0 members (),
298
guests, and
133
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,522
Posts417,627
Members6,175
|
Most Online4,112 Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 16
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 16 |
Grace of Jesus Christ with you all!
I wondered when you believe that Jesus was historically born?
I happen to believe it was on December 25, but in 2 B.C. for astronomical reason more then anything else. I'm not dogmatic about it.
Anyone else?
Blessings
Tom
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780
Administrator Member
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780 |
Tom,
Since the shepherds were in the fields with their flocks that places the birth of Jesus in the spring. Dec. 25 came about because it was a pagan feast day and the Church simply took over the day and celebrated the birth of Jesus on that day.
As for the year, the best guess is about 4 B.C. -- the current date is due to the calculations of a monk named Dionysius Exiguus (Denny the Short).
Edward, deacon and sinner
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 16
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 16 |
Fr Deacon Ed,
Certainly the passage from Luke could be a clue. Then again it may not. The reason I hear on this is that it was lambing season, the "only" time shepard's are tending the flock at night.
However, it's possible that there was an unseasonably warm winter, additionally the lambs in Jerusalem were for Passover. No blemishes allow, not to mention thief's & wolves. I think if these shepard's were protecting the passover lambs that they may have been guarded all year.
So I don't think this theory precludes a Dec 25 date. Again my reason[and it's strickly a personally one] based on as I said "astronomical reasons", which is to say I base my date on Matthew more then Luke.
Deacon Ed:, the best guess is about 4 B.C. -- the current date is due to the calculations of a monk named Dionysius Exiguus (Denny the Short).
Tom:is the 4 B.C. date based on Flavius Josephus, who stated that Herod died after a lunar eclipse and was buried before Passover?
If Josephus is correct I'd rule out 4 B.C. as it was only a partial eclipse, it's doubtful because joseph indicates that the Moon was "blood" red meaning a total eclipse. That means either march of 5 B.C. or Jan of 1 B.C.
Blessings
Tom
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,775
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,775 |
Might I interpose: Why does it really matter?
If Christ were born on the 4th of July or Thanksgiving Day (Amerikanski Shtyl) or the Ides of March, it doesn't seem to really matter to my salvation. It's the message that counts.
Blessings!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 16
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 16 |
Hi Dr. John,
Forgive me brother, I guess I just feel that every aspect of Christ's life is important. Especially if it is noted in Scripture. I don't mean to imply that you don't.
If I may explain. I believe that God proclaimed to the pagan Roman Empire by natural astronomical signs that revealed the birth of Jesus who is the saviour of the world.
Background The Magi were not simple astrologers; they were professional astronomers.Jupiter was known as the “planet of Kings” and Saturn as the “Protector of the Jews. On May 19, 3 BC, the planets Saturn and Mercury were in close conjunction Then Saturn moved eastward through the stars to meet with Venus on June 12, 3BC. on August 12, 3 BC, Jupiter and Venus came into close conjunction just before sunrise, and appearing as a very bright morning star.. This conjunction took place in the constellation Cancer, the “end” sign of the Zodiac. Just 33 days after the Jupiter/Venus “morning star” conjunction, on August 12, 3 BC, Jupiter came to within 19.8' of Regulus. Regulus, the chief star in Leo, lay practically in the path of the Sun, and was therefore afforded the additional epithet of “Royal Star”. Here was the “King planet” now coming into contact with the “King Star”. AND in the Royal Constellation.On December 1, 3 BC, Jupiter stopped its motion through the fixed stars and began its annual “retrograde” motion. In doing so, it once again headed toward Regulus.
Now to the pagans of Rome this was a sign of Caesar Augustus's divinity for they were celebrating his 25 year of rule & the Roman 750 anniversary of it's founding.
On June 17 2BC, Venus and Jupiter joined again, this time in the constellation Leo. After leaving its massing with Mars, Saturn, and Venus on August 27, 2 BC Jupiter continued its apparent motion westward each morning, as viewed by the Magi at their regular pre-dawn observations. This westward motion would have led them to Jerusalem. Jupiter then, due to retrograde motion, appeared to “stop” in the sky, as viewed from Jerusalem, directly to the south, over Bethlehem. It came to its normal stationary position at dawn on December 25th, 2 BC. Not only that, but the planet came to a stop in the constellation Virgo. It remained there for nearly six days. This was first presented by Dr. Ernest Martin in his book the star that astonished the world.
I have no way of verifying the star charts that far back, but if true, I think it humorous of God to allow everyone to see the contrast btwn the worldly God Caesar vs. the infant Jesus the true God.
Just a thought
Blessings
Tom
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 43
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 43 |
I once talked to an astronomer long ago and he said it was 2B.C. for the date of the birth of the Lamb. Now I can not recall the month. But in 2 B.C. there were two alignments of the planets and in astrology that would be a great moment for the Magi. The Magi were into these planetary alignments. With the Magi there does seem to some link between early Christianity and Zoroasterism although this might be a one time link.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Christ is Born!
These arguments from political events and astronomy are all so interesting.
But in the end, there is just as much real evidence for December 25th as for any other day! ...so I feel entirely vindicated for believing in the traditional date.
I hope the feast has been happy and holy for all of you!
Elias
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 43
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 43 |
Yes Monk Elias you are correct. The early Church fathers did research and one date they thought was that date of birth of our Lord was December 18th and a second date was March 22nd. But the important thing was not when but that He was born!
The blood of Christ changes the world
|
|
|
|
|