I mean, an April or spring birthday makes way more sense from a narrative perspective. It also aligns with most of the symbolism of Easter (baby animals, eggs, green grass, etc…), where as the winter solstice lines up far better with the crucifixion narrative. You know, the ‘son’ is placed on a ‘cross’ for three days, dies, and is then reborn; like how the sun, at the winter solstice, enters into the constellation the ‘southern cross’ for three days, and upon leaving the southern cross, the day-lengths of the year begin to lengthen again (as in, the year is reborn).
So if you just assume the whole thing to be a bunch of made up gobblty gook, from a narrative perspective, it would make far more sense that the ‘savior’ is born at the time of year when… well… everything else good is borne (baby lambs, flowers, food crops, etc…).
I do subscribe to the whole thing being shaken up and confused under Constantine and the Nicene counsel when the christian church was formalized. Its like seasons 6+ of Game of Thrones. Like the parts and pieces are all apparently there but are organized into some weird frankenstory. Nothing good comes when you are writing narrative by committee.
Im a gnostic atheist, but I’m agnostic (in the literal sense of the word - I do not think knowledge is possible at this time) with regards to a historical Jesus.
I can’t fault your reasoning, though I’d like to throw a counter-argument out there as an alternative. The first thing I would point out is that Dec 25th was held to be the nativity of Sol Invictus, which is considered by some to be the reason for assigning the date there. I believe that’s where we also get “Sunday” as Jesus day, and the halo as a symbol of holiness.
In addition the spring rebirth does align with the semiotics of the resurrection - the dead earth coming back to life is the origin of most of the spring-associated festivals in Europe. Dead Jesus coming back to life, and in Christian teachings ending “death” as a phenomenon for his followers, maps well to that.
Also, I don’t think the southern cross was a big thing in Europe. I think those stars were considered to belong to another constellation (when and where they were visible) until all of the rest of this was settled.
Sunday’s name doesn’t have anything to do with Jesus. Rome took the seven day week from Egypt and renamed the days after the Roman model of the solar system. Sunday is named for the Sun.
I mean, an April or spring birthday makes way more sense from a narrative perspective. It also aligns with most of the symbolism of Easter (baby animals, eggs, green grass, etc…), where as the winter solstice lines up far better with the crucifixion narrative. You know, the ‘son’ is placed on a ‘cross’ for three days, dies, and is then reborn; like how the sun, at the winter solstice, enters into the constellation the ‘southern cross’ for three days, and upon leaving the southern cross, the day-lengths of the year begin to lengthen again (as in, the year is reborn).
So if you just assume the whole thing to be a bunch of made up gobblty gook, from a narrative perspective, it would make far more sense that the ‘savior’ is born at the time of year when… well… everything else good is borne (baby lambs, flowers, food crops, etc…).
I do subscribe to the whole thing being shaken up and confused under Constantine and the Nicene counsel when the christian church was formalized. Its like seasons 6+ of Game of Thrones. Like the parts and pieces are all apparently there but are organized into some weird frankenstory. Nothing good comes when you are writing narrative by committee.
Im a gnostic atheist, but I’m agnostic (in the literal sense of the word - I do not think knowledge is possible at this time) with regards to a historical Jesus.
I can’t fault your reasoning, though I’d like to throw a counter-argument out there as an alternative. The first thing I would point out is that Dec 25th was held to be the nativity of Sol Invictus, which is considered by some to be the reason for assigning the date there. I believe that’s where we also get “Sunday” as Jesus day, and the halo as a symbol of holiness.
In addition the spring rebirth does align with the semiotics of the resurrection - the dead earth coming back to life is the origin of most of the spring-associated festivals in Europe. Dead Jesus coming back to life, and in Christian teachings ending “death” as a phenomenon for his followers, maps well to that.
Also, I don’t think the southern cross was a big thing in Europe. I think those stars were considered to belong to another constellation (when and where they were visible) until all of the rest of this was settled.
Sunday’s name doesn’t have anything to do with Jesus. Rome took the seven day week from Egypt and renamed the days after the Roman model of the solar system. Sunday is named for the Sun.
Which became a religious day because of Sol Invictus, the Sun god whose worship was largely displaced by Jesus worship.