The Christmas Hoax

[brien]

Quote by: RickSp I agree with Ish. Except for on this sort of discussion board I think most atheists do "leave the Christians alone." The Christians often don't show the same courtesy but that is OK, at least most of the time. What amuses me is why Christians don't get more bent out of shape at the mytholgizing of Santa Claus. The big non-Christian elf with his magic sleigh has almost completely supplanted JC. It mystifies me why the fundamentalists don't go crazy every time one of Tim Allen's stupid Santa Clause movie hits the theaters. Instead, they get pissed off if someone wishes them a Happy Holidays instead of a Merry Christmas.

And again, I am in 100% agreement. The whole Santa Claus myth is funny and does seem to have usurped Christmas from the Christians.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Apokalupsis Let's take someone who was bord almost 600 years after Jesus, Muhammad. What is his birthday? .

Since youre talking religious here. ill pick muhammad
If youre a Sunni. 20th of April 570
if youre a Shiite 26th of April 570.

either way they got a better idea when he was born than christinitys "hmmm some time during the summer"

I win

[RickSp]

Quote by: ByaKya Since youre talking religious here. ill pick muhammad If youre a Sunni. 20th of April 570 if youre a Shiite 26th of April 570. either way they got a better idea when he was born than christinitys "hmmm some time during the summer" I win

Depending on which Gospel you believe, Jesus was born somewhere between 4 BCE and 6 CE. So the Bible narrows it down within a decade or so. Of course, there is no record of Jesus ever existing within his own lifetime.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Apokalupsis How does celebrating instead, Jesus' birthday (vs Saturnalia), equate to "conversion by sword" exactly?

It doesn't, but they were converting that way, they didn't give people a choice, but to keep the masses in line, they set Christmas at the time of the pagan celebrations (and Easter the same way) to keep them happy.

[Cephus]

Quote by: RickSp Depending on which Gospel you believe, Jesus was born somewhere between 4 BCE and 6 CE. So the Bible narrows it down within a decade or so. Of course, there is no record of Jesus ever existing within his own lifetime.

That's because the Bible is self-contradictory, you cannot narrow down when Jesus supposedly was born because the facts given in various Gospels directly contradict established history.

It's much more likely that Jesus was purely mythical, if there ever was a person upon whom the Jesus myth was posthumously draped, he was certainly nothing like described in the Bible.

[tivodan1116]

This whole argument is plainly asinine.

1) "Christians assigned the date of Jesus' birth to December 25th, which happens to be the time of several other religions' holidays, so Jesus is fake"

Really? Consider for a moment what you're saying: That if two religions share the same date for a holiday, one of them is fake.
Look, the truth is early Christians lived in a time when public records were not widely available and most of them barely had any idea when their OWN birthdate was.
To understand what I am saying, a simple analogy: If I say that the Green Bay Packers won Super Bowl I on July 5th, 1967, i got the date wrong. Does that make the rest of the statement false?
Furthermore, the BIBLE, the only official source of Christianity, DOES NOT PLACE A DATE on the birth of Jesus. So, again the argument about the date being wrong is crap. This argument is akin to saying that if someone who is a Civil War buff says the Civil War ended in 1870, he is wrong, so the entire Civil War didn't happen.

2) The whole Christian thing is just based on Mithras.

Mmhmm. This one is even sillier. The logical fallacy of if A is like B, A must come from B. The sky is blue. My wall is painted blue. Does that mean my wall is made of sky and wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the sky being blue?


You so-called "Christian debunkers" are no better than the "creationists" who say that because Piltdown man was a hoax, the theory of evolution is fake.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Cephus That's because the Bible is self-contradictory, you cannot narrow down when Jesus supposedly was born because the facts given in various Gospels directly contradict established history. It's much more likely that Jesus was purely mythical, if there ever was a person upon whom the Jesus myth was posthumously draped, he was certainly nothing like described in the Bible.

I agree, though I wouldn't use the word "mythical". I think it is likely that Jesus is a composite of several rabbis in the messianic movement in the first century BCE referred to as the Noztrim. Several were named Yeishu. It seems reasonable that Yeishu ha-Notzriha, translated as Jesus the Nazarne, could have been an amalgam of these individuals.

[RickSp]

Quote by: tivodan1116 This whole argument is plainly asinine. 1) "Christians assigned the date of Jesus' birth to December 25th, which happens to be the time of several other religions' holidays, so Jesus is fake" Really? Consider for a moment what you're saying: That if two religions share the same date for a holiday, one of them is fake.

At least three religions come immediately to mind that celebrate holy days a few days after the solstice. Do you deny that this is true? It is well documented in history. Likewise several religions celebrate holy days around Easter, which is to say around the time of the vernal equinox.

Many religious holy days in a variety of religions around the world have been associated with astronomical events like the solstice or the equinox. What exactly do you find asinine about this bit of history?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: RickSp At least three religions come immediately to mind that celebrate holy days a few days after the solstice. Do you deny that this is true? It is well documented in history. Likewise several religions celebrate holy days around Easter, which is to say around the time of the vernal equinox.

I completely agree. No problem with that.

Many religious holy days in a variety of religions around the world have been associated with astronomical events like the solstice or the equinox. What exactly do you find asinine about this bit of history?

Nothing.

What I find ridiculous is using this historical fact to "prove" that Christianity is bogus. As I said before:

• The Bible makes no mention of specific dates for either Christmas or Easter - their dates were chosen by later Christians who merely assigned certain days without regard to their factual correctness.
• The mere fact that two holidays coincide does not make the entire reason behind one of them "fake".

[RickSp]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I completely agree. No problem with that. Nothing. What I find ridiculous is using this historical fact to "prove" that Christianity is bogus. As I said before: The Bible makes no mention of specific dates for either Christmas or Easter - their dates were chosen by later Christians who merely assigned certain days without regard to their factual correctness. The mere fact that two holidays coincide does not make the entire reason behind one of them "fake".

I agree. The mere fact that Christianity adopted the solstice as a date for Christmas doesn't "prove" "Christianity is bogus". Other considerations might, but piggy-backing on a popular date, doesn't.

The original poster made the claim that "Jesus is not the reason for the season". Indeed the solstice is the reason for the season, both literally and figuratively.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: RickSp I agree. The mere fact that Christianity adopted the solstice as a date for Christmas doesn't "prove" "Christianity is bogus". Other considerations might, but piggy-backing on a popular date, doesn't. The original poster made the claim that "Jesus is not the reason for the season". Indeed the solstice is the reason for the season, both literally and figuratively.

Well i dislike the phrase "Jesus is the reason for the season". The SEASON is fall and/or winter (northern hemisphere). The "reason" for the season is the periodic tilting of the Earth on it's axis so that our hemisphere is receiving less solar radiation...

[that line reminds me of the scene in the movie "Groundhog Day" where the bed and breakfast owner asks Phil about the blizzard:]

B&B Lady: There's talk of a blizzard.
Phil: Well we may catch a break and that blizzard's gonna blow right by us. All of this moisture coming up out of the south by midday is probably gonna push on to the east of us and at high altitudes it's going to crystallize and give us what we call snow; probably going to be some accumulation. But here in Punxsutawney our high is gonna get up to about 30 today, teens tonight, chance for precipitation about 20% today, 20% tomorrow. Did you wanna talk about the weather or were you just making chit-chat?

[Cephus]

Quote by: RickSp I agree, though I wouldn't use the word "mythical". I think it is likely that Jesus is a composite of several rabbis in the messianic movement in the first century BCE referred to as the Noztrim. Several were named Yeishu. It seems reasonable that Yeishu ha-Notzriha, translated as Jesus the Nazarne, could have been an amalgam of these individuals.

The fact of the matter is we really don't know and likely never will unless we develop some form of time travel and go back and look. I think it's quite clear that whether the Jesus myth is based on a single individual or a composite of multiple individuals, the fact remains that Jesus, as described in the Bible, never existed in reality.

The rest is just detail and minutia.

[Cephus]

Quote by: tivodan1116 What I find ridiculous is using this historical fact to "prove" that Christianity is bogus. As I said before: The Bible makes no mention of specific dates for either Christmas or Easter - their dates were chosen by later Christians who merely assigned certain days without regard to their factual correctness. The mere fact that two holidays coincide does not make the entire reason behind one of them "fake".

It has nothing to do with Christianity being bogus, it has to do with Christianity "borrowing" the holy days of other religions for their own purposes and then acting like those days actually mean anything.

It's like celebrating your birthday on the same day Joe was born, even though it's not your birthday and then complaining because people go to Joe's birthday party because he's somehow 'stolen' your day.

It's the other way around.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Christmas is not Jesus' "birthday"(despite what your mom told you). As i've previously stated, Christmas is a celebration that Jesus was born, not of when. The day of the year is inconsequential.

The fact that the date is off has absolutely no bearing o the meaning of the day.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Christmas is not Jesus' "birthday"(despite what your mom told you). As i've previously stated, Christmas is a celebration that Jesus was born, not of when. The day of the year is inconsequential. The fact that the date is off has absolutely no bearing o the meaning of the day.

And as we've all pointed out, it's just real convenient that they had to co-opt the religious celebration of the people they were converting for that day that "has absolutely no bearing on the meaning of the day".

I call BS.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Of course they did, it was convenient and suited their purposes, why not? They weren't claiming that it was the actual date.\

How does the fact that the fathers of the Church were pragmatic in their assurance of the religion's survival prove that the entire day and the religion is bogus?

I call your argument B.S.

[rez]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary How does the fact that the fathers of the Church were pragmatic in their assurance of the religion's survival prove that the entire day and the religion is bogus?

Because its a political move to do something like that, not a religious one. Why else would the church leaders want Christianity to survive?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Imagine that, humans have political motivations! So what, the Church was founded by humans, you're not telling me anything new here.

[rez]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Imagine that, humans have political motivations!

Makes the religion bogus.

the Church was founded by humans

makes the religion bogus.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: rez Makes the religion bogus.

People having ambition makes Christianity bogus, then I guess all human institutions are useless

Quote by: rez makes the religion bogus.

You got me! Just kidding. You know I meant that humans carried on Jesus' work. Humans make mistakes