English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

13 answers

THE Bible does not tell us when Jesus was born. However, it does give us sound reason to conclude that his birth did not take place in December.

Consider the weather conditions at that time of the year in Bethlehem, where Jesus was born. The Jewish month of Chislev (corresponding to November/December) was a month with cold and rainy weather. The month after that was Tebeth (December/January). It saw the lowest temperatures of the year, with occasional snows in the highlands. Let us see what the Bible tells us about the climate of that region.

The Bible writer Ezra shows that Chislev was indeed a month known for cold and rainy weather. After stating that a crowd had gathered in Jerusalem “in the ninth month [Chislev] on the twentieth day of the month,” Ezra reports that people were “shivering . . . on account of the showers of rain.” Concerning weather conditions at that time of the year, the congregated people themselves said: “It is the season of showers of rain, and it is not possible to stand outside.” (Ezra 10:9, 13; Jeremiah 36:22) No wonder shepherds living in that part of the world made sure that they and their flocks were no longer out of doors at night when December came around!

The Bible reports, however, that shepherds were in the fields tending their flocks on the night of Jesus’ birth. In fact, the Bible writer Luke shows that at that time, shepherds were “living out of doors and keeping watches in the night over their flocks” near Bethlehem. (Luke 2:8-12) Notice that the shepherds were actually living out of doors, not just strolling outside during the day. They had their flocks in the fields at night. Does that description of outdoor living fit the chilly and rainy weather conditions of Bethlehem in December? No, it does not. So the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth indicate that he was not born in December.

God’s Word tells us precisely when Jesus died, but it gives little direct indication as to when he was born. This brings to mind King Solomon’s words: “A name is better than good oil, and the day of death than the day of one’s being born.” (Ecclesiastes 7:1) It is not surprising, then, that the Bible provides many details about Jesus’ ministry and death but few details about the time of his birth.

When Christ died on the torture stake, after a ministry of three and a half years, he was thirty-three and a half years old. His death was at Passover time. That was about the first of April, A.D. 33. So Christ, having died at the age of thirty-three and a half, would have been thirty-four years old six months later, or about October 1. So Jesus was born, not December 25, but about October 1, 2 B.C.

2006-12-22 06:35:55 · answer #1 · answered by Alex 5 · 0 0

The year Jesus was born is estimated around 6 or 5 BC. If one reads the bible and does a little research on Roman history you will see that with the Emperor and Governor of the area this is a pretty good guess. As to the date, no one knows for sure, but sometime in late spring would be more likely (with the shepherds watching their flock in open fields). As to the reason we celebrate his birthday on the 25th - there are a couple of possibilities. First is that we took over the winter solstice holiday. Second is more symbolic. Since the 25th is near the winter solstice (the shortest day of the year), we can reference what St. John the Baptist said of Jesus "I (St. John) must decrease so that He (Jesus) may increase" and since Jesus is referred to as "The Light" (remember He said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Light") then the symbolic nature of celebrating the birth of Jesus on the shortest day of the year is apparent - from this day, the light will increase. (By contrast, we celebrate the birthday of St. John on June 25th - close to the longest day of the year). I Hope I helped.

2016-05-23 16:16:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We use a variation on the Julian Calendar which Caesar implemented before the birth of Christ. Early Christians did not celebrate Christmas but rather focused more on Easter. It wasn't until much later that Christmas became such a prominent part of Christianity, but by then Caesar's calendar had been in use for centuries and to change it would have been folly.

2006-12-22 06:30:56 · answer #3 · answered by Omniscient 1 · 1 1

Actually, Christmas isn't the beginning of the Christian calendar. The Christian year begins on the first new moon on or after the spring equinox and ends on the following first new moon on or after the spring equinox.

Thus, it happens on a movable day. It is based on Easter, rather than Christmas as the above calculation would demonstrate.

--Dee

2006-12-22 06:33:23 · answer #4 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 0 1

Jesus' B-day is most likely late Sept - early Oct. The dates celebrated are Dec 25th (in most of the world) and Jan 11th (I think that's right... Orthodox celebrates it in Jan).

There is no such thing as a "Christian Calendar". The Calendar we go by is Roman.

2006-12-22 06:58:47 · answer #5 · answered by Kithy 6 · 0 1

There's a difference between the "Christian calender" and the "time calender" or whatever you call it

The roman's made Christmas on December 25 so it would work out with their calender.

Christ was actually born sometime in the spring.

2006-12-22 06:23:57 · answer #6 · answered by mr_sizzelin 2 · 1 1

Check and I think you will find that the New Year used to be on March 25th .... the Feast of the Conception.

2006-12-22 07:17:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The Christian calender is not what we use evidently.

2006-12-22 06:23:10 · answer #8 · answered by bess 4 · 0 1

Great question...(yawn)

You DO know none of US had anything to do with that, RIGHT?

2006-12-22 06:23:46 · answer #9 · answered by lookn2cjc 6 · 0 1

Does it really matter?

2006-12-22 06:24:03 · answer #10 · answered by Gods child 6 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers