Interesting article Spencer. People seem to knock the Christians a lot and portray them as kill joys etc. But I find it interestingly the knockers are happy to have a Easter break and a Christmas break. It seems they want the rewards of a Christian foundation as long as they don't have to say thank you for it.

Next week will be a new year and the shops will start selling Hot Cross Buns. Not sure why a big chain store wouldn't be wanting to sell Nativity scenes as they would make money from them. Maybe the fun police don't want to make profits from something that promotes Christianity even though they are in another sense.

Give me a ripe tasty Papaya over christmas any time.........

Not sure why some Christians have problem celebrating Christmas as it is (not Santa). I see this time as an opportunity to share the love that God has given to us so "freely", yet I see it more and more disappearing from people's lives. Yes, I am aware of the origins of Christmas as a festivity, but when there is still a time left in our rapidly changing world to remind people of their Creator's love I am for it anytime!
This Christmas "Santa worship" is been adopted in the west (the secular west adopts anything but the truth), in Europe Santa's fairy-tale day is for the Kids only, and is celebrated on the 6th of December, nothing to do with Christmas. I guess we just replaced truth with a fairy-tale, and feel good about it... Truth is always challenging, and often convicting, but if you can swallow and digest it, it will yield its good fruit.

Every minute fraction of this essay is an exercise in childish fantasy, and the naive mommy-daddy "creator-God"

An essay criticizing the alleged "historical reliability" of the Bible
http://www.dabase.org/up-5-1.htm

A Birthday Message From Jesus & Me
http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/birthday_message/index.html

Jesus or Christ as Indivisible Conscious Light
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/christmc2.html

On the mommy-daddy "creator-God"

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html

On the Celestial Virgin
http://www.qscience.com/doi/pdf/10.5339/rels.2016.women.6

A very comprehensive & informative article, Spencer. Christmas celebrations with all their trappings present Christians with many opportunities to discuss the real meaning of this annual event, and remind those who are ill-informed, of its deeper significance. Many younger people, as illustrated by the young shop assistant in this article, are completely unaware that there is a rich and genuine reason for the season - and it is not just love, family and presents.

//December 25 is not the date of Jesus' birth.//

But it is remarkably close to the date of the December solstice. There's a reason for that: Christmas is a pagan mid-winter festival that the Christians misappropriated in order to make their religion more popular.

//The season has become infected with profiteering and extra effects such as Santa, reindeers, tinsel, lights and Christmas trees.//

No, you've got it entirely the wrong way round. Santa, lights, presents, Christmas trees, reindeer, eating, drinking and being merry are the proper way to celebrate Christmas... it's you mob who have infected it with all your Christian claptrap.

//Mouldy pawpaw seeds did not deter me from enjoying a special piece of summer fruit.//

Quite right... I don't plan to let a few Cromwells whining that 'you're doing it wrong' deter me from having a Merry Christmas.

//I was pleased to enter a Woolworths' supermarket on the day I'm writing this article and to hear Christmas carols being played through the store's PA system, instead of 'Frosty the Snow Man'.//

Yeah, as long they don't play bloody 'Jingle Bell Rock' it's all good. I like to crank up the Trans-Siberian Orchestra and 'The Fairytale of New York' for my Christmas tunes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6FhOb7-1dg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9jbdgZidu8

Anyway, I wish all of you a merry Christmas, except the miserable puritans, to whom I wish a solemn and devout Christmas with an absolute minimum of fun :)

DL,

<<Interesting article Spencer. People seem to knock the Christians a lot and portray them as kill joys etc.>>

You've seen it already in this thread. My writing this kind of article seems to be an opportunity to unload venom on the Christian Church and the One born to be 'Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace' (Isa 9:6).

This prophetic fulfillment demonstrates that the One born in Bethlehem was the 'Prince of Peace' and his method of transmitting the faith is not through terrorism and violence but by Christians who are called by Jesus, 'Blessed are the peacemakers'.

<<But I find it interestingly the knockers are happy to have a Easter break and a Christmas break. It seems they want the rewards of a Christian foundation as long as they don't have to say thank you for it.>>

Well said. Our Australian Constitution affirms this nation's Christian foundation: 'WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established' (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/preamble).

If these opponents were interested in promoting the anti-Christian views, wouldn't it be consistent to turn down holiday pay for Christmas and Easter?

<<Next week will be a new year and the shops will start selling Hot Cross Buns. Not sure why a big chain store wouldn't be wanting to sell Nativity scenes as they would make money from them. Maybe the fun police don't want to make profits from something that promotes Christianity even though they are in another sense>>

It surprised me also. I couldn't find one store in my suburb selling a nativity scene. I shopped at the local Coles supermarket yesterday and Coles didn't display a nativity scene but allowed a private person to display one.. That's one step forward but a step back by not sponsoring it. With some large businesses, it's OK to sponsor homosexual message but not the Saviour's birth.

//My writing this kind of article seems to be an opportunity to unload venom//

In my experience, you use your articles as an opportunity to unload venom on non-Christians. I mean, what else is one to make of being compared to fungal growths? Fair's fair, Spencer. Or at least, it is in the version of Christianity I grew up with.

//If these opponents were interested in promoting the anti-Christian views, wouldn't it be consistent to turn down holiday pay for Christmas and Easter?//

A two-tiered industrial relations system, with one's religion determining which tier one falls into? Best of luck, but I don't think it will fly in Australia. Not even under a Liberal government.

//I couldn't find one store in my suburb selling a nativity scene.//

Try the Salvos. I volunteer at a Salvation Army store and we've sold a few this past month.

Have a Happy and Enjoyable Christmas, even if you don't believe in it.

Great information you've presented here Spencer. For those who don't know the bible enough to know some of these things themself you've given the details around Christmas in greater detail then many who do know the scope and the details of Jesus's birth. I very much enjoyed the extra historical information. But I am even more glad that you could share so well the point of the celibration of Christmas even in spite of the non-Christian elements that have become a fog at times in this season of celibration and generousity.

Thank you. Merry Christmas to you, and Merry Christmas to everyone else in this conversation. God bless you all. May He bless all of your lives with the love that I remember growing up around Christmas seasons and that be a reminder of His love for us, as well as a reason to celebrate. :)

//I am even more glad that you could share so well the point of the celibration of Christmas even in spite of the non-Christian elements that have become a fog at times in this season of celibration and generousity.//

How easily misinformation takes hold :(

Here's the Peanuts Gang to explain the true origins of Christmas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D11jAEKgB2o

Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown!

Given J.C. was born during the northern winter? His birthday could have been around July and shortly after a Roman census.
The star of Bethlehem, probably a comet, making the above proposed month more likely? The 24th perhaps?

So what, we celebrate the Queen's birthday on another fixed day and applicable to all monarchies. And Captain Cook reportedly landed ashore in Botany Bay, on another day, than we commemorate?

The message of Chrismas is peace and goodwill to all mankind! And given only 6 degrees of difference in the entire human race! Why ever not?

After all, the only real differences are exclusively cultural and often the result of inculcated from birth, belief systems. Many of which are pure invention!
Alan B.

Alan B,

You were the one who acknowledged your "limited reading of the Bible" in 'The Miracle of Christmas' thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20098&page=3 (Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 25 December 2018 12:28:50 PM).

Now you have the audacity to state:

<<After all, the only real differences [with other celebrations] are exclusively cultural and often the result of inculcated from birth, belief systems. Many of which are pure invention!>>

Are you concluding that the Christian faith is based on PURE INVENTION, based on your 'limited reading of the Bible'?

Ozpen, stop with the foam-flecked verbal. If you are going to quote me? Repeat what I actually said, which is, we are all the sons and daughters of God.

And all fallen angels. That there are only six degrees of difference in all of the human races. That the only real differences are cultural, often invention inculcated from birth.

Time control freaks like you so obviously are, were put back in your box. You rant and rave about homosexuality like a homophobic closet queen? Yet Like all fundamental fanatics avoid the fact that the church has a shame-filled history of paedophile priests, dating back through centuries.

Yet today would present themselves as paragons of virtue. And given holy authority over the masses! Even to the point of exercising control of how they vote, so as to swell the coffers of church-owned schools/establishments.
Alan B.

To Alan B. You said.

//Time control freaks like you so obviously are, were put back in your box. You rant and rave about homosexuality like a homophobic closet queen? Yet Like all fundamental fanatics avoid the fact that the church has a shame-filled history of paedophile priests, dating back through centuries.//

What's this have to do with Christmas? Don't try to turn this into a shaming feast. Nor into a sport of insults. If OzSpen didn't get your quote right, or you can correct him so be it, leave it at that. Otherwise what you fill the thread with is of no merit and supports the observation that many only use any topic in Christianity to fill spread their hate towards Christianity or towards Christians.

Here's what you said that is close to the topic and to the topics that Oz said to you.

//Repeat what I actually said, which is, we are all the sons and daughters of God.

And all fallen angels. That there are only six degrees of difference in all of the human races. That the only real differences are cultural, often invention inculcated from birth. //

These points can be the topic without trying to drag OzSpen or Christianity through the mud. Just saying. Or do you believe that Christmas is to bring peace and goodwill to all of mankind, except in the exception of this discussion itself?

Alan B,

You take the opportunity to dump vitriol on Christianity when Christian or Christianity is raised. I’ll not respond to your name calling.

<<< we are all the sons and daughters of God…. And all fallen angels….>>

From where did you gain that information? It’s not from Scripture!

Please quit using red herring logical fallacies by changing the topic to what you want to talk about – bashing Christianity, priests and other Christians.

NNS,

<< the observation that many only use any topic in Christianity to fill spread their hate towards Christianity or towards Christians.>>

This happens regularly with anti-Christian comments on OLO. Any mention of Christianity is ideal opportunity for antagonists to plant their feet on the throttle of lambasting Christianity. Too often this involves changing the topic – a red herring fallacy.

At Christmas and Easter I encounter all kinds of speculation about what happened to ‘cause’ these events. Opponents tend not to base their conclusions on the biblical text but on outside sources that don’t seem to tolerate biblical inspiration.

I wonder what would happen on OLO if a similar discriminatory approach was used against a pro-Islam or pro-diversity education article.

Alan B,
<< The message of Chrismas (sic) is peace and goodwill to all mankind!>>

Really?

Part of the message of Christmas is peace because the one born to the virgin Mary was ‘called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’ (Isaiah 9:6).

This is what Scripture states:

“Look! The virgin will conceive a child!
She will give birth to a son,
and they will call him Immanuel,
which means ‘God is with us’” (Matthew 1:23).

So the message of Christmas includes Jesus who is ‘God with us’.

Further:

‘Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20).

What is the purpose of this Christmas message? As I indicated in the article, Jesus was born to die a sacrificial death for the sins of the world:

“It is this Good News that saves you if you continue to believe the message I told you….

"I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said” (1 Corinthians 15:2-4).

"The virgin birth, the miracles, and the resurrection can
be viewed in an entirely new light...they never were literal
events...nor were they myths, traditional legends, as scholars have often held.
Something really did happen,
and what happened
opens up a whole new understanding of
historical Christianity."
(from the Introduction to "Jesus The Man").

The views of innovative thinkers add value to every society.
Only by questioning traditional beliefs can those beliefs
be either reaffirmed or modified. Of course some find it
difficult, despite meticulous documentation to accept anything
that they view as criticism because what is being examined is
a matter of their faith. And a scholarly hypothesis will
always be rejected even though it deserves serious attention to
anyone interested in the origins of Christianity.

To Foxy.

There's a huge problem with the different attempts to rewrite history, and to be innovative with it. History should be a work simular to a detective solving a crime. You look for clues, testomy, multiple evidence or sources that agree with a certian story or a certian hypothesis. In this case without active witnesses, it would be comparable to a cold case detective work. With that in mind next, I've been told the book "Cold Case Christianity," is a good book to take Christianity from that angle.

As for the bible. It's not just a history record. It's reliable because God is reliable. There's no reason to try to rewrite it and reinvent it in a "non literal way." Either God blessed Mary and gave her Jesus, or He didn't. There's no non literal way to see it except to say it never happened. If it comes to that, then I stand by the bible over the imaginations of people who think they have a new modern day take on ancient history.

A second thing to think on Foxy.

Before you pass off what I've said or rationalize it as small minded, or somehow not thought through, consider this. Would you consider any other form of history in a non literal way?

NNS,

You can't argue with someone who takes the Bible
literally. You pray for them. You may also discuss
Biblical interpretation and the Church's official
stance - which is that every word in the Bible is
true in its proper context. However, we need to
remember that the Lord spoke in parables. He told
stories to make a point. If you think the Bible is
inerrant - that it has no errors - again - are you
talking about the Revised Standard Version, the
Catholic edition? Certainly not. It is just a
translation of a translation of scrolls that
have been lost to history for hundreds of years.

Is the King James version literally true?
Of course not - then we would have to believe all
kinds of nonsense that is demonstrably false and
no one was around back then to back it up.

But God was there. He is still here, talking to
you and me. That message is indeed infallible.

"Judge not ..."

"Love thy neighbour..."

"Treat they neighbour as ..."

And so on.

NNS,

<<Would you consider any other form of history in a non literal way?>>

This is an excellent question! Since I'm an Aussie, how should anyone interpret the historical happenings surrounding Captain Cook's sailing up the eastern coast of what would become Australia in 1770?

What about the events surrounding George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in the USA? Americans would laugh at me if I attempted to read US history allegorically or with a postmodern reader-response.

The same applies to your and Foxy's posts. It would be a strange forum if I was forced to interpret every post other than literally.

Same applies to the Brisbane Courier-Mail newspaper or articles in On Line Opinion. Try reading my article to which you comment here in other than a literal way and I would have every right to accuse you of inaccurate interpretation leading to a strawman fallacy.

When antagonists reject literal interpretation of the Bible, to be consistent they need to reject all other literal interpretations of any narratives - including their posts on this forum.

Non-literal interpretation often involves creating one's own interpretation. Of course Jesus used parables and figures of speech (e.g. I am the door; you are the light of the world). However, these aspects are all part of literal interpretation. I learned that in primary and high schools in Australia.

To Foxy.

You say that you can't argue with someone who holds to a literal interpretation. I ask, why not? There is a lot to discuss even with a literal interpretation. A second question would be, what are you arguing about that needs to be creative when interpreting the bible?

Look at it this way. When testifing at court on the witness stand, is a testimony accepted or rejected based on what they said, or on a non literal take of their testimony? For example if they were questioned, "how many people did you see assault that person?" If the person gives a number, then the court and the lawyers can determine on their own if the answer is true or not. Things like, if it was dark, or if the witness was clear headed and sober, how long ago the event was, or even aspects like if the witness might be lying because they have something against the people being accused. These kinds of questions take the answer given and sifts it for whether it can be trusted or not. The answer though is taken as A literal interpretation of what's said that leads to whether that answer is accepted or challenged and rejected. If this approach is taken on all of the matters the witness testifies about, then a detective, a lawyer, or a judge can say that parts of the testimony is reliable, and other parts are not.

Regarding the bible, you can look at it like you would with someone who doesn't speak English and needs an interpreter to disclose what the witness said to the court and to tell the witness what the court is asking them. even say with the case of the bible, there's multiple interpreters that listen to the witness and based on their knowledge of the witness's language, culture, and idioms can be used to confirm each other's interpretation. Or can challenge each other if they have a discrepancy in interpretations. However either way, they are still taking it at a literal value. This is what the witness said.

(Continued)

(Continued)

On another note though Foxy, you approach this as if you are Christian, and others have said that you are a Christian. I say this because you acknowledge God in your reply saying that all we can do for them is pray for them. That is a wonderful approach. Give the issue to God. Trust Him enough to hand the situation over to Him in prayer. Honestly we should be doing this more often and continually, instead of as a last resort, if done at all. Asking from a Christian perspective of things I want to challenge you on how much you trust God and in the same stance how much you trust the bible? If the scriptures in the bible are God breathed and trust worthy, as it's written about in 2 Timothy 3:16-17; then trusting what the bible says is in line also with trusting God. I'm not talking about doctrine and theology, and trusting those as if they are from God, but taking the actual words of the bible and counting them as reliable.

As a Christian to another Christian, I implore you to think on what it really means to interpret bible events in a non literal way. To ask if a miracle happened, if Jesus was born as described, and died and resurrected as described, or even if the times angels are included in the testimony of bible events. How can you take any of these things in a non literal way and still take it seriously?

Or consider 1 Corinthians 15:14 and 15:17 with regards to Jesus's reserection. Paul makes a good point there.

NNS,

I understand what you're saying.
And fully appreciate it.
However, although my personal feelings on this
subject are my own and they run very deeply I
really don't see my job as being one to
enlighten others. That's an emotional burden that
I don't want placed on me. People have to find their
own path. I trust that you shall understand.

To Foxy.

If you can clarify, why do you say that it's an emotional burden to try to enlighten others? Looking back my best guess is that you mean this in response to my question of why you can't argue with those who take the bible literally. Or the other guess is because of my long reply has become an emotional burden to try to argue against? You'd rather let it all go instead of enlightening me of your views of hat you hold dear?

Those are just guesses, and if either of those are the cases please let me know. If you mean something different that still is about taking biblical events in a non literal way, then I'm not understanding what you mean, or where you're coming from.

I'm sorry if presenting your beliefs is a burden. And I get it if that is all you are trying to say. When I was young and first deciding to be a Christian, I had two big issues to face. (At least at the time they were big to me). Those were coming to terms with a mess of theological or doctrinal perspectives that I was aware of. Things that I didn't study, but we're just things I was aware of that were conflicting Christian views. Eventually my solution was to study the bible for answers, and that really helped. However the burden of belief was still there even without anyone else to talk to or enlighten. The second issue wasn't doctrine or theology, but it was social. At the time I thought my non Christian friends were pushed and prodded by religion being shoved down their throat. So the conflict there was with feelings to protect them or anyone else from religious pressure (including a dose of self censorship) versus the aspects of being excited about my faith and wanting to share the treasures of it with those who were close to me.

(Continued)

(Continued)

If either of those two things are the cause of feeling a burden for you, then I do get it. But I want to caution you also. Don't let the outside influence of others stifle you from your faith and your trust in God. Don't let protecting others from religious abuses be the reason for you to reject what God has done, or what He has said. Just as well don't let their views be something you adopt at the expense of the teachings in the bible. This is why I've argued strongly against the idea of non literal interpretation. It's basically a cop-out to justify people rejecting certain parts of the bible, while still telling themselves that they haven't rejected anything. With that in mind it seems like a poison or a moldy fungus on the ability to trust God by trusting His word and relying on them.

Either way, if you tire of this conversation then I'll let you go. I've given you my thoughts and my conclusions on the matter, in the hopes that they can help and strengthen you. If you're not tired though, then I still have three questions. Answer any you feel comfortable with, or all of them if you can. The first is stated above about clarifying what you mean by a burden to enlighten others, or how you meant that in the context of this conversation. The other two questions are from previous replies. "Would you consider any other form of history in a non literal way; if not, what does that say about taking bible events non-literally?" " And "why is it hard to argue with someone who holds a literal interpretation of the bible?"

NNS,

I thought it was an excellent analogy you gave of a witness testifying in court, based on what they saw or said.

A magistrate would have every right to throw out 'evidence' that was given in a non-literal way, e.g. allegorically or symbolically. In fact, people who appear on the witness stand know they need to deal with facts and not feelings or opinions.

In Luke 1:1-4 (NIRV), Luke reported how he obtained the information for the gospel associated with him:

"Many people have attempted to write about the things that have taken place among us. Reports of these things were handed down to us. THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO SAW THESE THINGS FOR THEMSELVES from the beginning. They saw them and then passed the word on. With this in mind, I myself have carefully looked into everything from the beginning. So I also decided to write down an orderly report of exactly what happened. I am doing this for you, most excellent Theophilus. I want you to know that the things you have been taught are true" (emphasis added).

This information could be tested in a court of law, thanks to a literal understanding.

Foxy,

<<People have to find their own path.>>

Please help me to understand how you arrived at this conclusion.

NNS,

I prefer to let it all go and not argue
with anyone's personal beliefs.

Have a nice day.

To OzSpen.

Thankyou for the warning and the encouragement. Sorry for not responding yet. I've seen the attitudes on OLO concerning Christianity and agree with your prognosis that bringing up a Christian topic is used as an oppurtunity to try and spear Christianity as a whole by some posters. I've run into it also and haven't started many discussions since.

About the arguments tor non literal interpretations, I get it to a degree even if I disagree with it. There's a lot in the bible that is hard to believe, from teachings considered exaggerations, to miracles that seem impossible. Even to people thinking that history is liberally understood instead of literally understood by ancient audiences because of how the history was or how it was told.

But these are arguments that I understand coming from a non-Christian. Coming from a Christian to say they don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin, didn't die and come back, nor do they believe in miracles baffles me. I have to ask what they believe in that makes them Christian. I don't see it because they don't trust the bible, and without that what is their foundation for believing in Jesus?

I may have been too strong on the points towards Foxy and Alan B, but I disagreed with them both on their stances. Alan's because I thought it was not honest in approach or in regards to the subject. And Foxy's because I I read her as trying to save non Christians from Christianity, and in the heat of it disrobing her own Christianity.

Sorry if I took your topic away from you. I did enjoy your article and thought it was informative to both a believer and a non believer about Christmas. If only it would be given the chance to read it to understand it.

To Foxy.

Thanks for reading, and I hope you consider what was discussed. I think you care about others, but I worry you've lost your trust in God out of your friendship and trust in others who aren't Christian.

The common nativity story is largely a myth.

There were not three "wise men/Kings/Astrologers" mentioned in the Bible - only three "gifts".
If they came from the East, how could they follow a star in the East? They would have to move away from it.

The oldest gospel says only that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (in accordance with the prophesy). The next one said he was born in Nazareth (a town that didn't even exist in Jesus' time).

It was left to a later one to come up with a contrived story of mass-killing, escape into Egypt and a nonsensical and historically unproven Census to try and resolve the problem to say that Joseph had to return to his father's city of Bethlehem and thereby imply that Jesus came from both places.

It's like explaining where Santa gets his toys by including elves - a contrived commentary invented for a purpose.

rache,

<<The common nativity story is largely a myth.>>

It's your post that contains plenty of mythical info. Pretty creative stuff but it sure reads like it's out of your mind and presuppositions.

<<The oldest gospel says only that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (in accordance with the prophesy). The next one said he was born in Nazareth (a town that didn't even exist in Jesus' time).>>

We have the 4 Gospels readily available online. Go to Biblegateway at: http://www.biblegateway.com/.

Please show me which Gospel states that Jesus was born in Nazareth (please give name of the Gospel, chapter and verses).

Now it's time to demonstrate whether you're telling the truth or giving us another one of your myths.

To rache.

A link to evidance of Nazerath existing around Jesus's time.

https://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/belief/did-bethlehem-and-nazareth-exist-in-jesus-day/

You can believe the source or not, but the article at least contains things that can be looked into to confirm or deny. I'd at least look at the article based on that alone.

If they are true then the evidance points to Nazerath existing at the time Jesus was around.

Spencer, thank you for your thoughtful article. I was very slow to respond because I had problems with the log-in process, now happily resolved.(Thank you, admin.)
I'm very happy that there are still serious writers willing to express a reasoned argument in defense of the Christian Gospel.
Yes, it is encouraging to hear Christmas carols played over shopping centre loud speakers, but with so much else that is played it is no wonder that the true story of The birth of Jesus has been blurred in the mind of the unbelieving public.
To those who sneer at the Christian Gospel, I ask: How do you resolve the issue of good and evil in the world?

rache,

<<The next [gospel] said he was born in Nazareth (a town that didn't even exist in Jesus' time).>>

I wish you’d do your research before making this rash and false statement.

First century Jewish historian, Josephus (ca. AD 37 – 100) did not mention Nazareth. It was thought to be a small, insignificant town, based on Nathaniel’s question to Philip, ‘Nazareth! Can anything good come from Nazareth?’ (John 1:46).

Apart from the NT reference, my initial research couldn’t locate anything from historians of the first century outside of Scripture. Argument from silence is poor reasoning.

At the beginning of the 20th century, archaeological excavations by Bagattti showed that Nazareth at the time of Jesus 'was an agricultural settlement with numerous wine presses, olive presses, caves for storing grain, and cisterns for water and wine; (Archaeology & the New Testament, John McRay 1991:157-158).

However, an important archaeological find was made in 2003 by Elias Shama and his wife Martina who owned a small souvenir shop in Nazareth.

"A team of forensic archaeologists and biblical scholars have been poring over a network of tunnels Shama unearthed under his shop several years ago. They believe he has made a discovery so remarkable it will rewrite the history books, changing our understanding not only of the Holy Land but of the life of Jesus himself....

"Professor Richard Freund, an academic behind important Holy Land digs … put aside other excavation projects to concentrate on the Nazareth site. ‘I am sure that what we have here is a bathhouse from the time of Jesus … and the consequences of that for archaeology, and for our knowledge of the life of Jesus, are enormous’.

"But the huge scale of Shama's bathhouse suggests that Nazareth, rather than Sephori, was the local hub of military control from Rome. The giant bath could only have been built for a Roman city or to service a significant garrison town” (See: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/22/research.artsandhumanities.

Daffy Duck,

<<Every minute fraction of this essay is an exercise in childish fantasy, and the naive mommy-daddy "creator-God">>

Based on the links you provided in your post, are you calling on us to worship The Avataric Great Sage, Adi Da Samraj and to apostasise from Jesus Christ?

Penelope,

<<Yes, it is encouraging to hear Christmas carols played over shopping centre loud speakers, but with so much else that is played it is no wonder that the true story of The birth of Jesus has been blurred in the mind of the unbelieving public.
To those who sneer at the Christian Gospel, I ask: How do you resolve the issue of good and evil in the world?>>

I agree that the message of Jesus' birth is 'blurred' in the minds of the people. We have the additional problem that many don't engage in examination of the facts surrounding Christmas. Instead they are happy to use name calling, other fallacies, or misinformation like we've seen in this thread:

+ 'Every minute fraction of this essay is an exercise in childish fantasy, and the naive mommy-daddy "creator-God"'.

+ 'it's you mob who have infected it with all your Christian claptrap'.

+ 'stop with the foam-flecked verbal'.

+ 'The oldest gospel says only that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (in accordance with the prophesy). The next one said he was born in Nazareth (a town that didn't even exist in Jesus' time)'.