REVEALED: The True Birthday Of Jesus!
(wltreport.com)
πβπβππππΈπ ππΈβπ½πΈβπΌ
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (191)
sorted by:
Who cares about the actual date he was born. The fact it's celebrated on Dec. 25th is not relevant. We celebrate the fact that he was born, period. He was born and lived a sinless life, he was crucified and resurrected and sits at the right hand of the Father. His birth is significant but not nearly as much as His death. So quit squabbling over trivial stuff and just focus on where He is now.
God's birth is important, if you let the enemy lie on the truth then he'll be able to dictate to the world about Jesus in a false manner that's not even true. If the Devil can convince people he doesn't exist, imagine what he could do if no one bothered to refute his false claims.
Yes, but ...
Advertised as in title: "The True Birthday of Jesus"
...
Disclaimer in first sentence: "Jesus might have been born ..."
Can we all demand you re-read your own source material so that the "truth" can be revealed, which is the author explicitly states in the 1st sentence that they are guessing?
Not my article, but I am saying that every little thing matters whether good or evil as everything has a reason why it's so.
The reason why I posted this article is because for a special day like this, Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. I believe it was around September or October, basically it starts conversation too as I also learned crucial information.
It's a long thread from what I posted, you have to scroll down where he quotes Scripture. A few words will not give you the whole picture, regardless of what source you would read from.
It's fascinating how much interest your post has generated, also the passion with which people will defend their position on a religious issue like this. I myself tend to agree with many points in the article. I started suspecting that Jesus couldn't have been born in December when I realized shepherds don't sleep outside with their flocks in the dead of winter, even in the Middle East. It was probably in September for all the reasons the author suggests.
There is also an issue with the three days and nights in the grave before Jesus' resurrection. In order for there to be three full days and three full nights, Jesus would have to have been crucified on a Wednesday, which means there would have been two sabbaths that week, a passover and a regular weekly sabbath.
You might have well just said Jesus was 5'11 instead of 5'10.
You might have well just said Jesus had attached earlobes instead of separated earlobes.
You might have well just said Jesus was left handed instead of right handed, or short hair instead of long hair, or an innie belly button instead of an outie.
In other words, it makes absolutely zero difference what day Jesus was born on. It's as significant as everything else mentioned above.
You're here preaching like we have to get this right or something bad happens, muh "if you let the enemy lie on the truth" whatever that means.
In reality, it doesn't matter. And your source material has a disclaimer in the first sentence of "might", as in they're guessing.
In unrelated news, George Washington's birthday was Feb 22 and people have the gall celebrate it every third Monday in February. Imagine that, celebrating a birthday on a day that's not actually his birthday. He has to be rolling in his grave.
We need to know these things, thank you for letting us know. God bless
Howdy Mrs. Ippeas, thank you for carrying on the account!
I don't think Ernest Martin was correct about Sep 11, because he is overreliant on constellations and underreliant on careful reading of Josephus. I see you've put some stuff forward on it so I might comment on it briefly but I don't want to bore you.
You're welcome friend, Merry Christmas and blessings to you!
Thank you, same to you. Amen.
100% agree.
God's birth is crucial, and it's essensial that we protect the truth about it. If we allow the enemy to distort the truth, he can mislead the world about who Jesus really is. Just like the Devil tries to convince people that he doesn't exist, imagine what he could do if no one stood up to correct his false narrtives about Jesus. It's important to recognize how cultural traditons sometimes stray from the true message of Christianity. For example, the evergreen tree, a symbol widley used in Christmas celebrations, doesn't actually have any historical or biblical roots in Israel. In fact, evergreens don't even grow in the region of Israel where Jesus was born. The tree has been adopted over time through various traditions, but itβs important to consider how these traditons can sometimes obscure the real meaning of Christmas.
Santa Claus, too, is another example of how modern commericalized traditions have overshadowed the true message of Jesus' birth. While they may seem harmless or fun, they can sometimes divert our focus away from the reason we celebrate Christmas in the first place:the birth of our Savior. These symbols, though they seem innocent, can lead people to misunderstand or forget the true significance of the holiday. By sticking to the truth of who Jesus is and why He came to Earth, we can preserve the integrity of the Christian faith and avoid getting caught up in traditons that, while popular, donβt align with the true message of Christianity.
Unfortunately, it appears people just giving up and saying "whatever" when someone BS's us (satan or whoever) is what's gotten us into the mess we're in right now. Let them get away with enough "truth distortions" over a long enough time period and look at what sort of nefarious crap they pull.
If you don't believe me, do the math and realize we've had about 2500 abortions PER DAY happening in the US for way too long, not aware of how badly our government was falsely taxing us into deciding between giving up children or debt slavery.
Gods "birth"? God is and always has been.
As long as everyone understands this is about the 17th different 'actual birthday' of Jesus that scholars have suggested
The September 11th thing seems a little too perfect IMHO
Completely true fren. There are many candidates for the timing of His birth. All of them have good points, but they also have problems upon closer examination. But you are correct, the timing is of far less importance than the fact that it happened - whatever date one picks.
I've done the examination and I find no problems with Sat 6 Oct 4 BC at 3 a.m. (Sabbath 15 Tishri 3758). Would be interested in any problems you can share.
Dating from that time period in large part must rely on historical records from the period to give an approximate timeline of when events occurred. As far as the 4BCE date for the Master's birth, one of the most glaring discrepancies revolves around the date of Herod the Great's death which is mentioned in the Gospels. Most scholarship, both secular and theological, is in agreement that Herod the Great died in March or April of 4BCE. His son, Herod Archelaus took over rulership after his father's death by order of Augustus in 4BCE - but not as king. Archelaus was given authority under a tetrarchy. He was just as cruel as his father and Rome did not want a repeat of Herod the Great's reign. There is some debate involving a later date of 1BCE for the death of Herod the Great, but that opinion does not line up with other Roman records and is more of an outlier.
Therefore, given that Herod died some time in early 4BCE, the date of Sept of that same year for the birth of the Master has some problems. But as I already stated, it is difficult to develop a chronology of the time period partially because the calendar has gone through some changes over the centuries, making it difficult to pinpoint with any degree of certainty as to the exact date of events during the Second Temple period. Astronomical dating also runs into that same calendar dating problem. Accuracy linked to astronomical dating is problematic and must be taken with a grain of salt.
Definitely.
IMHO never use BCE or CE.
Before Common Era / Common Era
BC / AD
Before Christ / Anno Domini βIn the Year of our Lordβ
[They] are always trying to blot out His Name.
Not actually most scholarship. Herod put down a rebellion at the time of a lunar eclipse in March of 4 BC, and Archelaus put down a rebellion at a Passover, and scholars are divided over whether to put these 1 or 13 months apart. But if you simply read all that Josephus crams in between these two events, I think you will agree with his primary translator, William Whiston, who explains in an appendix dissertation that the noted Passover could not have been in 4 BC but was in 3 BC, and thus there is no reason to hasten Herod's death in spring. I haven't seen anyone with the 1-month claim successfully accommodate all of Josephus's events into that timeframe. Further, it is believed that one of the two unnamed fasts in the Roll of Fasts refers to Herod's death, but these do not occur in spring. It is more probable that Herod died in fall of 4 BC and the fast refers to Archelaus's formal weeklong honorary funeral of Herod, which happened later after some preparation. Just read the appropriate portion of Josephus in detail, or the Whiston dissertation on the subject.
Note that Archelaus showily declined the name of king, then put down the Passover rebellion, then sailed to Rome before Pentecost (when Varus was in Jerusalem) where he was named ethnarch (not tetrarch). That title was more likely given in 3 BC than 4 BC. However, as with everyone, the reign begins from the death of the father in 4 BC, and counted 10 years inclusive until Archelaus's famously being deposed in 6 AD.
Add: Note that the primary 1-month compression scheme is Emil Schurer 1898, which is, as I noted, unreasonably tight compared to the text of Josephus. Schurer also cannot accept that Herod's 37 years were counted inclusively from Tishri of 40 BC (after which he was made king) to Tishri of 4 BC (after which he died), because Schurer thought he died in Mar-Apr of 4 BC. Therefore Schurer put forward a bogus alternate reckoning of the 37 years that didn't reflect the Hebrew counting methods of the time (as documented separately by Edwin Thiele and Rick Lanser).
You are right that the 1 BC eclipse is not the correct one, though it was championed by Florian Reiss and others in a minority group and still has proponents today.
How long after Christ's death did Herod die? That would give a much clearer idea of which year Christ was born.
Keep going......not nearly as much as His resurrection!!
Boom.
Both of which were prophesied for over a millennia.
The proof no one can deny. Itβs all talk until you walk out of the grave.
and nowhere does scripture say to honor his birth, but his death....yes
His death being on Passover.
Where death passes over the faithful.
Life in abundance.
This. Datefagging Jesus birthday is completely pointless. That wasn't his reason for being here. And he's not "coming back" either, because he has been here the whole time with us.
Clickb8
His death is significant, but not nearly as much as His resurrection.