Was Jesus born in September or on December 25? — Using John the Baptist’s birth

[Taken]

As with the study of any ancient writings, credible historians are able to distinguish between the historical events recorded in those writings, and the religious views and opinions expressed about those events. The Astronomical Diaries of the Babylonians, for example, is a primary source for the history of this Hellenized period, even though that information was recorded by Babylonian astrologers who were recording astronomical observations and "divining" their significance for and application to the historical events they recorded. Most historians are intelligent enough to distinguish between the historical events they recorded on the one hand, and the mystical interpretations the Chaldeans gave those events on the other hand.

The same holds true for the Rabbinic literature. Like the Chaldeans, they record historical events, such as when and how the Passover lambs were slain. We can disagree with "why" they think the Temple was destroyed, and we can absolutely dismiss "who" they blamed for its destruction, but that doesn't mean the legal commentary on when and how the Passover lambs were slain is therefore inadmissible. I mean you can, but if that is your standard, then every ancient record in the world would have to be tossed and there would be no history beyond what is revealed in the Bible.

The same thing with the writings of Josephus. Archaeologists study his works, particularly the "Wars," for the priceless information they contain about the locations of structures and walls and streets in New Testament Jerusalem. The fact that Josephus places the blame for the destruction of the city on the heads of the Zealots doesn't change the value of the archaeological information.

Besides, the Talmuds and the Mishnah, where most of the historical information comes from, contain generations of legal opinion and commentary on the Old Testament Law, the "oral traditions" that existed even at the time of Jesus and are mentioned by him. And further, these legal opinions and decisions can be checked against the Old Testament for their accuracy, and very often they cite the Torah to defend their views on the proper observance of the commandments.

But as I said earlier, if you are going to toss out these early Christian and Jewish writings, then you are left with the Scriptures alone, which are sufficient for everything one needs to know about doctrine and understanding in the things of God and to live a godly Christian life. But for those who wish to learn more about the world in which the Scriptures took place, the "background" of the New Testament, and especially to construct an historical chronology of the life of Christ, and particularly for those who wish to understand the early years of the Christian faith and the development of doctrine and practice, things that are not contained in the canon of Scripture, these early writings are the only sources.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Agree, men of different eras and local used their own wonderings and talents to record timelines they observed.

And noting…the first to be called ‘Christians’ were Jews who believed Jesus is the Christ, and Followed Him and His Teachings….
And by Scriptural indication, it was NON-believers who coined the Term “Christian”, in applying that term to men “WHO did Believe and Followed Jesus’ teachings”.

Today, ANYONE believing and following Jesus’ teaching can be called, can call themselves … A Christian … which can be confusing…
* BECAUSE a follower, a believer, CAN STOP following, CAN STOP believing…
* And a “CONVERTED” (aka born again) man, can be called, can call hisself a Christian…
And NeVeR STOP believing…

That may be confusing to “some” Christians…But it is definitely confusing to those of the Jewish or Islam faith.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I openly stated what my agenda is from the very beginning. I am a New Testament historian and a Christian apologist. So my agenda is to defend the truth of the history of the Christian faith.

The challenge remains.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

You refuse to acknowledge the clear syncretism between "The Church" and Paganism of which Christmas is but one example.

 

[CadyandZoe]

As with the study of any ancient writings, credible historians are able to distinguish between the historical events recorded in those writings, and the religious views and opinions expressed about those events. The Astronomical Diaries of the Babylonians, for example, is a primary source for the history of this Hellenized period, even though that information was recorded by Babylonian astrologers who were recording astronomical observations and "divining" their significance for and application to the historical events they recorded. Most historians are intelligent enough to distinguish between the historical events they recorded on the one hand, and the mystical interpretations the Chaldeans gave those events on the other hand.

The same holds true for the Rabbinic literature. Like the Chaldeans, they record historical events, such as when and how the Passover lambs were slain. We can disagree with "why" they think the Temple was destroyed, and we can absolutely dismiss "who" they blamed for its destruction, but that doesn't mean the legal commentary on when and how the Passover lambs were slain is therefore inadmissible. I mean you can, but if that is your standard, then every ancient record in the world would have to be tossed and there would be no history beyond what is revealed in the Bible.

The same thing with the writings of Josephus. Archaeologists study his works, particularly the "Wars," for the priceless information they contain about the locations of structures and walls and streets in New Testament Jerusalem. The fact that Josephus places the blame for the destruction of the city on the heads of the Zealots doesn't change the value of the archaeological information.

Besides, the Talmuds and the Mishnah, where most of the historical information comes from, contain generations of legal opinion and commentary on the Old Testament Law, the "oral traditions" that existed even at the time of Jesus and are mentioned by him. And further, these legal opinions and decisions can be checked against the Old Testament for their accuracy, and very often they cite the Torah to defend their views on the proper observance of the commandments.

But as I said earlier, if you are going to toss out these early Christian and Jewish writings, then you are left with the Scriptures alone, which are sufficient for everything one needs to know about doctrine and understanding in the things of God and to live a godly Christian life. But for those who wish to learn more about the world in which the Scriptures took place, the "background" of the New Testament, and especially to construct an historical chronology of the life of Christ, and particularly for those who wish to understand the early years of the Christian faith and the development of doctrine and practice, things that are not contained in the canon of Scripture, these early writings are the only sources.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

You didn't deal with my main objection, which is, the Talmud is the product of second century revisionism among those who lost the war and blamed Jesus and his followers. Or have you never read the Talmud? And did you receive it uncritically as the "so-called" oral tradition. What a stupid and absurd concept. Anyone can claim "oral tradition". What a bogus claim.

Rabbinic tradition and opinion is next to worthless. It's like a far off oasis that has no actual water to drink. The Pharisees and Rabbi took the wrong approach to the Torah and for this reason, their teaching is filled with errors and misinterpretations. And the so-called ECFs. What a joke.

 

[Pilgrimer]

Any Calendar date is suspect, considering a lunar “calendar” regarding, “evening and day” Scripturally equals one day, which are ‘not’ equal lengths of time.
For convenience and conducting business, men have tinkered with, changed, (multiple times) Calendars, and routinely add and omit days, hours, minutes.

Just noting…

Christians since the New Testament times used the Julian calendar, which was established by Julius Caesar in B.C. 43 and is still used by some orthodox churches to this day. That calendar has not changed since it was instituted. Then in the 16th century, Christians adopted the Gregorian reform to the Julian calendar, which simply recalculated the "leap years" to account for the additional 0.2422 day length of the tropical or solar year vs the lunar year. That calendar also has remained unchanged since it was instituted.

The winter solstice occurs on December 22, not December 25. The date Christians have historically celebrated the birth of Jesus, December 25, has not changed since it was first recorded in the 1st century, reckoning by Julian dates. There are actually no historical or archaeological records of any pagan religion celebrating anything on December 25, not Horus or Tammuz or Mithras or any of the many ancient gods and goddesses people claim that some Christians, somewhere, at some time adopted, although they will not be able to provide any actual historical or archaeological evidence to support their claims, and most students never even ask for any. All ancient religions and cultures throughout the world celebrated the annual astronomical events, summer and winter solstices, spring and fall equinoxes, new moons, full moons, eclipses, planetary conjunctions and many other astronomical events throughout the course of time. And those pagan celebrations were observed on the dates when those events occurred. The winter solstice occurs on December 22, on the early Julian calendar and on the later Gregorian calendar. That date has not changed.

The December 25 date is unique to Christianity. In the centuries that followed its beginning with that small body of Jewish believers in Jerusalem, as Christianity spread throughout the world, other cultures and religions adopted the Christian observances, contrary to the popular theories floating around the internet. For example, in the history books of Norway, the Saga of Hákon the Good credits King Haakon I of Norway who ruled from A.D. 934 to 961 with the Christianization of Norway, including rescheduling Yule which normally took place in November to coincide with Christian Christmas celebrations. Even a simple search on Wikipedia shows that the Roman celebration of Saturnalia was observed on December 17, and later was extended to December 22 on the Julian calendar, not December 25.

It is quite fashionable to claim that Christians adopted pagan holidays. There are four basic schools who are pushing this theory: 1) Jehovah's Witnesses who are anti-Christian; 2) anti-Roman Catholics who attempt to tie Roman Catholicism to paganism (this was made popular by a virulently anti-Catholic Scottish minister in the 18th century who wrote a little booklet in which he ascribed all kinds of Christian practices to old pagan religious without any evidence to support it and which archaeologists and historians have completely refuted), 3) Legalists whose agenda is to discredit Christian observances in favor of a return to the festivals of the Old Covenant Mosaic Law, what are referred to by contemporary Christians as "legalists" and were referred to in the New Testament as "Judaizers;" And of course atheists who hate the Christian faith gleefully use these arguments against not only Christianity, but also Judaism and the entire Bible itself. But the truth is the opposite: it has been non-Christian cultures and peoples who have adopted many Christian observances, which is evident even in our own time. Look at the non-Christian people around the world today who actually celebrate Christmas (ignoring the religious aspects while observing the more secular customs like feasting, decorating, Christmas trees, exchanging gifts, even the cultural adoption of popular contemporary Christmas songs).

So in truth, all these claims about Christianity adopting and being mixed with paganism are not true. And that can be tested very simply by Christians being a big more skeptical about these claims and asking for actual historical records, writings or archaeological artifacts, that prove those claims, and even then, you better google the historical record or the archaeological findings and read it for yourself, you will find that people will take things out of context and claim that it says the very opposite of what the text actually says. The example I gave in another post about how the passage about the priestly courses is taken out of context and claims are made that it says the very opposite of what that passage actually says, and that is just one glaring example. If people will take the Scriptures out of context and twist the words to say something they don't in order to support their theories, they will certainly do it with history. We Christians need to be a bit more skeptical about all this anti-Christian rhetoric.

"Prove all things." 1 Thessalonians 5:21

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

You refuse to acknowledge the clear syncretism between "The Church" and Paganism of which Christmas is but one example.

For the third time, where is your proof?

I understand that you are completely convinced that what you are saying is true. But saying it, even if you type it in all caps, in bold, in red letters, underscored, with lots of exclamation marks ... does not make it true. Why are you so adamantly convinced that the Christian church has been paganized? Is it a matter of doctrine?

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Taken]

Christians since the New Testament times used the Julian calendar, which was established by Julius Caesar in B.C. 43 and is still used by some orthodox churches to this day. That calendar has not changed since it was instituted. Then in the 16th century, Christians adopted the Gregorian reform to the Julian calendar, which simply recalculated the "leap years" to account for the additional 0.2422 day length of the tropical or solar year vs the lunar year. That calendar also has remained unchanged since it was instituted.

And considering Daylight “savings” time, regularly changing the hour.

The winter solstice occurs on December 22, not December 25. The date Christians have historically celebrated the birth of Jesus, December 25, has not changed since it was first recorded in the 1st century, reckoning by Julian dates.

Someone apparently Recorded Jesus’ Birth as Dec 25. His Birth was obviously a major event, yet Births regarding the “dates” thereof, or the “celebrations” thereof do not appear to be a favorable “highlight” in Scripture. What is emphasized in Scripture is to “Remember Jesus”. (I would suppose that to mean, daily, in consideration of all things.)

There are actually no historical or archaeological records of any pagan religion celebrating anything on December 25, not Horus or Tammuz or Mithras or any of the many ancient gods and goddesses people claim that some Christians, somewhere, at some time adopted, although they will not be able to provide any actual historical or archaeological evidence to support their claims, and most students never even ask for any. All ancient religions and cultures throughout the world celebrated the annual astronomical events, summer and winter solstices, spring and fall equinoxes, new moons, full moons, eclipses, planetary conjunctions and many other astronomical events throughout the course of time. And those pagan celebrations were observed on the dates when those events occurred. The winter solstice occurs on December 22, on the early Julian calendar and on the later Gregorian calendar. That date has not changed.

The December 25 date is unique to Christianity. In the centuries that followed its beginning with that small body of Jewish believers in Jerusalem, as Christianity spread throughout the world, other cultures and religions adopted the Christian observances, contrary to the popular theories floating around the internet. For example, in the history books of Norway, the Saga of Hákon the Good credits King Haakon I of Norway who ruled from A.D. 934 to 961 with the Christianization of Norway, including rescheduling Yule which normally took place in November to coincide with Christian Christmas celebrations. Even a simple search on Wikipedia shows that the Roman celebration of Saturnalia was observed on December 17, and later was extended to December 22 on the Julian calendar, not December 25.

Thank you for your input.

It is quite fashionable to claim that Christians adopted pagan holidays. There are four basic schools who are pushing this theory: 1) Jehovah's Witnesses who are anti-Christian; 2) anti-Roman Catholics who attempt to tie Roman Catholicism to paganism (this was made popular by a virulently anti-Catholic Scottish minister in the 18th century who wrote a little booklet in which he ascribed all kinds of Christian practices to old pagan religious without any evidence to support it and which archaeologists and historians have completely refuted), 3) Legalists whose agenda is to discredit Christian observances in favor of a return to the festivals of the Old Covenant Mosaic Law, what are referred to by contemporary Christians as "legalists" and were referred to in the New Testament as "Judaizers;" And of course atheists who hate the Christian faith gleefully use these arguments against not only Christianity, but also Judaism and the entire Bible itself. But the truth is the opposite: it has been non-Christian cultures and peoples who have adopted many Christian observances, which is evident even in our own time. Look at the non-Christian people around the world today who actually celebrate Christmas (ignoring the religious aspects while observing the more secular customs like feasting, decorating, Christmas trees, exchanging gifts, even the cultural adoption of popular contemporary Christmas songs).

So in truth, all these claims about Christianity adopting and being mixed with paganism are not true. And that can be tested very simply by Christians being a big more skeptical about these claims and asking for actual historical records, writings or archaeological artifacts, that prove those claims, and even then, you better google the historical record or the archaeological findings and read it for yourself, you will find that people will take things out of context and claim that it says the very opposite of what the text actually says. The example I gave in another post about how the passage about the priestly courses is taken out of context and claims are made that it says the very opposite of what that passage actually says, and that is just one glaring example. If people will take the Scriptures out of context and twist the words to say something they don't in order to support their theories, they will certainly do it with history. We Christians need to be a bit more skeptical about all this anti-Christian rhetoric.

"Prove all things." 1 Thessalonians 5:21

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

I do not Parallel “pagan anti-Christ” interests and celebrations to Christianity.
I believe long before Christianity was established beginning with the Tribe of Judah, and thereafter the other Tribes, then Gentiles….
THAT:
Hebrew men, Gentile men of every walk of life and geographical location, held a multitude of the beginning of man “beliefs” and Crossed paths as migration and inner marriages occurred and heard bits and pieces of other mens “beliefs”.
AND:
The same people likewise had curious interests and wonderings of the land, animals, plants, sun, moon, stars, planting crops, harvesting crops and an all Powerful Creator.

Planting, growing, harvesting, plants dying, seeds spring forth new plants..
Nothing new.
Jesus sent, growing, gaining believers, dying, His seed springing forth new creations…
Nothing new.

A side note, regarding Muhammad and Islam.
To my understanding, he was illiterate, as a young teen/man, traveled working for his Uncle’s Caravans trading and delivering goods including to the area of Jerusalem. (My suspicion is he heard preaching About Jesus), and later he became a highly skilled warrior, commissioned to lead, and gained a leadership reputation, and thereafter began his “visions”, married a wealthy and influential woman, commissioned a scribe, “became a prophet”, (which I rather equate his “visions” to “memories” during his “caravan” years, and encouraging “imaginations” from his wife.)

I have no issue with People around the World accepting, and all together on THREE Days a year Highlighting Remembering Jesus’;
Birth, Death, Resurrection.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[CadyandZoe]

For the third time, where is your proof?

I understand that you are completely convinced that what you are saying is true. But saying it, even if you type it in all caps, in bold, in red letters, underscored, with lots of exclamation marks ... does not make it true. Why are you so adamantly convinced that the Christian church has been paganized? Is it a matter of doctrine?

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Pagan syncretism in the Church is so obvious and so ubiquitous that if you are not convinced by what you see with your own eyes, I can offer you no proof that would convince you. So what's the point?

 

[Taken]

It is quite fashionable to claim that Christians adopted pagan holidays. There are four basic schools who are pushing this theory: 1) Jehovah's Witnesses who are anti-Christian; 2) anti-Roman Catholics who attempt to tie Roman Catholicism to paganism (this was made popular by a virulently anti-Catholic Scottish minister in the 18th century who wrote a little booklet in which he ascribed all kinds of Christian practices to old pagan religious without any evidence to support it and which archaeologists and historians have completely refuted), 3) Legalists whose agenda is to discredit Christian observances in favor of a return to the festivals of the Old Covenant Mosaic Law, what are referred to by contemporary Christians as "legalists" and were referred to in the New Testament as "Judaizers;" And of course atheists who hate the Christian faith gleefully use these arguments against not only Christianity, but also Judaism and the entire Bible itself. But the truth is the opposite: it has been non-Christian cultures and peoples who have adopted many Christian observances, which is evident even in our own time. Look at the non-Christian people around the world today who actually celebrate Christmas (ignoring the religious aspects while observing the more secular customs like feasting, decorating, Christmas trees, exchanging gifts, even the cultural adoption of popular contemporary Christmas songs).

So in truth, all these claims about Christianity adopting and being mixed with paganism are not true. And that can be tested very simply by Christians being a big more skeptical about these claims and asking for actual historical records, writings or archaeological artifacts, that prove those claims, and even then, you better google the historical record or the archaeological findings and read it for yourself, you will find that people will take things out of context and claim that it says the very opposite of what the text actually says. The example I gave in another post about how the passage about the priestly courses is taken out of context and claims are made that it says the very opposite of what that passage actually says, and that is just one glaring example. If people will take the Scriptures out of context and twist the words to say something they don't in order to support their theories, they will certainly do it with history. We Christians need to be a bit more skeptical about all this anti-Christian rhetoric.

"Prove all things." 1 Thessalonians 5:21

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Scripture is an all encompassing Book of Visual, Spoken, Written, Published KNOWLEDGE according to God.

Which is to say; in its most basic form is a Book of “Do’s and Don’t Do”…and Freewill for each individual to Choose…and the Consequences thereof per ones Choice according to God.

Anti- reference in Scripture is the first four letters of a few Persons Names, and a few Place Names, and Specifically a description of a Person whose Belief IS:
AGAINST “Jesus IS the Christ”; AGAINST“Jesus came in the Flesh”; and AGAINST “the Father and the Son”.

1 John 2:
[22] Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

2 John 1:
[7] For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Anti-Jehovah Witness, Anti-Christian, Anti-Catholic, Anti-legalist, etc. are simply terms of men used AGAINST-persons who belong to a “particular” Membership “Groups.”

I highly doubt that EVERY single Member of ANY particular GROUP, believe ALL things EXACTLY the same.

The Express Highlight IN Scripture According to God…IS expressly an Individuals Belief Regarding:
Jesus IS the Christ.
Jesus Came IN the Flesh.
God IS the Father, Jesus IS the Father’s Son.

A person being anti-“groups”, and “calling out against others in membership of a particular group” as in anti-Jehovah Witness, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-legalist, etc. is utterly irrelevant to me.

“Group membership” Implies the members have a standing on a CORE BELIEF. ( It may and often is: what the Group calls their “MISSION” Statement. )

IMO, according to Gods Word and the Understanding thereof:
An Individuals STANDING WITH and/or WITH-IN the Lord God is Expressly (or otherwise ) Only according to Gods Required Standing, which again IS:
* Jesus IS the Christ.
* Jesus Came IN the Flesh.
* God IS the Father, Jesus IS the Father’s Son.

Mentioning; WITH and or WITH-IN is expressly Paramount according to Gods Word.
* WITH is expressly one’s BELIEF at any given time. Believe, vacillate, doubt, believe;
And WHILE believing, that individual is WITH the Lord God and the Lord God WITH that individual.
* WITH-IN is expressly one’s Heartful CONFESSED Belief to the Lord and there forward as that mans BODY continues to Physically LIVE, the Lord SPIRIT is IN that man, and FOREVER when that man Receives his NEW BODY, Lords SPIRIT is WITH that man, Established, Effected, Remains, By, Through, Of the Power of God, who IS:
Christ….(and By and Large the whole nutshell of the NEW Testament being called A BETTER Testament of surety. Heb 7:22)

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Pilgrimer]

Pagan syncretism in the Church is so obvious and so ubiquitous that if you are not convinced by what you see with your own eyes, I can offer you no proof that would convince you. So what's the point?

The point is ... you have no proof to offer, else you would have done so in the very beginning.

There is a world of difference between informed opinions on the Christian faith based on actual evidence, and subjective opinions about the Christian faith based on blind prejudice. Most of what is passing today for "study" on the history of the life of Christ and the Christian observance of those events isn't a study in history, it's anti-Christian indoctrination.

The real point is whether you will be convinced by the evidence ... or by prejudice.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Monday 12-12-22 2nd. Day Of The Weekly Cycle, Kislev 17, 5783 82nd. Fall Day

…weeks on the gestation of Christ‘s birth. Thus we cannot just count a fixed number of weeks to determine when Christ was born. Then Jesus could have been born in the May-to-March period. In summary, attempting to determine the date of Christ‘ birth by starting with the occasion when Zacharias served in the temple has serious flaws.

Was Jesus born in September or on December 25? — Using John the Baptist’s birth

Discover if Jesus was born in the month of September. We start with the date that the angel visited the priest Zacharias in the Holy Place.

www.neverthirsty.org

How old was Jesus when the wise men found Him?​

https://www.neverthirsty.org › Bible Q&As



Nov 1, 2017 — The gospel of Matthew reveals that Jesus was about two years of age when the wise men or magi visited Him. It is amazing all the information that Scripture ...
Where was Jesus when the wise men found Him and gave ...
Oct 21, 2016
Can we determine the date of Christ's birth from the visit of the ...
Mar 16, 2019
More results from www.neverthirsty.org

Love, Walter and Debbie

THE BIRTH OF CHRIST September 11th 3 B.C.?
By Dr. Craig Johnson

If Revelation 12:1-3 is to be interpreted in an astronomical way, then there was only one day in 3 B.C. where the “sun clothed the woman” with the “moon under her feet.” This was from about 6:15 p.m. to 7:45 p.m. on September 11, 3 B.C. It was significantly the Day of Trumpets, the beginning of the Jewish New Year, the first day of Tishri, Rosh Hashanah, the New Year day for civil affairs. It was a celebration of physical creation, the year Noah turned 601, (Gen. 8:13), the day Noah removed the covering of the Ark, (Gen. 8:13), the day kings began to rule. It would symbolize the enthronement of the great King of kings.

DECEMBER 25th 2 B.C.

On December 25th 2 B.C. Jupiter becomes stationary in its motion among the fixed stars. Jupiter stops in the middle of Virgo the Virgin for six days. This would be visible 68 degrees above the southern horizon just over Bethlehem. This day also marked the winter solstice when the sun stands still and begins its triumph over darkness. It also marked the third day of the “Feast of Lights,” this was the day when the Magi brought their gifts — a time when the whole nation was in great festivity — synagogues, houses, and streets were illuminated.

“The true light, which lighteth every man” (John 1:9) had come into the world.

THE ORDER OF EVENTS

If Christ were born on September 11th 3 B.C. this is the historical sequence:

1. Joseph and Mary journey to Bethlehem for the census.

2. Jesus is born in a stable on September 11th the Day of Trumpets, 3 B.C.

3. He was circumcised on September 18/19 3 B.C.

4. He was dedicated in the Temple October 20/21 3 B.C.

5. They moved to Nazareth in late October 3 B.C.

6. They moved to Bethlehem Spring or Summer 2 B.C.

7. December 25th 2 B.C. the Magi visited the now older Christ child.

8. Joseph and Mary take Jesus to Egypt late December 2nd 2 B.C.

9. Herod kills all the male children (15 months after His birth).

10. Jesus begins His ministry October/November A.D. 28
__________________________
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; Gen. 1:14

 

[Pilgrimer]

Scripture is an all encompassing Book of Visual, Spoken, Written, Published KNOWLEDGE according to God.

Which is to say; in its most basic form is a Book of “Do’s and Don’t Do”…and Freewill for each individual to Choose…and the Consequences thereof per ones Choice according to God.

Anti- reference in Scripture is the first four letters of a few Persons Names, and a few Place Names, and Specifically a description of a Person whose Belief IS:
AGAINST “Jesus IS the Christ”; AGAINST“Jesus came in the Flesh”; and AGAINST “the Father and the Son”.

1 John 2:
[22] Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

2 John 1:
[7] For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Anti-Jehovah Witness, Anti-Christian, Anti-Catholic, Anti-legalist, etc. are simply terms of men used AGAINST-persons who belong to a “particular” Membership “Groups.”

I highly doubt that EVERY single Member of ANY particular GROUP, believe ALL things EXACTLY the same.

The Express Highlight IN Scripture According to God…IS expressly an Individuals Belief Regarding:
Jesus IS the Christ.
Jesus Came IN the Flesh.
God IS the Father, Jesus IS the Father’s Son.

A person being anti-“groups”, and “calling out against others in membership of a particular group” as in anti-Jehovah Witness, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-legalist, etc. is utterly irrelevant to me.

“Group membership” Implies the members have a standing on a CORE BELIEF. ( It may and often is: what the Group calls their “MISSION” Statement. )

IMO, according to Gods Word and the Understanding thereof:
An Individuals STANDING WITH and/or WITH-IN the Lord God is Expressly (or otherwise ) Only according to Gods Required Standing, which again IS:
* Jesus IS the Christ.
* Jesus Came IN the Flesh.
* God IS the Father, Jesus IS the Father’s Son.

Mentioning; WITH and or WITH-IN is expressly Paramount according to Gods Word.
* WITH is expressly one’s BELIEF at any given time. Believe, vacillate, doubt, believe;
And WHILE believing, that individual is WITH the Lord God and the Lord God WITH that individual.
* WITH-IN is expressly one’s Heartful CONFESSED Belief to the Lord and there forward as that mans BODY continues to Physically LIVE, the Lord SPIRIT is IN that man, and FOREVER when that man Receives his NEW BODY, Lords SPIRIT is WITH that man, Established, Effected, Remains, By, Through, Of the Power of God, who IS:
Christ….(and By and Large the whole nutshell of the NEW Testament being called A BETTER Testament of surety. Heb 7:22)

Glory to God,
Taken

My reading comprehension is normally rather good, but it appears to have failed me because I'm afraid I don't understand what your point is.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[CadyandZoe]

The point is ... you have no proof to offer, else you would have done so in the very beginning.

No, I told you the truth the first time. The fact that you didn't believe me then, supports my contention that you wouldn't believe me now. The proof is all around you. I don't know why you don't trust what your own eyes deliver to you.

There is a world of difference between informed opinions on the Christian faith based on actual evidence, and subjective opinions about the Christian faith based on blind prejudice.

Look, Paul the Apostle adopts the metaphor of milk and meat for a child, with regard to folks who are ready to hear the evidence and those who are not ready to hear the evidence. I sense you are not ready to hear evidence.

Most of what is passing today for "study" on the history of the life of Christ and the Christian observance of those events isn't a study in history, it's anti-Christian indoctrination.

Where is your proof of this?

The real point is whether you will be convinced by the evidence ... or by prejudice.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

The real point is that you are avoiding the obvious, and are not ready to hear what I have to say. It's like we are both standing outside and you want me to prove to you that the sky is blue when you can see it for yourself.

 

[Pilgrimer]

You didn't deal with my main objection, which is, the Talmud is the product of second century revisionism among those who lost the war and blamed Jesus and his followers. Or have you never read the Talmud? And did you receive it uncritically as the "so-called" oral tradition. What a stupid and absurd concept. Anyone can claim "oral tradition". What a bogus claim.

Rabbinic tradition and opinion is next to worthless. It's like a far off oasis that has no actual water to drink. The Pharisees and Rabbi took the wrong approach to the Torah and for this reason, their teaching is filled with errors and misinterpretations. And the so-called ECFs. What a joke.

I addressed your main objection and pointed out that the popular arguments "against" Christmas derive from the very Jewish writings you claim to reject. You can't have it both ways, use the Talmuds and Mishnah to argue against Christmas and then toss them if they actually contradict those arguments.

I think I have at least demonstrated some degree of knowledge of the Talmuds and the Mishnah, so yes, I have certainly read them.

No, I have not received them "uncritically." As with everything I read, whether historical writings or today's media, I read everything from a Christian worldview, a lens that helps me filter out religious or even philosophical ideas that are contrary to the truth that is revealed in the Scriptures.

I acknowledge your animosity to these early Jewish writings and from a doctrinal standpoint I would agree with you, they are not a reliable witness for wisdom and understanding in the things of God. Even the Scripture tells us God put a veil over the eyes of the Jewish people so they could not see the end-goal of the Law. But that veil is taken away for those whose hearts turn to Christ.

But from a historical standpoint, these writings actually do represent the main body of legal opinions and decisions that were in force during 2nd Temple times. Again, if you have some evidence to the contrary, there are historians and theologians the world over who I'm sure would be interested to see it. But if, again, your opinion on the historical value of the body of Rabbinic literature is based on your prejudice against their doctrines, then your opinion isn't reliable.
And the same with the Apostolic Fathers. They are no joke. Again, you can disagree with their beliefs and practices, that is fair game. But you cannot pretend that these early writings do not represent the early Christian beliefs and practices. And for the record, I have also studied these writings and I agree with these early and unanimous decisions on such matters as the Trinity, Christmas, and Easter.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[WalterandDebbie]

THE BIRTH OF CHRIST September 11th 3 B.C.?
By Dr. Craig Johnson

If Revelation 12:1-3 is to be interpreted in an astronomical way, then there was only one day in 3 B.C. where the “sun clothed the woman” with the “moon under her feet.” This was from about 6:15 p.m. to 7:45 p.m. on September 11, 3 B.C. It was significantly the Day of Trumpets, the beginning of the Jewish New Year, the first day of Tishri, Rosh Hashanah, the New Year day for civil affairs. It was a celebration of physical creation, the year Noah turned 601, (Gen. 8:13), the day Noah removed the covering of the Ark, (Gen. 8:13), the day kings began to rule. It would symbolize the enthronement of the great King of kings.

DECEMBER 25th 2 B.C.

On December 25th 2 B.C. Jupiter becomes stationary in its motion among the fixed stars. Jupiter stops in the middle of Virgo the Virgin for six days. This would be visible 68 degrees above the southern horizon just over Bethlehem. This day also marked the winter solstice when the sun stands still and begins its triumph over darkness. It also marked the third day of the “Feast of Lights,” this was the day when the Magi brought their gifts — a time when the whole nation was in great festivity — synagogues, houses, and streets were illuminated.

“The true light, which lighteth every man” (John 1:9) had come into the world.

THE ORDER OF EVENTS

If Christ were born on September 11th 3 B.C. this is the historical sequence:

1. Joseph and Mary journey to Bethlehem for the census.

2. Jesus is born in a stable on September 11th the Day of Trumpets, 3 B.C.

3. He was circumcised on September 18/19 3 B.C.

4. He was dedicated in the Temple October 20/21 3 B.C.

5. They moved to Nazareth in late October 3 B.C.

6. They moved to Bethlehem Spring or Summer 2 B.C.

7. December 25th 2 B.C. the Magi visited the now older Christ child.

8. Joseph and Mary take Jesus to Egypt late December 2nd 2 B.C.

9. Herod kills all the male children (15 months after His birth).

10. Jesus begins His ministry October/November A.D. 28
__________________________
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; Gen. 1:14

Hello Ronald David Bruno, and how are you all? When Was Jesus Really Born?

Love, Walter

 

[Pilgrimer]

No, I told you the truth the first time. The fact that you didn't believe me then, supports my contention that you wouldn't believe me now. The proof is all around you. I don't know why you don't trust what your own eyes deliver to you.

Look, Paul the Apostle adopts the metaphor of milk and meat for a child, with regard to folks who are ready to hear the evidence and those who are not ready to hear the evidence. I sense you are not ready to hear evidence.


Where is your proof of this?

The real point is that you are avoiding the obvious, and are not ready to hear what I have to say. It's like we are both standing outside and you want me to prove to you that the sky is blue when you can see it for yourself.

Why on earth would I ignore all the documented testimony from countless eyewitnesses and instead simply believe you? You have not offered a fact or even a rational argument for rejecting the Christian faith and practice that has existed since the time of the Apostles.

I believe the sky is blue because I see a blue sky. What I don't see is paganism in Christianity. I see a lot of people claiming it's there, but they can't actually show it to me. Am I really supposed to just blindly accept what you say that completely contradicts everything I have seen for myself?

And don't take Scripture out of context. Paul was talking about spiritual food, and meat being for those who are spiritually mature. He wasn't talking about someone telling us what color the sky is.

So I have offered you actual historical documentation that supports December 25 as the date on which Christians have observed the birth of Jesus since the time of the Apostles. Whether you think they were right or wrong is irrelevant. It proves that Christians have been celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25 since the time of the Apostles. Period.

Try me. "Why should I tell you, you won't believe it anyway" is not an argument.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Hello Ronald David Bruno, and how are you all? When Was Jesus Really Born?

Love, Walter

Hello, I am fine thank you ... and you?

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Hello, I am fine thank you ... and you?

I'm fine also, thank you.

 

[CadyandZoe]

But from a historical standpoint, these writings actually do represent the main body of legal opinions and decisions that were in force during 2nd Temple times.

I disagree with your point of view with regard to historical texts. And you have completely ignored my point of view. You believe that although someone is wrong in their opinions, they will certainly be correct in their facts. But If I am right about the Second Century Jewish mindset, then why would I grant any of the work as being factual? Do you understand? If the purpose of a text is to obfuscate and deflect, then why grant the text any so-called fact?

The Talmud is nothing more than the propaganda of the defeated. I wouldn't believe anything it said. If that means that I can't know when Jesus was born, then so be it.

Again, if you have some evidence to the contrary, there are historians and theologians the world over who I'm sure would be interested to see it.

No, they wouldn't. Historians and theologians are not interested in the truth. They are interested in prestige and grant money.

But if, again, your opinion on the historical value of the body of Rabbinic literature is based on your prejudice against their doctrines, then your opinion isn't reliable.

How does that follow? If their doctrines are wrong on purpose, why would they give you correct facts? The entire thing is suspect. Your perspective is based on a generous assumption that people who lie about their religion will be truthful about historical facts. I wouldn't make that unfounded assumption.

And the same with the Apostolic Fathers. They are no joke.

I think they are.

Again, you can disagree with their beliefs and practices, that is fair game. But you cannot pretend that these early writings do not represent the early Christian beliefs and practices.

If early beliefs and practices were incorrect, then why should I care about them?

And for the record, I have also studied these writings and I agree with these early and unanimous decisions on such matters as the Trinity, Christmas, and Easter.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Of course you do.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why on earth would I ignore all the documented testimony from countless eyewitnesses and instead simply believe you?

The only relevant question is whether the documented testimony is true or false.

You have not offered a fact or even a rational argument for rejecting the Christian faith and practice that has existed since the time of the Apostles.

Finally, you made your agenda clear. Here is my evidence. "The Epistles of Paul." Even while the Apostles were still alive, Christian faith and practice had gone astray, which is why Paul needed to write letters of correction. The so-called ECF's have no Apostles to correct them and in the absence of sound interpretive skill, and burdened by philosophical assumptions, they strayed much farther away from the faith.

I believe the sky is blue because I see a blue sky. What I don't see is paganism in Christianity.

And you got to wonder why. I do.

I see a lot of people claiming it's there, but they can't actually show it to me.

As I said, you aren't prepared to be shown.

Am I really supposed to just blindly accept what you say that completely contradicts everything I have seen for myself?

Don't believe me. Look again. Look harder. But trust me, the rest of us can see it.

And don't take Scripture out of context. Paul was talking about spiritual food, and meat being for those who are spiritually mature. He wasn't talking about someone telling us what color the sky is.

"Spiritual food" in that context is information that was revealed by the Spirit of God. And only those whom God has prepared to hear it by opening their eyes will receive what was revealed.

If you can't see the syncretism between the Christian church and paganism, even while it is so obvious, then how can I prove it to you? I get it, you are an apologist, armed with a bunch of pat answers. You want me to read my part of the script so that you can respond with your lines. I get it.

So I have offered you actual historical documentation that supports December 25 as the date on which Christians have observed the birth of Jesus since the time of the Apostles. Whether you think they were right or wrong is irrelevant. It proves that Christians have been celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25 since the time of the Apostles. Period.

Second century.

Try me. "Why should I tell you, you won't believe it anyway" is not an argument.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

It wasn't an argument. It was an effort to save your life.

 

[Taken]

My reading comprehension is normally rather good, but it appears to have failed me because I'm afraid I don't understand what your point is.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

Anti-Catholic, or any other religious sext is irrelevant to me.

Trying to tie Christianity and Pagan beliefs together as in copying an other traditions or doctrines or one adopting the others traditions or doctrines is mixing and not my understanding of Gods Order and Way.