Posted on 12/20/2007 3:32:58 PM PST by shield
Jupiter. The King star.
2. An overwhelmingly strong argument in favor of the correctness of this view lies in the fact that the date of "the Festival of Michael and All Angels" has been from very early times the 29th day of September, on Gentile (Western) reckoning. But "the Church" even then had lost sight of the reason why this date rather than any other in the Calendar should be so indissolubly associated with the great Angelic Festival.
3. The following expresses the almost universal knowledge or rather want of knowledge of "Christendom" on the subject: "We pass on now to consider, in the third place, the commemoration of September 29, the festival of Michaelmas, par excellence. It does not appear at all certain what was the original special idea of the commemoration of this day" (Smith's Dict. of Chr. Antiqq. (1893), vol. ii, p. 1177 (3) ).
A reference, however, to the Table and statements above, makes the "original special idea " why the Festival of "Michael and All Angels" is held on September 29 abundantly clear. Our Lord was born on that day, the first day of the "Feast of Tabernacles" (Lev. 23:39). This was on the fifteenth day of the seventh Jewish month called Tisri, or Ethanim (Ap. 51. 5), corresponding to our September 29 (of the year 4 B.C.) The "Begetting" (gennesis) Day of the Lord was announced by the Angel Gabriel. See notes on Dan. 8:16 and Luke 1:19. The "Birth" Day, by "(the) Angel of the Lord", unnamed in either Matthew and Luke.
That this Angelic Being was "Michael the Archangel (of Jude 9), and Mika'el hassar haggadol - "Michael the Great Prince"- of Dan. 12:1, seems clear for the following reason: If, "when again (yet future) He bringeth the First-begotten into the world, He saith, Let all the Angels of God worship Him" (Heb 1:6; quoting Ps. 97:6) - then this must include the great Archangel Michael himself. By parity of reasoning, on the First "bringing" into the world of the only begotten Son, the Archangel must have been present. And the tremendous announcement to the shepherds, that the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6) was on earth in the person of the Babe of Bethlehem, must therefore have been made by the same head of the heavenly host (Luke 2:9-14). In mundane affairs, announcements of supremest importance (of kings, &c.) are invariably conveyed through the most exalted personage in the realm. The point need not be labored.
4. The fact of the Birth of our Lord having been revealed to the shepherds by the Archangel Michael on the 15th of Tisri (or Ethanim), corresponding to September 29, 4 B.C. - The first day of the Feast of Tabernacles - must have been known to believers in the Apostolic Age. But "the mystery of iniquity" which was "already working" in Paul's day (2Thess. 2:7) quickly enshrouded this and the other great fact of the day of the Lord's "begetting" on the first day of the Jewish month Tebeth (corresponding to December 25, 5 B.C.) - as well as other events connected with His sojourn on earth, (*1) - in a rising mist of obscurity in which they have ever since been lost.
The earliest allusion to December 25 (modern reckoning) as the date for the Nativity is found in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria, about the beginning of the third century A.D. (See note 3 p. 197). (*2)
Doesn’t the first day of Tishri make more sense?
The new year, the day of Kings?
And that should have been 3 BC.
No, it does not. Our Lord was made flesh on Dec. 25th [conceived] 280days = 40 weeks = PERFECT human gestation. Feast of Tabernacles is what lines up with scripture. When one has an understanding WHY?
That’s pretty much what Starry Night shows too, after hiding the horizon. :-)
IMO basing research around a “perfect” gestation period brings in a needless bias and flaws the objectivity of the research at the outset.
1 Tishri was the new year, the day of trumpets (the day chosen to blow trumpets in honor of the king), and the day that according to some traditions was the day Adam took his first breath.
The astronomical signs also line up with Tishri 1 as well:
http://www.geocities.com/kubyimm1/sm3g.htm
The question is whether you believe and trust Sukkot as the date is supported by Elizabeth's pregnancy of John the Immerser. Zacharias served as a high priest and based on his tribe, we know when he served John would have been born on Pesach. Most Jews believed that Factor in when Miriam visited her cousin Elizabeth, 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. Nine months back from Sukkot is Chanukah where the light entered the temple.
the Holy Word of Elohim in Luke 1
or you trust the traditions of man Yah'shua's birth on Sukkot (September 26 at sundown to October 3 2007)
b'SHEM Yah'shua
(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)).
The time sequence is outlined by the Holy Word of Elohim in Luke 1 with Zacharias.
and when he was struck dumb and when John was conceived.
Elijah would come at Pesach to announce the coming of the Messiah
Elizabeth was six months pregnant (Luke 1:26)
Thus the timing of Yah'shua's birth can be ascertained.
“If you get a chance to see the presentation you should do so.”
I just got the DVD for Christmas and it blew me away. I can’t stop thinking about it.
|
|||
Gods |
Note: this topic is from November 2007. |
||
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
Regards,
TS
It was an incredibly persuasive piece of work. I am amazed to hear that it took the professor ten years to compile it, but I believe that to be the case.
Freepers should check it out: BethlehemStar.Net
Regards,
TS
Thanks! I will look forward to seeing it.
(I commented earlier on this thread: Post 65 and Post 80.)
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|
|
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
Thanks again shield. Note: this topic is from 2007. |
|
|
I heard A&M bought the Law School in Ft.Worth (Southwestern??????). Not sure of the name of the previous non A&M law school. Not 100% sure.
not sure about that either. It seems like every few years A&M talks to a school but I’m not sure if a deal has ever been finalized....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.