₦airaland Forum

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

Show me.

Horus:
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?

JMAN05:
Its ok Sir. but consider d advise.

italo:
I will...when you advise your watchtower society to stop propagating lies and false prophesies from satan.

dolphinheart:
you believe the Dec 25th date is accurate right? Pls on what calender(s) was this date derived from,and what calender are we using presently to measure that date?. remembering that not all calenders are the same and none is accurate in relation to time and earth movement and none is constant as to dates in relation to the each other .


Humans cannot accurately measure time.
Definitely dates change in the real sense of it.
If you have a reply to this, pls do add the answer to the questions

italo:
i neither believe nor disbelieve that the date is accurate.

i believe that you do not have proof that Jesus wasnt born on 25th december.

dolphinheart:
So u re sitting on the fence on this one right . ?
U neither believe the op or those who are against his assertions right?

i neither believe nor disbelieve that the date is accurate.

i believe that you do not have proof that Jesus wasnt born on 25th december.

dolphinheart:
Ok, you dnt believe that the date is accurate.

You dnt believe that the date is not accurate.


You believe I do not have prove that jesus was not born on Dec 25th

Do you believe that the op does not have prove that jesus was born on Dec 25th ?

italo:
I have not bothered to make more findings about his post. For now it seems the accuracy of what he is saying is too difficult to determine.

The reason i havent bothered is that it really doesnt matter much whether he was born on 25th Dec or 24th Dec. What matters is that Jesus was born and we celebrate his birth every 25th Dec.

Do you agree with the bold?

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

JMAN05:
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."[/color][/b]

JMAN05:
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:
simply quote the relevant portion.



did you happen to read what you quoted? It didn't say that the case was settled, it instead say "it has a strong claim", sorry dear at best that statement is not definitive but merely probable.

Ubenedictus:
you have now confused yourself.

There was more that one solar deity worshipped in rome,

there was,
the sol invincti
the helio-gbalus
and lastly mithra.

These 3 dieties are different not one, they also have different cult.

1. The roman sun god indigenious to rome is the helio-gbalus and its cult began in the 3rd century.

2. The sol invictus stated as a cult under the reign of aurelian when a temple was dedicated to it. This deity didn't have a festival until julian the apostate.

3. Mithra came from iran, but it is funny to claim that christianity borrowed a festival from mithra because mithra was a secretive religion that met underground all there teaching were given only to initiates! If followers of mithra had a celebration, non mithra follower will not even be aware. That is why mithra never had a public festival or feast in rome!

So tell me dear which of them did d christians borrow from?

Saturnalia which ended on the 23rd? sol invincti that only had a festival during the reign of julian? or mithra that was so secretive it didn't even have public festivals?


And correction.

Aurelian didn't buid a temple to mithra, he built a temple to sol so correct yourself.

JMAN05:
Ubeni, I advise you scrutinize your sources, and don't believe it easily unless it is an accurate source. You have made many wrong assertions here, and my concern is how you always easily cast your belief in this sources. You ve made an error about horus, and again eleagbarus (which I don't know how your formulated that name). But I think what you mean to say is Elagabalus which is the same person as Heliogabalus.

He was a Roman Emperor of the early 3rd century. Let me post a source here:

After a reign of fourteen months, he was defeated and succeeded by Varius Avitus Bassianus, a cousin of Caracalla, and priest of the Phoenician Sun-god, from which fact is derived the name by which he is commonly known,-Elagabalus, or Heliogabalus. Upon his accession to the imperial power, he took the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, which became his official designation.
(from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 1). The Persian god's name is El-Gabal. It appears the name sounded Elegabalus in Rome.

Please spell your words correctly so that I can understand what you are saying.

So the man didnt invent the god, he only took the god's name.

JMAN05:
Another reference work:

Heliolatry:

"The worship of the great orb which insures to us light, warmth, and life is as ancient as history. It existed in the earliest ages among the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Persians, and Hindus, and later among the Greeks and Romans of the West, venerating its object under the different names of Helios or Sol, or of Baal, Osiris, or Mithras. Various forms of sacrifice and prayer characterized this worship among the different nations, but they agreed in regarding the sun as a mighty and superior deity who ruled the world with an independent authority more or less complete. The Greeks alone did not render higher honors to the sun than to the other gods regarded as of superior rank. All Eastern nations considered it as practically the supreme divinity. The Romans, too, maintained the worship of the sun after Heliogabalus had introduced it and had built a temple to, Sol." (from McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia)

So
Who needs to take correction now?

JMAN05:
I said number 49 of the wikipedia info on that subject. Some reputable sources end the date on 23, while others end it on 24th. There must certainly be a reason for the discrepancy. We could all be correct, but we do not know how for now. I understood that some changes were made in the Julian calendar. Whether that is the reason for the difference, I cant be dogmatic.

2 No. The article was reviewing all the claim as to where Christmas originated from. And after reviewing many of these claims, it gave that one the pass mark above all the other claims. In other words, from available evidence, the christmas as we know it today originated from a pagan festival. There is no other claim that is stronger than that one. Thats the point.

dolphinheart:
you believe the Dec 25th date is accurate right? Pls on what calender(s) was this date derived from,and what calender are we using presently to measure that date?. remembering that not all calenders are the same and none is accurate in relation to time and earth movement and none is constant as to dates in relation to the each other .


Humans cannot accurately measure time.
Definitely dates change in the real sense of it.
If you have a reply to this, pls do add the answer to the questions

Ubenedictus:
the present roman-gregorian calender actually measures time accurately even though not perfectly.
The date was previously derived from the hebrew calender, these dates were later matched to the roman calender and thus became fixed.

Ubenedictus:
hhehehehe, u see what your source said?

It said heliolatry came back to rome under elegabalus, the older cult of sol had died down, it didn't even have a place in the foremost gods of rome until elegabalus, are you aware that elegabalus lived over 200yrs after Jesus.

Ubenedictus:
elegabalus/heliogabalus is also a god, it is the sun god and is totally different from mithras. It only entered rome in the through the emperor aurelius who was its priest.



Elagabalus or Heliogabalus is a Syro-Roman sun god.
Cult
The temple at Emesa, containing the holy stone, on the reverse of this bronze coin by Roman usurper Uranius.
Elagabalus was initially venerated at Emesa in Syria. The name is the Latinized form of the Syrian Ilāh hag-Gabal, which derives from Ilāh "god" and gabal "mountain" (compare Arabic: ﺟﺒﻞ jabal), resulting in "the God of the Mountain" the Emesene manifestation of the deity.[1]
The cult of the deity spread to other parts of the Roman Empire in the second century. For example, a dedication has been found as far away as Woerden, in the modern-day Netherlands.[2]

In Rome
The cult statue was brought to Rome by the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who before his accession was the hereditary high priest at Emesa and is commonly called Elagabalus after the deity.[3] The Syrian deity was assimilated with the Roman sun god known as Sol Invictus ("the Undefeated Sun".[4]

this is still wiki.




To put simply the worship of heliogabalus only began in rome during the reign of the emperor aurelius and its festival was in the summer, this syro-roman diety was later assimilated into sol invinctus since its cult died out after the death of emperor aurelius.

Ubenedictus:
hehehe article 49 says 7 days were added in the "LATTER REPUBLIC", ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE REPUBLIC ENDED IN 29BC?

THE EMPERIAL ROME TOOK OVER FROM 29BC TILL THE FALL OF ROME.

THE ARTICLE SAYS ONLY 5 DAY WERE ALLOWED IN THE EMPERIAL ROME.

That means during be time we are disscussing about, i.e the time of Christianity, the festival ended on the 22nd!

JMAN05:
So you now favor 22nd? Like I said, we do not know the reason yet, but we both could be right. Some authoritative sources said it ends on 23rd, while some say 24th. Why the difference am yet to ascertain.

JMAN05:
At least now are making adjustments.

But Your source said the religion spread in the second century, yet you are here arguing that the Elagabalus began in Rome during the reign of emperor Aurelius. That Elagabalus introduced it during his rulership as an official god does not mean it started in Rome then. Your source only said he brought the statue of the god to Rome. Even if the worship started during his rulership, thats not too much a problem.

Your source also stated that there was an assimilation. When did this assimilation occur?

In the 4th century, Elagabalus was also known as Sol Invictus, agreed?

JMAN05:
Mithra is the same as the sun god.

That is the main reason for that source. There appear to be a slight difference between what I said and what I just saw on wiki:

Sol Invictus played a prominent role in
the Mithraic mysteries, and was
equated with Mithras himself.

There are different sun gods in Rome, most of which bear the name sol invictus, but Dec 25 seem to be a day for celebrating the birth of this sun. Most likely, all the adherents of these various sun gods will participate in it.

JMAN05:
Show me where my source said the first bold face words.

Show me a prove of your 200 year life. You have started to spew gaffe again.