Was Christ born on December 25?

The annual holiday celebrated by Christians on December 25 celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was born somewhere between 7 and 2 BC (probably 4BC). Dec. 25 is probably not the date when Christ was born, but was designated as such in the 4th century in order to substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice. The designation Christmas comes from a combination of “Christ” with “Mass.” Often the Greek X (Chi) is substituted for “Christ” making Xmas (as was the custom in the early church when abbreviated Christ’s name). Although there is no command in Scripture to celebrate this day as a holiday, Christians believe the incarnation is the foundation to salvation and, according to many, the greatest miracle in the history of man.

Christ was probably born at Passover. This would explain why shepherds were keeping flocks in the field and not in pens in towns. At Passover there was a great demand for Passover lambs. The day that Christ was born is not important--otherwise God would have told us specifically.

Dec. 25 is probably not the date when Christ was born, but was designated as such in the 4th century in order to substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice.

Why was it necessary, or even desirable, to designate Christmas "in order to substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice".

ziggy wrote:

Dec. 25 is probably not the date when Christ was born, but was designated as such in the 4th century in order to substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice.

Why was it necessary, or even desirable, to designate Christmas "in order to substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice".

They must have wanted to poke the pagans in the eye--it is similar to the reason that atheists want to place a display with the the Nativity and Menorah at the winter solstice? Right?

Martin Luther also coopted tavern song melodies for hymns.

Zig, it's not as though the pagans cannot celebrate Saturanalia or the Winter Solstice, but rather that as Christians we believe that every day is God's, and that perhaps those of us who are called out of other belief systems (or none at all) do well to celebrate Jesus Christ at times which were once set aside for something else.

I'm told that Resurrection Sunday is called Easter, a derivative of the holiday Ishtar. Whereas once it was a day to eat well at a nice brunch (which I'm quite happy to still do, by the way:), today I celebrate the same day but for the purposes of rejoicing in Jesus' resurrection, a precursor to my own.

If you have an itching to celebrate Ishtar or Saturnalia, Zig, I for one have no interest in stopping you.

So if you are enjoying Christmas as a time to be with family and friends, I wish you a Merry Christmas indeed. Of course I believe you are missing the most important part, but I hardly begrudge you what can only be called a fine season which I pray blesses you greatly as you chat with people you love but don't see nearly enough, and enjoy the weather and lights that accompany this fine season.

Keli wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Dec. 25 is probably not the date when Christ was born, but was designated as such in the 4th century in order to substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice.

Why was it necessary, or even desirable, to designate Christmas "in order to substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice".

They must have wanted to poke the pagans in the eye-- ......................................

How very Christian of them!

Keli wrote:

They must have wanted to poke the pagans in the eye--it is similar to the reason that atheists want to place a display with the the Nativity and Menorah at the winter solstice? Right?

No.

No one owns the winter solstice. Atheists are Christians too. In seeking spiritual peace, many atheists are more Christian than their evangelical pentecostal cousins

Christ was probably born at Passover. This would explain why shepherds were keeping flocks in the field and not in pens in towns.

Isn't that a little early to have one's flock out in the field looking for something green to be eating?

.

SamCogar wrote:

Christ was probably born at Passover. This would explain why shepherds were keeping flocks in the field and not in pens in towns.

Isn't that a little early to have one's flock out in the field looking for something green to be eating?

.

Thousands of sheep would be needed for Passover. These sheep were probably well-fed from various locations and flocks, then driven (like the old cattle drives) to the area surrounding Jerusalem. Jews would buy a sheep on the 10th day of the Passover season, fed and closely evaluated for its fitness for 3 days and then sacrificed on the 14th for Passover. So, their being kept in the field was for a very short period of time.

Exodus 12:3-13 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: 4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. 5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: 6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. 7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. 10 And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire. 11 And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD'S passover. 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. 13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

ziggy wrote:Keli wrote:

They must have wanted to poke the pagans in the eye--it is similar to the reason that atheists want to place a display with the the Nativity and Menorah at the winter solstice? Right?

No.

No one owns the winter solstice. Atheists are Christians too. In seeking spiritual peace, many atheists are more Christian than their evangelical pentecostal cousins

I don't believe that you are being fair, Zig. Jesus Christ spoke often of the necessity of faith. "Except one be born again he cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven." This comes in the same chapter, I believe, that the condition "whosoever believeth" is located. To somehow claim to be "Christian" while denying the theology of Christ is a disservice to Him.

Now, to the extent that many atheists are simply more agreeable neighbors than many Christians, I readily concede. But let's not call them "Christians" when the words of Christ are not for them authoritative. That's kind of like me claiming to be a Ziggian because I'm a nice guy even though I think you are wrong about most everything:)

I think we're both nice fellers who have enjoyed greatly thumbing our noses at our upbringing and various hypocrisies--but I am not Ziggian and you are not Sheikian. Likewise, someone who does not worship the Jesus who readily accepted such worship is hardly a Christian. They may be a nice person, a good neighbor, a learned scholar, what have you, but a Christian they are not. Nothing in the words of Christ indicate that such would be the case.

Keli wrote:Thousands of sheep would be needed for Passover. These sheep were probably well-fed from various locations and flocks, then driven (like the old cattle drives) to the area surrounding Jerusalem. Jews would buy a sheep on the 10th day of the Passover season, fed and closely evaluated for its fitness for 3 days and then sacrificed on the 14th for Passover. So, their being kept in the field was for a very short period of time.

YADA, ... YADA, .... I didn't think your Bible stated "the shepherds were out in the field tending their flock", ....... now did it?

And don’t forget TH, the seasonal climate over there is just about the same as it is here.

And another thing, …. don’t be placing any bets as to when that specific “10th day of the Passover season” was actually on relative to the Spring equinox.

Those dudes back then had problems keeping their dates right because they were not accounting for the Leap Years. And that is why they set the date for Easter to be calculated the way it still is.

What is it now, …. the 1st Sunday after the 1st Full Moon following the Spring equinox?

And that is why 3 or 4 years ago Easter was celebrated on one of the earliest days in the year ....... in hundreds of years.

That year the Full Moon showed up on a Saturday, .... a day or two after the Spring equinox.

And it was colder than a Preacher riding Circuit on horseback.

.

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:Keli wrote:

They must have wanted to poke the pagans in the eye--it is similar to the reason that atheists want to place a display with the the Nativity and Menorah at the winter solstice? Right?

No.

No one owns the winter solstice. Atheists are Christians too. In seeking spiritual peace, many atheists are more Christian than their evangelical pentecostal cousins

I don't believe that you are being fair, Zig. Jesus Christ spoke often of the necessity of faith. "Except one be born again he cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven." This comes in the same chapter, I believe, that the condition "whosoever believeth" is located. To somehow claim to be "Christian" while denying the theology of Christ is a disservice to Him.

The theology of Christ? The man was full of parables and figurative phrases. Devining the theology of Jesus is like devining the theology of Thomas Jefferson, or of John Adams. The words and sentences of all three are long on generalizations, while short on specific application- quite deliberately I do believe.

Jesus spoke many things in the Bible. How do we know what is to be taken figuratively and what is to be taken literally?

Being "born again" can and does have different meanings to different people.

Jesus is quoted as saying, ""I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (John 6:53).

Are these words of Jesus from John 6:53 to be taken literally, or figuratively?

".... because whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

Does Jesus presume to co-opt the common meaning of brother and sister and mother? Does he mean that our DNA magically changes to measurably reflect our new family in faith?

Or does he mean a social brotherhood and sisterhood, maybe somewhat akin to that more or less evident on internet message boards, for example, or among our friends who are not "blood kin" relatives- but are part of an extended social family of sorts?

And faith, while being a personal bridge across un-focused personal eras, does not indicate universal truths. Indeed, faiths are as fleeting and as varied and as wispy as the drifting white clouds we see shifting against the background of a clear blue sky.

Does the "theology of Christ" include his belief that he was, or was not, born of a virgin? Or was that part of the theology invented after Jesus lived and died?

Now, to the extent that many atheists are simply more agreeable neighbors than many Christians, I readily concede. But let's not call them "Christians" when the words of Christ are not for them authoritative.

Having helped get Santa packed and on this way back north late this morning, I have been pondering this for a couple hours this afternoon.

So how are they to be considered what you seems to recognize as "Christians", unless the spirit of love and peace and goodwill Jesus preached is evident in their hearts?
----------
Ms. Ziggy and I are soon headed out to enjoy "ham and all the fixins" with family/friends later today.

But I hope to continue our talks here, in the spirit of mutual sharing and learning late tonight, or maybe not until tomorrow.

Peace and Love to all in this holiday season-

Ziggy & Ms. Ziggy

ziggy wrote:Does the "theology of Christ" include his belief that he was, or was not, born of a virgin? Or was that part of the theology invented after Jesus lived and died?

The first mention of the virgin birth is in Genesis3:15, the protoevangelium, and the mentioning of "the seed of the woman" (interestingly "of the woman" and not "of the man"). It is mentioned again hundreds of years before Christ's birth when Isaiah 7:14 states, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." And, it is confirmed by Mary herself, Luke 1:30-34 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Now, here is what is interesting. If the apocrypha or pseudepigrapha (Nag Hamadi, etc.) claims that Christ was farted by a unicorn; you will quote that as a proof text; but, you will not believe the Canon of Scripture. The reason is that denying or questioning a Scriptural truth will change it or negate it.

You remind me of my father-in-law, may he rest in peace. He did not believe that man walked on the moon. He believed that it was all staged in Hollywood! He is welcome to his opinion. However, it does not change the fact that there are human footprints on the Moon. All the Scriptures and other truths in the world will not convince you--you have already made up your mind. So be it. I t does not change the reality one bit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081224/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_iran

Well thanks zig for the good wishes.

You guys' discussion above is thought provoking.

Who really does speak for Jesus?

And by what authority?

Which side are we on as a nation?

What would Jesus do?

Does this guy's statement about what He would do make it so?

Armon Ayers wrote:

ziggy wrote:Does the "theology of Christ" include his belief that he was, or was not, born of a virgin? Or was that part of the theology invented after Jesus lived and died?

The first mention of the virgin birth is in Genesis3:15, the protoevangelium, and the mentioning of "the seed of the woman" (interestingly "of the woman" and not "of the man"). It is mentioned again hundreds of years before Christ's birth when Isaiah 7:14 states, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." And, it is confirmed by Mary herself, Luke 1:30-34 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Well Armon, if the theology of Christ that SheikBen brings up is part of the doctrine(s) of Christianity, then Jesus' view of the virgin birth as an integral component of Christianity is important.

But all you've done here is evade the question about Jesus' incorporation, or failure to incorporate, the doctrine of his alleged birth to a virgin mother into the "theology of Christ".

So it would appear that the part(s) of the doctrines of Christianity about Jesus being born of a virgin was added by other speculators, and not recognized by Jesus himself. And that would then beg the question of how much of other parts of so-called Christian doctrine was incorporated by others than Jesus- whether centuries before, as you indicate, or centuries after his birth.

Armon Ayers wrote:Now, here is what is interesting. If the apocrypha or pseudepigrapha (Nag Hamadi, etc.) claims that Christ was farted by a unicorn; you will quote that as a proof text; but, you will not believe the Canon of Scripture. The reason is that denying or questioning a Scriptural truth will change it or negate it.

If a "Scriptural truth" is so weak that a skeptic's denying or questioning it will change it or negate it, then it needs to be questioned, maybe even denied.

Were it actually "truth", having it questioned- or even denied- by skeptics, would subsequently serve to only strengthen it. If it can stand to question, then it becomes stronger after being questioned. If it cannot stand to even be questioned, then it was no truth to begin with.

ziggy wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:Now, here is what is interesting. If the apocrypha or pseudepigrapha (Nag Hamadi, etc.) claims that Christ was farted by a unicorn; you will quote that as a proof text; but, you will not believe the Canon of Scripture. The reason is that denying or questioning a Scriptural truth will change it or negate it.

If a "Scriptural truth" is so weak that a skeptic's denying or questioning it will change it or negate it, then it needs to be questioned, maybe even denied.

Were it actually "truth", having it questioned- or even denied- by skeptics, would subsequently serve to only strengthen it. If it can stand to question, then it becomes stronger after being questioned. If it cannot stand to even be questioned, then it was no truth to begin with.

Then again, some people wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the nose. And, no one is as blind as a cynic.

And, no one is as blind as a cynic.

Or a "true believer".

Zig,

I'm heading out the door to Indy right now but I have to get in a couple of shots.

First of all, no one considers the Scriptures to be the exhaustive account of what was said by Jesus. He may well have brought up the virgin birth on many occasions, we simply do not know.

The Scriptures do, however, show Jesus accepting worship, saying that He was before Abraham, and forgiving sins. If a "mere mortal," all of these things would be ludicrous. As CS Lewis suggests, you can worship Him as God or you can assign Him the level of a maniac or a charlatan, but He has not left open to you the "good teacher, nice guy" option.

SheikBen wrote:First of all, no one considers the Scriptures to be the exhaustive account of what was said by Jesus. He may well have brought up the virgin birth on many occasions, we simply do not know.

If the theology of Christ did not include the virgin birth of Christ, then it was not at all the same "Christian" theology as we see espoused by leading evangelical and pentecostal church authorities in America today. The virgin birth is critical to the notion of Jesus as God- as opposed to Jesus as a mere man. How could the God inspired authors of the scriptures be so careless as to omit Jesus' perspective on his own birth?

The Scriptures do, however, show Jesus accepting worship, saying that He was before Abraham, and forgiving sins. If a "mere mortal," all of these things would be ludicrous. As CS Lewis suggests, you can worship Him as God or you can assign Him the level of a maniac or a charlatan, but He has not left open to you the "good teacher, nice guy" option.

The scriptures that omit the virgin birth- the cornerstone of biblical Christianity, from the theology of Christ himself, must be considered suspect in all manner of presenting the doctrines of Christianity.

The scriptures cannot rationally have it both ways at once by suggesting that the theology of Christ is somehow separate and distinct from the theology of Christianity.

So the "good teacher, nice guy" option seems to be the only real option there is for free and independent thinkers. And neither you nor anyone else should seek to deny that to honest seekers of reasoned truths, in my opinion.

Then again, some people wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the nose. And, no one is as blind as a cynic.

Cynics come in all colors, in all faiths, espousing all manners of alternative doctrines.

So cynic, heal thyself first.

Ziggy,

Why exactly would a presentation of theology have to be "complete" as you view it? Four different accounts of any event or series of events are bound to have different components to them; if they did not, you would accuse them of conspiracy.

If four different witnesses give the exact same account of the same incident, a good lawyer will ask if they have been "coached."

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Why exactly would a presentation of theology have to be "complete" as you view it? Four different accounts of any event or series of events are bound to have different components to them; if they did not, you would accuse them of conspiracy.

If four different witnesses give the exact same account of the same incident, a good lawyer will ask if they have been "coached."

Four different accounts? I thought we were talking about the theology of Christ as opposed to the theology of 21st "Christianity".

That is either two "accounts", or dozens or hundreds of "accounts"- depending on how much of two thousand years of evolutionary Christianity we detail.