Winter Solstice Is On 25 December Christmas Day

25 Decembre on the Julian Calendar does indeed equal 7 January on the Gregorian Calendar.

The 21st or 22nd of December on the Julian calendar do not equal January 7th on any calendar.

Which not what I said.
I said 25 Decembre on the Julian is the equivalent of 7 January on the Gregorian.

The essence of our difference is that you believe that the winter solstice gradually changed its actual date over a couple of thousand years and now is allegedly several days earlier in the year than it used to be.  I do not believe this has occurred.  I do not believe the real purpose of the Gregorian calendar was scientifically motivated.  Pope Gregory's calendar change was a step away from reality because the ancient Julian calendar more accurately reflects reality today.  

I can think of several reasons for starters:

1) Paul wrote in his Epistle to the Jews (Hebrews) that the things of the Cosmos continue unchanged from the beginning of the Creation of the World.  This includes the movements of the heavenly bodies such as the Sun, Moon, and Stars.  Popular error of the modern time does not alter the unchanging courses of the Sun.

2) I stated in the initial post that it is colder on Christmas Day of the Julian Calendar than it is on 21 December of the Gregorian.  The coldest time of the year is characterisitc of the longest night and corresondingly shortest day of the year.  The material fact that 25 Decembre on the Julian Calendar is colder than 21 Decembre on the Gregoain is an evidence that 21 Decembre is not the Winter Solstice.

3) The fact that the Winter Solstice continued to be celebrated on Christmas Day of the Julian Calendar throughout the Middle Ages until 1582 (or 1752 in Britain and the twentieth century in Greece and Russia and only in the past few centuries has the idea become popular that the Winter Solstice changes.  The better part of the scholars of history are in agreement with the Julian calendar.  

4) Why do you support Pope Gregory's calendar?  You endorse the MANMADE TRADITION of the papacy.  If an agnostic like yourself were consistent, I would join forces with you in booing the papacy.

5)  

I thought it was generally accepted that he was born some time in august.  But then again, who knows.  You've got psycho-überChristians like Dio here who claim it's in January, tons of people who think it's in December.  Old scripture that tells it's in March, and was later moved to September to account for the messianic requirement...  Make up your fraking minds, folks.

You desire unity?  Before the Gregorian Calendar, EVERYONE IN UNISON followed the same Calendar (the Julian) and everyone celebrated Christmas and the Winter Solstice on the same day - 25 December.

If disunity disgusts you, then you should be aware of the diverse calendar proposals vying to be adopted under the guise of calendar reform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_reform

6) A refutation of the notion that the Gregorian Calendar is scientifically more correct than the Julian:
http://www.easternchristiansupply.biz/products.cgi/c120/c14/c142/42050

7)  Have you sat outside (at the same exact location) to observe the exact second of sunrise and sunset everyday from 21 Decembre to 7 January with a clock to mark the exact lengths of those days and nights so you can assert that 21 Decembre has a longer night than the usually much colder 7 January from personal experience or are you just too lazy?

The essence of our difference is that you believe that the winter solstice gradually changed its actual date over a couple of thousand years and now is allegedly several days earlier in the year than it used to be.  I do not believe this has occurred.  I do not believe the real purpose of the Gregorian calendar was scientifically motivated.  Pope Gregory's calendar change was a step away from reality because the ancient Julian calendar more accurately reflects reality today.

Why do you propose he changed the calendar then?  Because he felt like it?

I can think of several reasons for starters:

1) Paul wrote in his Epistle to the Jews (Hebrews) that the things of the Cosmos continue unchanged from the beginning of the Creation of the World.  This includes the movements of the heavenly bodies such as the Sun, Moon, and Stars.  Popular error of the modern time does not alter the unchanging courses of the Sun.

First of all, you folks think that the earth was created only 6,000 years ago.  Which any geologist can prove you wrong there easily.

Secondly, Paul wasn't exactly an expert on physics.  I'd hardly consider him an expert on the movements of the cosmos.

2) I stated in the initial post that it is colder on Christmas Day of the Julian Calendar than it is on 21 December of the Gregorian.  The coldest time of the year is characterisitc of the longest night and corresondingly shortest day of the year.  The material fact that 25 Decembre on the Julian Calendar is colder than 21 Decembre on the Gregoain is an evidence that 21 Decembre is not the Winter Solstice.

The coldest night I've had where I live recently was about January 12th, where it was about -20°F.  If you think the earth in relation to the sun is how we get cold weather, then you are sadly mistaken.  In fact, you obviously have no idea how the weather works period.

Also, by your logic, apparently the Summer solstice should be the hottest day of the year, since the day is very long.  However, it has snowed before in July here in Wyoming.  Explain that.

3) The fact that the Winter Solstice continued to be celebrated on Christmas Day of the Julian Calendar throughout the Middle Ages until 1582 (or 1752 in Britain and the twentieth century in Greece and Russia and only in the past few centuries has the idea become popular that the Winter Solstice changes.  The better part of the scholars of history are in agreement with the Julian calendar.

Sources for all of these, please.

4) Why do you support Pope Gregory's calendar?  You endorse the MANMADE TRADITION of the papacy.  If an agnostic like yourself were consistent, I would join forces with you in booing the papacy.

I don't give a shit who made the calendar.  If the Chinese, or one of the Arabian or Muslim calendars were the main calendar we used, I still wouldn't care.  It's not like using the Gregorian calendar automatically makes me Catholic.

And I'm atheist, not agnostic.

5)  

Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"

I thought it was generally accepted that he was born some time in august.  But then again, who knows.  You've got psycho-überChristians like Dio here who claim it's in January, tons of people who think it's in December.  Old scripture that tells it's in March, and was later moved to September to account for the messianic requirement...  Make up your fraking minds, folks.

You desire unity?  Before the Gregorian Calendar, EVERYONE IN UNISON followed the same Calendar (the Julian) and everyone celebrated Christmas and the Winter Solstice on the same day - 25 December.

If disunity disgusts you, then you should be aware of the diverse calendar proposals vying to be adopted under the guise of calendar reform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_reform

No, everyone in unison did not.  The Jews did not use this calendar.  You're so caught up in your Christian arrogance that you forget that the Jews don't believe that Jesus was the messiah.  Don't forget the Asians either.

I really don't care who uses what calendar.  What you were quoting had nothing to do with using different calendars at any rate.  It was about conflicting ideas of when the birth of Jesus is on the Gregorian calendar.

6) A refutation of the notion that the Gregorian Calendar is scientifically more correct than the Julian:
http://www.easternchristiansupply.biz/products.cgi/c120/c14/c142/42050

You claim science, but link to a religious site.  How about something less likely to be biased?

Also, I'm not going to go out to buy a book just to "hear the truth".  That's very typical of religion I've found.    Science is free.  I shouldn't have to buy anything to get the truth.

7)  Have you sat outside (at the same exact location) to observe the exact second of sunrise and sunset everyday from 21 Decembre to 7 January with a clock to mark the exact lengths of those days and nights so you can assert that 21 Decembre has a longer night than the usually much colder 7 January from personal experience or are you just too lazy?

No, I have not.  I know I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but I have full faith that the scientific community is not lying about when the equinoxes and solstices are.

However, before you start scoffing, I must remind you again that you are the one questioning the scientific community, so the burden of proof lies on you.

Quote from: "Areopagite"

7)  Have you sat outside (at the same exact location) to observe the exact second of sunrise and sunset everyday from 21 Decembre to 7 January with a clock to mark the exact lengths of those days and nights so you can assert that 21 Decembre has a longer night than the usually much colder 7 January from personal experience or are you just too lazy?

No, I have not.  I know I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but I have full faith that the scientific community is not lying about when the equinoxes and solstices are.

However, before you start scoffing, I must remind you again that you are the one questioning the scientific community, so the burden of proof lies on you.

First, thanks for the honesty.

Second, as you are the one who abandoned the older tradition, as far as I am concerned the burden of proof lies with you.

Third, next winter, I will never the less likely be in a position (in the mountains) where the aforementioned observation will not be so inconvenient.  If I do this, I will let you know the results.  Perhaps I will at least attempt to record the exact length of day and night on both 21 Decembre and 7 January (Gregorian) even if I don't observe every day in between.

  Until then, maybe I will gather sources to present to you when I get the chance.  

Fourth, while I can understand your not wanting to buy a book, the source of the Gregorian calendar is a "religious" source as well - reguardless of whether it be the papacy or your faith in the scientific community.

Note that January (on modern calendars) is colder than December.  

  The reason is that the longest night of the year occurs on 25 December as per the Julian Calendar (which is 7 January on the Gregorian Calendar).

....the shortest day of the year is december 22nd isnt it?

....the shortest day of the year is december 22nd isnt it?

That is what the digital nomad believes based on his confession that his strongest evidence is his blind faith in the scientific community.

The fact of the matter is that 22 Decembre is not the shortest day of the year.

The shortest day of the year on the Gregorian calendar which most westerners use is 7 January.

ahh i see... ill have to try to measure the days length this year lol

The shortest day of the year on the Gregorian calendar which most westerners use is 7 January.

According, of course, to some nameless source that you have yet to present, so we should indeed take your word for it to be true.

The fact of the matter is that 22 Decembre is not the shortest day of the year.

The shortest day of the year on the Gregorian calendar which most westerners use is 7 January.

Last I checked, all days went for twenty four hours ...

We're talking about daylight vs night time.  The winter solstice is supposed to be the day with the shortest daylight.

Ours is in June normally I think.... maybe July....

We're talking about daylight vs night time.  The winter solstice is supposed to be the day with the shortest daylight.

Oh, I know, I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to be a smart ass.

Yeah, this is a good example of little to no understanding of the mechanics involved in the planetary cycles and how this relates to attempts at calendrical measurment thereof .

A sidereal year is equal to 365.25636042 mean solar days. That's one complete revolution around the star which we affectionately refer to as Sol.
A tropical year is 365 days synchronized to the declination of the sun as observed from the Tropic of Cancer.

The sidereal year is 20 minutes and 24 seconds longer than the tropical year; thus necessitating the addition of the "leap" day to account for the difference.
 
Both the Gregorian and the predecessing Julian(Iulian for any purists out there) calendars are based on this tropical year.

 The Gregorian Calendar was devised both because the lunar calendar had grown conspicuously wrong, and the mean Julian Calendar year is slightly too long (365.25), so that the vernal equinox slowly drifts backwards through Julian calendar years. This caused problems in computing the date of Easter.

The "Scientific Reasoning" behind adoption of the new Calendar had to do with this fact.

Solstices and equinoxes are event points of parahelion/aphelion marking the seasonal quarters in a tropical year and each occurs within the passage of a solar day.
 
Due to the precession of the equinoxes; the exact time and day on which these events is observed shifts year to year. IE; the recent solstice occured at 00:22 on December 22 (Gregorian) and the vernal Equinox will occur at 00:07 on March 21.

Yeah, the statement above is a good example of how heliocentric astronomy bequeaths a faulty understanding of numbers and corresponding false assumptions relating to calendrical implications thereof.

  Everyone knows (or should know) that there is a difference between tropical and sidereal years.  No one is disputing that.  Incidentally, it would help clarify and eliminate some of the confusion to point out that the annual movement of the Sun to which Rowbotham refers in 'Earth Not a Globe' is the sidereal year.  

  Without disputing the statement, we would request a reference for the following:

Julian calendars are based on this tropical year.

The Gregorian Calendar was devised both because the lunar calendar had grown conspicuously wrong

You realise that both the Julian and Gregorian calendars are solar calendars, do you not?  (If by lunar calendar you are referring to the computation of Easter, then you are indeed ignorant and misinformed.)

The mean Julian Calendar year is slightly too long (365.25)

Wrong.  First of all the "mean" Julian calendar is irrelevant.  The Julian Calendar and not any kind of average is the only thing of any importance.  Too long for what?  The Julian Calendar is not too long for astronomical exactness.

the vernal equinox slowly drifts backwards through Julian calendar years.

Wrong.  It was always and still remains on the same day, namely 23 Septembre of the Julian Calendar (the conception of the Forerunner Saint John the Baptist which coincides with the beginning of Autumn after which point light gets dimmer until the Birth of Christ on 25 Decembre) which corresponds to 6 October on the antichristian calendar of the jew Clavius and his Jesuits.  Clavius was the founder of the Gregorian calendar in case that slipped past you.  Anyway, were you around to measure the length of days and nights at the solstices and equinoxes during the Middle Ages?  No.  So who are you relying on for your faulty information?  Followers are Clavius.   This jew only represented one very anti-traditional, heretical, and non-scientific school of thought that had many detractors.  So you choose to believe the assertions of the Gregorian school and assert that their conclusions are facts while totally ignoring and failing to mention that they have their detractors.  Your "facts" are outright lies.

This caused problems in computing the date of Easter.

Such ignorance.  How?!!  Do you know at all what you are talking about?  We are waiting for you to explain the details on this one.  Or did you read it somewhere in a modern science text and unquestioningly consume it as truth?  I recommend you read 'Discourses Against the Jews' by Saint John Chrysostom which is focused on the dating of Easter and exactly how it is determined.
Easter does involve a Lunar observation which is why the date of Easter varies from year to year.  That is why the Fasts and Feasts associated with Easter are called Moveable Fasts and Moveable Feasts.

Due to the precession of the equinoxes; the exact time and day on which these events is observed shifts year to year

In other words, you believe in rubbish like the absurd idea that the Polaris Star will rotate out of its position to be filled by another in several thousand years like musical chairs.  
My question is how long until you change your own opinion in favor of a newer and even more absurd theory?

Mythix Profit is essentially one who has followed the dictatorship of false science by attempting to impose some kind of evolutionary theory upon the Heavens and trying to pass it off as cold facts by presenting lots of data alongside novel interpretations of those numbers which are also deliberately devoid of any accompanying ancient Christian explanations or understanding which he maligns and refuses to considre or even investigate.  So much for an objective presentation.

Ours is in June normally

24 June - Birth of Saint John the Baptist
Note that beginning at this time, light only decreases until the Birth of Christ six months later.  This is characteristic of the end of any age when disorder and darkness increase until restitution occurs at the completion of the cycle.

Again, big on talk, short on evidence.

Areopagite wrote;

You realise that both the Julian and Gregorian calendars are solar calendars, do you not?

Yes, I do.

The "Julian" calendar was a complete overhaul of the old Roman calendar by Gaius Iulius Caesar as Pontifex Maximus; probably designed to approximate the tropical year,establishing a regular annum of 365 days divided into 12 months, and a leap day added to February once in every four. Hence the Julian year is, on average, 365.25 days long.

It was introduced in DCCIX ab urbe condita {709 years"from the city(Roma) having been founded"}and came into force in the following year.  
That equates to 46 & 45 BC in the Anno Domini (AD) system developed by Dionysius Exiguus 587years ex post facto.

First of all the "mean" Julian calendar is irrelevant. The Julian Calendar and not any kind of average is the only thing of any importance.

You obviously do not understand the meaning of the term "mean"in this context.

You wrote;

If by lunar calendar you are referring to the computation of Easter, then you are indeed ignorant and misinformed.

and

 

Easter does involve a Lunar observation which is why the date of Easter varies from year to year. That is why the Fasts and Feasts associated with Easter are called Moveable Fasts and Moveable Feasts.

Am I to understand this to mean that your Computus is based on the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in MLXXXIX AUC (AD 325) and not the earlier practices of Quartodecimanism?

As for the remainder of your diatribe:
No matter how you calculate;23 Septembre of the Julian Calendar is not the Vernal equinox.

25 Decembre(tenth month in the old Roman system)can never equate to 6 October(eighth month)on any calendar.

While the German mathemetician Clavius was apparrently an associate of Galileo; he was certainly not in agreement, being a staunch Geocentrist.

Precession has been known of since Hipparchus (c. 190 BCE – c. 120 BCE)

No, I was not around to measure the length of days and nights at the solstices and equinoxes during the Middle Ages. However; since you seem to be stuck there, I'll await your detailed, first-hand observations.

As ancient Christian explanations for anything seem to be as varied and contentious as their modern counterparts; I'll take this"so-called" false science over your unevolved polemics any time.

Feel free to continue,however; as your posts are quite entertaining.

First, I understand that the term "mean" in your context is that 365 + 365 + 365 +366 divided by 4 equals 365.25.  Does "mean" in your context "mean" something else?

Second, the author of the Julian calendar was not Julius Caesar himself but Sosogines of Heliopolis, an Egyptian astronomer.

Third,

No matter how you calculate;23 Septembre of the Julian Calendar is not the Vernal equinox.

You are correct.  As you probably discerned, I was thinking of the autumnal equinox.  I do NOT mean to say that the vernal (Spring) equinox is 23 Septembre.  I do mean to say that the autumnal equinox is on 23 Septembre.  I would like to take advantage of this to point out that I (and other flat Earth believers) have been accused in the past of using words that others need a dictionary to understand.  Let this be proof that sword cuts both ways.

  Fourth, the fact that Clavius was an associate of Galileo says more than the fact that he was a geocentrist.  Claiming that Clavius was a geocentrist says nothing at all as virtually everyone was a geocentrist in the time of Clavius, but you asserted that he was a STAUNCH geocentrist.  This sounds like you thought of that adjective for Clavius for the first time ever while you were typing due to the fact that friends of Galileo hardly strike one as STAUNCH geocentrists.  However, if you have a reference other than another unsubstantiated opinion then I would like to know of it.  I think that Clavius already had enough trouble in promoting the Gregorian calendar alone that if he had also been a heliocentrist publicly that the Gregorian calendar would have been rejected by the papacy during his generation.  I am sceptical about Clavius actually being a geocentrist privately.

  Your statistics are in order.  While you have said nothing of which I was unaware (such as UAC, Dionysius Exiguus, et cetera), I do thank you as you are unlike most others on this forum who bring no knowledge to a discussion and in my opinion contribute nothing exceot the basest and obvious replies (those whom beast calls the new noobs).  

  However, your opinions and your statistics are two different things.  The most important thing to point out is that we have a fundamental difference as to how we define Christians.  Many of those whom you define as "christians" (both ancient and modern) are faiths which are heretical.  In lieu of more involved discussion, I will simply add that those sects which are NON-CHALCEDONIAN such as the monophysites which included many Egyptian Copts, Ethiopians, Jacobite Syrians, Keralan Indians, and Armenians after the Synod of Chalcedon in AD 451and especially after the early sixth century (not to mention other heretical groups such as Nestorians) compose most of those who adopted calendrical errors in varying degrees.  Non-Chalcedonian is an umbrella term which includes a wide array of sects, and none of them are Christian reguardless of the fact that they considre themselves to be so.  You may considre them Christians but I do not.  

  Most calendrical deviances emanated from non-Chalcedonians.  An example are the Ethiopians who incorporate a strong Jewish element in their calendar due to that nation's adoption of the Hebrew religion almost a millenium before the Christ appeared.  As a matter of fact, an inclination towards the Jewish Calendar in some form was the single most common factor in all the deviances from the Orthodox Christian Calendar.  This applies to the Gregorian Calendar as well.  Clavius was a German jew, and his calendar often places easter before the jewish passover.  I am saying that the jewish heretic Clavius not only knew his calendar was scientifically wrong, but his placing of Easter before the jewish passover was a deliberate anti-Christian strategy aimed at both weaning Christians away from understanding the Church Fathers as if they were foreigners (which is what the enemies of the Christian religion desire) and destroying Orthodox unity which is exactly what happened after Greece and Russia finally adopted Clavius's calendar in 1924 and 1917 respectively.  This is one of the reasons why the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Jeremias II rejected the Gregorian calendar in 1582.  The Gregorian calendar is an ally of the modern ecumenical movement which has the aim of a one World religion under the synagogue of Satan.  The only difference between Clavius and the more ancient heretics is that he has been more successful than his predecessors, and there is nothing new under the Sun.

  I should point out that economies were granted to some ancient (and primarily certain Eastern) Christians who although Orthodox persisted in retaining ancient Jewish aspects of their calendars.  This does not mean that they were right.  It means that a non-dogmatical difference was tolerated because it was not one which was spreading and retained those particular Christians within the Church.  I have not read everything, but I do not have knowledge that this tolerance was ever granted with respect to Easter.  The main point is that one calendar has clearly been atested to and consistently used by the Church since its foundation.  Your remark about differing calendars followed by different "christian" groups is a mark of protestant (or protestant influenced) alienation with the concept of Orthodox unity.  A complete midunderstanding of the Constantinian era is another erroneous product of the sixteenth century to which you apparently subscribe, and it inhibits your understanding of the calendar issue in the Early Church.

So, Areopagite,

365 + 365 + 365 +366

.

Does this imply that; in every 4 year cycle, the actual movement of the sun completes a transit in 365 days for three consecutive years and then, mysteriously,  slows by 1 day for the fourth?

As for authorship of the Julian calendar:I assume that; as a general and politician, astronomy was not Gaius Iulius Caesars' forte.  I should have been more specific by stating that; as Pontifex Maximus, Gaius Iulius  undertook the project of overhauling the Roman calendar system and, according to Pliny, commissioned an astronomer by name of Sosigines as a consultant to do so.( Although I suspect that; then, as now, the majority of the actual calculation and physical transcription was done by subordinates.)    
 As to Sosigenes being of Heliopolis: I, personally, havn't a clue; defering again to Pliny in placing his locality of business as Alexandria; the Capitol of the Ptolemeic Egyptian Empire at that time.

Kudos to you on admission of your honest oversight in reference to my Equinox quote. I note, however,your neglect on the secondary point re;  Dec 25= Oct 6. I'll assume that your intention was Dec 25 = Jan 6

As for my use of the term "staunch"; I repspectfully retract it. My opinion is actually closer in agreement with your asumptions as to Clavius' "private" views on the matter of Helio vs Geo centrism.

Your statistics are in order.

 and

However, your opinions and your statistics are two different things.

Oddly enough, I have mostly offered statistical and historical data and attempted to keep my stated opinions to a minimum.
The "opinions" to which you so fervently refer :

Many of those whom you define as "christians" (both ancient and modern)

and

Your remark about differing calendars followed by different "christian" groups is a mark of protestant (or protestant influenced) alienation with the concept of Orthodox unity. A complete midunderstanding of the Constantinian era is another erroneous product of the sixteenth century to which you apparently subscribe

actually seem to be projected assumptions on your part.

I am not the one attempting to define for anyone what constitites being either a "Christian" or a "Heretic". Nor do I really care what calendar anyone chooses to utilise in conducting their affairs.
I merely pointed out that there is contention in statistics and opinion, both historically and currently, regarding these issues among self-proclaimed "Christian"communities(which you also seem to aver)  and that I prefer my own viewpoints(novel or no) based upon all available empirical data.

Professionally, I am operating under the prevailing Gregorian system, as current local and international business models and payment schedules are based thereon.
My personal leanings are toward a version of the Tzolkin, as it seems to mesh quite accurately with current and historic astronomical observational data.
I also do not subscribe to any religious affilliation of any stripe as I consider all such systems to be of human imagination and invention  designed originally to attempt metaphoric explanation of "mysterious forces and occurences"and propagated to maintain inherently flawed models of social order. Though I do appreciate the attendant mythologies.
I suppose that , in your estimation, this likely qualifies me as a Heretic thrice-over.  

Of course; though I respect your right to opinion on the matter, I duly reserve the right to humbly disagree.

To quote some unnamed philostofer of dubious origen; "May your Karma run over your Dogma."

To quote some unnamed philostofer of dubious origen; "May your Karma run over your Dogma."

Sigged.  Maybe I should fix the spelling.

Hey! don't be amessin' with my spellin'; when i sez philostofer i really means filostafur.
comprende vous?

either way I shud pro'ly have italicized or sumpin; fer emphasis. Maybe?

comprende vous?

I love you.

Je vous adore. :wink:

Why, thankee kindly, hey.
And pass some o' dat coffee this a way.

tl;dr

Saint John of Damascus wrote "And when the rising of the sun sinks to its smallest and lowest point, i.e. the south, winter is reached, with its cold and moisture. It occupies a place midway between autumn and spring, combining the cold of autumn and the moisture of spring. In it falls the shortest day, which has only nine hours, and the longest night, which has fifteen: and it lasts from December 25th till March 21st" thus showing that early Christians knew that the Holy Nativity of Jesus Christ on 25 Decembre was the shortest day of the year.

He also wrote that 24 June was the longest day of the year thus showing that ancient Christians correspondingly counted the Nativity or Birth of Saint John the Forerunner and Baptist as the longest day of the year.
http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsLife.asp?FSID=101800

Thus, the sybolism of this astronomy is that from the Birth of the Forerunner on 24 June until the Birth of the Christ on 25 Decembre, the world gradually grows darker as light recedes and the days become shorter as the coming of the Christ draws closer.  And from 25 Decembre to 24 June, light gradually increases beginning with the Birth of the Christ, the Light of the World.

people really do talk out of their arses on these forums....

That's what they're here for! 

I thought it was generally accepted that He was born on 25 December.
The tons of people who claim Jesus Christ was born in December are correct - 25 December according to the Julian Calendar to be exact.

You apparently did not notice that I placed underneath my quote of Dogplatter the parenthetical note indicating that he was born on 7 January OF THE GREGORIAN CALENDAR.  The Gregorian Calendar is removed from the Julian Calendar by 13 days.  13 days before the Gregorian date of 7 January gives the Julian date of 25 December.  The Orthodox celebrate the birth of Christ on 25 December.  What we call 25 December is what most people nowadays call 7 January.  We celebrated Christmas a week ago.

Today is the first of January (despite the fact that most of the World follows the papacy in mislabelling today as 14 January).

Many years, everyone.

Jesus Christ was born on 25 December - the longest night of the year (Winter Solstice) - meaning that from the moment He came into the World, the Light will increase.

....I'd say that was the most ridiculous thing I'd ever read, but that would be a lie. 

I want you to provide one scrap of evidence that PROVES when Jesus was born.  There may be theories and conjecture, but there is no definitive FACT.

Next time you speak of something as an unmovable fact, maybe you should find out if it is.   

People are trying to claim that Jesus was born on Christmas? God damn Christians, trying to take Christmas away from Santa Clause.

I want you to provide one scrap of evidence that PROVES when Jesus was born.

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsLife.asp?FSID=103638

The present Feast, commemorating the Nativity in the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, was established by the Church. Its origin goes back to the time of the Apostles. In the Apostolic Constitutions (Section 3, 13) it says, "Brethren, observe the feastdays; and first of all the Birth of Christ, which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month." In another place it also says, "Celebrate the day of the Nativity of Christ, on which unseen grace is given man by the birth of the Word of God from the Virgin Mary for the salvation of the world."

In the second century St Clement of Alexandria also indicates that the day of the Nativity of Christ is December 25. In the third century St Hippolytus of Rome mentions the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, and appoints the Gospel readings for this day from the opening chapters of St Matthew.

In 302, during the persecution of Christians by Maximian, 20,000 Christians of Nicomedia (December 28) were burned in church on the very Feast of the Nativity of Christ. In that same century, after the persecution when the Church had received freedom of religion and had become the official religion in the Roman Empire, we find the Feast of the Nativity of Christ observed throughout the entire Church. There is evidence of this in the works of St Ephraim the Syrian, St Basil the Great, St Gregory the Theologian, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Ambrose of Milan, St John Chrysostom and other Fathers of the Church of the fourth century.

St John Chrysostom, in a sermon which he gave in the year 385, points out that the Feast of the Nativity of Christ is ancient, and indeed very ancient. In this same century, at the Cave of Bethlehem, made famous by the Birth of Jesus Christ, the empress St Helen built a church, which her mighty son Constantine adorned after her death. In the Codex of the emperor Theodosius from 438, and of the emperor Justinian in 535, the universal celebration of the day of the Nativity of Christ was decreed by law. Thus, Nicephorus Callistus, a writer of the fourteenth century, says in his History that in the sixth century, the emperor Justinian established the celebration of the Nativity of Christ throughout all the world.

Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople in the fifth century, Sophronius and Andrew of Jerusalem in the seventh, Sts John of Damascus, Cosmas of Maium and Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople in the eighth, the Nun Cassiane in the ninth, and others whose names are unknown, wrote many sacred hymns for the Feast of the Nativity of Christ, which are still sung by the Church on this radiant festival.

"The twenty-fifth day of the ninth month" is November 25 In the ,then current, Julian Calendar.
Is this a typo? Or are they refering to Kislev as the ninth month in the Hebrew Calendar; which yields a much different corresponding date on either Julian or Gregorian systems?

Basically, they're talking out of their arse. You can measure the solstice. And it's never on the 25th December. It never has been.