What do you think the biggest misunderstanding about Christmas is?

[metis]

I have a 20' spruce in my backyard, so can anyone tell me what religion it is? I can't see it worshiping, nor can I hear it singing religious songs, so of which "pagan" religion is it?

Also, is December 25th more "pagan" than Decembers 24th and 26th? How can I tell?

If I decorate my spruce with Christmas ornaments, does that make my spruce "pagan"? I don't worship my spruce or its ornaments, but am I still a "pagan" anyway?

Since the NT was written in Greek at a time when most Greeks were "pagan", does that make my Bibles "pagan"? And since writing was invented centuries before the NT ever got written, are all writings therefore "pagan"?

Since Paul said that we need to be of the light, not the darkness, and since light was used symbolically long before Christianity developed, should we consider Paul and that teaching "pagan" as well?

I'm so confused.

 

[Deeje]

Got it, you're sticking with your prior claim that lots of defectors is a sign of being the true version of Christianity. So you're admitting that your claim just hours ago that lots of defectors is a sign that a group is not the true version of Christianity was total bunk.

Understood, thank you!

yeah gotcha.....

Bye.....you are on my ignore list.....you twist everything that is said to you....go and argue with someone who cares. Not wasting any more time on you.

 

[Left Coast]

yeah gotcha.....

Bye.....you are on my ignore list.....you twist everything that is said to you....go and argue with someone who cares. Not wasting any more time on you.

See ya! No skin off my nose. I pointed out that you contradicted yourself, and you didn't like it. All while you were trying your best to be pompous and condescending. Better luck next contradiction.

 

[Deeje]

People grow, learn and change. Nothing wrong with that.

I agree, and if one has been taught the truth about any matter, one should have corroborating evidence that it is the truth, not just that we blindly believe it is because we want to. No one wants to feel deceived, but so many accept falsehoods as their truth. So, how can we know for sure?

If you compare first century Christianity with Christendom in its teachings and practices, you will find little resemblance. They disobey every teaching of Christ that impedes their freedom to do whatever they please.

If we are looking for Christianity that is like the first century model, we have to know what we are looking for. 85% of professing Christians have never read the Bible. Do you know why? It’s because they have been convinced that they don’t need to. They have clergy who have been to Theological Colleges who know it all for them. They just trust that this man is telling them the truth.....but if the teacher is himself deceived, then all his students will learn the same falsehoods.

We have more information at our disposal today than ever...so there is no excuse for ignorance.

Many people are scared into Christianity.

And if that is the case....its not true Christianity. What is there for a good hearted person to be scared of? The only ones who would be scared are those who want to break God’s laws.

It's not a good fit for everyone and that is fine.

That is the choice for all of us. It is how God separates humanity into the only two categories that he deals with at the end.....

I don't think the Religious Right was taught Christianity at all.

Since Jesus told his disciples not to be “part of this world”, there is your proof that those in Christendom are far removed from what Jesus taught. They condemn themselves by their disobedience to his teachings.

Most people like Jesus and most of what he taught. He was a good role model.

He certainly was. And we are supposed to emulate him. His foremost activity was preaching about his Father’s Kingdom. He sent his disciples out to make sure that every town and village received a witness. (Matthew 10:11-14) Some would respond positively, but the vast majority would reject the messenger and his message....what were the disciples to do? “Shake the dust off their feet” and move on.
One of the first things a guest would receive in a Jewish household, was to have their feet washed. But if the guest was turned away with unwashed feet, the dust was simply shaken off, and they continued on to the next home.

There is no one today who can say that they have never had the opportunity to hear the Kingdom message. Whether we accept or reject it is an exercise of our free will......the scriptures tell us that our future is in our own hands.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I agree, and if one has been taught the truth about any matter, one should have corroborating evidence that it is the truth, not just that we blindly believe it is because we want to. No one wants to feel deceived, but so many accept falsehoods as their truth. So, how can we know for sure?

If you compare first century Christianity with Christendom in its teachings and practices, you will find little resemblance. They disobey every teaching of Christ that impedes their freedom to do whatever they please.

If we are looking for Christianity that is like the first century model, we have to know what we are looking for. 85% of professing Christians have never read the Bible. Do you know why? It’s because they have been convinced that they don’t need to. They have clergy who have been to Theological Colleges who know it all for them. They just trust that this man is telling them the truth.....but if the teacher is himself deceived, then all his students will learn the same falsehoods.

We have more information at our disposal today than ever...so there is no excuse for ignorance.

I totally agree. I was Southern Baptist for a long time and I don't think many actually read the Bible deeply. I didn't really study deeply until I left fundamentalism for mainstream Christianity.

Since Jesus told his disciples not to be “part of this world”, there is your proof that those in Christendom are far removed from what Jesus taught. They condemn themselves by their disobedience to his teachings.

Strangely, Jesus was fully part of the world, as far as feeding and healing people. He fought with the legalistic religious leaders of his day, who cared about law and not grace. His kingdom, he said, is in and around us, not somewhere else in the future, but right here right now.

 

[Deeje]

I totally agree. I was Southern Baptist for a long time and I don't think many actually read the Bible deeply. I didn't really study deeply until I left fundamentalism for mainstream Christianity.

It was mainstream Christianity that I left. I could not handle the hypocrisy and the flagrant disregard for Christ’s teachings. I knew that Christ’s true disciples were in the world, but I didn’t know how to find them. I knew enough of scripture to see that my church ignored many of Jesus’ teachings to participate in politics, and to encourage patriotism and justify the killing of even their own ‘brothers’ in war.

They also devalued marriage by tolerating divorce on very flimsy grounds, and this ‘relaxing’ of God’s laws led to accepting pre-marital sex and practicing homosexuals in their congregations. Scripturally, I knew it was wrong.

Strangely, Jesus was fully part of the world, as far as feeding and healing people. He fought with the legalistic religious leaders of his day, who cared about law and not grace.

Jesus’ helping people was humanitarian, not political. If you know about the political situation in Jesus’ day, you will know about the Zealots and their plans to overthrow Rome and to re-establish Israel as an independent nation. It ended at Masada......an horrendous mistake.
Jesus never interfered in politics.....he told his disciples that his Kingdom had nothing to do with this world. (John 18:36)

His kingdom, he said, is in and around us, not somewhere else in the future, but right here right now.

Actually that is not what Jesus said at all. His words were directed to the wicked Pharisees of whom Jesus had said, “their hearts are far removed from me”....so the meaning of his words that “ the Kingdom of God is within you” should be translated...”the Kingdom of God is in your midst”, which is exactly what he meant.
There he was as the King of God’s Kingdom, right in the midst of them, but they denied him.

 

[Sand Dancer]

It was mainstream Christianity that I left. I could not handle the hypocrisy and the flagrant disregard for Christ’s teachings. I knew that Christ’s true disciples were in the world, but I didn’t know how to find them. I knew enough of scripture to see that my church ignored many of Jesus’ teachings to participate in politics, and to encourage patriotism and justify the killing of even their own ‘brothers’ in war.

They also devalued marriage by tolerating divorce on very flimsy grounds, and this ‘relaxing’ of God’s laws led to accepting pre-marital sex and practicing homosexuals in their congregations. Scripturally, I knew it was wrong.



Jesus’ helping people was humanitarian, not political. If you know about the political situation in Jesus’ day, you will know about the Zealots and their plans to overthrow Rome and to re-establish Israel as an independent nation. It ended at Masada......an horrendous mistake.
Jesus never interfered in politics.....he told his disciples that his Kingdom had nothing to do with this world. (John 18:36)



Actually that is not what Jesus said at all. His words were directed to the wicked Pharisees of whom Jesus had said, “their hearts are far removed from me”....so the meaning of his words that “ the Kingdom of God is within you” should be translated...”the Kingdom of God is in your midst”, which is exactly what he meant.
There he was as the King of God’s Kingdom, right in the midst of them, but they denied him.

You have much to learn...You need to look into the cultural and historical context of the text. Women were raped, then had to marry their rapists. That's pretty premarital I'd say. Homosexuality was only ritually unclean, like menstruation was. So menstruating women were sinning? Seriously dude, learn some stuff.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I agree, and if one has been taught the truth about any matter, one should have corroborating evidence that it is the truth, not just that we blindly believe it is because we want to.

What is your evidence that there is a God, or that Jesus was his son, or that what Bible mentions is the truth?

Is there something going round and round?

Deeje said "It was mainstream Christianity that I left. I could not handle the hypocrisy .."

 

[oldbadger]

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.

Nope.
The three major feasts attracted enormous crowds of up to 500,000 visitors, and the homes and buildings of Jerusalem its suburban townships would have been crammed full for lodgings and board. Obviously charges would have been very high, and Yeshua certainly could not have afforded more than an outhouse to stay.

These feasts were just huge, needing 2000 priests and 6000 (levite) Temple guards. We know about the size of the gatherings because Rome carried out a kidney-count census of all lambs' kidneys collected from a single major feast. They needed to calculate accurate % takings from such feasts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Prior to Constantine, there were competing dates for the feast of the Nativity, along with arguments in favor of these different dates. December 25 was one such date, from the middle of the second century: "While there is one record of Christmas being celebrated in Antioch (Turkey) on December 25 in the middle of the second century."
December 25 Wasn't the First Choice for Christmas Day | Lone Star's Christmas Connection

It's not that the universal Christian celebration is earlier in history, it's that the pagan celebration on December 25 comes later.

Aurelian did try to re-introduce the worship of Sol Invictus by decree in the year 274. But there is no record of this festival being held on December 25th. “The traditional feast days of Sol, as recorded in the early imperial fasti, were August 8th and/or August 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th.”(Hijmans, p. 588 )

Aurelian did declare games to Sol every four years. But there is no record from the period or early historiographers that these games were associated with December 25th in any way. The best evidence suggest that the games were held October 19-22 of their calendar. Anyway, on another coincidence, a year after Aurelian declared these games in honor of Sol Invictus, he was assassinated by his own pagan Roman officers out of fear he would execute them based on false charges.

The earliest calendar to mention that Invictus as a specified date for Roman religious life comes from a text of the Philocalian Calendar, VIII Kal recorded in an illuminated 4th Century manuscript called The Chronography of 354. In this late manuscript the date is listed in Mensis December (The Month of December) as N·INVICTI·CM·XXX.

Many scholars through the years have assumed that INVICTI in this calendar must mean “Sol Invictus.” This is possible. However, elsewhere the calendar does not hesitate to make explicit mention of festivals to Sol, for example: on SOLIS·ET·LVNAE·CM·XXIIII (August 28th) and LVDI·SOLIS (October 19-22).

Even if INVICTI does refer to Sol Invictus on December 25th of this calendar, all this shows is that the celebration of Sol Invictus was placed on December 25th after Christianity had already widely accepted and celebrated December 25th as the Nativity of Christ.

There are many historians and people following them who will still assert that December 25th is Sol Invictus in ancient Rome. Some will even claim that another religion, Mithraism, has close connection to this December 25th celebration. In actual fact there is no ancient documentation tying Mithraism to December 25th or Sol Invictus. The Christian celebration of the Nativity of Christ as December 25th predates anything in the earliest actual documentation for Sol Invictus on December 25th.

Christmas is NOT based on the feast of Sol Invictus

​

 

[firedragon]

"While there is one record of Christmas being celebrated in Antioch (Turkey) on December 25 in the middle of the second century."

One record! That doesnt make it "Christians celebrated 25th december before aeriliun. Bottomline is, this does not negate any possibility that celebrating in December was any kind of widespread practice in Christendom.

Same way brother, there is no indication that Christians actually adopted the 25th december date based on pagan festivals either. There is no proper indication of this until the 5th century. It may very well have been that Christians picked up this date from all the options they had but it also happened to be a day that coincided with pagan celebrations. No need to go into details, but i dont believe that Christians actually copied from pagan practices. At least i dont believe there is evidence to it. Just because that date was of significance to another religion or practice earlier to Christianity doesnt mean Christians stole it from them. That type of justification is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Similarly, that does not mean Christians were practicing this earlier as well. If it was a significant date, why didnt someone like Clement who mentioned so many other dates not mention december 25th?? Was not he a Church Father?

Hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

Prior to Constantine, there were competing dates for the feast of the Nativity, along with arguments in favor of these different dates. December 25 was one such date, from the middle of the second century: "While there is one record of Christmas being celebrated in Antioch (Turkey) on December 25 in the middle of the second century."
December 25 Wasn't the First Choice for Christmas Day | Lone Star's Christmas Connection

It's not that the universal Christian celebration is earlier in history, it's that the pagan celebration on December 25 comes later.

Aurelian did try to re-introduce the worship of Sol Invictus by decree in the year 274. But there is no record of this festival being held on December 25th. “The traditional feast days of Sol, as recorded in the early imperial fasti, were August 8th and/or August 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th.”(Hijmans, p. 588 )

Aurelian did declare games to Sol every four years. But there is no record from the period or early historiographers that these games were associated with December 25th in any way. The best evidence suggest that the games were held October 19-22 of their calendar. Anyway, on another coincidence, a year after Aurelian declared these games in honor of Sol Invictus, he was assassinated by his own pagan Roman officers out of fear he would execute them based on false charges.

The earliest calendar to mention that Invictus as a specified date for Roman religious life comes from a text of the Philocalian Calendar, VIII Kal recorded in an illuminated 4th Century manuscript called The Chronography of 354. In this late manuscript the date is listed in Mensis December (The Month of December) as N·INVICTI·CM·XXX.

Many scholars through the years have assumed that INVICTI in this calendar must mean “Sol Invictus.” This is possible. However, elsewhere the calendar does not hesitate to make explicit mention of festivals to Sol, for example: on SOLIS·ET·LVNAE·CM·XXIIII (August 28th) and LVDI·SOLIS (October 19-22).

Even if INVICTI does refer to Sol Invictus on December 25th of this calendar, all this shows is that the celebration of Sol Invictus was placed on December 25th after Christianity had already widely accepted and celebrated December 25th as the Nativity of Christ.

There are many historians and people following them who will still assert that December 25th is Sol Invictus in ancient Rome. Some will even claim that another religion, Mithraism, has close connection to this December 25th celebration. In actual fact there is no ancient documentation tying Mithraism to December 25th or Sol Invictus. The Christian celebration of the Nativity of Christ as December 25th predates anything in the earliest actual documentation for Sol Invictus on December 25th.

Christmas is NOT based on the feast of Sol Invictus

​

Let me put it in perspective just to be direct. For about 300 to 400 years after the birth of Jesus, his actual birthday was never known to anyone but people made a lot of speculation. All through the centuries people came up with various dates, but that shows people were interested in celebrating his birthday.

If you read the on the church fathers, clement of alexandria famously wrote about early ideas on the birth of Christ. It varied from August, May and April. Different Christian groups had their differences in opinion not only on the topic of the birthday, but also the passion, the walk, the crucifixion etc. What would really surprise you is that Clement of Alexandria being one of the most looked upto Church fathers of antiquity did not even mention December as even an option for the Birth of Jesus.

December 25th as an option of two (between December and January) only emerged around 400 years after Jesus. So this was all speculation. And they had options. So till around 400 years there is not much discussion recorded about a December Christmas.

December 25th is a completely made up day. Thats a fact.

But brother, we have to be academic so lets also not believe all these videos and memes on the internet that say things like the Christians intentionally turned a pagan holiday into the birthday of Jesus. Thats not proven, that is also an assumption. Its called post hoc ergo propter hoc.

There is no evidence other than coincidential circumstance to prove that 25th december was invented on purpose on top of a pagan celebration. It could be true, and it may not be as well. There was another Church Father i think who lived in the mid millennium era called Ambrose who wrote that Jesus was the True Sun, which makes him above all pagan ideas about the Sun so based on this some people speculated the theory that Christmas is a pagan holiday turned into Christmas.

It could be, but also may not be true.

Another Church movement called the Armenian Kirk celebrated the Birthday on the 6th of January. Let me make another statement - There has not been a single month of the year which has not been placed for a possible birthday even in the earliest years of Christianity.

This is the fact. So at the end of the day, christmas is a symbolic celebration, and it always was though some people due to habit and not knowing the history of the religion forgot or lost this fact and sometimes did believe Jesus was actually born on 25th. In fact, when i was growing up all the Christians i knew believed Jesus was born on 25th December. And i remember vividly at a prayer meeting a born again priest said that Jesus was not actually born on 25th december and the people got seriously angry with him.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Let me put it in perspective just to be direct. For about 300 to 400 years after the birth of Jesus, his actual birthday was never known to anyone but people made a lot of speculation. All through the centuries people came up with various dates, but that shows people were interested in celebrating his birthday.

If you read the on the church fathers, clement of alexandria famously wrote about early ideas on the birth of Christ. It varied from August, May and April. Different Christian groups had their differences in opinion not only on the topic of the birthday, but also the passion, the walk, the crucifixion etc. What would really surprise you is that Clement of Alexandria being one of the most looked upto Church fathers of antiquity did not even mention December as even an option for the Birth of Jesus.

December 25th as an option of two (between December and January) only emerged around 400 years after Jesus. So this was all speculation. And they had options. So till around 400 years there is not much discussion recorded about a December Christmas.

December 25th is a completely made up day. Thats a fact.

But brother, we have to be academic so lets also not believe all these videos and memes on the internet that say things like the Christians intentionally turned a pagan holiday into the birthday of Jesus. Thats not proven, that is also an assumption. Its called post hoc ergo propter hoc.

There is no evidence other than coincidential circumstance to prove that 25th december was invented on purpose on top of a pagan celebration. It could be true, and it may not be as well. There was another Church Father i think who lived in the mid millennium era called Ambrose who wrote that Jesus was the True Sun, which makes him above all pagan ideas about the Sun so based on this some people speculated the theory that Christmas is a pagan holiday turned into Christmas.

It could be, but also may not be true.

Another Church movement called the Armenian Kirk celebrated the Birthday on the 6th of January. Let me make another statement - There has not been a single month of the year which has not been placed for a possible birthday even in the earliest years of Christianity.

This is the fact. So at the end of the day, christmas is a symbolic celebration, and it always was though some people due to habit and not knowing the history of the religion forgot or lost this fact and sometimes did believe Jesus was actually born on 25th. In fact, when i was growing up all the Christians i knew believed Jesus was born on 25th December. And i remember vividly at a prayer meeting a born again priest said that Jesus was not actually born on 25th december and the people got seriously angry with him.

The mid-second century argument for December 25 was quite simple. The feast of the annunciation (when the angel appeared to Mary) would have been when Jesus was conceived. That feast was set on March 25. Nine months later is December 25.

Ambrose is one person, and he is speaking metaphorically. His words cannot be construed as to indicate the reason why December 25 was chosen. Not by a long shot.

Anyhow, I'm not sure why I'm even getting involved in this. As a Jew, I don't have a dog in this race. It's simply a topic I've read about over the years in different forums.

 

[firedragon]

The mid-second century argument for December 25 was quite simple. The feast of the annunciation (when the angel appeared to Mary) would have been when Jesus was conceived. That feast was set on March 25. Nine months later is December 25.

Ambrose is one person, and he is speaking metaphorically. His words cannot be construed as to indicate the reason why December 25 was chosen. Not by a long shot.

Anyhow, I'm not sure why I'm even getting involved in this. As a Jew, I don't have a dog in this race. It's simply a topic I've read about over the years in different forums.

Ambrose is half a millennium after Jesus. And ive already spoken about him in my comment. Maybe you didnt understand it.

I dont have bone in this either because i am Muslim. But two could have a learned discussion nevertheless.

Peace.

 

[Deeje]

You have much to learn...You need to look into the cultural and historical context of the text. Women were raped, then had to marry their rapists. That's pretty premarital I'd say. Homosexuality was only ritually unclean, like menstruation was. So menstruating women were sinning? Seriously dude, learn some stuff.

This is OT stuff which only applied to Jews. Cultural and historical context do dictate the circumstances under which such laws were enacted.

Christians are not under Jewish law. They do not apply today, so are you stuck in a time warp or something?

God’s moral laws still apply whether people want them to or not. I’m not sure he has a complaints dept.

 

[Sand Dancer]

This is OT stuff which only applied to Jews. Cultural and historical context do dictate the circumstances under which such laws were enacted.

Christians are not under Jewish law. They do not apply today, so are you stuck in a time warp or something?

God’s moral laws still apply whether people want them to or not. I’m not sure he has a complaints dept.

Well, please tell the Religious Right to stop acting like OT Pharisees and start acting like Jesus! People might start respecting Christianity again.

 

[Deeje]

What is your evidence that there is a God, or that Jesus was his son, or that what Bible mentions is the truth?

What convinces you that Hinduism is true? It’s called “faith” and that is what gives a person conviction....but it isn’t blind faith for me. The brilliance of Creation itself testifies to the existence of an Intelligent Designer......and the Bible stands up to scrutiny in historical accuracy and prophesy. It’s wisdom is undeniable and the teachings of Jesus Christ, if followed by all, would change the world.

Is there something going round and round?

Yes.....there is. It’s called false worship, and I believe that a single entity in opposition to God has created all of it.

And according to the Revelation in the Bible, we are deep into the time of the end, when God will bring all mankind to an accounting. If we have chosen our god and are confident about our choice, God will let us know if we have made the right choice.

Deeje said "It was mainstream Christianity that I left. I could not handle the hypocrisy .."

And I outlined what that hypocrisy entailed. It’s the very reason why the Bible says that Christendom will go down with the rest who fail to follow the teachings of God’s son. We can’t justify ourselves to God....he accepts no excuses.

It isn’t what we call ourselves.....it’s who and what we are at heart, as a free willed creation of God. It’s what draws us to God and what draws him to us. This is a God who gives us all the opportunity to choose our own destiny. Isn’t that fair?
I believe it is.....

 

[Deeje]

Well, please tell the Religious Right to stop acting like OT Pharisees and start acting like Jesus! People might start respecting Christianity again.

That is not Christianity! Anyone involved in politics is not following the teachings of Jesus Christ. The marriage of Church and State is a very unholy union.

 

[Deeje]

Apart from the date being incorrect, the reason why no birthdates are recorded in the Bible is because the Jews did not celebrate birthdays. They viewed these things as something that pagan nations did and they were not to emulate the. The only two birthday celebrations recorded in the Bible are Pharaoh in the time of Joseph, and Herod in the time of Jesus. Both resulted in someone’s death.

But the Bible gives us a way to determine the approximate date.

“From Matthew chapters 26 and 27, we understand that Jesus died at the time of the Jewish Passover, which commenced April 1, 33 C.E. Moreover, Luke 3:21-23informs us that Jesus was about 30 years of age when he commenced his ministry. Since his earthly ministry lasted three and a half years, he was about 33 1/2 years old at the time of his death. Christ would have been a full 34 years old six months later, which would thus be about October 1. If we count back to see when Jesus was born, we reach, not December 25 or January 6, but about October 1 of the year 2 B.C.E.”

What Is the Truth About Bethlehem and Christmas? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

December 25th was a borrowed date. All the trappings of the Saturnalia are still celebrated today as they were back in Ancient Rome....just under a different label. Nothing celebrated at Christmas has anything to do with Jesus Christ.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I'm citing what the Roman historians have stated as far as when their census were ordered, and they say the closest day to Jesus' birth was in 6 c.e. BTW, my source for this comes archaeologists as shown on the Smithsonian Channel.
As always, we have to be careful in regards to realizing that religious writings are subjective, not objective. And since these accounts were written many decades later, ...

I was referring to the 'earlier' or the ' FIRST' census that Luke speaks about at Luke 2:2
The Smithsonian Channel is Not Scripture.
To which census is the Smithsonian referring: the first or the later one _____________