When Was Jesus Born

Ok, I know the immediate answer is Christmas... But I'm not so sure here is why.
In the bible when its talking about his birth there is the baby lamb, this does not happen in the winter, sorry it just doesnt. I'm pretty sure it doesnt mention it being cold? The main thing is it had in that general area about trees being full or something to the sort. so is there anyone else who thinks that maybe jesus was born in the summer, or spring. Spring seems more likely to me than summer. but Perhaps we celbrate Christmas and Easter backwards? Because spring is still chili enough to need a manger to keep warm, and there would be baby lambs. What are your thoughts? Am I wrong? Do I make any since at all?

Here you go Steph:

I love Wikipedia

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stephofthenight

Ok, I know the immediate answer is Christmas... But I'm not so sure here is why.
In the bible when its talking about his birth there is the baby lamb, this does not happen in the winter, sorry it just doesnt. I'm pretty sure it doesnt mention it being cold? The main thing is it had in that general area about trees being full or something to the sort. so is there anyone else who thinks that maybe jesus was born in the summer, or spring. Spring seems more likely to me than summer. but Perhaps we celbrate Christmas and Easter backwards? Because spring is still chili enough to need a manger to keep warm, and there would be baby lambs. What are your thoughts? Am I wrong? Do I make any since at all?

---

Well, as you'll have found from the Wiki link, the date and year are entirely questionable.

Given the paucity of historical evidence of Jesus' life, it could have been any time at all.

Does it matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stephofthenight

In the bible when its talking about his birth there is the baby lamb...

---

Where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Well, as you'll have found from the Wiki link, the date and year are entirely questionable.

Given the paucity of historical evidence of Jesus' life, it could have been any time at all.

Does it matter?

---

Clearly not - the historicity of the text should have no barring on the religion - it is just recently, since culture textualized, religion became something of a "word of God" instead of a tradition of stories. Strangely enough, even allegorical readings have gone out of fashion - it's as if we have taken the text more seriously as time progressed.

Some people place his birth in spring/early summer from clues in one of the gospels but christmas was chosen to coincide with pagan holidays to draw pagans into the religion.

Thanks to all who answered

I don't want to be pedantic, but it is not because there were lambs that this birth cannot have taken place in winter. There is actually a lambing season in december... It is also not really important that it is not cold, because this thing takes place in Israël. With an average temperature (now) of about 10 degrees in November/December, I don't think there should be snow like the romantic image tried to suggest with stables covered in it... That is actually a remnant of the mini ice-age in the 19th century where there were even fun fares on the Thames in London as the river was frozen over.

That is not to say of course that Jesus was really born on Christmas. We celebrate His birth then, but that does not mean he was born literally then. That was the first consensus and obviously it stayed that way. Anyway, does that matter so much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Clearly not - the historicity of the text should have no barring on the religion - it is just recently, since culture textualized, religion became something of a "word of God" instead of a tradition of stories. Strangely enough, even allegorical readings have gone out of fashion - it's as if we have taken the text more seriously as time progressed.

---

Yes, it is strange. Logic would seem to suggest the opposite evolution of the church, but we have to accept the evidence that literalism is growing while the traditional, metaphorical approach is waning.

I think it's all about impotence. As the world has shrunk, people feel more impotent in the face of it all and an omnipotent god becomes more important to them. What better way of emphasising a god's omnipotence than having one which negates all of science?

believe it or not-best evidence I've come across was September11, 3 B.C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Yes, it is strange. Logic would seem to suggest the opposite evolution of the church, but we have to accept the evidence that literalism is growing while the traditional, metaphorical approach is waning.

I think it's all about impotence. As the world has shrunk, people feel more impotent in the face of it all and an omnipotent god becomes more important to them. What better way of emphasising a god's omnipotence than having one which negates all of science?

---

I'd claim it is simpler to understand... Instead of only bothering children with the literal meaning of 'Jesus made the blind see', they now also start to tell the adults because most of them are not properly educated and we have thrown the towel into the ring because of political correctness. It can never be too diffcult because people might get offended.

So, this Jesus, he was really special, because he made the blind see, woke one from the dead, made the lame walk, made the lepre healthy again, made a child spring from its mother's womb and really walked on water. Not to mention that he was a magician and turned water into wine, and sent the fishes of lake Galilea straight into the nets of his apostles... As if... (man I still know a lot!)

It always puzzles me how passionate people ae about this, because, after all, we do not believe medieval stories that mention dragons and such. Why would this person be able to do that then and would there be no chance of metaphor at all, despite the ludicrous things that are mentioned in medieval Roman literature (or do dragons and Medusa exist anyway?) :p.

No, seriously, where in the gospels does this lamb show up? I simply cannot find it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

I don't want to be pedantic, but it is not because there were lambs that this birth cannot have taken place in winter.

---

God you're right! Only a flock of sheep are mentioned in the gospel of Luke... Pretty amazing. Probably the lambs came in as a sort of symbolic image of foreshadowing Jesus's fate of lamb or so later on?

So there we are then, even though there could have been lambs in winter, it not even a concern! I just took the poster's original post so excuse the mistake.

Christ is the lamb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_of_God;

also http://jesus.christ.org/1259/why-is-...he-lamb-of-god

Poetic license has been taken in manger scenes and music with regard to a lamb or lambs nearby: "Do You See What I See" as an example in music.

From wikipedia on Christmas:

Quote:

---

"The story of Christmas is based on the biblical accounts given in the Gospel of Matthew, namely Matthew 1:18-Matthew 2:12 and the Gospel of Luke, specifically Luke 1:26-Luke 2:40. According to these accounts, Jesus was born to Mary, assisted by her husband Joseph, in the city of Bethlehem. According to popular tradition, the birth took place in a stable, surrounded by farm animals, though neither the stable nor the animals are specifically mentioned in the Biblical accounts. However, a manger is mentioned in Luke 2:7 where it states "She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn." Early iconographic representations of the nativity placed the stable and manger within a cave (located, according to tradition, under the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem)."

---

As to a date (whew!) scholars are all over the calendar: March 28, May 20, April 6, November 18, January; and some even quibble about the year: AD 1, BC 1, BC 2, BC 3, BC 4, etc

From http://www.bible.ca/D-Xmas-story.htm:

Quote:

---

"The exact date of Jesus' birth is a mystery. About the best we can do is to narrow it down to seasons. The Bible does give us one clue. The shepherds were in the fields with their flocks at night when Jesus was born. This clearly indicates that Jesus was born during the warmer seasons. During the coldest months like December or January, the shepherds didn't sleep in the fields but would bring their flocks into corals. There is virtual agreement among scholars that December 25 is not the birth date, not even the month that Jesus was born.

However some suggest that the whole idea that the flocks where brought into corals during the coldest months, implying the shepherds were not out in the fields, is rejected by some who say the flocks stayed in the fields year round.
"And yet Jewish tradition may here prove both illustrative and helpful. That the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, was a settled conviction. Equally so, was the belief , that He was to be revealed from Migdal Eder, 'the tower of the flock.' This Migdal Eder was not the watchtower for the ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheepground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah leads to the conclusion, that the flocks, which pastured there, were destined for Temple-sacrifices, and, accordingly, that the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary shepherds. The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism, on account of their necessary isolation from religious ordinances, and their manner of life, which rendered strict legal observance unlikely, if not absolutely impossible. The same Mishnaic passage also leads us to infer, that these flocks lay out all the year round, since they are spoken of as in the fields thirty days before the Passover -- that is, in the month of February, when in Palestine the average rainfall is nearly greatest. Thus, Jewish tradition in some dim manner apprehended the first revelation of the Messiah from that Migdal Eder, where shepherds watched the Temple-flocks all the year round. Of the deep symbolic significance of such a coincidence, it is needless to speak". (Afred Edersheim in The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah, p186-187)

The "lambing season" for sheep is in February in Palestine. Could it be an interesting suggestion that Jesus, being the "lamb of the world" was born at exactly the same time the literal lambs were born. If so then Jesus was born when the lambs were born and he died when the Passover lamb was slaughtered on Nissan 14. Of course this is purely speculative.

Another speculative argument is that the census that Caesar Augustus took in Luke 2:1, would not have been done during the coldest harshest season. Such a census would require mass migration of large numbers of the population. Unless Augustus deliberately wanted to make life difficult, he would take such a census during the warmer months and certainly not in December.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tailor STATELY

Christ is the lamb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_of_God;

also http://jesus.christ.org/1259/why-is-...he-lamb-of-god

---

Er, yeah - thanks. I understand the metaphorical Lamb that crops up throughout Christian thought. I was asking about the appearance of an actual lamb in the nativity as related in Luke and Matthew, on the sole basis of which the original poster suggested Jesus may not have been born at Christmas.

And the answer is, there is no such lamb in the scripture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Er, yeah - thanks. I understand the metaphorical Lamb that crops up throughout Christian thought. I was asking about the appearance of an actual lamb in the nativity as related in Luke and Matthew, on the sole basis of which the original poster suggested Jesus may not have been born at Christmas.

And the answer is, there is no such lamb in the scripture.

---

There's no reference to a lamb in the nativity, so Mark, you're right. The lambs and so on all crept in because the birth took place in a stable. So people assumed there'd be animals and lambs are cute I guess (as opposed to pigs or whatever), and maybe because it's a reference to God being a Lamb.

But then again, like everyone else has said, none of it really matters. It would be interesting to know the real date, but we can celebrate it on any day. It's like having your birthday on a Wednesday and celebrating it on the Friday, because it suits everyone better.

Another thing that I have learned before when I was growing up was Christ could have been born at any time but people were arriving to see Him at different times too. So it could possibly be that some were telling of his birth like it was the day before instead of months or even years after. An example would be the wise men. It wasn't possible for them to arrive that same night that Christ was born. They could have arrived anywhere from a week to a year later. But as it has been said, it shouldn't really matter when it happened just that it did and was a huge effect on everyone's lives and religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ehs13

But as it has been said, it shouldn't really matter when it happened just that it did and was a huge effect on everyone's lives and religions.

---

....might have...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

Some people place his birth in spring/early summer from clues in one of the gospels but christmas was chosen to coincide with pagan holidays to draw pagans into the religion.

---

I was told that the pagans who became christian (in Britain, brought by the Romans and then when they left christianity remained) just decided to make their solstice feast a christian feast... they didn't take religion as seriously as people do nowadays, there are some tablets that pray to both the christian god AND Dionysus (which is so weird that it made me tilt my head like a dog when I first heard about it). They'd pray to whoever if they thought it would get them what they wanted. They didn't really care about continuity, they had other things to worry about (like not freezing or starving to death) and the tradition just happened to remain. They needed a solstice party because they were cold and depressed during the darkest time of year, and a nice yule feast on the longest night filled a void. Drinking, fresh meat, sex sex sex... When religion started to be used as a tool of control, the powers that be decided to made christmas Jesus' birthday so that it wouldn't be just a drunken sin-filled party in the name of their lord.

(In mock-overzealous-priest voice) Christmas must be a time of humility during which you reflect on all that god has done for you and all that he can take away, and for you to feel charitable and give money to the church.

Fun-suckers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

And the answer is, there is no such lamb in the scripture.

---

If you already knew the answer, then why did you ask? Out with it man, just tell us there's no lamb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

They'd pray to whoever if they thought it would get them what they wanted.

---

I can respect that one - at leats it's honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

If you already knew the answer, then why did you ask?

---

Rhetorical device.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

I was told that the pagans who became christian (in Britain, brought by the Romans and then when they left christianity remained) just decided to make their solstice feast a christian feast... they didn't take religion as seriously as people do nowadays, there are some tablets that pray to both the christian god AND Dionysus (which is so weird that it made me tilt my head like a dog when I first heard about it). They'd pray to whoever if they thought it would get them what they wanted. They didn't really care about continuity, they had other things to worry about (like not freezing or starving to death) and the tradition just happened to remain. They needed a solstice party because they were cold and depressed during the darkest time of year, and a nice yule feast on the longest night filled a void. Drinking, fresh meat, sex sex sex... When religion started to be used as a tool of control, the powers that be decided to made christmas Jesus' birthday so that it wouldn't be just a drunken sin-filled party in the name of their lord.

(In mock-overzealous-priest voice) Christmas must be a time of humility during which you reflect on all that god has done for you and all that he can take away, and for you to feel charitable and give money to the church.

Fun-suckers.

---

It's fascinating to look at the origins of some religious holidays don't get me started on Easter!!

oh ya sorry. good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

....might have...

---

oh ya sorry. right, might have.

Actually, I think you are right; I don't believe that Jesus was born in the winter. Muslims believe that Jesus was born during the summer time. There is no proof that he was born in cold seasons.

I have read 2 AD in "God is Not Great" (from memory). It's hard to say really with the conflicting "evidence" of the Gospels. Herod died in 4 BC.

Jesus was born in September. When Mary went to see her cousin Elizabeth right after the Immaculate Conception, Elizabeth's unborn son, John the Baptist, who was "6 months in the womb" lept for joy! John the Baptist was conceived during the "Feast of Tabernacles" or something like that...do the research...

He could not have been called Jesus. The name Jesus originates from Greece, and the letter J was not used until the 15th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jesterhead

He could not have been called Jesus. The name Jesus originates from Greece, and the letter J was not used until the 15th century.

---

Right...his name in Hebrew is Yeshua...which is also Joshua's Hebrew name...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jesterhead

He could not have been called Jesus. The name Jesus originates from Greece, and the letter J was not used until the 15th century.

---

The Greek New Testament says 'Isous' which is the best transliteration for what would later be translated, Jesus.

December 25 (give or take 3-6 days) was originally known as Saturnalia in Rome, starting in the 3rd Century B.C.E.

The birth of Jesus of Nazareth was not celebrated by the first Christian communities during the first few centuries after his death. They were more focused on his death and resurrection. (Note: Not all Christian communities believed in the resurrection by the way)

Constantine makes Christianity the state religion of Rome.

Christmas then becomes an important holiday.

Power + Religion = Official Holidays.

Near as we can reckon, Spring 3 B.C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebas. Melmoth

Near as we can reckon, Spring 33 B.C.

---

You mean 3 BC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

You mean 3 BC?

---

You mean BCE? :D

Saying he was born in 3 BC implies Jesus was born 3 years before Jesus was born (even though I know what you meant)

Yes (sorry), late Spring 3 B.C., or so it has been calculated...

Perfectly simple. Bethlehem is 2550 feet up, and December is extremely cold. Shepherds and the breed of sheep in the Middle East would die if outside at night, therefore then, as now, would have been indoors. Therefore not December. Secondly, nobody could hope to get over the Judean Wilderness in December, least of all a pregnant woman on a donkey. Not December. The only clue is the prophecy in Daniel, which points toward late September or Early ctober. The point is, if we needed to know, the Bible would tell us, but since the ancient Hebrews looked upon birthday celebrations as Egyptian paganism, they didn't care one jot. The date of his death is the one the bible tells you to recall, referring to it as Christ our Passover. Hope this helps.

I've heard 3/4 BCE as well, though there are some strong arguments that a literal Jesus figure never existed at all. Definitely not a topic for this thread, though!

Well, the shepherds were in the fields with their flocks (Luke 2:8).
Shepherds like a nice warm indoors bed if they can get it; the only reason they were sleeping out of doors is because in the Spring when lambs are born they are very vunerable to predators--hence sheperds have to be out at night to guard the flock.

For an interesting read, check Eusebius' History:

http://www.amazon.com/History-Church...7046777&sr=1-1

Christ's-mass (Christmas) falls on the Roman celebration of Dies Natalis Invicti Solis, which is the day when the day begins to get longer. For many of the eastern churches, Christmas is actually celebrated on January 6. Since Scripture does not give us a date for Christ's birth, the image invoked by the lengthening of the day, the coming of the light, is pretty apt, I think.

Quote:

---

The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism, see Cumont's epoch-making "Textes et Monuments" etc., I, ii, 4, 6, p. 355. Mommsen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 12, p. 338) has collected the evidence for the feast, which reached its climax of popularity under Aurelian in 274. Filippo del Torre in 1700 first saw its importance; it is marked, as has been said, without addition in Philocalus' Calendar. It would be impossible here even to outline the history of solar symbolism and language as applied to God, the Messiah, and Christ in Jewish or Christian canonical, patristic, or devotional works. Hymns and Christmas offices abound in instances; the texts are well arranged by Cumont (op. cit., addit. Note C, p. 355).

The earliest rapprochement of the births of Christ and the sun is in Cyprian, "De pasch. Comp.", xix, "O quam præclare providentia ut illo die quo natus est Sol . . . nasceretur Christus." — "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born."

In the fourth century, Chrysostom, "del Solst. Et Æquin." (II, p. 118, ed. 1588), says: "Sed et dominus noster nascitur mense decembris . . . VIII Kal. Ian. . . . Sed et Invicti Natalem appelant. Quis utique tam invictus nisi dominus noster? . . . Vel quod dicant Solis esse natalem, ipse est Sol iustitiæ." — "But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December . . . the eight before the calends of January [25 December] . . ., But they call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord . . .? Or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice."

---

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm


I don't really see why it is a matter for Protestants though. If you believe in "scripture alone" then celebration of a Church tradition is somewhat ironical, in my opinion at least.

Just so everyone knows, Yeshua was born in the summer and there was a manger in every house because it was a birthing room where _every_ animal was born, including humans.

It's impossible to know when Jesus was born. There's simply not enough documentation. There's barely any historical evidence, if any at all, that suggests he actually lived.