posted on December 17, 2005 01:11:03 PMit's that is what this holiday was set aside for....tradition again....reason it was established in the first place.
THERE is much evidence to prove that October 5th is the anniversary of the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
On this date in the year 4 B.C, the Babe Jesus was born, although, ironically enough, Christendom does not celebrate the event until December 25th, whilst the true date is allowed to pass by without so much as a sign from the leaders of organized religion.
The belief unfortunately persists that the birth occurred on December 25th between the years 7 B.C. to 3 B.C. Although those holding these beliefs appear to agree on the day and the month. there is a certain amount of disagreement regarding the actual year.
Let us examine some of these statements wherein December 25th is presumed to be the correct date.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th edition) volume six and page 293, states:
“The earliest identification of December 25th with the birthday of Christ is in a passage otherwise unknown and probably spurious, of Theophius of Antioch (A.D. 171-183) preserved in Latin by the Madgeburg Centuriators to the effect that the Gauls contended that as they celebrated the birth of the Lord on December 25th, whatever day of the week it might be, so they ought to celebrate the Pascha on March 25th, when the Resurrection befell."
“Certain Latins as early as A. D. 354 may have transferred the human birth-date (of our Lord) to December 25th, which was then a Mithraic Feast, and is referred to by certain chronographers as Natalis Invicti Solis, or the birthday of the unconquered Sun.”
Although we have abundant evidence that Christianity was introduced into Britain by the Apostles themselves within the fifth year after the Crucifixion, the so-called Christian Calendar giving the Nativity of our Lord as falling at the Winter Solstice, December 25th, was generally adopted by the Western Church about the third century, although the Eastern Church did not do so until near the end of the fourth century, when it was received from Rome with the intimation that the census role in the Roman archives contained the date December 25th as the correct date.
St. Luke (2:2-7) records that Christ was born when Quirinus, the Governor of Syria, commenced to enforce the Decree, of Caesar Augustus that all the (then known) world should be taxed, and reports that Joseph accompanied Mary to Bethlehem to be so taxed, and that whilst there was delivered of her child.
History reveals that the Romans were averse to disturbing Jewish Feasts and Customs, and this particular decree would operate during the civil year which commences in Tisri, the equivalent of our September or October. This period, falling as it did between the harvest and the ploughing season, proved the most convenient time for the making of a register of census.
The Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was held on 15th Tisri, and this would explain why all places were filled so that Joseph and Mary had recourse to the stables of an inn wherein the Babe was born.
Quirinus was Governor of Syria from 4 B.C. to I B.C., and the Register was commenced during the first year of office. It was in this year that the Feast of Trumpets was held on the seventh day of the seventh sacred month, a Saturday or Sabbath day, and therefore the probable day on which the Babe was born.
The Gospels state that the tidings were given to the shepherds who were attending their flocks by night, but here again we have evidence that it was not customary to keep the flocks out in the open during the night after the end of October, certainly not during the winter nights.
St Luke (2:21-39) further records that after the Circumcision and days of purification were ended, Mary went to the Temple at Jerusalem to present the Babe to the Lord in accordance with Jewish custom.
It was about this time that Herod gave orders for the destruction of all boys under the age of two years, and St. Matthew (2.12-15) records that theAngel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, warning him to take the Babe and mother into Egypt, as Herod was seeking to destroy Him. He further records that Jesus was taken a journey of, roughly, 200 miles into Egypt, where He remained until after the death of Herod.
It is well to note here that records at our disposal show how impracticable, such a journey would be if undertaken after mid-November, unless, of course, one travelled via the sea route, but of this we know Joseph and Mary did not avail themselves. At the time of this journey the Babe was about six weeks old, and this exactly fits in with all the other known facts.
Now Herod was proclaimed king by the Romans at the 184th Olympiad, which was a period of four years, at the end of which were held the games that commenced the next period. The first Olympiad was during the period of 776-772 B. C, and was reckoned as from Midsummer to Midsummer. The end of the 184th Olympiad would therefore be Midsummer 40 B.C. According to the celebrated historian Josephus, Herod actually reigned after the death of Antigonus in the Autumn of 37 B.C, and he frequently states that over three years elapsed between the Roman Proclamation and the death of Antigonus.
Josephus counted his year from Nisan to Nisan, the equivalent of our March, and he would therefore have counted the portion of the first year of Herod’s reign before Nisan as being one whole year, and as he states that Herod reigned 34 years after the death of Antigonus, his reign terminated before the Passover of Nisan 3 B.C.
Certain writers have endeavoured to prove that Herod died on a date different from the actual date in order to prove correct their theory that the Holy Babe was born on December 25th.
The records made by Josephus, however, are very complete and authentic. He states that Herod burnt the Priest Matthias and on the same night there was an eclipse of the moon. There is no record whatever to show that such an eclipse of the moon, visible from Jerusalem during the beginning of the year 3 B.C. ever took place, but a record does exist of such an eclipse occurring during the night of March 12th to 13th in the year 4 B.C.
The Feast of the Passover in the year 4 B.C, occurred on April 10th, which is barely a month after the eclipse, and we know that Herod was then alive. .
Josephus records that after the death of Herod, the funeral preparations and the procession of the golden bier to Herodium, together with the period of mourning, amounted to some five weeks. He also records that as the time for the holding of the Feast of the Passover, following the funeral, approached, there was feasting and rioting among the populace, and the authorities were compelled to call out a regiment of soldiers to quell such rioters.
From this it is obvious that the death of Herod must have occurred at the beginning of the year 3 B.C. as the eclipse of 4 B.C. occurred within one month of the Passover of that year, and it has already been shown that the period of time between Herod’s death and the Passover was about ten weeks, so that the eclipse, death, burial, riots and Passover could not possibly have taken place within the period of the same year.
The Jewish Megillah Taanith states that the death occurred on Sebat 1st or January 18, 3 B.C, and with this date the records of Josephus agree.
Referring back to St. Matthew 2:19-23, it is recorded that another Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him to return to the land of Israel, and that Joseph did take Mary and the Babe to Nazareth.
St. Luke 2:41 states that Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover, and it is presumed that they attended the one held on March 31st, 3 B.C, following the death of Herod.
The correct chronology would therefore be:
Decree of Caesar Augustus, about May, 4 B.C;
Joseph and Mary’s journey to Bethlehem for census, late September or very early October;
The Nativity, October 5th, 4 B.C;
Presentation at the Temple (43 days after), November 16th, 4 B.C;
Flight to Egypt, November 18th, 4 B.C.;
Death of Herod, January 18th, 3 B.C;
Funeral, mourning, etc., to February 28th, 3 B.C;
Feast of Passover, March 31st, 3 B.C.
This proves very conclusively that the present-day Christmas celebrations do not connect in any way with the anniversary of the Nativity.
What then, is this celebration connected with?
Professor Waddell in his “The Phoenician Origin of Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons” produces evidence, that as far back as 1500 B.C., certain inhabitants of Britain were Sun worshippers similar to the ancient Egyptians of 2000 B.C., and that one of their festivals was Natalis Invicti Solis, the birthday of the unconquerable Sun, and such a festival was held on December 25th, which date originally coincided with the Winter Solstice.
The “Christian” Church did not include any festival in December, certainly not the Christmas festival, until the end of the third century and it is presumed that this festival was probably adopted by the Roman Church at that time when many pagans were being converted to their faith, and no doubt it was considered advisable to hold such a festival in order to retain them in the Roman Church.
As we are now approaching the close of the “Latter Days” so often referred to in the Bible, and in addition have had days set aside for National prayer to God, seeking God’s aid to deliver us from the trials and tribulations that now beset us, is it not a little incongruous that we still hold on to our pagan feast days which obviously are opposed to God, inasmuch as, through the celebrations conducted in many Churches, they lead us to break the first and greatest commandment? We cannot expect God to deliver us from our enemies and still continue with our idolatrous rituals. That surely is sheer hypocrisy which the church seems all too eager to accept, inasmuch as they have consented to both in the past; and it would appear to be high time that the churches reconstituted their Calendar.
It is gratifying to know that Scotland has managed to resist such pagan influence. Let us hope that in the not-too-far future the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America will be equally sensible.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on December 17, 2005 01:24:29 PM
maggie - going to show more of your true character to all of us now?
maggiemuggins -
Linda_K, what did you do other than pull your pants up and come back to the RT with a red face and a red ass?
I didn't come running back here....I've been posting BOTH places for three days now. Get with the program.....for ONCE try to see things as they really happen....not as you pretend they are.
You can't even hold your own in a political discussion HERE....let alone in a thread where you're the ONLY one who's discussing the issues with god-only-knows how many RABID liberals....Bush haters....anti-Americans.
You turn for help from your buddies here, needing their support when you say anything - even using them and what they supposedly say when they're on suspension. You have no BACKBONE of your own....can't stand alone. I can.
posted on December 17, 2005 01:24:50 PM
There have been a few cases where educators have made the decision to encourage happy holidays or some other generic salutation in place of merry christmas. Mostly, this was done in places where schools are already gun-shy about lawsuits, and can't afford the legal fees when somebody files a nuisance lawsuit. Unfortunately, now the nuisance lawsuits are going to hit them coming from the christians who are offended that their kids can't say merry christmas. Once again, the schools are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
The Christian Zealotry has made these isolated incidents into a big old deal and would have us believe it's some kind of trend. It's not. It's just part of their plan to create a christian theocracy in this country and they know they can easily dupe millions of rubes into thinking it's a big deal, same way they dupe them into sending millions of dollars a year to pay for fancy televangelist haircuts.....I don't celebrate the birth of Jesus anymore, because I don't think he was born on December 25th, nor do I believe he was the son of god anymore than I am or anyone else is, but in case I forget to say it later this week:
Merry Effing Christmas.
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
posted on December 17, 2005 01:26:46 PMit's that is what this holiday was set aside for....tradition again....reason it was established in the first place.
More babbling from the encyclopedia of mis-information.
All this comes on the heels of a national survey indicating just over a tenth of Americans today believe Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the focus of Christmas, with almost nine out of ten people saying the holiday has become less religious.
Are atheists correct that the very day set aside by hundreds of millions across the world to honor the birth of their Savior is merely a relic of sun worship? And if it is, why would some schools ban it? And even if today's holiday traditions have their roots in heathen practices, should Christians who wish to be true to their faith take part?
What may be surprising, though, is that some devout Christians, many dating all the way back to the days of Jesus, never celebrated the birth of Christ, nor sought to. America's early colonists banned observance of Christmas, and still today, there are many Christians abstaining from what millions more of their brethren joyfully celebrate as God's coming in human form.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states, '"the word for Christmas in late Old English is Cristes Maesse, the Mass of Christ, first found in 1038, and Cristes-messe, in 1131."
It explains "Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church," pointing out "first evidence of the feast is from Egypt" around A.D. 200 with attempts by theologians to assign not only the year of Christ's birth, but also the precise date.
Historians agree that through the subsequent centuries, traditions from ancient pagan (non-Christian) religions became intertwined with those of Christianity, and depending upon one's point of view, either paganism became Christianized, or Christianity became paganized.
In 1644, the English Parliament outlawed the holiday, compelling shops to be open that day, and condemning plum puddings and mince pies as "heathen."
In his Pulitzer Prize finalist, "The Battle for Christmas," historian Stephen Nissenbaum at the University of Massachusetts documents the American development of the holiday now ensconced in popular culture.
"In New England, for the first two centuries of white settlement," writes Nissenbaum, "most people did not celebrate Christmas. In fact, the holiday was systematically suppressed by Puritans during the colonial period and largely ignored by their descendants. It was actually illegal to celebrate Christmas in Massachusetts between 1659 and 1681 (the fine was five shillings). Only in the middle of the nineteenth century did Christmas gain legal recognition as an official public holiday in New England."
Nissenbaum agrees with other historians that the first recorded observance since the New Testament recounted Christ's birth took place hundreds of years after Jesus' resurrection.
"It was only in the fourth century that the Church officially decided to observe Christmas on Dec. 25. And this date was not chosen for religious reasons but simply because it happened to mark the approximate arrival of the winter solstice, an event that was celebrated long before the advent of Christianity. The Puritans were correct when they pointed out – and they pointed it out often – that Christmas was nothing but a pagan festival covered with a Christian veneer."
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on December 17, 2005 01:32:41 PM
Our profe says:
can't afford the legal fees.
yep...just like I've stated here over and over again. It's that ACLU who is almost always behind any atheist who could be the ONLY person complaining....but everything changes for that ONE person.
That's nuts in American....totally nuts.
But it's the ACLU who most leftists support....
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on December 17, 2005 01:38:30 PM
Oh now it's the ACLU segue !
Too funny!
Do you know there's actually people who are so stupid that they don't know the ACLU has championed the rights of many CHRISTIANS!
Can you imagine anyone that DUMB? Especially when there's so much proof !!!
It's only those who believe only THEY have civil rights that bad mouth the ACLU.
posted on December 17, 2005 01:46:42 PM
lol Linda! kraft only subscribes to a dis-organized religion in her mind!! It may be a he, it might be rock, it could be blob of smoke around oozing in and out of the atmosphere; its probably just my own self I pray to cause there's nothing in the world supreme to me...
Profes, watch out - Bob...er..jacob..Marley will be coming to see you Christmas Eve. (Along with Freddie Prince, Jimmy Stewart, Woodrow Wilson, and Phillis Diller.)
00h-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o- change before it's too late...ohh-ohhh---
posted on December 17, 2005 01:46:51 PM
No Linda, you are a laughingstock on three boards right now. The butt of their jokes and ridicule. You bared your ass as Helen said to all and they left their boot imprint on it for all to see.
Backbone, is that what you call your lil wood poles these days? Is that what props you up?
posted on December 17, 2005 01:54:45 PM
Oh maggie [sigh] I KNOW how much you and helen like slumming....but I don't feel exposed.
I'm a PROUD patriot who loves my country...has it's best interest at heart....don't support this Internationalism way of viewing the world...not a communist...don't believe in Marxism, didn't agree with Stalin either....and don't support their followers....like the war protestors that travel the world working to instill their own sad values in other countries.
I'm proud to be 'exposed' as a conservative...on the winning side of the last TWO elections. I'm proud of what this President I voted for has done so far....and will continue to do not matter how much he has to fight with the liberals to protect this Nation.
I know it's going to be a long three years for you all......I'll enjoy every minute of it.
And I could care less what some liberal who doesn't even fit in the majority of the democratic party says about me. I'd bet while they all whine away....most probably don't even vote.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on December 17, 2005 02:02:27 PM
It was amusing to see lindak slamming people on both boards with the same insults and then getting all confused about who she did it to, all the while trying to convince everyone there how civil she is and how superior she is to others here at the RT.
And even more amusing to see her get backed into a corner over there and then run back here with her tail between her legs trying to convince us all here how great she was there! ROFL!!
posted on December 17, 2005 02:11:23 PM"But we still have KD who has no explanation for who she prays TO.....and a God she's made up in her own mind....her own personal religion."
Linda, for the 3rd time now, I said I would answer your question when you answer mine, which you've avoided.
Could it be that God is unique to each person?
What can God do for you that you can't do for yourself?
posted on December 17, 2005 02:17:51 PM
LOL kiara....who always has to get into the mud slinging.....
....IF you read the majority of their posts and then have the nerve to say I'm slamming them.....that's speaks so loudly to anyone who you EVER expect to believe you again. How funny.
But typical of you.....just dismiss all the comment made to me....and accuse ME of slamming them. Do you wear coke-bottle glasses and still have trouble seeing things?
--------------
Merry Christmas to you too piinthesky....and a very good New Year too.
posted on December 17, 2005 02:28:12 PM
LOL KD - Linda, for the 3rd time now, I said I would answer your question when you answer mine, which you've avoided.
[i]Could it be that God is unique to each person?
What can God do for you that you can't do for yourself[/i]?
KD - Your years of history hear have proven to me, if nothing else, that you are the one who MOST enjoys putting religious people, church people down. It's a shame because you do have other good qualities....but this issue isn't one of them....never has been....probably, sadly, never will be.
You -and yeager used to join you all the time- enjoy starting threads on the topic of religion....so you can MOCK those believes/followers. You can deny it all you want to...but I again speak the truth.
EVERYTIME you and I have a conversation about this it's YOU how won't answer questions put to you. You just disappear. But upon your return you still don't answer them. Now, recently you have this NEW GAME....I'm not going to answer you because you won't answer me...crap.
I've always been willing to answer reasonable religious questions posed to be by reasonable people who have RESPECT for the beliefs of others. I've never found you to be one of them....you're just a game player and use the religion issue for ONE of the many games you play here.
So....nope...I won't ever be addressing your religious questions...because you NEVER do mine...and now you've turned even that around too.... accusing me of not answering your questions.
I've already heard enough of your supposed ideas of a god and of supposed prayer....LOL
posted on December 17, 2005 02:43:52 PMBut typical of you.....just dismiss all the comment made to me....and accuse ME of slamming them. Do you wear coke-bottle glasses and still have trouble seeing things?
lindak, I know exactly what I'm talking about. My eyesight is good and I don't need glasses.
Do the expressions "Bug off" and "Stick a sock in it" ring any bells? That's what I referred to about you slamming people on both boards with the same insults whenever you feel challenged and then trying to convince everyone how civil you are.
posted on December 17, 2005 02:51:31 PM
Linda, you need to broaden your thinking. As Mivona pointed out, "prayers don't have to invoke God. There are humanist prayers too, which encompass hopes and aspirations rather than entreaties to the divine."
posted on December 17, 2005 02:59:43 PM
Another great post up there, Prof!
Linda, you're wrong. I don't enjoy putting religion down, but I do enjoy exposing the hypocrisy in religious people - the ones that claim to follow God's teachings via the Bible yet don't. These people don't seem to think it's wrong to say they have God on their side, while committing crimes against these teachings and the 10 Commandments on a daily basis. These religious people lie, cheat, screw around, do drugs, etc., while pointing the finger at others telling them not to lie, cheat, etc. These people give religion/God a bad name, not the ones that question the existance of God and his teachings.
As for answering questions, I've answered all your questions Linda. I asked some of my own of you, yet you haven't answered any of them - 2 of which I have repeated and are quite simple questions.
As for mocking - show me where I have mocked a non-hypocritical religious person.
posted on December 17, 2005 03:05:30 PM
Helen....I don't give a rat's ass what Mivona said.....although out of the 23 page thread I sure don't EVER remember her addressing that issue with me.
Why don't you grow up and quit this back and forth from board to board crap?
Go there...or post here....but this nonsense of poster here about what happens there is stupid to say the least, and I do believe in violation of our own Vendio community guidelines. I know it was it the past.
But get over what I do with anyone else. Are YOU personally feeling neglected and that you're not getting enough of my attention or some sick things that drives you to continue mentioning what's going on over there.
If what happens there or on the Ross board....go there and whine. I really could care less. I don't post on the ross board never wanted to...he's more your type.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on December 17, 2005 03:08:55 PM
I'll repeat it for you ONE MORE TIME, kiara......
louder this time...maybe you'll get the point.
LOL kiara....who always has to get into the mud slinging.....
....[b]IF you read the majority of their posts and then have the nerve to say I'm slamming them.....that's speaks so loudly to anyone who you EVER expect to believe you again. How funny.
But typical of you.....just dismiss all the comment made to me....and accuse ME of slamming them[/b]. Do you wear coke-bottle glasses and still have trouble seeing things?
