The tree thing has nothing to do with Christianity.
It's just another pre-existing tradition (from the Roman Mithras-cult), that was co-opted to ease people's adoption of the new religion.The Mithras cult did not have any particular attachment to trees, you are probably confusing it with Saturnalia. But even then people did not bring a single solitary tree in, Saturnalia was celebrated by decorating rooms with many evergreen plants and branches as was common in a lot of winter solstice celebrations. The act of bringing in a single evergreen tree and decorating it came much much later, medieval times.
There's not much point in arguing over who started using evergreens in Winter solstice parties.
I mean I'd be very interested in knowing the true origins of solstice parties, as I strongly suspect they predate homo sapiens. Definitely predate writing, by a lot.
The Mithras cult gets far too much credit for these things. We know very little about them. Almost everything you've heard about them was made up.
The modern Christmas tree tradition goes back a few hundred years to central Europe.
Same with the Easter bunny.
I thought it was the Norse thing. But that might have been the stockings
It's because decorating an evergreen tree is a Yule tradition that has nothing to do with Jesus.
Wasn't he, quite famously, born in Bethlehem?
Also it wasn't renamed Palestine until more than a century after his death
Even if you weren't lying... You mean 2000 years ago, right? Even by your own imaginary history...
Yes, i mixed it up and corrected it, thank you.
I personally don't care because I'm not religious and Christmas is just a day to hang out with people I like, but I do enjoy throwing this out there whenever Christmas trees are mentioned in a religious capacity.
Jeremiah 10
1 Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: 2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. 3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. 4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
Jesus would have been against Christmas trees. Paul probably would have loved them fuckers, though.
I don't know how many other churches do this, but the one my parents took me to when I was a kid would pass out palm branches on psalm Tuesday, with the reasoning for the ritual being how in some Bible story I forgotten most of they laid palm branches down in front of someone like a red carpet.
politicalmemes
Jesus was a political radical from West Asia (Middle East)
Ehrm sweaty I think you'll find that the most probable prototype of the historical Jesus actually was emperor of Byzantium in 12th century Andronikos Komnenos.
He was also largely demonized in the historical retelling due to his anti-aristoctatic policies which benefitted the common citizenry.
He was likely born in Crimea so it should be pine trees.
This has got to be the dumbest thing I've read on this site to date.
I don't mean OP's comment, which is funny as hell. I mean the linked article. You've gotta love it when someone makes an argument that disregards what is written in the Bible and then uses what's written in the Bible as a justification for their argument. It's either one or the other. Stick to historical records only, or embrace, at the very minimum, that the entire Bible book that is being referenced is a reliable record. If one cherry picks "Well that part must be true, but that over there is irrelevant", the entire argument falls apart.
Let's step back a minute. Assuming Jesus was a real person or based on a real person, what does proven history say? The oldest extant fragment of the "New Testament" is Papyrus 52, and dates to around 125 CE. Fragment 66 contains most of the "Gospel of John", and dates to around 200 CE. Even if one were to disregard Papyrus 52 for not haven't enough material to count, Papyrus 66 places the historical Jesus, at the latest, prior to 200 CE. Add to that that Flavious Josephus wrote of a "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" and we have a stronger argument that the historical Jesus likely lived in the first or second century CE. Most likely first century.
Now, if one is going to argue their point based on "the star" that led the wise men to the baby Jesus is a historical event, then they must also acknowledge that Jesus is recorded in the gospels entering the temple courtyard multiple times, and spoken of as being "at the temple". The temple was destroyed, and the Roman army looted the temple late in the first century. That is a historical fact. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The entire premise of your linked article is flawed, based on conflicting justifications.
We most definitely have enough sources about Christianity existing pre 12th century that this claim can be easily refuted. Even the most simple ones like having christian catacombs around Rome dating to the second century.
I thought you were serious until I read more of your comments.
This is the funniest article I may have ever read, and I will now pretend that it is gospel and lie to my religious family saying all of this as truth.
You should be ashamed, giving me a reason to stupify my christofascist family further.
