Putting the X back in Xmas

Steve wrote:
On 15 Nov 2006 12:46:57 -0800, "
wrote:

You might want to do a little research first:


30 years before Aurelian co-opted December 25th in 274 AD, Hippolytus
wrote that Jesus' birth "took place eight days before the kalends of
January," that is, Dec. 25.

St. John Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople, wrote that
Christians had marked Dec. 25 from the early days of the church.
Chrysostom also noted that Luke 1 says Zechariah was performing
priestly duty in the Temple when an angel told his wife Elizabeth she
would bear John the Baptist. During the sixth month of Elizabeth's
pregnancy, Mary learned about her conception of Jesus and visited
Elizabeth.
The significance of that has been explained by William Tighe in a Time
magazine article; "The 24 classes of Jewish priests served one week in
the Temple, and Zechariah was in the eighth class. Rabbinical
tradition fixed the class on duty when the Temple was destroyed in
A.D. 70 and, calculating backward from that, Zechariah's class would
have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C. So Mary's conception visit six
months later might have occurred the following March and Jesus' birth
nine months afterward."

Sextus Julius Africanus' Chronografiai placed Christ's conception on
March 25th. No one knows when he wrote Chronografiai, but it covers
"history" up until 221, and he was dead by 250 AD.

Judaism teachs that Israel's great prophets died the same day as their
conception. Given the Christian belief that Gabriel announced during
Passover to Mary that she would give birth, and adding 9 months, well,
there we are.

Your theory that Saturnalia was co-opted by a religious group who
recognized December 25th as a significant date somewhere between 30
and 269 years before Saturnalia existed is hard to follow.

Is it hard to follow if Saturnalia was being practiced several
centuries before anyone was a christian?

"Horace in his Satire II.7 (published circa 30 BC) uses a setting of
the saturnalia for a frank exchange between a slave and his master in
which the slave criticises his master for being himself enslaved to his
passions."

" In the Roman calendar, the Saturnalia was designated a holy day, or
holiday, on which religious rites were performed. After sacrifice at
the temple, there was a public banquet, which Livy says was introduced
in 217 BC."

" In Cicero's time, the Saturnalia lasted seven days, from December
17-23. Augustus attempted to limit the holiday to three days, so the
civil courts would not have to be closed any longer than necessary, and
Caligula extended it to five. "

Cicero - 106-43 BC
Catullus - 84-54 BC
Horus - 65 - 8 BC
Augustus - 64 BC - 14 AD
Livy - 59 BC - 17 AD

Things that make you go....hmmmmmm?
- Ken

Steve wrote:
On 15 Nov 2006 16:34:05 -0800, "
wrote:


Is it hard to follow if Saturnalia was being practiced several
centuries before anyone was a christian?

" In the Roman calendar, the Saturnalia was designated a holy day, or
holiday, on which religious rites were performed. After sacrifice at
the temple, there was a public banquet, which Livy says was introduced
in 217 BC."

Nice try.
You claimed that Christians co-opted a pagan holiday. No one disputed
the existence of Saturnalia or it's predating Christianity.

Saturnalia officially was celebrated on December 17 and, in Cicero's
time, lasted seven days, from December 17-23. Augustus limited the
holiday to three days, and Caligula extended it to five. It was never
extended out to December 25th until Aurelian in 274 AD.

So you admit that Saturnalia existed, at least, hundreds of years
before christians even thought about existing. And your only
defense that it wasn't purposely co-opted is that the days
shifted around by a couple days due to the whims of a 3rd
century AD emperor?

Thanks for playing, but that's pretty weak. Now if you want to
try to save Easter......:-)
- Ken

Gene Cottrell wrote:

"asadi" wrote in message
et...

"Donut" wrote in message
. ..

On 14 Nov 2006 21:50:21 -0800, wrote:


Not that I'm for offending people, but I think it is ironic that you
can't give Jesus for Chrstmas:

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com...!news!vaapwire

..... that creaking sound you hear, is western civilazation
toppling.... as it bends over backwards...

PS, I see the point, but the irony is palpable..

"We can't take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish
family or a Muslim family,"...

------------

MISSION: The mission of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Toys for Tots
Program is to collect new, unwrapped toys during October, November and
December each year, and distribute those toys as Christmas gifts to
needy children in the community in which the campaign is conducted.

http://www.toysfortots2006.com/magno...gle/about.html

------------

Well if you really want to put the X back in Xmas, these guys need to
take the word Christmas out of their mission statement if they aren't
sorting the children by religion somehow. Wouldn't it be just as
offensive to give a *Christmas* gift to a Jewish or Muslim child? Or
does the fact that the " bearded Jesus doll recites Scripture"... make
it REALLY offensive?

I think they, the Toys for Tot's group, should just come out and say
it, most kids don't want a talking Jesus doll for Christmas! Unless
it's the Fighting Christ® with Kung Fu grip, everyone wants that

But seriously, I don't know how they reconcile the giving of
*Christmas* gifts to those of other faiths. Maybe the Jesus doll was
their tipping point? And remember who the recipients are, children.
As adults we can intelligently choose whether to accept a gift, young
children cannot. It's a present, they want it. Parents have a right,
and some would say an obligation to censor what their very young
children are exposed to.

But back to your original point, sure you can give Jesus for
Christmas. Toys for Tot's chose not to, doesn't mean you can't As a
matter of fact, I heard that someone was trying to give away 4,000 of
them

Don




Really, it's an old pagan holiday and the word 'christ' shouldn't be in it
at all... Besides, heysoos was born in the spring....

Other than that, if you want to celebrate, I feel it's okay. I always go
downtown and pick up a couple of chicks to play Sodom and Gomorrah...

john


John, you're an idiot!

Gene



gene...uh, jane, you stupid slut.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:45:50 -0800, "Skwala"
wrote:


And not even until the late 19th century in civilized regions, such as,
Scotland, but that's beside the point... in the US, Christmas has always,
until recently, been identified with only one thing, the Christ story.

I didn't know that the American Indians celebrated it before being
conquered by the Europeans. Wonder how they found out about the right
time and the star and shepherds and all that.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

"Cyli" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:45:50 -0800, "Skwala"
wrote:


And not even until the late 19th century in civilized regions, such as,
Scotland, but that's beside the point... in the US, Christmas has always,
until recently, been identified with only one thing, the Christ story.

I didn't know that the American Indians celebrated it before being
conquered by the Europeans. Wonder how they found out about the right
time and the star and shepherds and all that.

The Mormons told them.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
ups.com...

...The midwinter festival has a 4000+ year old history in the
rest of the world, diverse roots, multiple religious origins and many
different traditions. Identifying it as a Christian religion was even
outlawed for a brief time in a Christian country, yet the US insists
that its own cultural identification of the Christmas story is the
right one, while the associations the rest of the world has with this
worldwide event, which they originated, are 'beside the point'....

Can't argue with the exposition of Christmas as celebrated here being a
multicultural stew, but I'm curious about this notion of American insistence
on its own correct version. To be sure, there will always be short-sighted
and dim-witted cultural chauvinists who believe their way is the only way,
but I don't recall seeing much evidence of a widespread belief among
Americans that our own Christmas traditions are any more right than anyone
else's. Quite the contrary, we are all taught as children that various bits
of our way of celebrating Christmas come from other places. Beyond that,
there doesn't seem to be much indication that people here think about
comparative Christmases at all.

Indifference is not the same thing as chauvinism.

Wolfgang

" wrote in message
oups.com...

Scott Seidman wrote:
" wrote in
ups.com:

With all due respect,
if you can keep from getting upset about it, the history of
our holidays can be very interesting.


I'm not upset about it, it's not even my holiday. It is interesting--
but
to call it a pagan holiday is a real stretch. Note that I didn't have
any
problems with your secular definition of Christmas- for many folks who
take
the day off work, that's what it is.

Consensus seems to be that the holiday is whatever it's
participants take it to be. For pagans, I think they have
at least as strong a claim on the holiday as christians do.
- Ken

And thus we see, Scott, that despite your clearly spelling out for him what
he said and juxtaposing it against an equally clear statement of what he
thinks he means, the distinction between the two is still a complete mystery
to him.

Wolfgang
some things never change.

"riverman" wrote ...

The Mormons told them.

--riverman

Splork

Dan

"Cyli" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:45:50 -0800, "Skwala"
wrote:


And not even until the late 19th century in civilized regions, such as,
Scotland, but that's beside the point... in the US, Christmas has always,
until recently, been identified with only one thing, the Christ story.

I didn't know that the American Indians celebrated it before being
conquered by the Europeans. Wonder how they found out about the right
time and the star and shepherds and all that.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Cyli,

I didn't know that the natives called this land the "US" before being
conquered by Euro's either...

I did choose the moniker "US" to indicate the present political system, not
the pre-Columbian one...

Skwala

Semantics... words mean something.... just different something's, for
different people...

wrote:
Why does this myth of the "Christian co-opt" continue?
The best that could be argued is that by _some_ accounts Saturnalia
ended on Dec. 25.
The other claimed holidays of the pagans were clearly not on the 25th.
I dunno.

You might want to do a little research first:

"Christmas has its origins in several pagan holidays. The Roman
celebration known as Saturnalia included the making and giving of small
presents (saturnalia et sigillaricia). This holiday was observed over a
series of days beginning on December 17 (the birthday of Saturn), and
ending on December 25 (the birthday of Sol Invictus, the "unconquered
sun".
"

You might want to do a little research before you repeat stuff from the
web.

Saturnalia finished on Dec. 23. See Macrobius, "Saturnalia" for
details of this feast (sadly not online).

The dies natalis solis invicti is first recorded in the Chronography of
354, in 354 AD:

http://www.tertullian.org//fathers/c...6_calendar.htm

Christmas is first recorded on that date some years earlier. Sol
Invictus himself was invented only in 274. (Probably the dies natalis
was established then too; I merely point out the lack of EVIDENCE for
what is so oft asserted).

.....please tell me you know that Easter isn't a christian holiday at least?

Since it is, it seems a curious demand. I hope you haven't read the
rubbish about "Eostre" (who may never have existed and is only recorded
9 centuries after Easter was first celebrated).

All the best,

Roger Pearse