Posts Tagged ‘The Birth of Jesus Christ’

I’ve been seeing a significant number of online articles and Facebook memes this year, desperately attempting to defend Christmas by claiming that the popular theories about early Christians deliberately attempted to co-opt Roman and pagan winter solstice festivals have been debunked. I know I will get called a Scrooge for this, but this is both tragic and ironic, first because it is a logical non sequitur, and secondly because it entirely misses the point.

If you want to celebrate Christmas, by all means, knock yourself out. Christmas is a wonderful holiday that millions of people look forward to and celebrate every year—and they enjoy it—so please have at it.

But please stop trying to defend Christmas as anything other than what it is—a TRADITION.

First, the notion that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th is biblically indefensible. There is absolutely no biblical evidence whatsoever that Jesus was born on December 25th.

Second, the notion that as Christians, we should celebrate the birth of Christ is likewise biblically indefensible. There isn’t even a suggestion, let alone a commandment or mandate the Christ’s birthday, whether we know the date or not, is supposed to be celebrated. There is absolutely no biblical evidence whatsoever that Jesus’ disciples and their immediate successors celebrated his birthday.

Third, if you belong to one of the various flavors of Christianity that requires you to “observe” Christmas in an obligatory sense, you truly do not understand the New Covenant.

“Had it been the will of Christ that the anniversary of his nativity should have been celebrated, he would have at least let us have known the day.” [Ezra Stiles, 7th President of Yale College, writing in 1776.]

All of the holiday traditions associated with the birth of Christ developed much later and over time completely separate from any biblical support (since there simply isn’t any).

As a matter of fact, it is much easier to develop a sound biblical case against celebrating Christmas, than it is to develop one in support. The scriptures of the New Testament clearly teach that God has a very low opinion of the “traditions of men,” and Christians are clearly instructed not to esteem one day above another, regardless of the rationalization. All the collective handwringing about “keeping Christ in Christmas” misses the point that Christ is not “in” Christmas anymore than he is in any other day of the year.

But where Christ truly is, should you choose to accept Him, is in you—and you are in Christ. And the ramifications of this truth are beyond stunning. And therein lies the danger of traditions—they distract, deflect, and de-emphasize the biblical truths that would turn everyday into Christmas if we would only spend as much time and effort making them a reality as we do our traditions. If you’re not as excited about say, August 16th or October 18th as you are about December 25th because Christ is in you, then maybe it is high time you put your traditions on the shelf and allowed Jesus to reveal himself in you (Gal. 1:16)—an experience that so overwhelmed Paul the apostle that he immediately separated himself from all distractions so that he could fully embrace this Truth.

I’m sure some reading this will think that I am “anti-Christmas” and I assure that I am not. I have enjoyed many Christmases and experienced more than a few disappointing ones as is likely the case with many of us. Christmas can be a wonderful holiday tradition that encourages us to be with ones we love, and oftentimes reach out to others for whom Christmas may not be so merry. And those are good things—and I never oppose good things. Plus, Vince Guaraldi’s, “A Charlie Brown Christmas” is the some of the best Christmas music—ever.

So I do sincerely wish you one and all a merry and blessed Christmas. May you enjoy time spent with loved ones, eggnog, eating too much, and presents under the tree. But I also encourage you to go deeper—deeper than traditions about Christ to straightway into the truth that is in Christ.

Advertisements

When researching the accurate birthdate of Jesus Christ, one runs squarely into an ironic paradox. The notion that Jesus was born of December 25th has been commonly held for so long that is often assumed to be correct without question. And yet, even among those who are aware that Jesus was not born of December 25th the cultural overtones have been so prevalent that we tend to default to a December 25-based paradigm without realizing it. One of the most common ways this paradigm manifests itself is that we tend to assume that Christmas themed “resources” (I use this term loosely), such as Christmas carols and Christmas pageants are factually correct when they rarely are. 

The cattle are lowing

The poor Baby wakes

But little Lord Jesus

No crying He makes

[Away in a Manger—Author unknown.]

Away in a Manager is almost always the first Christmas carol taught to children. The first two verses were originally published without music in a periodical called The Myrtle, in May 1884, in Boston. The article credited authorship of the carol to the Reformer Martin Luther, but this was factually untrue—the author of the lyrics remains unknown. Additional lyrics were added over time, and over 40 different melodies accompany the lyrics.

Although artistic license is allowed, take note that no cattle, sheep or other animals are specifically mentioned in scripture. In addition, great controversy arose concerning the line “no crying he makes”—the heretical implication being that if Jesus did not cry, he was not fully human, and therefore the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation is false.

Additionally, most Christmas pageants prominently feature an “Innkeeper” as part of the production. Please read carefully.

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. [Luke 2:7 KJV]

Take note that although one usually plays a prominent role in most Christmas pageants, there is no innkeeper mentioned in scripture—only the English word inn (in the KJV). In addition, Luke doesn’t use the common word for a traveler’s inn (pandocheion; Strong’s #3829) that he uses other places. Instead, he uses a word that means guest room (kataluma; Strong’s #2646). It’s the same word that he used to describe the place where Jesus took the last supper. It’s ironic that the King James misses it in Luke 2:7, and then nails in Luke 22:11.

Strong’s #2646, kataluma; guest chamber.

And she brought forth her son—the first-born, and wrapped him up, and laid him down in the manger, because there was not for them a place in the guest-chamber. [Luke 2:7 YLT]

When Jesus was preparing for the last Passover, he instructed his disciples to find an appropriate guest chamber where they could have the meal. This was the kind of room a homeowner could loan or rent to family or friends. There is a certain intimacy connected to this type of guest chamber.

And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with my disciples? [Luke 22:11 KJV]

This (kataluma) is not the word that would be used to describe a traveler’s inn (hotel/motel), which would be pandocheion, Strong’s #3829—used in the story of the Good Samaritan.

And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn (pandocheion, Strong’s #3829), and took care of him. [Luke 10:34 KJV]

Since Joseph and Mary were traveling to his/their ancestral home, it is likely they expected to stay with relatives. Lacking modern technology however, they could not phone ahead and let people know they were coming. If it was indeed during the high holy days plus the registration, it is quite easy to see how the “guest bedroom” was already taken.

The record of the Good Samaritan is particularly insightful, because in context, a Samaritan would have been unable to rent/borrow a guest chamber (kataluma), but could have rented a room at the local motel (pandocheion).

In addition, we are told that Jesus was laid in a manger—scripture never says he was “born in a stable” (barn, or cave). Joseph and Mary most likely anticipated being able to stay in their relative’s guest chamber, but it was already taken. Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus may have indeed slept in a stable (Jesus in the manger), but most likely he was born in the house of his relatives—just not in the guest chamber.

I tripped over an article on the Internet today about NASA “changing/updating” the astrological signs, and of course, after I clicked on it to read it, up popped an additional article by Snopes.com attempting to debunk the NASA claim. Ironically, the Snopes article pre-dates the other article, and is apparently based on previously published but essentially identical information.

Understanding the accurate birth date of Jesus Christ requires an accurate understanding of both astronomy and astrology—or more precisely, archeo-astronomy—what ancient cultures knew and believed about astronomy and astrology. And although as a Christian, I do not believe in or endorse horoscopes, the basic premise behind these articles is actually rooted and grounded in sound astronomical observation and does have bearing on our understanding of precisely when Jesus was born.

What both articles clumsily refer to is called the procession of the equinoxes, and it is well-known and understood by both ancient and modern astronomers and astrologers alike. As a matter of fact, understanding the procession of the equinoxes is how the ancient Mayans developed a calendar that “ended” on the winter solstice (December 21) 2012, that caused such a hullabaloo few years ago.

The procession of the equinoxes occurs because the Earth’s rotational axis is actually tilted off its orbital axis by approximately 23º. (Ironically, the axial tilt, or “obliquity” also oscillates over time between approximately 21º and 24º.) Because of the axial tilt, the celestial North Pole (the point or spot drawn in the heavens directly above the Earth’s rotational axis, combined with the Earth’s orbit, and the rotation of the Milky Way galaxy, causes this spot to draw a circle in the heavens. The time it takes to draw a full circle is approximately 25,920 years and is known in astronomical communities as the “Great Year” or “Platonic Year.”

The combination of these various orbits and rotations results in the constellations appearing to rotate around the Earth despite the fact that they appear stationary to the naked eye, repeatedly showing up in the same location seasonally each year. The key component however is that this happens very, very slowly and is not observable to the naked eye. It is only noticeable due to prolonged observation and recording of the precise position of the constellations against our sun. By tracking exactly what date each constellation rises behind the rising sun on the vernal equinox (over many, many years), we discover that the constellations rotate approximately 1º every 72 years.

The reason this matters, for those who put any credibility in horoscopes anyway, is that for many followers of such practices, the star charts they are using are up to 2000 years old, during which time the constellations have shifted about 27º, which means the dates for what sign occurs when have changed too.

You see, the “sign” one is “born under” is determined by the position of the sun (what constellation it is in) on the day you were born—not by the date on some chart that says “Pisces” (for example) is between February 19 and March 20. Where these articles got it right (even though they themselves were highly skeptical) is that due to the procession of the equinoxes, those dates are now Aquarius, and March 11 to April 18 is now Pisces. Enter your birthdate into any simple astronomy software and check for yourself. My birthdate is October 18, 1961. Although I never followed horoscopes, I grew up with the understanding that I was either a Scorpio or a Libra, when in reality I am a Virgo! Horoscopic interpretations aside, the dates are purely scientific.

What’s truly amazing however is how ancient societies who were limited to physical observation combined with rudimentary mathematical extrapolation could know about the Great Year.

The end result is that archeo-astronomy, or, what ancient cultures knew and believed about astronomy and astrology plays a major role in our understanding of the accurate birth date of Jesus Christ.

Such massive strides have been made over the past 50 years in the field of archeo-astronomy, that historians now recognize that if one does not understand the astronomy of that culture, you probably do not understand that culture as well as you think you do.

This means we will be taking a long look at Hebrew archeo-astronomy.

More to come.

I would like to introduce a new subject to my blog–the birth of Jesus Christ.

Many years ago I was introduced to a provocative theory regarding the accurate birth date for Jesus Christ—and you guessed it—it is not December 25th. This theory fascinated me because it was based on real biblical, historical, and scientific evidence, and not on tradition. Because of this, I have been investigating the historical events leading up to and surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ for over 30 years.

It may come as a surprise that it has been widely known for several centuries, that not only was Jesus of Nazareth not born on December 25th, but in fact could not have been born on December 25th. In over 30 years of researching the birth of Christ, I have yet to discover a single serious biblical or historical scholar who defends a December 25 birth date for Jesus of Nazareth with enough significant reliable evidence to even put a dent in the mountain of evidence that suggests an alternative date.

Given the fact that it is widely known that Jesus could not have been born on December 25th and that no serious biblical scholar has suggested such for several centuries, it is frankly rather astonishing how often people are surprised when informed that Jesus of Nazareth was not born on Christmas Day.

This fact is accompanied by the tragic and ironic fact that the sources for most of what we think we know about the birth of Christ tend to be Christmas cards, Christmas carols, Christmas pageants, and nativity scenes—most of which are built on the false assumption that Jesus was born on December 25th. When it comes to an accurate knowledge of Christ’s birth, and even to a significant degree, who Jesus was and what he was like when he walked the Earth—the “Christmas” sources have done more harm than good.

This is doubly ironic when we consider the fact, that I will share in detail in a later segment, that we have known for several hundred years that Jesus was not born on December 25th—which means that most, if not all, of the “Christmas” related sources that presume a December 25th birth date were developed within a time frame when this fact was already well-known.

The holiday we now celebrate (“Christmas”) is an invention that occurred primarily in America starting in the late 18th century and developing into its current form through the 19th and early 20th centuries. Any association with the birth of Christ is based, although frequently unknowingly, on incorrect facts.

More to come…

As many of my friends are already aware, I have been teaching about the birth of Jesus Christ for many, many years. I have audio lectures available on CD. I have acquired so much additional information since I last recorded the lectures however, that I am in the process of upgrading my notes in preparation to re-record them. The upgrading process has brought many questions to mind that I will be addressing in the new version.

One question in particular I cannot answer from experience. 😉 So this question is for all you ladies who have been pregnant…

Could Mary (the mother of Jesus) even ride a donkey while more than eight months pregnant?

Tradition claims Mary traveled to Bethlehem on the back of a donkey, but no donkey is ever mentioned in scripture.

It is logically presumed that Mary was at least eight months pregnant when she and Joseph made the trek from Nazareth to Bethlehem (approximately 90 miles). It is my personal opinion that Joseph and Mary most likely traveled in a caravan, and were making the pilgrimage for the annual fall feasts in addition to going to their ancestral home for the registration. Therefore, Mary most likely rode in a cart or wagon, likely with other women and children. This would have been virtually identical to the record later in Luke 2, when Jesus was 12 years old, and the family traveled to Jerusalem for Passover (41–44).

If for some reason this is not case, Mary would have either walked (Really? 90 miles?), or ridden on a donkey as tradition claims. But although I am far from an expert (I am male, and childless), I find it hard to imagine this is even possible. Yes, a donkey would walk (not trot or gallop), but the terrain they would have crossed on either of the two likely routes was rough enough that she couldn’t just “sit there,” she would actually have to “ride” the donkey—theoretically using muscles that I would think would be very hard to use under the circumstances.

I did a little research online, and several articles mentioned that horseback riding in early pregnancy is possible and apart from accidents that could happen, essentially safe. But once the pregnancy got past about five months, opinions changed dramatically. Several articles (obviously) mentioned the safety risks associated with horseback riding, and whether the rigors of riding were healthy for either mother or fetus. But again, setting that aside for the moment, my question is about feasibility and comfort. Wouldn’t you feel off balance? Nauseous? And just downright uncomfortable? Given the choice between walking and riding a donkey—ladies—which would you choose? I’d really love to hear your comments.