I picked up Asimov's Guide to the Bible recently and have been really enjoying it. I found this bit about Christmas in the chapter on Luke really interesting. It's not a short read but an insightful and in-depth take. It gets to a few points that have always bugged me about the birth story; such as "Why is Jesus of Nazareth born in Bethlehem?" "Why would there be a census in the winter/why Dec 25?"

---

Bethlehem

One might suppose, instead, that Luke made use of the well remembered census merely as a landmark by which to date the approximate time of birth of Jesus, as Matthew used the star of Bethlehem (see page 128). The Biblical writers are rarely concerned with exact dating, in any case, and find other matters of more importance.

But there is a chance that more was involved. We might argue that Luke was faced with a serious difficulty in telling the tale of Jesus birth and that he had decided to use the census as a device to get out of that difficulty.

In Mark, the earliest of the gospels, Jesus appears only as Jesus of Nazareth. To Mark, as nearly as we can tell from his gospel, the Messiah was a Galilean by birth, born in Nazareth.

Yet this could not be accepted by Jews learned in the Scriptures. Jesus of Nazareth had to be born in Bethlehem in order to be the Messiah. The prophet Micah was considered to have said so specifically (see page 1-653) and the evangelist Matthew accepts that in his gospel (see page 132).

In order to make the birth at Bethlehem (made necessary by theological theory) consistent with the known fact of life at Nazareth, Matthew made Joseph and Mary natives of Bethlehem who migrated to Nazareth not long after Jesus' birth (see page 138).

Luke, however, did not have access to Matthew's version, apparently, and it did not occur to him to make use of so straightforward a device. Instead, he made Joseph and Mary dwellers in Nazareth before the birth of Jesus, and had them travel to Bethlehem just in time to have Jesus born there and then had them return.

That Mary, at least, dwelt in Nazareth, and perhaps had even been born there, seems plain from the fact that Gabriel was sent there to make the annunciation:

Luke 1:26. the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

Luke 1:27. To a virgin [whose] name was Mary.

But if that were so, why should Mary, in her last month of pregnancy, make the difficult and dangerous seventy-mile overland journey to Bethlehem? Luke might have said it was done at Gabriel's orders, but he didn't. Instead, with literary economy, he made use of the landmark of Jesus' birth for the additional purpose of having Jesus born at Bethlehem. Once Caesar Augustus had issued his decree commanding the census in advance of taxation:

Luke 2:3. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

Luke 2:4. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)

Luke 2:5. To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Though this device has much to be said for it from the standpoint of literary economy, it has nothing to be said for it in the way of plausibility. The Romans couldn't possibly have conducted so queer a census as that. Why should they want every person present in the town of his ancestors rather than in the town in which he actually dwelt? Why should they want individuals traveling up and down the length of the land, clogging the roads and interfering with the life of the province? It would even have been a military danger, for the Parthians could find no better time to attack than when Roman troops would find it hard to concentrate because of the thick crisscrossing of civilians on their way to register.

Even if the ancestral town were somehow a piece of essential information, would it not be simpler for each person merely to state what that ancestral town was? And even if, for some reason, a person had to travel to that ancestral town, would it not be sufficient for the head of the household or some agent of his to make the trip? Would a wife have to come along? Particularly one that was in the last month of pregnancy?

No, it is hard to imagine a more complicated tissue of implausibilities and the Romans would certainly arrange no such census.

Those who maintain that there was an earlier census in 6 B.C. or thereabouts, conducted under the auspices of Herod, suggest that one of the reasons this early census went off quietly was precisely because Herod ran things in the Jewish fashion, according to tribes and house- holds. Even if Herod were a popular king (which he wasn't) it is difficult to see how he could have carried through a quiet census by requiring large numbers of people to tramp miles under the dangerous and primitive conditions of travel of the times. All through their history, the Jews had rebelled for far smaller reasons than the declaration of such a requirement.

It is far easier to believe that Luke simply had to explain the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem for theological reasons, when it was well known that he was brought up in Nazareth. And his instinct for drama overcame any feelings he might have had for plausibility.

Judging by results, Luke was right. The implausibility of his story has not prevented it from seizing upon the imagination of the Christian world, and it is this second chapter of the gospel of St. Luke that is the epitome of the story of the Nativity and the inspiration of countless tales and songs and works of art.

Christmas

In Bethlehem, according to Luke's account, Mary gave birth:

Luke 2:7. And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Presumably the inn was full of travelers, as all inns in Judea must have been at that time, if Luke's story of the census is accepted. Every town, after all, would have been receiving its quota of families returning from elsewhere.

There is no indication at all at this point concerning the date of the Nativity. The feast is celebrated, now, by almost all Christian churches on December 25. This is Christmas ("Christ's mass").

But why December 25? No one really knows. To Europeans and North Americans such a date means winter and, in fact, many of our carols depict a wintry scene and so do our paintings. Indeed, so close is the association of winter and snow that each year millions irrationally long for a "white Christmas" though snow means a sharp rise in automobile fatalities.

Yet upon what is such wintry association based? There is no mention of either snow or cold in either Luke or Matthew. In fact, in the verse after the description of the birth, Luke says:

Luke 2:8. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

It is customary, since we have the celebration firmly fixed on Decem- ber 25, to imagine these shepherds as keeping their watch in bitter cold and perhaps in deep snow.

But why? Surely it is much more likely that a night watch would be kept in the summertime when the nights would be mild and, in fact, more comfortable than the scorching heat of the day. For that matter, it is but adding still another dimension to the implausible nature of the census as depicted by Luke if we suppose that all this unnecessary traveling was taking place in the course of a cold winter time.

To be sure, it is a mistake to think of a Palestinian winter as being as cold as one in Germany, Great Britain, or New England. The usual associations of Christmas with snow and ice-even if it were on December 25-is purely a local prejudice. It falls in the same class with the manner that medieval artists depicted Mary and Joseph in medieval clothing because they could conceive of no other kind.

Nevertheless, whether December 25 is snowy or mild makes no difference at the moment. The point is that neither Luke nor Matthew give a date of any kind for the Nativity. They give no slightest hint that can be used to deduce a day or even guess at one.

Why, then, December 25? The answer might be found in astronomy and in Roman history.

The noonday Sun is at varying heights in the sky at different seasons of the year because the Earth's axis is tipped by 23 degrees to the plane of Earth's revolution about the Sun. Without going into the astronomy of this in detail, it is sufficient to say that the noonday Sun climbs steadily higher in the sky from December to June, and falls steadily lower from June to December. The steady rise is easily associated with a lengthening day, an eventually warming temperature and quickening of life; the steady decline with a shortening day, an eventually cooling temperature and fading of life.

In primitive times, when the reason for the cycle was not understood in terms of modern astronomy, there was never any certainty that the sinking Sun would ever turn and begin to rise again. Why should it do so, after all, except by the favor of the gods? And that favor might depend entirely upon the proper conduct of a complicated ritual known only to the priests.

It must have been occasion for great gladness each year, then, to observe the decline of the noonday Sun gradually slowing, then coming to a halt and beginning to rise again. The point at which the Sun comes to a halt is the winter "solstice" (from Latin words meaning "sun- halt").

The time of the winter solstice was the occasion for a great feast in honor of what one might call the "birth of the Sun."

In Roman times, a three-day period, later extended to seven days, was devoted to the celebration of the winter solstice. This was the "Saturnalia," named in honor of Saturn, an old Roman god of agriculture.

At the Saturnalia, joy was unrestrained, as befitted a holiday that celebrated a reprieve from death and a return to life. All public business was suspended, in favor of festivals, parties, singing, and gift-giving. It was a season of peace and good will to all men. Even slaves were, for that short period, allowed license that was forbidden at all other times and were treated temporarily on a plane of equality with their masters. Naturally, the joy easily turned to the extremes of licentiousness and debauchery, and there were, no doubt, many pious people who deplored the uglier aspects of the festival.

In the Roman calendar - a very poor and erratic one before the time of Julius Caesar - the Saturnalia was celebrated the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth of December. Once Caesar established a sensible calendar, the winter solstice fell upon December 25 (although in our own calendar, slightly modified since Caesar's time, it comes on December 21).

In the first centuries of the Roman Empire, Christianity had to compete with Mithraism, a form of Sun-worship with its roots in Persia. In Mithraism, the winter solstice was naturally the occasion of a great festival and in A.D. 274, the Roman Emperor, Aurelian, set December 25 as the day of the birth of the Sun. In other words, he lent the Mithraist holiday the official sanction of the government.

The celebration of the winter solstice was a great stumbling block to conversions to Christianity. If Christians held the Saturnalia and the birth of the Sun to be purely pagan then many converts were discouraged. Even if they abandoned belief in the old Roman gods and in Mithras, they wanted the joys of the holiday. (How many people today celebrate the Christmas season with no reference at all to its religious significance and how many would be willing to give up the joy, warmth, and merriment of the season merely because they were not pious Christians?) But Christianity adapted itself to pagan customs where these, in the judgment of Christian leaders, did not compromise the essential doctrines of the Church. The Bible did not say on which day Jesus was born and there was no dogma that would be affected by one day rather than by another. It might, therefore, be on December 25 as well as on any other.

Once that was settled, converts could join Christianity without giving up their Saturnalian happiness. It was only necessary for them to joyfully greet the birth of the Son rather than the Sun. If December 25 is Christmas and if it is assumed that Mary became pregnant at the time of the annunciation, then the anniversary of the annunciation must be placed on March 25, nine months before Christ mas. And, indeed, March 25 is the day of the Feast of the Annunciation and is called Annunciation Day or, in England, Lady Day, where "Lady" refers to Mary.

Again, if the annunciation came when Elisabeth was six months pregnant, John the Baptist must have been born three months later. June 24 is the day on which his birth is celebrated.

December 25 was gradually accepted through most of the Roman Empire between A.D. 300 and 350. This late period is indicated by the date alone.

There were two general kinds of calendars in use in the ancient Mediterranean world. One is the lunar calendar, which matches the months to the phases of the Moon. It was devised by the Babylonians, who passed it on to the Greeks and the Jews. The other is the solar calendar, which matches the months to the seasons of the year. It was devised by the Egyptians, who passed it on, in Caesar's time, to the Romans, and, by way of Rome, to ourselves.

The lunar calendar does not match the seasons and, in order to keep it from falling out of line, some years must have twelve lunar months and others thirteen, in a rather complex pattern. To people using a solar calendar (as we do) the lunar year is too short when it has twelve months and too long when it has thirteen. A date that is fixed in a lunar calendar slips forward and backward in the solar calendar, although, in the long run, it oscillates about a fixed place.

The holidays established early in Church history made use of the lunar calendar used by the Greeks and Jews. As a result, these holiday shift their day (by our calendar) from year to year. The chief of thes days is Easter. It is the prime example of a "movable holiday" and each year we must look at the calendar to see when it might come. All the other movable holidays are tied to Easter and shift with it.

When Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and even became the official doctrine of the land, early in the fourth century, it began to make increasing use of the Roman calendar. It became rather complicated to adjust the date of Easter to that calendar. There were serious disagreements among different portions of the Church as to the exact method for doing so, and schisms and heresies arose over the matter. Those holidays that came into being comparatively late, when Christianity had become official in the empire, made use of the Roman calendar to begin with. Such holiday dates slid back and forth on the lunar calendar but were fixed on solar calendars such as our own. The mere fact that Christmas is celebrated on December 25 every year and that the date never varies on our calendar is enough to show that it was not established as a religious festival until after A.D. 300.

I stumbled across this recently while going down a different rabbit hole and it stunned me. I missed this previously. It leaves me wondering why I am circumcised. I am a bit bitter still and always about having the tip of my penis chopped off in the name of tradition, Now I see this and wonder what justification my parents could have had in reality? Was it all just peer pressure? They were southern baptists, supposedly believing in NT over OT in any conflict. This is deep in the NT:

Galatians 5:2-6

2 Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. 4 You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.

I am an Atheist, Ex-Christian, Ex-Southern Baptist Apostate in my 40s. I talked to my mother about it, when I had a son. She said she just didn't want me to stand out and circumcising was just what everyone else was doing. It drove home the point that my mother has never really thought for herself on any of that and much of it had impact on me. I'm thankful that my kids won't have to go through all of that.

I'm venting because it dug up an old wound for me. As always, I'd love to hear some feedback.

Crosspost that I found pertinent.

Any day now 🙄. Wish they'd fuck off with all this.

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all of these things have taken place." -Matthew 24:34

This is a long read but chilling.

TL:DR: The Christian conservatives are packing all of the courts from local to the SCOTUS and have been doing so for a decade or more.

This practice burns me up. If you've ever sought an abortion, you've probably encountered one of these. They often appear to be quite liberal and draw pregnant women in crisis in. Then they lay all the biblical "moral" arguments on the people in front of them and attempt to reel them in. I wonder where the CPCs get their funding.

Cross post from [email protected] that I found amusing.

I'm reading The HarperCollins Study Bible, Introduction, pages liii-lv, titled The Greco-Roman Context of the New Testament written by David E Aune. I find myself drawn to a rabbit hole here and am going to dive in and try to learn a little. I learned a bunch from responses to my last post and thought I'd try to crowd source a jump start to my research. I don't know what I don't know.The thought above (the title) occurred to me and made me want to go down this rabbit hole:

Aune tells us:

>Throughout the first century CE, Greek religion and culture dominated the eastern Mediterranean... Three main types of voluntary Greek private associations existed, each of which had a greater or lesser cultic component: professional corporations or guilds..., funerary societies..., and religious or cult societies, centering on the worship of a deity. This last category includes "mystery religions," a general term for a variety of ancient private cults that shared several features.

I know ancient Greeks and Romans didn't believe in a blissful afterlife but it wasn't until I read that that I realized the idea of salvation and heaven as the carrot, and hell as the stick evolved over time. A little more because I am having a hard time finding this text to link:

>The term "mystery" is related to a Greek term meaning "initiate" and "mystery" itself means "ritual of initiation," referring to the secret initiation rites at the center of such cults. ...the period of greatest popularity appears to have been the first through the third centuries CE. ...Initiates who experienced the central mystery ritual became convinced that they would enjoy soteria ("Salvation"), health and prosperity in this life as well as a blissful afterlife.

So this is all happening with great popularity in the same place and time of Jesus and later that century, Paul. These cults are popular as Christianity is formed into a religion. Little is known about details on the cults, because, well, they were secret. Seems like early Christianity may have united these cults by adopting some of their fundamentals? I've found this so far but I'm just diving in and it occurred to me that one of you might light a path for me. Anybody been down this road already?

I'm an atheist. I was raised religious and still have numerous Christian theists in my life.

The Bible is the best argument against Christianity.

At every turn, and in a myriad of contexts, whether to dunk and prove a point, or to insert a conflicting argument that will actually make a religious person think, knowing the Bible has been of great personal value to me. I'll make some posts in the coming weeks to discuss some of the points below that I'd like to share more deeply on. This post is trying to make the case that the Bible is the weak spot in the Christian armor. Theists wriggle when you make them explain their own book.

The whole text is daunting. It is supposed to be. The Bible is confusing, disjointed, sometimes scary, violent, and obscene, other times mind numbingly boring. Unapproachable by rank and file Christians without "help interpreting." Christians of all faiths cherry pick parts to justify their beliefs. "Bible study" is the vehicle that each denomination uses to teach and justify their specific beliefs.

But, whether you are early in deconversion, halfway there, or fully awake, you can look to the Bible and find tons of evidence against any of Christianity being real, grounded in fact, or believable at all. Taken as a whole, and not cherry picking verses, the Bible can be understood, in it's context.

I challenge any believer or non believer to read the entire Bible, using any realistic, scholarly translation. When something doesn't fit or doesn't make sense, research it. It blows my mind how shaky the Bible is while reading any book completely, especially remembering that this is the justification for the entire religion.

Start at the beginning, really studying it, and you will realize modern Christians do like 10% of what "God commanded" in the OT. They offhandedly disregard the rest as old Jewish nonsense and simultaneously use the 10% they do hold on to justify hating anyone that loves someone that's not approved. I'm not in favor of letting people get away with that. Want to quote Leviticus to justify homophobia? Explain why wearing mixed fabrics, eating shellfish, and getting Jesus tattoos.

The OT is crazy all the way through. If I started listing all the things the OT condones that are objectively immoral by modern standards, it would be its own (very long) post.

Even better, look at the NT. If you are already deconverted, and have people around you that still believe, this is bread and butter. Many of the tactics Christians use to dismiss valid arguments about the OT won't work on the NT.

Some of my favorites from the NT (feel free to comment with any of your favorites I may have missed):

• The gospels were written long after Jesus would have lived by people that lived after Jesus died (not the apostles that they're named after). They were written in a language no apostle would have spoken (Greek instead of Aramaic).

• The apostles don't match each other on critical points of the Christ story. Read from crucifixion through the tomb to resurrection in each of the 4 gospels and you will see what I mean. Try to make a list of "facts" from each and compare. Why are they wildly different?

• Paul: 13 of the 27 books of the NT (nearly half) are attributed to Paul but even Christian scholars have to admit that at least 3, and probably 6 of those 13 are written by someone else claiming to be Paul. The Bible has Jesus dying 33 CE. The writings of Paul are 15 years to 34 years later. Paul's writings are the foundations of most of modern Christian thinking. Christians gloss over the shaky historicity of Paul's writings. These books were written specifically to create a religion from the cult that had sprung up around them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles#Authenticity

• Revelation: Oft quoted and preached on to instill fear in the audience. Christians completely misunderstand this book in context. First, Revelation is written somewhere 81-96 CE, ~50 years past the crucifixion. The author, John of Patmos, is not an apostle either. Just done guy in exile, named John. It matches a literary style common at the time where apocalypse was the theme. It is a deeply symbolic work and is clearly about the Roman empire, and the writers problems with it, if you give it any serious study. Revelation is not, and cannot be a prophecy for many reasons, the biggest being over kill. Logically read, the earth is totally devastated 3 or 4 times over. By the middle of the book everyone on earth would already be dead. Revelation 6 has the Sun going black and the stars falling from the sky to the earth, by chapter 8 the sea is poison. 22 chapters total and there is enough destruction to kill us all at least 3 or 4 times before the halfway point. Read up on apocalyptic literature of the time. It is all intended to be code so that the author can condemn and talk shit about his enemies in a way that won't get him killed in court (John of Patmos, the author, is already in enough trouble with Rome at the writing to be living in exile, and yet the work is shit talking against Rome). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalyptic_literature

Thanks for reading. However, I don't ever want to be confidently incorrect. Please tell me if you disagree with anything and I'd love to hear what others think is important, relevant to this topic. Expand please. Teach me something.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/6336372

> Mike Dulak grew up Catholic in Southern California, but by his teen years, he began skipping Mass and driving straight to the shore to play guitar, watch the waves and enjoy the beauty of the morning. “And it felt more spiritual than any time I set foot in a church,” he recalled. > > Nothing has changed that view in the ensuing decades. > > “Most religions are there to control people and get money from them,” said Dulak, now 76, of Rocheport, Missouri. He also cited sex abuse scandals in Catholic and Southern Baptist churches. “I can’t buy into that,” he said.

Why are you here? What are you after?

I have tons in my cluttered mind to share that I think fits an exchristian community. I am interested in hearing the group's thoughts on what content you're looking for when you come here.

Further, anticipating our growth, what will future users come here for? What should a "proper exchristian community" look like and provide for the myriad of different people that may need it? Thoughts?

This is a story from 2016. In case you missed it.

This story encapsulates, for me, the cult mentality, of Christianity.

TL:DR: They bought the oil at Tractor Supply. spoiler:::

The link from the screenshot: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/09/are-reddits-replacement-mods-fit-to-fight-misinformation/

Grown on a log section in a flower pot.

Inspired by something another user said, I feel this question deserves discussion. Also, I am shamelessly creating exchristian content. We are still a small group but I like it here now and it will get better, but only if we use it. "Creating content" just means using the site. Talk to me. I'm open to input. Maybe I'm wrong.... but:

Liberal/Progressive/Apologist Christians should not get a pass. The Bible is clear on a number of horrific things and is totally open to interpretation about another bunch of horrific things. In both the new and old testament. I argue that liberal Christianity is both insincere and perpetuates fundamentalist Christian beliefs, within a society, generation over generation.

The key dependent is childhood indoctrination. Liberal Christians still feed their kids the dogma. It all works. Not every kid, but some of them, from this Liberal Christian family, will have a hard time with some part of it and go reading the Bible. They say the Bible is the truth right?

They read the Bible and see where their parents are fudging it. They want to do better. Depending on circumstance, they either tighten up the faith, or they go full in to fundamentalism. I have seen it happen multiple times in 1, 2, and 3 generations in people I've met an known. Anecdotal, sure, but still.

Then, I argue, the cycle continues. How did Christianity survive this long? I'd argue this is all part of it. Even "lightly" indoctrinating children adds a chance, I'd argue significant, that the child becomes a fundy 20, 30, or 40 years in the future, when the chips are down, and someone says "come to my church, they'll help"

Should I be more accepting? I'd love to hear what you think on this subject.

If you ever need clear proof that Christianity is bullshit, look at war.

Most recently the thought has been striking me while watching the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But its true of the majority of wars in recent history. Ukrainian Christians pray to God for safety as they bail out of the back of an armored carrier ready to kill in defense of their homeland. Russian soldiers pray to the same God for protection, huddled in their trenches, waiting for inevitable attacks. When troops die, back home, they pray for God's vengeance on their enemy, and both sides ask the same God for justice and comfort.

What ridiculous nonsense. Does either side ever think about how God seems to have fucked them over in favor of their enemy? If the god they were praying to were real, couldn't and wouldn't he intervene without them having to kill each other violently? Doesn't it actively disprove the existence of this "god" when he doesn't?

I am frustrated by the Christian notion to just use their religion as a salve to pain while not changing any behavior that causes the pain in the first place.

I'm tired of the powerful hiding behind religion and using it to control the brainwashed masses.

I don't understand how the rest of the world doesn't already see Christianity, and religion generally, as a harmful evil in society. Its like watching a bunch of deluded heroin addicts.

I found Bart Ehrman some 20 years into deconstructing. I wish I'd had his perspective when I was younger. I first started deconstructing during and after my first cover to cover read of the Bible in my teens (late 80s early 90s). The inconsistency, incoherence, and clear ulterior motives throughout are what first made me start doubting the Southern Baptist, Christian faith I was raised in (indoctrinated into). I knew that much of it did not make sense objectively, nor did different parts of the bible work with each other at all. Rather, the book is a patchwork that can be easily cherry picked based on bias.

For the uninitiated, Bart Ehrman is a Biblical scholar who began his career as a serious Christian and deconstructed in the process of study. I already considered myself an atheist by the time I found Ehrman, and I relate to him because reading the bible was the catalyst to my deconstruction.

Ehrman has helped put meaning to the seemingly meaningless parts of the bible for me.

Revelation for example is incoherent, even with careful reading at first. But Ehrman sheds great light on this subject. Here is a newer Ehrman talk on the subject.

I also enjoyed this lecture (also on Revelation). If you are interested and new to the subject start here. He dives deeper and starts from the beginning on this one but it is long.

No new Exchristian community is whole without some links to Bart, imo.