Xmas Stuff

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Gold and tree resins. What gifts.

There have been quite a few jokes written about that over the centuries. After the three "wise" men leave come three wise women bearing gifts of diapers, formula and casseroles. Much wiser I must say.

 

[lpetrich]

 Biblical Magi, Magi | Scripture, Traditions, & Importance | Britannica -- the Bible does not say much about those wise men, but later storytellers added details like how many there were (usually three) and their names (a variety).

From Britannica,

As early as the 3rd century they were considered to be kings, probably interpreted as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Psalms 72:11 (“May all kings fall down before him”). In about the 8th century the names of three Magi—Bithisarea, Melichior, and Gathaspa—appear in a chronicle known as the Excerpta latina barbari.

From Wikipedia, these names:

• Western Church: Melchior (Melichior), Caspar (Gaspar, Jaspar, Jaspas, Gathaspa, ...), Balthazar (Balthasar, Balthassar, Bithisarea)
• Syrian: Larvandad, Gushnasaph, Hormisdas
• Ethiopian: Hor, Karsudan, Basanater
• Armenian Catholic: Kagpha, Badadakharida, Badadilma

 

[Politesse]

Gold and tree resins. What gifts.

There have been quite a few jokes written about that over the centuries. After the three "wise" men leave come three wise women bearing gifts of diapers, formula and casseroles. Much wiser I must say.

All of the above are still considered valuable. There is such a thing as post-Christmas returns. But if you would prefer a box of diapers, I'll take the gold and incense off you for a modest carrying fee.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I added to my post while you were posting, apparently. See above, or just respond to this point:



Your objection seems to be that no one would tell a story that has false details (such as requiring citizens to return to their birth homes in order to take a census), because someone in the audience might be old enough to remember whether or not that actually happened.

What difference would that make?

The story we do have (in Mark) does exactly that by including, for example, a "tradition" of Pilate committing open treason against Rome--right in front of his own troops no less--all because he wants to please the very people he's there to subjugate. That did not--nor could not--have ever happened and that fact would be well known to people whether they lived through it or not, yet that blatant lie evidently made no difference. It's still in the book after all.

Likewise the whole idea of the central character rising from the dead. Evidently there was an entire community--of adherents, no less--that did not believe Jesus rose from the dead, so much so in fact that the leader of their church felt he needed to write a stern rebuke insisting that if they did not believe such a thing, then there was no church! That it ALL hinges on believing that he did, in fact, resurrect from the dead.

And, again, that's still in the book, in spite of the fact that there were evidently MANY people that supposedly lived within, what, twenty-five years of the alleged event (from the time Paul supposedly wrote that letter), who did not believe that part of the story they were told and must have spoken up in large enough numbers to provoke Paul's rebuke at the very least.

All of that happened "far away in a foreign land", though.

Not so far away and under Roman rule and as such anyone subjected to Roman rule--and/or Roman citizens--would know very well that no Prefect would have had any such openly treasonous "tradition."

This matter of a census seems less like something a Roman audience would find plausible if such a census was never taken.

Again, no more implausible than a Roman governor having a "tradition" of letting Jews decide which convicted seditionist leader and killer of Roman citizens/soldiers goes free.

But, again you're not addressing the so what aspect. You seem to be implying that this is some sort of dealbreaker or automatic rejection mechanism, as if the entire audience is going to do what exactly? Not believe the story as a whole is true? That was already abundantly the case in regard to multiple different versions (contradictory versions no less) from person to person and still true today.

You, for example, have repeatedly conceded that you don't believe certain aspects of the story are true, yet you still consider yourself a "Christian." There are over 22,000 different sects of "Christianity" that all follow different versions/different elements of the "good news" so the idea that one element is made up or altered in some fashion clearly makes no difference at all as to whether or not billions of people believe the overall story regardless.

And an odd detail to invent, in any case. If they just needed to get the main characters to Bethlehem, why not have them travel there to visit the inlaws? Or just start there in the first place and invent a reason to go to Nazaret later?

Changing something that has already been established requires certain patches, shall we say? Like sticking a finger in a dyke, because you can't fix the bigger problem. Iow, someone must have pointed out that the characters needed to be in Bethlehem. But the story already had them elsewhere, so a patch was needed to fix the problem. That's the whole purpose of "apologetics." Patching over the holes in the dogma that people point out may be problematic.

In regard to this particular example, not being in Bethlehem meant not fulfilling Jewish prophecy, so it was evidently more important to fix that hole than it was to care about how it was fixed, most likely because of this understanding that it doesn't necessarily matter how they fix it, who is going to object that matters?

Re this very discussion! It is clearly false that Rome would require people that have moved away from their birth towns to nevertheless travel all the way back to their birth towns to complete a census. That simply makes no sense and obviously did not happen. Yet the dogma requires something fill that hole, so that's the patch and here you (and others) are defending the patch rather than just admit it's an obvious patch and never happened.

Iow, this discussion is ironic proof that making bold faced lies doesn't change someone's belief. So there is no adverse consequence to making such lies to fill a particular need. It's arguably the same reasoning behind later versions of Mark's story making certain fixes to the narrative so that it makes better sense.

For example, Mark has an open tomb and a young man sitting inside. Matthew changes that to a closed tomb and the young man is now an angel that descends and rolls the stone back to open the tomb. The angel then says the same thing as Mark's young man.

So, clearly, someone within the church elders pointed out that Mark's version is not very "god almighty" miraculous. Hell, it doesn't even technically end with Jesus being resurrected from the dead, merely that he has "risen" and who is the young man in white robes? Where did he come from and/or go to? Is he the same young man that was with Jesus for some unknown reason when he was arrested?

And, of course, the whole how do we blame Jesus' death on "the Jews" when in fact it was Pilate's fault entirely? To do that they had to come up with that whole extended nonsense about a "tradition" and Pilate being in cahoots, but then suddenly betraying the San Hedrin, yet that doesn't have any effect (in spite of it being the sole reason the San Hedrin go to Pilate to begin with), etc., etc., etc.

It's apologetics. It fixes the holes where the rain comes in and stops the mind from wandering. Where it will go!

Paul had nothing to do with either of the books under discussion

Irrelevant. I referenced him to provide evidence of how people didn't believe certain elements to the story at the time it was evidently being told, yet remained adherents to the cult regardless. It's essentially compartmentalization and it happens with every single cult dogma and necessarily so, because they are ALL false so that means entire teams of apologists must fix the holes as they pop up, because they WILL pop up.

The truth will out and all that.

 

[Politesse]

Not so far away and under Roman rule and as such anyone subjected to Roman rule--and/or Roman citizens--would know very well that no Prefect would have had any such openly treasonous "tradition."

This matter of a census seems less like something a Roman audience would find plausible if such a census was never taken.

Again, no more implausible than a Roman governor having a "tradition" of letting Jews decide which convicted seditionist leader and killer of Roman citizens/soldiers goes free.

But, again you're not addressing the so what aspect. You seem to be implying that this is some sort of dealbreaker or automatic rejection mechanism, as if the entire audience is going to do what exactly? Not believe the story as a whole is true? That was already abundantly the case in regard to multiple different versions (contradictory versions no less) from person to person and still true today.

You, for example, have repeatedly conceded that you don't believe certain aspects of the story are true, yet you still consider yourself a "Christian." There are over 22,000 different sects of "Christianity" that all follow different versions/different elements of the "good news" so the idea that one element is made up or altered in some fashion clearly makes no difference at all as to whether or not billions of people believe the overall story regardless.

And an odd detail to invent, in any case. If they just needed to get the main characters to Bethlehem, why not have them travel there to visit the inlaws? Or just start there in the first place and invent a reason to go to Nazaret later?

Changing something that has already been established requires certain patches, shall we say? Like sticking a finger in a dyke, because you can't fix the bigger problem. Iow, someone must have pointed out that the characters needed to be in Bethlehem. But the story already had them elsewhere, so a patch was needed to fix the problem. That's the whole purpose of "apologetics." Patching over the holes in the dogma that people point out may be problematic.

In regard to this particular example, not being in Bethlehem meant not fulfilling Jewish prophecy, so it was evidently more important to fix that hole than it was to care about how it was fixed, most likely because of this understanding that it doesn't necessarily matter how they fix it, who is going to object that matters?

Re this very discussion! It is clearly false that Rome would require people that have moved away from their birth towns to nevertheless travel all the way back to their birth towns to complete a census. That simply makes no sense and obviously did not happen. Yet the dogma requires something fill that hole, so that's the patch and here you (and others) are defending the patch rather than just admit it's an obvious patch and never happened.

Iow, this discussion is ironic proof that making bold faced lies doesn't change someone's belief. So there is no adverse consequence to making such lies to fill a particular need. It's arguably the same reasoning behind later versions of Mark's story making certain fixes to the narrative so that it makes better sense.

For example, Mark has an open tomb and a young man sitting inside. Matthew changes that to a closed tomb and the young man is now an angel that descends and rolls the stone back to open the tomb. The angel then says the same thing as Mark's young man.

So, clearly, someone within the church elders pointed out that Mark's version is not very "god almighty" miraculous. Hell, it doesn't even technically end with Jesus being resurrected from the dead, merely that he has "risen" and who is the young man in white robes? Where did he come from and/or go to? Is he the same young man that was with Jesus for some unknown reason when he was arrested?

And, of course, the whole how do we blame Jesus' death on "the Jews" when in fact it was Pilate's fault entirely? To do that they had to come up with that whole extended nonsense about a "tradition" and Pilate being in cahoots, but then suddenly betraying the San Hedrin, yet that doesn't have any effect (in spite of it being the sole reason the San Hedrin go to Pilate to begin with), etc., etc., etc.

It's apologetics. It fixes the holes where the rain comes in and stops the mind from wandering. Where it will go!

Paul had nothing to do with either of the books under discussion

Irrelevant. I referenced him to provide evidence of how people didn't believe certain elements to the story at the time it was evidently being told, yet remained adherents to the cult regardless. It's essentially compartmentalization and it happens with every single cult dogma and necessarily so, because they are ALL false so that means entire teams of apologists must fix the holes as they pop up, because they WILL pop up.

The truth will out and all that.

I see you're still obsessed with your personal read of the Crucifixion narrative. We have discussed this before several times, but I don't see how relevant that is to this discussion; aren't we talking about a different text entirely? Most scholars think that the nativity narratives were added (ot at least elaborated) relatively late in the composition of the gospels.

I suppose your point is just that people were generally quite credulous at the time by modern standards, which is true, but I still maintain that the everyday realities of the Empire are not where I would expect pure invention on the part of a Roman storyteller. It'd be like Joseph Smith starting his story about the tablets with a reference to his time serving the King of Massachusetts in the Grest Canadian War of 1842. I don't think we would now possess a text that sounded absurd to its original listeners. They didn't think stories about miracle workers were absurd. An imaginary imperial census is another matter.

Do you actually have any source to back up your claim that Roman Governors lacked the authority to pardon criminals, or is that just speculation on your part?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I see you're still obsessed with your personal read of the Crucifixion narrative.

My "personal read"? Nicely done.

I don't see how relevant that is to this discussion

It's yet another example of an event that did not and could not have happened as depicted--just like requiring people to go to their birth towns to fill out a census--having little to no impact on whether or not people believe the story.

I suppose your point is just that people were generally quite credulous at the time by modern standards, which is true, but I still maintain that the everyday realities of the Empire are not where I would expect pure invention on the part of a Roman storyteller.

Except, again, it's a crucial part of the storyline in regard to Jesus' alleged claims of being "the" Jewish messiah. If he doesn't come from Bethlehem, then no prophecy fulfillment.

It'd be like Joseph Smith starting his story about the tablets with a reference to his time serving the King of Massachusetts in the Grest Canadian War of 1842.

Or like him claiming to have been given disappearing gold tablets from God and others attesting to his claims. Oh, I see what you're going for there.

So, no, it would be more like him starting his story about the tablets with a reference to his time serving, say, the Governor of Massachusetts in the Battle Against Maine and a handful of people saying, "Wait, what battle? I don't remember any such battle" and they leave, while a good many others stay and don't care or just take the claim at face value, because, as you note, people were generally credulous at that time and certainly would have no way of independently verifying such a claim regardless.

They didn't think stories about miracle workers were absurd. An imaginary imperial census is another matter.

Who said it was "imaginary"? There was definitely a census. The idea that people would have to move back to their home towns in order to take it, however, is what is clearly preposterous and completely defeats the whole purpose of a census.

But it is that kind of detail that no peasant sitting in a pew could independently verify or even likely care to.

And, again, even if some did, so what? You seem to take it as just an axiom that EVERYONE who hears a false note in a story will reject the story in total. We know that's not true, so what is your point? That it HAD to be true, otherwise everyone would have rejected it. That's nonsense and doesn't apply to grandiose things like resurrection, but you're saying that a census where the Romans required you to move to your birth town is the dealbreaker?

That's utterly and endlessly ironically absurd and only reinforces the point that believers will spin anything toward their belief.

Do you actually have any source to back up your claim that Roman Governors lacked the authority to pardon criminals

How much straw do you intend to stuff this time around? It's not an issue of authority; it's an issue of treason and something completely out of character from what little we know about Pilate. Plus there are many other elements of the story that simply don't add up, but we needn't go into those again.

The fact of the matter is it didn't happen. There was never any such "tradition" and if there were, Pilate would have been immediately murdered in his sleep by his own soldiers. He supposedly let a seditionist leader--who had killed Roman soldiers--go free to please the crowd of Jews they were all there to subjugate. That is open treason against Rome and a personal affront to every Roman soldier in his garrison.

If they hadn't killed him for it, it most certainly would have been mentioned to Rome that a governor of one of the provinces had a "tradition" of setting free seditionist leaders against Roman occupation and murderers of Roman citizens/soldiers.

Imagine if Barrack Obama had captured Bin Laden, brought him back to America and then asked Muslim Americans if they wanted him to go free. And he freed him and then the same Muslim Americans insisted that Obama torture and murder a completely innocent Christian just because they wanted him to and he did.

There wouldn't be enough blood to shed.

 

[Politesse]

My "personal read"? Nicely done.



It's yet another example of an event that did not and could not have happened as depicted--just like requiring people to go to their birth towns to fill out a census--having little to no impact on whether or not people believe the story.

I suppose your point is just that people were generally quite credulous at the time by modern standards, which is true, but I still maintain that the everyday realities of the Empire are not where I would expect pure invention on the part of a Roman storyteller.

Except, again, it's a crucial part of the storyline in regard to Jesus' alleged claims of being "the" Jewish messiah. If he doesn't come from Bethlehem, then no prophecy fulfillment.

It'd be like Joseph Smith starting his story about the tablets with a reference to his time serving the King of Massachusetts in the Grest Canadian War of 1842.

Or like him claiming to have been given disappearing gold tablets from God and others attesting to his claims. Oh, I see what you're going for there.

So, no, it would be more like him starting his story about the tablets with a reference to his time serving, say, the Governor of Massachusetts in the Battle Against Maine and a handful of people saying, "Wait, what battle? I don't remember any such battle" and they leave, while a good many others stay and don't care or just take the claim at face value, because, as you note, people were generally credulous at that time and certainly would have no way of independently verifying such a claim regardless.

They didn't think stories about miracle workers were absurd. An imaginary imperial census is another matter.

Who said it was "imaginary"? There was definitely a census. The idea that people would have to move back to their home towns in order to take it, however, is what is clearly preposterous and completely defeats the whole purpose of a census.

But it is that kind of detail that no peasant sitting in a pew could independently verify or even likely care to.

And, again, even if some did, so what? You seem to take it as just an axiom that EVERYONE who hears a false note in a story will reject the story in total. We know that's not true, so what is your point? That it HAD to be true, otherwise everyone would have rejected it. That's nonsense and doesn't apply to grandiose things like resurrection, but you're saying that a census where the Romans required you to move to your birth town is the dealbreaker?

That's utterly and endlessly ironically absurd and only reinforces the point that believers will spin anything toward their belief.

Do you actually have any source to back up your claim that Roman Governors lacked the authority to pardon criminals

How much straw do you intend to stuff this time around? It's not an issue of authority; it's an issue of treason and something completely out of character from what little we know about Pilate. Plus there are many other elements of the story that simply don't add up, but we needn't go into those again.

The fact of the matter is it didn't happen. There was never any such "tradition" and if there were, Pilate would have been immediately murdered in his sleep by his own soldiers. He supposedly let a seditionist leader--who had killed Roman soldiers--go free to please the crowd of Jews they were all there to subjugate. That is open treason against Rome and a personal affront to every Roman soldier in his garrison.

If they hadn't killed him for it, it most certainly would have been mentioned to Rome that a governor of one of the provinces had a "tradition" of setting free seditionist leaders against Roman occupation and murderers of Roman citizens/soldiers.

Imagine if Barrack Obama had captured Bin Laden, brought him back to America and then asked Muslim Americans if they wanted him to go free. And he freed him and then the same Muslim Americans insisted that Obama torture and murder a completely innocent Christian just because they wanted him to and he did.

There wouldn't be enough blood to shed.

So your Pilate thing is entirely speculative; you have no documentary evidence to support it. But you drag it into every discussion, as though it were a coup de grace argument. If all you have is "it seems logical to me", then it's strength as an argument depends on whether everyone agrees with your logic, rather than (as would be much more robust) a consideration of the evidence you have presented. Would you like some help developing your thesis for use in future discussions? I could think of a number of secondary sources that might be useful to you.

As for my main point, it doesn't seem.worth re-iterating. I continue to feel that is, as a rule of thumb, easier to convince someone about a remarkable claim, than of a mundane but inaccurate claim.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So your Pilate thing is entirely speculative

As is just about everything in life, but certainly anything to do with ancient claims of divinity.

you have no documentary evidence to support it.

How could I if it's something that never happened?

But you drag it into every discussion, as though it were a coup de grace argument.

Wow. So much straw. I "dragged" it into this discussion as yet another example of something that could not have happened as described nevertheless NOT being a dealbreaker for most cult members.

If all you have is "it seems logical to me", then it's strength as an argument depends on whether everyone agrees with your logic

Logic is not something one "agrees" on. That however has nothing to do with the fact that no Roman governor could possibly have had a "tradition" of committing annual treason against Rome, but thank you once again for illustrating the point rather starkly that no amount of bullshit can prevent a believer from excusing it.

rather than (as would be much more robust) a consideration of the evidence you have presented.

Again, what evidence--other than the lack of ANY reference to such a tradition in any other form exists anywhere--could I have presented for something that never happened?

Would you like some help developing your thesis for use in future discussions? I could think of a number of secondary sources that might be useful to you.

You mean like the infamous accounts we do have of Pilate being openly cruel toward Jews and using undercover operatives to brutally suppress a riot of some ten thousand Jews at the aqueduct, thus evidencing his true m.o. when it came to subjugating Jews en mass, which directly contradicts the ludicrous apologetic that he feared or, worse, wished to "appease" any crowd of Jews?

Not to mention the fact that the idea of a crowd of Jews could just be somehow whispered into suddenly turning 180 degrees around against Jesus that they just magically now want him brutally tortured and murdered in the worst possible way, just after learning that their San Hedrin had committed treason against them by colluding with Pilate to kill their previously beloved messiah.

Two days prior, the San Hedrin so feared the crowd's love of Jesus that to avoid their attacking them, they tried to trick Pilate into killing Jesus for them. Pilate knows this, double crosses them and finds Jesus innocent and the crowd so feared two days ago, now suddenly is magically compliant and will do whatever the San Hedrin tell them to do.

How exactly did that happen, btw?

[sotto voce] Hey, why don't we kill this Jesus guy instead of setting him free?

FUCK YEAH! LET'S KILL HIM FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL! WE LOVED HIM SO MUCH TWO DAYS AGO WE WOULD HAVE KILLED ALL OF YOU FOR TRYING TO HURT HIM BUT NOW THAT PILATE HAS REVEALED YOUR TREASON, BRUTALLY MURDER JESUS FOR US PILATE!

Why?

As for my main point, it doesn't seem.worth re-iterating. I continue to feel that is, as a rule of thumb, easier to convince someone about a remarkable claim, than of a mundane but inaccurate claim.

Iow, the bigger the lie the easier it is to convince someone it's not a lie? I agree. Though I note you've very carefully ommitted the qualifier in the former point (that's it's easier to convince someone of a remarkable LIE, than of a mundane lie).

As for MY main point, it likewise doesn't seem worth re-iterating, since you have repeatedly demonstrated its efficacy with every post. It simply does not matter what lies are told, some people will believe no matter what.

But even more important, just because some people would take certain claims being made and say, "Nope, that's a deal breaker for me," that in no way extends--as you are implying--to ALL people.

So you have no point, other than to affirm the idea that some people hear tall tales and say, "Bullshit" while others hear the exact same tall tales and say, "I believe it's all true" while still others hear the same tale and say, "Well, some of that is bullshit, sure, but on the whole, I buy it."

What else is new?

ETA: Speaking of logic, is your real "point" to imply that because it's more difficult to convince people of a "mundane, inaccurate claim," this therefore means the claim can't be inaccurate?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here, btw, would be such documentary evidence for gits and shiggles:

Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War 2.175-177

On a later occasion he provoked a fresh uproar by expending upon the construction of an aqueduct the sacred treasure known as Corbonas; the water was brought from a distance of seventy kilometers. Indignant at this proceeding, the populace formed a ring round the tribunal of Pilate, then on a visit to Jerusalem, and besieged him with angry clamor.
He, foreseeing the tumult, had interspersed among the crowd a troop of his soldiers, armed but disguised in civilian dress, with orders not to use their swords, but to beat any rioters with cudgels. He now from his tribunal gave the agreed signal.
Large numbers of the Jews perished, some from the blows which they received, others trodden to death by their companions in the ensuing flight. Cowed by the fate of the victims, the multitude was reduced to silence.

Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.60-62

He spent money from the sacred treasury in the construction of an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem, intercepting the source of the stream at a distance of thirty-five kilometers. The Jews did not acquiesce in the operations that this involved; and tens of thousands of men assembled and cried out against him, bidding him relinquish his promotion of such designs. Some too even hurled insults and abuse of the sort that a throng will commonly engage in.
He thereupon ordered a large number of soldiers to be dressed in Jewish garments, under which they carried clubs, and he sent them off this way and that, thus surrounding the Jews, whom he ordered to withdraw. When the Jews were in full torrent of abuse he gave his soldiers the prearranged signal.
They, however, inflicted much harder blows than Pilate had ordered, punishing alike both those who were rioting and those who were not. But the Jews showed no faint-heartedness; and so, caught unarmed, as they were, by men delivering a prepared attack, many of them actually were slain on the spot, while some withdrew disabled by blows. Thus ended the uprising.

And, of course, in regard to the Samaritans we have this little bit that once again directly contradicts the notion that Pilate would ever even consider openly committing treason against Rome, let alone holding a regular "tradition" of treason because he wanted to please (or "appease") any Jew (emphasis mine):

Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.85-89

The Samaritan nation too was not exempt from disturbance. For a man who made light of mendacity and in all his designs catered to the mob, rallied them, bidding them go in a body with him to Mount Gerizim, which in their belief is the most sacred of mountains. He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them.
His hearers, viewing this tale as plausible, appeared in arms. They posted themselves in a certain village named Tirathana, and, as they planned to climb the mountain in a great multitude, they welcomed to their ranks the new arrivals who kept coming.
But before they could ascend, Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry, who in an encounter with the first comers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives.
When the uprising had been quelled, the council of the Samaritans went to Vitellius, a man of consular rank who was governor of Syria, and charged Pilate with the slaughter of the victims. For, they said, it was not as rebels against the Romans but as refugees from the persecution of Pilate that they had met in Tirathana.
Vitellius thereupon dispatched Marcellus, one of his friends, to take charge of the administration of Judaea, and ordered Pilate to return to Rome to give the emperor his account of the matters with which he was charged by the Samaritans. And so Pilate, after having spent ten years in Judaea, hurried to Rome in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, since he could not refuse. But before he reached Rome, Tiberius had already passed away.

If Josephus is to be believed, we have evidence not just of Pilate's brutal and authoritarian dominance over the Jews in his province that directly contradicts the notion of any form of appeasement, let alone a ritual of appeasement that included open treason against Rome, but also at least two incidents where Pilate relied upon undercover agents in order to not only quell the uprisings (such as with the aqueduct), but also to uncover their plots (as with the "man who made light of mendacity"), for how else would he have known what was planned and when in order to ready and direct a "detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry" to stop them and then murder all the leaders?

Not free them in appeasement to Jewish festivities on the mountain; slaughter them.

To reiterate, Pilate predicted (or likewise discovered through his undercover agents the plot to riot at the aqua duct) and placed undercover agents within the massive crowds of Jews--tens of thousands--anticipating a riot and far from appeasing them, upon a pre-arranged signal had his soldiers brutally cudgel--to the point of death--unknown thousands over an aqueduct ffs, something actually beneficial to the Jews.

AND, we have another instance of extreme cruelty where Pilate personally orders the deaths of numerous ring leaders (that he apparently believes to be seditionists, or at least claims that they are) and far from letting their leaders go free, he orders their immediate slaughter along with several other "innocents."

This brutality is reported to Pilate's superior who in turn reports the act to Rome, which results in Pilate essentially being removed from office, but he evidently lucks out before reaching Rome.

So why would Pilate EVER appease any Jews, let alone think that he could get away with a "tradition" of annually releasing convicted seditionist leaders and murderers of Roman soldiers/citizens to appease the Jews let alone want to?

And, of course, if these events happened as Josephus depicts--and we have no reason to assume they did not--then this too would have been subject to the same kind of, "But, hey, wait, I lived under Pilate's rule and he was a famously brutal asshole who hated Jews and slaughtered them just for suspecting them to be seditionists" that you are claiming would be MORE the case with something mundane like a census.

That the census illogic would be the dealbreaker, but NOT depicting Pilate as someone sympathetic to the Jews and only wishing to be appease them during their "festivities" and didn't give two shits about a convicted seditionist leader and murderer of Roman soldiers/citizens.

HE can go free no problem, because, Jews. But the fiercely beloved innocent man is now to be brutally tortured and murdered in the worst possible way available to Pilate, because, Jews.

And neither of those are dealbreakers. But a census is.

Thank you for always beautifully illustrating my points.

Believers will rationalize ANY lie, whether mundane or monumental.

 

[lpetrich]

 Star of Bethlehem - I've seen numerous theories of its nature.

A real celestial object, like a supernova or a comet.

An astronomical event that only some "wise men" might have paid much attention to, like a planetary conjuction.

Wikipedia mentions another hypothesis. In the words of its article, "pious fiction".

Isaac Asimov once discussed it in "Star in the East". collected in "The Planet That Wasn't". He concluded that it was a miracle, and like the numerous other miracles of the Bible, he dismisses it outright.

I've even seen the theory that it was an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

 

[crazyfingers]

Ever since I was a kid we did a secular Xmas. My dad was an atheist and my mom is not religious. We do a tree and presents. Big dinner. That's what we do with my kids though my three kids are pretty much atheist and my wife, though raised Catholic, is non-practicing. When my wife's mom would visit my wife would take her mom to Mass but them my wife would go to the grocery and then get her mom when mass was over.

We see nothing wrong with the tradition of a secular Xmas.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I only celebrate anti-christmas. It's in July.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

 Star of Bethlehem - I've seen numerous theories of its nature.

A real celestial object, like a supernova or a comet.

An astronomical event that only some "wise men" might have paid much attention to, like a planetary conjuction.

Wikipedia mentions another hypothesis. In the words of its article, "pious fiction".

Isaac Asimov once discussed it in "Star in the East". collected in "The Planet That Wasn't". He concluded that it was a miracle, and like the numerous other miracles of the Bible, he dismisses it outright.

I've even seen the theory that it was an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Celestial events were important to the ancients astrologically. It would make sense to invent a celestial event in the case of a birth narrative of someone claimed to be important.

 

[Politesse]

Like the star that appeared over Baekdu Mountain when the Dear Leader was born in our time.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I do look forward to this ridiculous holiday. (What other holiday has a wholly fictitious connection with its specified date? There may be others, but I can't think of 'em.) I make a yearly anti-Christmas card and send it out to a very restricted list of recipients. It's so much fun to ridicule the holiday or use f-bombs on a Yuletide card.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I do look forward to this ridiculous holiday. (What other holiday has a wholly fictitious connection with its specified date? There may be others, but I can't think of 'em.) I make a yearly anti-Christmas card and send it out to a very restricted list of recipients. It's so much fun to ridicule the holiday or use f-bombs on a Yuletide card.

Easter comes to mind. The christian godman was given a resurrection date to coincide with pagan spring rituals at the vernal equinox. Easter is my favorite fake holiday because it's a christian holiday named after a pagan goddess.

But the food is still good.

 

[lpetrich]

I'll now turn to Xmas vegetation species.

The most obvious one is Xmas trees. These are pine-family conifers (Pinaceae) that grow in a cone shape: pines (Pinus spp.), spruces (Picea spp.), and firs (Abies spp.).

Holly (Ilex spp.) is some broadleaf trees and shrubs sometimes with spiky leaf edges.

Conifers and holly are mostly evergreens, meaning that in winter, they look alive. Their opposite, deciduous trees, drop their leaves in the fall, let themselves look dead in the winter, and regrow their leaves in the spring.

Mistletoe (European mistletoe: Viscum album) is a parasitic plant that grows on trees.

Holly and the Ivy and other Christmas Greenery -- Christmas Customs and Traditions -- whychristmas?com lists several other species traditionally associated with the holiday.

 O Tannenbaum Literally "O Fir Tree", usually translated "O Xmas Tree" - celebrates that tree's looking alive in winter

 

[crazyfingers]

I had mentioned that in my family we did and do a secular Xmas.

As some may know my dad died in August and we immediately needed to find assisted living for my mom. My dad was taking care of her 24/7 and mom really can't fully take care of herself. Wheel chair that she can't even move herself (he has a new powered one that she still can't fully control), she is terribly forgetful.

So anyway, we have kept her old house turned on. Heat, hot water, etc, knowing that for Xmas we'd take her home. We did. From Monday before Xmas to Friday after Xmas we all moved into her old house and tried to make a traditional Xmas for her. We decorated the Xmas tree Xmas eve and she was SO HAPPY to be a part of it. She misses my dad terribly but it made things kinda normal for Xmas for all 5 of us, me, my wiffe and 3 kids there. We even brought along our two cats who moved right in.

Anyway, Secular Xmas can be just as important as a family tradition as a religious one may be for the religious. Perhaps more because all of the focus is on family with none of the Jesus nonsense as a distraction.

 

[Angry Floof]

I had mentioned that in my family we did and do a secular Xmas.

As some may know my dad died in August and we immediately needed to find assisted living for my mom. My dad was taking care of her 24/7 and mom really can't fully take care of herself. Wheel chair that she can't even move herself (he has a new powered one that she still can't fully control), she is terribly forgetful.

So anyway, we have kept her old house turned on. Heat, hot water, etc, knowing that for Xmas we'd take her home. We did. From Monday before Xmas to Friday after Xmas we all moved into her old house and tried to make a traditional Xmas for her. We decorated the Xmas tree Xmas eve and she was SO HAPPY to be a part of it. She misses my dad terribly but it made things kinda normal for Xmas for all 5 of us, me, my wiffe and 3 kids there. We even brought along our two cats who moved right in.

Anyway, Secular Xmas can be just as important as a family tradition as a religious one may be for the religious. Perhaps more because all of the focus is on family with none of the Jesus nonsense as a distraction.

What a wonderful thing to do for your mom.

 

[Lion IRC]

What, if anything, has Christmas contributed to Western Civilization that could earn the respect of the secularist?

Religion and the Public Square

What, if anything, has Christmas contributed to Western Civilization that could earn the respect of the secularist and hence win their grudging acquiescence in its ongoing public acknowledgment?

"...The celebration of Christmas has been a powerful teacher of the dignity of the human person."

Christians think Christmas is about the dignity of the human person. Higher Being thinks human beings are worth something - "the human race as a whole, and of each human person as an individual."

Here's the Public Discourse's take on why that ideal, along with other Christmas-related social benefits, make for a worthwhile institution that deserves a hall pass from the atheist fun police.

...As the story goes;
Born into circumstances of poverty, to a working class family of no outstanding social importance, His birth was announced not to the princes but to shepherds and His life's work and teaching was that all men are equal in their fundamental human dignity.

Read the Carson Holloway Op Ed or not. Critique his arguments as you will. But what's at the root of your problem with Christmas?