Why Dec 25?

[Vaneeza Malkah]

:yawn: *only got 3 hours sleep last night

[Vaneeza Malkah]

Oh well, weren't we talking about Christmas or something? Why don't we all just sing some holiday songs?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vanYLHpkUs

[simchat_torah]

I'm not sure what you mean... you've tried to "change" me for like... what... 2 pages now? It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand what-so-ever, and our digs and personal comments on my character continue to no end. This is why I don't make debates "personal", becauase people like you can't keep from slaughtering someone's character, they are unable to disassociate the topic at hand from the person.

[Vaneeza Malkah]

I'm not sure what you mean... you've tried to "change" me for like... what... 2 pages now? It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand what-so-ever, and our digs and personal comments on my character continue to no end. This is why I don't make debates "personal", becauase people like you can't keep from slaughtering someone's character, they are unable to disassociate the topic at hand from the person.
What exactly does that mean? people like me? and where have I slaughtered your character? I don't see any bits and pieces of it laying on the ground anywhere...

I've tried to change you? that is a really strange statement, as one human being cannot 'change' another.

[Bananna]

Back on topic

[simchat_torah]

So, how's the weather?



















































:D

[HaReb]

Thank G_d a Mod has made a decision!

So who is going to answer/comment on/throw a wobbly about/etc etc my post about Replacement Theology...

Re Replacement Theology: It is taught in many theo. colleges and appears in Peakes Commentary which is a standard book for many ordinands in mainstream churches. So, whilst it may not be a defined policy by any one church (though it is the cloaked persuasion of many), it is contained in the materials they use and, by that use, they thereby endorse it. I am not at home at the moment so cannot give you the actual page number in Peakes but it is there without a shadow of doubt and in as many words, too - that the Church is the New Israel!!!

PS Weather here is cold - almost perpetual rain for last few days - waiting for winds to ease and hoping I can get a ferry home tomorrow (Friday 18th) - I live on an offshore island.

[Henaynei]

Replacement theology - excellent book to read, whilst not specifically about replacement theology is a most clear and critical dissertation and discussion on where replacement theology *really* started and comes from, is by Daniel Gruber, Copernicus and the Jews
http://www.elijahnet.net/images/cpfront.jpg

Read first 7 pages here....http://www.elijahnet.net/copernicusandthejews.html

This will challenge your paradigm as little else ever has .... you'll love it or hate it ... it 's stuff many in the Church don't want you to know.... and what many more in the Church *don't* know .... for a Messianic it is also a paradigm shift of a large order....



oh, and the weather - we got 6 inches of snow today!! :clap: about TIME!!

[simchat_torah]

Constantine's Sword.

Lovely read as well.

[ContraMundum]

Might I just add to the replacement theology comments. It is taught in many theo. colleges and appears in Peakes Commentary which is a standard book for many ordinands in mainstream churches. So, whilst it may not be a defined policy by any one church (though it is the cloaked persuasion of many), it is contained in the materials they use and, by that use, they thereby endorse it. I am not at home at the moment so cannot give you the actual page number in Peakes but it is there without a shadow of doubt and in as many words, too - that the Church is the New Israel!!!

Amended to make the point that I am NOT saying that I agree with Replacement Theology - I am merely noting its almost formal acceptance in many parts of the Church.


Yeah, Peake's Commentary used to be pretty popular for some Christian denominations. It's a little too much to the liberal side of things for my liking but....it probably would teach some form of replacement theology- it is, after all, written to some degree under the influence of the Reformed (Calvinist) theology that permeated Protestanism. The Reformed of course got it from Augustine, but Augustine's replacement theory is not much like what later Protestants came up with- they're apples and oranges. My point is this- it's really only certain versions of Protestantism that have championed the most offensive and absurd versions of replacement theology- and this is waning in popularity thanks to the rebirth of orthodoxy, praise God. Protestantism has never spoken on behalf of ancient ecumenical consensus, and is thus in many parts rejected by the more Apostolic traditions of Christianity. :thumbsup:

I guess all of this still begs the question- how we define replacement theology. This warrants the question and only when we decide on what that means could we possibly assess the teachers within Christianity regarding that theory.

[ContraMundum]

Read first 7 pages here....http://www.elijahnet.net/copernicusandthejews.html

This will challenge your paradigm as little else ever has .... you'll love it or hate it ... it 's stuff many in the Church don't want you to know.... and what many more in the Church *don't* know .... for a Messianic it is also a paradigm shift of a large order....

I read seven pages, and wondered which Church he was talking about- not one I've heard of. It really reads to me like a radicalised conspiracy book- which doesn't rock my world at all. Maybe it gets better?

oh, and the weather - we got 6 inches of snow today!! :clap: about TIME!!

It's been really hot here. :)

[Henaynei]

it is not about conspiracy theory at all :) it is about how choices in translation, mistranslation (many in innocence, ignorance or rooted in an effort to make that which they did not understand relate to their taught paradigm) and choices to transliterate rather than translate (creating ecclesiastical terminology where there was none and no need) have had a significant impact on how the Church has defined itself, AND how it has defined and labeled the Jews

I find it an interesting and thought provoking thesis ...

[ContraMundum]

it is not about conspiracy theory at all :) it is about how choices in translation, mistranslation (many in innocence, ignorance or rooted in an effort to make that which they did not understand relate to their taught paradigm) and choices to transliterate rather than translate (creating ecclesiastical terminology where there was none and no need) have had a significant impact on how the Church has defined itself, AND how it has defined and labeled the Jews

I've read that kind of thing before- the church has never been against constant self-analysis. In regards translation, pastors are usually required to study and the proficient in the original languages so mis-translations are avoided- if they are prepared to do the work after graduation. (I can't speak for modern religions like pentecostalism etc though- only in a general sense with reference to my own experience) Its detractors seem to always tell an opposite story though, for some reason.

Anyway, I haven't read it, and doubt I will, so I can't comment further. As long as it tells the truth, and leads to people to greater faith then I can say amen to anything it says in line with that.

[Henaynei]

I've read that kind of thing before- the church has never been against constant self-analysis. In regards translation, pastors are usually required to study and the proficient in the original languages so mis-translations are avoided- if they are prepared to do the work after graduation. (I can't speak for modern religions like pentecostalism etc though- only in a general sense with reference to my own experience) Its detractors seem to always tell an opposite story though, for some reason. Copernicus

Anyway, I haven't read it, and doubt I will, so I can't comment further. I understand :)

As long as it tells the truth, and leads to people to greater faith then I can say amen to anything it says in line with that.:amen:

[HaReb]

These posts beg the age old question: what is truth? Even more, is there a societal reality that we can look to against which to objectively measure all truth?

[Henaynei]

is there a societal reality that we can look to against which to objectively measure all truth?no, for reality of society is shaped by man and is corrupt and decayed and self-serving in what it chooses to call right and wrong - only the Word of G-d is Truth AND Reality, and the only measurement that ever matters is how something measures up to That Truth and Reality.

[HaReb]

Henaynei - but how do you, or anyone else for that matter, interpret the Word of G_d to obtain an objective reality that is the truth?

Can any human being be entirely objective in anything? I do not think so - therefore no human can pronounce an objective reality by which all truth can be measured. This forum, and others like, it prove the point. So, what is truth?

[debi b]

This is why I think it is a journey and NOT a line in the sand that we walk over.

As we press on we gain the ability to be pruned and tested for our own good in the end - to prove to us what is in our own hearts :) And if we have fear that He is the judge it will produce fruit in the course of time. But how much time? There are likely as many answers to that as there are colors in the rainbow.

[visionary]

Truth is relative like the gravity of this earth but more than that it is eternal as the law of gravity itself.

[Vaneeza Malkah]

Truth is relative like the gravity of this earth but more than that it is eternal as the law of gravity itself.
yes I agree :) but I think to clarify things. I think what others are saying is that our understanding of truth takes time through a process of refinement.

[ContraMundum]

Copernicus

I'm still unclear what Copernicus has to do with any of this.

But...I do know a joke about him.

Q: "What do you call a Polish Astronomer?"

A: "Copernicus"

[Texasbluebonnet]

Hi,

I realize that I'm pretty late to this thing, but a friend sent this to me because I was asking about Christmas and how pagan it is. I found this web site www.allaboutjesuschrist.org (http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org) and I was astonished by what I read. Here are the links http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/origin-of-christmas.htm ,and www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/emperor-constantine-faq.htm (http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/emperor-constantine-faq.htm) and what I found is here:

What part did emperor Constantine have in Christmas?

How could a Roman emperor have anything to do with an event that occurred three hundred years before he sat on the throne? Needless to say, Constantine had no part in the birth of Jesus. But he did play an important part in deciding when Jesus' birth would be celebrated through the centuries. To this day, no one knows for sure when Jesus was born, and there is no historical record of anyone celebrating the nativity until the fourth century.

Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus, better known as Constantine I or Constantine the Great, was born around the year A.D. 275 - almost three centuries after Jesus. He worshipped the pantheon of Roman gods as all his predecessors had done and especially the Roman sun god, Sol. However, as he was traveling to battle his most powerful rival in Italy, Maxentius, at the Tiber River in A.D. 312, he had a vision. In that vision, he reported seeing the cross of Christ superimposed on the sun with the words, in hoc signo vinces - "in this sign you shall conquer." After winning the battle, he became a strong champion of Christianity. The very next year, he met with Emperor Licinius, the ruler of the eastern provinces, to sign the Edict of Milan giving equal rights to all religious groups within the Roman Empire. He returned property seized from Christians, built a great number of churches, donated land, and convened the first Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 to deal with false teaching within the church. Although he didn't completely leave his pagan roots and wasn't baptized until A.D. 337 on this deathbed, he did much to further the growth of the church.

Either as a means to unify his empire, or to make converting to Christianity easier, Constantine sought to blend Christian and pagan traditions. At that time, two prominent pagan winter festivals were celebrated. The first, starting on December 17 and lasting seven days, honored Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture. The second, starting on December 25 and lasting through January 1, commemorated the birth of Mithras, the Persian god of light. Constantine merged many of the traditions from these festivals with the Nativity story in the Bible and Christmas was born. From its beginning, Christmas was a holiday (or holy day), gifts were exchanged, families and friends gathered to feast, and a birth was celebrated; just like in the Roman and Persian festivities.

The first mention of December 25 as the date of Jesus' birth is found in an early Roman calendar from A.D. 336.

Although the accounts of Jesus' birth (Matthew 1:18-2:23, Luke 1:26-38, 2:1-20) give us no hints about the date, they do provide a wealth of information about its significance. The Baby born in Bethlehem is the Son of God (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:32, 35), the Savior (Matthew 1:21; Luke 2:11), God with us (Matthew 1:23), and the King who is worthy of worship (Matthew 2:2; Luke 1:33).

And this:

Origin of Christmas - The Biblical Account
The origin of Christmas is presented beautifully in the well-known biblical account of Luke: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:1-11).

Origin of Christmas - The Traditions and Controversies
For today's Christian, the origin of Christmas is, and should be, the birth of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible. Nothing more and nothing less. However, most of what we witness on December 25th each year has absolutely nothing to do with that blessed day, which probably occurred in late summer or early fall about 2,000 years ago. In fact, most of the customs and traditions of Christmas actually pre-date the birth of Jesus, and many of them are downright deceptive in their meaning and origin. Here are a few examples:

The date of December 25th probably originated with the ancient "birthday" of the son-god, Mithra, a pagan deity whose religious influence became widespread in the Roman Empire during the first few centuries A.D. Mithra was related to the Semitic sun-god, Shamash, and his worship spread throughout Asia to Europe where he was called Deus Sol Invictus Mithras. Rome was well-known for absorbing the pagan religions and rituals of its widespread empire. As such, Rome converted this pagan legacy to a celebration of the god, Saturn, and the rebirth of the sun god during the winter solstice period. The winter holiday became known as Saturnalia and began the week prior to December 25th. The festival was characterized by gift-giving, feasting, singing and downright debauchery, as the priests of Saturn carried wreaths of evergreen boughs in procession throughout the Roman temples.

Variations of this pagan holiday flourished throughout the first few centuries after Jesus Christ, but it probably wasn't until 336 AD that Emperor Constantine officially converted this pagan tradition into the "Christian" holiday of Christmas.

Origin of Christmas - What Really Matters?
The true origin of Christmas is filled with controversy and compromise. A quick study will reveal a number of disturbing roots that we haven't been able to cover in this brief article. In short, the Christmas holiday we celebrate today is indicative of Christianity's willingness to absorb the world's customs and traditions, and forget its simple roots in the historical reality of Jesus Christ. Christmas should be nothing more than a simple, yet wonderful reminder of Christ's humble beginning as a human child in this world. His birth merely set the stage for the power, glory, and salvation that would be revealed in His life, death, and resurrection! Whether it's December 25th, sometime in late September, or any other day of the year, we should use each and every opportunity to reflect on Jesus Christ and His message of hope for all of us.

After reading this, I became quite convinced that Christmas is a pagan holiday and something I shouldn't be involved in. I don't want to start an arguement here, but I did really want to share what I learned with others. :hug:

[ContraMundum]

Texas, all of that stuff you just cited has been addressed (and refuted, I'd say) in the thread- what do you think about the opposing points?

[Texasbluebonnet]

Texas, all of that stuff you just cited has been addressed (and refuted, I'd say) in the thread- what do you think about the opposing points?


Well, I read them but I don't remember the points you're referring to (it was a very long thread, and it took me several days to wade through all of it :D ). Can you refresh my memory? And again, I'm really not trying to start anything :blush: , it's just when I find something out that fascinates me or makes the lightbulb go off :idea: I like to share it with others. But, if you post the points you mean, I'll try to address them. I'm no theologian or scholar or anything. Just a girl with a desire to do the right thing.

[Simon_Templar]

I'm kind of jumping in here, but a couple of points I wanted to offer up.

First, holy days etc, are not an offering to God, rather they exist for man. They are meant to be memorials for us. Man exists in time, and just as with everything else in life, it is important for us to organize our time, thus our calendar around God, and around Jesus Christ, and around the gospel.
That is what the Church calendar year is. It organizes the year around the life and ministry of Jesus Christ (in short the gospel).

So strictly speaking I don't think it matters what particular day you use. However, I think that holidays serve an important function in community as well, and as such, people should celebrate the holidays of their community and make those holidays memorials for God.

On the specific day of Dec. 25th, there are all sorts of points about it. It was during the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, it was proported to be the birthday of Mithra etc etc etc. That stuff might have played a role in influencing the date. It was common practice for the first Christians to take advantage of local beliefs and customs that they could turn to the purpose of evangelism. Paul did this by taking a pagan shrine to a pagan god and using it as an excuse to talk about God.

However, Dec 25th is not without merit in Christian terms as well. It may not have been the day that Jesus was actually born on. However, the best historical and astronomical evidence available suggests that Jesus was born around 2-1 BC and at that time there was a nearly year long astronomical phenomenon that probably was the "star of bethlehem". This involved several on going conjunctions of planets and stars which made "the star" appear to actually move in the sky (it was actually planetary motion) Coming from the east, the star/planet would have moved westward and it can be shown astronomically that the star went into retrograde motion, which would have cause it to appear to stop moving on Dec. 25th and that coming from Jerusalem, this would have appeared to make the star stop in the sky and hang over bethlehem.

the result is that Dec. 25th is very likely the date when the star actually stopped moving over bethlehem, and thus is probably the date that the wisemen arrived there. It was probably a few months after Jesus was born. (not knowing for sure when he was born but assuming it was during the autumn because the flocks were in the fields. Perhaps he was born on the feast of trumpets, or on tabernacles?)

[Texasbluebonnet]

I'm kind of jumping in here, but a couple of points I wanted to offer up.

First, holy days etc, are not an offering to God, rather they exist for man. They are meant to be memorials for us. Man exists in time, and just as with everything else in life, it is important for us to organize our time, thus our calendar around God, and around Jesus Christ, and around the gospel.
That is what the Church calendar year is. It organizes the year around the life and ministry of Jesus Christ (in short the gospel).

So strictly speaking I don't think it matters what particular day you use. However, I think that holidays serve an important function in community as well, and as such, people should celebrate the holidays of their community and make those holidays memorials for God.

On the specific day of Dec. 25th, there are all sorts of points about it. It was during the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, it was proported to be the birthday of Mithra etc etc etc. That stuff might have played a role in influencing the date. It was common practice for the first Christians to take advantage of local beliefs and customs that they could turn to the purpose of evangelism. Paul did this by taking a pagan shrine to a pagan god and using it as an excuse to talk about God.

However, Dec 25th is not without merit in Christian terms as well. It may not have been the day that Jesus was actually born on. However, the best historical and astronomical evidence available suggests that Jesus was born around 2-1 BC and at that time there was a nearly year long astronomical phenomenon that probably was the "star of bethlehem". This involved several on going conjunctions of planets and stars which made "the star" appear to actually move in the sky (it was actually planetary motion) Coming from the east, the star/planet would have moved westward and it can be shown astronomically that the star went into retrograde motion, which would have cause it to appear to stop moving on Dec. 25th and that coming from Jerusalem, this would have appeared to make the star stop in the sky and hang over bethlehem.

the result is that Dec. 25th is very likely the date when the star actually stopped moving over bethlehem, and thus is probably the date that the wisemen arrived there. It was probably a few months after Jesus was born. (not knowing for sure when he was born but assuming it was during the autumn because the flocks were in the fields. Perhaps he was born on the feast of trumpets, or on tabernacles?)


The best suggestions I've heard was during Tabernacles. I don't want to put anyone down for celebrating Christmas, but with what I learned...it just has yickey origins. But that's what I feel. Here is the stuff that talks about the "best guess" as to when Jesus was born.

Was Jesus born on December 25?

Was Jesus born on December 25? There is no evidence for this date. So then, who decided that Jesus' birth would be celebrated on that date? The early Christian church did not celebrate Jesus' birth. It wasn't until A.D. 440 that the church officially proclaimed December 25 as the birth of Christ. This was not based on any religious evidence but on a pagan feast. Saturnalia was a tradition inherited by the Roman pagans from an earlier Babylonian priesthood. December 25 was used as a celebration of the birthday of the sun god. It was observed near the winter solstice.

The apostles in the Bible predicted that some Christians would adopt pagan beliefs to enable them to make their religion more palatable to the pagans around them. Therefore, some scholars think the church chose the date of this pagan celebration to interest them in Christianity. The pagans were already used to celebrating on this date.

The Bible itself tells us that December 25 is an unlikely date for His birth. Palestine is very cold in December. It was much too cold to ask everyone to travel to the city of their fathers to register for taxes. Also the shepherds were in the fields (Luke 2:8-12). Shepherds were not in the fields in the winter time. They are in the fields early in March until early October. This would place Jesus' birth in the spring or early fall. It is also known that Jesus lived for 33.5 years and died at the feast of the Passover, which is at Easter time. He must therefore have been born six months the other side of Easter - making the date around the September/October time frames.

Other evidence that December 25 is the wrong date for the birth of Jesus comes from early writings. Iraneus, born about a century after Jesus, notes that Jesus was born in the 41st year of the reign of Augustus. Since Augustus began his reign in the autumn of 43 B.C., this appears to substantiate the birth of Jesus as the autumn of 2 B.C. Eusebius (A.D. 264-340), the "Father of Church History," ascribes it to the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus and the 28th from the subjection of Egypt on the death of Anthony and Cleopatra. The 42nd year of Augustus ran from the autumn of 2 B.C. to the autumn of 1 B.C. The subjugation of Egypt into the Roman Empire occurred in the autumn of 30 B.C. The 28th year extended from the autumn of 3 B.C. to the autumn of 2 B.C. The only date that would meet both of these constraints would be the autumn of 2 B.C.

John the Baptist also helps us determine that December 25 is not the birth of Jesus. Elizabeth, John's mother, was a cousin of Mary. John began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. The minimum age for the ministry was 30. As Augustus died on August 19, A.D. 14, that was the accession year for Tiberius. If John was born on April 19-20, 2 B.C., his 30th birthday would have been April 19-20, A.D. 29, or the 15th year of Tiberius. This seems to confirm the 2 B.C. date, and, since John was 5 months older, this also confirms an autumn birth date for Jesus.

Another interesting fact comes from Elizabeth herself. She hid herself for 5 months and then the Angel Gabriel announced to Mary both Elizabeth's condition and that Mary would also bear a son who would be called Jesus. Mary went "with haste" to visit Elizabeth, who was then in the first week of her 6th month, or the 4th week of Dec., 3 B.C. If Jesus was born 280 days later it would place his birth on Sept. 29, 2 B.C. Some scholars interpret the 6 months to be in line with the Hebrew calendar or the August-September time frame. Since Mary's pregnancy commenced a little before the sixth month around July, Jesus would be born somewhere around March-June. But does it matter if Jesus was born on the spring, the fall, or on December 25? Does it matter, theologically, when Jesus was born? What do you think, does it matter what day we celebrate His birth?



The above is also from that same web page: http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/was-jesus-born-on-december-25-faq.htm

[Simon_Templar]

The best suggestions I've heard was during Tabernacles. I don't want to put anyone down for celebrating Christmas, but with what I learned...it just has yickey origins. But that's what I feel. Here is the stuff that talks about the "best guess" as to when Jesus was born.

Was Jesus born on December 25?

Was Jesus born on December 25? There is no evidence for this date. So then, who decided that Jesus' birth would be celebrated on that date? The early Christian church did not celebrate Jesus' birth. It wasn't until A.D. 440 that the church officially proclaimed December 25 as the birth of Christ. This was not based on any religious evidence but on a pagan feast. Saturnalia was a tradition inherited by the Roman pagans from an earlier Babylonian priesthood. December 25 was used as a celebration of the birthday of the sun god. It was observed near the winter solstice.

The apostles in the Bible predicted that some Christians would adopt pagan beliefs to enable them to make their religion more palatable to the pagans around them. Therefore, some scholars think the church chose the date of this pagan celebration to interest them in Christianity. The pagans were already used to celebrating on this date.

The Bible itself tells us that December 25 is an unlikely date for His birth. Palestine is very cold in December. It was much too cold to ask everyone to travel to the city of their fathers to register for taxes. Also the shepherds were in the fields (Luke 2:8-12). Shepherds were not in the fields in the winter time. They are in the fields early in March until early October. This would place Jesus' birth in the spring or early fall. It is also known that Jesus lived for 33.5 years and died at the feast of the Passover, which is at Easter time. He must therefore have been born six months the other side of Easter - making the date around the September/October time frames.

Other evidence that December 25 is the wrong date for the birth of Jesus comes from early writings. Iraneus, born about a century after Jesus, notes that Jesus was born in the 41st year of the reign of Augustus. Since Augustus began his reign in the autumn of 43 B.C., this appears to substantiate the birth of Jesus as the autumn of 2 B.C. Eusebius (A.D. 264-340), the "Father of Church History," ascribes it to the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus and the 28th from the subjection of Egypt on the death of Anthony and Cleopatra. The 42nd year of Augustus ran from the autumn of 2 B.C. to the autumn of 1 B.C. The subjugation of Egypt into the Roman Empire occurred in the autumn of 30 B.C. The 28th year extended from the autumn of 3 B.C. to the autumn of 2 B.C. The only date that would meet both of these constraints would be the autumn of 2 B.C.

John the Baptist also helps us determine that December 25 is not the birth of Jesus. Elizabeth, John's mother, was a cousin of Mary. John began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. The minimum age for the ministry was 30. As Augustus died on August 19, A.D. 14, that was the accession year for Tiberius. If John was born on April 19-20, 2 B.C., his 30th birthday would have been April 19-20, A.D. 29, or the 15th year of Tiberius. This seems to confirm the 2 B.C. date, and, since John was 5 months older, this also confirms an autumn birth date for Jesus.

Another interesting fact comes from Elizabeth herself. She hid herself for 5 months and then the Angel Gabriel announced to Mary both Elizabeth's condition and that Mary would also bear a son who would be called Jesus. Mary went "with haste" to visit Elizabeth, who was then in the first week of her 6th month, or the 4th week of Dec., 3 B.C. If Jesus was born 280 days later it would place his birth on Sept. 29, 2 B.C. Some scholars interpret the 6 months to be in line with the Hebrew calendar or the August-September time frame. Since Mary's pregnancy commenced a little before the sixth month around July, Jesus would be born somewhere around March-June. But does it matter if Jesus was born on the spring, the fall, or on December 25? Does it matter, theologically, when Jesus was born? What do you think, does it matter what day we celebrate His birth?



The above is also from that same web page: http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/was-jesus-born-on-december-25-faq.htm
Virtually every culture has a winter solstice celebration. Its pretty much universal because its linked to the cycle of the sun and everyone was influenced by that.

The same way virtually every culture has a harvest festival and a spring festival. The Jews are no exception to this. Everyone has these festivals at nearly the same time because everyone had basically the same seasons.

God didn't give the Hebrews a set of festivals totally different from everyone elses.. in fact, he gave them festivals that largely matched with everyone elses. Including even some of the rituals involved such as the ritual meal of lamb etc. That existed among the tribes of the middle east, prior to passover.

God took stuff that was familiar to man, and applied his own symbolisms to it. Which is exactly what the Church did. They took the things that people were familiar with and they applied Christian symbolisms and meanings to them.

[A_Pioneer]

Well, I read them but I don't remember the points you're referring to (it was a very long thread, and it took me several days to wade through all of it :D ). Can you refresh my memory? And again, I'm really not trying to start anything :blush: , it's just when I find something out that fascinates me or makes the lightbulb go off :idea: I like to share it with others. But, if you post the points you mean, I'll try to address them. I'm no theologian or scholar or anything. Just a girl with a desire to do the right thing.
Shalom BlueBonnet, that phrase reminds me of Yeshua saying in Jn. 14:26 the HS will bring to your remembrance.
With me it's just like you stated or an "Aha" moment!

These folks can justify their every inconsistancy, addition, addition and more and more addition.

I am reminded that every man is right in his own eyes.

I wonder why they don't celebrate Yeshua's staying behind and kibitzing with the Rabbi's? Maybe they could call it "Putting down the Rabbi's." LOL:pray:

Shalom

[ozell]

Jer10v

1: Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:
2: Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3: For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4: They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
5: They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
6: Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.
7: Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee.
8: But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.
14: Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.

[Texasbluebonnet]

Shalom BlueBonnet, that phrase reminds me of Yeshua saying in Jn. 14:26 the HS will bring to your remembrance.
With me it's just like you stated or an "Aha" moment!

These folks can justify their every inconsistancy, addition, addition and more and more addition.

I am reminded that every man is right in his own eyes.

I wonder why they don't celebrate Yeshua's staying behind and kibitzing with the Rabbi's? Maybe they could call it "Putting down the Rabbi's." LOL:pray:

Shalom

Shalom :) ,

I just looked it up and I really like what it said and it's very appropriate:

John 14:26

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

I really feel that this is what The Spirit is showing me, and what G-d wants me to know. Yeah. I really had that lightbulb moment. And again, I'm not condemning those who don't feel like I do, but I just...I don't know I get a queasy feeling when I think about Christmas now. And this from a girl who last year would have been heart broken :cry: to have to give it up. I mean, I've loved Christmas for so long. I have a lot of happy memories, but...I just can't look at it the same way anymore.

May I ask? What did you mean by kibitzing?

[A_Pioneer]

Shalom :) ,

I just looked it up and I really like what it said and it's very appropriate:

John 14:26

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

I really feel that this is what The Spirit is showing me, and what G-d wants me to know. Yeah. I really had that lightbulb moment. And again, I'm not condemning those who don't feel like I do, but I just...I don't know I get a queasy feeling when I think about Christmas now. And this from a girl who last year would have been heart broken :cry: to have to give it up. I mean, I've loved Christmas for so long. I have a lot of happy memories, but...I just can't look at it the same way anymore.

May I ask? What did you mean by kibitzing?
Luke 2:46-47 Yeshua and the Rabbi's in their form of pilpul/peppered speech, from which we get pulpit.
They were discussing scripture.

Shalom

[ContraMundum]

John 14:26

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.


Context is important. Jesus spoke these words to His disciples. This is a charism meant for them. They alone were infallible- which is why we have their words as our guide.

Individuals after the disciples are not inspired to recall things which we did not hear from Him first hand. He was speaking to the Disciples- "He will teach you (disciples) all things and will remind you (disciples) of everything I have said to you."

This is why Christians have always believed that the Apostles were infallible in their teaching, because they were promised the Holy Spirit to remind them of the words they were taught by Jesus Himself. Thus, what was taught by them is considered inspired and thus we have put their works in our scriptures.

We Christians today have no such guarantee- as is clearly evidenced by our doctrinal divisions and numerous denominations. We do have a charism, but it is not this sort of charism. We can only turn to the witness of those who had this guarantee of doctrinal infallibility.

[ContraMundum]

Luke 2:46-47 Yeshua and the Rabbi's in their form of pilpul/peppered speech, from which we get pulpit.
They were discussing scripture.

Shalom

This is not pilpul. Yeshua never engaged in pilpul with the Rabbis, unless He did it to demonstrate their divisions and set Sadducees and Pharisees against each other. None of the Apostles ever engaged in pilpul. Why? Because it is not teaching with authority, it is endless sophistry. Yeshua taught "as one with authority", not like the Pharisees and Scribes. This is recorded in the NT.

Perhaps you're erroneously assuming that every argument from every rabbi is pilpul. This is not true even to the most hardened Rabbinic disciple. Pilpul is not the only way to approach theology according to 1st Century Judaism.

This author has his head screwed on:

"When the Bible says at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that the people were astounded because Jesus taught 'as one with authority and not as the scribes and Pharisees', what that meant was that Jesus would not engage in what is called 'pilpul'. He simply said, 'This is what God says,' and would not engage in legalistic nit-picking and searching for loopholes, because it was an endless road to nowhere. He referred to this kind of teaching as 'leaven' and warned people to 'beware of the leaven of the Pharisees'. Jesus did use Midrash, the Jewish way of interpreting the Scriptures, but in moral legislation and the like He would not engage in pilpul – with one exception. Paul also refused to engage in pilpul, with the same exception: When they used it to provoke the Pharisees and Sadducees into fighting with one another. Jesus knew, for example, that the Pharisees believed in the Resurrection while the Sadducees did not; therefore He would say, '"I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"; is He the God of the living or of the dead?', knowing that this would start them arguing. It is almost as if He was poking fun at them, to show them how ridiculous it all was. In any case, this was the only instance where Jesus would engage in pilpul, with the object of turning the Sadducees and Pharisees against each other."

From Here. (http://www.moriel.org/articles/sermons/jesus_in_the_talmud.htm)

[ContraMundum]

Well, I read them but I don't remember the points you're referring to (it was a very long thread, and it took me several days to wade through all of it :D ). Can you refresh my memory? And again, I'm really not trying to start anything :blush: , it's just when I find something out that fascinates me or makes the lightbulb go off :idea: I like to share it with others. But, if you post the points you mean, I'll try to address them. I'm no theologian or scholar or anything. Just a girl with a desire to do the right thing.

This part I earlier mentioned in particular, wrecks the pagan-copycat theories.

"As long ago as 1958, the Israeli scholar Shemaryahu Talmon published an in-depth study on the calendar of the Qumran sect, and he reconstructed without the shadow of doubt the order of the sacerdotal rota system for the temple of Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 24, 7-18) in New Testament times. Here the family of Abijah, of which Zechariah was a descendent, father of John the herald and forerunner (Luke 1,5) was required to officiate twice a year, on the days 8-14 of the third month, and on the days 24-30 of the eighth month. This latter period fell at about the end of September. It is not without reason that the Byzantine calendar celebrated 'John's conception' on September 23 and his birth nine months later, on June 24. The 'six months' after the Annunciation established as a liturgical feast on March 25, comes three months before the forerunner's birth, prelude to the nine months in December: December 25 is a date of history"

Tommaso Federici, Osservatore Romano 24 Dec 1998.

What this means is this- a scholar who has no vested interest in Christianity has shown that the Jewish Temple roster puts a date on the birth of John the Baptiser- which in turn has proven that the liturgical calendar of the Apostolic churches is correct and Yeshua must have been born in December, most likely late in the month.

This is not Scooby-Doo mystery theology either. No conspiracy needed and no Biblical gymnastic connect the dots. This is from Israeli archeology and done by someone outside of our Faith. This is solid, good quality evidence. If you accept it, this puts all the pagan-copycat theories to the sword and proves that God sent His Son at just the right time to get the attention of both Jew and pagan alike. This explains the dating of the birth and harmonizes with the witness of early Christians who abhorred paganism and did everything they could to distance themselves from it. It does not need to appeal to emotive anti-Christian conspiracy theories about pagans influencing the Church of God.

What thinketh ye?

[A_Pioneer]

Context is important. Jesus spoke these words to His disciples. This is a charism meant for them. They alone were infallible- which is why we have their words as our guide.

Individuals after the disciples are not inspired to recall things which we did not hear from Him first hand. He was speaking to the Disciples- "He will teach you (disciples) all things and will remind you (disciples) of everything I have said to you."

This is why Christians have always believed that the Apostles were infallible in their teaching, because they were promised the Holy Spirit to remind them of the words they were taught by Jesus Himself. Thus, what was taught by them is considered inspired and thus we have put their works in our scriptures.

We Christians today have no such guarantee- as is clearly evidenced by our doctrinal divisions and numerous denominations. We do have a charism, but it is not this sort of charism. We can only turn to the witness of those who had this guarantee of doctrinal infallibility.
You have my sympathy.

Shalom

[Texasbluebonnet]

What this means is this- a scholar who has no vested interest in Christianity has shown that the Jewish Temple roster puts a date on the birth of John the Baptiser- which in turn has proven that the liturgical calendar of the Apostolic churches is correct and Yeshua must have been born in December, most likely late in the month.




What do I think? I don't think that much. I mean, I believe that Jesus was born during Tabernacles. I've forgotten a lot since I left my M.C., especially how to spell Sukkot (is that the correct spelling :scratch: ?), but I do know that it meant, "When G-d came to dwell with us." That's the most likely date of His birth. And also, I do know that Israel is too cold and rainy for shepherds to be outside with them as scripture depicts.

[A_Pioneer]

My dad, when someone said "Figures don't lie." He would say, "Yeah, but liars can figure."
Search for truth in the writings of men and you will have little time to immerse yourself in the "Word of God."
3,500 or so denominations and many more than that writers, writing each, what is right in his own eyes.

I'll stick to the bible and follow Sha'ul's lead and walk in lock step with Yeshua and Sha'ul. Sha'ul said something like this, prove all things. By what? The TaNaK!

Shalom

[Texasbluebonnet]

My dad, when someone said "Figures don't lie." He would say, "Yeah, but liars can figure."
Search for truth in the writings of men and you will have little time to immerse yourself in the "Word of God."
3,500 or so denominations and many more than that writers, writing each, what is right in his own eyes.

I'll stick to the bible and follow Sha'ul's lead and walk in lock step with Yeshua and Sha'ul. Sha'ul said something like this, prove all things. By what? The TaNaK!

Shalom

Yeah, and techincally we probably shouldn't even be celebrating Jesus' birth. The 1st century church didn't. And they were the ones who more than likely knew the exact date. So...that should tell you something right there. Don't you think?

[A_Pioneer]

Yeah, and techincally we probably shouldn't even be celebrating Jesus' birth. The 1st century church didn't. And they were the ones who more than likely knew the exact date. So...that should tell you something right there. Don't you think?
:amen: :thumbsup: :groupray: There you go!

[Texasbluebonnet]

:amen: :thumbsup: :groupray: There you go!

Awww...thanks :hug: ! You're a pretty nice guy. I guess...this means that I'm really not celebrating Christmas. But...can I ask? Is there a right way to at least...I guess acknowledge His birth without turning it into the thing it's become? Like a day of giving thanks that He came or something.

[Ivy]

BTW, everybody, is this Dec. 25 thread going to stay alive up until Easter, or is someone going to take up the (probably highly agreeable to some) task of starting an Easter-bashing thread? ;)

C'mon you're falling behind on your bashing careers. It's Lent already. :sorry: :holy: :D

OK, I really *am being a smartypants now. :sorry: :holy:

(Someone stop this woman, she obviously has a bad case of winter cabin fever and needs to get out more. :D )

[A_Pioneer]

Awww...thanks :hug: ! You're a pretty nice guy. I guess...this means that I'm really not celebrating Christmas. But...can I ask? Is there a right way to at least...I guess acknowledge His birth without turning it into the thing it's become? Like a day of giving thanks that He came or something.
That is not the important time, it's the shedding of his blood to atone for sin, Passover and the blood on the doorposts and lintel, our passover from death to eternal life! How about creation, he is the first-born of all creation! Celebrate creation. (Col. 1:15) The 'Word' that is!

Shalom

[Texasbluebonnet]

That is not the important time, it's the shedding of his blood to atone for sin, Passover and the blood on the doorposts and lintel, our passover from death to eternal life! How about creation, he is the first-born of all creation! Celebrate creation. (Col. 1:15) The 'Word' that is!

Shalom

So...I shouldn't acknowledge it at all or be thankful? I'm confused. :sorry: :blush:

[A_Pioneer]

So...I shouldn't acknowledge it at all or be thankful? I'm confused. :sorry: :blush:
There are only two birthdays depicted in the bible, two people lost their heads as a part of the celebration.
Could that be a clue?

Y H V H revealed that he would send a redeemer/Hamoshiach, he came into the world as a man, so birth is the means of coming into the world as flesh. John says as Yeshua is coming to be baptized, "Behold the Lamb of God."
There is no instruction to make holidays for the birth, the death nor the resurrection. There are instructions to the Holy Days/Moedim of God! Believers in Yeshua see the birth, the death and the resurrection in the Moedim and this makes the Moedim come alive with new meaning/not really new but new understandings.
I hope you are getting the drift, I'm really, really old and one who does not type. So no flying fingers, just peck, peck peck.

Your congregation will reveal the Moedim to you as you go. So just keep on absorbing the word and stay growing!

Shalom

[Texasbluebonnet]

There are only two birthdays depicted in the bible, two people lost their heads as a part of the celebration.
Could that be a clue?

Y H V H revealed that he would send a redeemer/Hamoshiach, he came into the world as a man, so birth is the means of coming into the world as flesh. John says as Yeshua is coming to be baptized, "Behold the Lamb of God."
There is no instruction to make holidays for the birth, the death nor the resurrection. There are instructions to the Holy Days/Moedim of God! Believers in Yeshua see the birth, the death and the resurrection in the Moedim and this makes the Moedim come alive with new meaning/not really new but new understandings.
I hope you are getting the drift, I'm really, really old and one who does not type. So no flying fingers, just peck, peck peck.

Your congregation will reveal the Moedim to you as you go. So just keep on absorbing the word and stay growing!

Shalom

Just for clarification, you don't mean that we shouldn't celebrate any birthday, just not Jesus' birthday. Right? I'm still...well I guess kinda struggling with that a little too. I mean, do you agree that His birth was important? If it weren't the angels wouldn't have announced it. And if He hadn't have been born then there would have been no death on the cross, and no salvation. I mean, doesn't it at least deserve a mention? I'm really not trying to be hard-headed on purpose :P , or aruge. I just don't get it. I come from a background where there was a lot of importance placed on His birth. Maybe instead of totally ignoring it (that's not what you're saying to do, right?) we could mention it like it was something important that happened, but not worship the day itself like some have done. Does that make sense? :scratch:

[visionary]

I agree... I believe the story of His birth should be celebrated in the sukkot we build in our back yard every year.

[A_Pioneer]

It is a matter of which came first the chicken or the egg.
Too much emphisis is placed on Jesus to the expense of the Holy One, Blessed is He.
I believe the story of His birth should be celebrated in the sukkot we build in our back yard every year.
Isn't this event for MJ's the beginning of the New Covenant?
Don't we celebrate it as such?
This is the time of new beginnings, the new year.
Let's not forget that Yeshua repeats over and over again "He who sent me"!
Celebrate creation and new beginnings. IMO the same appointed time.

Shalom

[Texasbluebonnet]

I agree... I believe the story of His birth should be celebrated in the sukkot we build in our back yard every year.

It is a matter of which came first the chicken or the egg.
Too much emphisis is placed on Jesus to the expense of the Holy One, Blessed is He.
[/font]
Isn't this event for MJ's the beginning of the New Covenant?
Don't we celebrate it as such?
This is the time of new beginnings, the new year.
Let's not forget that Yeshua repeats over and over again "He who sent me"!
Celebrate creation and new beginnings. IMO the same appointed time.

Shalom

Oh! Duh :doh:! I get it now. It took me a while, but that does make sense. Thanks for being patient with me so I could get it figured out. :hug:

[ContraMundum]

You have my sympathy.

Shalom

You have mine. At least I have a cloud of witnesses to back me up. You're on your own and your "Holy Spirit" disagrees with everyone else's. Sounds pretty chaotic over there. If you were "led" into "all truth" by the Holy Spirit, how come there isn't unanimous agreement with you? I think your pneumatology is truncated and without scriptural warrant.

[ContraMundum]

What do I think? I don't think that much. I mean, I believe that Jesus was born during Tabernacles. I've forgotten a lot since I left my M.C., especially how to spell Sukkot (is that the correct spelling :scratch: ?), but I do know that it meant, "When G-d came to dwell with us." That's the most likely date of His birth.

Sounds like guesswork and assumption. What if you're wrong?

What about what the archeologists have said? Why are you discounting that without giving cause? Is there some kind of anti-establishment prejudice here? Either Zechariah's family served in the Temple at the time discovered by the archeologist or you are left with one option: either the NT is wrong or the records of the Jews are wrong. Which is it? I say the archeologist is right, Jewish tradition is right and this is bolstered by the testimony of the early Christian calendar.

This isn't a religious smorgasbord issue here. It's not a matter of choosing which doctrine you can stomach better. You have to make a choice based on the evidence. What think ye of the evidence, sister?

I think the Dec. 25th date is based on Jewish tradition, scripture and continuous unbroken Christian witness.

And also, I do know that Israel is too cold and rainy for shepherds to be outside with them as scripture depicts.

This is easily answered. December is when the lambing season begins in the Middle East. Shepherds must stay out with the newborn sheep at night to protect them. In fact, this fact supports the December birthdate quite well.

[visionary]

Sounds like guesswork and assumption. What if you're wrong?

What about what the archeologists have said? Why are you discounting that without giving cause? Is there some kind of anti-establishment prejudice here? Either Zechariah's family served in the Temple at the time discovered by the archeologist or you are left with one option: either the NT is wrong or the records of the Jews are wrong. Which is it? I say the archeologist is right, Jewish tradition is right and this is bolstered by the testimony of the early Christian calendar.

This isn't a religious smorgasbord issue here. It's not a matter of choosing which doctrine you can stomach better. You have to make a choice based on the evidence. What think ye of the evidence, sister?

I think the Dec. 25th date is based on Jewish tradition, scripture and continuous unbroken Christian witness.


This is easily answered. December is when the lambing season begins in the Middle East. Shepherds must stay out with the newborn sheep at night to protect them. In fact, this fact supports the December birthdate quite well.Can I see some of this evidence, please? Never heard of an archeology finds that prove Jesus' birth in December. Never heard of any Jewish tradition that proves it either.

[ContraMundum]

Can I see some of this evidence, please? Never heard of an archeology finds that prove Jesus' birth in December. Never heard of any Jewish tradition that proves it either.


Umm...we've only been discussing it for two weeks. I've provided the information twice. I think that's enough for people who really want to know about it. I'm afraid you'll have to go back and check it out. In a nutshell- a) we have the Temple roster- this is from Jewish tradition confirmed by archeology b) we know when Zechariah's family was on duty, therefore c) we know what time of year he was struck mute and Elizabeth fell pregnant and finally d) therefore we know when Mary conceived (according to the timeline in the Bible) and thus when the Messiah was born. December, around the 25th.

I think that's pretty much the only theory kicking around that has such broad appeal, bringing forth proofs from all the necessary angles- historic, theological, and scriptural. I don't think this is a salvation issue, but I think it's certainly far more believable than the other theories.

[A_Pioneer]

You have mine. At least I have a cloud of witnesses to back me up. You're on your own and your "Holy Spirit" disagrees with everyone else's. Sounds pretty chaotic over there. If you were "led" into "all truth" by the Holy Spirit, how come there isn't unanimous agreement with you? I think your pneumatology is truncated and without scriptural warrant.
Could it possibly be that, "Many are called, but few are chosen."? Just maybe!
I believe every thing that proceeds from the mouth of God. But only limited amount from the mouth of men.

Have a good day.

Shalom

[Henaynei]

Umm...we've only been discussing it for two weeks. I've provided the information twice. I think that's enough for people who really want to know about it. I'm afraid you'll have to go back and check it out. In a nutshell- a) we have the Temple roster- this is from Jewish tradition confirmed by archeology b) we know when Zechariah's family was on duty, therefore c) we know what time of year he was struck mute and Elizabeth fell pregnant and finally d) therefore we know when Mary conceived (according to the timeline in the Bible) and thus when the Messiah was born. December, around the 25th.

I think that's pretty much the only theory kicking around that has such broad appeal, bringing forth proofs from all the necessary angles- historic, theological, and scriptural. I don't think this is a salvation issue, but I think it's certainly far more believable than the other theories.could you at least provide the link to the discussion referenced above? :) like the link to the post(s) where you provide the links to the archaeological proofs and the roster?

[Texasbluebonnet]

Sounds like guesswork and assumption. What if you're wrong?

What about what the archeologists have said? Why are you discounting that without giving cause? Is there some kind of anti-establishment prejudice here? Either Zechariah's family served in the Temple at the time discovered by the archeologist or you are left with one option: either the NT is wrong or the records of the Jews are wrong. Which is it? I say the archeologist is right, Jewish tradition is right and this is bolstered by the testimony of the early Christian calendar.

This isn't a religious smorgasbord issue here. It's not a matter of choosing which doctrine you can stomach better. You have to make a choice based on the evidence. What think ye of the evidence, sister?

I think the Dec. 25th date is based on Jewish tradition, scripture and continuous unbroken Christian witness.



This is easily answered. December is when the lambing season begins in the Middle East. Shepherds must stay out with the newborn sheep at night to protect them. In fact, this fact supports the December birthdate quite well.


Why does it concern you? What does it really matter? I'm not guessing at anything. And quite frankly I don't care for your tone. I don't need to proove anything.

[Texasbluebonnet]

Can I see some of this evidence, please? Never heard of an archeology finds that prove Jesus' birth in December. Never heard of any Jewish tradition that proves it either.

could you at least provide the link to the discussion referenced above? :) like the link to the post(s) where you provide the links to the archaeological proofs and the roster?

That's because there is none.

[ContraMundum]

You people- I've provided the links *twice*. Don't be so lazy- go back and check. I've led you all to water twice already- I can't make you drink.

Don't you think it's kinda disengenuous to therefore say that I haven't provided links with evidence because "there is none"?

Also, texas, I haven't seen anything remotely like evidence to suggest an alternative date- that why it looks like guesswork on your behalf. Some historical evidence would be nice, apart from conspiracy theories and errors which have been corrected already. We've got archeology, written history and scripture. This is far from guesswork. Can you at least do the same before you start accusing others of having nothing?

[ContraMundum]

Why does it concern you? What does it really matter?

I've said it's not a salvation issue, but it is the topic under discussion in this thread nonethess.

I'm not guessing at anything. And quite frankly I don't care for your tone. I don't need to proove anything.

Texas, yes you do need to prove something- this is the debate sub-forum. It's about offering proof for your own assertions and claims.

I've seen this all before. You're now drifting into making it personal because of the possibility of having your opinion challenged. I say forget that and focus on the issue.

[Texasbluebonnet]

I've said it's not a salvation issue, but it is the topic under discussion in this thread nonethess.



Texas, yes you do need to prove something- this is the debate sub-forum. It's about offering proof for your own assertions and claims.

I've seen this all before. You're now drifting into making it personal because of the possibility of having your opinion challenged. I say forget that and focus on the issue.


Isn't that the same thing you say about A_Pioneer? I'm not offering proof for anything because I don't have to. I only posted what I think. I won't be challenged into posting proof. I don't have to.

And why does everyone keep calling me Texas? It's kinda starting to annoy at this point.

[ContraMundum]

Could it possibly be that, "Many are called, but few are chosen."? Just maybe!

My dear Pioneer...taken in context, that verse means little, if anything to this discussion.

Many ARE called, few ARE chosen, but the truth is not hidden from the many and only given to the few. That is gnosticism.

This verse you refer to has nothing to do with the gnostic idea that only a few will know the truth and that's what makes them "the chosen".

The truth will always be known to the ekklesia, because the pillar and foundation of the truth is the ekklesia (1 Tim 3:15)- therefore, the truth can and is to be known by many.

Both Judaism and Christianity teach that the truth is known corporately. Opinions from individuals can differ, but corporately there will be found the truth. That doesn't mean all will live by it- many won't. Nor does that mean that opinions about unimportant issues are not allowed- they are. But, we draw our doctrine from the voice of unity.

I believe every thing that proceeds from the mouth of God. But only limited amount from the mouth of men.

Don't we all?

[ContraMundum]

Isn't that the same thing you say about A_Pioneer? I'm not offering proof for anything because I don't have to. I only posted what I think. I won't be challenged into posting proof. I don't have to.

So, you're prepared to argue and debate but not to back it up? You demand and expect others to provide proof, yet you won't? Isn't that really wasting the time of others?

Perhaps the debate forum is not for you at the moment?

And why does everyone keep calling me Texas? It's kinda starting to annoy at this point.

What would you prefer?

[Texasbluebonnet]

So, you're prepared to argue and debate but not to back it up? You demand and expect others to provide proof, yet you won't? Isn't that really wasting the time of others?

Perhaps the debate forum is not for you at the moment?



What would you prefer?

I only came here to learn about Christmas. In the process I pointed out something that I believe. You're Jewish, right? Well, surely you've heard the argument for Jesus being born during Tabernacles. I don't demand anything. It doesn't matter to me what you say about me. I don't really care. You're talking to a completely indifferent person.

Uh...how about nothing? Or if you have to TBB?

[ContraMundum]

I only came here to learn about Christmas. In the process I pointed out something that I believe. You're Jewish, right? Well, surely you've heard the argument for Jesus being born during Tabernacles.

Actually, the only people I've ever met that say that Yeshua was born at Tabernacles have been Gentiles (naturally in a Messianic setting). You'll never hear a Jew say it, and if he does, it's probably because a Gentile taught him to think that way. Half the Jews I know think he's a myth and the other half have never thought about His birthday. The Gentiles- they have yet to provide any real reason apart from their own speculations/wishes to believe in a Sukkot birthday. Midrashically, it might be a nice sentiment but midrash should only be done with facts, otherwise doctrine becomes clay in the hands of the preacher.

I don't demand anything. It doesn't matter to me what you say about me. I don't really care. You're talking to a completely indifferent person.

OK. That's fine. I'm just reacting to what you've said about this.

Uh...how about nothing? Or if you have to TBB?

I'll try tbb.

[Texasbluebonnet]

accidental double post.

[Texasbluebonnet]

Okay. Bored now.

And on a side note what a Joan Collins tude you've got. Wow! I mean really how snotty. FYI I learned the Tabernacles date from my Jewish Rabbi. What you think Messianic Jews can't think for themself? Glad I'm not the one who said that.

And you do know that Tabernacles/Sukkot means when God came to dwell with us? It stands to reason that's when He was born. Of course it could have been any time of the year, but it seems highly probable since all of the momentous times of Jesus life occured on holy days. Crucifixion and resurrection being among them. And I've never heard most Jews think He's a myth. So...I don't believe that claim.

[ContraMundum]

.

And on a side note what a Joan Collins tude you've got. Wow! I mean really how snotty. FYI I learned the Tabernacles date from my Jewish Rabbi.

Orthodox Jews don't believe in Jesus. Why did he say that? OTOH- If you mean some other Jew- eg Christian, called a Rabbi, did he show you from history, scripture, tradition etc his proof for that? I'd like to see it. MInd you, I've seen the best that other side has to offer already, to the best of my knowledge.

Also, can we stop with the personal snide remarks, please?

What you think Messianic Jews can't think for themself?

Don't put words in my mouth I would never utter. I am a Messianic Jew. I'm one of the few here. I do think for myself, which should be self-evident because I don't follow the stereotype that people on this forum think I should. ("Be a good Jew, Contra, and do what we think you should do and behave and believe like the MG's think you should") I think for myself, thanks.

And you do know that Tabernacles/Sukkot means when God came to dwell with us? It stands to reason that's when He was born.

Just like I said- it preaches nice, but is it true? Does religious symbolism force a revisionist approach to the historic facts? I hope not. I like my religion to have factual basis.

Sukkot has more obvious themes. The first and most important theme is the scriptural one- “You shall live in booths seven days. All citizens of Israel shall dwell in booths” and the reason given is “So that your generations may know that I made the Children of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt”. Also- “After the ingathering from your threshing floor and vat, you shall hold the Feast of Booths for seven days. You shall hold festival to the Lord you God seven days, in the place the Lord will choose; for the Lord your God will bless all your crops and all your undertakings, and you shall have nothing but joy.”


On the face of it scripturally, it doesn't look like Sukkot was ever intended to remind us about God dwelling amongst us, but rather to recall our desert wanderings and our reliance on Him for the harvest. There is a tradition within Judaism also teaches that this feast recalls the protection of God over His people during that time in His miraculous cloud of glory. This is about as close as you could get to the novel idea supported by some here. Incidentaly, the mitzvah connected with Sukkot is about faith and trust and reliance upon God for all our needs. Again, the dwelling of God among us is not the primary focus in this case either. Check this out in Jewish websites if you wish.

So, the idea that Sukkot is a Feast mainly about God dwelling with us isn't really the main interest to Jews. We know that God always dwells with us. (edited to add: I don't think there is a time when Jews don't remember God's presence with us)

Haven't you ever wondered why Mary, the holiest ordinary human in history and her chaste spouse Joseph weren't celebrating Sukkot when Yeshua was born? Did they bow to the whims of the Emporer and leave the sukkah at home to travel to Bethlehem? Did all Israel neglect that feast that year to conform to the census? I don't think so. There is no comment about Sukkot during the time of the census in the Bible and the writers of the NT are always very careful to mention the Feasts when they are in the narrative. They don't mention it- why did they omit such an important point when they mention it for lesser incidents?

The interesting thing is this: when Messianics try to make Sukkah the birth of Yeshua they are speculating on the exact dating of the Temple duty of Zechariah- they always pick the earlier date to make it fit with Sukkah (eg. during Sivan) but never the later date (Kislev) which brings the birth to December. Recent archeological evidence indicates the Kislev date (which is what I posted already), thus ending the need for speculation.

To add to their arguments, some read Sukkot into everything they can about the birth- but not in one single case is their interpretation conclusive- it's all speculative and based on eisegesis.

Of course it could have been any time of the year,

Any time of the year except Dec 25, right? LOL

but it seems highly probable since all of the momentous times of Jesus life occured on holy days. Crucifixion and resurrection being among them.

Sukkot is important in Yeshua's ministry. No debate there. Interestingly, God comes to dwell amongst us (according to the NT) in power at Shavuot. Think about that.

And I've never heard most Jews think He's a myth. So...I don't believe that claim.

I don't lie. I hope you're not saying that. Lots of Jews think that he's a myth based on an actual failed Messiah. Perhaps you haven't met enough Jews to discover this for yourself yet.

[A_Pioneer]

My dear Pioneer...taken in context, that verse means little, if anything to this discussion.

Many ARE called, few ARE chosen, but the truth is not hidden from the many and only given to the few. That is gnosticism.

This verse you refer to has nothing to do with the gnostic idea that only a few will know the truth and that's what makes them "the chosen".

The truth will always be known to the ekklesia, because the pillar and foundation of the truth is the ekklesia (1 Tim 3:15)- therefore, the truth can and is to be known by many.

Both Judaism and Christianity teach that the truth is known corporately. Opinions from individuals can differ, but corporately there will be found the truth. That doesn't mean all will live by it- many won't. Nor does that mean that opinions about unimportant issues are not allowed- they are. But, we draw our doctrine from the voice of unity.



Don't we all?
Context! Wasn't the man this was said about, called?
There was a huge reason he was not chosen!
I surely fear God, but I have no fear he will reprimand me for following his word and walking in the footsteps of Sha'ul as he walks in the footstreps of Yeshua.
That is what this context is all about.
The will of God!
I disagree that Dec. 25 has anything to do with the will of God. I can find no evidence from the bible that compells me to even contemplate any study of the works of man on the subject!
Yes you have millions, even pagans who keep Dec. 25, but I am quite satisfied with the few people of the Way and MJ's who disdain the day.
As Yeshua said in Luke 17:2;It would be better for him if a millstone--------cause one of these little ones to sin.
Ask any five year old what is special about Dec. 25, he'll tell you all about the jolly old elf in the red suit.
Case closed!

And I'm outta here!

Shalom

[ContraMundum]

Context! Wasn't the man this was said about, called?
There was a huge reason he was not chosen!
I surely fear God, but I have no fear he will reprimand me for following his word and walking in the footsteps of Sha'ul as he walks in the footstreps of Yeshua.
That is what this context is all about.
The will of God!

What are you talking about? Your grammar is confusing here.


I disagree that Dec. 25 has anything to do with the will of God. I can find no evidence from the bible that compells me to even contemplate any study of the works of man on the subject!
Yes you have millions, even pagans who keep Dec. 25, but I am quite satisfied with the few people of the Way and MJ's who disdain the day.

Aren't you being a little presumptuous there? Are you sure you're the only one in "The Way"?

Do you have any real reason to reject the teaching of the Bible regarding the Temple roster of Zechariah's family? How is that "no evidence from the Bible"? It seems to me that this is important in calculating the date of the birth of Yeshua. Why, according to the Bible, is a birthdate in December impossible, when the Bible teaches that it is most certainly a very plausible time? Do you have any thing to say about that? Or is this just about rejecting anything that is established?

I have a sneaking suspicion that some here aren't even game to even check it out- in case the findings are too challenging. Of course, if the traditional, historic Christian faith is proven right, that could mean a change of lifestyle and opinion for many. Perhaps some fear that most of all.

[Ivy]

Haven't you ever wondered why Mary, the holiest ordinary human in history and her chaste spouse Joseph weren't celebrating Sukkot when Yeshua was born? Did they bow to the whims of the Emporer and leave the sukkah at home to travel to Bethlehem? Did all Israel neglect that feast that year to conform to the census? I don't think so. There is no comment about Sukkot during the time of the census in the Bible and the writers of the NT are always very careful to mention the Feasts when they are in the narrative. They don't mention it- why did they omit such an important point when they mention it for lesser incidents?



That's an excellent point, CM; I'd never thought of that myself. It's true.....in the NT, the writers are always careful to mention it when there is a major Feast happening.

And I'd like to make a few generalized observations--again--for whoever.

I would be careful about saying I know what someone's attitude is when using the written medium, it's possible to overreact and presume; I would be careful about making accusations about attitude using colorful adjectives; I would be careful about introducing my personal feelings or temperament issues into a debate; I would take into account how it may be appropriate to address someone older than myself.

I would take into account how it is appropriate to address someone who is Jewish--which presumably as a "Messianic," I would feel is worthy of a certain respect.

[Henaynei]

they WERE celebrating Sukkot

Sukkot is one of the Pilgrim Festivals, when all the men of Israel are commanded by HaShem to go to the Temple ... (and in the Millennial Kingdom all who don't, Jewish AND Gentile will be severely punished). Bethlehem is about 5 miles from Jerusalem - since all Jewish males went to Jerusalem for this festival accommodations in Jerusalem filled up very quickly and the closest towns caught the overflow --- but even still Bethlehem was full to overflowing --- the manger in which Yeshua was laid was actually a Sukkah for the inn ....

Beit LeKhem is so close to Jerusalem that it is the place where the Temple Sacrifice sheep and livestock were raised - and it was indeed shepherds who first heard the Declaration of his birth - they were Levites whose job it was to watch (as in shomer) the flocks to ensure that they were perfect and unblemished, only Levites were permitted to make this inspection and determination AND this is why they were the first to hear of Yeshua's birth - and were sent to "inspect the lamb"

The census was taking place at that time because the Emperor was counting Jews and Jews went to Jerusalem/Israel for Sukkot

[Texasbluebonnet]

they WERE celebrating Sukkot

Sukkot is one of the Pilgrim Festivals when the men are commanded to go to the Temple ... (and in the Millennial Kingdom all who don't, Jewish AND Gentile will be severely punished). Bethlehem is about 5 miles from Jerusalem - since all Jewish males went to Jerusalem for this festival accommodations in Jerusalem filled up very quickly and the closest towns caught the overflow --- but even still Bethlehem was full to overflowing --- the manger in which Yeshua was laid was actually a Sukkah for the inn ....

Beit LeKhem is so close to Jerusalem that it is the place where the Temple Sacrifice sheep and livestock were raised - and it was indeed shepherds who first heard the Declaration of his birth - they were Levites whose job it was to watch (as in shomer) the flocks to ensure that they perfect and unblemished only Levites were permitted to make this inspection and determination AND this is why they were the first to hear of Yeshua's birth - and were sent to "inspect the lamb"


The census was taking place at that time because the Emperor was counting Jews and Jews went to Jerusalem for Sukkot


Thanks for posting that. I thought that was a pilgrimage festival, but I didn't want to say it and be wrong. I kinda thought that's what they were doing.

[Henaynei]

b'vakasha ;)
pleased to be of service

[Henaynei]

Haven't you ever wondered why Mary, the holiest ordinary human in history and her chaste spouse Joseph weren't celebrating Sukkot when Yeshua was born? Did they bow to the whims of the Emporer and leave the sukkah at home to travel to Bethlehem? Did all Israel neglect that feast that year to conform to the census? I don't think so. There is no comment about Sukkot during the time of the census in the Bible and the writers of the NT are always very careful to mention the Feasts when they are in the narrative. They don't mention it- why did they omit such an important point when they mention it for lesser incidents? to detract from the Jewishness of the Savior and the events...

and yes, I've studied the times and seasons of this event and am convinced it was at Sukkot - I don't come to the forum all that often and I don't read all the back posts in heavily posted threads, so if you posted some contradicting data concerning the dating I missed it and as I am *not* a site supporter anymore I have very limited ability to do searches, thus to date in all my studies I have seen *no* convincing information that supports any time but Sukkot.

and where did the translators mention other feasts "for lesser incidents"? They mention Passover - "that is when the nasty Jews killed Christ", whereas the special and chosen gentiles keep Easter now and shun Passover (until very recently, relatively speaking), they mention Pentecost - "that is when the church began" and all those folks who followed Jesus became good Christians while those who challenged them were obviously those nasty Jews again, in fact some in the church say that the Church didn't truly begin until Paul preached at Antioch and the first non-Jews (they discount Cornelius for some reason) became believers and thus it is where the first people become Christians....

[ContraMundum]

to detract from the Jewishness of the Savior and the events...

Conspiracy theory again.

Why would they do that, and who did it, and when? What was their names?

and yes, I've studied the times and seasons of this event and am convinced it was at Sukkot - I don't come to the forum all that often and I don't read all the back posts in heavily posted threads, so if you posted some contradicting data concerning the dating I missed it and as I am *not* a site supporter anymore I have very limited ability to do searches, thus to date in all my studies I have seen *no* convincing information that supports any time but Sukkot.

OK...well, I don't expect someone who thinks the Bible has been tampered with to see things any way other than the way it suits them. I have no time for baseless conspiracy theories which cannot be either proven nor falsified.

Can we just stick to the known facts for once?

[visionary]

Conspiracy theory again.

Why would they do that, and who did it, and when? What was their names?



OK...well, I don't expect someone who thinks the Bible has been tampered with to see things any way other than the way it suits them. I have no time for baseless conspiracy theories which cannot be either proven nor falsified.

Can we just stick to the known facts for once?Notice... no evidence provided to show that Dec is biblical.

[Henaynei]

Throughout the translations of the Scriptures the Jewishness has been both systematically (that is willfully and with intent) and traditionally (that is not intentionally but by the weight of what had gone before in translations or by reason of the fact that the Church has been so successful for nearly 2000 years in removing it's flocks from any meaningful or compassionate contact with Judaism that things that were unintelligible in scripture because of it coming from hand having meaning only in a Jewish context were "corrected" to fit the diametrically non-Jewish context of the world of the translators) removed, downplayed from the NT where it pointed to the validity of a Jewish approach to Messiah, or it was highlighted where it was made to point out how those nasty Jews rejected and killed Christ.

CM, I know that you will dissent, this is your privilege - I expect you to pull out a list of "respected and authoritative" higher critics and the weight of Church tradition and "custodianship" of the Truth to prove the poverty of my assertions

I'll just say here and now that I categorically reject and eschew both the higher critics and the supposed custodianship of the Church

as to the Church Traditions, they are lovely and even mimic some of the outward actions of Torah commanded practices and for a few, including perhaps you, that shadowy mimicry actually strengthens kavanah...

I would not trample Church traditions, but neither will I practice them -- if the reason I will not practice them offends when I'm challenged to explain it, so be it.... such challenge or the offence it causes, will not shame me, quake me or cause me to relent

if that meas I am figuratively (for the time being) burned at the stake in these fora, so be it, it's not the first time...

[ContraMundum]

they WERE celebrating Sukkot

Sukkot is one of the Pilgrim Festivals, when all the men of Israel are commanded by HaShem to go to the Temple ... (and in the Millennial Kingdom all who don't, Jewish AND Gentile will be severely punished). Bethlehem is about 5 miles from Jerusalem - since all Jewish males went to Jerusalem for this festival accommodations in Jerusalem filled up very quickly and the closest towns caught the overflow --- but even still Bethlehem was full to overflowing --- the manger in which Yeshua was laid was actually a Sukkah for the inn ....

Please be upfront and honest about this henny- please mention that none of what you have said above is recorded in the Bible, and therefore is not a provable point.

This is all speculative, and none of the eyewitnesses support it.

Sorry- but it is important to point that out when you take the pulpit.

Beit LeKhem is so close to Jerusalem that it is the place where the Temple Sacrifice sheep and livestock were raised - and it was indeed shepherds who first heard the Declaration of his birth - they were Levites whose job it was to watch (as in shomer) the flocks to ensure that they were perfect and unblemished, only Levites were permitted to make this inspection and determination AND this is why they were the first to hear of Yeshua's birth - and were sent to "inspect the lamb"

More speculation. Mixing truth with speculation about the incident is not a good way to live your life.

Why do some people treat the Bible like a Scooby-Do mystery?

All you need to do is guess a lot, fit some truth in with it, and you get whatever conclusion you want- the one you were looking for.

The census was taking place at that time because the Emperor was counting Jews and Jews went to Jerusalem/Israel for Sukkot

More guesswork.

Let me get this straight. All this is not recorded by the eyewitnesses, and if it was, it was left out by someone unknown to make sure Yeshua was not seen as being too Jewish.

Let's get your version right, shall we? I'll summarize what I think you're teaching....

*The Apostles always make mention of the Feasts in their works- except this time- to make sure that Yeshua wasn't seen as too Jewish?

So, Jewish authors, who mention all things Jewish in their works about Yeshua, to build their case as to him being the Jewish Messiah, have omitted this one feast from their recordings.

OR- you might try to say that the authors had their works altered by some crazed, drooling, untrustworthy, unsanctified and unsaved Gentile "Christians", who definetely didn't want to have a Jewish Yeshua, so they omitted merely one reference to His Messiahship in the Gospel story, left the rest and that's why there is absolutely no evidence to the Messiah being born on Sukkot, but tons that He kept Jewish observances throughout His life. This is so some unknown deceivers could say that Yeshua was not Jewish but Jew-"ish".

...and you can't really prove any of this.

Right?

...and we're all supposed to buy that, and drop centuries of unbroken tradition, the validation of archeology, history, ancient witness, and most of all second-guess the Bible and follow after your doctrine?

No thanks.

[ContraMundum]

Notice... no evidence provided to show that Dec is biblical.

Vis, with respect, I've presented plenty for this whole thread- none of it has been either addressed or refuted. I think such throw-away lines like this really waste bandwidth.
Perhaps you might go back and talk about what's been said.

[ContraMundum]

CM, I know that you will dissent, this is your privilege - I expect you to pull out a list of "respected and authoritative" higher critics and the weight of Church tradition and "custodianship" of the Truth to prove the poverty of my assertions

It would be very easy. But I won't waste my time or yours. You have no intention of changing- and I've already done the changing.

I'll just say here and now that I categorically reject and eschew both the higher critics and the supposed custodianship of the Church

...based on?

..and in favor of what?

[ContraMundum]

Thanks for posting that. I thought that was a pilgrimage festival, but I didn't want to say it and be wrong. I kinda thought that's what they were doing.

My advice- stick to the Bible story, and don't try to live by stories that preach nice.

[Henaynei]

...based on? experience and study

..and in favor of what? Truth

[ContraMundum]

experience and study

When do you think you've done enough to be "right"?

Truth

People disagree on that, so truth...according to..?

[visionary]

Didn't see the evidence... could you tell me what post it is in Contra?

[ContraMundum]

Thanks for responding vis....I can't go back and look right now. I'm outta time today. Maybe someone else can help.

Bless you.

[Ivy]

Vis, I just spent 20 minutes reading back through the whole thread, and the post numbers which pertain to evidence that Contra provided are:

45
127
284
300


Also quite pertinent to the larger discussion, IMO:

41
153
183
302
313

[Henaynei]

the post numbers which pertain to evidence that Contra provided are:

45 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42088327&postcount=45)
127 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42387538&postcount=127)
284 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43546340&postcount=284)
300 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43606680&postcount=300)


Also quite pertinent to the larger discussion, IMO:

41 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42087905&postcount=41)
153 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42471403&postcount=153)
183 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42611788&postcount=183)
302 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43611525&postcount=302)
313 (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43632395&postcount=313) as a public service the links have been added - however clicking on these links I think will bring up ONLY the one post and not the page it was on - if you are wanting to get more of the context you'll need to go to the thread page -- to do so remember this: the number of the post relates to the number of the page but not like you might first think - while post 30 will be at the bottom of page 3, post 35 will be in the middle of page 4...etc ;) also if you are viewing a single post page and want to go to the thread there is a link in the far top right corner to the thread that will take you directly to the full page where that post is in context with the other posters .....

b'Shalom
Henaynei

[debi b]

My advice- stick to the Bible story...

The one that doesn't mention celebrating Messiah's birth at all - OK ;)

[Texasbluebonnet]

The one that doesn't mention celebrating Messiah's birth at all - OK ;)


Well, didn't the wise men (for lack of a better name) and the shepherds celebrate His birth when they came to visit and when they brought gifts? :confused: :scratch: Just wondering.

[Henaynei]

Well, didn't the wise men (for lack of a better name) and the shepherds celebrate His birth when they came to visit and when they brought gifts? :confused: :scratch: Just wondering.only the Magi/Wisemen brought gifts and it was not at his birth but at sometime later - and they were honoring and celebrating his Kingship, not his birth ... as they themselves they came "to worship him" ....

[ContraMundum]

The one that doesn't mention celebrating Messiah's birth at all - OK ;)


I never miss an opportunity to worship and celebrate. :)