Where did the holiday Christmas come from?

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

The Bible does not give the date of Jesus’ birth, nor does it say that we should celebrate his birthday. As McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia states: “The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of New Testament origin.” The Bible itself doesn't tell us on what day or even in what month Jesus was born, but it does tell us something about the time of year. Luke wrote that when Jesus was born in Bethlehem, “shepherds were living out of doors,” caring for their flocks. (Luke 2:8-11) In the month of December, Bethlehem is cold, rainy, and snowy, so shepherds would not have been staying outside with their flocks at night.

Shortly before Jesus was born, Caesar Augustus issued a decree ordering “all the inhabited earth to be registered.” Everyone had to register in “his own city,” which might have required a journey of a week or more. (Luke 2:1-3) That order—probably made to support taxation and military conscription—would have been unpopular at any time of year, but it is unlikely that Augustus would have provoked his subjects further by forcing many of them to make long trips during the cold winter.

What do we learn from this? That Jesus was born when the weather was mild, not in December. We can estimate when Jesus was born by counting backward from his death on Passover, Nisan 14 in the spring of the year 33 C.E. (John 19:14-16) Both the Bible and historical evidence indicate that he was born sometime during the months we now know as September and October.

 

[ScottA]

Actually, that is not true. Quite the opposite, in fact, according to what history actually recorded, and you can look up these old records, they no longer belong exclusively to the narrow world of the academics.
In 361, a new Emperor came to power, Julian, called "the Apostate" because of his hatred of Christianity. By this time, so many Romans had converted to Christ and abandoned their paganism, that the old pagan temples had fallen to wrack and ruin, and the old pagan worship had effectively ceased. So Julian spent a fortune rebuilding the temples and hiring new priests in an effort to revive the old pagan worship. But his efforts proved fruitless as the Christianized Romans refused to return to the pagan gods of their fathers.

So Julian went a step further. In a letter he wrote to his "high priest" Arsacius, (Letter #22), he opened the letter by saying that no one would have even ventured to pray that the worship of the old gods would be restored on such a splendid and magnificent scale in so short a time. And yet, his efforts were not as successful as he had hoped because the people were not returning to their old former pagan worship. Now, a very important part of his letter, Julian wrote that it was "the benevolence of the Christians and the holiness of their lives" that had won over so many converts to Christ, and he goes on to lay out what the virtues of the Christians were that had been so effective in winning the hearts of the Roman people: their benevolence to strangers (even pagans), their care for the graves of the dead, and the holiness of their lives (not trafficking in theaters or drinking in taverns, not engaged in any craft or trade that was not respectable, providing "hostels" (from which comes the word hotels) for strangers in every city, and feeding the poor, even pagans, and contributing to the public good as first fruits offered up to their God. And Julian ordered his high priest to immediately instruct the pagan priests to begin to practice these virtues, and even further, that the priests were to lie, and teach the people that "this was our practice of old." And Julian told the high priest that he was to "shame or persuade them into righteousness, or else remove them from their priestly office."
Now this is a letter that was written by the Emperor of Rome, it is an historical record, and it absolutely refutes the popular theories circulating everywhere on the internet right now. And a whole generation of Christians, many of whom came out of terrible persecution and still bore in their backs the proof of their faithfulness to the Gospel, and who were living such exemplary lives of Christian faith that they had won the Roman Empire to Christ, are being falsely accused of compromising the Gospel and selling out Christ in order to appease Romans who wanted to hold on to their old pagan ways! That is absolutely not true, and shame on us Christians, most of whom have never suffered so much as a pin prick for Christ, and whose only knowledge of the things we expound is based on some articles on the internet, to so malign those early Christians, and what a fearful thing it will be to answer to God for it.

Let us study to show ourselves approved, a workman that does not need to be ashamed,
Pilgrimer

Well that's all very interesting and informative...but I DID NOT say "Quite the opposite" of what you said--in fact, I spoke about one aspect of the history of the former pagan holidays, and you spoke about a completely different aspect altogether.

 

[Behold]

Decorating trees have been around since the Tower of Babel. It influenced Israel to make the tree an Idol. Jeremiah spoke out against Israel's idol worship.

There is another way to see "Christmas Lights" on a Tree.

Jesus is the LIGHT of the World who was crucified on a Tree.

So, if you put Christmas Lights on a TREE, you are acknowledging The Cross of Christ, and not just the birth of Christ.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Let us study to show ourselves approved, a workman that does not need to be ashamed,

Too late I fear, as the truth of the matter was sacrificed to pagan customs adopted so long ago by an apostate church, that no one even questioned them.....they were not permitted to question anything the church taught.....until these relatively later times when everything is questioned. Thank God!

Sadly, those who masqueraded as teachers in the early Christian church (particularly from the second century onward) have much to be ashamed of.....because they either failed to do their homework, or they deliberately introduced foreign ideas because they liked them. (Israel’s religious leaders did exactly the same thing, introducing foreign concepts into their worship, trying to fuse the two.....and for which God punished them.)

Those who introduced pagan elements into the true worship described by Jesus and his apostles in God’s word for Christians, completely “paganized” the Christianity......it never “Christianized” the paganism. Jesus foretold that this would happen. (Matt 13:24-30, 36-42)

Every festival celebrated in Israel was carefully detailed by the God who commanded them to be held for the reasons HE outlined. No one was permitted to introduce any national celebration that was not sanctioned by Jehovah. This became part of Israel’s laws after the incident at Mt Sinai when the liberated people decided to hold a festival to Yahweh in the absence of their liberator. (Moses was still in the mountain receiving instructions for the way ahead) God told him to go down and deal with that situation.

The people coerced Aaron to make them a golden calf; a “left-over” from the pagan worship observed in Egypt......what was God’s response to incorporating pagan elements into their worship of a God who commanded no images whatsoever to be used in their worship? (Exodus 20:4-5)
He put the offenders to death!

Your whole response here is nothing more than an excuse to keep on doing what God commanded NOT to be done, so that people like yourself can excuse themselves to each other.
The real question is not what humans think about these things.....what does Jehovah think of them?

This is the God who put a man to death for collecting sticks on the Sabbath....who also executed a man for trying to save the Arc of the Covenant which David illegally transported on a wagon.
He takes a very dim view of those who think that he tolerates those who want to tell God what is acceptable to Him when He tells us in no uncertain terms that he means what he says.

 

[Pilgrimer]

Well that's all very interesting and informative...but I DID NOT say "Quite the opposite" of what you said--in fact, I spoke about one aspect of the history of the former pagan holidays, and you spoke about a completely different aspect altogether.

"As the story goes, just as is also the case with Easter, the early church fathers being faced with many wanting to continue celebrating their old pagan holidays after beginning to believe in and follow Christ--because Christ had overcome the world, they took [pagan holidays] over and declared them to be celebrations of Christ's birth and resurrection."

I was speaking of the mistaken notion that 4th century Christians "took over" pagan holidays and "declared them to be celebrations of Christ's birth and resurrection." While that is certainly the popular theory circulating on the internet, it's not true. And in fact is, as I said, quite the opposite of what was recorded by the 4th century Roman Emperor Julian, who was certainly more informed about the state of relations between Christianity and paganism than all these websites and blogs and articles and posts making their anti-Christmas and anti-Easter claims about what Christians did 17 centuries ago. It was in fact pagan Romans who tried to win back converts by "taking over" Christian practices.

I realize you were only playing devil's advocate here, and were simply stating how "the story goes," you weren't saying you agree with it, so my comments were not intended to be in any way personal or aimed at you, but rather at those who in fact state such theories as if they are unassailable historical facts, and in a broader sense our whole Christian community for being so easily swayed by anti-Christian disinformation.

Again, my apologies for not being more clear that my comments were not aimed at you. You clearly said that was "the story."

Peace,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

Too late I fear, as the truth of the matter was sacrificed to pagan customs adopted so long ago by an apostate church ...

Everything that follows those words are predicated on those words being an unassailable fact of history. So if that is true, it should be a simple matter of citing second century writings, Christian or otherwise, that cite instances of churches becoming apostate and adopting all this paganism.

I have in my library and have studied various copies of all the Christian writings from these early centuries, in the original and translated editions, as well as the secular historical records from that period, so I am very familiar with what was happening in Christendom and the development of both doctrine and practice. Aside from Christians avoiding death during the sporadic persecutions, there were robust discussions and debates, but the controversy that defined 2nd Century Christianity was the "Quartodeciman Controversy," that arose in A.D. 155 between Anicetus and Polycarp. This dispute came to a head in A.D. 190 and there were synods and councils held throughout the Christian world (which was still relatively small at the time, much smaller than Roman and Greek philosophies or even Rabbinic Judaism which was prevalent at this time) to try to solve the controversy.

There is no record of any church anywhere, certainly not of Christianity on a wide scale, sacrificing the Gospel to pagan customs or of any churches that were being condemned as apostate. Indeed, Christian doctrine at the time was laying out the case for Christianity in sharp contrast to the Greco-Roman world in which the Christian faith was gaining ground, and laying out as well doctrine in contrast to the Rabbinic Jewish world which had given it birth. Surely someone, somewhere, at some point in time would have at the very least commented on such a thing if it was happening, especially on such a scale as to negatively affect the Gospel. So while there are books and letters written by Christians during this period that inform us of the state of Christian doctrine and practice at the time, where is the evidence that supports the idea that Christians had become apostate and the Gospel was being paganized?

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

"As the story goes, just as is also the case with Easter, the early church fathers being faced with many wanting to continue celebrating their old pagan holidays after beginning to believe in and follow Christ--because Christ had overcome the world, they took [pagan holidays] over and declared them to be celebrations of Christ's birth and resurrection."

I was speaking of the mistaken notion that 4th century Christians "took over" pagan holidays and "declared them to be celebrations of Christ's birth and resurrection." While that is certainly the popular theory circulating on the internet, it's not true. And in fact is, as I said, quite the opposite of what was recorded by the 4th century Roman Emperor Julian, who was certainly more informed about the state of relations between Christianity and paganism than all these websites and blogs and articles and posts making their anti-Christmas and anti-Easter claims about what Christians did 17 centuries ago. It was in fact pagan Romans who tried to win back converts by "taking over" Christian practices.

I realize you were only playing devil's advocate here, and were simply stating how "the story goes," you weren't saying you agree with it, so my comments were not intended to be in any way personal or aimed at you, but rather at those who in fact state such theories as if they are unassailable historical facts, and in a broader sense our whole Christian community for being so easily swayed by anti-Christian disinformation.

Again, my apologies for not being more clear that my comments were not aimed at you. You clearly said that was "the story."

Peace,
Pilgrimer

The problem with people is they care more about what imperfect human beings do and say and not on what God has done and said. The truth is when God inspired men to write down his thoughts as to what was important of how to live a life by the truth that pleases God, nowhere in the scriptures does it give a specific date as to when Jesus was born. The best we can do is make a educated guess from the scriptures as to the approximate month he was born which was around September-October. Based on the scriptures Jesus was put to death on Nisan 14 which is around March-April, so you count backward 6 months and you come to around September-October which is approximately when Jesus was born. We know that Jesus was put to death on Nisan 14 which is around March-April and we know his ministry was 3 1/2 years long which he began when he was 30 years old. So anyone trying to say that the apostles believed Jesus was born on December 25 isn't true. The apostles knew that Jesus was put to death on Nisan 14 and they knew that Jesus ministry was 3 1/2 years long which he started when he was 30 years old. The apostles can count backward just as we can so they knew Jesus wasn't born on December 25

 

[ScottA]

"As the story goes, just as is also the case with Easter, the early church fathers being faced with many wanting to continue celebrating their old pagan holidays after beginning to believe in and follow Christ--because Christ had overcome the world, they took [pagan holidays] over and declared them to be celebrations of Christ's birth and resurrection."

I was speaking of the mistaken notion that 4th century Christians "took over" pagan holidays and "declared them to be celebrations of Christ's birth and resurrection." While that is certainly the popular theory circulating on the internet, it's not true. And in fact is, as I said, quite the opposite of what was recorded by the 4th century Roman Emperor Julian, who was certainly more informed about the state of relations between Christianity and paganism than all these websites and blogs and articles and posts making their anti-Christmas and anti-Easter claims about what Christians did 17 centuries ago. It was in fact pagan Romans who tried to win back converts by "taking over" Christian practices.

I realize you were only playing devil's advocate here, and were simply stating how "the story goes," you weren't saying you agree with it, so my comments were not intended to be in any way personal or aimed at you, but rather at those who in fact state such theories as if they are unassailable historical facts, and in a broader sense our whole Christian community for being so easily swayed by anti-Christian disinformation.

Again, my apologies for not being more clear that my comments were not aimed at you. You clearly said that was "the story."

Peace,
Pilgrimer

You have your own axe to grind. However, even now it is evident that many have and do celebrate what were once pagan holidays to celebrate Christ. If you deny this--you deny reality.

So, if you want to clarify just when and how this current and historic practice originated, fine. But don't presume to replace what is even now evident and true, with your own explanation along different lines. If you mean to point out something different that is not now evident--do that. But claiming what now is evident and true is not true, serves no purpose but to discredit your own claims.

As for my agreeing or disagreeing with how the story goes, or even how it came to be, the point is that at some point Christians have taken over former pagan holidays to celebrate Christ--and why not, for Christ has overcome the world?

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

The point is that at some point Christians have take over former pagan holidays to celebrate Christ--and why not, for Christ has overcome the world?

The scriptures tell us not to take what belongs to demons and apply it to the true God as though the True God and demons have something in common, they don't, they never have, and the true God doesn't change.

 

[ScottA]

The scriptures tell us not to take what belongs to demons and apply it to the true God as though the True God and demons have something in common, they don't, they never have, and the true God doesn't change.

The key word there is "what" (belongs to demons).

That is not the "what" that I was referring to. I was referring to the "what" of Christ and the world which He has overcome.

Isaiah 42:16​

I will bring the blind by a way they did not know; I will lead them in paths they have not known. I will make darkness light before them, And crooked places straight. These things I will do for them, And not forsake them.​

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

The key word there is "what" (belongs to demons).

That is not the "what" that I was referring to. I was referring to the "what" of Christ and the world which He has overcome.

Isaiah 42:16​

I will bring the blind by a way they did not know; I will lead them in paths they have not known. I will make darkness light before them, And crooked places straight. These things I will do for them, And not forsake them.​

The holidays such as Christmas and Easter have things that belong to false gods(demons) concerning these holidays. So people can think applying what belongs to demons, such as wizardry, magic, fertility gods and then honoring these days as though such things as wizardry, magic, or fertility gods are connected to Jesus Christ, I'm not going to agree with it. Jesus Christ would not apply what belongs to demons with the truth he was encouraging people to live by. So since it's obvious what belongs to demons, such as, wizardry, magic, fertility gods are connected to these days and people say we should honor these days, I'm not going to observe them. There's nothing in the scriptures that tells us to observe these days. The memorial of Jesus Christ(last supper) we are to observe, and observe it the way Jesus told his apostles to observe it.

 

[ScottA]

The holidays such as Christmas and Easter have things that belong to false gods(demons) concerning these holidays. So people can think applying what belongs to demons, such as wizardry, magic, fertility gods and then honoring these days as though such things as wizardry, magic, or fertility gods are connected to Jesus Christ, I'm not going to agree with it. Jesus Christ would not apply what belongs to demons with the truth he was encouraging people to live by. So since it's obvious what belongs to demons, such as, wizardry, magic, fertility gods are connected to these days and people say we should honor these days, I'm not going to observe them. There's nothing in the scriptures that tells us to observe these days. The memorial of Jesus Christ(last supper) we are to observe, and observe it the way Jesus told his apostles to observe it.

If you do not want to observe pagan holidays, don't observe them. I don't either, but observe Christ.

Even so, those who are in Christ need not fear what has been made harmless and is harmless. For it is written, "The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den."

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

If you do not want to observe pagan holidays, don't observe them. I don't either, but observe Christ.

Even so, those who are in Christ need not fear what has been made harmless and is harmless. For it is written, "The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den."

I don't believe God changes. He viewed false gods as belonging to demons and wanted none of his people to have anything to do with demons. God still doesn't want anyone who belongs to him to have anything that's connected to demons. So you can believe God has changed, I do not

 

[ScottA]

I don't believe God changes. He viewed false gods as belonging to demons and wanted none of his people to have anything to do with demons. God still doesn't want anyone who belongs to him to have anything that's connected to demons. So you can believe God has changed, I do not

I said nothing of God changing. He does not.

It is people who change. Such is repentance. Light overcomes darkness, and the darkness is no more.

 

[David in NJ]

I think it was the other way round …..If you look into the early church there is no reference to celebrating the Lords birth, in fact no one knows the exact date of his birth. I believe that it started to be a tradition In the 3rd - 9th centuries. Originally Dec 25th was a pagan celebration of the winter solstice …….different traditions were added over the years.
There are so many different opinions on everything to do with Christmas, if you do a Google search you will find many different dates and reasons with regards to how different things started.
I have always found it strange that the Magi are placed in the nativity and the gift giving is often associated with his birth and Christmas. Yet I am pretty sure the magi did not arrive when he was a baby, but afterwards. ( but that is equally debated )
Rita

Correct, the Magi arrived well after His birth = maybe a year or two later.

The angels appeared to the shepherds in the fields at night announcing His Coming thru a virgin = this was not December or winter time.

Roman catholicism is pagan worship that put on 'sheep's wool' to make Her look and appear 'White/Clean/christian'.

Mary and Joseph were married in the sight of God and had children together after Jesus birth.

Read, Study, Belive the words of God.

 

[David in NJ]

It was Matthew and Luke who wrote about the circumstances around the birth of Jesus. Since the birth of Jesus Christ was cemented into the Canon of the bible. Of course, Christians wanted to celebrate the birth of their Savior. But didn't have a date; apparently Luke didn't ask that question of Mary. The Catholic Church obliged, and so the celebration began. Then the presents, and decorations came later.

"The Catholic Church obliged" = and this is where the deception originates........

 

[Pilgrimer]

The problem with people is they care more about what imperfect human beings do and say and not on what God has done and said. The truth is when God inspired men to write down his thoughts as to what was important of how to live a life by the truth that pleases God, nowhere in the scriptures does it give a specific date as to when Jesus was born. The best we can do is make a educated guess from the scriptures as to the approximate month he was born which was around September-October. Based on the scriptures Jesus was put to death on Nisan 14 which is around March-April, so you count backward 6 months and you come to around September-October which is approximately when Jesus was born. We know that Jesus was put to death on Nisan 14 which is around March-April and we know his ministry was 3 1/2 years long which he began when he was 30 years old. So anyone trying to say that the apostles believed Jesus was born on December 25 isn't true. The apostles knew that Jesus was put to death on Nisan 14 and they knew that Jesus ministry was 3 1/2 years long which he started when he was 30 years old. The apostles can count backward just as we can so they knew Jesus wasn't born on December 25

I don’t believe that’s true of all Christians, that they care more about what men say than what God’s Word says. I believe most of us genuinely do put God’s Word first. I certainly do. But does that mean we should not study history and archaeology and every other area of research to learn as much as possible about the background of the Bible, and especially the life of Christ? After all, the Scriptures were written about events that took place in actual historical times and places among real people, so history has much to share with us to help us better understand the life of Jesus and the times in which he lived.

I agree that the Gospels do not give us the date of Jesus’ birth. But the Gospels don’t give us dates for any of the events of Jesus’ life and ministry. It is only by the very rare reference to who was ruling at the time or the occasional reference to something that corresponds to a calendar date that we can construct a reasonable chronology of the life of Christ.

You said, “The best we can do is make a educated guess from the scriptures ..” And I agree, and that is the whole purpose of studying history as well as all the other branches of inquiry that can actually provide the “education” we need to make a reasonably correct guess. The real problem is that in this www.testament world we live in of blogs and videos and social media doctrine, there is a proliferation of people who are claiming that 2000 years of Christian scholarship has gotten it all wrong, and they have it all figured out, that they know what really happened 2000 years ago but those living at or very close to that time got it wrong.

For example, it can not be correct that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14. The actual evidence, and there is a lot of evidence to weigh, from both the Scripture as well as historical records such as the Talmudic tractate “Pesach” which describes to the hour exactly how Passover was observed by the Jews during New Testament times, give us a very reliable idea of how Passover was actually observed and therefore the course of events during Easter week. The Passover lambs were sacrificed on the afternoon of Nisan 14, from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. and were eaten that evening which, by Jewish reckoning, the evening of Nisan 14 was the beginning of Nisan 15 and the first feast at which unleavened bread was eaten along with the lamb. By Roman reckoning, the Passover and the 1st day of Unleavened Bread fell on the same day (a Thursday of our Lord’s Passion) because their calendar, like ours, ran from midnight to midnight. Jesus’ disciples prepared the Passover that day (Thursday) and the evening of that same day (Thursday) they ate this Passover lamb with unleavened bread (the beginning of Nisan 15 on the Jewish calendar and the first day of eating unleavened bread), and later that night Jesus was arrested, and the next morning at 9:00 a.m. (still Nisan 15) he was crucified and died at 3:00 p.m. and was hurriedly buried before the onset of the Sabbath at sunset and the beginning of Nisan 16. That is a very brief outline, but there is a wealth of data that underlies it.

Now we can debate whether or not the Jews were correctly observing the Passover, some argue they got it wrong, but what is not debatable is how and when 1st century Jews understood and observed the Passover because they wrote down very detailed hour by hour instructions. And since the Gospels record that Jesus and the disciples observed the Passover with the rest of the people, again, his observance, and therefore his arrest and crucifixion, would have been according to the manner and timing that 1st century Jews observed the Passover/Unleavened Bread.

So there is a lot of history that comes into play in our “educated guess,” and when we only have a few pieces and not all the evidence, it can lead to a wrong conclusion. I tend to think most Christians are simply unaware of all this rich history we have available to us and are basing their objections to Christmas and Easter on unverified opinions and assumptions, and people are jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts. Christian scholarship has done a poor job of educating people, but as they say, "a lie can travel half way round the world before the truth can get its pants on." No disgrace to truth, it takes its time and in the end proves right.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

You have your own axe to grind. However, even now it is evident that many have and do celebrate what were once pagan holidays to celebrate Christ. If you deny this--you deny reality.

So, if you want to clarify just when and how this current and historic practice originated, fine. But don't presume to replace what is even now evident and true, with your own explanation along different lines. If you mean to point out something different that is not now evident--do that. But claiming what now is evident and true is not true, serves no purpose but to discredit your own claims.

As for my agreeing or disagreeing with how the story goes, or even how it came to be, the point is that at some point Christians have taken over former pagan holidays to celebrate Christ--and why not, for Christ has overcome the world?

I am a Christian apologist, so yes, I absolutely do defend Christianity and its scholarship and practice, especially in respect to how Christians have honored and celebrated the most important historical events in the world, the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus. The difference between my view and that of the anti-Christmas and anti-Easter crowd is that there is actual historical documents that support Christianity, and refute the false claims being made about Christians adopting pagan holidays.

You said, "if you want to clarify just when and how this current and historic practice originated, fine."

Please see post #52 under this thread.

 

[ScottA]

I am a Christian apologist, so yes, I absolutely do defend Christianity and its scholarship and practice, especially in respect to how Christians have honored and celebrated the most important historical events in the world, the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus. The difference between my view and that of the anti-Christmas and anti-Easter crowd is that there is actual historical documents that support Christianity, and refute the false claims being made about Christians adopting pagan holidays.

You said, "if you want to clarify just when and how this current and historic practice originated, fine."

Please see post #52 under this thread.

The problem is you have denied what is even now apparent by present and historic practices celebrating Christ on Christmas and Easter. The fact is, many Christians have and do celebrate these former pagan holidays--not to celebrate paganism, but to celebrate Christ.

Luke 9:50​

But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.”​

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

I said nothing of God changing. He does not.

It is people who change. Such is repentance. Light overcomes darkness, and the darkness is no more.

God does not change . Christmas and Easter have false religion connected to them. You don't take what has to do with false religion and combine it with God or his truth that's in the scriptures. People think it's ok to accept Christmas and Easter even though fertility gods, wizardry, magic(demons) are connected to these days. They do that why, because they think it's ok now because God has changed? God didn't accept taking what belongs to demons and combine it with him in the past so be cause god doesn't change he doesn't accept it today, you can think God has changed by saying, "light overcomes darkness" and think it ok to take what belongs to demons and associate with them, but it's not. In the new testament God still says he doesn't want his people associating with false gods(demons).

1 Corinthians 10:6,7 "Now these things became examples for us, in order for us not to desire injurious things, as they desired them. Neither become idolaters, as some of them did; just as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink. Then they got up to have a good time.”

Acts 15: 28,29 "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

Christians have nothing to do with anything or any day that has demons connected to it. People can think God has changed in this but he hasn't.