What do you think the biggest misunderstanding about Christmas is?

[IndigoChild5559]

The biggest misunderstanding about Christmas is that it is about birth of Jesus.
Christmas is the Roman festival of the Day of Victorious Sun (Sol Invicti) borrowed by Christians, which once used to occur on the day of vernal equinox. It recessed to December because of faulty calendar keeping by Greeks and Romans, and due to precession of equinox.

The Nativity was celebrated on December 25 decades before the Emperor declared the holiday of Sol Invictus.

 

[pearl]

The only way to understand the nativity narrative is the realization that Christmas is always in the shadow of the cross.

 

[Augustus]

Christmas is the Roman festival of the Day of Victorious Sun (Sol Invicti) borrowed by Christians

No it isn't.

We have no firm evidence for a festival for Sol on December 25th until Julian wrote his hymn to Helios in December of 362. The entry in the calendar of 354 is probably for Sol, although only the epithet invictus is used (above, n. 4), and probably dates to 354, although it was possibly added later. Circumstantial evidence suggests that a festival of Sol on the winter solstice was not yet included in such calendars in the late 320s. As the Christian celebration of Christmas on December 25th can be attested in Rome by AD 336, at which point it may already have been well-established and the celebration of Sol on that day cannot be attested before AD 354/362 and had not yet entered the calendar in the late 320s, it is impossible to postulate that Christmas arose in reaction to some solar festival. There is quite simply not one iota of explicit evidence for a major festival of Sol on December 25th prior to the establishment of Christmas, nor is there any circumstantial evidence that there was likely to have been one. There is only Julian’s overly emphatic insistence that the celebration was as old as Numa… which is a fabrication and his convoluted explanation for the date is impossible.
S Hijmans - Usener’s Christmas: A contribution to the modern construct of late antique solar syncretism)

Christmas 25 Dec: Scholarly views

 

[pearl]

There is no reason the nativity accounts of Mt and Lk must be taken literally but understood as vehicles of the Evangelist's theology. They are not only different but are contrary to one another in many details. The non-historical events may be understood as rewritings of Hebrew Scripture; Matthew's magi is an echo of the story of Balaam, a type of magus from the East, who saw the star rise out of Jacob. The story of Herod seeking the life of the infant Jesus and massacring the male children at Bethlehem is a reapplication of the Hebrew story of the wicked Pharaoh who sought the life of the infant Moses and slaughtered the male children of the Israelites, even as the story of Joseph the father of Jesus, who dream dreams and goes to Egypt is a reapplication of the story of the patriarch Joseph who does the same thing. The description in Luke of Zechariah and Elizabeth, the parents of JBap, is taken almost verbatim from Hebrew Scripture description of Abraham and Sarah.
Think midrash.

 

[firedragon]

The Nativity was celebrated on December 25 decades before the Emperor declared the holiday of Sol Invictus.

Whats the evidence that "the nativity" was celebrated on the 25th December (By Christians) before the 3rd century if you are actually referring to aurelian.

 

[firedragon]

9 Things You Should Know About the Christmas Story

Or maybe some of the details don't matter? number of wise men, age of Jesus when they visited, ....

I like number 2
Most modern translations say that Mary gave birth and laid Jesus in a manger because there was no place for them in the inn or guest house. But as New Testament scholar Stephen C. Carlson argues, the end of Luke 2:7 should be translated as “because they had no space in their place to stay.” As Carlson says, “The problem facing Joseph and Mary in the story was not that they were denied a particular or well-known place to stay when they first arrived, but that their place to stay was not such that it could accommodate the birth and neonatal care of the baby Jesus.” The result would be that the birth of Jesus occurred in the main room of the house—likely belonging to relatives of Joseph—rather than in the couple’s smaller marital apartment attached to the house.

The biggest misunderstandings on this matter in my perception are (with my responses to the misunderstandings as well)

1. All Christians believe Jesus was born on 25th December. - Not true. Many Christians now know that its a symbolic celebration and it should be taken as a symbolic celebration and people must now grow up and leave the Christians alone. Let them celebrate their Christmas.
2. Christians always believed Christmas falls on 25th December - Wrong. According to Church Fathers, every single month may have been thought to be the birthday of Jesus Christ in history. Even early history.
3. Christians intentionally picked 25th December based on Pagan Sun God - Wrong. You never know. Ambrose wrote that Jesus was the "True Sun", but that doesn't mean Christianity picked that day just because of this. It could be, but also it may not be. Maybe an old festival evolved into the current Christmas, maybe not. Maybe it happened somewhere around the mid millennium, where the dates are just coincidences. Some even celebrated on the 6th of january (Armenian Kirk).

 

[metis]

One thing that I just learned the other day is that Joseph and Jesus being carpenters is less likely than them being stone workers, and this is due to a mistranslation of a Greek word that actually means a "worker of natural materials", thus not just wood. Archaeologists find little evidence of wood-working in the Nazareth area back during Jesus' time but there's plenty of evidence of stone cutting.

 

[Deeje]

What do you think the biggest misunderstanding about Christmas is?

That what is celebrated today has any remote connection to the birth of Jesus Christ in the first place.

Reading through the gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus (Matthew ch 2; Luke ch 2) we find details from both accounts that fill in different detail but Luke sets the time period, when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria.
Quirinius - Wikipedia

Every male had to return to the place of their birth to register for a census. Mary and Joseph were in Nazareth and had to travel to Bethlehem even though Mary was close to full term for her pregnancy. Because of the all the people who had come into the town, accommodations were full. There was no room in the lodging place for Joseph and Mary to stay, so the innkeeper apparently recognizing their circumstances, allowed them to stay in a place where animals fed since, the baby was "laid in a manger" or a feeding trough for animals. This also fulfilled a prophesy in Isaiah 53:2 concerning the humble circumstances of Jesus' life and his birth.
(Luke 13:15 uses the same word......"But the Lord answered him and said, “You hypocrites, does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the stall G5336 and lead him away to water him? Strongs)

It was Jewish shepherds who were informed about the birth of the Messiah by angels, and it was these who journeyed to Bethlehem to see the new born King. There is no mention of the "wise men" being there. If they had been, then the gifts they gave Mary and Joseph would have allowed them to offer the prescribed sacrifice at the temple, but all they offered were two turtledoves, the offering of the poor.

The so-called "wise men" were Babylonian astrologers who arrived much later and were not directed to Bethlehem and to the "house" where Jesus was then living with his parents, but to Jerusalem and to a jealous king who, when he was informed that a new king had been born, determined that no other king would succeed him but his own sons. He hatched a plot to locate the child with the intention to do away with him. It failed of course because it was not God who sent the star, but the devil, using his own dupes to try and get rid of the Messiah before he even had a chance to grow up. The star then becomes the means that satan used to lead Herod to Jesus, knowing his cruel disposition. The mass slaughter of infants under the age of two, resulted.

The date of Jesus' birth is not recorded in scripture for a good reason. Jews did not celebrate birthdays and it was forbidden to Jews to adopt the customs of the Gentile nations. Birthdates were used in astrology for casting horoscopes and the celebration of birthdays was filled with spiritistic customs which are still carried on today. The birthday wishes were for the spirits to be kind to the newborn....the cake with the candles was to ward off evil spirits......none of these are acceptable to God because of their origins. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12)

The northern hemisphere winter customs associated with Christmas are all pagan...the decorated tree...the Yule log....the feasting and merry-making....gift giving....carols....Santa Claus.....none of them have anything to do with Jesus and are all in fact offensive to God and his Christ. Far from honoring them, these pagan adoptions, dishonor them. Knowing all of that...how could they not?

So to me, the biggest misunderstanding is that Christ was ever IN Christmas.

 

[metis]

The trip to Bethlehem is highly unlikely as that's not how census were conducted back then and there, plus the closest census was in 6 c.e. using the Gregorian Calendar's dating. What appears more likely are the authors of the gospels linking Jesus to the line of David figuratively.

 

[metis]

BTW, bread & wine have "pagan" origins as well, but the vast majority of Christians still partake of them.

The idea of Christmas being "pagan" really is quite nonsensical since symbols used often are applied other meanings that are compatible with Christian teachings.

BTW, since the New Testament is written mostly in Koine Greek, is that "pagan" as well?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find the reason for traveling to Bethlehem from Nazareth was to be registered.
They did Not remain in Bethlehem, but when Jesus was 8 days old they are found in: Jerusalem - Luke 2:21.
Since they lived in Nazareth they would have easily returned home to Nazareth after the 40 days there - Luke 2:22
They made annual trips to Jerusalem, so by the time the magi found Jesus in a house Jesus was a child. -Matthew 2:13
The magi could have found the boy Jesus when he was about 2 years old.
So, from Jerusalem or nearby Bethlehem they fled, Not back to Nazareth, but to Egypt with boy Jesus - Matthew 2:16
Then , after Herod died, from Egypt they returned to their home town of Nazareth - Matthew 2:23

So, it is Not the Bible that is a contradiction but the so-called Nativity story. Magi never at the manger.

Which opens up a whole 'nother can of beans. That is not the way that censuses work. Not now and not then. The author of Luke got the purpose of the census right. Everything else he got demonstrably wrong. The purpose of the census was for taxation. That was correct. But then as now one does censuses based upon where people live. Not where they came from. If Joseph lived and worked in Nazareth that is where he would have been counted. It makes no sense to go back to where you came from and it would be chaos if one tried to enforce such a law even then. Second his dating was wrong. Romans kept very good records of their censuses. By his description it had to be the Census of Quirinius, which was not a empire wide census. In fact that was another incorrect claim. They did not count everybody at the same time. Christians cannot find an empire wide census at that time. The Census of Quirinius occurred about ten years after Matthew has Jesus born.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It's a contradiction for one story to say they live in Bethlehem (no mention of travelling to Bethlehem, because that would be silly since they live/have a house there) and the other to say they only go to Bethlehem for a census registration and then go back home to another town. They're two totally different stories of how the nativity occurred.

Where does it say where the house was located.
At their annual trip to Jerusalem they could have stayed with relatives in a relative's or friend's house.
Found in a house as a child (Not as an infant) does Not mean they moved to that particular house.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No not that.. The manger probably was attached to a house. The part about the house with the marital apartment. Both Bethlehem's were tiny villages.
Luke 2:7 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

Or, could the manger be attached, so to speak, to the animal's stall .
If the manger was the feeding area that would have been kept clean of animal droppings.
Thus, as the wrong nativity scene shows there would have been No animals in the manger area at that time of night.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

My biggest problem with the Christmas story is the idea of three wise men following a star on foot and camel to a particular manger. For starters, how does one follow a star moving about a 1000 mph (it appears to move through the sky above earth's 25,000 mile equator / circumference every 24 hours) without something faster than a 747?
You have until morning to get there, when the sun rises, and the star becomes invisible in the sunlight.
And what about this star would make one stop at a particular manger (the star didn't stop) and say, "we are right below this star, not any of the adjacent and nearby properties, but right here because of this star."

I would say you have No problem with the three wise guys at any manger.
> First, the un-numbered magi would have been in a caravan. That would have been the only safe way to travel.
(remember: there were three (3) gifts, it does Not say how many magi )
> Second, by the time they found Jesus the 'child Jesus' was in a house ( No infant Jesus )
> Third, was the *star* an actual *star* or a ploy by satanic means.
That *star* led the magi to Jesus' enemy Herod in Jerusalem Not Bethlehem, Not to any manger.

 

[Vinayaka]

...that it's celebrated around the world. It isn't.

 

[Spirit of Light]

9 Things You Should Know About the Christmas Story

Or maybe some of the details don't matter? number of wise men, age of Jesus when they visited, ....

I like number 2
Most modern translations say that Mary gave birth and laid Jesus in a manger because there was no place for them in the inn or guest house. But as New Testament scholar Stephen C. Carlson argues, the end of Luke 2:7 should be translated as “because they had no space in their place to stay.” As Carlson says, “The problem facing Joseph and Mary in the story was not that they were denied a particular or well-known place to stay when they first arrived, but that their place to stay was not such that it could accommodate the birth and neonatal care of the baby Jesus.” The result would be that the birth of Jesus occurred in the main room of the house—likely belonging to relatives of Joseph—rather than in the couple’s smaller marital apartment attached to the house.

The biggest problem is all the changes mundane human beings have done to the original teaching since the time of Jesus. Because what is thought as Christianity is far from what Jesus was preaching. because the words in the bible have been altered and interpreted by none enlighten human beings that do not understand that, even changing one word of Jesu`s teaching mean it is no longer Jesu teaching.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Which opens up a whole 'nother can of beans. That is not the way that censuses work. Not now and not then. The author of Luke got the purpose of the census right. Everything else he got demonstrably wrong. The purpose of the census was for taxation. That was correct. But then as now one does censuses based upon where people live. Not where they came from. If Joseph lived and worked in Nazareth that is where he would have been counted. It makes no sense to go back to where you came from and it would be chaos if one tried to enforce such a law even then. Second his dating was wrong. Romans kept very good records of their censuses. By his description it had to be the Census of Quirinius, which was not a empire wide census. In fact that was another incorrect claim. They did not count everybody at the same time. Christians cannot find an empire wide census at that time. The Census of Quirinius occurred about ten years after Matthew has Jesus born.

I find at Luke 2:2 Luke mentions the ' first ' registration, so that ' first 'could have been the earlier registration over which would have happened sooner then the ten years later one.
Justin Martyr cites Roman records as proof of Luke being accurate regarding Quirinius' earlier or first governorship at the time of Jesus birth.
There is No evidence about Luke's account being ever challenged by the early historians including Celsus.

 

[Left Coast]

Where does it say where the house was located.

Matthew 2

At their annual trip to Jerusalem they could have stayed with relatives in a relative's or friend's house.

They could have, but that's also completely irrelevant to the story in Matthew 2. They lived in Bethlehem, that's where their house was, that's where the wise men visited them.

Found in a house as a child (Not as an infant) does Not mean they moved to that particular house.

Matthew doesn't say how old Jesus was. That's, again, irrelevant to the fact that in Matthew Jesus is born in Bethlehem because that's where his parents live and have a house, and that in Luke he's born in Bethlehem because his parents live in Nazareth but travel temporarily to Bethlehem for a census and then go back to Nazareth.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The trip to Bethlehem is highly unlikely as that's not how census were conducted back then and there, plus the closest census was in 6 c.e. using the Gregorian Calendar's dating. What appears more likely are the authors of the gospels linking Jesus to the line of David figuratively.

Even early historians did Not challenge what Luke wrote at Luke 2:2. Even Celcus did Not disagree with Luke 2:2
Luke wrote about the ' first ' or earlier registration.
Earlier or sooner than the later 6 C.E. census.
Plus, Justin Martyr cites Roman records as proof of Luke's accuracy regarding Quirinius' being governor at the time of Jesus birth. (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture edited by B. Orchard )

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Matthew 2
They could have, but that's also completely irrelevant to the story in Matthew 2. They lived in Bethlehem, that's where their house was, that's where the wise men visited them.
Matthew doesn't say how old Jesus was. That's, again, irrelevant to the fact that in Matthew Jesus is born in Bethlehem because that's where his parents live and have a house, and that in Luke he's born in Bethlehem because his parents live in Nazareth but travel temporarily to Bethlehem for a census and then go back to Nazareth.

Please post the verse where it says the house was in Bethlehem.
They left Bethlehem to Jerusalem where Jesus was circumcised and stayed in Jerusalem for 40 days before returning home to Nazareth.