Christmas

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?

It is when I celebrate the birth of Christ. The actual date doesn't matter much to me, other than as a historical curiousity.

I also celebrate my family, reflect on the year that is ending and look to the year ahead. I think celebrating several things on a single holiday is quite easy. Especially when they are all so interrelated.
 
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.

He got his account from the record keeping that Roman's were meticulous to keep. 85 years hardly makes for ancient history. 85 years ago from our time was 1925...are you suggesting our written legal records from that time are untrustworthy?
 
Just cuz

Author and lecturer Leo Buscaglia once
Talked about a contest he was asked to judge.
The purpose of the
Contest was to find the most caring child.

The winner was:

A four-year-old child, whose next door
Neighbor was an elderly gentleman, who had recently lost his
Wife. Upon seeing the man cry, the little boy went into the old
Gentleman's' yard, climbed onto his lap, and just sat there.
When his mother asked him what he had
Said to the neighbor, the little boy just said, 'Nothing, I just
Helped him cry.'

*********************************************

Teacher Debbie Moon's first graders were
Discussing a picture of a family. One little boy in the picture
Had a different hair color than the other members. One of her
Students suggested that he was adopted.
A little girl said, 'I know all about
Adoption, I was adopted..'

'What does it mean to be adopted?', asked
Another child.

'It means', said the girl, 'that you grew
In your mommy's heart instead of her tummy!'

************************ *********************

On my way home one day, I stopped to
Watch a Little League base ball game that was being played in a
Park near my home. As I sat down behind the bench on the first-
Base line, I asked one of the boys what the score was
'We're behind 14 to nothing,' he answered
With a smile.

'Really,' I said. 'I have to say you
Don't look very discouraged.'

'Discouraged?', the boy asked with a
Puzzled look on his face...

'Why should we be discouraged? We haven't
Been up to bat yet.'

*********************** **********************

Whenever I'm disappointed with my spot
In life, I stop and think about little Jamie Scott.

Jamie was trying out for a part in the
School play. His mother told me that he'd set his heart on being
In it, though she feared he would not be chosen..

On the day the parts were awarded, I went
With her to collect him after school. Jamie rushed up to her,
Eyes shining with pride and excitement.. 'Guess what, Mom,' he
Shouted, and then said those words that will remain a lesson to
me....'I've been chosen to clap and cheer.'

*********************************************

An eye witness account from New York
City , on a cold day in December,
Some years ago: A little boy,
About 10-years-old, was standing before a shoe store on the
Roadway, barefooted, peering through the window, and shivering
With cold.

A lady approached the young boy and said,
'My, but you're in such deep thought staring in that window!'

'I was asking God to give me a pair of
Shoes,’ was the boy's reply.

The lady took him by the hand, went into
The store, and asked the clerk to get half a dozen pairs of socks
For the boy. She then asked if he could give her a basin of water
And a towel. He quickly brought them to her.

She took the little fellow to the back
Part of the store and, removing her gloves, knelt down, washed
His little feet, and dried them with the towel.

By this time, the clerk had returned with
The socks.. Placing a pair upon the boy's feet, she purchased him
a pair of shoes..

She tied up the remaining pairs of socks
And gave them to him.. She patted him on the head and said, 'No
Doubt, you will be more comfortable now.'

As she turned to go, the astonished kid
Caught her by the hand, and looking up into her face, with tears
In his eyes, asked her.
'Are you God's wife?'
 
He got his account from the record keeping that Roman's were meticulous to keep. 85 years hardly makes for ancient history. 85 years ago from our time was 1925...are you suggesting our written legal records from that time are untrustworthy?

You wouldn't be suggesting that records from 1925 were equivalent to those salvaged from roman antiquity were you?

I've had a drink so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. :)
 
You wouldn't be suggesting that records from 1925 were equivalent to those salvaged from roman antiquity were you?

I've had a drink so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. :)
It wasn't quite "antiquity" when the dude was writing about stuff that happened about 40 years before.
 
It wasn't quite "antiquity" when the dude was writing about stuff that happened about 40 years before.

I'd guess that, in dealing with any sort of historical record, time may be a factor in cross referencing said data with other material, no?

Although maybe i'm all at sea on this matter.

If you'd like to suggest an equivalence between historical record of 1925 and roman antiquity then you go ahead.

Merry Christmas though. ;) In your face sobriety. (i too am surprised how well my body is functioning at present).
 
Last edited:
dates schmates. I have just got back from our local rooftop bar (chilly tonight, wore a blazer). That's Christmas. Good friends, carols and Christmas songs of childhood vying with the gentle sighing of the swell reminding the sleek white hulls in the marina of peace and good will. After ten the music got wound up a bit, mistletoe was in abundance and tales were told of christmases long ago - in England, in Germany, in Scotland and Australia. When fathers and uncles knelt on the lounge carpet fixing the train set while the rest of the family snoozed before the queen and we kids looked forward to the traditional trifle and the possibility of being heartily sick. Ahh, memories.
And tomorrow we must be prepared to climb Mount Turkey and all the trimmings before an alcohol induced forty (or even fifty) winks.

That sounds wonderful. Throw another log on the fire, raise a glass to all your key pals here, and we'll do the same. Merry Christmas, and all that stuff! :loveu:
 
If the Christians don't mind I will use this day to celebrate the virgin birth of the Good Shepard, Horus.

virgin birth?......that may come as a surprise to his mother's husband Osiris and his older siblings....

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus"]Horus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Horus_standing.svg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Horus_standing.svg/220px-Horus_standing.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/c/c2/Horus_standing.svg/220px-Horus_standing.svg.png[/ame]
 
I'd guess that, in dealing with any sort of historical record, time may be a factor in cross referencing said data with other material, no?

Although maybe i'm all at sea on this matter.

If you'd like to suggest an equivalence between historical record of 1925 and roman antiquity then you go ahead.

Merry Christmas though. ;) In your face sobriety. (i too am surprised how well my body is functioning at present).

How about this: It was not antiquity when he recorded the information. It had only been 85 years prior. He was discussing and dealing with 1st century Christians. Roman courts kept meticulous records...but if you know more on the subject by all means enlighten me.
 
How about this: It was not antiquity when he recorded the information. It had only been 85 years prior. He was discussing and dealing with 1st century Christians. Roman courts kept meticulous records...but if you know more on the subject by all means enlighten me.

And Tacitus can be cross referenced by how many sources?

All i would ask you to consider is we actually have records from 1925 whereas records from Rome tend to be, how shall we say, a bit on the patchy side, no?
 
And Tacitus can be cross referenced by how many sources?

All i would ask you to consider is we actually have records from 1925 whereas records from Rome tend to be, how shall we say, a bit on the patchy side, no?

No...At the time record keeping in Rome was very important-that is why persons were instructed in and hired to the position of "historian". There were other historians' that recorded the times, but you intimate that somehow because of the era there could not have been good record keeping...on what basis do you assert this?
 
No...At the time record keeping in Rome was very important-that is why persons were instructed in and hired to the position of "historian". There were other historians' that recorded the times, but you intimate that somehow because of the era there could not have been good record keeping...on what basis do you assert this?

Of course record keeping was important. Ask yourself, though, why that should be so.
Look at modern history. Read accounts of the second world war written by the US and compare with the UK. Look at German histories or even more relevant to the debate, those of Japan. Whenever you pick up any history book or document ask yourself, 'Why was this written? For whom was it written? Is there any way of determining that it was an unbiased, objective record? We can point to archeological finds but seldom can any individual be identified. The Romans liked bathing ... or - the building we have uncovered had a bath so perhaps some Romans liked bathing ... in England .... er.... mmm.
Some documents are certainly credible but they are mostly accounts of transactions, ownership or trade.
The 'history' of Jesus depends and must depend upon faith. You may choose scrolls and scratches on stone and clay but there can never be sufficient evidence to prove them true. In the end if that faith helps you to make sense of things then embrace it, if fairies do it for you, then embrace that.
If you wrote of the world yesterday and I did the same do you think they would be the same?
 
Of course record keeping was important. Ask yourself, though, why that should be so.
Look at modern history. Read accounts of the second world war written by the US and compare with the UK. Look at German histories or even more relevant to the debate, those of Japan. Whenever you pick up any history book or document ask yourself, 'Why was this written? For whom was it written? Is there any way of determining that it was an unbiased, objective record? We can point to archeological finds but seldom can any individual be identified. The Romans liked bathing ... or - the building we have uncovered had a bath so perhaps some Romans liked bathing ... in England .... er.... mmm.
Some documents are certainly credible but they are mostly accounts of transactions, ownership or trade.
The 'history' of Jesus depends and must depend upon faith. You may choose scrolls and scratches on stone and clay but there can never be sufficient evidence to prove them true. In the end if that faith helps you to make sense of things then embrace it, if fairies do it for you, then embrace that.
If you wrote of the world yesterday and I did the same do you think they would be the same?

The history of Jesus as recorded by Tacitus the Roman historian, a non Christian, recounts his trial and execution and the influence those acts had on the new sect known as "Christians". Even Josephus, the Jewish historian of just a few years prior to Tacitius, recorded the events of his execution...

My challenge by WM was to provide a non biblical source for the existence of the person Jesus; I did that. This had nothing to do with faith or belief in Christianity.

The ancient Romans, much like the ancient Jews and Greeks, kept meticulous written records and any history buff knows this.
 
The history of Jesus as recorded by Tacitus the Roman historian, a non Christian, recounts his trial and execution and the influence those acts had on the new sect known as "Christians". Even Josephus, the Jewish historian of just a few years prior to Tacitius, recorded the events of his execution...

My challenge by WM was to provide a non biblical source for the existence of the person Jesus; I did that. This had nothing to do with faith or belief in Christianity.

The ancient Romans, much like the ancient Jews and Greeks, kept meticulous written records and any history buff knows this.

You have not supplied proof, you have supplied evidence. Evidence of the writings of a single 'historian'. I cannot say that what he said was a true and objective record or that it was a record tinged with the promotion of his own agenda. No one can possibly know that.
Tacitus records of England can be, to some extent, substantiated by archeology but I doubt (I do not know for certain) that the same weight of evidence exists for anyone to accept that Tacitus proves the existence of any single and named person save for his emporers. It is not even certain that he was a Roman!!
My main point and one which I do not believe can be refuted, is that history serves several purposes and the recording of objective, verifiable truth seldom appears at the top of the list. My goodness look at your own history of WWII !!!! Tacitus would have been no different.
And so we must all come back to our own faith or interpretation. If you choose to believe one thing and I choose to believe something else then that is the way it is and that is the way it must be. There are no winners and no losers.
 
You have not supplied proof, you have supplied evidence. Evidence of the writings of a single 'historian'. I cannot say that what he said was a true and objective record or that it was a record tinged with the promotion of his own agenda. No one can possibly know that.
Tacitus records of England can be, to some extent, substantiated by archeology but I doubt (I do not know for certain) that the same weight of evidence exists for anyone to accept that Tacitus proves the existence of any single and named person save for his emporers. It is not even certain that he was a Roman!!
My main point and one which I do not believe can be refuted, is that history serves several purposes and the recording of objective, verifiable truth seldom appears at the top of the list. My goodness look at your own history of WWII !!!! Tacitus would have been no different.
And so we must all come back to our own faith or interpretation. If you choose to believe one thing and I choose to believe something else then that is the way it is and that is the way it must be. There are no winners and no losers.

she didn't say it was proof dumbass....you guys asked for a non christian source....she gave it and you're still whining
 
Back
Top