Was Jesus born in September?

[miamited]

That doesn't account for global warming.

Hi dave,

Oh, right. It would have been 1.3° degrees cooler 2,000 years ago.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Radagast]

Oh, right. It would have been 1.3° degrees cooler 2,000 years ago.

About that.

 

[miamited]

Hi radagast,

First of all, understand that what you're looking at is a best guess approximation. There were no F° or C° temperature measurements prior to 1740 A.D. Secondly, your chart shows a rise in temperature from -.6 to +.6 which is a total of (drumroll please) wait for it...1.2°.

Explanation of graph: This image compares ten reconstructed proxy temperature studies covering the last 2,000 years. As we see in the chart, from year 0 to 1400, there was very little mean change in surface temperature based on proxy evidence. Most of the change during that entire period was merely fluctuations up and down along the same magnitude of change. It isn't until the last 100-150 years that we have seen the major change in mean surface temperature rising. Overall, however, the change from year 0 to 2000 is about +1.2°.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[GodLovesCats]

Ted, there was no year 0. After 1 BC it was 1 AD.

 

[Radagast]

First of all, understand that what you're looking at is a best guess approximation.

Yes, I know that.

There were no F° or C° temperature measurements prior to 1740 A.D.

Yes, I know that. I even know something about how the estimates were made.

Secondly, your chart shows a rise in temperature from -.6 to +.6 which is a total of (drumroll please) wait for it...1.2°.

Yes, I know that. I was agreeing with your earlier 1.3° figure.

Explanation of graph

Does your grandmother need help too?

 

[Radagast]

Ted, there was no year 0. After 1 BC it was 1 AD.

That too.

 

[Knee V]

Those who argue for a September birth usually use as their rationale that since some of the important events in the life of Christ and the early Church are associated with important high Jewish holy days, then Jesus' birth should be as well. And thus they try to argue that Jesus must have been born during Sukkot, the Jewish Feast of Booths/Tabernacles.

The problem with this theory is that the Gospel stories clearly state that Joseph and the very pregnant Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem, and that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Note that Joseph is present. This is a huge problem because Sukkot was one of the three pilgrim feasts in Judaism, in which all adult Jewish males were obligated to come to Jerusalem to observe the feast. These feasts are Passover, Shavu'ot (aka "Pentecost"), and Sukkot. This is also why, for example, in Acts ch. 2 there are Jewish pilgrims from all over the place gathered in Jerusalem, and so when the disciples begin speaking in various languages the pilgrims recognize the languages as including their own.

According to the Gospel of Luke the reason Joseph took the family to Bethlehem was because of a census, where Jewish men were to go the place of their ancestry. It would make little sense for Roman officials to have Jewish men travel to the places of their ancestry at a time when they were obligated by their religion to be in Jerusalem.

That is to say, given the data in the Gospels, it is simply not feasible for Jesus to have been born at this time.

Additionally, the usual claim that Jesus couldn't have been born during the winter is an oft-toted claim, that there wouldn't have been any shepherds with flocks as the nativity stories say. Except that the fields outside of Bethlehem have been used for millennia for the purpose of shepherds over-wintering the flocks. Even into modern times shepherds have brought their flocks down from the hills into the fields outside of Bethlehem to over-winter them. So it is precisely during winter when we would expect a lot of shepherds and their flocks in the fields outside of Bethlehem.

Some other interesting information: The Jewish kohanim (priests) were divided into several divisions, and priests were rotated throughout the year according to these divisions. Each division served twice during the year, and also all the divisions were supposed to be present at Passover. According to the Gospels Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, was of the division of Abijah. One of the times of the year in which the division of Abijah served was in autumn, September-October-ish. If Zechariah was serving at this time, then that would make Elizabeth's pregnancy with John around this time. According to Luke Elizabeth was six months pregnant when Mary conceived Jesus, this would put Jesus' conception in March-April. And, wouldn't you know, nine months later would be December-January.

Now, none of this says for certain that Jesus was born in the winter. But the whole "Jesus couldn't have been born in December" argument doesn't hold the kind of water some think it does. The data we have from the Gospels themselves provides enough to make a December-January birth as, at least, not only possible but even plausible.

-CryptoLutheran

St John Chrysostom gives similar reasons for that dating of Christ's birth, and also gives another. He said that the timing of the census was public record, and if anyone doesn't believe him, go look at the public records yourself.

Of course that was then and those public records no longer exist. And of course him saying that is not *proof*, but if he was right, then that would have been proof to any of his contemporaries who took up his challenge.

 

[Knee V]

But this isn’t really relevant, because Saturnalia covered that whole week. The ancient custom was to celebrate the Feast of the Nativity (Christmas) with the Epiphany/Theophnay (the Feast of the Baptism of our Lord), which is still how the Armenians do it. Rome and every other church decided to seprarate the two holidays, I think due to a realization of the great signifigance of the Incarnation.

And that is what we should be focusing on, not nitpicking over the date or bashing the Roman Catholics. Lets not forget they had no power to force the other ancient churches to celebrate holidays according to their preferred timing; Pope Victor tried this in the second century regarding the date of Pascha (Easter) and was rebuffed; he threatened to excommunicate the churches of Asia Minor that declined his mandate, but then Irenaeus of Lyons, a senior bishop and the most celebrated second century theologian, called him out and made him drop the matter. This was in an era before papal supremacy or papal infallibility.

In fact Pope Victor was not even addressed as Pope; he was Bishop Victor or Archbishop Victor. The only bishop addressed as Pope until the sixth century AD, when Rome started using the term, was the bishop of Alexandria, the great church founded by Mark the Evangelist (who we also know was the owner of the house with the Cenacle or Upper Room).

You hit on something important here. While I do agree that Christ was born around Dec 25, His birth per se is not what is being celebrated.

There is a reason that Theophany/Epiphany and Nativity were celebrated at the same time, or rather were part of one and the same celebration. That is because what is actually being celebrated is God appearing to man. In the Western feast of Epiphany, God appears as light to the Gentiles, which occurred when the Magi visited Christ. In the Eastern feast of Theophany, God appears to man as Trinity, which occurred at Christ's baptism. And in the feast of the Nativity, God appears to man in the flesh, which occurred at Christ's birth.

 

[miamited]

That too.

Hi guys,

For the record, I was merely going by what the chart showed. It starts, down at the bottom where it shows the centuries, with '0'. However, for those who aren't aware that there was never a year designated as '0', I appreciate you pointing it out.

God bless,
In Christ, tEd

 

[Radagast]

You hit on something important here. While I do agree that Christ was born around Dec 25, His birth per se is not what is being celebrated.

It is when I do it.

 

[Knee V]

It is when I do it.

Sure, although I am simply referring to the origin of the holiday and what it has historically meant.

 

[miamited]

It is when I do it.

Hi radagast,

The tradition that I started in my family is that Christmas morning, before any presents, we sit down and read Luke's account of the birth of our Lord and Savior. I absolutely agree, that just as Easter celebrates the Lord's death and resurrection, Christmas is all about celebrating the birth of Jesus.

Now, also just as with Easter, while we may have the actual day wrong, the intent of the celebration is for the believer to spend these two days in particular remembrance of all that God has done for us.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Andrewn]

His birth per se is not what is being celebrated.

the intent of the celebration is for the believer to spend these two days in particular remembrance of all that God has done for us.

Yes, this is how I feel about Dec 25th. It is coming of the Light of Christ to the world after the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. The twelve days of Christmas may be approximate time of the Magi's visit.

 

[Radagast]

Sure, although I am simply referring to the origin of the holiday and what it has historically meant.

My history may be different from yours.

 

[GodLovesCats]

My history may be different from yours.

There is only one history. Your family has a different tradition.

 

[straykat]

I would have huge concerns about using the Zodiac on the basis of a synagogue constructed after the birth of our Lord and the Judeo-Christian schism. There are several areas of doctrine in Rabinnical Judaism, like the Kaballah, which are completely alien to, and incompatible with, Christian theology.

I'm not sure they even are Kabbalah based synagogues. And even if they were, Kaballah isn't the same type of astrology as Babylonian astrology. Everyone used to use these astrological symbols, both strict scientists and navigators, as well as various cults. It's just part of the ancient mindset/landscape. This idea that no one ever did is a anachronism, as if everyone 2000 years ago (or even 500) were Newtonian/modernist thinkers.

 

[Radagast]

And even if they were, Kaballah isn't the same type of astrology as Babylonian astrology.

Indeed, it isn't.

 

[David Kent]

Hi radagast,

The tradition that I started in my family is that Christmas morning, before any presents, we sit down and read Luke's account of the birth of our Lord and Savior. I absolutely agree, that just as Easter celebrates the Lord's death and resurrection, Christmas is all about celebrating the birth of Jesus.

Now, also just as with Easter, while we may have the actual day wrong, the intent of the celebration is for the believer to spend these two days in particular remembrance of all that God has done for us.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

We do that in the Lord's supper.

 

[David Kent]

Yes, this is how I feel about Dec 25th. It is coming of the Light of Christ to the world after the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. The twelve days of Christmas may be approximate time of the Magi's visit.

Oh really? When did the wise men visit? Jesus was circumcised when he was 8 days old. Mary was purified when he was 40 days old, then the family returned to Nazareth. Luke 2

So where do you fit the wise men and the flight to Egypt into that timeframe?

 

[David Kent]

I believe that Jesus was born in the autumn, probably on the day of Atonement.