Christmas vs. New Years
- Thread starter aphexcoil
- Start date
lescor,
Not surprisingly the traditions of christmas have virtually nothing to do with the actual birth of Jesus, which the early christians didn't celebrate anyway.
you´re not only "partly" but completely right:
the early Christians (like us) apparently didn´t know the exact date of his birth. understandably, they didn´t see a point in celebrating Jesus´birthday for reasons described in this quote:
"Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday; Arnobius (VII, 32 in P.L., V, 1264) can still ridicule the "birthdays" of the gods."
stu,
Can you ever speak for yourself Wild or is everything you say cut & paste from some specious, crappy incorrect website which has it's own slanted agenda?
1. to my humble knowledge nobody has ever seen Jesus´birth certificate.
2. according to recent studies he may well have been born a few years before the year 1.
3. there are no "doctrines" of the Catholic church relating to Jesus´birthday.
4. "spelt wrongly" in late Old English AD 1038 ... centuries before Chaucer & Shakespeare ?
5. since the Catholic church was the only one at the time i wonder what difference to "the Christian ones" you have in mind.
6. "The first festival of Cristes Maesse - Christ's Mass of course - is attributed to 336 A.D" ... how do you know ?
"The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, xxi in P.G., VIII, 888) says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. [Ideler (Chron., II, 397, n.) thought they did this believing that the ninth month, in which Christ was born, was the ninth of their own calendar.] Others reached the date of 24 or 25 Pharmuthi (19 or 20 April). With Clement's evidence may be mentioned the "De paschæ computus", written in 243 and falsely ascribed to Cyprian (P.L., IV, 963 sqq.), which places Christ's birth on 28 March, because on that day the material sun was created. But Lupi has shown (Zaccaria, Dissertazioni ecc. del p. A.M. Lupi, Faenza, 1785, p. 219) that there is no month in the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned Christ's birth. Clement, however, also tells us that the Basilidians celebrated the Epiphany, and with it, probably, the Nativity, on 15 or 11 Tybi (10 or 6 January)."
7. i´m speaking for myself when cutting & pasting from one of the best publicly accessible encyclopedias in the www ... couldn´t do better with my own words.
8. Aphie will probably find the explanations given by the Catholic encyclopedia at least as concise as yours ... imo.
regards
wild
Not surprisingly the traditions of christmas have virtually nothing to do with the actual birth of Jesus, which the early christians didn't celebrate anyway.
you´re not only "partly" but completely right:
the early Christians (like us) apparently didn´t know the exact date of his birth. understandably, they didn´t see a point in celebrating Jesus´birthday for reasons described in this quote:
"Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday; Arnobius (VII, 32 in P.L., V, 1264) can still ridicule the "birthdays" of the gods."
stu,
Can you ever speak for yourself Wild or is everything you say cut & paste from some specious, crappy incorrect website which has it's own slanted agenda?
1. to my humble knowledge nobody has ever seen Jesus´birth certificate.
2. according to recent studies he may well have been born a few years before the year 1.
3. there are no "doctrines" of the Catholic church relating to Jesus´birthday.
4. "spelt wrongly" in late Old English AD 1038 ... centuries before Chaucer & Shakespeare ?
5. since the Catholic church was the only one at the time i wonder what difference to "the Christian ones" you have in mind.
6. "The first festival of Cristes Maesse - Christ's Mass of course - is attributed to 336 A.D" ... how do you know ?
"The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, xxi in P.G., VIII, 888) says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. [Ideler (Chron., II, 397, n.) thought they did this believing that the ninth month, in which Christ was born, was the ninth of their own calendar.] Others reached the date of 24 or 25 Pharmuthi (19 or 20 April). With Clement's evidence may be mentioned the "De paschæ computus", written in 243 and falsely ascribed to Cyprian (P.L., IV, 963 sqq.), which places Christ's birth on 28 March, because on that day the material sun was created. But Lupi has shown (Zaccaria, Dissertazioni ecc. del p. A.M. Lupi, Faenza, 1785, p. 219) that there is no month in the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned Christ's birth. Clement, however, also tells us that the Basilidians celebrated the Epiphany, and with it, probably, the Nativity, on 15 or 11 Tybi (10 or 6 January)."
7. i´m speaking for myself when cutting & pasting from one of the best publicly accessible encyclopedias in the www ... couldn´t do better with my own words.
8. Aphie will probably find the explanations given by the Catholic encyclopedia at least as concise as yours ... imo.
regards
wild
OHLC,
Calculation of the
Ecclesiastical Calendar
http://www.smart.net/~mmontes/ec-cal.html
Calendars and their History
http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html
Calendar Zone
http://www.calendarzone.com/Historic/
regards
wild
Calculation of the
Ecclesiastical Calendar
http://www.smart.net/~mmontes/ec-cal.html
Calendars and their History
http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html
Calendar Zone
http://www.calendarzone.com/Historic/
regards
wild
Compliments of the Season to you Wild 
1. to my humble knowledge nobody has ever seen Jesus´birth certificate.
What that has to do with anything is obscure to say the least.
2. according to recent studies he may well have been born a few years before the year 1.
According to recent studies eh? The same recent studies which finds ossuaries at regular intervals? Years of debate research and less biased observations by some eminent scholars suggest if Jesus even did exist he certainly was not a popular hero or savior in his time and more likely just another fictional character.
3. there are no "doctrines" of the Catholic church relating to Jesus´birthday.
I didn't say there were, read more carefully. I referred to THE doctrines of the Catholic church in broad terms. My point was clear enough. Going to a Catholic website for information on religious festivals is like asking the Pope for an unbiased objective assessment on the for and against of condoms.
4. "spelt wrongly" in late Old English AD 1038 ... centuries before Chaucer & Shakespeare ?
Yes spelt wrongly. Not Cristes-messe but Cristes maesse is the reference. The description took on a lot of change to become eventually the recognized Christmas, it's like saying it also became Christes Messe 1162.
5.since the Catholic church was the only one at the time I wonder what difference to "the Christian ones" you have in mind.
I made no reference to Christian Churches of that time. I referred to Christian Churches later inserting the Christmas festival because they were missing out. Again you read and assume all sorts into what has actually been said. I notice the reading of religious encyclopedia to answer religious questions tends to have that affect on people.
6. "The first festival of Cristes Maesse - Christ's Mass of course - is attributed to 336 A.D" ... how do you know ?
How do you know it wasn't. You don't discuss if you simply replicate the words of others
I don't think the memoirs of Constantine and other references taken out of context help describe Christmas's origins a lot .He had the power to inflict his thoughts and orations on his contemporaries and most likely well-nigh all would listen and write down exactly what they were told.
7. Iâm speaking for myself when cutting & pasting from one of the best publicly accessible encyclopedias in the www ... couldnât do better with my own words
You might try it sometime.
Reading what is said for and against and retrieving as much information as possible for yourself to then reach your own conclusion requires more examination of the "facts" than parroting from the web. It may also assist you in doing better with your own words and thoughts (somewhat doubtful). Parrotting may be convenient but can be extremely misleading and incorrect at times.
8. Aphie will probably find the explanations given by the Catholic encyclopedia at least as concise as yours ... imo.
Spoken like a good Catholic boy? No bias there of course. If you call that concise I'd hate to see what you would call prolix.
1. to my humble knowledge nobody has ever seen Jesus´birth certificate.
What that has to do with anything is obscure to say the least.
2. according to recent studies he may well have been born a few years before the year 1.
According to recent studies eh? The same recent studies which finds ossuaries at regular intervals? Years of debate research and less biased observations by some eminent scholars suggest if Jesus even did exist he certainly was not a popular hero or savior in his time and more likely just another fictional character.
3. there are no "doctrines" of the Catholic church relating to Jesus´birthday.
I didn't say there were, read more carefully. I referred to THE doctrines of the Catholic church in broad terms. My point was clear enough. Going to a Catholic website for information on religious festivals is like asking the Pope for an unbiased objective assessment on the for and against of condoms.
4. "spelt wrongly" in late Old English AD 1038 ... centuries before Chaucer & Shakespeare ?
Yes spelt wrongly. Not Cristes-messe but Cristes maesse is the reference. The description took on a lot of change to become eventually the recognized Christmas, it's like saying it also became Christes Messe 1162.
5.since the Catholic church was the only one at the time I wonder what difference to "the Christian ones" you have in mind.
I made no reference to Christian Churches of that time. I referred to Christian Churches later inserting the Christmas festival because they were missing out. Again you read and assume all sorts into what has actually been said. I notice the reading of religious encyclopedia to answer religious questions tends to have that affect on people.
6. "The first festival of Cristes Maesse - Christ's Mass of course - is attributed to 336 A.D" ... how do you know ?
How do you know it wasn't. You don't discuss if you simply replicate the words of others
I don't think the memoirs of Constantine and other references taken out of context help describe Christmas's origins a lot .He had the power to inflict his thoughts and orations on his contemporaries and most likely well-nigh all would listen and write down exactly what they were told.
7. Iâm speaking for myself when cutting & pasting from one of the best publicly accessible encyclopedias in the www ... couldnât do better with my own words
You might try it sometime.
Reading what is said for and against and retrieving as much information as possible for yourself to then reach your own conclusion requires more examination of the "facts" than parroting from the web. It may also assist you in doing better with your own words and thoughts (somewhat doubtful). Parrotting may be convenient but can be extremely misleading and incorrect at times.
8. Aphie will probably find the explanations given by the Catholic encyclopedia at least as concise as yours ... imo.
Spoken like a good Catholic boy? No bias there of course. If you call that concise I'd hate to see what you would call prolix.
Aphie,
Think of this. You know the reason for the boy's book - the book belonging to the boy (singular). The boys' book is the book which belongs to all the boys (plural). That is one useful and precise application of the apostrophe which the written English language has to offer.
BUT ...say my name is Jones. If I have a book it is referred to as Jones's book. If I write Jones' book I am saying the book which belongs to all the people named Jones.
Newspaper reporters and "with it" writers do this for shorthand and corner cutting possibly not realizing they are altering the whole purpose of the possessive apostrophe losing at the same time the precision which it offers in writing.
I would not like to think of Aphie dollars going to waste that way.
Think of this. You know the reason for the boy's book - the book belonging to the boy (singular). The boys' book is the book which belongs to all the boys (plural). That is one useful and precise application of the apostrophe which the written English language has to offer.
BUT ...say my name is Jones. If I have a book it is referred to as Jones's book. If I write Jones' book I am saying the book which belongs to all the people named Jones.
Newspaper reporters and "with it" writers do this for shorthand and corner cutting possibly not realizing they are altering the whole purpose of the possessive apostrophe losing at the same time the precision which it offers in writing.
I would not like to think of Aphie dollars going to waste that way.
Christmas Day
HISTORY:
The word Christmas comes from Cristes messe, an early English phrase that means Mass of Christ. The C story comes from the New Testament in the bible. An angel appeared to shepherds and told them that a Savior had been born to Mary and Joseph in a stable in Bethlehem. Three Wise Men from the East, called Magi, followed a wondrous star that led them to the baby Jesus to whom they paid homage and presented gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/xmas.html (12.7 kB)
December 25th instituted as a Christian holy day
A star cult, sun-worship, became (in the third century A.D.) the dominant official creed, paving the road for the ultimate triumph of Judaeo-Christian monotheism. So strong was the belief in the Invincible Sun (Sol Invictus) that for example Constantine I (d. 337), himself at first a devotee of the sun cult, found it, indeed perfectly compatible with his pro-Christian sympathies to authorize his own portrayal as Helios. And in 354 the ascendant Christian church in the reign of his pious but unsavory son, Constantius II, found it prudent to change the celebration of the birth of Jesus from the traditional date (January 6) to December 25, in order to combat the pagan Sun godâs popularityâhis âbirthdayâ being December 25.
Source: Frederick H. Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics, p. 4. Copyright 1954 by the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia
"... The twelve days between December 25 and January 6 eventually became the "twelve days of Christmas," declared as such by the Second Council of Tours in 566 A.D.. Roman Emperor Theodosius was the first to declare Nativitas Domini as an official state holiday in 438 A.D. We observe, therefore, that the birth of Jesus has been celebrated by Christian people for over sixteen hundred years now ..."
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/xmasceleb.html
btw: neither Constantine nor Theodosius used to speak late Old English ... imo
regards
wild
HISTORY:
The word Christmas comes from Cristes messe, an early English phrase that means Mass of Christ. The C story comes from the New Testament in the bible. An angel appeared to shepherds and told them that a Savior had been born to Mary and Joseph in a stable in Bethlehem. Three Wise Men from the East, called Magi, followed a wondrous star that led them to the baby Jesus to whom they paid homage and presented gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.
http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/xmas.html (12.7 kB)
December 25th instituted as a Christian holy day
A star cult, sun-worship, became (in the third century A.D.) the dominant official creed, paving the road for the ultimate triumph of Judaeo-Christian monotheism. So strong was the belief in the Invincible Sun (Sol Invictus) that for example Constantine I (d. 337), himself at first a devotee of the sun cult, found it, indeed perfectly compatible with his pro-Christian sympathies to authorize his own portrayal as Helios. And in 354 the ascendant Christian church in the reign of his pious but unsavory son, Constantius II, found it prudent to change the celebration of the birth of Jesus from the traditional date (January 6) to December 25, in order to combat the pagan Sun godâs popularityâhis âbirthdayâ being December 25.
Source: Frederick H. Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics, p. 4. Copyright 1954 by the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia
"... The twelve days between December 25 and January 6 eventually became the "twelve days of Christmas," declared as such by the Second Council of Tours in 566 A.D.. Roman Emperor Theodosius was the first to declare Nativitas Domini as an official state holiday in 438 A.D. We observe, therefore, that the birth of Jesus has been celebrated by Christian people for over sixteen hundred years now ..."
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/xmasceleb.html
btw: neither Constantine nor Theodosius used to speak late Old English ... imo
regards
wild
I do not care much about this topic but just could not pass by the discrepancy of this statement with the historical facts. By that time, the Eastern Orthodox Church had existed for centuries. Although the official split, Schism, did not occur until 1054, it was just an unsuccessful attempt at restoring relations between Western and Eastern Churches which became increasingly remote from each other.
Here are a few quick links for the curios (specifically selected to be from sites representing different flavors of Christianity
:http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_orthh.htm
http://www.decani.yunet.com/history.html
http://www.catholic-center.rutgers.edu/FrRonStanley/cathchch.who.htm