5 ms·

It's far from tautologous that Christ was born on Christmas day (25th December) for a number of reasons: 1. There are no historical references to the date in t

It's far from tautologous that Christ was born on Christmas day (25th December) for a number of reasons: 1. There are no historical references to the date in the Gospels. We can have a good guess at the year, since Luke the evangelist writes that the taxation survey bringing Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem was instigated by Caesar Augustus whilst Quirinius was governed of Syria. We could make some guesses of the season due to the shepherds looking after sheep in the open country. There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest a specific cause to celebrate the birth of Christ, unlike his death commemoration in Luke chapter 22 for example, for which we have a much better idea of the time of year, since it was at the time of Passover, a Jewish festival which had a regular occasion based on the lunar cycle. 2. There are some suggestions that the Christmas festival was instigated by replacing Roman pagan festivals around that time, after the Roman Empire accepted Christianity as the state religion. 3. In modern times there are millions of people around the world who know very little about the story of the birth of Jesus Christ, or his significance. You'll find many places filled with pictures of Santa, reindeer, elves and other winter festival stuff... So many people could be forgiven for thinking Christmas is about Santa, not Jesus Christ. As to the OP question 9, there is ample historical evidence for the existence and birth of Jesus Christ, for his death by crucifixion, and even for his resurrection from the dead (unless of course you take a priori leap of faith to believe that the material world is all that exists). The significance of the birth of Jesus Christ is far more important than the date: 'but the angel reassured them. “Don’t be afraid!” he said. “I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people. The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born today in Bethlehem, the city of David!' Luke 2:10‭-‬11 NLT https://bible.com/bible/116/luk.2.10-11.NLT https://bible.com/bible/116/luk.2.10-11.NLT Merry Christmas HN!

yeellow 4y ago
Can you give some examples of this "ample historical evidence"? I saw quite convincing video recently where a guy goes through all, known to him, sources and debunks them (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WI72JNz0IC8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WI72JNz0IC8 - warning: might be offensive for a diehard believer).
- mannykannot 4y ago
  The list starts with things that may well have considerable historical evidence, but ends by proposing an argument that would not even be logically valid: one could rationally hold that the material world is not all that exists, without accepting that Christ’s resurrection occurred. As for calling materialism an a priori leap of faith, well, that hardly distinguishes it from the alternatives, though maybe that’s the point. Nevertheless, a merry Christmas to one and all!
  - bazoom42 4y ago
    Yeah, just as an example religious Jews and Muslims do not subscribe to “material world is all that exists” but nevertheless does not belive in the ressurrection of Jesus.
Severian 4y ago
For point #2, it's not exactly established, but we can probably be accurate to say the early church chose this day to convert followers of pagan traditions regarding the Winter Solstice. Whether it's Yule, Saturnalia, Natatlis Invicti, etc. It's easier to say one god is born around the same time as another and you can push towards Christianity's ideas of a Son/Father/Spirit deity. For point #3, heck, most Western Christians for the most part unknowingly incorporate a hell of a lot of Yule traditions. Christmas Trees, wreaths, the Yule log, Mistletoe.. you get the idea.
bazoom42 4y ago
The only historical evidenence for the ressurection of Jesus is second-hand testimony about people who allegedly saw him. And even in this testimony it is emphasised the witnesses did not recognize the person as Jesus. So outside of the question of faith, it seems very weak evidence. From a historians perspective, there is better evidence for the ressurection of the Emperor Nero.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
amets 4y ago
For 1, this is doubtful as a historical source from a non-Christian perspective. The Gospels accounts are surprisingly consistent, except for specific portions that all conveniently bolster support for the idea that Christ is the Jewish messiah. The story about his birth is Bethlehem is a prime example (it’s more likely Jesus was born in Nazareth). I would question the ability to pinpoint a birth year through likely made up details.

yeellow 4y ago

Can you give some examples of this "ample historical evidence"? I saw quite convincing video recently where a guy goes through all, known to him, sources and debunks them (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WI72JNz0IC8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WI72JNz0IC8 - warning: might be offensive for a diehard believer).

mannykannot 4y ago
The list starts with things that may well have considerable historical evidence, but ends by proposing an argument that would not even be logically valid: one could rationally hold that the material world is not all that exists, without accepting that Christ’s resurrection occurred. As for calling materialism an a priori leap of faith, well, that hardly distinguishes it from the alternatives, though maybe that’s the point. Nevertheless, a merry Christmas to one and all!
- bazoom42 4y ago
  Yeah, just as an example religious Jews and Muslims do not subscribe to “material world is all that exists” but nevertheless does not belive in the ressurrection of Jesus.

Severian 4y ago

For point #2, it's not exactly established, but we can probably be accurate to say the early church chose this day to convert followers of pagan traditions regarding the Winter Solstice. Whether it's Yule, Saturnalia, Natatlis Invicti, etc. It's easier to say one god is born around the same time as another and you can push towards Christianity's ideas of a Son/Father/Spirit deity. For point #3, heck, most Western Christians for the most part unknowingly incorporate a hell of a lot of Yule traditions. Christmas Trees, wreaths, the Yule log, Mistletoe.. you get the idea.

bazoom42 4y ago

The only historical evidenence for the ressurection of Jesus is second-hand testimony about people who allegedly saw him. And even in this testimony it is emphasised the witnesses did not recognize the person as Jesus. So outside of the question of faith, it seems very weak evidence. From a historians perspective, there is better evidence for the ressurection of the Emperor Nero.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

amets 4y ago

For 1, this is doubtful as a historical source from a non-Christian perspective. The Gospels accounts are surprisingly consistent, except for specific portions that all conveniently bolster support for the idea that Christ is the Jewish messiah. The story about his birth is Bethlehem is a prime example (it’s more likely Jesus was born in Nazareth). I would question the ability to pinpoint a birth year through likely made up details.