Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Elias_The_Thief t1_j0dx3x6 wrote

In what way does the origin of the name support your point? The celebration existed long before the modern name but was always to do with celebration of the birth of Christ. Good try again.

1

DfcukinLite t1_j0dx9tg wrote

The precise origin of assigning December 25 as the birth date of Jesus is unclear. The New Testament provides no clues in this regard. December 25 was first identified as the date of Jesus’ birth by Sextus Julius Africanus in 221 and later became the universally accepted date. One widespread explanation of the origin of this date is that December 25 was the Christianizing of the dies solis invicti nati (“day of the birth of the unconquered sun”), a popular holiday in the Roman Empire that celebrated the winter solstice as a symbol of the resurgence of the sun, the casting away of winter and the heralding of the rebirth of spring and summer. Indeed, after December 25 had become widely accepted as the date of Jesus’ birth, Christian writers frequently made the connection between the rebirth of the sun and the birth of the Son. One of the difficulties with this view is that it suggests a nonchalant willingness on the part of the Christian church to appropriate a pagan festival when the early church was so intent on distinguishing itself categorically from pagan beliefs and practices.

0

Elias_The_Thief t1_j0dxioq wrote

You're repeating yourself, and you're still wrong.

0

DfcukinLite t1_j0dxmb6 wrote

Must be nice to be delusional

1

Elias_The_Thief t1_j0dxzpy wrote

Better than mindlessly parroting the same paragraph that doesn't even support your point over and over like an automaton. Have a nice night.

1