Was Jesus born on Christmas?

[Wharton]

Mind=blown. Where did you learn that?

It would be a feast day celebrated near the end of June according to your Orthodox liturgical calendar as well as the Catholic liturgical calendar.

The birthdays of John the Baptist (the Voice) and Jesus (the Word) are celebrated. The rest are honored on their date of death.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jesus was born on the Feast of Tabernacles, John 1 saying "The Word was made flesh and tabernacle (dwelt in a tent, God in the covering of human flesh) among us.

September or so--pleasant outside and inside in Israel.

 

[Shiranui117]

It would be a feast day celebrated near the end of June according to your Orthodox liturgical calendar as well as the Catholic liturgical calendar.

The birthdays of John the Baptist (the Voice) and Jesus (the Word) are celebrated. The rest are honored on their date of death.

Yes, the Saints are commemorated on the day of their death the vast majority of the time. I just liked the observation you made about the nativities for Jesus and St. John corresponding with the increase and decreasing of sunlight.

 

[wgw]

The Eastern Orthodox believe Jesus was born on or around December 25 according to the Julian calendar. Originally the birth of Christ was celebrated together with his baptism on January 6 (old calendar), so it occurred roughly in what we call Christmastide.

Our reasoning is as follows: Zecariah the Priest was told his wife would bear John the Baptist while he was serving on Yom Kippur. The Annunciation was on March 25th. In the weeks following Mary visited Elizabeth and John in the Third Trimester kept in the womb. This makes sense and validates the date of March 25 for the Annunciation. Then, 9 months from March 25 takes us to December 25.

However the literal dates are not as important as their iconographic significance. Christ being born in the dead of winter, representing the fallen human condition, gives us cheer, and is a promise of the coming of the Kingdom. The whole point of the liturgical calendar is the sanctification of time. The idea of the calendar as an icon has been Orthodox theology since the Quartodecimian approach was finally abolished at the Council of Nicea. The Quartodecimians, who were numerous in the East, celebrated Pascha (Easter) on the 14th of Nissan, regardless of the day of the week it fell on. They had long been in the minority; the one known saint of note who was a Quartodecimian was St. Polycarp, who travelled to Rome to attempt to work out a common method of calculating Easter presumably to replace the system used in his diocese.

The Council of Nicea decided Pascha should be celebrated on a Sunday, as this was the day of the resurrection, and also, as a symbolic eigth day, representing a new creation. The Eastern Orthodox traditionally celebrate the resurrection at midnight on Easter Sunday with Paschal Matins, followed by the Paschal Divine Liturgy which lasts into the wee hours of the morning. This after dark service symbolizes the dazzling darkness of the unknowable splendor of the coming Kingdom of God and the New Creation, which is not yet upon us.

Sadly though many Orthodox due to practical concerns now celebrate Easter earlier on Saturday night. This is because in some cases old and magnificent Orthodox churches are located in unsafe neighborhoods. Some Ukrainian Byzantine Catholics who are members of the traditionalist Priestly Society of St. Josaphat, which is an ally of the SSPX, celebrate Pascha in the morning.

The Syriac Orthodox have their main service at night but a second one the following morning, at least at the local cathedral. This mirrors those churches that have a main Christmas service on Christmas Eve and a smaller service on Christmas Day.

 

[wgw]

Christmas originally Christ's Mass was not celebrated in the first 300 years of Christianity and after that different churches celebrated it on different dates,

While it is true that Christmas was not initially celebrated, and was later celebrated as part of the Feast of the Epiphany or the Baptism of Christ on January 6th, once the feast was established in the late fourth century, it was set on December 25, and the Annunciation on March 25. All of the Apostolic Churches (the Catholics, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East*) use these dates, so there is no divergence in practice. The Assyrians separated from the rest of the church at Ephesus in 431, and the Oriental Orthodox at Chalcedon in 451, so we know these dates are ancient and universal.

Most of the major Christian feasts other than Pascha, the Ascension and Pentecost were implemented in the fourth century. After the Romans stopped killing Christians, it became necessary to develop a liturgical calendar in order to compete with Hellenic/Roman paganism. The Pagan feasts remained popular, and the church had to, as part of its apostolate, draw people away from them. Thus the liturgical calendar was formed, based on an honest reconstruction of historical events, but with the idea being to replace demonic pagan rites with holy Christian ones. Thus Lupercalia was displaced by Candlemas, Sol Invictus by Christmas, and so on. The early English church undeniably used the Feast of All Souls to displace Samhain. I am throughly untroubled by this.

If I were to establish a church specifically for converts from the Islamic faith, I would use minarets rather than bell towers, and serve each of the Hours separately, so Matins would be followed by Terce, Sext, Noone, and then Vespers, forming five daily offices of prayer, with Compline as a sixth office to match the commendable optional late night prayer some mosques have.

At present, Terce, Sext, and Noone (which means Nine, meaning the Ninth Hour, that is, 3 PM) are very seldom served when their name implies. The prayers tend to be grouped together into two or three daily services, typically Matins and Prime, then Terce, Sext and the Divine Liturgy, and then Noone, Vespers and Compline, or some variation on the above. But since Muslims are accustomed to praying on five separate occasions, a Christian mission to Muslims would be best served by following that custom.

Note that I recognize you are a Muslim and offer that example not to cause offence, but to demonstrate the principle of Acculturation that Christianity uses. When we enter a new society we tend to adapt the external forms of our religion to the indigenous culture of that society. We don't always do this; there were some dreadful cases where the Roman Catholics in the 16th century simply imposed the Latin Rite on Native A,ericams without seeking to baptize their culture or teach them Latin. Had it not been for the fortuitous apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe, I doubt the project would have been a success. I think it's much better when Christianity as it expands seeks to preserve and sanctify the cultures that embrace it.

That said, in recent years the Orthodox have attracted many converts without much of any acculturation because of the beauty of Orthodox liturgical services. The Orthodox Church in America and the Orthodox Church of Japan, to name two examples, both use the vernacular language of their country, but in all other respects preserved the traditions of Slavonic Orthodoxy. There are people who really "dig" some of our worship services. But these beautiful services are themselves the result of acculturation; the Russian style of liturgical music being quite different from the ancient Byzantine chant of the Greek Orthodox, or the music of the Aramaic speaking Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian Christians.

 

[JayJayDee]

I think one fact is being overlooked here. The date of Jesus' birth is not recorded in the Bible for a reason.
It is the date of his death that is recorded and we are told to commemorate that day because that is the most important thing that Jesus did....his death is what paid the ransom for mankind...not his birth and not his resurrection although both events are important.

The date of Jesus' birth and indeed the date of any other Jewish person's birth is not recorded for the simple reason that Jews did not celebrate the anniversaries of a person's birth. "Birthdays" were something that pagans celebrated and birthdates were used to cast horoscopes and the customs associated with the celebration of birthdays is tied in with spiritism. This is what the Canaanites practiced....something that was forbidden to Jews. (Deut 18:9-12)

There are only two birthdays recorded in the Bible. Neither were worshippers of Jehovah and someone lost their life in a horrible fashion on those occasions.

 

[Shiranui117]

I think one fact is being overlooked here. The date of Jesus' birth is not recorded in the Bible for a reason.
It is the date of his death that is recorded and we are told to commemorate that day because that is the most important thing that Jesus did....his death is what paid the ransom for mankind...not his birth and not his resurrection although both events are important.

The date of Jesus' birth and indeed the date of any other Jewish person's birth is not recorded for the simple reason that Jews did not celebrate the anniversaries of a person's birth. "Birthdays" were something that pagans celebrated and birthdates were used to cast horoscopes and the customs associated with the celebration of birthdays is tied in with spiritism. This is what the Canaanites practiced....something that was forbidden to Jews. (Deut 18:9-12)

There are only two birthdays recorded in the Bible. Neither were worshippers of Jehovah and someone lost their life in a horrible fashion on those occasions.

Without the Resurrection, however, we have no hope of eternal life, as St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15. Jesus' death in and of itself only pardons us of our sins, but it does not give us life, nor deliver us from bondage to sin and death.

 

[JayJayDee]

Without the Resurrection, however, we have no hope of eternal life, as St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15. Jesus' death in and of itself only pardons us of our sins, but it does not give us life, nor deliver us from bondage to sin and death.

And yet we are commanded only to commemorate his death.
We are told not to "go beyond what is written"....this is where all the churches go wrong. They impose beliefs and celebrations that are adopted from paganism but which are unacceptable to God. We cannot mix true and false worship. Paul told us that a complete separation must be made or we will not be accepted as God's "sons and daughters". (2 Cor 6:14-18)

Easter is the most thinly disguised of the pagan celebrations. It does not commemorate Jesus resurrection at all. Every part of Easter is pagan...from the sunrise service to the Easter eggs. They didn't even change the name of the false deity. Where will I find "Easter" in the Bible? Where will I find Christmas? It has way more to do with sun worship that the worship of the true God.

 

[wgw]

And yet we are commanded only to commemorate his death.
We are told not to "go beyond what is written"....this is where all the churches go wrong. They impose beliefs and celebrations that are adopted from paganism but which are unacceptable to God. We cannot mix true and false worship. Paul told us that a complete separation must be made or we will not be accepted as God's "sons and daughters". (2 Cor 6:14-18)

Nowhere does the New Testament command Sola Scriptura. All references to Holy Scripture made by Paul refer to the Old Testament; most scholars agree that all four canonical Gospels were probably written after his death. The earliest credible date I've seen for Mark, the oldest Gospel, is 58 AD, and that's from a scholar whose work is second tier. There is no evidence to suggest Paul considered his correspondence scripture; he considered it important instruction, but it was not until after his death that his Epistles were collected and added to the growing collection of works that comprised the "New Testament."

All of the Christians who participated in the compilation of the New Testament practiced Pascha and feasted until Pentecost. They were the only Christian feasts to be celebrated intensely until the fourth century. As for the development of the New Testament canon, Wikipedia has a great article on it, but suffice it to say, the canon of books in your bible was compiled by St Athanasius, the Pope of Alexandria who defended the Trinity against Arianism and endured horrible persecution (an icon of him is my avatar) and was announced in one of his annual encyclical letters to the bishops of Egypt announcing the date of Easter!

Maybe you should consider getting a Bible that contains the Didache, 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and lacks Hebrews, Jude, 2 John, 3 John, James and Revelations, because typically the rival canons at the time Athanasius composed his either included those other books, or lacked the canonical ones I mentioned, or both.

 

[JayJayDee]

Nowhere does the New Testament command Sola Scriptura. All references to Holy Scripture made by Paul refer to the Old Testament

It would have been difficult for him to say otherwise considering that they were the only "Holy Scripture" in existence at the time.

"By the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed, and we find such ones as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures. Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul’s letters. Clement says he will answer his opponents by “the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority,” that is, “by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 409, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies.” (Excerpt Insight Volumes WTBTS)

There is no evidence to suggest Paul considered his correspondence scripture; he considered it important instruction, but it was not until after his death that his Epistles were collected and added to the growing collection of works that comprised the "New Testament."

And yet there are his letters in any recognized Bible in any part of the world....so your point is...?

Do you believe that God had nothing to do with what was accepted as part of the Bible canon? Is it the Word of God or the word of men? Compilation was guided by holy spirit...do you doubt this? The everlasting life of the human race depends on it being God's word.

I can assure you of one thing...not a word in the Bible was written by a Catholic.

All of the Christians who participated in the compilation of the New Testament practiced Pascha and feasted until Pentecost. They were the only Christian feasts to be celebrated intensely until the fourth century.

The commemoration of the Lord's Supper was commanded, not suggested. Jesus told his disciples to "keep doing this in remembrance of me". As this was to replace the Passover, it was also to be an annual event.

As for the development of the New Testament canon, Wikipedia has a great article on it, but suffice it to say, the canon of books in your bible was compiled by St Athanasius, the Pope of Alexandria who defended the Trinity against Arianism and endured horrible persecution (an icon of him is my avatar) and was announced in one of his annual encyclical letters to the bishops of Egypt announcing the date of Easter!

The date of Easter? There is no such thing in the Bible! Where did the word "Easter" come from?

The Passover was a well known date on the Jewish calendar. Since the Lord's Supper falls on the same date, then the day that corresponds to Nisan 14 is the correct date to hold the observance. It does not always fall on a Friday.

Maybe you should consider getting a Bible that contains the Didache, 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and lacks Hebrews, Jude, 2 John, 3 John, James and Revelations, because typically the rival canons at the time Athanasius composed his either included those other books, or lacked the canonical ones I mentioned, or both.

I have the inspired scriptures and need nothing to be added to them.
I am not interested in the opinions of men because I believe that the Bible we have, that is recognized by Christians around the world contains the truth that will lead to everlasting life. Its message is pure and simple and its teaching unadulterated when you take Christendom's pagan spin off them.

Its not about what you believe but WHO?

 

[Astrologer]

Manger scenes show lambs. I'm sure most are born in Spring. I celebrate Solstice, and love Christmas as a non Christian because the nativity has a message of hope, and new beginnings.December is as good as any.

 

[GreenKepi]

And yet we are commanded only to commemorate his death.
We are told not to "go beyond what is written"....this is where all the churches go wrong. They impose beliefs and celebrations that are adopted from paganism but which are unacceptable to God. We cannot mix true and false worship. Paul told us that a complete separation must be made or we will not be accepted as God's "sons and daughters". (2 Cor 6:14-18)

Easter is the most thinly disguised of the pagan celebrations. It does not commemorate Jesus resurrection at all. Every part of Easter is pagan...from the sunrise service to the Easter eggs. They didn't even change the name of the false deity. Where will I find "Easter" in the Bible? Where will I find Christmas? It has way more to do with sun worship that the worship of the true God.

I'm not a JW; however, I really like your pattern of thought. Thanks....

 

[JayJayDee]

Without the Resurrection, however, we have no hope of eternal life, as St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15. Jesus' death in and of itself only pardons us of our sins, but it does not give us life, nor deliver us from bondage to sin and death.

The fact remains Shiranui, that we are not told to hold a commemoration of Jesus birth or his resurrection....only his death.

In Israel, the Jews were not free to devise and hold their own festivals. The incident with the golden calf proved that humans could not be trusted to direct their own worship, so every festival that was held in Israel was commanded by God and every detail of its preparation and celebration was clearly stated and followed to the letter. That was a protection for them.

The fact that the early church deviated from the command of Jesus to commemorate only his death proves that they still can't be trusted to get it right. Just as the early Israelites used a pagan practice to hold a "festival to Jehovah" didn't make that festival acceptable to the God they were purporting to worship. He punished those who used that occasion to practice idolatry. It wasn't what they called it...it was the pagan underpinning of the celebration that made God angry. He does not change. You cannot "Christianize" paganism....but you can "paganize" Christianity and make its practice abhorrent to God. God's word forbids us to mix true worship and false. (2 Cor 6:14-18)

 

[wgw]

it is indeed important who you believe in. I chose not to,believe in the doctrines of a denomination that publishes and mass-distributes a Bible edited to reflect its dogma. John 1:1 correctly reads "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word Was God." The Pe****ta, the Byzantine text type, the Alexandrian text type, the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus all agree on this; in fact, we don't have a single ancient manuscript that supports the NWT reading, even though such an edit would have been exceedingly useful to the Arians.

It's impossible to debate Christian religion with someone who is using an altered text because by altering the text in various places and various ways you make apples to apples comparisons of dogma impossible.

Thus, I chose to believe that through divine providence I have found the ancient Eastern Orthodox Church which has preserved the apostolic faith and against which the gates of Hell will not prevail.

 

[JayJayDee]

it is indeed important who you believe in. I chose not to,believe in the doctrines of a denomination that publishes and mass-distributes a Bible edited to reflect its dogma. John 1:1 correctly reads "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word Was God." The Pe****ta, the Byzantine text type, the Alexandrian text type, the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus all agree on this; in fact, we don't have a single ancient manuscript that supports the NWT reading, even though such an edit would have been exceedingly useful to the Arians.

You know what's funny wgw? Greek had no capital letters so the only way to indicate when they were speaking about the Almighty was to use the definite article "ho" (the). "God" (theos) in Greek means a "mighty one" or "powerful one" and can be used even with regard to humans. It isn't used exclusively for God or Christ. So your reference texts are not saying in Greek what your English Bible says at all. The NWT has not altered a thing. There is only one "ho theos" in that verse and he wasn't the Word. Look it up in an Interlinear.
John 1:18 simply says...."no man has ever seen God". So how is it that the churches teach than men have?

It's impossible to debate Christian religion with someone who is using an altered text because by altering the text in various places and various ways you make apples to apples comparisons of dogma impossible.

It is impossible to find a Christian religion in Christendom. Altered texts are a lot older than we are. Your doctrines come from Babylon, not the Bible, but you will never admit that. The "weeds" were planted by God's adversary long before you and I were ever born. These false beliefs are centuries old.

Thus, I chose to believe that through divine providence I have found the ancient Eastern Orthodox Church which has preserved the apostolic faith and against which the gates of Hell will not prevail.

Christianity does not have a nationality or a location. It isn't Greek or Russian or Eastern or Serbian or any other label you want to put on it.
Christianity is global and its sticks to the scriptures as closely as Jesus did.

It doesn't make the son equal to his superior Father nor does it make Mary into God's mother. It doesn't use idols and images in its worship and it doesn't make friends with the world by supporting its corrupt politics and bloodshed.

Christianity had no earthly priesthood and no cathedrals or fancy dress or funny hats for a clergy class....there was no learned clergy class. The Jewish religious leaders pointed out that Jesus and his apostles were unlearned ones who had not attended their schools.

Neither Jesus nor his apostles commanded that the disciples parade idols through the streets or burn incense or recite liturgy in ritualistic worship.

There is nothing Christian in Christendom. All its practices are adopted from outside of original Christianity.

 

[Shiranui117]

You know what's funny wgw? Greek had no capital letters so the only way to indicate when they were speaking about the Almighty was to use the definite article "ho" (the). "God" (theos) in Greek means a "mighty one" or "powerful one" and can be used even with regard to humans. It isn't used exclusively for God or Christ. So your reference texts are not saying in Greek what your English Bible says at all. The NWT has not altered a thing. There is only one "ho theos" in that verse and he wasn't the Word. Look it up in an Interlinear.

Care to explain the NWT translation of Romans 8:33, then, based on this logic? The NWT renders the Greek: τίς ἐγκαλέσει κατὰ ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ; θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν:
As this: Who will file accusation against God’s chosen ones?+ God is the One who declares them righteous.

Note that not just one, but both of the "theos" in this verse lack the definite article, yet both are rendered by the NWT as "God", and not "a god", as you assert John 1:1c should be translated.

I have asked this of Jehovah's Witnesses on this site many times. Not once have any of them even tried to answer me.

 

[Kolibri]

Care to explain the NWT translation of Romans 8:33, then, based on this logic? The NWT renders the Greek: τίς ἐγκαλέσει κατὰ ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ; θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν:
As this: Who will file accusation against God’s chosen ones?+ God is the One who declares them righteous.

Note that not just one, but both of the "theos" in this verse lack the definite article, yet both are rendered by the NWT as "God", and not "a god", as you assert John 1:1c should be translated.

I have asked this of Jehovah's Witnesses on this site many times. Not once have any of them even tried to answer me.

This is not a complete answer. Perhaps I will add to this later, or another will.
I do not have the Greek explanation in front of me to determine from Greek grammar. (that I may have to look up elsewhere later if I can).
The first half of Romans 8:33 is a paraphrase of Isaiah 50:8 where the one spoken about is identified in verse 7 and 9 as 'the Sovereign Lord Jehovah.' So this "mighty one" is also "the true God" with certainty.

 

[JayJayDee]

Care to explain the NWT translation of Romans 8:33, then, based on this logic? The NWT renders the Greek: τίς ἐγκαλέσει κατὰ ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ; θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν:
As this: Who will file accusation against God’s chosen ones?+ God is the One who declares them righteous.

Note that not just one, but both of the "theos" in this verse lack the definite article, yet both are rendered by the NWT as "God", and not "a god", as you assert John 1:1c should be translated.

I have asked this of Jehovah's Witnesses on this site many times. Not once have any of them even tried to answer me.

It seems pretty clear to me......

You will find "theos" applied to God without the definite article when there is reference to Jehovah alone. Context dictates who is being spoken about. In Rom 8: 33 there is no need to make the distinction.

You have to understand that when the Christian scriptures were written, there was no trinity, so the need to make such a distinction in every case was unnecessary.

In John 1:1 the definite article is used to distinguish the "theos" Jesus from "ho theos" the Almighty God.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Manger scenes show lambs. I'm sure most are born in Spring. I celebrate Solstice, and love Christmas as a non Christian because the nativity has a message of hope, and new beginnings.December is as good as any.

Don't animals eat year round at their manger?
Just because an artist conception might show lambs, etc. at the night manger scene does Not mean there were animals there at night. Since the manger was a clean separate part of the barn or stable then the animals would not have been bedding down at the manger part. The manger part would have been kept clean because that is where the animals ate. A contaminated manger would not be clean or healthy for the animals, nor a safe clean area for birth.

So, please remember the Nativity scene has lots of errors in it such as the un-numbered magi being only three, and besides the magi were never at the Nativity scene.
But, yes you are right the ' scene' is a message of hope and new beginnings. The hope-filled messages is the 'good news of God's kingdom ' - or government - will soon bring a new beginning to earth when Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will be ushering global Peace on Earth among men of goodwill.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Care to explain the NWT translation of Romans 8:33, then, based on this logic? The NWT renders the Greek: τίς ἐγκαλέσει κατὰ ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ; θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν:
As this: Who will file accusation against God’s chosen ones?+ God is the One who declares them righteous.
Note that not just one, but both of the "theos" in this verse lack the definite article, yet both are rendered by the NWT as "God", and not "a god", as you assert John 1:1c should be translated.
I have asked this of Jehovah's Witnesses on this site many times. Not once have any of them even tried to answer me.

Wasn't the Greek written without the letter ' a '
Doesn't the same Greek grammar rule apply at both Acts 28:6 B as at John 1:1
The English KJV Bible adds the letter ' a ' at Acts 28: 6 end line.

Gospel writer John wrote at Revelation 1:5; 3:14 that Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God. According to Psalm 90:2 God had No beginning. So, only God was before the beginning.
Then, Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.