[Uri’el-2012]

The theological basis that the Messiah would enter into the world in about March is fairly sound, but is perfectly consistent with a Dec 25 Christmas. In fact, Catholics have since the early days of the Church recognized March 25th as the date that Christ was conceived, and therefore fulfilling such prophecies. March 25th, (or, actually April 6 accounting for the Julian calendar) incidentally, is the day that Christ died; the ancient Jews and Christians believed that great prophets died on the day they were conceived. (This feast is called that of the Annunciation, referring to the annunciation of Gabriel to Mary regarding the conception of Christ.)

The historicist arguments are quite presumptuous, ignoring the impact of the “Roman Warm Period,” for instance.

The syncretist arguments, that Christmas has a pagan origin, are thoroughly bankrupt: Some allege, for instance, that the date of Christmas is based on the date of Sol Invuctus, whereas that festival was moved to the date of Christmas in the third century. There existed a Judeo-Christian holiday on Dec. 25th (or the closes Jewish-calendar equivalent) as early as four centuries earlier, when the Macabbeans established that the 25th of Kislev be celebrated as the return of the Spirit of God into the Holy Temple (the Feast of the Dedication).

Niether the Feast of the Dedication, nor the ancient Judeo-Christian supposition that prophets were conceived on the day they die establish for certain that Christ was born on the 25th, but they certainly establish a pious and biblical reason for choosing that day to celebrate his birth.

16 posted on August 6, 2008 12:16:31 PM MDT by dangus

The question is whether you believe and trust
the Holy Word of Elohim in Luke 1
or you trust the traditions of man

Yah'shua's birth on Sukkot
(Sukkot is the Feast of Tabernacles or booths, where we live in temporary shelters.
Sukkot is when YHvH took on a temporary garment to be with His People
and to die as the Lamb of G-d on Pesach in order to bring salvation to all
who would call on His Name : Yah'shua ( YHvH is become my salvation)).

Sukkot as the date is supported by Elizabeth's pregnancy of John the Immerser.
The time sequence is outlined by the Holy Word of Elohim in Luke 1 with Zacharias.

Zacharias served as a high priest and based on his tribe, we know when he served
(1 Chronicles 24:7-18) and when he was struck dumb and when John was conceived.

John would have been born on Pesach. Most Jews believed that Elijah
would come at Pesach to announce the coming of the Messiah (Malachi 4:5).

Factor in when Miriam visited her cousin Elizabeth,
Elizabeth was six months pregnant (Luke 1:26)
Thus the timing of Yah'shua's birth can be ascertained.

John (1:14) tells us that Yah'shua was made flesh and tabernacled among us.

Eight days after the beginning of Sukkot is another Holy Feast Day called Shemini Atzeret.

Eight days after a Jewish male is born he is circumcised.

After the Eighth day comes the the most Joyous day:
Simchat Torah or
the rejoicing in the Torah (The Word of Elohim).

Nine months back from Sukkot is Chanukah where the light entered the temple.

Biblical Dates for the Birth of Yochanan the Immerser and for the Conception and Birth of Yeshua HaMashiach

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[dangus]

>> The question is whether you believe and trust the Holy Word of Elohim in Luke 1 Xenia's unique notions or you trust the traditions of man. <<

In all fairness, I don't mean to trash your reasoning. But it IS human reasoning. You write as if the bible said "Jesus was born on Sukkot," whereas you actually have a long trail of cascading assumptions to reach that point.

For example, your first step is your assertion that "Most Jews believed that Elijah would come at Pesach to announce the coming of the Messiah (Mal 4:5). How Malachi 4:5 supports your assertion is an argument you didn't (yet) make. Even assuming your assertion is true: so what? Most Jews also expected Christ to be a king in this world. I've even heard that in THIS context, Elijah refers to the first coming of CHRIST, not John. Yes, Jesus quotes Isaiah's allusion to Elijah as referring to John, but does that mean Malachi is? I think it's a pretty weak case that John fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi

But don't let the contentiousness of that throw you off the main point: You need to prove the doctrinal necessity that Malachi 4:5 be interpreted the way you interpret it. You haven't... yet. The point is that there are other ways to interpret who Malachi refers to, let alone the fact that I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that it refers to Sukkot.

Each step you likewise procede with assertions which would be precariously and presumptively based on arguments, even if the arguments were certainly true... while in fact you haven't made the arguments. Again, I don't mean to assert that they're false arguments. But you haven't made your case. So you can drop the proclamations like "The question is whether you believe and trust the Holy Word of Elohim in Luke 1 Xenia's unique notions or you trust the traditions of man, and have a reasonable conversation, or you can be ignored.