Why don't the Four Gospels record the exact date of Jesus' birth?

[Paul Yohannan]

I'm just kidding, Jack.
...

My sides split in thunderous laughter. Oh Landon, you card!

 

[SolomonVII]

There is theological significance for the day of Christ's death.
There is no theological significance to the day of his birth, other than that the Word became Flesh.
In other words, no, Jesus was not a Capricorn. What is being celebrated is the Incarnation, and not the day.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Am not so sure, not that astrological signs mean much any way.

St. Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 A.D.):

“For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, a Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years.”

A Saint who as a child could potentially have heard stories from people that heard it from Saint John a first hand witness, who spent all that time with the Blessed Virgin, who no doubt would recall the date. I was never told this record or the tradition supporting this date existed as a Southern Baptist.

 

[RDKirk]

There is theological significance for the day of Christ's death.
There is no theological significance to the day of his birth, other than that the Word became Flesh.
In other words, no, Jesus was not a Capricorn. What is being celebrated is the Incarnation, and not the day.

Because, certainly in those times, annual celebration of the day certain did have astrological significance.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Because, certainly in those times, annual celebration of the day certain did have astrological significance.

Could you expand on why this matters in relationship the concept of annual celebrations?

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'm pretty sure the calendar was originally based on astrology, which includes the days of the week, which means there also exists a relationship between astrology and the sabbath.

...Right or wrong?

 

[RDKirk]

I'm pretty sure the calendar was originally based on astrology, which includes the days of the week, which means there also exists a relationship between astrology and the sabbath.

...Right or wrong?

Astrology and astronomy are different things, and even though ancient study of the heavens combined them, elements are still distinguishable.

The seven-day week inherited by the Jews gives a day to each of the heavenly bodies that displayed independent motion. That's a direct astronomical observation. The Jews avoided assigning any "divine character" to those days...which would have been an astrological celebration.

The Romans did not use a 7-day week. They divided their month into periods relative to holy days of the month (which might change at the whim of the emperor).

 

[Jesus_is_Saint]

If Jesus genealogy is given in details in the Gospels, why not his exact date of birth ?

 

[Gideon]

I'm pretty sure the calendar was originally based on astrology, which includes the days of the week, which means there also exists a relationship between astrology and the sabbath.

...Right or wrong?

Did you mean astronomy? In that case you are right. Here is a useful paper on the ancient Hebrew calendar.
Reconstruction of Pre-Metonic Hebrew Calendar

 

[Jesus_is_Saint]

The Chinese had long had lunar calender, if Jesus was born as Chinese, I think his Chinese parents would know his exact date of birth.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

If Jesus genealogy is given in details in the Gospels, why not his exact date of birth ?

Wrong question.
If the date was common knowledge among Christians why would they waste precious writing space to document it?

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Wrong question.
If the date was common knowledge among Christians why would they waste precious writing space to document it?

The scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. It would seem to reason that the Lord did not want that to be a focus. I do not think it was a matter of writing space or simply over looked. There is also no indication from scripture that the date was common knowledge and more likely no one outside Joseph and Mary probably really even knew. Think about it, is your birthdate common knowledge to everyone around you like your neighbors?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. It would seem to reason that the Lord did not want that to be a focus. I do not think it was a matter of writing space or simply over looked. There is also no indication from scripture that the date was common knowledge and more likely no one outside Joseph and Mary probably really even knew. Think about it, is your birthday common knowledge to everyone around you like your neighbors?

Am not a celebrity or a Savior, so no one outside my circles would care. Am saying the early Church would have wanted to know and evidently did know because of Who He is.

I would think it odd to suggest in the early Church that no one wanted to know or hear stories about Jesus. Tradition has it they gathered around Mary to hear Her talk about her Son. Certainly Saint John spent enough time with her to know and he had disciples and Churches started that venerated his knowledge of Jesus life (his "school" of teachings), which the Incarnation would have been a major part of.

And the date is actually recorded for us EARLY in the next (2nd) century as the date of his birth. We know this because Pope St. Telesphorus is recorded adding a Midnight Mass to the liturgies already occuring on Dec 25th. So that Pope created a special liturgy to honor the precise hour of his birth. So we know they were already honoring the date before that Pope did that - which means Church wide acceptance of that date and that date would have had to come from the 1st century knowledge of that date.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Am not a celebrity or a Savior, so no one outside my circles would care. Am saying the early Church would have wanted to know and evidently did know because of Who He is.

I would think it odd to suggest in the early Church that no one wanted to know or hear stories about Jesus. Tradition has it they gathered around Mary to hear Her talk about her Son. Certainly Saint John spent enough time with her to know and he had disciples and Churches started that venerated his knowledge of Jesus life (his "school" of teachings), which the Incarnation would have been a major part of.

And the date is actually recorded for us EARLY in the next (2nd) century as the date of his birth. We know this because Pope St. Telesphorus is recorded adding a Midnight Mass to the liturgies already occuring on Dec 25th. So that Pope created a special liturgy to honor the precise hour of his birth. So we know they were already honoring the date before that Pope did that - which means Church wide acceptance of that date and that date would have had to come from the 1st century knowledge of that date.

No one knew who Jesus was until he was about 30 years old. Basically for 30 years he led a quiet life not really drawing attention as his ministry did not start until he was 30.

I think you miss the point entirely. It is not a matter of people being interested. It is a matter of the scriptures being inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Lord did not want us to focus on it and that is the point, not if people were interested.

As for Dec 25th and the pope and the RCC influence you should know that Dec 25th is also Tammuz birthday which was celebrated by those who worshiped Tammuz....

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No one knew who Jesus was until he was about 30 years old. Basically for 30 years he led a quiet life not really drawing attention as his ministry did not start until he was 30.

I think you miss the point entirely. It is not a matter of people being interested. It is a matter of the scriptures being inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Lord did not want us to focus on it and that is the point, not if people were interested.

As for Dec 25th and the pope and the RCC influence you should know that Dec 25th is also Tammuz birthday which was celebrated by those who worshiped Tammuz....

First the legend of Tammuz is centered on the winter solstice, not the 25 December which comes after the solstice. Second the point falls apart as many people knew a lot about the Son of God after His Death and Resurrection. And those people would want to and did honor aspects of His Life and SHARE that knowledge - from the Virgin birth to His Resurrection. He is our King, of course Christians would want to honor not just what He did for us, but also His Birth. The record reflects they did so on the 25th of December, also that He was born at midnight on that date (which is why midnight Mass occurs Christmas Eve - not the next night - Jewish passage of days and all).

Tammuz is an Arab thing anyway and the association to Christmas a popular Protestant (in some circles) and non-believer myth. Christianity began and spread under the Roman empire (hint not Arab) and the record I mentioned comes centuries before one could make any claim of either there being a RCC Church or alleged pagan Roman influence. They were still often hiding in the 2nd century, no reason to make a compromise on things they were willing to die for and no need to attempt to adopt a holiday to steer a flock that initially came mostly from Jewish (hint not Arab) and Greek (hint not Arab) anyway. So the notion that Christian converts, again primarily Jews and Greeks, in the 1st and early 2nd century would choose in mass (so to speak) to honor Jesus birth on 25 December because of the winter solstice (which is before 25 December anyway) does not hold water. It does however make for easy bogus anti-Catholic rhetoric I guess.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

First the legend of Tammuz is centered on the winter solstice, not the 25 December which comes after the solstice. Second the point falls apart as many people knew a lot about the Son of God after His Death and Resurrection. And those people would want to and did honor aspects of His Life and SHARE that knowledge - from the Virgin birth to His Resurrection. He is our King, of course Christians would want to honor not just what He did for us, but also His Birth. The record reflects they did so on the 25th of December, also that He was born at midnight on that date (which is why midnight Mass occurs Christmas Eve - not the next night - Jewish passage of days and all).

Tammuz is an Arab thing anyway and the association to Christmas a popular Protestant (in some circles) and non-believer myth. Christianity began and spread under the Roman empire (hint not Arab) and the record I mentioned comes centuries before one could make any claim of either there being a RCC Church or alleged pagan Roman influence. They were still often hiding in the 2nd century, no reason to make a compromise on things they were willing to die for and no need to attempt to adopt a holiday to steer a flock that initially came mostly from Jewish (hint not Arab) and Greek (hint not Arab) anyway. So the notion that Christian converts, again primarily Jews and Greeks, in the 1st and early 2nd century would choose in mass (so to speak) to honor Jesus birth on 25 December because of the winter solstice (which is before 25 December anyway) does not hold water. It does however make for easy bogus anti-Catholic rhetoric I guess.

Christianity was doing just fine prior to any influence of the Roman empire.

Tammuz was the meshing of paganism the RCC did, fact. Actually Tammuz was of Babylonian origin (hint not Arab). Babylon was in modern day IRAQ and dates to Sumerian times.

Tammuz (deity) - Wikipedia



How December 25 Became Christmas - Biblical Archaeology Society

The extrabiblical evidence from the first and second century is equally spare: There is no mention of birth celebrations in the writings of early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 130–200) or Tertullian (c. 160–225). Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) goes so far as to mock Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as “pagan” practices—a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time.1 As far as we can tell, Christmas was not celebrated at all at this point.

The earliest mention of December 25 as Jesus’ birthday comes from a mid-fourth-century Roman almanac that lists the death dates of various Christian bishops and martyrs. The first date listed, December 25, is marked: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae: “Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea.”3 In about 400 C.E., Augustine of Hippo mentions a local dissident Christian group, the Donatists, who apparently kept Christmas festivals on December 25, but refused to celebrate the Epiphany on January 6, regarding it as an innovation. Since the Donatist group only emerged during the persecution under Diocletian in 312 C.E. and then remained stubbornly attached to the practices of that moment in time, they seem to represent an older North African Christian tradition.

 

[SolomonVII]

How December 25 Became Christmas - Biblical Archaeology Society


Why December 25?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Christianity was doing just fine prior to any influence of the Roman empire.

Tammuz was the meshing of paganism the RCC did, fact. Actually Tammuz was of Babylonian origin (hint not Arab). Babylon was in modern day IRAQ and dates to Sumerian times.

Tammuz (deity) - Wikipedia



How December 25 Became Christmas - Biblical Archaeology Society

The extrabiblical evidence from the first and second century is equally spare: There is no mention of birth celebrations in the writings of early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 130–200) or Tertullian (c. 160–225). Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) goes so far as to mock Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as “pagan” practices—a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time.1 As far as we can tell, Christmas was not celebrated at all at this point.

The earliest mention of December 25 as Jesus’ birthday comes from a mid-fourth-century Roman almanac that lists the death dates of various Christian bishops and martyrs. The first date listed, December 25, is marked: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae: “Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea.”3 In about 400 C.E., Augustine of Hippo mentions a local dissident Christian group, the Donatists, who apparently kept Christmas festivals on December 25, but refused to celebrate the Epiphany on January 6, regarding it as an innovation. Since the Donatist group only emerged during the persecution under Diocletian in 312 C.E. and then remained stubbornly attached to the practices of that moment in time, they seem to represent an older North African Christian tradition.

And these sources are all being intentionally deceptive and selective with reference sources/quotes. I gave a source that is early 2nd century, hundreds of years before anyone could claim there was a Roman Catholic Church.

More damning for this mythical view historically is no one attempts to make these false claims until years AFTER the Protestant reformation. Gee I wonder why.

 

[SolomonVII]

The two most credible possibilities that the date of Christmas is Dec 25 are:
1. This is a remembered date passed on from personal witnesses of the biography of Jesus to Christians of later generations.
2. This is a date decided upon by later Christian generations with theological considerations, namely that Dec 25 falls exactly 9 months after Nisan 14, which is the historically known and theologically significant date of the death of Christ. In effect, the incarnation of the Word into the world is seen as an eternally recurring event predicated, with the Word conceived at Golgotha.

From very early times the eastern and western traditions of Christianity have held Christmas to be on Dec 25 and Jan 6 respectively. This is what we would expect from scenario 2, since this the calandars of the two traditions demacate nine months from the April 6 date that was established as the date of the Crucifixion in the East and March 25 in the West.

No scholars seriously entertain pagan roots for the date of Christmas any more.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

And these sources are all being intentionally deceptive and selective with reference sources/quotes. I gave a source that is early 2nd century, hundreds of years before anyone could claim there was a Roman Catholic Church.

More damning for this mythical view historically is no one attempts to make these false claims until years AFTER the Protestant reformation. Gee I wonder why.

What source did you give? I must have missed it because it looks like just copy and paste and no source. Basically anything that sheds negative light on the RCC is "biased" or not true right..

I forgot about the saturnanlia connection too..

Was Jesus born on December 25? Is December 25 Jesus' birthday?

The date eventually became the officially recognized date for Christmas in part because it coincided with the pagan festivals celebrating Saturnalia and the winter solstice. The church thereby offered people a Christian alternative to the pagan festivities and eventually reinterpreted many of their symbols and actions in ways acceptable to Christian faith and practice.

December 25 has become more and more acceptable as the birth date of Jesus. However, some argue that the birth occurred in some other season, such as in the fall. Followers of this theory claim that the Judean winters were too cold for shepherds to be watching their flocks by night. History proves otherwise, however, and we have historical evidence that unblemished lambs for the Temple sacrifice were in fact kept in the fields near Bethlehem during the winter months. With that said, it is impossible to prove whether or not Jesus was born on December 25. And, ultimately, it does not matter.