Today is observed as Christmas Day by millions of people. Regardless of what you believe, or how you do or don't observe the day, the fact of the matter is that today represents a lot of history and that history has influenced much of our past and present, like it or not, and it will continue to influence the future.

Pre-Christmas Roots:

Some people believe that Christmas Day originated while Jesus of Nazareth was alive, or immediately following his death December 25th. Historical evidence however provided us with clarity on this topic.

Throughout the Roman Empire December 25th, up until the third century, (three hundred years after the death of Jesus) had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth, whose actual birthday probably occurred in late summer or early fall.

The date of December 25th in history during the time of Jesus' life was associated with the ancient "birthday" of the son-god, Mithra, a pagan* diety whose religious influence became widespread in the Roman Empire during the first few centuries A.D. Mithra was "related" to the Semitic sun-god, Shamash, and his worship spread throughout Asia to Europe where he was called Deus Sol Invictus Mithras.

*Sidenote:

PAGAN: Use of the word pagan depends on the context. It could be factually descriptive, or it could be disrespective and condescending. In the above context it refers to a polytheistic religion, religion meaning people worshiped many symbolic gods who were diefied and presided over some portion of life, earth, or beyond earth. The edict of Theodosius I in 394 made paganism illegal.

–noun

1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.

2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.

–adjective

4. pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim.

5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of pagans.

6. irreligious or hedonistic.

Rome was well-known for absorbing the pagan religions and rituals of its widespread empire. As such, Rome converted this pagan legacy to a celebration of the god, Saturn, and the rebirth of the sun god during the winter solstice period.

The winter holiday became known as Saturnalia and began the week prior to December 25th. The festival was characterized by gift-giving, feasting, singing and downright debauchery, as the priests of Saturn carried wreaths of evergreen boughs in procession throughout the Roman temples.

Variations of this pagan holiday flourished throughout the first few centuries after Jesus, but it wasn't until 336 AD that Emperor Constantine officially converted the celebration of Saturn into a sort of "Jesus of Nazareth Day", where Jesus was revered and worshipped. But at that moment it was not known as Christmas Day.

Just when the word "Christ" became associated with Jesus of Nazareth is not clear. Originally Jesus was felt to be the "Messiah", a word which had its roots in anointed, and the ancient Greek word for anointed was "christos".

*MESSIAH:

–noun

1. the promised and expected deliverer of the Jewish people.

2. (usually uppercase) Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ, regarded by Christians as fulfilling this promise and expectation. John 4:25, 26.

3. (usually lowercase) any expected deliverer.

4. (usually lowercase) a zealous leader of some cause or project.

As Jesus of Nazareth became Jesus the Messiah, this became Jesus the Christ, or Jesus Christ as he is called today. People really didn't have last names like we have today. A more accurate identifier would be Jesus the Christ. Had Christ not been substituted for Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth would today be called Jesus Messiah. Then, obviously, as religious services (masses) were held to revere and worship Jesus Christ, or "Christ" for short, they became Christ Masses, leading us to Christmas. Had the word Christ not been used, today we would be observing Christmessiah instead of Christmas. (note: even "mass" is abbreviated, otherwise it would be Christmass.

The true origins of Christmas continue to be controversial. Many events that did or did not happen over 2000 years ago are mired in legend, hearsay, distortions, and creativity. Assumptions, and negativity abound over who were Mary's parents, where was she born? Who was Joseph, where was he born? Did Mary and Joseph have pre-marital sex and was the whole immaculate conception story really an attempt at deception. Was the reason they couldn't sleep in the inn and had to bunk down in a manager was because they were cast outs for immoral behavior? Perhaps there was a type of "National Enquirer" back then. We do know that the inn was not crowded because of arriving on Christmas Eve.

Nevertheless, Mary, Joseph and Jesus of Nazareth were real people and Jesus did go on to lead a life of public preaching and, miracles or not, he had a tremdous impact on people who were dominated at the time by the massive Roman Empire.

Regardless of whether you believe that Jesus was man or messiah he had, and is still having, a major influence on people and on history. The utilization of December 25 as a day to reflect upon the life and messages of Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Messiah, Jesus Christ, (whichever you prefer) still has great significance to and influence upon millions of people today.

Had Emperor Constantine lived further North and had any idea of the travel difficulties that could occur at this time of year, he probably would have declared a day in August to be Jesus of Nazareth Day.

A very interesting piece. I'd just like to add the following points:

-- The word "Christ" was substituted for "Messiah" because the New Testament is written in Greek and "Christos" is the Greek translation of "Messiah", both meaning "anointed".

-- According to Merriam-Webster "Christmas" is a combination of "Christ"+"mass"; "mass" has nothing to do with "messiah" but is ultimately derived from the Latin "missa", the feminine past participle of the verb "mittere", so send or dismiss, and relates to the congregation being dismissed after the service is over.

-- "pagan" is derived from "paganus", a "country person" or "rustic"

-- In addition to being the birth date of the god of Persian origin named Mithras, whose "mystery religion" gave the nascnt Christianity a fair run for its money. decmeber 25 is also close to the winter solstice (December 21) and the merry-making Roman festival called the Saturnalia (December 17-19), many of whose traditions seem to have been incorporated in the festivities of Christmas.

And to all members of the EA to whom the phrase is religiously appropriate or who, like me, regard it as a secular celebration of family and friends, MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Whatever you believe, HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

"

nullorchis (imported) wrote: Fri Dec 26, 2008 7:03 am Nevertheless, Mary, Joseph and Jesus of Nazareth were real people...

"

I must disagree. There is virtually zero evidence that these people were real. The writers of the day were Jews and Romans and there are no contemporary writings from them about Mary, Joseph and Jesus of Nazareth.

Have a Happy Holiday!

happy chanukah

hazbalz (imported) wrote: Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:52 am I must disagree. There is virtually zero evidence that these people were real. The writers of the day were Jews and Romans and there are no contemporary writings from them about Mary, Joseph and Jesus of Nazareth.

Have a Happy Holiday!

Hazbalz, whoz balz doez youz haz?

Hazbalz makes a very good point.

Just because it's in print, just because some information is passed down from generation to generation, doesn't necessarily make it true, or not true.

There was no ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, no still or video cameras or audio recording devices 2000 years ago.

Our knowledge of the past is totally dependent upon what people of the day saw themselves, heard from others, and wrote about.

And just because many other people didn't write about something that did really happen, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What kind of evidence, how much evidence, must there be for something to really actually be absolutely true?

The ancients thought the sun revolved around the earth, and if you disagreeded with the wise learned ones you could be cast out, imprisoned, even put to death for blasphemy.

By definition the word "belief" establishes that there is no, or insufficient absolutely provable evidence to make something absolutely true beyond any possible doubt or error.

So, where does that leave us? Back to the power of belief.

You Hazbalz, I, and everyone else, were not around 2000 years ago.

At the present time we can not go back in time to see for ourselves what really did or did not happen.

We are all dependent upon the writings of people we did not know.

Ten people who all witness something in person as it happens will not give the exact same sequence of events to an investigator.

People are taught to believe in this, or that.

Sometimes people start thinking and choose to believe in something else than what they were taught and they do this because why? Because they believe something to be true.

History and religion are not science. For something to migrate from belief to fact you must be able to make something happen over and over and over again, reliably, without fail; it must be absolutely 100% predictable, like when you jump up, you will come down; gravity is not a belief, it is a fact, it is true, it is real.

So Hazbalz, I can not dispute your claim. You may be right, but only by accident, not because you, any more than anyone else, have 100% accurate information.

I find it annoying that any of us will tell another that they are wrong in their beliefs, and it is a mystery of the human condition that we get so upset when someone else tells us what we believe in is wrong. Most of the time we are zapping each other over stuff that none of us can actually prove. How can 800 million Hindus be wrong? How can ?million Christians be right? How can ?million Muslims be wrong, How can ?billion humans be right?

I don't get upset with people who tell me how I must believe, or that what they believe is the absolute truth, or what I believe is false, or how I must live my life, or how I must not live my life. I would get pissed if they imprisoned, tortured, or killed me because I didn't believe in what they "knew" to be true.

If people would stop barbing, zapping each other over beliefs, and start helping one another instead of criticising each other over what we can not prove, we might actually start to build Peace On Earth. What if we each respected the right of another to have different beliefs, didn't criticise the beliefs of others (aka: tolerance) and didn't impose our beliefs of anyone onto anyone (through things like laws and constitutional amendments)? What a wonderful world it would be !

nullorchis (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:48 am Hazbalz, whoz balz doez youz haz?

Ze sac iz filled wiz ze balz. Whoz you azk? Guez.

nullorchis (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:48 am There was no ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, no still or video cameras or audio recording devices 2000 years ago.

How very true! But you miss that most important ingredient, people did write. There are extensive contemporary writings of the period by the Romans and Jews. The only place were Joseph, Mary and Jesus of Nazerath are mentioned are in the New Testament, which was written several generations after their supposed deaths.

nullorchis (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:48 am Our knowledge of the past is totally dependent upon what people of the day saw themselves, heard from others, and wrote about.

Um, no. There is also archaeology, anthropology, biology and whole host of other methods for deciphering the past.

nullorchis (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:48 am What kind of evidence, how much evidence, must there be for something to really actually be absolutely true?

Are you not familiar with the scientific method?

nullorchis (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:48 am So, where does that leave us? Back to the power of belief.

You Hazbalz, I, and everyone else, were not around 2000 years ago.

At the present time we can not go back in time to see for ourselves what really did or did not happen.

It seems to me that what you are saying is "I believe what is true because I believe it is true." I wasn't in New Orleans in 2005 yet when I visited there in 2006 I could conclusively say, after looking at the evidence of damaged levees and destroyed homes with water damage everywhere, that there was a serious storm there. I even read about a storm and the stories were very accurate. Of course, one could ignore the evidence and simply state a belief that giants threw magic dust over the city.

nullorchis (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:48 am We are all dependent upon the writings of people we did not know.

Um, no. See above.

nullorchis (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:48 am Ten people who all witness something in person as it happens will not give the exact same sequence of events to an investigator.

Perhaps, but they all give basically the same account, its the details people tend change. Anyway, we're discussing something much more basic, that is did some people ever exist.

nullorchis (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:48 am So Hazbalz, I can not dispute your claim. You may be right, but only by accident, not because you, any more than anyone else, have 100% accurate information.

I actually didn't make a "claim." I simply disagreed with an observation based on evidence. And I may be wrong if evidence shows it. The point is that people, Americans in particular, believe in things without question, without looking deeper into what they're being taught or why. That's how we end up in wars based on lies, economic messes based on ideology and killing each other over mythical beings.

nullorchis sez...

nullorchis (imported) wrote: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:48 am The ancients thought the sun revolved around the earth, and if you disagreeded with the wise learned ones you could be cast out, imprisoned, even put to death for blasphemy.

Ah, but we can admit after 400 years that we made a mistake in the Inquisition, no? (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 0373.story)

...well, better late than never...

However, he did fare better than Jacques DeMolay... (http://www.jacquesdemolay.org/)

Galileo's lucky stars: Vatican calls its famed heretic a hero of faith and science

By NICOLE WINFIELD | Associated Press Writer

1:45 PM CST, December 23, 2008

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Galileo Galilei is going from heretic to hero.

The Vatican is recasting the most famous victim of its Inquisition as a man of faith, just in time for the 400th anniversary of Galileo's telescope and the U.N.-designated International Year of Astronomy next year.

Pope Benedict XVI paid tribute to the Italian astronomer and physicist Sunday, saying he and other scientists had helped the faithful better understand and "contemplate with gratitude the Lord's works."

In May, several Vatican officials will participate in an international conference to re-examine the Galileo affair, and top Vatican officials are now saying Galileo should be named the "patron" of the dialogue between faith and reason.

It's quite a reversal of fortune for Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), who made the first complete astronomical telescope and used it to gather evidence that the Earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

The church denounced Galileo's theory as dangerous to the faith, but Galileo defied its warnings. Tried as a heretic in 1633 and forced to recant, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, later changed to house arrest.

The Church has for years been striving to shed its reputation for being hostile to science, in part by producing top-notch research out of its own telescope.

In 1992, Pope John Paul II declared that the ruling against Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."

But that apparently wasn't enough. In January, Benedict canceled a speech at Rome's La Sapienza University after a group of professors, citing the Galileo episode and depicting Benedict as a religious figure opposed to science, argued that he shouldn't speak at a public university.

The Galileo anniversary appears to be giving the Vatican new impetus to put the matter to rest. In doing so, Vatican officials are stressing Galileo's faith as well as his science, to show the two are not mutually exclusive.

At a Vatican conference last month entitled "Science 400 Years after Galileo Galilei," the Vatican No. 2, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said Galileo was an astronomer, but one who "lovingly cultivated his faith and his profound religious conviction."

"Galileo Galilei was a man of faith who saw nature as a book authored by God," Bertone said.

The head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture, which co-sponsored the conference, went further. Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi told Vatican Radio that Galileo "could become for some the ideal patron for a dialogue between science and faith."

He said Galileo's writings offered a "path" to explore how faith and reason were not incompatible.

The Rev. John Padberg, a church historian and the director of the Institute of Jesuit Sources at St. Louis University, said he suspected the Vatican's new emphasis on Galileo's faith came from the pope himself.

"Pope Benedict XVI is ardently convinced of the congruence of faith and reason, and he is concerned, especially in the present circumstances, of giving reason its due place in the whole scheme of things," he said.

While it is widely accepted that Galileo was a convinced Catholic, Padberg questioned whether he could ever be accepted as some kind of a poster child for the faith and reason debate. "That's going to be a long shot for an awful lot of people, on both sides, by the way," he said.

Benedict, a theologian, has made exploring the faith-reason relationship a key aspect of his papacy, and has directed his daily newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, in particular, to take up the charge.

On Monday, the newspaper published a piece on the possibility of alien life on other planets as well as one on the popes who were "friendly" to astronomy.

Benedict clearly is: In his Sunday blessing, he noted that the Vatican itself has its own meridian — an obelisk in St. Peter's Square — and that astronomy had long been used to signal prayer times for the faithful.

But the Vatican's embrace of Galileo only goes so far.

There were plans earlier this year to give Galileo a permanent place of honor in the Vatican to mark the anniversary of his telescope: a statue, to be located inside the Vatican gardens, donated by the Italian aerospace giant Finmeccanica SpA.

The plans were suspended after some Vatican officials voiced "problems" with the initiative, said Nicola Cabibbo, the president of the Pontifical Council for Science. He declined to elaborate.

Finmeccanica spokesman Roberto Alatri said the Galileo statue was just an idea that never got off the ground.

Italian news reports suggested the Vatican simply didn't want to draw so much permanent attention to the Galileo episode, which 400 years on, still rankles some.

"The dramatic clash between Galileo and some men of the Church left wounds that are still open today," the Vatican's chief astronomer, the Rev. Jose Funes, wrote recently in Osservatore. "The Church in some ways has recognized its errors.

"Maybe it could do better. One can always do better," he wrote.

___

Yeah, 400 years after the fact!

Even the bible rejects the notion Christ was born on the 25th of December.

Luke 2:8

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.

The

and their flocks would not be out in the fields durning winter it would be pointless as there there would be nothing for the sheep to eat.