Does Catholicism believe Jesus to be born on Dec 25

[Arizona_Mike]

Actually, I also heard the Pagan roots predated Christianity and my studies from varied sources also seemed to reveal Pagan practices celebrated on the Winter solstice, prior to the coming of our Lord. The solstice varies from year to year but generally falls the week of Christmas. Below are some sources you can reference:

BBC Winter Solstice
Greek and Roman celebrations (500BC), Buddha (600BC), Druids (3200BC) and many others that predate Christianity

Flippant websites really don’t count as scholarship, muzikman. We have no primary source evidence that the early Christian Church had any contact with the Druids or Buddhists.

Brumalia was celebrated beginning November 24 and ended on the solstice, so (if it did predate the rise of Christianity) could not really be said to be a solstice celebration as much as a month-long festival which used the solstice as a marker of its end, as it was not a celebration of a solar god, but of Bacchus, Cronus, and Demeter - harvest and earth and sex gods. It was also a holiday which the early Christian Church “turned people away from,” in the words of John the Lydian (roger-pearse.com/weblog/2009/12/18/a-translation-of-john-the-lydian-de-mensibus-4-158-on-december/) Brumalia did involve the making of primitive whoopee cushions (I’m not making that up), so maybe some office parties have incorporated elements of it, but it was not incorporated into the Christian celebration of Christmas. More importantly, we don’t have good primary sources on the Romans celebrating Brumalia until well AFTER the beginning of the Christian era: roger-pearse.com/weblog/2009/12/19/a-review-of-crawford-on-the-bruma-and-brumalia/

Bodhi Day is in early December, not December 25, and not on the solstice. It is unlikely the Christians knew or would have cared about the celebration, if it existed then.

Despite what the Examiner writer (Mariya Strachevskyt, who is not a classical scholar, but an attorney with access to Google) asserted, we have no idea if the Druids celebrated the solstice, as they had no written language and everything we know about them was written by the Romans, who were in the process of conducting an ethnic cleansing campaign against them, and did not mention anything about the solstice while they were slaughtering them.

I also doubt that the early Christians knew anything about the Chinese Dongzhi celebration.

The unsigned BBC article is even less accurate and claims that the Druids cut mistletoe and gave it a blessing, and that the Druids began the Yule Log tradition. Again, what is the source for all this? The only connection between Druids, mistletoe, and horniness comes from Pliny the Elder’s “The Natural History,” Book XVI, where he claims (based on second-hand reports) that Druids believe ‘that the mistletoe, taken in drink, will impart fecundity to all animals that are barren…’ Nothing about kissing. And I think mistletoe is actually highly poisonous, so don’t try this at home, kids.

And there is also no primary source linking the Druids to Yule Logs, or any scholarship that puts Yule Logs as part of a pagan celebration until hundreds of years after the beginning of Christianity - and the preeminent scholar on Anglo-Saxon folklore, Professor Karl Wilhelm Von Sydow, discounts the whole idea that the Yule Log ever had any pagan or any religious significance whatsoever. When it’s cold, people just like to burn things, as anyone who has been on a Boy Scout campout knows.

The other thing that was odd to me was why is why do we celebrate the birth of Jesus with a tree, giving of gits to others, Yule, etc. If you look into some of the practices you will find some similarities with other pagan practices. For example:

Saturnalia – gifts were given to other people, like Christians typically do on Christmas. This practice dates back to 500BC and was in mid-December.

See post 56, above. Gift giving was not part of the early Christian observance of advent or Christmas (and wasn’t until comparatively modern times), and so does not support the theory of a pagan origin for Christmas.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Regarding the various folk/cultural accretions, these are later additions, not part of Christian orthopraxy, were not part of early Christian Christmas observance, and again, don’t support the pagan origins theory.

As I said, the pagan winter celebrations (and you would have a hard time picking a date that did NOT have a major or minor holiday on it in Imperial Rome) were seen as celebrations in honor of demons and fallen angels, which Christians believed were actually behind the false gods and idols of the pagans. In 401 A.D., St. Augustine spoke against the wild pagan holiday celebrations and warned against any contamination of Christmas:

Stop these latest sacrileges, stop this craze for vanities and pointless games, stop these customs, which no longer take place in honour of demons but still follow the rites of demons … Yesterday, after vespers, the whole city was aflame with stinking fires; the entire sky was covered with smoke! If you make little of the matter of religion, think at least of the wrong that you do to the community. We know, brothers, that it is kids who have done this, but the parents must have let them sin.

Does this sound like a Church father who wanted to roll pagan celebrations into the Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus?

In addition, as has often been pointed out, we have a limited number of symbols to reference in human society, and that two cutures share a fondness for greenery indoors during winter doesn’t mean the practice came from the same cultural origin, any more than the presence of pyramids in Egypt, Mesomerica, and ancient Serbia is evidence for Atlantis.

Trees were worshipped for their height and especially the evergreen since it didn’t die like the other trees in the harsh winter. Also, I don’t cut trees down on any other birthdays so I don’t think it isn’t a cultural practice so where did it come from? I don’t see any biblical accounts that deal with trees in the OT or NT either.

Does anyone have any insight’s to these practices other than Pagan roots?

The Germanic pagans worshipped oaks as a symbol of Thor, not pine trees or firs. The practice of decorating a fir tree came from Germany, much much much later than the beginnings of Christmas. See the story of the Thunder Oak at Geismar for a better understanding as to why the fir tree was adopted as a Christmas symbol.

I think if the Lord wanted us to know He would have made it clear when it happened. The death and resurrection are clearly given and they fulfilled the prophetic Festivals of the Lord in such a rich way.

The incarnation was marked by marvelous events, including amazing events in the night sky and the mass appearance of spiritual beings of immense power over the shepherds, as well as the arrival of mysterious wise men from the east, all of whom celebrated the Messiah’s birth. The Infinite descended down into our space/time continuum and our planet, assumed human flesh and so sanctified it, taught us, and began His journey to Calvary and our redemption and salvation. It certainly seems worthy of celebration to me, regardless of the day we chose to do it.

Also, who is the “foremost expert on the Sol Invictus cult”? I would like to research his writings.

Professor Stephen Hijmans, (2000 - present, Assistant Professor, Department of History and Classics, University of Alberta; 1999, Sessional lecturer, Beaver College Studies Abroad Program, Athens , Greece; 1996-1998, Acting Director, Netherlands Institute at Athens, various periods; 1994-1998, Academic researcher, Dutch Academy (NWO), based in Athens, Greece; 1990-1991, Visiting professor, Department of Classical Archaeology, Aegean University, Izmir, Turkey.

His doctoral research on the Sol Invictus cult is available online as a two-volume book HERE: roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=3884.

Professor Hijmans said, “[W]hile the winter solstice on or around December 25 was well established in the Roman imperial calendar, there is no evidence that a religious celebration of Sol on that day antedated the celebration of Christmas, and none that indicates that [Emperor] Aurelian had a hand in its institution.”

He further noted, we only have a SINGLE solid historical primary source for December 25 as the feast of Sol Invictus, the Chronography of 354, where the day is marked as N・INVICTI・CM・XXX (“Birthday of the Unconquered - games ordered: thirty [chariot-races]”).

(cont)

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I’ll try to summarize some of Professor Hijmans research, and why the Sol Invictus argument is, well, bogus:

The early Church celebrated the Resurrection of Christ from its beginning. The celebration of His birth came some time afterwards. Why? It wasn’t to try to copy some minor Roman holiday. It was to defend against the heretical claims of the Gnostic cults. The Gnostics, such as the Manichaens and followers of Arius (who got literally slapped down by St. Nicholas at the Council of Nicea) were fundamentally opposed to matter and the things of this world (this also made them very anti-woman and anti-sex, as women create new lives), and held that it would be demeaning for God to take on material form. Thus, they claimed God tricked us by only appearing to take on human form, and that Jesus was actually a spirit with no corporeal form, or else the spirit of Jesus came down and briefly possessed the man, Jesus, like a dybbuk. It was thus important for the early Church to emphasize that Christ was both fully God and fully Human, so the celebration of His birth in human form (Theophany), as separate from His Epiphany, became increasingly important. The early Christian Church didn’t really much care what the pagans were doing - they were very much more concerned about challenges to orthodoxy from the gnostics.

Prof. Hijmans: For example, in the second century the Basilideans taught that the divine Christ appeared on Epiphany to reside temporarily in the body of the human Christ. In their view, the date of birth of the human Jesus was of no interest, as he was only temporarily “host” to the divine Christ. Two centuries later the Manicheans went further, claiming that Jesus either was not born at all, or anyhow did not take flesh of the Virgin Mary, but simply appeared among men – on Epiphany. One can easily imagine how the feast of Epiphany could be linked exclusively to the divine aspect of Christ, which was somehow “revealed” on January 6 . If the church were to celebrate Epiphany only, but not the birth of Christ, that could be seen to emphasize that there was indeed a distinction of importance between the two natures of Christ, human (birth, unimportant) and divine (Epiphany, important). Developing a feast for the birthday of Christ was a reaction to these views, counteracting such dichotomies by stressing the importance of the physical birth of Jesus.

The Sol Invictus argument is based on the late 19th century arguments of Hermann Usener, who argued that December 25th*was chosen as Christ’s birthday to counteract this important pagan festival, a view that gained wide acceptance among scholars in the early to mid-20th century, and which the aforementioned anti-Christmas zealots latched onto.

Usener referred to two sources in particular to support his contention that the 25th*of December, the winter solstice, was consciously chosen because of its pagan feast for the invincible sun. The first is a scholiast to the Syriac author Bar Salibi, whom Usener (1905, 466) quotes as writing:“Die Ursache, weshalb die Väter das Fest des 6. Januar (Epiphanie) abänderten und aufden 25. Dezember verlegten, war folgende. Nach feierlichem Herkommen pflegten dieHeiden am 25. Dec. das Geburtsfest des Sonnengotts (wörtlicher: das Fest des Aufgangs der Sonne) zu feiern und zur Erhöhung der Festlichkeit Lichter anzuzünden. An diesen festlichen Bräuchen liessen sie auch das Christenvolk theilnehmen. Da nun die Lehrer der Kirche die Wahrnehmung machten, dass die Christen an diesem (heidnischen) Feste hiengen, kamen sie nach reiflicher Erwägung zu dem Entschluss, an diesem Tage (25. Dec.) fortan das Fest des wahren Aufgangs (dh. Geburt), am 6. Januar aber das Fest der Erscheinung (Epiphanie) zu feiern. Und diesen Brauch haben sie bis zum heutigen Tage zugleich mit der Sitte, Lichter anzuzünden, festgehalten”.

The second passage comes from a homily referred to by Usener as the De solstitiis et aequinoctiis, the full title of which is: De solstitia et aequinoctia conceptionis et nativitatis Domini Nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae (On the solstice and equinox of the conception and birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist). 14*Towards the end, we read about the winter solstice: “sed et invicti natalem apellant. quis utique tam invictus nisi dominus noster qui mortem subactam devicit? vel quod dicant solis esse natalem ipse est sol iustitiae de quo malachias propheta dixit: orietur vobis timentibus nomen ipsius sol iustitiae et sanitas est in pennis eius.”

 

[Arizona_Mike]

“According to Usener these two passages indicate with surprising openness how Christmas was created by church politics to “take over” a dangerous pagan feast of great significance, and as Heim has indicated, most scholars since have followed this line. In doing so, scholars have invariably linked this supplanting of the cult of the sun to the pervasive use of the sun as metaphor for Christ in early Christian literature, in which he is often referred to as “Sol verus”, “Sol Justitiae”, etc.Nonetheless, Usener’s position raises fundamental questions, and Wallraff (2001, 174-195) is therefore significantly more cautious. He warns that in order to understand what impact, if any, Roman solar concepts had on the Christian adoption of December 25thas the birthday of Christ, we must first establish what kind of solar festival was celebrated on December, 25 , how old it was, and what it is that we mean when we say that the feast was “taken over” by Christians.

(To read more about Usener’s primary sources on the Sol Invictus argument, see “Usener’s Christmas: A Contribution to the Modern Construct of Late Antique Solar Syncretism in Die Metamorphosen der Philologie, which explains WHY the very late-dated gloss on the scholiast to bar-Salibi can’t be used as a credible primary source:
academia.edu/987479/Useners_Christmas_A_Contribution_to_the_Modern_Construct_of_Late_Antique_Solar_Syncretism_in_Die_Metamorphosen_der_Philologie._Hermann_Usener_und_seine_Folgen_Wiesbaden_Harrassowitz_2011._139-152)

It is also unlikely that, as the dating of Christmas reflected a primary desire to affirm the corporeal nature of Christ against the arguments of the Gnostics, that they would pick a pagan holiday to do so.

Hijmans: “The question is whether they chose it because of or despite that significance and, possibly, those festivities. If we ignore, for a moment, the two sources quoted by Usener – both will prove to be less conclusive than they may appear at first glance – and if we accept that the decision to celebrate Christ’s birth with a separate feast was primarily a post-Nicaean move designed to emphasize the incarnation of Christ – a move taken in the context of the struggle against the Arians and other, comparable groups – the adoption of December 25thas the birthday of Christ could be seen to be primarily an intra-faith (Christian versus Christian) polemical move, rather than an inter-faith (Christian versus pagan) one, with the initiative (and therefore the risk) on the side of those breaking with tradition, i.e. the anti-Arians. They would need strong arguments to defend their move against the inevitable opposition, and one can easily imagine the problems they would face if their main reason for choosing December 25thwas the fact that it was the date of a dangerous pagan feast.”

There is no evidence that the cult of Sol in any way influenced the Christian Church, or that it was created by Aurelian as a proto-monotheist state competitor to the Christian Church. There is, in fact, good evidence that December 25 was only a minor holiday for the Sol Invictus cult, so it would make little sense for the Church to try to supplant that date instead of the dates with greater religious significance to the Sol Invictus cult, namely August, 8, 9, or 12, or December 11 - none of which correspond to any significant solar event. There is also NO evidence that the use of December 25 to celebrate the Sol Invictus feast existed BEFORE the Christian celebration of the Feast of the Nativity on December 25.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Hijmans: “From Usener (1905) to Heim (1999), all scholars who argue that Christmas was instituted to counteract the feast of December 25th*in honour of Sol emphasize the strongly pagan nature of that feast and the great importance and popularity of the cult of Sol Invictus in late antiquity. Little evidence is offered for the former contention, beyond reference to the 30 chariot races in honour of Sol recorded for that day in the Calendar of Filocalus (the man for whom the Calendar of 354 was made). The latter contention, however, is generally supported by extensive discussions on the nature and importance of Sol Invictus. Heim typically dedicates over half his article to a substantial review of the cult of Sol Invictus in the Roman Empire (pp. 640-645), and the continuing influence of the sun god after Constantine (pp. 645-651).*These reviews are invariably rooted in the old paradigm that saw the cult of Sol Invictus as Syrian, introduced to Rome by Aurelian, and of major importance in the next decades. The subtext for this paradigm is the notion that traditional polytheism was by this time moribund and that a syncretistic or henotheistic solar theology was the last, best, and from a Christian perspective most dangerous, pagan response to the inexorable rise of Christian monotheism.

I have argued throughout this book that the old paradigms for the understanding of the history and nature of the sun god in Rome and the Roman Empire are simply untenable. It is therefore obvious that we must*not rely on arguments based on the old paradigms, nor should it surprise us to find that, upon examination, the notion that the cult of Sol in late Antiquity represented a new pagan religion that potentially threatened to thwart Christianity, is not supported by any clear evidence.

The contention that December 25thwas an especially popular festival for Sol in late antiquity is equally unfounded, as is as the notion that this festival was established by Aurelian when he supposedly instituted a new cult of the sun. Aurelian did of course build the sun a magnificent new temple and he raised the priests of Sol to the level of pontifices. A new festival on December 25th would not have been out-of-place in this context, but it must be stressed, pace Usener, that there is no evidence that Aurelian instituted a celebration of Sol on that day. A feast day for Sol on December 25this not mentioned until eighty years later, in the Calendar of 354 and, subsequently, in 362 by Julian in his Oration to King Helios.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Hijmans: In short, while the winter solstice on or around the 25th*of December was well established in the Roman imperial calendar, there is no evidence that a religious celebration of Sol on that day antedated the celebration of Christmas, and none that indicates that Aurelian had a hand in its institution.*One might think that celebrating the sun on the winter solstice is so self-evident that we need hardly doubt that such a festival had a long tradition, but what evidence we have actually belies that notion. The traditional feast days of Sol, as recorded in the early imperial fasti, were August 8 and/or August 9 , possibly August 28 , and December 11 . These are all dates that are unrelated to any important celestial alignment of Sol, such as the solstices and equinoxes.

Of these traditional dates only August 28 is mentioned in the Calendar of 354, along with December 25 , and multi-day games from October 19 to October 22 , the latter being the most important, judging by the unparalleled 36 chariot races with which it was celebrated.There is direct evidence that in AD 274 Aurelian instituted quadrennial agones in honour of Sol, and the Calendar of 354 would seem to suggest that they were held from October 19th- 22 , culminating in those 36 chariot races on October 22 .

Nonetheless many scholars persist in preferring December 25th for Aurelian’s agones.The argument rests solely on Julian or IV, 156C where he states that the “most magnificent agon” for Sol is celebrated at the end of December right after the Saturnalia. “Damit kann eigentlich nur der aurelianische agon Solis gemeint gewesen sein” according to Berrens (2004, 109), citing various scholars. The argument for rejecting October 19th-22ndis concisely presented by Mommsen in his publication of the Calendar of 354. Commenting on the ludi of October 19 – 22 Mommsen states:

“Origo incerta. De agone Solis, quem teste chronographo a. 354 et Hieronymo instituit Aurelianus noli cogitare; agones enim diversi fuerunt a ludis neque illi celebrabantur nisi quarto quoque anno.” Technically, there was indeed a difference between ludi and agones, at least in the late Republic and early Empire. Whether that distinction was still maintained in 354 is unclear. The Calendar of 354 lists a number of ludi but no agones, and it seems to me hard to argue that in terms of word-choice the natalis Invicti of December 25th *refers more accurately to the agon Solis of our other sources than the ludi Solis of October 19 -22 . It is also not clear to me which point Mommsen wishes to make with the fact that the games were celebrated only once every four years. Assuming that the agon Solis was first held in AD 274, they would have been held in 354 (Calendar) as well as 362 (date of Julian’s hymn).

It is towards the end of Julian’s hymn that we find the clinching argument against December 25th *as date of Aurelian’s quadrennial agones. Julian explicitly differentiates these agones (plural) for Sol, which he characterizes as “recent”, with the most impressive agon (singular) for Sol Invictus that he had just celebrated on the winter solstice, and which he ascribes to Numa. We can ignore that attribution, which is nonsense, but can there be any doubt that the quadrennial agones of recent invention that he mentions were the quadrennial games instituted by Aurelian 88 years previously?We certainly have no evidence that there were multiple quadrennial games for Sol. Julian clearly considers the agon he ascribes to Numa to be unrelated to these quadrennial agones, and yet Aurelian’s games would have been celebrated in 362 for the 23rdtime. This must mean that they had been celebrated at a different time, and thus we can rule out December 25th as the date of Aurelian’s agones for Sol.

Hope all that helps!

 

[jediliz]

i’m dreaming of a white christmas makes more sense than I’m dreaming of a 90 degree christmas… (if the day was august)

Plus, on a cold winter’s night that was so deep…is fun to sing

When we reach Heaven, maybe you should ask Mary herself…she’d probably remember his birthday very well.

 

[PJM]

=Arizona Mike;10153551]Pat, I respectfully believe you’re mistaken. One would think the winter solar solstice would be a major pagan holiday, especially for those worshipping a sun god, but that’s not the case. None of the major solar astronomical events (equinoxes, solstices) were holidays in honor of solar gods, in Rome or any of the other ancient empires. The solstice was not a religious holiday for the Romans, although it was known and used as a marker for agricultural planning.

Many (most) pagans were eventually converted, but it was not because we copied their holidays - it was because we had better answers to the questions people asked, and because they were impressed by Christian charity (particularly during the pandemics that ravaged the Roman Empire, when Christians stayed behind to tend to the sick while pagan doctors fled), and because they were impressed by the greater dignity and rights given to Christian women, slaves, and children.

If Christians plotted to trick pagans into Christian observance by doing a bait-and-switch on their holidays, there should be some evidence in the writings of the fathers of the Church, and there simply isn’t. Instead, there’s an abhorrence of any mixture of pagan worship (and that’s what pagan holidays were - worship ceremonies for pagan idols) with Christian worship.

Nor was Saturnalia copied, which was on an earlier date than Christmas. The early Christian observance of Advent was like Lent, a time of fasting, charity and penitence, not the riotous feasting, drinking, and societal class inversion seen in Saturnalia. Some have claimed the Saturnalia gift giving (which was more like pay-offs to the underclass to avoid civil unrest) was copied in the Christian celebration of Christmas, but Christmas gift-giving didn’t come until centuries later, and the rites of Saturnalia didn’t survive the collapse of the Roman Empire. It’s not like there was a secret Saturnalian church that practiced gift-giving that survived the Holy Roman Empire, the Carolignian Empire, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Industrial Age, before finally and triumphantly re-emerging when Thomas Nast began commercializing Christmas (when he wasn’t bashing Catholics) and they could exchange gifts openly. Saturnalia as a source for Christmas is a non-starter, as is the Feast of Sol Invictus, for reasons cited earlier in the thread.

CHECK THIS OUT PLEASE:
christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2000/dec08.html

 

[Arizona_Mike]

CHECK THIS OUT PLEASE:
christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2000/dec08.html

I’ve seen it, PJM. It’s from a Protestant website, and the author the author was correct in some of her statements, but was lazy in her scholarship on some of the claims she makes. It’s an odd claim made by many Protestants that “gift-giving and merrymaking from Roman Saturnalia; greenery, lights, and charity from the Roman New Year; Yule logs and various foods from Teutonic feasts” would somehow have survived the millennia until being reintroduced today, or that there are records that the early Catholic Church saw “that pagans were already exalting deities with some parallels to the true deity, [and] church leaders decided to commandeer the date and introduce a new festival.” Quite the opposite. Where is a primary historical source for this claim from one of patristic fathers?

 

[PJM]

=Arizona Mike;10155661]I’ve seen it, PJM. It’s from a Protestant website, and the author the author was correct in some of her statements, but was lazy in her scholarship on some of the claims she makes. It’s an odd claim made by many Protestants that “gift-giving and merrymaking from Roman Saturnalia; greenery, lights, and charity from the Roman New Year; Yule logs and various foods from Teutonic feasts” would somehow have survived the millennia until being reintroduced today, or that there are records that the early Catholic Church saw “that pagans were already exalting deities with some parallels to the true deity, [and] church leaders decided to commandeer the date and introduce a new festival.” Quite the opposite. Where is a primary historical source for this claim from one of patristic fathers?

Thanks for the update!

 

[nishkalank]

The correct date could not be ascertained. The Church has fixed 25th Dec as the date of birth of Jesus just for the faithful to remember specially of Jesus’ birth and to celebrate. The date is not the important thing for a believer, but the faith in the incarnation of Jesus So too much of dis cussion on the subject seems to be of not any use

Nishkalank K.

 

[Clevelander]

To my knowledge, our Lord does not demand that we give the assent of faith to the claim that he was born on December 25 (although He probably was), any more than He demands that we believe the Shroud of Turin is His true burial cloth (although it probably is).

Nevertheless, if anyone wants me to believe the Church of Rome did not know the true date of Christ’s birth, he is asking me to believe a lot, viz., the decree of a universal enrollment was Caesar’s inspiration only; or no records were gathered out in the provinces; or such records as were gathered did not include names and dates, or failed to be brought back to the seat of the empire, or (all this monumental effort notwithstanding) were discarded once they were; or none of the first believers there, who died in their own blood for love of this God-Man, and who included government insiders like Saint Sebastian, was curious enough to find out what those records had to say.

If we believe in Sacred Tradition at all (and Catholics: You do), it is because we first believed that it is believable to begin with. Which is to say, that it is grounded in fact, and is connected in a singular if mysterious way with Rome. Whether the date of December 25 is part and parcel of Sacred Tradition, someone more knowledgeable than I could say. Many things are for sure, some of them dogmatic, e.g. the perpetual virginity of Mary, and some not.

So, go ahead and question why Rome insisted on December 25 from the earliest times, but don’t forget the fact that she did, and that this fact alone has significance that should be taken into account.

 

[Sime]

If you would go to the Bible and see that the angel appeared to Mary in the six month. She went to here cousins home emmidely because she was also pregnant. Mary stayed there three months and Joseph was told she was with child. So if she became pregnant right after the angel visit then she would have had Jesus in the third month of the Jewish calendar. Which is mid June to mid July. Historically speaking.
-]/-]

What calendar system would be used by Luke? Luke was a Greek from Antioch, and he wrote his gospel to Theophilus, another Greek in Antioch. The calendar system in use there was the Syro- Macedonian calendar, introduced by Alexander the Great over three centuries earlier.

There is a high probability that the Annunciation in the sixth month is a reference to the sixth lunar month according to Luke’s Syro-Macedonian calendar. In 5 BCE the sixth lunar month of Xanthikos was from March 10 to April 7. The middle of that month was about March 25, 5 BCE, the traditional date for the Annunciation. This was also the day of the Vernal Equinox*.

There is a high probability that the Annunciation in the sixth month is a reference to the sixth lunar month according to Luke’s Syro-Macedonian calendar. In that event, it is not only possible, but probable that Jesus was born on December 25th.

 

[runningdude]

What calendar system would be used by Luke? Luke was a Greek from Antioch, and he wrote his gospel to Theophilus, another Greek in Antioch. The calendar system in use there was the Syro- Macedonian calendar, introduced by Alexander the Great over three centuries earlier.

There is a high probability that the Annunciation in the sixth month is a reference to the sixth lunar month according to Luke’s Syro-Macedonian calendar. In 5 BCE the sixth lunar month of Xanthikos was from March 10 to April 7. The middle of that month was about March 25, 5 BCE, the traditional date for the Annunciation. This was also the day of the Vernal Equinox*.

There is a high probability that the Annunciation in the sixth month is a reference to the sixth lunar month according to Luke’s Syro-Macedonian calendar. In that event, it is not only possible, but probable that Jesus was born on December 25th.

Why is there “high probability”? Why is this more likely than it being a reference to the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy?

 

[PaulVF]

Does it really matter when He was born? We choose this day to celebrate the birth of Our Lord and Savior. True, from a historic standpoint it would be nice to know the exact date but it doesn’t really matter if it was during summer or winter, if it was in a stable or a cave.

Some point to the dates that relate to when the Romans took a census, others claim that pagan festivals led to December 25 being used. But can anyone deny that He was born?

It seems as if most of the controversy surrounding the exact date is due to those of us trying to prove an event to others that do not believe in Jesus at all. Even if historic evidence were provided, would it change their hearts and minds?

 

[Bruce_Killian]

Does it really matter when He was born?

The answer is absolutely, if you desire to follow the example of the prophets.

The prophets searched diligently concerning the times of the Christ (1 Peter 1:10-11)
Is it important to discover the correct date? Yes
It is right to reveal and publish the works of God (Tobit 12:7).
What was the date? Jesus was born at midnight on at the very start of the day Sunday December 25, 1 B.C. Julian the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year and the day the sun was lowest in the sky. Shepherds kept watch in the fields in December, because it was lambing season. The newborn lambs would be trampled in the pens and they had to provide lambs daily for the temple sacrifices. This date was set because the census records from Bethlehem were available in Rome after 70AD. Whether the all in the church know it or not, God guided the choice of the day of Jesus’ birth.
The date of the priestly course of Abijah Zechariah’s course started at different times in different years as shown by two of the 20 or so Dead Sea calendrical scrolls and these same scrolls because they include the lunar phases allow us to date the scrolls and so date when Zechariah ministered.
He was conceived on Passover Wednesday April 6, 1 B.C. at midnight. This is 8.5 months before Christmas, because the 9 months of pregnancy is and was counted from last period not date of conception.
The bright morning star (Rev 12:16) that brought the magi to Jerusalem rose at dawn on Aug, 24 2B.C. marking a scepter made of planets in Leo it again rose on Sunday March 27 A.D. 1 at dawn and was visible as the daystar throughout the day and as Passover was starting in the Evening led the magi to the house where Jesus lived.
So, as the sun being darkened at His death the sun was darkened on the day of His birth and like the moon being turned to blood on the evening of Good Friday after sunset the moon was turned to blood on Dec 29 1 BC. God turned the sun to darkness and the moon to blood Joes 2:31 before his presence, God made the heavens glorify the day of His birth. Jesus was circumcised and named on January 1, 1 AD our Catholic calendar totally testifies to Jesus, and you can feel scripturally justified in honoring the days the Church honors. See www.scripturescholar.com and then Star of Bethlehem, etc.
Our Lady’s last visit with Juan Diego occurred before dawn on the winter solstice December 12, 1531 A.D. At both the time of Jesus’ birth and death the sun, moon and stars bowed down before His presence. The star that prompted the magi to go to Bethlehem was Venus and it marked a sign of a three planets in a line forming a scepter at the horizon in the heavens on the day Venus rose with the sun. On the morning of the day Mary left her picture on the tilma of Juan Diego, Venus rose with the sun there was again three stars in a line on the horizon.

Bruce and Peace,
Bruce

 

[PaulVF]

How would you respond to what the Pope writes?

Pope Benedict XVI in his book" “Jesus of Nazareth – The Infancy Narratives,” the pope says the Christian calendar is actually based on a blunder by a sixth century monk, who Benedict says was several years off in his calculation of Jesus’ birth date."

Peace to you also,
Paul

 

[patrick457]

How would you respond to what the Pope writes?

Pope Benedict XVI in his book" “Jesus of Nazareth – The Infancy Narratives,” the pope says the Christian calendar is actually based on a blunder by a sixth century monk, who Benedict says was several years off in his calculation of Jesus’ birth date."

Peace to you also,
Paul

That’s old news really - people have already known for quite some time that Dionysus Exiguus’ calculation was off by a few years. And by ‘some time’ I mean like ‘two to three centuries’. There’s actually another thread on that.

 

[Bruce_Killian]

How would you respond to what the Pope writes?

Pope Benedict XVI in his book" “Jesus of Nazareth – The Infancy Narratives,” the pope says the Christian calendar is actually based on a blunder by a sixth century monk, who Benedict says was several years off in his calculation of Jesus’ birth date."

Peace to you also,
Paul

I would respond with some of my research. I would love to communicate with the Pope, but that is unlikley to ever happen. I know many things that the pope has indicated he doesen’t know in his books such as where and how the Bible indicates that Jesus must rise on the third day and convincing proof that the Last Supper occurred on Tuesday evening.
Grace and peace,
Bruce

 

[Sime]

Why is there “high probability”? Why is this more likely than it being a reference to the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy?

Scriptural numerical repetition is usually to emphasize strongly a point. However, what is the point of double noting that the Annunciation took place in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy? It is possible to discern that fact even if it was not mentioned at the time of the Annunciation (Luke 1:26) and even if Gabriel did not repeat that note to Mary (Luke 1:36). One reason for noting the close relationship of the conception of John and Jesus is that by correctly aligning the beginning point with Zachariah’s division of Abijah it is possible to establish the date of Jesus’ conception.

The note that the Annunciation took place in the sixth month is not repetitious, but redundant, if it was meant to refer to Elizabeth’s sixth month of pregnancy. There is no spiritual message there, and the timing would be abundantly clear without that passage. The sixth month here must be something more than a reference to Elizabeth’s condition. The “sixth month” can and should be interpreted as a reference to the sixth month of Luke’s calendar.