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

2007-12-01 22:55:10 · 53 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

53 answers

Nope just the winter solstice.

The article explains why we need Christmas (Winter Holidays) psychologically (toward the bottom):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Solstice

As for Jesus's Birthday:
"The scholarly consensus, based on Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews is that Herod died at the end of March, or early April of 4 BC. For instance, he states that Herod Philip I's death took place, after a thirty-seven year reign, in the twentieth year of Tiberius, which would imply that he took over on Herod's death in 4 BC.[8] This would imply a date for the birth of Jesus earlier than 4 BC, based on the account in the Matthew Gospel. The Census of Quirinius, thought to be the one referred to in the Luke account, took place in 6 AD, which would imply a birth date ten years later than the Matthew version."

Josephus is considered very reliable amoung historians.

2007-12-01 22:57:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

The sensible answer is that there is an approximately 1 in 365 1/4 chance that he was. We do not know the actual date but 25th December is as likely as any other. December is not the coldest month in the Bethlehem area so (even if the shepherd story is true) that does not rule out Christ being born then

Stories about the church adopting Pagan feast days are pure speculation without foundation in any historical fact. The feast day which some say Christians "hijacked" - Natalis Invicti - was not actually instituted until the late 3rd century by which time Christians were already considering 25th December as being the date to celebrate Christ' Birth. Saturnalia was celebrated about a week earlier.

German and Celtic feasts (for which there is precious little evidence) don't even come into the picture as the date of Christmas was most likely set in Rome.

2007-12-02 00:34:42 · answer #2 · answered by greenshootuk 6 · 1 1

No, Jesus wasn't born on December 25th!

2007-12-08 10:59:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Day Jesus Was Born
This coming December 25th most parents will be lying to their children about old St. Nick. Some of us will be celebrating the birth of our Savior. But was he really born on this day?

Was Jesus really born on December 25th? Virtually every month on the calendar has been proposed by biblical scholars. So why do we celebrate his birth in December?

The tradition for December 25th is actually quite ancient. Hippolytus, in the second century A.D., argued that this was Christ's birthday. Meanwhile, in the eastern Church, January 6th was the date followed.

But in the fourth century, John Chrysostom argued that December 25th was the correct date and from that day till now, the Church in the East, as well as the West, has observed the 25th of December as the official date of Christ's birth.

In modern times, the traditional date has been challenged. Modern scholars point out that when Jesus was born, shepherds were watching their sheep in the hills around Bethlehem. Luke tells us that an angel appeared to "some shepherds staying out in the fields [who were] keeping watch over their flock by night" (2:8).

Some scholars feel that the sheep were usually brought under cover from November to March; as well, they were not normally in the field at night. But there is no hard evidence for this. In fact, early Jewish sources suggest that the sheep around Bethlehem were outside year-round. So you can see, December 25th fits both tradition and the biblical narrative well. There is no sound objection to it.

Now admittedly, the sheep around Bethlehem were the exception, not the rule. But these were no ordinary sheep. They were sacrificial lambs. In the early spring they would be slaughtered at the Passover.

And God first revealed the Messiah's birth to these shepherds--shepherds who protected harmless lambs which would soon die on behalf of sinful men. Whey they saw the baby, could they have known? Might they have whispered in their hearts what John the Baptist later thundered, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

Now, of course, we can't be absolutely certain of the day of Christ's birth. At least, not this side of heaven. But an early winter date seems as reasonable a guess as any. And December 25th has been the frontrunner for eighteen centuries. Without more evidence, there seems no good reason to change the celebration date now.

We can blame the ancient church for a large part of our uncertainty. You see, they did not celebrate Christ's birth. At all. To them, it was insignificant. They were far more concerned with his death . . . and resurrection.

But modern man has turned that around. A baby lying in a manger is harmless, non-threatening. But a man dying on a cross--a man who claims to be God--that man is a threat! He demands our allegiance! We cannot ignore him. We must either accept him or reject him. He leaves us no middle ground.

This Christmas season, take a close look at a nativity scene once again. Remove your rose-colored glasses--smell the foul air, see the cold, shivering animals. They represent the Old Testament sacrificial system. They are emblems of death. But they are mere shadows of the Babe in their midst. He was born to die . . . that all who believe in him might live.

2007-12-02 01:26:18 · answer #4 · answered by ♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♪♫♪♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♪♫♪♫♪♫♪ 5 · 3 1

While early Christians certainly believed in the birth narratives as found in the Gospels, their faith-focus was upon the death and resurrection of our Lord, not his incarnation and birth. It wasn’t until a couple of centuries had passed, and the Church stood on the brink of becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire, that the need for developing a nativity celebration was realized. The pagan Feast of Saturnalia, and other winter solstice festivals, presented the Church with a serious challenge: this popular religious bacchanalia, which focused upon the birth of the son god, was celebrated by pagans and Christians alike even despite official denouncements of the practice by leading Bishops and other Church Fathers. When such measures failed to stop the party, the church changed its tactics and attempted to co-opt the party, adopt and reinterpret some of the pagan symbols, and place a Christian “spin” on the entire festival. It worked. The 4th century Church shifted the focus of the winter solstice celebrations from the birth of the sun god to the birth of the Son of God. So popular was this adoption that, within just a century, it was hard to find anywhere in the Empire where the Christianization of the date hadn’t taken hold. Soon, nearly every connection with the pagan religious roots of the date were lost to antiquity as the importance of celebrating the incarnation and birth of Jesus took center stage.

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 phrase “In the sixth month” means during the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy. Unfortunately, Luke is not more specific as to when in that month Gabriel appeared to Mary, only that it happened during that month. If Elizabeth’s first month had begun by July 1st, then Mary was visited by the Angel Gabriel at some point during the month of December ... probably somewhere between the middle of the month and its end. This would allow time for Mary to proceed directly to Elizabeth’s immediately following her conception, spend “about three months” there, and then depart before John the Baptist was born.

To complete our speculation, if we assume that John the Baptist wasn’t premature, he would have been born at the beginning of April, 2 B.C. -- right around Passover. This is an amazing, but not altogether surprising conjunction, since the Jewish expectation had long been that Elijah would return at Passover! In a typological sense, he did: John the Baptist -- the new Elijah -- would prepare the way for the messiah. Since John the Baptist was conceived 6 months prior to Jesus’ conception, it obviously follows that 6 months after the birth of John the Baptist Jesus was born. It is a simple exercise to count the months:


April
May
June
July
August
September


If we project Jesus’ conception on or about December 24, and if we assume a normal pregnancy of 280 days, Jesus would have been born on or about September 29, 2 B.C.. Of course, this is only an approximate estimation. It is conceivable that John the Baptist could have been conceived and born a week or so earlier than our conjecture, or a week later. Likewise, it is entirely possible that Mary could have received Gabriels annunciation and conceived the Christ child as early as the very first week of Elizabeth’s 6th month, and not half to two-thirds of the way through the month. In this case, Jesus would have been born as early as the first week of September, rather than at the end of the month. Any combination of these factors might be possible, which could push Jesus’ birth as much as a month earlier, or a half-month later, depending upon the variables, but this doesn’t seem likely to me. I believe that the evidence points to a mid-to-late December conception and a late September birth for the Son of God.


http://www.revneal.org/Writings/jesusbirth.htm

2007-12-01 23:06:03 · answer #5 · answered by Bob Lucero 2 · 0 2

No, not necessarily...the bible doesn't say anything about the time Jesus was born, other than it was at night. He could have even been born in the summer I think...we just celebrate his birth on December 25th.

2007-12-01 23:02:07 · answer #6 · answered by Unresolved to be Resolved 2 · 1 2

Jesus and Christmas has nothing in common there is no actual document of any Birth date it's a absolute false pagan belief
in biblical times they didn't mark a date you were born to give you an idea they counted age by how many moons pass (example) 36 moons pass your 36 years old but it wasn't always accurate because of the moons cycle

2007-12-01 23:26:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

It is highly unlikely that the person we know as Jesus was actually born on December 25th. That date was chosen because there was already a festival at that time, which was hijacked by the church for its own purposes.

2007-12-02 00:43:40 · answer #8 · answered by Martin 5 · 1 2

No, the sun God Horus was, here's a clip that explains where the idea came from:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EQLD59fK_Iw
PS. I can see that the truth about where the idea of Jesus not being born on 25th December hurts, I'm merely stating facts, which is what a question asks for.

2007-12-01 23:57:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. The Christians changed the pagan holiday in order to be able to convert the pagans (happy to say that they weren't successful).

December 25th is the Roman Sol Invictus: Saturnalia holiday of Birth of the Invincible Sun. Also the European Feasts of Herne, Frey, Saturn and Dionysus - the birth of the God, light of the world.
Dec. 26th to Jan 6th is Yuletide. (12 days of christmas = 12 days of yuletide)

2007-12-01 23:19:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers