The "real" Reason for the Season

Aside from the fact that I'm Christian, I have another reason to totally despise Christmas and all the fakeness that goes with it.

I work retail.

People are at their worst during Christmas. That is a fact. It is disgusting.

I can tell you that anyone that believes that God condones this "holy day" is insane.

Originally posted by Locoman8
Interesting how Christmas in it's christian form never called for the celebration of St. Nick. Of course you must have skipped my post on who Santa Clause really portrays. Odine the nordic god pulled by a chariot through the sky by an 8-legged horse. He was portrayed as a fat man with a white beard. Nothing about Santa Clause can be found similar to St. Nick other than the clothing... and only the color is similar. And Easter is the pagan holiday of fertility. Good friday and easter sunday are false dates for the death and resurrection of Christ. He was killed on Passover and resurrected 3 days and 3 nights later, not 1 1/2 days later.

I did not skip your interpretation of the origin of St. Nicholas, I just don't agree with it, and it is not the origin I am teaching my children. Honestly, I am not even sure how you determined the "true" origin, as it doesn't match any of readily found sources I found. Odin wasn't exactly known for gift giving. Would you care to link sources on how you came to the conclusions you are presenting to us?

As I stated earlier, giving a holiday meaning to your family is what is important - not necessarily historical accuraccy. Heck, the version of Santa Claus that we see at the mall is a combination of many different sources, not just the one you listed. Some additional reading:

* Saint Nicholas
* Sinterklaas
* Santa Claus

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by Selahobed

 

A lot of christians miss the point of the Holy days because they hold onto the doctrine of of the nicolations who absorbed pagan traditions into their church, a doctrine spoken about in Revelation by Yeshua in His letters to the churches which said that He hates this doctrine! So all of these people who try to justify themselves by taking part in these clearly pagan festivals are offending Yeshua who says in black and white in the book of Revelation that He hates this practice!

If you believe that Yeshua was speaking of hating Pagan practices in regards to untruth than you are correct. However, their are also many Pagan practices that should be viewed as truth.
Biblical ex.
Paul quotes Pagan poets at least 3 times as being true.(Titus)

Christianity is bases on truth, and yes some of the customs are Pagan in origin, But just because its Pagan does not mean its untruth.

How can Putting up a Christmas tree,hanging a few lights,giving presents,helping the poor,being festive, celebrating Christs birth be untruth? it can't

Now if one was to worship the tree and the lights and the god of the tree and the lights that would make him a Pagan which Yeshua hates.

Dont you read the Word? G-d commanded us to keep the holy days FOREVER! The scripture DOES say that.
The tree isnt the problem, what it represents is! The early church kept the feasts of G-d and the true sabbath. All of these things are a COMMANDEMENT that was meant to be kept FOREVER, and NOT a SUGGESTION but a COMMAND!!! It is in black and white in the Word, and THAT Word i choose any day over the word of some pastor!
READ YOUR BIBLE, check these thing out for yourself, do not let yourself be lead astray by the traditions of men, or the crowd, but by G-ds Word.

Right did Yeshua call His people a "LITTLE FLOCK," because only a REMNANT keeps His Word...

[edit on 113030p://f29Monday by Selahobed]

Originally posted by TLomon
Odin wasn't exactly known for gift giving. Would you care to link sources on how you came to the conclusions you are presenting to us?

Well, actually he was. And he is one the oldest known sources for giving gifts at Jòl or Christmas. Norse Jól or Norwegian Jul is the name of the season up here. And one of Odin's names was Jólnir. At winter solstice he gave his soldiers a couple of days off, and he handed out gifts in the shape of dried fruits, meat and nuts to them. When I researched this a couple of years back, I found Odin (also called Allfader or Father of All) was actually the oldest source for gift giving on Christmas. And during the Jólablót people would sacrifice a goat to Odin and swear uppon it's head good oaths and promises for what to do until next blót. People would typically promise their allegiance to the king, or enemies would settle for a peace agreement, or they would make simpler oaths like promising to be a better man etc. And there was beer, loads of beer. Everyone who owned land had to make beer measured after the husbond and the lady of the estate's weight in Malt, or more than 1000 liters of beer (that's about 2000 pints), to give free to everyone who worked for them, whether they were husmenn or slaves. The tradition of gift giving at Christmas is as old as we are up here. Don't mess with Odin

[edit on 16/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


I don't agree with you most of the time but I had to star your post for that tidbit of info on Odin. Apparantly, the other poster doesn't research outside of the box.

People practised rituals to appease the 'old gods' at the height of winter, because they were afraid if they didn't the summer would not return.
(they also sacrificed their kings, and the odd virgin, of course)

The christian church supplanted the old gods, and so had to offer a solstice celebration for midwinter (and easter), but people hang on to their old beliefs tenaciously, they just adapt them to fit (look at the pantheon of gods in voodoo and the catholic church - all mixed up together!)

And talking of belief, I noticed mention of God, and Jesus, and even Santa clause, but what about the tooth fairy and the bogie man? How about Dracula?
After all if we still NEED to believe in superstitious mumbo jumbo and fairy stories, can't we at least have more interesting ones?

Call me an evil old pagan - (Actually an atheist) - but I am much happier with the prospect of Odin and his beard, than Jehova and he 'my people will always be better than you'.

We need to let go of this stuff, its old and its outmoded and its stopping the human race from moving on (oh, I guess the Buddists are doing ok, though)
Organised religion holds too much power and shouldn't influence the world in the way it still does.
Oh, and if people want to waste their money a xmas, why shouldnt they? Lifes too short.

Originally posted by Icerider
People practised rituals to appease the 'old gods' at the height of winter, because they were afraid if they didn't the summer would not return.
(they also sacrificed their kings, and the odd virgin, of course)

Well, that's what you like to believe. My opinion is whether the people did whether or in time of need did they do as they swore to protect?

The people summoned at Jolablot would typically say anything along the semantic meaning of

Eng.: "I shall not"
No.: "Eg skall(skull) ik(scream)kje(sacrificial goat)"

Swearing uppon a shegoat's skull was something you didn't want to have undone! Sworn oaths, especially in Germany and the continent, was big business. Up here, there were shortcuts, as always, but the language stands as a silent (?) witness.

There were hopless horrible tears.

[edit on 17/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

reply to post by Locoman8


Just won yourself another

The month in which Jòlablòt occurs was called Jule or Jòle. It comes and goes in history, and the reason is possibly that they couldn't calivbrate their calendars properly with the Christian ones, since We simply used thirteen months of 28 each, calibrating day off day in, with the solar cross (winter and summer solstice, and the equinoxes). That way we could use women to beat the date even under siege under ground for months and years at a time. All we'd need to do would've been to visit our old man's grave, and we would typically wait until the Sun rose in a straight line from east to west. (Sun rise east to West, Moon is as big as the sun, Earth-Venus equals more or less phi, Mars and Saturn hexagrams, and Jupiter the clock. Are we really back before Babylon, back then they all knew this).

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


Well, As I said, I am an atheist, so I don't actually 'like to believe' anything, and in fact, I choose not to believe, simply because I don't feel the need to, even if I am told that I should.

Now, I am really not trying to be rude, but your last post seemed to be citing some kind of 'mumbo jumbo', Im not sure exactly what, but I didnt read anything refuting my assertion that, well, all religion is basically superstitious reaction to things that affect us, but are beyond our control!

Can you please give me a reason that christian mysticism and theology should continue to be considered as anything other than an interesting branch of historical study?

reply to post by Icerider


All religion, my friend, is the basis for all science. Unless you believe your idea is worth a shot, you yourself is either too biased or too stupid to notice it. BTW Don'y mean you're stupid because you don't believe, allthough you will have to believe so many billion times in your life just to function like a regular human being.... Get real, you don't believe... I'd say ... you are a believer....

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


"All religion, my friend, is the basis for all science"

Gibberish! - science is based on cause and effect, and on demonstrably repeatable results.

Technology doesnt work because you have 'faith' in it, it works on scientific principles.

"Unless you believe your idea is worth a shot, you yourself is either too biased or too stupid to notice it. BTW Don'y mean you're stupid because you don't believe, allthough you will have to believe so many billion times in your life just to function like a regular human being.... Get real, you don't believe... I'd say ... you are a believer...."

Ok, I have tried to make sense of this statement, and have failed - parhaps someone else may be able to interpret for me, as I am obviously to 'stupid' to understand.
As far as I can tell, your saying I'm stupid, because I don't believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, invisible deity, who takes an interest in every single life, and the workings of a whole universe.
A god who is benevolent and loving, and yet allows evil to flourish.
A god who loves us all but will condemn me to hell if I am a bad boy, and do not follow the directions of his self anointed representatives on earth?.

Im not prepared to accuse anyone who has faith of stupidity, but nor do I feel an absence of faith is a lack of anything.
To say someone is stupid because they don't need an invisible friend to hold their hand as they enter into the eternal darkness, because they are strong enough to face eternity without that emotional crutch?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha .......

Quick Question for LOCOMAN -

For many 'bible believing' Christians, to question the descriptions of the birth as related in the gospels of 'Matthew' and 'Luke' is almost unthinkable.

For them, the Bible is the "word of God", an infallible record of the Almighty's influence on his creation, and therefore to be taken at face value.

However, a careful readiog of the nativity narratives of 'Matthew' and 'Luke' (the 2nd & 4th gospels in the council approved canon have no birth narratives, e.g. 'Mark' and 'John' whoever they were...) indicate that the supposedly unerring "word of God" is full of contradictions and inventions. The most plausible conclusion is that the familiar Christmas stories in Matthew and Luke are religious myths, awkwardly grafted onto an earlier non-miraculous tradition about Jesus' birth.

They appear to be legends recorded by later Jewish-Christian apologists who were attempting to explain the origins of a man whom they considered divine. In this sense, the authors employed the familiar Jewish practice of the time known as "Midrash" to illustrate and prove their points; that is to say, they liberally interpreted and expanded on texts and prophesies in the Jewish scriptures.

The miraculous birth stories also served other purposes, namely, to rebut the contemporary inferences about the illegitimate birth of 'Iesous' (Matt. 1:18-19, Mark 6:3, John 8:41 'WE were not born of fornication !' ) and to counter charges that he was possessed by a devil, rather than the 'Spirit of the Most High'.


Have you ever bothered to compare (line by line) the two birth narratives (i.e. in the 1st and the 3rd council approved 'Greek gospels'), and if so, have you not noticed the DIFFERNECES between them?

The 1st Gospel (according to 'Matthew' whoever he was) has a completely different geneaology for R. Yehoshua bar Yosef starting with..well, Yosef, notice the insistence on the Gemmatrial Number 14 (DVD for David = Daled-4, Vav-6, Daled-4) to mark out the number of toledoth ('generations') between say, Abraham and Mosheh, or between the 1st Temple and the Exile into Babylon, which leaves out at least 4 Kings of Judah (between the years 680 and 619 BCE) e.g. the Judaean clan chiefs Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim and a few others &tc. The Genealogy in the 3rd Gospel ('Luke' whoever he was) has a totally differnt set of names in certain places -- but differs from the lists say in Chronicles.

Which one is right? Are both wrong?

The 1st Gospel has Yeshua being visited by Persian Magoi at 'his house' in Bayith-Lechem ('Bakery' aka Bethlehem) bearing gold, myrrh and frankincense, whereas the 3rd gospel has 'shepherds' visiting a 'cave' (like the Iranian sun-god-Mithras, who had shepherds visiting a rock cave at his birth from a rock) accompanied by 'angels' singing &tc.

The 1st gospel has a house and a wandering star with Persian Magoi, and a flight into Egypt ('Out of Egypt I have called my Son') , but no stable nor cow-trough and no interest in Zechariah and Elizabeth (who were of the tribe of Levi, not Judah at any rate) no choir of angels and no shepherds and no issue with censuses and overbooked hotel reservations.

As for the hometown of Jesus' parents, neither gospel can agree where it was. 'Matthew' has them residing in Bethlehem in Judea, while 'Luke' says they lived in a small hamlet called 'Nazareth' (Geneseret?) in the Galilee although there is no evidence of such a town on any map in the 1st century CE ('Behold the Man, he shall be caled the Nazir, and it is he who will re-build the Temple of YHWH' from Zech 6:9 might be the literary source of all this Nazarene business...)

The 3rd Gospel has no house, no Persian Magoi, no Wandering Star hovering over where the child lay, no flight into Egypt, no Herod massacring Daviddic pretender babies (shades of the Egyptian Pharaoh and Mosheh) and no Joseph Angel-Dreams throwing off Divorce proceedings.

So which account in the gospels is the right one? They both cannot be right, but are they both wrong?

Or are both merely different Haggadic Midrash approaches based on a different set of Messianic passages from the OT, e.g. a Midrash on the Scroll of the Book of the Prophets Proto-Isaiah (7:14 etc.) and Micah 5:1-2 despite the 4th gospel's insistence that he was NOT born in Bethlehem (John 7:41-42) &tc.?

(e.g. see Psalms 72:10 - the first Gospel ('Matthew') evidently uses this source from the Psalms to Midrash a hagaddic legend into a story, but 'Luke' does not, for whatever reasons:

'The Kings of Tarshish and of the Isles shall bear presents; the kings of Sheba'q and Saba'q shall give him gifts...yea the gold of Sheba'q shall be given to him: the goyim shall serve him, the kings of the gentiles shall worship him...and prayer and hymns shall be sung for him daily...')

e.g. Trito-Isaiah 60:1-9 (used by 'Matthew' but not by 'Luke')

'...Beyond the Jordon, even Galilee of the Gentiles... yea, the goyim shall march toward your light and their kings shall come near to to your bright sunrise ... yea, they shall come from Sheba; they shall bring gold and frankincense to you'

e.g. Proto-Isaiah 1:3 (used by 'Luke' but not by 'Matthew')

'The OX knows his owner, and the ASS his master's crib, yet Yisro'el does not !'

Also, the 1st gospel ('Matthew') has an assertion that the family of 'Iesous' immediately fled to Egypt for several years to escape Herod's wrath (Matt. 2:13-14).

Whereas 'Luke' has Yosef and Miryam present the infant 'Iesous' in the temple in Jerusalem when he was forty days old, and then return straightaway to 'Nazareth' wherever that was in the Galilee (Luke 2:22,39).

It is as difficult to harmonize the Bible’s accounts of the birth of 'Iesous' with the record of the later apocalyptically frenzied ministry, as it is to explain the inconsistencies in these birth accounts themselves.

Instead of taking the nativity stories in 'Matthew' and 'Luke' literally, and thereby doing a dis-service to historicity and modern post enlightenment rational thought (which cannot hold to parthenogensis), we should accept them as what they are: 1st century Judaeic Messianic Haggadic Midrash i.e. religious legends with no real basis in fact except perhaps for the names of his 'biological' father and mother which may be a vague historical 'memory'.

reply to post by Locoman8


Mr. Locoman,

You say that we as Christians (yourself included) should not celebrate something that God clearly said not to according to the scriptures.

What you're doing is finding a reason to celebrate something that God clearly said not to.

But yet, in one of your threads you are claiming that there are two separate Gods.or two Jahovahs.
Heres what you said,

Two Jehovahs shows that it's two separate bodies or beings and not two aspects of One Being.

I don't believe in the trinity and I think "monotheism" is a manmade word to bind abrahamic religions to think the way the "powers that be" want you to think.

What does the Bible say about how many Gods or Jehovahs there are ?

Well, here are just a few verses.

Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Mark 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

For you to tell US Christians to follow Gods word (that was meant for the Israelites) and you yourself not adhere to what the Bible actually says makes you a hypocrite, and no better than the Pagans you say God has warned against.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by oliveoil]

reply to post by Selahobed


reply to post by Selahobed

Dont you read the Word? G-d commanded us to keep the holy days FOREVER! The scripture DOES say that.

What scripture says this and who is it referring to, the Israelites or the Gentiles?

The early church kept the feasts of G-d and the true sabbath. All of these things are a COMMANDEMENT that was meant to be kept FOREVER, and NOT a SUGGESTION but a COMMAND!!!

Who has kept these commands the Jews whom God commanded,
or the Christians who were not even around at the time?

It is in black and white in the Word, and THAT Word i choose any day over the word of some pastor!

I take it your not Jewish.

READ YOUR BIBLE, check these thing out for yourself, do not let yourself be lead astray by the traditions of men, or the crowd, but by G-ds Word.

Thanks for the heads up.

reply to post by Sigismundus


Here is my best take on why the two genealogies of the Gospel are inconcistent and shows two different genealogies for the forfathers of Jesjuah ha Mesjiak or Jesjuah bar Josef. Some years ago I stumbled upon a nativity narration of Mary, the mother of Jesju. In that book, and I can't seem to retrieve it anywhere, Mary's grandparents are discribed as immigrants from England where they had owned tin and lead mines. It further told that from Mary was very young until she had her first period, she was serving as a Temple Maid or Temple Virgin, in Jerusalem. But when she had her first period, she could no longer continue her work. And as in the story of Aaron, the priests handed out dry sticks of wood to a group of men who were chosen as potential husbonds for young Mary, who must have been in her early teens. And whoever's stick would bud, would have to marry Mary. And some Josef character's stick budded, and he was then obligated to marry the young girl, allthough he was in his seventies, and a very old man. Old Josef died a few year down the road, and the then widowed Mary had a new husbond, a second Josef who was about as old as Mary, and was the Josef bringing up Jesju together with his mother, Mary. Jesjuah refused to call his stepfather Abba, he would only say Abba to his "Father in heaven", sounds familiar? What if the first Josef had left a library for the young lad, who then studied these scriptures, explaining how Jesju had his knowledge of the divine from his Father etc.

There is more too, but until I can find that book again, this will have to do.

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by Locoman8

 

Mr. Locoman,

You say that we as Christians (yourself included) should not celebrate something that God clearly said not to according to the scriptures.

What you're doing is finding a reason to celebrate something that God clearly said not to.

But yet, in one of your threads you are claiming that there are two separate Gods.or two Jahovahs.
Heres what you said,

Two Jehovahs shows that it's two separate bodies or beings and not two aspects of One Being.

I don't believe in the trinity and I think "monotheism" is a manmade word to bind abrahamic religions to think the way the "powers that be" want you to think.

What does the Bible say about how many Gods or Jehovahs there are ?

Well, here are just a few verses.

Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Mark 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

For you to tell US Christians to follow Gods word (that was meant for the Israelites) and you yourself not adhere to what the Bible actually says makes you a hypocrite, and no better than the Pagans you say God has warned against.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by oliveoil]

One God is true. One "Family of God". If you said "The United States of America" you are referring to one country. But what's unique about this one country with a uni-plural name? There are many states in the country. It's the same way with "God". In the OT I have explained how "Elohim", the first word used to describe God in Genesis and how it was uni-plural. It was a plural form of "God" with a singular aspect. Some claim this to be evident of the "trinity" yet one person wouldn't talk to himself without being crazy. We get to the point of Genesis 1:26 where is states "Let US make man in OUR image." I have written about this before but you ignore the fact that this is a very possible explanation of my beliefs. One God as in one Family of God. That's what I believe. When I get more time, I may even give you a ton of scriptures showing that Jesus and the Father are NOT the same being but right now I have to go somewhere so take care and be careful who you call a hypocrite. Especially when the "christmas hoax" is in front of you if you open up your bible and read in the right places and put some common sense and history together. Peace out brother!

reply to post by Sigismundus


Short reply to you. My take on the gaps in geneology is to put the two accounts together and let them fill the gaps. Same with the birth account. In matthew we have the magi who visited Christ. In Luke we have the shepherds. One thing to remember is that the shepherds visited Christ on the very night of His birth. The magi showed up about 2 years later which is why Herod set out to kill the children who were 2 and under. This caused Mary and Joseph to flee into Egypt for a number of years. And neither account claims that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem. Joseph is from Bethlehem which is why he and Mary ventured out there for the census. They had to go to their town of origin. They traveled from Galille to Bethlehem for the census. The census alone is enough proof that Jesus wasn't born in winter. The roads would be impossible to pass this time of the year and the Romans knew it. Plus, the shepherds were out tending to their flocks which would not happen in the winter.

Hi Locomon—

There is a huge question (historically speaking) about the so-called Census of the Romans held in AD 6 under the Syrian Legate Publius Sulpicius Quirinius / Cyrenius (c. BC 40 to AD 21) mentioned by the 3rd Gospel, ‘according to Luke’ whoever he was (but not found in the 1st Gospel, ‘Matthew’s birth narrative, whoever he was)

Some cautionary words are needed concerning the ‘Lukan’ reference (2:1-2) to a universal census ordered by Caesar Augustus ‘when the whole world was to be enrolled’, when Quirinius was legate in Syria: (a) there was no empire wide census; and (b) the provincial census under Quirinius took place in AD 6, which is 10 years AFTER the death of Herod.

If the 3rd gospel (‘Luke’ )says the ‘birth’ of ‘Iesous’ took place during the governorship of Quirinius, that would be at least 10 years after the date proposed in the 1st Gospel (‘Matthew’)who claims that Iesous was born while ‘Herod the Great’ was still alive (Herod died in BCE 4) -

Raymond E. Brown and dozens of other scholars whether Catholic, Protestant or agnostic, point out that the vast majority of biblical historians acknowledge that the ‘Lukan’ account is grossly mistaken in terms of his dates...

Interestingly in the 4th gospel, it says ’40 and 6 years has this Temple been in construction, and yet you say you can rebuild it [‘without hands’] in three days? But he spoke of the Temple of his Body. ‘ That statement might be a coded way of saying ‘Iesous was born when the Temple foundations were laid, i.e. in BCE 12).

The year in the 4th Gospel this story would be referring to would be around AD 34. If R. Yehoshua bar Yosef was executed 2 years later for Armed Sedition against Rome in AD 36 at Pesach, that would mean that he would have been around 48 years old at the time

(cf: 4th Gospel, ‘You are not even 50 years old, and you have seen Avraham ?!’)

which ties in with what Iraneaeus used to say about the physical age of Iesous, claiming he got the information from Polycarp who knew ‘John the Elder’ when Polycarp was 17 years old and ‘John’ was around 94 years of age: (‘Polycarp told me that Iesous was 48 years old when he was crucified…’) which means R. Yehoshua bar Yosef , the Galilean Nazir would have been born around 12 BCE—nearly 18 years BEFORE the Lucan date of AD 6 and its local census under Quirinius. So this whole dating thing is an issue for serious scholars who have to look way beyond Hagaddic Midrashic Legendary expansions from Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek texts from the OT and try and nail down something 'firm' and 'factual': the gospel material in the canonically approved 4 do not show much of a 'reverence for facts' but are mainly what we today would call propaganda tracts (cf: the 4th gospel: 'These things were written in such a way to get you to BELIEVE that Iesous is the CHRISTOS and by BELIEVING you may have LIFE in his name...') : this is NOT the way historians typically work !

(Either way, when all is said and done---we can see that the western calendar is WAY off !!)

This so-called ‘Quirinian Census’ apparently triggered a revolt led by Yehudah the Galilean in and around Kapher Nahum (=’capernaeum’) who began the faction known as the Zelotim (cf: one of the disciples, Shimeon ha Zelotah, Simon the Zealot) at least to hear Josephus tell the story.

Either way, it is clear that the two contradictory birth narratives in the 4 coucil approved Greek Gospels simply cannot be reconciled having so few points in common, and evidently drawing their midrashic haggadic expansions from different Hebrew (or Aramaic targum) scriptural verses.

Scholars today concede that the sharper ‘historical’ information about ‘iesous’ in the gospels (despite a heavy dose of Midrashic expansion throughout !) occurs ONLY at the very end (in the Passion Narratives, which center around the Titilus on the Cross, ‘Take a Look at Iesous the Nazir, the King of the Judaeans’ )---the idea that he was executed naked by Crucifixion for armed seditioin against Rome at Passover on the 100th anniversary of the Invasion of Pompey into Jerusalem by a 'Davidic pretender' who armed his disciples with swords would hardly have been made up into whole cloth from nothing historically based by Christians--way too much of the 'criteria of embarassment' going on here !

From that point moving backwards from the Titilus in the Passion Narratives in the 4 council approved 'gospels', modern scholars note that there is a gradual increase in legendary midrashic-hagaddic dependence on OT prophecy---to the point where by the time you get all the way back to the Birth Narratives, you are basically no longer dealing with much historical information at all, but pure Midrashic re-constructions taken from Hebrew Scriptures (based on theology not history as we know it today !) most of which were built on the Aramaic targum paraphrases (as in ‘Matthew’) or the Greek Septuaginta versions (as in ‘Luke’) - basically only the names ‘Mary, Joseph’ can be relied on as historical names (they occur in ‘Mark’s’ gospel and ‘John’s as well in different contexts, since these 2 do not contain a birth narrative):

The ‘virgin birth’ is pure midrash on protoIsaiah 7:14-16 and the idea of the Messiah having to be born in ‘bethlehem’ comes from a midrash on Micah 5:1-2—both these legends are exploded in the 4th gospel which claims that Iesous was a Sammaritan (‘you are a pure Sammaritan, and yet you DARE teach US?’) and that he was NOT born in Bethlehem at all

(‘Doesn’t it say that the Messiah son of David must be born in Bethlehem, his home town? Midrash your scriptures: you will find that NOTHING GOOD can come from the Galilee !’)

(as for the virgin birth myth, the 4th Gospel makes short schrift of it: 'WE were not born of FORNICATION--WE have one father !' where WE in the Greek is EMPHATIC, meaning 'As for us, We at least know who OUR father is...' which is a sneering reference to a possible issue of Iesous being a Mamzer ('bastard') which is why the Virgin Birth myth arose in the first place (?)

See how the opponents of ‘Iesous’ in the 4th gospel discount him from the running of being a Messiah BECAUSE HE WAS NOT BORN in Bethlehem !

So we can see that the Matthean and Lukan birth narratives are basically apologetic legend trying to get their believers to see that Iesous fulfilled prophetic material—but without much concern at all for what we today would call the 'historical underpinnings'.


[edit on 18-11-2009 by Sigismundus]

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Hi Locomon—

There is a huge question (historically speaking) about the so-called Census of the Romans held in AD 6 under the Syrian Legate Publius Sulpicius Quirinius / Cyrenius (c. BC 40 to AD 21) mentioned by the 3rd Gospel, ‘according to Luke’ whoever he was (but not found in the 1st Gospel, ‘Matthew’s birth narrative, whoever he was)

I am quite certain the mention of a cencus is a hidden date referance based on the system of Parashah (same etymology as portion), short for Parashat ha-Shavua (Weekly Torah portion), placing the birth of Jesju at around March between the Parashat Ki Tisa ("When you take" - Shemot/Exodus 30:11-34:35) which is aportion of the Torah when God orders the cencus at mt. Sinai, the 21st weekly parashah -- and Pekudei ("accounting" - Shemot/Exodus 38:21-40:38) the 23rd weekly parashah.

en.wikipedia.org...

This places the birth of Jesju somewhere in March. Combined with the astronomical events (the Star of Bethlehem, a conjuction between Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces with retrograde motion just as the Gospel accounts for, until it seemed to be fixed for a while, and guess what, completely in line with the given parashah dates), the only possible time of birth for Jesjuah in my opinion is some day during March 6 BC, which fits with when the first lambs (firstborns were given as sacrifice to God) are born and also when Herod the Great lived (he died in 4BC), and also, the early spring is quite a few notches warmer than at winter solstice, so it would be possible to give birth outside (remember that the climate back then was a lot colder in the Middle East than today, during winter the Genesareth lake would typically freeze over during winter back then, later allowing Jesju to walk accross it).

Hence Jesjua ha Mesjiak was born in March 6BC, not December 1 AD.

reply to post by Sigismundus


I know what you're doing here. And why do you refer to Luke as the "4th Gospel"? The birth of Christ in Bethlehem was inconcieveable to the Jews of the first century because Jesus lived in Nazareth. He was known as a Nazarine but His birthplace seemed to be a secret of that time between Him and his mother and stepfather to protect Him from premature slaughter. Either way, you're making this topic into something it was not intended to be.
This thread is not to discuss weather or not the bible accounts are true or not, but weather or not the birth account was required and weather the modern christmas celebrations are alright for "self-procaimed" christians to celebrate. I'm more than happy to discuss the legitimacy of the gospel accounts with you if you were to start a new thread over it. In the mean time, I'd like to discuss "christmas" and it's pagan origins vs. what the bible says. Peace be with you sir.