Response:

The idea that the
Bible doesn't teach us to celebrate Christ's birth requires us to ignore the birth passages.

M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopedia says: "The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of N[ew] T[estament] origin.  The day of Christ's cannot be ascertained from the N[ew] T[estament], or, indeed, from any other source."
(Reasoning from the Scripture, p. 177)

The logic of this argument is something along the lines of, if God doesn't directly command us to do something, we shouldn't do it.  The problem with this line of reasoning is that the Bible teaches us many things by way of example.  Parables are an excellent example of this.  The parable of the hidden treasure tells us about a man who found a treasure hidden in a field, who "in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field." (Mat. 13:44)  Although the parable doesn't directly command a person to value the kingdom of heaven to the point of selling all one has, no one would deny that this is the parable's point.  

We believe that "all scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16) It teaches us both by direct command and by example.  In fact, most Old Testament laws are paradigmatic, that is, they are examples of how to judge without having to create a written law for each and every possible legal situation.  This is how the nation of Israel managed to judge itself on only 613 laws! 

Likewise, when the Scripture tells us about the shepherds who traveled to the birth scene of Jesus, and that they "returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen," (Luke 2:20) was this merely historical narrative or was there a point to telling us about the response of those who saw the newborn savior?  A common response is that the shepherds were common men and were not godly examples who's behavior we should emulate.  But it could just as easily be pointed out how the angels reacted

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly hosts appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace to men to whom His favor rests."
(Luke 2:13-14)

What about the example of Simeon who was "righteous and devout" (Luke 2:25)? Simeon's response is recorded by Luke

Guided by the Spirit, Simeon came into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him what was customary under the law, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God...
(Luke 2:27-28)

So also Anna the prophetess 2:36-38 celebrates Christ's birth.  It is unconvincing at best to say that the Bible doesn't teach us to celebrate Christ's birth.  It is commonly understand and accepted by both Witnesses and Christians that one ought to emulate the behaviors of righteous men and women.

Pagan Origins
The most common explanation for not celebrating Christmas is that it coincides with pagan holidays such as "the dies natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the invincible sun)." (Reasoning from the Scripture, p. 177) 

We could also add that some Witnesses object to Christmas on the common belief that Christians did not celebrate his birth until after the Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 A.D.  The argument goes something like, “The Church didn’t celebrate until after it had become corrupted by the Roman government.” It is not true that Christians didn't celebrate Christ's birth prior to 313. Almost immediately after the first century, Christians began calculating and celebrating the Lord’s birth. Clement of Alexandria (?-215 A.D.) stated that “…there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon.” (Stromati, I, 21)  This would place the birth of Christ around May 20^th if it were correct.  We are also told that alternative speculations put the Lord’s birth on April 19^th—Clement additionally comments that “others say that He was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi.” (Stromati, I, 21) 

Dates mentioned by Clement had no correlation to popular “pagan holidays”.  In other words, Christians were not influenced by pagan holidays to seek out a reason to celebrate Christ’s birth. Christians appeared motivated simply by the historical fact that Christ was born and that the New Testament writings displayed great jubilation in the stories of the angels, shepherds and magi. From this perspective, Christians could not have been motivated by pagan holidays.

When did Christians begin to celebrate Christ’s birth? The earliest record we have of Christian’s celebrating Christ’s birth is Telesphorus between 125 and 136 A.D., who calls it “The Nativity of our Lord and Saviour.” Although some sources state that this is the first time Christians celebrated his birth, ^[1] it is poor logic to say that this was the first time only because this is the first record we find. As with most historical documents, the events they record always predate the time of their being recorded. 

By the fourth century, aspects of Christmas likely influenced by pagan festivities included the month December and, possibly, gift giving through the influence of Saturnalia.  Prior to this time, Christians were already honoring the Nativity story through Church assembly, teaching and festivities.  The choice of the 25^th day for December can not be pinned down as influenced by the winter solstice events on the 21^st, though there are some arguments to that affect.  The 25th day was likely chosen because prior to the fourth century, almost all speculations of the Nativity placed his birth on the 25^th of each suggested month (cf. Celment, Stromati, I, 21, etc.).  With this in mind, it is impossible to say whether the 25^th was chosen because Christians had historically believed that it was on a 25^th day Christ was born (which they did) or pagan festivities such as dies natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the invincible sun) typically on the 21^st.  The simplest explanation is the most likely one—the 25^th is more easily explained as influenced by the historical precedence of the 25^th-day speculations.  Prior to the fourth century, the month of December had not been the precedent for speculations of the birth.  December probably was influenced by contemporary pagan festivities more than by historical precedence. 

Why December?  The possibilities are generally limited to: (1) The Church was infiltrated by pagan culture, (2) the Church was overcoming pagan culture or (3) that the reason cannot be known.  Two major factors make the second possibility the most likely.  First, by the end of the fourth century, almost all pagan celebrations were completely ended throughout the Roman Empire.  Paganism was outlawed and all known temples destroyed by the end of the fourth century.  Secondly, Church fathers of the time seem to suggest that the motivation of Nativity celebrations was to replace honoring the “birthday of the invincible sun” to the birthday of the Son of God.  Saint Augustine in the later fourth century seems to give this reasoning in his “Sermon On the Nativity” (Sermon 202).  Just as the sun began to grow brighter each day and the night diminish during the 25^th, so also, Augustine teaches

God sent John to earth as His human Precursor so that he was born when the days were becoming shorter while the Lord Himself was born when the days were growing longer, that in this minute detail the subsequent words of this same John might be prefigured: 'He must increase, but I must decrease.' For human life ought to grow weaker in itself and stronger in Christ, that 'they who are alive may live no longer for themselves, but for him who died for all and rose again,' and that each one of us may say in the words of the Apostle: 'It is now no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me.' For 'he must increase, but I must decrease.'

The parallelism here is hardly paganistic, rather analogistic.  First, it was factual that the sun was growing brighter each day.  This is not pagan teaching, but scientific fact.  Second, Augustine was comparing scientific fact with biblical teaching.  It was true that John the Baptist said, “He must become greater; I must become less.” (John 3:30)  Neither teaching is pagan.  What we observe is the perfect analogy between two facts—one biblical and the other scientific.  It would be foolish to view this as only “one possible teaching” within the Christian Church at that time as Augustine was the most influential Church father in all history.  By the sheer clout of Augustine, it was, in fact, the teaching of the Church for centuries.  Augustine was also a Church leader in the period when Christ-Mass was established on December 25^th which makes his insights all the more pertinent. 

If one is still bothered by the fact that the 25^th was “originally during” the pagan celebrations of the Mithra cult, it may be heartening to hear that in 1752 the calendar shifted from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian.  This shift moved the historical Christmas to January 7^th instead of December 25^th.  Recognizing this, the Greek Orthodox Church still celebrates Christ’s birth on January 7^th instead of the more universal December 25^th.  The 25^th day we celebrate today is no longer close the historical pagan day of celebration.

Giving Satan too much Credit
Should we really think that images and days have real evil power?  Or should we believe that God alone has power and that an image is nothing?  To worry about which day one celebrates Christmas gives Satan too much credit.  What can we infer from Paul who, when he writes to the Corinthians about their fear of food offered to idols, says

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.  For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live...
(1 Cor. 8:4-6) 

When it says, "from whom all things came" does that not include shapes and trees and days and seasons.  If the pagans use these things to their own honor do they really have the power to take what is God's and make it their own?  Or are we wishing to give them power to control what is God's? Our position is that we will not give pagans the power to take what is God's and pervert it.  We also will not let God's trees and shapes and seasons and days be made something evil.  So also Paul concludes about about those who eat food offered to an idol, "we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do." (vs. 8)

If it is a valid principle to avoid associations with things pagans use we must be willing to go all the way.  Consider this: Rainbows are now commonly used as new age and homosexual symbols.  Does that mean we should avoid all rainbows for fear of their association?   Fire and candles are very symbolic to Satanists and pagans.  But we all use them in our churches and homes.  Is that wrong?  Of course not.  We do not need to be afraid of symbols themselves.

The very name theos, from the Greek, what we call God, is originally from a pagan culture.  It comes from Greeks and Greek mythology.  The Greeks called their Gods "theoi" (which is many Gods) and "theos" (God) well before Christians used the name to describe our God.

It is incorrect to say "we can't associate with [Christmas] because it has 'pagen origins' and symbols, but we can associate with [all the things I listed above and other things which pagans have used]".  All material things are neutral because at one point all things were neutral.  And all times are neutral.  If pagans started using the Bible in religious ceremonies (and some do), does that make the Bible unholy?  Are we to avoid it?  Objects don't become wicked, people do.  And wickedness doesn't come from the object.  Jesus was very clear that it is what a man has in his heart that will make him clean or unclean (Matt. 12:35; 15:18-19). 

Other Common Objections we have Heard

Jeremiah 8:19

…Why have they provoked me to anger with their images, with their worthless foreign idols?

The Witness' objection here is that a Christmas tree is an "image" and therefore an idol.  The verse here is talking about the idols that were created for the purpose of worshiping gods. Another Hebrew word for "idol" or "graven image" is "tselem" (Jeremiah uses "Paciyl").  It is the representation of a god, a deity.  When God created man in his own "image", he created us in his own "tselem".  When God commands us not to make any "graven images" or "idols", He is saying not to make "tselem" or "Paciyl" .  "Tselem" or "Paciyl" in this context is always used to represent a god or gods.  The ancient belief with idols was that if a person performed a service to the idol it was the same as performing it to the god himself.  We don't believe that if we posses Christmas objects that we are performing service to any gods they represent so there's no idolatry occurring.

Mark 7:6-9

He [Jesus] replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in  order to observe your own traditions!"

The objection is that Christmas as we know it today is a "human tradition." This verse doesn't apply to Christmas because the problem wasn't "rules taught by men" but that the Jews "have let go of the commands of God" and replacing it with "the traditions of men."  We must be very precise at this point, it is the act of turning away from the commandments of God to anything that is the sin.  Having money is not a sin, but if our act is to "let go of the commands of God" and turn to money we are sinning.  This verse doesn't prove that rules taught by men are wrong, but the act of letting go of the commands of God.  Is it wrong to teach the rules of driving, or the rules of backgammon? No. Why not?  These are definitely "rules taught by men."  The sin was letting go of the commands of God. 

Mathew 15:7-9

You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.'

Again, you must focus on the main point of this verse.  The sin was "teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."  During Christmas we do not teach "as doctrines" that Christ had a Christmas tree and that Mary, Joseph and Jesus sat around the Balsam Fir and said, "Ok now it's little Jesus' turn to open his present.  Oh look, it's a box of frankincense!" Instead we teach correctly that Jesus was born to be the Savior of man, the lamb of God, God with us, and that angels appeared to shepherds in the fields and that, like we today, those who witnessed his arrival celebrated.  It is not the doctrine of man but of God that people celebrated Christ's birth. It's written in black and white throughout the opening of the Gospel of Luke.  Just in case someone may say, "Yes, but you Christians teach that Christ was born December 25th," I know of few people who haven't been correctly taught that we don't really know the day of his birth.  There is also a difference between "teaching doctrines" and choosing a day to celebrate an event.  In other words, a verse about "teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" does not apply to a discussion of "Can people make December 25th a holy day for Christ's birthday?"

An Actual Question we were Asked 

Would you choose to have an upside-down pentagram in your house?

The point of the question was basically that if the Christmas tree has pagan origins, why not allow "upside-down pentagram in your house?" The question is almost unfair.  If I answer, "no," the Witness is going to assume that my reasoning is on the basis of morality.  The truth is that if it could be used to glorify God, I would use it.  But my ultimate answer comes from a separate principle which states, "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak." (1 Cor. 8:10).  When it comes to conscience, there are two kinds of believers: One of a strong conscience and the other of a weak conscience.  The man of stronger conscience must sometimes restrain his freedoms out of love for the weaker believer who has not yet fully come to understand the freedoms he has in Christ.  The man of a strong conscience understands the freedoms in Christ. The man of the weak conscience does not. Some in Corinth understood their freedom. Paul likewise understood their freedoms when he wrote

'Everything is permissible'--but not everything is beneficial.
(1 Cor. 10:23)

And again

The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.
(1 Cor. 10:26)

The passage is set within the context of people who ate foods in the open market of Corinth.  Wherever one went to buy meat, a portion of that meat inevitably was offered to an idol.  Should a person avoid eating this meat because of its association with pagan idols?  No. Paul says that the believer should eat anything offered in the market without raising questions of conscience (v. 25).  His reason is simply this, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." (v. 26) 

But beyond having our freedoms, Paul gives us this higher calling, "Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others." (1 Cor. 10:24)  He goes on to explain how if anyone invites you to a meal, "eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience." (v. 27)  However, Paul warns

But if anyone says to you, 'This is meat sacrificed to idols,' do not eat for the sake of the one who informed and for conscience' sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other...
(v. 28-29)

This is not for our own conscience but for the other person's conscience.  Paul even asks, "for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience?" (v. 29)  Paul does not command us to abandon our freedoms but rather, as he says

Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the of the many, so that they may be saved.
(vs. 32-33)

We may practice our freedoms, but not in front of those to whom it would be an offense.  In my earlier response I quoted chapter 8.  One verse I didn't quote was where Paul reminded the Corinthians

Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.
(1 Cor. 8:10)

So what is the principle? Practice your freedoms, but be careful not to let your freedoms cause others to stumble.  In other words, if a weaker believer ever wanted to visit my home, I would gladly remove my Christmas tree and pentagram clock so as not to offend them.

If you wish to give Satan so much power that he can control what is made by God and wish that God is so powerless that he cannot make something once defiled pure and holy, you will live a life without freedom. 

I close with this very well written quote I found on the Internet

Devout Christians sometimes confuse ancient forms with modern substance. "Once pagan, always pagan" is the way we once reasoned. While we admitted the transforming power of Christ for people, we denied it for customs and traditions. Yet many of the practices God approved for ancient Israel had previously existed in paganism. Temples, priests, harvest festivals, music in worship, circumcision and tithing all had ancient pagan counterparts. God transformed these customs into a form of worship devoted to him. Even the sun, universally worshipped as a god by pagan cultures, God used to symbolize an aspect of the Christ (Malachi 4:2).^[2]

Footnotes
1. http://www.didyouknow.cd/xmas/xmashistory.htm
2. http://www.wcg.org/lit/church/holidays/xmassin.htm