A Thread To Share Holiday Cheer

[kittykat]

7 hours ago, Dimity said:

Planning my movie/Christmas wrap night and I'm going with: Holiday Inn, The Railway Children and Meet Me in St. Louis.   Can't wait!

I'm doing the Twelve Days of Christmas Movies (started 12/13).  So far I've gone with a mixed bag of classics, unseen ones and one I don't usually do.  

In order so far I've done: Red One, The Bishop's Wife, The Holiday, Miracle on 34th Street, Christmas with the Kranks and White Christmas.

Die Hard is tonight's movie.  

The Titans (It's a Wonderful Life, A Christmas Story, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation and Elf) will be the Final Four.

[Dimity]

59 minutes ago, kittykat said:

 The Bishop's Wife, The Holiday, Miracle on 34th Street, Christmas with the Kranks and White Christmas.

Definitely all in my rotation.  I love your idea about a holiday movie countdown!  I've been a bit more scattered about my viewing in the lead up to Christmas but I may steal this 12 Days of Christmas Movies starting next year!

Edited Friday at 12:58 AM by Dimity

[Annber03]

I like to go through and watch my favorite holiday episodes of my favorite  TV shows this time of year :). 

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, Annber03 said:

I like to go through and watch my favorite holiday episodes of my favorite  TV shows this time of year :). 

Same here.  I hate most Christmas movies, so I'm down to a few films and a greater number of TV episodes, where it's more likely to see Christmas skewered than treacly celebrated.  I'm happy for those uplifted by the traditional fare, but it just doesn't do it for me with a few exceptions.

[PRgal]

Miracle of Miracles, I was able to connect with one of my son's genetic family members!  Or rather, a recipient parent.  We will probably never find the donor family unless they do a commercial DNA test (and my son isn't old enough to properly consent or even UNDERSTAND it).   

[Mrsmaul2021]

I love watching Die Hard and Gremlins this time of year. Not about Christmas but takes place during Christmas time. 

[Ohiopirate02]

9 minutes ago, Mrsmaul2021 said:

I love watching Die Hard and Gremlins this time of year. Not about Christmas but takes place during Christmas time. 

Same, but I will also throw in Trading Places. Another movie set in late December.

[Mrsmaul2021]

44 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Same, but I will also throw in Trading Places. Another movie set in late December.

 

 

Yep! That's another one. 

[Cementhead]

My 2 favourite movies that aren't about Christmas but take place at Christmas are Bridget Jones's Diary and The Family Stone; the latter  being hated by most apparently but liked by me. 

[Dimity]

For me it's Meet Me in St. Louis and The Railway Children.  Both have Christmas in them but neither are typical Christmas movies except that they are family fare and fall into the feel good category, oh and they make me happy.

[Mrsmaul2021]

I just want to add. I see so many gripe about Christmas. I still love this time of year.  From Halloween to Christmas. I love the decorations, the "warmth" the coffees, etc. I also miss the big holidays I used to have with my family. My brother and I are talking about starting that again. 

[EtheltoTillie]

You all may scoff, but I do watch some Hallmark movies and post on their thread.  Some of the movies are funny and not sappy or cheesy.  Those are the ones I like.   I would recommend last year's Round and Round, which is a Hanukah movie with a Groundhog Day plotline.  It was a hit. 

[Dimity]

2 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

You all may scoff, but I do watch some Hallmark movies and post on their thread. 

Admitting you enjoy Hallmark movies is a bit like admitting you read :lowers voice: what they are now calling women's fiction.  I know people who put covers on their books if they're reading in public because they don't want someone snarking that they are reading a Debbie Macomber or an Emily Henry.

[EtheltoTillie]

I can't read those authors or some of the others.  But I like Elinor Lipman.  Again, she's funny!

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, Dimity said:

Admitting you enjoy Hallmark movies is a bit like admitting you read :lowers voice: what they are now calling women's fiction.  I know people who put covers on their books if they're reading in public because they don't want someone snarking that they are reading a Debbie Macomber or an Emily Henry.

Not me. Until my eyes gave me issues, and I discovered Kindle, I PROUDLY read my romances! Still do!

[tearknee]

Walter Matthau, George C Scott, and Jim Backus are buried in the same cemetery... 

... as are Mel Tormé (composer of "The Christmas Song"), Sammy Cahn (composer of "Let It Snow!"), and Dean Martin (who recorded many Christmas songs and died on Christmas Day).

If you ever want to celebrate Christmas in a cemetery, Westwood Village Memorial Park would be a good choice!

[EtheltoTillie]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Not me. Until my eyes gave me issues, and I discovered Kindle, I PROUDLY read my romances! Still do!

I never had an issue reading anything in public, but I just don't like those particular authors.  I use Kindle app on iPad now, though. 

Another humorous chick lit author I like is Jennifer L. Rosen.

[tearknee]

[GHScorpiosRule]

20 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I never had an issue reading anything in public, but I just don't like those particular authors.  I use Kindle app on iPad now, though. 

Another humorous chick lit author I like is Jennifer L. Rosen.

I read Macomber in the 90s. I liked her Navy series and the one about the Manning brothers and sisters. But by the time she went…inspirational or whatever, the kindle versions had deleted the love scenes, which irked me. More appropriate for the book thread, but it annoys me in reprints when authors delete the romance aspects because they are now fully “fiction” only. So glad that Nora doesn’t do that or Anne Stuart, two of my top authors. Or Nalini Singh.

Anyhoo, getting ready for Christmas! Got all my movies lined up for Tuesday night! And eggnog and cocktail meatballs!

[nokat]

On 12/20/2024 at 12:24 PM, Cementhead said:

My 2 favourite movies that aren't about Christmas but take place at Christmas are Bridget Jones's Diary and The Family Stone; the latter  being hated by most apparently but liked by me. 

I like "The Holiday".

[kittykat]

On 12/20/2024 at 9:24 AM, Cementhead said:

My 2 favourite movies that aren't about Christmas but take place at Christmas are Bridget Jones's Diary and The Family Stone; the latter  being hated by most apparently but liked by me. 

I just watched The Family Stone tonight.  I enjoy that movie. I think people liking or hating that movie depends on who's side you're on but that's for the movie thread, which is perfectly named.

[graybrown bird]

For Christmas movies I love Bridget Jones's Diary and also While You Were Sleeping.  WYWS is funny, romantic, set in Chicago, with a great cast.

[PRgal]

Early holiday dinner tonight!  We're also going to be celebrating (a double celebration this year since it's truly Chrismukah) on 12/25, but with Chinese takeout (spring rolls and sesame balls in lieu of latkes and sufganiyot) for dinner.  I also do my annual baked French toast on Christmas Day.  

[tearknee]

Let us look at the question: when was Jesus born? The narrative in the Christian Gospels give us two clues.

In the Gospel of Matthew we read that Herod, King of Judaea, when he learned (from the Three Wise Men) that the "King of the Jews" had been born in Bethlehem, ordered that all male children in Bethlehem aged under two be put to death, to remove this possible threat to his throne. This is called the "Massacre of the Innocents." The Catholic Church regards these children as the first Christian martyrs (although they were in fact Jews), and they have a feast day on 28 December.
In the Gospel of Luke we learn that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because his parents (Joseph and Mary) had travelled there from Nazareth. They did this because Caesar had ordered a census, and everyone had to return to their place of origin to be counted. Since Joseph was (allegedly) of the House of David (that is, a descendant of David, King of ancient Israel) he had to be counted in David's city of Bethlehem.
These two stories cannot both be true. King Herod died in 4BCE. So if the first story is true, Jesus was born sometime between 6BCE and 4BCE. But the reason there was a census in Judaea was that following Herod's death the Romans annexed Judaea to the province of Syria, and the Governor of Syria (not Caesar Augustus) ordered a tax census of his new territory. We know from Roman records that the census took place in 6CE, nine years after Herod's death.
So, if there was a Massacre of the Innocents, there was no nativity in Bethlehem. And if there was a nativity in Bethlehem, there was no Massacre of the Innocents.

In fact, there is no mention of the Massacre outside the Gospel of Matthew. The Jewish historian Josephus, who was well-informed and hated Herod, would surely have mentioned such a horrific crime. So, it seems certain that the Massacre of the Innocents was invented by whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew.

But what of the census? Yes, there was a census. But it was a census of Judaea, not the whole Roman Empire. Nazareth is not in Judaea, it's in Galilee, which in 6CE was under the rule of the Roman client king Herod Antipas. So, there was no census in Nazareth, and Joseph had no need to go to Bethlehem. There was in any case no law, in Judaea or anywhere else, saying that people had to return to their place of origin to be counted. Such a law would have made no administrative sense and would have caused chaos.

Furthermore, King David reigned around 1000BCE, and there was no way a carpenter in Nazareth a thousand years later could have knowingly been a descendant of the House of David. (The Gospels give two different genealogies showing Joseph's alleged descent from David, and again, they can't both be right.)

Can the "average person" name an ancestor who lived in the year 1020CE?

So, in fact, neither of the narratives which might enable the date of Jesus's birth to be determined can be true. And this is hardly surprising.

The Gospels were written between 70 and 100CE - between 35 and 65 years after the death of Jesus. The ministry, trial and death of Jesus were public events, and it's plausible that the Gospel authors had access to eyewitness or (more likely) second-hand accounts of these events (although they never say what their sources are). But the birth of Jesus was not a public event. It was a private event which took place at least 70 years before the Gospels were written. The Gospel writers cannot have had any real knowledge of the circumstances of Jesus's birth.

So why the invention of elaborate (and conflicting) narratives around the birth of Jesus? To answer that we need to understand why the Gospels were written.

Jesus died in around 35CE. After his (alleged) resurrection, he appeared to his disciples, and then rose into Heaven, assuring them that he would be back soon.
It's quite clear from the Letters of Paul (which are older than the Gospels), and from Acts, that they understood this to mean that the Second Coming would be in their lifetimes. But by 70CE, 35 years later, Jesus had not returned. This was also the year the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and expelled the Jews from Judaea. The surviving followers of Jesus were small groups scattered around the Roman Empire. No doubt many had become disillusioned and had returned to orthodox Judaism.

The work of compiling the Gospels began at this time for two reasons. The first was to preserve the narrative of the life and death of Jesus after the last eyewitnesses had died. The second was to reassure the remaining members of the Jesus sect that Jesus had indeed been the promised Messiah, despite his disappointing non-return. To do this the Gospel authors ransacked the Hebrew scriptures looking for alleged prophecies about the Messiah, which they could argue the career of Jesus had fulfilled.

They found several prophecies (in the Books of Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Micah) that the Messiah would be of the House of David and would be born in Bethlehem, the birthplace of David. This explains the need to claim that Joseph was of the House of David and that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The Gospel authors used their (faulty) memory of the census of 6CE as a device to achieve this.

But the Gospel authors then confused their own narrative by claiming that Mary was a virgin. If Joseph was not the father of Jesus, then Jesus was not of the House of David. This forced later Christians to claim that Mary too was a descendant of David, although this claim does not appear in the Gospels.

Of course, they need not have bothered, because the claim that Mary was a virgin is based on a mistranslation. The Gospels were written in Greek by Greek-speaking Jews, and they used a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint, as their source. In the Book of Isaiah they read: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: the virgin is with child, and she will bear a son and will call his name Immanuel."

This is the sole warrant for the belief that Mary was a virgin, a matter about which the Gospel writers cannot possibly have had any actual knowledge. But where the Greek text uses the word "parthenos", a virgin, the Hebrew text uses the word "almah", a young woman. Of course, at that time it was expected that young women would be virgins (which may explain the mistranslation), but the fact remains that Hebrew scriptures do not prophesy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

So, sorry, Catholics: your 2,000 years of Mariolatry is based on a clerical error. And sorry, Christians of all stripes, your narrative of the birth of Jesus is a fable, in fact at least two conflicting fables, which can only be believed by a leap of faith without any foundation of evidence. Of course, I accept that all religious belief is based on faith and not on historical evidence. Everything I've said here has been known for centuries, yet it has had no effect whatever on the willingness of Christians to believe these stories.

And to be fair, it's not necessary to believe any of the stories about the birth of Jesus to be a Christian. What you do have to believe, however, is that Jesus rose from the dead. It's the Resurrection, not the Virgin Birth or the Three Wise Men, which is the central event in the Christian narrative. Christianity (though perhaps not the Catholic Church) can survive the dethroning of the Blessed Virgin. It can't survive the debunking of the Resurrection.

Fortunately for Christians, all that we secularists can say about the Resurrection after 2,000 years is that it's impossible. To which Christians can always reply, yes, of course it is, that's why it's a miracle.

[PRgal]

14 minutes ago, tearknee said:

This is the sole warrant for the belief that Mary was a virgin, a matter about which the Gospel writers cannot possibly have had any actual knowledge. But where the Greek text uses the word "parthenos", a virgin, the Hebrew text uses the word "almah", a young woman. Of course, at that time it was expected that young women would be virgins (which may explain the mistranslation), but the fact remains that Hebrew scriptures do not prophesy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

But young MARRIED women are NOT virgins.  So yep, mistranslation it is.  Unless, of course, it was an elaborate coverup that went viral, 5 BCE style. #sorrynotsorry (we all need a laugh these days)

And oh, some people say that Jesus was 33 at the crucifixion.  But if it did indeed happen in 33 CE and the birth was 5 BCE, he'd had been 38.  

[ECM1231]

3 hours ago, graybrown bird said:

also While You Were Sleeping.  WYWS is funny, romantic, set in Chicago, with a great cast.

My all-time favorite romantic comedy. I'm not joking when I say that I've seen it more than 75 times. If it's on and I happen to stumble upon it, I'll watch it. Bill Pullman is absolutely dreamy in this role. When he comes to see Lucy (Sandra Bullock) at her apartment and is standing at the bottom of the staircase...well, the look he gives her, gah, it melts me each and every time. Just a wonderful, feel-good movie and yes, a fantastic cast. 

[Dimity]

Not exactly spreading holiday cheer but something holiday related.  We're having our first big extended family Christmas get together since Covid.  And I made the critical error of checking one of my niece's FB pages (I have had her blocked since she became a Covid denier back in the day).  I figured time to let bygones be bygones.  Unfortunately it looks like she's become a holocaust denier now too.  She lives in BC and we rarely see her but I admit I am having second thoughts about going to the family do.  I know I can remain civil and stay off politics - but only if she does...

[PRgal]

1 hour ago, Dimity said:

Not exactly spreading holiday cheer but something holiday related.  We're having our first big extended family Christmas get together since Covid.  And I made the critical error of checking one of my niece's FB pages (I have had her blocked since she became a Covid denier back in the day).  I figured time to let bygones be bygones.  Unfortunately it looks like she's become a holocaust denier now too.  She lives in BC and we rarely see her but I admit I am having second thoughts about going to the family do.  I know I can remain civil and stay off politics - but only if she does...

I thought people in BC were more progressive...