Interesting new info concerning Christmas and the birth of Christ

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: TWA0918
a reply to: DeathSlayer

I actually have already done my research into the subject. Having been raised in a heavily Christian family I was very skeptical of the argument that Jesus is just another in a long list of solar representations. His reference is to a Christian website that provided no real source from anything beyond speculative Christian teachers and philosophers. In fact the final paragraph in the article he used is:

In the end we are left with a question: How did December 25 become Christmas? We cannot be entirely sure. Elements of the festival that developed from the fourth century until modern times may well derive from pagan traditions. Yet the actual date might really derive more from Judaism—from Jesus’ death at Passover, and from the rabbinic notion that great things might be expected, again and again, at the same time of the year—than from paganism. Then again, in this notion of cycles and the return of God’s redemption, we may perhaps also be touching upon something that the pagan Romans who celebrated Sol Invictus, and many other peoples since, would have understood and claimed for their own, too.

So...please give me a source that is based on real historical evidence.

Of course no one can be sure Jesus was born on December 25th - I thought the article gave a new spin on Christmas that most of us have not considered. The thread is not about debating the existence of Jesus. I already believe he exists.

A Christian argument isn't about Jesus actually having lived? Uh..if he never lived, CHristianity is based on zip. There goes your Christian argument.

a reply to: Tangerine

originally posted by: Tangerine
A Christian argument isn't about Jesus actually having lived? Uh..if he never lived, CHristianity is based on zip. There goes your Christian argument.

Not exactly. Even if Jesus never lived at all, Christianity could still exist.

There were some Christians who believed that Jesus wasn't physical, but that he came from the highest heavens to the lower heavens was crucified by the devil and his demons and then rose back up to the highest heaven to show his defeat of the devil. The Ascension of Isaiah says that the moon is a part of the lower heavens which the devil controls when he got kicked out of the higher heavens.

a reply to: TWA0918

These all pre-date christ I Must add.

Also Ping Cha Wah and Foo Galoo (AKA Haysoos). It was in the book by Sally Shorthand (AKA Wind Puppy) circa 1973.

How about Bethlehem star being a UFO? What other celestial object would follow the exact way of the magi?
And if not, if that all is just a story, then we have very little historic evidence of the birth of Jesus Christ. I don't say he didn't come. But may be not in the way we were told of. How is it that Mother Mary allegedly reported to Luke many years later, of events that took place before the birth of Jesus, including the discourse with Elizabeth where Mary is short of glorified completely in contrast with the Old Testament. At the same time Mary didn't say to Luke to write it down all events of the life of Jesus Christ concerning his childhood and adulthood up until year 30. It is strange. If Mary reported all to Luke, why didn't Luke write it down? Why didn't the later copy writers of what we know as "canonical Gospels" leave those episodes of the early life of the Son of God? How is it they preserved the "Magnificat" hymn of Mary (remarkable work indeed) but they did not preserve events of Jesus' life? Who is intended to be glorified. As I read of Egypt flee in Matthew, I wonder how it was possible to pass the desert with a donkey...for months, years? Or perhaps the same UFO came to help transporting them? Or perhaps Jesus wasn't on planet Earth in all that time right after his birth up until his baptism in Jordan. Otherwise, someone somewhere would have recorded something fo the Son of God. (I set aside the infantile records of apocrypha about "child Jesus" who predicted the deaths to his playmates).

How can we believe the canonical gospels, if there are coming up more and more gospels in our days of free information, speaking of completely different things of the life of Jesus, such as his own marriage and wife. They were banned at their time, persecuted as cruel as possible. That speaks of their credibility. You can't have Roman persecution on selected Christians and then Christian official church persecution on selected "heretics" without asking questions why all of that happens. Which story is true. Perhaps not the story of the official Rome, later official church, otherwise they would not kill people and burn books.

Are they all fake? What guarantees the fake books are not exactly those ones canonized in Nicaea by the pagan emperor Constantine and his followers called church "fathers"? They were not persecuted and killed. The others were, who kept the truth of Jesus Christ. It cannot be hiding small piece of truth, if there is hiding of truth it is BIG. Rome and its own gods (ETs) made the theater full, with written later gospels, and appointed people "church fathers" who proclaimed that kind of truth.

Because if Jesus had only one son, it would be another son of God, yes? I believe that son existed, as well as his descendants. I expect Jesus Christ will send first His Son, before the final Second Coming. He will be called the antichrist because that is what is planted in the Christian conscience for 2,000 years.

The entire story of the antichrist is composed by Rome some 2 centuries after the events. It is not found in the old testament the way it is found in (later) "John" and in "Paul". (Jesus never talked of ONE BIG antichrist in the recorded canonical books). Therefore the big controversy between "John's" apocalypse and the prophets of the Old Testament, particularly Ezekiel. You can't really have Gog and Magog war BEFORE the coming of the messiah (Ezekiel), and AFTER the Second Coming AFTER the millenial kingdom (In the Apocalypse). What bigger controversy do you seek to dismiss as forgery the so called canonical books. They are at best shortened cut off pieces. Why aren't there earlier manuscripts preserved? Because they were never written in first place. Everything preserved dates back to 2nd century at earliest, more at 3rd century. No one wrote a line at the time of Jesus or in decades after him. Or if someone wrote books, those were burnt and the writers killed. Hopefully one day something more will be discovered in some caves to tel us the true story of Christmas and of the Son of God. What if his children were taken in the same UFO cloud as Jesus on Ascension day? No the canonical books would never write that. They only wrote of cloud, of star, and of men dressed in white. Where are the angels from the old testament? Or they didn't show up to serve the Son of God? It just doesn't match. Let there be a new Nicaea council to ban the heretic books of the pagan emperor, and to approve the real truth. Or, the so believed Christianity and main churches come to give place to something new, more real. May be Star Wars religion, don't know.

Another controversy, this time between Matthew and Luke about the early years of Jesus.
Luke says, the family was visiting the Temple EVERY YEAR. So did they do on the year when Jesus was 12 years old. Let say they were going to the temple 4-5 or more years before the 12th anniversary.

Matthew speaks of flee in Egypt. The people in that time traveled months, even years. They didn't go to spend a month or even a year. They probably stayed for years in Egypt.

Where are the years of Jesus' life spent in Egypt, in the timeline given by Luke?

Which one of the two is the forgery? Or both?

Because of the missing historic data of the first 30 years of the life of Jesus Christ, I would rather accept he was indeed missing from the "Holy Land" for that time. Perhaps the family stayed in Egypt much longer. Perhaps some say, in India. Or perhaps, today we could say that, Jesus was missing from planet earth altogether between his birth and the baptism in Jordan, or shortly before that. In anyway, he was not recorded by history with any single fact for all those many years. Yes he was known as "the son of the carpenter" but those are statements of canonical books. Pls refer to the above doubts of their credibility. And if it was correct. he could have come to the Holy Land at the age of 28 and still to be the son of the carpenter some 2 years before his pubic mission.

Much was hidden from the life of Jesus, both in his public mission and in the years before it. Everything is possible. It is not a sin to reflect logically on the life of the Son of God. It is ignorance not to do it. It has tremendous consequences when we deal with unknown facts, such as very likely marriage and logical sons/dauthers in time. Let not forget also, that the resurrected Jesus is unlikely "on a cloud" but rather "in the cloud" of ascension there was a vehicle. Where is the heaven nobody knows. But the place where Jesus dwells as we speak, is rather a place to accomodate human although resurrected. It is very unlikely he communicates only with spirits of deceased and angels. it is quite possible he has descendants for all those 1980 years spent somewhere not on earth. Why not a new planet, the garden of Eden or the new Jerusalem? Today we can say that, having in mind the countless trillions of stars with possible planets, that today's science speaks of. That was not available to the knowledge of the early church fathers. So they preferred to ban every reference to such possibility, and to hide in cloud the vehicles, and not to speak of whether angels have wings. They were misguided by those who knew the truth - the Romans and their deities - aliens. We are infront of a saga changed by cunning deceitful hi level intellect that of the roman gods.

I think it was the fact that it was based a pagan holiday between grown men, slapping each other butts like they were manly football player and it offends their masculinity.

And the fact that Leviticus talks about condemning gays and executions along with any sexual offense...And I mean any...Maybe even looking.

Also, Leviticus has nothing to do with Jesus, and if the bible was talking about gays all the time...I guess it would be just that.

It like saying Foot ball players are gay, and starting a riot.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: TWA0918
a reply to: DeathSlayer

I actually have already done my research into the subject. Having been raised in a heavily Christian family I was very skeptical of the argument that Jesus is just another in a long list of solar representations. His reference is to a Christian website that provided no real source from anything beyond speculative Christian teachers and philosophers. In fact the final paragraph in the article he used is:

In the end we are left with a question: How did December 25 become Christmas? We cannot be entirely sure. Elements of the festival that developed from the fourth century until modern times may well derive from pagan traditions. Yet the actual date might really derive more from Judaism—from Jesus’ death at Passover, and from the rabbinic notion that great things might be expected, again and again, at the same time of the year—than from paganism. Then again, in this notion of cycles and the return of God’s redemption, we may perhaps also be touching upon something that the pagan Romans who celebrated Sol Invictus, and many other peoples since, would have understood and claimed for their own, too.

So...please give me a source that is based on real historical evidence.

Of course no one can be sure Jesus was born on December 25th - I thought the article gave a new spin on Christmas that most of us have not considered. The thread is not about debating the existence of Jesus. I already believe he exists.

A Christian argument isn't about Jesus actually having lived? Uh..if he never lived, CHristianity is based on zip. There goes your Christian argument.

only vaguely related. this topic is technically only concerned with the first few seconds of his life. the seconds of his "birth".

sorry to rain on your crusade.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

*YAWN*

people still believe in this bronze aged crap?

i see a very dark future for humanity...

Take the T out of christmas, problem solved. Now we're just paying respects to everyone named Chris.

Science and theory cannot define that which is strictly a matter of faith, it never will.

Jesus was born, lived and died... Or not, the contents of his life are, and always will be the subject of interpretations.

Of him, you either know without doubts, or you know him not.

Faith, or none. Believe or not.

Merry Christmas

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Tangerine

originally posted by: Tangerine
A Christian argument isn't about Jesus actually having lived? Uh..if he never lived, CHristianity is based on zip. There goes your Christian argument.

Not exactly. Even if Jesus never lived at all, Christianity could still exist.

There were some Christians who believed that Jesus wasn't physical, but that he came from the highest heavens to the lower heavens was crucified by the devil and his demons and then rose back up to the highest heaven to show his defeat of the devil. The Ascension of Isaiah says that the moon is a part of the lower heavens which the devil controls when he got kicked out of the higher heavens.

Those "some Christians" still believe he exists.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: TWA0918
a reply to: DeathSlayer

I actually have already done my research into the subject. Having been raised in a heavily Christian family I was very skeptical of the argument that Jesus is just another in a long list of solar representations. His reference is to a Christian website that provided no real source from anything beyond speculative Christian teachers and philosophers. In fact the final paragraph in the article he used is:

In the end we are left with a question: How did December 25 become Christmas? We cannot be entirely sure. Elements of the festival that developed from the fourth century until modern times may well derive from pagan traditions. Yet the actual date might really derive more from Judaism—from Jesus’ death at Passover, and from the rabbinic notion that great things might be expected, again and again, at the same time of the year—than from paganism. Then again, in this notion of cycles and the return of God’s redemption, we may perhaps also be touching upon something that the pagan Romans who celebrated Sol Invictus, and many other peoples since, would have understood and claimed for their own, too.

So...please give me a source that is based on real historical evidence.

Of course no one can be sure Jesus was born on December 25th - I thought the article gave a new spin on Christmas that most of us have not considered. The thread is not about debating the existence of Jesus. I already believe he exists.

A Christian argument isn't about Jesus actually having lived? Uh..if he never lived, CHristianity is based on zip. There goes your Christian argument.

only vaguely related. this topic is technically only concerned with the first few seconds of his life. the seconds of his "birth".

sorry to rain on your crusade.

So birth has nothing to do with existence? I realize that the straw you're clutching at is getting increasingly slim, but, surely, you can still see that it's a straw.

The doubt and seek of proof is a part of the reasonable belief. Like Thomas.

The belief in controversial stories in the 4 Gospels, without seeking any proof not even indirect one, nears fanaticism.

Jesus didn't call heretic anyone. Jesus didn't ban books of his disciples as "Gnostic, heretic".

You can't have a pile of newly discovered books that grows only bigger, and pretend they were all forgery.

I believe in Jesus. And that's why I want the truth of Jesus.

Another controversy between the Gospels that concerns the Holy Week. There is no enough time between the Last Supper on Thursday and the Death of Jesus on the Cross on Friday, for all the events described in the Gospels to take place. There are detailed studies posted online, please search and read them. They are not written by unbelievers or people who don't know the Gospels in detail. One possible conclusion is, the Last Supper took place on Wednesday, or even Tuesday in the week when Jesus died. Let alone there were no 3 days in the tomb, according to the prophecy, between Friday 3 PM and Saturday/Sunday midnight. Perhaps the death of Jesus (for reason of prophecy) occurred on Thursday? I can't say that. But the controversy between the texts, the described events and the timing is apparent for any unbiased reader who thinks of what he reads with some intelligent mind. I wouldn't call that lack of faith in Jesus, just the opposite.

Let go back to the birth of Jesus. How could the star shine to the magi on their way before Jerusalem, then waiting for a while when they were to Herod, and then shining again on the road to Bethlehem? It was not a comet. It was a UFO. It is a time we accept what we read "in spirit and in truth".

Another controversy: according to the Gospel of Matthew, at the moment of Jesus' Death on the Cross, tombs of righteous men opened and they walked out resurrected, and appeared to many later. This is not written in the other Gospels, and goes into controversy with the letters of Paul where he says, Jesus resurrected first and we should wait our turn. Technically, those righteous men of old ages resurrected 2 days before Jesus, if we accept the Gospel of Matthew as authentic source. When did they go to heaven? Probably at the ascension day? The Acts don't speak of other people being taken in the cloud together with Jesus. Although the Gospels speak of the Ascension they do not detail it as the Acts. Anyway, neither of them speaks of righteous men resurrected and ascended to heaven. Perhaps they were transported at another time?

Once you start thinking with your own mind about what is known and written, you will reach unimaginable conclusions. They are just obvious for the unbiased mind. And hidden for the people who prefer to blindly believe someone's intentional delusion set for centuries ago.

originally posted by: Danbones
none of these religious figures ever existed
the whole religion thing is just sheeple control for the idle rich:
Jesus Christ = riCh Jest us ( count the letters)

our " lord amen" was actually the first "phi rho" of the united upper and lower Egypt
(uh...that's " pharaoh ", the Egyptians played loose with their written vowels)
as above so below...eh...wot?

its all a scam
like black friday
www.cbc.ca...
and so of course too now a-days, so are boxing day sales

So the ancient people who translated Jesus' name were so crafty in hiding their anagrams that they used 20th century english to do so? That's pretty impressive. How did they learn 20th century english, pray tell?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: TWA0918
a reply to: DeathSlayer

I actually have already done my research into the subject. Having been raised in a heavily Christian family I was very skeptical of the argument that Jesus is just another in a long list of solar representations. His reference is to a Christian website that provided no real source from anything beyond speculative Christian teachers and philosophers. In fact the final paragraph in the article he used is:

In the end we are left with a question: How did December 25 become Christmas? We cannot be entirely sure. Elements of the festival that developed from the fourth century until modern times may well derive from pagan traditions. Yet the actual date might really derive more from Judaism—from Jesus’ death at Passover, and from the rabbinic notion that great things might be expected, again and again, at the same time of the year—than from paganism. Then again, in this notion of cycles and the return of God’s redemption, we may perhaps also be touching upon something that the pagan Romans who celebrated Sol Invictus, and many other peoples since, would have understood and claimed for their own, too.

So...please give me a source that is based on real historical evidence.

Of course no one can be sure Jesus was born on December 25th - I thought the article gave a new spin on Christmas that most of us have not considered. The thread is not about debating the existence of Jesus. I already believe he exists.

A Christian argument isn't about Jesus actually having lived? Uh..if he never lived, CHristianity is based on zip. There goes your Christian argument.

only vaguely related. this topic is technically only concerned with the first few seconds of his life. the seconds of his "birth".

sorry to rain on your crusade.

So birth has nothing to do with existence? I realize that the straw you're clutching at is getting increasingly slim, but, surely, you can still see that it's a straw.

im not clutching at straws here, and i would suggest that you cease your efforts to be antagonistic. we are not here to raise hell for lack of moving heaven out of ATS.

have you read antiquities of the jews by josephus? the shorter passage concerning jesus is widely agreed to be authentic. there is also annals by tacitus. im sure google would be more than happy to assist you in locating the relevant text.

please note that proof or evidence of jesus' birth is not proof or evidence of divinity.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

First off, the DAY might be 60 degrees, but the NIGHT is not. Night temps run about 40 degrees. Jesus was born at night, according to biblical texts, as the shepherds were sleeping outside with their sheep. This did not happen in the winter months.

Secondly, a pregnancy is 38-42 weeks, not 9 months. Depending on when you conceive you could have a 9 month pregnancy, an 8.5 month pregnancy or a 9.5 month pregnancy...

Thirdly, Saturnalia begins on the 17th, and ends on the 23rd. Then after that, AND IN ASSOCIATION WITH IT, is the RENEWAL OF LIGHT festival because obviously Saturnalia worked, the days are getting longer after all...

Saturnalia and the Renewal of Light

Saturnalia is a festival of light leading to the winter solstice, with the abundant presence of candles symbolizing the quest for knowledge and truth.[5] The renewal of light and the coming of the new year was celebrated in the later Roman Empire at the Dies Natalis of Sol Invictus, the "Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun," on December 25.[6]

Fourthly...Nisan 14th wasn't March 25th, it was March 28th...

[url=http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html?year=2015&month=4&country=34]Source

The guy who wrote the article in your OP isn't very bright...