Interesting new info concerning Christmas and the birth of Christ

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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.

I have read Josephus and the comments about Jesus are not widely considered to be authentic nor would it matter if it were. Josephus did not live when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. To save you the trouble, Seutonius and Tacitus didn't live when Jesus allegedly lived either. Only contemporaneous documentation proves the existence of someone. There is no "proof or evidence of Jesus' birth" so the question of divinity is moot.

a reply to: 2012newstart

Are you referring to Matthew 27:52?

Source

51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many/

However, I am not sure what that has to do with the OP topic of the supposed date of Jesus according to biblical texts.

a reply to: Tangerine

There are two passages about Jesus, the first is in contention, the second is not. What does that have to do with the OP?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Tangerine

There are two passages about Jesus, the first is in contention, the second is not. What does that have to do with the OP?

I didn't bring up the passages. You did. Like I said, anything Josephus wrote or was inserted in his works as a forgery is immaterial in that Josephus did not live when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living.

How could the total lack of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) not be relevant to the OP's thread about the (alleged) birth of Christ? If Jesus was never born, the date he was never born is immaterial. I wouldn't have thought that needed explaining.

originally posted by: trollz
a reply to: DeathSlayer

I expect you'll also be coming up with a legitimate reason why Easter is celebrated with colored eggs and rabbits?
Because, you know, that totally wasn't taken from earlier pagan religious celebrations. Jesus was totally about the colored eggs and rabbits.

Every Easter I go into Wal Mart looking for the chocolate crucified Jesus. Every year I am disappointed to find they only have the stupid chocolate bunny rabbits. If the bunny rabbits want to horn in on Jesus' holiday, they should at least be crucified.

a reply to: Tangerine

It seems obvious the assumption must be made that the OP, and those who wish to engage in this discussion, are assuming that Jesus was a historical figure and they wish to debate his supposed birth. If you do not wish to engage in that discussion perhaps you should start another thread about the authenticity of the historical figure Jesus, or move to one of the many threads already on that topic?

However, your daftness seems obvious as you said you did not mention the passages yet:

I have read Josephus and the comments about Jesus are not widely considered to be authentic

Which is clearly engaging in a discussion of the passages. Again, there are two passages or comments from Josephus concerning Jesus. The first is considered altered, the second is considered authentic.

Source

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[13][1][2][14][15][16]

Which supports the quote you were responding to.

Again, that has nothing to do with the OP.

Edit: Broken Link

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TWA0918
a reply to: TzarChasm

So these links are here to convince me of what? I'm fully aware of the roots of the tradition. I'm simply stating where the people known as "Pagans" got it. The winter solstice, being the shortest day of the year, followed by days of increasing length, is the day that light begins gaining power over the darkness and cold. The spring equinox is celebrated because the sun finally wins over and days are longer than night allowing life and crops to begin thriving again.

oh, "pagan" means heathen. basically someone who wasnt educated enough to know their theology or whatever. it could also mean civilian as in "not in god's army".

and yes, that is one belief. there are many variations across many cultures.

Star!

I'm always encouraged when someone supports the continued use of words in the proper context. As long as you are respectful in how you use it, the word "ignorant" isn't an insult. The smartest man/woman in the world is ignorant of Something. Likewise, the word "vulgar" originally just meant common. When the word is used in the context of speaking about something obscene or disgusting, it is being used ignorantly.

As far as the OP, I've always been of the opinion that the date you choose to celebrate something isn't as much an issue as what it is you celebrate. I have a lifelong friend who has always celebrated the day he was adopted as his birthday. His adoptive parents waited until he was old enough to make his own decisions to share the date of his birth with him. He told me that he didn't need to think about it, his birthday will always be the day he's celebrated with parents that gave him a loving home to grow up in and taught him what love is.

If Christmas gets some people's panties all in a wad, what about Kwanzaa? It has only existed since the mid '60s.

I, for one, have no problem with anyone that celebrates a holiday that is based on principles such as these:

Umoja (Unity): To strive for and to maintain unity in the family, community, nation, and race.

Kujichagulia (Self-Determination): To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves, and speak for ourselves.

Ujima (Collective Work and Responsibility): To build and maintain our community together and make our brothers' and sisters' problems our problems, and to solve them together.

Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics): To build and maintain our own stores, shops, and other businesses and to profit from them together.

Nia (Purpose): To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.

Kuumba (Creativity): To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.

Imani (Faith): To believe with all our hearts in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders, and the righteousness and victory of our struggle.

a reply to: TWA0918

Totally Agree, and I would add (having studied the
entire bible) it never mentions specifically what
day Joshua was born.

Remember Constantine? Remember he was a sun worshiper?
I'm sure you do. And what was the day they decided at The
Counsel of Nicaea and voted to be Joshua's birthday; the same
day that was a major holiday of Sun worship at that time in
The Roman Empire, to make the transition easier to The Roman
people.

December 25th (or Midnight of the 25th) is about 3
days after The Solstice, and the 25th would be the first
day that ancients could measure the "movement" of the
sun, switching from a southward direction, to a northward
direction, appearing to
stop and lie still as if dead for 3 days and while everyone
in the ancient world held their breath to make sure the
sun resurrects itself again to bring Spring and Sumer.

3 Days was very important in Egyptian laws; one of them
stated that you could not bury someone unless their body
was observed to have not moved for 3 days. This was their
definition of death.

I don't know why I'm telling you this, you probably know all
this and more

Rebel 5

Jesus was born 6 months after John the baptist was born. John was conceived in June with in one month of Zechariah's ministry as a preist which was between June 4th and the 11th. Six month later Jesus was born in March not December.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: guitarplayer
Jesus was born 6 months after John the baptist was born. John was conceived in June with in one month of Zechariah's ministry as a preist which was between June 4th and the 11th. Six month later Jesus was born in March not December.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

I "heard" that September was the primary/favorite month for conception; (Hebraic tradition), so might put Jesus's birth probably in the month of June (do not ask how I know this) or more probably (if fudged a by few months) his actual birthday is/was February 3rd. He is a fishy Pisces (go figure).

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: guitarplayer
Jesus was born 6 months after John the baptist was born. John was conceived in June with in one month of Zechariah's ministry as a preist which was between June 4th and the 11th. Six month later Jesus was born in March not December.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

I "heard" that September was the primary/favorite month for conception; (Hebraic tradition), so might put Jesus's birth probably in the month of June (do not ask how I know this) or more probably (if fudged a by few months) his actual birthday is/was February 3rd. He is a fishy Pisces (go figure).

that could be possible if Zechariah went home and concived John in early June and jesus could of been born early so He could of been born in late Febuary. All i know is He was not born on Dec 25th and He was not raised from the dead on a Sunday.

What a great debate with many different aspects and explanations. A lot of good information was shared in this thread.

Makes a person want to think and meditate.

I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread.

I believe in the almighty Lord but Christmas is tainted with pagan holidays. U gotta wake up and see how evil has corrupted religion they use it as a tool. And yashua bin yosef aka jesus did walk the earth just not how they say meaning the true story has been altered

originally posted by: truehumandna
I believe in the almighty Lord but Christmas is tainted with pagan holidays. U gotta wake up and see how evil has corrupted religion they use it as a tool. And yashua bin yosef aka jesus did walk the earth just not how they say meaning the true story has been altered

What's evil about pagan holidays?

originally posted by: guitarplayer
Jesus was born 6 months after John the baptist was born. John was conceived in June with in one month of Zechariah's ministry as a preist which was between June 4th and the 11th. Six month later Jesus was born in March not December.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

If John was born in June, I compute 6 months later
would be December.

Was that a mistake?

If Joshua was born in March 6 months prior
to that would be September.

September is the best guess I could come up with
also, from having extensively studied the bible.

It also makes sense because "The Wise Men" would have trouble
following a star for that long, with so much cloud cover in
December, however, They could in September.

Rebel 5

originally posted by: rebelv

originally posted by: guitarplayer
Jesus was born 6 months after John the baptist was born. John was conceived in June with in one month of Zechariah's ministry as a preist which was between June 4th and the 11th. Six month later Jesus was born in March not December.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

If John was born in June, I compute 6 months later
would be December.

Was that a mistake?

If Joshua was born in March 6 months prior
to that would be September.

September is the best guess I could come up with
also, from having extensively studied the bible.

It also makes sense because "The Wise Men" would have trouble
following a star for that long, with so much cloud cover in
December, however, They could in September.

Rebel 5

John was conceived in June six month later Jesus was conceived which would of made His conception in December and his birth in September my mistake on the computation in my prior post. Which would of been around the feast of trumpets.

originally posted by: guitarplayer

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: guitarplayer
Jesus was born 6 months after John the baptist was born. John was conceived in June with in one month of Zechariah's ministry as a preist which was between June 4th and the 11th. Six month later Jesus was born in March not December.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

I "heard" that September was the primary/favorite month for conception; (Hebraic tradition), so might put Jesus's birth probably in the month of June (do not ask how I know this) or more probably (if fudged a by few months) his actual birthday is/was February 3rd. He is a fishy Pisces (go figure).

that could be possible if Zechariah went home and concived John in early June and jesus could of been born early so He could of been born in late Febuary. All i know is He was not born on Dec 25th and He was not raised from the dead on a Sunday.

Yes, and why all the deception; EVERYONE important was born on December 25th, (big clue here as I can think of at least 9 major god/demigod claimants to that date of birth). History lies; AND as you say Sunday is a day of rest, "RIP" could take on a new meaning; actually meant 'raised in prayer' as no one physically worked (it was conceptual raising).

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: guitarplayer

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: guitarplayer
Jesus was born 6 months after John the baptist was born. John was conceived in June with in one month of Zechariah's ministry as a preist which was between June 4th and the 11th. Six month later Jesus was born in March not December.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

I "heard" that September was the primary/favorite month for conception; (Hebraic tradition), so might put Jesus's birth probably in the month of June (do not ask how I know this) or more probably (if fudged a by few months) his actual birthday is/was February 3rd. He is a fishy Pisces (go figure).

that could be possible if Zechariah went home and concived John in early June and jesus could of been born early so He could of been born in late Febuary. All i know is He was not born on Dec 25th and He was not raised from the dead on a Sunday.

Yes, and why all the deception; EVERYONE important was born on December 25th, (big clue here as I can think of at least 9 major god/demigod claimants to that date of birth). History lies; AND as you say Sunday is a day of rest, "RIP" could take on a new meaning; actually meant 'raised in prayer' as no one physically worked (it was conceptual raising).

Sunday is not the day of rest Saturday is the 7th day of the creation. Now under or should I say in Christ everyday is a Sabbath rest.