Are you still a Christian if you think the nativity story is a myth?

[palmas85]

Yes, there are people who don’t believe Jesus was literally born of a virgin or that he literally fed a multitude on the pittance that his disciples had managed to round up for the project. There are also people on the not-so-liberal side who don’t believe that Jesus literally meant that it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle or that he didn’t really mean it when he referred to as evildoers whom he would order out of his sight the people who would ignore the imprisoned, the hungry, thirsty, naked, and the other “least of these”, that he didn’t mean that business about turning the other cheek, and so on. (Have you noticed that Jesus’ account of the Last Judgement is noticeably short on judgement based on adherence to doctrinal truths?)

Sin and denial is frightening, and it doesn’t confine itself to one part of the political spectrum.

I believe that Jesus also meant the part about being measured back to with the measure we have measured out with. May God have mercy on us all.

I was speaking of liberal Christianity which by and large denies everything miraculous in scripture in its quest to elevate man in all his glory. The denial of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth even the resurrection among others. Mans answer to the scientific advances of the 1800s and relativism, skepticism agnosticism etc etc. All that good stuff that bubbled out of the cauldron of relativity and modern thinking of Germanic higher criticism.

I wasn’t speaking about parables and injustice.

Sorry if I hit a nerve.

 

[Dempsey1919]

No true Christian would ever say that the Nativity is a myth.

The Nativity recounts the time when God himself entered the word and assumed the flesh. It recalls the point in history when God intervened and redeemed humanity. To the Christian, this is not a fable but an historical fact.

The Nativity is the fulfillment of prophecy. To deny the Nativity as narrated in the Gospels is a denial of the prophecies. By labelling the Nativity story as a “myth” they are also doubting the promises of the Lord.

Most importantly, those who deny the Nativity are also questioning the historical accuracy of the Gospels. This represents a denial of the inertancy of the Word of God; they are showing their disbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. If they still believe in the divine authorship of the Gospels but question the Nativity, they are calling God a liar. They are saying that the Holy Spirit (name removed by moderator)ired the evangelists to create legends in order to enhance the Gospel message. This is totally unacceptable.

If they can question the historicity of the Nativity, what is to stop them from questioning the historical reality of Christ himself? This is a very slippery slope.

 

[KingAlfred]

I don’t know how you can be? Either you think Jesus is the Son of God, born of a Virgin or you don’t…I don’t think Mathew ,Mark ,Luke, and John were liars…

It’s possible. Demytholization of the Bible is a rather old and common practice. Even after the myths have been stripped away, we still find a compelling story, full of virtue and well worth our careful consideration. Early Man communicated his important ideas almost habitually through myth and legend.

 

[Eliza10]

Interesting that we just discussed that, here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=273395

I just have to comment on this. Its been popular to intellectualize that the Church got mixed up about its very precious feast day, and over time, devout believers “forgot” when was the Sacred Day of the Incarnation. So, in later years, when they realized they had forgotten it and that they probably should celebrate it, they had to make up a new date themselves - out of thin air, having no Christian tradition to draw upon. Because all the Christians forgot about holding fast to what the apostles passed down. It is hard to imagine how the Jews never forgot their feast days, over thousands of years, but apparently the Incarnation was quickly forgettable to Christians.

And presumably the Holy Spirit was asleep, too, and so didn’t let the Church know when the real date was, and the result was that the Church in Heaven, to this day, has to celebrate the true Sacred Day alone, excluding the Church on earth, since we lost ours.

And since the Holy Spirit was not bothering to make it known to her Church, the Church had to grasp onto something, and having no Christian tradition whatsoever of Her own to grasp onto, She looked around outside of Herself and saw that, lo, the local people enjoyed celebrating a now-obscure pagan sun-god, and wouldn’t that be the perfect thing to base the date of the Incarnation on?

Even though there is no precedent for the Church basing Her decisions of important faith matters on pagan tradition instead of Christian tradition, this is what we have figured out in our lofty intellectual age.

In Post #82 of the above-linked thread, “Buffalo” gave us this link, which is a thorough support of December 25th:

**Good News: Jesus Christ was born on December 25, 1 BC.**Bad News: Ussher’s Date for Adam at 4004 BC is Wrong

Also I have some other links, below, although I don’t support everything said in these links.

This link addresses where the pagan sun-god mistake came from: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v

Here is an article that brings up a traditional belief that Jesus’ birthday was on the 25th of Chislev (December) which was the Jewish* Feast of the Dedication*, or, Festival of Lights (celebrated with lots of lights - how about that!) doig.net/NTC09.htm

I have read more, but this is all I have bookmarked. If anyone has any other good links, please post them!

 

[EasterJoy]

The point is that the December 25 date was not chosen because it was believed to be Jesus’ actual birthday. Except for some of those born within royal courts, the modern practice of recording and celebrating birthdays is recent. Christmas wasn’t celebrated as a feast day in the early Church, and Origen even argued against celebrating Jesus’ birth as if he were some sort of secular king or pharaoh.

December 25 was chosen so that nature could echo liturgy: a world in darkness has seen a great light. Likewise, one can note that the feast of John the Baptist is on June 25: I must decrease, so that he may increase. There were pagan festivals predating Christ’s birth that were going on at various times of the natural year. The Church was not adverse to re-making these into Christian festivals.

 

[Eliza10]

If you read what the reputable scholars write in the “Good News” link I posted, I think you will no longer say that December 25th is “probably the wrong date”.

I converted fom Protestantism and we had so many unanswered questions which we always answered with “It doesn’t matter anyway” and “now we see through a glass darkly”. As I converted I was continually amazed to see what a treasure trove of truths we hold in the Catholic Church. I think that we celebrate Christmas on the true day is another of those treasures.

Clearly we care about the real date because it comes up every year. As we approach our beloved feast day, the scholars come out of the woodwork to let us know that its probably false, assuring us it “doesn’t matter anyway.”

Heaven cares when the date of the Incarnation was. Heaven cared enough to save the House of the Holy Family, by moving it across the sea to another land so it can be safe. I think Christmas being just a whatever date is like saying the Holy House is just a whatever house.

… http://www.viarosa.com/VR/Loreto/HouseOfLoreto_img.jpg

 

[redrosetea]

The point is that the December 25 date was not chosen because it was believed to be Jesus’ actual birthday. Except for some of those born within royal courts, the modern practice of recording and celebrating birthdays is recent. Christmas wasn’t celebrated as a feast day in the early Church, and Origen even argued against celebrating Jesus’ birth as if he were some sort of secular king or pharaoh.

December 25 was chosen so that nature could echo liturgy: a world in darkness has seen a great light. Likewise, one can note that the feast of John the Baptist is on June 25: I must decrease, so that he may increase. There were pagan festivals predating Christ’s birth that were going on at various times of the natural year. The Church was not adverse to re-making these into Christian festivals.

This makes a great deal of sense to me

 

[redrosetea]

I think when you strip the Gospels down to bare bones you are turning something beautiful into something very mundane…like taking Christ out of Christmas

 

[EasterJoy]

If you take the miracles out of the gospels what is left?

Well, considering what Jesus had to say about those who came to him “looking for a sign”, I’d say: plenty. Not everything, but plenty.

People talk about the Gospel as if this were some secular system of “ethics” that anyone might come up with. It isn’t. The Gospels preach divine law, the only law which fully and intimately reflect the truths of the relationship between God and man, not some set of rules that a human legislature made up to reflect an imperfect appreciation of natural law.

What miracles did Paul preach? The feeding of the multitude? The Virgin birth, even? No! He preached the death and resurrection of the Lord! That was the event he felt that all of Christianity hinged on! If that is gone, he said, if Jesus did not literally die and rise for us, then just pack it all up. The faith is worthless.

This is not to say that the lesser truths are irrelevant. Heaven forbid! There is a heirarchy of truths, though.

I think we tread on very thin ice when we presume to venture which other Christians please the Lord more or less than we do. If you believe the Gospels to be literal depictions in every respect, then pay attention to what Jesus preached: it was not about adherence to a belief system, but about adherence in action to the law of God and purity of heart with regards to love of God and neighbor. Yes, every tongue must proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord, the fact of the Resurrection is absolutely central to our faith, but Christianity is not primarily about believing in miracles.

 

[EasterJoy]

Interesting that we just discussed that, here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=273395

I just have to comment on this. Its been popular to intellectualize that the Church got mixed up about its very precious feast day, and over time, devout believers “forgot” when was the Sacred Day of the Incarnation. So, in later years, when they realized they had forgotten it and that they probably should celebrate it, they had to make up a new date themselves - out of thin air, having no Christian tradition to draw upon. Because all the Christians forgot about holding fast to what the apostles passed down. It is hard to imagine how the Jews never forgot their feast days, over thousands of years, but apparently the Incarnation was quickly forgettable to Christians.

And presumably the Holy Spirit was asleep, too, and so didn’t let the Church know when the real date was, and the result was that the Church in Heaven, to this day, has to celebrate the true Sacred Day alone, excluding the Church on earth, since we lost ours.

And since the Holy Spirit was not bothering to make it known to her Church, the Church had to grasp onto something, and having no Christian tradition whatsoever of Her own to grasp onto, She looked around outside of Herself and saw that, lo, the local people enjoyed celebrating a now-obscure pagan sun-god, and wouldn’t that be the perfect thing to base the date of the Incarnation on?

Even though there is no precedent for the Church basing Her decisions of important faith matters on pagan tradition instead of Christian tradition, this is what we have figured out in our lofty intellectual age.

In Post #82 of the above-linked thread, “Buffalo” gave us this link, which is a thorough support of December 25th:
Good News: Jesus Christ was born on December 25, 1 BC.
Bad News: Ussher’s Date for Adam at 4004 BC is Wrong

Also I have some other links, below, although I don’t support everything said in these links.

This link addresses where the pagan sun-god mistake came from: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v

Here is an article that brings up a traditional belief that Jesus’ birthday was on the 25th of Chislev (December) which was the Jewish* Feast of the Dedication*, or, Festival of Lights (celebrated with lots of lights - how about that!) doig.net/NTC09.htm

I have read more, but this is all I have bookmarked. If anyone has any other good links, please post them!

If you don’t believe Jesus was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, if you do not believe he is fully man and fully God, you are wrong. If you teach otherwise, you do wrong. If you teach that it is a dogma of the Church that it is a certainty that Jesus came into the world on December 25 according to the Gregorian calendar(!!!) you are incorrect, though, too. She doesn’t teach it now, and never has. That is not even remotely Catholic dogma.

As for the Jewish Festival of Lights…they have a lunar calendar. How often, exactly, does Christmas fall on Hannukah? Very rarely. And what is that feast of dedication about? The re-dedication of the Temple after it had been profaned by the Greeks. The returning Jews didn’t have enough oil for the 8-day re-dedication, but the oil they had miraculously lasted. It has nothing to do with the Dedication of the Lord. As far as the lights, there was a dispute between rabbis after the time of Jesus as to whether the number of lights for the celebration should start with one and continue to increase or should start at eight and decrease. Starting with one and increasing won, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with the Christians and celebrating the birth of Jesus. The great irony in all this, actually, is that traditional Jews have become alarmed at how what is a very minor Jewish holiday that celebrates the failure of the enemies of Judaism to stamp it out has evolved into a quasi-Christmas for Jews.

Look at all the disputes about what day Easter falls on, for heaven’s sake! Easter! It may just be that the Holy Spirit is less concerned with our quarrels about dates on a calendar and more concerned with the fact that we quarrel.

 

[redrosetea]

Well, considering what Jesus had to say about those who came to him “looking for a sign”, I’d say: plenty. Not everything, but plenty.

People talk about the Gospel as if this were some secular system of “ethics” that anyone might come up with. It isn’t. The Gospels preach divine law, the only law which fully and intimately reflect the truths of the relationship between God and man, not some set of rules that a human legislature made up to reflect an imperfect appreciation of natural law.

What miracles did Paul preach? The feeding of the multitude? The Virgin birth, even? No! He preached the death and resurrection of the Lord! That was the event he felt that all of Christianity hinged on! If that is gone, he said, if Jesus did not literally die and rise for us, then just pack it all up. The faith is worthless.

This is not to say that the lesser truths are irrelevant. Heaven forbid! There is a heirarchy of truths, though.

I think we tread on very thin ice when we presume to venture which other Christians please the Lord more or less than we do. If you believe the Gospels to be literal depictions in every respect, then pay attention to what Jesus preached: it was not about adherence to a belief system, but about adherence in action to the law of God and purity of heart with regards to love of God and neighbor. Yes, every tongue must proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord, the fact of the Resurrection is absolutely central to our faith, but Christianity is not primarily about believing in miracles.

Paul was not the Messiah…big difference as far as I am concerned…he never disputed Christ’s miracles

 

[Eliza10]

Well it sounds like your mind’s made up.

As for me, I think the simple and probable truth is that Pope Sylvestor was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (vs. the local pagans) when he named December 25th. For me it will always be into the darkness of a cold winter night that the Light of the World was born. On the night of the feast of the Festival of Lights. what marvel that for* thousands* of years, in anticipation and then in celebration, we celebrate our Lord’s birth with lights. And as another poster pointed out, it is then that light begins to increase. As 6 months earlier, on John the Baptists birthday, light begins to decease. Gods ways are so perfect.

…http://imagecache2.allposters.com/i...istmas-Angels-Admiring-Baby-Jesus-Posters.jpg

 

[redrosetea]

For what ever reason it was picked, I think the best time was chosen…the dark and the cold only add to the fact that Christ humbled Himself to be born in the worst physical conditions in the lowliest estate

 

[Eliza10]

If you don’t believe Jesus was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, if you do not believe he is fully man and fully God, you are wrong. If you teach otherwise, you do wrong. …

I am not sure who you have me mixed up with, but this isn’t me.

If you teach that it is a dogma of the Church that it is a certainty that Jesus came into the world on December 25 according to the Gregorian calendar(!!!) you are incorrect, though, too. She doesn’t teach it now, and never has. That is not even remotely Catholic dogma…

Nope, this is not me either. I am just addressing the implied dogma - that is, the dogged popular opinion that the Church “made up” a date, that Pope Sylvester “probably” had no inspiration of the Holy Spirit AND also* no* tradition to base his decision of the December 25th feast day of the Incarnation - which are the things that the Church* normally* bases big faith decsions on, not on transient local pagan customs.

As for the Jewish Festival of Lights…they have a lunar calendar. How often, exactly, does Christmas fall on Hannukah? … And what is that feast of dedication about? The re-dedication of the Temple after it had been profaned by the Greeks. The returning Jews didn’t have enough oil for the 8-day re-dedication, but the oil they had miraculously lasted. It has nothing to do with the Dedication of the Lord. …but it had nothing whatsoever to do with the Christians and celebrating the birth of Jesus…

The Feast of the Dedication of the Temple - my understanding is that it was celebrated with lights. Right, it has nothing to do with the Dedication of the Lord. Some tradition and mystic revelation say Christ was born on this feast day. I don’t know why, but I know God doesn’t do things in a random way. I think it is inspiring that the feast was celebrated with lights. And Christ is the Light of the World.

I do not know if modern-day Hannakah has evolved as far as traditons, nor why it no longer popularly called the Feast of the Dedication. There is at least one Jewish poster on the forum and maybe she can clarify. Yes, this is not their big holiday, and they do complain its been made one to go alongwith Christmas. Around here a local district gives time off for Rosh Hashanah, not Hannakuh.

 

[Eliza10]

I didn’t know this dirt on Sungenis. His article linked on a thread here at CAF looks well-sourced to me. I am only vaguely familiar with Sungenis and so I cannot comment on these detractions.

I agree that cannot be definatively proved at this time. Its perfectly fine to believe we celebrate on a mistake-date if you want. But also the Church does not forbid us from using our rational minds to believe in the high probabilty that Pope Sylvestor was guided by the Holy Spirit when he named the date, and that Christiandom had not forever “lost” the date of the Incarnation. This is what I beleive.

Good for you, its quite long! It took me awhile to wade through it. I did read the CE link you provided which was much shorter. I didn’t comment on it because it had pretty much all been said here and in the other Christmas thread. It was framed in a lot of “we think”, which is the proper way to do it.

Not to you.

 

[Eliza10]

Jimmy Aiken said it was Sylvester.

 

[redrosetea]

I think Jimmy Aiken is pretty reliable…does he have an opinion on the date of Christmas?

 

[EasterJoy]

Paul was not the Messiah…big difference as far as I am concerned…he never disputed Christ’s miracles

a) The writings of St. Paul to which I refer are the inspired word of God, and were written before the Gospels were. Neither do the Gospels give any date for the nativity. Neither did the first Pope send out St. Paul to insist on proper instruction with regards to the proper date to celebrate the Lord’s birth, nor even insist that the presence of shepherds and wise men at the nativity is an essential doctrine. We are talking brass tacks, here.

b) Jesus is the Messiah, and when he described how the sheep would be separated from the goats, an ideological litmus test concerning belief in this or that miracle was conspicuous in its absence. That is the brass tacks with regards to eternal life.

c) It is the dogma of the Church that Jesus Christ, the Son of God and second Person of the Blessed Trinity, did by the power of the Holy Spirit become a man, was born of Mary, a pure and perpetual virgin, and is fully human and fully God, and did save humanity from our sins by virtue of his literal Death and Resurrection. The Church does not proclaim what day of the year Jesus came to earth. The Gospels do not proclaim what day of the year Jesus came to earth.

To the Thread: If you don’t think a person can be a Christian while refusing to believe in the nativity story in the sense that this thread means “believe in the nativity story”, then name even one person that the Church has excommunicated for teaching otherwise. For surely, if the Church finds that a Catholic willfully teaches in public against the dogma of the Church, that person will suffer excommunication.

What the Pope says is essential, that I believe is essential. I also believe that there are those in this thread that teach a literal interpretation of Scripture that some Protestants hold to, but not the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[redrosetea]

If you are going to separate the miracles from the Gospels you must also exclude the reserection…that is a miracle

I have made no claim on the date of christmas…I don’t know

 

[EasterJoy]

I am not sure who you have me mixed up with, but this isn’t me.

Nope, this is not me either. I am just addressing the implied dogma - that is, the dogged popular opinion that the Church “made up” a date, that Pope Sylvester “probably” had no inspiration of the Holy Spirit AND also* no* tradition to base his decision of the December 25th feast day of the Incarnation - which are the things that the Church* normally* bases big faith decsions on, not on transient local pagan customs.

The Feast of the Dedication of the Temple - my understanding is that it was celebrated with lights. Right, it has nothing to do with the Dedication of the Lord. Some tradition and mystic revelation say Christ was born on this feast day. I don’t know why, but I know God doesn’t do things in a random way. I think it is inspiring that the feast was celebrated with lights. And Christ is the Light of the World.

I do not know if modern-day Hannakah has evolved as far as traditons, nor why it no longer popularly called the Feast of the Dedication. There is at least one Jewish poster on the forum and maybe she can clarify. Yes, this is not their big holiday, and they do complain its been made one to go alongwith Christmas. Around here a local district gives time off for Rosh Hashanah, not Hannakuh.

Sorry if I got you mixed up with somebody else!