Christmas Questions

So I wanted to find some fun games for my youth to work with this Christmas and I recalled one that I first played with my old Pastor PJ.  It is basically an asking of questions concerning the origins/legitimacy of the Christmas story.  I remember the first time I took and did terribly:  there were no Wisemen at the nativity scene (they came days or years later), there is no mention of a donkey, a stable, or any other farm animals (just a manger), and mistletoe apparently first meant "dung on a stick" (okay that has nothing to do with the nativity story, but it's true nonetheless).  But there were two major questions that popped into my head after having read all of this information.  

The first had to do with the origins of Christmas.  Nearly every aspect of the Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus has pagan roots, even the day we celebrate it on!  December 25th was chosen to please the Romans in the 4th century, because it fell between two of their major holidays:  Saturnalia and Winter Solstice.  Both of these holidays were known for their revelry and drunkenness.  But before this, Christians would typically celebrate the birth on one of three days spread through out the year.  What this means is that early Christians had no idea of the actual day that Christ was born!  They obviously didn't even know the year until something like the 16th or 17th Century (seeing as they got our dating system wrong trying to base it around the year he was born, though it was more likely 3 or 4 BC....).  But even things like Christmas trees, yule logs, Santa Claus, etc. come from pagan backgrounds.  So if we as Christians know their origins, does that mean we should shun their use in our remembrance of the birth?

I would answer with a resounding "NO."  Christians have taken things that were commonly used by the world and made them their own for thousands of years--ever since the church was established.  For instance (this is material from Rob Bell's "You" NOOMA video--I highly recommend it), the original translation of the "Gospels" was "euangelions."  This word was first used by the Roman Caesar Augustus to declare the good news of his birth as the savior of the people, to bring peace and prosperity to all of them.  He would then set up an advent season to celebrate this momentous occasion.  Sound familiar?  How about this:  the Romans used the word "ekklesias" to describe a city that worshiped Caesar alone as Lord.  Christians took this same word and used as what we know today as "church."  There has always been a parallel between the ideas of the world and how Christians want to view them.  They take something of evil nature and purify it to use for God.  Such has been the case with Christmas, Easter (another pagan holiday season), Rock music (and more recently Rap music), and many other traditions we now share today.  

But more importantly:  isn't this what God does for us?  Doesn't He take us from our evil roots, purify us, and use us for His glory?  When Christians take pagan practices and traditions and make them holy in the eyes of God they are literally emulating God in the world around them--they are trying to resemble the forgiving, correcting will of God.  They are reconciling a broken world to God in every way that they know how.

The second question is a little bit more complicated for some, but I figure I'll put it out there:  would you still believe every portion of the nativity story if some of it looks to be wrong?  This is a major challenge to the inerrantist and the Catholic alike because my question concerns the validity of the virgin birth.  Matthew would have been reading Old Testament scriptures (Isaiah 7:14 specifically) from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT.  This is very important, because we already see a translation from the original language, Hebrew, into Greek, even as the Bible is being written.  As any linguistic scholar will tell you, there is no perfect translation, and many consider this to be such a case.

The word in the Septuagint is 'parthenos' which, in English, means virgin.  However, scholars believe the original translating scholar (who is unknown) used the wrong word.  The word in the Hebrew language for virgin is 'bethulah,' however, the original word used by Isaiah was 'almah' which simply means young woman.  So because of a misinterpretation of scripture, the idea of a virgin conception may be entirely wrong.

I'm not asking you to believe this, and in fact, I would love comments as to why it is wrong.  But for now let's just assume that it is right.  Aside from disturbing your inerrant perspective of the Bible, does it absolutely upset belief in Christianity?  I would argue absolutely not.  If anything, it makes Jesus more of a Savior for the people--He was born of an illegitimate birth, making Him that much easier to relate to for some.  People may now argue that of course you can't believe that, because then he would be guilty of original sin.  But if you can believe that God can make a virgin conceive a baby, can't you also believe that God has the ability to make a natural born child void of any sin?  

Again on this last point:  I have not arrived to any final conclusion (though I'm much closer), as there are years of fundamentalist teaching to fight through.  But let me make it clear that there is no wrong in searching and questioning, and being challenged.  That's what theology is.  And there is also no wrong in celebrating Christmas even after obtaining a knowledge of its origins.  If we couldn't enjoy something with a humble and sinful past, there'd be no chance of enjoying this forgiven life in Christ.