| Date: 2006-05-23 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 5 of 9 |
| Actually there is more proof. Subsequent early christian literature says that Jesus was born after 7 months. His expected birth would have been in September (the month of atonement), so if he was born a few months prematurely, this puts us again in the June/July time frame. Remember that the number "7" was a magical number to the Jews and didn't necessarily mean exactly 7. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
  |
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-08-28 |
Username: jimfoxy |
Helpful: 2 of 5 |
| While I agree that the December 25th date can't be proven true, neither can it be proven false. It is probably best to leave it there, but many commentators seem to want to expound further. I agree with a few things that you posted, but the old chestnut that "sheep were not in the fields" in December is no proof of anything. Flocks of sheep were driven to Jerusalm to be used in temple sacrifice every month of the year. The shepherds in the fields that night could have been drovers. So any month of the year is about as likely as any other month, in my opinion. The idea that Jesus' family "followed Essene customs" is just a theory with no real support but a tenuous chain of speculation -- so that does not really help. Speculations of the early fathers don't seem to be much better, unfortunately. Be nice to know when Jesus was born, but we don't. December 25th is as good as any other date. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-09-06 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 5 of 5 |
| Hi Jim. Yes, any day is possible since there were no official records. Yet we know that December 25th was invented much later, and we know it was taken from pagan tradition, and we know that Shepherds didn't spend their nights in the fields with the sheep in December. The temple sheep were a distinctly different group and would have been tended by the temple authorities, not the ordinary shepherds. So December 25th can be ruled out. And it's true that the idea that Jesus' family were Essenes is "just a theory", yet it's surprising how well the Essene theory supports the shepherd theory and supports the premature birth claims in the Infancy Gospels. This doesn't provide us with a definite answer, but I think the support for a June/July birth is much stronger than December 25th. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-09-07 |
Username: jimfoxy |
Helpful: 2 of 4 |
| OK DRJ,
Let me try once more, though we are not ALL that far apart. You could not keep a flock near Jerusalem the year 'round that would be large enough to provide sacrificies for a whole year. The forage would not have been sufficient, and it would have been impractical to bring forage in from the hinterlands. Much easier to bring in sheep in smaller bands when required. Sheep being driven to Jerusalem would have to spend nights in the fields -- yes, even in December. When night fell, what else would you do with them? You would bed them down wherever you were when night fell. So the sheep issue does not hold up if you look at it from an agronomical point of view. So is December as likely as June? I havn't seen anything to convince me otherwise.
Blessings......... Jim |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-09-14 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 2 of 3 |
| Hi Jim. The June/July date also synchronizes with the idea that Jesus was born prematurely, and given that his birth should have been in the month of atonement, this matches up well. Of course, by itself, the Essene theory is just a theory. It gains strength by being matched with the Shepherd story and together the three approaches provide a better basis than the December theft of the Mithra birthdate. The sheep undoubtedly did stay in the fields in December; the issue is where did the Shepherds sleep. According to everything I've read, shepherds did not sleep in the fields with their sheep in December. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-12-01 |
Username: lokkenjawnz |
Helpful: 1 of 2 |
| This article brings up some very interesting points, however I have my own point to throw into the fray to try to disprove the Dec 25th birthday. Now I'm not as well researched as the writer of the article, but from what knowledge I have of history, I know that our current calendar system has changed radically over the time that it's been used. For instance, Benjamin Franklin effectively is known to have two birthdays due to shifts in the calendar, and there were many shifts since Jesus' time. I would just assume that if it was marked as Dec 25th in ancient days, then it at least wouldn't be Dec 25th as we currently know it. Another thing to point out, is that like the article said, christianity uses other religions holidays sometimes. And right around Christmas, we have Hanukkah. It would make sense that Christians would put the new holiday near that time, to make an easier transition. Also notice that Hanukkah fluctuates each year, the dates change, because it's not of our calendar. Another somewhat unrelated sidenote to the theory of Christians piggybacking other holiday time, is Easter, which, if I'm not mistaken, is very close the time of year as passover, and coincidentally has some similar practices, at least for the kids.
Again, most of this is simply speculation, but I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents on the matter. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-12-20 |
Username: Dagan |
Helpful: 1 of 4 |
| It was during this time of temple service that Zacharias learned that he and his wife, Elizabeth, would have a child (Luke 1:8-13). After he completed his service and traveled home, Elizabeth conceived (verses 23-24). Assuming John's conception took place near the end of June, adding nine months brings us to the end of March as the most likely time for John's birth. Adding another six months (the difference in ages between John and Jesus) brings us to the end of September as the likely time of Jesus' birth.
|
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-12-20 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 5 of 6 |
| Hi Dagan. That's the story according to Luke, but the Lukan stories are hardly the stuff of history. For example, Luke has Jesus' birth at the time of the census we know took place in 6 AD, yet we also know that Jesus was born while Herod was still alive, and Herod died in 4 BC, so according to Luke, Jesus was born 10 years after Herod died. ??? Moreover, Luke has John and Jesus as relatives and the families very close, and then when they meet years later, no one knows the other nor mentions their relationship. Sounds fishy to me. Hence, dating Jesus' birth from what Luke says about John may not be the best way to date Jesus' birth. Having said that, it is true that for the Essenes of that time a birth in September would have been highly symbolic since it was the holy month of atonement. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-12-31 |
Username: Ray |
Helpful: 2 of 6 |
| I have done extecive studies on this subject and found that Yahwehshuah was concieved in about September-October so He would been born in May-June this timing is based on when Yahweh gave the law to Moses. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-01-02 |
Username: weller |
Helpful: 4 of 4 |
| From what I can tell, from my meager studies, the fixing of the date of dec. 25 is inextricably linked with the winter soltice ( dec. 21) and pagan beliefs. Pagans, needless to say, were not very well versed in scientific matters. They traditionally put a hold on celebrating the winter solstice for three days because they feared the sun might not resume its natural cycle. After three days, and observing that all was indeed well with the sun, they practised their celebrations.
Later, when christanity was on the rise, the christians cleverly incorporated or co opted the date of 25 dec. as an expedient way of converting the pagans. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-01-06 |
Username: rabbiray1 |
Helpful: 1 of 5 |
| Emporer Constitine is the one incorporated this date as the birth of the Messiah because he (Constitine) was a pagan who converted to Christianity and hated anything to do with Judahism there by trying to get rid of anything relating to it..... |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-05-28 |
Username: jimfoxy |
Helpful: 2 of 4 |
| I don't know of anything connecting Constantine to December 25, but I am sure that December 25 is as likely to be true as any other date. Yes, I know I said this before, but it bears repeating. Some say the date was first proposed by Hippolytus in his commentary on Daniel. Others say it was Sextus Julius Africanus in Chronographiai in AD 221 (long before Constantine!). If anyone has a reference connecting Christmas to Constantine, I would like to see it.
Also the site noted by CelsustheSecond ("infidels.org") pretty much says it all. Hardly an objective font of knowledge! The fact is that pretty much any date selected by Christians as a time to remember the birth of Christ would have the same objection -- "it is the traditional clam fest of the Rosicrucians" or whatever. So all the ink spilled about pagan roots of the December 25th date also proves nothing. Nada! Zip! Capiche? |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-07-14 |
Username: jimfoxy |
Helpful: 3 of 5 |
| When a site advertises itself as "faithless", which is what "infidel" means, I think I can be forgiven for assuming that they have abandoned any pretense toward objectivity. If CelsustheSecond is saying that this site is more than that, it is unfortunate, to be sure. They need a more neutral name if they want to be taken seriously. I am sure that my point about the liklihood of December 25th was understood by most. It was not that December 25th has the same probabality as the combined probability of all other possible dates. It was that we don't know when Jesus was born. Since we don't know, we can't logically say it was not December 25th any more than we can say it definitely was December 25th. I think I have found an area of agreement with CelsustheSecond. While "Capiche" is an alternate spelling (check Google), and definitely acceptable in some communities, the preferred spelling is, indeed, "Capisce". I like the quote from Matthew about forgiveness, kindly supplied by CelsustheSecond. I particularly like the use of the TR, since most are using Nestle, these days.
One more thing. We are all theologians, of course, but I make no special claim to that title. Blessings........ |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-10-15 |
Username: TOTO |
Helpful: 5 of 6 |
| Dear Friends Read the following book:(( The World's sixteen crucified saviors )) by Kersey Graves and Acharya S.(amazone-books) You will read about 16 saviors born on 25 December from a virgin mother performing miracles(!) dying crucified and resurrecting 3 days later (from 3000 BC to 450BC)
As you can see (if you can see) the 17th edition following the same patterns must be declared born on December 25. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-01-26 |
Username: SplPio |
Helpful: 3 of 4 |
| As many encyclopedias clearly state, Jesus’ birthday was arbitrarily set as December 25 to coincide with a Roman pagan festival. Note the following declarations taken from different reference works:
“The date of Christ’s birth is not known. The Gospels indicate neither the day nor the month.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III, page 656.
“Most of the Christmas customs now prevailing in Europe, or recorded from former times, are not genuine Christian customs, but heathen customs which have been absorbed or tolerated by the Church. . . . The Saturnalia in Rome provided the model for most of the merry customs of the Christmas time.”—Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh, 1910), edited by James Hastings, Volume III, pages 608-9.
“Christmas has been celebrated on December 25 in all Christian churches since the fourth century. At that time, this was the date of the pagan winter-solstice festival called the ‘Birth (Latin, natale) of the Sun,’ since the sun appeared to be reborn as the days once again became longer. In Rome, the Church adopted this extremely popular custom . . . by giving it a new meaning.”—Encyclopædia Universalis, 1968, (French) Volume 19, page 1375.
“The development of the Christmas festival was influenced by the contrast with the pagan celebrations of the Sol Invictus (Mithra). On the other hand, December 25, being the day of the winter solstice, was identified with the light that broke forth into the world through Christ, and the symbolism of the Sol Invictus was thus transferred to Christ.”—Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, (German) Volume 20, page 125.
When learning the facts about Christmas, how have some reacted? The Encyclopædia Britannica observes: “In 1644 the English puritans forbad any merriment or religious services by act of Parliament, on the ground that it [Christmas] was a heathen festival, and ordered it to be kept as a fast. Charles II revived the feast, but the Scots adhered to the Puritan view.” The early Christians did not celebrate Christmas, or take part in activities that are associated with Christmas.
The Christmas Star: “‘The early church leaders didn’t celebrate Christmas in December specifically to celebrate the birth of Christ,’ [Mosley] said. ‘It was their way of dealing with the winter solstice,’ the turning point of winter, when the sun stops its drift to the south and heads north again, bringing new light.
“The first reported observance of Christmas as the birth of Jesus Christ was more than 300 years after the event. In the 4th Century, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and, scholars believe, Christians set Jesus’ birthdate at Dec. 25 to coincide with existent celebrating by non-Christians.
“‘Rather than battle against the pagan holidays, they decided to join them and try to replace them,’ said University of Utah professor Russell Belk . . . ‘The pagan holidays replaced by Christianity were the Roman celebrations of Saturnalia—which were carnivalesque celebrations with gift-giving—and later the Yule celebrations in England and Germany that celebrated the winter solstice,’ Belk said.
TEN years ago this month, the magazine U.S.News & World Report featured the cover story “In Search of Christmas.” The article focused on whether Christmas was becoming “purer, less commercial.” Are things going that way?
The article offered insight into reasons why we should not expect that. It noted: “There is no record of official observance of Christ’s birth until the fourth century, when Constantine . . . was emperor of Rome.” That reflected “at least in part the fact that no one knew for sure when Jesus was born.” The article admitted that “the gospels are silent on the year, let alone the exact month or day.” According to a University of Texas historian, “the earliest Christians simply weren’t interested in celebrating the Nativity.”
He was not born on Dec 25. Closer to end of summer to fall. No one knows exactly. Probably just for this reason...all the focus. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-02-05 |
Username: Mriana |
Helpful: 2 of 3 |
| I have on problem with this. It's assuming Jesus was a historical person. IF he was a historical person and it is possible to remove all the myth and find a person, then yes, I agree maybe late summer early fall.
Of course, if we take it as pure litature written according to the Hebrew liturgical calendar (as Spong states in "A New Christianity for a New World") it also makes sense to write the story according to the traditional Hebrew ways and setting the course of events with the Hebrew calendar. Thus him being born during the Day of Atonement (September) also makes sense.
Throw in the bit about the shepards in the field though and well we have a real mess. Either she was raped by a Roman solider and went nutty or she and Joseph consumated their relationship during their betrothal. Not sure if you can logically apply this to literature somehow, but it breaks with the liturgical calendar just a bit. IF he was born in June, even literary wise, I think it would break with Spong's theory of the gospels being written to the Hebrew liturgical calendar, unless there is a lessor holiday around that time that I don't know about.
I don't think it is really possible to say when he was born regardless if he was a mythical man or a historical man buried in so much myth he's virtually impossible to find. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-02-05 |
Username: hanzo |
Helpful: 3 of 4 |
| According to the scriptures, Jesus nailed to the cross 14 days after the new year (the jewish new year that starts in the month of abib/april Deuteronomy 16:1)
The bible also states that christ died 1 day shy of his 33rd birthday, the 13th of abib/april is the date of his death, so his birth day accoring to the scriptures should be on the 14th of abib/april. This time was also know as the "high day";They would kill the Passover lamb on the 14th day of
Nissan/abib. Jesus was also the lamb of GOD, so it would make sense for him to die also at this time.
Also, according to the bible, christ was born just before herod (the great.the first one) died; Herod died during the passover (the passover is from the 14th of abib and goes for 7 or so days from what i remember)
Also, during the december period, sheep herders did not have their flock out on the open grounds/vallys, this always happend during the period of march/april, so this would mean that the sheep herders who were present at christ birth would have been around the month of april. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-04-04 |
Username: Rayman |
Helpful: 1 of 1 |
| I am a rookie to your website and by far, I am no scholar, so please do not beat me up to much. Has anyone heard of or considered the Astrology aspect for dating Jesus' birth? The Babylon Magi witnessed Jupiter being eclipsed by the Moon (April 17th, six B.C.), sending them to Judea. This reference was shown on American Public Tevevision (Mystery of the Three Kings 2003) and if I am not mistaken, the "Privileged Planet" documentary references this exact date also. This date supports other estimated dating listed by "drj" from other MOST COMMON ERRORS listed on the right column of this page. I hope this (angle) helps and just as all of you, seeking for the truth. Any chance of rating the "Three Kings" documentary mentioned and list it within the TV REVIEW SECTION? |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-05-23 |
Username: Pantera |
Helpful: 1 of 1 |
| On 2007-07-14 "jimfoxy" wrote ______ "When a site advertises itself as "faithless"..they have abandoned any pretense toward objectivity. I couldn't disagree with you more. One devastating aspect of religious belief is the discrediting of the individual's human capacity to reason and the demand of the abandonment of objectivity. Although the Bible may not have explicitly discouraged the use of human reason, it was obvious by the time of Thomas à Kempis that objective knowledge was to be mistrusted: "My son, in many things it is thy duty to be ignorant and to esteem thyself as dead upon earth, and as one to whom the whole world is crucified."
Empirical thinking leads to an objective view of the world. Religious belief leads to a view of the world in which the distinction between the objective and subjective is blurred, cause is mistaken for effect, the wish confused with its fulfillment, where the symbol becomes the thing and metaphor is transformed into historical fact. No one can prove that there are no gods. The Christian God may exist; but so may the Hindu gods, the gods of Rome and Olympus, of ancient Egypt or of Babylon. Not one of these hypotheses is any more probable than another. Each religion insists it is the exclusive ultimate truth, and each lies outside the realm of rationality, reason and proof.
That doesn’t diminish the importance, however, of inner spirituality. But it is something believers should keep in mind when they communicate with those who don’t share their beliefs. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-12-23 |
Username: queenbodicca |
Helpful: 0 of 0 |
| When Jesus was actually born does not matter (I qualify this later on). Christianity (as those religions before it) was/is the naturally occurring religious traditions Western peoples evolved to express their naturally occurring psychological needs, beliefs and self identity (although like all ideologies still contains denial of Free Will), just as Hinduism of today is the repository of the religious history of India.
It's also hilarious, how those who posit themselves in opposition to "religion" and or "faith," are just as bound up and entwined in a "faith" of their own making and enslaved to their own subjectivity and relativity horribly fail to see that fact...essentially ranting and raving about the spec in others eyes, while failing to see the beam in their own!
The fact remains that the entire focus of ancient history has been blurred by the three successive attempts of the Roman Empire and its Greco-Egyptian lackeys, to ethnically cleanse the Roman empire of Jews and "Jewish like" people.
The Pauline Christians, who started as a remnant of "god fearers” (i.e. nominal converts to Judaism), who wished to survive the Roman genocidal bloodlust, and distance themselves from being included under the Roman anti-Semitic propaganda against the Jews, had no authentic and historic ties to the Jewish followers of Jesus, and were only nominally tied to Jacob the Just (the generally recognized leader of the Christian Movement after Jesus’ death, then and today by most scholars), so they had to mythologicalize (is that a real word?! lol) based on the glimpses of surviving stories and legends they begrudgingly inherited from Jewish followers who survived the first war with Rome in 70AD, and yet were considered heretical thanks to Pauline theology and his rabidly anti-Semitic religious progeny, the Gnostics.
It is unfortunate that most of the clear and concise traditions were burned or buried when the Temple and Jerusalem was burned and buried, and the Jewish nation was obliterated in 70AD, and the then surviving Jewish remnant of that war fled to Alexandria, and then the remaining Jews (including the Jewish followers of Jesus) of the Mediterranean were massacred in the second of the three wars in 115AD.
The Romans were successful in taking approximately 10-15% of the population of their empire and after murdering most, selling the survivors, mostly women and children, into slavery and oblivion, effectively wiping out the diversity of Judaism, that included "Original Christianity" (as the survival of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows, by no one having survived to collect them).
Ironic, didn't Romans call killing every 10th man in a legion, devastation?
There were some Jews left in the Empire, but they were scattered to the far fringes of the Imperial frontier, or were pitiful peasant subsistence farmers, or were pro-Roman "atheists." By and large most of the Jews left in the world were then living almost exclusively outside of the Roman Empire, and they were mostly of only one denomination (Pharisaic/Rabbinical), and within the empire the Flavians would rewrite history for the Jewish people.
But for the bloodthirsty Romans, that wasn't good enough and their quest for Jewish extermination continued with a third and final devastating war, which would destroy the previous religious self identity and political self determination of the Jewish people for 2000 years.
It was after the first and second wars, and the extermination of the original movement and the Jewish leadership of the original movement, that Christianity stopped being a religion of history and continuity, and became a religion of myth, legend and faith.
This is why the quest for the historical Jesus and historical Christianity is meaningless for Pauline Christians because all they had/have left was the theophany and revelation of Saul of Tarsus (real or not)...and to loose that, they must then either fall into the fold of the faith that gave birth to their faith...Judaism, or become Muslims, as the only other alternative to so called Abrahamic religion. And because of the inherited Roman anti-Semitism that exists within Pauline Christianity, most natural direction is toward Islam (if they don’t leave the Abrahamic faiths behind altogether).
Does it matter that textual evidence shows either an April-June (Luke) or a September/October (based on the temple service of Zachariah and the birth of John the Baptist, if they truly were cousins?) birth for Jesus…it doesn’t really matter for Pauline Christians, because Jesus is God incarnate, not a Jewish mystic, sage and teacher, who the actual Jesus was does not matter, because the revelation and faith of Saul of Tarsus nullifies the historical Jesus.
According to Pauline theology, Christ is “the Light of the World,” and Dec 25, the birth day of Sol Invictus and Mithra, both of whom were “The Light of the World,” is the natural evolution of western religion, no different, than the evolution from Mercury to Hermes or Amun-Ra to Zeus. The language is relative and ultimately meaningless to the ideas and concepts that exists behind the imagery…but then I’m a perennialist, for me the only thing that is in error is the artificial, and social re-engineering, and tyranny in any form or shape, most importantly intellectually, because tyranny in practice begins with tyranny of the mind and soul.
Was Jesus born on Dec. 25, 99.9% more than likely no,…does it matter…nope, unless your goal is either to follow the Jewish Rabbi Yeshua OR...intellectual (i.e. ideological, religious, cultural and or political) tyranny, and all tyranny is ultimately based on straw man logic.
You have to examine you motives for criticism, is it intellectual honesty and then what are your motives there, are they to cause shame and embarrassment, and solicit a sense of self importance and superiority?
If faith, gives comfort, and is a naturally occurring psychological need for all and every human being, as a naturally occurring biological function...aren't you kicking at the goads?
If you dash the house of cards, you then become morally and ethically responsible bound to providing an alternative...otherwise what replaces it might be worse (sic Nazi Germany), and if you are not prepared (or able) to sacrifice of yourself to provide "a more perfect" alternative...then aren't you morally and ethical bound to shut up and say nothing at all? |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-12-30 |
Username: fivish |
Helpful: 2 of 2 |
| Cant have been December 25th as the shepherds were watching their flocks, the lambing season, spring!
December 25th is a good day for a host of pagan festivals, all incorporated into christianity. Its a mishmash of pagan myths and fables with little intellectual honesty. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
