When was Jesus born

Me4Him: If you prefer to believe what man writes, rather that what is in the scriptures, and evident in the world, why bother to read the Bible???

WHERE does the BIBLE say it was 1948 years from Jesus to the restoration of Judah? Be truthful-it DOESN'T, does it? Therefore, you're simply guessing instead of looking at the facts.

Scripture and history DO correlate whether you like it or not. it's an established fact of history that Herod died early 4 BC. Fitting history to Scripture, we see Herod sought Jesus' life. Therefore, He was born before early 4 BC.

Luke mentions Quirinius(Cyrinius in older bible versions)being governor of the area when the events of Jesus' birth began. Now, there's no mention in Scripture or history of Quirinius' having any dealings with any Jews whatsoever, so why should Luke mention him except to establish a timeline? In fact, his mention of Quirinius IS part of a timeline!

Now, we know Q left the area in 6 BC, but became de-facto governor from 6-9 AD. He was sent by Augustus to replace Archelaus, Herod's son. Now since Herod and Quirinius were both mentioned by Luke, the time in question was during Q's time as military ruler, which ended in 6 BC.

Remember, John was 6 months older than Jesus, so it was very easy for the annunciation of John's birth to Zacharias and Elizabeth to have occurred in 6 BC by our calendar(Remember the courses of temple duty served by the priests) & the Annunciation to Mary to have been in early 5 BC. Now Mary's pregnancy began that night by the power of the Holy Spirit, and, allowing for a normal 9-mo. gestation period, Jesus coulda easily been born in late 5 BC, with all the events occurring exactly as written in Scripture, exactly following the timeline set forth by Luke, being very possibly 5 BC.

At any rate, your goofy theory crashes and burns, just on tha fact that Scripture says Herod sought Jesus' life, and Herod clearly died early 4 BC. Given the events immediately after Jesus' birth BEFORE Herod sought His life, He was several months old when Herod died. Again, this points to a December, 5 BC birth.

Tell us..Is that theory your invention, or did you copy it from some book? If copied, what book did you copy it from?

OK...You were simply WRONG...Mostly guesswork, not backed by Scripture.

Originally posted by Helen:
The fact is that sheep were penned at night except for the times when the lambs were being born, in the spring and in the fall. If sheep were kept penned during this time, the lambs could easily be trampled during or immediately after birth. Thus, they had to be out in the fields during these two times of year, but they did pen their sheep during summers and winters at night.

Click to expand...

Nope.

"Equally so was the belief that He (the birth of Messiah) was to be revealed from Migdal Eder, the 'tower of the flock.' This Migdal Eder was not the watch-tower for the ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep ground 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 the 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 impossible. The same Mishnic 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." Edersheim

Click to expand...

Herod--is not a unique name--to use it alone is an ambiguity. There were several Herods referenced in the scripture--all different persons.

Conclusions based on ambiguous premise are at best: questionable.

When was Jesus born? It is not revealed in scripture. To set the date at Dec. 25 is pure speculation based mostly on fiat from the Holy See, which is a mutual admiration society of ---you fill in the blanks.


Selah,

Bro. James

Originally posted by Bro. James:
Herod--is not a unique name--to use it alone is an ambiguity. There were several Herods referenced in the scripture--all different persons.

Conclusions based on ambiguous premise are at best: questionable.

When was Jesus born? It is not revealed in scripture. To set the date at Dec. 25 is pure speculation based mostly on fiat from the Holy See, which is a mutual admiration society of ---you fill in the blanks.


Selah,

Bro. James

Click to expand...

Ah, but Bro. James...

There was only ONE Herod...Herod "The Great"...who was replaced after his death by a son named Archelaus.(Matthew 2:22) THIS Herod died early 4 BC.

And Dec. 25 CANNOT be ruled out as Jesus' birth date, no matter if the Pope or Hagar The Horrible started the rumor.

Speaking of sheep-Jerusalem's climate is "Mediterranean", rarely raining at all June through October, temp rarely reaching 90 degrees F, rarely going below freezing. There's some snow every few years, but it doesn't last. Sheep can easily be kept outdoors all year.

There's no record of any change in J's climate since the time of Christ, although in earlier days the land was inhabited by a variety of animals such as lions, bears, & various species of antelope.(I don't know how close to J this was.)

Also, Bethlehem, being only 7 miles from J, has the same climate.

"Dec. 25 cannot be ruled out"--right, nor can it be ruled in--for the same reason. The scripture does not give many clues--and we do err when we speculate regarding such matters. The details of the birth of Jesus are in fact sufficient in scripture to establish that He was born of a Virgin, which makes Him unique--having been born of a woman.

Some folks have perverted this fact to the making of His mother a perpetual virgin and co-redemptrix, queen of heaven, which teachings are nowhere found in scripture. In fact quite the contrary: there are numerous scripture which plainly indicate that Joseph and Mary, the mother of Jesus, had offspring which would necessarily lead to the conclusion that they had consortium. Maybe they adopted--but then what meaneth the scripture: She brought forth her FIRSTBORN son. That would certainly imply that there was at least one more son. So much for the perpetual virginity.

One more point about nativity: the magi were not on the scene when Jesus was born. It took them several months to get there. When they found Jesus He was in a house, not a stable. The Gk uses the word for "young child" not infant. Also, Herod, The Great, had all the Jewish boys 2 years and less killed--why?

While it is true that the Virgin Birth is a basic credential of the Lord Jesus Christ, most of what is promulgated as the Mass of Christ(Christmas), is pure tradition of men.

Jesus told us to remember His death. Nowhere does He tell us to remember His birth. He was born to die for our sins--that is the Gospel. This is not about a jolly old man with gifts for the good and sticks for the bad.
The gift of eternal life was paid for with the Blood of the Lamb of God, the Lord, Jesus Christ.

What have we done with Jesus?

Selah,

Bro. James

To die, He had to have become a human, which He did, by the way of all humans...conception and birth.

The point I was making was to prove Me4Him's goofy idea wrong, that it was 1948 years between Jesus and the birth of modern Judah(Israel). I believe Scripture and history do just that.

Scripture names Jesus' half-brothers & indicates He has half-sisters.(Matthew 13:55-56) No matter how hard the RCC tries, they CANNOT get by those Scriptures.

You may choose to observe or not observe Christmas and/or Easter as your conscience dictates, and I won't look down upon you. However, please don't look down upon me or others who choose to observe them. That view is Scriptural.

"By the way of all humans..."

I cannot buy the implication of that statement. Jesus was not conceived in the normal human way. That makes Him unique in a number of ways: born of a virgin, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit. No one else can honestly make that claim.

Jesus is God--in the flesh--Immanuel. He knew no sin--could not sin--even when tempted.
He is the only one who could be the propitiation for us. One of us could be sufficient.

All other religions are necessarily false. Jn. 14:6. Jesus is exactly who scripture says He is, or He is an imposter, and we have no revelation from on high.

This not about conscience--our consciences are seared by the depravity of our sin nature.

The scripture is plain: we can follow the Word of God or the commandments of men--an admixture will not work.

Selah,

Bro. James

Errata: End of para. 2 above should read: Not one of us could be sufficient.

Sorry,

Bro. James

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
...it takes more letters to say 135 than to
say 800

Click to expand...

Amusingly, it takes more letters to say 1999 than it does 2000:

1999 - MCMXCIX
2000 - MM

This is one of the reasons why we found such interest with the millenium starting on the "0" instead of the "1". And it also produced a lot of concern about Y2K. I don't know why, because neither the letters Y or K are in the roman numeral system.

Bro. James: I cannot buy the implication of that statement. Jesus was not conceived in the normal human way. That makes Him unique in a number of ways: born of a virgin, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit. No one else can honestly make that claim.

Once he was conceived, there's no indication in Scripture that His gestation and birth were anything but normal human course.

Jesus is God--in the flesh--Immanuel. He knew no sin--could not sin--even when tempted.
He is the only one who could be the propitiation for us.(Not) One of us could be sufficient.

He is God who temporarily became flesh. However, He retained His full knowledge. It's not that He couldn't sin; it's that He chose NOT to sin. As a man, He lived a sinless life to set an example for all mankind, and also to be the ultimate, perfect sacrifice for OUR sins.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH...

All Scriptural evidence, coroborated by history, points to the fact that Jesus was born no earlier than early 4 BC. Therefore, the 1948 years 'tween Jesus and modern Judah is wrong.

Normal gestation?? See the account of Mary and Elizabeth when they were with child--Jesus and John the Baptist--they recognized each other before they were born.

Normal birth?? Star of Bethlehem, Magi; see what Zacharias said--end of Luke, Ch. 1. Also see what Herod did.

Normal childhood??? Reasoning with the elders in the temple--age 12.

Jesus is unique in every way.

Re: Immanuel and sin--God cannot sin--it is contrary to His nature.

Selah,

Bro. James

Who has the correct chronology?

Have we considered that the calendar we use presently has been changed and corrected by various popes and potentates?

Do we really believe God uses man's calendar?

We can split a second into a nearly infinite number of parts, yet we have not a clue as to what day it is.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Selah,

Bro. James

Luke, the Book of Revelation (believe it or not!), and knowledge of who ruled when and when certain people died gives us a pretty accurate date for the birth of Christ. Going back to that time and studying what was happening in terms of the stars in the heavens gives us a startling event that has only happened once in human history. While the light which directed the Magoi directly to the proper house in Bethlehem was most probably the Shekinah Glory Cloud, everything else can be checked historically:

http://www.setterfield.org/star.htm

Bro. James: Normal gestation?? See the account of Mary and Elizabeth when they were with child--Jesus and John the Baptist--they recognized each other before they were born.

Ever fathered any kids? Lived with a pregnant woman? Virtually every baby moves in the womb. Although in the Scriptural case here, it was a special event, it was still a normal occurrence of gestation.

Normal birth?? Star of Bethlehem, Magi; see what Zacharias said--end of Luke, Ch. 1. Also see what Herod did.

Nothing to do at all with the gestation-birth process.

Normal childhood??? Reasoning with the elders in the temple--age 12.

He was still a 12-yr-old boy at the time. His ACTION...not His boyhood...was unique.

Jesus is unique in every way.

Except where He was ordinary. He did everything that every other Jewish male in His 'hood did, except sin. He ate, drank, & worked.


Re: Immanuel and sin--God cannot sin--it is contrary to His nature.

But He coulda done things God considered sin. He knew exactly what was and was not sin, and He chose to not sin.

I realize you want to honor Jesus, but exaggerations of events in His life is NOT honoring Him, but lowering yourself.

Helen...Virtually every source has Quirinius ruling the area no later than 6 BC. This Quirinius was held in high esteem by both Augustus and Tiberius, and was eulogized in the Roman Senate after his death in 22 AD. His life was well-chronicled. There is little doubt about the times of his various activities.

The fighting between the Romans and Parthians began in earnest when the Roman general Crassus invaded Parthia in 53 BC, and was defeated and killed at Carrhae by a Parthian general called Surena by the Romans. After this, neither side could defeat the other, but in 41 BC, the Parthians, under their king Pacorus and the turncoat Roman general Labienus, conquered much of Palestine, including Judea. However, Mark Antony attacked in 39 BC, killing both Pacorus and Labienus, driving the Parthians back across the Euphrates. Antony, in 36 BC, invaded Parthia through Mesopotamia, but upon reaching Armenia, he advanced no farther. Moreover, the famous Roman Civil War soon erupted, and battles between Parthia and Rome were infrequent and indecisive. In fact, Octavian completely ignored the Parthians, being more concerned with the Western part of the Roman Empire, and in 20 BC, Tiberius, acting for Octavian, negotiated a peace with Parthia which lasted until the 60s AD. Thus, there was peace between Rome and Parthia at the time of Jesus' birth.

While the magi may have indeed been Parthian officials traveling with cavalry, there was no cause for alarm among the Jews nor the Romans. The Parthians knew Augustus was a mighty military leader as well as a mighty civil ruler, and since their main attention was now in the Indus Valley area, as well as with establishing commerce with China, the last thing they wanted was to start another fight with the powerful Romans.(Later, the Romans, under Trajan and then Hadrian, severely defeated the Parthians, marking the beginning of the end of their empire, which was taken over by the Persians in 226 AD.)

As for the time of Herod's death...It's well-established that Archelaus, his son, ruled the Judea area for 10 years, and that he was deposed by Augustus in 6 AD. These dates are established by Augustus' own scribes keeping record of Augustus' affirming Herod's will. And there was indeed a partial eclipse of the moon early 4 BC. Nor was Herod's death sudden. He had been ill for several months, most likely with cancer, and he and his cohorts knew his time was short.

We are assuming that both Elizabeth and Mary had normal 9-month gestations for their respective special sons.

Exaggerations?

These are part of the credentials which fulfill the prophesies of Isaiah--800 yrs prior--which prove that Jesus of Nazareth is The Christ, the Son of the Living God, Immanuel, The Anointed One, the Bright and Morning Star, the Alpha and Omega--there are many more.

Jesus could not sin--He is God--in the flesh. Just because He was tempted does not mean He could sin. Humans sin by nature--just like a dressed up pig will go for the mire--whether he can sing or not--it is his nature.

The life of Jesus was not a test to see if he could be sinless to the end--He is the Lamb of God, slain from before the foundation of the world. God was not waiting to see if Jesus could pass a test--Jesus was the Anointed One from eternity.
Jesus said He gave His life freely--it was not taken from Him--IT IS FINISHED, says it all.

What have we done with Jesus?

Selah,

Bro. James

Actually, Jesus became flesh as part of GOD'S PERFECT JUSTICE. God commanded Israel to sacrifice as atonement for sin, but HE made the ULTIMATE SACRIFICE...HIs OWN SON...as atonement for OUR sins.

As a man, Jesus was tempted in every way, prolly more so than any ordinary man in history. And as a man, He had all the weaknesses man has, except that He did NOT sin.(As God, of course, He couldn't be tempted to sin, to violate His own laws.. He can simply choose for something to happen or not happen, and it will, or won't.)

Why do I say "perfect justice"? Because GOD coulda simply blanked Satan out when he sinned & created another cherub in his place. He coulda made all of His created beings incapable of sin. But He did it in the manner with which we're familiar, with every sin being paid for, either by JESUS, or he/she who committed the sin and failed to come to Jesus in belief, submission, and repentance.

But the theme here is when was He born. I believe Scripture and history confirm it was before 1 AD.