Christmas

Looking at this on my new fangdangled phone. Couldn't resist posting here. I definitely don't celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday. The scriptures place much emphasis on remembering Christ's death...not so much ... in fact none ... on remembering His birth. That said, I love this time of year. To me it is a time when most folks take a look at the less fortunate...the aged and poor and such...and try to do something for them. Admittedly they should do this throughout the year but some seem to need a holiday for that. It is a time for families to get together...you know, besides funerals, and enjoy each others company. That's all I'm gonna type on this phone but to sum u
HTML:
p: To me Christmas has no religious implication but I do love this time of year.
 
seriously, what does this day, holiday, really mean? it is not the actual birth of christ. in fact, it is traced back to pagen rituals.

i would be interested in how christians (i believe in christ) believe that christmas has anything to do with christ....

i will grant this - it apparently has turned into - a time to think about christ

yet....does anyone really take the time, or is it about getting together with family and exchanging material goods?

Some Christians in the 300's got together and decided to celebrate the 25th as the birthday of Christ. Why they decided to celebrate it as an actual birthday when it clearly wasn't, I have no idea. The actual date was taken from pagan rituals. The Germanic Yule-tide and Roman Sol Invictus were both celebrated on December 25.
 
Since there were no reporters on hand to actually witness God's kid come into the world, the actual date of the birth of Jesus is unknown. In fact, ironically, many historians believe that home slice was born around 3 or 4 BC.

There's no real historical evidence of Jesus. And the new testament doesn't lend itself to naming a date very well because it's contradictory. It says that Herod was the governor of palestine during the time and that he administered the first census of the province (a census which, apparently, had a bizarre provision that you go back to the pace of birth of your ancestors - a provision that was apparently never recorded in any historical documents). Pilates died in 4 BC and the first Palestinian census happened around 6 AD.
 
Last edited:
I see no reason to dismiss this celebration because of a date issue though. It simply is the day they selected to share a Mass for Christ. Christ's Mass was shortened to become Christmas. Not a big deal really.

The gifts given are symbolic of the gifts brought to the child Christ by the Magi. Trees, etc. oddly enough are all Pagan, and are actually mentioned in the Bible. In the Old Testament they speak about the practice and ask not to do it because it celebrates the Pagan rituals. However, once taken and used to celebrate Christ it pretty much takes away from the whole Pagan thing anyway.

I'd actually agree. Since there's no exact date for Jesus's birth, you may as well celebrate him on any day, and if your a Christian it shouldn't really even matter to you whether or not it was simply lifted from pagans because pagan gods and rituals have no power.
 
seriously, what does this day, holiday, really mean? it is not the actual birth of christ. in fact, it is traced back to pagen rituals.

i would be interested in how christians (i believe in christ) believe that christmas has anything to do with christ....

i will grant this - it apparently has turned into - a time to think about christ

yet....does anyone really take the time, or is it about getting together with family and exchanging material goods?

Christmas has evolved as a day to remember the birth of Christ. Roman pagans first celebrated the holiday of Saturnalia. In the 4th century Christian monks wishing to convert pagans imported the Saturnalia as a festival to convert pagans to Christianity. In other parts of Europe Monks used symbolic relics of the solstice to "witness Christ". One such symbol- the evergreen tree was used to describe the eternal nature of Christ- The actual day of Christ's birth is not relevent. The 25th is no longer the day of the solstice either....so basically Christmas was born as an evangelical method to convert pagans to Christianity.

Gift giving emerged due to care provided poor families by Bishop Nicholas of Myra...sadly this has morphed into the boon of the secular west.

Basically for modern day Christian's Christmas is a tradition, a day of rememberance of the Savior's birth and not a "Holy Day" of the church-excluding perhaps the view of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church which I believe do see it as a holy day?
 
Last edited:
There's no real historical evidence of Jesus. And the new testament doesn't lend itself to naming a date very well because it's contradictory. It says that Herod was the governor of palestine during the time and that he administered the first census of the province (a census which, apparently, had a bizarre provision that you go back to the pace of birth of your ancestors - a provision that was apparently never recorded in any historical documents). Pilates died in 4 BC and the first Palestinian census happened around 6 AD.

You are wrong on all accounts- The more likely date of Jesus birth is September...still there is plenty of historical evidence for his existence.

. When was Jesus born?

A. Popular myth puts his birth on December 25th in the year 1 C.E.

B. The New Testament gives no date or year for Jesus’ birth. The earliest gospel – St. Mark’s, written about 65 CE – begins with the baptism of an adult Jesus. This suggests that the earliest Christians lacked interest in or knowledge of Jesus’ birthdate.

C. The year of Jesus birth was determined by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk, “abbot of a Roman monastery. His calculation went as follows:

a. In the Roman, pre-Christian era, years were counted from ab urbe condita (“the founding of the City” [Rome]). Thus 1 AUC signifies the year Rome was founded, 5 AUC signifies the 5th year of Rome’s reign, etc.

b. Dionysius received a tradition that the Roman emperor Augustus reigned 43 years, and was followed by the emperor Tiberius.

c. Luke 3:1,23 indicates that when Jesus turned 30 years old, it was the 15th year of Tiberius reign.

d. If Jesus was 30 years old in Tiberius’ reign, then he lived 15 years under Augustus (placing Jesus birth in Augustus’ 28th year of reign).

e. Augustus took power in 727 AUC. Therefore, Dionysius put Jesus birth in 754 AUC.

f. However, Luke 1:5 places Jesus’ birth in the days of Herod, and Herod died in 750 AUC – four years before the year in which Dionysius places Jesus birth.

D. Joseph A. Fitzmyer – Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America, member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and former president of the Catholic Biblical Association – writing in the Catholic Church’s official commentary on the New Testament[1], writes about the date of Jesus’ birth, “Though the year [of Jesus birth is not reckoned with certainty, the birth did not occur in AD 1. The Christian era, supposed to have its starting point in the year of Jesus birth, is based on a miscalculation introduced ca. 533 by Dionysius Exiguus.”

E. The DePascha Computus, an anonymous document believed to have been written in North Africa around 243 CE, placed Jesus birth on March 28. Clement, a bishop of Alexandria (d. ca. 215 CE), thought Jesus was born on November 18. Based on historical records, Fitzmyer guesses that Jesus birth occurred on September 11, 3 BCE.
 
There's no real historical evidence of Jesus. And the new testament doesn't lend itself to naming a date very well because it's contradictory. It says that Herod was the governor of palestine during the time and that he administered the first census of the province (a census which, apparently, had a bizarre provision that you go back to the pace of birth of your ancestors - a provision that was apparently never recorded in any historical documents). Pilates died in 4 BC and the first Palestinian census happened around 6 AD.

not. true.

next.
 
e. Augustus took power in 727 AUC. Therefore, Dionysius put Jesus birth in 754 AUC.

f. However, Luke 1:5 places Jesus’ birth in the days of Herod, and Herod died in 750 AUC – four years before the year in which Dionysius places Jesus birth.

Confirms what I said about Herod.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius"]Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Meister_der_Kahriye-Cami-Kirche_in_Istanbul_005.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Meister_der_Kahriye-Cami-Kirche_in_Istanbul_005.jpg/300px-Meister_der_Kahriye-Cami-Kirche_in_Istanbul_005.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/a/a6/Meister_der_Kahriye-Cami-Kirche_in_Istanbul_005.jpg/300px-Meister_der_Kahriye-Cami-Kirche_in_Istanbul_005.jpg[/ame]

First census of the provices took place in 6/7 AD.


Therefore, I was not wrong on at least two accounts.
 
Luke's statement that Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem 'because he was descended from the house and family of David' has often been called into question, since it appears to imply that people were required to return to their ancestral home; James Dunn wrote: "the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit".

Not wrong on at least three accounts. So at least 3/4 of what I said is confirmed true. 3/4 = 0, according the conservative math.
 
Please present me with any non-scriptural evidence of Jesus's existence. Thanks.

If not, I am confirmed on all accounts. All = none, according to conservative math. Maybe that finally explains why they believe all that they do - they just take the exact opposite position from the truth.
 
D. Joseph A. Fitzmyer – Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America, member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and former president of the Catholic Biblical Association – writing in the Catholic Church’s official commentary on the New Testament[1], writes about the date of Jesus’ birth, “Though the year [of Jesus birth is not reckoned with certainty, the birth did not occur in AD 1. The Christian era, supposed to have its starting point in the year of Jesus birth, is based on a miscalculation introduced ca. 533 by Dionysius Exiguus.”

E. The DePascha Computus, an anonymous document believed to have been written in North Africa around 243 CE, placed Jesus birth on March 28. Clement, a bishop of Alexandria (d. ca. 215 CE), thought Jesus was born on November 18. Based on historical records, Fitzmyer guesses that Jesus birth occurred on September 11, 3 BCE.

An anonymous document written in North Africa in 243 CE? That is your gold standard of evidence?
 
Why is it useless to argue with a conservative? Because conservative do not argue in good faith. They do not offer arguments because they believe in the arguments. The only reason they do anything is because they're evil. That's it. They offer their terrible arguments and hold to them at all costs as a facade, a distraction, not because they believe anything they say. Arguing with them is like being the bull in a bullfight, distracted by the pretty red flag while the matador walks to the side. Do not go for the red flag, impale that fucker and enjoy him justly dying at your hands.
 
Last edited:
Why is it useless to argue with a conservative? Because conservative do not argue in good faith. They do not offer arguments because they believe in the arguments. The only reason they do anything is because they're evil. That's it. They offer their terrible arguments and hold to them at all costs as a facade, a distraction, not because they believe anything they say.

Glad to see that you're admitting that you think you're a conservative. :good4u:
 
An anonymous document written in North Africa in 243 CE? That is your gold standard of evidence?

It is not my gold standard it is the work of a scholar...who I would guess spent more time and had access to actual material to study the matter. It is a debatable time reference to be sure. But your half-cocked statements are merely evidence of your arrogance and petulence over the matter.

As to the actual existence of the person Jesus of Nazareth?

One of such anti-Christian mentality was Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian, senator, consul and governor of the province of Asia. Concerning Jesus and His followers, Tacitus wrote, “Nero…punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of this temporary setback, the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where this mischief had started) but even in Rome” ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ"]Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Gaius_Cornelius_Tacitus.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Gaius_Cornelius_Tacitus.jpg/180px-Gaius_Cornelius_Tacitus.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/8e/Gaius_Cornelius_Tacitus.jpg/180px-Gaius_Cornelius_Tacitus.jpg[/ame]).
 
It is not my gold standard it is the work of a scholar...who I would guess spent more time and had access to actual material to study the matter. It is a debatable time reference to be sure. But your half-cocked statements are merely evidence of your arrogance and petulence over the matter.

As to the actual existence of the person Jesus of Nazareth?

One of such anti-Christian mentality was Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian, senator, consul and governor of the province of Asia. Concerning Jesus and His followers, Tacitus wrote, “Nero…punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of this temporary setback, the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where this mischief had started) but even in Rome” (Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

CE 116. 85 years after Jesus's death. Even the gospels are a more recent source than that. He got the account from the Christians themselves.
 
Anyway, if he existed, he wasn't that important and almost everything about him in the gospels was made up. His birth in Bethlehem and that entire census, for instance, is an obvious fabrication intended to establish his lineage from David.
 
I recall reading once that Bethlehem was the site of where the lambs sacrificed at the temple were raised......thus, the shepherds of Bethlehem would be the first to see the sacrificial lambs and were also the first to see the Sacrificial Lamb......

as for "making it up" I'm sure it was just a conspiracy on the part of the disciples to make sure a man would one day wear a pointy red hat in a suburb of Rome......
 
actually, christ cared about dates and empty rituals...so it does matter.

if you read the NT, christ is clearly upset over certain rituals and how they have distorted the truth and god.

faith cannot be proven by man's scientific method, but, i think it important to get as much truth as possible about the belief, else it is nothing but a false belief.
No, it really doesn't. Christ said that as the church does on Earth so it will be in Heaven..

It's a matter of taking the verses you want and ignoring any later verse that may seem to contradict what was said previously. It is WHY it was done that might upset Christ, having Christians taking up pagan rituals to fit in "bad", to have the church adopt some of the symbolism to convert pagans? Not so much... Basically, if what Christ said to James is right, they celebrate Christmas in Heaven on December 25th and we anally analyze centuries old decisions to try to find fault. It's a celebration. That's it.
 
Back
Top