...and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I also fail to see the relevance (if he did exist) of whether he was born in December, April, or any other month. It reminds me of the battle of the Bozos in last months National Geographic over the size of King David's kingdom. The one camp thinks that if David's kingdom was larger that it makes the Biblical claims somehow more relevant to our day. Salt Lake City really exists, is larger than Jerusalem was until the 20th Century, and Mormonism is a large influence in the area. Does that make the claims of Mormonism true?

Once that irrelevant tiny detail is ever resolved then there is the issue of the Exodus, Egyptian captivity, etc. All of this actually says nothing about the veracity of the religious claims that have been erroneously linked to the truthfulness of these historical details.

So David's kingdom may have had more or fewer people. Does that mean that the Red Sea was parted by the power of god several centuries before that? Did god flood the entire earth? Did god incinerate the priests of Baal? Did god command the conquest of Canaan?

If Jesus was born in December rather than April, or if he even existed does that somehow make the religious claims all statements of truth? How does the mingling of some truth with the fiction make the fiction true?

Following the story and time of year, it wouldn't make any sense for the events to have happened in December. The early catholic church changed the date to coincide with other's holiday's to take over their culture and hearts and minds.

It's a good nudge that get's people to start questioning everything that's been force fed to them. Whatever inconsistencies that are found are good.

Christian leaders have not been "lying". December 25th is the holiday in remembrance of the birth of Christ - that has been clear since that celebration started. It is not his birthday in the modern sense, and nobody ever really claimed that (to my knowledge). Nobody knowledgeable, that is. If you don't know a person's actual birthday, you can of course celebrate it on any suitable day without "lying".

By the wayk, people in antiquity did not make much of birthdays. They celebrated the death day of famous people.

ipseego Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>.................... It is not his birthday in the
> modern sense, and nobody ever really claimed that
> (to my knowledge).

a lot of ignorant people do actually claim that.... I have even heard it from some 'preachers' (although not any from the 'major' christian denominations).

I was always taught from my earliest years that nobody knew when Jesus was born. Nobody is lying, they simply picked a date to commememorate and they chose the time of the solstice because that is when everyone was celebrating anyway. The church leaders of the time thought it better that their people celebrated in a Christian way rather than following the lead of the pagans.Lots of people may not know that because they are ignorant and uninformed. but that doesn't mean they were lied to. It means they are ignorant and uninformed and their ignorance probably extends to many other areas. As far as the Nat Geo article, I found it fascinating. The people involved are respected archaeologists, not bozos. We may never know for sure about David and his kingdom but that doesn't make their work worthless. Too bad some of you don't get that.You sound like junior high kids who can't see why you should care about what happened before you were born especially if there is no immediate benefit to you. Ever heard of knowledge for knowledge's sake? End of rant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/26/2010 04:28PM by bona dea.