Where did the Church drift off course?

[annier]

Yes, for lambing season. The cold is why they were outside. It's the only time of year they had to be outside. They were Levite shepherds, and the lambs were for Pesach. Even today lambing season is in winter. Good 'drash, eh? All found in history.

Do your history work, and stop believing the pop theology of the internet. Work hard and you'll have a decent explanation as to why the ancient churches celebrated the Birth of the Messiah somewhere between Dec 22 and Jan 6.

I find the notion that the most devout generations of Christians surrendered to some pagan decree absurd. The myth of the copycat church.

I also find the notion that the Gospel writers, who took every opportunity to mention Jewish High Holy Days in their records, somehow forgot to mention how the Messiah was born on a High Holiday. To my mind, that is the myth/dream/preacher's tool.


Sure, your generation would easily surrender to trends and social pressures (eg. prosperity Gospel, ordination of females, rejection of family covenant, rejection of tradition etc) but the golden age of Christian martyrdom weren't Americans.



Do your own homework. I don't have time to educate you for free. Hint: check the Temple rota found in the DSS and figure out when John the Baptist was born according to archaeology, not whacky astronomical speculations and endless attempts at iconoclasm.



Big deal. Just pop doctrine. Do they ask if you want fries with your doctrine on that site?

Here is a copy of a post from a fellow poster on another forum. I asked his permission to copy and use. I think you might be referring to similar things.

I’m afraid you will hear all kinds of conjecture and explanations, and if we are to base our understanding on just one or two pieces of data, then we might come up with all kinds of theories. But the only way to achieve a high degree of accuracy is to base our understanding on the weight of evidence, which means look at all the historical/archaeological data and then base our views on that. And there is quite a bit of historical and archaeological data about the shepherds and the flock at Bethlehem.

On a general note about the practices of Jewish shepherds, according to Rabbinic sources the wilderness flocks “remain in the open alike in the hottest days and in the rainy season.” (Bezah 40 a cf. Tosephta Bezah iv.6 and Jer. Bezah 63 b) The winter in Palestine is referred to as the rainy season because this is a moderate region of the Mediterranean where the winter is mild and rainy. After all, this is a land of palms, and fig trees, and pomegranates, plants which only grow in areas with moderate winter temperatures. The average nighttime temperature in Bethlehem on December 24 is 41 degrees F. I have actually seen temperatures on Christmas day in the 60’s. This is simply not a cold enough climate to require that wooly sheep be brought into shelter for the winter. To verify the temperature data I’ve provided log onto http://www.weather.com or http://www.jerusalempost.com and search their archives.

But there is other evidence that also must be taken into consideration. During the 1st century there were literally hundreds of thousands of animals sacrificed in the Temple every year. According to Josephus as many as a quarter million lambs were slain at Passover alone! Animals to be used for cultic purposes was the primary import commodity of Israel, and before these animals could be offered they had to be inspected by specially trained priests to be sure they were free of any blemish, deformity, scars, or infestations. According to Rabbinic writings (Mishnah, Baba K. 7.7 and Baba K. 80a) the “Temple flock,” as it was called referring to those flocks of sheep intended for sacrifice in Jerusalem, were kept at Bethlehem, five miles south of the city. This would not be a typical sheep fold, but a stock-yard where hundreds and even thousands of animals were temporarily kept until they were inspected and then brought to Jerusalem for sacrifice.

Another important piece of data, this time of particular archaeological interest, is that Bethlehem was the ancient site of the royal house of David, and there was at one time a castle there. Even in Jesus’ time that castle had long since fallen to ruin, but it is believed that the “Migdal Eder,” the “tower of the flock” which was located in Bethlehem was in fact one of the old watchtowers from the royal castle that was being used as the watchtower for the shepherds who were keeping watch over the temple flock. The Palestinian Authority has been peppered with requests for permits to conduct archaeological investigations in this area to attempt to locate the castle ruins, but permission has not yet been given. We know that this Migdal Eder stood just outside Bethlehem on the road to Jerusalem.

A messianic prophecy about this Migdal Eder was very familiar to 1st century Jews. The prophet Micah had foretold that the birth of the Messiah would be announced from this tower: “And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.” (Micah 4:8) We know from both the Gospels as well as the Rabbinic writings that it was commonly believed that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but this prophecy about his birth being announced from the tower of the flock was equally well-known to the Jews (Targum Pseudo-Jon. On Gen. 35.21). There is also an ancient story of Messiah’s birth related in the Jerusalem Talmud which says the Messiah was said to have been born “in the royal castle of Bethlehem” (Ber. 2.3 cf. Midrash on Lamentations 1.16). According to the Rabbis, even if a castle falls down, it is still called a castle (Yalkut, Vol. 2, p. 60 b).

And another piece of historical information, the shepherds who tended these flocks were no ordinary shepherds. The reason we know this is that shepherds, because of their necessary isolation from the religions life of the nation being required to live in "the wilderness" and migrate with their sheep, were under a Rabbinic ban, such as that imposed on others who engaged in trades that in some way rendered them unclean, such as tax collectors, weavers, tanners, physicians, midwives, city sanitation workers, etc. And yet, on the night of Christ’s birth, we see the shepherds who were keeping watch over the flock in Bethlehem going freely about the neighborhood conversing openly with the people about the things they had seen and heard. The only reason these shepherds were able to do so is that they were not under the Rabbinic ban because their duty was to guard and care for the Temple flock, a sacred purpose, and they were not required to live in isolation from the religious life but in fact played a very important role in that religious life.

 

[ImperialJohn]

Hey everybody. My name is Ken. I was on this forum some time ago for a very short time and decided to give it another try. I am a gentile and looking for more information on my Jewish roots. Am I Torah observant? Not really, but it looks like I am observant with the Noah Covenant, which was required of gentiles. Anyway here is my question:

What happened to the Churches in the second and Third centuries? Where was the leadership when most of the Churches were swinging toward Hellenization? It seems like a lot of pagan ideas were being adopted in order to win converts. We can blame Constantine for all of the paganism, but it appears that it was developing well before he came along. I wonder what the church would look like today if we had kept the Jewish influence in the practice of the Church?

Thanks for the opportunity to join this forum and be able to find out more about who we are in Jesus.

Ken Hawn

The Early Church continued to keep the Biblical Sabbath. But slowly over time when you get into the later part of the first century of Christianity you find some Christians moving away from the Sabbath to a Sunday observance.

Some of the reasoning behind it had to do with the destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem when the Romans came down hard on them. The Jews and followers of Messiah were being persecuted by the Romans.

Many of the Christians who were also observing the Sabbath and holy days were also being persecuted because they worshiped in a similar manner to the Jews of that time.

Some of them began to move away from the Sabbath because they were not crazy about being persecuted. Most of these people were in the Western Church.

The Eastern Church continued to observe Sabbath for a lot longer than those in the Western part of the Kingdom.

When you get into the hundreds plus A.D. you start to see a movement more and more away from G-d's Holy day the Sabbath. But did G-d ever ask us to move away from this Sabbath day? Did Yeshua ever say to move away from his Sabbath day? No. Absolutely not. Men said lets move away from the Sabbath and go to Sunday.

Then in 325 A.D. Emperor Constantine made it a law that Sunday was the day of worship. Constantine never had any authority to change the day of worship from G-ds Holy Day the Sabbath to a Sunday.

Throughout history there have been followers of Yeshua who have continued to keep the correct day the Sabbath day and there continues to be today. More people who have followed the traditions of men e.g. Sunday worship now are finding out the truth in this age of information and deciding to go back to the Godly biblical roots and just do what he asks of us in the Bible.

 

[annier]

The Early Church continued to keep the Biblical Sabbath. But slowly over time when you get into the later part of the first century of Christianity you find some Christians moving away from the Sabbath to a Sunday observance.

Some of the reasoning behind it had to do with the destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem when the Romans came down hard on them. The Jews and followers of Messiah were being persecuted by the Romans.

I think the new Sanhedrin established at Yavneh had alot to do with Jewish believers being separated from the synagogue. As The rabbinic Sanhedrin was given authority over Jews and Judaism within the Roman empire as a legalized religion. As this Sanhedrin rejected Christian Jew's, those Jew's were in danger of losing exemption from Idol's which Judaism enjoyed under Roman law.

Many of the Christians who were also observing the Sabbath and holy days were also being persecuted because they worshiped in a similar manner to the Jews of that time.

Where do you get this information?

 

[ContraMundum]

Here is a copy of a post from a fellow poster on another forum. I asked his permission to copy and use. I think you might be referring to similar things.

Yep- that's on the right track for sure.

It's interesting to me that as soon as there is evidence that supports the Church's long-standing traditions, so many drop their bundles and head for the hills. I find such evidence encouraging about God's sovereign care for His people over the centuries. Do I celebrate Christmas? Nah. I do celebrate the Feast of the Nativity though. Does the date matter? Not really. But it is interesting to see that the unbroken practice of God's elect has some basis in history.

 

[AbbaLove]

Originally Posted by annier
"Here is a copy of a post from a fellow poster on another forum. I asked his permission to copy and use. I think you might be referring to similar things."

Yep- that's on the right track for sure.

It's interesting to me that as soon as there is evidence that supports the Church's long-standing traditions, so many drop their bundles and head for the hills. I find such evidence encouraging about God's sovereign care for His people over the centuries. Do I celebrate Christmas? Nah. I do celebrate the Feast of the Nativity though. Does the date matter? Not really. But it is interesting to see that the unbroken practice of God's elect has some basis in history.

I didn’t see any “evidence” in annier’s copy by a fellow poster as sufficiently evident to support the Church’s long-standing tradition that Yeshua was born on or around December 25th (Gregorian calendar). There is just as much “evidence” to support a birth during the appointed times of the fall feasts according to the Jewish calendar.

Two different times in the past two weeks Pat Robertson (700 Club) has stated emphatically that Christmas on December 25th originated from “pagan”, “pagan”, “pagan”, “pagan” traditions. Christians observe it as Jesus is the Reason because they don't have any other choice (date). Unfortunately there isn’t sufficient (irrefutable) evidence that Yeshua was born during the fall feasts to overturn a date based on a pagan tradition.

Yeshua was just as likely (or more likely) conceived on Kislev 25 than born on December 25, never-the-less why can’t “We all just get along” by celebrating the sanctity of the season. This year it just happens that Day 8 of the Feast of Dedication (Hanakkah), also known as the Festival of Lights coincides with sunset on 12/24 to sunset on 12/25.

The number 8 in the Bible represents a new beginning. So, let's celebrate our commonality this season.

 

[annier]

Originally Posted by annier
"Here is a copy of a post from a fellow poster on another forum. I asked his permission to copy and use. I think you might be referring to similar things."
[/size][/font]

I didn’t see any “evidence” in annier’s copy by a fellow poster as sufficiently evident to support the Church’s long-standing tradition that Yeshua was born on or around December 25th (Gregorian calendar). There is just as much “evidence” to support a birth during the appointed times of the fall feasts according to the Jewish calendar.

Sorry you cannot see it.
Here is another post concerning this issue from the same poster. This post was in response to the dating of Christ's birth by the priestly courses mentioned in scripture.
Much evidence here IMO.

This is the single most common mistake of students who attempt to date the birth of Jesus based on the service of the priestly courses.

There were 24 courses of priests who served in the Temple, each serving one week until all 24 courses had served and then the rotation began again. The problem arises at the end of the year. 24 courses serving two weeks each gives a total of 48 weeks of service. However, the Jewish year is 50 weeks plus 4 days long. So on the 49th week, the rotation would begin again and the 1st course would serve the 49th week, the 2nd course the 50th week, and the 3rd course the 4 days plus three days of the next year. That would mean the 4th course would then serve the first full week of the new year, the 5th course the second week, the 6th course the third week, etc. Go ahead and get out a pencil and figure this out for yourself, you don't need to go to some website to see what someone else has to say about it, do your own calculations. It is simply not possible for the first course to serve the first week every year without violating the order in which they served.

And to prove that what I'm saying is accurate, according to Mr. Hargis' calculations, when the Temple was destroyed on the 9th Ab, the 19th course of Pethahiah should have been on duty. But according to both the Talmudic tractate Taanith (On Feasting and Fast Days, 29A) and well as Josephus who was an eyewitness to the destruction, (Wars, VI:4, 1, 5) it wasn't the 19th course as Mr. Hargi's calculations would have it but it was in fact the 1st course, that of Jehoirib that was on duty, which proves the 1st course/1st week, 2nd course/2nd week calculations are incorrect. The Jewish year consists of 6 months of 29 days and 6 months of 30 days for a total of 354 days. But 24 courses serving two weeks each would only total 48 weeks, short of filling the year by 2 weeks and 4 days. And then when an extra whole month was added to correct the calendar, it throws off the caculations even further because the priestly courses had to continue their ordering of service even during these extra weeks.

Now, having a fixed date that we know with certainty what course was serving on the 9th Ab of 70 C.E., and if we caculate backwards to the year before Jesus' birth, which is 6 B.C., we find that in fact the priestly course of Abijah was on duty from the 2nd to the 9th of October, the 23rd Elul to the 1st Tishri, or concluding on the feast of Trumpets and the beginning of the New Year.

Now bring forward all your calculations and you'll find Elizabeth's sixth month to fall between the middle of March and the middle of April (since ancient times March 25 has been observed for the annunication to Mary). Then count forward three more months and John would have been born around the middle of June (the ancient date for the feast of John's nativity is June 24). Then count forward another six months and you come to December 25 for the birth of Jesus.

So once again, the actual evidence supports the December dating.

 

[pat34lee]

If there were no other reason or proof that Yeshua was NOT born on Dec. 25, it would be enough that it is the birthday of the pagan sun god. But there is more.

The shepherds always brought their flocks from the mountainsides and fields and corralled them not later than October 15, to protect them from the cold, rainy season that followed that date. Notice that the Bible itself proves, in Song of Solomon 2:11 and Ezra 10:9, 13, that winter was a rainy season not permitting shepherds to abide in open fields at night.

"It was an ancient custom among Jews of those days to send out their sheep to the fields and deserts about the Passover (early spring), and bring them home at commencement of the FIRST RAIN," says the Adam Clarke Commentary (Vol. 5, page 370, New York ed.)

Continuing, this authority states: "During the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As...the first rain began early in the month of Marchesvan, which answers to part of our October and November (begins sometime in OCTOBER), we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole SUMMER.

CHRISTMAS TREE WHAT IS IT?

 

[ContraMundum]

Two different times in the past two weeks Pat Robertson (700 Club) has stated emphatically that Christmas on December 25th originated from “pagan”, “pagan”, “pagan”, “pagan” traditions.

How does Pat "the genius" Robertson explain the celebration of Christmas on Jan 6 in other ancient churches then? What "pagan" holiday are they copying?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

just study history, not religious history, but just plain history. then it becomes obvious, and is no secret. it's been a deception for 2000 years almost, so don't think in the wildest dreams that it will be corrected until Jesus returns.

 

[AbbaLove]

Sorry you cannot see it.
Here is another post concerning this issue from the same poster. This post was in response to the dating of Christ's birth by the priestly courses mentioned in scripture.
Much evidence here IMO.

First ~ As a Christian how considerate is it for us Christians to impose the Gregorian calendar (December 25th) date? Don't you see that such a reply makes it look like you have more faith in the Roman Gregorian calendar than the Hebrew calendar. If anything you might consider using 25 Kislev (1st day of the Festival of Lights) or 2 Tevet (8th day of the Feast of Dedication) in recognition of God's calendar and not the Roman Julian calendar introduced by Julius Caesar. Don’t you see that your preference for 12/25 instead of say 25 Kislev is just another example of RT.

Second ~ Are you not even aware of the paganism associated with December 25th, and why the so-called church "fathers" chose that date?

Third ~ Nisan (not Tishrei) is the actual beginning of the Hebrew Spiritual New Year. Tishrei (the 7th month) is associated with the Civil year.

Fourth ~ Christendom has been so indoctrinated with 12/25 as the birth of Christ that the little evidence they do put forth really isn’t that substantial. Many words but little proof.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yep- that's on the right track for sure.

It's interesting to me that as soon as there is evidence that supports the Church's long-standing traditions, so many drop their bundles and head for the hills. I find such evidence encouraging about God's sovereign care for His people over the centuries.

I think the inverse of that point you're advocating (astute as it is) is that many tend to run in the opposite direction when it comes to reacting against others who denounce all traditions of the Church in the name of them not having Biblical support. For those supporting traditions in the Church based on Biblical evidence, they go a step further from keeping Christ in the center of their focus with the OT/NT and then try to make all things in the OT about Christ (in order to avoid going the route of others who wanted to not keep Christ in view when examining the OT as many of the Hebrew Roots cults do).

As another noted best elsewhere in Reading Genesis & the ‘Old’ Testament as a Christian Book - Rosh Pina Project (for brief excerpt):

So why am I giving you this long illustration? To help you think about how you should read the Old Testament in general and Genesis in particular. Put simply, I want to suggest that you engage in two readings of Genesis. One is a first reading: Genesis on its own terms. Genesis as its own unfolding story, but also Genesis read as the first part of an even longer unfolding story. Genesis as an Israelite book, and not (yet) a Christian book!

The other way of reading is a second reading: reading Genesis in the light of the larger story’s surprise ending in the gospel – the story of the life, death, resurrection, exaltation of Jesus and his creation of a new people of God through the outpouring of the Spirit. I want to contend that a Christian reading of the Old Testament is, above all, a second reading. It’s a reading where you come back and make sense of the various scenes in Genesis, now with the knowledge that the story of Jesus (and his people) and not the story of Israel is the true, albeit unexpected, climax of the grand narrative in which Adam, Abraham, Jacob and Joseph (for example) play such important roles.

In other words, you let the Jesus-ending of Israel’s story reshape the way you interpret the particular passage you are dealing with. This is the way you read Genesis as a Christian book​

Dr Douglas Green is charged to be guilty of a “christotelic” hermeneutical method that severs the organic link between the Old Testament and the New Testament”. The above is the example given of this approach which was the end of the story then regulates how the prior story is read and understood. Is this really the way for Yeshua-followers to read the Tanach, to read the end of the story (the New Testament) and then read the beginning (Genesis) in the light of it, in other word to Christianize the “Old” Testament so that it can have meaning for the Christian?

I appreciate a nuanced christotelic hermeneutic which can often reflect Second Temple Judaism’s (contemporaneous to the New Testament period) approach to reading and understanding the Tanach, seen in the assumptive practices of the Targumin and the developing midrashic system at that time.

Van Gemeren wrote his article Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy for Westminster Theological Journal in 1983 where he claimed a new hermeneutic was at work to replace Augustine’s The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New Revealed, with the Old is by the New restricted the New is on the Old inflicted. For those who are committed to the divine inspiration of both Testaments we must allow both Testaments to speak to us as God’s Word without overwhelming the integrity of the other. Not all the details in the Tanach speak of Yeshua, and it does not need to in order for Yeshua to fulfil Messianic prophecies. It is easy to have an over-developed Christology and expect to see Yeshua in all the details of the Tanach, a Chistotelic hermeneutic sees Yeshua as what the Tanach aims at rather than the centre of the Tanach, hence Christotelic (telos=aim) rather than Christocentric.
​

Of course, we know that the purpose of the Torah was the Messiah being seen - and that is always to be prominent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhlOkVeQ5NI

Nonetheless, when it becomes the case that we end up devaluing texts in the OT and not seeing them for what they are because they do not seem to immediately reference the Messiah, we do damage. More was shared on the dynamic elsewhere - as seen in Dr Jeffrey Siker “The Gospel of John and the Jews” and the work by by Jeffrey S. Siker entitled Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy

 

[ContraMundum]

First ~ As a Christian how considerate is it for us Christians to impose the Gregorian calendar (December 25th) date? Don't you see that such a reply makes it look like you have more faith in the Roman Gregorian calendar than the Hebrew calendar. If anything you might consider using 25 Kislev (1st day of the Festival of Lights) or 2 Tevet (8th day of the Feast of Dedication) in recognition of God's calendar and not the Roman Julian calendar introduced by Julius Caesar. Don’t you see that your preference for 12/25 instead of say 25 Kislev is just another example of RT.

Makes no sense to me. Calendars are just numbers ascribed to days. God's Hebrew calendar was used by pagans before Moses (read Hayyim Schauss' work on this) and is based not on numbers but on agriculture. God used and sanctified those holidays for His act of deliverance. God is good, eh?

Second ~ Are you not even aware of the paganism associated with December 25th, and why the so-called church "fathers" chose that date?

Read the Fathers first-hand. They did not "pick" December 25th-Jan 6. They calculated it.

Fourth ~ Christendom has been so indoctrinated with 12/25 as the birth of Christ that the little evidence they do put forth really isn’t that substantial. Many words but little proof.

Please note there is absolutely no support in history, scripture, tradition or archaeology for the "Jesus was born on a Hebrew High Holy Day but the Gospel writers neglected to mention it, even though they always mention important calendar events in His narrative" myth. At least the prevailing history has some evidence.

Why is everyone with the "pagan copycat" theory avoiding the question- explain why Orthodox Christians (who weren't under Constantine's rule, nor involved in Roman gods, etc etc) celebrate Christmas on or near Jan 6?

Why is it that if you follow the Temple rota (confirmed in the DSS) you end up with a Messianic birth somewhere between Dec 23 and Jan 6, and churches have been celebrating both since the beginning? Seems like that best explains the practice of East and West. The "pagan copycat" theory doesn't explain it terribly well.

Could it be that the early Christians were on to something? Could it be that contemporary post-everything-know-it-all-American Christians may in fact be wrong about the (very recent) theory that the generations of the Christian martyrs just crumbled under pressure and finally submitted to the prevailing culture and adopted pagan Holy Days? Could it be that anti-Church (read:anti-Body of Messiah, faithless) iconoclasm and propaganda is the now prevailing culture and that post-everything-know-it-all-American Christians are the ones crumbling under the cultural pressure? Seems like post-everything-know-it-all-American Christians surrender in every other way to the culture so why not consider that they are surrendering to the zeitgeist on Holy Days too?

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Lulav]

Just wondering where is the information located that says that Joseph was not born in Bethlehem and later moved to Nazareth?

 

[Lulav]

Just a common sense question. What would prevent those in charge from removing any reference that would not (in their minds) diminish or detract from the important spiritual things from the gospel accounts referring to Jesus being born during Sukkot? (and Sukkot isn't a High Holy day), especially since it was much more convenient to allocate the date of a well known celebrated birthday?

this is something to QFT

“History is written by the victors.”~ Winston S. Churchill



http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/14033.Winston_S_Churchill

 

[ContraMundum]

Just a common sense question. What would prevent those in charge from removing any reference that would not (in their minds) diminish or detract from the important spiritual things from the gospel accounts referring to Jesus being born during Sukkot?

The faithful would prevent it. They always have- under God (He's in charge, and He said that the enemy would never prevail over His people)

(and Sukkot isn't a High Holy day),

Yes...

especially since it was much more convenient to allocate the date of a well known celebrated birthday?

Was it?

this is something to QFT

“History is written by the victors.”~ Winston S. Churchill

....and the victor is Yeshua and His Ekklesia. Just as He said and promised God is good, eh?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Revelation 6:7-11Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

7 When he broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living being say, “Go!” 8 I looked, and there in front of me was a pallid, sickly-looking horse. Its rider’s name was Death, and Sh’ol followed behind him. They were given authority to kill one-quarter of the world by war, by famine, by plagues and with the wild animals of the earth.
9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been put to death for proclaiming the Word of God, that is, for bearing witness. 10 They cried out in a loud voice, “Sovereign Ruler, HaKadosh, the True One, how long will it be before you judge the people living on earth and avenge our blood?” 11 Each of them was given a white robe; and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow-servants should be reached, of their brothers who would be killed, just as they had been.

The faithful would prevent it. They always have- under God (He's in charge, and He said that the enemy would never prevail over His people).....