How we got December 25 as Christmas

[Kevin H]

Here is  good article on the to theories as to how we got December 25 to be Christmas:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/

[Scuba]

The problem is this, God warned us of a system rising up in the last days that would attempt to change God's times (with an S) and God's Law. God has within His plan a timeline of which His people can follow and see right where we are in God's plan. God's timeline also helps up to identify the true Messiah. If Satan can distort God's times he can cause confusion among God's people and confusion prevents unity and weakens the faith. Here are some of the times that were changed by Satan.

The seventh day Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day. Don't fall for it!

The second coming of Jesus being after the revealing of Antichrist. Don't fall for it!

The time of Jesus' birth. Don't fall for it!

The time of Jesus' Crucifixion. Don't fall for it!

The time of Jesus' resurrection. Don't fall for it!

The longevity of a living soul (mortal vs immortal). Don't fall for it! 

The changing of God's holy days to man's holidays. Don't fall for it!

These are just a few of the changes made to God's times and we haven't even looked at the changes Satan made to God's Law yet. 

God is forming a people right now to be His kings and priests in the kingdom of God. It's very important that we teach the truth about God and not a lie. Satan is the father of lies so when we tell our children that Jesus was born on December 25th we are lying and giving glory to the sun god of Babylon and exalting Satan and his system in the process.

 

[Kevin H]

Did you actually read the article or did you jump to conclusions? If you read the article could you please point out it's shortcomings instead of just taking advantage of the situation as a  excuse to get on your soap box.

[Scuba]

A lie is still a lie no matter how warm and buttery it is.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I found the article fascinating!

Is there any information available on what time of year the Roman censuses were taken?  That would be a good clue as to the time of year for the nativity...

[CoAspen]

In the case of this poster.....

Quote

A lie is still a lie no matter how warm and buttery it is.

....classical avoidance!!!

[Scuba]

We are in a Kingdom conflict and those who serve in God's kingdom will surely stand out in the last days. Evaluate which Kingdom you stand for lest you find yourself on the wrong side.

[phkrause]

20 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Here is  good article on the to theories as to how we got December 25 to be Christmas

That was a very interesting article. When I was in my teen years and going to the Jewish/Adventist Temple in the Bronx, the date of Jesus' birth was thought to be sometime in October!

[Stan]

Scuba, please change your screen name to your real name before you do more posting. 

[Scuba]

16 minutes ago, Stan said:

Scuba, please change your screen name to your real name before you do more posting. 

Can you let me in on your secret? 

[Kevin H]

I don't remember if it was in this article or not but Biblical Archaeology review (and Bible Review) has had a number of articles on this over the past few years. The first article I read in Bible Review in the Nov-Dec issue 2001, 2002 or 2003, Intertestamental Jewish tradition said to expect good things to happen at Passover and that it was Passover when Abraham took Isaac to Mt. Mariah to sacrifice him. Then some Rabbis also said that it was Passover when Isaac was born. But other Rabbis said that it was Passover when the 3 visitors came to Abraham and announced that Isaac was going to be born and when Sarah became pregnant with Isaac. They of course saw Isaac's birth as 9 months  after Passover. Also, the tradition grew that prophets and people blessed by God died either on the anniversary of their birthday or the anniversary of their conception date.

There were different dates proposed for the birth of Jesus as well as church fathers saying that we should not speculate on when Jesus was born. But in part of the church-synagogue split was trying to show that the church was better than the Jews. And part of this argument was to say that Isaac was the type and Jesus was the Anti-type. That as the 3 visitors annunciation of and Isaac was conserved at Passover so the Annunciation of Mary and her becoming pregnant with Jesus was on Passover. As Isaac was born 9 months after Passover so was Jesus. For years they celebrated the feast of the Annunciation on Passover. Then the church decided to change from following the Jewish calendar and start following the Roman Calendar. That year in the East the Jews were celebrating Passover on April 5 and in the west they were celebrating on March 25. Thereafter the eastern church celebrated the feast on April 6 instead of on Passover, and in the Western church it was March 25 for the rest of the second century and into the 3rd century.

Then in the 3rd century there were people adding 9 months to the feast of the annunciation and came to January 6 and December 25. Then 100 years later Constantine was converted and made Christianity legal and the already believed by a number of Christians that Jesus was born December 25 became more widely popular. It is unclear if both the Christians and Pagans both saw Dec 25 as special, or if because of Constantine the Pagans moved their various December celebrations on different dates around that time period and united it to the Christian's date of December 25.

[Kevin H]

32 minutes ago, phkrause said:

That was a very interesting article. When I was in my teen years and going to the Jewish/Adventist Temple in the Bronx, the date of Jesus' birth was thought to be sometime in October!

This comes from the hints that Jesus might have been born during the feast of Tabernacles. Maybe, maybe not. I do not believe that Jesus was born on December 25. It is only that we use to think that we started seeing December 25 in the fourth century because it was a popular day for the pagans. We now know that it came from Intertestamental Jewish tradition and was believed by Christians 100 years earlier than we originally thought and had roots older than that. Also that December 25 might not have had a special meaning for the Pagans until they moved their different celebrations to that day because of Constantine making Christianity legal.

[Wingnut]

The Passover/Unleavened Bread feast is mentioned many times.

If one were to keep anything, keep this, since it is mentioned in the New Testament, whereas birthday keeping is not.

And they are called HOLY days.  One cannot make holy what God has not made holy.  That is why the Sabbath is HOLY and Sunday is not.

Celebrate Christ's death, not His birth.  Why do you think the Bible tells you the day of His death, and hides the day of His birth?

Christmas is a classic case of syncretism.

syn·cre·tism
ˈsiNGkrəˌtizəm/Submit
noun
1.
the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought.

Sorry if this harshes anyone's Xmas buzz.  
 

[8thdaypriest]

I will explain WHY I believe that Jesus was born at the Feast of Tabernacles.

There were too many priests, by the time of King David, for all of them to minister in the Temple.  So King David divided the priesthood into 24 courses of elders.  Men from each "course" came up for two weeks, and then returned home.  At festivals all of the priests came to work at the Temple.  (I Chronicles Cpt 24)

John the Baptist's father Zechariah was of the clan of Abijah.  (Luke 1:5)  That clan came up the middle two weeks of June (on our calendar).  So Zechariah would have returned home, and Elizabeth would have conceived approximately the third week of June.  Which means - she would have been in her sixth month, when the angel appeared to Mary of Nazareth, Elizabeth's cousin.  That would put the conception of Jesus approximately the third week in December.  Hmmmmm.  So Dec 25th may have been His conception - but NOT His birth. 

Nine months from the 3rd week in December, would be the 3rd week in September - which would likely be the Feast of Tabernacles.   The prophecy promised that Messiah would come to "tabernacle with us". 

The Romans took advantage of the Feast - when every Israelite male would journey anyway (to Jerusalem), to hold their "census".

If you really want to delve into the topic, here's a few website articles:

http://biblelight.net/sukkoth.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am0uv5k-YxM

http://119ministries.com/sunburned-119-ministries
http://www.truthontheweb.org/easter.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html
http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract1.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

 

[Wingnut]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I will explain WHY I believe that Jesus was born at the Feast of Tabernacles.

There were too many priests, by the time of King David, for all of them to minister in the Temple.  So King David divided the priesthood into 24 courses of elders.  Men from each "course" came up for two weeks, and then returned home.  At festivals all of the priests came to work at the Temple.  (I Chronicles Cpt 24)

John the Baptist's father Zechariah was of the clan of Abijah.  (Luke 1:5)  That clan came up the middle two weeks of June (on our calendar).  So Zechariah would have returned home, and Elizabeth would have conceived approximately the third week of June.  Which means - she would have been in her sixth month, when the angel appeared to Mary of Nazareth, Elizabeth's cousin.  That would put the conception of Jesus approximately the third week in December.  Hmmmmm.  So Dec 25th may have been His conception - but NOT His birth. 

Nine months from the 3rd week in December, would be the 3rd week in September - which would likely be the Feast of Tabernacles.   The prophecy promised that Messiah would come to "tabernacle with us". 

The Romans took advantage of the Feast - when every Israelite male would journey anyway (to Jerusalem), to hold their "census".

If you really want to delve into the topic, here's a few website articles:

http://biblelight.net/sukkoth.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am0uv5k-YxM

http://119ministries.com/sunburned-119-ministries
http://www.truthontheweb.org/easter.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html
http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract1.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

 

I watched a program on exactly this, last Sunday - Rachel.  And they said the same thing about the Levi courses.

And there is the usual "shepherds would not have had their flocks out in the middle of winter" story.

[Kevin H]

Interesting on the feast of Tabernacles. I just want a reminder that the original article is not dealing when Jesus was actually born nor is it dealing with whether or not we should celebrate his birth.

What it is about is how historically we got December 25 as the birth of Jesus. How there were Christians believing that he was born on December 25 over one hundred years prior to when we thought they first started believing he was born on Dec. 25, and how 200 years prior there were Christians who thought the Annunciation came at Passover (Just as Jewish tradition was saying about Isaac) then they started celebrating every March 25 when they stopped keeping the Hebrew calendar and started using the Roman calendar. That it came from Jewish folklore about Isaac and wanting to make Isaac a type of Christ with Jesus being the anti-type.

Once again I do not believe that Jesus was born December 25. I am not arguing for that day outside of looking at the new discoveries about how we actually got that date.

Just a thought; As for shepherds in the field and the coldness; let's not forget that his piece of geography has the widest range of geographical differences, plant, animal and weather in a small area. California is # 2 and it's 17 times the size. Cypress also has quite and is smaller than California, but does not have quite the extremes of Israel and California.  So there could well be spots not too far away warm enough for the sheep in the fields. Once (December 25, 1983) I went on a bus ride around the sea of Galilee and passed through all 4 seasons, including a rainy spring day as well as the most gorgeous spring day. So that was 5 very different weather patterns.

[8thdaypriest]

5 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Interesting on the feast of Tabernacles. I just want a reminder that the original article is not dealing when Jesus was actually born nor is it dealing with whether or not we should celebrate his birth.

What it is about is how historically we got December 25 as the birth of Jesus. How there were Christians believing that he was born on December 25 over one hundred years prior to when we thought they first started believing he was born on Dec. 25, and how 200 years prior there were Christians who thought the Annunciation came at Passover (Just as Jewish tradition was saying about Isaac) then they started celebrating every March 25 when they stopped keeping the Hebrew calendar and started using the Roman calendar. That it came from Jewish folklore about Isaac and wanting to make Isaac a type of Christ with Jesus being the anti-type.

Once again I do not believe that Jesus was born December 25. I am not arguing for that day outside of looking at the new discoveries about how we actually got that date.

Just a thought; As for shepherds in the field and the coldness; let's not forget that his piece of geography has the widest range of geographical differences, plant, animal and weather in a small area. California is # 2 and it's 17 times the size. Cypress also has quite and is smaller than California, but does not have quite the extremes of Israel and California.  So there could well be spots not too far away warm enough for the sheep in the fields. Once (December 25, 1983) I went on a bus ride around the sea of Galilee and passed through all 4 seasons, including a rainy spring day as well as the most gorgeous spring day. So that was 5 very different weather patterns.

The only weather to concern us, would be at Bethlehem, which was about 5 miles from Jerusalem.  There was an ancient site, at Bethlehem, where sheep FOR SACRIFICE were raised, many to be sold later to pilgrims coming to the Temple.  How amazing that God's lamb, would be born there - with the other lambs for sacrifice. 

[8thdaypriest]

I should also have mentioned that the REASON for the overflowing of travelers at Bethlehem (5 miles from Jerusalem), so that every inn was full, was BECAUSE of the Feast.  Every Israelite male was commanded to appear at the Temple three times during the year - for Passover, for Pentecost, and for Tabernacles.  (Presence at Jerusalem for the Day of Atonement was not required, nor for the Blowing of Trumpets).  We would assume that Joseph was attempting to reach Jerusalem in time for the Feast of Booths.  Estimates are that more than a million people swelled Jerusalem for the Feasts, by the time of Jesus.  Crowded indeed!

At the Feast of Booths, every Israelite family was to construct a "booth" or "tabernacle" (temporary shelter) for themselves, in which they would eat their meals together for the 7 days of the Feast.  They were to decorate it with tree boughs and flowers.  The "booth" must have 3 sides and a roof.  In Genesis 33:17,  Jacob built "booths" for his cattle. 

Genesis 33:17 But Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built himself a house, and made booths for his cattle; therefore the place is called Succoth. (Gen NRS)

How totally perfect that Jesus was born in a "booth" (a sukka).  Joseph and Mary truly DID share their "booth" with God. 

[Kevin H]

Oh the word mistranslated as "Inn" [Kataluma] meaning "Guest Chamber" was a room in a family home for out of town relatives. There was no "Inn" nor "Innkeeper" in the story. It was Joseph's family where there was no room in the Kataluma.

Now we don't know if the reason was that Mary and Joseph were unwelcome, or if it was just so busy with little Sarah asking every few minutes if cousin Mary had the baby yet and little Moshie constantly saying "I want a drink of water" .

Now actually it was common for giving birth in the stable because it would have been a cave with a constant comfortable temperature,  but after the birth for the family to return to the Kataluma.

The Bible contrasts how Mary was open to the birth but Joseph was skeptical. Then how when going out of town to visit Mary's family how they were welcome, but when going out of town to visit Joseph's family either they were unwelcoming, or else they were welcomed but so full of hustle and bustle, maybe a little of both reasons; but his family did not have room.

Now when the Magi came they probably came to the same house that originally did not have room in the Kataluma, but who at that time did have room, just as Joseph finally had room after the dream.

[Gail]

Somewhere along the line I picked up the idea that here is a time of uncleanness that accompanies a birth and that influenced the decision to have Mary and Joseph stay somewhere else rather than the kataluma.

[CoAspen]

Awww...facts vs traditions!

Perhaps it is because the event/s or meaning/s are more important than time or place?

[8thdaypriest]

21 hours ago, Gail said:

Somewhere along the line I picked up the idea that here is a time of uncleanness that accompanies a birth and that influenced the decision to have Mary and Joseph stay somewhere else rather than the kataluma.

Wow!!  Thank you Gail.  I had forgotten about the "uncleanness" factor.  A woman was "unclean" for some 40 days after giving birth to a male child. 

Women after childbirth do typically have vaginal bleeding for several days.  The estrogen levels in the mother are higher when carrying a female fetus, and she will have vaginal bleeding for a longer time after giving birth to a female.  Still - It's unlikely a woman would have vaginal bleeding 80 days after delivery of a female infant.  Perhaps the LORD just wanted women to bond more tightly with their female offspring. 

Leviticus 12:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying:`If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean.   (On the 8th day the male child was circumcised.)   THEN:  Leviticus 12:4 She is to wait an additional thirty-three days to be purified from her blood; she is not to touch any holy thing or come into the sanctuary until the time of her purification is over."

Leviticus 12:5 "But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purification sixty-six days."

The "guest quarters" at the city of Joseph's clan, would have been filled because of the Feast, but additionally, there may have been no place for someone who was "unclean".  Mary may actually have been in labor when the couple arrived at Bethlehem.  (First time mothers usually labor for many hours.)  With the birth imminent, they needed a place quickly. 

Kevin and Gail - you have widened my understanding. 

[8thdaypriest]

I have a question, that maybe Kevin or someone more familiar with the Law, can answer.  What did women do, who lived at a greater distance from Jerusalem?  The they all have to journey - (some up to 90 miles from the North) to Jerusalem to offer the sacrifices for purification?  Did they have to remain "unclean" until they offered the proper sacrifices?? 

Leviticus 12:6 "When the days of her purification are fulfilled, whether for a son or a daughter, she shall bring to the priest a lamb of the first year as a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin offering, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting."

I can understand WHY a burnt offering might be offered in thanks, but WHY the sin offering - for giving birth?  What "sin" was involved?? 

[Ron Amnsn]

7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I can understand WHY a burnt offering might be offered in thanks, but WHY the sin offering - for giving birth?  What "sin" was involved?? 

I don't know for sure, but I suspect it has to do with inheritance.  The Scripture gives inheritance much more importance than modern Christians tend to be comfortable with.  Since our forefathers threw off our feudal overlords, we like to think that we can stand on our own, without any hereditary titles or honors, and that a person should not be affected by their genealogy.  Not so in the Bible.

The "sin" of childbirth may have something to do with what God told Eve in Genesis 3:16 --
         To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.

Since women still inherit from Eve the consequence of Eve's first sin (the pain of childbearing), the "sin" offering after giving birth may also be related to the "curse" of that first sin.

I suspect somebody is going to bring up a verse like Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek ... in Christ Jesus" to try to show that inheritance no longer plays a part for believers.  What Paul was teaching in that verse works because of inheritance, not in spite of inheritance.  Because of God's covenant with Abraham, which Jesus inherited as a true descendant of Abraham, the slaves/servants that Jesus purchased (as our Lord) become part of the household of Abraham (and Jesus) and receive that inheritance instead of the natural one they were born with.  When we are "in Christ" we inherit all of the blessings, promises, and consequences that would be inherited by someone adopted into a family physically descended from the heirs of Abraham, as Jesus was.  It's ironic that most Christians are not much interested in the things they inherit from Abraham and his true descendants (the land, the sign of the covenant, the Torah, etc).  They apparently prefer to see themselves as "genealogy-free" rather than valuing the heritage that Jesus provided.

[Gail]

There is much that I don't understand regarding the concept of sin and uncleanness (as well as holiness and what all that entails). Perhaps our idea of "sin" is too narrow.