Yes, Christ Was Really Born on December 25: a Defense of the Trad Date for Christmas

taylormarshall.com ^ | December 11, 2014 | Dr. Taylor Marshall

[NYer]

The Catholic Church, from at least the second century, has claimed that Christ was born on December 25. However, it is commonly alleged that our Lord Jesus Christ was not born on December 25. For the sake of simplicity, let us set out the usual objections to the date of December 25 and counter each of them.

Objection 1: December 25 was chosen in order to replace the pagan Roman festival of Saturnalia. Saturnalia was a popular winter festival and so the Catholic Church prudently substituted Christmas in its place.

Reply to Objection 1: Saturnalia commemorated the winter solstice. Yet the winter solstice falls on December 22. It is true that Saturnalia celebrations began as early as December 17 and extended till December 23. Still, the dates don’t match up.

Objection 2: December 25 was chosen to replace the pagan Roman holiday Natalis Solis Invicti which means “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun.”

Reply to Objection 2: Let us examine first the cult of the Unconquered Sun. The Emperor Aurelian introduced the cult of the Sol Invictus or Unconquered Sunto Rome in A.D. 274. Aurelian found political traction with this cult, because his own name Aurelianderives from the Latin word aurora denoting “sunrise.” Coins reveal that Emperor Aurelian called himself the Pontifex Solis or Pontiff of the Sun. Thus, Aurelian simply accommodated a generic solar cult and identified his name with it at the end of the third century.

Most importantly, there is no historical record for a celebration Natalis Sol Invictus on December 25 prior to A.D. 354. Within an illuminated manuscript for the year A.D. 354, there is an entry for December 25 reading “N INVICTI CM XXX.”  Here N means “nativity.” INVICTI means “of the Unconquered.” CM signifies “circenses missus” or “games ordered.” The Roman numeral XXX equals thirty. Thus, the inscription means that thirty games were order for the nativity of the Unconquered for December 25th. Note that the word “sun” is not present. Moreover, the very same codex also lists “natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae” for the day of December 25. The phrase is translated as “birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea.”[i]

The date of December 25th only became the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” under the Emperor Julian the Apostate. Julian the Apostate had been a Christian but who had apostatized and returned to Roman paganism. History reveals that it was the hateful former Christian Emperor that erected a pagan holiday on December 25. Think about that for a moment. What was he trying to replace?

These historical facts reveal that the Unconquered Sun was not likely a popular deity in the Roman Empire. The Roman people did not need to be weaned off of a so-called ancient holiday. Moreover, the tradition of a December 25th celebration does not find a place on the Roman calendar until after the Christianization of Rome. The “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” holiday was scarcely traditional and hardly popular. Saturnalia (mentioned above) was much more popular, traditional, and fun. It seems, rather, that Julian the Apostate had attempted to introduce a pagan holiday in order to replace the Christian one!

Objection 3: Christ could not have been born in December since Saint Luke describes shepherds herding in the neighboring fields of Bethlehem. Shepherds do not herd during the winter. Thus, Christ was not born in winter.

Reply to Objection 3: Recall that Palestine is not England, Russia, or Alaska. Bethlehem is situated at the latitude of 31.7. My city of Dallas, Texas has the latitude of 32.8, and it’s still rather comfortable outside in December. As the great Cornelius a Lapide remarks during his lifetime, one could still see shepherds and sheep in the fields of Italy during late December, and Italy is at higher latitude than Bethlehem.

Now we move on to establishing the birthday of Christ from Sacred Scripture in two steps. The first step is to use Scripture to determine the birthday of Saint John the Baptist. The next step is using Saint John the Baptist’s birthday as the key for finding Christ’s birthday. We can discover that Christ was born in late December by observing first the time of year in which Saint Luke describes Saint Zacharias in the temple. This provides us with the approximate conception date of Saint John the Baptist. From there we can follow the chronology that Saint Luke gives, and that lands us at the end of December.

Saint Luke reports that Zacharias served in the “course of Abias” (Lk 1:5) which Scripture records as the eighth course among the twenty-four priestly courses (Neh 12:17). Each shift of priests served one week in the temple for two times each year. The course of Abias served during the eighth week and the thirty-second week in the annual cycle.[ii]However, when did the cycle of courses begin?

Josef Heinrich Friedlieb has convincingly established that the first priestly course of Jojarib was on duty during the destruction of Jerusalem on the ninth day of the Jewish month of Av.[iii]Thus the priestly course of Jojarib was on duty during the second week of Av. Consequently, the priestly course of Abias (the course of Saint Zacharias) was undoubtedly serving during the second week of the Jewish month of Tishri—the very week of the Day of Atonement on the tenth day of Tishri. In our calendar, the Day of Atonement would land anywhere from September 22 to October 8.

Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist immediately after Zacharias served his course. This entails that Saint John the Baptist would have been conceived somewhere around the end of September, placing John’s birth at the end of June, confirming the Catholic Church’s celebration of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on June 24.

The second-century Protoevangelium of Saint James also confirms a late September conception of the Baptist since the work depicts Saint Zacharias as High Priest and as entering the Holy of Holies—not merely the holy place with the altar of incense. This is a factual mistake because Zacharias was not the high priest, but one of the chief priests.[iv]Still, the Protoevangelium regards Zacharias as a high priest and this associates him with the Day of Atonement, which lands on the tenth day of the Hebrew month of Tishri (roughly the end of our September). Immediately after this entry into the temple and message of the Archangel Gabriel, Zacharias and Elizabeth conceive John the Baptist. Allowing for forty weeks of gestation, this places the birth of John the Baptist at the end of June—once again confirming the Catholic date for the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on June 24.

The rest of the dating is rather simple. We read that just after the Immaculate Virgin Mary conceived Christ, she went to visit her cousin Elizabeth who was six months pregnant with John the Baptist. This means that John the Baptist was six months older that our Lord Jesus Christ (Lk 1:24-27, 36). If you add six months to June 24 you get December 24-25 as the birthday of Christ. Then, if you subtract nine months from December 25 you get that the Annunciation was March 25. All the dates match up perfectly. So then, if John the Baptist was conceived shortly after the Jewish Day of the Atonement, then the traditional Catholic dates are essentially correct. The birth of Christ would be about or on December 25.

Sacred Tradition also confirms December 25 as the birthday of the Son of God. The source of this ancient tradition is the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. Ask any mother about the birth of her children. She will not only give you the date of the birth, but she will be able to rattle off the time, the location, the weather, the weight of the baby, the length of the baby, and a number of other details. I’m the father of six blessed children, and while I sometimes forget these details—mea maxima culpa—my wife never does. You see, mothers never forget the details surrounding the births of their babies.

Now ask yourself: Would the Blessed Virgin Mary ever forget the birth of her Son Jesus Christ who was conceived without human seed, proclaimed by angels, born in a miraculous way, and visited by Magi? She knew from the moment of His incarnation in her stainless womb that He was the Son of God and Messiah. Would she ever forget that day?[v]

Next, ask yourself: Would the Apostles be interested in hearing Mary tell the story? Of course they would. Do you think the holy Apostle who wrote, “And the Word was made flesh,” was not interested in the minute details of His birth? Even when I walk around with our seven-month-old son, people always ask “How old is he?” or “When was he born?” Don’t you think people asked this question of Mary?

So the exact birth date (December 25) and the time (midnight) would have been known in the first century. Moreover, the Apostles would have asked about it and would have, no doubt, commemorated the blessed event that both Saint Matthew and Saint Luke chronicle for us. In summary, it is completely reasonable to state that the early Christians both knew and commemorated the birth of Christ. Their source would have been His Immaculate Mother.

Further testimony reveals that the Church Fathers claimed December 25 as the Birthday of Christ prior to the conversion of Constantine and the Roman Empire. The earliest record of this is that Pope Saint Telesphorus (reigned A.D. 126-137) instituted the tradition of Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. Although the Liber Pontificalis does not give us the date of Christmas, it assumes that the Pope was already celebrating Christmas and that a Mass at midnight was added. During this time, we also read the following words of Theophilus (A.D. 115-181), Catholic bishop of Caesarea in Palestine: “We ought to celebrate the birthday of Our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen.”[vi]

Shortly thereafter in the second century, Saint Hippolytus (A.D. 170-240) wrote in passing that the birth of Christ occurred on December 25:

The First Advent of our Lord in the flesh occurred when He was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, a Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, which is five thousand and five hundred years from Adam. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls.[vii]

Also note in the quote above the special significance of March 25, which marks the death of Christ (March 25 was assumed to corresponded to the Hebrew month Nisan 14 – the traditional date of crucifixion).[viii] Christ, as the perfect man, was believed to have been conceived and died on the same day—March 25. In his Chronicon, Saint Hippolytus states that the earth was created on March 25, 5500 B.C.  Thus, March 25 was identified by the Church Fathers as the Creation date of the universe, as the date of the Annunciation and Incarnation of Christ, and also as the date of the Death of Christ our Savior.

In the Syrian Church, March 25 or the Feast of the Annunciation was seen as one of the most important feasts of the entire year. It denoted the day that God took up his abode in the womb of the Virgin. In fact, if the Annunciation and Good Friday came into conflict on the calendar, the Annunciation trumped it, so important was the day in Syrian tradition. It goes without saying that the Syrian Church preserved some of the most ancient Christian traditions and had a sweet and profound devotion for Mary and the Incarnation of Christ.

Now then, March 25 was enshrined in the early Christian tradition, and from this date it is easy to discern the date of Christ’s birth. March 25 (Christ conceived by the Holy Ghost) plus nine months brings us to December 25 (the birth of Christ at Bethlehem).

Saint Augustine confirms this tradition of March 25 as the Messianic conception and December 25 as His birth:

For Christ is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.[ix]

In about A.D. 400, Saint Augustine also noted how the schismatic Donatists celebrated December 25 as the birth of Christ, but that the schismatics refused to celebrate Epiphany on January 6, since they regarded Epiphany as a new feast without a basis in Apostolic Tradition. The Donatist schism originated in A.D. 311 which may indicate that the Latin Church was celebrating a December 25 Christmas (but not a January 6 Epiphany) before A.D. 311. Whichever is the case, the liturgical celebration of Christ’s birth was commemorated in Rome on December 25 long before Christianity became legalized and long before our earliest record of a pagan feast for the birthday of the Unconquered Sun. For these reasons, it is reasonable and right to hold that Christ was born on December 25 in 1 B.C. and that he died and rose again in March of A.D. 33.

Taylor’s new book The Eternal City also makes an argument in defense of the traditional BC/AD dating as being 100% accurate.

---

[i] The Chronography of AD 354. Part 12: Commemorations of the Martyrs.  MGH Chronica Minora I (1892), pp. 71-2.

[ii] I realize that there are two courses of Abias. This theory only works if Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist after Zacharias’ second course – the course in September. If Saint Luke refers to the first course, this then would place the birth of John the Baptist in late Fall and the birth of Christ in late Spring. However, I think tradition and the Protoevangelium substantiate that the Baptist was conceived in late September.

[iii] Josef Heinrich Friedlieb’s Leben J. Christi des Erlösers. Münster, 1887, p. 312.

[iv] The Greek tradition especially celebrates Saint Zacharias as “high priest.” Nevertheless, Acts 5:24 reveals that there were several “chief priests” (ἀρχιερεῖς), and thus the claim that Zacharias was a “high priest” may not indicate a contradiction. The Greek tradition identifies Zacharias as an archpriest and martyr based on the narrative of the Protoevangelium of James and Matthew 23:35: “That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.” (Matthew 23:35)

[v] A special thanks to the Reverend Father Phil Wolfe, FSSP for bringing the “memory of Mary” argument to my attention.

[roamer_1]

I agree. It is a very appropriate time for God to "tabernacle" among men. Also, during the Millennium, the nations will be required to celebrate Sukkot. Why Sukkot, of all the Jewish holidays? Could it be because it is the King's birthday? Just wondering...

In the Kingdom, Torah will go forth from Jerusalem, and the WHOLE WORLD will keep it. There are three Holy Days that require sojourn to Jerusalem: Passover (Pesach), Pentecost (Shavuot), and Tabernacles (Sukkot)... The prophets proclaim all three... And, btw, the weekly Sabbath (shabbat) on the seventh day too... the end of Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Zechariah would be good for starters....

[roamer_1]

Using which calendar?

YHWH's calendar, of course.

[roamer_1]

Yehova’s days fall only on the Biblical calendar, which revolves around the beginning of the agricultural year, the new moon immediately preceding the aviv barley in Jerusalem.

That's right - every new moon, beginning with the barley....

[Former Fetus]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is only one Jewish Holy Day that the non-Jewish nations of the earth will be required to celebrate... and that is Sukkot! Now, there are 3 pilgrim festivals, like you indicated, but in the Millennium it will only be Sukkot. It will be to the point that those nations that don’t celebrate it, won’t get any rain that year. Considering that we are talking about the Millennial Kingdom, that all the prophecies of the Holy Days will be fulfilled... I always thought it was kind of funny the requirement for celebrating Sukkot. I just wonder if Sukkot happens to be the birth date for the King of Kings, it would make sense to celebrate, wouldn’t it?

[editor-surveyor]

And they mock Chanukka,but Yeshua celebrated Chanukka.

[SkyDancer]

Which then does not coincide with the calendar we use today.

[editor-surveyor]

We use two calendars in one.

The Biblical calendar has the pagan calendar days noted too.

Now they’ve added in the Rabbinical calendar too, so it’s getting a little harder to read, but it works.

Its just a little funny to be turning a page in the middle of the pagan month.

But we have to give up this world to be ready for Yehova’s kingdom.

[ottbmare]

Perhaps I’m being very ignorant here, but it seems to me in my ignorance that little attention is being given to a piece of critically important information the Scriptures give us:

“In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.” —Luke 1:26-27

The sixth month in the Jewish calendar is Elul, corresponding to August-September. A conception in Elul would mean a full-term birth nine months later in the month of Sivan, May-June.

Of course, we do not know that Mary conceived immediately after the visitation by Gabriel. It might have happened some time later.

[roamer_1]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but [...]

Forgive me, but I do not see it the way you do - Don't think of this as correction, but rather another angle...

[...] there is only one Jewish Holy Day that the non-Jewish nations of the earth will be required to celebrate... and that is Sukkot!

First, they are not Jewish Holy Days... YHWH declared them as 'MY Holy Days'. He ordained them, and they belong to Him.
Secondly, they were not given to the Jews, but rather to the Hebrews - a 'Jew' is one of the House of Judah (the tribes of Judah, half of Benjamin, and half of Levi) - There were twelve tribes at Sinai, and participatory in receiving Torah... Those twelve tribes are still necessarily around. Anyone related to them is as bound to Torah as the Jews. Sorry, it's a sticking point for me - So many want to say that only the Jews are obliged to keep Torah...

And lastly, one cannot separate the moedim from Torah (not one jot or tittle)- If the whole world is keeping Torah (which the prophets explicitly declare), the whole world is necessarily keeping the moedim too.

Isa 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

(e-Sword:KJV)

Now, there are 3 pilgrim festivals, like you indicated, but in the Millennium it will only be Sukkot. It will be to the point that those nations that don’t celebrate it, won’t get any rain that year.

[Only be] According to whom? I will grant you that Sukkot is mentioned with exacting specificity, but that does not exclude the rest. In fact Ezekiel 45 mentions Passover with specificity too... To find Shavuot will take some digging. Yet again, I will rest on the facts that Torah is forever, the moedim are forever, and if all the world is keeping Torah, they will all be keeping the moedim (to include the weekly Sabbath) too.

Considering that we are talking about the Millennial Kingdom, that all the prophecies of the Holy Days will be fulfilled...

Except, of course the things the prophets declare about the Holy Days within the Kingdom... : )

I always thought it was kind of funny the requirement for celebrating Sukkot. I just wonder if Sukkot happens to be the birth date for the King of Kings, it would make sense to celebrate, wouldn’t it?

Perhaps, because the whole world has been getting it wrong all these years... He saw that coming and was miffed : D But really, birthdays are not celebrated by the Hebrews... That is a western/pagan thing... but it is the day in which he came to tabernacle among us - It may well be the day that He comes again!

[roamer_1]

Which then does not coincide with the calendar we use today.

So what? One cannot watch the new moon in the spring and see the barley is aviv? Actually, the Karaites (and others) do precisely that. The rest follows easily. I mark the Holy Days without much effort at all, except that one might find it easier if one is accustomed to taking one's bedtime tea out on the porch looking at the sky and talking to the Father (try it sometime... awesome for peace...).

You are no slacker, SkyDancer... You can figure this out - According to YHWH's calendar, the temple fell twice on the same exact day 500 years apart... I believe that very same day is when Jerusalem was plowed with salt too... According to YHWH's calendar, Torah was given at Sinai on the same day as Pentecost, all those many years apart... According to YHWH's calendar, the blood was first put on the doorposts in Egypt on the same day (I could argue the same hour) as Yeshua gave up His life those many years later. He is using HIS calendar, not ours. Study the prophets with that in mind, study events then and up to now, and you will be astonished at what you are missing.

PROOF abounds. That is why the Holy Days are still very important, and why Christian holidays mean exactly nothing.

[Yosemitest]

Here we go again, the GREAT WHORE spreading her lies.

The Birth of Jesus:
The Greatest Story
Never Told

Jesus was born sometime in the late summer or early autumn of 4 B.C.

The first time I ever made this statement to anyone I was viewed with a combination of doubt, incredulity, hostility and outright pity.

“How in the world could Jesus have been born before Christ?” I was asked.

It so happens that the present system in the Western Christian-professing world of counting years either prior to or subsequent to the event of our Savior’s birth was not established until the work of Dionysius the Little, many, many centuries this side of the event.

In the events surrounding Jesus’ birth, God managed to move a whole empire by causing the world leader of that time to establish an entirely new government bureau (the taxing and census bureau) which finally resulted in Joseph and Mary ending up in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth! Part of the requirement of the vast worldwide census-taking was each family returning to the city of its origin (“And all went to be taxed everyone (into) his own city” (Luke 2:3-4), so since the Bible claimed Joseph was of the lineage of David (as both genealogical records in Matthew and Luke prove) he had to journey with his wife who was in an advanced state of pregnancy from Nazareth to Bethlehem, which is called the “city of David.” The census in Palestine took place in our faulty chronological reckoning about the year 4 B.C.

From early on, Mary understood that she was pregnant. She knew the meaning of the interruption of the normal menstrual cycle; after all, hadn’t an angel actually told her this would happen?

Though it must have been nearly unbelievable, and there surely must have been moments of doubt, Mary’s training and deep religious education, including the quality of her own character and the deadly seriousness of the impending persecutions and her knowledge of glances of those in her own community, must have all been weighing heavily upon her mind as she contemplated her gradually changing form, slightly swelling belly, and growing breasts.

Even though there probably had been many sessions between husband and wife, poring over those prophecies they knew referred to what was happening within the body of Mary herself, explaining why this shocking transformation in their own private lives had turned their little world upside down, they did not have perfect understanding of many vague references later revealed by the gospel writers, and by Jesus Himself.

Naturally, Joseph and Mary had been living with the pain of growing notoriety ever since friends and relatives learned of Mary’s pregnancy. They were fully prepared to accept it, as Mary’s humble statement, “Behold, the handmaiden of the Lord,” clearly shows.

Still, it was tough, and they were as human as you and I.

Oh, there were close friends and relatives who knew the truth. After all, Elizabeth and Mary were cousins, and Elizabeth was carrying the baby who would grow up to become John the Baptist—both remembered the remarkable occasion when the two babies had reacted so obviously when the two expectant mothers met. Joseph and Mary could spend time with such people, away from the smirks and knowing stares of the hypocrites.

But suffered when friends talked behind their backs; they hurt when former friends shunned them; they Probably had second, or even third, thoughts about the tremendous burden they had assumed, as would any other normal human beings. But they had the courage to see it through.

It may have seemed a cruel twist of fate, to be required by the Romans to travel all that distance during the final, crucial month of pregnancy. It is clear that Joseph and Mary were not acting out any special predestined fulfillment of prophecy, or they would have seen the predictions that Christ was to be born in Bethlehem, and would have tried to travel earlier, at an easier time, and to have arranged accommodations more suitable than the hasty, last ditch improvisation of a manger.

Neither could they have known that what had appeared to be a terribly difficult trip, at best, would end up with their being exiles in a foreign country, waiting until Herod the Great had died.

Christ was not born on Christmas. Those who do not yet know this, or do not wish to know it, are either too firmly dedicated to tradition, no matter how pagan, or are too lazy to bother with simple research.

Abundant evidence exists which proves Christmas is utterly pagan in origin; as pagan as belief in Dagon, Vishnu, Baal, or Isis and Osiris.

Jesus was born in the autumn, though the exact date is kept carefully concealed. Look at the eyewitness accounts, written by those who were there. Even Herod didn’t know exactly when Christ was born, or he could not have risked a massive uprising by his brutal edict to butcher helpless babies up to two years of age!

Most people have never heard the true facts surrounding Christ’s birth; and lodged in their minds is only a purely mythological tale which exists only in fantasy and erroneous religious tradition.

The traditional view of Jesus’ birth, with the loveliest manger imaginable on the face of the earth; sadly smiling shepherds leaning on their crooks; the Magi, gorgeously arrayed in obviously kingly robes with funny-looking crowns, opening up little gold boxes wherein are contained precious spices; a tiny baby nestled in the arms of mother who stares sadly at him with a halo around her head and a sweet smile curving her mouth; maybe naked little babies flitting through the heavens, and a bright star in the distance outside —all this is repeated endlessly in millions of Christmas cards, religious books, journals and magazines, illustrated pages in Bibles, and on people’s front yards, rooftops, in their driveways, along roadsides, and in displays in churches at Christmastime.

But, the shepherds were not there at the birth. They came later. And there is no reason to suspect that the shepherds and the wise men ever crossed trails.

But let’s ask a few questions concerning Jesus’ birth. How did God manage to convince the lowly and humble classes that in fact a Savior was this day being born?

He did so by the most intricate collection of divine miracles, carefully interwoven into the fabric of history, extending so far back in time that it boggles the mind.

Few realize that Michael the archangel spoke to Daniel and delivered to him the longest single prophecy in the Bible (Daniel, the 11th chapter is personal testimony from the archangel Michael) informing him of a great struggle going on among arch demons, and perhaps Satan himself.

These were influencing the mind of the “Prince of Persia” in order to bring about some disruption in Gods’ plan to cause Artaxerxes to allow the Jewish captives under Ezra to return to their homeland and reestablish the religious state.

Though it deserves a great deal of space, the miracles having to do with the precise moment of Jesus’ birth, the decree of Augustus, the building of the temple, the beginning of His ministry, the decrees of Cyrus and Artaxerxes, and many other related events are tightly interwoven into a careful system of intricately fulfilled prophecies to form a network of incontrovertible evidence: the fact that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was in truth the Son of God.

All the religious leaders knew, and the common folk believed intensely in, Isaiah’s prophecy, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (which means “God with us” in Isa. 7:14). They knew Isaiah had said, “The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined…for unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor [Wonder of a Counselor], the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

“Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this” (Isa. 9:2-7).

But how would God manage to avoid the contemptuous slander of “impostor” heaped upon Jesus not only by His detractors, persecutors and religious antagonists, but even by His own closest disciples and personal friends? How would the common people, the meek, lowly shepherd and laboring class be convinced utterly that Jesus was in fact fulfilling the many prophecies of Isaiah, Daniel and others and was in fact the promised Messiah, that “Prophet” who should come to deliver Israel, and to qualify to inherit the throne of David?

First, God sent a humble group of shepherds from sufficiently far away that no one could claim collusion.

An angel appeared to them and said, “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior which is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2: 11). They were not. given any address, only a sign that they would find the baby wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger; meaning He would be so newly born that there would have been no opportunity for either the purchase or the making of clothes for Him, and He would still be wrapped in a soft blanket, not yet moved inside an inn or a private home, but lying in a bed of straw.

Obviously, then, the shepherds in journeying around the streets and the marketplaces of Bethlehem were asking from time to time where they could find a baby who had been born in a manger.

They were no doubt quite excited about the vision they had seen, and it is inconceivable that they were not elated with that combination of awe, fright, and yet subdued joy over having actually heard the voice of an angel, and seeing an overwhelmingly bright light seemingly coming very near to them out of the heavens. Thus they fully expected to find the Savior of mankind lying in swaddling clothes in a manger. They probably asked any number of people, and repeated time and again to the excited questions they were asked precisely what had happened.

Finally, with the question having been asked sufficiently about the town, perhaps one servant at a nearby inn recalled that Joseph or a friend had come, urgently begging the use of some basins and some heated water; that one of the females in the kitchen had rushed off to help during the birth; and that several of the women, had been exclaiming about the fact that a poor woman had to be turned out in such an advanced state of pregnancy, when a lot of other people had been put up in more suitable accommodations, and were clicking their tongues about the unfortunate happenstance that the poor lady had given birth in a stable.

Actually, the Creator was succeeding in announcing the birth through three separate groups of individuals: the shepherds themselves; all the citizenry and the townsfolk they asked and who subsequently became involved, and Joseph and his own family.

The events of the first few weeks after Jesus’ birth caused widespread attention. It is evident that the Idumaean Herod (he was only partly Jewish) was terribly shaken by what he had heard.

The Bible says he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him (Matt. 2:3), and claims he gathered all the chief priests (who probably were Sadducees) and scribes of the people together and demanded of them where the Christ should be born (Matt. 2:4). All of the scholars were aware that this very likely was the time of the birth of Christ.

Pious frauds and sincere scholars—astronomers, astrologers, seers and soothsayers alike—were almost universally expectant that some great event would occur at about this time, and were looking for the Messiah.

When Herod called together the “chief priests and scribes of the people,” this was tantamount to the President of the United States having a combined cabinet and Supreme Court meeting.

The “‘Supreme Court” of the Jewish nation was the Sanhedrin, and the greatest religious body of the nation declared in unanimity that Jesus the Savior would be born in Bethlehem, a city of David!

There is no evidence whatever of the length of time that elapsed from the moment the “star” (an angel, as shown by scriptures) appeared to the Magi in “the east” (most authorities believe Persia) until their arrival in Jerusalem; it could have been several weeks, or even months.

Following their interview with Herod, and his request that they “search out carefully concerning the young child,” they went outside, saw the “star” again, and followed it until “it came and stood over where the young child was” (Matt. 2:9). This was in Bethlehem, a short distance over steeply plunging trails from Jerusalem. Contrary to the assumption of millions, Jesus and His parents had found more permanent accommodations following the hasty emergency quarters in the stable, and the Magi “came into the house, and saw the young child with Mary His mother, and they fell down and worshipped Him . . .” (Matt. 2: 11).

That night, the wise men had a “bad dream,” a warning from God, and sneaked out of the country without going back into Jerusalem. After they left, Joseph also had a dream. “Now when they were departed, behold an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and His mother, and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you; for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.”

Joseph got up, hustled Mary and the baby, and any other servants or family members who might have been with them, into their clothes, packed and loaded the animals and took off that same night, hitting the caravan route to Egypt, probably swinging further into Arabia. They probably stopped at little-known campsites, avoiding the usual water holes and towns or villages along the way. Little did Joseph know that inadvertently he was fulfilling another prophecy which said, “Out of Egypt did I call my son” (Hosea 11:1).

Herod waited a few days, and then, in a fit of insane rage, “sent forth, and slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had carefully learned of the wise men” (Matt. 2:16).

Since it was the major trade and commercial capital, Joseph probably had business, interests in Jerusalem. His own building trade required that he deal from time to time with importers, distributors and craftsmen who were located there. So he and his family may have remained in Jerusalem up to about one year following Jesus’ birth, though there is no actual proof. However, the murder of the children by Herod, risky even for a despotic king, offers some proof that Herod suspected the child would have been about one year of age, or even slightly older.

After Joseph and family had been somewhere in Egypt for a time, another dream occurred; an angel said to Joseph, “Get up and take the young child with his mother, and go into Israel: for they are dead that sought the young child’s life” (Matt. 2:19-23).

The following verse indicates Joseph’s first choice as a place to live probably would have been Jerusalem or its environs. “But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; and being warned of God in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that He should be called a Nazarene.”

Being a “Nazarene” merely meant He was a citizen of the city of Nazareth. He is called “Jesus Christ of Nazareth” several times in the Bible. Jesus was not an un-common name (only the Greek form of Joshua); no doubt there was any number of individuals bearing the same name; it was quite common to name children after various attributes of God, or to include names of God (the prefix El and the suffix “Yah” were very commonly applied) in a person’s name. The real Jesus was a Nazarene in the same sense a citizen of Chicago is a “Chicagoan,” or someone living in Los Angeles is an “Angelino,” or those in Paris are “Parisians.” It was not a “religious” title of any sort, but a geographical and political term.

From the time of the young lad’s return with His parents from Egypt, to the city of Nazareth, there is no further mention of Jesus until the moment He is seen sitting in the temple, both listening to questions and asking His own questions of the most learned doctors of the law, and astonishing them with His understanding and His answers (Luke 2:46-52).

[mountn man]

Go back and read Luke 1.

Verse 5 tells us that Zachariah is from the line of Ajibah.

1 Chronicles 24 tells us that Ajibah (and thus Zachariahs) serving time in the temple was 8th.

All priests are required to serve during Passover and Shavu'ot so that adds 2 more weeks. That means Zachariah served in the temple the tenth week or the 2nd week of Sivan. After he served, Luke tells us he went home and Elizabeth got pregnant. Probably the 3rd week of Sivan.

Now Luke 1:24 says:
After these days Elizabeth his wife became pregnant, and she kept herself in seclusion for five months, saying, 25 “This is the way the Lord has dealt with me in the days when He looked with favor upon me, to take away my disgrace among men.”

5 months PLUS 11 weeks (almost 3 months)=8

Verse 26 says:
Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Luke just got done talking about Elizabeths 5 months, and goes into talking about the 6 month. Luke isn't going back to the 6th month of the year, he's continuing the chronology of Elizabeth pregnancy. Which would probably be the 2nd or 3rd week of Kislev.

Verse 36:
36 And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.”

Again, Elizabeths 6th month.

Next verse 38:
And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. 39 Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40 and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Some Bibles put a break between verse 38 and 39, which makes one think that time passed when Mary went to see Elizabeth. But if you take out the break, you see that the angel leaves and Mary, at THIS TIME arose and went in a hurry to the hill country...

Mary conceived right away.

I hope this helps.

[Natufian]

“Folks in that time had to be counted where they were born. At the same time they were also to pay their taxes.”

Roman censuses (censii?) were for tax purposes. Not when you paid taxes but so that an area could be assessed for taxation for the next few years. It makes no sense to send people away from their homes to do that. The Roman IRS didn’t care where you came from, only what you were worth and how much they could take.

[Nailbiter]

“The Roman IRS didn’t care where you came from, only what you were worth and how much they could take.”

Not much different than today!!!!!!!!!

[The_Reader_David]

I think it’s you who are fascinated by myths. You have a mythological history of the Church which bears little or no resemblance to actual history, and you see paganism lurking in every Christian practice, even those provably dating to the Apostles themselves, unless you can “prove” its validity on the basis of the Scriptures with your discursive reason and your own hermeneutic tradition — yes, you have one, deliberately constructed in opposition to the hermeneutic tradition of the Latin church, and following what I suspect on the basis of Acts 15 the Holy Apostles would have regarded as a judaizing heresy.

Maybe you need to brush up your Greek, and learn a little real Church history: bishops are mentioned in the New Testament, not only in the obvious places where the word episcopos is used, but also in the Apocalypse of St. John. It was the ancient custom to refer to the bishop a church as the “angel” of the church (a custom still preserved in the title “the Angel of Haran” applied to the Bishop of Bosra-Haran). St. John is not writing to bodiless powers protecting the churches of Asia Minor, but to their bishops. Seems to be rather an important office, since God sent a vision to the Apostle John and directed him to address it to a bunch of bishops.

God sent His Only-Begotten Son that all who believe in Him might have eternal life, and His Son sent the Holy Spirit, that on the Day of Pentecost in the year of His Saving Death and Resurrection made manifest the Church. That is the decisive thing. The Church’s books, those of the New Testament authored within the context of the Church that keep a record of these event, those of the Old inherited from the Old Israel that point forward to those events, are not God’s decisive self-revelation. They are not an axiom system from which one proves everything that is true, nor even everything that is true bearing on God.

Christianity is a way of life founded upon a Person, not an ideology founded on a text, not even a divinely inspired text.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Oh my goodness . . .

Even the old, pre-VII church didn't claim that J*sus was literally born on 12/25 (besides, it originally celebrated his birth on 1/6). And now, the new liberal post-VII church, the one that insists that Adam and Eve were two ensouled apes out of a population of apes (who were all the ancestors of humanity) is becoming "fundamentalist" on 12/25!!!

You people must really hate the Book of Genesis, the way you will defend everything in the world except for it. Why don't you excise it from your bibles if it's so troublesome to you?

Why don't you ask your scientist allies what they think of this? Maybe you should submit this belief (and all your others) to their scrutiny as well!

[JudyinCanada]

He did? Where? Is it in Scripture?

[Zionist Conspirator]

The Catholic Church, from at least the second century, has claimed that Christ was born on December 25.

This is false. The Catholic Church has never taught that Jesus was born on December 25th. Any discussion that begins with a patently false statement is absolutely pointless.

The Catholic Church celebrates the birth of Jesus on December 25th.

Ah, but that was then and this is now!

The Catholic Church used to accept the narrative of Genesis 1-11 as actual history, but then those awful people in the trailer parks came along and now Catholics can't do this (to prove they're not Protestant, since only a Protestant would ever believe such nonsense). Meanwhile, those same awful people reject 12/25 as the literal birthday of J*sus so now those same hyper-rationalist, scientistic Catholics simply must claim that that is the very day on which he was born! See, 'cause if you don't you're a Protestant.

This notion of letting your opponents and your antipathy to them determine your theology is really not a good idea.

[Biggirl]

“Objection 3: Christ could not have been born in December since Saint Luke describes shepherds herding in the neighboring fields of Bethlehem. Shepherds do not herd during the winter. Thus, Christ was not born in winter.
Reply to Objection 3: Recall that Palestine is not England, Russia, or Alaska. Bethlehem is situated at the latitude of 31.7. My city of Dallas, Texas has the latitude of 32.8, and it’s still rather comfortable outside in December. As the great Cornelius a Lapide remarks during his lifetime, one could still see shepherds and sheep in the fields of Italy during late December, and Italy is at higher latitude than Bethlehem.”

Plus also the Holy Land is in the same latitude not only as mentioned above as Dallas, Texas but also both the Holy Land and Dallas TX are in the same latitude as Southern California, which would include both Los Angeles and San Diego.

[Biggirl]

Continue from Post number 139.

The worse of winter weather that would come would be very heavy rain storms. Any snow storms would come quick and be gone.