A particular lapse?

[JoeyWarren]

We have Sacred Oral Tradition.
We have Sacred Scripture.

One of the two most important dates of all has been lost.

The actual birth date of Jesus. I would settle for the actual month.

Why did this one critical bit of information get neglected or lost?

 

[1ke]

Why did this one critical bit of information get neglected or lost?

Why do you believe it’s a critical date?

 

[LilyM]

We have Sacred Oral Tradition.
We have Sacred Scripture.

One of the two most important dates of all has been lost.

The actual birth date of Jesus. I would settle for the actual month.

Why did this one critical bit of information get neglected or lost?

Who says it’s neglected or lost? It’s all there in Luke - it mentions Zechariah offering incense in the Temple when John’s conception was announced. Going in on his own, remember, they thought something had happened when he took so long?

If I remember rightly, there was only one occasion during the year when this happened (priest offering incense alone), which was the Jewish New Year.

This year JNY was mid-September (although JNY is one of those irregular dates like Easter, I believe, being calculated by a lunar rather than solar calendar). That seemingly puts John’s conception around that date. Gives us roughly mid-June for John’s birth and mid-December for Christ’s birth, which isn’t too far off
.
Then Luke makes it very clear by saying that Gabriel appeared to Mary ‘in the sixth month’. Meaning in fact not the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (although it was that as well), but the sixth month of the Jewish year too So it confirms that same rough date for John’s and Jesus’ conceptions and births.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Why do you believe it’s a critical date?

Why do you believe it is not?

 

[1ke]

Why do you believe it is not?

Because it’s not.

It’s in no way central to the Pascal Mystery and it’s not really relevant that we know on what day or month Jesus was born.

The liturgical calendar celebrates all of the Feasts relevant to our Salvation, and it does so in a compressed manner that makes sense liturgically, not chronologically. And with Easter as the central Feast on the calendar.

 

[puzzleannie]

We

Why did this one critical bit of information get neglected or lost?

why is it critical? why does this matter so much to you and others who have started the dozen other threads on the topic? Divine Revelation preserves and hands on through scripture and tradition all that is necessary for our salvation. If the traditional date of celebrating the birth of Christ, under either the old or new calendars, is not good enough for you, the burden of proof is on you to claim this tidbit is necessary for our salvation.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Okay, it’s not critical, but for God’s sake, it’s the birth day of our Lord Jesus Christ, the First Advent, and it was lost or forgotten…

 

[davidv]

Okay, it’s not critical, but for God’s sake, it’s the birth day of our Lord Jesus Christ, the First Advent, and it was lost or forgotten…

How is it lost or forgotten? We have Advent to anticipate it and Christmas to celebrate it.

 

[JoeyWarren]

How is it lost or forgotten? We have Advent to anticipate it and Christmas to celebrate it.

You are missing the point. The date of Christmas was reassigned to Dec 25th, to disguise it within the pagan festival of the longest day of the year. Why doesn’t the church return it to it rightful day or least month, which by biblical indications was in the Spring?

 

[1ke]

You are missing the point. The date of Christmas was reassigned to Dec 25th, to disguise it within the pagan festival of the longest day of the year. Why doesn’t the church return it to it rightful day or least month, which by biblical indications was in the Spring?

It was not “reassigned” to Dec 25. It was “assigned” to Dec 25.

 

[JoeyWarren]

It was not “reassigned” to Dec 25. It was “assigned” to Dec 25.

God Assigned to the actual day he was born. The Church reassigned it.

Want to argue semantics?

 

[foundthelight]

Maybe if God thought it was important He would have had the Apostles record it. I really don’t think it particularly matters.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Maybe if God thought it was important He would have had the Apostles record it. I really don’t think it particularly matters.

One could use the same argument against a few of the Marian Doctrines. IE

Maybe if God thought Marian Doctrines were important He would have had the Apostles record it explicitly? I really don’t think Marian Doctrines particularly matters.

 

[foundthelight]

Who says it’s neglected or lost? It’s all there in Luke - it mentions Zechariah offering incense in the Temple when John’s conception was announced. Going in on his own, remember, they thought something had happened when he took so long?

If I remember rightly, there was only one occasion during the year when this happened (priest offering incense alone), which was the Jewish New Year.

This year JNY was mid-September (although JNY is one of those irregular dates like Easter, I believe, being calculated by a lunar rather than solar calendar). That seemingly puts John’s conception around that date. Gives us roughly mid-June for John’s birth and mid-December for Christ’s birth, which isn’t too far off
.
Then Luke makes it very clear by saying that Gabriel appeared to Mary ‘in the sixth month’. Meaning in fact not the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (although it was that as well), but the sixth month of the Jewish year too So it confirms that same rough date for John’s and Jesus’ conceptions and births.

This was the Daily offering of the incense that Zechariah was offering. Given the large number in attendance it was probably on a sabbath. You are thinking of the High Priest’s offering.