Pope's latest

[basics]

I see that this Pope has come out to say that the church, Roman Catholic, has got it wrong concerning the birth time of Jesus Christ. What kept them? One only had to see the date of the death of Herod and count back to the investigated time of Messias advent to arrive at that conclusion.

That king had all his experts working along with the knowledge that the three visitors brought to realise that Jesus was anything up to two years of age making His birth at around 6BC. Therefore when He died and rose again that would place Him very much in the forty years old bracket, a very Biblical number, one that I personally have held for most of my conversion time fortified by the forty days from his death to Pentecost if I am not mistaken.

Therefore when the wise men actually saw Him he wasn't a babe in a manger, rather a toddler dodging around His parents as toddlers do. So all the nonsense built up upon nativity scenes are just that, untruths which leave children with the wrong impressions altogether. It paints a false picture of the seriousness surrounding what was one of the world's most important events, why? Because it has turned the event into an idol in the minds of those that celebrate Christmas.

To children what is given them is what they will believe actually took place when in fact it never did and religion feeds on it whether Romish or anything else in the Christian system. I don't find it offensive to give presents as these men were written to have done, but place it in the right setting by telling children the truth from start to finish. That way the link between the wise men and their gifts correspond to the gifts St Nicholas, Santa Claus, emulated when he did the same for children in his time.

So, what do you guys think?

[Sir Adrian]

Errm no, if his birthdate is wrong then the year of his resurrection is also wrong. Dyonisios Exiguus (the guy who calculated Christ's year of birth) used Christ's age to determine the year of his crucifixion. So everything you said in paragraphs 3 and 4 is erroneous.

This is hardly "the latest". This error has been known for years by most Christian denominations, and its largely irrelevant. Aside from perhaps adding 2 to 6 years to our calendar it changes nothing. Even if He was 40, 50, 100 His teachings, deeds and sacrifice remain unchanged, and that is what Christianity is based on, not his material form.

[basics]

" Errm no, if his birthdate is wrong then the year of his resurrection is also wrong. Dyonisios Exiguus (the guy who calculated Christ's year of birth) used Christ's age to determine the year of his crucifixion. So everything you said in paragraphs 3 and 4 is erroneous."

Sir Adrian,

Yet it is recorded by Josephus when He was executed if memory serves me correct so that doesn't change thus bringing His age up to the Biblical number 40. Now this may not be importan to you but for the discerning mind it is important in the overall context and flow of Scripture, why? Well, when the wrath of God fell on man with the flood, that wrath lasted forty days until the old world's population was all gone. The forty days between the crucifixion and the feast of the firstfruits, Him being that in evidential form has direct corrolation with that event simply because Pentecost brought into the open what was a mystery previously. It brought the need for rebirth which was always there, out into the open by the Gospel delivered by the disciples. He was/is the firstfruit of new life.

" This is hardly "the latest". This error has been known for years by most Christian denominations, and its largely irrelevant. Aside from perhaps adding 2 to 6 years to our calendar it changes nothing. Even if He was 40, 50, 100 His teachings, deeds and sacrifice remain unchanged, and that is what Christianity is based on, not his material form."

But my friend we are not talking about so-called Christian denominations. What we are talking about is the church of the living God which was never and will never be denominationalised. We are talking about The Way, The Truth and The Life, built by grace upon rebirth consolidated by the Comforter who can but only lead into all truth. So, I ask you, is that irrelevant? Of course the crucifixion and resurrection are the most important and relevant things but rebirth is not built on lies so that believers can continue to lie.

[Nietzsche]

Basics,

While I appreciate your devotion to unearthing these bits of our anthropological past, I must say that nativity scenes are not the source of modern idolatry.

The gospels do not specify the age of Jesus at the time of the Magi visitation. So, modern believers should not be faulted for any possible error in translation or practice.

Finally, much of the nativity was described by the Church in order to present the story in a human and delicate way. A babe in a manger is a more touching and delicate scene than a toddler running about getting his feet dirty with animal filth. Birth, is a remarkable and anxious human event. When you marry that notion to a virgin birth and the potential terror/honor of bearing God's child, I'm sure the power of the nativity scene will make sense.

The later Saints of the Church did much to embellish the Nativity. Wasn't it Assisi that added the animals? What we have is a legendary story told over the course of 2000 years where detail has been added or removed based on culture, aesthetic, or human imagination. Take it for what it is, a metaphorical presentation of a paradigm shifting historical event.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Old news, but then again the Catholic Church is known for its very slow pace... OP, your take on Christmas is wrong. Christ's birth is believed to have been around spring, the reason the early Christians chose the 24th/25th was to ease conversion to Christianity for the pagans in and outside of the Roman Empire by using one of their tradtions - like the perception of your god being a old man with beard was taken from Norse Mythology (Odin) and Greek/Roman Mythology (Zeus/Jupiter).

[hellas1]

Old news, but then again the Catholic Church is known for its very slow pace... OP, your take on Christmas is wrong. Christ's birth is believed to have been around spring, the reason the early Christians chose the 24th/25th was to ease conversion to Christianity for the pagans in and outside of the Roman Empire by using one of their tradtions - like the perception of your god being a old man with beard was taken from Norse Mythology (Odin) and Greek/Roman Mythology (Zeus/Jupiter).

If you are trying to speak in favour of using (the old) 6 BC as the new 0 BC, don't count on my vote. I don't want to have another 2012 with that conspiracy, end of the World crap.

Aeneas, you don't need to slam Basics Christianity. I also am a Christian and the "old man w/a beard" motif is putting every Christian in the "ignorant" category as if Christians don't know this or something.

State a fact without using a wide paintbrush called "stereotyping."

Later,
hellas1

[basics]

" What we have is a legendary story told over the course of 2000 years where detail has been added or removed based on culture, aesthetic, or human imagination. Take it for what it is, a metaphorical presentation of a paradigm shifting historical event. "

Nietzsche,

That in part is my point. That if we take what is not written and make it as it was written then we diminish God's word adding lustre to what the unbeliever sees as a fairy story. Notice I am not trying to rewrite the Bible, just tell it as it is because it is the truth upon which it is built. Add to that that it has been incorporated into the pagan worship of Rome for Rome's sake then we leave the truth to establish further the fairy tale as unbelievers see it.

The thing one must ask in the light of history, was God pleased by all this? The short answer is no because it didn't take long for Rome to fall for its apostasy. What was once the glory of the Emperors became the glory of the Bishops turning Rome into history. The Vatican became Rome wherever a Roman stepped and the apostasy got stronger until the Reformation. Today we still celebrate that untruth as though it was truth and that is wrong. Oh, and we're all guilty of it.

" The fistfruit of life, while an interesting metaphor, it does not explain why Christ's age matters even in the slightest."

Sir Adrian,

It matters because from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22:21 timing is important, why? Because in figure or otherwise everything points to Jesus Christ and is specifically meant to. It is why Scripture carries the weight of the Spirit in and by what is written. For sure God doesn't give an immediate date but He certainly leaves enough clues for the discerning mind which by definition I mean the born again. Since they are the fruit of the Spirit it beholds the same that they should be aware of what is true and what is not so that the Gospel they proclaim is built purely on truth.


" I'm an atheist and I celebrate Christmas. I hate to break it to you but in spite of the name it isn't and never was a (solely)Christian holiday. It existed in various forms long before Christianity and will continue to exist if there is ever an after-Christianity. Many of the Christmas traditions celebrated by Christian households worldwide are formerly pagan in nature. Considering the number of gods who were supposedly virgin births, born in caves/prisons/in the middle of a herd of goats/, and who died then resurrected(as did a large number of the fertility gods worldwide) it wouldn't be surprising to learn that the manger scene is based on the birth legends of one, or multiple, other gods' mythos."

Ciabhan,

There I must disagree if only because your other religions never came into being until after the flood out of which came the Gospel that was given to Adam and Eve in the garden and brought forth by Noah into the new world. So, what these religions transpired to was built on what God prophecied and which they took to be in their terms the " seed " upon which their beliefs were about. But that " seed " was/is Jesus Christ and no other simply because of the number of prophetic anouncements made and fulfilled in Him ever since.

" Christmas should be celebrated for what it is, a fun sometimes touching sometimes friendlier season of the year and a wonderful tradition. Changing something to fit the narrow view of some or even all the 'born-again' would be tragic. "

In general terms that would be OK if it turned people to Jesus Christ and kept them there, but frankly it doesn't happen like that. The reason people are born again is to separate them from the condemned, so that in Christ the first commandment becomes a reality for them. It is a narrow view because God made it that way as did the Son when He said the way is so narrow that few ever get through.

Therefore, since Christmas Day has nothing to do with the birth of Christ why do we celebrate it?

[Himster]

There I must disagree if only because your other religions never came into being until after the flood out of which came the Gospel that was given to Adam and Eve in the garden and brought forth by Noah into the new world.

That simply isn't true. According to biblical literalists the flood occurred 2340 BC. The Pagan Pyramids were built before 2600 BC. Not only is the flood physically impossible with absolutely no evidence to support it, but so is the claim that no "other" religions existed before the 2340 BC, infact it's demonstrably false.

Therefore, since Christmas Day has nothing to do with the birth of Christ why do we celebrate it?

Because it's fun.

[basics]

" That simply isn't true. According to biblical literalists the flood occurred 2340 BC. The Pagan Pyramids were built before 2600 BC. Not only is the flood physically impossible with absolutely no evidence to support it, but so is the claim that no "other" religions existed before the 2340 BC, infact it's demonstrably false."

Dear Old Himster,

Let's begin with the flood because it is the start of the new world as we know it, all preceeding being lost with the exception of what God Himself commanded Moses to write regarding it. But, for starters, in the beginning the world was covered by water there being no land. To what depth we are not told but we are told that land was not visible as it was under water. When God brought up land obviously the displacement was refilled by water alongside a certain quantity being raised into the sky or heaven. As there was no mention of mountains the size that we have now it can be assumed reasonably that these would be large hills because they too were under water until raised. Indeed it is mentioned that the water covered everything to the depth of 22/25 feet during the flood.

So, where did it come from? From the sky and from under the land plus deep wells within the earth's structure because that is what Scripture tells us. So, when you say it is impossible, God had Moses write the opposite and had the water to prove it. Add to that plate distortion and breakup plus volcanic activity alongside the movement that had to be when all this was happening and geologically we can see today the results, not forgetting that Mt St Helens showed us how fast and how powerful total movement can be in the case of the flood. And as the water resided canyons were carved out as the water rushed back under the earth just like the plug being pulled in a sink full of water.

As for the pyramids, dating can only be like dating anything else. It is not an exact science yet people accept that it is because some person of noteriety has said so. The problem that literists of the Bible have when working on dates is that they work on the assumption that kingly lineage never changes when in fact, especially in the Bible, it does quite dramatically because the Jews wiped out record of kings that were cursed causing huge problems for these literalists. The prime example is getting Jesus birth time wrong.

[Himster]

Let's begin with the flood because it is the start of the new world as we know it, all preceeding being lost with the exception of what God Himself commanded Moses to write regarding it. But, for starters, in the beginning the world was covered by water there being no land. To what depth we are not told but we are told that land was not visible as it was under water. When God brought up land obviously the displacement was refilled by water alongside a certain quantity being raised into the sky or heaven. As there was no mention of mountains the size that we have now it can be assumed reasonably that these would be large hills because they too were under water until raised. Indeed it is mentioned that the water covered everything to the depth of 22/25 feet during the flood.

There are literally tons of artifacts and settlements that still exist from before the alleged flood and have no drastic water damage. Newgrange, the pyramids, bronze-age Damascus (9,000 BC), even Jerusalem was founded before the flood and was not damaged by it, Athens, Argos, Luxor (aka Thebes)........... hundreds more. The entire world existed unchanged by "the flood". It could never have happened, it's undeniably a fairy-tale: it was probably a devastating local flood that was exaggerated for a dramatic literary effect.

So, where did it come from? From the sky and from under the land plus deep wells within the earth's structure because that is what Scripture tells us. So, when you say it is impossible, God had Moses write the opposite and had the water to prove it.

That water doesn't exist, it never existed, it could not have ever existed: if it did exist the moon would have destroyed the earth due to the increase of mass and gravitational pull. There is not enough room in the earth's crust to contain that quantity of water.

Add to that plate distortion and breakup plus volcanic activity alongside the movement that had to be when all this was happening and geologically we can see today the results, not forgetting that Mt St Helens showed us how fast and how powerful total movement can be in the case of the flood. And as the water resided canyons were carved out as the water rushed back under the earth just like the plug being pulled in a sink full of water.

For the water that carved the grand-canyon in the time-scale you claim it would have to have travelled faster than the speed of sound and it would have travelled in a perfect straight line due to the laws of thermodynamics. In reality this is not the case.

With Mount St-Helens we see a localized flood in an area with porous volcanic rock. What happened is exactly as predicted by geologists. Show me a geologist who believes in a young earth and I'll show you a geologist who is ridiculed by his peers.

As for the pyramids, dating can only be like dating anything else. It is not an exact science yet people accept that it is because some person of notoriety has said so.

It is an exact science it's called archaeometry, also known as archaeological sciences, in this case it is corroborated by mineral deposits, carbon dating, written accounts, third party observations and their written accounts, dated grafitti..........and much more: all combined and all examined thoroughly over hundreds of years by thousands of experts. Everything concerned agrees and points undeniably to the same period. There isn't just one expert who claimed this date, there have been thousands of experts over hundreds of years trying to prove and disprove this date. You disagree with thousands of experts and thousands of universities and schools with hundreds of thousands of highly qualified professors and teachers? Good luck with that.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

"Let's begin with the flood because it is the start of the new world as we know it, all preceeding being lost with the exception of what God Himself commanded Moses to write regarding it. But, for starters, in the beginning the world was covered by water there being no land. To what depth we are not told but we are told that land was not visible as it was under water. When God brought up land obviously the displacement was refilled by water alongside a certain quantity being raised into the sky or heaven. As there was no mention of mountains the size that we have now it can be assumed reasonably that these would be large hills because they too were under water until raised. Indeed it is mentioned that the water covered everything to the depth of 22/25 feet during the flood.

The World has been covered in water, but that was prior to the Dinosaurs and prior to the land masses being formed. There was no "land" under the water, since the land masses came later due to volcano activity. Besides the flood fairy tale doesn't take into account incest and that to avoid incest you would need more than 2/7 people.

Go read this before you post again... (all of it!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Therefore, since Christmas Day has nothing to do with the birth of Christ why do we celebrate it?

Depends on these "we" are.
In Sweden we celebrate Jul which is a pagan holiday to celebrate winter solstice and we do that on christmas eve, not on christmas day.
As mentioned before, only reason the birth of Jesus was tacked on to it was to butt in on the pagan celebtrations.

As for other religions after the flood, neolythic people in Europe, Africa and more would disagree with that.

[Ciabhán]

Ciabhan,

There I must disagree if only because your other religions never came into being until after the flood out of which came the Gospel that was given to Adam and Eve in the garden and brought forth by Noah into the new world. So, what these religions transpired to was built on what God prophecied and which they took to be in their terms the " seed " upon which their beliefs were about. But that " seed " was/is Jesus Christ and no other simply because of the number of prophetic anouncements made and fulfilled in Him ever since.

Completely ignoring all evidence to the contrary doesn't exactly make your argument solid. As others have pointed out we have evidence for the existence of antidiluvian(assuming of course that the date one can determine from Bible evidence is correct) pagan religions. We actually have NO evidence for a flood of biblical proportions. I'll stick with the evidence not the Middle Eastern fairy tales.

In general terms that would be OK if it turned people to Jesus Christ and kept them there, but frankly it doesn't happen like that. The reason people are born again is to separate them from the condemned, so that in Christ the first commandment becomes a reality for them. It is a narrow view because God made it that way as did the Son when He said the way is so narrow that few ever get through.

Therefore, since Christmas Day has nothing to do with the birth of Christ why do we celebrate it?

Generally makes people happier/brings friends and families together. That's enough for me.

Christmas Day(other than the relatively recent renaming to fit it into Christianity) DOESN'T have anything to do with the birth of your Christ. It's at the wrong time of year. It does have everything to do with the winter solstice. Something worth celebrating as it meant the end of lengthening nights and colder temperatures and foreshadowed spring. People's fear of starving to death was lessened.

The winter holiday, whatever you call it, was a celebration of having made it through the lean times once again so at the most basic level it's a pure celebration of life.

[justicar5]

"

Therefore, since Christmas Day has nothing to do with the birth of Christ why do we celebrate it?

Well it's better than a what a true Biblical celebration would be, mass murder and paedophilia , with a side order of genocide and gang rape. The bible commands you to kill none-believers and rape their women, until you do, stop claiming to be a biblical literallist and admit that you ignore the parts that make you uncomfortable.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

^Christmas was meant to ease pagans' conversion to Christianity - this is old/ancient news yet too many people are still ignorant of it. I just view it as a time to get together with family and enjoy delicious food amidst the winter cold.

[hellheaven1987]

The bible commands you to kill none-believers and rape their women

Think about it, it actually is part of Natural Selection.

[basics]

Well it's better than a what a true Biblical celebration would be, mass murder and paedophilia , with a side order of genocide and gang rape. The bible commands you to kill none-believers and rape their women, until you do, stop claiming to be a biblical literallist and admit that you ignore the parts that make you uncomfortable.

justicar5,

Just out of interest, where does it say in the Bible that I should do these things? I am a literalist yet I don't remember being told to kill anyone, to rape anyone, be a phaedophile or commit genocide but then perhaps your Bible is not mine, mine being the KJV.

But then let's have a look at the reality of the Bible, why? Because there is a distinct difference between the two Covenants, the first being solely for Israel and the second for the whole of humanity. And quite apart from the known fact that Israel was more the victim in its history and not the attacker, this limits your accusation if about them to a small piece of that history.

When God took them over the Jordan on dry ground, just as He did at the Red Sea, He said that He would drive out the nations in the land. All Israel had to do was obey what they had been told, but they didn't, Joshua being, like Eve, persuaded by the enemy that indeed they were friendly and not part of the land. So rather than God doing their work for them, they as it turned out had to take on the nations themselves which even then they couldn't accomplish properly.

Yes, they got the land but what they got into the bargain was nothing but trouble afterwards, going on unto this very day. So there might be a little truth in what you infer but it is not the truth as far as the overall picture is concerned. Now as far as I am concerned there is nothing that God has ever said to me in Scripture that I do the things you accuse Scripture of telling me to do, why? Because to the born again God is the avenger, not them. Oh, there is an exception there and that exception is for them already in armed service that they remain so and be the best they can.

I look forward to your reply.

[Sir Adrian]

The fistfruit of life, while an interesting metaphor, it does not explain why Christ's age matters even in the slightest.
It is not a lie, it is a miscalculation made by a simple scholar hailing from the former province of Dacia 500 years after the crucifixion. If anything it is a miracle that the error is only 2-6 years.
Have you never made a mistake in your entire life? Didn't Christ say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

If you are trying to speak in favour of using (the old) 6 BC as the new 0 BC, don't count on my vote. I don't want to have another 2012 with that conspiracy, end of the World crap.

Far from it. If 0 AD were to move 6 years back we'd be in 2018, not 2006, because that would mean that 6 years from the BC period would not move to the AD period.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Far from it. If 0 AD were to move 6 years back we'd be in 2018, not 2006, because that would mean that 6 years from the BC period would not move to the AD period.

Oops, only defence I have is, it was a bit late, when I wrote that I wrote BC, but my mind was saying AD...

Changing the year would make counting one's birth year and age more complicated though (IE you are used to having year X as your birth year, but now it's year Y).

[Sir Adrian]

We actually have NO evidence for a flood of biblical proportions. I'll stick with the evidence not the Middle Eastern fairy tales.

Wrong. There is plenty of evidence of a great flood in the area around the Black Sea and North-Eastern Mediterranean, going as far south as modern day Iraq. Just because you are unaware of it doesn't mean it does not or did not exist.
Fun fact: Almost every ancient culture, whether thy were native American or Eurasian, had a myth about a Great Flood happening, and every myth mentions the exact same time-frame. Care to explain that mister "Middle-eastern Myths"?

Oops, only defence I have is, it was a bit late, when I wrote that I wrote BC, but my mind was saying AD...

Everyone makes mistakes, don't fret. I agree it would be very confusing


@Basics: I read a lot of big words that didn't say anything. The bottom line is that in the context of His teachings and deeds Christs age or the exact date when He was born is not important.