Opinion Let’s Ruin Christmas

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Link (Archive)

Let’s Ruin Christmas​

Christmas is that season of joy, peace, and completely fabricated nativity scenes. So, while you’re decking the halls and singing ‘Silent Night,’ let’s ruin the holiday magic by diving into the Christmas story’s biblical plot holes and historical head-scratchers—the tale that inspired countless plastic versions of the ‘eight pound, six ounce, newborn infant Jesus, who doesn’t even know a word yet—cuddly but still omnipotent.’

The Great Bethlehem Baby Massacre

The Gospel of Matthew tells us that King Herod, upon hearing of Jesus’ birth, ordered the slaughter of all male children under the age of two in Bethlehem. It’s a chilling tale, but there’s one big problem. There’s no historical evidence it ever happened. Herod was a paranoid maniac who didn’t blink at murdering his own family, so it’s plausible. But Bethlehem was a tiny village, and such an event would’ve been pretty minor on a historical scale. Even Josephus, the historian who loved chronicling Herod’s atrocities, doesn’t mention it. That’s a tad suspicious.

Matthew wasn’t aiming for historical accuracy, though. His goal was to position Jesus as the new Moses, escaping an evil tyrant just like Moses fled Pharaoh. It’s symbolism over facts, folks. And hey, what’s Christmas without a little creative storytelling?

From a murderous king to a crowded guest room—yes, the Christmas story transitions fast. Let’s talk about that so-called ‘inn.’

The Inn Wasn’t an Inn (and the Manger Wasn’t in a Barn)

“No room at the inn” is a phrase that tugs at our heartstrings, but it’s based on a mistranslation. The Greek word kataluma doesn’t mean “inn”—it means “guest room.” So Mary and Joseph weren’t turned away by a heartless innkeeper; they were probably staying with family who just didn’t have space in their guest room. Instead, they ended up in the lower part of the house, where animals were kept. And that manger? Just a feeding trough built into the floor.

This isn’t the quaint barn scene you see on Christmas cards. It’s more like crashing in your cousin’s basement because all the good rooms are taken. Imagine goats bleating, family members bickering upstairs, and Joseph trying to keep the hay from sticking to Mary’s robe.
If the lodging crisis wasn’t quite what we’ve been told, the reasons for the journey might raise even bigger questions.

The Census Makes No Sense

Luke’s Gospel says Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem because of a Roman census that required everyone to register in their ancestral hometowns. Sounds official, right? Except the Romans didn’t run censuses this way. Dragging millions of people across the empire to register in their great-great-grandparents’ hometown would’ve been a logistical disaster. And there’s no record of this particular census outside the Bible. Even worse? The one census we do know about under Quirinius happened after Herod’s death.

Luke’s focus wasn’t historical accuracy. He wanted Jesus born in Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy. Prophecy always trumps practicality. Just squint and keep reading through the plot holes.

And speaking of cosmic coincidences, let’s turn our eyes from Roman red tape to the heavens—where a certain star apparently stole the show.

The Star of Bethlehem

A magical star guiding astrologers to Jesus sounds impressive until you realize how astronomically absurd it is. Scholars and astronomers have tried for centuries to explain the Star of Bethlehem. Was it a planetary conjunction? A comet? A supernova? None of the theories align with the timeline or the behavior described in Matthew. Stars don’t move like GPS signals and stop over specific houses. That’s just not how space works.

Matthew wasn’t writing an astronomy manual. The star is drenched in theological symbolism, heralding Jesus’ cosmic significance. But as a literal event? It’s more fairy than fact-tale. So, don’t hold your breath for NASA to confirm this one.

But let’s not stop with starry wonders. If you’re still picturing three crowned men paying homage, buckle up for more biblical curveballs.

The Magi Weren’t Kings (and Probably Showed Up Late)

Let’s clear up a few things about the Magi. First, they weren’t kings. They were supposedly astrologers from the East, likely Persia or Babylon. Second, the Bible never says there were three of them; that number comes from the gifts they brought. And third, they probably didn’t visit the newborn Jesus. Matthew’s account suggests they showed up much later, possibly when Jesus was a toddler.

So, forget the nativity scene with shepherds and wise men all crowded around baby Jesus. The Magi were late to the party, and they weren’t rocking crowns. They were more like those relatives who show up a week after Christmas with clearance-rack gifts.

We’ve questioned the rulers, the census, the lodging, and the star. Now let’s talk about the biggest plot hole of all—Christmas itself.

Christmas Isn’t in the Bible

Here’s the grinch-y kicker: Christmas, as we celebrate it, isn’t in the Bible at all. Early Christians didn’t celebrate Jesus’ birth, and December 25th was hijacked from pagan winter festivals. The nativity story as we know it is a patchwork of theological embellishments, mistranslations, and cultural traditions.

But hey, don’t let that stop you from enjoying the holiday. Just remember, when you’re setting up your nativity scene, you’re participating in centuries of beautifully constructed mythmaking. And that, my friends, is the real Christmas miracle.
 
And that manger? Just a feeding trough built into the floor.
They’re not in the floor, you tit. A manger is an iron or metal cage structure set into the wall, where hay is placed and the animals can pull it out through the bars. Author is an urban bug man
Let’s clear up a few things about the Magi. First, they weren’t kings. They were supposedly astrologers from the East, likely Persia or Babylon.
They aren’t called kings in the Bible. Matthew calls them ‘wise men from the east.’
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”
The ‘three kings’ stuff is probably from an earlier prophecy that kings would be drawn to Him and worship. When they go to see Herod they are referred to as Magi, so the most likely explanation is that they were Zoroastrian priests.

A magical star guiding astrologers to Jesus sounds impressive until you realize how astronomically absurd it is.
It’s not absurd at all. You, as a bug man living in a light polluted hellhole, have never really seen the stars. A bunch of Zoroastrian astrologers would have seen them, and given meaning to all sorts of phenomena- around the time of Jesus birth Jupiter was doing some interesting conjunctions and may have gone retrograde, giving the appearance of movement stopping and reversing. The magi saw something that they interpreted as a sign.
 
They’re not in the floor, you tit. A manger is an iron or metal cage structure set into the wall, where hay is placed and the animals can pull it out through the bars. Author is an urban bug man

They aren’t called kings in the Bible. Matthew calls them ‘wise men from the east.’
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”
The ‘three kings’ stuff is probably from an earlier prophecy that kings would be drawn to Him and worship. When they go to see Herod they are referred to as Magi, so the most likely explanation is that they were Zoroastrian priests.


It’s not absurd at all. You, as a bug man living in a light polluted hellhole, have never really seen the stars. A bunch of Zoroastrian astrologers would have seen them, and given meaning to all sorts of phenomena- around the time of Jesus birth Jupiter was doing some interesting conjunctions and may have gone retrograde, giving the appearance of movement stopping and reversing. The magi saw something that they interpreted as a sign.
He’s splitting hairs over literally mostly nothing in the Nativity.

It’s like the “Um actually…” about it being an Inn or not. It barely matters, the point is that God incarnate was born in a stable and slept in an effectively a feeding trough.

The census is something I’ve heard arguments over and it literally amounts to, “But we don’t have the exact census papers for this census, that the Roman’s more or less left up to the local rulers under the threat of killing them should they fuck up”. Joseph, as in Christ’s adoptive father, is by some traditions an older man who married Mary due to wanting his wealth to stay in the community by both Roman and Jewish law. Some theories I’ve heard was him literally going to Bethlehem to register her under him in the census for inheritance purposes.
 

Christmas Isn’t in the Bible

Here’s the grinch-y kicker: Christmas, as we celebrate it, isn’t in the Bible at all. Early Christians didn’t celebrate Jesus’ birth, and December 25th was hijacked from pagan winter festivals. The nativity story as we know it is a patchwork of theological embellishments, mistranslations, and cultural traditions.

But hey, don’t let that stop you from enjoying the holiday. Just remember, when you’re setting up your nativity scene, you’re participating in centuries of beautifully constructed mythmaking. And that, my friends, is the real Christmas miracle.
The Bible's purpose is to establish the Church, the Church establishes Holy Days, and doesn't it seem just a tad completely retarded that early Christians wouldn't celebrate the day their God was made flesh for their salvation? Also, your bugman's favorite holiday, Saturnalia? Literally established 50 years after European Christmas was widespread to attempt to stop conversions which were happening in droves. Follow the lead of your ancestors and convert, apostate.
 
why am I seeing so much occult shit on YouTube and other social media sites
Because there is a coordinated effort to destroy Christianty, by the usual suspects. The trannies and soy golems are useful idiots, who suffer from daddy issues and lap all this shit up, because it pisses off people like their fathers, plus it makes them feel edgy.
Even if you are a non-believer, you should never deny that religion has an important role in humanity and helped a lot of people.
 
Some people put way too much stock in Josephus' accounts, like he's the be-all, end-all of historians from that time.
 
The Bible's purpose is to establish the Church, the Church establishes Holy Days, and doesn't it seem just a tad completely retarded that early Christians wouldn't celebrate the day their God was made flesh for their salvation? Also, your bugman's favorite holiday, Saturnalia? Literally established 50 years after European Christmas was widespread to attempt to stop conversions which were happening in droves. Follow the lead of your ancestors and convert, apostate.
To quote myself from a different thread:

It is Christian. This misunderstanding comes from a heavily anglo-germanic centric view of history and ignores that Christmas has been a fundamentally Christian holiday since the beginning.

The timing is roughly correct, Jesus' birthday would be between late December and early January. December 25 isn't exactly Jesus' birthday, but Christmas being around that time wasn't a retrofitting of Paganism. Jesus is believed to have died in 33 AD, likely on April 3rd (April 1st in the Gregorian Calendar) given it was a short time after Passover. In older Jewish tradition, a prophet/great religious figure dies on the same day they are conceived. Therefore, add 9 months and you get about January 3rd, only about a week off from Christmas.

Gift giving wasn't something Christianity stole from Saturnalia. Gift giving is just a psychological constant across cultures during winter and isn't unique to Yule or Saturnalia or whatever. Santa Claus was only partially inspired by Odin but primarily is an amalgamation of Father Christmas and the historical Saint Nicholas. Father Christmas was a personification of the Nativity who was first mentioned as "Sir Christmas" in the 14th century to announce the birth of Christ. The gift giving side of Santa was straight from the actual acts of the historical Saint Nicholas of Myra whose feast day is on December 6 and was known for giving gifts to the children and poor.

Likewise the placing of plants, candles, incense, and other home decorations is another psychologically rational constant in any winter holiday to just cheer up the home, it doesn't have to be uniquely some Pagan invention. This is a generally spiritualistic and aesthetic choice of any culture because they don't want the world to be grey, drab, and cold when they don't have to. Christmas Trees themselves were more likely to have come from Lutheran Tradition of setting up Christmas Trees which started as early as 1539, and they were likely inspired by the Catholic Paradise Plays that started in the 12th century that were done in December 24 which involved Adam and Eve and the Tree of Life.

Christmas Carols directly come from the singing of Nativity hymns like "Veni redemptor gentium."

Only does the most modern and commercialized versions of Christmas with Santa being a germanic toymaker in the north pole with elves and reindeer ever actually evoke Paganism.

Similar things can be said about Halloween and Easter. Germanic countries are so colored by how Christianity developed there, add in a pinch of Protestant ignorance of Ecclesiatic history and now everything is just a pagan ripoff.

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”

More specifically:

Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γεννηθέντος ἐν Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἐν ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως ἰδοὺ μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν παρεγένοντο εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα
And Jesus born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold the magi from the sunrisings arrived in Jerusalem

The kings are a reference to Psalm 68 (67 in the Septuigant):

ἀπὸ τοῦ ναοῦ σου ἐπὶ Ιερουσαλημ σοὶ οἴσουσιν βασιλεῖς δῶρα
Because of thy temple at Jerusalem shall kings bring presents to thee.

But it's obviously just a poetic flourish and doesn't have to be literal kings

Author is a faggot
 
It should be well known among Christians, if they really attended their Sunday schools, that if the killing of infants happened, it couldn't have been more than a dozen children. But why should the scale matter? "Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted, Because they are gone". The grief of mothers are just as real no matter how many mothers were bereaved.

Matthew wasn’t aiming for historical accuracy, though. His goal was to position Jesus as the new Moses, escaping an evil tyrant just like Moses fled Pharaoh
Matthew's aim is to show the clash between the old, Earthly king and the new, Heavenly king. The Earthly king is so insecure in his rule that he felt greatly troubled by a mere baby, and his paranoia infected all of Jerusalem. This should tell you more about the nature of the world, than how many, if any, babies were killed.
 
It should be well known among Christians, if they really attended their Sunday schools, that if the killing of infants happened, it couldn't have been more than a dozen children. But why should the scale matter? "Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted, Because they are gone". The grief of mothers are just as real no matter how many mothers were bereaved.


Matthew's aim is to show the clash between the old, Earthly king and the new, Heavenly king. The Earthly king is so insecure in his rule that he felt greatly troubled by a mere baby, and his paranoia infected all of Jerusalem. This should tell you more about the nature of the world, than how many, if any, babies were killed.
Only reason for me not to think it happened is Luke didn't mention it.

The reality is that Bethlehem didn't even make up a fraction of 1% of Judea's population. Nobody was going to mention some small massacare Herod did. We don't know, never will know, if an attempt at killing babies happened, but it is not unreasonable to believe it happened and there is enough reasons to explain the lack of external information on the matter.
 
At least he didn't try and debunk the whole immaculate conception and virgin birth thing.
 
9etptc.jpg
 
At least he didn't try and debunk the whole immaculate conception and virgin birth thing.
Immaculate conception isn't even pertinent to the birth of Jesus and is the idea that Mary didn't have original sin. This position is really only in the Catholic Church because it's redundant in Orthodoxy where there's Ancestral Sin not Original Sin, and Protestantism just rejects the idea of Mary being so venerable in the first place.

The only basis we have against the Virgin Birth is the sheer miraculous nature of it, and claims like 150 years later that she had an affair with a Legionary named Pantera. However the Pantera thing was obviously just a Jewish ad hominem and the name Pantera is just a satire of the title given to Mary of Parthene.
 
Last edited:
Immaculate conception isn't even pertinent to the birth of Jesus and is the idea that Mary didn't have original sin. This position is really only in the Catholic Church because it's redundant in Orthodoxy where there's Ancestral Sin not Original Sin, and Protestantism just rejects it entirely.

The only basis we have against the Virgin Birth is the sheer miraculous nature of it, and claims like 150 years later that she had an affair with a Legionary named Pantera. However the Pantera thing was obviously just a Jewish ad hominem and the name Pantera is just a satire of the title given to Mary of Parthene.
Someone should probably tell all the protestant churches that they don't believe in the virgin birth because I don't think they got the memo.
 
You know, this article would be ok if it was just stating some facts and misconceptions, translation errors ect... But the author is so far up his own ass that he can whistle out of his mouth using his own farts. I hate this guy. Plus his name is Stuart. That's a poo poo sissy name. Everybody make fun of Stuart and break his Nintendo Switch. :mad:
 
Someone should probably tell all the protestant churches that they don't believe in the virgin birth because I don't think they got the memo.
They are referring to Mary’s mother, in that Jesus was double holy because he came from two generations of women that conceived sans penetraysh. Which Protestants do not put any stock behind.

(I’m being glib. Really I think it means somehow Mary was super special and perfect in preparation for carrying Jesus. I’m not Catholic I just make wild claims about their dogma)
 
They are referring to Mary’s mother, in that Jesus was double holy because he came from two generations of women that conceived sans penetraysh. Which Protestants do not put any stock behind.

(I’m being glib. Really I think it means somehow Mary was super special and perfect in preparation for carrying Jesus. I’m not Catholic I just make wild claims about their dogma)
Yeah but if Mary's mother got knocked up by God and Mary got knocked up by God and Jesus was God that would mean that Jesus is Mary's dad and her brother and her son and Jesus is his own grandpa and that's just ridiculous.
 
Back
Top Bottom