Today starts the Feast of Tabernacles, the day Jesus was born.

[SAAN]

John 1:14(KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
-In John 1:14, the word “dwelled” is literally “tabernacled” in the Greek


Deuteronomy 16:16 (NKJV)
16 “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles; and they shall not appear before theLord empty-handed
-3 times a year they were required to go to Jerusalem


Luke 2:7-8 (KJV)
7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

-This would explain why there was no room for them in the inn and why they were out at night tending to their flock, since it would be too could to do so in December.


-Jesus was born 6 months after John the baptist, who was born on Passover and 6 months from Passover is the Feast of Tabernacles.

-Jesus was 33 1/2 years old when he died on Passover, so 6 months before Passover was the Feast of Tabernacles.

-This Feats of Tabernacles is 8 days, so it makes perfect sense Jesus would have been born on the 1st day and circumcised on the 8th day. Luke 2:21



So for those who claim there is no evidence when Jesus was born or believe it was December 25th, the bible speaks for itself. God does everything according to his Feast Days and the birth of Christ was no exception.

 

[Albion]

So for those who claim there is no evidence when Jesus was born or believe it was December 25th, the bible speaks for itself. God does everything according to his Feast Days and the birth of Christ was no exception.

Most of us understand that the date of December 25 was chosen for somewhat arbitrary reasons, but that's because there is no certainty as to when Christ was born, died, or how old he was at the time of his death. There is good evidence, for example, that he was much older than "33 1/2 years old."

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Yes, the beginning of Tabernacles is the date of Jesus birth, and His circumcision was on the 8th day, that "Great Day", which signs the regeneration of all things, which is when Adam multiplies the Adam seed no more, for Adam is cut off in the New Creation; which sign of that fact was given for Abraham and his seed to rehearse until it is totally fulfilled in the Great Day, that "Eighth Day" after the seven days of Tabernacles,

Haggai two, in hidden wisdom, prophesies the day of the incarnation when the Stone is Laid for the second temple of man, the temple not made with hands for the Glory to indwell [which is the City of God above, New Jerusalem], which Adam was to have built up by multiplying the holy seed in his loins [Malachi 2:15], but the New Man builds up by cleansing, regenerating, and adopting the lost seed of Adam [whosoever will]; and the New Man is the Firstborn Son of God of the New Man creation; and so, the incarnation date when a "woman compassed a Gebor/Mighty One", as Jeremiah 31:22 states as the New Thing in the earth, was the eve of Hannukah [which at the time of the prophecy in Haggai was not yet a Feast Day in Israel, the Feast of the miracle of the Lights], which makes the birth of the "New Man in the earth" the first of Tabernacles, exactly the gestation period from the Eve of Hannukah.
Lots of Scripture corroborates the incarnation date and the birth of God in flesh, tabernacling with us.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

According to the Law, Christ was bapized into the Priesthood of the order of the Everliving Patriarch/the Firstborn Son of God, who will ever live, at age 30, by his cousin on His mother's side, John; and Anointed by the Holy Spirit into that Priesthood. He then died on Passover 3 1/2 years later

 

[ViaCrucis]

People keep trying to push that Christ was born of the Feast of Tabernacles, despite there being precisely zero reason to believe this.

As I've noted multiple times in the past, Tabernacles or Sukkot, is one of the three mandatory pilgrim feasts of Judaism, the other two being Pesach (Passover) and Shavuot (Pentecost)--the requirement of these pilgrim feasts is that, at the very least, all Jewish men were to come to Jerusalem for the Feast.

Where was St. Joseph at Christ's birth? Hint: Not Jerusalem.

Assuming the details St. Luke gives us there's a pretty good reason why the inns in Bethlehem might have been fully booked, as we might recall the order for a census was given, and that meant Jewish men had to return to their cities of ancestral origin. For Joseph--and therefore the Holy Family--that meant going to Bethlehem. You think they were the only ones who had ancestral origins in the City of David?

Also: It'd be pretty strange to try and take a census that required everyone to return to their ancestral location for the census during one of the feasts which required Jewish men to go to Jerusalem.

But don't let these facts get in the way, Jesus had to be born on Sukkot--because "reasons".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

People keep trying to push that Christ was born of the Feast of Tabernacles, despite there being precisely zero reason to believe this.

As I've noted multiple times in the past, Tabernacles or Sukkot, is one of the three mandatory pilgrim feasts of Judaism, the other two being Pesach (Passover) and Shavuot (Pentecost)--the requirement of these pilgrim feasts is that, at the very least, all Jewish men were to come to Jerusalem for the Feast................

-CryptoLutheran

Coincidentally, Titus and the Roman army encompassed Jerusalem on the Feast of the Passover......fourteenth day of the fourth month....

http://www.bible.ca/pre-destruction70AD-george-holford-1805AD.htm

"I consider the Prophecy relative to the destruction of the Jewish nation,
if there were nothing else to support Christianity, as absolutely irresistible."
(Mr. Erskine's Speech, at the Trial of Williams, for publishing Paine's Age of Reason)

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover; and it is deserving of the very particular attention of the reader, that this was the anniversary of that memorable period in which the Jews crucified their Messiah!
At this season multitudes came up from all the surrounding country, and from distant parts, to keep the festival. How suitable and how kind, then, was the prophetic admonition of our LORD, and how clearly he into futurity when he said "Let not them that are in the countries enter into Jerusalem." Luke xxi. 21......

The vial of divine wrath, which had been so long pouring out upon this devoted city was now emptying, and JERUSALEM, once "a praise in all the earth," and the subject of a thousand prophecies, deprived of' the staff of life, wrapt in flames, and bleeding on every side sunk into utter ruin and desolation.
This memorable siege terminated on the eighth day of the ninth month, A. D. 70 : its duration was nearly five months, the Romans having invested the city on the fourteenth day of the fourth month, preceeding..............

In executing the command of Titus, relative to the demolition of Jerusalem, the Roman soldiers not only threw down the buildings, but even dug up their foundations, and so completely levelled the whole circuit of the city, that a stranger would scarcely have known that it had ever been inhabited by human beings. Thus was this great City, which only five months before, had been crowded with nearly two millions of people, who gloried in its impregnable strength, entirely depopulated, and levelled with the ground. And thus, also was our LORD'S prediction, that her enemies should "lay her even with the ground," and "should not leave in her one stone upon another, " (Luke xix. 44.) most strikingly and fully accomplished ! --

 

[Grafted In]

.

 

[SAAN]

People keep trying to push that Christ was born of the Feast of Tabernacles, despite there being precisely zero reason to believe this.

As I've noted multiple times in the past, Tabernacles or Sukkot, is one of the three mandatory pilgrim feasts of Judaism, the other two being Pesach (Passover) and Shavuot (Pentecost)--the requirement of these pilgrim feasts is that, at the very least, all Jewish men were to come to Jerusalem for the Feast.

Where was St. Joseph at Christ's birth? Hint: Not Jerusalem.

Assuming the details St. Luke gives us there's a pretty good reason why the inns in Bethlehem might have been fully booked, as we might recall the order for a census was given, and that meant Jewish men had to return to their cities of ancestral origin. For Joseph--and therefore the Holy Family--that meant going to Bethlehem. You think they were the only ones who had ancestral origins in the City of David?

Also: It'd be pretty strange to try and take a census that required everyone to return to their ancestral location for the census during one of the feasts which required Jewish men to go to Jerusalem.

But don't let these facts get in the way, Jesus had to be born on Sukkot--because "reasons".

-CryptoLutheran

So if Jesus died on Passover and started his ministry at 30 yrs old and was cut off 3.5 years into it like the book of Daniel said, wouldnt it just be easy to take 6 months from when he died to figure when he was born and figure it was the Feast of Tabernacles, which makes perfect sense as all through out the bible God has done very important things on his Feasts Days.

Christ died on Passover, rose on First Fruits and we received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, so why wouldnt he be born during a 8 day Feast of Tabernacles? Wouldnt it make perfect sense for him to be born the 1st day and circumcised on the 8th day of the Feast?
Atleast I have scriptures that can point to a possible pattern rather than the typical, we dont have a clue when he was born, so we will just celebrate it Dec 25 like the RCC commanded us to. Celebrating birthdays wasnt a big thing in Judaism back then, this is probably the main reason why the date of Christ birth wasnt recorded, as we can see how man kind acts about birthdays right now, but Tabernacles makes way more sense that the random nonsense people post in regards to his birth.

The problem with alot of modern day Christianity is that they disregard the OT and ignore all the patterns of things in it, so in return they will believe any man made doctrine like the Pre Trib rapture and so on, rather than read their bible to see what it really says or a possible pattern to link things.

 

[Standing Up]

As I've noted multiple times in the past, Tabernacles or Sukkot, is one of the three mandatory pilgrim feasts of Judaism, the other two being Pesach (Passover) and Shavuot (Pentecost)--the requirement of these pilgrim feasts is that, at the very least, all Jewish men were to come to Jerusalem for the Feast.

Where was St. Joseph at Christ's birth? Hint: Not Jerusalem.

Well it's sorta a prophetic operation. God never indwelt 2nd/Herod's Temple, the Holy of Holies was empty. The key is this from Deut. 16:16 Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose;

That's Christ. It's the start of the New Covenant.

 

[Steve Petersen]

A medieval collection of anti-Christian Jewish folklore titled The Story about Shim’on Kefa (Aggadta DeShim’on Kefa, אגדתא דשמען כיפא) preserves Jewish traditions about the early Jewish believers and early Christians.5 Aggadta DeShim’on Kefa is similar to other fictional, Jewish apologetic legends likeToldedot Yeshu which contain anti-Christian legends that originated in the early days of Jewish-Christian polemics.

In the story, the notable sages of the day are distressed by the number of Nazarenes among the Jewish people, and they are eager to find a way to easily distinguish between believers in Yeshua and other Jews. The story is set in the mid-apostolic era (circa 60 CE), but in reality, it better reflects second- and third-century interactions between Jewish believers and the larger Jewish community. In the story, the sages use the influence of a sage named Shim’on Kefa (Simon Peter) to help push Jewish believers away from Torah observance and Jewish identity. Their goal is to separate the believers from the rest of Judaism. With Simon Peter’s help, the sages encourage the Jewish believers to abandon Sabbath observance and circumcision, and they prescribe a new liturgical calendar for the Jewish believers.

In the legend, Simon Peter and the sages try to steer the believers away from keeping the three pilgrimage festivals: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (Chag HaMatzot, Shavuot, and Sukkot) in the same manner as the rest of the Jewish community. They accomplish this by assigning Messianic significance to each festival connected with Yeshua of Nazareth:

You will not celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Chag HaMatzot) but instead celebrate the day of his death. And in the place of the festival of Shavuot, celebrate the forty days from his execution until after his ascension to the firmament. And in the place of the festival of Sukkot, you will celebrate the day of his birth, and on the eighth day from his birth, you will celebrate his circumcision. (Aggadta DeShim’on Kefa)​

The fictitious story attempts to credit the leadership of the Jewish community with the creation of Christianity, but what kind of Christianity is this? Church history tells us that second-century Christians (the so called Quartodecimans) did observe the day of the Master’s death on Passover (Nisan 14), and that all Christians observed the day of his ascension forty days after his resurrection, but who celebrated the day of his birth on Sukkot? Who celebrated the day of his circumcision “on the eighth day” of Sukkot?

The source text behind Aggadta DeShim’on Kefa seems to reflect an era before the Christian custom of celebrating his birth in conjunction with the winter solstice. The legendary story remembers a time when believers still kept the biblical festivals but attached Messianic significance to their observance of the Jewish holy days. Since the believers in the story are Jewish, the legend may provide us a glimpse of the early Jewish believers celebrating the Master’s birth at the festival of Sukkot.

http://ffoz.org/discover/sukkot/birth-of-jesus-at-sukkot.html

 

[kljcmc]

People keep trying to push that Christ was born of the Feast of Tabernacles, despite there being precisely zero reason to believe this.

As I've noted multiple times in the past, Tabernacles or Sukkot, is one of the three mandatory pilgrim feasts of Judaism, the other two being Pesach (Passover) and Shavuot (Pentecost)--the requirement of these pilgrim feasts is that, at the very least, all Jewish men were to come to Jerusalem for the Feast.

Where was St. Joseph at Christ's birth? Hint: Not Jerusalem.

Assuming the details St. Luke gives us there's a pretty good reason why the inns in Bethlehem might have been fully booked, as we might recall the order for a census was given, and that meant Jewish men had to return to their cities of ancestral origin. For Joseph--and therefore the Holy Family--that meant going to Bethlehem. You think they were the only ones who had ancestral origins in the City of David?

Also: It'd be pretty strange to try and take a census that required everyone to return to their ancestral location for the census during one of the feasts which required Jewish men to go to Jerusalem.

But don't let these facts get in the way, Jesus had to be born on Sukkot--because "reasons".

-CryptoLutheran

There are several assumptions within your conclusion. First being that all actually obeyed God's command to go to Jerusalem.

Your next assumption is that there was a small window of time for the census/tax to take place. No where does the bible say this. It's highly possible/probable that since they lived in Nazareth, some 36 miles north of Jerusalem, that they waited until the Feast of Tabernacles, when they were going to Jerusalem anyway, to go on down to Bethlehem for the taxation/census.

They may have picked this time to do the census while others may have been allowed to go to their towns any time within the span of a few months.

Your theory actually has less proof than the theory that Jesus was born during tabernacles, seeing that was the perfect time that someone from Nazareth would journey south with a pregnant wife.

I tend to believe too that Jesus was born during tabernacles. The first day makes sense and his circumcision on the eighth makes sense too.

What really makes sense is seeing that the seven days of tabernacles pictures mankind dwelling in physical bodies, we are pilgrims without a home, for seven thousand years. Why did God wait 4000 years before sending Jesus? And how does this figure into when Jesus began his ministry when he went up to Jerusalem in the midst of the feast? The 4th thousand years is the midst of the 7,000 year plan of God. Also gives credence to the belief that Jesus died on a Wednesday (midst of week) and was resurrected on what we call Saturday night the wave sheaf day.

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

Except that Jesus couldn't have been born in the winter. Not when the shepherds were tending their sheep in the fields.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There are several assumptions within your conclusion. First being that all actually obeyed God's command to go to Jerusalem.

So you think St. Joseph flagrantly violated God's commandment to go to Jerusalem? That seems like a much larger assumption.

Your next assumption is that there was a small window of time for the census/tax to take place. No where does the bible say this. It's highly possible/probable that since they lived in Nazareth, some 36 miles north of Jerusalem, that they waited until the Feast of Tabernacles, when they were going to Jerusalem anyway, to go on down to Bethlehem for the taxation/census.

They may have picked this time to do the census while others may have been allowed to go to their towns any time within the span of a few months.

I'm not assuming a small window for the census. I'm saying that the Holy Family was in Bethlehem when Jesus was born, Joseph wasn't in Jerusalem as was required by Torah.

Here is what we can say from the Bible:

1) The Holy Family traveled to Bethlehem because Joseph needed to be there for the census. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

2) It was required that Jewish men travel to Jerusalem for the three Feasts of Passover, Shavu'ot, and Sukkot.

The window for the census is irrelevant, small or large, it doesn't matter. This argument doesn't make any sense since if you are going to argue that Jesus was born on Sukkot then we only have two options:

1) Joseph was not present at the birth of Jesus. But was instead in Jerusalem as was commanded him in Torah.
2) Joseph was present at the birth of Jesus. But violated the commandment.

Your theory actually has less proof than the theory that Jesus was born during tabernacles, seeing that was the perfect time that someone from Nazareth would journey south with a pregnant wife.

I tend to believe too that Jesus was born during tabernacles. The first day makes sense and his circumcision on the eighth makes sense too.

What really makes sense is seeing that the seven days of tabernacles pictures mankind dwelling in physical bodies, we are pilgrims without a home, for seven thousand years. Why did God wait 4000 years before sending Jesus? And how does this figure into when Jesus began his ministry when he went up to Jerusalem in the midst of the feast? The 4th thousand years is the midst of the 7,000 year plan of God. Also gives credence to the belief that Jesus died on a Wednesday (midst of week) and was resurrected on what we call Saturday night the wave sheaf day.

And this is where the whole idea culminates into being explicitly not biblical.

1) Sukkot does not picture mankind dwelling in physical bodies. This is not only not biblical, but is heretical in its Gnostic composition, suggesting that that the true man is an immaterial spirit or soul inhabiting a body for a limited duration. That's a Platonic and Gnostic view of man, not a Christian or biblical view of man.

2) There's nothing in Scripture about a period of seven thousand years.

3) You're running with a seven thousand year premise in order to reach another faulty conclusion, that Jesus died on a Wednesday and then insist Jesus didn't rise on the first day of the week as Scripture says. Saturday night, by our reckoning, would still have been the first day of the week by Jewish reckoning. However the biblical implication is that Jesus rose early on the first day, what the Romans called Sunday, not late on what the Romans called Saturn's day.

Your premises here go beyond the basic problems already addressed by trying to say the Lord was born on Sukkot, but become indulgent into the purely imaginative and the explicitly heretical.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Standing Up]

Here is what we can say from the Bible:

1) The Holy Family traveled to Bethlehem because Joseph needed to be there for the census. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

2) It was required that Jewish men travel to Jerusalem for the three Feasts of Passover, Shavu'ot, and Sukkot.
-CryptoLutheran

Two things should suffice to answer your objection.

1) Deut. 12:21 If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.

2)
Exodus 23:17 Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.

1 Kings 8:16 Since the day that I brought forth my people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build an house, that my name might be therein; but I chose David to be over my people Israel.

1 Kings 9:25 And three times in a year did Solomon offer burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the altar which he built unto the LORD, and he burnt incense upon the altar that was before the LORD. So he finished the house.

Solomon's temple was destroyed. The Second Temple aka Herod's Temple was never indwelt. So, where's the existing requirement to appear at Jerusalem? Were you aware there was a functioning temple (offering valid OT sacrifice) in Alexandria in Christ's time? How about there?

So no, Joseph didn't violate any commandment. And yes, Christ was born at Tabernacles.