?
2007-03-08 23:09:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by KKL2006 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
If Jesus did exist, and that's a big IF considering there is no historical evidence to support it.. he couldn't have been born in December, as shepherds wouldn't have had flocks out in the field in winter. More than likely, he would've been born in late September/early October time frame.
Christmas wasn't celebrated until well after Rome took over jewish gnosticism and married it with paganism in 325 CE., when they changed Passover (which is what the "last supper" would've been about) to Easter (pagan celebration of Eostre, the fertility goddess).
Once that became established in Rome, a convert or die mandate took effect, and it spred like a plague throughout the empire. Hence, now "christmas" is celebrated as Jesus' birthday and Easter is celebrated as his "resurrection."
2007-03-08 23:24:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Kallan 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Jesus was not born on Christmas and did not Die on Easter
Christmas was originally a pagan Holiday and historically He was born in the spring.
as for Easter once again it is also a pagan holiday, Jesus died the day before the Pasha (what is now known as Passover)
2007-03-08 23:17:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
lol.. Jesus was born in 3 B.C or around that time. He died when he was 33 years old. He died on Good Friday and rose from the dead 3 days later on Easter.
2007-03-09 00:09:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Kenny 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
I cant believe someone asked that. I have never really studied the bible much, but I think that Christmas doesn't really have anything to do with Jesus. Christmas is around the general time Jesus was born, but not precisely. Christmas was originally developed in Holland or something, hence St. Claus or Santa Claus.
2007-03-08 23:10:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
You did that on purpose didn't you?!
Oh and Kallan, it's ridiculous to say there's no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. That's almost as silly as the original question. The Gospels are historical sources. Just because they are theological documents doesn't devalue them, moat historical sources are biased in some way - objective history is a very late idea. Also, he is mentioned independently in Josephus so we know, beyond any doubt, that Jesus most definitely did exist. His existence is agreed upon just like that of any other ancient figure.
2007-03-08 23:36:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by Mousewar 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Ummm....no. He was 33 years old when he died. Just because someone is born on a day in June and dies on a day in September, doesn't mean he died at a couple of months old. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
2007-03-09 00:01:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by Skippy 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
Well, it didn't have to be the next Easter. It was about 30 years later! If it happened at all.
2007-03-08 23:07:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by HerbGal 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Jesus was 33 years old when he died. He was probably born sometime in summer, and the date of Easter changes each year.
2007-03-08 23:06:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by They call me ... Trixie. 7
·
5⤊
2⤋
No you idiot. He was born on Christmas and after 33 years at Easter he died.
2007-03-08 23:09:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by maran 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
Are you kidding me. For one Christmas is a pagan holiday that was adopted by the Christians. Jesus was probably born sometime in the spring.
2007-03-08 23:08:29
·
answer #11
·
answered by Blackb3lt 2
·
2⤊
0⤋