BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO!! Does the Bible have a legitimate place in modern debate?

[darkjigglypuff]

Contains neither the words "christmas" nor "December", much less a discussion of its origins. Next time read your source before quoting a random google page.While it was a long article, most of it did not apply to Christmas at all. Unless I missed something the only parts that did apply to christmas contained no historical sources, merely links to other scholarly books.

Again, what historical sources do you hearken back to when you claim that Christmas was an intentional absorption of a pagan god's birth day? I don't care what you think, or what you've been told. What are your sources? If you don't have any it is baseless speculation.

you said it

Are you so inept you need it to be spoonfed into your mouth?

This celebration culminated on December 25th with a celebration of the winter solstice. Also celebrated in Rome around the winter solstice was Juvenalia, which was a celebration for children.1 Pope Julius I chose December 25 as the date that the birth of Christ would be celebrated with the hope that the choice of that date would be more easily accepted by the Romans.2

December 25th was a manufactured day, said the be the birth of Jesus "No-Show" Christ due to the fact that they'd be able to bandwagon some more Romans on if they could associate their 'pagan festival' with the birth of the 'Lord and Savior'.

Again, what historical sources

http://www.history.com/topics/christmas

How about that one, too.

 

[Mewkachu]

The parts which encourage genocide or the parts which teach you that throwing women into an angry crowd to be gang-raped is a legitimate solution to a problem, perhaps? It's a pretty horrible book.

That is awful. There are some good lessons in the book arguably though.

 

[paracelsus]

Unfortunately, it is fairly open to interpretation, and can be twisted easily by non-catholics. Conversely, the catholic church is structured in such a way that it is forced to hold to archaic, even disproven views.

 

[mattj]

Are you so inept you need it to be spoonfed into your mouth?

lol right right

*your quote*

a google article
is not
a
historical
source
come on bro

December 25th was a manufactured day, said the be the birth of Jesus "No-Show" Christ due to the fact that they'd be able to bandwagon some more Romans on if they could associate their 'pagan festival' with the birth of the 'Lord and Savior'.

That's a cool idea. What historical source do you get it from? Or did you just make it up, or hear it from a friend, or read it on some random google site? If any of those, no one really cares what you have to say.

http://www.history.com/topics/christmas

How about that one, too.

History.com
is not
a historical
source

Sorry, strike 4, I'm done with you.

[edit]
Incase you didn't know, websites and modern books are not historical sources. The Bible is a historical source. Antiquities of the Jews is a historical source. Ceasar's letters and speeches are historical sources. I don't really care what some random anonymous editor at history.com or wherever has to say. Since we're discussing an ancient event, I'm most concerned with what ancient sources say.

 

[Dunning]

Are you so inept you need it to be spoonfed into your mouth?



December 25th was a manufactured day, said the be the birth of Jesus "No-Show" Christ due to the fact that they'd be able to bandwagon some more Romans on if they could associate their 'pagan festival' with the birth of the 'Lord and Savior'.



http://www.history.com/topics/christmas

How about that one, too.

What do you mean by Jesus "No-Show" Christ

 

[Mewkachu]

lol right righta google article
is not
a
historical
source

Technically, it can be. Just because it is not put in a history book does not validate that it is an inaccurate source. Even history books can't tell what the Bible says, only those who have been to Heaven or have evidence that God or the Bible is telling the absolute truth can, and even they can't because they're probably dead.


If God exists.

 

[Sadib]

I found a Wikipedia article about you guys are talking about. I don't see any other reason why Christmas would be on December 25.

mattj: Would you mind calling a true on visitor messages? I would like to talk to you about Skyward Sword.

 

[darkjigglypuff]

lol right righta google article
is not
a
historical
source
come on broThat's a cool idea. What historical source do you get it from? Or did you just make it up, or hear it from a friend, or read it on some random google site? If any of those, no one really cares what you have to say.History.com
is not
a historical
source

Sorry, strike 4, I'm done with you.

Sorry, I forgot that for a source to be considered accurate it had to be written by dozens of cave-dwelling individuals with no notable credentials over a course of hundreds of years, over a thousand years ago.

 

[Mewkachu]

Sorry, I forgot that for a source to be considered accurate it had to be written by dozens of cave-dwelling individuals with no notable credentials over a course of hundreds of years, over a thousand years ago.

^ Agreed. An online source can be legitimate. (nobody replies to my posts o_o)

 

[mattj]

Technically, it can be. Just because it is not put in a history book does not validate that it is an inaccurate source. Even history books can't tell what the Bible says, only those who have been to Heaven or have evidence that God or the Bible is telling the absolute truth can, and even they can't because they're probably dead.

wat
Of course we can know what the Bible says. Its a book. Pick it up and read it.

I found a Wikipedia article about you guys are talking about. I don't see any other reason why Christmas would be on December 25.

That's cool that you don't see any other reason, but I read that article and it doesn't link to a single historical source that says "we did this for this reason". Unless you have such a source, you cannot, cannot, cannot say for certain what their intentions were. Its just your baseless speculation.[/quote]

mattj: Would you mind calling a true on visitor messages? I would like to talk to you about Skyward Sword.

no

Sorry, I forgot that for a source to be considered accurate it had to be written by dozens of cave-dwelling individuals with no notable credentials over a course of hundreds of years, over a thousand years ago.

I'd rather read an ancient historical source written by a cave dwelling twiddledumb than someone who wasn't there, is thousands of years removed, and has not a single historical source to back up any of their claims.

Here's one: The Koran was written by a time traveling martian. Never mind how obviously ridiculous such a statement is. I don't need any historical sources. I read it somewhere online.

That is how you look right now.

 

[Mewkachu]

wat
Of course we can know what the Bible says. Its a book. Pick it up and read it.

That's cool that you don't see any other reason, but I read that article and it doesn't link to a single historical source that says "we did this for this reason". Unless you have such a source, you cannot, cannot, cannot say for certain what their intentions were. Its just your baseless speculation.

no
I'd rather read an ancient historical source written by a cave dwelling twiddledumb than someone who wasn't there, is thousands of years removed, and has not a single historical source to back up any of their claims.[/QUOTE]

If it's just a book, how can we know it wasn't edited for change over a long period of time?
;360;
[img139]http://i41.*******.com/1239ich.jpg[/img139]

 

[mattj]

If it's just a book, how can we know it wasn't edited for change over a long period of time?

That's a completely valid question. Archeologists have uncovered literally thousands of Biblical Manuscripts from various places and various points throughout history. We can compare these thousands of pieces of the Bible to see if anyone did anything fishy during any point in history. After reviewing the issue myself I can't find a single instance of Biblical Revisionism beyond the evolution of language and culture.

Oh, and it's [*img139][*/img139] to make your picture show up in this forum. Just so ya know. :3

 

[darkjigglypuff]

wat
Of course we can know what the Bible says. Its a book. Pick it up and read it.

That's cool that you don't see any other reason, but I read that article and it doesn't link to a single historical source that says "we did this for this reason". Unless you have such a source, you cannot, cannot, cannot say for certain what their intentions were. Its just your baseless speculation.

no
I'd rather read an ancient historical source written by a cave dwelling twiddledumb than someone who wasn't there, is thousands of years removed, and has not a single historical source to back up any of their claims.

Here's one: The Koran was written by a time traveling martian. I don't need any historical sources. I read it somewhere online.[/QUOTE]

So, unless I pull up a letter from Pope Julias I saying 'Well, the plan worked! Christmas now belongs to Jesus, not Saturn!', you won't believe me and automatically dismiss all my sources as either inaccurate or outright fabrications?

Are you really so bold as to say that Saturnalia is some sort of relatively-recent conspiracy, fabricated to illegitimatize Christianity (not that it needs any help, it can do that to itself)? OR are you saying that it didn't fall on the winter solstice?

Or are you just saying that these two religious, gift-giving, thanksgiving holidays made around the winter solstice from roughly the same region are completely and totally unrelated at all?

 

[mattj]

So, unless I pull up a letter from Pope Julias I saying 'Well, the plan worked! Christmas now belongs to Jesus, not Saturn!', you won't believe me and automatically dismiss all my sources as either inaccurate or outright fabrications?

y
e
s

Are you really so bold as to say that Saturnalia is some sort of relatively-recent conspiracy, fabricated to illegitimatize Christianity (not that it needs any help, it can do that to itself)? OR are you saying that it didn't fall on the winter solstice?

Or are you just saying that these two religious, gift-giving, thanksgiving holidays made around the winter solstice from roughly the same region are completely and totally unrelated at all?

Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival in honor of the deity Saturn originally held December 17 and later expanded with unofficial festivities through December 23.

Oh look. They both happened around the same time in the same area. Gee.

If you don't have that letter, I don't really care about your conspiracy theories. Maybe you should start a baseless conspiracy theories thread!

 

[Dunning]

Everyone posting on here knows nothing is helping right. This has turned into more of a fight then a discussion. I thought people were just going to have a chance to voice their opinions and ask a question if they don't believe or are just wondering and keep it civilized. Fighting about this really isnt going to help anyone on either sides. All you are going to do is offend someone else on their beliefs, even if you are only upset with one person.

I think the Bible is a good reference and I believe every blessed word. If you want to know why please PM me. God bless.

 

[darkjigglypuff]

y
e
s

Oh look. They both happened around the same time in the same area. Gee.

If you don't have that letter, I don't really care about your conspiracy theories. Maybe you should start a baseless conspiracy theories thread!

Oh, well at least you admit you're being totally unreasonable.

LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE EVER ALLOWED FOR ANYTHING IS FIRST-HAND WRITTEN ACCOUNTS

 

[mattj]

Yes yes. If requiring historical sources in a debate about a historical event is being unreasonable then yes, I'm the most unreasonable man you'll ever meet. Let me know how that thread of yours goes.

 

[darkjigglypuff]

Yes yes. If requiring historical sources in a debate about a historical event is being unreasonable then yes, I'm the most unreasonable man you'll ever meet. Let me know how that thread of yours goes.

It's more or less the fact that you handwave anything I put forth as hearsay because it disagrees with your views.

Sometimes, it's possible to connect the dots. Christianity really isn't above stealing themes and principles, so it isn't a damn stretch to presume they MIGHT have stolen a holiday and slapped their label on it. If you find a child in the kitchen with an empty cookie jar with the lid open and a cookie in his mouth, you don't need a witness to tell you he probably took the cookie from the jar. Nor do you need his testimony that he did that.

 

[mattj]

It's more or less the fact that you handwave anything I put forth as hearsay because it disagrees with your views.

I'm quite open to being shown that I'm wrong. However, in your case, instead of showing me how I'm wrong, you've simply said "this random site says this and this random person told me that". Why should I value your sources? None of them were there. None of them point to reliable historical sources to back up their claims. Why should your word and their word be more valuable than mine or others? Do you think of yourself more highly than me? Do you think of your opinion to be more important than mine? What makes you better than me? You've got a real superiority complex going on.

...so it isn't a damn stretch to presume they MIGHT have stolen a holiday and slapped their label on it.

I say it is a stretch.

what

now

?

 

[darkjigglypuff]

I'm quite open to being shown that I'm wrong. However, in your case, instead of showing me how I'm wrong, you've simply said "this random site says this and this random person told me that". Why should I value your sources? None of them were there. None of them point to reliable historical sources to back up their claims. Why should your word and their word be more valuable than mine or others? Do you think of yourself more highly than me? Do you think of your opinion to be more important than mine? What makes you better than me? You've got a real superiority complex going on.I say it is a stretch.

what

now

?

Historians and scholars: Making stuff up, probably just guessing and winging it
Thousand year old book: Totally legit because THEY WERE THERE, MAN. THEY DON'T NEED TO CITE SOURCES FOR THEIR OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS AND WE CAN TAKE THEM AT FACE VALUE.

The idea that people who research human history for a living are wrong simply because they themselves 'weren't there' is an immense stretch, come to think of it.

If an archeologist digs up a vase with a handle, next to a water fountain or something, he might be able to assume that, yes, this was used to drink from! But how could he know, if might have been some sort of ornament that hung from the belt wit no real purpose! It's a 50/50 chance, then, because after all, he wasn't there.