What is Christmas in fact?

[Coldicote]

I have no difficulty in accepting that Christ lived and was the sort of person history tells us about, but why do we celebrate Christmas? No-one knows what a new born baby will grow up to be. I see the story of the nativity, as a beautiful symbolic work of art, created probably years after Christ was born, to fill a gap in the story of His life. Do others have views about this?

[boxtops]

No, but Christmas is symbolic anyway - it celebrates the fulfilling of a prediction, if that's what you believe. It's celebrated in the dark of winter because the Romans celebrated Lupercalia and the two came together for convenience. No decent shepherd would have sheep out on the hillsides in winter, and the suggestion that Jesus was born in the spring seems most likely if Gabriel came to Mary in the sixth month (ie June) - if He was born in December, the annunciation would have been in March (which is when Christians now celebrate it, conveniently).

[China Doll]

It's just the build up to my birthday :c)

[jno]

same reason you celebrate your own birthday, or the queen's.

Or CD's, though I am not a fan of boxing.

[beso]

All the stories about Jesus were created to fill gaps in his life because his whole life from before conception to after death was one big gap.

THere is not a single piece of evidence outside the Bible to suggest he ever even existed. And quite frankly the claims of his abilities are so far fetched it seems ridiculous that anyone believes the Bible's account of his life at all.

[Lonnie]

I think Christmas, Christ Mass, is a Catholic service, adopted by most, if not all Christian sects.

[Valanne]

The sixth month refers to the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, (with John the baptist)

[Postdog]

A hijacking of a pagan festival.

[boxtops]

Ah, they don't explain that in the sections they read out at the carol service - it says "in the sixth month the angel visited Mary".

[chelle7272]

What postdog said :)

[MarkRae]

> There is not a single piece of evidence outside the Bible to suggest he ever even existed.

Ah, now that statement is COMPLETELY untrue. There are loads of references to Jesus outside the Bible, e.g. Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, Julius Africanus, Hadrian et al...

[syruphead]

Beso, you are so wrong about external evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ - visit this link to find out more.

http://obt.org.uk/Dow...s/ExistenceChrist.pdf
Christmas is for christians a celebration of the birth of Jesus, non Christians celebrate, but not the birth of Jesus; as one carol says "they have winter but no Christmas". In fact most people celebrate Xmas, since Christ is missing from their Christmas.

Hope this helps Coldicote.

[MarkRae]

> Christmas is for christians a celebration of the birth of Jesus.

Yes indeed, though even the most fundamental of Christians these days acknowledges that Jesus simply couldn't have been born on 25 December in the year zero, which didn't exist anyway!


> In fact most people celebrate Xmas, since Christ is missing from their Christmas.

That's a daft statement, since Xmas has been used an abbreviation for Christmas for many hundreds of years. The New Testament was written in Ancient Greek and the first letter of Christ in Ancient Greek looks like our modern-day letter X.

[syruphead]

I absolutely agree with your first para, Mark Rae.

I also agree that the X could be an abbreviation for Christ in view of your reference to the Greek. Hoewver,my point was exactly what I said, they have taken Christ out of Christmas because they do not celebrate Christ's birth.

[Coldicote]

Perhaps I should have expected many different points of view, but I still think of the story of the Nativity as a beautiful symbolic work of art.

[Slapshot]

From some reading years ago, the christ child's birth was a good way for the christian fundamentalists in the middle and dark ages to take over the mid winter solstice and all the original pagan festivals that were there at the time, The solstices have always been celebrated.

The King James Bible was the first and is a translation of much earlier texts, the churches of the middle and dark ages could easily have ordered the feasts in any chronological order they wished, we cannot say for certain what the reality of them or the bible is.

For me it's about family.

[MarkRae]

> The King James Bible was the first

The first what?

[Slapshot]

sorry...omission, the first authorised edition available to the masses

[Slapshot]

..and yes I know there were many beforehand John Wycliffe, William Tyndale etc etc but the first available to the masses

[beso]

Although there are references to Christ later there is no contemporary reference to his existence. None of the names provided are contemporary

Some were not even born for another century and clearly could not even have reported from actual witnesses to the life of Jesus. They were reporting hearsay.

Tacticus makes a single reference in 116 CE "Christus, from whom the name had its origin". The mythical figure of Christ would be well known via the claims made by the Christians (none who would have witnessed his life) but in no way represents first hand reporting of Christs's life.