Christmas: What you know that just ain't so.

I used to like Christmas, as a holiday. Not anymore. I find the Christmas music annoying. I don’t mind it for a few days. But, since we seem to have started pushing Christmas sometime in August, the music quickly becomes annoying to me. Worse yet, a lot of the modern remakes of the songs are just pathetically awful. In addition, every year some film studio produces yet another “must-see” Christmas film. And then from the next year onward it is included in the growing array of Christmas films that clutter the airwaves crowding out some decent shows. You would have to start showing them in June just to get through the lot of them. Most are juvenile in nature and usually so sugar-coated that they induce a diabetic coma just from watching them.

Even what used to be festive lights have become gaudy, gauche displays of questionable taste. Surely the tackiest display I’ve seen was a plastic Santa kneeling before a baby Jesus. Apparently this awful mixture of conflicting myths is so attractive to some religionists, you can actually buy the display in a ceramic mold.

The favorite, I must say, was one I saw where someone had a bevy of plastic pink flamingoes pulling Santa’s sleigh. It was just clever enough, and wry enough, to amuse me. But in general, I’ve ceased to be a fan of Christmas. The Religious Right has tried to turn the holiday into a mandate for their agenda. If you don’t say “Merry Christmas” even to people who don’t celebrate it, you are considered some sort of communist, or worse.

What amuses me about Christmas, however, is the utter stupidity of people. There are a lot of people who drone on about “the true meaning of Christmas” which usually means something to do with their religious belief. The “true” meaning of Christmas just happens to be whatever it is that they want everyone else to believe. Yet Christmas is the one holiday that has more false assumptions about it than any other holiday. The reality is that what most people know about Christmas just ain’t so.

For example, most Christians have no idea that the Nativity story that they repeat, year in and year out, is a collection of several Nativity stories pieced together from the gospels. Nor do they realize that these stories contradict one. A careful editing, in most church services, however, weeds out the conflicts and makes the story appear to be a coherent whole.

The Christmas story is based on the individual stories of the four main gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These books were not necessarily written by the authors to whom they are ascribed. In truth we don’t know who wrote them. But we do know that the four stories don’t agree with one another as to the facts. The Christmas story, as presented in most church pageants, is actually created by cherry-picking sections from the different gospels and combining them.

For example, we are told that Herod was informed that a “king” would be born so he had all the new born babies slaughtered, but Jesus escaped. The odd thing is that not one contemporary record of this genocide exists to substantiate it. Josephus wrote about Herod in his Antiquities of the Jews, but he never knew about this incident. Three of the gospel writers seemed to either not know of the mass killing or thought it was unimportant. Only Matthew recounts it, Mark, Luke and John seemed to be unaware that it took place.

Based on historical accounts Herod would have been already dead by the time that Jesus was born. Two gospels say that Herod was king. But Luke says that Caesar Augustus issued an order for a census and it “came to pass” when Quirinius was the governor of Syria. Quirinius, or Cyrenius as he is also known, only became governor 10 years after the death of Herod. The history by Josephus showed that Herod had died and was replaced by Archelaus, who was considered too oppressive by Caesar and removed from office and replaced by Cyrenius. The gospels contradict themselves on this matter.

Luke said the Romans required the people to return to their hometown for the census. But Rome never did this. Considering the large territory ruled by Rome such a requirement would have been noted somewhere. Only Luke seems to believe this was the case. Rome exerted control over Judea but through a client king. So while the gospel account says that Rome held the census to impose a tax, Rome itself didn’t impose taxes. It collected revenue from the local king who had control over taxation, not Rome. A Roman census and/or tax would not have included Judea.

In addition Rome would not have required women to be counted. The man was the legal head of the household and he would report the numbers for the census without the woman or children being required to do so. Even if the Romans required individuals to travel to their hometown, something impossible in an empire the size of Rome, a woman would not have done this, especially one on the verge of giving birth. Riding a donkey for that length of time while pregnant, would probably have resulted in a miscarriage.

Luke says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, was born in the manger and was visited by the Wise Men in the manger. But Matthew says the Wise Men came to see Jesus in a house, not in a manger. Matthew wrote that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem and moved to Nazareth. Luke says they lived in Nazareth and moved to Bethlehem. Perhaps they passed themselves on the way.

Early Christians didn’t think Jesus was born in a stable or in a house. They preferred the story that he was born in a cave. Origen wrote, “there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes.” The Church of the Nativity is, in fact, built over a cave that is alleged to be the spot of the birth of Jesus.

Matthew wrote that after the birth Joseph “took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.” Luke, however, knew nothing about that and instead says “they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.”

To complicate matters even more it appears that Bethlehem didn’t exist during the time period that Jesus was alleged to have been born. Well, actually there were two Bethlehems. Matthew and Luke say it was Bethlehem of Judea where Jesus was born, not the Bethlehem in Galilee. But archeological evidence indicates that the Judean Bethlehem didn’t exist at the time. Bethlehem of Galilee, however, wasn’t far from Nazareth at all and it did exist. Matthew and Luke seem to have been wrong on this matter.

Mark apparently knew nothing about the virgin birth. And the oldest sections of the New Testament, those books ascribed to Paul, also are devoid of any mention of the concept. Luke talked about shepherds but Matthew seemed to not know they were around at the time.

Even the date of Christmas has problems. Early Christians simply did not believe that Jesus was born on December 25th. The birth dates they ascribed varied greatly, ranging from January to May. December 25th was the date that the winter solstice was celebrated—when the days got longer. True the actual solstice is on the 21st but the crude instruments of the day only detected the longest day on the 25th and it was the traditional date for celebration.

Many of the pagan sects claimed that a god-man was born on Dec. 25th. The god-man Attis was supposedly born of a virgin on Dec. 25th. In Greece the god Dionysus was said to have been born on the 25th as well. The Egyptians celebrated the birth of Osiris on that date as was the Persian god Mithra. The Babylonians did the same. These dates were picked for the birth of gods simply because it was the date when they noticed the days getting longer. The Roman Saturnalia was traditionally celebrated from Dec 17 to 23 but Emperor Aurelian decided the 25th would be the day to celebrate everything.

The Catholic Church ultimately picked December 25th, to celebrate the birth of Jesus, because it was date that had widespread cultural acceptance. People already celebrate the birth of a god-man on that day making it an easier sell.

As I said: most of what you know about Christmas just ain’t so.

The real war on Christmas

The loony bin is missing some fanatics. Apparently the members of the fundamentalist church, Praise Chapel Christian Fellowship, in Kansas City, MO are running around town dressed like Jesus. Below is a video that the church made of their exhibitionism. Please note that the man wandering around a shopping mall is not shopping. He is basically walking around in circles trying to attract attention. This is a stunt not a statement.



The Jesus ensemble includes robes and, at minimum, a crown of thorns. The church argues that they are doing this to protest the secularization of Christmas. And according to news reports they are dressing like stunt doubles from Mel Gibson’s film “at their jobs, malls and restaurants.”

Let us get something straight. There is NO evidence that Jesus was born at Christmas. And many Christian groups, and most real theologians, admit as much. This doesn’t mean that Western society was absent this winter holiday at all. Most cultures celebrated a holiday around this time of year long before the founding of Christianity.

The truth is that the Christmas holiday was not Christian to begin with. It is true that the Catholic Church invented a new take on the holiday. They redefined it away from its non-Christian roots and arbitrarily stated this as a celebration of the birth of Christ. One method by which Catholicism converted non-Catholic cultures was by incorporating non-Christian traditions into the church. So the winter solstice holiday was called by another name, the birth of Christ was imposed on it, contrary to all evidence, and voila: Christmas.

This means that “redefining” Christmas was first practiced by the Christians. If we ever did get back to “the original meaning of Christmas” they would be very upset.

In addition this sect seems to have confused the crucifixion with the birth narratives. There was no crown of thorns at the birth of Christ. And, unfortunately, we know very little about the birth of Jesus except the contradictory, and clearly inaccurate accounts of the Gospels. Most of the major incidents surrounding this event have no foundation in history.

For instance, there is zero record of King Herod attempting to kill all the babies in order to prevent Jesus from living. A slaughter of infants like that would have been recorded and it wasn’t. Even three of the four gospels make no mention of any such genocide. More problematic for the nativity legends is that Herod had died before Jesus was born. The gospel says that the alleged census, at the time of the birth, “came to pass when Quirinius was governing Syria.” And Herod died 10 years before that. This means the census took place when Archelaus was governor, after Herod had died.

While Rome did have a census now and then no census is recorded requiring everyone to return to their hometown, as the Gospels claims.

Nor are the gospels particularly clear about the order of events they do hold in common. Matthew says that Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem and went to Nazareth for the census. Luke has them living in Nazareth and then going to Bethlehem. Matthew says that after the birth the family fled to Egypt. Luke says no such thing and claims they “returned into Galilee”.

One thing in common is that none of the gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus include crown of thorns. Most of them attribute that to the crucifixion story.

Oddly, the first real fundamentalist types in Western history were not fond of Christmas. They didn’t want to get “to the true meaning” of this holiday confiscated from pagans. They wanted to ban Christmas entirely -- talk about a “war on Christmas”. The Puritans, or theocratic Calvinists, actually wanted to make it a crime to celebrate Christmas. In England the religious government of Cromwell made Christmas illegal in 1647. This ban stayed in place until the fundamentalists were thrown out of power in 1660. The fundy Calvinists in the early American colonies did the same thing. They made Christmas officially illegal in 1659. And this ban was lifted by an English-appointed governor in 1681.

The Christian-imposed ban on Christmas called the holiday "festivals as were superstitiously kept in other communities, to the great dishonour of God and offense to others." And the well known fundamentalist minister, Increase Mather, complained after the ban was lifted. He said the Christmas holiday "is highly dishonourable to the name of Christ". The only people who actually tried to ban Christmas here have been individuals more closely attuned to the theology of this nutty church from Missouri. It should be noted that these theocrats were closer to the truth. They wanted Christmas banned precisely because they knew the holiday had nothing to with Jesus. They were fully aware that this was a pagan holiday redefined by Church of Rome, who they hated. So when fundamentalists thought Christmas was pagan they wanted it illegal and when they think it Christian they want it mandated. Apparently they are unable to leave people free to make their own decisions.

Of course, today when these fundamentalist start complaining about a “ban on Christmas” they don’t mean an actual ban, like the one their theological ancestors imposed. They mean a refusal to use tax money to push a Christian message. All the talk about a ban on Christmas by conservatives is one huge lie. They are whining about not being allowed to use government property to sell their message. Or they want to use state school systems to push their theology. No one is stopping them from promoting their own mistaken theology. And they are free to say “Merry Christmas” and celebrate the so-called true meaning of Christmas. What they aren’t allowed to do, according to our Constitution, is access state funding to spread that message. In other words, they have no right to tax you in order to spread their message. That seems fair to me.

A woman from this crazy church told reporters that: “A lot of businesses and people are saying that they have to say, ‘Happy Holidays’ and ‘Season’s Greetings’. They’re not allowed to say ‘Merry Christmas.’ It makes us upset because that is the holiday and it goes against our freedom of speech.” Stupid is as stupid does.

First, this woman is flat out wrong. At this time of year Christmas is not the only holiday. Other holidays exist and some Christians don’t celebrate Christmas until January. Nor does this violate freedom of speech. An employee of a company represents the company when they are working. They are no more free to say “Merry Christmas” to anyone they wish, while working, they are free to say: “Suck eggs you heathen bastard” to customers.

An employee is being paid to work for someone else. During those hours they represent the business, not themselves. If they wish to exercise their right to spread theological ideas they are free to do so during their own time. To do so during work hours is to steal money from the employer -- to be paid to do one thing and instead to do another. Once again it seems these religious groups wants to have the right to take other people’s money and use it for their own purposes. Apparently they are not happy with having to use their own money, or their own time, to spread their ideas. They want their employers and the taxpayers to be forced to subsidize them.

Apparently other fundamentalist churches are now encouraging there members to follow the example of this church.

Rambling thoughts about the holidays.

I’m not a big holiday person though I do like excuses to see friends and to spend time with loved ones. And I like the December holidays. Contrary to the culture-bound Christianists in the U.S. saying Happy Holidays is quite appropriate (and respectful of others) since there are several holidays for different groups during December and we have New Years Eve and Eastern Orthodox Christians have Christmas in early January.

I don’t mind if someone says Merry Christmas to me because the Christmas holiday is more than a Christian celebration. In fact the major facets of the holiday, from the tree to the gift giving, all have their origins in non-Christian practices and holidays that were practices long before the Catholic Church adopted the holiday for the Christian faith. I’ve come to appreciate the Solstice concept which emphasizes the end of Winter and the return of warmth and the life-giving Sun.

Certainly in my days in the American Mid-West that was a good thing to celebrate. My last winter there went below freezing on Thanksgiving day and didn’t creep above that mark again until sometime in late February. We were told that our average temperature that winter had been colder than in Moscow for the same year. I believe it. From that point I tried to avoid snow as much as possible.

I’ve lived in the southern hemisphere where the holiday comes at the height of summer and we’d take a dip in the pool before having a Christmas braai (bar-b-que for the Yanks).

And I’ve done the holiday where I’m with family and others without family. I’ve had intimate holidays with just one special person in my life and I’ve done Christmas where I’ve filled the house or apartment with people I know who had no where else to go for the holidays and created my own family. And I’ve had some years where it was just me in a foreign city having a TV dinner in my flat alone.

I think the luckiest Christmas was one where I didn’t get to do what I had wanted. I wanted to take someone with me to Phuket, Thailand for a few days in the sun. But it was going to be a last minute arrangement. I called and called travel agent after travel agent trying to find the right package. But no one could get us into any of the resorts. I checked Tahiti, no luck. I checked Fiji, same story. I looked at the Gold Coast in Queensland, full up. And finally decided on four days in Sydney.

We flew in Christmas Day and checked into the hotel. One look at the tiny room and we checked right out again and transfered to a lovely hotel overlooking Darling Harbour. The room was spacious and pleasant. We had Christmas dinner on the harbor and then retired to begin exploring the next day.

Before setting out to explore the city, as we were dressing I turned on the news to see the horrific story of the Boxing Day (December 26th) Tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people. The tsunami had struck Phuket, which is where we would have been had I been successful. The film of the resorts in Phuket being destroyed by the massive tidal wave was something I would never forget.

This year I’ll be having Christmas in San Francisco. A friend from England, where I’ve spent about six months over the last year is coming to visit. I head out to the airport shortly and then we get straight into things. I hope she got some sleep on the plane because its a full day. First we stop for lunch and then drive to the top of Twin Peaks for the breathtaking full view of the City. And San Francisco is one city that deserves to be called The City -- as locals tend to do.

Then we go for some driving around and head to the old Castro Theater for a concert for tonight. Tomorrow it is up into the Oakland hills for Christmas Dinner with a good friend and ex of mine. I curious to see the house itself, which I’ve read about on the internet. I hear it took 13 years to finish all the building and includes a magic theater several museum collections of fun things -- like old arcade games, and some amazing collections. There is a movie theater with 18,000 films. There are hidden doors, a haunted house and more. Yet this is residence not a theme park -- though many a theme park apparently has come here to die --- there is a lot of bits and pieces from the old Playland at the Beach, which closed in the 1970s if I remember correctly, on display here. And since they also own a circus I’m told to expect a few circus performers at the Christmas meal with us -- at one point I understand about 100 of them temporarily lived in the house. Since it’s not open to the public as a general rule having Christmas there is certainly going to be unique.

Then for Boxing Day we are back into San Francisco for the day to see the sites. There is obligatory stop at Nieman Marcus on Union Square if only to see the magnificent Christmas tree they erect every year. In my years living in The City I always had a live three, usually somewhere between 8 and 10 feet tall -- having 12 foot ceilings had an advantage. And then every New Year Day we’d dismantle the tree and cut it up and have a lovely fire in the fireplace that usually got so warm we had to open the windows.

After the first three days we’ll be winging it. The weather during the later part of the week is iffy but there is a get together of friends that we’ll probably do. And my English friend will be taken to the gun range on Saturday -- she likes to shoot and can’t do that sort of thing in Nanny-state England. It’s only a week but it should be fun.

Is there a real message here. No, not really. It’s just a discussion about holidays and friends and family and loved ones. If there is a theme it is about connecting to people. Celebrate the people in your life not the day. The tsunami incident tells me to enjoy life since you never know when it might end. And if there is one bit of advice I would give -- it is to remember those who might be alone this Christmas. I’ve been there and it can be awful. The holidays can be great when you are able to share them with others but terrible lonely when you can’t. If you aren’t able to share the holidays with a family then make your family. You won’t regret it.

Photo: The photo is something of a childhood memory. My grandmother used to take me to the Christmas Party at Marhshall Field's, the famed Chicago department store. It was always exciting though never had the appeal of the initmate gatherings I preferred later in life. But I certainly did love the Frango chocolates you could get from them and she used to send them to me regularly.