Another article on when Christ was most likely ushered into this World =)
The world was transfixed by the year 2000--worried about the'Y2K' bug in computers, millennial madness in cult groups, political union in Europe, and a proposal to make Mary "co-redemptrix" in the Catholic Church. While Rome flirted with blasphemy, few
realized that 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.
Many may live to see the consequences of the anniversary, if it foreshadowed a coming fake Christ. Or at the least, there were dozens of lunatics eager to take advantage of the year 2000 hysteria to get the attention of the gullible.
Yet 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.
How can we know the exact day--and nearly the hour--of the birth of Jesus?
Simple arithmatic. A child could have done it, if only the basic assumptions had been correct. But they weren't. 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.
The dirty little secret is that virtually all the available evidence has always pointed at the harvest period of 3 BC as the focal point of the Nativity--including the possibility of a late summer birth.
By rejecting Luke, scholars also threw out the date of the birth Luke gives in his Gospel. 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 arithmatic 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 concieved--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.
realized that 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.
Many may live to see the consequences of the anniversary, if it foreshadowed a coming fake Christ. Or at the least, there were dozens of lunatics eager to take advantage of the year 2000 hysteria to get the attention of the gullible.
Yet 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.
How can we know the exact day--and nearly the hour--of the birth of Jesus?
Simple arithmatic. A child could have done it, if only the basic assumptions had been correct. But they weren't. 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.
The dirty little secret is that virtually all the available evidence has always pointed at the harvest period of 3 BC as the focal point of the Nativity--including the possibility of a late summer birth.
By rejecting Luke, scholars also threw out the date of the birth Luke gives in his Gospel. 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 arithmatic 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 concieved--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 occurance 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.
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.
(FYI - this year's 1st day of Elul was 1st Sept 2008 - Christmas DID come early this year, as it truly does every year 'cept we are too steeped in manmade traditions to realise it. Hmm... ^.^" )
(FYI - this year's 1st day of Elul was 1st Sept 2008 - Christmas DID come early this year, as it truly does every year 'cept we are too steeped in manmade traditions to realise it. Hmm... ^.^" )
Comments
Post a Comment