The Truth About Christmas

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah right.

Let us ask the Romans about their records of the census around Jesus' birth...

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 20 Dec 2010, 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

If we were going to get picky, bearing in mind the Jesus, Mary and Joseph as Jews thread, December 25 is a viable unit only in the calendar of the Roman occupying forces. STRICTLY we ought to pick a date in the JEWISH calendar and apply that, in which case it would fluctuate like Easter which, though not quite in synch with the Passover, is linked thereunto.

But you know, I know somebody - happens to be Jewish. Celebrates her birthday [following the modified Gregorian calendar] on the anniversary of the date on her birth certificate. WHICH got the wrong date - she was actually born, I think about a week earlier.

So?

I had a response in detail to your last criticism, you edited your post before I could respond. I am not sure however, what you have said has any bearing on my statement though.

I removed the first one because I decided to pick a biblical historical lie that was more relevant to the thread. There was no Roman census at the time of Jesus' alleged birth, so it was mostly just used as a plot device, which shows that the whole thing is more of a literary / propaganda book than anything you could consider historical.

The point is that it is disingenuous to say that the bible is the most attested book in ancient history, that's just non-sense considering the tons and tons of things that don't match historical truth. Using it for history is plain ridiculous.

I mean, just the exodus (or the lack of) makes the whole thing laughable as a historical source: http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-conte ... xodus.html

Scripture mentions the shepherds being in the fields with their flocks, and I have been told they would not have been out there like that at that time of year. The time of the Feast of "First Fruits" makes much more sense, and I believe that takes place a few months earlier.

I assume you are talking about the census described in Luke 2:1. The census that your are talking about is psysically attested in two bronze plaques that were placed outside of the Emperor Augustus's mausoleum (it was one of many census's that took place during his reign, three of which were Empire wide). This exists aside from the multiple written attestations of the event in other works.

The allegation that the story is inconsistent with history actually stems from the translation from the Greek manuscripts (which have been verified to their original content with 99% accuracy). Those who argue that the story is in error usually make their argument from the word 'first' in description of the census of Quirinius . Now any reading of the actual history can prove this wrong, since Quirinius who was the Roman Governor at the time of a census was in office in A.D. 6-7, which is too late for this to be true. Many people close the case at this point and make a serious error, they are not addressing what was actually written. The word translated as first, within the context of this chapter actually means 'prior' or 'before', verse two actually translates as 'This census was the first before Quirinius was governing Syria'.

During the reign of Augustus there were three Empire-wide censuses, 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D; the most likely candidate for the Biblical census is the one from 8 B.C. At this point many people once again close the case and say that the matter is settled it is too early for Christ's birth which is dated between 4 and 7 B.C., the issue is that Roman censuses took years to complete and it therefor fits perfectly with the established history.

As to the idea that they would have to travel to their hometown for the census. This was clearly not the usual case throughout the Empire. So many people close their case here too and make another mistake. The section that describes the need for Mary and Joseph returning to Bethlehem in order to register is also attested as a Roman practice in occupied lands (though not the usual practice, it certainly did take place). A Roman census document dated from A.D. 104, has been found in Egypt in which people were required to return to their original homes. This can be backed up from another census document from A.D. 119 in which an Egyptian man was required as part of census process, to give his name and family line.

Interesting.

No, it was not commonplace for the Romans to require their subjects to return to their hometown. However, the Romans DID delegate the logistics of carrying out the census to local authorities since it would be easier and make more sense if the people heard it from their own. It was more likely due to a local Jewish law or tradition that they were required to return to their hometown.

Actually, Josephus wrote that there was a registration in A.D. 6. What Luke said was that "This first registration took place..." So there is evidence that Luke and Josephus aren't talking about the same event. I checked out what 91 said, and it's true that this verse could be read "The first registration took place before..." We think Herod the Great probably died around 4 B.C., which places the birth of Jesus roughly 6-5 B.C. and thus consistent with any census that took place.

While there is no evidence that Augustus ever issued a decree resulting in an empire-wide registration, several censuses were conducted during his reign. The effect is still the same, and there are a number of reasons why he would have done so. Something I think is interesting is that Herod had fallen out of favor with Augustus toward the end of his life. Augustus could very well have pressured Herod to conduct the registration thinking he could die at any time. Augustus might have been looking to a chance of Rome taking over at least some of Herod's territory when he died. Lack of "hard" evidence does not make what was effectively an empire-wide registration implausible.

Early to mid-September.

ruveyn

@AngelRho

Actually there is evidence of Augustus's proclamation and the Empire wide censuses, the Acts of Augustus shows this (those mentioned on the bronze plates in my earlier post).

---

Agree. That's the result of the (religious monks/religious stage actors of Judaism who wrote the) Bible which leaves out a lot of information. Compare the Bible to a set of encylopedias. Which has more information? The Bible or the encylopedias? Also, there are all sorts of calendars which go back in history so who knows for sure which day is actually the Sabbath day since different calendars have switched the Sabbath days/the years around. Maybe Jesus was born on February 29 and it is God's actual will to celebrate Christmas only once every four years (like how the Olympics are scheduled worldwide). Jesus is as real as Superman and Batman and Shrek and the actual facts surrounding Jesus are as valid as the actual facts surrounding Superman. Batman, and Shrek. Gutenberg (movable type printing press) is part of the large story of how dates can gradually be standardized. In recent history in the USA, two of the newest invented dates are: Superbowl Sunday and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Neither Superbowl Sunday nor MLK Day are mentioned in the Bible to my knowledge. At the same time there are movies like The Omega Code (1999) which hint that everything is written in the Bible using some sort of secret, invisible ink code/whatever. H.G. Welles wrote The Time Machine so it would just be a simple project to use the time machine and find out what really happened, wouldn't it, if the machine were real - which the time machine is not - at least not yet?

How does one distinguish elective incoherence from genuine undisciplined expression?

Anyway"

"The point is that it is disingenuous to say that the bible is the most attested book in ancient history, "

The "most attested" refers to number of extant copies, not external corroboration.

Well, it depends on your definition of attestation. While it is true that the number of extant copies of the manuscripts in relation to the Bible does make it the most attested book of Ancient History, using that definition. The books, particularly those of the New Testament are strongly corroboration by what would be considered non-biblical sources. This also fits with the definition of attestation.

@Vex, please stop editing your threads post response, I already typed out one response in relation to your claims... I had responded to the EXACT issues that you raised in relation to the Exodus but you changed your post to mention the Census so I deleted it. Now you have edited your last post to mention it again.

Ahem, Christmas isn't even a christian festival, it's pagan in origin I'll have you know. The christians just took it for themselves.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that yet, that's a real "truth" behind christmas. The winter solstice is on 21st December, the shortest day of the year and over time the celebrations for that moved forward to 25th, there is no mention of jesus's birth happening on that day in the original yuletide festival.
I hear old farts complain about people forgetting the true meaning (which isn't jesus's birth by the way) all the time. So what if it's spreading around the world and earns different companies more money? I like christmas, it gives us secular types something to do. All the religious people have different "holy" days so why can't we have an excuse to party?

The context of the shepherds indicates that it'd be more around summer...they'd be freezing if it was in winter.

December 25th was chosen because they wanted to steal a pagan holiday (the winter solstice). Much of christianity's holidays are actually pagan holidays and based more in astrology than in christian lure.

That is a pretty sweeping statement. Did you read the exchange that occurred on this subject on page 2?

It's also a pretty true statement. Easter, Christmas, All Saints Day, Valentine's Day...even the placement of New Year's Day is pagan in origin.