₦airaland Forum

RikoduoSennin:
Yet to see a picture of Shepherd tending to their sheep DURING NIGHT HOURS (because I am aware of the huge temperature drop during the night hours).

Is there any evidence that sheep are being tended in modern Isreal this very period and day?

Could Sheep "FEED OUT IN THE FIELD" during Winter ? Where is the grass for grazing from ? Why use the word "Field" in winter time?

you seem to be the person writing "feed out in the field". The bible says they "watched at night", if sherperds were travelling to jerusalem they would watch by night irrespective of whether or not the sheep were grazing. The migdal eder watch their sheep through the year not just when grass is much.

Ubenedictus:
i hope you remember that you are the one making the claim that the date was set by a mortal in the 15th century contrary to all commonsense and fact, i also rejected that silly claim, so befor you ask the question above you have to begin by showing us how the 25th of december was set by a mortal.

There are only two possibility:

1 - Being mortal

2 - Being immortal

The date was not set by an immortal person, so the date can only be set by a mortal person.

So show me how it is contrary to all common sense and fact

Now, remember!, you are the one who started this thread by screaming loudly: Yes, Christ Was Really Born On December 25 (The title of your thread), yet, that date of the 25th of december is nowhere to be found in your Bible. Strange, isn't it?

Ubenedictus:
does the bible claim to give all information about Jesus? No! It doesn't so your questions above is non sequter

1 - You just confessed that the date of 25th of december is nowhere to be found in your Bible.

2 - You just confessed that the word Chistmas is not mentioned anywhere in your Bible

3 - You just confessed that your bible do not talk about snow when he was born

4 - You just confessed that there is no chapter in the bible where the presence cold is mentioned at the time of birth

5 - Conclusion: on that date you are just celebrating Santa Claus

Then your action of quoting this picture with snow was irrelevant and misleading

Ubenedictus:
you objection no 1 is spurious, it is a logical fallacy called arguement from silience, you simply can't simply dismiss other sources becos you say it isn't recorded in the bible, infact the bible never claimed to contain everything about the life of Christ.

Your no 2 is simply incredible, totally lacking in any sort of convincing power, so 25th is simply wrong because it is "controversial". Sorry dear, tell me another story, which day is not controvesial, all d days in the calender were named in remembrance of one pagan gods all d other, are we simply going to say Jesus was never born because all dates are controversial?

Your no 3 is also interesting because, the summer is not good for travels because isreal is a dry place with much dust, the spring is not good either because that is when farmers plant their fields, you can't tell people to leave their source of sustenance and go for census, again the fall is not suitable because that is the time for harvest, nobody will leave their fields at harvest. That brings us back to winter when there isn't much agriculture and the weather isn't too harsh.


Lastly i'll like you to provide the bible verse that says Jesus lived exactly 33yrs 6month, if u can't then your no 4 is non sequiter.

Sir, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone here not to believe in Dec 25, only stated the reasons y I dnt follow that date .

1.my statement is not spurious, I just stated a fact . O did not say it is not recorded in the bible cus of my view, but said so cus it is so! .
Ur discussion should have been on if that fact is true or false. Up to this point,it is true that all the 27 books of the new testament bible never mentioned anything about this Dec 25th date. The whole bible never mentioned the birthday party of any servant of God or the Son of god . If I'm wrong on this, pls let me know.
Weddings he attended where mentioned
Parties he went to where mentioned
Religious festivals where mentioned
Other pagan birthday celebration where mentioned
Important dates like the day he died where mentioned
But his birth date, and any other birthday celebrations where not mentioned I'm the over 33 times it came up.

As the chinco will say "somtin Wong"


2. Sir, jesus was born , but you and I dnt know the date, days are not what I said is controversial , it is choosing a date for the celebration of jesus birth that is controversial. That days are named after pagan Gods does not mean one who records such days is worshiping them or marking religious events associated with such Gods. Dnt misplace naming of days and dates .
There is controversy about the date of jesus birth In thousands of websites
There is controversy about the reason for choice of the date in thousands of books
There is controversy on the celebrations on that date among thousands of religious leaders.
The is controversy on how to celebrate the date among thousands of thousands of christians .
So sir, I'm correct to say the date is controversial .


3. Isreal is not dry and dusty ,it is a land where people plant and what they plant grow well, a land flowing with milk and honey.(will add pictures to show u places between Nazareth and Bethlehem to prove my point .
The order for the census was world wide , at least in the areas of roman rule, which was quite vast. So it is unlikely to tell everyone to travel during the cold winter period worldwide . Imagine ordering people to leave and walk or ride horse for hundreds of kilometers in cold windy snow cus of registration . Even the horse u go use sef go run leave u if u mention such a thing to am .

Not everyone traveling is a farmer .
A) farmers at that time dnt travel, they stay in their lands to farm and live there .it is very very very hard to find a man from Bethlehem or galilee farming in Nazareth. so most farmers farm in their homelands that they got through inheritance.
B) farmers dnt work I'm the farm all summer, or spring , after planting they rest at home .
C) even if farmers need to travell ,they can hire local labourers which are plentiful to take care of things.

4. I did not say jesus lived "exactly for 33 and half years" . I said he lived 33 and half years " . ill give you prove if you can say that " jesus did not live for 33 and a half years.

Added.
5. I dnt believe in Christmass cus the date is constant . Unlike Nissan 14.

6. I dnt believe in Dec 25th cus no one has told me which date that dat day falls on in the hebrew calender .

italo:
The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a publication of the Catholic Church...no matter how hard you try to make it so.

So grow up.

But it gives an authoritative info about the Catholic Church. It was written by Catholic scholars. Neither you nor the Catholic Church have challenge its content as being false since its inception, though it had been a popular reference material that even eminent scholars quote as an accurate reference material.

Such a book as encyclopedia are not just written about a religion with a religious name, and the religion it claims to represent keeps mum. My brother encyclopedias are not written that way. Even if the Pope was not the one who initiated the writing, the info therein is with a full knowledge of the catholic faith.

The info is authoritative. If you say no, challenge them to court or sue them to the Pope or declare them heretics. They are ur brothers.

Ubenedictus:
are u aware that eleagbarus invented the so-called roman sun god? Are you aware that aurelian was the person to first built a temple to this god and yes it was dedicated on d 25 of december?

Are you also aware that the said festival of sol only started to be celebrated during the reign of julian the apostate?

I wonder where you get this knowledge from. Sun-god worship was never invented in Rome. It is a worship of Persians that Romans adopted. So that worship has a long history before it came to Rome. That is why saying that celebration of its birth started in the 3rd century is funny. Unless its popularity grew in Rome gradually, but since the 2nd century, when its worship was already on among roman soldiers, they must have celebrated his birth. Though that festival seem to be synchronized with the saturnalia which began earlier, the features of Xmas as we know it today were all picked from the saturnalia.

No, Aurelian temple he build cant be the first temple of Mithra in Rome. Archaelogical finds have revealed a temple dating to 205 AD for Mithra in Rome.

Mithra's worship has been on for a long time before Julian, and his birthday, which is part of his worship is known, the celebration cant reasonably start from the rule of Julian. I ve given a reason for this above.

Ubenedictus:
it ended on the 23, from wikipedia

Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival in honor of the deity Saturn, held on the 17th of December of the Julian calendar and later expanded with festivities through to the 23rd of December. The holiday was celebrated with a sacrifice at the Temple of Saturn, in the Roman Forum, and a public banquet, followed by private gift-giving, continual partying, and a carnival atmosphere that overturned Roman social norms: gambling was permitted, and masters provided table service for their slaves.[1] The poet Catullus called it "the best of days."


i find it funny that the two sources you quote to confirm the popular tale do not quote any historic source, not a single church father or secular historian who claims that the Christian replaced the pagan festival, all you have above is a constant repetition of popular myth deviod of historic sources and historical proof.

Check number 49 of that wikipedia info. the date were added until it reached 7 days. it could also be cos of the adjustment in julian calendar dat caused d difference.

As for the issue of source you mentioned, it seems you dont read well. I gave a good reference for my statement. read all i posted.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia after reviewing many theories on this subject admits:

"The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date." It continuous:

The earliest rapprochement of the births of Christ and the sun is in Cyprian, "De pasch. Comp.", xix, "O quam præclare providentia ut illo die quo natus est Sol . . . nasceretur Christus." — "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born."

JMAN05:
Ubenedictus

“The date of December 25 does not correspond to Christ’s birth,” acknowledges the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “but to the feast of the Natalis Solis Invicti, the Roman sun festival at the solstice.”

1. Before we waste our energy too much, please show us where the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" says the above.

JMAN05:
But it gives an authoritative info about the Catholic Church. It was written by Catholic scholars. Neither you nor the Catholic Church have challenge its content as being false since its inception, though it had been a popular reference material that even eminent scholars quote as an accurate reference material.

Such a book as encyclopedia are not just written about a religion with a religious name, and the religion it claims to represent keeps mum. My brother encyclopedias are not written that way. Even if the Pope was not the one who initiated the writing, the info therein is with a full knowledge of the catholic faith.

The info is authoritative. If you say no, challenge them to court or sue them to the Pope or declare them heretics. They are ur brothers.

You havent shown us where the New Catholic Encyclopedia claims to give authoritative information. I only know that it proposes to give authoritative information. But it can fall short because it is nowhere declared an infallible document of the Church like Sacred Scripture or the Catechism or Papal Encyclical or any other infallible documents.

THe bible is anywhere declared "infallible" really lol

RikoduoSennin:
About this topic?

Churches existed during the time of the Apostles- The first century yet it took century later for this date in question to emerge.

Why did Early christians not celebrate this date/birthday ?

Why should christians celebrate it now ? What changed with time as regard Christian belief ?

1. Who told you the early Christians didnt celebrate Christmas? Please show me where you get the info from.

2. The early Christians didnt have a Bible until 382 when the Synod of Rome gave us a Bible.

Why do you use it today?

Horus:
There are only two possibility:

1 - Being mortal

2 - Being immortal

The date was not set by an immortal person, so the date can only be set by a mortal person.

So show me how it is contrary to all common sense and fact

Now, remember!, you are the one who started this thread by screaming loudly: Yes, Christ Was Really Born On December 25 (The title of your thread), yet, that date of the 25th of december is nowhere to be found in your Bible. Strange, isn't it?

You are the one who believes that every Christian practise has to be mentioned in the Bible. Not us. So you are only arguing against your own position, not ours.

You still cannot own up to your lie that 25th December was established in the 15th century.

Horus:
1 - You just confessed that the date of 25th of december is nowhere to be found in your Bible.

2 - You just confessed that the word Chistmas is not mentioned anywhere in your Bible

3 - You just confessed that your bible do not talk about snow when he was born

4 - You just confessed that there is no chapter in the bible where the presence cold is mentioned at the time of birth

5 - Conclusion: on that date you are just celebrating Santa Claus

Then your action of quoting this picture with snow was irrelevant and misleading

This one is trying to mask his ignorance and lies by laughing.

The pics prove that shepherds watch their sheep in winter, not only summer as you ignorantly claimed.

So the Christmas story could easily have happened in winter.

italo:
1. Who told you the early Christians didnt celebrate Christmas? Please show me where you get the info from.

Please research the History of Christmas from Google, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britanica, Encyclopedia Encarta, Catholic Encyclopedia.

Research how Christmas celebration was BANNED in one country to another and WHY? Research the Saint Nicholas Myth AKA Santa Claus

FACT:
It does not exist in the bible, It started/originated from the Catholic church which was NOT in existence during the 1st century C.E or A.D

italo:
2. The early Christians didnt have a Bible until 382 when the Synod of Rome gave us a Bible.

Why do you use it today?

Acts 17:11 "These where more Noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, EXAMINING 'THE SCRIPTURES' DAILY to see if these things were so "

Do not be deceived, Early Christians have been reading the 'Scriptures' before it was compiled into a BOOK- Latin BIBLE.

They have it in the form of Parchments and Scrolls-- 2 Timothy 4:13;

These scrolls and Parchments were compiled into a Book for convenience sake not that the Catholic church invented the Bible.

RikoduoSennin:
Please research the History of Christmas from Google, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britanica, Encyclopedia Encarta, Catholic Encyclopedia.

Research how Christmas celebration was BANNED in one country to another and WHY? Research the Saint Nicholas Myth AKA Santa Claus

FACT:
It does not exist in the bible, It started/originated from the Catholic church which was in existence during the 1st century C.E or A.D

You havent shown me who told you that early Christians didnt celebrate Christmas.

You are admitting the Catholic Church existed in the first century before Bible, right?

RikoduoSennin:
Acts 17:11 "These where more Noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, EXAMINING 'THE SCRIPTURES' DAILY to see if these things were so "

Do not be deceived, Early Christians have been reading the 'Scriptures' before it was compiled into a BOOK- Latin BIBLE.

They have it in the form of Parchments and Scrolls-- 2 Timothy 4:13;

These scrolls and Parchments were compiled into a Book for convenience sake not that the Catholic church invented the Bible.

Did Acts 17:11 tell you the books that should be considered "scripture" and the ones that shouldnt?

The Catholic Church did that in 382. No?

Did the early Christians before 100AD read the book of Revelation?

When did the Holy Spirit tell you he stopped inspiring men to write scripture? It was the Catholic Church that declared the Canon of scripture closed. No?

italo:
You havent shown me who told you that early Christians didnt celebrate Christmas.

You are admitting the Catholic Church existed in the first century before Bible, right?

I pointed out place you can research because you won't agree with what I tell you but you refuse to check it out for yourself.

There is simply no secular document that indicated that first century christians celebrated Christmas anywhere, not even on single birthday for that matter.

That was a typho-error! I have modified that past. The RCC did not exist prior to 100 A.D

italo:
Did Acts 17:11 tell you the books that should be considered "scripture" and the ones that shouldnt?

The Catholic Church did that in 382. No?

Cartalog of Canon books for the Hebrew Scriptures and the christian greek scriptures existed before 382- Council of Cathage!

italo:
Did the early Christians before 100AD read the book of Revelation?

Apostle John was the last living Apostle (he outlived the others). After his death Apostasy creep into the christian Churches hence EVERY BOOKS WRITTEN AFTER THAT IS NOT INSPIRED.

italo:
When did the Holy Spirit tell you he stopped inspiring men to write scripture? It was the Catholic Church that declared the Canon of scripture closed. No?

Apart from the Apostles, No one claim to be inspired to write the holy scriptures.

Cartologs existed before 382: It was the RCC that added the Apochryphal books knowing fully well that they were not canon. They did more harm than good.

italo:
You havent shown us where the New Catholic Encyclopedia claims to give authoritative information. I only know that it proposes to give authoritative information. But it can fall short because it is nowhere declared an infallible document of the Church like Sacred Scripture or the Catechism or Papal Encyclical or any other infallible documents.

That it proposes does it mean its info are inaccurate? It proposed, and in its content, it fulfilled the proposal. I ask: Have the Pope or you yourself challenged it's contents?

Fallibility does not mean that something is perforce wrong. What you yourself say in this forum is fallible, but that the Pope hasn't signed it does not make it wrong. The gentle men that wrote the encyclopedia have a rounded knowledge of Catholic doctrine more than you do. So when they say they provide a reference material that has an authoritative information about the Catholic Church, they aren't joking. In short this argument is irrelevant. A publication by your scholars claims to be not only a reference work about your doctrine, but have an authoritative info about it. And its writers have not been declared heretics. So can you stop this dance? if there claim is not true, the RCC will sue them to court. You think Encyclopedia about a religion can just be written anyhow by anybody? Habah! argument.

italo:
1. Before we waste our energy too much, please show us where the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" says the above.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1967), 250.

JMAN05:
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1967), 250.

You know you havent shown proof that the New Catholic Encyclopedia says that. I can equally claim that that page doesnt say that.

Right?

italo:
You know you havent shown proof that the New Catholic Encyclopedia says that. I can equally claim that that page doesnt say that.

Right?

You cant. It is not done by just saying. It is a reference work.

RikoduoSennin:
I pointed out place you can research because you won't agree with what I tell you but you refuse to check it out for yourself.

There is simply no secular document that indicated that first century christians celebrated Christmas anywhere, not even on single birthday for that matter.

That was a typho-error! I have modified that past. The RCC did not exist prior to 100 A.D

There is no verifiable document also that says early Christians didnt celebrate Christmas or birthdays.

So in what year did the Catholic Church come into existence?

RikoduoSennin:
Cartalog of Canon books for the Hebrew Scriptures and the christian greek scriptures existed before 382- Council of Cathage!

Show me the "Cartalog of Canon books" and tell me the books it contained and whether it was a Catholic 'Catalog' or your Jehovah's Witnesses 'Catalog.'

The Council of Carthage didnt hold in 382. You dont know what you are saying. You are just guessing.

RikoduoSennin:
Apostle John was the last living Apostle (he outlived the others). After his death Apostasy creep into the christian Churches hence EVERY BOOKS WRITTEN AFTER THAT IS NOT INSPIRED.

You're saying the Church that compiled the Bible was an apostate Church!

You're saying God's Church ceased to exist after the death of John!

You're saying the Holy Spirit cannot inspire an individual to write scripture even if the Church was apostate!

Where did the Bible or the Holy Spirit tell you these things?

You see what antiCatholicism does to a soul? It makes you a liar...a servant of satan - the father of lies.

RikoduoSennin:
Apart from the Apostles, No one claim to be inspired to write the holy scriptures.

Where does the Bible or the Holy Spirit tell you this?

Which apostle wrote the book of Hebrews?

Were Luke and Mark apostles?

RikoduoSennin:
Cartologs existed before 382: It was the RCC that added the Apochryphal books knowing fully well that they were not canon. They did more harm than good.

Show me details of the 'cartologs' and show me when the Catholic Church added any books.

Where did the Bible or the Holy Spirit say these things?

I hope you are not getting information from the evil spirit that inspired Jehovah's Witnesses to lie that the world would end several times and many other false prophecies that didnt come to pass.

JMAN05:
You cant. It is not done by just saying. It is a reference work.

I do claim that that page says nothing like that.

And you cannot prove otherwise. You have no snapshot of the page and no link.

You just want me to believe your false claim.

JMAN05:
That it proposes does it mean its info are inaccurate? It proposed, and in its content, it fulfilled the proposal. I ask: Have the Pope or you yourself challenged it's contents?

Fallibility does not mean that something is perforce wrong. What you yourself say in this forum is fallible, but that the Pope hasn't signed it does not make it wrong. The gentle men that wrote the encyclopedia have a rounded knowledge of Catholic doctrine more than you do. So when they say they provide a reference material that has an authoritative information about the Catholic Church, they aren't joking. In short this argument is irrelevant. A publication by your scholars claims to be not only a reference work about your doctrine, but have an authoritative info about it. And its writers have not been declared heretics. So can you stop this dance? if there claim is not true, the RCC will sue them to court. You think Encyclopedia about a religion can just be written anyhow by anybody? Habah! argument.

You are wasting your time because:

1. You have not shown that the New Catholic Encyclopedia says what you ascribe to it.

2. The Catholic Church has many many infallible documents, and they dont include the New Catholic Encyclopedia. What this means is that even if the Encyclopedia says what you claim it says (which i say is a lie), we Catholics are at liberty to believe it or not if that statement is not an official teaching of the Church.

Can you understand it now?

italo:
I do claim that that page says nothing like that.

And you cannot prove otherwise. You have no snapshot of the page and no link.

You just want me to believe your false claim.

My word for you= Sorry.

You are the one to provide a proof for your claim. The document I stated exists, if the words are not there, the anus is on you to show it to me. It is not done by just saying "it is not there". Thats funny.

But try and work on ur sincerity dude.

.

italo:
You are wasting your time because:

1. You have not shown that the New Catholic Encyclopedia says what you ascribe to it.

2. The Catholic Church has many many infallible documents, and they dont include the New Catholic Encyclopedia. What this means is that even if the Encyclopedia says what you claim it says (which i say is a lie), we Catholics are at liberty to believe it or not if that statement is not an official teaching of the Church.

Can you understand it now?

Italo, what you said ^^ is false cos its fallible.

Italo a document that claims to give an authoritative info about ur doctrine has been in circulation for decades, and your scholars, the Press, and many people quote it as an accurate reference work about ur doctrine. Since all this while, neither ur Pope nor your scholars have sue them to court nor excommunicated them. Italo, I am quoting that document as a proof of what the Catholic Church teach. Go and challenge what they wrote and sue them to court to detach that page.

Or better still, let them remove that statement in there preface that claims it gives an authoritative info about ur doctrine. Tell ur Pope to tell them to remove that claim. As far as that statement is there, it is an ACCURATE REFERENCE WORK FOR UR RCC DOCTRINE. You cant even win that case in court. Can u stop d dance now?

JMAN05:
My word for you= Sorry.

You are the one to provide a proof for your claim. The document I stated exists, if the words are not there, the anus is on you to show it to me. It is not done by just saying "it is not there". Thats funny.

But try and work on ur sincerity dude.

It is not done by saying "it is there."

Show me.

JMAN05:
Italo, what you said ^^ is false cos its fallible.

Italo a document that claims to give an authoritative info about ur doctrine has been in circulation for decades, and your scholars, the Press, and many people quote it as an accurate reference work about ur doctrine. Since all this while, neither ur Pope nor your scholars have sue them to court nor excommunicated them. Italo, I am quoting that document as a proof of what the Catholic Church teach. Go and challenge what they wrote and sue them to court to detach that page.

Or better still, let them remove that statement in there preface that claims it gives an authoritative info about ur doctrine. Tell ur Pope to tell them to remove that claim. As far as that statement is there, it is an ACCURATE REFERENCE WORK FOR UR RCC DOCTRINE. You cant even win that case in court. Can u stop d dance now?

The New Catholic Encyclopedia doesnt have what you claim on its preface...and it doesnt say what you ascribe to it. You are lying.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia doesnt claim to teach Catholic doctrine infallibly, so the Catholic Church will not sue the editors.

italo:
You are the one who believes that every Christian practise has to be mentioned in the Bible. Not us. So you are only arguing against your own position, not ours.
.

No, I dont deal with beliefs, I deal only with facts and I am not arguing, I simply present facts. I simply said that the 25th December is nowhere to be found in your Bible and you cannot refute it because it is a fact. So what?, so just deal with the fact.

You still cannot own up to your lie that 25th December was established in the 15th century

It is you who still cannot refute it by giving us evidence of the contrary. If you think it is a lie then prove it instead of just repeating the same thing in more than ten posts. Where are your evidence that it is a lie?

italo:
This one is trying to mask his ignorance and lies by laughing.

The pics prove that shepherds watch their sheep in winter, not only summer as you ignorantly claimed.

So the Christmas story could easily have happened in winter.

No, here you are not dealing with facts you are just arguing

The picture is not a proof of the presence of cold, winter or snow at the time of Jesus birth (Day of birth), because the presence of cold, winter or snow is not mentioned in your bible at the time of Jesus birth. (Day of birth)

So here you are the one trying to mask your ignorance and lies by laughing. So dont try to fool people with a picture, because the picture is not an irrefutable proof that your Jesus was born in December. Where are your evidences?

Where are you proofs of the presence of cold, winter or snow at the time of Jesus birth? (Day of birth)

At the moment you cannot even give us proofs that your Jesus was born in December because there is no proofs of the presence of cold, winter or snow at the time of Jesus birth? (Day of birth)

We are still waiting for your "evidences" but instead you are just arguing with no facts. Where are your evidences?

Ubenedictus:
the book i quoted actually says that sherpherds keep watch on sheeps in bethlehem throughout the year, he called them the migdal eder "the tower of flocks" not just before the passover.

Answer the questions I asked on the book you quoted sir

italo:
The New Catholic Encyclopedia doesnt have what you claim on its preface...and it doesnt say what you ascribe to it. You are lying.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia doesnt claim to teach Catholic doctrine infallibly, so the Catholic Church will not sue the editors.

End of discussion. Just consider my advise.