It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by Maxmars
it's time to admit to the "church what has transpired in the name of the 'religion.' And what exactly is it doing now.
Originally posted by Jordan River
Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
The idea that Christ was born on Dec 25 also has no basis in historical fact. "We don't even know which season he was born in. The whole idea of celebrating his birth during the darkest part of the year is probably linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice."
Oh, ok... and when I bring this up at church I get evil looks? pss... pagans!
December 25 is known as the "nativity" of the sun. This date is the birthday of Tammuz, the son, the reincarnation of the sun god. Traditionally, December 21 is known as Yule. The Roman Catholic Church moved the celebration of Yule to December 25. December 25 is also known to the Romans as "Saturnalia", a time of deliberate debauchery. Drinking through repeated toasting - known as 'wassail' - was a key to the debauchery of this celebration. Fornication was symbolized by the mistletoe, and the entire event was finished with a Great Feast, the Christmas Dinner. Even the name, "Christmas" is pagan! "Christi" meant "Christ", while "Mas" meant Mass. Since all pagan Masses are commemorating "death", the name, "Christmas" literally means the "death of Christ". A deeper meaning lies in the mention of "Christ" without specifying Jesus. Thus, Antichrist is in view here; the pagans celebrate "Christmas" as a celebration of their coming Antichrist, who will deal a death blow to the Jesus Christ of Christianity.
Early American Christian Pilgrims refused to celebrate this day.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by subjectzero
This is the first time I've read that Jesus' date of birth was in dispute. I've never heard that any attempt has been made to correct the error.
It is believed that Jesus was born between 7BC and 2BC.
If I understand the article properly, that's what the Pope is saying. He is saying that Jesus wasn't born in 1 A.D., but a few years earlier. He's just stating the accepted view. It may be that this is newsworthy because the Pope said it, but I don't see anything dramatic here.