Ovi -
we cover every issue
Philosophy Books  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Ovi Language
Murray Hunter: Essential Oils: Art, Agriculture, Science, Industry and Entrepreneurship
Stop violence against women
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Stop human trafficking
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
From Christ to Christmas - a historical analysis
by Dr. Habib Siddiqui
2014-12-26 11:35:43
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

For many Christians around the globe, Christmas is linked with the birthday of their lord Jesus Christ. They believe that he was born on or around December 25 of 1 C.E. (Common Era). It is inconsequential to them that the story in the Gospels is often utterly divorced from all historical contexts.  There is often no awareness of the geographical and political relation between the places Jesus visits, e.g., Galilee, Judea and Jerusalem, how far they might be from each other, how long a journey from one place to another might take place.

In the Gospel accounts of the so-called New Testament (NT), Jesus is depicted as a messiah, which in a strictly literal sense means the ‘anointed one.’ While the term was customarily referred to David (Dawood) and Solomon (Sulayman), every king of Israel since the days of king (and Prophet) David was regarded as a Messiah. Not only that. Around the time of Jesus’s birth, a series of militant, armed oppositions to Rome was organized and led by rebellious Jews - Simon son of Joseph of Peraea (ca. 4 BCE), Athronges (ca. 4-2 BCE) and Judas of Galilee (6 CE) - who all claimed the title of Messiah. They were recognized as such not only by their immediate followers, but also by a segment of the Jewish people. Needless to say that there was nothing intrinsically divine about such Christ figures. Indeed, to assert that any man was God, or even son of God, in a literal sense and/or the idea of a divine Messiah would have been, for Jesus and his contemporaries, extremely blasphemous.

How did then this myth of divinity of Jesus evolve? To find the answer we have to look at the 3 Ps – the place he lived, the period in which he lived and the people of his period. While much is known about the world in which Jesus the Nazarene lived, sadly, very little is known about him and the events surrounding his life. The Gospels, including the whole of the Bible, are sketchy documents, which no respectable scholar would for a moment consider absolutely reliable as historical testimony. They portray a world, almost fairy-tale story! But Palestine at the time of advent of Christianity was a not a fairy-tale kingdom; it was a real place where people of different religions, sects and cults lived. There were the Palestinian Jews and pagans, and the Greco-Roman pagans and others imported from abroad as a result of Roman occupation of the holy land. And thanks to Saul (Paul) of Tarsus, an overwhelming majority of the latter-day followers of Jesus came not from the monotheist Jews but from the uncircumcised pagans.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, that none of the canonical gospels was written in the very language in which Jesus had spoken. They were written in Greek. Even his own name - ‘Isa (pronounced Eesa), the son of Maryam - was corrupted to Greek. He even got transformed from Jesus the Nazarene (also spelled Nazarean and Nasara’in) to Jesus of Nazareth. Corruption in the process of translation has obscured more than names. Whether by accident or design, it has also served to conceal historical information of immense importance. For example, we don’t know the term that Jesus had actually used in his own vernacular to describe the purported Greek term - Paraclete or Paracletos. A single word may convey a wealth of historical background; and if the sense of such a word is altered, the revelation it offers is bound to be lost.

As much as the worship of mother goddess – Ishtar, Isis, Astarte, Aphrodite, Cybele – commanded large following amongst the pagans living then in Palestine, the Jews were not immune from such corrosive influences. There were residues of polytheistic goddess worship within the framework of Judaism itself, cults dedicated to the ancient Canaanite goddess Miriam or Rabath. There were also the Samaritan Jews who insisted that their brand was the only true form. There were also a number of Jewish sects, and even sects within sects. The most prominent Jewish groups were the Pharisees, Sadducees (Sadooqis), Essenes, Zealots and Zadokites. Some of the Jews did not believe in the hereafter. Too many were involved in usury and immoral acts near the Jewish Temple.

Before the time of Jesus’s appearance, the messianic expectations were high. The Jews were looking for a deliverer from their misery. They asked: if God were indeed All-powerful, how one makes sense of Israel’s misfortune? If God were indeed All-powerful, how could one expect His permitting His Temple to be defiled by the heathen Romans? How could one explain His letting His own authority be challenged by a secular, heathen ruler in Rome who presumed to arrogate divinity to himself?

It was under such dismal circumstances that Jesus was born. His mother was Maryam (Mary), a pious Jewish woman who was raised in the Temple. She was probably 12 to 14 years old when she gave birth to Jesus. According to Gospel accounts, she was betrothed to Joseph the carpenter. According to Catholic Encyclopedia, the latter was 90 years old then and was the father of six children, two daughters and four sons from a previous marriage. The youngest of his children was James who is mentioned in the NT as "the Lord's brother". According to Christian apocryphal writings, Joseph died around 18 or 19 C.E. at the very advanced age of 111.

The year of Jesus’s birth was determined by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk, abbot of a Roman monastery.  His calculation in ca. 533 C.E. was based on the following information:

a.       In the pre-Christian Roman era years were counted from ab urbe condita (“the founding of the City” [Rome]).  Thus 1 AUC signified the year Rome was founded.

b.     Dionysius received a tradition that the Roman emperor Augustus reigned 43 years, and was followed by the emperor Tiberius.

c.       Luke 3:1 and 3:23 indicate that when Jesus turned 30 years old, it was the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar’s reign.

d.      If Jesus was 30 years old in Tiberius’s reign, then he lived 15 years under Augustus (placing Jesus’s birth in Augustus’s 28th year of reign).

e.       Augustus took power in 727 AUC.  Therefore, Dionysius put Jesus’s birth in 754 AUC, which is commonly now equated as 1 C.E.

Unfortunately, for Dionysius, the gospel according to Luke 1:5 places Jesus’s birth in the days of Herod, and Herod died in 750 AUC (4 B.C.E.) – four years before the year in which Dionysius places Jesus birth. Such contradictions within the Gospel accounts about Jesus’s birth year made Joseph A. Fitzmyer – Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America, member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and former president of the Catholic Biblical Association – writing in the Catholic Church’s official commentary on the New Testament, to comment about the date of Jesus’ birth, “Though the year [of Jesus birth] is not reckoned with certainty, the birth did not occur in AD 1.” According to Fitzmyer, Dionysius was wrong; he had miscalculated. Fitzmyer guesses that Jesus was probably born in 3 BCE.

Still, the birth-year remains unsettled when we consider the Biblical tradition that Jesus was supposed to be no more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of all the boys in and around Bethlehem who were two years old and under (Matthew 2:16). Herod died before April 12, 4 BCE. So, if the Biblical story is to be believed, Jesus must have been born before 4 BCE. This has led some Christians to revise the birth year to 6 - 4 BCE. Even then, the problem is not settled when we notice that Jesus was supposed to have been born during the census of (Syrian Governor) Quirinius (Luke 2:2). This census took place after Herod’s son Archelaus was deposed in 6 CE, ten years after Herod's death. So, one way to accommodate competing versions of Jesus’s birth will be to place the year somewhere between 6 BCE and 6 CE or shortly thereafter.

Even the Vatican now admits that Jesus was not born in 1 CE. In the third installment of his trilogy, dedicated to the life of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI revealed in November 2012 that Jesus may have been born earlier than previously thought. He explains in his book that Exiguus, who is considered the inventor of the Christian calendar, “made a mistake in his calculations by several years. The actual date of Jesus’ birth was several years before.”

As can be seen, the gospels are unreliable as historical documents. The first of them, Mark, was composed no earlier than the revolt of 66 CE. They pay scant attention to the historical backdrop, addressing themselves essentially to the figure of Jesus and his teachings. Luke’s account in the Acts of the Apostles is essentially an account of Paul who had undergone ‘Road to Damascus’ conversion after Jesus’s ascension to heaven. Acts offers a more or less reliable historical account of Paul’s activities.

Around 39 CE, Paul returns to Jerusalem and is officially admitted to the Nazarene party, comprising of the original, true disciples of Jesus that is led by James (Jesus’s brother from Joseph the carpenter). His reception was rather less enthusiastic. Because of his years of persecution of the Nazarenes, most of them did not trust Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus). They put Barnabas, one of the most trusted disciples of Jesus, as his mentor. However, serious differences arise and they part company. James and the Nazarene party send their own missionaries to undo Paul’s teachings. The proof of this can be found in 2 Cor. 11:3-4 where Paul claims that they were promulgating ‘another Jesus.’ To the Nazarenes, it was Paul who had replaced the worship of God with that of Jesus. In Paul’s hands, Jesus himself becomes an object of religious veneration – which Jesus himself, like his brother James and the other Nazareans in Jerusalem, would have regarded as blasphemous.


It is from Paul, and Paul alone, that a new religion begins to emerge – not a form of Judaism, but a rival and ultimately an adversary to Judaism. This new religion is fused with Greco-Roman thought, with pagan traditions, with elements from a number of mystical schools. Once Paul’s cult began to crystallize as a religion in itself, it dictated certain priorities which had not obtained in Jesus’s lifetime and which Jesus himself would unquestionably have deplored. In the first place it had to compete with all the other established religions. In order to get a strong footing, thus, Jesus had inescapably to assume a degree of godhood comparable to that of the deities, he was intended to displace. Like many such deities, Tammuz, e.g., the god of the ancient Sumerian and Phoenician mystery teachings, had been born of a virgin, died with a wound in his side and, after three days, rose from his tomb, leaving it vacant with the rock at the entrance rolled aside. If Paul were to challenge successfully the adherents of Tammuz, Jesus would have to be able to match the older god, miracle for miracle. In consequence, certain aspects of Tammuz story were grafted on to Jesus’s biography. It is significant that Bethlehem was not only David’s city, but also the ancient center of a Tammuz cult, with a shrine that remained active well into biblical times.

Anyone interested can find numerous specific elements in the NT to their origin not in history, but in the traditions surrounding Tammuz, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus and Mithra. There is a passage in the Mithraic communion that is similar to the sacrament: ‘He who shall not eat of my body nor drink my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”

In order to diffuse itself through the pagan Romanized world, Christianity had to transmute itself. And in that process it rewrote the historical circumstances from which it arose. Jesus himself had to be divorced from his historical context, turned into a non-political figure – an other-worldly, spiritual Messiah who posed no challenge whatever to Caesar. Thus, all trace of Jesus’s political activity was de-emphasized, diluted or excised. And so far as possible, all trace of his Jewishness was deliberately obscured, ignored or rendered irrelevant.

Unlike Paul and the supposed writers of the NT, however, Jesus had no intention of creating a new religion, and neither had James, Peter, Barnabas and the Nazarene party in Jerusalem. Like Jesus, they would have been horrified by the very idea of a different religion. Their distinction came in recognizing Jesus as the Messiah, which created problem for them from the authorities. In 36 CE, Stephen was martyred by stoning in Jerusalem, and many Nazarenes had fled the city. Paul was then on the other side. He was a Sadducee, persecuting the Nazarenes. By 44 CE, Peter, and then John, and many others were arrested, flogged, and ordered not to speak the name of Jesus. In the same year, disciple James – the brother of John - was beheaded. By the following year, guerilla activity on the part of the Zealots had intensified to the extent that Rome had to take countermeasures. By 48-49 CE, the Roman governor of Judea was seizing and crucifying both the Zealots and Nazarenes indiscriminately. Still the insurrection intensified. The Sadducee High Priest, appointed by the Romans, was assassinated by the Zealots in the mid-50s, and a major terrorist campaign was launched against the Sadducees who had aligned themselves with Rome.

During 57-8 CE another messiah appeared from Egypt. Having gained a substantial following in Judea, he undertook to occupy Jerusalem by force of arms and drive the Romans from the holy land. The movement was violently thwarted, but the disturbances continued. In around 62-65 CE, James, the head of the Nazarenes party in Jerusalem, was seized and executed. Larger-scale persecutions followed at the hands of the authorities, beginning with in 64 CE, when Emperor Nero blamed the early Christians for the Great Fire of Rome.

It is not difficult to surmise that under the weight of such persecution, especially after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE following the First Jewish Revolt of 66-70 CE, much of the true history and teachings of Jesus were lost, and what came to be passed on later as Christian doctrines and festivities, as we shall see later, owes little to Jesus himself, and more to Paul and the Greco-Roman culture in which it thrived in.  

Many of the followers of the early Nazarenes fled to territories where they felt safe and secure from the tyranny of the Romans and hostile Jews who did not recognize Jesus as their Messiah.

During Roman Emperor Constantine’s time, Nazarenes teaching was still thriving and being disseminated in places like Africa and in territories outside the Roman control, e.g., eastern Syria, southern Arabia and Iraq (Mesopotamia). The proof can be seen from the writings of Epiphanius, a Church father, who interchangeably used the terms Ebionite and Nazarenes in the late 4th century in his attack on them for rejecting godhood of Jesus and the Church. Ebionites (meaning the poor) considered Jesus to be a man, and not God. They adhered to Judaic teachings scrupulously and rejected Pauline letters. As such, they were declared heretics by church fathers.

In one Nazarene text, Paul is called the ‘enemy.’ The text maintains that Jesus’s rightful heir was his brother James, and that Simon Peter had never ‘defected’ to Pauline thought. Peter is quoted as issuing a warning against any authority other than Nazarene hierarchy.

Nazarene thoughts survived in Egypt. It was there that the Gospel of Thomas was found, with the wealth of other Nazarene thoughts left in Naag Hamadi scrolls. Arius, an ascetic Christian presbyter of Libyan birth, possibly of Berber extraction, and priest in Alexandria, Egypt, saw Jesus as a man, not God, coming, thus, as opposed to Pauline Christianity.

As the Nazarenes were hunted down throughout the Roman territories, the followers of Paul, who were called ‘Christians’ by others, were able to establish their churches along the Greek-speaking Mediterranean coastline that belonged to the eastern half of the Roman Empire, and then extensively throughout the empire. When Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans around 57 CE, the church in Rome was already flourishing.

With the widening doctrinal gaps between the two branches of Christianity, the Nazarenes - originally the central group in Christianity and still faithful to Jewish law - were excluded and denounced for holding onto their so-called unorthodox beliefs on Christology. By the 4th century CE, they would be called heretics by the more dominant (Pauline) Christians, who were further emboldened with Roman Emperor Constantine’s patronage and acceptance of Christianity. The Gentile Christianity remained the sole strand of orthodoxy and imposed itself on the previously Nazarene sanctuaries, taking full control of those houses of worship by the end of the 5th century. Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire, became the most important Christian center.

In the 5th century, the Pauline orthodoxy of Rome was still attempting to impose its hegemony over Egypt. The great library of Alexandria was burnt by (Pauline) ‘Christians’ in 411 CE. The last great Neo-Platonic philosopher, a woman, Hypatia, was stoned to death as she returned from a lecture at the library – again by ‘Christians’ – in 415 CE.

In the 1960s, Prof. Schlomo Pines, a medievalist scholar, found a collection of Arabic manuscripts, dating from the 10th century and held in a library in Istanbul, that includes a number of detailed verbatim quotes from an earlier 5th or 6th century text, which the Arab writer ascribes to ‘al-Nasara’ – the Nazarenes. The earlier text is believed to have been written originally in Syriac and to have been found at a Christian monastery in Khuzistan, south-west Iran, near Iraqi border. We are told that the contents appear to reflect a tradition dating, without a break, back to the original Nazarean hierarchy which fled Jerusalem immediately prior to the revolt of A.D. 66. Again, Jesus is stated to be a man, not a god, and any suggestion of his divinity is rejected. The importance of Judaic law is again stressed. Paul is castigated and his followers are said to ‘have abandoned the religion of Christ and turned towards the religious doctrines of the Romans’. The Gospels are dismissed as unreliable, second-hand accounts which contain only ‘something – but little – of the sayings, the precepts of Christ and information concerning him’.

No one would dispute that what we call today Christianity – in all its manifold and often irreconcilable forms – is the result of a prolonged, gradual, often haphazard process involving much trial and error, uncertainty, schism, compromise, improvisation – and a great deal of historical accident.


Now let’s discuss the date of Jesus’s birth. Interestingly, the DePascha Computus, an anonymous document believed to have been written in North Africa around 243 CE, placed Jesus’s birth on March 28.  Clement, a bishop of Alexandria (d. ca. 215 CE), thought that Jesus was born on November 18.  Based on historical records, Fitzmyer, however, guessed that Jesus’s birth occurred on September 11, 3 BCE, which is probably closer to the actual than any other Christian claims, especially when we recognize that in Luke 2:8 we are told that when Jesus was born “there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night”. December is too cold for such shepherd activities in either Bethlehem or Nazareth of Palestine (places associated with birthplace of Jesus). By mid-October shepherds would bring their flocks from the mountainsides and fields to protect them from the cold, rainy season that followed.

As can be seen from the above, none of these dates agrees with December 25. So, how did this date come to be celebrated later on as Jesus’s birth date?

For the answer we have to dig into the Roman history. In ancient Rome, the pagan Romans used to celebrate the Brumalia, a winter solstice festival that lasted almost a month from November 24 until the Saturnalia, a midwinter festival in December 17-24 to mark the sun's new birth from its solstice. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for any evil deed. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.”  Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week.  At the Saturnalia festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed that by sacrificing this person they were essentially destroying the forces of darkness. We are told by Lucian, the ancient Greek writer, poet and historian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia), that during this festival, in addition to human sacrifice, other customs included: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits.

For the cult of Sol Invictus, as noted above, the most celebrated day of the year was December 25, when the festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or "Birthday of Sol Invictus", the birth (or rebirth) of the sun, when the days began to grow perceptibly longer was observed. The cult of Sol Invictus also meshed well with that of Mithras, a survival of the old Zoroastrian religion imported from Persia.

In the interest of unity in his empire, Roman Emperor Constantine deliberately blurred the distinctions between Christianity, Mithraism and Sol Invictus. Although he was baptized in his deathbed, to him, Jesus was a human being and not God. So great was Constantine’s favor to Christianity that Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, one of the leading theological figures of his day and a close personal associate of the Emperor, considered Constantine as the reincarnation of Logos, a Messiah-like figure.

Christian doctrine, as promulgated in Rome at the time, had much in common with the cult of Sol Invictus anyway; and thus it was able to flourish unmolested under the sun cult’s umbrella of tolerance. There is no record of early Christians observing Sunday as the day of the rest until 321 CE when Constantine promulgated a law ordering the law courts closed on the ‘venerable day of the sun.’ Now, in accordance with Constantine’s edict, it adopted Sunday as its sacred day. Until the 4th century, moreover, Jesus’s birthday had been celebrated on January 6.

It must be remembered that no complete version of the New Testament (NT) survives which pre-dates the reign of Constantine. The NT, as we know it today, is largely a product of the Nicaea and other Church councils of the same epoch.

In the 4th century when Roman emperors adopted Christianity as the state religion, the pagan festivals of Saturnalia and Brumalia were too deeply entrenched in popular custom to be set aside by Christian influence. Since no particular date was mentioned in the gospel accounts, the date of Jesus’s birth was set by the Church under Roman Emperor Justinian in 354 CE to coincide with the last day of the pagan midwinter festival (i.e., December 25). This was a clever move by the Church that allowed pagans to accept the new faith without making too much compromise. By then, Emperor Constantine had already recognized Sunday, which had been the day of pagan sun worship. The influence of the pagan Manichaeism, which identified the “Son of God” with the physical Sun, gave these pagans of the 4th century, now turning over wholesale to Christianity, their excuse for calling their pagan festival date of December 25 (birthday of the Sun-god) - the birthday of the “Son of God.”

From the above brief analysis, it is clear that today’s Christians got their Christmas from the Roman Catholics who got it from the pagan Romans. The pagan Romans in turn got it from ancient Egypt where the cult of Osiris was vibrant. The Egyptian mythology tells us that Osiris, the king of ancient Egypt, was married to Queen Isis. The myth described Osiris as having been killed by his brother Set who wanted Osiris's throne. Isis briefly brought Osiris back to life by use of a spell that she learned from her father. This spell gave her time to become pregnant by Osiris before he again died. (In another version of the story, Isis is impregnated by divine fire.) Isis later gave birth to Horus. As such, since Horus was born after Osiris's resurrection, Horus came to be known as a representation of new beginnings and the vanquisher of the evil Set. This combination, Osiris-Horus, was therefore a life-death-rebirth deity, and thus associated with the new harvest each year. Afterward, Osiris became known as the Egyptian god of the dead, Isis became known as the Egyptian goddess of the children, and Horus became known as the Egyptian god of the sky or the “divine son of the heaven”.

There is a remarkable similarity between the myths of Osiris and Jesus. Osiris, the god of the afterlife, was reborn as Horus, the son of Isis. Egyptologist E.A. Wallis Budge finds possible parallels in Osiris's resurrection story with those found in Christianity: “In Osiris the Christian Egyptians found the prototype of Christ, and in the pictures and statues of Isis suckling her son Horus, they perceived the prototypes of the Virgin Mary and her child." Biblical scholar Professor George Albert Wells asserts that Osiris dies and is mourned on the first day and that his resurrection is celebrated on the third day with the joyful cry "Osiris has been found".In his book – Human Sacrifices, anthropologist and historian Nigel Davies asserts that "the agony of Osiris was a sacrifice with a universal message. As the one who died to save the many, and who rose from the dead, he was the first of a long line that has deeply affected man's view of this world and the next." He further argues that the passion and sacrifice of Jesus Christ is linked conceptually to Osirian and other traditions in the Ancient world.

After the death of Osiris, Isis propagated the doctrine of the survival of Osiris as a sprit being. She claimed that a full-grown evergreen tree had sprung from a dead tree stump, thus symbolizing the springing forth of the dead Osiris unto new life. She claimed that on each anniversary of his birth, Osiris would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts upon it. December 25 was the birthday of Osiris, reborn as the son Horus. That explains how Christmas got its origin. Over the generations Osiris came to be known as Baal, the Sun-god, amongst the Phoenicians, and as Jupiter in ancient Rome. The names varied in different countries and languages, but the worship of this false god continued.

According to Stephen Nissenbaum, professor history at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, “In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been.”  The earliest Christmas holidays were celebrated by drinking, sexual indulgence, singing naked in the streets (a precursor of modern caroling), etc. Since Jews were identified as Christ-killers, for amusement of the public, Jews were forced by the Catholic Church to race naked through the streets of Rome.

An eyewitness account from Pope Paul II’s reign in 1466 reports, “Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them and at the same time more amusing for spectators.  They ran… amid Rome’s taunting shrieks and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily.”

As part of the Christmas carnival throughout the 18th and 19th centuries CE, rabbis of the ghetto in Rome were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the city streets to the jeers of the crowd, pelted by a variety of missiles. When in1836 the Jewish community of Rome sent a petition to Pope Gregory XVI begging him to stop the annual Saturnalia abuse of the Jewish community, he responded, “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” On December 25, 1881, Christian leaders whipped the Polish masses into Anti-Jewish frenzies that led to riots across the country.  In Warsaw twelve Jews were brutally murdered, huge numbers maimed, and many Jewish women were raped.  Two million rubles worth of property was destroyed by frenzied Christians.

Because of its known pagan origin, Christmas was banned by the Puritans and its observance was illegal in Massachusetts between 1659 and 1681. But nowadays the festivity is widely celebrated wherever Christian community lives. In Egypt, the Coptic Christians celebrate the Christmas day on the 7th of January, corresponding to the 29th of "Kiahk" - a Coptic month.

December 25 – Christmas Day – has been a federal holiday in the United States since 1870. Popular customs include exchanging gifts, decorating Christmas trees, attending church, sharing meals with family and friends and, of course, waiting for Santa Claus to come. Christmas around the world has become more of a cultural and commercial phenomenon than a sacred religious one.

In spite of its pagan origin and associated make-beliefs and customs, Christmas is observed by faithful Christians around the world as the anniversary of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, a spiritual leader whose teachings form the basis of their religion. Jesus, the son of Mary, surely was one of the greatest teachers of all time. In Islam, he is revered as a Prophet and mighty Messenger of God.

It took nearly two millennia for the official church to admit that Jesus was not born on 1 C.E., I wonder how long do we have to wait before the same church also admits that December 25 is not the date when Jesus was born!

Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Get it off your chest
 (comments policy)

Nikos Laios2014-12-26 23:50:56
I think this is poor form attacking christmas and Christianity after Christmas.Now in the west,we have freedom of speech - which is a grand pillar of our society - but that does not give one the right to disparage and disrespect one's religion.That would be like someone for example saying that Islam and its prophets are frauds and utterly ridiculous myths(yet no one has ever said that here or anywhere?...)- like the good doctor is virtually saying about the main tennent of Christianity,and the reason we in the west don't do this is because firstly there is a mature and long established intellectual society in Europe,that has separated church and state,enjoys a debate,yet values & respect of one another's belief systems; be they Christianity,paganism,or even atheism.Now if this criticism of one's religion where to occur in the Islamic world, an attack against the prophet for example,one would have been killed , so it's interesting that the same democratic freedom of free speech is not reciprocated there.Another interesting topic indeed for Christians at this time of the year be would be the genocide and disappearance of long established Christian communities from the East at the hands of the 'peaceful' adherents of Islam......it's seems to me that cultural and religious respect is a two way street.Peace and love to all men and women of all faiths...the more love and respect we should each other,the better our world will be....

Emanuel Paparella2014-12-26 17:58:22
As they say in French: Déjà vu. No great surprises here. For 2000 years now, even before the advent of Islam in the 7th century there have been revisions and corrections of the historical Christ which have all the appearance of wanting to have the cake and eating it too. Let me explain: on one hand, some debunkers of Christianity would like to say that the Jesus narrative of the gospels is nothing else than a myth invented by some clever Jews like St. Paul who create an ahistorical figure, a whole mythical theology around the person of Jesus. On the other hand those people wish to point out the historical inconsistencies of the gospels as the above author certainly does. Which way do we want it?

If indeed the whole narrative is a myth, then historical accuracy does not matter, it is in fact irrelevant. It is only relevant to those who wish to discredit and debunk the narration to assert their own particular beliefs, or perhaps non beliefs and nihilism. If on the other hand the Incarnation is what the gospels say it is: God taking human form at a particular time, within a particular people, at a particular place on Earth, i.e., “Emmanu-El,” and residing with us as it is proclaimed every Christmas celebration, then the narration remains historical and true despite the minor chronological inconsistencies.

Chesterton points out another possible alternative: the person who went around proclaiming himself God and saying that before Abraham I am, I am the Truth, The Life and the Way, or at least the people who wrote about him (the four evangelists and Paul) are deranged people suffering from a delusion inside an illusion and have fooled people for 2000 years now, or perhaps the story is true, not a myth. One cannot have it both ways.

But there is still another possibility and it has been proclaimed for some two thousand years by assorted agnostics, doubters (among which the apostle Thomas) and atheists galore: Jesus is a pure figment of the imagination, an invention like Zeus and Hercule; a pure fraud. We'd be more honest if we celebrated the Roman Winter solstice (which Christmas replaces, the Church has always know that...)than this chimera called Christmas. Dr. Siddiqui does not go that far, he merely says that Jesus is another prophet among others, a spiritual leader like Mahomet, perhaps not as impressive as Mahomet but worthy to be on that particular list. But that is not what the gospels proclaim Dr. Siddiqui; that is what Islam proclaims. What the gospels proclaim is that either this man is what he says he is or he is a luncatic. One begins to suspect some bias here. It would be a breath of fresh air if Dr. Siddiqui and al the other historical revisionists and myth builders with a bias against Christianity were to admit as much.

Murray Hunter2014-12-28 18:40:53
Yes Jesus could well have been a composite creation, or he could have been the identity who spent many years in India. Personally I subscribe to the Gospel of St. Thomas.

© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi