What month was Christ actually born?

  • Thread starter Thread starter redrosetea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
redrosetea said:
No not as far as my salvation…I also don’t like lies that are wrapped up in a bit of truth and presented as fact
Click to expand...
Yes that irks me too. I also don’t like when some truth is presented, but with just enough lie to poison the whole thing. Thats how the enemy works.
 
tassitus said:
The true answer is most likely this simple. I recently heard Jimmy Akin answer this exact question (probably a late September mp3 of Catholic Answers Live!), and what he reasons it that, all else said, those advising Pope Sylvester on this actually believed Jesus was born on (yup, you guessed it…) the 25th day of December (at least on our calendar). That certainly makes the most sense to me, unless we want to accuse them of being dishonest (and thus picking December 25th for some other, less apparent reason).

Peace all.
Click to expand...
Yea! Now Jimmy Aiken is a theologian I trust. And I agree - the truth is usually pretty simple. In this case, December 25th is the dateof the birth of Christ.
I also understand that it was the Jewish Feast of the Tabernacle, or, the Feast of Lights. And we still celebrate with lights!
 
Eilza10:

What is the difference between a theologian and a religious scholar? What makes one trustworthy and one suspect? Is the trustworthy one the one who agrees with you? Is the one who believes differently than you then untrustworthy, only by virtue of the fact that he or she does not share your every belief?

marietta
 
marietta said:
Eilza10:

What is the difference between a theologian and a religious scholar? What makes one trustworthy and one suspect? Is the trustworthy one the one who agrees with you? Is the one who believes differently than you then untrustworthy, only by virtue of the fact that he or she does not share your every belief?

marietta
Click to expand...
A theologian necessarily believes what he/she researches, and works to further explicate his or her religion. A religious scholar would be all other scholars who deal with religion, including archeologists, literary analysts, and professional atheists.
 
Eliza10 said:
LOL, I can’t imagine Jesus asking for presents either. But I can imagine His disciples saying, “Tell us, Lord, about the night of your birth!”
Click to expand...
I just want to be clear that I was just having a bit of fun there. Honestly, I wouldn’t be suprised either way. I guess it depends on the significance of birthdays in 1st century Judaism, something I know absolutely nothing about. If there was an Apostolic tradition that stated the birthdate of Christ, it’s obviously been lost now because in the first few centuries of the Church they only celebrated Easter as a Holiday.

Personally, I enjoy the date set for the Nativity, because my birthday is Dec. 24. That means I get to finish it by going to midnight mass, which is a beautiful celebration at our Cathedral 🙂 .
 
Spirithound said:
A theologian necessarily believes what he/she researches, and works to further explicate his or her religion. A religious scholar would be all other scholars who deal with religion, including archeologists, literary analysts, and professional atheists.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the very expert answer that I wasn’t able to give! I hope its what Marietta needs to know.
 
marietta said:
Eilza10:

… Is the trustworthy one the one who agrees with you? Is the one who believes differently than you then untrustworthy, only by virtue of the fact that he or she does not share your every belief?

marietta
Click to expand...
No. And, no.
 
RobbyS said:
It would have to be around the time of a great feast, which would explain the troble getting a room at the “inn” Bathlehem is, after all, not far from Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard that translating the word ‘katalyma’ as ‘inn’ is supposedly not the best translation of the word. It kind of makes sense, as:

1.) Inns in the ancient world were used by merchants, prostitutes, and others who had absolutely no ties or roots to speak of. Joseph and his wife Mary came to Bethlehem in the region of Judea since that was his ancestral place. Thus, instead, Joseph would have ‘checked in’ with the house of a distant relative (in keeping with Middle Eastern custom), who would have offered them room, even if that meant that the host would sleep on the floor.

2.) Bethlehem was not near a major Roman road, so there is no reason to think that there would have been an inn there. With the population of Bethlehem in this period estimated at around 1,000 inhabitants (only about 2-3 times bigger than Nazareth, which is estimated to have had 200-400 residents at this time), and no ‘highway’ nearby, the existence of a commercial inn seems unlikely.

3.) When Luke speaks of a commercial inn, as he does in 10:36, he uses a different word, pandokheion. The only other place where he uses katalyma (the word translated here as ‘inn’) is in 22:11, where it refers to the upper room, which is clearly not an ‘inn’. The word can also mean ‘lodging’ or ‘guest room’ – in fact, this is a more usual meaning for it than ‘inn’.

Thus, we can reconstruct the birth of Jesus as:

Joseph and Mary went to the house of distant relatives. When the time came for the birth, Mary delivered her firstborn, a son, Jesus, in a stable (which their relatives may have owned).

Why were these guests were not staying in the guest room as is common? Luke immediately informs his reader that: ‘because there was no room for them’. Since the guest room was probably very crowded by other kinsmen who came with Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem because of the Census, Joseph and Mary had no choice but to stay on their relatives’ barn (phatne), giving birth to the Son of God in that humble location.
 
From what I’ve heard, it was August. :confused: Not joking.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
 
As newly converted Catholics (previously Christian Orthodox), as we have often debated about the date of Christmas with our protestant friends, we tried to find some more info on the issue. As my husband’s hobby is history, he always says that for any event to be considered actual and true, there should usually be at least two sources that mention it, so that these sources can be compared. In this case, we have, on one hand, the star that appeared in the sky, which has been noticed by the Persian astronomers, and, on the other hand, we know that the Roman empire’s administration was very strict and, of course, noted the time when the population was counted, because of which St. Joseph and St. Mary had to go back to Bethleem. I don’t remember a lot of details, but the research based on these two events, as well as the different sources for these events, point to the fact that the birth of Jesus Christ really was on December 25th.
 
Has astronomy been able to place a time for the star as far as seasons and year?
 
redrosetea said:
Interesting … I am taking a refresher RCIA course and the book we are using suggests that it wasn’t a common occurrence …the sheep were not shepherded at night

I will bring this up and see what they have to say about it
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I’d say you should get a different book. Not only is there archeological evidence in support of shepherding in the Mideast during all times of the year, but there’s biblical evidence as well. Read Genesis 31:36-42. In describing his experience watching Laban’s sheep, Jacob talks about how much sleep he lost and how he nearly froze to death.
 
Thanks but it is really not my call…I don’t want to walk in and start making all kinds of waves

I brought it up and was told that no one really knows when Christmas occurred

It is interesting to see what people really do seem to feel about this…the star if it can be proven, and if a census report was actually seen by a pope seem to me the most compelling evidence
 
SFH said:
With all due respect, I’d say you should get a different book. Not only is there archeological evidence in support of shepherding in the Mideast during all times of the year, but there’s biblical evidence as well. Read Genesis 31:36-42. In describing his experience watching Laban’s sheep, Jacob talks about how much sleep he lost and how he nearly froze to death.
Click to expand...
The wet season (grass is growing and green) occurs form Oct to March in the Middle East.
 
Nickkname said:
A prophet always dies on the day he was born. Jesus was a prophet. So He died in the month on which He was born. God decreed this to show that Jesus truly was a Prophet and the Lamb.
Click to expand...
Some say a Prophet dies on the day he was conceived. So, he was born on 25 December. St. Zachariah was performing his duties at Yom Kippur on 23 September, 9 months later on 24 June St. John the Baptist was born. 6 months after John’s conception, Our Lady conceived on 25 March. Since another tradition says that a Prophet dies on the date of his conception, Our Lord was born and died on 25 March.
 
I post this on my blog every year around November, so I’ll just go early:

I believe the Incarnation was conceived in March, and was born nine months later on December 25th.

Before the guys with white coats and butterfly nets come and get me, I must confess a guilty secret that while I believe it mostly because it is believable and little “t” tradition, a part of me believes it out of spite for all the logic-chopping arguments against it. So you got me, I’m a partisan.

Yes, I hear all the rationalist AA-guns sending up flak–baptizing a pagan holiday, etc., etc., sheeps out in winter yada, yada, yada, census troubles in December blah, blah, blah. All that these do is make the belief it was December 25th difficult; none of them separately or together make it *impossible. *And as 733t d00d Newman put it, 10,000 difficulties do not add up to one doubt. That’s because doubt is an act of the will, not the intellect. I often say that even if you showed me irrefutable evidence that the date was set by early Church leaders throwing a dart at a calender while blindfolded, I’d say they still got it right. We are talking about the supernatural after all.

I think much of the December 25th poo-pooing comes from the uneasiness with the supernatural and the attitude of If-it’s-not-Dogma-Dump-it. The problem is that I see the same thing with dogma. The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the second person of the triune God, Jesus Christ. I think many find that embarrassing, so attempts are made to put a ring of fog around that truth. Whether it is turning the liturgy into entertainment with liturgical dancers and jokey homilies or turning the liturgy into therapy with soothing sentimental mush-music and appeals of We Are Church as if it were a psychological support group, the quest to make uncomfortable teachings look intellectually respectable and PR-friendly runs from big “T” tradition to little “t”.

Little “t” tradition says Christ was born on December 25th, it is seemly and just that Our Lord ought to have been born on December 25th, so plug in to the supernatural this Christmas and believe it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top