The Truth of Christmas: God on the Ground

By: Stephen W. Simpson, Ph.D. (View Profile)

Debunking myths about the Christmas story has become a holiday tradition. Little League Bible scholars like me write things that make the general public feel like a bunch of suckers for believing superfluous elements of the Christmas story. This exercise can be moderately enlightening, but it misses the point. Figuring out what isn’t true about the birth of Christ isn’t nearly as important as figuring out what is.

Nevertheless, like singing the national anthem at a baseball game, let’s run through the list of Christmas balderdash. The list is long, so let’s just hit the highlights and move on.

Jesus was not born on December 25th.
He was probably born in April, but nobody’s sure. After Christianity was Romanized, they decided to celebrate Christ’s birth at the winter solstice because pagan festivals were already held during that time. The thing I don’t get is why some people act like this makes the whole Christmas story a bunch of yuletide hooey. It was just good planning. Some third century Roman said, “Let’s seeeee … we need to find a time to celebrate the birth of Christ. We used to worship lichens and moss in December, but we don’t do that anymore, so that might work. And I wouldn’t have to by a new Day-Timer.”

Mary did not ride to Bethlehem on a donkey.
At least the Bible says nothing about a donkey, and I’m betting she was probably in a wagon. Think about it—a woman who’s nine months preggers bouncing up and down on a mule for sixty miles. She probably would have rode Joseph to Bethlehem before trying that.

The Immaculate Conception refers to the birth of Mary, not Jesus.
According to Roman Catholic doctrine, Mary was born without sin, making her pure enough to give birth to the Son of God. What I want to know is how she managed to say sin-free the first time that toddler Jesus chucked applesauce in her face.

The Bible doesn’t mention a stable.
It does mention a manger, which makes everyone think Jesus was born in a barn. It’s more likely that he was born in a cave or at the house of one of Joseph’s relatives.

17 readers liked this story.
bookmarks
Comments
posted: 12.24.2008
Labeeb Khayr
If I'm not mistaken, did you know that the earliest compulation of bible is recorded to be four hunded years after the death of Christ. How authentic is that. And I beleive some parts were writen in Hebrew. But can you imagine how altered a story would be after four hundred years. I do have comments about the Immaculate Conception. Let me Know if you would like to hear them.
posted: 12.24.2008
Labeeb Khayr
When I read scripture my understanding is that the pains of child birth drove Mary to the trunk of the tree and she shook it so that fresh ripe fruit could feed her. I have always been under the understanding that when fruit fall from the tree its harvest time. And that my friend is in october.
posted: 12.23.2008
Robin
Just want to add that Jahn Sawyer is telling the truth but NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH. The choice to invest our faith in beliveing what oour eyes cannot see is the missing piece of the puzzle. God bless, peace to all and Merry Christmas. Much love, Robin
posted: 12.23.2008
Robin
I can pretty closely presume what literature John Sawyer is using for his "facts" .... BUT, Jesus in FACT did preform many "Mystical" actions (by the way, Jesus wasn't the only person to do so.....He just did more and was the only one to do so totally without sin. He also happened to CHOSE to die for us all, so, as when we are judged, we may be judged as sinless in the eyes of the ONLY unfraudulent God .....IF we accept as our TRUTH and our personal relationship with Jesus as most dear in our hearts and lives. This mystical and sinless components are the main reasons He was allowed to be crucified. His sinlessness & His mystical actions where freaking people out. The Kings, Pharisees and Saducees were perfectly comfortable with people with mystical powers (some frauds...some not) as long as they were not SINLESS and the rulers said could find "no blame in Him". PS Don't depend solely on the Internet....find out for yourself....you might even try the Bible. Now, that's a thought!
posted: 12.22.2008
John Sawyer
(continued) The Council didn't rewrite the books of the Bible--if they had, the versions written prior to the Council would be different from the versions published after the Council, but they're not--they're practically identical. Instead, the Council declared certain books that some people had considered as being genuine, and therefore worthwhile Bible material, to be fabrications written long after Jesus' death by people who didn't have firsthand, or even secondhand knowledge; much of these writings are by Gnostics who wanted to rewrite history for their own religious and political/social aims. The Council is slammed a little too much for their decisions--not all of them were invalid. Interestingly, your namesake, Thomas Jefferson, created a version of the New Testament without any of the mystical elements, since he, like most of the US's founding fathers, believed Jesus wasn't a mystical being, but a wise man. You can look up that version on the Internet and see what it's like.
It feels good to write.

Your stories, musings, and advice are welcome here. We know you've got something to share, so jump in—maybe get a little famous. And don't worry—you can save a draft!

most liked
Loader_buff
Other topics you might appreciate
Career & Money Neighborhood & World Parenting