How much of Christianity came from Jesus, and how much came from other sources?

[tabibito]

Mark . {14:70} And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art [one] of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth [thereto.

I seem to need to show you verses, from time to time.

The Galilean dialect did differ from that of Jerusalem. The fact remains that Galilean Aramaic is part of the Western Aramaic group, not the eastern.

[eider]

The Galilean dialect did differ from that of Jerusalem. The fact remains that Galilean Aramaic is part of the Western Aramaic group, not the eastern.

So you do now recognise that Galilean Aramaic is a recognised language............ after trying to tell me that it is all the same.

Things would be easier if you would remember these verses, imo.

[eider]

Now can anybody tell me where/when December 25th was first recognised as Jesus's birth date? And by who?

[tabibito]

So you do now recognise that Galilean Aramaic is a recognised language............ after trying to tell me that it is all the same.

No - it is a recognised dialect of Western Aramaic language group. The dialect of Jerusalem is also a dialect of Western Aramaic, but not quite the same as Galilean. Equivalents are not hard to find - the language of Brighton and Liverpool (representing Galilee and Jerusalem) is English (representing Western Aramaic), the dialects are different. Galilean primarily varied in its blending of some consonants and vowels which were distinct in the Jerusalem dialect.

Things would be easier if you would remember these verses, imo.

And what is it that I am supposed to remember about these verses? That the people involved spoke the same language, as is obvious from the fact that they understood each other, but that the regional variations were noticable, perhaps?

Now can anybody tell me where/when December 25th was first recognised as Jesus's birth date? And by who?

Early second century - calculated on the basis of Zacharias' service in the temple and Elizabeth being six months pregnant with John the Baptist when Gabriel spoke with Mary. I'll have to check for the first recorded mention of the person who made those calculations. Of course, that is in the Western Church - the Eastern Church sets the date in early January.


Also it is claimed: The Dead Sea scrolls include a roster for the temple service, so there isn't much difficulty working out when Zechariah entered the temple to burn incense. That claim raises questions of its own.

[rogue06]

Early second century - calculated on the basis of Zacharias' service in the temple and Elizabeth being six months pregnant with John the Baptist when Gabriel spoke with Mary. I'll have to check for the first recorded mention of the person who made those calculations. Of course, that is in the Western Church - the Eastern Church sets the date in early January.

Isn't that the result of the shift from the Julian to Gregorian calendar?

[tabibito]

Isn't that the result of the shift from the Julian to Gregorian calendar?

So I had thought, but it seems not. The difference pre-dates Gregory XIII (calendar introduced in 1582) by more than a few centuries. The Eastern celebration originally was January 6, switched to December 25 fifty years after Constantine to match the Western Church, and became January 6 again with the introduction of the Gregorian calendar.

https://www.britannica.com/story/why...as-in-december

There are at least three possible origins for the December date. The Roman Christian historian Sextus Julius Africanus dated Jesus’ conception to March 25 ..., which, after nine months in his mother’s womb, would result in a December 25 birth.

The church in Rome began formally celebrating Christmas on December 25 in 336, during the reign of the emperor Constantine. As Constantine had made Christianity the effective religion of the empire, some have speculated that choosing this date had the political motive of weakening the established pagan celebrations. The date was not widely accepted in the Eastern Empire, where January 6 had been favored, for another half-century, and Christmas did not become a major Christian festival until the 9th century.

[rogue06]

So I had thought, but it seems not. The difference pre-dates Gregory XIII (calendar introduced in 1582) by more than a few centuries. The Eastern celebration originally was January 6, switched to December 25 to match the Western Church, and became January 6 again with the introduction of the Gregorian calendar.

https://www.britannica.com/story/why...as-in-december

There are at least three possible origins for the December date. The Roman Christian historian Sextus Julius Africanus dated Jesus’ conception to March 25 ..., which, after nine months in his mother’s womb, would result in a December 25 birth.

The church in Rome began formally celebrating Christmas on December 25 in 336, during the reign of the emperor Constantine. As Constantine had made Christianity the effective religion of the empire, some have speculated that choosing this date had the political motive of weakening the established pagan celebrations. The date was not widely accepted in the Eastern Empire, where January 6 had been favored, for another half-century, and Christmas did not become a major Christian festival until the 9th century.

Interesting.

That and it wasn't until the 9th century until it became a major festival. I knew there was resistance to celebrating it in the early centuries (celebrating birthdays was viewed as a pagan thing among other reasons), but didn't know it took that long.

Christians really suck at co-opting things.

First they pick a day that doesn't match up with the one that they're supposed to be taking over, and then they pick something that most seemingly ignored or paid little attention to for centuries to do it with.

[One Bad Pig]

Isn't that the result of the shift from the Julian to Gregorian calendar?

No.

[One Bad Pig]

Interesting.

That and it wasn't until the 9th century until it became a major festival. I knew there was resistance to celebrating it in the early centuries (celebrating birthdays was viewed as a pagan thing among other reasons), but didn't know it took that long.

Christians really suck at co-opting things.

First they pick a day that doesn't match up with the one that they're supposed to be taking over, and then they pick something that most seemingly ignored or paid little attention to for centuries to do it with.

Well, the Britannica article is kinda sucky. The December 25th date is when Jesus' birth is commemorated, probably not when it actually happened. While the event of birth is important, the date isn't (except for for pagans, who liked to use astrology based on the date of one's birth to predict one's future). The only births celebrated on the Christian calendar are Jesus, John the Baptist, and Mary - along with the date of their miraculous conceptions 9 months to the day earlier (and, oddly, the birth of St. Nicholas is on my calendar, but it's of quite minor importance). The East initially celebrated Christ's baptism, birth, and the visit of the Magi on January 6th. The West initially celebrated Christ's birth on December 25. Why? Because in ancient times, Jewish people liked to think that a prophet died on the same day his life began (at conception). Jesus was most likely crucified on March 25, AD 30; therefore, he was theoretically conceived on March 25, and born on December 25th.

The feast of Sol Invictus on December 25 wasn't established until the late 3rd century by Marcus Aurelius, when paganism was already on the wane, and was a rather minor feast. It's far more likely that the date was linked to the Annunciation than to some minor, johnny-come-lately pagan feast.

See also here and here.

[rogue06]

Well, the Britannica article is kinda sucky. The December 25th date is when Jesus' birth is commemorated, probably not when it actually happened. While the event of birth is important, the date isn't (except for for pagans, who liked to use astrology based on the date of one's birth to predict one's future). The only births celebrated on the Christian calendar are Jesus, John the Baptist, and Mary - along with the date of their miraculous conceptions 9 months to the day earlier (and, oddly, the birth of St. Nicholas is on my calendar, but it's of quite minor importance). The East initially celebrated Christ's baptism, birth, and the visit of the Magi on January 6th. The West initially celebrated Christ's birth on December 25. Why? Because in ancient times, Jewish people liked to think that a prophet died on the same day his life began (at conception). Jesus was most likely crucified on March 25, AD 30; therefore, he was theoretically conceived on March 25, and born on December 25th.

The feast of Sol Invictus on December 25 wasn't established until the late 3rd century by Marcus Aurelius, when paganism was already on the wane, and was a rather minor feast. It's far more likely that the date was linked to the Annunciation than to some minor, johnny-come-lately pagan feast.

See also here and here.

I think I read the bolded part somewhere smiley hmm.gif

In the 19th cent. everyone was sure that the Christians borrowed heavily from the pagans wrt to Christmas, even co-opting December 25th from pagan celebrations -- Saturnalia and Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti). But as time went on and scholarship improved it became increasingly apparent that most of the "borrowing" was going the other way. It was, far more often than not, the pagans who were incorporating Christian ideas and practices.

The Saturnalia festival was traditionally celebrated sometime between December 17th and 23rd. Christmas is on December 25th. If you're going to co-opt a holiday you generally don't want them taking place on different days. It kind of destroys the whole purpose

The reason that December 25th was picked for Christ's birth was because the assumed date for His death (at least in the Western part of the Empire^[1]), since at least 200 AD, was March 25th^[2] -- which was calculated to have coincided with 14 Nisan. Back then it was assumed that truly great and righteous men lived a whole number of years, without fractions meaning that they died on the same day they were conceived on (see the Talmud for examples). In short, if He died on March 25th He therefore, or so it was thought, must have also been conceived on March 25th. Add 9 months to the date of conception and you arrive at December 25th as the date of birth.

Likewise, this demonstrates that Christians were celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25 before the festival for Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) on Dec. 25 was only established in the middle of the 3rd cent. by a Roman emperor who was not very friendly toward Christianity. Prior to that the traditional festival days varied throughout the Roman Empire and included August 8th and/or the 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th -- but never December 25th.

This clearly shows, that contrary to popular belief, that festival was actually later syncretized with Christmas rather than the other way around since Christians had figured that Christmas took place on that day several decades prior to the Romans appropriating the day.

The confusion arises over the fact that the earliest Christians weren't really into celebrating the birth of Christ (they were far more interested in His death)^[3] and Christmas celebrations really didn't get started in earnest until 379 or 380 at first in Constantinople and then started taking off in 386 after a sermon given by John Chrysostom.

IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.

Another fact to consider is that the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) and the very earliest celebrations that we have records for (c. 250–300) come during a time when the persecuted Christian minority were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions of such an obvious character but were taking great pains to distinguish themself from them. That practice didn't begin to change until after Constantine converted to Christianity.

IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.





1. In some parts of the East, especially in Asia Minor and in Egypt, they concluded that it was April 6th with the discrepancy being largely due to the difficulties of trying to translate an unfamiliar lunar calendar into a solar calendar.

2. See Irenaeus' (c.130 – c.202) Adversus Haereses for instance and Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) both of whom listed March 25th as the day of the conception of Jesus.

3. Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) actually mocked various Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as a "pagan" practice.

[Sparko]

Oh yes! Absolutely correct. Selective reading.......

Do you accept every verse written?

Yes, unless it can be shown to be an error in translation or copyist mistake.

Yes

That's where we differ.

All Jews considered their God to be their father. Yes. 'Every Jew's Father.

Jesus claimed God was his Father in a direct way. As in he was the heir to the throne so to speak. He spoke to the Father and the Father spoke to him directly. You are ignoring the context.

Yes....... Son of Man, every Jew was a son of man, so are we we.

No not "a" son of man but "THE" Son of Man. In Daniel 7 "the Son of Man" is a divine title given to the the Messiah. Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah (Christ in Greek) and divine.

You can forgive sins, so can your neighbour, and no jesus did not return.

You can't forgive someone's sin against someone else. Only against you. Jesus forgave all of their sins, against GOD. And yes he did return and will again. You have no logical reason to accept only the parts of the bible you want and dismiss the rest.

What language the authors used was up to them, but Jesus named Simon 'Cephas'.

Who was Peter. Cephas is "Rock" in Aramaic, Peter is "Rock" in Greek (well "Petros" and Peter is the anglified version of that)

Yes... certainly. I've always heard and believed that it's the stuff you dump that produces best chances of truth (in what's left)

Do you selectively read the bible? Do you?

No I don't.

[One Bad Pig]

I think I read the bolded part somewhere smiley hmm.gif

In the 19th cent. everyone was sure that the Christians borrowed heavily from the pagans wrt to Christmas, even co-opting December 25th from pagan celebrations -- Saturnalia and Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti). But as time went on and scholarship improved it became increasingly apparent that most of the "borrowing" was going the other way. It was, far more often than not, the pagans who were incorporating Christian ideas and practices.

The Saturnalia festival was traditionally celebrated sometime between December 17th and 23rd. Christmas is on December 25th. If you're going to co-opt a holiday you generally don't want them taking place on different days. It kind of destroys the whole purpose

The reason that December 25th was picked for Christ's birth was because the assumed date for His death (at least in the Western part of the Empire^[1]), since at least 200 AD, was March 25th^[2] -- which was calculated to have coincided with 14 Nisan. Back then it was assumed that truly great and righteous men lived a whole number of years, without fractions meaning that they died on the same day they were conceived on (see the Talmud for examples). In short, if He died on March 25th He therefore, or so it was thought, must have also been conceived on March 25th. Add 9 months to the date of conception and you arrive at December 25th as the date of birth.

Likewise, this demonstrates that Christians were celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25 before the festival for Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) on Dec. 25 was only established in the middle of the 3rd cent. by a Roman emperor who was not very friendly toward Christianity. Prior to that the traditional festival days varied throughout the Roman Empire and included August 8th and/or the 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th -- but never December 25th.

This clearly shows, that contrary to popular belief, that festival was actually later syncretized with Christmas rather than the other way around since Christians had figured that Christmas took place on that day several decades prior to the Romans appropriating the day.

The confusion arises over the fact that the earliest Christians weren't really into celebrating the birth of Christ (they were far more interested in His death)^[3] and Christmas celebrations really didn't get started in earnest until 379 or 380 at first in Constantinople and then started taking off in 386 after a sermon given by John Chrysostom.

IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.

Another fact to consider is that the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) and the very earliest celebrations that we have records for (c. 250–300) come during a time when the persecuted Christian minority were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions of such an obvious character but were taking great pains to distinguish themself from them. That practice didn't begin to change until after Constantine converted to Christianity.

IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.





1. In some parts of the East, especially in Asia Minor and in Egypt, they concluded that it was April 6th with the discrepancy being largely due to the difficulties of trying to translate an unfamiliar lunar calendar into a solar calendar.

2. See Irenaeus' (c.130 – c.202) Adversus Haereses for instance and Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) both of whom listed March 25th as the day of the conception of Jesus.

3. Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) actually mocked various Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as a "pagan" practice.

Yes, I had that in mind as well - just didn't bother searching for that particular link.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes, unless it can be shown to be an error in translation or copyist mistake.

Unless you are fully conversant with every MSS that is available and you are proficient in Greek and Syriac [re the NT]. How would you determine that?

[Esther]

How much of Christianity came from Jesus, and how much came from other sources?

I don't think that Jesus the Galilean Nagar (handworker) knew any languages other than Eastern Aramaic, never knew names like Christ or Peter, and didn't have any interest in founding anything for Gentiles to follow. I think he stood for the working classes that struggled on, all around him, and against the greed and hypocrisy of the Priesthood.

So I reckon that a whole mass of 'outside' material was needed for the development of Christianity.

This may sound rude but it isn't. The thing is that it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks about Jesus. The NT is very clear about who Jesus is and who he isn't.

[Sparko]

Unless you are fully conversant with every MSS that is available and you are proficient in Greek and Syriac [re the NT]. How would you determine that?

Because scholars have studied those manuscripts for 2,000 years and most modern bibles will footnote any controversial verses or additions/deletions. Again you show you have never read the bible.