I’m french and I have always been told that our Gaullish ancestors had festivities going on at that date already and the roman empire made sure to destroy our culture and traditions by replacing our celebrations. They also built churches on the exact same spots as our previous cult places. Like, they even built a new city (Tours) from scratch to make Amboise become irrelevant. Christmas was part of the violence inflicted to our ancestors
One of the main reasons to believe that the birth date of Jesus is not reliable is because we have historical records of when there were censuses, and they tended to not to be in the winter months for fairly obvious practical reasons. There is no record of one occurring in December or anywhere near that time around the supposed date of his birth, so how could Jesus have been born on the way to a census if there wasn’t one in December?
The only option is that the date of the birth is out by about 10 years (there was a census in December 10 years earlier) or the month of his birth is out by about 6 months. Which of those two options we don’t know but we definitely know he wasn’t and couldn’t be born at the date that the bible says. The reason people go for the summer birth hypothesis is it’s easier to understand how the date could have been moved six months a lot less easy to understand how people could have thought he was 10 years younger than he actually was.
The story of the census appears in the gospel of Luke, which was written around 100 CE and edited for a while afterwards.
It places Jesus’ birth during the census of Quirinius, which happened in 6 CE.
That’s flatly contradicted by the earlier gospel of Matthew, which has Jesus being born during the time of Herod the great who died in 1CE.
There’s no historical evidence that Roman censuses required people to go to the town they were born in; it’d be such a big disruption that it seems fairly implausible. It’s more likely that the story about the census was made up by early Christians who were trying to edit details of the story to make Jesus fulfill more prophecies.
Why do Christians? Jesus was born in the summer.
I’m french and I have always been told that our Gaullish ancestors had festivities going on at that date already and the roman empire made sure to destroy our culture and traditions by replacing our celebrations. They also built churches on the exact same spots as our previous cult places. Like, they even built a new city (Tours) from scratch to make Amboise become irrelevant. Christmas was part of the violence inflicted to our ancestors
That’s the only correct answer. Just use the existing celebration dates, and remove the old religion.
Why on earth doesn’t modern Christians question the Eastern celebration, which follows the moon-calendar?
deleted by creator
We don’t actually really know.
One idea is that Jesus’s conception was said to have been in March for assorted reasons, and December is 9 months after March.
Another is that it appropriated Roman solstice celebrations.
One of the main reasons to believe that the birth date of Jesus is not reliable is because we have historical records of when there were censuses, and they tended to not to be in the winter months for fairly obvious practical reasons. There is no record of one occurring in December or anywhere near that time around the supposed date of his birth, so how could Jesus have been born on the way to a census if there wasn’t one in December?
The only option is that the date of the birth is out by about 10 years (there was a census in December 10 years earlier) or the month of his birth is out by about 6 months. Which of those two options we don’t know but we definitely know he wasn’t and couldn’t be born at the date that the bible says. The reason people go for the summer birth hypothesis is it’s easier to understand how the date could have been moved six months a lot less easy to understand how people could have thought he was 10 years younger than he actually was.
That’s a pretty good reason.
The story of the census appears in the gospel of Luke, which was written around 100 CE and edited for a while afterwards.
It places Jesus’ birth during the census of Quirinius, which happened in 6 CE.
That’s flatly contradicted by the earlier gospel of Matthew, which has Jesus being born during the time of Herod the great who died in 1CE.
There’s no historical evidence that Roman censuses required people to go to the town they were born in; it’d be such a big disruption that it seems fairly implausible. It’s more likely that the story about the census was made up by early Christians who were trying to edit details of the story to make Jesus fulfill more prophecies.