Selected Questions -Answers From All Experts Astronomy Forum (Shadow Lengths, Angles And Times)

Question:  I would like to know at what time/Sun angle over a given place on earth
does the shadow of an object becomes the same length of it? How can I
calculate that?

Answer:

A very basic relation (along with some simple observations) allows one to
make the calculation you reference, and also determine one's latitude.

That is:

  tan (ALT)  =  H/ L(m)

where 'ALT' is the maximum altitude of the Sun at the location of the
observer, H is the height of a vertical object (assumed to be planted on
flat ground), and L(m) is the (minimum) length of the shadow
measured.

By example, say H = 0.5 meters, and L(m) is found to be 0.25 meters (which
would occur at or near astronomical NOON or when the Sun is on the
observer's meridian), then:

tan (ALT) = 0.5/ 0.25 =  2

and LAT = tan ^-1(2) (e.g. LAT = arc tan (2) = 63.4 degrees)

[Side note: we can find the observer's LATITUDE from this IF we know the
Sun's declination on the given day. For example, if we are talking about
the day of the winter solstice (Dec. 23), then the Sun's declination angle
 d = -23.5 degrees.

Then the latitude of the observer would be:

LAT  =  90 + ( d  - ALT)  = 90 + (-23.5 - 63.4)= 3.1 degrees

That is, the observer is at 3.1 deg North latitude or just above the
equator.

Now, when the shadow of the object equals its height at the (same)
observer's location, one will have:

tan (X) =  0.5/ 0.5 =  1

and X = arc tan (1)=  45 degrees

The difference in angles (ALT - X) =

63.4  - 45 =   18.4 degrees

And this will give a rough idea of the time at the location, say if one
divides by 15 degrees (the number of degrees corresponding to one hour of
time, e.g. the Earth rotates through 15 degrees in one hour).

For this case:  18.4/ 15  = 1.227 or about 1 hour and 14 minutes past
noon. (e.g. 1:14 p.m. local mean time)

On Sol Invictus, Mithras And The Origin Of Christmas

The Roman Sol Invictus image bearing the inscription: "The most holy and sacred Sun"

Par for the course in our culturally and socially divided country, much hullaballoo is made every year over the celebration of Christmas, using the words "Merry Christmas" and the possibility those nasty atheists and secularists are trying to "destroy" the holiday. Very seldom do any inquiring minds chill out long enough to investigate the actual origins of the holiday - which dates back to antiquity.

For example, we know the first certain record associating December 25th with the birthday of Sol Invictus is the ROMAN Chronography of AD 354 where, in the part known as the Philocalian Calendar, VIII Kal. Jan. is identified as N INVICTI CM XXX (Natalis Invicti; CM abbreviates circenses missus or circus races)  "Natalis Invictii" refers to the birth of Sol Invictus, NOT Christ. (See graphic attached of a Roman rendering of Sol Invictus). The celebratory factor in the inscription is punctuated by the fact XXX (30) races were to be scheduled in the Roman Circus. This would never be done to commemorate the exclusive birth of a Jewish Messiah! Even given that the Edict of Milan was formalized some 40 years earlier.

Coincidentally, this is also the earliest reference to December 25 as the birthday of Jesus. In a commemoration of Christian martyrs, the notation for VIII Kal. Jan. is natus Christus in Betleem Judeae ("Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea"). Because the Depositio Martyrum was completed in AD 336, the first celebration of Christmas can be dated to that year as well. In the list of consuls, there also is the note: "Dominus Iesus Christus natus est VIII kal. Ian".

Note that although the first celebration can be dated to the year 336, it was not formalized! As I noted in a post from December, 2011, the formalization wasn't until 29 years after the Council of Nicaea, in 354 A.D. Then the newly liberated Christians formally claimed December 25th - the designated original birth date of the Sun god Mithras - as their own nativity for Christ. This exactly parallels the timing already in the Chronography of AD 354 where, in the part known as the Philocalian Calendar,  the date first emerges in a written record.  We see then a confluence between Christ,  Sol Invictus (the Roman Sun god) and Mithras.

Regarding Mithras' birth date (also on Dec. 25th), one should note that just as Jesus' date of birth was ahistorical, Mithras' was as well. The assignment of ancient god-man births to this date is understandable given the ancients investment in agriculture, and the Winter solstice marked the day of shortest daylight giving way to increasing lengths of day through Spring. (See my earlier post on the Winter solstice.) 

Some who complain about Mithraism in general insist there's no evidence that Mithras was a great teacher. But this is belied in Ized 28. (We were introduced to this in our Comparative Religion class at Loyola, in 1966). In brief passages we see Mithras teaching the multitudes about son-ship and stewardship and the Logos-Trinity.  One trope used to try to demean the import of Mithras as an ancient god Man is that he was said to have "been born of a solid rock".  Hence, is worthy of belittlement.

The notion of Mithras being "born of a solid rock" can probably be traced to certain writings of early Church Father Justin Martyr, who analogized Peter as the mystic "Rock" of the Church ("Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church") and to the emergence of Mithraism with Mithras. Researcher J.M. Robertson ('The Origin Of Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World') speculates that Martyr's ruminations are "in touch with the Graecized but probably Semitic myth of the Rock-born Agdestis, son of Jupiter".

In other words, not peculiar to Mithraism proper, but a subsequent syncretic addition which then became distorted into a "rock birth" by early Christians. Not surprisingly, probably because of the Agdestis- connection, Mithras is derived from the Latin "rock born" and that concept has been perpetuated with the name.

A number of ancient authors (e.g. Porphyry) bemoaned the catastrophic destruction of many of the original works at the hands of the Christians.  Nonetheless, we do have enough in Ized 28 of the Zendavesta to document much of Mithras' mythological basis. Perusing through it there is no mention of battling a "bull" - which likely originated from the Graeco-Roman version of the myth, which was probably distorted by re-translations over centuries (much the same way the Christian New Testament has been).

In the actual Izeds (#23- #28) there’s no record of any “Bull”. There is a peripheral reference (by Porphyry) to Mithras as "the Bull of Demiurgos and lord of generation". But again, no "battle" with such. (so it's likely corrupted over time). Robertson (p. 121) speculates Porphyry's reference is actually based on a conceptual error mixing up the Mithraic seat at the equinoctial table (assigned to the Ram, Aries) "which also bears the sword of the Ram." He adds (ibid.): "The sword of the Ram is simply figured as a cross, since the sword IS a cross".

A much older version, probably more accurate,  is cited in Robertson's 'Pagan Christs' (p. 119) wherein he notes that according to a (Vendedadic) legend "Mithras shoots an arrow at a rock, and water gushes forth where the arrow strikes". The passage is believed by some scholars of pagan mystery religions to refer to either an incident where Mithras saves his followers who are lost in the desert, or that he uses his arrow to reveal an analog to the Judaeo-Christian Decalogue.

Aspects of Mithraism that later filtered into the Graeco-Roman world (in the form of emergent Mithraic cults) undoubtedly came from this text (the Izeds, wherein “Mithras” was chief and ruler) as well as others likely destroyed with the burning of the library at Alexandria. (See, e.g. J.M. Robertson’s ‘Pagan Christs’, 1966) . Many scholars believe the greater details including Mithras’ disciples, the full recounting of his miracles: including walking on water, raising the dead, changing water to wine etc. were in those destroyed manuscripts.

According to Plutarch, Mithraism first arrived in the Roman Empire through the Cilician pirates whom Pompey subdued, then brought back to Rome as slaves. (Many were actually believed to have been soldiers for whom Mithraism would have been the religion naturally embraced).

Mithraism was a mystery religion, so its historical legends would have always been more accessible than its precepts. Rituals were held in strictest confidence – available only to the select few - as a secret society would. (Much like today’s Free Masons who maintain absolute silence as regards their rituals.) As Frank Zindler notes, "no specific works of Mithraism are known since like other Mystery Cults, it centered around a secret or body of secrets only known to those initiated into the rites. Most of our knowledge of it is derived from the iconography of its temples”.

Another common canard is that Mithraists copied from Christians to fabricate their god -Man not the other way around. This is totally false, and can be ascertained from Tertullian’s writings combined with just minimal reasoning ability. My class notes, e.g. from my Comparative Theology course,  are fortunately still in one of my old file boxes with Exegesis notes. The main theme, to summarize, is that the course was based on the original writings of Church fathers, including Tertullian, Justin Martyr and Julius Firmicus – all referencing Mithraic scriptures and references therein.

After describing the “Lord’s Supper’ for example, Justin Martyr evinces outrage as he writes (from my notes):

“WHICH THE WICKED DEVILS HAVE IMITATED IN THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA, COMMANDING THE SAME THING TO BE DONE”

Tertullian also bears this out, scolding:

“The Devil, by the mysteries of his idols, IMITATES EVEN THE MAIN PARTS OF THE DIVINE MYSTERIES. HE ALSO BAPTIZES HIS FOLLOWERS IN WATER THAT PURIFIES THEM OF THEIR SINS”

As the notes indicate, a careless Christian reader might jump to the conclusion that the Mithraists copied from the Christians, but this simply isn’t so, on closer examination. The refutation of this notion inheres in the language of the same trio of Christian Fathers. They all speak, for example, of resemblance of Mithraic rites to Christian rites as being “the imitation of devils”.

But why such an obscure use of language, when they could simply have stated the Mithraists IMITATED their own works, and done? Why the need to introduce devils? This presumes a supernatural influence over and above ordinary human copying.

An answer becomes manifest when we examine more closely the words of Justin Martyr, who expressly argued that "the demons ANTICIPATED the Christian mysteries and prepared PARODIES of them BEFOREHAND"! (Pagan Christs, p. 118).

As Justin further writes (cf. from Loyola Theology notes):

"When I hear that Mithra was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent also counterfeited this!"

(Addendum in Comparative Theology notes: No one pretends the Pagan virgin myth in general is LATER than Christianity. Justin’s own words: "ANTICIPATED the Christian mysteries" can mean only one thing: he KNEW the Mithraic version PRECEDED the Christian version. What he said also underscored the arguments from Tertullian and Firmicus. He was so incensed that the Mithraists trumped the Christians' Savior myth on the timeline, that he attributed this to demonic work, aka the "imitation of devils".)

Robertson (op. cit., p. 121) also cites other common symbols that the Christians appropriated from Mithraic traditions, including the Agnus Dei, or "Lamb of God". As he notes:


"The Christian assimilation of Mithraism is still more clearly seen in the familiar Christian symbol in which Christ is represented as a lamb, carrying by one forefoot a cross."

The takeaway here? Celebrate Christmas by all means, but bear in mind it is actually the celebration of the birth of Mithras-Sol Invictus and the date itself is consistent with that of the winter solstice - or the "rebirth of the Sun".   Christians later copied this ancient pagan template for the nativity of their own god-Man, Jesus.

Selected Questions -Answers From All Experts Astronomy Forum (The Winter Solstice)

Given that today marks the Winter Solstice, the following previous  All Experts question is relevant:

Question: What exactly is the "winter solstice"? Is it a date or an astronomical event?

Answer: In fact it is both. As an astronomical event it marks the date on which when the Sun is at its maximum declination below the celestial equator (calculated to be at -23.5 degrees). The diagram below helps to show the relations, where we see the celestial sphere projected as a 3D lattice onto the sky from the Earth:

Thus, the north pole is projected to the North Celestial Pole, the equator is projected to the celestial equator, and all latitude lines are projected to become declination lines, while longitude lines become Right Ascension lines. Thus, just as every geographical location on Earth has a latitude and longitude so also every sky location has a declination and Right Ascension.   The "vernal equinox" position, for example, is at 0 degrees Declination and 0 hours RA.  (The vernal equinox marks the  first day of spring.) 

The red circle projected onto the celestial sphere defines the ecliptic or the projected (apparent) path of the Sun onto the celestial sphere through the year.  If we follow the red circle - the ecliptic - UP from the vernal equinox we come to the northernmost point at +23.5 degrees declination and 6h  RA. This coincides with the summer solstice - or when the Sun appears over that latitude on Earth. This marks the longest day of the year in the northern hemisphere.

If we go 180 degrees opposite, we come to -23.5 degrees declination for the Sun, which means it's now over Earth latitude of 23.5 deg. S.  This marks the shortest day of the year and is the winter solstice.

We can go to a different diagram for another perspective, this one showing the Earth in its orbit about the Sun over the year:

At point A in the diagram, we have the commencement of summer in the northern hemisphere (summer solstice) because the Sun is directly over the Tropic of Cancer (lat. 23.5 N) and Earth's axis is tilted toward the Sun. Hence the N. hemisphere receives more direct sunlight, radiation. Also at point A, we have the longest day.

Summer lasts up to point B which marks the autumnal equinox,  but during this interval the length of day is continually growing shorter.  Again, the proportion of N. hemisphere area exposed to the Sun continually decreases which means from point A onwards the days continually grow shorter. The N. hemisphere observer notes the Sun's altitude in the sky is becoming lower and its path across the sky (diurnal circle) less.

This extends to point C, or the winter solstice, which marks both the shortest day (again for the N. hemisphere) and the beginning of winter. Note the Sun is now directly over the Tropic of Capricorn (lat. 23.5 S.) and the  tilt of the Earth's axis is away from the Sun, indicating less direct solar heat, radiation - while the S. hemisphere now receives more - hence it is now summer in the southern hemisphere.

The winter season extends from point C to point D, with the day lengths now increasing all the while, until the vernal equinox is reached around or about March 21, the first day of Spring. Spring then extends from March 21 to the summer solstice, with the length of days increasing further as the observer notes the  Sun now gains greater altitude in the sky, and thus longer diurnal circles (as it approaches the summer solstice (A).)

In summary then, the tilt of the Earth modulates the extent or the amount of sunlight-radiation (including heat) a hemisphere receives at a particular time, or over a given interval. Onset of winter and summer are defined respectively by the extreme axial tilts of  either "fully away" from the Sun, and "fully toward", while Fall, Spring are defined by neutral tilts - i.e.  neither away nor directly toward.

More technically, the specific points on the ecliptic  - for both solstices and equinoxes - are marked by the technical coincidence of the Sun's position with specific coordinates on the celestial sphere, as I showed earlier. 

The winter solstice then is just one of those specific points on the ecliptic but which now coincides with the specific celestial sphere coordinates of:   -23.5 decl. and 18h 00 m Right Ascension.

So Wait....The Days Grow SHORTER In The Summer? Yes!

It is astounding and kind of ironic that too many (who likely never had exposure to basic astronomy ) fail to realize the days actually get progressively shorter during the summer (which begins at the summer solstice, or about June 21st.)   Reference to the above diagram can help to clarify this, including that (for the northern hemisphere):

1) The shortest day of the year is at the winter solstice (Dec. 22-23)

2) The longest day of the year occurs at the summer solstice (June 21-22)

Let's examine this in a bit more detail, paying attention to the proportion of n. hemisphere solar exposure between points A and C. At point A in the diagram, we have the commencement of summer in the northern hemisphere (summer solstice) because the Earth's axis is tilted toward the Sun hence the N. hemisphere receives more direct sunlight, radiation. Also at point A, we have the longest day.

Summer lasts up to point B which marks the autumnal equinox,  but during this interval the length of day is continually growing shorter.  Again, the proportion of N. hemisphere area exposed to the Sun continually decreases which means from point A onwards the days continually grow shorter. The N. hemisphere observer notes the Sun's altitude in the sky is becoming lower and its path across the sky (diurnal circle) less.

This extends to point C, or the winter solstice, which marks both the shortest day (again for the N. hemisphere) and the beginning of winter. Note the tilt of the Earth's axis is away from the Sun, indicating less direct solar heat, radiation - while the S. hemisphere now receives more - hence it is now summer in that hemisphere.

The winter season extends from point C to point D, with the day lengths now increasing all the while, until the vernal equinox is reached around or about March 21, the first day of Spring. Spring then extends from March 21 to the summer solstice, with the length of days increasing further as the observer notes the  Sun now gains greater altitude in the sky, and thus longer diurnal circles (as it approaches the summer solstice (A).)

In summary then, the tilt of the Earth modulates the extent or the amount of sunlight-radiation (including heat) a hemisphere receives at a particular time, or over a given interval. Onset of winter and summer are defined respectively by the extreme axial tilts of  either "fully away" from the Sun, and "fully toward", while Fall, Spring are defined by neutral tilts - i.e.  neither away nor directly toward.

The main takeaway? Days grow shorter during the summer - they grow longer beginning with the winter solstice (Dec. 22-23) and extending to the summer solstice.

Atheists Need to Back Off In Their 'War on Christmas'

One of the early cards designed by American Atheists to help promote the meme that Christmas is a myth.


As we approach another Christmas holiday, and word has gone out that American Atheists has put up a forty foot billboard in New York to advance the 'war on Christmas', the outside observer can't help but note how this plays right into the Right wingnuts' hands: "Looka there! Ya see! The liberals and atheists are all together in this waging a war on Christmas!"

Of course, this is bollocks but many may not see it that way. And as atheists are still seen as the 'bad guys' in the country (polls show only a minority would vote for one as President) they can ill afford to be further smeared. The way out is to find allies, preferably progressives, who will unite with atheists for a defined common good. Maybe that is fighting for a better health care system, or decent living wages, or even Elizabeth Warren's latest campaign to have employers back off doing credit checks on prospective employees.  The point is atheists risk being marginalized unless they link up to larger social causes besides waging a myopic  "war on Christmas". It makes them look detached from the larger society and foolish.

The historical reasons for why atheists have waged this war are well known, at least among atheists and most freethinkers. Ancient Rome had essentially made its peace with the indigenous Christians - thanks to the Emperor Constantine (274 - 337). Recall that Constantine was the de facto head of the Sol Invictus cult for which December 25th was celebrated as "the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun".

In reality, this referred to the Winter Solstice, or that date in the year when the Sun was at its maximum declination below the celestial equator (now calculated to be at -23.5 degrees). At the same time, it was the date at which the Sun would begin its journey back north along the ecliptic to meet the celestial equator by the time of the Vernal (Spring) equinox. This northward march meant geometrically longer diurnal circles, hence the winter solstice marked the astronomical date when days began getting longer - hence a solar "re-birth" in a manner of speaking.

By selecting December 25th (the date of the ancient winter solstice)  as the nativity of Christ, the Church repaid Constantine for his generosity (via the "Edict of Milan" issued in 313, which not only permitted Christians the freedom of religious worship and their religion's recognition by the State, but also reparations for previous losses, such as having property confiscated). In other words, the choice sealed a continued basis for accommodation and cooperation between Rome and Christianity and also empowered the latter - providing the impetus to become the religion of the then civilized world.


Less well known, is that the ancient religion of Mithraism was also well-entrenched in Rome by the time of the Christian choice of December 25th, and indeed, they (Mithraists) also celebrated that date as the nativity of the Lord Mithra. (See, e.g. the book, Pagan Christs. )   In this respect, the American Atheists are quite correct and December 25th does not exist as any uniquely holy date, hence for all intents is a myth. In this sense, "myth" means: an unproved collective belief that's used to justify a social institution. If one therefore is going to celebrate a nativity - he should (for history's sake) go the whole hog and celebrate it not only for Yeshua, but the Lord Mithra, as well as the Roman god, Sol Invictus. They all share that date, and all are entitled to acknowledgement.

For many atheists, the issue is elementary: they simply acknowledge the date as that coinciding with the ancient Winter Solstice and mark it purely as an astronomical event. Yet socially we may well celebrate with family and friends and even exchange gifts, but this is part of a recognized habit or custom. Hence, when atheists declare "Christmas is a myth"  they're charging wholesale into an established religious -commercial quagmire where they're not only seen as attacking religious beliefs, but customs too. It's a no win game.

Atheists by doing this also reinforce the belief that they are always against things and never stand for a positive value.  In his brilliant article Atheism Wars[1], the eminent economist John Gray, author of False Dawn- The Delusions of Global Capitalism,   argues:


Contemporary unbelief is a hollowed –out version of monotheism- a cult of human deliverance lacking the beauty and flashes of wisdom of traditional faiths. Defined properly, it is an entirely negative position. An atheist is anyone who has no use for the concepts and doctrines of theism

This is an honest take, and is also perhaps why Gray declares himself an atheist in the proper meaning of the term, as I do. That is, one who simply withholds belief. I provided the original definition, of what later came to be known as implicit atheism, in a Mensa Bulletin letter. That definition read[2]:

Let's be clear about what constitutes Atheism and what doesn't. The Atheist - to put it succinctly, absolutely withholds investing intellectual/emotional resources in any supernatural claim. Indeed the word Atheism itself embodies this definition”

 

What is happening here is not active disbelief, i.e. making a statement 'There is no god', but rather simply passively withholding belief/acceptance in a statement already made.  Hence, the deity believer has made the positive claim. The ontological atheist’s is the absence of belief in it. No more - no less.

Reading John Gray’s excellent essay showed me that my position is genuinely more implicit atheism, or what George Smith described as agnostic atheism, than the more hard-edged variety of Ayn Rand, or Madalyn Murray-O’Hair. In Smith’s words:

The agnostic atheist maintains any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind. And further - not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well

This more open or implicit basis also backs the atheist away from a hard-edge, intolerant stance. It also opens the way for positive cooperation with others of a liberal mindset.  As I  noted in my first atheist book, The Atheist's Handbook to Modern Materialism,  this paved the way for positive alliances for advance of social justice, such s Paul Kurtz defined in his (2000) 'Humanist Manifesto'.


Hard-edged,  take no prisoners atheism is also a loser philosophically, as I have noted in my new book, Beyond Atheism, Beyond God. Therein I noted the "Camus conundrum"
discussed by Greg M. Epstein ( Good Without God, p62) to do with Albert Camus’ novel, The Plague.  The essence is embodied in a question Camus’ character Jean Tarrou asks his friend, Rieux:

Why do you show such devotion considering you don’t believe in God?

 

Epstein puts this in a contemporary setting, referencing a 2006 book tour by Richard Dawkins for his God Delusion. According to Epstein,  Dawkins was somewhat startled when a young man approached him and asked directly: "Dr. Dawkins, I am thinking of committing suicide, what do you have to say?

 

Epstein relates that initially Dawkins was so nonplussed he could think of nothing to say,  then suggested the young man (a student at Harvard) could go to the humanist chaplain or – if he’d been at Oxford, he could go to the Anglican chaplain.  In understandable astonishment, Epstein observed (ibid.):


"Is that the best we can do? Rage, rage against the dying of the Enlightenment then shoo our troubled youth back to religion because we’re too distracted or cerebral or both to spend a few minutes of our deep thoughts on being more loving and more helpful?"
 

Let’s be clear the Camus conundrum highlighted in modern form by Epstein isn’t just a problem for Dawkins.  I am certain that in a similar situation, all the current hard core crop of atheists (including those waging wars on Christmas) would be at a loss for words. Overly obsessed with combat against the "believers"  and their myths they'd have lost sight of the human dimensions.

 

In regard to the "war against Christmas" we need to bring those dimensions into focus as well, and whether we are familiar with the historical basis for Christmas or not, understand that by trying to extinguish it  we are exercising a futility similar to Dawkins in his response to the Harvard student. The atheist meme and philosophical foundation survives,  not by making more enemies or alienating more people, but by finding common cause with others to ennoble the human condition and not degrade it.

 

---

[1] Gray: Playboy (60), 49.

[2] Mensa Bulletin, March (1994), 8.

Of Calendars, God-Men and the Date of Christmas (Part 2)

The Roman Sol Invictus image bearing the inscription: "The most holy and sacred Sun"


We now continue with the complaints of one disgruntled fundamentalist blogger:

"The chapter then turns to what Mr. Muncaster did with this information. It shows that after studying the Greek word translated “believe” in John 3:16 and learning that it had a deeper meaning than to simply intellectually acknowledge a fact, but that it carried the sense of “to put one’s trust in,” he came to the conclusion that he needed to do more than simply know the truth; he needed a close relationship with Jesus—he needed to place his trust completely in Him. "

But, of course, if Jesus existed in no real historical place (at least as determined by the historians of the time, or even the OT) then this amounts to pure question begging. In effect, if Nazareth didn't exist as a true historical place it likely means no events associated with it ever existed, and then we have a whole cloth fabrication, as many have already shown (e.g. Geza Vermes, Bart D. Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan etc.) Thus, whether John 3:16 says anything in Greek, or Latin or even Hindu is irrelevant. If basic historical markers aren't met, then one must suspect the whole thing as fabricated. Indeed, no less than one of the historians of the Catholic Church, The Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter, in his monograph ‘A Concise History of the Catholic Church’, notes (page 17):

“The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or God.”

This is a shattering admission indeed, and from a historian of Christendom’s largest Church. It is a de facto admission that no historical support exists for any of the accounts in the New Testament. Indeed, if they ‘were not meant to be historical’ (or accurate), then we cannot be sure if any are! Quite possibly, none of the accounts should be taken seriously.

Whatever one may think of his religion, at least Bokenkotter is honest! The illustration of the Nazareth site as a late 4th century confection also illustrates the point.

Nonethless our impetuous blogger waxes on:

"He realized that the study he had engaged in had changed his mind completely, that now he knew that the Bible and Christianity were based on facts—lots of facts and evidence that could be verified. It was not based on blind faith."

And yet that is exactly what Muncaster's conclusions are based upon: blind faith. Muncaster already knew what it was he wanted to find and then simply excavated it from the assorted nether regions of his brain's OAA (Orientation activation area). Presto magicko! I have found truth, facts and .....statistical certainty! Except never once did he compute a single solitary statistical probability as I illustrated in my last blog (graphic). Our only conclusion to make is that Muncaster is a fraud, a tool, and a willing obscurantist, in his own way no different from Jason Lisle and his "young Sun" bollocks.

The only "facts and evidence" are what he himself conjures up, simply dismissing the much vaster scholarly bona fides of those who have spent many more years on these issues - like John Allegro and John Dominic Crossan. But why be surprised? The True Believers will always find what they want to find, if it suits their fancies! They are congenital perpetrators of the logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent' and most don't even know it!

Our fundie moves on:

"All that being said , the unbelievers now point to the fact that December 25th was NOT the date of Jesus' birth. And you know what? I , AGREE WITH THEM! But here again , that's a red herring."

This is interesting in that he agrees with me, but decides it's a "red herring". But, it can only be a red herring if it is not relevant! Let's see what he says next:

"One atheist blogger had wasted much time on this subject , writing how Christians should not celebrate Christ's birth because Dec. 25th was not His actual birth date. He goes on to write how Christmas had its origin in pagan religious customs. And here again , I AGREE with him! "

Now, this is very interesting, because...first, I never said or wrote "Christians should not celebrate Christ's birth". What I did was ask, at the very end, DO Christians KNOW what they are celebrating when they DO celebrate the occasion of Dec. 25th as a putative "Savior's" birth date? In other words, do they know which savior that is? This is a different thing from how the blogger has phrased it. Second, I never insisted December 25th was not his "actual birth date" only that this date is suspicious because it had been the original winter solstice and was celebrated as the birth date (from antiquity) of the Roman Sun god, Sol Invictus. Thus, I intimated it to be a coincidence of the highest order to have two saviors' birth dates exactly the same! (And again, I remind readers, that Sol Invictus' came before Jesus. And up to 354 A.D. no firm date was known for the latter's birth).

In addition, I dispute it is a "waste of time". I warrant MOST people are not aware of the many changes in the calendar, including that 10 days were simply lopped off between October 4 and 15, 1582. If most people don't know these things, then bringing them to their attention is emphatically not a "waste of time".

One wonders then what all the kerfuffle is about when he agrees with me, but he moves on:

"He then goes on ( wasting more time and space ) , explaining the various "calendar types" ( e.g., The Roman Republican Calendar , Alterations in the Julian Calendar , and The Gregorian Calendar ). BUT....he leaves out the Philoclian Calendar. Speculation as to the time of Jesus’ birth dates back to the 3rd century, when Hyppolytus (ca. 170-236) claimed that Jesus was born on December 25. The earliest mention of some sort of observance on that date is in the Philoclian Calendar, representing Roman practice, of the year 336."

Actually, in this passage he confirms my point that the details of the altered calendars were NOT a "waste of time"!

First, it isn't the "Philoclian Calendar" but the Philocalian Calendar. In fact, I didn't "leave it out" I just didn't call it by name. But I did refer to the earliest versions of the Roman Republican Calendar, of which the Philocalian was one version. Thus, the first certain record associating December 25 with the birthday of Sol Invictus is the ROMAN Chronography of AD 354 where, in the part known as the Philocalian Calendar, VIII Kal. Jan. is identified as N INVICTI CM XXX (Natalis Invicti; CM abbreviates circenses missus or circus races)

"Natalis Invictii" refers to the birth of Sol Invictus, NOT Christ. (See graphic attached of a Roman rendering of Sol Invictus). The celebratory factor in the inscription is punctuated by the fact XXX (30) races were to be scheduled in the Roman Circus. This would NEVER be done to commemorate the exclusive birth of a Jewish Messiah! Even given that the Edict of Milan was formalized some 40 years earlier. But Christians still trudged on shaky ground and many Romans exhibited suspicion or outright hostility.

Coincidentally, this is also the earliest reference to December 25 as the birthday of Jesus. In a commemoration of Christian martyrs, the notation for VIII Kal. Jan. is natus Christus in Betleem Judeae ("Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea"). Because the Depositio Martyrum was completed in AD 336, the first celebration of Christmas can be dated to that year as well. In the list of consuls, there also is the note: "Dominus Iesus Christus natus est VIII kal. Ian".

Note the first celebration can be dated to the year 336, but it was not formalized! As I noted in my last blog, it wasn't until 29 years after the Council of Nicaea, in 354 A.D. that the newly liberated Christians formally claimed December 25th - the designated original birth date of the Sun god Mithra- as their own nativity for Christ. This exactly parallels the timing already cited for the Chronography of AD 354 where, in the part known as the Philocalian Calendar the date first emerges in a written record.

Given he misses all this information, it was obviously not only a good thing I "wasted my time" on the original blog, but the last two as well!

Again, the more salient points I made are all fully validated! Thus, neither Mark nor Paul made any reference whatever to when Jesus was born, and Matthew and Luke do not mention the date. When Clement of Alexander (d. ca. AD 215) does refer to the day of Jesus' birth, December 25 is not included among the possibilities. The church did not agree upon December 25 as the Nativity of Jesus until the fifth century. Even then, the winter solstice, which coincided with the Christian festival, still was recognized.

Which, again, bears out my earlier point to do with the suspicious coincidence of the Christian "Savior's" birth date with the much earlier one for Sol Invictus.

He then continues, in a most intriguing remark:

"The church thereby offered people a Christian alternative to the pagan festivities and eventually reinterpreted many of their symbols and actions in ways acceptable to Christian faith and practice"

This is interesting because he essentially admits the Christians stole the Roman celebrations and date to "reinterpret" and recast them to make them "acceptable"! Well, this is certainly one way of looking at what happened. But another equally legitimate, if not more legitimate take is what I wrote in my Dec. 25th blog, "There are many speculations as to why Christians appropriated this particular date when the eastern orthodox and other variants stuck with January 6th. The most plausible one is probably because the conflation allowed Christian Rome to pay homage to the earlier Emperor Constantine who had expedited their liberation".

Bear in mind the climate at the time! Think about it! You had been scum of the Earth, worms of pity and even persecution for hundred of years. Tossed to lions for the cheering of Coliseum spectators and roasted on spits. Then Voila! One day you are decreed by Emperor Constantine to be fellow citizens able to go about your business unimpeded. Why would you not express gratitude? The ultimate gratitude would be to make your most sacred date, for your Savior's birth, identical to that of the Emperor's god, Sol Invictus!

Indeed, the fundie blogger basically agrees with me in a follow up remark:

"Was He born on December 25th? Probably not - that's a date chosen by the early Roman church (Catholicism ) , to correspond to a preexistent Winter solstice festival. "

My only complaint here is he again conveniently isolates the "Catholic" church when at that time, it was the ONLY church, and hence THE Christian Church - neither Protestants nor evangelicals emerging for at least another 1300 years. Thus, instead of accepting the miscues of the original CHRISTIAN religion, he selectively blames the Catholics. But this isn't cricket. It could only be cricket if both evangelicals and Catholics existed at the same time. They didn't. Thus, the history of the Catholic church is the history of the Christian church at least until Martin Luther's reformation.

Finally he remarks:

"Oh yeah , this atheist blogger ( in a recent post ) , also likes to quote Buddhist philosopher Alan Watts. Now , both Matthew and Luke were willing to lay their lives on the line to authenticate the credibility of their messages about the birth of Christ. Now , consider the data relative to the alleged “miraculous” birth of “the Buddha” — one of the supposed parallels, to which appeal is commonly made"

Which, of course, is totally irrelevant to the issues at hand: 1) the meaning and signficance of December 25th in antiquity, and 2) whether in fact Jesus was really a "god man" or savior. All the evidence points to the answer for (1) being that December 25th has always been a pagan commemoration, marking the birth of the Sun god, or Sol Invictus. Meanwhile, for (2) I do agree that a Jesus was born but not that he was a divine entity. There is no evidence for that, and all the 'miracles" etc. attributed to him were all confections that can be easily explained.

Consider the claim of a miracle: Jesus “walking on water”. Prof. Hugh Schonfeld has a simple explanation for this: a mistranslation of the Hebrew word “al” which can mean “by” or “on”. So, when a scribe really wrote “walking by the water” it was retranslated to “walking on the water”.

Next apply David Hume "miracle" test that reads: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."

Let us then apply the Hume test: Is the Schonfeld claim of mistranslation MORE or LESS miraculous than a man actually violating the law of gravity and walking on water? It doesn’t require a lot of thought or effort to see that the mistranslation of a passage of the New Testament is LESS miraculous (or if you prefer, less improbable) than that a man actually, literally walked on water.

As for the Buddha, there is vastly more information and knowledge of his activities over the major portions of his life, than for Christ. Interested readers can find more here:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/12/buddha-compelling-documentary-on.html