Is this Historical Christmas?

Simpletoremember.com ^ | Unknown | Lawrence Kelemen

[fidelis]

The Apologetics of Christmas (Part 1)

by Jimmy Akin (Catholic Answers)

Should Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus? There is no evidence the apostles did. When did it become a feast day? Weren’t birthdays a pagan thing?

Why was he named Jesus when, as stated in Matthew 1:23, the Messiah was to be called Immanuel?

Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 as “a virgin will conceive” from the Septuagint, but the original Hebrew uses the word “almah” meaning “young woman of marriagable age.” Was Matthew wrong to quote this?

What does Joseph’s reaction, in Matthew 1:19, to the news of Mary’s pregnancy tell us about his character?

Why would Joseph take a 9-month pregnant Mary to Bethlehem instead of taking her earlier? Why did he take her at all? Couldn’t he have just left her in Nazareth?

These are among the questions we explore in this week’s episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast!

Click "Part 1" to listen to the answers to these questions:

Part 1

Part 2

1. I’ve heard it wasn’t uncommon for some people to sleep in the stable of an inn during busy times? Was that true?

2. What was the Star of Bethlehem? A conjunction of planets, meteor, comet, supernatural event? What does the Church or Church Fathers say about it?

3. What is significant about gold, frankincense, and myrrh?

4. How did the birth of Jesus come to be celebrated on December 25?

5. Why do Eastern Orthodox churches celebrate Christmas on January 7?

6. What light does the Ark of the Covenant shed on Mary's perpetual virginity, and what evidence do we have for her perpetual virginity?

Click "Part 2" to listen:

Part 2

[Yosemitest]

Would you not agree that "Jesus Christ is also the Lord of the Old Testament" ?
Remember:

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made .
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe .
He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.
John bare witness of him, and cried, saying,
This was he of whom I spake,
He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Now our Lord, Jesus Christ, said this:

" Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:
Thus saith the LORD,
Learn NOT the way of the heathen,
and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven;
for the heathen are dismayed at them.
For the customs of the people are VAIN:
for one cutteth a tree out of the forest,
the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
They deck it with silver and with gold;
they fasten it with nails and with hammers,
that it move not.
They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not:
they must needs be borne, because they cannot go .
Be not afraid of them;
for they cannot do evil,
neither also is it in them to do good.

Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD;
thou art great, and thy name is great in might.
Who would not fear thee, O King of nations?
for to thee doth it appertain:
forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms,
there is none like unto thee.
But they are altogether brutish and foolish:
the stock is a doctrine of vanities.
Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz,
the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder:
blue and purple is their clothing:
they are all the work of cunning men.
But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king:
at his wrath the earth shall tremble,
and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation."

Now, do you think our Lord Jesus wants us to celebrate Christmas ?

[KC Burke]

Very fine post.

The vast divide is not between denominations. Instead it is between believers and non-believers and furthermore between those who hold their religion in an orthodox manner and those who wear it like a fashion garment, put on and taken off like a club coat at the country club.

[PieterCasparzen]

Most Americans have no idea about the Pilgrims who settled in America, no idea of the Reformation. The only Biblical Holy Days are the 52 Sundays of the year called the Lord's Day.

The Religious Observance of Christmas and ‘Holy Days’ in American Presbyterianism

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

Professing Christians in America today all too often do not honor the Christian Sabbath, the Lord's Day, but they celebrate Easter and Christmas, days that are unscriptural feast days.

It simply goes to show that many Protestants are completely unaware of the Reformation (why they are in Protestant denominations to begin with), as I was until only a few years ago.

The following link is definitely not the place to rely on for facts without checking them, but this article does provide a very quick overview of the era.

The Reformation

IMHO, it would be profitable for Americans to at least get familiar with the foundings of their nation - and the several hundred years prior which set the stage. It will truly be a pleasant and exciting journey when one makes the connection between American ideas and the events and issues of those several hundred years.

IMHO, always good to learn and gain true wisdom - and I always try to learn from my own mistakes and learn from history. The challenge, of course, is... what to read.

[DouglasKC]

Early Christians stopped celebrating the holy days of the Lord because of Roman antipathy against Jews. A series of Jewish revolts against the Roman empire caused a hatred of Jews among people in the region. This caused Christians to abandon God's holy days because to keep them would make one look too "Jewish". Four hundred years after the death of Christ it became heretical to keep the holy sabbath of scriptures.

Today we have a choice...keep the biblical holy days of the Lord Jesus Christ or observe man made holidays.

[JAKraig]

The funny thing is that we all know if we read the Bible when Christmas should be, nine months after Gabriel told Mary she would become pregnant. She was told in late June or early July. That puts Christmas in late March or early April. Roman taxes were paid in spring, just like they are now here. Christmas can be celebrated anytime you want but The son of God was born in the flesh in the spring.

[editor-surveyor]

Gabriel told Mary in December.

Yeshua was born in september.

All the fake pagan ‘gods’ were born December 25.

Catholics love pagan nonsense, and fake Christians like Constantine, who was born on...

December 25!

[JAKraig]

Gabriel told Mary in December.

Yeshua was born in september.

__________________________________________________

Here is what Luke says:

__________________________________________________

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
___________________________________________________

January was still the 1st month by the King James writers.

[BlueDragon]

January was still the 1st month by the King James writers.

Yes, but what of the original writers? Which calendar were they themselves using as framework? The Jewish calender is different. Not only in when it starts, but since it doesn't keep exact pace with the solar year, that introduces another variable. Add to that the change from Julian (which didn't keep pace either, but at a different rate of error than the Jewish) to Gregorian calender in the West, and it raises some question & doubt. The Gregorian has had some changes too, I think.

Not being able to read koine Greek (that of the age, or the later koine) or Hebrew or Aramaic, I can't solve the puzzle, personally. At the risk of calling in local cranks --- I think I've seen it attempted... and in another place possibly more correctly done, but cannot recall the outcome.It was said to be difficult to examine, and feel confident one had properly sifted the variables.

One place to start would be analysis of the oldest extant manuscripts? Where there any month "names" used in closely related texts? I don't *think* so, which might leave the question of which calendar the writers were at that time referring to? Jewish calender, or Roman?

[Rashputin]

I isn't that straight forward, actually, as there have been lots of changes to the calendar and you need to know which one someone is referring to before you know what that equates to now. It's pretty interesting to read about because you could have something dated differently than you would expect by looking at the calander in common use rather than the legal calander or the religious calander in use at the same time.

In common usage, 1 January was regarded as New Year's Day and celebrated as such, but from the 12th century until 1751 the legal year in England began on 25 March (Lady Day). So, for example, the Parliamentary record lists the execution of Charles I on 30 January as occurring in 1648 (as the year did not end until 24 March), although modern histories adjust the start of the year to 1 January and record the execution as occurring in 1649.

Most Western European countries changed the start of the year to 1 January before they adopted the Gregorian calendar. For example, Scotland changed the start of the Scottish New Year to 1 January in 1600 (this means that 1599 was a short year). England, Ireland and the British colonies changed the start of the year to 1 January in 1752 (so 1751 was a short year with only 282 days) though the tax year has stayed as 25 March to this day (being 6 April in the new calendar). Later that year in September the Gregorian calendar was introduced throughout Britain and the British colonies (see the section Adoption). These two reforms were implemented by the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

[ravenwolf]

And it came to pass that it was time for Christ to arise from the dead,but the angels labored in vain to move the stone.

---

Just about the way i think of it.

[ravenwolf]

I like to celebrate Christs birthday, as long as they keep santa clas out of it.

[HarleyD]

The way I look at the whole issue is that there are some very sour people who hate any thought of celebrating the birth of Christ. They complain about the date, the Christmas tree, giving presents, and even Santa Claus (although how Santa Claus-reindeer thing remotely relates to the birth of Christ is one I'm still trying to figure out). And now even Charlie Brown's Christmas. The bottom line is that these people hate the thought of celebrating the birth of Christ. If we had definitive proof that Christ was born on the 25th of December they still would hate it.

I don't care. I will celebrate Christmas and Christ's birth. I will put up my CHRISTmas trees, snowmen, and, yes, even figurines (not idols) of Santa Clauses. We have always been careful to explain that Santa Claus represents, like the wise men, a time when we can give without receiving. I'll go to church and sing Christmas carols and have fun. I make it a point to wish people (including my Jewish friends) a very happy holiday. They know what I'm talking about. Others are free to sit in a dreary house and complain about the pagan traditions.

[Iscool]

Why not just accept it for what it is??? We have a pagan tree at our house...And it is in no way connected to Jesus...

We don't pray to the tree or bow down before it so we know it is not connected with worship or pagan gods or goddesses...

We spend the time and money buying and wrapping meaningless Christmas presents...Fight the traffic...Fight the crowds...Fight with each other because of all the stress...

Many towns have a Christmas Day parade...Christians as well as others flock to them...Sometimes you might see a Nativity scene but mostly it's Santa Claus and reindeer...Music...A big party...

So why do we have the tree and celebrate that Holiday, you ask???

Because the kids and Grandkids would freak out if we didn't...Because I get a couple of paid vacation days...

True, it does afford some Christians a scheduled time to more focus upon Jesus and his birth and his mission...And churches do capitalize upon this...

However, if the Christians ever accepted the idea that Jesus was born probably in October instead of the Winter Solstice would we continue to celebrate his birthday??? Would we incorporate a Christmas tree and it's associated madness???

I take it for what it is...

[HarleyD]

We spend the time and money buying and wrapping meaningless Christmas presents...Fight the traffic...Fight the crowds.

Do Amazon next year. Half hour and I was done. ;O)

[Craftmore]

C S Lewis based his story of Reepicheep off of the true story of the rabbit and the stone.The Narnia stories are all based on true events in the lost trranslations.

[Oratam]

Salvation history, all of it, crammed into 365 days.

[Mercat]

LOL

[Mercat]

LOL

[Mercat]

LOL