It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sol Invictus....the real meaning of Christmas

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
According to the bible, Jesus was born around March. December 25th is the old holiday of pagans called Sol Invictus. "the invincible sun". On Dec. 25 the sun makes a comeback as the earth orbits closer and the days start getting longer on that day.

Ive always said Christianity is a re-packaged Sun Worship religion. If anyone knows about the artwork of saints and the halo's depicted around their heads, then they know they are called "sun rings".




posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Many Christian churches and pastors have recently begun calling for an end to celebrating many of the traditional Christian holidays. Easter, Christmas and Halloween are thinly veiled pagan practices.

As Christianity swept the world, the Roman church realized that many of the new Christian converts continued in their pagan practices. Rome realized just how deeply these practices were entrenched in their society. Rather than ban all pagan practices, the Roman church decided to placate the pagans by accepting their practices but renaming them to reflect Christian principles rather than pagan ones.

This compromise is in direct violation to God’s law. Many good Christians still celebrate these holidays claiming that God knows the intentions of their heart. Many more are beginning to turn away from these pagan practices. What I find so interesting is many of the people who point out the pagan practices in Christian holidays are some of the same people who condemn Christians when they refuse to engage in these practices.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
Many Christian churches and pastors have recently begun calling for an end to celebrating many of the traditional Christian holidays. Easter, Christmas and Halloween are thinly veiled pagan practices.

As Christianity swept the world, the Roman church realized that many of the new Christian converts continued in their pagan practices. Rome realized just how deeply these practices were entrenched in their society. Rather than ban all pagan practices, the Roman church decided to placate the pagans by accepting their practices but renaming them to reflect Christian principles rather than pagan ones.

This compromise is in direct violation to God’s law. Many good Christians still celebrate these holidays claiming that God knows the intentions of their heart. Many more are beginning to turn away from these pagan practices. What I find so interesting is many of the people who point out the pagan practices in Christian holidays are some of the same people who condemn Christians when they refuse to engage in these practices.


I seem to remember hearing this the other way around. The Roman Emperor was Pagan but could not ignore the quick rise of christianity, so to stay popular with the new majority christians and still not lose his faith, he stuffed pegan practices into christian religion. wish i can remember where i heard this, if it was hear say or if i read it from someone that researched, cant remember

A seventh day evangelist that i know calls sunday Popey day.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by tom goose]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
As Christianity swept the world, the Roman church realized that many of the new Christian converts continued in their pagan practices. Rome realized just how deeply these practices were entrenched in their society. Rather than ban all pagan practices, the Roman church decided to placate the pagans by accepting their practices but renaming them to reflect Christian principles rather than pagan ones.


I agree. Besides, I like an excuse to celebrate in December.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Yehoshua (Jesus) was born on Tishri 15--which is the first day of feast called Sukkot-- the last feast of the 3 required each year in the original Torah given to Moses. In regular words, it is the 'Feast of Tabernacles,' also called the 'Feast of the Ingathering.' It is 7 days long and on the 8th day there is another set-apart day, called 'Shemini Atzeret.' This corresponds to the 8th day requirement for baby boys to be circumcised.
It is not a solemn feast but rather one of festivities and it is known as the 'Assembly of the 8th day.'

Sukkot is October 7 this year--it changes every year since there are 360 days in the Hebraic year....

It's more like Thanksgiving than anything else, and totally different than what most christians celebrate as His birth.

Jewish Virtual Library



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
Yehoshua (Jesus) was born on Tishri 15--which is the first day of feast called Sukkot-- the last feast of the 3 required each year in the original Torah given to Moses. In regular words, it is the 'Feast of Tabernacles,' also called the 'Feast of the Ingathering.' It is 7 days long and on the 8th day there is another set-apart day, called 'Shemini Atzeret.' This corresponds to the 8th day requirement for baby boys to be circumcised.
It is not a solemn feast but rather one of festivities and it is known as the 'Assembly of the 8th day.'

Sukkot is October 7 this year--it changes every year since there are 360 days in the Hebraic year....

It's more like Thanksgiving than anything else, and totally different than what most christians celebrate as His birth.

Jewish Virtual Library


I guess I missed the part where it shows Jesus was born on this day. What paragraph is that in???????????????????????? Maybe you have another link???????



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
Yehoshua (Jesus) was born on Tishri 15--which is the first day of feast called Sukkot-- the last feast of the 3 required each year in the original Torah given to Moses. In regular words, it is the 'Feast of Tabernacles,' also called the 'Feast of the Ingathering.' It is 7 days long and on the 8th day there is another set-apart day, called 'Shemini Atzeret.' This corresponds to the 8th day requirement for baby boys to be circumcised.
It is not a solemn feast but rather one of festivities and it is known as the 'Assembly of the 8th day.'

Sukkot is October 7 this year--it changes every year since there are 360 days in the Hebraic year....

It's more like Thanksgiving than anything else, and totally different than what most christians celebrate as His birth.

Jewish
Virtual Library



i didnt find the word jesus anywhere in this article, i saw some hebrew text that said "our god, the creator" but who, or what is that exactly?



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I think queenannie38 provided those links to show what the jewish holiday itself is, not as 'proof' that jesus was born that day. I don't know where she is getting that jesus was born on the day of the "feast of tabernacles", but I wouldn't be suprised if there were some suggestions that that was the time in the bible. Consider that the context of the gosepls was originally jewish, and that an understanding of those jewish items within it would be lost as it spreads to rome, germany, the alps, britian, etc.


Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
According to the bible, Jesus was born around March.

Where does it say this?


December 25th is the old holiday of pagans called Sol Invictus. "the invincible sun".

And its also the time of the Saturnalia. And its the birthday of Mithras in Roman Mithraism. And its the time of lots of other holidays.


On Dec. 25 the sun makes a comeback as the earth orbits closer and the days start getting longer on that day.

The distance from the sun has nothing to do with it, and its not on that date that the days start getting longer, though I'll agree, in general, that is whats happening around that time.


Ive always said Christianity is a re-packaged Sun Worship religion.

Except, of course, for all the non Sun Worship elements. Christianity does indeed seem to have deep roots in judaism.


If anyone knows about the artwork of saints and the halo's depicted around their heads, then they know they are called "sun rings".

These aren't micro-depictions of the sun, they are luminescent rays of divinity shinning through. Yes, the sun also shines, but so does fire. The 'glory' of the sun is probably the ulitmate origin of the idea that divine beings are 'bright', infact, I think that the sanksrit word for 'god' is similar to, or even the same as, the word for 'bright', 'dyaus' or some such, which becomes "Deus" in europe and would mean 'bright being'. Even the angles are depicted as beings composed of bright fire, and God himself even in that most monotheistic of religions, Judaism, is associated with incredible brightness.
But I don't think that, because of that, you can say that a person with a halo is understood to be the sun-god. I mean, if you looked at the jewish religion, noted that god is bright, and then said, well its just sun worship, it'd generally be understood that you were wrong.


the Roman church decided to placate the pagans by accepting their practices

It was christianity in general, not the Roman Church, that did this. For a long time the bishop of rome's influence didn't extend to all of italy, let alone the roman world. Easter and Christmas and the like were already a part of christianity before the Great Schism itself.


This compromise is in direct violation to God’s law.

Practically any holiday or festival or religious observance has paganistic antecedents. Even the jewish Passover 'holiday' is a pagan-origins holiday. Even Lent has ancient, pre-christian origins. Even the Eucharist has pre-christian and pagan origins. Even the very idea of a worshipping a son of god who brings a person into the afterlife is originally pagan. You can't not mix 'christianity' with 'paganism' in your worship, or, in the terms you might be thinking of worship 'baal alongside christ'.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Thanks, Nygdan...

yes, it is straight from the bible and no where else. But it's not apparent, unless you're willing to dig for the sole reason of wanting to know the truth that's in there...

I don't see any endorsement of any religion in the bible...not judaism, christianity, or anything...

Judaism, as we know it today is not that much different as it was when the NT was written. The talmud is the Babylonian Talmud.

God didn't give Moses the talmud, He just gave Him rules for priesthood and purifications, etc...only until the time a new priest came...

And only 3 feasts a year....no purim, no chanukah, no bar mitzvah's....

The purpose of the temple is not for religion but a place for God to rest His Spirit amidst His people--and sacrifice for sins, which is why there is not one now. It was destroyed by the Romans because God wanted it so--after 40 years of testing they never realized why the day of atonement's results were that the sacrifices were not accepted...

Purim is on Adar 15 which is around mid March, usually- this year it was March 15. It celebrates Esther the Queen's so-called deliverance of the Jews, but in reality it was not God doing it through her, but the people trying to save themselves (not waiting on God) and they murdered a whole lot of people on their own volition. She and Mordecai decreed the feast, and the people celebrate by making little cookies (cakes to the queen of heaven, read Jeremiah) and they get drunk to commemorate her methods for revealing Haman's plot against Mordecai. But her name wasn't Esther before she was queen--it was Hadassah which is the same as myrtle...she married the King of Persia and took that name which is basically the same as Ishtar or Astarte (but the name itself means hidden)...

There is a hidden message in that book, and not the one which is popularly believed...

This is the jewish 'queen of heaven' just like 'mary the mother of god' is the christian equivalent. (BOTH catholics and protestants are christians, and catholic the mother and protestant the daughter--even if a girl runs away from home, her mother is always her mother--think about THAT protestants who condemn catholics) They are both delusions and deceptions until the time the last veil is removed....

And that is where Easter came from, the feast of purim (although the celebration borrows from ancient pagan spring fertility symbolism)...

To think Jesus was born in March is as much of an error as thinking he was born at the time of the winter solstice. (the darkest and shortest day of the year?? not logical!!)



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom goose
I seem to remember hearing this the other way around. The Roman Emperor was Pagan but could not ignore the quick rise of christianity, so to stay popular with the new majority christians and still not lose his faith, he stuffed pegan practices into christian religion. wish i can remember where i heard this, if it was hear say or if i read it from someone that researched, cant remember

A seventh day evangelist that i know calls sunday Popey day.



You must be refering to Emperor Constantine, the one responsible for Christianity implementation as the official religion in his time.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikePhil

Originally posted by tom goose
I seem to remember hearing this the other way around. The Roman Emperor was Pagan but could not ignore the quick rise of christianity, so to stay popular with the new majority christians and still not lose his faith, he stuffed pegan practices into christian religion. wish i can remember where i heard this, if it was hear say or if i read it from someone that researched, cant remember

A seventh day evangelist that i know calls sunday Popey day.



You must be refering to Emperor Constantine, the one responsible for Christianity implementation as the official religion in his time.


Correct. It was Constantine's cabinet who sat down for weeks to determine which books qualify for official publishing of holy bible.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
And they only allowed what had been already adjusted to their agenda--and some of it they didn't understand (and left it in) and some of it they reinforced with different meanings with their so-called creeds.


But still there is truth, that is golden, if one will truly trust God to reveal it instead of some human-approved 'father.' Otherwise, it seems the confusion they stirred up is still boiling to this very day...



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
And its also the time of the Saturnalia. And its the birthday of Mithras in Roman Mithraism. And its the time of lots of other holidays.


Mithraism was, of course, based on the Zoroastrian god Mithra. Some Interesting things about Mithra.


* Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.
* He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
* He had 12 companions or disciples.
* He performed miracles.
* He was buried in a tomb.
* After three days he rose again.
* His resurrection was celebrated every year.
* Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."
* He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
* He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
* His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
* Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
* His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."


Kinda makes ya think huh



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
It was Constantine's cabinet who sat down for weeks to determine which books qualify for official publishing of holy bible.

Constantine's 'cabinet' did no such thing. I think you are thinking of the Council of Nicea, but that was made up of religious leaders, not constantines council, and it didn't decide what books go into the bible. And, for the record, Constantine wasn't a pope.


rasobasi420
Mithraism was, of course, based on the Zoroastrian god Mithra.

Roman Mithraism is surprisingly different from the iranian worship of Mithras. As far as him having a church though, it looks like his worship was restricted to men's groups, it was more of a secret society than a religion in some ways. Also, while there are some big generalize similarities between Roman Mithras and Jesus Christ, lets also keep in mind that no one would confuse the two, and a Mithraist wouldn't find the ceremonies and rituals of the christian church to be very similar to his own, which were astrologically oriented. Even the 'eucharist' are rather different. Amoung the christians, its a peice of bread broken together and shared amoung one another as a part of the liturgy. With the Mithraists, it was a feast, a meal, that recapitualted a meal between Mithras and another God.


I'm not trying to say that there aren't elements from other religions that were brought into christianity, nor that there are widely similiar elements between religions, but we should also take care to note that these similarities aren't quite right in detail in some instances.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   
You're right Nygdan, the worship of Christianity and the Worship of Mithra are fairly different. The thing is the similarities. If there are even a few instances of major similarities, like the virgin birth, or the celebration of his birthday at the end of December, then we have to at least accept that the big C wasn't necessarily all he was cracked up to be.

In addition to that, the concept of angels and demons came directly from Zoroastrianism. Not to mention the distinct possability that a mistranslation of the letter Al (representing Mithra) into El (representing Yahweh) was what spawned the development of judaism as an entirely new religion seperate of Zoroastrianism.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
the concept of angels and demons came directly from Zoroastrianism.

I am skeptical of such a claim, even of the claim that all dualistic religions are stems with a zoroastrian (or even just persian) root. There is talk of fallen angels inside of Genesis, (I beleive, we can take genesis as a conglomeration of two or more hebrew traditions/religions/whathaveyou), so it looks like it could have multiple local sources. Indeed, why would the idea of goodly spirits and bad spirits need to stem from zoroaster?


Not to mention the distinct possability that a mistranslation of the letter Al (representing Mithra) into El (representing Yahweh) was what spawned the development of judaism as an entirely new religion seperate of Zoroastrianism.

Intruiging, I haven't heard that before, do you have a webpage or some such that elaborates on the idea? Fascinating. Wasn't El already a god amoung the cananites though? And, ironically, as a trinity with Elyoun and some female goddess similar to Ishtar?

[edit on 21-6-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Heres a site
www.theosociety.org...
www.theosociety.org...


From the first to the last chapters, the translators of the Jewish Sacred Books misconstrued this meaning. They have even changed the spelling of the name of God, as Sir W. Drummond proves. Thus El, if written correctly, would read Al, for it stands in the original -- Al, and, according to Higgins, this word means the god Mithra, the Sun, the preserver and savior. Sir W. Drummond shows that Beth-El means the House of the Sun in its literal translation, and not of God. "El, in the composition of these Canaanite names, does not signify Deus, but Sol."*** Thus Theology has disfigured ancient Theosophy, and Science ancient Philosophy.****


Now I can't say for sure if this has been disproven, but I find it very interesting.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Making an exact copy of Mithra and adapting it to Christianism would be too obvious dont ya think ? Things may be a bit different even tho, they are actually pretty similar. It doesnt change anything Christ related, what would change is church holy truths.. or should i say "not so truths" ?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Constantine's 'cabinet' did no such thing. I think you are thinking of the Council of Nicea, but that was made up of religious leaders, not constantines council, and it didn't decide what books go into the bible. And, for the record, Constantine wasn't a pope.


Who decided then ?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikePhil
Making an exact copy of Mithra and adapting it to Christianism would be too obvious dont ya think ?


It's being obvious would only mean something to those who are knowledgable in the field of Zoroastrianism. How many common people knew the details of Zoroastrianism between CE 100 and CE 2006?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join