Christmas vs "Holidays"

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 des 2004 20:51:03

James A. Doemer wrote in a message to James A. Doemer:

JAD> From: "James A. Doemer" <jdjunkmail@earthlink.net>


JAD> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
JAD> news:32ba86F3j8d9rU2@individual.net...
But, that's what one gets for trying to get a free ride by
tacking Christmas on the back of Winter Solstice. One always
pays in the end. Was Christmas<>Solstice another one of Paul's
idiot ideas or was it Nicea?


JAD> Constantine. Well, more accurately Constantine set Jesus's
JAD> birthday on December 25th, to compete with pagan Winter Solstice
JAD> holidays.

Source?

Evidence?

And don't give a URL, unless it's got a cite from a contemporary document, in
which case, give the cite rather than the URL.

But if you care to Google on "forged decretals" you may find that you are not
alone. People have been attributing stuff falsely to Constantine for centuries.

Sala kahle

Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)

Gjest

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 des 2004 03:40:44

be one lying around for reference).
Bake at 400°for about 25 minutes -
or you could fry them in olive oil.
Place the meatballs in the tomato gravy, and simmer for several hours.
Serve on spaghetti.
Accompany with green salad, garlic bread and red wine.



Newborn Parmesan

This classic Sicilian cuisine can easily be turned into Eggplant Parmesan
If you are planning a vegetarian meal. Or you could just as well use veal -
after all, you have to be careful - Sicilians are touchy about their young
family members...

6 newborn or veal cutlets
Tomato gravy (see index)
4 cups mozzarella, 1cup parmesan, 1cup romano
Seasoned bread crumbs mixed with
parmesan
romano
salt
pepper
oregano
garlic powder
chopped parsley
Flour
eggwash (eggs and milk)
Peanut oil for frying.

Pound the cutlets.
Dredge in flour, eggs, then the bread crumb mixture.
Fry till golden brown in 350° peanut oil.
In a baking pan, place a layer of gravy,
then one of meat, gravy, and cheese.
Another layer each of meat, gravy, and cheese.
Then bake at 350° for 45 minutes.
Serve on hot pasta with romano cheese.



Southern Fried Small-fry

Tastes like fried chicken, which works just as well.
In fact you may want to practice cutting up whole chickens
for frying before you go for the real thing.
Whole chicken is much more efficient and inexpensive than buying pieces.

1 tiny human, cut into pieces
2 cups flour
Onion, garlic
Salt
pepper
garlic powder
cayenne pepper
hot sauce, etc.
Oil for frying

Mix milk, eggs, hot sauce in a bowl, add chopped onion and garlic.
Season the meat liberally, and marinate for several hours.
Place seasoned flour in a paper or plastic shopping bag,
drop pieces in a few a time, shake to coat thoroughly,
then deep fry in hot oil (350°) for about 15 minutes.
Drain and place on paper towels.



Miscarriage with Mustar

Gjest

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 des 2004 17:36:57

Stephen.Hayes@family-news.org wrote:
James A. Doemer wrote in a message to James A. Doemer:
JAD> From: "James A. Doemer" <jdjunkmail@earthlink.net
pays in the end. Was Christmas<>Solstice another one of Paul's
idiot ideas or was it Nicea?

JAD> Constantine. Well, more accurately Constantine set Jesus's
JAD> birthday on December 25th, to compete with pagan Winter
Solstice
JAD> holidays.

Source?

Evidence?

And don't give a URL, unless it's got a cite from a contemporary
document, in
which case, give the cite rather than the URL.

The best list of the ancient evidence I have seen online is the article
at the Catholic Encyclopedia. This suggests that Christmas was adopted
at Rome only in the 350's, later than Constantine, under circumstances
not now known. But have a read.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steve Hayes

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Steve Hayes » 30 des 2004 05:15:24

On 29 Dec 2004 08:36:57 -0800, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Stephen.Hayes@family-news.org wrote:
James A. Doemer wrote in a message to James A. Doemer:
JAD> From: "James A. Doemer" <jdjunkmail@earthlink.net
pays in the end. Was Christmas<>Solstice another one of Paul's
idiot ideas or was it Nicea?

JAD> Constantine. Well, more accurately Constantine set Jesus's
JAD> birthday on December 25th, to compete with pagan Winter
Solstice
JAD> holidays.

Source?

Evidence?

And don't give a URL, unless it's got a cite from a contemporary
document, in
which case, give the cite rather than the URL.

The best list of the ancient evidence I have seen online is the article
at the Catholic Encyclopedia. This suggests that Christmas was adopted
at Rome only in the 350's, later than Constantine, under circumstances
not now known. But have a read.

The earliest evidence for the celebration of the birth of Christ on 25
December is the Philocalian Calendar, representing Roman practice in the year
336.

But I've seen no evidence at all that it was ordered by Constantine. If James
Doemer has any evidence for his assertion to that effect, I'm asking him to
produce it by reference to a primary source. He does not need to have *seen*
the primary source with his own eyes, just to say what it is.


--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/

James A. Doemer

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 30 des 2004 06:13:54

"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41d36a20.166662647@news.saix.net...
On 29 Dec 2004 08:36:57 -0800, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Stephen.Hayes@family-news.org wrote:
James A. Doemer wrote in a message to James A. Doemer:
JAD> From: "James A. Doemer" <jdjunkmail@earthlink.net
pays in the end. Was Christmas<>Solstice another one of Paul's
idiot ideas or was it Nicea?

JAD> Constantine. Well, more accurately Constantine set Jesus's
JAD> birthday on December 25th, to compete with pagan Winter
Solstice
JAD> holidays.

Source?

Evidence?

And don't give a URL, unless it's got a cite from a contemporary
document, in
which case, give the cite rather than the URL.

The best list of the ancient evidence I have seen online is the article
at the Catholic Encyclopedia. This suggests that Christmas was adopted
at Rome only in the 350's, later than Constantine, under circumstances
not now known. But have a read.

The earliest evidence for the celebration of the birth of Christ on 25
December is the Philocalian Calendar, representing Roman practice in the
year
336.

But I've seen no evidence at all that it was ordered by Constantine. If
James
Doemer has any evidence for his assertion to that effect, I'm asking him
to
produce it by reference to a primary source. He does not need to have
*seen*
the primary source with his own eyes, just to say what it is.




I never said that Constantine ordered a celibration. What did happen is
that he ordered a study to try to find out when Christ was born. His
researchers could not return a definitive answer, so Constantine choose Dec.
25th to compete with the Winter Solstice holidays of competing pagan
religions of that time.

http://www.konig.org/wc29.htm

"The Feast of Tabernacles started on the 15th day of the month and lasted
for seven days. If Christ was born in the fall of the year, around Oct. 1,
then using the normal 280 day period of pregnancy would mean that Mary
conceived Jesus on or near Dec. 25.

This curious fact may account for the early church's acceptance of the date
of Dec. 25, in addition to transforming an existing Roman holiday into a
Christmas celebration of Christ's incarnation. Dec. 25 was originally a
pagan festival to a sun god known as Saturnalia. But, and around AD 320, the
church adopted this date to officially celebrate the nativity, under the
direction of the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine. "


Later, in 525 AD, Dionysius Exiguous (Dennis the Short) set the year of
Christ's birth, or more accurately the year after as 1 AD.

http://www.ianchadwick.com/essays/madness.html

Both the date and the year are inaccurate.

Gjest

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2004 22:13:05

James A. Doemer wrote:
I never said that Constantine ordered a celibration. What did happen
is
that he ordered a study to try to find out when Christ was born.
His
researchers could not return a definitive answer, so Constantine
choose Dec.
25th to compete with the Winter Solstice holidays of competing pagan
religions of that time.

I don't think this is right: sorry. If this is so, then some ancient
text must mention this. And I really do not think one does.

http://www.konig.org/wc29.htm
Dec. 25 was originally a pagan festival to a sun god known as
Saturnalia.

Mostly right: the Saturnalia was celebrated around then.

But, and around AD 320, the church adopted this date to
officially celebrate the nativity, under the direction of the
first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine. "

I don't get the impression that this website is doing more than
repeating something the author heard (being human). It's not
impossible; it just doesn't happen to be true. This is why hearsay is
such a pain.

Later, in 525 AD, Dionysius Exiguous (Dennis the Short) set the year
of
Christ's birth, or more accurately the year after as 1 AD.

http://www.ianchadwick.com/essays/madness.html

Both the date and the year are inaccurate.

Dionysius Exiguus (Dionysius the Less). Isn't it remarkable that his
works still remain entirely untranslated into English? Despite all
that money spent on the Millennium?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

James A. Doemer

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 31 des 2004 01:41:14

<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1104441185.868502.47820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
James A. Doemer wrote:
I never said that Constantine ordered a celibration. What did happen
is
that he ordered a study to try to find out when Christ was born.
His
researchers could not return a definitive answer, so Constantine
choose Dec.
25th to compete with the Winter Solstice holidays of competing pagan
religions of that time.

I don't think this is right: sorry. If this is so, then some ancient
text must mention this. And I really do not think one does.

Why does the text need to be ancient?

http://www.konig.org/wc29.htm
Dec. 25 was originally a pagan festival to a sun god known as
Saturnalia.

Mostly right: the Saturnalia was celebrated around then.

No, exactly accurate. Saturnalia's celibration was on December 25th.

But, and around AD 320, the church adopted this date to
officially celebrate the nativity, under the direction of the
first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine. "

I don't get the impression that this website is doing more than
repeating something the author heard (being human). It's not
impossible; it just doesn't happen to be true. This is why hearsay is
such a pain.

Believe what you will, the facts are accurate.

Later, in 525 AD, Dionysius Exiguous (Dennis the Short) set the year
of
Christ's birth, or more accurately the year after as 1 AD.

http://www.ianchadwick.com/essays/madness.html

Both the date and the year are inaccurate.

Dionysius Exiguus (Dionysius the Less). Isn't it remarkable that his
works still remain entirely untranslated into English? Despite all
that money spent on the Millennium?

Latin, while a seldom used language today, is still easily translatable.

Gjest

Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2004 06:51:02

roger_pearse wrote in a message to James A. Doemer:

rp> From: roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk

rp> James A. Doemer wrote:
I never said that Constantine ordered a celibration. What did happen
rp> is
that he ordered a study to try to find out when Christ was born.
rp> His
researchers could not return a definitive answer, so Constantine
rp> choose Dec.
25th to compete with the Winter Solstice holidays of competing pagan
religions of that time.

rp> I don't think this is right: sorry. If this is so, then some
rp> ancient text must mention this. And I really do not think one
rp> does.

That is the challenge -- to find ANY contemporary or near contemporary text to
support this historical legend. As it is, it is as fanciful as those web sites
tracing the owner's ancestry back to Adam and Eve.

Real genealogists should know something about historical evidence and how to
evaluate it.

Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)

Gjest

Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2004 06:51:02

James A. Doemer wrote in a message to roger_pearse:

JAD> From: "James A. Doemer" <jdjunkmail@earthlink.net>


JAD> <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
JAD> news:1104441185.868502.47820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
James A. Doemer wrote:
I never said that Constantine ordered a celibration. What did happen
is
that he ordered a study to try to find out when Christ was born.
His
researchers could not return a definitive answer, so Constantine
choose Dec.
25th to compete with the Winter Solstice holidays of competing pagan
religions of that time.

I don't think this is right: sorry. If this is so, then some ancient
text must mention this. And I really do not think one does.

JAD> Why does the text need to be ancient?

Does that question REALLY need to be answered in a genealogy newsgroup? Surely
the answer should be obvious.

It is not so much that the text needs to be ancient, as that it needs to be
contemporary with the events described. History is littered with documents
purporting to have been written by constantine. As I suggested in an earlier
message, Google for "forged decretals" or "false decretals" to find examples.


http://www.konig.org/wc29.htm
Dec. 25 was originally a pagan festival to a sun god known as
Saturnalia.

Mostly right: the Saturnalia was celebrated around then.

JAD> No, exactly accurate. Saturnalia's celibration was on December
JAD> 25th.

Are you sure?

Hint:

Constantine *did* declare 25 December a holiday -- but it was neither
Saturnalia nor the Nativity of Christ. It was the festival of the Invincible
Sun (Sol Invictus).

Saturnalia was celebrated a week or so earlier, about 17 December. Some of the
customs connected with its celebration carried over into the Christian
celebration of Christmas, but that is not at all the same thing as Constantine
ordering it.

But, and around AD 320, the church adopted this date to
officially celebrate the nativity, under the direction of the
first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine. "

I don't get the impression that this website is doing more than
repeating something the author heard (being human). It's not
impossible; it just doesn't happen to be true. This is why hearsay is
such a pain.

JAD> Believe what you will, the facts are accurate.

If you are so sure of that, why not provide evidence?

Sala kahle

Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)

Gjest

Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2004 06:51:02

James A. Doemer wrote in a message to Steve Hayes:

JAD> From: "James A. Doemer" <jdjunkmail@earthlink.net>


JAD> "Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
JAD> news:41d36a20.166662647@news.saix.net...
On 29 Dec 2004 08:36:57 -0800, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Stephen.Hayes@family-news.org wrote:
James A. Doemer wrote in a message to James A. Doemer:
JAD> From: "James A. Doemer" <jdjunkmail@earthlink.net
pays in the end. Was Christmas<>Solstice another one of Paul's
idiot ideas or was it Nicea?

JAD> Constantine. Well, more accurately Constantine set Jesus's
JAD> birthday on December 25th, to compete with pagan Winter
Solstice
JAD> holidays.

Source?

Evidence?

And don't give a URL, unless it's got a cite from a contemporary
document, in
which case, give the cite rather than the URL.

The best list of the ancient evidence I have seen online is the article
at the Catholic Encyclopedia. This suggests that Christmas was adopted
at Rome only in the 350's, later than Constantine, under circumstances
not now known. But have a read.

The earliest evidence for the celebration of the birth of Christ on 25
December is the Philocalian Calendar, representing Roman practice in the
JAD> year
336.

But I've seen no evidence at all that it was ordered by Constantine. If
JAD> James
Doemer has any evidence for his assertion to that effect, I'm asking him
JAD> to
produce it by reference to a primary source. He does not need to have
JAD> *seen*
the primary source with his own eyes, just to say what it is.




JAD> I never said that Constantine ordered a celibration. What did
JAD> happen is that he ordered a study to try to find out when Christ
JAD> was born. His researchers could not return a definitive answer,
JAD> so Constantine choose Dec. 25th to compete with the Winter
JAD> Solstice holidays of competing pagan religions of that time.

JAD> http://www.konig.org/wc29.htm

JAD> "The Feast of Tabernacles started on the 15th day of the month and
JAD> lasted for seven days. If Christ was born in the fall of the year,
JAD> around Oct. 1, then using the normal 280 day period of pregnancy
JAD> would mean that Mary conceived Jesus on or near Dec. 25.

JAD> This curious fact may account for the early church's acceptance of
JAD> the date of Dec. 25, in addition to transforming an existing Roman
JAD> holiday into a Christmas celebration of Christ's incarnation. Dec.
JAD> 25 was originally a pagan festival to a sun god known as
JAD> Saturnalia. But, and around AD 320, the church adopted this date
JAD> to officially celebrate the nativity, under the direction of the
JAD> first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine. "

No mention of Constantine there.

Nor does that cite any primary sources at all.

As I said, the earliest evidence that Christian celebrated Christ's birthday on
25 December is the Philocalian Calendar, which shows that it was celebrated in
Rome on that date in 336.

People attribute all sorts of things to Constantine with little or no evidence.

JAD> Later, in 525 AD, Dionysius Exiguous (Dennis the Short) set the
JAD> year of Christ's birth, or more accurately the year after as 1 AD.

JAD> http://www.ianchadwick.com/essays/madness.html

JAD> Both the date and the year are inaccurate.

Whether the date is inaccurate is a moot point (it has a 1 in 365 chance of
being right). The year probably was inaccurate.

Sala kahle

Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)

Gjest

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2004 09:54:43

James A. Doemer wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1104441185.868502.47820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
James A. Doemer wrote:
I never said that Constantine ordered a celibration. What did
happen
is
that he ordered a study to try to find out when Christ was born.
His
researchers could not return a definitive answer, so Constantine
choose Dec.
25th to compete with the Winter Solstice holidays of competing
pagan
religions of that time.

I don't think this is right: sorry. If this is so, then some
ancient
text must mention this. And I really do not think one does.

Why does the text need to be ancient?

Well, if something happened in (say) 400AD, since we were not around to
see it, how do we know it happened? How do we even know about it? The
only possibilities are (1) someone wrote an account at the time (or
within a century or two) (2) there's some archaeological evidence for
the event which someone has dug up (3) there's some coins or
inscriptions from the time about it. If none of these exist, then
someone later made the story up.

That's why I was looking for the source.

http://www.konig.org/wc29.htm
Dec. 25 was originally a pagan festival to a sun god known as
Saturnalia.

Mostly right: the Saturnalia was celebrated around then.

No, exactly accurate. Saturnalia's celibration was on December
25th.


But Saturnalia is a festival, not a deity.

But, and around AD 320, the church adopted this date to
officially celebrate the nativity, under the direction of the
first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine. "

I don't get the impression that this website is doing more than
repeating something the author heard (being human). It's not
impossible; it just doesn't happen to be true. This is why hearsay
is
such a pain.

Believe what you will, the facts are accurate.

You know this -- how?

Later, in 525 AD, Dionysius Exiguous (Dennis the Short) set the
year
of Christ's birth, or more accurately the year after as 1 AD.

http://www.ianchadwick.com/essays/madness.html

Both the date and the year are inaccurate.

Dionysius Exiguus (Dionysius the Less). Isn't it remarkable that
his
works still remain entirely untranslated into English? Despite all
that money spent on the Millennium?

Latin, while a seldom used language today, is still easily
translatable.


Not by most people, which is why we need English translations. Even
scholars are not as familiar as they should be any more, or so I am
told. I'd just like to read the words of Dionysius Exiguus, rather
than see all this second-hand hearsay about them.
All the best,

Roger Pearse

Gjest

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2004 10:01:33

Stephen.Hayes@family-news.org wrote:
James A. Doemer wrote in a message to roger_pearse:
I don't think this is right: sorry. If this is so, then some
ancient
text must mention this. And I really do not think one does.

JAD> Why does the text need to be ancient?

Does that question REALLY need to be answered in a genealogy
newsgroup? Surely
the answer should be obvious.

It is not so much that the text needs to be ancient, as that it needs
to be
contemporary with the events described. History is littered with
documents
purporting to have been written by constantine. As I suggested in an
earlier
message, Google for "forged decretals" or "false decretals" to find
examples.


Well, not 'contemporary' as such: few *ancient* historical texts meet
that demand, which is normally made in *modern* history, as a way to
reduce the quantity of data. For instance, our only evidence for
events in Britain after 396AD under Roman rule is Zosimus, writing
around 550AD. Our primary sources for all first century history are
Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, plus Josephus for Jewish stuff.
The first three all wrote in the second century. It's just the way the
discipline works.

Contemporary is good, of course: well informed is better!

http://www.konig.org/wc29.htm
Dec. 25 was originally a pagan festival to a sun god known as
Saturnalia.

Mostly right: the Saturnalia was celebrated around then.

JAD> No, exactly accurate. Saturnalia's celibration was on
December
JAD> 25th.

Are you sure?

Hint:

Constantine *did* declare 25 December a holiday -- but it was neither
Saturnalia nor the Nativity of Christ. It was the festival of the
Invincible
Sun (Sol Invictus).

I was reading an account of Sol Invictus recently, and the festivals
were not in Mid-December (not surprisingly for a sun cult). I see
around the net a lot of confusion between this deity and the ancient
dies natalis solis invicti (day of the unconquered sun). But this is
not connected to Sol Invictus: it's just the day the Romans celebrated
the winter solstice. I don't think Constantine declared 25 Dec a
holiday: but again, I'm willing to see the ancient texts that says so.

Saturnalia was celebrated a week or so earlier, about 17 December.

I thought so, although I couldn't recall. Although you don't happen to
know which ancient sources tell us this, do you? I find one can't
trust even basic stuff like this, without verification, so much rubbish
goes around on the web.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

James A. Doemer

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 31 des 2004 15:52:16

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
James A. Doemer wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1104441185.868502.47820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
James A. Doemer wrote:
I never said that Constantine ordered a celibration. What did
happen is that he ordered a study to try to find out when Christ
was born. His researchers could not return a definitive answer, so
Constantine choose Dec. 25th to compete with the Winter Solstice
holidays of competing pagan religions of that time.

I don't think this is right: sorry. If this is so, then some
ancient text must mention this. And I really do not think one does.

Why does the text need to be ancient?

Well, if something happened in (say) 400AD, since we were not around
to see it, how do we know it happened? How do we even know about it?
The only possibilities are (1) someone wrote an account at the time
(or within a century or two) (2) there's some archaeological evidence
for the event which someone has dug up (3) there's some coins or
inscriptions from the time about it. If none of these exist, then
someone later made the story up.

Oh.. It just that 400 AD isn't commonly thought of as "ancient". Your
conclusion does not, by necessity, follow your premis. Just because
evidence does not exist for something, does not necessarilly mean it didn't
happen.


That's why I was looking for the source.

http://www.konig.org/wc29.htm
Dec. 25 was originally a pagan festival to a sun god known as
Saturnalia.

Mostly right: the Saturnalia was celebrated around then.

No, exactly accurate. Saturnalia's celibration was on December
25th.

But Saturnalia is a festival, not a deity.

To celibrate a diety.


But, and around AD 320, the church adopted this date to
officially celebrate the nativity, under the direction of the
first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine. "

I don't get the impression that this website is doing more than
repeating something the author heard (being human). It's not
impossible; it just doesn't happen to be true. This is why hearsay
is such a pain.

Believe what you will, the facts are accurate.

You know this -- how?

I read Latin and Koine Greek, and have studied the matter at some length.
And if that isn't enough, then there's always the history channel. LOL!


Later, in 525 AD, Dionysius Exiguous (Dennis the Short) set the
year of Christ's birth, or more accurately the year after as 1 AD.

http://www.ianchadwick.com/essays/madness.html

Both the date and the year are inaccurate.

Dionysius Exiguus (Dionysius the Less). Isn't it remarkable that
his works still remain entirely untranslated into English? Despite
all that money spent on the Millennium?

Latin, while a seldom used language today, is still easily
translatable.

Not by most people, which is why we need English translations.

Most people, if interested, can go to a local college and have it translated
for very little.


Even
scholars are not as familiar as they should be any more, or so I am
told. I'd just like to read the words of Dionysius Exiguus, rather
than see all this second-hand hearsay about them.
All the best,


Yes because after all, the entire world, and hundreds of websites all saying
essentially the same thing MUST be lying to you, right?

Gjest

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2004 17:58:09

James A. Doemer wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
James A. Doemer wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1104441185.868502.47820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
James A. Doemer wrote:
I never said that Constantine ordered a celibration. What did
happen is that he ordered a study to try to find out when Christ
was born. His researchers could not return a definitive answer,
so
Constantine choose Dec. 25th to compete with the Winter Solstice
holidays of competing pagan religions of that time.

I don't think this is right: sorry. If this is so, then some
ancient text must mention this. And I really do not think one
does.

Why does the text need to be ancient?

Well, if something happened in (say) 400AD, since we were not
around
to see it, how do we know it happened? How do we even know about
it?
The only possibilities are (1) someone wrote an account at the time
(or within a century or two) (2) there's some archaeological
evidence
for the event which someone has dug up (3) there's some coins or
inscriptions from the time about it. If none of these exist, then
someone later made the story up.

Oh.. It just that 400 AD isn't commonly thought of as "ancient".

Depends on perspective, it's true. Here *I* am referring to any event
in 'ancient history'. This would be up to the fall of the Western
Roman Empire, at least, and later if you're into the Eastern empire.

Your conclusion does not, by necessity, follow your premis. Just
because
evidence does not exist for something, does not necessarilly mean it
didn't
happen.

This is so. But it does mean that we cannot say that it happened, in
the absence of any actual evidence. If we do, we are inventing
stories.

One qualification: by 'evidence', I mean 'evidence.' I know a lot of
the dimwits online think 'evidence'='whatever evidence I choose not to
debunk.' (You've probably seen them too). Arguing from a manufactured
silence that absence of evidence is evidence of absence is just
obscurantism, and I see a lot of it.

But, and around AD 320, the church adopted this date to
officially celebrate the nativity, under the direction of the
first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine. "

I don't get the impression that this website is doing more than
repeating something the author heard (being human). It's not
impossible; it just doesn't happen to be true. This is why
hearsay
is such a pain.

Believe what you will, the facts are accurate.

You know this -- how?

I read Latin and Koine Greek, and have studied the matter at some
length.
And if that isn't enough, then there's always the history channel.
LOL!


<chuckle> This won't do, you know. We don't find these facts in Latin
and Greek grammars or lexica.

I too have studied antiquity a certain amount
(http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse) but this does not make my words
gospel. All sorts of people could claim the same.

This is why I always think we must look up the original data. It's
very hard for the most dishonest scholar to argue with someone who
simply sticks to what the ancient evidence says, and won't be moved by
speculation, claims of authority, or attempts to ignore bits or invent
bits.

Not that I assert the site you mentioned is dishonest: but unless
they're antiquity enthusiasts like myself, they simply won't have the
time to verify all these things.

Later, in 525 AD, Dionysius Exiguous (Dennis the Short) set the
year of Christ's birth, or more accurately the year after as 1
AD.

http://www.ianchadwick.com/essays/madness.html

Both the date and the year are inaccurate.

Dionysius Exiguus (Dionysius the Less). Isn't it remarkable that
his works still remain entirely untranslated into English?
Despite
all that money spent on the Millennium?

Latin, while a seldom used language today, is still easily
translatable.

Not by most people, which is why we need English translations.

Most people, if interested, can go to a local college and have it
translated
for very little.

Interesting. As a matter of fact, I am very much interested in getting
translations made. My attempts to get people to do this for me
generally were unsuccessful. If you know of somewhere, please email me
and we'll talk about it. I run the Additional Fathers site, you see
(http://www.tertullian.org/fathers) and I have a list of texts --
including Exiguus, and the remaining biblical prefaces of St. Jerome --
that I'd like to get translated.

Even scholars are not as familiar as they should be any more, or so
I am
told. I'd just like to read the words of Dionysius Exiguus, rather
than see all this second-hand hearsay about them.

Yes because after all, the entire world, and hundreds of websites all
saying
essentially the same thing MUST be lying to you, right?

If the authors of those websites have not read the original -- and I
see no reason to suppose *any* of them have -- then how do we know?
Why trust, when we can look? By the way, there are or used to be
hundreds of websites that assert that the bible canon was decided at
the First Council of Nicaea. But they are all wrong! (This 'fact' I
went and checked myself, after getting suspicious).
All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steve Hayes

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Steve Hayes » 01 jan 2005 03:53:15

On 31 Dec 2004 01:01:33 -0800, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Stephen.Hayes@family-news.org wrote:
James A. Doemer wrote in a message to roger_pearse:
I don't think this is right: sorry. If this is so, then some
ancient
text must mention this. And I really do not think one does.

JAD> Why does the text need to be ancient?

Does that question REALLY need to be answered in a genealogy
newsgroup? Surely
the answer should be obvious.

It is not so much that the text needs to be ancient, as that it needs
to be
contemporary with the events described. History is littered with
documents
purporting to have been written by constantine. As I suggested in an
earlier
message, Google for "forged decretals" or "false decretals" to find
examples.

Well, not 'contemporary' as such: few *ancient* historical texts meet
that demand, which is normally made in *modern* history, as a way to
reduce the quantity of data. For instance, our only evidence for
events in Britain after 396AD under Roman rule is Zosimus, writing
around 550AD. Our primary sources for all first century history are
Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, plus Josephus for Jewish stuff.
The first three all wrote in the second century. It's just the way the
discipline works.

Contemporary is good, of course: well informed is better!

Aye, but "ancient" on its own is not enough. A document dated, say AD 300,
would be suspect if purporting to report on events of AD 350.

http://www.konig.org/wc29.htm
Dec. 25 was originally a pagan festival to a sun god known as
Saturnalia.

Mostly right: the Saturnalia was celebrated around then.

JAD> No, exactly accurate. Saturnalia's celibration was on
December
JAD> 25th.

Are you sure?

Hint:

Constantine *did* declare 25 December a holiday -- but it was neither
Saturnalia nor the Nativity of Christ. It was the festival of the
Invincible
Sun (Sol Invictus).

I was reading an account of Sol Invictus recently, and the festivals
were not in Mid-December (not surprisingly for a sun cult). I see
around the net a lot of confusion between this deity and the ancient
dies natalis solis invicti (day of the unconquered sun). But this is
not connected to Sol Invictus: it's just the day the Romans celebrated
the winter solstice. I don't think Constantine declared 25 Dec a
holiday: but again, I'm willing to see the ancient texts that says so.

Several of his edicts survive, and collections have been published, though
some have queried the authenticity or reliability of some of the edicts in
these collections. e.g. J.P. Migne, Patrologia Latina.

Saturnalia was celebrated a week or so earlier, about 17 December.

I thought so, although I couldn't recall. Although you don't happen to
know which ancient sources tell us this, do you? I find one can't
trust even basic stuff like this, without verification, so much rubbish
goes around on the web.

For the moment, no, though it should not be too difficult to find out. I said
"about" because I could not recall exactly, and would have to go and check in
the library when it reopens after the holidays (which are not opposed to
"Christmas").



--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/

Gjest

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 jan 2005 12:56:08

Steve Hayes wrote:
On 31 Dec 2004 01:01:33 -0800, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Well, not 'contemporary' as such: few *ancient* historical texts
meet
that demand, which is normally made in *modern* history, as a way to
reduce the quantity of data. For instance, our only evidence for
events in Britain after 396AD under Roman rule is Zosimus, writing
around 550AD. Our primary sources for all first century history are
Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, plus Josephus for Jewish stuff.
The first three all wrote in the second century. It's just the way
the
discipline works.

Contemporary is good, of course: well informed is better!

Aye, but "ancient" on its own is not enough. A document dated, say AD
300,
would be suspect if purporting to report on events of AD 350.

True. But a document written in 550AD in Constantinople may be the
only thread of evidence about an event in 10AD. So long as the culture
survives, there is genuine material floating around. After the end of
antiquity, legend takes over.

Saturnalia was celebrated a week or so earlier, about 17 December.

I thought so, although I couldn't recall. Although you don't happen
to
know which ancient sources tell us this, do you? I find one can't
trust even basic stuff like this, without verification, so much
rubbish
goes around on the web.

For the moment, no, though it should not be too difficult to find
out. I said
"about" because I could not recall exactly, and would have to go and
check in
the library when it reopens after the holidays (which are not opposed
to
"Christmas").

Don't bother on my account: I can look in the OCD sometime. It was
just if you happened to know.
Happy New Year to you.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steve Hayes

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Steve Hayes » 02 jan 2005 01:45:59

On 1 Jan 2005 03:56:08 -0800, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:
For the moment, no, though it should not be too difficult to find
out. I said
"about" because I could not recall exactly, and would have to go and
check in
the library when it reopens after the holidays (which are not opposed
to
"Christmas").

Don't bother on my account: I can look in the OCD sometime. It was
just if you happened to know.

I found a nice one in alt.politics.religion today, accusing Constantine of
omitting ther book of Benjamin from the Bible.

I wonder if there's anything Constantine hasn't been accused of adding to or
omitting from something or other.

He was probably responsible for unicorns missing the ark, and the lack of
parachutes for passengers on jumbo jets.


--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/

James A. Doemer

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 02 jan 2005 04:42:16

Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1 Jan 2005 03:56:08 -0800, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:
For the moment, no, though it should not be too difficult to find
out. I said
"about" because I could not recall exactly, and would have to go
and check in the library when it reopens after the holidays (which
are not opposed
to
"Christmas").

Don't bother on my account: I can look in the OCD sometime. It was
just if you happened to know.

I found a nice one in alt.politics.religion today, accusing
Constantine of omitting ther book of Benjamin from the Bible.

Constantine himself neither added nor omitted books. Constantine's
interest was a unified Christian Church. He didn't much care in the
specifics, just a consistent doctrine.

I wonder if there's anything Constantine hasn't been accused of
adding to or omitting from something or other.

He was probably responsible for unicorns missing the ark,

No, that was the Unicorn's own fault. Surely you've heard the Irish Rovers
sing about it?


The Unicorn (Irish Rovers)

A long time ago when the earth was green
There were more kinds of animals than you've ever seen
And they'd run around free while the world was being born,
And the loveliest of all was the unicorn. There were . . .

<chorus>:

Green alligators and long-necked geese, humpty-back camels and chimpanzees.
Cats and rats and elephants but sure as you're born,
The loveliest of all was the unicorn.

But the Lord seen some sinnin' and it caused him pain
He says, "Stand back, I'm gonna make it rain.
So hey, Brother Noah, I'll tell you what to do,
Go and build me a floating zoo. And take my . . .

<chorus>

Green alligators and long-necked geese, humpty-back camels and chimpanzees.
Cats and rats and elephants but sure as you're born,
Don't you forget my unicorns."

Now Noah was there and he answered the callin',
And he finished up the ark as the rain started fallin',
Then he marched in the animals two by two,
And he called out as they went through: "Hey, Lord, I got your . . .

<chorus>

Green alligators and long-necked geese, humpty-back camels and chimpanzees.
Cats and rats and elephants, but Lord I'm so forlorn,
I just don't see no unicorns.

Well, Noah looked out through the drivin' rain,
But the unicorns were hidin', playin' silly games
They were kickin' and a-splashin' while the rain was pourin',
Oh them silly unicorns. You've got your . . .

<chorus>

Green alligators and long-necked geese, humpty-back camels and chimpanzees.
Cats and rats and elephants but sure as you're born,
The loveliest of all was the unicorn.

Noah cried, "Close the door 'cause the rain is pourin',
And we just can't wait for no unicorns."
Then the ark started movin' and it drifted with the tide,
And the unicorns looked up from the rock and cried,
And the water came up and sort of floated them away,
That's why you've never seen a unicorn to this very day. You'll see . . .

<chorus>

Green alligators and long-necked geese, humpty-back camels and chimpanzees.
Cats and rats and elephants but sure as you're born,
You're never gonna see no unicorns.

Gjest

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 jan 2005 15:14:17

James A. Doemer wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1 Jan 2005 03:56:08 -0800, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:
For the moment, no, though it should not be too difficult to find
out. I said "about" because I could not recall exactly, and
would have to go and check in the library when it reopens
after the holidays (which are not opposed to "Christmas").

Don't bother on my account: I can look in the OCD sometime. It
was
just if you happened to know.

I found a nice one in alt.politics.religion today, accusing
Constantine of omitting the book of Benjamin from the Bible.

Nice one! Never heard of any such book, tho.

Constantine himself neither added nor omitted books. Constantine's
interest was a unified Christian Church. He didn't much care in the
specifics, just a consistent doctrine.

I think he did care; but he wasn't sure what the answer was.

I wonder if there's anything Constantine hasn't been accused of
adding to or omitting from something or other.

What is interesting, tho, is that not all of this anti-Constantinian
vituperation is religious. I learned from Cameron & Hall, "Eusebius:
Life of Constantine", that much of it originates in the revolutionary
movement of the 1850's, and is directed at the Hapsburg and Russian
emperors.

Both drew their political legitimacy from the concept of Christian
empire founded by Constantine. So to attack him was to undermine them.
All the best,

Roger Pearse

James A. Doemer

Re: Christmas vs "Holidays"

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 04 jan 2005 00:41:54

<roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1104761657.175792.312860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
James A. Doemer wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1 Jan 2005 03:56:08 -0800, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:
For the moment, no, though it should not be too difficult to find
out. I said "about" because I could not recall exactly, and
would have to go and check in the library when it reopens
after the holidays (which are not opposed to "Christmas").

Don't bother on my account: I can look in the OCD sometime. It
was
just if you happened to know.

I found a nice one in alt.politics.religion today, accusing
Constantine of omitting the book of Benjamin from the Bible.

Nice one! Never heard of any such book, tho.

Constantine himself neither added nor omitted books. Constantine's
interest was a unified Christian Church. He didn't much care in the
specifics, just a consistent doctrine.

I think he did care; but he wasn't sure what the answer was.

That could be. He also may have been concerned about sticking his nose into
what could become a volitile situation. Some of the pre-Constantine
Christian Churches had wildly varying doctrine, and some of them could be
quite nasty about it.

I wonder if there's anything Constantine hasn't been accused of
adding to or omitting from something or other.

What is interesting, tho, is that not all of this anti-Constantinian
vituperation is religious. I learned from Cameron & Hall, "Eusebius:
Life of Constantine", that much of it originates in the revolutionary
movement of the 1850's, and is directed at the Hapsburg and Russian
emperors.

Both drew their political legitimacy from the concept of Christian
empire founded by Constantine. So to attack him was to undermine them.
All the best,


True.

Roger Pearse

Svar

Gå tilbake til «alt.genealogy»