Scratch

Paddle2See wrote:

Well, that's an interesting theory.  But I don't see how a holiday with "Christ" in it's name originally had "nothing to do with Christianity or Jesus Christ".  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Can you point us towards your source for this information?

Of course, there were Pagan celebrations around the Solstice that predate the birth of Christ.  But they wouldn't have been called Christmas.

It's not a theory.  It's from the History Channel.  Christmas Unwrapped.  Or maybe it's their theory, not quite fact.  You're right, maybe there's something amiss about my information with such coincidental names.

@BBRS:  Father Christmas roughly equals European Santa.

Last edited by Kileymeister (2010-12-23 20:26:20)

Interesting, since my parents were just discussing the legitimacy of Christmas's date at dinner.

Yes, the date was a later Roman addition due to a combination of tradition and scientific-theological assumption.

militarydudes wrote:

It was originally the celebration of the Roman winter solstice, and the Sun was considered "reborn". The celebration of the Nativity of Christ was chosen to be placed at this time probably because it was exactly nine months after March 25th, which is supposedly when Jesus was conceived, as held by tradition.

Of course we'll never know when he was actually born. All we know was it was 2010 years ago.

Approximately 2010 years ago. The Roman calendar was adjusted to put Christ's birth at the year 1 AD, but it was a rough estimate.

AtomicBawm3 wrote:

It was some Pope who proclaimed the date as Jesus' birth, even though Jesus was more likely born in October or even September.

Maybe.

Most scientists think Jesus was born in April.