Christmas or Holidays?

[Mary]

maarts said:

Reeks like exploitation to me.
You're supposed to work, woman! Get back to your dissertation!

hey now - i finished the first draft of the first chapter last night!!! Today I'm going to revise it - then take the weekend off to celebrate New Years - then next week, I begin the final chapter....

i.e. my dissertation is almost done!!!!!!!

*faint*

[RocDoc]

Eagerly awaiting Tuatha conceding that she posted complete nonsense based upon a brief internet search. Which kinda makes you wonder about, well, everything else she's ever posted.

Well, duh.

~

I'm sorry, but I see no possible usefulness to this sort of scripture 'scholarship'...probably because I simply couldn't give a fuck enough to be even the least bit curious about it...and I generally love history and exploring origins and stuff, but this all seems to be too obviously self-serving or more correctly to be simply backing up one's own 'beliefs' with material which has been being built upover the years with what I feel is a very questionable 'objectivity' while they interpret and 'translate' over countless archaic dialects of quite obscure languages.

<sub>'Well, it could mean this AND it could mean that. Let's say it means this then.'

'Cool.'</sub>

[Nepenthe]

Shall I point out shin's so called are we being watched article he put up? The story about the guy in college that was 'supposedly' questioned for ordering the book? YES indeed this is thought as being a complete false story and hoax. Not too mention several other so called news articles that have been put up on these boards and been proved false or misleading. GIVE me a BREAK!

Roc, because I put up an opinion, just as everyone else does on the boards, and use something out of the Jewish encyclopedia (giving it a non-Christian viewpoint) that backs up my beliefs (which are indeed Christian, but also just as much emphasis on the old testament) this is self serving? I have stated that both sides have strayed from the origins of their celebrations. WHAT is so hard to comprehend here? This is so very simple to understand that holidays and feasts have been altered over the years that it is ludicrous that anyone would even challenge me on it. I can't imagine any normal person of either Christian or Jewish beliefs even attempting to dispute this

I feel that some are only looking to argue here. I could say "you know the sky is blue" and I bet you would have 5 say well no it isn't YOU'RE WRONG, it isn't blue its really turquoise.

[shin]

Indeed, it was a fabricated story as it turns out, and everywhere I've read about it has so far made mention that it was a hoax. Twas a mistake on my part to have posted it.

Now's your turn to fess up to having posted hoax after hoax after hoax as fact.

[phil]

I feel that some are only looking to argue here.

ROTFLMAO ... !!

[Nepenthe]

phil said:

I feel that some are only looking to argue here.

ROTFLMAO ... !!

Oh please! Phil the king of religious bashing.

[Galactus]

"only looking to argue"? My dear that is a ridciulous charge and should like to debate it's finer points. I am insulted.

[Kensterberg]

Just as a reminder, here's what started this whole discussion ... I mentioned that I caught a show on The History Channel that said that early Christians celebrated the birth of Jesus in spring, and that it was moved to December for purely pragmatic reasons. TDD then replied with:

Pertaining to the Birth of Christ, in my Companion Bible there is an appendix (#179) in the back that explains this quite well. You can actually date his birth by comparing the events written in the Gospels surrounding the birth of John the Baptist. John and Jesus were cousins. It is very simple using basic math to figure what date Jesus would have been born, September 29th. This would indeed make December 25th the date of the "conception" of Jesus.

Then, TDD stated:

I could go into a very long explanation concerning the Passover and Easter as well. The word Easter in the new testament is indeed the Passover. In Biblical times it was celebrated EXACTLY the same time every year by the use of a 'solar' calendar. Today it falls on a different day every year.

Which prompted the whole lunar/solar what day is Passover celebrated on, etc. argument. As near as I can tell from looking back on the board, Rocky and I have both argued that while Passover is celebrated on the same date of the Jewish calendar every year, its corresponding date on our Gregorian calendar varies from year to year and always has. I then attempted to explain that, unless you know the proper year for Jesus' birth, you can't use Passover to determine the month of his birth, as Passover varies from year to year. I haven't seen that TDD has addressed, much less refuted, either the fact that Passover falls on different solar dates from year to year, or that you could use Passover to determine the date of Jesus' birth without knowing the year (and hence exactly how the Jewish calendar for that year would be calculated). TDD did find a bunch of stuff that indicated that the Jews have used several calendars, though none of her sources have refuted the position that mainstream Jews have used the same calendar since the sixth century C.E. I'm not sure exactly why she brought this up, in any event, as it simply proves that we can't use Passover to calculate Jesus' birth as we don't even know which Jewish calendar the Gospels were using!

Now TDD is saying "I just said that the Jewish calendar has changed over time" (or some such, that's not a direct quote), when in fact she has been arguing that not only do we know what calendar was in use in the Second Temple era (and to think that three weeks ago I didn't even know the names of eras of Jewish history!), but we can determine not just the month, but the date of not only Jesus birth, but also of his conception! And for her proof of this, she offers a source approximately a century old.

I'm not debating the use of this sort of source for theological purposes, after all we read many much older sources for insight to the higher meaning of the Gospels, or of life generally. However, when you're talking about determining a historic date, such as the birth of Jesus, the intervening century has included quite literally a revolution in archaeological evidence and dating techniques. We know literally thousands of times more about the Near East in Biblical times than we did even sixty years ago, much less a century or more!

And, though I don't know why, I'm going to try once more to clarify my credentials for TDD. I've already earned my B.A. in Anthropology. In other words, I've got the degree you are now working on. I did two separate independant studies on dating problems in Greece and Crete for Bronze Age sites, and wrote several other smaller (less than twenty page) papers on Mycenaean Greece and the Pre-Indo European population of southern Europe and Turkey. I then earned my J.D., and practice law today (mainly criminal defense and family law matters, when I'm not posting on this damn message board!). I've also got about 80% of the course work for my M.A. in Sociology, with an emphasis on social theory as well as Law and Society. I teach at both UTEP and EPCC, in both upper division and introductory courses. In all my work, I'm continually having to deal with epistomological questions (epistemology, the science of knowledge), in other words, I continually have to ask both others and myself, "how do you know what you think you know?" In our discussions, all I have seen from you in answer to this question is a resort to authorities which are either dubious or which support your position only tangentially, if at all.

As I've said many times now, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Basically, you said "Jesus was born on September 29" and the rest of us responded with "You can't know that." You have not met your burden of proof. You said that Christmas wasn't just an appropriation of pagan celebrations, we said it was. You've offered no evidence to support your position. Judgment on both counts in favor of the status quo.

Case dismissed.

(Hope you enjoyed that, Mary!)

[Nepenthe]

Ken, the dating of Jesus' birth can be done without even considering the passover. There are several historical records and writings that have served as sources to scholars throughout the years for this very purpose. The reason I brought the passover up was not in reference to dating his birth it was in reference to how dates and festivals can sometimes be changed. I did say that this is a completely different topic and a very long one.

But pertaining to Christmas, I have never disputed the fact that pagans used December 25th as a celebration for the sun god/goddess. They indeed did.

The dating of the birth of Jesus can be easily done if you consider that John the Baptist and Jesus were cousins. In the Bible it does state the time period that Elizabeth was pregnant with John. In fact Elizabeth was 6 months along with John when Mary announced she was pregnant with Jesus. Therefore if you can find the time period in which Elizabeth was pregnant with John and what month John was born, it stands to reason you can indeed find out when Jesus would have been born. See? No this is not a fringe theory Ken, it has been worked on over and over again through the years. Bullinger and many other scholars have done work on this. That was the reason I suggested studying the work done by Bullinger. Just because every single person in the world does not agree with him or the actual fact that you KEN have never even heard of him (because you are in no way up to date or an expert on theology) you can NOT dispute his credentials and his linguistic talent without thouroughly looking at his work. Not too mention the fact that he used the Mesorah texts when doing his research. There is actually a couple things that I disagree with him on, but my god to call his credentials and scholarly work dubious and expect me to just say "oh ok ken", is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. And I am quite sure there are MANY scholars that would agree with me on this. There are also many that would agree with you and would prefer Scofield, whom I would indeed call dubious and have a tremendous problem with.

It is called opinions Ken, and for you to completely discredit mine and ridicule me without even knowing what they are and where they stem from and from what various sources I have looked at to come to my conclusions, (which I already stated much earlier would take me possibly a week to post the entire study on Christ's birthdate and the original celebration of the passover) YOU or anyone else HAVE no right to call my opinions and study not valid.

With this part in bold ken, you indeed have absolutely no right to discredit or ridicule me:

Now TDD is saying "I just said that the Jewish calendar has changed over time" (or some such, that's not a direct quote), when in fact she has been arguing that not only do we know what calendar was in use in the Second Temple era (and to think that three weeks ago I didn't even know the names of eras of Jewish history!), but we can determine not just the month, but the date of not only Jesus birth, but also of his conception! And for her proof of this, she offers a source approximately a century old.

And get a clue there are SEVERAL sources out there about the September birthdate of Christ. We have already agreed that not too many scholars dispute that Christ was not born on December 25th. I throw one view that is indeed out there and you go on this HUGE rant about how I am full of shit, and of course now Bullinger is too. That's pretty funny ken.

I don't think you can actually have a serious discussion about this ken because you do not read half of what I post. The basic information in the Jewish source I put up does indeed state how the passover was celebrated through the years. It states the 3 stages of history of the calendar and how they came about their setting of the celebration through the years. By observance, then by observance and reckoning, and then by pure reckoning. That article also states that they originally used the solar year and harvest to celebrate the passover, but this was changed over the years due to using different calendars. HOW hard is that to understand THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT. Through the years it changed. You and Rocky insisted that they had been celebrating this passover the EXACT same way and same time since Biblical times.

Again from the Jewish source:

The history of the Jewish calendar may be divided into three periods—the Biblical, the Talmudic, and the post-Talmudic. The first rested purely on the observation of the sun and the moon, the second on observation and reckoning, the third entirely on reckoning.

[Kensterberg]

I don't know why ... but I have to respond to this (wait! I do know why, it's b/c I'm waiting for a client to show up with some money so I can call it a day and go home!) ...

Elizabeth was 6 months along with John when Mary announced she was pregnant with Jesus. Therefore if you can find the time period in which Elizabeth was pregnant with John and what month John was born, it stands to reason you can indeed find out when Jesus would have been born.

This begs so many questions ... How do we know Elizabeth was six months pregnant? What stage of her pregnancy was Mary in when she "announced" she was pregnant? Can the Bible be trusted as to the birth month of John? (Seriously, when you're relying on an appeal to authority, you've got to be able to show that your authority knows what it is talking about). This is extremely problematic. In a patriarchal culture like ancient Israel, a woman who became pregnant out of wedlock would likely wait as long as possible before she "announced" she was going to give birth.

It's also worth noting that the whole of the Christmas story, including the virgin birth, is built on somewhat dubious propositions. Although there was allegedly a census called by Herod, there's no record of this in known Roman archives. Also, the virgin birth story is extremely close to a great many pagan myths regarding the births of gods and demi-gods. Zeus/Jupiter fathered a good many "sons of god," and by aligning Jesus within this same tradition, it would have enhanced his appeal to potential pagan converts. A good many Biblical scholars simply dismiss the entire Christmas story out of hand.

Also, I want to clarify once more that I do not discount Bullinger as a THEOLOGICAL resource. If we were talking about theology, that would be a perfectly appropriate source to cite. However, as I pointed out earlier, there is a world of difference between what we knew about the history of the Holy Land in 1900 and what we know (or know we don't know!) today. I'm not just objecting to the age of this source, I'm objecting to his relevance to this discussion. If we were talking about dating at Troy or Mycenae and your source was Heinrich Schlieman (who led the first excavations at each), I'd have a ton of problems with that, too.

[RocDoc]

I honestly didn't mean (then) to refer to your apparent evidence to whatever it is you're trying to prove here, as being self-serving. That is just the nature of argument/debate/discussion here. You try to back up what you're saying.

I meant that 'scripture scholarship' and this anthropologic theology you're playing at, itself is self-serving and has been self-serving for a coupla thousand years since its existence began with 'The Man'...through crusades, inquisition and several corrupt as fuck Popes.

[Nepenthe]

Doc, the same could be said about any other type of study in anthropology whether it is of a religious nature or not. ALL anthropologists tend to use theories out there to come to their own conclusions that fit their own opinions. Whether it be someone that is totally a non believer in the field or a believer.

[RocDoc]

ALL anthropologists tend to use theories out there to come to their own conclusions that fit their own opinions.

Opinions? Simply 'opinions'?

Oh really?
No, the stuff ain't plucked from thin air like opinions often are, IF an anthropologist can truly be considered a scientist to you.

Nah, the conclusions they come to do fit (when following the scientific method) within patterns which they see, following deductive or inductive reasoning and a semblance of logic.

Call it observation and reckoning if those are your preferred terms...

[Galactus]

Dee, I have a serious question...your moxy intrigues me. I can't help but be wonder why it is that you think EVERYONE here is out to get you. Because either we're all right (and I'd like to remind you that any subject in which Chrisfan, Doc, Shin and I all agree on may be a sign of the Apocalypse) or we're all out to get you. If it is that we're just too stupid why would you possibly want to waste your time coming back here? I know you can come here as much as you want and I honestly not trying to get you to leave...I'm just wondering is all. Why does it always turn into us vs. you? What is the unique quality that so sharply seperates you from us?

[Nepenthe]

Well then Doc, I could pull up many anthropological articles as well as any other scientific article and show you the different "opinions".