U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-30-2007, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Comunistafornia, and working to get out ASAP!
1,959 posts, read 4,717,888 times
Reputation: 924

Advertisements

OK, HistoryasIS, but the point all would agree is this simple FACT Jesus was not born on Dec. 25th and to pretend that He was and attempt to celebrate it as so is deceptive and false. Would God have us to believe lies? No, Colossians 3:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11. But again we've debated this to long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-30-2007, 04:13 PM
 
2,946 posts, read 4,867,516 times
Reputation: 1610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marks View Post
This is just the point, it's not about Jesus. It had nothing to do with Jesus at all. Jesus was "applied" to the holiday, but it did not originate or intend to be about Him.



Now that's the reasonable approach, except for the part about Christ's birth, but still that is a correct way to celebrate that holiday. Have it a holiday, have the warm fuzzes, the bells, the gifts, the carols, even the trees if you want but leave Jesus out of it. That's the point!
What`s wrong with acknowledging Chrsit birth? What`s wrong with getting together with family and friends and buying gifts for one another. Whatever the roots of it were hundreds or thousands of years ago,that is not what it is now. I wasn`t alive thousands of years ago and I don`t really know what they did and neither does anybody else,unless you go and research it and try to find a reason to say...uh huh.... gotcha. We can`t live in the past and if something bad has been changed into something good,well great. If someone wants to acknowledge Chrsit birth on a particular day,I say great. If you don`t,fine too. If you are someone that just likes the togetherness,happiness,and warmth that it brings and nothing else..great. It`s just a day we celebrate for a couple of reasons but if you asked most people today..not a thousand years ago but today...they will say it`s a time to remember Christ birth. So if a day is set aside for people to recognize the savior`s birth,what`s wrong with that? Maybe there has been a Chrsitmas where someone became interested in Christ because of a song they heard or someone explaining what his birth meant that they never thought about before. Maybe a hurting person first heard of Christ birth and went into a church that day to find out what Jesus was all about and became a christian. If it is a day where good is done and people are helped then I`m all for it. We need stop looking for the devil around every legalistic corner.He`s more interested in getting in the church and distorting the gospel and God`s word more than people giving gifts and helping others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2007, 04:45 PM
 
364 posts, read 702,590 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marks View Post
OK, HistoryasIS, but the point all would agree is this simple FACT Jesus was not born on Dec. 25th and to pretend that He was and attempt to celebrate it as so is deceptive and false. Would God have us to believe lies? No, Colossians 3:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11. But again we've debated this to long.


lol pretty much everyone knows jesus was not born on dec 25. we do not celebrate because we believe he was born on 25 but because he was born period.

where is the lie there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2007, 04:51 PM
 
7,780 posts, read 13,473,514 times
Reputation: 3452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marks View Post
Have it a holiday, have the warm fuzzes, the bells, the gifts, the carols, even the trees if you want but leave Jesus out of it. That's the point!
So let me get this straight, you're OK with having it a regular holiday and making it a festive time but it's when we try and make it an act of worship and honor God through it that you have the problem?

So as long as Jesus isn't a part of it, you're OK with it...but when we make it about Jesus you have issue with it?

I'm much more confused now than I was a week ago.

I'm a Christian. Jesus is a part of EVERYTHING I do.

This stance sounds more like an atheistic argument than one coming from another Christian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2007, 05:00 PM
 
364 posts, read 702,590 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207 View Post
So let me get this straight, you're OK with having it a regular holiday and making it a festive time but it's when we try and make it an act of worship and honor God through it that you have the problem?

So as long as Jesus isn't a part of it, you're OK with it...but when we make it about Jesus you have issue with it?

I'm much more confused now than I was a week ago.

I'm a Christian. Jesus is a part of EVERYTHING I do.

This stance sounds more like an atheistic argument than one coming from another Christian.

earlier christians been trying to figure out Jesus birth they pick dec 25 as that day.

They made a guess because really we do not know when he was born most like not winter do to sheep are out in fields in spring time.

The main thing is before the roman sun god etc....... dec 25 was already a celebrating of Jesus birth.

If you re-serach The most earlier account of christmas the holiday being celebrating is 200ad dating about 74 years before the cult of the roman sun god
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2007, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Comunistafornia, and working to get out ASAP!
1,959 posts, read 4,717,888 times
Reputation: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryasIS View Post
lol pretty much everyone knows jesus was not born on dec 25. we do not celebrate because we believe he was born on 25 but because he was born period.

where is the lie there?
Of course He was born, but NOT on Dec. 25th that's the lie people are trying to foist off on others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2007, 06:13 PM
 
Location: Comunistafornia, and working to get out ASAP!
1,959 posts, read 4,717,888 times
Reputation: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207 View Post
So let me get this straight, you're OK with having it a regular holiday and making it a festive time but it's when we try and make it an act of worship and honor God through it that you have the problem?

So as long as Jesus isn't a part of it, you're OK with it...but when we make it about Jesus you have issue with it?

I'm much more confused now than I was a week ago.

I'm a Christian. Jesus is a part of EVERYTHING I do.

This stance sounds more like an atheistic argument than one coming from another Christian.
Oh, come on. What nonsense. With that so-called reasoning you should be confused.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2007, 06:43 PM
 
364 posts, read 702,590 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marks View Post
Of course He was born, but NOT on Dec. 25th that's the lie people are trying to foist off on others.


you justt do not get it.


Dec 25 last time I check christians did not say yep he was born dec 25.

last time I check I ask them why you celebrate it? asnwer the fact he was born.

dec 25 was a guess.

exmaple what if somone did not know their own birthday would it be wrong top put a day aside for his birthday no.

People do not teach yep dec 25 is when he was born they teach the fact he was born and many churches do make a commit most likey not dec 25 but its a day of the year we remember his birth.

If you believe there should not be a day we remember jesus birth because we do not know the date sorry but that a very weak argument

even my church made a commit this christmas even thou we celebrate his birth at this time of the year spring is more closer to his birth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2007, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Metro Detroit, MI
3,490 posts, read 2,499,243 times
Reputation: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryasIS View Post
Calculating Christmas

William J. Tighe on the Story Behind December 25
Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals.
Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Son” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.
A Mistake
The idea that the date was taken from the pagans goes back to two scholars from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wished to show that the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25th was one of the many “paganizations” of Christianity that the Church of the fourth century embraced, as one of many “degenerations” that transformed pure apostolic Christianity into Catholicism. Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the gospel.
In the Julian calendar, created in 45 B.C. under Julius Caesar, the winter solstice fell on December 25th, and it therefore seemed obvious to Jablonski and Hardouin that the day must have had a pagan significance before it had a Christian one. But in fact, the date had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian’s time, nor did the cult of the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him.
There were two temples of the sun in Rome, one of which (maintained by the clan into which Aurelian was born or adopted) celebrated its dedication festival on August 9th, the other of which celebrated its dedication festival on August 28th. But both of these cults fell into neglect in the second century, when eastern cults of the sun, such as Mithraism, began to win a following in Rome. And in any case, none of these cults, old or new, had festivals associated with solstices or equinoxes.
As things actually happened, Aurelian, who ruled from 270 until his assassination in 275, was hostile to Christianity and appears to have promoted the establishment of the festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” as a device to unify the various pagan cults of the Roman Empire around a commemoration of the annual “rebirth” of the sun. He led an empire that appeared to be collapsing in the face of internal unrest, rebellions in the provinces, economic decay, and repeated attacks from German tribes to the north and the Persian Empire to the east.
In creating the new feast, he intended the beginning of the lengthening of the daylight, and the arresting of the lengthening of darkness, on December 25th to be a symbol of the hoped-for “rebirth,” or perpetual rejuvenation, of the Roman Empire, resulting from the maintenance of the worship of the gods whose tutelage (the Romans thought) had brought Rome to greatness and world-rule. If it co-opted the Christian celebration, so much the better.
A By-Product
It is true that the first evidence of Christians celebrating December 25th as the date of the Lord’s nativity comes from Rome some years after Aurelian, in A.D. 336, but there is evidence from both the Greek East and the Latin West that Christians attempted to figure out the date of Christ’s birth long before they began to celebrate it liturgically, even in the second and third centuries. The evidence indicates, in fact, that the attribution of the date of December 25th was a by-product of attempts to determine when to celebrate his death and resurrection.
How did this happen? There is a seeming contradiction between the date of the Lord’s death as given in the synoptic Gospels and in John’s Gospel. The synoptics would appear to place it on Passover Day (after the Lord had celebrated the Passover Meal on the preceding evening), and John on the Eve of Passover, just when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Jerusalem Temple for the feast that was to ensue after sunset on that day.
Solving this problem involves answering the question of whether the Lord’s Last Supper was a Passover Meal, or a meal celebrated a day earlier, which we cannot enter into here. Suffice it to say that the early Church followed John rather than the synoptics, and thus believed that Christ’s death would have taken place on 14 Nisan, according to the Jewish lunar calendar. (Modern scholars agree, by the way, that the death of Christ could have taken place only in A.D. 30 or 33, as those two are the only years of that time when the eve of Passover could have fallen on a Friday, the possibilities being either 7 April 30 or 3 April 33.)
However, as the early Church was forcibly separated from Judaism, it entered into a world with different calendars, and had to devise its own time to celebrate the Lord’s Passion, not least so as to be independent of the rabbinic calculations of the date of Passover. Also, since the Jewish calendar was a lunar calendar consisting of twelve months of thirty days each, every few years a thirteenth month had to be added by a decree of the Sanhedrin to keep the calendar in synchronization with the equinoxes and solstices, as well as to prevent the seasons from “straying” into inappropriate months.
Apart from the difficulty Christians would have had in following—or perhaps even being accurately informed about—the dating of Passover in any given year, to follow a lunar calendar of their own devising would have set them at odds with both Jews and pagans, and very likely embroiled them in endless disputes among themselves. (The second century saw severe disputes about whether Pascha had always to fall on a Sunday or on whatever weekday followed two days after 14 Artemision/Nisan, but to have followed a lunar calendar would have made such problems much worse.)
These difficulties played out in different ways among the Greek Christians in the eastern part of the empire and the Latin Christians in the western part of it. Greek Christians seem to have wanted to find a date equivalent to 14 Nisan in their own solar calendar, and since Nisan was the month in which the spring equinox occurred, they chose the 14th day of Artemision, the month in which the spring equinox invariably fell in their own calendar. Around A.D. 300, the Greek calendar was superseded by the Roman calendar, and since the dates of the beginnings and endings of the months in these two systems did not coincide, 14 Artemision became April 6th.
In contrast, second-century Latin Christians in Rome and North Africa appear to have desired to establish the historical date on which the Lord Jesus died. By the time of Tertullian they had concluded that he died on Friday, 25 March 29. (As an aside, I will note that this is impossible: 25 March 29 was not a Friday, and Passover Eve in A.D. 29 did not fall on a Friday and was not on March 25th, or in March at all.)
Integral Age
So in the East we have April 6th, in the West, March 25th. At this point, we have to introduce a belief that seems to have been widespread in Judaism at the time of Christ, but which, as it is nowhere taught in the Bible, has completely fallen from the awareness of Christians. The idea is that of the “integral age” of the great Jewish prophets: the idea that the prophets of Israel died on the same dates as their birth or conception.
This notion is a key factor in understanding how some early Christians came to believe that December 25th is the date of Christ’s birth. The early Christians applied this idea to Jesus, so that March 25th and April 6th were not only the supposed dates of Christ’s death, but of his conception or birth as well. There is some fleeting evidence that at least some first- and second-century Christians thought of March 25th or April 6th as the date of Christ’s birth, but rather quickly the assignment of March 25th as the date of Christ’s conception prevailed.
It is to this day, commemorated almost universally among Christians as the Feast of the Annunciation, when the Archangel Gabriel brought the good tidings of a savior to the Virgin Mary, upon whose acquiescence the Eternal Word of God (“Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten of the Father before all ages”) forthwith became incarnate in her womb. What is the length of pregnancy? Nine months. Add nine months to March 25th and you get December 25th; add it to April 6th and you get January 6th. December 25th is Christmas, and January 6th is Epiphany.
Christmas (December 25th) is a feast of Western Christian origin. In Constantinople it appears to have been introduced in 379 or 380. From a sermon of St. John Chrysostom, at the time a renowned ascetic and preacher in his native Antioch, it appears that the feast was first celebrated there on 25 December 386. From these centers it spread throughout the Christian East, being adopted in Alexandria around 432 and in Jerusalem a century or more later. The Armenians, alone among ancient Christian churches, have never adopted it, and to this day celebrate Christ’s birth, manifestation to the magi, and baptism on January 6th.
Western churches, in turn, gradually adopted the January 6th Epiphany feast from the East, Rome doing so sometime between 366 and 394. But in the West, the feast was generally presented as the commemoration of the visit of the magi to the infant Christ, and as such, it was an important feast, but not one of the most important ones—a striking contrast to its position in the East, where it remains the second most important festival of the church year, second only to Pascha (Easter).
In the East, Epiphany far outstrips Christmas. The reason is that the feast celebrates Christ’s baptism in the Jordan and the occasion on which the Voice of the Father and the Descent of the Spirit both manifested for the first time to mortal men the divinity of the Incarnate Christ and the Trinity of the Persons in the One Godhead.
A Christian Feast
Thus, December 25th as the date of the Christ’s birth appears to owe nothing whatsoever to pagan influences upon the practice of the Church during or after Constantine’s time. It is wholly unlikely to have been the actual date of Christ’s birth, but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.
And the pagan feast which the Emperor Aurelian instituted on that date in the year 274 was not only an effort to use the winter solstice to make a political statement, but also almost certainly an attempt to give a pagan significance to a date already of importance to Roman Christians. The Christians, in turn, could at a later date re-appropriate the pagan “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” to refer, on the occasion of the birth of Christ, to the rising of the “Sun of Salvation” or the “Sun of Justice.”

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archive...id=16-10-012-v


read the real History
Um, ever hear of winter solstice? Pre-dates Christianity by hundreds of years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2007, 07:15 PM
 
Location: NC
11,918 posts, read 14,110,661 times
Reputation: 1328
Quote:
If someone wants to acknowledge Chrsit birth on a particular day,I say great. If you don`t,fine too. If you are someone that just likes the togetherness,happiness,and warmth that it brings and nothing else..great. It`s just a day we celebrate for a couple of reasons but if you asked most people today..not a thousand years ago but today...they will say it`s a time to remember Christ birth. So if a day is set aside for people to recognize the savior`s birth,what`s wrong with that? Maybe there has been a Chrsitmas where someone became interested in Christ because of a song they heard or someone explaining what his birth meant that they never thought about before. Maybe a hurting person first heard of Christ birth and went into a church that day to find out what Jesus was all about and became a christian. If it is a day where good is done and people are helped then I`m all for it.
I agree. God bless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:15 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top