What a freaking MORON// Lady on NBC says she hates the religious part of Christmas

[Avatar4321]

You're about as sharp as a dog turd.

Alright, I'm game. How the heck is that relevant to a discussion about what a lady on NBC said about Christmas?

Keep your religion out of my Christmas!

A word of wisdom, "It's better to remain silent and look like a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

 

[Mustang]

No. They just inheritted it.

Not true. Niether Christ nor his followers were Christians. They were Jews, albeit, radical apocalyptic Jews. A couple hundred years later, they created a religion, which with help of a Roman Emperor, became the Roman Catholic Church, from which all Christian faiths derive.

Christ organized a Church while in His Mortal ministry. He called and authorized Twelve Apostes and Seventies. He sent them out preaching the Gospel and organizing the righteous. This organization was not the same organization that was built with the help of the Roman Emperor. They inherited what was left after the Apostasy.

I thought that it was Peter who said (supposedly), "Upon this rock, I will build my church."

 

[Koios]

No. They just inheritted it.

Not true. Niether Christ nor his followers were Christians. They were Jews, albeit, radical apocalyptic Jews. A couple hundred years later, they created a religion, which with help of a Roman Emperor, became the Roman Catholic Church, from which all Christian faiths derive.

Christ organized a Church while in His Mortal ministry. He called and authorized Twelve Apostes and Seventies. He sent them out preaching the Gospel and organizing the righteous. This organization was not the same organization that was built with the help of the Roman Emperor. They inherited what was left after the Apostasy.

Not if what we know is true. He, if an actual person, or based on one, was a) a Jew; b) apocalyptic; and c) probably a Jim Jones-like nut on a suicide mission.

Bear in mind what "The kingdom of God is coming" meant then: apocalypse; God is coming and will replace the rule of man, i.e. the Romans ruling the joint at the time. And the mainstream Jews feared, or must have, that he was a nut. But certainly, preaching the radical beleif -- in the Temple of David -- was a known fast-track to being tied (not nailed; which is counter to how it works, best, if long-lasting pain is the objective) to a cross. So if real, he was a nut on a suicide mission, obviously.

But that was what gave early Christians hope, and resilience when being put to death in the Colleseum, one in particular woman being so brave that she inspired not only Romans, but a Roman Emperor. This we do know, as an historical fact. Most else is highly speculative.

But it's interesting as shit, even to me, an Atheist.

 

[GuyPinestra]

No. They just inheritted it.

Not true. Niether Christ nor his followers were Christians. They were Jews, albeit, radical apocalyptic Jews. A couple hundred years later, they created a religion, which with help of a Roman Emperor, became the Roman Catholic Church, from which all Christian faiths derive.

And I should add, those who started early Christianity, which become the RCC, may have fabricated the entire Jesus story. Or perhaps it was something passed down over the 200 years, and is based on real persons, albeit no doubt embellished. It's impossible to say since obviously no Google nor YouTube in those days. And not a shred of evidence found as to his existence. So it's anyone's call.

Craig A. Evans: The Archaeological Evidence For Jesus (PHOTOS)
It's a HuffPo link, I figured you'd give it more credence...

But some things don't wash, i.e. the crucifixion. No way a lance would have been stuck into him, allowing him to bleed out in a few hours, which would be merciful in crucifixions, which disjoint shoulders, causing excrutiating pain, lasting days before dying of exposure and dehydration. It was a gruesome way to die, and perfected in its gruesomeness. No way they'd screw it up by letting him bleed out relatively quickly.

31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c] 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”[d]

Your chronology sucks...

Previously dead bodies don't "bleed out".

 

[Koios]

Not true. Niether Christ nor his followers were Christians. They were Jews, albeit, radical apocalyptic Jews. A couple hundred years later, they created a religion, which with help of a Roman Emperor, became the Roman Catholic Church, from which all Christian faiths derive.

And I should add, those who started early Christianity, which become the RCC, may have fabricated the entire Jesus story. Or perhaps it was something passed down over the 200 years, and is based on real persons, albeit no doubt embellished. It's impossible to say since obviously no Google nor YouTube in those days. And not a shred of evidence found as to his existence. So it's anyone's call.

But some things don't wash, i.e. the crucifixion. No way a lance would have been stuck into him, allowing him to bleed out in a few hours, which would be merciful in crucifixions, which disjoint shoulders, causing excrutiating pain, lasting days before dying of exposure and dehydration. It was a gruesome way to die, and perfected in its gruesomeness. No way they'd screw it up by letting him bleed out relatively quickly.

You aren't factoring in the Jewish Sabbath.

No argument. How do you think it factors in? Bear in mind, Romans were Pagan, and not Jews.

 

[Koios]

Not true. Niether Christ nor his followers were Christians. They were Jews, albeit, radical apocalyptic Jews. A couple hundred years later, they created a religion, which with help of a Roman Emperor, became the Roman Catholic Church, from which all Christian faiths derive.

And I should add, those who started early Christianity, which become the RCC, may have fabricated the entire Jesus story. Or perhaps it was something passed down over the 200 years, and is based on real persons, albeit no doubt embellished. It's impossible to say since obviously no Google nor YouTube in those days. And not a shred of evidence found as to his existence. So it's anyone's call.

Craig A. Evans: The Archaeological Evidence For Jesus (PHOTOS)

But some things don't wash, i.e. the crucifixion. No way a lance would have been stuck into him, allowing him to bleed out in a few hours, which would be merciful in crucifixions, which disjoint shoulders, causing excrutiating pain, lasting days before dying of exposure and dehydration. It was a gruesome way to die, and perfected in its gruesomeness. No way they'd screw it up by letting him bleed out relatively quickly.

31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c] 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”[d]

Your chronology sucks...

Previously dead bodies don't "bleed out".

Craig is a divinity guy and not an historian. Also, none too objective. So if peer review shows a consensus, I'll take a closer look. Until then, I'll assume he's nothing more than a believer out to prove a presupposition, and is thus not entirely credible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As is YOUR right,celebrate it the way you want, as can she. It was a PAGAN holiday first that the christians happened to borrow.LOL

No, dear. There was a pagan holiday which Christians REPLACED.

My daughter's birthday was on Thanksgiving this year. Does that mean Thanksgiving is ACTUALLY a celebration of my daughter's birth?

I suggest that you celebrate the pagan holiday and I will celebrate Christmas.

I suggest that you either learn to understand people's posts better, or that you shut your piehole. Nothing in my post in any way indicated that I had any preference for the pagan holiday, Goober. That was found strictly in your own kneejerk.

 

[lovemymutts]

Sorry, Sparkles, but "I'm sure everyone agrees with me, so you just go find out whether they do or not while we operate on the assumption that I'm correct" will not work here. Thanks for not even trying to be original.

Meanwhile, the FACT, as I have stated before and which you would have understood in all those things you THOUGHT were telling you that Christians "borrowed a pagan holiday", is that Christians REPLACED a pagan holiday.

Sadly, I cannot advise you to go look up reading comprehension. I can only advise you to acquire some.

And before you bore me with another repetition of "No, I'm right. I'm just right. I'm right", let's just put an end to this now.

From History.com:

In the early years of Christianity, Easter was the main holiday; the birth of Jesus was not celebrated. In the fourth century, church officials decided to institute the birth of Jesus as a holiday. Unfortunately, the Bible does not mention date for his birth (a fact Puritans later pointed out in order to deny the legitimacy of the celebration). Although some evidence suggests that his birth may have occurred in the spring (why would shepherds be herding in the middle of winter?), Pope Julius I chose December 25. It is commonly believed that the church chose this date in an effort to adopt and absorb the traditions of the pagan Saturnalia festival. First called the Feast of the Nativity, the custom spread to Egypt by 432 and to England by the end of the sixth century. By the end of the eighth century, the celebration of Christmas had spread all the way to Scandinavia. Today, in the Greek and Russian orthodox churches, Christmas is celebrated 13 days after the 25th, which is also referred to as the Epiphany or Three Kings Day. This is the day it is believed that the three wise men finally found Jesus in the manger.

By holding Christmas at the same time as traditional winter solstice festivals, church leaders increased the chances that Christmas would be popularly embraced, but gave up the ability to dictate how it was celebrated. By the Middle Ages, Christianity had, for the most part, replaced pagan religion.

Once again, replacing something is not the same as BEING that thing. Duuuhhh.

Well there Precious . www.essortment.com/christmas-pagan-origins.42543.html. Please try real hard to notice pagan origins .I know it hard to realize especially someone like you that origins and replacing has two completely different meanings.Geeze thick as a brick . OH BTW you know what they say about assuming right? NEXT LMFAO

Hard to notice anything when you can't figure out how to post a link that works, Punkin. Maybe you should give your favorite blog or whatever a rest and look at OTHER sources . . . perhaps some that maintain their links?

Here try this Dumpling-www.essortment.com/christmas-pagan-origins.42543.html.Oh BTW just tried it on Bing and it popped right up OH P.S. You may want to check on that Spring birth of Christ,more like Fall. You are so entertaining ,nothing like a good laugh,afterall laughter is good medicine.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Not true. Niether Christ nor his followers were Christians. They were Jews, albeit, radical apocalyptic Jews. A couple hundred years later, they created a religion, which with help of a Roman Emperor, became the Roman Catholic Church, from which all Christian faiths derive.

Christ organized a Church while in His Mortal ministry. He called and authorized Twelve Apostes and Seventies. He sent them out preaching the Gospel and organizing the righteous. This organization was not the same organization that was built with the help of the Roman Emperor. They inherited what was left after the Apostasy.

I thought that it was Peter who said (supposedly), "Upon this rock, I will build my church."

Those were Christ's words...

 

[Koios]

Christ organized a Church while in His Mortal ministry. He called and authorized Twelve Apostes and Seventies. He sent them out preaching the Gospel and organizing the righteous. This organization was not the same organization that was built with the help of the Roman Emperor. They inherited what was left after the Apostasy.

I thought that it was Peter who said (supposedly), "Upon this rock, I will build my church."

Those were Christ's words...

Not even to Christians. Christ wrote nothing. All was written by followers, presumably quoting him, but who knows?

 

[GuyPinestra]

And I should add, those who started early Christianity, which become the RCC, may have fabricated the entire Jesus story. Or perhaps it was something passed down over the 200 years, and is based on real persons, albeit no doubt embellished. It's impossible to say since obviously no Google nor YouTube in those days. And not a shred of evidence found as to his existence. So it's anyone's call.

Craig A. Evans: The Archaeological Evidence For Jesus (PHOTOS)

31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c] 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”[d]

Your chronology sucks...

Previously dead bodies don't "bleed out".

Craig is a divinity guy and not an historian. Also, none too objective. So if peer review shows a consensus, I'll take a closer look. Until then, I'll assume he's nothing more than a believer out to prove a presupposition, and is thus not entirely credible.

What?? Suddenly you don't believe a HuffPo link??

ETA: I notice you didn't dispute the fact that your chronology sucks.

You do realize that invalidates your ENTIRE premise, don't you?

 

[Koios]

Not true. Niether Christ nor his followers were Christians. They were Jews, albeit, radical apocalyptic Jews. A couple hundred years later, they created a religion, which with help of a Roman Emperor, became the Roman Catholic Church, from which all Christian faiths derive.

Christ organized a Church while in His Mortal ministry. He called and authorized Twelve Apostes and Seventies. He sent them out preaching the Gospel and organizing the righteous. This organization was not the same organization that was built with the help of the Roman Emperor. They inherited what was left after the Apostasy.

I thought that it was Peter who said (supposedly), "Upon this rock, I will build my church."

Perhaps. But then where does it stand? Smack dab in the middle of the Vatican.

 

[Koios]

Craig A. Evans: The Archaeological Evidence For Jesus (PHOTOS)





Your chronology sucks...

Previously dead bodies don't "bleed out".

Craig is a divinity guy and not an historian. Also, none too objective. So if peer review shows a consensus, I'll take a closer look. Until then, I'll assume he's nothing more than a believer out to prove a presupposition, and is thus not entirely credible.

What?? Suddenly you don't believe a HuffPo link??

Depends on what it links to. Noodle on that; it'll come to you.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Can you REALLY call a celebration Christmas, when it doesn't really occur on the actual date of His birth (it's actually closer to Oct. 31st), but rather occurs on a pagan date (winter Solstice), and then not only do you change the date, but you change almost everything about the celebration by adopting all of the pagan celebrations instead of your own?

The only reason that Christmas is celebrated in the manner and date it is, is because when Rome sacked Jerusalem, Constantine decided to convert to Christianity and made it the official religion of the whole Roman Empire.

But...................in order to do that, you've got to sell it to the people, and the easiest way to do that is to let them bring their own beliefs in and mix it with what you've got.

But.............in the mixing of the holdiays, a little of the meaning of both sides is lost.

Besides.....................the true war on Christmas isn't being waged by the left or the atheists, it's being waged by Santa Clause and the commercialization of the holiday.

 

[freedombecki]

Christmas was originally a Pagan holiday practiced hundreds of years before Christ was born.

And December 25th is definitely NOT the day Christ was born, either.

The fact remains that since the days of Constantine December 25th has been celebrated as a commemorative to the birth of Christ, and trying to undo 1600 years of history in the name of PC is stupid.

You don't like Christ? Fine, that's your right.

I don't like Christmas trees, because Biblically they are pagan symbols. I don't, however, go around insulting the 100's of millions of Christians that put them up every year.

Tolerance, you should try some...

LMFAO Non tolerent because I stated a FACT.

The Mass of Christ is not pagan. It is a solemn time Christians and Christian nations rejoice the birth of the Savior, Jesus Christ. There are 365 days of the year, and each of them has likely been a holy day of different cultures throughout the million or so years human beings we know have occupied earth. Are you sure you're not just picking out one of them to bolster a case for anti-Christianity, or are you just saying more than you think?

 

[Koios]

Craig A. Evans: The Archaeological Evidence For Jesus (PHOTOS)





Your chronology sucks...

Previously dead bodies don't "bleed out".

Craig is a divinity guy and not an historian. Also, none too objective. So if peer review shows a consensus, I'll take a closer look. Until then, I'll assume he's nothing more than a believer out to prove a presupposition, and is thus not entirely credible.

What?? Suddenly you don't believe a HuffPo link??

ETA: I notice you didn't dispute the fact that your chronology sucks.

You do realize that invalidates your ENTIRE premise, don't you?

I discounted the chronology, not to mention it contradicts the stages of the cross, kinda an important deal to many Christians.

Bear in mind, many things thought to be of Christ, which the Vatican holds sacred, haven't fared well under scientific scrutiny. Shroud of Turin comes to mind.

When Craig's is, ya'll be sure and let me know. He's a Pacific Northwesterner. So some local pride would come into play, not to mention I'd find is fascinating were it true. Big leap in our understanding of it, which again, seems odd is not a global sensation, which it would be were it factual, and scientifically validated.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not true. Niether Christ nor his followers were Christians. They were Jews, albeit, radical apocalyptic Jews. A couple hundred years later, they created a religion, which with help of a Roman Emperor, became the Roman Catholic Church, from which all Christian faiths derive.

And I should add, those who started early Christianity, which become the RCC, may have fabricated the entire Jesus story. Or perhaps it was something passed down over the 200 years, and is based on real persons, albeit no doubt embellished. It's impossible to say since obviously no Google nor YouTube in those days. And not a shred of evidence found as to his existence. So it's anyone's call.

But some things don't wash, i.e. the crucifixion. No way a lance would have been stuck into him, allowing him to bleed out in a few hours, which would be merciful in crucifixions, which disjoint shoulders, causing excrutiating pain, lasting days before dying of exposure and dehydration. It was a gruesome way to die, and perfected in its gruesomeness. No way they'd screw it up by letting him bleed out relatively quickly.

You aren't factoring in the Jewish Sabbath.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Historical-Jesus-Ancient-Evidence/dp/0899007325]The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ: Gary R. Habermas: 9780899007328: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Why Did the Roman Soldier Stab Jesus with His Spear?

Sorry to piggyback on your post, Avatar.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Alright, I'm game. How the heck is that relevant to a discussion about what a lady on NBC said about Christmas?

Keep your religion out of my Christmas!

A word of wisdom, "It's better to remain silent and look like a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Little late for Josef.

 

[freedombecki]

Can you REALLY call a celebration Christmas, when it doesn't really occur on the actual date of His birth (it's actually closer to Oct. 31st), but rather occurs on a pagan date (winter Solstice), and then not only do you change the date, but you change almost everything about the celebration by adopting all of the pagan celebrations instead of your own?

The only reason that Christmas is celebrated in the manner and date it is, is because when Rome sacked Jerusalem, Constantine decided to convert to Christianity and made it the official religion of the whole Roman Empire.

But...................in order to do that, you've got to sell it to the people, and the easiest way to do that is to let them bring their own beliefs in and mix it with what you've got.

But.............in the mixing of the holdiays, a little of the meaning of both sides is lost.

Besides.....................the true war on Christmas isn't being waged by the left or the atheists, it's being waged by Santa Clause and the commercialization of the holiday.

Early peoples dreaded cold weather. It was a time when people died more than usual, felt pain more than usual, and had short-day depression disorder that made them feel bad. The church elders for their reason, placed the day at the beginning time of most of the northern hemisphere's cold weather to cheer people and take their minds off their day-to-day upcoming cold weather blasts. We celebrate it once a year, in common with other religions having holy days close to it, as well. It's not a big deal, but it is important for us to remember our spiritual heritage, and we are brought up in an atmosphere in which wise people with much understanding were charged with ordering things so everyone could get the best out of life. Cheerfulness in bad times can get you through a lot of bad stuff.

Can you see a case for the fact it's probably ok?

 

[Koios]

Can you REALLY call a celebration Christmas, when it doesn't really occur on the actual date of His birth (it's actually closer to Oct. 31st), but rather occurs on a pagan date (winter Solstice), and then not only do you change the date, but you change almost everything about the celebration by adopting all of the pagan celebrations instead of your own?

The only reason that Christmas is celebrated in the manner and date it is, is because when Rome sacked Jerusalem, Constantine decided to convert to Christianity and made it the official religion of the whole Roman Empire.

But...................in order to do that, you've got to sell it to the people, and the easiest way to do that is to let them bring their own beliefs in and mix it with what you've got.

But.............in the mixing of the holdiays, a little of the meaning of both sides is lost.

Besides.....................the true war on Christmas isn't being waged by the left or the atheists, it's being waged by Santa Clause and the commercialization of the holiday.

Early peoples dreaded cold weather. It was a time when people died more than usual, felt pain more than usual, and had short-day depression disorder that made them feel bad. The church elders for their reason, placed the day at the beginning time of most of the northern hemisphere's cold weather to cheer people and take their minds off their day-to-day upcoming cold weather blasts. We celebrate it once a year, in common with other religions having holy days close to it, as well. It's not a big deal, but it is important for us to remember our spiritual heritage, and we are brought up in an atmosphere in which wise people with much understanding were charged with ordering things so everyone could get the best out of life. Cheerfulness in bad times can get you through a lot of bad stuff.

Can you see a case for the fact it's probably ok?

Interesting thesis.

How do suppose Easter is the first SUNday following the first full moon of Spring? Seems a smidge Paganish. Yeah?