A photo of a newspaper posted in
social media saying "Pope Benedict: Jesus wasn't born on Dec. 25 wherein a
netizen was surprised and took him/her to search it in the internet and then
he/she found out that it is true. The said Pope released his newest book that
also debunks Christmas myths.
Finally, after hundred of years on
deceiving its members by following a false tradition, the Pope admits Dec. 25
was not the birth of Christ, he also said that Christ was born several years
before 1 A.D., meaning to say, the creator of the Christian calendar that we
use today committed a big mistake, as he claim. Here are some news articles
about it (for more you can search it in your favorite search engine):
Pope Benedict XVI has a new book
coming out this week which he offers a closer look at the early life of Jesus,
including his birth. The book shines a light on many Christmas myths Christians
believe to be true, but in fact are not historically accurate.
Biblical Fact Vs. Tradition
While some people may consider the
Pope's book controversial as it steps on traditional Christmas toes, most of
the information he shares is not new. In fact, if you take time to do a Bible
Study on the birth of Jesus, the answer are there.
For instance, the Pope points out
that the evidence in the Gospels does not support the picture of animals and
cattle around the baby Jesus in his manger; nor does it support angels
singing about the birth of Christ. Luke 2:7 confirms Jesus placed in a
manger or feeding trough when he was born. Because it was feeding trough people
have assumed animals were there. And in verse 8 we are told that the shepherds
in that region saw an angel, who announced to them not to be afraid and offers
directions as to where to find the baby. The announcement was no sung.
But the angel said to them,
"Don't be afraid, for look, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that
will be for all the people: Today a Savior, who is Messiah the Lord, was born
for you in the city of David. This will be the sign for you: You will find a
baby wrapped snugly in cloth and lying in a feeding trough.
Suddenly there was a multitude of
the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying: 'Glory to God in the
highest heaven, and peace on earth to people He favors'" (Luke 2:8-14,
HCSB).
Is the Pope the next Grinch?
The Pope's purpose in writing his
book is not so much to debunk Christmas, but: "The Pope was not so much
aiming to debunk myths as trying to show that Jesus depicted in the Gospel is a
real historical figure, who walked on earth and talked to people like anyone
else." ---Alejandro Speciale: Vatican Correspondent for Religion News
December 25
A Bible study on the early church
does not mention celebration of the birth of Christ. The date December 25 stirs
up a bit of controversy as well as it is tied to a pagan Roman holiday that
honor their god Saturn. No one knows what day Jesus was born, but the Western
Church in Rome decided on December 25, while the Eastern Church picked January
6. Eventually the time frame between the two dates became "12 Days of
Christmas."
Back to the Bible
To know whether or not your
Christmas tradition are biblical, go back to the Bible. You may be surprised by
what you learn if you take time to study Christ's birth. Just take a look at
the visit from wise men. They found Mary and the child in a house...not a
stable.
source: examiner.com
The 'mistake' was made by a sixth
century monk known as Dionysius Exiguus or in English Dennis the Small, the 85
year-old pontiff claims in the book 'Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy
Narratives', published on Wednesday.
"The calculation of the
beginning of our calendar - was made by Dionysius Exiguus, who made the mistake
in his calculations by several years," the Pope writes in the book, which
went on sale around the world with an initial print run of a million copies.
"The actual date of Jesus birth
was several years before."
The assertion that Christian
calendar is based on a false premise is not new - many historians believe that
Christ was born sometime between 7BC and 2BC.
But the fact that doubts over one of
the keystones of Christian tradition have been raised by the leader of the
world's one billion Catholics is striking.
Dennis the Small, who was born in
Eastern Europe, is credited with being the "inventor" of the modern
calendar and the concept of Anno Domini era.
He drew up the new system in part to
distance it from the calendar in use at the time, which was based on the years
since the reign of the Roman Emperor Diocletian.
The emperor had persecuted
Christians, so there was good reason to expunge him from the new dating system
in favour of one inspired by the birth of Christ.
The monk's calendar became widely
accepted in Europe after it was adopted by the Venerable Bede, the
historian-monk, to date the events that he recounted in his Ecclesiastical
History of the English People, which he completed in AD 731.
But exactly how Dennis calculated
the year of Christ's birth is not clear and the Pope's claim that he made a
mistake is a view shared by many scholars.
The Bible does not specify a date
for the birth of Christ. The monk instead appears to have based his
calculations on vague references to Jesus's age at the start of his ministry
and the fact that he was baptized in the reign of the emperor Tiberius.
Christ's birth date is not only the
controversy raised by the Pope in his new book - he also said that contrary to
the traditional Nativity scene, there were no oxen, donkeys or other animals at
Jesus's birth.
He also weigh in on the debate over
Christ's birthplace, rejecting arguments by some scholars that he was born in
Nazareth rather than Bethlehem.
John Barton, Professor of the
Interpretation of the Holy Scripture at Oriel College, Oxford University, said
most academics agreed with the Pope that the Christian calendar was wrong and
that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly thought, probably
between 6BC and 4BC.
"There is no reference to when
he was born in the Bible - all we know is that he was born in the reign of
Herod the Great, who died before 1AD," he told The Daily Telegraph.
"It's been surmised for a very long time that Jesus was born before 1AD -
no one knows for sure."
The idea that Christ was born on
Dec. 25 also has no basis in historical fact. "We don't even know which
season he was born in. The whole idea of celebrating his birth during the
darkest part of the year is probably linked to pagan traditions and the winter
solstice."
source:
telegraph.co.uk
Pope Benedict XVI has opened the way
to an historic opportunity that might benefit much of humankind and save the
rest of us from enduring another eight weeks of seasonal disorder syndrome, an
affliction that starts with the October Christmas carol and which I believe is
more widespread than people want to admit.
The pope has published the third in
a trilogy of works dealing with the life of Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth: The
Infancy Narratives completes a project the 85-year-old Pope took up after being
elected pontiff in 2005. The first two books were big sellers in Italy (and
presumably among Catholics elsewhere as well). The latest volume reportedly has
an initial printing of one million, and hit bookshelves around the world on
Wednesday.
The headline issue is the Pope's
acknowledgement that Jesus wasn't born in the year everyone thinks he was. I'm
not sure this is really news; as a certified non-pious Canadian who gets sleepy
just thinking about entering a church, I thought it was generally known that
historian had long ago sorted out that the dates were off by a few years.
Nonetheless, it's viewed as significant that the Pope would actually say so in
print. According to the book, a monk known as Dionysius Exiguus (which
translates as Dennis the Small) got the dates wrong when he set out to invent a
new calendar about 1500 years ago.
"The calculation of the
beginning of our calendar - based on the birth of Jesus - was made by Dionysius
Exiguus, who made a mistake in his calculations by several years," the
Pope says. "The actual date of Jesus's birth was several years
before."
The Pope maintains Jesus was born in
a stable, as commonly assumed, though there might not have donkeys, camels,
oxen or other critters present. "There is no mention of animals in the
Gospels," he writes. And he insists Mary was a virgin. But it wasn't Dec.
25, a date that was adopted later, perhaps linked to some rituals related to
winter solstice.
Apart from whatever religious
significance this may involve, it offers the Church an opportunity to isolate
its annual celebration of Jesus' birth from the overdone commercial orgy that's
known as Christmas. Pick another date - one the Vatican thinks might be more
historically accurate, or at least no less inaccurate - and move the religious
celebration accordingly, while leaving Dec. 25 to the crass materialists.
Not that orgy would stop , but it
would no longer inspire the tedious annual eruptions of complaint from under
occupied cranks, atheist and misguided zealots upset that trees should appear
in schools, mangers should turn up on lawns and other insults to strict
secularism should be induced on the unwilling. People could give one another
gift without someone complaining about it.
The prayer that are an offense to
the ears of determined non-prayers could be moved to another day of the year,
when they could be delivered by consenting adults outside the hearing of the
temporarily fixated. Dec. 25 would be just another holiday that no one could
beef about (unless they just don't like holidays), while Christmas in March (or
whenever) would simply be a religious symbol marked by those who choose to,
without bothering those who don't, and free of the annoyance and excess of the
annual two-month build-up.
And who knows, once it was just
another long weekend, maybe some of the excess would diminish. Which I suspect
would be a welcome change to a lot of people.
source:
fullcomment.nationalpost.com
related
post : Christmas Tradition
No comments:
Post a Comment