Kyrie Thoughts are back...doesn’t think Christmas is a real holiday (but enjoys opening presents)

[gluvnast]

Jesus was born in the spring in all likelihood according to researchers.

Don't know what happened with the December date people just took it and ran with it I guess.

Read about the Roman Emperor Constantine and him trying to make compromise to integrating Christianity with the pagan holidays.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Kyrie one of them nikkas that feels he's so "enlightened" that he needs to share it at every chance he gets.

Don't nobody care about your opinion on Christmas breh.

Reporter was just throwing you a lighthearted question for fun. Just say you look forward to spending time with fam and keep it pushing.

 

[Miggs]

Y'all would rather a black man just dribble a ball instead of think critically

If by think critically you mean make stupid flat earth statements then YES...

 

[Dr. Narcisse]

"I don't really get into the hoopla of Christmas" "I'm looking forward to...opening presents"

"I don't open presents, but instead open up my presence. Unwrap my essence"

Might have to start posting some Smart-Dumb Kyrie lyrics

@Rekkapryde

 

[CarltonJunior]

Jesus was born in the spring in all likelihood according to researchers.

Don't know what happened with the December date people just took it and ran with it I guess.

Just wondering how did these researchers know when he was born? I don't think there's any real way for anyone to know when he was born

 

[Professor Emeritus]

i mean he's right & yall can't go with the "its Jesus birthday" either because he if he even existed wasn't born on Dec. 25th..

Christmas is all about getting Americans to spend money..

If you don't know what day a guy was born, what's wrong with just picking a day? \

The whole "It doesn't count because you don't have the birth certificate!" stuff silly as it gets .Of course they don't know what the real day was, but the importance is in what it represents, not which number our particular calendar (which didn't even exist at that point) says. What difference does it make to you?

And general American Christmas is obviously a corrupted materialistic mess, but Christmas was already around a long time before that.

 

[Bilz]

Just wondering how did these researchers know when he was born? I don't think there's any real way for anyone to know when he was born

Nothing in the bible is based on facts so a fictitious birthday of a fictitious person is consistent with the storyline

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Read about the Roman Emperor Constantine and him trying to make compromise to integrating Christianity with the pagan holidays.

If you actually read about that, you'll see that it is just conjecture, with no evidence at all. The general scholarship today agrees that the church had reasons for dating Christmas then which had nothing to do with pagan holidays.That doesn't mean it was the "real day" of Jesus's birth, they didn't know that any more than we do. But the idea that they picked December 25th to match a pagan holiday has turned out to be .

Touchstone Archives: Calculating Christmas

Why December 25?

Why is Christmas Celebrated on December 25?

Did the Romans Invent Christmas? | History Today

How December 25 Became Christmas - Biblical Archaeology Society

Saturnalia was the feast dedicated to the Roman god Saturn. Established around 220 B.C., this feast was originally celebrated on December 17. Eventually the feast was extended to last an entire week, ending on December 23. The supposed connection to Christmas is based on the proximity of the two festivals to each other.

This can be found repeatedly on the Internet. In his article Saturnalia: The Reason We Celebrate Christmas in December, columnist Mark Whittington explains:

It has been suggested that Christians in the 4th Century assigned December 25th as Christ's birthday (and hence Christmas) because pagans already observed this day as a holiday. In this way the problem of eliminating an already popular holiday would be sidestepped, thus making the Christianizing of the population easier.

If the suggestion were correct, one would expect to find at least a single reference by early Christians to support it. Instead we find scores of quotations from Church Fathers indicating a desire to distance themselves from pagan religions.

According to Dr. Kelly's research, summarized in his books The Origins of Christmas, and The World of the Early Christians, the main reason early Christians chose December 25th for the date of Christmas relates to two significant and symbolic dates: the date of the creation of the world, and the vernal equinox. According to some Christians, both events happened on March 25th. Early Christian writer Sextus Julius Africanus (220 AD) speculated that the world was created on March 25th, based on his chronology of Jewish and Christian history, presumably contained in his Chronographia. So he suggested that Christ became incarnate on that date; this makes perfect symbolic sense, since at the Incarnation, the new creation began. According to Julius, since the Word of God became incarnate from the moment of his conception, this meant that, after 9 months in the Virgin Mary's womb, Jesus was born on December 25. The anonymous author of the work De Pascha Computus, likely written in the 3rd century, and attributed to Cyprian, too speculated the world was created on March 25th. However, since the sun was created on the fourth day of creation, the author speculates that Christ was born on March 28th, not March 25th. Thus, unlike Julius, this author conceives of Christ's incarnation beginning at Christ's birth, rather than his conception. How did this anonymous author reach his conclusions about the date of creation? Based on a synthesis of the time of Passover, the vernal equinox, and a prophecy from Malachi about the "Sun of Righteousness." While the scope of the influence of Julius and the anonymous author of De Pascha Computus upon their peers is unknown, nonetheless, we encounter reasons why the date of December 25th was chosen for the birth date of Jesus that are rooted in Christian thought.

According to Get Religion, Hippolytus of Rome, writing around 225 AD, close to the time of Julius, may also mention the date of Christmas as December 25 ("eight days before the kalends of January"), in Commentary on Daniel. However, there is debate as to whether this line is genuine, or an interpolation in the genuine text of Hippolytus. The best manuscripts of Hippolytus mention both December 25th and April 2nd as possible dates for the birth of Jesus, although the latter could refer to his conception, which would then place his birth in December. In addition to Kelly's books, The Origins of the Liturgical Year provides much insight into the speculation discussed here.

There are other good, Jewish, Christian, and biblical reasons why Christians chose the date of December 25th. One is based on the estimated date of the death of Jesus, which some early Christians speculated happened on Friday, March 25th. Incidentally, this is historically impossible, since March 25th would not have been a Friday the year Jesus likely died. Nonetheless, based on the Jewish idea of the "integral age," that great prophets were conceived on the same date as their death, these early Christian writers thought that Jesus, who died on March 25th, was also conceived that date. Again, if we assume nine months in the womb, this means he was born on December 25th. The work De Solstitia et Aequinoctia Conceptionis et Nativitatis Nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae, falsely attributed to John Chrysostom, supports this view:

Therefore our Lord was conceived on the eighth day of the kalends of April in the month of March, which is the day of the passion of the Lord, and of his conception. For on the day he was conceived, on the same day he suffered (quoted in Stuhlman, Redeeming the Time).

Scholar William Tighe makes a strong case for his theory in his essay Calculating Christmas, which is apparently similar to arguments made by Louis Duchesne and Andre Wilmart years earlier. This line of speculation was occurring about the same time other Christians were speculating about the date of Christ's birth based on the date of creation. Perhaps this interest in December 25th among early Christians is because they were already celebrating Christmas on this date?

Yet another reason for choosing the date of December 25 is advanced by 4th century bishop and writer Saint John Chrysostom. According to this article from the North County Times, John Chrysostom reasoned:

Luke 1 says Zechariah was performing priestly duty in the Temple when an angel told his wife Elizabeth she would bear John the Baptist. During the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Mary learned about her conception of Jesus and visited Elizabeth "with haste."

The 24 classes of Jewish priests served one week in the Temple, and Zechariah was in the eighth class. Rabbinical tradition fixed the class on duty when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and, calculating backward from that, Zechariah's class would have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C. So Mary's conception visit six months later might have occurred the following March and Jesus' birth nine months afterward.

Thus, for John Chrysostom, the date of December 25 was based on Scripture and Jewish tradition. While it is possible John was mistaken, this demonstrates that Christians at the time were choosing the dates of feasts based on Scripture, not paganism.

David Morrison explains yet another possibility, again providing a rationale for the choice of December 25:

The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary "in the sixth month" of the Jewish year...that is, in Adar (our February/March). Count nine months for the pregnancy and you come to Kislev (our November/December). According to some Church Fathers, Jesus was born during Channukah. Therefore, Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Virgin Mary in Bethlehem of Judaea in the Jewish month of Kislev (December) during the Festival of Lights. And I say likely on what is December 25th.

So, we have multiple reasons why ancient Christians chose December 25th as the date to celebrate the birth of Jesus. And while we may not agree with the reasoning behind the choice of December 25th, nonetheless, there are no pagan conspiracies at work, and no evil machinations of the emperor Constantine, just solid Christian symbolic reasoning. This is not surprising, considering Christians of the time were very concerned about the influence of paganism, and took great pains (even giving their lives) to avoid worshiping or celebrating non-Christian gods. Besides, virtually every historical and Apostolic Christian church celebrates the birth of Jesus on December 25 (those using the Gregorian calendar that is), and it is highly unlikely every Church in every region caved into pagan influence so readily. While all of these explanations are certainly subject to questions and certain criticisms, they certainly are worth exploring.

At this point, you may be asking, "but wasn't Christmas chosen to counter pagan festivals?" Well, yes, in a sense, but not in the same way that the anti-Christmas crowd claims. According to Dr. Kelly, Christians of the late third and early fourth centuries had been engaged in a propaganda war with pagans since the Emperor Aurelian established the Sol Invictus, the feast of the unconquered Sun, on December 25th. For Christians, Jesus is the true Sun, the Sun of Righteousness (a title derived from Malachi 4:2). In fact, Aurelian may have established the Sol Invictus because of the rising popularity of Christianity, and may have established the date of the Sol Invictus in response to Christian celebrations already occurring that day! Since Christians probably accounted for ten percent of the population of Rome at the time, this is not far-fetched in the least.

Note that all the Christian references to the consideration of March 25th as the conception of Christ and December 25th as the birth of Christ predate any pagan references to the exact date of December 25th being used for a particular festival

The idea that Christmas is simply a Christian face on Saturnalia is still a popular narrative because pop historians love such narratives. But the truth is a lot more complicated - like all juxtapositions of culture, there were likely influences in both directions, but a lot can be attributed to coincidence is often shading with false associations (human brains love pushing patterns together whenever they can even when there's nothing there - that's how astrology developed) and we often obscure deeper roots with the trading of superficial add-ons.

Nothing in the bible is based on facts so a fictitious birthday of a fictitious person is consistent with the storyline

You would struggle a long time before you found a legit historian (not someone publishing out of their basement) who considers Jesus to be a fictitious person. People who make that ridiculous claim expose themselves as twisting the facts to meet their ideological desires even moreso than the people they're arguing against.

 

[Reign_Of_The_Most_High]

One word Quantum Physics aka the modern Metaphysics.

 

[calixprynce]

Jesus = the sun
The sun is "born" on la crux around Dec 23rd - 25th

Walking on water = the sun setting on horizon

Head of thorns = solar rays/ halo

Its 2017 brehs

 

[Bilz]

You would struggle a long time before you found a legit historian (not someone publishing out of their basement) who considers Jesus to be a fictitious person. People who make that ridiculous claim expose themselves as twisting the facts to meet their ideological desires even moreso than the people they're arguing against.

I think it's possible that he was a real person. I also think it's possible that he wasn't. But I was talking about the fact that the details of "Jesus Christ" were filled in long after the fact, so whether it was a game of telephone that was played over thousands of years or a story that was pieced together and documented a while afterward and stayed somewhat consistent is anyone's guess. Historians don't seem to value it from a factual perspective.

 

[feelosofer]

That isn't exactly the hottest of takes anymore.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I think it's possible that he was a real person. I also think it's possible that he wasn't. But I was talking about the fact that the details of "Jesus Christ" were filled in long after the fact, so whether it was a game of telephone that was played over thousands of years or a story that was pieced together and documented a while afterward and stayed somewhat consistent is anyone's guess. Historians don't seem to value it from a factual perspective.

This "game of telephone that was played over thousands of years" doesn't make any sense at all when we're talking about the life of Jesus.

Every document that serious historians use to piece together the life of Jesus was written between 20 and 60 years after his death. Meaning that in many cases actual eyewitnesses were still around when it was written, and in every case the document was only one generation removed from actual eyewitnesses. And in all those cases it is suspected that the oral tradition was already rather firm beforehand - meaning that if someone tried to write down something that contradicted what people already knew and had been telling each other, it would have been difficult to pass it off as factual.

Think about it, 20 years ago was the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and 60 years ago was the Russians sending Sputnik into space. That's the entire historical range we're talking about. Everyone remembers Lewinsky and there are old heads who remember Sputnik (not to mention all sorts of people who were told what their parents saw and thought) so we don't need no "game of telephone" to follow it.



Historians basically agree on the following historical events in relation to Jesus:

• Jesus was a Galilean Jew.
• His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea.
• He was baptized by John the Baptist.
• He called disciples.
• He had a controversy at the Temple.
• Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.
• After his death his disciples continued.
• Some of his disciples were persecuted.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia


Historians basically agree on the following additional aspects of Jesus's life:

"there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptised by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God’s will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE)."

In addition various scholars have proposed that:

• An approximate chronology of Jesus can be estimated from non-Christian sources, and confirmed by correlating them with New Testament accounts.
• Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD.
• Jesus lived only in Galilee and Judea, and never travelled or studied outside Galilee and Judea.
• Jesus spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek. James D. G. Dunn states that there is "substantial consensus" that Jesus gave his teachings in Aramaic, although the Galilean dialect of Aramaic was clearly distinguishable from the Judean dialect.
• Claims about the appearance or ethnicity of Jesus are mostly subjective, based on cultural stereotypes and societal trends rather than on scientific analysis.
• The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist can be dated approximately from Josephus' references (Antiquities 18.5.2) to a date before AD 28-35.
• The main topic of his teaching was the Kingdom of God, and he presented this teaching in parables that were surprising and sometimes confounding.
• Jesus taught an ethic of forgiveness, as expressed in aphorisms such as "turn the other cheek" or "go the extra mile."
• Jesus caused a controversy at the Temple.
• The date of the crucifixion of Jesus was earlier than 36 AD, based on the dates of the prefecture of Pontius Pilate who was governor of Roman Judea from 26 AD until 36 AD.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia

If you click on those wikipedia links you can see that they are extremely well sourced.



Outside of wikipedia for a moment, the highly respect historian E.P. Sanders puts it this way:

I shall first offer a list of statements about Jesus that meet two standards: they are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life, and especially of his public career. (A list of everything that we know about Jesus would be appreciably longer.)

Jesus was born c 4 BCE near the time of the death of Herod the Great;
he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village;
he was baptized by John the Baptist;
he called disciples;
he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities);
he preached ‘the kingdom of God’;
about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover;
he created a disturbance in the Temple area;
he had a final meal with the disciples;
he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest;
he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.

Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism

Maurice Casey and Michael Grant add that it is also generally agreed:

• he preached repentance, forgiveness and the coming of the kingdom of God in rural and small-town Galilee;
• he was known in his day as a healer and exorcist (Casey says he was a folk healer);
• Jesus predicted his death and resurrection and he believed his death would be redemptive;
• Jesus’ tomb was really empty and/or his disciples “saw” him (in what sense is uncertain) after his death.

What do the leading secular historians say about Jesus?

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Some of y'all are dumb when it comes to basketball knowledge and even dumber when it comes to Religious Theories

 

[red222]

i mean he's right & yall can't go with the "its Jesus birthday" either because he if he even existed wasn't born on Dec. 25th..

Christmas is all about getting Americans to spend money..

Actually it’s routed in paganism and sex orgies masked by materialism