h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I will acknowledge that Christmas's date is extremely artificial. The Bible contains no clue as to when Jesus was born. The choice of 25 December coincides not only with Yule, but with the Roman holiday of Saturnalia.

However, Easter's date is not so arbitrary. The Bible clearly says that Jesus was crucified around Passover, an holiday that has been around for at least 3000 years. The only way for the events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus to be internally consistent is to place Easter around this time.

Christmas is a minor holiday doctrinally; Easter is the consummate Xian celebration.

--Cooper

and, incidentally, VERY close to the spring equinox. intentionally or not, it is.

"The spring equinox, which Pagans celebrate as the return of the Sun, using fertility symbols such as eggs and the hare, became the Christian's Easter celebration and the day of the Son's resurrection."

Sounds like you meant a cause-and-effect relationship.

--Cooper

did you delve this deeply into any other entries or is it just the subject matter that deserves your undivided attention? because i'm kind of getting tired of having to defend my entry. it's written from my point of view, thus, it states things the way i have been told they are.

I came across this entry and its subject matter is something I've done a bit of research on. If I see others like this, I'll do the same.

Just having been told things isn't an excuse for writing an article that markets a false history. You should look at varying points of view and the bases for these points of view, then make a decision.

--Cooper

You know sea, you did specifically ask why no one was discussing this entry; and didn't The Unmentionable Marauding Pillowcase Mark II (wow; that just trips off the tongue) claim you did some waiting magic to bring some responses?

It's an absolute truism that you should be careful what you wish for.

The Prophet.

Actually, the placing of christmas relative to Saturnalia and Yule has been challenged recently: check out this quote:

> "Although this view is still very common, it has been seriously challenged by what may be called the 'Calculation' theory. This view stresses that in Judaism, which was the cradle of Christianity, there was pressure to believe that important events in salvation history happened -- and will happen -- on the same date. Some Rabbis argued that on Nisan 14 the world was created, the patriarchs were born, the Exodus took place, and that the Day of the Lord would also happen on this date. Christians dated the Pascha to Nisan 14, but in the Roman calendar this was estimated at 25th March in the West, and in the East where there was a different calendar in use, 6th April. By a strange process of exegesis of the Bible (strange by modern methods, that is) several of the Fathers calculated that the conception of Jesus (in the six month) took place on the same day as his passion, 25th March, or 6th April. By calculating the birth as a perfect nine months (for God is perfect) they arrived at 25th December in the West and 6th January in the East. Furthermore, much of the 'evidence' for pagan festivals has been challenged. There is evidence to suggest that in the Roman Church 25th December was observed as the feast of the incarnation before that date was chosen to celebrate Sol Invictus. It is also questionable whether January 6th was the date of various Eastern festivals -- the 4th or 5th seems to be the important date for some Egyptian celebrations. Certainly recent studies on the calendar have seriously weakened the older 'adaptation' view, and need to be taken seriously."
--
quoted from: "KEEPING THE FEAST, A companion to the Holy Days of the Calendar 2000, Compiled by Simon Kershaw with additional material by James Kiefer" - partially available online.

So even that is open to debate.

Michaelmas is an anniversary of a dedication of a Roman basilica in 561, and is on Sept 29th. I guess it could have been chosen to conflict with the Autumn Equinox, but the equinox is on the 21st. Since they had perfect control over the date of the dedication it seems strange that they didn't get the date exactly right. I've not been able to find any references suggesting that the date was selected in the way sea suggests, as opposed to Christmas.

Actually, Cooper, we don't even need to guess at what time it was in "around Passover" it is clear that it was the final night of Passover before Sabbath that Jesus was killed.... so, friday... EAster.

Oh, and Sea, If you want to make a case for Easter being based on the Spring Equinox, you'd first have to base Passover as based on the Pagan holidays...

But then again.. Everyone knows how Passover is figured, right??

It's based on the first full moon after the spring equinox. It's been that way since at LEAST 3,000 years ago.

Shanana

Ahh, but sea's article rates the Ancient Ways as dating from 25,000 years ago, so it's got a twenty two millenia head start on the choosing of passover.
Do you believe that?

Incidentally, the pending moderation post is mine, but I can't remember what I said. Something about the origin of the date of Christmas being calculated, if I recall.

if you actually do the math, there's no way that both the dates of the immaculate conception and christmas could have been right. if jesus had been born that premature, he would've needed a LOT of sophisticated prenatal care to survive.

prophet- it was the unmentionable marauding pillowcase who asked why no one was discussing this entry. and no, we didn't do any 'waiting magick' per se, but we did kind of want someone to discuss it. however, i DO remember saying that we wanted to hear OTHER WICCANS' viewpoints on the subject.

Um... Immaculate conception? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what day that traditionally falls on.

Red dice, there is no actual evidence that supports the date of 25,000 years. It's a pre-supposition on the parts of some archeaologists. There is no evidence of ANY civlization that predates Jericho, which has only been dated as 8,000 years old. So, even then, the Middle east would have had the basis of the druidic religions. I would assume that means Babylonian or Persian religions.

Also, what are you defining as "ancient ways"? Are you talking shamanism and idol worship, because, no matter WHO you ask, those are the oldest proven belief systems in the world, predating any ritualistic earth-worship or monotheology.

Shanana

Hardly anyone preaches that 25 Dec is the literal day of Christ's birth. It's generally acknowledged as a day of recognising the gift of Christ's birth.

Also, if you're saying that modern Wicca is connected to the alleged ancient religion, then why aren't Judaism and, by extension, Xianity also connected in the same way? I mean, OBVIOUSLY they share the same celebration days.

Why not just put it that the equinoces and solstices were the easiest way to tell time, and since holidays are based on the calendar. . . ?

--Cooper

> "if jesus had been born that premature, he would've needed a LOT of sophisticated prenatal care to survive."

*raises eyebrow*
We're talking about a story which involves someone rising from the dead, turning water to wine, and withering fig trees, not necessarily in that order - I think we can handle a shortened pregnancy period or a premature birth, no?Or, if you're a nonchristian who agrees with a historical Jesus, then the immaculate conception was made up by Mary when she realised she was pregnant - and the dates tie in pretty well.

Anywho - wait to see the quote I provided in my currently hidden post before saying it's a bunch of rubbish - it is kind of traditional to listen to people before dismissing them...

Sorry, sea, but if you make claims which are controversial, you must expect people who take the opposite view to post to your entry. And I'm afraid that a lot of this entry *is* controversial. If I wrote an entry criticising Wicca I'd expect comment from Wiccans. Well, this entry criticises Xtianity, so you should expect comment from those who have a different take on that religion. Did you really not anticipate this?

excellent point, Red Dice.

Also, when you write an entry, you should realize that it is going to be discussed, and often in depth. There is no reason to whine.

Be flattered that we take so much interest!!

Shanana

Sea said, "if you actually do the math, there's no way that both the dates of the immaculate conception and christmas could have been right. if jesus had been born that premature, he would've needed a LOT of sophisticated prenatal care to survive."

If I remember the guide entry on Roman Catholicism correctly,
( http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A533828 ) the immaculate conception does not refer to the conception of Jesus but to that of Mary. So the date of the Immaculate Conception should not be used to calculate how long Jesus was in uetero.

in that entry: "Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary"

I think this means (Immaculate Conception) and (the Assumption of the Virgin Mary). Not the other parse...

The "Immaculate Conception" IS the conception of Mary.

--Cooper

Depends on the year, since Easter is a 'movable Feast'. It could co-incide with spring equinox. All the symbology certainly suggests that -- see post #86 or somesuch, under my name posted 17/05.

There's also Beltane.

Arpeggio for LeKZ

fascinating. my church teaches wrong. they always told me the immaculate conception was when JESUS was concieved.

*refrains from blasphemous comment*

and myreddice, i didn't criticize the church. i didn't even blasphemize, which is something i am prone to do. i'm not saying i didn't point out the skeletons in the church's closet, but i didn't criticize. never once did i say "this horrible excuse for a religion" or "however can those savages sleep at night?" there's no criticism. it's all history.

When you say "Immaculate Conception" it means Mary, because according to most traditions, there was a male (God) there when Jesus was conceived.

I don't really care about the Immaculate Conception anyhow; I'm not sayin' it didn't happen, or that it's not logically necessary; I just don't care. It's not a central belief. Mary's mom coulda been a whore for all the difference it makes. Jesus certainly had enough of THOSE in his family tree.

--Cooper