The majority of Christians celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December. They share presents, spend lots of money and many get further into debt. This is probably the most lucrative times of year for commerce.
But what does that have to with the birth of Christ which is supposed to be the real meaning of Christmas? They buy all kinds of trees and decorate them, put their presents under the tree. What does the Christmas tree have to do with Christmas? Most Christians even know that Dec 25th isn't really the real birth date of Christ, but who cares? And old saint Nick, AKA Santa Claus, is the great bringer of gifts the parents tell their children.
But what does Santa Claus have to do with Christmas, either? Well, most kids discover pretty quickly who it really is that brings the gifts. Some kids are really emotionally marked by the deception, but "oh well, they'll get over it". Of course, the real meaning of Christmas is the birth of Christ and the celebration of God's coming to the world in the form of flesh for the salvation of the world. Now all true Christians eventually tell their kids about the true meaning of Christmas, and the story of the nativity according to the bible. For many Christians this is one of the only times that they set foot in a church, except for funerals, weddings and occasionally Easter.
Praying to Santa
So kids get Santa Claus which replaces the nativity story. What happens is, since many of them find out Santa Claus was just a fantasy story, so is the baby Jesus story, and how can you blame them? Then for those who aren't disillusioned with the baby Jesus story, they are supposed to "swallow it hook, line and sinker". They are told that the bible is the true history of what really happened and is the inerrant word of God. In the bible, the Christ becomes the saviour of the world, being born in Bethlehem (or was it Nazareth?).
He is born of a virgin, which means that he is actually "God incarnate". Joseph, Mary's husband finds out that she's pregnant and he's never even had sex with her! Since Christ is born of a virgin, that makes him the Son of God, which translates into God comes to earth in the form of a human being.
Since prophecy says that he will be the new king of Israel, Herod the current king, decides he will kill all the children to make sure that he will eliminate any competition. So according to the story, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt to protect baby Jesus and when they hear that Herod is dead they return to Nazareth.
But is the bible really inerrant? But what is the reality? Is the true meaning of Christmas really true? Beside God there is no Saviour. The problem is Jesus couldn't possibly be God and the Messiah -- both. And since bible prophecy makes Jesus the Messiah, Jesus couldn't possibly be God. So, since Jesus was not God, this creates another polemic. If there is no saviour but God and there is no other God but Jehovah (Hos 13:4), then how is it that the New Testament calls Jesus a Saviour?
Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and beside me there is no saviour.
Isa 45:21 and there is no God else beside me, a just God and a Saviour, there is none beside me.
Hos 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
In the New Testament it does call Jesus a "Saviour", however if by calling Jesus a saviour means he is God, then there is either a contradiction here and/or the New Testament has been liberally adulterated to make Jesus look like God come to earth in the flesh -- as was the intention of the Trinitarians. There are exactly 24 verses in the New Testament that use the word "Saviour". Eight times this word is used calling God the saviour, and 16 times this word is referring to Jesus Christ.
Saviour of the World
Now this makes it look like it is saying that since God is called saviour and so also is Jesus called saviour, that Jesus and God are one in the same person.
However, knowing how drastically the bible has been forged, falsified and modified from its original form, it is only logical the assume that these verses were changed at a later date to fit the changing church doctrines of the day -- especially seeing that the men who modified the bible were trying to make the whole New Testament coincide with the developing doctrine of the church at the time that Jesus became God Almighty in the flesh. And there is absolutely NO proof that this isn't the case.
The evidence all points to the fact that the epistles have been radically modified from their original state. Even the majority of Jewish believers during the first century did not agree with the roman church that taught Jesus was God Almighty come in the flesh -- this is basically what all the bickering and fighting was all about during the first three centuries.
Forgeries as early as the second century
From recent discoveries of ancient manuscripts, it has been discovered that copies of the Gospel of Matthew were in circulation in the second century that did not include the forgery of the virgin birth. This forgery was added many decades after the writing of the original. In the original manuscript, the genealogy of Jesus is different in that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus and not the holy ghost.
Theoretically, (and according to Christology) Jesus could only be God if the holy ghost were his father, but since Joseph had to be his father for him to be the Messiah, this is impossible. In a Syriac variant of the gospel of Matthew from the second century Joseph is explicitly referred to as the father of Jesus. A Greek variant says: "And Joseph begat Jesus, the one called Christ."
Neither the Syriac nor the Greek variant contain the story of the virgin birth. This means that the story of Jesus being the incarnation of God and the story of the virgin were forged into the document only during the second century and copies of this gospel were circulating without this myth.
In the Syriac manuscript the translation reads:
"Eliud begat Eleazar, Eleazar begat Matthan, Matthan begat Jacob, Jacob begat Joseph, Joseph, to whom was betrothed a young woman, Mary, begat Jesus who is called Messiah."
Joseph begat Jesus and Mary is not referred to as a virgin, but a young woman. This in itself reveals that the church modified scripture to try to convince the world of their myth that Mary was a virgin and Jesus was born of a "virgin birth" without a biological father. This they had to do to make it look like Jesus was born a god.
Men dared to change the very words of the Bible!
In quotations of church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and others the original version of the baptism of Jesus has God speaking these words to Jesus:
"You are my son, today have I begotten thee." (Luke 3:22)
Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee
The original verse shows that Jesus was first recognized as God's son at the time of baptism. But a forger altered it make it read similar to what we have in the King James Version of the bible today:
"You are my son, whom I love." (This is my son in whom I am well pleased -- King James Version)
It was purposely altered to conform the gospels to the current church dogma that Jesus became the son of God at his birth, that is he was the "incarnation of God", the result of a virgin birth begotten by the holy ghost as is described in Matthew and Luke and even before the creation as inferred in John chapter one, and not at his baptism.
The very words of God were completely edited out of the story in the gospel of John chapter one, since with the first forged passages of John one, attempting to show Jesus as God himself would have created an obvious contradiction. In fact, in the story of the baptism of Jesus this declaration to Jesus by God is missing in all four gospels, which proves without a shadow of doubt that heavy corruption of the gospels were carried out at the hands of men who dared to change the words of the Bible!
Where was Jesus born?
According to a "prophecy" quoted in the gospels Jesus was to be born in city of Bethlehem -- Matthew 2:1-6, Luke 2:4-7 and John 7:42.
"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you one will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."
However, "Ephrathah" is the old name for Bethlehem (Genesis 35:19, Ruth 4:11) which is not a city but a person. What complicates things more is that "Bethlehem Ephrathah" is the name of the son of Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 4:4, 2:50-51). Bethlehem Ephrathah is not the name of a city. So the writer of Matthew most certainly invented this story to make it look like Jesus was fulfilling messianic prophecy in the Old Testament. Furthermore, if this were a prophecy about the Messiah, then Jesus was disqualified since Jesus was never a "ruler in Israel".
"Everyone thinks "Bethlehem" is a place, and indeed there were towns named "House of Bread" in Judea and in Galilee, but...the term Bethlehem-Ephrath/Ephratah is the name of a clan of Judah--children of Caleb through Hur, who was the firstborn of an extraordinary woman named Ephrathah..."(Tabor, 2006)
Outside of Matthew and Luke there are no other places that say he was from Bethlehem, but the rest of the bible contradicts these claims saying that he was from (or born in) Nazareth in Galilee. In fact, Jesus is always referred to as Jesus of Nazareth and never Jesus of Bethlehem. So one of these two authors were trying to link Jesus with Bethlehem in an attempt to strengthen the church's claim that Jesus was Israel's Messiah and the other author just copied what the first had written. According to the rest of the bible, Jesus was born in Nazareth.
King Herod killing children
The writer of Matthew quotes a supposed prophecy from Jeremiah:
"A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more." (Matthew 2:16-18, Jeremiah 31:15)
This is not a prophesy about killing innocent children, it is referring to the mother of Joseph and Benjamin crying about their children being taken captive into Egypt. If you read the passage in context it is referring to the captivity of children and NOT a prophecy about the murder of children by Herod. The writer of Matthew is the only one in the New Testament to have mentioned this event.
In fact, if you read on to the next 2 verses, and read it in context, you will see that the children were NOT killed at all but God promises them that they would return from the land of the enemy! This is false prophecy -- in the bible itself!
Even Flavius Josephus, a famous historian who carefully wrote about all the wrong-doings of Herod, would certainly have written about this horrific event. But he says not a word about this, which is a strong indication that this is a forgery created by the writer of the gospel of Matthew. Moreover, there is no evidence at all, from archaeology that this ever happened.
The writer of Luke says (Luke 2:2) that Mary was pregnant with Jesus during the census of Quirinius (Luke 2:2). However, the problem with this is that the census was in 6 AD and Herod died way before this in 4 BC as most historians believe. There are a few historians that put Herod's death in 1 AD, however this still puts Jesus' birth at least 5 years after King Herod's death -- more forgery in the bible!
The flight into Egypt
The writer of Matthew goes on to claim that to protect the child from Herod's supposed murders, the child Jesus was taken to Egypt.
Mat 2:15 "that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Out of Egypt did I call my son.'"
This verse references Hosea 11:1 which is not even a prophecy. It is talking about the exodus of the Jews from Egypt. This is an obvious forgery. What's more is that the the people that the passage in Hosea refers to are idolaters!
Where did Jesus grow up?
The writer of Matthew again uses his creativity saying that Jesus's parents took him and they set up their home in Nazareth:
Mat 2:23 "... that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'"
The problem with this is that there is no such prophecy in the Old Testament. Some claim that this verse refers to Judges 13:5, however this is not a prophecy either but it is the angel telling Samson's mother that he would be a "Nazirite", it has nothing to do with the city of Nazareth.
City of Nazareth
A Nazirite is one who has taken special vows to abstain from wine, not cut his hair, etc., a Nazarene is a person who lives in the city of Nazareth. What's more is that if it is true that Jesus drank wine as the New Testament says he did (and even turned water into wine), then Jesus wasn't even a Nazirite (unless only for a short time).
Santa Claus!
The myth of Santa Claus has nothing on the so-called "nativity of Jesus". There are so many forgeries, contradictions and inconsistencies in the "real meaning of Christmas" myth that even most adults are not able to see though this one -- but even children can eventually see through the lie of old Saint Nick.
No one even knows the birth date of Jesus, but Christians just go along with what the church has told them: that his birthday is to be celebrated December 25th. However, this date is actually the birth date of the pagan god Mithras (also a myth).
People know it's a lie and frankly don't really even care! Finally, who is Santa Claus and what does he really have to do with Christmas? Nothing actually. On one hand, Santa Claus was on the most part popularized by the Coca Cola company as an advertisement to push their unhealthy drink. On the other hand, he has everything to do with the representation of real spirit of Christmas, which is nothing more than commerce pushing its materialism on people to make billions of dollars for big business.
(See part 2 of this series: https://steemit.com/christmas/@dpdoug/true-meaning-of-christmas-part-2)