Christmas Music. Sincerely Thread. Evil, or Not Evil ? When is too soon ? Are you the 3rd category of people everyone else thinks is annoying ?

[tobelieveinHim]

'Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas gets me every time,

 

[tobelieveinHim]

If anything, Ariana Grande Santa Tell Me is the best pop sing but she needs to change the lyrics to, 'And I woke up and I wasn't as his bride,', and then she's be pure gold.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If anything, Christmas music is evil because it only comes once a year and leaves for the rest of it and also comes at the wrong time of the year, as well. Wasn't Jesus born in September?

We don't know what time of the year Jesus was born. The September theory is based on the idea that Jesus was born during the Jewish feast of Sukkot, also called the Feast of Tabernacles. The problem with this theory is that, according to the Torah, there are three sacred festivals in which Jewish men were required to go to the Tabernacle (later the Temple) and offer a sacrifice. These are Passover, Shavu'ot (Pentecost), and Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles).

In other words, if Jesus was born during Sukkot, then Joseph was obligated by Divine Commandment to be in Jerusalem. But he wasn't, he was with Mary in Bethlehem, because--says St. Luke--there was a census that required men to return their ancestral homes, which for Joseph was Bethlehem.

Now, Christians have been asking the question of when Jesus was born for a very long time. The earliest written accounts of this are from the 3rd century. It had long been accepted that Jesus had been crucified on a March 25th. This may seem like a strange place to start when talking about when He was born, but it's relevant. Because there was also an assumption that, since Jesus was perfect His entire mortal life was perfect--meaning that He died on the same day He was conceived or born,. This produced two theories, the first was that Jesus therefore was born on March 25th, the same day He died. However, the other theory which placed Jesus' conception on March 25th, resulted in adding nine months to that date, and arriving at December 25th.

This December 25th date is the date which, ultimately, gained favor as a distinct celebration of Jesus' nativity entered into common Christian practice. Eventually celebrating the Feast of the Holy Nativity (Christmas) on December 25th spread throughout the Christian world, becoming nearly universal. I say "nearly" universal, because we have at least one example of Christians who, even to this day, celebrate the Lord's Nativity on January 6th, on the Feast of Holy Epiphany. This has always been the practice of the Church of Armenia.

With the exception of the Armenian Church, the Lord's Nativity is celebrated on December 25th, and this is how it's been for the last 1600 years.

That still raises the question, when was Jesus actually born? We don't celebrate Christmas because it's "Jesus birthday", we celebrate Christmas because it is the celebration of His birth--that may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it is different. Christmas is a liturgical feast. Christians, historically, have filled out the entire calendar with days, times, and seasons of observation. And this Christian liturgical calendar dictates themes throughout the year, so, for example, Christmas is Christ's birth, Epiphany is Christ's baptism, Lent is about Christ's time in the wilderness, Holy Week and Easter remembers His triumphant entry into Jerusalem through to His death, and then His glorious resurrection. Ascension Sunday is the celebration of His Ascension, Pentecost remembers when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Church, Advent is a season of expectation of Christ's coming. And littered throughout are other days, like the Feast of the Annunciation (when Gabriel told Mary she would bear the Son of God), there is Trinity Sunday, Christ the King Sunday, etc. Then there are days we remember the lives of God's people, such as St. Valentine's Day and St. Patrick's Day (but there are so, so, so many more), and also the Feast of All Saints.

So Christmas is not about "this is when Jesus was born", instead it is "this is when we celebrate and give thanks to God, in a special way, the fact that Jesus Christ was born".

Now, with that out of the way, I would still argue that it's actually quite reasonable to suggest that Jesus was born in the winter, December-January. Given the biblical data we have, a winter-birth does make sense, though it's far from certain.

One of the two big pieces of information we have is that John the Baptist's father, Zechariah, was serving a priest in the Temple when John was conceived by Zechariah's wife, Elizabeth. The Temple priests were divided into orders or courses, named after the sons of Aaron. Zechariah was of the priestly course of Abijah. The way this worked was that each priestly course served in the Temple twice a year (except the three pilgrim feasts, where all the courses served together). The Bible itself doesn't tell us when each course served, but according to Jewish works from the 2nd Temple Period (the time of Jesus). The course of Abijah served twice, once in the month of Iyyar (May-June) and once in the month of Tishrei (September-October). Zechariah, again, would also have been serving along with all the priests on the three pilgrim feasts.

According to Luke, there are six months between when John the Baptist was conceived, and when Jesus was conceived.

So while there are a lot of possibilities here, if Elizabeth conceived John after Zechariah served his course in the autumn (September-October), six months later would place Jesus' conception in spring (March-April). Well nine months later would then place Jesus' birth sometime in December-January.

Again, no certainty here, but it's worth keeping in mind.

The second piece of information is that we are told that, when Jesus was born, the shepherds were down in the fields watching their flocks. That's important, because it's actually during the winter months that the sheep would be down in the field, rather than up in the hills, because the fields were warmer and safer. In fact the fields around Bethlehem have been, even into modern times, been famous as a place where local shepherds over-winter their flocks.

So that the flocks of sheep were down in the fields, rather than up in the hills, points us to the distinct possibility that it was in the winter.

Again, is it certain? No. But the information we have at least indicates it as possible if not probable.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Grafted In]

I have read some teaching that He may have been born on the first day of The Feast of Lights, but I have no Scriptural evidence, nor do I claim to have received a revelation from God.
But that day would free Joseph's need to be at the Temple.
And, it is about 9 months from Passover when some believe Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Ghost.
Another thought is that the Feast of Lights is 8 days. The 8th day being when He would have been circumcised.
Pure speculation and I do not present it as anything else.
Perhaps someone knows who was serving in the temple on those days. Does scripture reveal who circumcised Jesus?

 

[Grafted In]

I just noticed something regarding Jesus's birth for the very first time.
Luke 2:5 tells us that Joseph had not yet married Mary at the time she gave birth to Jesus.

 

[Grafted In]

Mathew 1:24 seems to indicate otherwise.
????

 

[Grafted In]

What am I missing? Am I the only member who does not understand the opposing accounts given in Luke and Mathew?
Help me out here.

 

[Grafted In]

I've been texting with another believer and he thinks I'm not interpreting Scripture properly.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've been texting with another believer and he thinks I'm not interpreting Scripture properly.

Luke calls Mary Joseph's "μεμνηστευμένῃ ... γυναικὶ", his "promised woman/wife". In the sense that Mary was "given" to him as a wife, following standard marriage procedure from the time, place, and culture.

I'm not sure that this indicates at what stage of the marriage procedure Joseph and Mary were at, something that Matthew is more concerned with, hence what is discussed in Matthew chapter 1.

There doesn't appear to be much, if any, conflict between Matthew and Luke here.

Matthew tells us that Joseph took Mary to be his wife (they were already betrothed), but that they did not consummate (Matthew 1:25). Luke tells us that Joseph and Mary, the woman he was given to marry, went to Bethlehem were Jesus was born.

Matthew skips the birth of Jesus and skips ahead a couple years to when the magi from the east were seeking the Jewish Messiah, which led to Herod's slaughter of the innocents. Luke, on the other hand, goes into all kinds of detail about Jesus' birth, such as the angels appearing to the shepherds, and those same shepherds coming to worship the Newborn Messiah.

What we have isn't a conflict; but siimply two writers offering different pieces of information. Matthew wants to assure us that Joseph did go through with taking Mary home, even though they did not consummate; Luke wants to tell us that they went to Bethelehem.

-CryptoLutheran