Will there be a third testament add to the Christian bible in the future?

a reply to: chr0naut

But seeing as how I hate letting a poor soul remain in ignorance this is an article written by a church that does not celebrate Christmas because of the pagan origins.

In the article the Catholic encyclopedia on Christmas as a source taking you from the Tammuz tree up to Mithras and the Roman empire and explains the development of the pagan festival into a Catholic holiday.

If you do not consider the Catholic Church authoritative then you are pretty much just being ignorant for fun because they started the whole thing and acknowledge its roots and if you still think it isn't true after they admit it themselves with no shame...

Catholics encyclopedia Christmas

I will pray for you because that is just not even funny anymore and borders on mental illness and I am going to feel bad if you are that unwilling to accept history I want you to see someone.

I have come across know it all types like yourself who find Christ and become the ultimate know it all but you are the know it all in attitude without the actual information to back it up and as constructive criticism I say stop for your own good, thinking everything you don't like is not true and that everything you say is true is true...because you are not remotely scholarly you are all emotional beliefs and no amount of fact or wisdom is going to tell you you are wrong.

Not healthy.

originally posted by: Parazurvan
a reply to: chr0naut

But seeing as how I hate letting a poor soul remain in ignorance this is an article written by a church that does not celebrate Christmas because of the pagan origins.

In the article the Catholic encyclopedia on Christmas as a source taking you from the Tammuz tree up to Mithras and the Roman empire and explains the development of the pagan festival into a Catholic holiday.

If you do not consider the Catholic Church authoritative then you are pretty much just being ignorant for fun because they started the whole thing and acknowledge its roots and if you still think it isn't true after they admit it themselves with no shame...

Catholics encyclopedia Christmas

I will pray for you because that is just not even funny anymore and borders on mental illness and I am going to feel bad if you are that unwilling to accept history I want you to see someone.

I have come across know it all types like yourself who find Christ and become the ultimate know it all but you are the know it all in attitude without the actual information to back it up and as constructive criticism I say stop for your own good, thinking everything you don't like is not true and that everything you say is true is true...because you are not remotely scholarly you are all emotional beliefs and no amount of fact or wisdom is going to tell you you are wrong.

Not healthy.

Apologies for the delay in response.

This website for the "Continuing Church of God" quotes small snippets from the Catholic Encyclopedia but somehow seems to miss out any content that does not agree with its views.

The Catholic Encyclopedia does mention that the earliest Christian writings make no mention of a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. However, if you read a little bit more of the actual article, Clement of Alexandria made mention of it 167 years after the death of Christ, where several scholars had disagreement on the date. Here's the actual link to the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Continuing Church of God's website attributes the December 25th date to the Saturnalia, but as previously posted, the Saturnalia festival runs from the 17th December to the 23rd December, so they are wrong. They also attribute it to Mithraic ceremony, supposedly on December 25th, but Manfred Clauss states (in "Mithras: Kult und Mysterien". München: Beck, 1990, p. 70): "the Mithraic Mysteries had no public ceremonies of its own. The festival of natalis Invicti [Birth of the Unconquerable (Sun)], held on 25 December, was a general festival of the Sun, and by no means specific to the Mysteries of Mithras."

It is important to notice the the sol invictus itself was also post-Christian, only being accepted as a Roman religious festival in 274 AD by Emperor Aurelian. The Christian Christmas was well established before that.

Additionally, Mithraism was only adopted by the Romans in the first century (after the death of Christ) and did not reach its peak until 300 years after Christ. A study of its similarities to Christianity will reveal that those similarities were added later to the myth, probably as a reaction against Christianity.

Also, Mithraists did not acknowledge the validity of the Saturnalia or of Christianity, so to include such disparate beliefs as if together they explained things, defies reason.

Despite other issues, lumping together Yule, Sol Invictus, Mithraism, Saturnalia, Weeping for Tammuz and other pagan ceremonies that are doctrinally opposed to each other and suggesting that they suddenly laid down their many differences and cooperated in faking another opposing doctrine is illogical and unreasonable.

Yes, there is a lot of stuff on the Internet that supports the premise that Christmas is a pagan festival. That doesn't make it correct. That is why I am so picky about the quality of reference sources.

I might also mention that your ad hominem attack suggesting that I have a mental illness, because I refute your beliefs, is more indicative of the opposite case.

a reply to: chr0naut

History shows that December 25 was popularized as the date for Christmas, not because Christ was born on that day, but because it was already popular in pagan religious celebrations as the birthday of the sun. But could December 25 be the date of Christ's birth?



When was Jesus Christ born? Was Jesus born on December 25 - Christmas Day?

A careful analysis of Scripture, however, clearly indicates that December 25 couldn’t be the date for Christ’s birth. Here are two primary reasons:

First, we know that shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:7-8). Shepherds were not in the fields during December. According toCelebrations: The Complete Book of American Holidays , Luke’s account “suggests that Jesus may have been born in summer or early fall. Since December is cold and rainy in Judea, it is likely the shepherds would have sought shelter for their flocks at night” (p. 309).

Similarly, The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary says this passage argues “against the birth [of Christ] occurring on Dec. 25 since the weather would not have permitted” shepherds watching over their flocks in the fields at night.

Second, Jesus’ parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census (Luke 2:1-4). Such censuses were not taken in winter, when temperatures often dropped below freezing and roads were in poor condition. Taking a census under such conditions would have been self-defeating.

www.ucg.org...
It seems very very unlikely that Jesus was born on December 25.

originally posted by: Parazurvan
a reply to: chr0naut

I decided to extend an olive branch to you so you can learn something.

Tammuz Christmas

The Christmas tree is described in Jeremiah 10. It was called the Tammuz tree and based off the myth of Tammuz being Nimrod ressurected.
...

Firstly, the passage in Jeremiah 10:1-5 is clearly talking about a carved idol, not a trimmed tree. "Do not learn the way of the nations or be terrified by signs in the heavens, although the nations are terrified by them, 3 for the customs of the peoples are worthless. Someone cuts down a tree from the forest; it is worked by the hands of a craftsman with a chisel. 4 He decorates it with silver and gold. It is fastened with hammer and nails, so it won’t totter. 5 Like scarecrows in a cucumber patch, their idols cannot speak. They must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them for they can do no harm—and they cannot do any good.'

Someone who cuts down a tree and puts decorations on it are hardly describable as working it "by the hands of a craftsman".

Secondly, it has been stated on the Internet that the "Tammuz Tree" was both burnt as a log (i.e: as some sort of Yule log analogue) and also dressed as a Christmas tree as a symbol of resurrection. Which was it? You cannot 'resurrect' ashes into a tree. That little irrationality perhaps indicates the spuriousness of the assertion.

Nor will you find any ancient writings that speak of a "Tammuz Tree" this is because the concept is the modern invention of those who wish to discredit Christmas. The closest thing from Babylonian myth would probably be the "Tree of Life". In Babylonian mythology, the Tree of Life was a magical tree that grew in the center of paradise. The Apsu, or primordial waters, flowed from its roots. A similar tree of life is also recorded in Genesis.

Here is a picture of how the tree of life was usually represented in Babylonian art:


Similarly the 'Weeping for Tammuz' rituals occur during the Summer Solstice in March-April, and has nothing to do with December 25th. This doesn't seem to be a consideration for those who repeat the untruth all over the Internet.

a reply to: chr0naut

You need to get over it it is just a couple holidays inherited from paganism. The Catholic Church has worse problems with pagan idolatry than Christmas and Easter.

It is a fact of life that you will have to deal with and no amount of obsessing over my every comment will do that. I don't have anything to explain. Everything I said is verifiable for anyone who wants and you literally hate everything I say and make a thing out of disputing what I have long known to be true.

You will need to find someone else I don't want to know what you think so I just will not read your spew anymore.

But still have a good day. Ishtar blesses you. She is a good goddess.

a reply to: chr0naut

But you should be an apologist your good at compiling enough crap and meaningless words to appear like you can make a credible rebuttal.

I'm quite sure you know you're wrong and your three op's worth of what amounts to propaganda and comes from a desire only to be right with no regard for the vast amount of historical data that more than proves that both holidays have their origins in paganism as far back as the people learned astronomy and the solstices and equinoxes.

Tammuz and Ishtar are just the oldest names associated with the holidays they changed many times until 3-400 AD (roughly) when the church adopted them.

I think you desperately looked for apologetic arguments and any version of church record that doesn't say it. But the fact is that it does.

You will also be upset to know that they have also admitted that they can no longer claim Moses as the author of any of the books in the Bible. You will probably search for an opinion in line with yours which is possible for anything so I just see you as someone in denial and seething that your beloved holidays aren't Christian which is typical.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: chr0naut

History shows that December 25 was popularized as the date for Christmas, not because Christ was born on that day, but because it was already popular in pagan religious celebrations as the birthday of the sun. But could December 25 be the date of Christ's birth?



When was Jesus Christ born? Was Jesus born on December 25 - Christmas Day?

A careful analysis of Scripture, however, clearly indicates that December 25 couldn’t be the date for Christ’s birth. Here are two primary reasons:

First, we know that shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:7-8). Shepherds were not in the fields during December. According toCelebrations: The Complete Book of American Holidays , Luke’s account “suggests that Jesus may have been born in summer or early fall. Since December is cold and rainy in Judea, it is likely the shepherds would have sought shelter for their flocks at night” (p. 309).

Similarly, The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary says this passage argues “against the birth [of Christ] occurring on Dec. 25 since the weather would not have permitted” shepherds watching over their flocks in the fields at night.

Second, Jesus’ parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census (Luke 2:1-4). Such censuses were not taken in winter, when temperatures often dropped below freezing and roads were in poor condition. Taking a census under such conditions would have been self-defeating.

www.ucg.org...
It seems very very unlikely that Jesus was born on December 25.

Sheep eat grass. Grass is a low energy source, so they must graze continuously. They don't give a damn about the weather, they are covered in wool.

The night time temperature in the hills of Galilee in winter varies from 5 to 15 degrees Centigrade (you can look it up on travel advice sites). Back in Biblical times it was also warmer and wetter. It just isn't too cold for sheep or shepherds there and never was (trust me, I live rurally in New Zealand).

Also, Gabriel revealed to Mary that she would carrying Jesus about the same time as her cousin's husband was entering the 'holiest of holies' in the temple as high priest. This was an annual event on Yom Kippor which, as Leviticus 16:29 mandates, is on the 10th day of the 7th month. Since the Month of Tishri is the new year in the secular calendar, this makes it the date 10 of Nisan (note Nisan was made the first month in Exodus 12:2, but this was AFTER the feast date was set in Leviticus).

If you go to the online Hebrew calendar and convert 10 Nisan 3761 (the year after Jesus birth, because it won't calculate for earlier dates) to a Gregorian date, you will see it is "Sunday, 25th March". Calculating March plus 9 months (human gestation period) gives December.

Assuming a bit of leeway for travel times of Mary to meet Elizabeth, and with calendar changes wrought by Pope Gregory, the 25th of December seems at least in the ballpark. Definitely better than those who suggest entirely different months.

originally posted by: Parazurvan
a reply to: chr0naut

But you should be an apologist your good at compiling enough crap and meaningless words to appear like you can make a credible rebuttal.

I'm quite sure you know you're wrong and your three op's worth of what amounts to propaganda and comes from a desire only to be right with no regard for the vast amount of historical data that more than proves that both holidays have their origins in paganism as far back as the people learned astronomy and the solstices and equinoxes.

Tammuz and Ishtar are just the oldest names associated with the holidays they changed many times until 3-400 AD (roughly) when the church adopted them.

I think you desperately looked for apologetic arguments and any version of church record that doesn't say it. But the fact is that it does.

You will also be upset to know that they have also admitted that they can no longer claim Moses as the author of any of the books in the Bible. You will probably search for an opinion in line with yours which is possible for anything so I just see you as someone in denial and seething that your beloved holidays aren't Christian which is typical.

I am aware of the documentary hypothesis . As per the Wikipedia article, it is a 140 years old hypothesis and was fairly completely discredited nearly three decades ago.

originally posted by: Parazurvan
a reply to: chr0naut

You need to get over it it is just a couple holidays inherited from paganism. The Catholic Church has worse problems with pagan idolatry than Christmas and Easter.

It is a fact of life that you will have to deal with and no amount of obsessing over my every comment will do that. I don't have anything to explain. Everything I said is verifiable for anyone who wants and you literally hate everything I say and make a thing out of disputing what I have long known to be true.

You will need to find someone else I don't want to know what you think so I just will not read your spew anymore.

But still have a good day. Ishtar blesses you. She is a good goddess.

That may be your opinion, but you have not yet come up with a single unequivocally supporting fact.

a reply to: defiythelie

In my opinion I think not. The reason being that the bible was really the first mass produced book in the areas that christianity took hold and as such it is revered and very resistant to addition or change in general. An example of this phenomenon I like to point to are the songs typically associated with Christmas, they are old and in comparison to modern music or more acoustically pleasing music, terrible. Yet they are almost completely resistant to alteration or replacement as they were among the first almost universally known songs in the areas that they took hold, and are now revered.