Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Sensing a Pattern? December 25th is an Important Date


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Scarlet Rakoczy

Scarlet Rakoczy

    Upyra

  • Twilight
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,350 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 02:50 PM

45142_479912105394417_1604812626_n.jpg



#2 Caulfield

Caulfield

    TROLLOLOL

  • Twilight
  • PipPip
  • 2,148 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 06:56 PM

Yeah, Jesus wasn't born on Dec. 25th.

#3 Scarlet Rakoczy

Scarlet Rakoczy

    Upyra

  • Twilight
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,350 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 07:02 PM

John Chrysostom, the Greek Orthodox priest argued for December 25th.  However, most evidence points toward late September.  December 25th was most likely a political move.



#4 Caulfield

Caulfield

    TROLLOLOL

  • Twilight
  • PipPip
  • 2,148 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:03 PM

Even September is probably too late in the year. Far more likely, judging from the timing of the census and the practise of shepherds to have been a late June/early July birth.

December 25th was absolutely a political move.

#5 Darkness

Darkness

    Trickster

  • Founder
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,938 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:07 PM

No no what I think this is really saying is that Horus/Jesus keeps being reincarnated.



#6 TheHeartlessOne

TheHeartlessOne

    Sleeping

  • Darkling
  • Pip
  • 489 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:40 PM

Attis and Mithra were born in two different places at the same time? Does that mean if 'Jesus' keeps reincarnating that there could be more than one of 'him' at the same time? Like an army of em, per say?

On a less spiritual side, I bet someone's going to conduct some story on how their a virgin and gave birth to Jesus the 2nd..



#7 Rhuen

Rhuen

    Celestial Power

  • Twilight
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,272 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:10 PM

Hate to agree with Caulfield but yeah, it was entirely political for Jesus birth to be celebrated on December 25th, as part of the co-opting of a popular Roman Holiday as the Holy Roman Empire knew better *at times* than to denounce a festive celebration of the people so changed the meanings around.

 

Although it is a desert, that part of the world is still freezing during the winter. (as a fun note: Anarctica is technically a desert due to the standard of deducing what is a desert determined by annual percipitation.)



#8 Darkness

Darkness

    Trickster

  • Founder
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,938 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:55 PM

It strikes me as likely then that Jesus is even more fictional than the others.



#9 Caulfield

Caulfield

    TROLLOLOL

  • Twilight
  • PipPip
  • 2,148 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:10 AM

It strikes me as likely then that Jesus is even more fictional than the others.


All sensible historians would disagree with you.



#10 Darkness

Darkness

    Trickster

  • Founder
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,938 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 05:07 AM

As a religion, or even a one true religion, it just doesn't sound very good if they start out lying from the very beginning, about your birth.



#11 Caulfield

Caulfield

    TROLLOLOL

  • Twilight
  • PipPip
  • 2,148 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:15 AM

They didn't. That didn't occur until the 4th Century. 

http://www.simpletor...heRealStory.htm

The Reverend Increase Mather of Boston observed in 1687 that “the early Christians who  first observed the Nativity on December 25 did not do so thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian ones.”




So you see, even when the celebration was moved to Dec.25th they didn't do so actually stating that was the day of Jesus' birth. 

I know as a USAmerican that you are probably ignorant of the "Queens Birthday" (http://www.timeandda...queens-birthday) public holidays around the Commonwealth, but each falls on a different day. No-one actually believes or is taught that it is the day the Queen was born, but it is the day we celebrate it anyway.

Personally, I don't know of any Christian that believes or was taught that Dec.25th was the actual birth date of Jesus. I accept that there probably are some, or even many out there that do it's just that I have never come across them. 
It seems, however, that it is a genuine failing of the teaching of history from both schools and churches as opposed to any kind of official doctrine that Jesus was born in December.


Edited by Caulfield, 13 December 2012 - 06:21 AM.


#12 Darkness

Darkness

    Trickster

  • Founder
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,938 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:46 AM

Isn't it even more bizarre that for such an important event to Christians, probably one of the very few most important dates in the history of man, that no one really knows?  Yet there were all these signs and witnesses, etc... and writings, yet... hmm, well ok.  If I could swallow all that, I sure wouldn't be doubting anyone else's beliefs when my own aren't all that sensical.



#13 Caulfield

Caulfield

    TROLLOLOL

  • Twilight
  • PipPip
  • 2,148 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:15 PM

The date of Jesus' birth was never important to Christians.



#14 Rhuen

Rhuen

    Celestial Power

  • Twilight
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,272 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 05:14 PM

Nor was Jesus being an aspect of "God" rather than a "final prophet" until a few centuries after the fact. About six too ten centuries after the fact.

 

It was one of those controversal and confussing things, and more and more people were worshipping Jesus directly so the church basically gave it a "why not" and made it official. Pretty much merging the Jesus figure with Logos.

 

 

Historically, Jesus could be a mixture of various individuals, the best of each one, that traveled around spreading ideas and performing "feats".

 

Although it is funny that the date of the birth isn't important when over the years the church made up so much bullshit for the conditions around it. Even going so far at one time to say a woman stuck her finger up Mary's cooch to prove she was still a virgin.

 

*although the whole virgin aspect was its self suspect, given the other religious figures mentioned in the OP, and the fact that had Mary claimed she was a virgin at the actual time these events supposedly took place she would have likely been called a liar and had her husband not laid with her and she was pregnant and pulled that line they would have been more likely to accuse her of adultry or being raped in her sleep by a man or demon.

Some historians have speculated that the virgin birth part was added in by one or more of the many side christian faiths and included in the final version thanks to the council of Nicea as by that point it had changed to being a sign of purity (given Jesus being a big issue by this time of course, and the ideas that would have been present prior to his whole religion spreading (like during his actual life time) not present).



#15 Caulfield

Caulfield

    TROLLOLOL

  • Twilight
  • PipPip
  • 2,148 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 07:16 PM

Yeah, see that's pretty much entirely false. The gospels and Paul's letters' have manuscripts available today from ~130AD, in which the arguments and claims for Christ's divinity are as they appear in today modern bibles.

Yes, there were sects which denied both the divinity and personally of Christ from the earliest times, but it does not then result that these were unimportant for ten centuries.

Especially as we know that the council of Nicea in the 4th century was convened to specifically answer the question of Jesus' duality of humanity and divinity.

#16 Beorht

Beorht

    nilbogboh

  • Twilight
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,858 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:03 PM

The Roman Catholic Church, the new State Religion of the Roman Empire, just continued using the calendar it had been using before when the State Religion was Pantheonism. Perhaps the powers-that-were interpreted Christianity in a way that made it compatible with what they already believed.



#17 Arawan

Arawan

    Saint

  • Twilight
  • PipPip
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 18 December 2012 - 01:12 AM

The Roman Catholic Church, the new State Religion of the Roman Empire, just continued using the calendar it had been using before when the State Religion was Pantheonism. Perhaps the powers-that-were interpreted Christianity in a way that made it compatible with what they already believed.

 

That's exactly what happened. Why do you think all Saints' Day is the day after Halloween? Seriously, it's obvious that the dates were chosen to make conversion easier. 

 

And don't use Zeitgeist, it's grossly inaccurate:

 

Horus, Mithra and Dionysus were not born of virgins. Horus' father Osiris was murdered and dismembered but resurrected by his mother Isis after she found all his body parts save the penis. Isis then shaped a phallus out of gold and that was used to impregnate here (ancient artificial insemination I guess). Mithra, according the military cult (which is where Zeitgeist is mainly pulling from), was born fully formed out of a stone. Dionysus' mother slept with Zeus in disguise and then she demanded he show her his true form to prove he really was Zeus. Being mortal, she died and Zeus transplanted Dionysus to his thigh until he was ready to be born. Attis wasn't crucified or resurrected but castrated himself after realizing he fell in love with his own hermaphroditic father and his body was preserved from decay by that hermaphroditic father/lover.

 

I could go on but it's late and you get the gist. I'll finish with two statements. Even the Pope admits that December 25th isn't the literal birthday of Jesus. And Caulfield is right, the pomp and circumstance around Christmas makes people think it is the most important holy day in Christmas but it's not (it's not important at all actually). Easter is the most important holy day, since you'll be wondering. And yes, the equinox was chosen specifically to transplant the old pagan celebrations.   



#18 AmieNoire

AmieNoire

    The Unseeliest

  • Darkling
  • 49 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:49 AM

Arawan covered most of the pertinent points. Whoever made that chart needs to revise their mythology, pronto.

 

The most plausible theory I've heard about the actual date of Jesus' birth places it around March - shepherds would only be out tending to sheep during lambing season.

 

Christmas is an important day, being the incarnation of the Word and the beginning of the fulfilment of God's promise, but Easter is the culmination of it all, the consummation of redemption.



#19 Rhuen

Rhuen

    Celestial Power

  • Twilight
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,272 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 11:50 AM

If I had paid closer attention to the chart would have noticed Dionysus sticking out like a sore thumb.

However "born under a virgin star"

Not sure what that means. Never heard it before in any on their mythos. I know the whole story of Horus and Dionysus, don't recal virgin star ever coming up. Do know both their moms did have sex in the stories.