Jesus was born on July 27, 7 BCE. Merry Christmas!

[CharismaticLady]

Christians do not worship false gods named Tammuz or any other name!

Of course we don't. Did I say we did? No! I'm just showing the origination of the dates of Christian holidays.

 

[Albion]

Mega churches. How many go there and don't know a soul?

I suppose that that's so. At least for some people and some churches. However, this is not in any way typical of Christian churches.

 

[vk_61]

To be closer to the point read the article titled "The Maternus Code: The Gospel of the Stargazers" published in ISAR International Journal.
Vadim Krakovsky

 

[Nigel Malka]

I have to agree that the actual year and date of Jesus' birth is not important and we should celebrate his coming to bring God's Word to us all.
However it is interesting to delve into history so how about this:-

If the star was Haley’s Comet, which seems likely, the Chinese and the Babylonians record its visit in 87bc. then Recorded in the Book of Han in 12BC again recorded in 66AD, 141AD and again 374AD so every 74 to 79 years.
So Jesus would have been born in 12 BC and would have been 45 when he died.
We know from Roman records that Herod died in April 4BC,

Let say in March 13BC Passover Zechariah was told he would have a son John, He goes home and Elizabeth gets pregnant
Six months later Mary is told she is going to have a child and to go and see Elizabeth
September 13BC Mary goes to see Elizabeth
December 13 BC John born
March/April 12BC Passover Jesus born - All inns full, Halley's comet lights the sky and seen by the wise men who agree to set out and find the messiah foretold and a year or so later get to Bethlehem.
March/April 12 BC Shepherds visit Baby Jesus then tell people the Messiah is born and Simeon hears of it. 7 days later Jesus is taken to the temple and Simeon is looking out for him and blesses him.
Wise men visit in say 10BC and meet Jesus who is living now in a house
Jesus taken to Egypt in 10BC
Herod finds out and kills all children 2 years or younger in 10BC
Herod dies in 4BC
Jesus Return from Egypt in before 2AD
So in 2AD aged 14 and goes to the temple for the first time

 

[Albion]

So in 2AD aged 14 and goes to the temple for the first time

While Jesus may have been older than is usually thought, your line of thought would conflict with this information:

John 8:57 ("Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?")

 

[Nigel Malka]

While Jesus may have been older than is usually thought, your line of thought would conflict with this information:

John 8:57 ("Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?")

But it fits even better at mid 40's he would not yet be 50 and at 33 he would be nowhere near 50.

 

[Albion]

But it fits even better at mid 40's he would not yet be 50 and at 33 he would be nowhere near 50.

Yep. I was thinking that your calculations, which put him older at his crucifixion than is generally thought, would push him too close to being 50 for the Jews to be exclaiming what they did. But maybe not.

I do agree that the verse by which the Jews say he's not yet 50 looks much more illogical if he was, in fact, only about 33 at the time.

 

[anetazo]

No!. Jesus was born in September. Jesus was conceived in December 25th.

 

[Alexis1148]

Non c'est mardi 19 juillet de l'an -7 plus tard je ne compte plus faire en décembre car Macron a dit la vérité le jour de l'ouragan Irma pourquoi l'on t'il fait le 10 septembre était le baptême de yeshoua le 19 septembre Emmanuel Macron parle de Jules 1er celui qui décide la fausse date du 25 décembre le 19 septembre 2017.
je vous invite à savoir ce qui se passe en Amérique avec les histoires d'ouragan crée car il sont contre dieu et dieu a aussi vécu beaucoup au usa pas qu'en terre sainte.
Le 13 mars 29 yeshoua est crucifié.
étude Odile ricoux sur Noël.

 

[Alexis1148]

La crèche céleste de yeshoua est apparue le 10 septembre 2017 à Miami durant l'ouragan Irma Si yeshoua est vraiment né le 10 tishri c'est très probable.
Mais en tant que croyant j'ai eu l'apparition de lumière jaune c'est dieu le 28 juillet 2023
le 25 juillet en recherchant bien soit yeshoua serait né le 25 juillet -5 av JC
au 5eme mois ou le 10 septembre -6 ou -5 av JC dimanche au 7eme mois.
Sur la vidéo il y a le système haarp qui essaie d'attaquer dieu lisez genèse 1:1
Je pense que la premier jour de la création été bien un 10 septembre qui a coïncidé avec la naissance de yeshoua
Les Romains qui nous gouvernent rejette toute création par lui Macron on sais qu'il aime le Talmud le mal Satan.
Mais 0h39 de l'heure d'été n'existe pas c'est 10h39 de l'heure universelle chercher sur votre smartphone.
Si vous avez des réponses sur cette étude je suis preneur.

 

[AFrazier]

According to the crypto-testimony of Roman astrologer Julius Firmicus Maternus (4 century AD), Jesus was born on July 27, 7 BCE.

Merry Christmas!

Can you be more specific about the reference? I have his astrology book. Is it that one, or another work? Where can I find this crypto-testimony, and what, exactly, does it say?

 

[vk_61]

Was Jesus actually born in September?

"the theory that Jesus was born in September depends on the timing of John the Baptist’s birth. These biblical facts lay the groundwork: John’s father, a priest named Zechariah, was taking his turn to serve in the temple when the angel Gabriel appeared to him and announced that Elizabeth, Zechariah’s wife, would conceive a son (Luke 1:8–13). After Zechariah returned home, his wife conceived, just as the angel had said (Luke 1:23–24). Gabriel then visited Mary to announce the miraculous conception of Jesus, and this visit came in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (Luke 1:26, 36). Another important detail: Zechariah “belonged to the priestly division of Abijah” (Luke 1:5).

Using the above information, the calculations are made thus: the priests in the Abijah division served from June 13—19. Assuming that Elizabeth conceived shortly after Gabriel’s announcement to Zechariah, her sixth month—the month that Gabriel visits Mary—would be December or January. Assuming that Mary conceives shortly after Gabriel’s announcement to her, Jesus would have been born nine months later, i.e., August or September."

Jesus was seven months born. Read the Gospel of Hebrew. So, he was born in July. There are a lot of additional confirmation on this dating

 

[vk_61]

Can you be more specific about the reference? I have his astrology book. Is it that one, or another work? Where can I find this crypto-testimony, and what, exactly, does it say?

See Matheus, Holden trans, 8.25.6 or Dykes trans, 8.25.24. This is description of 18 degree of Libra with Mars in the ascendant. There are a lot to say about this passage and Formicus Maternus personal story. Many supportive materials are available as circumstantial evidences for validity of proposed dating (all other years, excluding 7 ВСЕ, for such configuration are not a strong cases).

 

[AFrazier]

See Matheus, Holden trans, 8.25.6 or Dykes trans, 8.25.24. This is description of 18 degree of Libra with Mars in the ascendant. There are a lot to say about this passage and Formicus Maternus personal story. Many supportive materials are available as circumstantial evidences for validity of proposed dating (all other years, excluding 7 ВСЕ, for such configuration are not a strong cases).

?

I'll have to go back and reread some material, but I'm pretty sure zodiac signs are what's in the ascendant. It indicates the sign on the eastern horizon at the time of birth.

Does this reference specifically refer to Jesus Christ? Or is it assumed that that's who he's talking about, and why it is therefore called cryptic?

 

[vk_61]

?

I'll have to go back and reread some material, but I'm pretty sure zodiac signs are what's in the ascendant. It indicates the sign on the eastern horizon at the time of birth.

Does this reference specifically refer to Jesus Christ? Or is it assumed that that's who he's talking about, and why it is therefore called cryptic?

If are interesting on this subject, I would suggest you go to the site academia.edu and search for “The Maternus Code”.

 

[Deborah~]

No, December 25th was actually a pagan holiday Christians stole from Satan. Have you ever heard of the abomination of desolation? That was on December 25, 168 BC. (There were other abomination of desolation, like 70 AD which the Jews revolted against Rome, from 66 AD to 73 AD (7 years!/one prophetic week)

One of the emperors after Constantine, I believe the second one, made paganism illegal, and everyone had to be a Christian as the state religion. To make the transition easier for the people, their festivals and holidays were Christianized. Also their pagan temples of the gods and goddesses, were turned into church buildings (the first churches) and the pagan priests were turned into Catholic priests. Easter had been a celebration for Tammuz.

Even so, it is not a sin to honor Christ on these dates. In doing so, no one even remembers the original reasons for the holidays.

None of that is historically accurate. There is no historical record of any pagan religion celebrating anything on December 25. When the Christians adopted a fixed calendar based on the Metonic cycle in the 4th century, a scribe drew up a calendar for a wealthy Roman Christian on which he notated both the Christian and the Roman festivals. The only notation of a holiday on December 25 was the birth of Jesus. There was no Roman holiday on that date.

The myth that Rome had to make the transition from paganism to Christianity easier by adopting pagan holidays and temples and priests, as you stated without any historical evidence whatsoever, is not true. In fact, the actual historical records prove the very opposite. In a letter written by the pagan Emperor Julian (the Apostate) in A.D. 362 (Letter #22) to his pagan High Priest Arsacius, Emperor Julian congratulates himself on having spent a fortune to restore the pagan temples that had fallen to ruin and the sacrifices and worship which had been neglected because so many of the Roman people had converted to Christianity. But he laments that it was not enough. That the Christians' "benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead and the 'pretended' holiness of their lives" was the reason that Christianity had succeeded in winning the hearts of the Roman masses. Then Emperor Julian instructed Arsacius to order "all the [pagan] priests" without exception to begin to practice every one of the Christian virtues which had been so successful in converting the people to the Christian religion, and Arsacius was to "either shame them or persuade them into righteousness or else remove them from their priestly office, if they do not, together with their wives, children and servants, attend the worship of the [pagan] gods ... [and to] admonish them that no priest may enter a theater or drink in a tavern or control any craft or trade that is base and not respectable. Honor those who obey you, and those who disobey, expel them from office. In every city establish frequent hostels in order that strangers may profit by our benevolence; I do not mean for our own people only, but for others also who are in need of money ... for it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us. Teach those of the Hellenic faith [pagans] to contribute to public service of this sort ... and accustom those who love the Hellenic religion to these good works by teaching them that this was our practice of old."


This is an actual historical document written by no less than a Roman Emperor and it states the exact opposite of what you and so many others are claiming. The Roman state did not "order" everyone to become Christians, and the Christians did not "adopt" paganism to make the transition easier. The Roman masses converted to Christ because of the pious lives the Christians lived and their benevolence shown to the poor, even poor pagans. And that is the actual, written testimony of the Roman Emperor who was raised by a Christian mother but who hated Christ and everything Christian and tried to turn the Romans back to paganism. That is why he has become known historically as "Julian the Apostate."

And it was not the Christians who "adopted paganism." It was in fact the pagan Emperor Julian who "commanded" the pagan priests to adopt Christian virtues in order to try to win back the hearts of the Roman people to the pagan gods of their fathers, and to even lie and say this was the pagan practice of old!

Nor did the Christians "turn" pagan temples into church buildings. The only record in history of such occurrences is when Constantine tore down pagan temples in Jerusalem that had been built over Christian sites by previous pagan Roman Emperors in their attempts to suppress Christian veneration of those sites, such as Golgatha, the place of Jesus' crucifixion. In the past persecutions of Christians, the sites venerated by Christians, where so many events in the life of Jesus recorded in the Gospels took place, were desecrated by orders from Roman Emperors to defile the sites by making pagan sacrifices and building pagan temples in attempts to stamp out the new and emerging Christian religion. Constantine gets a bad rap from ill-informed Christians, but he is to be commended, or rather his mother Helena, who traveled throughout Palestine locating these sites and tearing down these pagan temples and constructing Christian churches to mark and venerate these holy sites. But throughout the Roman Empire, the pagan temples were not touched by Christians, but were abandoned and fell into disrepair when the masses of Romans converted to Christ, and Julian had to spend a fortune to try to restore them. In fact, in the 650 Mithraeum (underground caves where worshippers of Mithra gathered) so far discovered, archaeological excavations have found that when the Christians destroyed these places of worship in the 3rd and 4th centuries, they left the many votive coins strewn about, considering these places and even the money offered to the pagan gods and goddesses to be polluted and left them lying where they had fallen. The notion that Christians would adopt a place they considered so polluted to be used as places of Christian worship is utterly false and only shows just how not only ill-informed but misinformed the people are who are making such claims about these early years of the Christian faith.

So that is just a bit of actual historical and even archaeological records, and the evidence is exactly the opposite of the popular anti-Christian theories that burst on the scene in the 1800's when a rabidly anti-Catholic Scottish minister set out to "prove" that the Roman Catholic Church was "pagan" by fabricating lies and supposed connections with ancient Babylonian gods and goddesses. His anti-Catholic misinformation, which is now being aimed at Protestant Christianity as well (gleefully it seems by those who are in fact anti-Christian) has been thoroughly refuted by historians, and in the past century and a half since the publication of his book, by archaeological discoveries that have proven how shamefully he created out of whole cloth all kinds of lies and distortions about the old Babylonian religions, fueled by an unholy hatred of anything Catholic. And full disclosure, I am Evangelical Protestant and believe the Roman Catholic Church has a whole host of doctrinal views I take issue with, but even so, that does not make a lie acceptable. But those old lies and distortions are still being paraded across social media as if they represent factual historical information but without any actual historical evidence and in fact, contrary to the actual historical evidence.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Deborah~]

Was Jesus actually born in September?

"the theory that Jesus was born in September depends on the timing of John the Baptist’s birth ... the priests in the Abijah division served from June 13—19.

You made a rather large assumption there without any historical evidence. How did you determine that the course of Abijah, the 8th course in the rotation of the 24 courses, served from June 13 - 19 in the year before Jesus birth? And what year would that be?

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Deborah~]

I'll add astrologer (!) Julius' July theory to the September theory, the April theory, and the December theory, all of which make apparently persuasive arguments.

True, there are all kinds of speculation burning up the internet about when Jesus may have been born, or when he may have died. However, when you actually drill down into the rather extensive historical evidence, all the alternative dates begin to fall by the wayside as historically untenable and far less persuasive. And the only date that remains after all the historical evidence is weighed is the date of December 25, the date that all of Christendom has observed since the time of the Apostles, first mentioned in writing by Clement (c. 35 - 99 A.D.), a companion of the Apostles and mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. However again, those who have been prejudiced against any and all "Christian tradition" (a convenience for those who would toss out all early Christian records of the beliefs and practices of those who lived closest to the time of Christ and some of whom were companions of and taught by the Apostles), or those who are simply convinced in their own minds that Christianity itself is corrupt and has lost its way (the Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not observe either Christmas or Easter, have been extremely active in plastering the "Christianity is pagan" screed across social media), these groups and individuals would rather "interpret" and "calculate" their own dates, especially if they can offer a "persuasive argument" against Christianity's beliefs and practices. There are many groups and individuals who are opposed to Christianity, and who consider it their "calling" to oppose any and all Christian doctrine and practice, especially Christianity's observance of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus, historical events that are the very foundation of the Christian faith.

Social media lends itself to anonymity, and provides fertile grounds for a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and social media is over-run with them. So Christian, beware! Do not believe everything you read on social media or internet websites. "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Jesus ~

In Christ,
Deborah

 

[Reasonably Sane]

According to the crypto-testimony of Roman astrologer Julius Firmicus Maternus (4 century AD), Jesus was born on July 27, 7 BCE.

Merry Christmas!

I believe it was most likely September 11th, 0003.

September 11: Happy Birthday to Jesus - Dr. Michael Heiser

Many readers will know that I believe the actual birthdate of Jesus was Sept 11, 3 BC. This isn’t based on any original research of my own (here’s a short …

drmsh.com

The Star of Bethlehem Index Page

 

[Deborah~]

Hebrews didn't really do birthdays...they just honored the person's death..."in remembrance of me"...this is what He told us.

That's actually not true. Jewish tradition did in fact mark special birthdays. The second birthday when a toddler was "weaned," such as Abraham hosting a feast to celebrate Isaac's weaning. (Gensis 21:8) In fact, the common assumption that 1st century Jews were largely illiterate is not true. At age five, a Jewish father was legally required to begin his son's education in the Scriptures. Public "schools" were held at the local synagogues, and all male children were required to attend. At age 13, he assumed all the legal rights and responsibilities of adulthood, including the observance of the commandments. The account of Jesus instructing the Scribes and Pharisees in the Temple at the Passover before his 13th birthday shows how well-versed he was in the Scriptures. At age 18 a male Jews was ready for marriage. At 20 for earning a living. And only at age 30 could a candidate who had been trained be admitted to the priesthood.

So the claim that Jews did not observe birthdays, while it may be a convenient way to simply dismiss the whole idea of observing Jesus' birth, it's actually not true.

What is true is that we are not "commanded" to observe the most important events in the history of the world. But then again, there is no denying that there is in fact legal precedence for commemorating those days when God did some great and marvelous thing, such as the legal precedent of the Old Covenant Passover, which commemorated the day when God delivered the Jews from their slavery. And it was celebrated with a feast. So to claim that commemorating the day Jesus was born or was raised from the dead with a feast is somehow anti-Law, or anti-Biblical, is nonsense. But under the New Covenant, we each and every one are free from the commandments of the Law to be led by the Spirit of God in how we each and every one of us, in our own personal lives, serve and worship Jesus. Oh, that's right, some of these who oppose commemorating Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection don't worship Jesus at all.

In Christ,
Deborah