Pope Makes Interesting Claim On Date Of Christ's Birth

[Foreigner]

While the date of December 25th has absolutely no historical validity to it, my understanding is that the year of Christ's birth was certain.
Not because of religious documentation, but the fact that historical Roman documents mention Christ, as well.

But since I am not a scriptural historian, I will have to defer...




http://www.telegraph...laims-Pope.html


Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope

The entire Christian calendar is based on a miscalculation, the Pope has declared, as he claims in a new book that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly believed.

The 'mistake' was made by a sixth century monk known as Dionysius Exiguus or in English Dennis the Small, the 85-year-old pontiff claims in the book 'Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives', published on Wednesday.

"The calculation of the beginning of our calendar – based on the birth of Jesus – was made by Dionysius Exiguus, who made a mistake in his calculations by several years," the Pope writes in the book, which went on sale around the world with an initial print run of a million copies.

"The actual date of Jesus's birth was several years before."

The assertion that the Christian calendar is based on a false premise is not new – many historians believe that Christ was born sometime between 7BC and 2BC.

But the fact that doubts over one of the keystones of Christian tradition have been raised by the leader of the world's one billion Catholics is striking.
Dennis the Small, who was born in Eastern Europe, is credited with being the 'inventor' of the modern calendar and the concept of teh Anno Domini ero.

He drew up the new system in part to distance it from the calendar in use at the time, which was based on the years since the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian.
The emperor had persecuted Christians, so there was good reason to expunge him from the new dating system in favour of one inspired by the birth of Christ.

The monk's calendar became widely accepted in Europe after it was adopted by the Venerable Bede, the historian-monk, to date the events that he recounted in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, which he completed in AD 731.
But exactly how Dennis calculated the year of Christ's birth is not clear and the Pope's claim that he made a mistake is a view shared by many scholars.

The Bible does not specify a date for the birth of Christ. The monk instead appears to have based his calculations on vague references to Jesus's age at the start of his ministry and the fact that he was baptised in the reign of the emperor Tiberius.
Christ's birth date is not the only controversy raised by the Pope in his new book – he also said that contrary to the traditional Nativity scene, there were no oxen, donkeys or other animals at Jesus's birth.
He also weighs in on the debate over Christ's birthplace, rejecting arguments by some scholars that he was born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem.

John Barton, Professor of the Interpretation of the Holy Scripture at Oriel College, Oxford University, said most academics agreed with the Pope that the Christian calendar was wrong and that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly thought, probably between 6BC and 4BC.

"There is no reference to when he was born in the Bible - all we know is that he was born in the reign of Herod the Great, who died before 1AD," he told The Daily Telegraph. "It's been surmised for a very long time that Jesus was born before 1AD - no one knows for sure."

The idea that Christ was born on Dec 25 also has no basis in historical fact. "We don't even know which season he was born in. The whole idea of celebrating his birth during the darkest part of the year is probably linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice."




.

 

[prism]

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
(Luk 2:1-7)

vs.2 should be common history and be no secret. I don't know where the pope is coming from.

 

[Alanforchrist]

While the date of December 25th has absolutely no historical validity to it, my understanding is that the year of Christ's birth was certain.
Not because of religious documentation, but the fact that historical Roman documents mention Christ, as well.

But since I am not a scriptural historian, I will have to defer...




http://www.telegraph...laims-Pope.html


Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope

The entire Christian calendar is based on a miscalculation, the Pope has declared, as he claims in a new book that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly believed.

The 'mistake' was made by a sixth century monk known as Dionysius Exiguus or in English Dennis the Small, the 85-year-old pontiff claims in the book 'Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives', published on Wednesday.

"The calculation of the beginning of our calendar – based on the birth of Jesus – was made by Dionysius Exiguus, who made a mistake in his calculations by several years," the Pope writes in the book, which went on sale around the world with an initial print run of a million copies.

"The actual date of Jesus's birth was several years before."

The assertion that the Christian calendar is based on a false premise is not new – many historians believe that Christ was born sometime between 7BC and 2BC.

But the fact that doubts over one of the keystones of Christian tradition have been raised by the leader of the world's one billion Catholics is striking.
Dennis the Small, who was born in Eastern Europe, is credited with being the 'inventor' of the modern calendar and the concept of teh Anno Domini ero.

He drew up the new system in part to distance it from the calendar in use at the time, which was based on the years since the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian.
The emperor had persecuted Christians, so there was good reason to expunge him from the new dating system in favour of one inspired by the birth of Christ.

The monk's calendar became widely accepted in Europe after it was adopted by the Venerable Bede, the historian-monk, to date the events that he recounted in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, which he completed in AD 731.
But exactly how Dennis calculated the year of Christ's birth is not clear and the Pope's claim that he made a mistake is a view shared by many scholars.

The Bible does not specify a date for the birth of Christ. The monk instead appears to have based his calculations on vague references to Jesus's age at the start of his ministry and the fact that he was baptised in the reign of the emperor Tiberius.
Christ's birth date is not the only controversy raised by the Pope in his new book – he also said that contrary to the traditional Nativity scene, there were no oxen, donkeys or other animals at Jesus's birth.
He also weighs in on the debate over Christ's birthplace, rejecting arguments by some scholars that he was born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem.

John Barton, Professor of the Interpretation of the Holy Scripture at Oriel College, Oxford University, said most academics agreed with the Pope that the Christian calendar was wrong and that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly thought, probably between 6BC and 4BC.

"There is no reference to when he was born in the Bible - all we know is that he was born in the reign of Herod the Great, who died before 1AD," he told The Daily Telegraph. "It's been surmised for a very long time that Jesus was born before 1AD - no one knows for sure."

The idea that Christ was born on Dec 25 also has no basis in historical fact. "We don't even know which season he was born in. The whole idea of celebrating his birth during the darkest part of the year is probably linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice."




.

The pope is a bit late isn't he??,
I knew years agao that Jesus was born between 4-6 years BC, and He was born around September.

 

[aspen]

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
(Luk 2:1-7)

vs.2 should be common history and be no secret. I don't know where the pope is coming from.

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
(Luk 2:1-7)

vs.2 should be common history and be no secret. I don't know where the pope is coming from.

The event is not found within Roman history, only the Bible.

 

[epostle1]

Zechariah was acting as high priest when the birth of St. John the baptizer was announced to him in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. That would have been on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement which falls in late September. St. John was conceived shortly thereafter during Sukkot, the Festival of Booths.

At the Annunciation, the Blessed Virgin Mom was told that Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant. That would have been in late March. (BTW the feast of the Annunciation is celebrated on March 25th in the Roman Calendar. (Oh, those rascally Catlicks!)

Nine months later Jesus was born sometime in late December.

Now there is an interesting coincidence with all this. St. John would have been born near the Summer Solstice (the longest day of the year) everyday after that would get shorter until the Winter Solstice six months later, which is the shortest day of the year. Every day after that would get longer. In the First Century the Winter Solstice fell on December 25th.

It would be fitting that Jesus would have been born on the shortest day of the year because he is the "Light of the World":

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8:12)

Everyday after his birth there was more light.

Also St. John the Baptizer said of himself:

He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30)

Which is exactly what happened to the daylight after their respective births. (This was the point St. Augustine made in his championing the celebration of Jesus' birth on the Winter Solstice).

So despite the objections of some pundits, December 25th is a very reasonable date to celebrate Jesus' birth and not a concession to paganism.

Winter Solstice was NOT a Roman Civil holiday until the late 3rd Century AD. The Emperor Aurelian made December 25th a civil holiday because the Christians were already using it to celebrate the Birth of Jesus and he was trying to detract from the Christian celebration!

None of the Sun Cults used December 25th before then. It appears that the Winter Solstice was originally a CHRISTIAN feast that the pagans tried to paganize, not the other way around.

 

[Axehead]

What about Saturnalia?

 

[dragonfly]

Hi kepha,

Zechariah was acting as high priest when the birth of St. John the baptizer was announced to him in the Holy of Holies in the Temple

I think you mean Zacharias. And the altar of incense - which is not 'in the Holy of Holies', although it is in the Temple.

Luke 1:8 And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
9 According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
12 And when Zacharias saw [him], he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.

 

[epostle1]

What about Saturnalia?

There is nothing in the article that says Saturnalia was made an official day of celebration on Dec. 25 before the third century. Date ranges are given, but no single fixed date.

Hi kepha,

I think you mean Zacharias. And the altar of incense - which is not 'in the Holy of Holies', although it is in the Temple.

Luke 1:8 And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
9 According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
12 And when Zacharias saw [him], he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.

That's fine, but it doesn't detract from John being born near the Summer Solstice, which gives us clues as to when Jesus was born. If the Annunciation took place in March, and Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant at the Annunciation, then it follows that John was born in June, and Jesus was born in December. Frankly, the exact date of Jesus' birth doesn't matter, Dec. 25 is the day set aside to celebrate it.

 

[Rex]

The legalization of Christianity by the Roman government (c. 313 A.D.),
In 380, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire by the decree of the Emperor,

In 325AD, Constantine the Great, the first Christian Roman emperor, introduced Christmas as an immovable feast on 25 December. He also introduced Sunday as a holy day in a new 7-day week, and introduced movable feasts (Easter). In 354AD, Bishop Liberius of Rome officially ordered his members to celebrate the birth of Jesus on 25 December.

Mithraic mysteries

http://en.wikipedia....hraic_mysteries


Rituals and worship

According to M.J.Vermaseren, the Mithraic New Year and the birthday of Mithras was on December 25.[sup][53][/sup][sup][54][/sup] However, Beck disagrees strongly.[sup][55][/sup] Clauss states: "the Mithraic Mysteries had no public ceremonies of its own. The festival of natalis Invicti [Birth of the Unconquerable (Sun)], held on 25 December, was a general festival of the Sun, and by no means specific to the Mysteries of Mithras."[sup][56][/sup] Mithraic initiates were required to swear an oath of secrecy and dedication [sup][57][/sup], and some grade rituals involved the recital of a catechism, wherein the initiate was asked a series of questions pertaining to the initiation symbolism and had to reply with specific answers. An example of such a catechism, apparently pertaining to the Leo grade, was discovered in a fragmentary Egyptian papyrus (P.Berolinensis 21196)[sup][58][/sup] [sup][59][/sup], and reads:

... He will say: 'Where ... ? ... he is/(you are?) there (then/thereupon?) at a loss?' Say: ... Say: 'Night'. He will say: 'Where ... ?' ... Say: 'All things ...' (He will say): '... you are called ... ?' Say: 'Because of the summery ...' ... having become ... he/it has the fiery ... (He will say): '... did you receive/inherit?' Say: 'In a pit'. He will say: 'Where is your ...?... (Say): '...(in the...) Leonteion.' He will say: 'Will you gird?' The (heavenly?) ...(Say): '... death'. He will say: 'Why, having girded yourself, ...?' '... this (has?) four tassels. Very sharp and ... '... much'. He will say: ...? (Say: '... because of/through?) hot and cold'. He will say: ...? (Say): '... red ... linen'. He will say: 'Why?' Say: '... red border; the linen, however, ...' (He will say): '... has been wrapped?' Say: 'The savior's ...' He will say: 'Who is the father?' Say: 'The one who (begets?) everything ...' (He will say): '('How ?)... did you become a Leo?' Say: 'By the ... of the father'. ... Say: 'Drink and food'. He will say '...?' '... in the seven-...​

Birth from a rock







Above: Mithras rising from the rock[sup][date missing][/sup]
Right: Mithras born from the rock (marble, 180–192 AD), from the area of S. Stefano
Rotondo, Rome





Mithras is depicted as being born from a rock. He is shown as emerging from a rock, already in his youth, with a dagger in one hand and a torch in the other. He is nude, is wearing a Phrygian cap and is holding his legs together

Amazing coincidence?

 

[prism]

The event is not found within Roman history, only the Bible.

Either way, does the Pope not believe the bible?

 

[dragonfly]

Hi kepha,

Zechariah was acting as high priest when the birth of St. John the baptizer was announced to him in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. That would have been on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement which falls in late September.

There is nothing in Luke 1 to suggest Zacharias was High Priest that year, nor that it was the day of Atonement. And, just to be clear, the altar of incense is not in the Holy of Holies. Believing your own rhetoric is risky, when you're misquoting and misinterpreting scripture.

That's fine, but it doesn't detract from John being born near the Summer Solstice, which gives us clues as to when Jesus was born. If the Annunciation took place in March, and Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant at the Annunciation, then it follows that John was born in June, and Jesus was born in December. Frankly, the exact date of Jesus' birth doesn't matter, Dec. 25 is the day set aside to celebrate it.

It does detract from John being born near the summer solstice, because celebrations of the birth of Christ were moved away from the feast of tabernacles, back in the second century AD, by so-called Gentile Christians who didn't want to give up their pagan celebration of the winter solstice. I wonder why the Roman Catholic Church wants to have anything to do with such a mistake, unless it is intent upon it's own agenda, rather than God's? Anyway, that would mean Jesus was born in September, and John was born in the preceding spring.

However, if one is going to celebrate Christ's birth, having moved it away from its original place, the middle of winter is as good a time as any to celebrate the arrival of the true Light of the world.

The feast of St John near the summer solstice, which renamed and keeps alive another pagan practice, need not be related to John's birth either. To make an issue of the worship of created things, and to be party to leading millions of people in this particular idolatry, should engender fear in your heart. God does cannot bless idolatry. He wants the whole man to train the eyes of his heart on Him alone, and worship the Creator.

Summary: the celebration of Christ's birth was moved first. That's why John's has been linked to midsummer.

 

[tim_from_pa]

Well, the pope is on the right track. Now, why not go all the way and say they have been celebrating a winter solstice festival (instead of saying "probably") that the sun god was born on? (That should help the church's credibility :lol: )

 

[Mungo]

Mithras is depicted as being born from a rock. He is shown as emerging from a rock, already in his youth, with a dagger in one hand and a torch in the other. He is nude, is wearing a Phrygian cap and is holding his legs together

Amazing coincidence?

Amazing co-incidence with what exactly?

 

[Rex]

your pope peter of course, to whom you teach all men should bow down to "your church" your foundation.

 

[Mungo]

your pope peter of course, to whom you teach all men should bow down to "your church" your foundation.

You think Peter was born out of a rock?

What a strange belief.

 

[Rex]

and equally strange is denial

 

[Mungo]

and equally strange is denial

You think it strange to query the suggestion that Peter was born out of a rock? The suggestion is weird.

What justification do you have for such a belief?

 

[epostle1]

Hi kepha,

There is nothing in Luke 1 to suggest Zacharias was High Priest that year, nor that it was the day of Atonement. And, just to be clear, the altar of incense is not in the Holy of Holies. Believing your own rhetoric is risky, when you're misquoting and misinterpreting scripture.

It does detract from John being born near the summer solstice, because celebrations of the birth of Christ were moved away from the feast of tabernacles, back in the second century AD, by so-called Gentile Christians who didn't want to give up their pagan celebration of the winter solstice. I wonder why the Roman Catholic Church wants to have anything to do with such a mistake, unless it is intent upon it's own agenda, rather than God's? Anyway, that would mean Jesus was born in September, and John was born in the preceding spring.

This just proves that
A) you are afraid of the facts presented
B ) you rigidly adhere to preconceived notions contrary to facts
C) you are unteachable
D) you don't read or don't care about previous posts

Winter Solstice was NOT a Roman Civil holiday until the late 3rd Century AD. The Emperor Aurelian made December 25th a civil holiday because the Christians were already using it to celebrate the Birth of Jesus and he was trying to detract from the Christian celebration!

None of the Sun Cults used December 25th before then. It appears that the Winter Solstice was originally a CHRISTIAN feast that the pagans tried to paganize, not the other way around.

The feast of St John near the summer solstice, which renamed and keeps alive another pagan practice, need not be related to John's birth either. To make an issue of the worship of created things, and to be party to leading millions of people in this particular idolatry, should engender fear in your heart. God does cannot bless idolatry. He wants the whole man to train the eyes of his heart on Him alone, and worship the Creator.

Speculating on John's birthday when scripture is not explicit is not idolatry.

Summary: the celebration of Christ's birth was moved first. That's why John's has been linked to midsummer.

I presented a reasonable explanation, not an absolute one, of when Jesus was born. If you can present a more reasonable explanation why you think Jesus was born some other time, I would like to see it.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi kepha,

You ask for facts, but I'm not sure where to recommend. A long time ago I read a third-hand, historic account about the falling-out in the 2nd century, between Jewish and Gentile Christians, over the birth of Christ. I don't have the details of sources, but it had been researched by a Jewish man in his research of Christianity. It was a religious celebration. I didn't claim it was a Roman civil holiday. I'm also not sure you'll find the few scriptures which I mention, 'reasonable' by your way of reckoning, but hey! Give them a go, and research deeper into the various leads they offer.

Speculating on John's birthday when scripture is not explicit is not idolatry.

True. But the practices of Roman Catholics in many countries on the feast of St John have nothing to do with Christianity. They are pagan.

I presented a reasonable explanation, not an absolute one, of when Jesus was born. If you can present a more reasonable explanation why you think Jesus was born some other time, I would like to see it.

The main strand that I see linking Christ's incarnation to a Biblical theme, which would help us place His birth, is the word 'tabernacle' (tent).

I would start with the picture of the Temple which David desired to build as a dwelling-place for the Lord, which he had in his heart from God. The first details are in 1 Chronicles 28 and 29, and the first dedication is in 1 Kings 8.

The Temple foreshadowed the oft-prophesied picture of the body of Christ as the dwelling place of God on earth. Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he comes into the world, he says, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Psalm 40:7 While God had had a visible presence on earth in various ways, He had never had a permanent home here, until the Temple.

The most obvious other pictures are: the Ark of Noah during the flood, and the amazing Tabernacle in the wilderness.

The prophecies of Messiah's attributes and names, also point towards His tabernacling with us on earth. Zeph 3:17

Matthew 1:20 But while he [Joseph] thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take to thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Romans 8:2, 3, 4, Heb 2:14 - 17.


22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 8:8.


Peter spoke of his own body as a tabernacle in 2 Peter 1:13 and 14.

See also Hebrews 9:2, 6, 8 11 with reference to tabernacle as a place, and note the connection between priest and sanctuary which Christ fulfils.

tabernacle (as Peter used it)


G4638 σκήνωμa skenoma (skay'-no-mah) n.
1. an encampment
2. (figuratively) the Temple (as God's residence), the body (as an abode for the soul)
[from G4637]
KJV: tabernacle
Root(s): G4637



G4637 σκηνόω skenoo (skay-noh'-o) v.
1. to tent or encamp
2. (figuratively) to occupy (as a mansion) or (specially), to reside (as God did in the Tabernacle of old, a symbol of protection and communion)
[from G4636]
KJV: dwell
Root(s): G4636



G4636 σκήνος skenos (skay'-nos) n.
1. a hut or temporary residence
2. (figuratively) the human body (as the abode of the spirit)
[from G4633]
KJV: tabernacle
Root(s): G4633



Regarding the feast of tabernacles itself, it is also the time of the fruit harvest - the end of the agricultural year. Exodus 23:16.

The wine was being made from crushed grapes. Jesus was to be crushed in the process of conquering the power of death, and yet, He would become the firstfruit from the dead. Isaiah 53:10 (prolong his days = be resurrected) Isaiah 63:1 - 6, Acts 2:24, 1 Corinthians 15:23, 24, 25, 26.

If the Light of the world was conceived in the darkest months, He was born at the time of great rejoicing. The feast of tabernacles was their reminder that they had come out of great bondage (from Egypt) into temporary dwellings in the wilderness. Genesis 33:17, Leviticus 23:42, 43.

Isaiah 60:2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. John 3:19, John 1:4, 5, Matt 6:22


The coming of Messiah had been long-awaited. There is a mass of prophecy about Him, but if there is one thing He most fuflilled, it was being born as a man to become our substitute in death, that we might be freed from our decaying tabernacles. 1 Corinthians 5:1, 2, 4, 5.

 

[Rex]

While the date of December 25th has absolutely no historical validity to it, my understanding is that the year of Christ's birth was certain.
Not because of religious documentation, but the fact that historical Roman documents mention Christ, as well.

Heres another headline with some more about the popes book.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49995853#.ULa9qoZ5E7U

Read all about it: Pope has not cancelled Christmas


In the 137-page book, the pope states a fact: that in the gospels there is "no reference" to the presence of animals in the stable - actually, it was probably a cave - where Jesus was born.
Bloggers had a feast with that, with one calling it "Bombshell number one".
What some neglected was that just a few sentences down, the pope states that even today, "No representation of the crib is complete without the ox and the ass".
He explains: The tradition of the ass and ox came from reflecting on parts of the Old and New Testaments. Christian iconography then adopted the motif early in Church history to show that even animals knew Jesus was the son of God.....................
..............................
And in St Peter's Square, workmen have started building the Vatican's larger than life nativity scene, which is expected to have animals and singing angels.

If we could only get this guy to world broadcast a Sunday teaching every week the catholic protestant problem would disappear.