronological speculations, not liturgical rubrics.

  
  

• They appear in works concerned with prophetic calculations, the seventy weeks of Daniel, and the timeline of redemption—not in instructions about feasts or church calendars.

  
  

• There is no evidence that either Hippolytus or Africanus instituted or witnessed a feast of the Nativity on December 25.

  
  

Saying “Hippolytus thought Jesus might have been born on X date” is NOT the same as saying, “The church celebrated that date as a festival.” To claim otherwise is like saying: “If I publish an article arguing Jesus was born in September, that automatically proves my church holds an annual September ‘Christmas’ service.”

That’s obviously absurd.

The Early Church Explicitly Opposed Birthday Celebrations

Even more devastating to the “earliest Christmas” argument is this: Key early Christian voices explicitly condemned birthday feasts as a pagan custom. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253), one of the most influential theologians of the early church, writes:

“None of the saints can be found who ever held a feast or banquet upon their birthday, or rejoiced in a day in which they were born upon the earth. But sinners rejoice in this kind of birthdays. For indeed, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, celebrated the day of his birth with a feast, and Herod, in the New Testament, did the same; but both of them stained the festival of their birth with human blood. But the saints not only neglect to mark the day of their birth, but they also forget the very anniversary of their birth.” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)

Other fragments attributed to Origen echo the same spirit:

• “We must abhor the festivities of birth as they are the beginnings of evils and distractions. For it is not those who have been born but those who have been reborn in Christ that deserve our rejoicing.”

  
  

• “The Savior’s coming into the world is not marked by worldly celebrations, for His origin is beyond the confines of time. He was, He is, and He will be forever.”

In Origen’s day:

• Birthday celebrations were viewed as pagan.

  
  

• The Christian focus was on death in Christ, martyrdom, and rebirth—not carnal birthday feasts.

  
  

This is utterly incompatible with the idea that the same church was already happily throwing a yearly birthday party for Jesus.

Early Liturgical Lists: No Christmas. No Epiphany.

If Christmas or Epiphany were established Christian feasts in the 2nd–3rd centuries, we would expect to see them in:

• Tertullian (c. 155–240), who discusses Christian fasts and feasts in detail.

  
  

• Origen, who likewise references the major observances.

  
  

Instead, in the 3rd century we see:

• Easter / Pascha,

• Lent,

• Pentecost,

… but no mention of Christmas or Epiphany as universal Christian festivals.

That silence is extremely loud.

Misused Sources: Didascalia, Theophilus, and the Liber Pontificalis

Defenders of an “early Christmas” often appeal to three kinds of evidence. Huff’s broader camp has done the same:

1. Didascalia Apostolorum

2. The Epistle of Theophilus

3. The Liber Pontificalis

Let’s examine them carefully.

Didascalia Apostolorum and Epiphany

Some argue that the Didascalia Apostolorum proves that early Christians kept a feast of Epiphany (which they then link to Christ’s birth and January 6). There are two serious problems with this:

(1) Epiphany originally had nothing to do with Christ’s birth.

Early evidence (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, c. 200) shows Epiphany first emerging as a commemoration of Christ’s baptism—not His nativity. He writes of the followers of Basilides (a Gnostic teacher):

They “celebrate the day of His Baptism… and they say that it was the 15th of the month Tybi… and some say the 11th.”

So:

• Epiphany begins as a baptism feast mostly among heterodox circles,

  
  

• Not as a birthday celebration,

  
  

• And not linked to December 25.

  
  

(2) The “Epiphany” line in the Didascalia is a later interpolation.

The original 3rd-century Didascalia Apostolorum does not mention Epiphany at all. What we do have is:

• A later Syriac version (4th century and beyond) that includes a line such as:

  “The apostles further appointed: Celebrate the day of the Epiphany of our Saviour… on the sixth day of the latter Canun…”

  
  

Scholars like Arthur Vööbus, Tom O’Loughlin, and Maxwell E. Johnson have shown:

• This Epiphany clause is foreign to the original text,

  
  

• It fits the theological and liturgical developments of the later 4th-century church, not the 3rd,

  
  

• It is best understood as a later editorial addition, not apostolic tradition.

When we look at the earliest strata, the Didascalia:

• Regulates church order and basic worship,

  
  

• Does not mention Christmas,

  
  

• Does not even truly mention Epiphany in its original form.

So using it to claim “second-century Christians celebrated Christ’s birth” is simply dishonest.

The Epistle of Theophilus: An Irish Forgery

Another favorite “proof” is the so-called Epistle of Theophilus (allegedly from Theophilus of Antioch, 2nd century), which in one version mentions December 25. The reality:

• There are multiple recensions (versions) of this text.

  
  

• The main two are:

  
  

  • Recension A (longer) – 17th-century printed, contains explicit reference to Christmas / Dec 25.

    
    

  • Recension B (shorter) – 16th-century printed, does not mention Christmas at all.

Modern scholarship is clear:

• The whole thing is widely regarded as an “Irish forgery”, likely composed around A.D. 600 to defend certain Irish Easter customs.

  
  

• Recension A cannot be from Theophilus because it explicitly references Eusebius (4th century) and holds a perspective foreign to a 2nd-century bishop in Caesarea.

  
  

• It even treats the customs of Christians in Gaul as a kind of liturgical authority—an absurd idea for a genuine eastern father in the 100s–200s, but perfectly understandable for a 6th-century Irish monk looking toward Gaul as the nearest “civilized” Christian center.

In short: Any reference to Christmas in the “Epistle of Theophilus” is from a spurious, much later forgery and cannot be used as 2nd-century evidence for a nativity feast.

The Liber Pontificalis: Late Propaganda

The Liber Pontificalis is another text sometimes used to argue that early popes, such as Telesphorus (c. 125–136), instituted the celebration of Christ’s birth.

However:

• The Liber Pontificalis itself is a medieval compilation, edited and expanded over centuries, finally printed in the 16th century.

  
  

• Scholars widely recognize it as an “unofficial instrument of pontifical propaganda,” filled with retrojected claims meant to enhance papal prestige.

Crucially:

• There is no reliable evidence in the Liber Pontificalis that Pope Telesphorus ordered the celebration of Jesus’ birth.

  
  

• The earliest secure link between a pope and December 25 as a formal feast is with Pope Liberius (r. 352–366), who institutionalized December 25 as the official date for Christ’s nativity in Rome.

  
  

Even if we grant that:

• This is happening in the mid-4th century,

  
  

• Long after pagan solstice festivals were entrenched,

  
  

• Long after the Julian calendar fixed December 25 as the winter solstice date (1st century B.C.).

  
  

And note well: It was the Pope—whom many Protestants recognize as the prophetic antichrist—who formalized this as a universal Christian celebration, not Christ and not His apostles.

Let that sink in.

When and Why December 25 Was Chosen

Well before Christianity existed, December 25 had deep significance in pagan thought. Under the Julian calendar (instituted 45 B.C.):

• December 25 was reckoned as the winter solstice,

  
  

• The “turning point” where the sun begins to rise higher in the sky,

  
  

• Symbolizing the rebirth of the sun.

  
  

Ancient sources testify that:

• Varro (1st century B.C.) notes December 25 as midwinter.

  
  

• Ovid speaks of the solstice as the beginning of the “new sun.”

  
  

• A 2nd-century A.D. calendar of Antiochus of Athens marks it as the “birthday of the sun.”

In A.D. 274, Emperor Aurelian formalized December 25 as: Dies Natalis Solis Invicti – “The birthday of the Unconquered Sun.”

This festival:

• Capped off and blended with the earlier Saturnalia season,

  
  

• Was a major celebration in the imperial cult,

  
  

• Glorified Sol Invictus, a solar deity syncretized with other sun-gods such as Mithras.

Liturgical historians across the board acknowledge that: The winter solstice and the Sol Invictus festival likely influenced the church’s choice of December 25 as the date of Christmas.

Widely Recognized: The Church “Christianized” a Pagan Date

Both classic and modern encyclopedias openly admit this:

• Encyclopedia Britannica notes that in the 3rd century Rome celebrated the rebirth of the Unconquered Sun on December 25, marking both the solstice and the climax of Saturnalia, and that the church in Rome began formally celebrating Christmas on December 25 in A.D. 336. It further observes that many have reasonably seen in this a deliberate strategy to supplant or appropriate pagan solstice festivals.

  
  

• New World Encyclopedia explains that December 25 was already a key pagan festival in Rome (Saturnalia + Sol Invictus), involving feasting, gifts, gambling, and even nudity, and that Christians began to celebrate Christ’s birth on that same date in order to “safely adapt” Roman customs while giving them a Christian veneer.

  
  

Whether every detail of these encyclopedia summaries is perfect or not, the pattern is clear:

1. For centuries before Christianity, December 25 was tied to sun-worship and the winter solstice.

   
   

2. In the 4th century, the Roman church adopts that precise date for the Nativity.

   
   

3. Even mainstream historians freely acknowledge that this looks exactly like conscious Christianization of a well-known pagan feast.

   
   

Huff’s claim—that pagans “moved” their festival to December 25 because Christians had chosen it first—is not supported by the data. It reverses the historical order.

Ancient Solar Motifs & the Winter Solstice

Even beyond Rome, solstice celebrations and the “rebirth of the sun” are universal pagan motifs, long predating the church’s adoption of December 25. Therefore, it is clear that December 25 and the winter solstice have a deeply entrenched pagan sun-worship significance long before the church used it. To suggest Christians “got there first” is historically indefensible.

Christmas Trees: Christian Symbol or Baptized Evergreen Magic?

Wes Huff claims:

• The Christmas tree has no real pagan connection.

  
  

• It arises from stories about Saint Boniface, “paradise trees” in medieval plays, and Martin Luther.

  
  

• Pagan use of trees was totally different and long dead when Christmas trees emerged.

The reality is more complicated—and much less convenient for his thesis.

The Martin Luther Tree Story: Pure Legend

The popular tale that Martin Luther invented the Christmas tree after being inspired by starlight over a forest:

• Only appears in the 19th century.

  
  

• Has no contemporary or near-contemporary documentation.

  
  

• Is widely acknowledged by historians as a pious legend, not real history.

Yet it is still often repeated as if it were a solid origin story.

Evergreens, Solstice, and Bede’s Testimony

Long before “Christmas trees” appear in Christian practice, evergreen plants were already used in pagan solstice customs. For instance, the Venerable Bede (c. 672–735), one of the most important early medieval historians, describes how the pagan Anglo-Saxons began their year at midwinter and kept a heathen festival at that time, including Mōdraniht (“Mothers’ Night”) on the night preceding what we now call Christmas.

While Bede doesn’t spell out every custom, later evidence from northern Europe shows that evergreens (holly, ivy, mistletoe, fir, etc.) and lights were widely used in midwinter rites as symbols of life and the “reborn” sun in the darkness. When Christians later placed evergreens and lights at the center of their December celebrations, they weren’t inventing a brand-new symbol out of nowhere, but re-using imagery already embedded in earlier winter and solstice customs.

In De Temporum Ratione (“On the Reckoning of Time”), Bede details:

• Pagan months,

  
  

• Pagan festivals,

  
  

• The way solstice and seasonal markers were infused with religious symbolism.

The key point: The visual language of evergreens and winter light was already embedded in pagan religious practice before it ever became a “Christian” December custom. When later Christians began bringing evergreens—and eventually fully decorated trees—into their homes around the Nativity feast, they were not inventing an entirely new symbol; they were baptizing existing cultural imagery.

Legends and Late Developments

It’s true that:

• “Paradise trees” (evergreens decorated with fruit in medieval plays about Adam and Eve) appear in the 15th–16th centuries.

  
  

• Boniface legends and other Christianized stories arise in the Middle Ages and Reformation period.

  
  

• Christmas trees as we know them were popularized in Britain and elsewhere in the 19th century, often associated with royal or upper-class households.

But this only proves:

• The explicitly Christian rationale for the tree is late,

  
  

• The practice underwent layers of reinterpretation,

  
  

• It does not erase the fact that evergreens and solstice greenery were already pagan symbols of life, fertility, and solar rebirth.

  
  

Again, this pattern is not a “totally independent invention,” but reinterpretation of older cultural symbols.

“Correlation Is Not Causation” – Except When Christians Admit They Did It

Huff repeats a slogan: “Correlation does not equal causation.” That is true—if all we had were vague similarities. But in the case of Christmas, we have more than that. We have explicit evidence that church leaders consciously chose to “Christianize” pagan customs.

Gregory the Great: Don’t Destroy Pagan Temples—Repurpose Them

Pope Gregory the Great wrote to Augustine of Canterbury in A.D. 597:

Do not destroy the temples of the English gods; change them to Christian churches. Do not forbid the harmless customs which have been associated with the old religions; consecrate them to Christian uses.

That is not “correlation,” that is direct testimony:

• Don’t abolish pagan sites. Convert them.

  
  

• Don’t fully forbid pagan customs. Rebrand them as Christian.

This is the precise strategy many historians see at work with Christmas: Keep the season. Keep the joy. Keep the greenery and the gift-giving. Change the name on the banner—from Sol Invictus to Jesus.

Gibbon and Schaff: The “Victors” Were Subdued

Historian Edward Gibbon wrote that:

Respectable bishops believed that pagans would more easily abandon their old superstitions if they found something similar in Christianity.

He notes that: While Christianity conquered the empire, the conquerors themselves were “insensibly subdued” by the practices of their former rivals.

Church historian Philip Schaff likewise admits:

“Not a few pagan habits crept into the church concealed by new names. This is conceded by the most earnest of the Fathers.”

In other words:

• The methodology of baptizing pagan customs is NOT a conspiracy theory.

  
  

• It is an acknowledged historical reality—even in respectable, mainstream scholarship.

Applying that to Christmas is not a wild jump; it is simply refusing to pretend that this one case is magically exempt.

Huff’s Misuse of New Testament “Liberty” Texts

Huff appeals to passages like 1 Corinthians 8 and Colossians 2:16 as if they justify adopting or transforming pagan festivals into Christian holy days. That is a dangerous misreading.

1 Corinthians 8: Food vs Festivals

1 Cor 8 addresses:

• Eating meat that may have been offered to idols,

  
  

• Especially when sold in the general marketplace.

Paul acknowledges that:

• An idol is “nothing,”

  
  

• The meat itself is morally neutral,

  
  

• But the conscience of weaker brothers must be guarded.

This is not a warrant to:

• Introduce pagan holy days into Christian worship,

  
  

• Consecrate pagan religious symbols and rebrand them as Christian worship tools.

In fact, when Paul does directly address pagan religious participation, he is far more severe:

“The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God… Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils” (1 Cor 10:20–21).

So:

• Neutral food in the marketplace? Often permitted with caution.

  
  

• Participating in pagan cultic “tables,” days, or rites? Absolutely forbidden.

2 Colossians 2:16 – Jewish Feasts, Not Pagan Holidays

Col 2:16 says:

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days…”

Context:

• Paul is dealing with Jewish ceremonial laws, man-made ascetic rules, and shadows fulfilled in Christ.

  
  

• The issue is whether Gentile Christians are bound to Old Covenant observances.

Nothing in Colossians even remotely suggests: “Feel free to adopt pagan festivals and repurpose them for Jesus.” To stretch the text that far is to wrench it out of context.

Hanukkah vs Christmas

Huff also points out that Jesus was in Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) in John 10:22. But this proves nothing for his position. Hanukkah commemorates God’s miraculous deliverance of His people and the rededication of the temple. It is rooted in biblical faithfulness, not paganism. It is a culturally-developed feast, yes—but one that celebrates Yahweh’s work, not the worship of foreign gods.

By contrast, Christmas is anchored to a date and season saturated with sun-worship and solstice festivals. It intentionally chosen to overlay and replace older pagan rites. Hanukkah may support the idea that we may remember God’s mighty acts in history; but it does not justify taking what was once openly devoted to other gods and “baptizing” it.

“But What About Rings, Money, and Days of the Week?”

Some argue: “If you reject Christmas because of pagan roots, you must also reject wedding rings, money with pagan symbols, the names of weekdays, etc.” This confuses civil / cultural life with acts of worship.

Rings and Ceremonies

There is no concrete proof that “pagans invented rings” as inherently religious tools. Scripture itself uses rings in non-idolatrous ways:

• Gen 24 – Jewelry given to Rebekah in the marriage process.

  
  

• Gen 41:42 – Pharaoh’s signet ring places Joseph in authority.

  
  

• Lk 15:22 – The father’s ring symbolizes restoration and sonship.

Wedding ceremonies are covenantal and explicitly affirmed by Christ’s presence at the wedding in Cana (Jn 2:1–11).

In the New Testament, the problem with jewelry is excess, vanity, and status display (1 Tim 2:9–10; 1 Pet 3:3–4), not pagan origin. There is a massive difference between wearing a ring and dedicating a calendar date, liturgy, and feast to something that historically honored false gods.

Money and Days of the Week

Jesus Himself said: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Mat 22:21). He acknowledged that Roman coins, with pagan imagery, exist, and that using them for taxes and commerce is not the same as worshiping Caesar.

Similarly, using “Thursday” or “Sunday” as labels for days in civil life is not idolatry. We are not gathering on “Thor’s day” to honor Thor. But when the church chooses a date already known as the birthday of Sol Invictus, fills it with religious symbolism and worship, and calls it a central Christian festival...we are no longer talking about neutral civil realities but about religious syncretism.

Statues and Images

Even today, statues or images can be art or idolatry, depending on use. As mere art, they may be allowed. As objects in worship, they are forbidden (Exo 20:4–5).

Protestants rightly rejected Catholic use of images because they were tied to worship practices. In the same way, the question about Christmas is not: “Can a pine tree exist?”

But: “Can I take a symbol and date once bound up with false worship and make it central in my worship of God?”

Scripture repeatedly says: No.

God’s Clear Command: Don’t Worship Me Their Way

The heart of the matter is not sentiment, but obedience.

Deuteronomy 12:30–31 – “Take heed… that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God…”

God is not only against child sacrifice and gross abominations; He is against the principle of copying pagan worship for Him.

Other warnings:

• Leviticus 10:1–2 – Nadab and Abihu die for offering what God “commanded not.”

  
  

• Deut 12:32 – “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”

  
  

• Isaiah 52:11 – “Be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD.”

Christ Himself commanded: “This do in remembrance of Me” (Lk 22:19)—referring to His death, not His birth.

There is no apostolic command or example telling us to:

• Invent a birthday feast for Jesus,

  
  

• Anchor it to a date saturated with pagan sun-worship,

  
  

• Fill it with symbols long used for the rebirth of the sun.

To do so and then claim we’re “worshiping in spirit and truth” (Jn 4:24) is deeply questionable.

Syncretism: A Lesson from the Golden Calf

When Israel built the golden calf (Exo 32), they didn’t say: “Here is Baal, forget Yahweh.” They said: “These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt… and Aaron made proclamation and said, Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD.”

It was:

• Yahweh’s name,

  
  

• A syncretistic form,

  
  

• A feast “to the LORD”—on their own terms.

God rejected it outright as idolatry. Christmas follows the same basic pattern:

• Take existing pagan forms, dates, and symbols,

  
  

• Attach Christ’s name,

  
  

• Declare it a feast “to the Lord.”

Good intentions don’t cleanse disobedience.

Conscience, Liberty, and the Regulative Principle

Romans 14 tells us not to despise or judge one another over disputable matters. But Paul is not discussing:

• Adopting pagan worship forms,

  
  

• Honoring dates historically set aside for false gods.

When Paul addresses idolatrous practices, he speaks very differently:

• 2 Cor 6:14–17 – “What concord hath Christ with Belial? … Come out from among them, and be ye separate.”

  
  

• 1 Cor 10:20–21 – You cannot partake of the Lord’s table and the table of devils.

The Regulative Principle of Worship flows naturally from the preceding warnings. It speaks to the fact that in regards to worship, what God has not commanded, we have no right to invent. Christmas fails this test on multiple levels:

1. It is nowhere commanded or modeled in the New Testament.

   
   

2. Its date and many of its customs are historically intertwined with pagan worship.

   
   

3. It was formalized by a papal system Protestants themselves recognize as deeply corrupt and anti-biblical.

   
   

Final Thoughts: Why This Matters

Let’s be honest:

• Much of modern Christmas is driven by emotion, nostalgia, and pressure, not careful exegesis or honest history.

  
  

• When those feelings are threatened, it becomes tempting to bend history and twist Scripture to defend what we love.

  
  

But we must be careful of desiring something so intensely that we’re willing to distort truth in order to keep it. Looking at the evidence, we can summarize:

1. There is no solid evidence that the early church celebrated Christ’s birth on any date before the 4th century.

   
   

2. The sources often cited to prove “early Christmas” (Didascalia, Epistle of Theophilus, early papal attributions) are interpolated, spurious, or propagandistic.

   
   

3. December 25 was tied to solstice and sun-worship long before the church adopted it.

   
   

4. Evergreen symbolism and solstice customs pre-dated Christian “Christmas trees” and were part of pagan religious imagery.

   
   

5. The church’s own leaders admitted to Christianizing pagan temples and customs to make conversion easier.

   
   

6. New Testament “liberty” texts do not give us permission to adopt pagan holy days into Christian worship.

So:

• Are all Christmas-keeping Christians consciously worshiping demons? No.

  
  

• Is the system of Christmas—its date, its roots, and its liturgical role—a syncretistic tradition built on pagan foundations and contrary to God’s clear commands about worship? Yes.

  
  

You will stand before Christ one day. On that day, what will matter is not:

• “Did you keep the American religious calendar?”

  
  

• But: “Did you worship Me as I commanded, in spirit and in truth?”

  
  

If the Lord is pricking your conscience about Christmas, don’t harden your heart. Let go of what He has not commanded, especially where it is entangled with paganism and papal invention. He is worthy of worship that is pure, separate, and grounded only in His Word.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

(1) Africanus, Sextus Julius. Chronographiai. Fragments preserved in Syncellus.

(2) Bede. De Temporum Ratione (On the Reckoning of Time). Translated by Faith Wallis. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999.

(3) Clement of Alexandria. Stromata and Miscellanies. In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. Excerpts from Theodotus.

(4) Hippolytus of Rome. Commentary on Daniel. In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5.

(5) Macrobius. Saturnalia. Translated by Robert A. Kaster. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011.

(6) Ovid. Fasti. Translated by James G. Frazer. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931.

(7) Origen. Homilies on Leviticus. Translated by Gary W. Barkley. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1990.

(8) Pliny the Younger. Epistles. Translated by Betty Radice. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969.

(9) Varro, Marcus Terentius. Fragments in Augustine’s City of God.

(10) Gregory the Great. Letters. In The Fathers of the Church: Saint Gregory the Great: Pastoral Care and Selected Letters.

Early Liturgical and Ecclesiastical Sources:

(11) Didascalia Apostolorum. Translated by R. H. Connolly. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929.

(12) Johnson, Maxwell E. The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007.

(13) O’Loughlin, Thomas. The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.

(14) Journeys on the Edges: The Celtic Tradition. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000.

(15) Vööbus, Arthur. The Didascalia Apostolorum: A Syriac Commentary. Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society, 1979.

(16) Liber Pontificalis. Translated by Raymond Davis. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1989.

Secondary Scholarship — Christmas, Liturgy, Pagan Influence:

(17) Beckwith, Roger T. Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

(18) Bercot, David W. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.

(19) Bowersock, G. W. “From Sol Invictus to Christianity.” In Interpreting Late Antiquity, edited by G. W. Bowersock, P. (20) Brown, and O. Grabar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.

(21) Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. London: Penguin, 1993.

(22) Frazer, James George. The Golden Bough. Abridged Edition. New York: Macmillan, 1922.

(23) Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Edited by David Womersley. London: Penguin Classics, 1994.

(24) Hijmans, Steven E. “Sol: The Sun in the Art and Religions of Rome.” PhD diss., University of Groningen, 2009.

(25) Hutton, Ronald. The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

(26) Johnson, Maxwell E. Between Memory and Hope: Readings on the Liturgical Year. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000.

(27) Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. Rev. ed. London: A&C Black, 1978.

(28) Lietzmann, Hans. A History of the Early Church: Vol. 1 – The Beginnings of the Church. London: Lutterworth Press, 1961.

(29) McGowan, Andrew. Ancient Christian Worship: Early Church Practices in Social, Historical, and Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.

(30) Niles, John D. Old English Enigmatic Poems and the Play of the Texts. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006.

(31) Nothaft, Philipp. Dating the Passion: The Life of Jesus and the Emergence of Scientific Chronology (200–1600). (32) Leiden: Brill, 2011.

(33) Roll, Susan K. Toward the Origins of Christmas. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995.

(34) Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, Vols. 1–3. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010.

(35) Talley, Thomas J. The Origins of the Liturgical Year. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991.

(36) Tighe, William J. “Calculating Christmas.” Touchstone Magazine, December 2003.