169
edits
Changes
→Wild Historical Inaccuracies: new section
Think the bit at the end about Oreilley and Gibson needs more but I cant be sure what to put there. Personally Ive always found the controversy itself bizarre considering theres no biblical precedent to celebrate the day of Christ's birth, especially given that the date of 12/25/00 itself is historically incorrect. The Gospels say He was born during the reign of King Herod, but Flavius Josephus says Herod died in the spring of 4 BC, putting Christ's birth as happening probably two seasons before (couldnt possibly have been the winter or the shepherds wouldnt have been abiding their flocks by night without freezing to death) which is how the real consensus seems to be September 29, 05 BC. [http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm More on that here.] So the controversy definately needs to be addressed I think, but honestly dont know how to get into it without just poking holes in it and personally attacking Oreilley and Gibson whom I just find personally repugnant.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 12:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Think the bit at the end about Oreilley and Gibson needs more but I cant be sure what to put there. Personally Ive always found the controversy itself bizarre considering theres no biblical precedent to celebrate the day of Christ's birth, especially given that the date of 12/25/00 itself is historically incorrect. The Gospels say He was born during the reign of King Herod, but Flavius Josephus says Herod died in the spring of 4 BC, putting Christ's birth as happening probably two seasons before (couldnt possibly have been the winter or the shepherds wouldnt have been abiding their flocks by night without freezing to death) which is how the real consensus seems to be September 29, 05 BC. [http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm More on that here.] So the controversy definately needs to be addressed I think, but honestly dont know how to get into it without just poking holes in it and personally attacking Oreilley and Gibson whom I just find personally repugnant.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 12:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== Wild Historical Inaccuracies ==
Can somebody explain what this is supposed to mean?
"It is usually assumed that the historical Jesus was born in the Spring. It wasn't until around 350 AD that Caesar appointed 25 December to be The Mass of Christ, probably to coincide with the date of the Winter Solstice. The early Catholic Church concurred, probably in order to draw parishioners away from licentious pagan festivals occurring at about the same time of year."
Caesar had been dead for several hundred years by 350. The Roman emperor (or at that point, the Byzantine Emperor) at the time would have been Constantius II, but then I can't find any references that link him to the establishment of Christmas (though he was involved in the affairs of the church at the time). Also it is useless to say "the early Catholic Church," because 350 was either before or at the very beginning of the schism (depending on who you ask), meaning that there was no other church to compare it to. It would be more accurate to say "the Church of Constantinople," if this is even valid at all. Also, there is heavy doubt as to when December 25th was established as the date of Christmas, meaning that this quote can't be taken for complete fact at all! This article needs serious revisions, and I'm not expert enough in the subject to make them. Somebody please help, this is a very important article. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 16:19, 27 December 2008 (EST)