Bethlehem

…But if that were so, why should Mary, in her last month of pregnancy?
Make the difficult and dangerous seventy-mile overland journey to Bethlehem? Luke might have says that it was done at Gabriel’s orders, but
He didn’t. Instead, with literary economy, he made use of the landmark of Jesus’ birth for the additional purpose of having Jesus born at Bethlehem. Once Caesar Augustus had issued his decree commanding the census in advance of taxation.
Luke 2:3 and all went….
Luke 2:4 And Joseph…
Luke 2:5 to be taxed…
Though this device has much to be said for it from the standpoint of literary economy, it has nothing to be said for it in the way of plausibility. The Romans couldn’t possibly have conducted so queer a census as that. Why should they want every person present in the town of his ancestors rather than in the town in which he actually dwelt? Why should they want individuals traveling up and down the length of the land, clogging the roads?
And interfering with the life of the province? It would be even have been a military danger, for the Parthians could find no better time to attack than when Roman troops would find it hard to concentrate because of the thick crisscrossing of civilians on their way to register.
Even if the ancestral town were somehow a piece of essential information, would it not be simpler for each person merely to state what that ancestral town was? And even if, for some reason, a person had to travel to that ancestral town, would it not be sufficient for the head of the household or some agent of his to make the trip? Would a wife have to come along? Particularly one that was in the last month of pregnancy?

No, it is hard to imagine a more complicated issue of implausibilities and the Romans would certainly arrange no such census. Those who maintain that there was an earlier census in 6 B.C. or thereabouts, conducted under the auspices of Herod, suggest that one of the reasons this early census went off quietly was precisely because Herod ran things in the Jewish fashion ,
According to tribes and households. Even if Herod were a popular king (which he wasn’t ) it is difficult to see how he could have carried through a guided census by requiring large numbers of people to tramp miles under the dangerous and primitive conditions of travel of the times. All through their history, the Jews had rebelled for far smaller reasons than the declaration of such a requirement.
It is far easier to believe that Luke simply had to explain the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem for theological reasons, when it was well known that he was brought up in Nazareth. And his instinct for drama overcame any feelings he might have had for plausibility. Judging by results, Luke was right. The implausibility of his story has not prevented it from seizing upon the imagination of the Christian world, and it is this second chapter of the gospel of St.Luke that is the epitome of the story of the Nativity and the inspiration of countless tales and songs and works of art.

….but why December 25? No one really knows. To Europeans and North Americans such a date means winter and, in fact, many of our carols depict
a wintry scene and so do our paintings. Indeed, so close is the association of winter and snow that each year millions irrationally long for a “white Christmas” though snow means a sharp rise in automobile fatalities.
Yet upon what is such wintry association based? There is no mention of either snow or cold in either Luke or Matthew. In fact, in the verse after the description of the birth, Luke says:

Luke 2:8. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. It is customary, since we have the celebration firmly fixed on December 25, to imagine these shepherds as keeping their watch in bitter cold and perhaps in deep snow.
But why? Surely it is much more likely that a night watch would be kept in the summertime when the nights would be mild and, in fact, more comfortable than the scorching heat of the day. For that matter,
It is but adding still another dimension to the implausible nature of the census as depicted by Luke if we suppose that all this unnecessary traveling was taking place in the course of a cold winter time.
The point is that neither Luke nor Matthew gives a date of any kind for the Nativity. They give no slightest hint that can be used to deduce a day or even guess at one.
Why, then, December 25? The answer might be found in astronomy and in Roman history.

It continues….

Excuse my intruding here, and prematurely, granted, because you haven't finished yet. I could provide,if I may, one answer to one of your questions concerning the date of birth. Yet, this answer is impossible to confirm, as many other answers in this subject. So, here we go.

Mithraism was a religion that dominated the later part of Roman empire, the eastern regions. Mithraism is based on the worship of sun-God Mithras and had a great and direct effect upon Christianity. Mithras, according to the legend was born on December 25.

Later, the christians and more so the religious (priesthood) Greek-christian leaderhip, decided to introduce this part, as well as the part of the immaculate conception, to attract more greeks and the greek speaking population in the developing religion. See, the greeks were used to "celebrations" and feasts, so they decided to "import" the date and the celebration. And they were very successful. But so what?

Mithraism, however, is entirely a different subject and not proper for the forum.

Time for me to go and see if I could handle the bineries and the algorithm and for you to write the second part that I would love to read.

sintagmatarxis PRITS, en energeia!

It is amazing to me, how often and how many of us get upset about religion. If it is not our own, even the very discussion brings most of us to the brink of hysterics.

A lot of us go to extremes with our time and our resources to research other people's religions in order to refute them--or our own in order to justify them--and will not stop until we find what agrees with our own interpretations. We obligingly then accept what agrees with ours, and totally reject what does not. We believe that our knowledge then is based on science or "truth" but we fail to notice that not all science is based on fact.

In reality, much of science and literature, where most research is done, is only hypothesis when it comes to religion and religious matters. Without making all research obsolete, or implying that we must do no research, we must admit that religion is a complex mix of history, faith and spiritualism. As such, it is shrouded in the fog of ages-old traditionalisms and hidden from our eyes in the clouds of many successive eons of cultural beliefs. To try to give credentials to one religious area and not to another through research, is much like trying to sell a product through the use of testimonials. It is done, but the "smart" people are not the ones buying. Add to that, that every writer has its own philosophy which will lead to its own conclusions, and you see why we spend countless hours researching and discarding whatever does not give "acceptable" answers to our obligatory questions, and only quote non-invasive information and sources, in order that we may call our causes "just" and our answers "justifiable."

We do this by looking for information that will substantiate our own beliefs, and therefore, by default, insubstantiate someone else's. In a dialog, "explaining," although it gives the impression of attempting to get closer to the truth--much like the teenager who got caught coming in after curfew--it drives one further away from it. In the process, we use vague terms without defining them. Terms like science, logic, sources, knowledge; terms like democracy, freedom, equality. Definition is the finger print of reason, and without it, reason is as abstract as faith. But we are not interested in definition. We are interested instead in testimonials.

We flirt with the danger of using vague terms in our writings and our speeches. For those of us who are frustrated writers, as long as the words are polysyllabic and the sentence is impressive, as long as we quote a known name or two to prove that we are well read, we are not interested that those terms, that information, may take on a myriad of meanings, to suit a myriad of purposes; and may be quoted totally out of context, leaving behind its main reason for being.

The danger here is that a person will pass over a word or concept, taking it to mean the preconceived or "acceptable" to him/her definition, while others may believe that they read something totally different in the same passage, and that what they are saying is true. Hence the many different religions derived from one common history. The fertile history and prehistory of the Middle East, from the Assyrians, to Judaism, to Christianity, to Islam.

On the other side, we have those of us who simply believe that we should not believe in anything--for pain of stupidity and ignorance. The ones whose religion it is to hide their beliefs behind books and venerated philosophies, and manipulate everything through the writings of our venerable forefathers. With them, Guidance takes precedence over Intelligence. Take a hand to guide you where you want to go, and there is no question that you are on the right path. Wherever you are led, that is where your path is. But although a helping hand is often useful, persistence to that guidance to the obstruction of all other input, is not.

Throughout the ages, the many faces of religion and philosophies, have had but one thing in common. They were political. From the time of the clan in the cave and the medicine man with his leather pouch full of narcotics and poisons, to today's "illuminated" ideologies, their purpose has not changed. They exist to control the masses and dominate the clan in order that they conform to common truths and not destroy themselves. Spirituality is a strong narcotic; but we have evolved--from monkeys or from heaven it does not matter--to need it.

Politics has always created a set of "popular" religions. You are either with the popular one, or you are shunned. You are thrown out of the cave. And since religion's job is to make certain that the dominant clan survives, the dominant religion has always been the popular one; the one whose followers possessed the most resources. That is why most wars in our history past and present were, and are, created in the name of religion. Politics then, is the means by which government uses religion to manipulate the masses. Profit and greed is the only reason for war, directly or indirectly, and it has always been so. But I cannot remember many wars written in history books as "done in the name of profit."

It has always amazed me to see right-thinking individuals, the so called "good" people, become introspective, esoteric, xenophobic and downright aggressive in the discussion of their or anyone else’s religion.

Religion is relative to time and place. Every time and every place has its own philosophy: orthodoxy, modernism, revivalism etc. being a few of them. The conclusions that the followers of that religion at that time and in that place reach, are necessary for them, and are used as armor to keep them safe from the unknown. Those conclusions undoubtedly pave their future as a culture.

The human being lives within two worlds. The external one, our needs, is what we perceive ourselves to be. The internal one, our beliefs, is what we built from our experiences--who we really are. In some cases, we see ourselves in one way, while others see us in the other. Perception being stronger than reality, miscommunication is often the norm in our encounters with each other.

When those two worlds are harmonious, we are balanced and happy. When they are in conflict, we are in turmoil and unhappy. (As an example, when someone tells us something that upsets that balance, we do not want to hear it, because we do not like it.) That place where our needs or perceptions, and beliefs or experiences, are balanced, is called our "comfort zone." Let one side, the inside or the outside, change one iota, and internal conflict breaks out. The kind that keeps us awake at nights, which we will avoid at all costs.

The problem is that we cannot learn while within our comfort zone. New input, which must come from external sources, unless harmonious, is instantaneously discarded. Learning only happens when one long-held idea is questioned and replaced by another, newer, view or thought. The resulting internal turmoil might be uncomfortable, but it leads to newfound insights and ideas. It will not stop until the new truth is accepted as such and the total self becomes harmonious once again.

Most of us (and certainly those of us who have had to learn how to survive in other countries, with other languages and other cultures) have gone through that turmoil more than once. We are used to issues of "learning." So why is it that if the long-held idea and the new view or thought are both about religion that we become festered with anger and resentment; we attain defensive or offensive postures; and we head for quick retreats to our caves and our clans?

The problem here is three fold. On one hand, humans will do anything to keep our two worlds harmonious, including lie to ourselves. Some of us do just that. After all, it’s easier that way. To the extreme, this personality develops into a sociopath.

On the other hand, although we might "want" or we might be "ready" to learn, we are afraid. Our comfort zone has been invaded. Internal damnation is horrifying; but just as horrifying is the loss of control that results in certain persons from accepting any kind of spiritual ministrations, and the responsibilities that come with them.

Next, remember that religion, or the lack of it, is a portrait of who we are. It ties us with the others in our clan and makes us part of the culture in our cave. We belong only through the beliefs that we hold to be true.

I am afraid I must classify myself in the third group. As I grew up in another country, in an area that had very few and scattered Greeks, (not even enough for a viable Greek church,) and being not of a “dominant” or “popular” faith, my comfort zone was challenged and invaded in many instances and for many reasons.

I must admit though, that having explored other neighborhoods, I became appreciative of the many wonders in lessons, ideas and insights that mine offered. I came back to my cave with a greater respect for other clans and my own. I learned to take my shoes off when eating in a Chinese restaurant; to cover my head if visiting a Catholic church; that disrespect did not make me better; not to belittle anyone else’s beliefs or their personifications; to respect with words and deeds others as I would want others to respect me; to fight for my own; to open my mind to ALL ideas, not just some, even if those ideas were not popular at the time and place where I happened to be; that I was not smarter; that "mean" was not "inteligent;" and finally, not to destroy with words or deeds the comfort of those who believed, but to rejoice in their innocence.

Auta!

Εκτος απο τα πτυχεα marketing και Νομικης που αποκτουν μετα τις θεολογικες τους σπουδες, ακολουθουν μεταπτυχιακες σπουδες σε μεγαλα κεντρα οπως Βατικανο , εδρα Προτεσταντων, Αραβικες σπουδες ειναι κανονας και μερικοι απο αυτους μεταξυ των οποιων και ο λαλιστατος ιεραρχης που εμφανιζεται στην εκπομπη του Μακη Τριανταφυλλοπουλου παρακολουθουν Ιουδαισμο και συζητουν ναι με εβραιους.

Αν λοιπον αυτοι ψαχνουν μεσα απο αλλες θρησκειες το προορισμο του ανθρωπου,
γιατι να μη ψαξω εγω η μουλα.

Εκεινο που με λυπει ειναι οτι ενω γνωριζουν την αληθεια οι περισσοτεροι απο αυτους τους υψηλα ισταμενους δε τολμουν να την ομολογησουν ανοικτα στο λαο. Και εστι βλεπουμε ενα φαινομενο απλοι παπαδες να ομιλουν την αληθεια και να "Ξυριζονται" για να χρησιμοποιησω τη λαικη εκφραση.

Διαβαζα παλι αυτες τις μερες καπου οτι η Ακαδημια του Πλατονα λειτουργουσε μεχρι Ιουστινιανου. Ακομη ολοι πρεπει να γνωριζουμε οτι ο Κωνσταντινος ο Μεγας δεν ηταν Ελληνας και οτι ασπασθηκε το χριστιανισμο στο νεκροκρεββατο του.
Ο γιος της Ανθουσας ο κατα αυτους τουσ ιδιους Χρυσοστομος ποτε δεν τα πηγαινε καλα με το κληρο και τους τα ελεγε οπως φαινεται και ετσι εμεινε και το "πεστα Χρυσοστομε"
Νομιζω οτι πρεπει σαν Ελληνες τουλαχιστον να αρχισουμε να μελεταμε τις ριζες μας και οχι
επιπολαια ο,τι μας προσφερουν να το καταπινουμε.

Ατελειωτες οι συζητησεις για τις θρησκειες τις εκκλησιες και τους αντιπροσωπους τους.
Ας εργασθουμε και λιγο τωρα γιατι ισως μερικοι απο εσας εισθε συνταξιουχοι και εχετε περισσοτερο χρονο απο μενα.

Ναχετε μια καλη και αποδοτικη ημερα.

Λενιω

I am happy that the Greek priests are well educated today. It takes money to run churches, and synagogues, and mosques, and Buddhist temples. If we want them to be there for us to keep us together in our clans, we must support them. Marketing (I do have a soft spot for marketing since I spend 20 years in it)is a very needed skill for today's priests, more so if we don't want them to stay government employees for ever.
Will anyone blame the Baptist preacher or the Jewish rabbi for marketing? Why blame the Greek priest? After all, they are all heads of their "businesses" and must learn how to be productive in order that they might exist. Judicial studies, will give them skills that are needed in today's societies. Again! Will we blame someone's else's priest or rabbi for the same thing?

Our priests becoming educated outside of Greece does not threaten me. I was educated outside of Greece. Does that make me less of a Greek? Our country is small, it cannot educate all her children in everything. (But that's another topic.)

I am proud that the Greeks are not xenophobic and that our Greek priests educate themselves with many different people of other beliefs. I don't necessarily see it as proof that they are looking to find their truths through the beliefs of their contacts, but even if so, what better way of evolution to a more common future? (I only hope that all the other faiths see it this way and do the same thing. Should I expect less of my priests?) And if religions are political, then why should the people in hem not be political too?

About the priests' involvement in researcing other religions, I tried to make clear my views on that subject: If the sole purpose of the education is to glorify the differences, focus on the negative, and try to disprove one's religious beliefs, then the real reason for the research becomes apparent.

I hope that is NOT the way our Greek priests involve themselves.

When will we understand that trying to refute Christianity by questioning if Christmas is on the 25th of December or if Jesus was born in Bethlehem is at least counter productive, at most small and laughable?

Christians, or followers of any religion, don't care if their symbols are scientifically explainable. (That's why it is always someone else who is doing the explaining.) Indeed they shouldn't. Religion is after all mostly based on faith, and as such, testimonials are accepted without questioning. (Christians already have their testimonials written in their books. They don't need to get new ones from Omogenia.)

What is the purpose of questioning? Indeed, can anyone tell me, what should the question be? Should the question be "has Jesus lived?" a Christian would answer "yes" on faith. Should he be asked if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he would answer "yes" on faith. ((If anyone finds "scientifically defined" documentation to the contrary (but not someone else's testimonials) please let us know.)) Should the question then be “is the 25th day of December really Christmas?” I would at least need some definitions before I tried to answer:

First please define a day--A 24-hour period:
(What is an hour? Is an hour really a “scientifically defined” "standard" or "stable" time measurement? Do the 60 minutes hold true throughout the ages? Are all the hours alike?)
Now please define a month--A 30-day period:
(What is a month? does it contain 30 "well defined" days? Are all the months the same? And what about February?)
Then please define a year--A 12-month period:
(Is a year always a year? How many "scientifically defined" days does a year have? Have all the years since Jesus's birth been "scientifically defined" years? Where does a year start? Who said?)

Once we have defined a year, go to the beginning of that time and start counting. Where is the beginning? By whose calendar? Let us see:

A standard “calendar” with which the areas of the globe would count time was created to expedite commerce. Many peoples on this planet, even in the same religions, do not use the same calendars. The Armenian Orthodox celebrate Christmas in January, but unlike their Greek counterparts, their Easter follows the Catholic calendar and therefore falls at the same time with the American Easter every year.

Greenwich is just a place on the map. It is used as the baseline for daytime (GMT) because it was England at that time that had the power to do so. (If it was today, it would be someplace in New York.)

Daylight savings was created to give farmers more time to get their crops in. The same reason exists for having a winter-in-school summer-out-of-school year for the kids, who needed to be home and helping their parents in the agrarian households of the past centuries.

To expedite commerce and travel, time zones zigzag through US lodgitutes like drunkards who cannot walk a straight line. They put Vegas and LA in the same time zone, but Idaxo, straight north of Nevada, is an hour earlier. A trip to the Mexican Riviera, lets say... Puerto Vallarta, just north of Accapulco on the west coast of Mexico (I was there over Thanksgiving) turns your watch back three hours, but if you were visiting Arizona or New Mexico, roughly the same lodgitute, you would lose only one hour. Only the Continental Divide stands true to its purpose and allows the rivers to flow naturally to the east or to the west.

All of this for what we do know. What of what we do not know? And someone wants to argue with me about Bethlehem and Christmas? Come onnnnnnn!!!!!!!!

So Christmas was created to replace a pagan holiday. Ok ... and? Is there a modern religious holiday in "any" religion that has not replaced a pagan holiday of some time ago? The answer, I believe, is emphatically no! (Those of you who are tempted to answer yes, I must warn you: my "no" is written as a belief and therefore does not need proof; your "yes" if argued as a fact, would have to stand the test of "scientific definition." Another religious testimonial, no matter how notable, will just not do. But “in my belief, yes” is an acceptable answer. We explain "knowledge" scientifically, we explain "faith" with belief.)

That is why I have no problem with those of you who tell me that your beliefs are different than mine. I can celebrate that. Differences make our world more interesting. They create dialog. But we can do that without belittling religious beliefs and without being vulgar and disrespectful.

So, how do I know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem on the 25th of December?

Well... 'cause I allow myself to believe it was so!

Xthes mou elege mia ellinida tis NY deyteris genneas padremeni me ebreo oti tis aresi na parakolouthi ta litiyrgia twn xristougenon kai tin anastasi me ton adra tis.
Otan ti rotisa pws enas ebreos tin akolouthi ekei mia kai gnwrizw apo alles periptosis oti tous petaksan tis ikones kai tis ekanan na prosarmostoun stin oikogenia kai mono eki..loipon mou eipe i agapiti mou fili ta eksis.
" Ma de bigenoume oute na kinonisoume oute tipote allo giati apla de pisteyoume oute egw oute aytos sto xristo alla diaskedazoume me to spirit." elpizw na min eisthe ki esis mia apo aytes.

Akomi tha sas pw kati pou akousa xthes pali apo ena Irlando lilipoutio gio mias poli klistis irlandikis oikogenias pou o katholikismos einai mesa sto petsi tous.
Mou leei loipon o mikros dekapedaris pou skeptetai na ginei kai stratiwtikos stin Ameriki.
" Gnwrizete mas leei oti oi eklisies de plironoun foro(taxes) sto amerikaniko kratos?
kai oti eimaste ypoxreomenoi emeis diladi oi goneis mou kai oloi pou zoume se touti ti perioxi na plirwnoume fouskwmenous forous giaytous? Emena leei o mikros de me endiaferei o katholikismos..pisteyw sto diko mou theo."

an zeite stin ameriki kuria mou aytes einai megales alithies.
Oi eklisies pisw apo to philanthropiko toys ergo kriboun kai kataxrazontai polla lefta ..einai ena parakratos opws h Mafia kai isws xeirotero..kai an ginoun pio polles eklisies stin ameriki tha ginoun pia gia na tou spairnei ton analogo foro to kratos arketa pia me aytous..

giati sas fobizei to market kiria mou? gnwrizete oti ta megalitera kerdi ta exoun oi ebraioi apo tis xristianikes giortes stin ameriki? se ti sas eblapse to market ayto to interaction apo buyers and consumers?

thelete na ta dinete stous papades kai oxi sto kratos pou sto katw katw frodizei pio poli gia sas kai gia tin eyhmeria sas?

isws arxisete na problimatizosaste..
pragmatika tha gelaw an deite ayti tin omada ebrewn na sas bazoun ta gialia..me to na diekdikoun to xristo pisw se aytous prwta kai meta stous allous...
o aiwnas mas einai o aiwnas ton apokalipsewn...

An kai mou erxetai na pw "stou koufou tin porta oso theleis vronta!" den that to pw.

Kalitera na pw eisai eleutheri na pisteueis kai na les oti theleis.

Apo mena omos, enough said!

To krioma mou perase kai vgainw exo na kanw tis doulies mou, prin erthoun ta Xristougenna kai me vroune kathismeni stin karekla, brosta sto computer, me araxnes tiligmeni.

Η πιο φρεσκια αναμνηση ειναι
οταν θυμαμαι τον εαυτο μου
Οταν βουταω μεσα στο ειναι μου
απο τα δακτυλα μεχρι το κρανιο
Απο τη γη μεχρι τον ουρανο.
Μεσα σε τουτο το περασμα
Βλεπω κατα που πορευεται η ψυχη μου.
Σταματαω να πω οτι πρεπει να εισαι σκληρος
Οταν προκειται να διορθωσεις κατι.
Ο Πλατωνας ειναι ετοιμος να αποδωσει δικαιοσυνη.
Η Βιβλος θελει να τιμαμε τους γονεις μας ακομη και αν εγκληματησαν.

Leniw@omogenia.com