Putting Christ Back in Christmas

Christmas is always an interesting topic because, depending on where you're sitting, you could argue that the meaning of it has been stolen from the holiday (and been replaced by commercialism and materialism) or you can argue that the true mercy of humanity is shown during this time of year.

You can't have Christmas without Christ. That sounds very standard, but in all honesty, sometimes the simplest things sound "too" simple. It's obvious that you can take the name out of the word and not have enough left over, but understand what would happen if you actually took Jesus out of the equation.

Whether you're a Christian or not, I believe that Jesus has made a severe impact on your life, particularly if you're an American. The real reason the people came to this continent, presumably, was for religious freedom. Without Jesus, there would have been no "religious freedom." As a digression, it's funny that "religious freedom" is just what Jesus came to provide, just not in the exact same sense.

The more I study the story prior to Christ, the more I realize just how little people relate to the attitudes and climates of that age. It is incredibly hard for modern people, Americans most of all, to know what oppression, destitution, martial law, poverty, and an impersonal and out of touch religion all feel like.

Christmas does not come at the end of winter; you'd think the celebration would actually coincide with the end of the year and the beginning of the New Year. Christmas should, technically, be on January first. Or, if all factors must coincide, Christmas should be a celebration of the New Year on the first day of spring. Full signification of the rebirth would be starting the year when it truly begins, when the descent of the season curves back up and we see flowers and growth and warmth. But, I suppose that would mess up Easter.

I read an article recently discussing the date of Christmas and why it was chosen. There is some interesting thought about how a prophet was created (meaning conceived) on the same day he died and Jesus was lumped in with that category. Therefore, if he was conceived right around Easter (presumably March 25^th or so) and 9 months later he was born, then he would have been born right around December 25^th. Personally, I don't think it's all that imperative what the actual date was.

Christmas brings up a lot of interesting questions about Jesus' heritage and what makes it so important. It also brings up a lot of biological questions about Mary's pregnancy that I don't think people are willing to take for granted any more.

It's sad to me that people focus so much on Jesus coming to die for our sins and by way of that they ignore everything else he did. I think that if Jesus' main purpose was to die, the Gospels would be a lot shorter than they are. This is the kind of thing we should be thinking about during Christmas; Jesus was born to do something and it wasn't just to die.