BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,946
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
The History Channel havs very little truth - so it's not surprising YOU would use it as a source . . .
Celebrating Christmas ?
- Thread starter HolyMood
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
The Winter Solstice was NOT a Roman Civil holiday until 274 AD. The Emperor Aurelian made December 25th a civil holiday because the Christians were already using it to celebrate the Birth of Jesus and he was trying to detract from the Christian celebration!
None of the Sun Cults used December 25th before then. It appears that the Winter Solstice was originally a CHRISTIAN feast that the pagans tried to paganize, not the other way around.
Nobody knows when Jesus was born, but the Bible gives us clues.
Zechariah was acting as high priest when the birth of St. John the baptizer was announced to him in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. That would have been on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement which falls in late September. St. John was conceived shortly thereafter during Sukkot, the Festival of Booths.
At the Annunciation, the BVM was told that Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant. That would have been in late March. (BTW the feast of the Annunciation is celebrated on March 25th in the Roman Calendar. )
Nine months later Jesus was born sometime in late December.
Now there is an interesting coincidence with all this. St. John would have been born near the Summer Solstice (the longest day of the year) everyday after that would get shorter until the Winter Solstice six months later, which is the shortest day of the year. Every day after that would get longer. In the First Century the Winter Solstice fell on December 25th.
It would be fitting that Jesus would have been born on the shortest day of the year because he is the "Light of the World":
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8:12)
Everyday after his birth there was more light.
Also St. John the Baptizer said of himself:
He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30)
Which is exactly what happened to the daylight after their respective births. (This was the point St. Augustine made in his championing the celebration of Jesus' birth on the Winter Solstice).
So despite the objections of some pundits, December 25th is a very reasonable date to celebrate Jesus' birth and not a concession to paganism.
None of the Sun Cults used December 25th before then. It appears that the Winter Solstice was originally a CHRISTIAN feast that the pagans tried to paganize, not the other way around.
Nobody knows when Jesus was born, but the Bible gives us clues.
Zechariah was acting as high priest when the birth of St. John the baptizer was announced to him in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. That would have been on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement which falls in late September. St. John was conceived shortly thereafter during Sukkot, the Festival of Booths.
At the Annunciation, the BVM was told that Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant. That would have been in late March. (BTW the feast of the Annunciation is celebrated on March 25th in the Roman Calendar. )
Nine months later Jesus was born sometime in late December.
Now there is an interesting coincidence with all this. St. John would have been born near the Summer Solstice (the longest day of the year) everyday after that would get shorter until the Winter Solstice six months later, which is the shortest day of the year. Every day after that would get longer. In the First Century the Winter Solstice fell on December 25th.
It would be fitting that Jesus would have been born on the shortest day of the year because he is the "Light of the World":
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8:12)
Everyday after his birth there was more light.
Also St. John the Baptizer said of himself:
He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30)
Which is exactly what happened to the daylight after their respective births. (This was the point St. Augustine made in his championing the celebration of Jesus' birth on the Winter Solstice).
So despite the objections of some pundits, December 25th is a very reasonable date to celebrate Jesus' birth and not a concession to paganism.
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
@Pearl Sounds good to link how you function directly with the pattern of the New Testament.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,946
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
What YOU foolishly refer to as "Back peddling" (pedaling) is nothing but logic.
Regardless of whther you agree with Hippolytus about when the earth was created - he mentions that Christmas was being celebrated on DECEMBER 25th before 204 AD. As I stated before - this is SEVENTY YEARS BEFORE the pagan celebration of Sol Invoctus was inaugurated by the Roman Emperor Aurelian in 274 AD.
You see?
THIS is what happens when you show up to a gunfight carrying a pea-shooter . . .
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,946
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Oh, and NONE of the manure YOU and your fellow anti-Cathoolics have been heaping is ad hominem or smokescreen.
Hypocrisy, anyone?
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,946
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I didn't attack your character.
It has been my contention o this forum for YEARS that ALL anti-Catholics are dishonest because you have to resort to either lying about what the Church teaches and pracrices - or you perpetuate myths and falsehoods.
When I compared the dishonesty of the History Channel to you - it was merely an observation.
historyb
Well-Known Member
Nope, the NT Church was unified and not non-denominational, non-denominational is an evangelical idea and not found in history. The first divide didn't happen until 1054 AD than a split in 1500's by Luther than evangelicals went wild with 40,000 and growing denominations including those that are non-denominational. To really follow the NT Church you would have to belong to a Liturgical Church. Right now you and all evangelicals go to Churches founded by men that have no cannot be traced back to the Apostles
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
Tracing back to the apostles means absolutely nothing to Protestants. It's fantasy.
Yes, agreed. I've often said that my position is, that no names or appellation comes before Christ's.
FHII
Well-Known Member
- Apr 9, 2011
- 4,833
- 2,494
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I'd like to bring up some historical writings to this discussion in light of several inaccuracies that have been presented, as well as several things which have been left out. Before I begin, for those who don't know me (I haven't posted in several months) I do not celebrate Christmas nor do I believe it was his birthday. My intention is NOT to defend my position: it is to introduce some further writings and things to consider.
The first concerns Hyppolytus of Rome. It is not in dispute that he claimed the birthdate of Jesus as December 25th. He did so around 205 AD. What may not be realized is that he wasn't the first to make a claim. Approximately in the year 195 AD Cement of Alexandria noted several other possible dates. He leans to November 18th, but notes sevaral believed it to be sometime in in the spring ranging from March to May. None of the dates suggested are December 25th, although some believe the November 18th date with calendar adjustments fits January 6th. The original writings can be found in Stromata 1:21. However, an easier read is "How December 25th Became Christmas" at the Biclical Archeology website.
My point is that there were many dates suggested in this time period. In my opinion, none of them have strong historical backing. Some dont have reasons given while others come from a very questionable interpretation of Daniel. Hyppolytus didn't have an "Eureka!" Moment... He was just one of many proposing a date.
The second has to do with Saturnia. It has been suggested that it wasn't an official holiday until 274 AD. It was also suggested that 274 AD was the "inauguration" date. The latter depends on how you use the word. However, it should NOT be mistaken to believe that was the first one, because it wasn't: far from it! A Roman historian named Titus Livius (also know as Livy) is claimed to have said it dates back to the 5th century BC, with some believing it was older. Livy (who lived 59 BC to 17AD) notes that Augustus and other authorities set regulations on the holiday.
Saturnalia
The point is that its incorrect to somehow state or imply that Saturnia started after Hyppolytis claimed December 25th as Jesus's birthday. The festival was already in full swing and had been for centuies.
The last has to do with the Course of Abia. No one has called it that, but a few have referenced it as the account from Luke 1. There is A LOT of backstory to this. I don't have a website or reference to give. You have to do a lot of Bible searching and googling calendar adjustments to figure it out. I spent 2 solid months on it and found it impossible to pinpoint a date. But let me try to make it quick:
It has to do with Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth (parents to John the Bapist). Zacharias was a priest of the course of Abia. As such he was assigned to 4 temple services throughout the year, and possibly a 5th if it was a "leap year". Each course had a different set of dates: 2 dates a year plus 2 more on certain holidays. Thats four dates, but subtract one because in the spring, the course of Abia was followed by a holiday. This gives 3 dates Zacharias could've been in the temple. A possible 4th if it was a leap year, but I found no evidence for that being the case.
So, from there we figure Zacharias finished his duty and went home and communicated this somehow to his wife (he was mute). Thus, 9 months after that John was born and 3 months after John, Jesus was born.
Through my research I found that 3 dates "could,ve" been Jesus's birthdate: one in the Spring around March, one around September and the last sometime around January 6-9. Note that with calendar adjustments that the January date coincides with an approximate Dec 25th date.
The first peoblem is that people who use the Course of Abia to tout their claim ignore the fact that there were 3 possibilities. Many eliminate the holiday date claiming it was not part of the course but an ammendment (if you will), but it was in the rules! Even so, that still gives 2 dates.
There is another problem: its a very tight schedule! For Dec 25th to be considered requires John to be conceived immediately when Zacharias got home and Jesus to be conceived immediately as well. I believe the latter part more than the former. But the is much more to it. It takes a perfect 40 week pregnancy for both (and the length of pregnancy has changed over the years).
In conclusion, if you are going to use the Course of Abia to pinpoint a date, you are opening a big can of worms. It simply becomes speculation on the best case scenario and is totally unprovable.
In conclusion, I again want to reiterate that I am not looking to prompt up my beliefs. I have them, but these are straight up, true facts that should not be ignored. Yet, they have been. I am not calling anyone a liar, I am just bringing more historical references to light.
The first concerns Hyppolytus of Rome. It is not in dispute that he claimed the birthdate of Jesus as December 25th. He did so around 205 AD. What may not be realized is that he wasn't the first to make a claim. Approximately in the year 195 AD Cement of Alexandria noted several other possible dates. He leans to November 18th, but notes sevaral believed it to be sometime in in the spring ranging from March to May. None of the dates suggested are December 25th, although some believe the November 18th date with calendar adjustments fits January 6th. The original writings can be found in Stromata 1:21. However, an easier read is "How December 25th Became Christmas" at the Biclical Archeology website.
My point is that there were many dates suggested in this time period. In my opinion, none of them have strong historical backing. Some dont have reasons given while others come from a very questionable interpretation of Daniel. Hyppolytus didn't have an "Eureka!" Moment... He was just one of many proposing a date.
The second has to do with Saturnia. It has been suggested that it wasn't an official holiday until 274 AD. It was also suggested that 274 AD was the "inauguration" date. The latter depends on how you use the word. However, it should NOT be mistaken to believe that was the first one, because it wasn't: far from it! A Roman historian named Titus Livius (also know as Livy) is claimed to have said it dates back to the 5th century BC, with some believing it was older. Livy (who lived 59 BC to 17AD) notes that Augustus and other authorities set regulations on the holiday.
Saturnalia
The point is that its incorrect to somehow state or imply that Saturnia started after Hyppolytis claimed December 25th as Jesus's birthday. The festival was already in full swing and had been for centuies.
The last has to do with the Course of Abia. No one has called it that, but a few have referenced it as the account from Luke 1. There is A LOT of backstory to this. I don't have a website or reference to give. You have to do a lot of Bible searching and googling calendar adjustments to figure it out. I spent 2 solid months on it and found it impossible to pinpoint a date. But let me try to make it quick:
It has to do with Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth (parents to John the Bapist). Zacharias was a priest of the course of Abia. As such he was assigned to 4 temple services throughout the year, and possibly a 5th if it was a "leap year". Each course had a different set of dates: 2 dates a year plus 2 more on certain holidays. Thats four dates, but subtract one because in the spring, the course of Abia was followed by a holiday. This gives 3 dates Zacharias could've been in the temple. A possible 4th if it was a leap year, but I found no evidence for that being the case.
So, from there we figure Zacharias finished his duty and went home and communicated this somehow to his wife (he was mute). Thus, 9 months after that John was born and 3 months after John, Jesus was born.
Through my research I found that 3 dates "could,ve" been Jesus's birthdate: one in the Spring around March, one around September and the last sometime around January 6-9. Note that with calendar adjustments that the January date coincides with an approximate Dec 25th date.
The first peoblem is that people who use the Course of Abia to tout their claim ignore the fact that there were 3 possibilities. Many eliminate the holiday date claiming it was not part of the course but an ammendment (if you will), but it was in the rules! Even so, that still gives 2 dates.
There is another problem: its a very tight schedule! For Dec 25th to be considered requires John to be conceived immediately when Zacharias got home and Jesus to be conceived immediately as well. I believe the latter part more than the former. But the is much more to it. It takes a perfect 40 week pregnancy for both (and the length of pregnancy has changed over the years).
In conclusion, if you are going to use the Course of Abia to pinpoint a date, you are opening a big can of worms. It simply becomes speculation on the best case scenario and is totally unprovable.
In conclusion, I again want to reiterate that I am not looking to prompt up my beliefs. I have them, but these are straight up, true facts that should not be ignored. Yet, they have been. I am not calling anyone a liar, I am just bringing more historical references to light.
Well, thank you for that FHII, the thorough research is much appreciated!
I hope that everyone gets the point here - no one has a clue when Jesus was born, not a single person, not within a reasonable range enough to honour a specific day, as the occasion would warrant? Thus, the conclusion is clear, God did not divulge the date, because the precision of the day in which Jesus was born, has absolutely nothing to do with his birth!
The only gifts that anyone should be giving to another person, in honour of Jesus' birthday (perceived, or not), is a Bible, and nothing else! Anything else, is a misguided mockery of the Messiah's adoration and worship that he duly received from the magi.
It's a 'New Testament' church in that it is based on the picture of the Church in Acts. We seek to be Holy spirit inspired and led. It's a simple fellowship full of love and sharing and without the traditions that are precious to the main denominations. We worship together, we eat together, we socialise together and we don't fall out. And during meetings we are encouraged to share with the church what God has put on our hearts during the previous week. Like the early church our meetings started in homes and we were still meeting midweek in homes until Covid put a stop to it. And most of all we love each other. Many strangers, Christian and non-Christian, have said they could feel the love as soon as they entered the building.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,946
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
That's because YOU can't go back any further than 500 years - when mere MEN created your sects . . .
Similar threads
