And? Tobacco companies have no problem finding credentialed scientists who will say that cigarettes are neither carcinogenic nor addictive. There are even stealth Creationists who get advanced degrees in geology or biology from reputable universities, just so “Answers in Genesis” or the like can say they have real scientists who dispute evolution.
With two billion Christians in the world, what are the odds that some with credentials would dispute any assertion that their religion is not the bestest ever?
I don’t know when it was first used, but it’s certainly older than cinema. I know that Ensemble acting became the fashion in theatre in the 1870’s. Before that, it was The Star System.
Always struck me as odd, the “star in the east” they must not have come from “orient far”.
More likely, considering the latitude, they sailed from N Africa.
Yup, just because Gamerunknown cited Jerome23’s weblog doesn’t make what CJ an official on religious history. The bottom line is while jesus was alive worshipers of mithra celebrated a dec. 25th birthday, while Jesus’ followers didn’t celebrate that day for over 300 years later. Almost all non-religious aspects of the holidays (easter and all saint’s day as well) come from the old religion (norse mythology). Christianity spread because it usurped traditions of already practiced religions, and morphed itself into what we practice today. But even the bible tells us that jesus was born in fall.
"Then it isn’t a reliable account. One way or the other, looking for an astronomical explanation is ruled out. "
JWK, I don’t follow you. If there was in fact something unusual in the sky–a supernova? A big meteor? whatever–then it could easily have been embroidered at the time or later into something that wandered through the sky, leading on the three kings. The fact of its embroidery doesn’t mean nothing happened on or around the date just because the story as given is unreliable. This is true of a good deal of more recent and putatively more verifiable history as well.
It seems to me there are more potent arguments against the phenomenon…such as a lack of contemporary accounts of anything out of the ordinary in the heavens.
Nope. Roman Mithraism came about after Jesus was long dead. Possibly as early as AD 80.
And from Jerome23 cite"# "*Mithra was born on December 25th.
Nope, no evidence for this at all. So in fact, there are no early references at all to Mithras having been celebrated on December 25th. The Cult of Sol Invictus was indeed celebrated on this day once at least, but scholars make a distinction between the two these days – and that celebration was actually instituted in the reign of Elagabulus (218-222AD). It is generally considered to be part of the post-Christian reaction: December 25th was being popularised as the date of Christ’s birthday then, most popularly by Sextus Julius Africanus in 221AD book. And just to be pedantic, the differences between Mithra (Persian) and Sol Invictus as worshipped in Roman culture were huge. (see Michael P. Speidel Mithras-Orion: Greek Hero and Roman Army God (Leiden, E.J. Brill 1980), if you want to pursue this point."*…*On Christianity and Mithraism Beek writes
“Both originated in the first century CE (Mithraism a decade or so later than its peer), and both grew and flourished in the same milieu.” page 54*"
No one other than Cumont, who is not out of date and quite discredited (he wrote in 1910, and there have been many archealogical discoveries since then) thinks that worshipers of Mithras celebrated a Dec 25th birthday. After all, why would they- the Solstice was Dec 21st, not 25th.
I think this leaves little room for the Mithras = Christ myth, but moving on, Beek’s position here is that Cumont misunderstood the “religion of Roman Mithras”. h
Not only that, but Mithraism was never very important in Rome. It was never a state religion (altho many get it mixed up with Sol Invictus). * Leonard Boyle wrote in 1987 that “too much … has been made of the ‘threat’ of Mithraism to Christianity,”[206] pointing out that there are only fifty known mithraea in the entire city of Rome*
We also know next to nothing about the faith.
Also, not even the Feast of Sol Invictus was celebrated on Dec 25th at first:
3*. Aurelian inaugurated his new temple dedicated to Sol Invictus and held the first games for Sol on December 25, 274, on the supposed day of the winter solstice and day of rebirth of the Sun.
This is not only pure conjecture, but goes against the best evidence available.[24] There is no record of celebrating Sol on December 25 prior to AD 354/362. Hijmans lists the known festivals of Sol as August 8 and/or 9, August 28, and December 11. There are no sources that indicate on which day Aurelian inaugurated his temple and held the first games for Sol, but we do know that these games were held every four years from AD 274 onwards. This means that they were presumably held in AD 354, a year for which perchance a Roman calendar, the Chronography of 354 (or calendar of Filocalus), has survived. This calendar lists a festival for Sol and Luna on August 28, Ludi Solis (games for Sol) for October 19–22, and a Natalis Invicti (birthday of the invincible one) on December 25. While it is widely assumed that the invictus of December 25 is Sol, the calendar does not state this explicitly.[25] The only explicit reference to a celebration of Sol in late December is made by Julian the Apostate in his hymn to King Helios written immediately afterwards in early AD 363. Julian explicitly differentiates between the one-day, annual celebration of late December 362 and the multi-day quadrennial games of Sol which, of course, had also been held in 362, but clearly at a different time.[26] Taken together, the evidence of the Calendar of Filocalus and Julian’s hymn to Helios clearly shows, according to Hijmans and others, that the ludi of October 19–22 were the Solar Games instituted by Aurelian. They presumably coincided with the dedication of his new temple for Sol.[27]*
Mind you, it’s quite possible (even likely) the early Christians were wrong about the birthdate of Jesus. But they were sincere in their odd numerological calculations, wrong or no.
My point was more that out of the major religions in the world (at least the monotheistic ones, ie Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, where we have at least half of the world covered), Christianity is the only one that centres around a son of God who rises from the dead.
I’ve always been under the impression that the early Christians weren’t even trying too hard to get the date right, and knew it. It didn’t seem important to them when to celebrate Jesus’ birth, but more that it was important to celebrate it.
Well yes, but it takes a prophet of God to fly to the moon on a winged horse. Every extant religion has some unique claim. As far as I’m aware, it just so happens that I don’t think having a God die and be resurrected is unique, as it occurs with Osiris as far as I’m aware.
You make a point, but Christmas wasn;t even celebrated all that much in the early days, which is why the bit about “needing a holiday to compete with pagan holidays” doesn’t fly. Easter was the big holiday for centuries, Christmas just one of many feast days.
An “embroidered” story is, by definition, not a true one. If all you can look for is “something—anything—that might or not have happened in the sky between approximately 8 BC and 4 BC,” then there is no point in searching for it. It could be a comet, a meteor, a nova or supernova, a planetary conjunction, an occultation—heck, it might as well have been a UFO. Αστηρ means “star”, but it can cover pretty much anything that looks vaguely starlike. It is an exercise in pure pointlessness to try to explain something that you can’t describe in the first place.
The winters in Israel aren’t quite like those in , say, Norway. Mind you it does sometimes snow a little in Jerusalem, but sheep come with sheepskin coats, and it’s no big deal to them.
But we really have no idea of when Jesus was born, altho the math of the early Christian fathers does tend to be a little, well let us say “reality challenged”. In any case, they made their calculations, and it appears sincerely, even if not correctly.
It would be unusual, would it not, for “just one of many feast days” to have a four week season of preparation leading up to it. And yet Advent dates to the fourth century.
There seems to be a contrarian urge at work here (“Perhaps you think that Christmas is a big important holiday in Christianity, but guess what? It isn’t!”). At any rate, Christmas is probably the second-most important holiday (to the extent that there is a ranking—and I guess there is, or was; Christmas is a Double of the First Class). Advent-Christmas-Epiphany represents one of two periods of non-Ordinary Time of the liturgical year (Lent-Easter-Pentecost being the other).
Theologically, Christmas celebrates the mystery of the Incarnation—the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. That God would affirm the goodness of creation and mankind by taking on our human nature is no less celebrated by Christianity than the sacrifice on the cross. Thus it is something of an exaggeration to say that it is a minor holiday; although certainly there has been some variance in the degree of celebration.
I think you’ll find that three-four centuries counts as “centuries”. And how big of a deal was Advent in the fourth century? My impression of the ecclesiastical calendar is that it’s all about making as many Sundays important as possible.
Ummm… No it isn’t. Sundays in general are important as the main day of the week, of course, but the only Sundays that are focal in themselves are:
[ul]
[li]Palm Sunday[/li][li]Easter[/li][li]and Pentecost (aka Whitsunday)[/li][/ul]plus, at a lower level, Trinity Sunday and Christ the King.
The majority of holy days are:
[ul]
[li]saints’ days,[/li][li]the Christmas cycle:[/li][LIST]
[li]Annunciation[/li][li]Visitation[/li][li]Nativity of St. John the Baptist[/li][li]Christmas[/li][li]Holy Name (traditionally, Circumcision)[/li][li]Epiphany[/li][li]and Presentation (Candlemas)[/li][/ul]
[li]and non-Sundays in the Easter cycle:[/li][ul]
[li]Ash Wednesday[/li][li]Maundy Thursday[/li][li]Good Friday[/li][li]Ascension[/li][li]and Corpus Christi.[/li][/ul]
[/list]
I’ve been working my way through J.B. Bury’s 1910 Cambridge Medieval History. It includes extensive, detailed description of the role of the Church in this period, since the Church was such a huge factor in the development of post-Roman-Empire European culture. I’ve read up through the 9th century, and while there is frequent mention of Easter and the various arguments about how the date was to be properly calculated, and a couple mentions of Whitsunday, there has been absolutely no mention of any debates about Christmas, or really any mention of Christmas at all. There were plenty of things that the Church leaders argued about amongst themselves in the early centuries; Christmas (and its associated celebrations) does not seem to have been one of them, or at least not one of the significant, important arguments.
Mind you it does sometimes snow a little in Jerusalem, but sheep come with sheepskin coats, and it’s no big deal to them.