Welcome to Christmas time! Time for celebrating the Mass of Christ. Touted as His birthday celebration, it is generally agreed that it is not an actual anniversary of His birthday (see footnote), but that that is not important. Reasonable, considering that even the year of His birth is not known with any certainty. So is there a problem here?
There is absolutely no scriptural authority for the celebration. There is no scriptural precedent. Indeed, considering what else was recorded, and its importance, it could be regarded as perverse for people to place something so unimportant as a birthday in such a prominent position in their calendar. It is an amazing distraction from the fundamental message of the New Testament. Jesus came, yes; but he came to die. The scriptures give us a vast amount of information about when that happened. That is the event that is pointed to in numerous ways, and that should be the real focal point in the real church's calendar.
As I understand it, there is a three-fold prominence to Easter time: the exodus from Egypt, the ark grounding after the flood, the crucifixion. All three events marked a release from a tyranny. All happened at the same point in the year and the festival was pinned to natural seasonal occurrences, avoiding arbitrary calendar alterations. The use of the term Easter and its attendant festival is, however, as badly twisted as Christmas.
I have no objections to a holiday (vacation? "holiday" is derived from "holy day"...) in the winter. Just separate it from Christ who is being ridiculously proclaimed the reason for this overblown season of mammon worship.
For my expanded consideration of Christmas as a fake see Christmas revisited