Was jesus born on december 25th?

Glaucus · 23 Dec 2009 at 09:41

drunkenmaster said:
There was no jesus,

despite lots of write stuff talking about him and not just the bible. Back in those days that's more evidence than 99.9% of the population.

He is not talking about some person called Jesus. he is talking about Jesus from the bible, did exist and was born and lived a similar life. Just without the powers and religious add-ons.

TheMightyTen · 23 Dec 2009 at 09:43

Richiev4 said:
I like this one - any links to a broader description?

Except that it's complete twoddle

The Running Man · 23 Dec 2009 at 09:43

what would sherpherds do with their flock once it becomes winter - avoid tending to them?

surely flocks need tending to all year around, possibly more in winter due to the cold?

sure they might be 'out' in the barn, instead of 'out' in the field but does the bible specify which? just out of curiosity...

Glaucus · 23 Dec 2009 at 09:45

Nickg said:
sure they might be 'out' in the barn, instead of 'out' in the field but does the bible specify which? just out of curiosity...

yes in the field. But that isn't the only passage which gives a clue to the date, well more the viable months anyway.

The Running Man · 23 Dec 2009 at 09:47

but does the bible tell you where the flocks went in the winter? i mean im guessing most shepherds with a herd didnt have like electro blankets and stalls for all of their animals and that they would wander with them and almost 'live' with the flock.. afterall, in those days you didnt really have reciepts etc to prove that it is your animal and you wouldnt really like to risk losing any animals to thieves or predators?

so my point is, what differently did they do in winter given a lack of agricultural farming, poverty and low amounts of resources?

Uriel · 23 Dec 2009 at 10:13

It's been a while since I read Daily Life In Palestine at the time of Christ soI was just having a quick look on google to brush up on the matter.

The Daily Mirror turned out to be good for a chuckle:

Bethlehem was one of the main areas near Jerusalem where sheep were raised for sacrifices. Shepherds were viewed as unclean peasants, and may have routinely slept with their animals.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/12/19/it-s-the-xmas-factor-115875-21908432/

Glaucus · 23 Dec 2009 at 10:24

Not sure what they did. Although a bit of googling suggest they move from teh fields to either the valleys or within the city limits.

"If Luke's account has any historical basis, therefore, Jesus is likely to have [sic] born in the summer." (Porter, 2004, p. 70)

"...the chances that Jesus was born on December 25 are 1 in 365 (or 366 in leap years). This date was invented by the Western church - as late as the fourth century under the emperor Constantine - as a way to replace the pagan festival of the Unvanquished Sun, and is first attested, to be precise, in a Roman calendar in AD 334." (Vermes, 2006, p. 3)

"According to age-old local custom, shepherds kept their flocks out in the fields between March and November. This would place the Nativity not in the winter season of Christmas, but sometime between spring and autumn." (Vermes, 2006, p. 91)

Now this is the more important bit. Was Jesus birthday modelled after the sun from older texts (like some say). Or was the suns birthday hijacked for Christians to make it easier.

Now into the fray came a long-standing competition between early Christians and pagan worshipers of the Sun God. In 274 A.D., Roman emperor Aurelian (214-275 A.D.) made the pagan cult Sol Invictus the official religion of Rome, building temples and establishing December 25 as the birthday of the Sun.[2] Some 60 years later, the Roman church officially declared December 25 to be Jesus’ birth day.

Notice those dates are after the bible was written. With historians thinking upto 70ad but starting as far back as 1500B.C

Participant · 23 Dec 2009 at 12:55

gurusan said:
What the hell is your problem? Someone made a thread topical to the birth of Jesus. People said he wasn't born at all. In continuing the discussion I responded by saying he was.

Then a page or 2 later you pop up and ask me what my point was in responding to someone? Makes no sense. What the hell is your point?

Rant!

Jesus in the context of the holy trinity, turning water into wine, etc. was never born. That's my point. Anyone can say that someone called Jesus was in fact born, but that's not much use really is it. For all you and I know the bible refers to many different blokes that ended up being lumped into one guy called Jesus. Or many different blokes all called Jesus.

Whatever it is, it's all folk stories, wives' tales, hocus pocus, and ridiculous bull****.

Burnsy2023 · 23 Dec 2009 at 13:05

Robbie G said:
Rant!

Jesus in the context of the holy trinity, turning water into wine, etc. was never born. That's my point. Anyone can say that someone called Jesus was in fact born, but that's not much use really is it. For all you and I know the bible refers to many different blokes that ended up being lumped into one guy called Jesus. Or many different blokes all called Jesus.

Whatever it is, it's all folk stories, wives' tales, hocus pocus, and ridiculous bull****.

What evidence do you have to come to this conclusion. Simple task, if you're so sure, prove it.

Nitefly · 23 Dec 2009 at 13:11

Burnsy2023 said:
What evidence do you have to come to this conclusion. Simple task, if you're so sure, prove it.

I think it's just best to accept that this whole conversation is essentially fuelled by opinion.

The only thing (with this conversation and discussion about religion generally) is that some people are more respectful about their opinions than others...

Simian · 23 Dec 2009 at 13:14

I was born on 25th December!!!..

(but 1973 years too late!!)

Vonhelmet · 23 Dec 2009 at 13:37

FAITH FIGHT!

No one can prove anything, so it's only idiots would try to do so. Interestingly, most Christians don't bother trying.

Participant · 23 Dec 2009 at 13:38

Burnsy2023 said:
What evidence do you have to come to this conclusion. Simple task, if you're so sure, prove it.

Right so the burden of proof falls on the sceptical rather than those that are purveying the view of some kind of mystical ghost being the reason for our existence? In that case, I wish to put forward the view that I am in fact a deity. If you can't prove otherwise, it must be true!!!

Nitefly said:
I think it's just best to accept that this whole conversation is essentially fuelled by opinion.

The only thing (with this conversation and discussion about religion generally) is that some people are more respectful about their opinions than others...

How can you respect an opinion that pimps the idea that some kind of ghost oversees all that we do. It's just laughable, and laugh I do.

vonhelmet said:
FAITH FIGHT!

No one can prove anything, so it's only idiots would try to do so. Interestingly, most Christians don't bother trying.

Because they secretly know there's nothing to prove.

Burnsy2023 · 23 Dec 2009 at 13:42

Nitefly said:
I think it's just best to accept that this whole conversation is essentially fuelled by opinion.

The only thing (with this conversation and discussion about religion generally) is that some people are more respectful about their opinions than others...

This is pretty much my point, but if you're respectful, you're probably open minded and this is a requirement for a scientific mind.

Robbie G said:
How can you respect an opinion that pimps the idea that some kind of ghost oversees all that we do. It's just laughable, and laugh I do.

The thing is, it's possible for you to be very wrong.

Vonhelmet · 23 Dec 2009 at 13:44

Robbie G said:
Because they secretly know there's nothing to prove.

Thanks for proving my point.

Participant · 23 Dec 2009 at 13:46

Burnsy2023 said:
The thing is, it's possible for you to be very wrong.

Possible, maybe. But all a religious person needs to ask themselves is: which scenario is the more likely?

'Ah, but the faith is what makes my belief so strong' they will reply. If you (the royal you) hold on to faith like it's some kind of character asset, then I pity you! Why is believing in something that's incredibly unlikely to be true considered to be a good thing? Where I come from it's called stupid.

Vonhelmet · 23 Dec 2009 at 13:49

Robbie G said:
Possible, maybe. But all a religious person needs to ask themselves is: which scenario is the more likely?

'Ah, but the faith is what makes my belief so strong' they will reply. If you (the royal you) hold on to faith like it's some kind of character asset, then I pity you! Why is believing in something that's incredibly unlikely to be true considered to be a good thing? Where I come from it's called stupid.

Occam's razor, which this line of thinking sounds like, does not tell you anything about what actually happened, only which possible story involved fewer entities.

ScoobyDoo69 · 23 Dec 2009 at 14:37

Can't say I want to sit and read such a long thread, but I've seen comments of the alligning with the pagan festival, something to do with the sun? That's true from what I know, so it's a completely unchristian celebration. The Bible gives us ideas that it was a warmish period of time, Spring maybe, and that the Winters were extremely cold.. but doesn't mention a date or time, because it's not deemed relevant. In fact the Bible only really tells us to celebrate his death.. IIRC wasn't Christmas banned in England at one stage as it was a pagan celebration?

Either way, out of all you people who know and acknowledge that Christmas is a false occasion, why do you celebrate it? For those of you who think it IS to do with Christ, but aren't religious, then why (if you do) do you celebrate Christmas?

I personally don't understand the "its a time to spend with the family" arguement as if anything, it causes so much strain on families to get so many presents etc, and of course, what stops you doing this at other times? Why do you need an "occasion" to buy the people you love gifts and to sit and enjoy time with them?

If I have said anything to offend anyone, I apologise in advance..

Zip · 23 Dec 2009 at 14:48

ScoobyDoo69 said:
In fact the Bible only really tells us to celebrate his death.. IIRC wasn't ?

Just curious.

You wouldnt be a Jehovah Witness would you?

Participant · 23 Dec 2009 at 14:56

ScoobyDoo69 said:
Either way, out of all you people who know and acknowledge that Christmas is a false occasion, why do you celebrate it? For those of you who think it IS to do with Christ, but aren't religious, then why (if you do) do you celebrate Christmas?

I personally don't understand the "its a time to spend with the family" arguement as if anything, it causes so much strain on families to get so many presents etc, and of course, what stops you doing this at other times? Why do you need an "occasion" to buy the people you love gifts and to sit and enjoy time with them?

If I have said anything to offend anyone, I apologise in advance..

There are many traditions that are born out of religious roots.

That does not mean that the participants sympathise with the undertones of the event.

I bet you say bless you to people when they sneeze. Why if you don't believe in god? Etc. blah blah blah.

For me the Christmas period is traditionally a period for the family to get together and eat, drink, socialise, exchange gifts, have lots of parties, and welcome in the new year. It doesn't cause any strain on my family - not sure what you mean by this? And my particular family does these things at other times of the year (apart from welcome in the new year!) - what makes you think that just because Christmas is a time when people do these things, that they do not also do them at other times of the year?

I even got married in a church, knowing full well in my own mind that there is no such thing as god. The reason I did this is because my wife wanted to, and it seemed like a nice place to formalise things.