Do you know where your beliefs and practices come from?

[Kevin H]

21 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Did those who celebrated the birth of Jesus prior to the emergence of the Catholic church call it "Christ's Mass" ?   I doubt it.

If it weren't for the Roman Catholics, how would we have learned to call December 25 "Christ Mass"?

"Christ Mass" is a Catholic holiday.

Ron you miss the point. Yes it eventually got the name "Christmas" or the Christ Mass. But the belief of Isaac being born 9 months after Passover, then that Jesus was born 9 months after Passover, then that Jesus was born 9 months after March 25 (Or April 6) and then on December 25 (or January 6) predated the day getting named by the Catholic church naming it the Christ Mass. There was first groups of Christians who believed that Jesus was born sometime around then upon that date before the church developed into the Catholic church. Then when the Catholic church came to be they took this date and had the mass for Jesus' birth on that day and thus it got the name Christ Mass.

[Kevin H]

22 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Kevin, there have always been apologists and historical revisionists able to justify every non-biblical tradition and practice that has come into the church.  Among Christians who start out with what they want to believe, and then "study" the Bible to show how those beliefs are supported by the Bible, it is simple enough for them to do the same thing with history.

So far, all of the articles I've seen claiming that Christians had December 25 first, have focused on the date "December 25" without even dealing with the proximity of the winter solstice, if they mention it at all.
 

 

Ok, so Ron, what is your theory for how there were Christians who believed that Jesus' birth was on or about December 25 one hundred years earlier than you think it started? And had roots that go back over 200 years too early for when you think it started?

[8thdaypriest]

Genesis 15 says the LORD "came to Abram in a vision".  The LORD told Abraham that he would have an heir.  He also told Abram that his descendants would be "strangers in a land not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them 400 years".  Exodus 12:41 says the Israelites left Egypt 430 years later "to the day".  Now - Israel left Egypt on the 15th of Nissan.  The 14th is Passover.  The 15th is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  So - Abram received the promise on the night which began the 15th.   But Isaac was not born for many years after this vision and promise.  In the meantime, Ishmael was born and was some 14 years old by the time Isaac was born. 

So WHY do "they" think that Isaac was conceived at Passover.  Why not one of the other "appointed times"? 

[Kevin H]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Genesis 15 says the LORD "came to Abram in a vision".  The LORD told Abraham that he would have an heir.  He also told Abram that his descendants would be "strangers in a land not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them 400 years".  Exodus 12:41 says the Israelites left Egypt 430 years later "to the day".  Now - Israel left Egypt on the 15th of Nissan.  The 14th is Passover.  The 15th is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  So - Abram received the promise on the night which began the 15th.   But Isaac was not born for many years after this vision and promise.  In the meantime, Ishmael was born and was some 14 years old by the time Isaac was born.

So WHY do "they" think that Isaac was conceived at Passover.  Why not one of the other "appointed times"?

Good question. Remember this comes from intertestamental Jewish legend. I do not know if they had any Biblical evidence to support the theory. But Rabbis were saying that "You should expect good things to happen at Passover. That it was at Passover that Abraham took Isaac to Mt. Moriah"  and then Rabbis were split between it being the anniversary of his birth and the anniversary of his conception. And I don't know how or why but they formed the theory that someone truly blessed by God dies either on the anniversary of their birth or the anniversary of their conception, believing that the Prophets all died on either the anniversary of their birth or conception. Thus I do not see any evidence in this knew understanding for the actually birth of Jesus. This only tells us how we got December 25 as the day to celebrate it.

Now back in 1982 I did hear a lady give some Bible texts that she said if you study then out you get December 25 as the Old Testament predicted birthday, but since I do not remember her arguments which I only took with a grain of salt when I heard them.

Again I am not defending the day, Only looking at more updated evidence as to how we got the day. In a lot of ways I find this new evidence more disturbing than the old evidence that it came from Paganism. Since this comes from the church-synagogue split, a very sad time for God's people, where both Jews and Christians kept trying to one up the other.

[8thdaypriest]

10 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Good question. Remember this comes from intertestamental Jewish legend. I do not know if they had any Biblical evidence to support the theory. But Rabbis were saying that "You should expect good things to happen at Passover. That it was at Passover that Abraham took Isaac to Mt. Moriah"  and then Rabbis were split between it being the anniversary of his birth and the anniversary of his conception. And I don't know how or why but they formed the theory that someone truly blessed by God dies either on the anniversary of their birth or the anniversary of their conception, believing that the Prophets all died on either the anniversary of their birth or conception. Thus I do not see any evidence in this knew understanding for the actually birth of Jesus. This only tells us how we got December 25 as the day to celebrate it.

Now back in 1982 I did hear a lady give some Bible texts that she said if you study then out you get December 25 as the Old Testament predicted birthday, but since I do not remember her arguments which I only took with a grain of salt when I heard them.

Again I am not defending the day, Only looking at more updated evidence as to how we got the day. In a lot of ways I find this new evidence more disturbing than the old evidence that it came from Paganism. Since this comes from the church-synagogue split, a very sad time for God's people, where both Jews and Christians kept trying to one up the other.

Jews STILL expect Elijah to show up at Passover.  They always set a place for Elijah at the Passover Seder.  I'm not sure WHY the coming of Elijah would be a good thing.  He was to come before the "great and terrible day of the LORD" so his coming would signal the "time of the END".  Maybe to the Jews, it signaled the end of their troubles, and the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel.    When Jesus was hanging on the cross, one of the taunts was, "Maybe Elijah will come to save him." 

[8thdaypriest]

19 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Ok, so Ron, what is your theory for how there were Christians who believed that Jesus' birth was on or about December 25 one hundred years earlier than you think it started? And had roots that go back over 200 years too early for when you think it started?

The story of Tammuz goes back centuries before Christ was born.  Tammuz was born on December 25th, and was killed by a wild boar 40 days before Isthar (hence the morning and ashes for Lent).  The goddess fell out of heaven in a giant egg, into the river Euphrates.  (Hence the eggs at Easter. They used to all be dyed red.)  She raised Tammuz from the dead.  Hence the resurrection story of Christ, combined with the story of Tammuz. 

[Kevin H]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The story of Tammuz goes back centuries before Christ was born.  Tammuz was born on December 25th, and was killed by a wild boar 40 days before Isthar (hence the morning and ashes for Lent).  The goddess fell out of heaven in a giant egg, into the river Euphrates.  (Hence the eggs at Easter. They used to all be dyed red.)  She raised Tammuz from the dead.  Hence the resurrection story of Christ, combined with the story of Tammuz.

First this still would not help us understand why there were Christians hiding in the catacombs not wanting to have anything to do with Paganism coming up with December 25, or that the original focus was NOT on December 25 but on Passover for the annunciation then moving from the Jewish to Roman calendar changing the focus on to March 25 or April 6. December 25 was just a byproduct.

Second, Tammuz did not use the Roman colander. Some of these studies suggest that it may not have been until AFTER Constantine made Christianity a legal religion that the Pagan's moved Tammuz birthday from different days around that time to December 25 and that maybe they did it because it was seen as Jesus' birthday.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 12/27/2015 at 0:31 PM, Kevin H said:

On 12/27/2015 at 0:28 PM, Kevin H said:

Ron you miss the point. Yes it eventually got the name "Christmas" or the Christ Mass. But the belief of Isaac being born 9 months after Passover, then that Jesus was born 9 months after Passover, then that Jesus was born 9 months after March 25 (Or April 6) and then on December 25 (or January 6) predated the day getting named by the Catholic church naming it the Christ Mass. There was first groups of Christians who believed that Jesus was born sometime around then upon that date before the church developed into the Catholic church. Then when the Catholic church came to be they took this date and had the mass for Jesus' birth on that day and thus it got the name Christ Mass.

 

On 12/27/2015 at 0:31 PM, Kevin H said:

Ok, so Ron, what is your theory for how there were Christians who believed that Jesus' birth was on or about December 25 one hundred years earlier than you think it started? And had roots that go back over 200 years too early for when you think it started?

Kevin, you seem to be building a straw man, or you have me confused with someone else.  I looked back through my posts in the threads dealing with December 25 and I haven't given any dates or date-able references "for when you think it started".

You have been citing fixed dates purportedly celebrated by early "Christians" that are based on the Roman calendar (ie March 25, April 6, December 25, January 6) but with a supposed connection to God's Old Testament feast of Passover.  That use of the Roman calendar for religious events makes me seriously question whether these people were really followers of Jesus and Scripture.  This evidence alone leads me to believe that although they may have been doing the best they knew how, they were already so disconnected from the Bible and its calendar that any claim they may have had to being true followers of Jesus or the apostles was very, very weak.  Even Constantine knew that Passover did not fall on a fixed date on the Roman calendar, thus he led the Roman church to celebrate Easter on a date that floated around on the Roman calendar, being based on the Biblical calendar but with extra rules to ensure that Passover never coincided with Easter.

If there were early Christians in the catacombs that were celebrating the birth of Jesus on a fixed date on the Roman calendar (such as December 25), then it seems rather obvious that they could not have determined that date from the Passover in any form or fashion, but rather had determined that date from some event that was already fixed to a date on the Roman calendar.

By the way, if you're wondering about the date that I think the Gentile church became an unreliable guide to Christian living, it was in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt (around 136 AD).  At that time Roman persecution of Jews was so intense that most  "Christian" Gentiles abandoned the religious practices that would get themselves mistaken for a Jew.  By the time of Justin Martyr, a few years later (c. 150-160 AD), the Gentile church had changed so much that they generally regarded as defective or heretical those who still lived and worshiped as Jesus and the apostles did in the New Testament.  This opinion of mine is based on the doctrinal turnaround [inadvertently] documented by Edward Gibbon in the chapter titled "The Progress of the Christian Religion" in his classic work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.  You can read the pertinent part of the chapter here.