We need another holiday

After everyone reads the post I am sure that not only will you agree, everyone might even like the idea?

Families will be happy and big business will be happy.

I like to believe that everyone knows that Santa delivers presents?

Santa has many helpers, including sometimes adults?

As you may also know, Santa also has more than one name?


Santa (Saint Nicholas the Origin of Santa Claus) should still visit in December because it is now a known holiday.


Now for the hard part of the posting?

The 2nd Holiday.

We celebrate the coming of God, the baby Jesus, on December 25th.

In no way do I dispute the Birth of Jesus Christ, nor do I dispute that this is the 2nd person God, for lack of words, the son of God and is the Word of God.

In no way do I dispute the reason, or the way, Jesus Christ came to Earth.

Jesus Christ came because of my sins.

I do on the other hand dispute Christmas as such and what it has been turned into!

However, Christmas (Christ-Must- Be- Changed).

It should not harm anyone’s religious beliefs or come to any surprise to see, once the facts are known, that Jesus Christ was not born on or even near December 25th?

If we calm down and quietly study the book of Luke it is as plain as the nose on your face and


Luke is a book in the Word of God?

You see Luke points to around September.

Conception of Mary was on December 8th

When Was Jesus Born?

Luke chapter 1 & chapter 2

Jesus was born within a few minutes of 6:30-7:30 pm on the evening of September 11th, 3 BC..

“Christ was not born on December 25,” can we prove it?

 If He was not born on that date, than when was He born?

What are the facts?

When this subject is broached, many Protestants and Catholics become quite emotional, often becoming firmly entrenched concerning the December 25 date in spite of the facts. Many simply enjoy the season and feel that the actual day of Christ’s birth is irrelevant. Biblical and historical scholars are equally divided over this question as well. Christmas, however, is founded on the premise that Jesus was born on December 25, and a person who is truly striving to follow the Bible will see that the celebration of Christmas is based upon falsehood.

The Clues in Luke’s Gospel

On the surface, the accounts of Matthew and Luke reveal little about the time of Jesus’ birth. No dates are given, no season of the year is named. As a well-regarded historian, Luke, however, provides a sound, orderly account of the events that removes any doubt as to the general time of Jesus’ birth. All the clues are there, and all that is required is to dig them out and put them in order to discover the truth.

In a long section covering Luke 1:5 through 2:8, Luke writes of a specific series of events in chronological order.

He begins by telling the story of Zacharias, a priest, and his wife Elizabeth, who were childless. While administering his priestly duties during the course of Abuja, Zacharias was visited by the angel Gabriel, who told him that his prayers had been answered and that he and Elizabeth would have a son.

They were to name him John.

Because Zacharias doubted that this would happen, Gabriel informed him that he would not be able to speak until the birth of his son.

As soon as his service in the Temple was completed, he returned to his own house.

Elizabeth soon conceived and hid herself five months, unsure of how her pregnancy would be viewed.

In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, Gabriel visited Mary and informed her, “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a son, and shall call His name Jesus” (verse 31).

Soon thereafter, Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth and stayed with her until the latter’s ninth month, leaving just prior to John’s birth.

Jesus, then, was born approximately six months after John.

What information do we have up to this point?

Zacharias, a priest, performed his duties during the course of Abuja.

After he returned home from Jerusalem, Elizabeth conceived.

Mary conceived in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy.

John was born approximately six months before Jesus.

The Course of Abuja

To date Jesus’ birth, we need a starting point.

Fortunately, Luke supplies one in mentioning

“the course of Abuja” (Luke 1:5).

Is it possible to know if this course existed then, when it fell during the year, and how long it lasted?

It is!

I Chronicles 24 lists the courses, divisions or shifts of the priesthood that served in the Temple throughout the year.

Verse 1 states, “These are the divisions of the sons of Aaron.

” Among the sons of Eleazar were sixteen heads of their father’s house, while among the sons of Ithamar were eight additional heads of house, making twenty-four courses (verse 4).

These courses of priests were divided by lot to be officials of the sanctuary and of the house of God (verse 5).

Beginning on Nisan 1, these courses rotated throughout the year, serving in the Temple for one week apiece. The course of Abijah, the course during which Zacharias was responsible to work, was the eighth shift (verse 10).

Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian who was, of the priestly lineage of the course of Jehoiarib, the first course supplies further information about the priestly courses.

David divided them also into courses: and when he had separated the priests from them, he found of these priests twenty-four courses, sixteen of the house of Eleazar and eight of that of Ithamar; and he ordained that one course should minister to God [during] eight days, from [noon] Sabbath to [noon on the following] Sabbath.

And thus were the courses distributed by lot, in the presence of David, and Zadok and Abiathar the high priest, and of all the rulers: and that course which came up first was written down as the first, and accordingly the second, and so on to the twenty-fourth; and this partition hath remained to this day” (Antiquities of the Jews, 7:14.7).

These courses were strictly followed until the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.

The Talmud describes the details of the rotation of courses, beginning on Nisan 1.

With only twenty-four courses, obviously each course was required to work twice a year, leaving three extra weeks.

(The Hebrew year normally has fifty-one weeks.

Intercalary, or leap, years have an additional four weeks.)

The three holy day seasons, Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles, during which all the courses were required to serve, made up these three extra weeks.

Thus, each of the courses worked five weeks out of the year: two in their specific courses and three during the holy day seasons.

John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for Messiah (Malachi 3:1; Luke 1:13-17).

The gospel accounts make it very clear that he was born about half a year before Jesus was born.

From historical details in Luke’s account especially, as well as the accuracy of the Seventy Weeks prophecy

(see “Seventy Weeks Are Determined ” p. 2),

it is clear that Jesus was born sometime in 4 bc.

This means, counting back the nine months of gestation and the six-month difference in age, John must have been conceived in the first half of 5 bc.

This fact forces us to choose the first shift of the course of Abijah as the time when Gabriel visited Zacharias in the Temple. Frederick R. Coulter, in his A Harmony of the Gospels (p. 9), computes it this way:

In the year 5 bc, the first day of the first month, the month of Nisan, according to the Hebrew Calendar, was a Sabbath.

According to computer calculation synchronizing the Hebrew Calendar and the stylized Julian Calendar, it was April 8. Projecting forward, the assignments course by course, and week by week, were: Course 1, the first week; Course 2, the second week; all Courses for the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, the third week; Course 3, the fourth week; Course 4, the fifth week; Course 5, the sixth week; Course 6, the seventh week; Course 7, the eighth week; Course 8, the ninth week; and all courses [sic] the tenth week, which was the week of Pentecost.

Zacharias of the course of Abijah worked the ninth week in his assigned course and the tenth week in the Pentecost course, and this period ran from Iyar 27 through Sivan 12 (Hebrew calendar) or June 3 through 17 (Julian calendar).

He probably returned home immediately after his shifts were completed, and Elizabeth most likely conceived in the following two-week period, June 18 through July 1, 5 BC.

With this information we can calculate Elizabeth’s sixth month as December, during which Mary also conceived (Luke 1:26-38).

It is probable, because of the circumstances shown in Luke 1, that Mary conceived during the last two weeks of Elizabeth’s sixth month.

Thus, John was born in the spring of 4 BC, probably between March 18 and 31. By projecting forward another six months to Jesus’ birth, the most probable time for His birth occurred between September 16 and 29.

It is an interesting sidelight that Tishri 1, the Feast of Trumpets, is one of the two middle days of this time period.

Flocks in the Fields

There is additional proof that Jesus was born in the fall of the year.

The census of Quirinius that required Joseph to travel from Galilee to Bethlehem would most probably have taken place after the fall harvest when people were more able to return to their ancestral homes (Luke 2:1-5).

Besides, it was customary in Judea to do their tax collecting during this period, as the bulk of a farmer’s income came at this time.

Another point is that Joseph and Mary had to find shelter in a barn or some other kind of animal shelter like a cave or grotto because the inns were full (verse 7).

This indicates that the pilgrims from around the world had begun to arrive in Jerusalem and surrounding towns.

Thus, the fall festival season had already commenced.

There would have been no similar influx of pilgrims in December.

Also, as the shepherds were still in the fields with their flocks (verse 8), Jesus’ birth could not have occurred during the cold-weather months of winter.

Sheep were normally brought into centrally located pens or corrals as the weather turned colder and the rainy season began, especially at night.

If this were not significant, it begs the question, “Why would Luke have mentioned it in such detail if not to convey a time reference?”

Notice what commentator Adam Clarke writes regarding this:

It was a custom among the Jews to send out their sheep to the deserts [wilderness], about the Passover [sic], and bring them home at the commencement of the first rain: during the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day.

As the Passover [sic] occurred in the spring, and the first rain began early in the month of Marchesvan, which answers to part of our October and November, we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole of the summer.

And as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night.

On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up.

The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact, which casts considerable light on this disputed point. (Clarke’s Commentary, vol. V, p. 370)

Why is it important that we know when Jesus was born?

We certainly do not use this knowledge to celebrate His birthday—He tells us to commemorate His death, not His birth (I Corinthians 11:23-26).

. The Christmas season promotes a lie concerning the date of the birth of Jesus Christ.

We need to do more than reject the world’s explanation; we need to know, prove and follow what is true.

The correct date was about sundown, Jerusalem time, the end of the

In the 19th century, critical scholars made a crucial decision to

reject a total lunar eclipse in January 1 BC and to accept instead one in March 4 BC, as

the chronological cornerstone for dating the death of Herod the Great, and thereby, the

possible birth years for Jesus.

By so doing, the critics could argue Jesus had to born before 4 BC,  contradicting

Luke, who tied Jesus’ 30th year to the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, 27-28 AD.  Luke

effectively placed the birth in 3 BC, as did many of the early church fathers.  Ironically,

even the date used by the Pope during the Christmas Eve midnight mass ritual is itself

consistent with the last half of 3 BC.

In his second chapter, Luke tells what happened the day Mary came to the

Temple for purification 40 days after the birth of Jesus.  All one has to know is what

day this was.  And Luke plainly names the day.  In fact, he includes three statements

identifying the day.  So what day was this?

Yom Kippur.  The Day of Atonement.  The 10th day of the seventh month of the

Hebrew calendar.

In Luke’s time, Yom Kippur was called three things: The day of the “Fast,” the day

of the “Purification, “and the day of “Redemption.”  Luke uses all three to identify the

day Jesus was brought to the Temple.  And he even quotes the Torah rule that mandates

the 40-day period for the mother to wait after the child’s birth [Lk 2:22-38].

And if there were any doubt that it was Yom Kippur,  Luke tells of a woman named

Anna who had been in the Temple for a “night and day” without leaving.  There was

ONLY ONE DAY A YEAR when a person could pray overnight in the Temple: Yom

Kippur.  All other days, the Temple was locked at sundown.

This shows the 40th day of Mary’s Purification had begun at the end of Yom Kippur,

the end of the 10th day of the 7th month, because we know the Purification was done at

the earliest opportunity–at the beginning of the 40th day after birth.  And since the 6th

month normally had only 29 days, simple arithmetic shows Mary’s 39 days of Purification

had to have begun around sundown on the 1st day of the 6th month, called Elul.

This was the night of the first sighting of the new moon of Elul.  The Magi in Babylon

were recording this sunset sliver of the new moon on a clay tablet.  The cuneiform tablet

the Magi made at that hour 2000 years ago, along with thousands of others from Babylon,

resides in the British Museum.  It is possible that this clay tablet was inscribed by one of

the famous Magi who later brought a strange set of gifts to Bethlehem.  So the new moon

seen by the Magi in Babylon at the very moment of Jesus being born is recorded on one of

the tablets now in London.  Cuneiform scholars have identified the date on this tablet as

equivalent to September, 11, 3 BC.

The Hebrew lunar calendar dates vary with respect to our solar calendar.  So the 1st

of Elul was September 11th in 3 BC, but began on August 22 in 1998.  The same was true

in the days of the early church, of course.  In a given year, the 1st of Elul could have fallen

on September 8th, for example.

This may solve another ancient mystery.  No one seems to know how Rome came to

honor September 8th as the birthday of Mary.  There is no Biblical,  historical,  or church

tradition to explain it.  It just emerges out of nowhere.  Rome keeps the 8th of December as

the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary [ie. conceived without original sin].  It is

a holy day of obligation for all Catholics to attend Mass.  This feast is clearly based upon

September 8th also, and mortal sin is attached to the failure of a Catholic to observe it, yet

the origins of these dates are unknown.

On the other hand, we can now see that if Jesus were born on September 11th as Luke

indicates, then Jesus would have been conceived around December 8th in 4 BC. The now

mysterious Mary dates fit Jesus quite well.  How might this have happened?

In the late 4th century, in early 380 AD, Pope Damasus I was endeavoring to force all

Christians in the Roman Empire to yield to his authority.  He got the Emperor to issue an

edict requiring them to practice the religion of  Rome.  We know that it is about this time

the Christmas midnight Mass was first celebrated and December 25th first identified as a

Catholic holy day.  It is said Damasus was seeking to lure the people away from pagan

rites honoring the birth of the sun-god at midnight by compelling Catholic attendance at a

memorial in honor of Christ’s death, ie the Mass. The people confused this Mass with the

pagan solar birth rituals conducted at that same time.  Gradually, the Christ-Mass became

associated with the Nativity.

Meanwhile, the true feast around September 8th, which naturally honored Mary in

giving birth to Jesus, was converted into a day commemorating her own birth, and an old

holy day honoring the conception of Jesus was converted into a day commemorating the

conception of Mary on December 8th.  Strangely, there is still widespread belief among

non-Catholics that this is the day Jesus was conceived–a possible lingering remembrance

of the original meaning of this date.

We can also tell from Luke’s Gospel that Jesus had been born in early evening, for

Luke says the shepherds were keeping watch by night, but still had time to go into town

and tell the people what they had seen earlier that evening.  People rose early with the sun

in those days, and would have been asleep by 9 or 10 pm.  Therefore, the birth had taken

place no later than 8 pm, and probably before 7 pm.  Yet Luke says it happened at  night,

which means after sunset–surely after 6 pm in September.  Hence, it follows that Jesus

was born within a few minutes of 6:30-7:30 pm on the evening of September 11th, 3 BC.

A confirmation of this time is in the book of Revelation.  Historian Ernest L. Martin

consulted NASA lunar-phase tables and found the image of the heavens in Revelation 12

showed where the sun and the moon were, relative to Virgo, at the time Jesus was born,

pin-pointing sunset of September 11th of 3 BC.  It seems the moon moves so quickly it is

“beneath the feet” of Virgo only a few hours every month.  Moreover, the moon comes

within two lunar diameters of Virgo’s feet at the time of a new moon but once in  30 years.

The only such occurrence any time near the birth of Jesus was on September 11th, 3 BC.

Most previous attempts at determining the birth time were based upon astrology and

dating the Star of Bethlehem.  No one considered 3 BC because that year had erroneously

been assumed to follow Herod’s death.  However, Dr. Martin has proven that Herod did

not die in 4 BC, but in 1 BC.  Scholars are now generally accepting the new chronology for

Herod, and this in turn has allowed the confirmation of the New Testament date for the

birth of Jesus.  Unfortunately, many churches continue to promote the critics’ errors and

paganized traditions about the Nativity.

the true 2000th lunar anniversary of the birth of Jesus was August 22, 1998,

or on September 11, 1998 by the solar calendar dating we now use.

the 2000th anniversary of the Nativity actually came 475 days before year 2000

began.  The correct anniversary date was about sundown, Jerusalem time, the end of the

Sabbath, Saturday August 22, 1998.

In the 19th century, critical scholars made a crucial decision to

reject a total lunar eclipse in January 1 BC and to accept instead one in March 4 BC, as

the chronological cornerstone for dating the death of Herod the Great, and thereby, the

possible birth years for Jesus.

By so doing, the critics could argue Jesus had to born before 4 BC,  contradicting

Luke, who tied Jesus’ 30th year to the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, 27-28 AD.  Luke

effectively placed the birth in 3 BC, as did many of the early church fathers.


Lets take Santa out of Christmas and take Christ out of December 25th?

Keep Santa on December 25th?


Jesus Christ on or around September 11th?

Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post navigation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: