I read something about Biblical historians theorizing that Jesus was born in either late August or early September; The flocks would not be in the fields in December, so the shepherds would not have been there, either. It was also convenient for the early Christians to celebrate it around the time of the pagan holidays; they would "blend in" and not be persecuted.

What is most important is not when He was born, but that He was born.

TSC

 

For what ever reason, December 25, is the day we celebrate his birth.
Have you ever had a 'birthday in the middle of the week , but celebrated it on the weekend? There is not any difference in this instance. He lived, and that is all that is important. :santa:

 

read them all and then decide for yourself how you will choose to acknowledge your Creator (if you feel you have one) and how you will live your life.


All of these books state that you must know and love your Creator in your heart. Having someone bash their own sacred text over your head and telling you that they are correct and you are wrong does not get you (or them) closer to your Creator or the afterlife of that Creator.


It's all about you and you only and your own personal relationship with your own Creator. Whatever the name and form of that Creator may be. Only you can define that relationship.

 

thats very interesting, considering that the town of Nazareth did not exist when Jesus was alive.

He was actually Yehoshua ben Joseph and belonged to a sect called the Nasoreans. The Nasoreans in turn were part of the Essenes who were widely acknowledged to be the ones that hid the Dead Sea Scrolls in those caves.


So the man was Jesus the Nasorean, not Jesus the Nazarene.

 

this goes back to the extreme orthodox Jews of the time adhering to copulation for reproduction only. This reproductive copulation occured during a very short window each year.

A December birth would have meant that reproduction happened outside of the permissible window. Assuming that Mary did have a virgin birth, this still would have made her and Joseph outcasts in the Jewish community. As we have seen in the Bible, Mary, the Mother, was far from being an outcast given she was the hostess of a very large wedding (atended by many guests)


When the window was and when the children were born conflicts by historian.

 

I believe the real reason for Xmas was to convert pagans to Christianity.

'"Christianization" of Pagan Customs, Symbols, and Terminology — Christianity had to undergo a transformation so that pagan Rome could "convert" without giving up its old beliefs and rituals. The actual effect was to paganize official Christianity.'

Here is a Jewish view on Xmas:What About Christmas?

It would appear the strategy worked because the Holiday eventually become well accepted by all, but it may also be that the celebration was forced on the people at first, and later gained acceptance.

'Constantine used religion as a political tool, and started to introduce the Babylonian mystery religions in 313 A.D. which then established a foothold with the holding of the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.'

'In 375 A.D., the Church of Rome under Pope Julius I merely announced that the birth date of Christ had been "discovered" to be December 25th, and was accepted as such by the "faithful." '

What I find interesting is that I don't see many of these pagans which are supposedly getting converted to Christianity. Without the pagans, there is no need for the continued adoption of the pagan customs, but people still get all pissy if you don't meet their current day expectations of we all must do on this Holiday.

 

post #5

 

I don't know where you're getting your information, but I think it's generally accepted that Nazareth was the home of Mary and Joseph. And, it certainly existed at the time of Jesus. It was one of several tiny villages that were located near the great Roman city of Sepphoris perched on a hill above them. The residents of Nazareth were all decedents of David, and, the name "Nazareth" means something like "Branch of David" (I'd have to do some research to verify this - I'm working mostly on memory now). As such, Jesus certainly qualified to be "King of Jews", since he was a descendant of David. I think you'll find most historians and archeologists are in agreement regarding this.

Sepphoris is nothing but a few ruins on a bare hill now, while Nazareth is a quite large city of maybe 60-70,000 people?

- Jack

 

I didn't understand what you meant when I read your post, #5. What do you mean by 'it wasn't "pagan" at the time?' What is the difference? What does pagan mean or stand for? What is not pagan, and why is it not pagan?

 

every book I have read on the subject (many by religious scholars) all agree that Nazareth did NOT exist 2000 years ago.

Those that "widely accept it" are those that have been told Jesus is from Nazareth and just assume its true.

the morphing of Nasorean into Nazarene is just another translation error and/or Nicean addition to fit the falsehoods created by the Pauline/Contantinian churches.

 

"Pagan" generally refers to:
1) polytheism
2) neo-paganism (wicca, nature worship)
3) Folk/Indigenous religions.

Although the Vatican would like to tell you than anything Non-Abrahamic is pagan.

Sol Invictus , Zoroastrianism and Mithraism are all monotheistic and very similar to the Abrahamic religions and do not fit any modern concept of paganism.

 

OK, I see. The Vatican's usage of the word 'pagan', as a term that includes any Non-Abrahamic religion, is a valid definition, and it appears to be the definition used in the link I posted above. That's the usage that best fits the discussion of Christ's birthday. Is your point that this definition is derived from recent usage, and did not exist back in the 4th century?

 

Here is a recent archeology dig of what is to be the village that Jesus live in as a boy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091222/...lyc3RqZXN1cy1l

 

Try reading the Bible for a change.

As an aside, Nazareth was a very, and I mean very tiny "village". Besides Jesus wasn't born in Nazareth, he was born in Bethlehem.

There are many prophecies in the Old Testament that have come to pass with the birth of Christ. One specifically is Micah 5:2, where it mentions Christ being from Bethlehem and his "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (meaning his Spirit has always been) This was written about 750 B.C. and properly translated (I'm looking at the original Hebrew right now). There are literally dozens of other prophecies that came true written by King David and also many in the book of Isaiah and others in the Prophets.

 

That's a great find Tumba. There have been literally dozens of excavations done since the mid 1800's that prove the Bible as true. If only people would seek the truth. The Moabite Stone is one off the top of my head.