Christ was born in January not December

1. 73

   Miebakagh57posted 3 years ago

   Presently, Christmas is celebrate December 25 all over the world. But has any one ever consider that January 6 was the real Christmas date some 6 decades ago before the second world war?                      Bibical, historical, and cosmological contexts are pointers that Christ was not born December 25. In some countries, it starts from Semptember 1. Discussions?

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The question was answered by Sextus Africanus (born c. ad 180, Jerusalem—died c. 250) long ago.  Sextus calculated the date of Jesus' death as Mar 25.  Knowing that all old testament prophets died on the anniversary of either their birth or conception Sextus decided that March 25 was the date of the conception and thus Dec. 25 (nine months later) was the date of His birth.
      
      It's as good as any other figure, given that our actual knowledge of any dates is nothing at all.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         The Sextus Africanus decision seems more a rule of the thumb. Yet certain others had arrived at June or July 25. Was the December 25 date really Christ's birth date!

         replyreport
   2. 61

      Kayode Doyakposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The exact date of Jesus’ birth has not been established in any secular text. With a lack of historical evidence, the date has been estimated by analysing the historical events mentioned in the gospels of Luke and Matthew and the ministry of Jesus.
      
      Unless you were there there is no way to determine the exact date of The birth of Christ so the date Christmas is celebrated really is meaningless, it is his birth that is celebrated, not the day he was born!

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Even that birth is not universal, and what is being celebrated depends on the one doing the celebrating.
         
         Certainly stores and CEO's celebrate their massive sales.  Many celebrate family, love, caring and sharing.  Only that minority of people on earth that believe the Christian story will celebrate the birth of Christ, and even then many of those don't.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Kayode Doyakposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            LOL, minority of people on earth? It’s a pretty big minority my friend! According to 2015 figures, Christians form the biggest religious group by some margin, with 2.3 billion adherents or 31.2% of the total world population of 7.3 billion.
            
            You want to cite minorities look at the tiny minority of people who are atheists. According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists).

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               1/3 is not a majority; by definition it is a minority, which is exactly what I said.  And that doesn't even consider the large number that profess Christianity...because to do otherwise will result in decidedly unwished for results.  Christians are not known, historically, for tolerance.
               
               I will give you, though, that Christmas is an exclusively Christian holiday.  Although it has morphed (as fables inevitably do) into something much different than it was, there are no other religious beliefs woven into it.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Kayode Doyakposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  So you consider that, even though Christians form the biggest religious group in the world by some margin, it is a minority? That kind of explains why you would also consider Christianity a fable...exactly what one might expect from a member of the tiny minority (7% of the world population) consisting of atheists and agnostics most of which probably are communists.

                  replyreport
   3. 78

      DoubleScorpionposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      If just looking at the bible...Jesus was born around the time the herds were being brought in from the fields...which would mean around the September/October timeframe.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Are you sure?  Given that the latitude of Jerusalem is about that of LA or Phoenix, and that it is basically at sea level, would the animals be brought in at all?  Or maybe late Dec.?  It isn't until Dec. that temperatures get down into the upper 40's, and October is still in the 60's at night.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            DoubleScorpionposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I have been to that area of the world many times...It gets cold at night during the winter. 
            Not to mention that is still a practice to this day.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Never been there, but I don't doubt that it gets cold in the winter.  But you indicated Sept., and the average low temperature isn't cold at all then.
               
               As I say, I haven't been there and don't know when animals are brought to keep inside barns.  Or do they just gather them in a corral of some kind, still outside?  Even today in America, much further north and much colder, few ranchers keep their cattle indoors.  Chickens yes, and horses that are NOT meat animals, but not most large animals as the cost is prohibitive.  Of course, North America does not tend to have large herds of goats or other smaller animals.

               replyreport
2. 95

   Readmikenowposted 3 years ago

   There are reasons December 25 was chosen as the birth of Christ, and it has nothing to do with the Bible or history.
   
   "The most loudly touted theory about the origins of the Christmas date(s) is that it was borrowed from pagan celebrations. The Romans had their mid-winter Saturnalia festival in late December; barbarian peoples of northern and western Europe kept holidays at similar times. To top it off, in 274 C.E., the Roman emperor Aurelian established a feast of the birth of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), on December 25. Christmas, the argument goes, is really a spin-off from these pagan solar festivals. According to this theory, early Christians deliberately chose these dates to encourage the spread of Christmas and Christianity throughout the Roman world: If Christmas looked like a pagan holiday, more pagans would be open to both the holiday and the God whose birth it celebrated."
   
   https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai … ogspot.com

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      This is a far more likely explanation, IMO, than Sextus's "calculations".  The Romans were known for this tactic of using local celebrations to include their own for the very reason you list; it made it easier to convert the locals to Christianity.

      replyreport
   2. 73

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting.                                              Interesting also is the birth and death explaination in the link that tally with Sextus Afriicanus computation.                                                                More so, bible evidence of the appearance of the heavenly constellations- the "star seen in the East" had a signifcant meaning. The killing of the 2 years old infants likewise, in the Gospel of Mathew. These are pointers to Christ's birth and date. More light had to be shed on this.

      replyreport
3. 59

   Live to Learnposted 3 years ago

   Does the date matter?

   replyreport
   1. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It really doesn't.

      replyreport
4. 78

   Castlepalomaposted 3 years ago

   Could matter. Christian won the war on Religion. Plus everywhere in the world dates backs to Dec 25, 2020 Jesus birthday.
   
   What does not matter, is actually facts of biblical history. They continually make stuff up.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      You mean bible history  is spewing much dust than the December 25 date?                                                        Bible aside, however that date has gather much dust in secular history than the Wise men visit. Much has been written, agreed, and disagreed on December 25, date and much dust generated before Christ was born. After Christ arrived on the earthly scene, a tsunami of controversy is still in effect.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         The humans and earth calendar did not date back to 10,000 years ago or a millions or billions of years ago. The earth all dates back to Jesus's birthday. So Jesus won the war on humans and religions. It would screw up commercially Christmas and the calendar dating to change it. So they won't, It's not about truth or facts. It's about controling crowds for the few, by fear and money.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            People always seek to profit on others.  Why would Christmas be different?
            
            For the faithful,  it's more about taking a collective moment to celebrate the beginning of the most pivotal moment in the relationship between heaven and earth.
            
            Those without faith will certainly view the moment, and the outcome, through a different lens.

            replyreport
         2. 73

            Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Castlepaloma, you are entitle to your opinion like anyone else.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Unlike everyone else, the majority of my opinions and faith in humanity and nature is based on thinking and good sense. Could not lead a life  based on blind faith that lacks evidence and fact.

               replyreport
   2. 59

      Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Strangely,  archeological evidence continually proves time lines on much of the OT to be correct.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         So why the vast majority of sciencist and historians are non believers?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know that your statement is accurate but, either way,  faith should not be considered during scientific endeavors.  Science cannot go on faith

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I have faith in up, down and sideways plus good sense gives most possibles. Faith leaps over the fire. Hope like in religion goes through the fire.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Yeh Yeh. You seem to make it up as you go. To me, that's just wallowing in the fire.

                  replyreport
         2. 61

            Kayode Doyakposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Where did you get the idea the vast majority of scientists are nonbelievers?
            A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, found that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public but the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power.
            According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
            
            Where do you come up with vast majority? The actual truth according to this poll is the majority of scientists (51%) are believers in either God or a higher spiritual power!

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               The fastest growing group, are non believers in the world at now 25%. Non believers lack the belief in God or don't know. More people say they spiritual rather than religious. Spiritual is the 99% unknowns of the world and Universe. Spiritual does not mean religious or God exclusively. Or Insanely repeatedly God, dose make it unknown or spiritual. Making majority scientist the non believers, even by pew.

               replyreport
            2. 94

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               True...only if you include believers in all other religions than Christianity.  As the discussion is about a belief in Christ, and Christ's birthday, a more reasonable figure would be half of the 31% you gave in another comment.
               
               That would mean that only about 15% of scientists believe (in Christ). leaving some 85% that don't.  That's a pretty big majority.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Ok, I was a little over the top with vast. Lol.

                  replyreport
               2. 61

                  Kayode Doyakposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  You really are straining to spin the truth. “The statement by Castlepaloma was the vast majority of scientists are non believers”
                  
                  This article
                  
                  https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/sci … nd-belief/
                  
                  says “According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.”
                  
                  What math gives you 15%

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     No group or profession can hold a candle to a Christian clergyman BS, Christian are the world champion of BS.
                     
                       A deity God like Spinoza’s God, reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”
                     Why would the Universe, be concern about Jesus birthday. Your Christian God, Yahweh fights against a million other Gods and won the war of God and Religions to claim Jesus birthday and date of human kind. Atheists don't claim to win a war in the name of atheistism. About 15% is a fair assessment of worldwide Christian scientist as a whole. Science greatly conflict with Religion.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Kayode Doyakposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Nice deflection from the fact you just made up a fake fact that “the vast majority of Scientists are non believers” when poll information clearly shows that over 50% of scientists from that poll do believe, 33% in God (which is the Christian God) and 18% in a universal power (God is a universal power). You obviously suffer from the delusion that a vast number of scientists are atheists, which is patently false. As a matter of fact Historically, Christianity has been and still is a patron of sciences. It has been prolific in the foundation of schools, universities and hospitals, and many clergy have been active in the sciences. Historians of science such as Pierre Duhem credit medieval Catholic mathematicians and philosophers such as John Buridan, Nicole Oresme and Roger Bacon as the founders of modern science.

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           One example of Christianity being a patron of science:
                           
                           https://theconversation.com/at-the-evan … old-142145
                           
                           If you don't like that one, check Christian holy scripture, where the tale of creation is completely wrong.  Earth, for example, was not created before light and birds were not the first life on earth.
                           
                           But if that still isn't enough, calculate how much water it would take to cover the earth.  Hint; it is a ball of water about as large as Pluto.  And consider how fast it would have to come down to do it in 40 days and think about how much topsoil would be washed into the oceans at that rate.  Then figure out how many blue whales Noah had on his ark.  All "science" (truth) according to scripture.

                           replyreport
                     2. 73

                        Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Science never conflict with religion, whether it is Christianity, Islam, or Hindu.                                                    For example, many hospitals, clinics, dispensaries were build by the Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant missions. Science has never conflict with religion. Most of the breakthroughts in science say in gentics come through a religious minister.                                                   Everything the creator does was done in a scientific manner. But He never experiment to get results since He is perfect.                                                   Right from day one, mankind has been given science to better life and environment, be they Chrirtians, Islamist, and other religious groups, or heathens.

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Tell that to Galileo, who spent that latter part of his life on house arrest because the church didn't like his science.  Or with Darwin, who skirted the edge of also being convicted of Heresy.  History is replete with examples of science conflicting with religious belief, and it is still going on.

                           replyreport
                           1. 73

                              Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              I would not. But did you notice back then the Church was in darkness under the Catholic Popes?                                                    The Protestant movement under the Englishman Oliver Cromwell and others bring the church out of darkness, right?

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 Depending on just which church you choose, they are still in darkness.  Witness the museum showing cave men riding dinosaurs.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 78

                                    Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    Flintstones is a documentary that explains all that.

                                    replyreport
                  2. 94

                     wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     First, you ignored the part about "believers" being "Christians" for purposes of this discussion.  It is, after all, about the reasons for Christ's birth: Buddhists don't believe in Christ so aren't a "believer".
                     
                     But the figure comes from you:  https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/349 … st4159094, where you state that, worldwide, just 31% of the people are Christians.  31 divided by 2 (half the scientists) leaves 15.5 (round to 15%) of scientists believe in Christ...IF all Christians are scientists.  They obviously aren't, but the figure was used to show just what a small minority of the people are scientists that believe in Christ.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Kayode Doyakposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        You are conflating two different statistics. The world population has nothing to do with the poll of scientists - read the link of the poll. It amazes me how atheists conflate figures mistakenly as long as it supports their mistaken beliefs!

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Deleted
                           1. 73

                              Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              Good talk, Castlepaloma. You're coming home. +A.

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 Religion is an evolutionary from Hindi 40,000 years ago to Christianity today. The arts has a much stronger evolution influence for humanity development the Religion 100,000 years ago. The water buffalo to the common cow today. Or much older evolution from dinosaurs to animals today.  The is a branch of science in everything. Since religion

                                 replyreport
                              2. 78

                                 Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 Water buffalo evolution is like the evolution of religion 40'000 years ago. A greater evolution for humanity was the evolution influence of the Arts,a 100,000 years ago. By far the oldest evolution from dinosaurs to animals. All a branch of science.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 0

                              savvydatingposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              You realize that plagiarism is against HP rules, right?
                              
                              https://theconversation.com/a-complex-g … -exist-909

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 

                                 replyreport
                        2. 94

                           wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Still ignoring that the topic is Christian believers.  And did you read that little "if", where I said "if all believers are scientists, and then went on to say that of course they are not?

                           replyreport
                        3. 78

                           Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           This referring to an article cited a survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences NAS. In that survey about half of the people replied and of those, 72% identified themselves as atheists, 21% identified as agnostics, and 7% identified themselves as believing in a god. Who knows how the half that didn't respond felt. The National Academy of Sciences is an excellent source of representative of scientists. It is an organization of elected members.
                           
                           There is always a conflict of Religion and what Scientists Really Think.
                           
                           I have seen other surveys suggesting over 90% of scientists are non believers. Plus seen other surveys suggesting Over 60% of non believers are scientist. A larger majority is over 60% and a vast majority is over 90%. No matter how you cut it, a big majority of sciencist are non believers.

                           replyreport
                           1. 73

                              Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              Agree that majority of the scientists are non-believers, they contribution to the challenge can be highly significant. Talent or bent impacting knowledge and insightful thoughts is what is  needful in such a case. The abakadabra and hokupucus can not be understood here. Facts are.                                                                        A core believer- christian, islamist, or any oriental religion is not shun. I can bet that the Persia (Iran), India, and Chinese own the world this information. Contribute in whaever field you are.

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 There are many different places of different views on how the dinosaurs died off. As there are many Major religions. Since nobody was there at the beginning of time. Who could possibly know? or how the world got started.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 73

                                    Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    3 issues were raised by your comment. These are significant questions or pointers.                                                                           But I should think how each and every one is aptly relevant to the challenge at hand.                                                   Let's take the creation time as an example. It is said that Bishop Ussher time it at 10.00 AM on 1st. October? That's all we got from this religious man.                                                          Nevertheless, a professor of physics and cosmology input that the physics to resolve the creation story was not understood. My observation-in the case of Jesus, the wise men read the stars, the Hebrew priests the Torah. Herod was dumb. Roman historians record the death of Herod after the murder of the babes and kids minus two years old.

                                    replyreport
               3. 73

                  Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  The discussion is about Christ's birth day specific. It is not about a believe in Christ. Although it is relate.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     If you celebrate Christmas as Christ's birthday it would seem to be obvious that you believe in Christianity and in Christ as a god.

                     replyreport
                     1. 73

                        Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        On a practical level, not every one that celebrate Chrismas believe in  Christ.

                        replyreport
5. 73

   Miebakagh57posted 3 years ago

   Hi folks, I was down with a fever past 3 days.                                 Presently on medication. Will get back later.

   replyreport
6. 73

   Miebakagh57posted 3 years ago

   I notice we've digress or veer from the main talk to science. Now let's get back to December 25 Christmas day.                                        Apparently, Jesus would not said to be born on December 25. It was just a speculation or defined theory that need redefining. If you know a given quantity, you can make out the unknown. So, the date of Jesus' death was used to computed his birth date, the Sextus Africanus Theory.                                           The basic biological gestation period of 9 months have never be given a serious reconsideration. Every individual exactly 9 months in the womb before arrival into this world? That's wrong. Still birth do occurs in which the feotus placed in incubator to nourish. Unaware to many, gestation can terminate at 8 months and a week or two with healthy birth.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Ignoring the known fact that Sextus could only come within a month, as you point out, his method still has two glaring flaws.
      
      First is that he had to calculate the date of death as a starting point, and no one knows that figure any more than the date of death. 
      
      Second was his assumption, completely unproven, that all prophets (including Jesus) died on the anniversary of their conception or birth.  This has any factual information to support it, but it is an integral part of Sextus's "calculations".
      
      Far more likely, almost to the point of certainty, is that the date was chosen to coincide with other pagan celebrations and hopefully make conversion to Christianity easier.  This was a tried and true Roman tactic - Halloween and Easter both used it - and there was no reason not to do so again.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Agreed. But how is the supposed conversion of the pagans on the days been access? I think it is more of a rite of passage?                                         On the other hand, if true conversion had took place, more than half of the world should have had gone Christian. But the converting is being achieve by the preached word of God.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            People all over the world value their celebrations and holidays; it is a large part of their life.  Conversion might mean you have to give up a wonderful day of fun when you longer party over the birth of Mithra or a great time at Saturnalia (Roman/Greek holidays and party times).
            
            But!  If you put Christmas at the same time, or at least within a few days, why then people need miss out on nothing at all.  It may seem silly, but it worked for a long, long time and not just for converting to Christianity.  Romans used the tactic, quite successfully, in "converting" conquered peoples into Romans.
            
            Converting today is indeed being accomplished by preaching the myth as truth.  And by raising children that will accept and believe whatever their parents tell them.  And by insisting that if you aren't Christian then you are nothing at all (in some places, not worldwide).  And by providing a place, and a group, that you can join.  And by providing friendship and fellowship...if you are only Christian. 
            
            There are many, many reasons that people profess Christianity and not all of them include a belief.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Wilderness, much truth in what you said. But this is also hard to understood.                                        Seriously, people came to Christianity. They came with not an iato of belief. But the greed, the myth, and folklore associated with a pagan culture.                                    But Christianity is more than a belief. It is centered on the life of the GOD man  Jesus Christ.                                                 That said, it is obvious therefore, adherants to profess strong faith in Jesus.                                                                All in all, the question searching for an answer is when was Christ born?

               replyreport
7. 96

   Eric Cauncaposted 3 years ago

   This is from the Catholic History Book. It was discussed by religious groups in the Philippines.
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Is the group wholly Roman Catholic? That could be count for bias? I believe for an independent thinking group or person that will contribute to impact the date.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         Eric Cauncaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         No, it is discussed by different religious groups. They are also debating about the birth of Jesus. They said the birth of Jesus is unknown, December 25 is the date declared by a Pope to honor Jesus Christ but it is not His actual birth.

         replyreport
8. 96

   Eric Cauncaposted 3 years ago

   I have no idea from the other part of the world if the different religious group is debating about the bible but in my country, they are debating. Different religious groups have different interpretations of the bible. In Iglesia ni Cristo, they have a supreme God, the Yahweh, but Jesus Christ is not a God, He is just a human, like Noah, Moses, and us.  In "Dating Daan", they have two Gods, both Yahweh and Jesus Christ. In Born again, Yahweh and Jesus Christ are the same, Yahweh just transformed into Jesus Christ to be seen by people because spirits are invisible. In Roman Catholic, Mary, saints, and angels are also worship.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      All debates about Christ's birth date should be welcome. In the bible possible clues exists like the appearance of the stars.                                                                           The appearance of the stars is a pure cosmological event. It has been recorded in the Chinese records. The Wise Men from the East where arround the Mediterrean when the stars appeared and visited. Among the visitors to the infant Jesus was a  Chinese, Indian, and possibly a Persia(Iran) Many modern cosmological questions has been dymystify by these nations.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Unfortunately, even if it is possible to show cosmological events that happened 2,000 years ago (sometimes it is, sometimes not - a supernova, for instance, lasts only a short time) it would still remain to prove that the Wise Men used that event as a guide to Jesus' birth rather than being a wonderful sounding story.  Who, for instance, recorded that event?  Not anyone present at the birth!

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Miebakagh57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Agreed. But realising something wonderful, something special had taken place, they came to Jerusalem.                                               Agreed no one knews the birth day or date. But the various wise men do have a clue Mathew 2:1-12.                                                                       Historically, the Roman censor promulgated by Caesar Augustus has likewise a clue Luke 2:1-20. All these and many others  were helpful hints.                                                   A nova appeared briefly and leave a trial. That can determine a time period. The historical Crab Nebula remains was discovered by the Chinese astronomer and record that in their book. Roman history likewise has the censor and the killing of the infants? The Herod death is record to give us the clues.

            replyreport
9. 95

   Readmikenowposted 3 years ago

   I also believe the image we have of Jesus is quite wrong.  It is an Europeanized interpretation of the image of Jesus.
   
   It's important we realize Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew.  I've been to the Middle East, including Bethlehem and Jerusalem, more than once.  These are people with dark skins and dark hair.
   
   I think it is quite likely Jesus had dark skin and dark hair.  Yet, we keep on with this Europeanized image of Jesus.
   
   When I've brought this idea up, many people have chastised me for it.

   replyreport