So it's December 25th

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I really dont know Gav, for what reason? You tell me. Your comments about it being a warm climate is scriptural, I cant argue that but, never the less His Birth date was correlated to the "New Sun" rising in the winter Solstice. Maybe it was because it was a very recognizable theme to the Pagans that The Roman Church wanted to convert. Just a Theory.

And there were many "UMM ,what about this" during the councils. This is why The Church broke apart and Orthodox came to be and Catholicism came to be in 1054.

So you don't believe three wise men visited Jesus? You believe the Church inserted that story for no reason what so ever? Or better still, to make pagans feel more at home...though I don't think that the three kings would have achieved that.

Also, those UMM moments where usually over theological quandaries and are thus totally different from the UMM moment that would have arisen when someone suggested they should pretend Jesus was born in winter even though the story also suggests its set in spring- your talking nonsense.

Yeah I think I have proved enough that I know what Im talking about when it comes to Church History. I have nothing to prove to you. But the "Talking nonsense" comment seems like a cop out coming from a Scholar of Theology such as yourself.

And ,do I believe that There were actually 3 wise men or that it was a symbolic reference? I dont know but I dont really care because it does not make or break my Faith. Its not a "Hill to die on" for me. Just a subject of debate.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Also, those UMM moments where usually over theological quandaries and are thus totally different from the UMM moment that would have arisen when someone suggested they should pretend Jesus was born in winter even though the story also suggests its set in spring- your talking nonsense.

I would think any discussion or "UMM what about this" If it shows a contradiction or inconsistency in the Bible would be Paramount because that would tear at the fabric of the critical thinking Christian on weather the Bible is truth.

But you are talking nonsense on this specific point.

What you propose makes no sense, why would they include that reference in a story that takes place in springtime?

Also, they chose to celebrate Christmas on 25th because this was already the time of a major festival- its simple culture adoption. However, for them to include the three kings into this story...no one noticed? No one ever took a record that it happened?

Where is the evidence that the three kings/wisemen existed in earlier religions?

[edit] this has just made me think, as a supporter of Papal Infallibility etc...if the Pope sanction the changed as Bishop of Rome...would God have rewritten history...HAHA!

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
But you are talking nonsense on this specific point.

What you propose makes no sense, why would they include that reference in a story that takes place in springtime?

Also, they chose to celebrate Christmas on 25th because this was already the time of a major festival- its simple culture adoption. However, for them to include the three kings into this story...no one noticed? No one ever took a record that it happened?

Where is the evidence that the three kings/wisemen existed in earlier religions?

[edit] this has just made me think, as a supporter of Papal Infallibility etc...if the Pope sanction the changed as Bishop of Rome...would God have rewritten history...HAHA!

You crack me up. Do some more research and we can talk.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
You crack me up. Do some more research and we can talk.

cop out

Answer the questions: Why would they include that reference in a story set in spring? Why not some other point in time? Why did noone write down that the Church made an addition to the story?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
cop out

Answer the questions: Why would they include that reference in a story set in spring? Why not some other point in time? Why did noone write down that the Church made an addition to the story?

Listen to what you are saying.
They did make an addition. The Scripture says Spring ,yet Christians believe he was born on Dec.25?

THE Scripture says Spring!!! Yet His Birth is Celebrated on Dec.25
I think this is an example of an Addition to the story.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Listen to what you are saying.
They did make an addition. The Scripture says Spring ,yet Christians believe he was born on Dec.25?

THE Scripture says Spring!!! Yet His Birth is Celebrated on Dec.25
I think this is an example of an Addition to the story.

Holy Sweet Holy.

The Bible NEVER says he is born in winter, the church does not believe he was born on Dec. 25...only the misinformed do. They just chose that day to celebrate his birth to accommodate Pagan Converts. NO addition to the story was made and nothing was taken away. The just chose a day to celebrate his birth. They didn't change scripture, which is what you believe they did with the three wise men.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Holy Sweet Holy.

The Bible NEVER says he is born in winter, the church does not believe he was born on Dec. 25...only the misinformed do. They just chose that day to celebrate his birth to accommodate Pagan Converts. NO addition to the story was made and nothing was taken away. The just chose a day to celebrate his birth. They didn't change scripture, which is what you believe they did with the three wise men.

This is getting very convoluted. I was the one saying they used the day to appease the Pagan converts in the first place. And All I ever said was that it was possible that the 3 wise men was placed in the bible in reference to astrological account. The Bible is "Figurative" and sometimes "Literal" How can one distinguish???. I have already made a list of the different translations and canonizations showing that there was plenty of opportunity to modify the Bible in many ways. THATS MY ONLY POINT!!!!!

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
This is getting very convoluted. I was the one saying they used the day to appease the Pagan converts in the first place. And All I ever said was that it was possible that the 3 wise men was placed in the bible in reference to astrological account. The Bible is "Figurative" and sometimes "Literal" How can one distinguish???. I have already made a list of the different translations and canonizations showing that there was plenty of opportunity to modify the Bible in many ways. THATS MY ONLY POINT!!!!!

But why would they insert a reference to an astronomical even which takes place in winter in a story set in spring? Why would they insert it anywhere at all? What sense would it make?

Unless Jesus isn't real, and they just stole an earlier religions story about the birth of the planets saviour...but then again, that seems terribly short sighted.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav

Unless Jesus isn't real, and they just stole an earlier religions story about the birth of the planets saviour...but then again, that seems terribly short sighted.

But yet a Possibility.

I have a confession Monsignor Gav. or is it Bishop now? JK
I am a Christian. Just not a closed minded one that takes everything for face value, or Gets my only instruction form an institutional Dogmatic point of view.

Your Brother in Christ, not Dogma 😄

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Unless Jesus isn't real, and they just stole an earlier religions story about the birth of the planets saviour...but then again, that seems terribly short sighted.

That's like saying not believing in unicorns is short sighted. Or believing elvis is dead is short sighted.

It's not short sighted, it's looking at the evidence and coming to logical conclusions. Sure the two are very similar and I can see how one could get confused.

Originally posted by lord xyz
How the **** does that seem short sighted?

That's like saying not believing in unicorns is short sighted. Or believing elvis is dead is short sighted.

It's not short sighted, it's looking at the evidence and coming to logical conclusions. Sure the two are very similar and I can see how one could get confused.

It's short-sighted because if I want to start a religion and just copy an earlier one...sooner or later someone will notice and it'll be exposed that my religion is just a copy and therefore not true.

Epic fail to be clever from you there.

Besides the wise men were astrologist occultists and I don't believe the Bible ever said there were 3. the bible never said Jesus was a baby, infant.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Besides the wise men were astrologist occultists and I don't believe the Bible ever said there were 3. the bible never said Jesus was a baby, infant.

The bible explicitly states that Jesus was a child/baby when the Magi found hims. It never says that there were three of them but there were three gifts given.

Not a new born as stated in the stories...And not under the star as told as a new born.

We celebrate on the 6th of January.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Not a new born as stated in the stories...And not under the star as told as a new born.

Probably a few weeks after his birth at minimum. It's just shown as a newborn in stories for simplicities sake. Matthew does explicitly state that the star "stopped over the place where the child was" so I'm not sure where you got the idea otherwise.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It's short-sighted because if I want to start a religion and just copy an earlier one...sooner or later someone will notice and it'll be exposed that my religion is just a copy and therefore not true.

Epic fail to be clever from you there.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Doesn't seem short sighted, more a very bad idea.

It is short sighted- if you base a religion on an older one and just copy the myths, eventually you will be found out.

Surely that is the very definition of short sighted?