I have not studied this but I heard it and it made sense, but you could also be right
I am enlightened.
Really? Well it must be true then. TIL. Time to go spread the news!
"Arst" lmfao look at this goober
As in, I can't be arst?
I like the guy who thinks there are only sheep in the fall
They mature in summer and are plucked from the shrubberies in the fall.
Also do they think April is fall? I'm so confused.
I once fell in April, so it makes sense.
It is in half the world, but Israel is in the northern hemisphere so the wrong half for that line of thinking
thou days
Plebs can’t even get “yourthst” right; I chortle.
I mean, an April or spring birthday makes way more sense from a narrative perspective. It also aligns with most of the symbolism of Easter (baby animals, eggs, green grass, etc..), where as the winter solstice lines up far better with the crucifixion narrative. You know, the 'son' is placed on a 'cross' for three days, dies, and is then reborn; like how the sun, at the winter solstice, enters into the constellation the 'southern cross' for three days, and upon leaving the southern cross, the day-lengths of the year begin to lengthen again (as in, the year is reborn).
So if you just assume the whole thing to be a bunch of made up gobblty gook, from a narrative perspective, it would make far more sense that the 'savior' is born at the time of year when.. well.. everything else good is borne (baby lambs, flowers, food crops, etc..).
I do subscribe to the whole thing being shaken up and confused under Constantine and the Nicene counsel when the christian church was formalized. Its like seasons 6+ of Game of Thrones. Like the parts and pieces are all apparently there but are organized into some weird frankenstory. Nothing good comes when you are writing narrative by committee.
Im a gnostic atheist, but I’m agnostic (in the literal sense of the word - I do not think knowledge is possible at this time) with regards to a historical Jesus.
I can’t fault your reasoning, though I’d like to throw a counter-argument out there as an alternative. The first thing I would point out is that Dec 25th was held to be the nativity of Sol Invictus, which is considered by some to be the reason for assigning the date there. I believe that’s where we also get “Sunday” as Jesus day, and the halo as a symbol of holiness.
In addition the spring rebirth does align with the semiotics of the resurrection - the dead earth coming back to life is the origin of most of the spring-associated festivals in Europe. Dead Jesus coming back to life, and in Christian teachings ending “death” as a phenomenon for his followers, maps well to that.
Also, I don’t think the southern cross was a big thing in Europe. I think those stars were considered to belong to another constellation (when and where they were visible) until all of the rest of this was settled.
They're so close, yet so far away - when the Gregorian calendar replaced the Julian calendar, they actually did move the start of the year from April 1 (right after the spring equinox) to January 1.
...Everything else they said was about as wrong as it could be, though.
Well, they're also right that the historical figure that the biblical Jesus is based on was almost certainly not born in the winter. The holiday seems to have been moved there to be close to the winter soltice holidays to encourage conversion. A Pope apparently pulled the date out of his ass about three centuries after the guy died.
Peace be upon him
