Do we know that date of the birth of Jesus?

[Copperhead]

It isn't a basic problem on my part. I didn't figure this all out. I relied mostly on Jewish believers in Messiah who are very intimate with Jewish dates and calendar issues to point most of this out to me. Buy the idea if you want, deny it if you want. It is equally a valid concept as anything else.

I don't blame the church one bit for the historic division between Rabbinic and Christian Jews, and never mentioned that I did. I blame the gentile Christians, when they became the overwhelming majority in the church, for the general rejection of anything Jewish. Period. Jewish legalism needed to go by the wayside, but Jewish concepts of festivals, eschatology, were rejected as well. While many of the roots of the division started early on, after the revolt of bar Kokhba, it accelerated and the division grew exponentially wider in the dark and middle ages and eventually was on steroids. And much theology that developed in the church beginning around the time of Origen and Constantine, and expounded upon later led straight from the church to the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Dachau. This unfortunate history caused many abhorrent theologies to develop within the Church, and the joining of state and church, where compulsive participation by the general population became common and a lot of paganism came to influence doctrine, including views on festivals.

New Moon festivals loaded with allusions of Messiah. Traditions regarding the Jewish wedding is loaded with allusions of the Messiah. The church body has generally missed out on this richness which would strengthen faith in Messiah.

You tell me... when some institutional church hierarchy demanded that a Jew who came to faith in Messiah must prove their acceptance of Messiah by eating pork, if that wasn't telling.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm looking into the tradition of christmas and was wondering if we actually know the date of his birth and have evidence for it.

The Jews in the first 5 centuries , basically, knew the date of his birth , life, death, resurrection, ascension, perfectly.

Starting from about the 2nd century, though, the devious tricks of the enemy were already infiltrating , corrupting, destroying the assemblies, attempting to destroy the faith entirely and wipe it from the face of the earth.

YHWH kept His Promise, and Guarded His Word, but to most of the world it is not available.

Even when it is available, the world rejects it.

 

[Deborah~]

It isn't a basic problem on my part. I didn't figure this all out. I relied mostly on Jewish believers in Messiah who are very intimate with Jewish dates and calendar issues to point most of this out to me. Buy the idea if you want, deny it if you want. It is equally a valid concept as anything else.

I’m sorry but I don’t agree. When a concept flies in the face of the actual historical facts on the ground, then there is a problem. As I stated, if the popular concept were true, then you would expect to see the 19th course serving the 19th week when the temple was burned. The fact that it was not, that in fact the 1st course was serving the 19th week, according to reliable historical records, means the concept you're talking about is not the way the courses were actually serving. So no, it’s not an equally valid concept to toss aside historical documents stating the dates the courses served if you are going to try to figure out the dates when the courses served.

And let me mention too, all due respect to your Messianic Jewish friends, but I fear that what they are actually “intimate with” is heavily Rabbinic-influenced interpretations of the feasts, not the Christian interpretations.

I don't blame the church one bit for the historic division between Rabbinic and Christian Jews, and never mentioned that I did. I blame the gentile Christians, when they became the overwhelming majority in the church, for the general rejection of anything Jewish. Period. Jewish legalism needed to go by the wayside, but Jewish concepts of festivals, eschatology, were rejected as well.

There aren’t two churches, there is only one, both Jew and Gentile. And while it is unfortunately true that there were times in the past when some particular denomination persecuted the Jews, I hardly think it fair or accurate to blame all Gentile Christians.

… much theology that developed in the church beginning around the time of Origen and Constantine, and expounded upon later led straight from the church to the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Dachau.

That is not only entirely not true, it is a rather despicable thing to say. Contrary to your assurances, you do in fact blame the church for the historical split between Rabbinism and Christianity, but even more you blame the church as well for the holocaust! No one and nothing is to blame for the actions of the Nazi regime but their own deluded lies, distortions, and hatred. To blame the Christian church is wrong, factually and morally.

This unfortunate history caused many abhorrent theologies to develop within the Church, and the joining of state and church, where compulsive participation by the general population became common and a lot of paganism came to influence doctrine, including views on festivals.

I’ve heard all that. But again, the actual historical evidence is that it’s simply not true. The Roman Catholic Church is not and never has been the whole of Christianity, far from it, there were many other churches that sprung up all over the ancient world, and the history of the Roman Church is not the history of Christianity, or the development of Christian doctrine, as much as the Roman Church claims otherwise and as much as Christianity’s critics point to it as representative of the whole faith. The development of Christian doctrine is a fascinating study and perhaps we’ll have opportunity to discuss it a bit, but don't buy into the idea that Christianity was busy betraying Jesus and adopting all this paganism when in fact, the vast majority of the many church elders from all over the world who took part in the Nicene Council just came out of years of terrible persecution and many of them bore in their own bodies the marks of their loyalty to Christ. And their decisions were in fact very practical and had nothing to do with anti-Semitism. In fact, the head of the church at Rome wasn't even present at the Council of Nicea when Rome was supposedly laying down the law. The decisions made at that council were voted on by elders and representatives from every church throughout the world, and even afterward when Victor tried to "excommunicate" some believers on a point of doctrine he was overruled by the rest of the churches. I'm sure none of this was mentioned in whatever source you read about these events however, but they are a matter of historical record that you can read for yourself, and there is much, much more which I am sure you have never been told as well.

New Moon festivals loaded with allusions of Messiah. Traditions regarding the Jewish wedding is loaded with allusions of the Messiah. The church body has generally missed out on this richness which would strengthen faith in Messiah.

I disagree. The church body has long been strengthened and blessed in faith in Jesus by understanding how it is that he fulfilled all these allusions, a branch of Christian study referred to as Typology:

Typology in Christian theology and Biblical exegesis is a doctrine or theory concerning the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. ... In the fullest version of the theory of typology, the whole purpose of the Old Testament is viewed as merely the provision of types for Christ, the antitype or fulfillment.

This branch of Christian doctrine isn’t very popular now-a-days, because eschatology has taken such a prominent place and everything, including the typology of the Old Covenant, is being made to conform to a particular eschatological interpretation that is applied to ... well, everything. I think it’s a grave mistake, to start with eschatology (doctrines about end times) and then make all one’s interpretations and doctrines conform to that viewpoint. All our interpretations and doctrines (including our eschatology) should conform to the Gospel, it is after all called “the light” which gives meaning and understanding to the whole of Scripture, Old and New. But I’m afraid the “Christian” interpretation of the Old Covenant typology is not very popular today, but then popular isn’t necessarily true.

For example, I will take a shot here and assume that you believe the feasts have not all been fulfilled, and that the wedding of Christ and his bride has not yet taken place. Why? Because the interpretation of the feasts and the marriage of the Lamb you've been taught is based on a particular (and I believe incorrect) eschatological interpretation of the Messiah and his kingdom.

Whereas my interpretation of the feasts and the marriage of the Lamb is not based on any particular eschatology, it’s based on the Gospel, and a Gospel-enlightened typological interpretation of Jesus Christ and his kingdom. The difference between the two is as wide as heaven and earth ... literally.

So I really don’t think it’s the church body which has missed out on all the richness of the Old Covenant typology, it’s Christ's fulfillment of it all that builds up and strengths our faith in Him. We see a glorified Christ who has already fulfilled every type and every figure of everything that the Old Covenant foreshadowed … in the New Covenant.

You tell me... when some institutional church hierarchy demanded that a Jew who came to faith in Messiah, must prove their acceptance of Messiah by eating pork, if that wasn't telling.

What that “tells” is some people, past and present, who claim the mantel of Christians are in fact every bit as blindly legalistic as the worse of the Judaizers were, as if eating or not eating pork is the essence of being a Christian! What it does NOT “tell” is what the vast body of Christian believers believe or practice or think, and least of all does it tell what the New Testament actually teaches on such things.

But we have drifted from the subject of this thread, which is the possible date of Jesus’ birth. I tend to base my views on the actual historical evidence, not on someone’s opinion of how they think things should have happened based on their interpretations of the Old Covenant feasts based on their interpretations of “end times.” Interpretations can be wrong, and when they fly in the face of actual historical evidence, they probably are.


In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Copperhead]

Cool. I gather from that dissertation that you don't agree. No problem.

I don't worry or even think much about the issue. Just offered and opposing opinion. After all, this discussion is only opinions one way or the other. If it was critical, the NT would have gone to great lengths to promote it. Not a salesman for the idea. Not critical to leading a faithful life in the Messiah.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No one and nothing is to blame for the actions of the Nazi regime but their own deluded lies, distortions, and hatred. To blame the Christian church is wrong, factually and morally.

I did not see the surrounding posts leading up to this, nor at all following this, nor even the rest of this post.

Just a footnote quickly placed here for anyone
interested in followup research on their own.
There is in Scripture an identification of the enemy of Christ from the beginning, long before the last 2000 years, and including the last 2000 years, the one
who is guilty of the shedding of blood all through the centuries before Christ and after Christ.

The Judgment of YHWH, His Perfect Vengeance, will be executed on the one(s) responsible for the shedding of [innocent] blood in all the years throughout history, at YHWH'S APPOINTED TIME.

We can see and hear from YHWH, and learn from YHWH,
much about this in His Word,
but not on this forum nor on the internet in general.

 

[Deborah~]

I don't worry or even think much about the issue.

Well, that's a shame. I'm sorry to hear it. I think the things this question is leading us to discuss are rather weighty subjects, and are certainly worthy of some study and thought and even debate. Oh maybe not so much what date Jesus was actually born, but in the course of studying that question we delve into so many other subjects, and many of them are beliefs and doctrines that actually are very, very important. It's the nature of studying the things of God. No?

Just offered and opposing opinion. After all, this discussion is only opinions one way or the other.

The opening post on this thread was questioning whether or not there is any actual evidence for the date of Jesus' birth. I assumed then those reading and responding were interested in any actual evidence of the date of Jesus' birth, not just opinions.

The truth is that there is actual evidence. Actual historical evidence. And there is a vast amount of it. So it seems if someone is going to hold forth on the historical date on which Jesus was born they should at least be able to offer some historical evidence to support it ... "only opinions" is not evidence.

If it was critical, the NT would have gone to great lengths to promote it. Not a salesman for the idea. Not critical to leading a faithful life in the Messiah.

I'm not so sure that's true, that God would have gone to great lengths to promote the date if it was important. I have found that God tends to leave many things unspecified. It forces us to study. This is a good example. The question on whether or not there is any historical evidence that could be used to help date the birth of Jesus has led us to discuss all kinds of things. Now whether or not that study will teach us more about Jesus, which is kinda the point of the Bible, that depends on us. But one thing is certain, "leading a faithful life in the Messiah" requires study.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Copperhead]

Sure, they are worthy of study. They just aren't those issues that are worthy of a large chunk of my time.

If knowing the exact timing or day that Messiah was born was a critical issue to knowing Him and salvation, then the vast majority of folks that placed their trust in Him over the centuries did so in vain.

There aren’t two churches, there is only one, both Jew and Gentile. And while it is unfortunately true that there were times in the past when some particular denomination persecuted the Jews, I hardly think it fair or accurate to blame all Gentile Christians.

Never said there were. If one takes the passage literally that there is neither Jew or Gentile in the church, then take the rest of the passage literally as well... there is neither male or female. Grab a bunch of people the next time and put them in front of the congregation and have them strip and tell them there is neither male or female in the church. See how well your assertion holds up then. Cherry picking portions of scripture to make a point is downright dishonest. No, there is not two churches, one Jewish and one Gentile. There is one Church, but there still is physical Jews and physical gentiles both in and outside the church.

No one and nothing is to blame for the actions of the Nazi regime but their own deluded lies, distortions, and hatred. To blame the Christian church is wrong, factually and morally.

Really? Let's look at Martin Luther had to say. A "Christian" reformer who studied Augustine extensively, influenced most of the major Protestant denominations, translated the scripture into German, wrote several major hymns of the Church, and was quoted extensively by the Nazi's to justify their occult oriented actions. Almost all of German churches sat by while this Nazi stuff was carried out. Hitler has never been excommunicated from the Catholic church to this very day. And to hear many in the church today that espouse a Replacement or Supercessionist theology, some of their diatribe against the modern state of Israel comes pretty close sometimes also.

It is as if Martin Luther wrote Mein Kampf, or Hitler plagiarized Luther.....

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safeconduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

 

[Deborah~]

Sure, they are worthy of study. They just aren't those issues that are worthy of a large chunk of my time.

That’s fine. But they are issues that some people do consider worthy of a large chunk of time, me for example. I have studied New Testament history and archaeology for most of my life, and while I would never suggest that knowing the date that Jesus was born is in any way essential to salvation, at the same time, the Christian faith rests on the actual historical events of the birth and life of Jesus. Christmas and Easter are observances of those real-world events, and have been so observed by Christians dating back to within a generation of Jesus’ life. So while there is no clay or stone fragment or sheaf of papyri where Jesus’ date of birth is officially inscribed that we know of, still, there is a wealth of historical information about that period, more so than any other time in history, and studying it as an adjunct to studying the Scriptures is a blessing, and has served to build up my faith in Jesus, that the Gospels aren’t the writings of men of wishful thinking, but that Jesus was a real flesh and blood man and the Gospels are the eye-witness accounts of his life. With Christianity, history matters.

If one takes the passage literally that there is neither Jew or Gentile in the church…

I think you missed the point of that scripture. There are members of the church from every race and every nation on earth. People don’t stop being Caucasians, or Asians, or Latinos when they join the church any more than Jews stop being Jews. That’s not what the Scripture means. It means that in the church all are equal and there are no racial, class, or gender divisions, ergo no racial, class, or gender superiority (as there is in every other religion in the world, including Judaism).


It’s the unique Christian concept referred to as “equality of souls before God,” and is the very basis of the western concepts of human rights, that all are equal in God’s eyes, that there is no advantage to being Jew or Gentile, white or black, male or female, bond or free, short or tall, rich or poor. It’s the “all men are created equal” concept enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Race and nationality and gender and class, those things are outward differences only, a matter or biology and geography. What God sees and what He judges by is the heart and soul within whatever package it is wrapped. That’s what that Scripture means, not that everyone is suddenly stripped of their unique and individual identities, just that to God, under the New Covenant, what matters is ... do you believe.


There is no arguing that there have been individuals and even whole congregations of Christian churches that have been guilty of horrible sins, including persecuting Jews and other non-Christians, and even congregations that have persecuted other congregations!, even in this modern, enlightened world we live in. But thankfully they have been the exception, not the rule. The Judeo/Christian religion, and those who actually practice its precepts and keep faith with its teachings, shines a bright and godly light on the world and the world is made vastly better for it.


But allow me to offer one more comment. It’s not true that there was or ever has been a “general rejection of anything Jewish” by the Christian Church. The Old Testament has always been part of our Bible and we believe it to be every bit as much the inspired Word of God as the New Testament. And you’re not going to get more “Jewish” than the Old Testament. What there always and rightly has been a general rejection of is anything Rabbinic. And the reason is simple … Rabbinic Judaism rejects Jesus as the Messiah. And that just doesn’t leave much ground for theological agreement. But to take those differences in beliefs and begin to hate on and do harm to one another, as both have been guilty of in the past, violates the highest and best principles of both faiths. We can and should argue, and debate, and discuss, and talk about our differences, but do so in love, recognizing that after all, it is God who must move in a person’s heart to bring them to faith.


I have personally studied not only the Old Testament Law and it's feasts and ordinances of worship in the light of the Gospel, but also how these things were interpreted and practiced during the time of Jesus, which affects the historical dating of events. And so have many, many Christians who have come before me. Far from “rejecting anything Jewish,” the truth is, our faith is the fulfillment of everything Jewish! I love the Law of God, and I particularly love the feasts, and more than anything else pertaining to the Old Covenant, I love the Temple, and its sacrifices and worship, its courts and gates, its priests and ministry, I have studied every little jot and tittle of these things most of my life, including how they were actually observed during the time of Jesus. I have studied them deeply and reverently, because they teach me concepts and principles first and foremost about Jesus ... who he is and what he has done ... blows my mind. And the things they teach me about how to find God, how I can, even right now, right wherever I am in this old world, in the spirit I can travel the highways and byways up to the city of the Great King, I can enter into the gates, and ascend to his courts, climb those steps and enter his Sanctuary and up those final steps to His Throne room to stand in His Presence and worship Him, adore Him, and for a little while rest and be blessed in His Presence! These are the things the feasts teach us, this is the treasure, how to find God.

Long ago I took to heart Jesus’ words:

“Every scribe (student of the Law) instructed unto the Kingdom of heaven (student of the Gospel) is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.” (Matthew 13:52)

Studying the Law, in the light of the Gospel, is where the riches of God are stored.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[KA7]

Jesus was probably born of the Feast of Tabernacles in 13 BC. No, that is not too early. There is enough information from Paulus Orosius (priest and historian, 375-418) and other sources to conclude 13 BC is likely correct. Furthermore, once it is realized Luke 3:1 is a reference to the year of Tiberius Caesar's tribunician power and not his regnal year, New Testament events line up with secular accounts that reveal the true year of the Crucifixion was AD 17. Tiberius' fifteenth year of TP, by the way, was from June 27, AD 13 thru June 26, AD 14. Since this thread is on the birth of Jesus, I'll stop right here.

 

[JackRT]

Dionysius Exigius (aka Dennis the Short), a monk from Russia who died about 544, was asked by Pope John I to set out the dates for Easter from the years 527 to 626. It seems that the Pope was keen to produce some order in the celebration of Easter. Dionysius decided to begin with what he considered to be the year of Jesus' birth. He chose the year in which Rome had been founded and determined, from the evidence known to him, that Jesus had been born 753 years later. He did have an error in that because one emperor changed his name during his reign, Dionysius counted him twice.


He was almost certainly acquainted with a suggestion by Hippolytus (170–236) that the date of Jesus' birth was December 25, but the trouble was that Hippolytus had not backed up this claim with sound arguments. Dionysius, however, had just the argument: His contemporaries claimed that God created the earth on March 25. It was inconceivable that the son of God could have been in any way imperfect. Therefore Jesus must have been conceived on March 25. This meant that he must have been born nine months later—December 25. Dionysius also concluded that, as a perfect being, Jesus could not have lived an incomplete life so he must have died on March 25 as well!


December 25 was an auspicious choice. In 274, in Rome, the Emperor Aurelian declared December 25 a civic holiday in celebration of the birth of Mithras, the sun god. By 336, in that same city, Christians countered by celebrating the birth of Jesus, the son of God, on December 25. Christians in Antioch in 375 celebrated the birth of Jesus on January 6. Christians in Alexandria did not begin to celebrate Christmas at all until 430. So until Dionysius came along there was confusion over dates, and debates raged, even over the usefulness of celebrating the birth of Jesus at all. What had been universally important for all Christians—the pre-eminent event—was the celebration of Easter.


When, in 527, he formalized the date of Jesus' birth, Dionysius put Christmas on the map. Jesus was born, he declared, on December 25 in the Roman year 753. Dionysius then suspended time for a few days, declaring January 1, 754—New Year's day in Rome—as the first year in a new era of world history.


With a stroke of ingenuity Dionysius had managed to shift the attention of the church from Easter to Christmas. From this point in time it seemed only logical to celebrate the birth of Jesus before his death. If Jesus' death by crucifixion had made possible salvation for all people everywhere, so the argument went, then his birth was the sign that God was identifying with human kind by taking human form.


But Dionysius made a mistake in his calculations. Perhaps he had never read the gospel account of the birth of Jesus. In Matthew Jesus is said to have been born while Herod was still King (2:1). That would translate into 4 BC (or even earlier) according to the calculations of Dionysius. As a consequence, for Christians the year 2000 is not two thousand years after the birth of Jesus, but more like 2004.


That was not his only mistake. Dionysius followed the convention of his times and, as the Roman calendar moved from the year 753 to 754, he called the latter "year one" of the New World order—anno domini, the year of our Lord. The concept of naught (zero) didn't come into Europe from Arabia and India until about two hundred years later. As a result, centuries end with naught and begin with the digit one. So for us the year 2000 was the end of one millennium but it was not the beginning of the next: that occurred in 2001.


Later, when Pope Gregory tidied up the calendar on 24 February 1582, the calendar lost eleven days. To synchronise the calendar of Dionysius with the movement of the sun, October 4 became October 15, and to avoid having to make further adjustments a leap year was introduced. Pope Gregory must also have known of the mistakes made by Dionysius but all he did was to confirm them, perhaps hoping that no one would notice.


There is one other problem. Bishop Ussher (1581–1656) worked out the precise year of creation as 4004 BC (he knew about Dionysisus getting the date of Jesus birth wrong). But he also advanced the view that the earth had a total life span of six thousand years. In order to come up with this conclusion he based his calculations on all the generations mentioned in the Bible.


In reality we do not know when Jesus was born—neither the year, the month, nor the day. The chronology of our western calendar is based on mythology masquerading as theology. We do well to treat it all with the humour it deserves.

 

[Deborah~]

Jesus was probably born of the Feast of Tabernacles

Jesus could not have been born during Tabernacles. It was one of the three annual feasts that all Jews were commanded to observe in Jerusalem ... so if Jesus had been born in Bethlehem during Tabernacles, there would have been plenty of accommodations for Mary and Joseph as everyone would be in the city for the feast, even if Joseph had disobeyed the commandment and not gone up the city when he was just five miles away. The fact that Bethlehem was filled with Jews registering for the census indicates it wasn't a Holy Week.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[JackRT]

Dionysius Exigius (aka Dennis the Short), a monk from Russia who died about 544, was asked by Pope John I to set out the dates for Easter from the years 527 to 626. It seems that the Pope was keen to produce some order in the celebration of Easter. Dionysius decided to begin with what he considered to be the year of Jesus' birth. He chose the year in which Rome had been founded and determined, from the evidence known to him, that Jesus had been born 753 years later. He did have an error in that because one emperor changed his name during his reign, Dionysius counted him twice.


He was almost certainly acquainted with a suggestion by Hippolytus (170–236) that the date of Jesus' birth was December 25, but the trouble was that Hippolytus had not backed up this claim with sound arguments. Dionysius, however, had just the argument: His contemporaries claimed that God created the earth on March 25. It was inconceivable that the son of God could have been in any way imperfect. Therefore Jesus must have been conceived on March 25. This meant that he must have been born nine months later—December 25. Dionysius also concluded that, as a perfect being, Jesus could not have lived an incomplete life so he must have died on March 25 as well!


December 25 was an auspicious choice. In 274, in Rome, the Emperor Aurelian declared December 25 a civic holiday in celebration of the birth of Mithras, the sun god. By 336, in that same city, Christians countered by celebrating the birth of Jesus, the son of God, on December 25. Christians in Antioch in 375 celebrated the birth of Jesus on January 6. Christians in Alexandria did not begin to celebrate Christmas at all until 430. So until Dionysius came along there was confusion over dates, and debates raged, even over the usefulness of celebrating the birth of Jesus at all. What had been universally important for all Christians—the pre-eminent event—was the celebration of Easter.


When, in 527, he formalized the date of Jesus' birth, Dionysius put Christmas on the map. Jesus was born, he declared, on December 25 in the Roman year 753. Dionysius then suspended time for a few days, declaring January 1, 754—New Year's day in Rome—as the first year in a new era of world history.


With a stroke of ingenuity Dionysius had managed to shift the attention of the church from Easter to Christmas. From this point in time it seemed only logical to celebrate the birth of Jesus before his death. If Jesus' death by crucifixion had made possible salvation for all people everywhere, so the argument went, then his birth was the sign that God was identifying with human kind by taking human form.


But Dionysius made a mistake in his calculations. Perhaps he had never read the gospel account of the birth of Jesus. In Matthew Jesus is said to have been born while Herod was still King (2:1). That would translate into 4 BC (or even earlier) according to the calculations of Dionysius. As a consequence, for Christians the year 2000 is not two thousand years after the birth of Jesus, but more like 2004.


That was not his only mistake. Dionysius followed the convention of his times and, as the Roman calendar moved from the year 753 to 754, he called the latter "year one" of the New World order—anno domini, the year of our Lord. The concept of naught (zero) didn't come into Europe from Arabia and India until about two hundred years later. As a result, centuries end with naught and begin with the digit one. So for us the year 2000 was the end of one millennium but it was not the beginning of the next: that occurred in 2001.


Later, when Pope Gregory tidied up the calendar on 24 February 1582, the calendar lost eleven days. To synchronise the calendar of Dionysius with the movement of the sun, October 4 became October 15, and to avoid having to make further adjustments a leap year was introduced. Pope Gregory must also have known of the mistakes made by Dionysius but all he did was to confirm them, perhaps hoping that no one would notice.


There is one other problem. Bishop Ussher (1581–1656) worked out the precise year of creation as 4004 BC (he knew about Dionysisus getting the date of Jesus birth wrong). But he also advanced the view that the earth had a total life span of six thousand years. In order to come up with this conclusion he based his calculations on all the generations mentioned in the Bible.


In reality we do not know when Jesus was born—neither the year, the month, nor the day. The chronology of our western calendar is based on mythology masquerading as theology. We do well to treat it all with the humour it deserves.

 

[Deborah~]

In reality we do not know when Jesus was born—neither the year, the month, nor the day. The chronology of our western calendar is based on mythology masquerading as theology. We do well to treat it all with the humour it deserves.

There is no reason to reject the historically recognized date of December 25, and even less reason to assume Jesus’ birthday was not celebrated in the generation after his birth. In fact Clement, who was a co-worker of St. Paul, and is mentioned by him in Philippians 3.3, encourages Christians to keep the feasts and especially Christmas: ““Brethren, keep diligently feast days; and truly in the first place the day of Christ's birth.”

This man personally knew and was taught by Paul and Peter, and after their martyrdoms in Rome he became the Bishop of the church at Rome. He is considered the first of the Apostolic Fathers and his letters were used as instruction to the churches for generations. This is indisputable evidence that Christians were from the very beginning celebrating with a feast the day of Jesus’ birth.

Then in about 137 A.D. the Roman Bishop Telesphorus ordered that the Feast of the Nativity (as it was originally called) “on the 25th of December,” “be kept as a solemn feast,” “that in the holy night of the Nativity of our Lord and Savior, they do celebrate public Church services, and in them solemnly sing the Angels’ Hymn, because also the same night he was declared unto the shepherds by an angel, as the truth itself doth witness.” More early evidence that Christians within a few years of the time of the Apostles were in fact celebrating the day of Christ’s birth and the date they observed was December 25.

And during this same period, another Bishop, Theophilus of Caesarea in Judea/Palestine, recommends to Christians: “…the celebration of the birth-day of Our Lord, on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen.” Again, very early evidence that the day of Jesus’ birth was being observed with a feast on December 25.

So it appears to me that the conclusions of your post, that early Christians were not celebrating Jesus’ birth or that December 25 was an adoption centuries later, are speculative and based on assumptions about the intentions of a monk some 250 years after history records Christians celebrating the day of Jesus’ birth on December 25.

So rather than our calendar being fodder for humor, I think there is much to be learned from a more complete study, including the fact that January 7 on the western Gregorian calendar falls on December 25 on the Eastern Julian calendar, hence the “12 days of Christmas.”

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Yekcidmij]

T
So rather than our calendar being fodder for humor, I think there is much to be learned from a more complete study, including the fact that January 6 on the western Gregorian calendar falls on December 25 on the Eastern Julian calendar, hence the “11 days of Christmas.”

In Christ,
Deborah

Isn't it the 7th of Jan on the Gregorian Calendar? This is the day EO and Copts celebrate Christmas. Armenians celebrate 6 Jan.

 

[Deborah~]

(Edited previous post to correct dates)
All the eastern churches celebrate Christ's birth on December 25 on their Julian calendar, which is January 7 on the western Gregorian calendar. In 2101 the two calendars will drift further apart and December 25 Julian will fall on January 8 Gregorian.
The January 6 feast celebrated by the eastern churches is Epiphany and is celebrated on January 6 on the Julian calendar, which falls on January 19 on the Gregorian.
Christmas and Epiphany are two separate holidays and are separated by 12 days, ergo the "12 days of Christmas."
In Christ,
Deborah

 

[ViaCrucis]

(Edited previous post to correct dates)
All the eastern churches celebrate Christ's birth on December 25 on their Julian calendar, which is January 7 on the western Gregorian calendar. In 2101 the two calendars will drift further apart and December 25 Julian will fall on January 8 Gregorian.
The January 6 feast celebrated by the eastern churches is Epiphany and is celebrated on January 6 on the Julian calendar, which falls on January 19 on the Gregorian.
Christmas and Epiphany are two separate holidays and are separated by 12 days, ergo the "12 days of Christmas."
In Christ,
Deborah

Though the Armenians do celebrate Christmas on January 6th (Epiphany/Theophany) on the Julian Calendar; being the only ancient Church not to have adopted December 25th.

The Copts, and all the other Eastern Churches, celebrate it on December 25th (Julian Calendar); the Armenian Church is unique in this regard.

-CryptoLutheran