What's new
Christian Community Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!

When was Jesus born, I mean, really, when?

RonJohnSilver

Well-known
Last night, Sunday, we went to our church to hear a presentation on 'The Bethlehem Star'. The presentation was done by one of the former church members, a guy who is learned in medicine, physics, statistics and astronomy, that is, a smart guy. I used to work with him, that is, at the same place. He's a solid Christian and scientist. Anyway, he has put together a program which shows from a astronomical view, how the stars/planets could align in the Biblical fashion. I know others have done similar tasks and I hesitate to say that his is the best because I haven't seen all the others, but, his is the best. He came up it about 30 years ago after seeing a similar presentation and when he tried to verify some of the facts from that one, he discovered that that presenter had made some errors so he came up with a better presentation. Our church has presented his presentation every year for the last 25 years, yeah, it's that good. Very detailed, about 2 hrs long, the math and astronomy make my head hurt. A side note, if I can figure out how, I'll post a link to his presentation and you can decide for yourself. It's not up yet, but maybe this week. Anyway, one of the takeaways from his presentation is that, with modern technology, that is, star charts, knowledge of calendars, and computing software, we can pretty much know the dates of events from the star paths only. Again, above my head. But here's what hit me. I know that Jesus wasn't born on Dec. 25, but it's not a big deal to me except curiosity. But, here's what our presenter determined ... Jesus's conception ... Sept. 17, 1 AD. Birth ... June 17, 2 AD. Death ... April 3, 33 AD. No, he didn't address Jesus's return, as I said, he's a solid Christian. As I said, I'll attempt to post the link to the presentation or maybe I'm not allowed to but I'll tell you where to find it when it become available. The dates? ... I don't know, as good as any, I guess. But good discussion fodder.
 
Given some the dates in Daniel 9, I think this is great and probably significant info. I had heard early fall was a more likely birth time because of the schedule of priestly service and when Zecharius would have been there when he was temporarily struck dumb and the difference between John's age and Jesus', but it'd be interesting to see everything laid out.
 
Jimmy DeYoung, who passed away in 2022 (I think) timed Zecarius’ priestly duties late September, Elizabeth may have been pregnant in November. She was several months ahead of Mary’s.

I should go back to his sermon, the details escape me :confused:

It’s a good question Ron. I’ll get back to this and fill in details…
 
This is from his sermon:

“Now, let's think just for a moment. Zacharias goes home. He gets there the first of September.

His wife conceives. So let's check it out. She was six months pregnant before Mary would hear that she was going to conceive by the Holy Spirit to bring forth the man-child, Jesus Christ.

October, November, December, January, February, March. That's the sixth month. That's when Mary conceives.

Let's start in March. April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. And so we have the conclusion that indeed Jesus Christ would be born in the month of December.”

From Prophecy Today: Prophecy Today Weekend - December 7, Dec 7, 2024
 
Given some the dates in Daniel 9, I think this is great and probably significant info. I had heard early fall was a more likely birth time because of the schedule of priestly service and when Zecharius would have been there when he was temporarily struck dumb and the difference between John's age and Jesus', but it'd be interesting to see everything laid out.
Yeah i seen this mentioned by Andy Woods as well in his Christmas sermon a couple of days ago as well.
 
The problem with the above calculations is, as I've come to believe from my studies, that it is wrong in it's determination of when the priestly division of Abijah actually served in the temple. I believe that the Biblical evidence --supported by Josephus-- is that the eighth course of Abijah --the division in which Zachariah served-- performed it's duties in the second week of the month of Sivan, which is analogous to our late May/early June period. Rather than unpacking the reasoning from scratch, I'm going to take a shortcut and use an excellent article really available online. It's written by a Bible teacher and older Christian brother who lives in the Blue Mountains of eastern Pennsylvania. His name is Eddie Bromfield and his article is here: The Course of Abijah.

As I believe that I will show, and as Eddie demonstrates, Zachariah would have finished his duties and returned to his wife Elizabeth around the middle or so of June. This is when the Bible says she got pregnant. Count 6 months from that date and you get the middle or so of December, which is when the Holy Spirit, speaking through Luke, says Mary got pregnant. Now count 9 months from that date and where do you wind up? September. So, based on Bible timings, Jesus was born in mid to late September. Which lines up with the timing of when the temple shepherds would have been with their flocks in the fields near Bethlehem.

Jesus began his ministry on his 30th birthday. Now, count 3 and a half years from September. Well clearly the three years takes us to the same time 3 years later. But the half year (six months) takes us from late September up to late March which is the time of Passover, when the Bible tells us Jesus was crucified.

As I said, this timing lines up with what the Bible says. So, for me, I'm satisfied that He was born in September and died 33 and a half years later in late March.

All that said, this is not a matter of critical importance; it's merely of interest. Therefore I'm not going to argue with anybody about it. Others can come to their own conclusions based on known facts drawn from Scripture and supporting historical knowledge. But when I saw the OP question and some of the ideas shared in responses, I thought I'd step in and share what I believe and why I believe it. The evidence is there for each person to decide for themselves, if they think it's time well spent.

Anyway, as always I enjoy the discussion. I love it when people dig into God's Word. In the hands of the Holy Spirit, Scripture is the greatest source of true knowledge we will ever have in this life. And we can never have a better teacher than Him.
 
Anyway, as always I enjoy the discussion. I love it when people dig into God's Word. In the hands of the Holy Spirit, Scripture is the greatest source of true knowledge we will ever have in this life. And we can never have a better teacher than Him.
One day we’ll know.

When calendar discussions come up I tend to shy away from them. For one thing we should account for the 360-day Hebrew calendar and leap year.

Anyhow, just for information, I’ll post how Jimmy DeYoung gets Zechariah through the summer to September when he may have returned home.

(After I grab breakfast :pizza:)
 
More from Jimmy DeYoung’s perspective. (I’m not sure he’s right, but it’s fun to learn more about life in Israel when our Savior was born!)

“Let's go first to the text, and we'll go to the book of Luke chapter 1, where we have one of the chapters that's dealing with the first coming of Jesus Christ, his birth.

Let's go to verse 5, because in this verse, we're going to find out actually information helping us to determine the actual month that Jesus Christ would have been born. Remember, we're talking about Zacharias who is a priest. There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, and he was of the course of Abbaia.

Now, let me stop right there. The course of Abbaia, what's that talking about? Well, remember, King David was not allowed to build the temple because of sin in his life.

His son Solomon would actually build the temple. In 1 Chronicles chapter 24, King David sets in place 24 courses for the 28,000 priests to work at the temple during the year. They would only work about a two-week period of time.”

Zacharias was of the course of Abbaia. According to additional Jewish literature, the Talmud, we know the time of the course of Abbaia. That would be the last week of July and the first week of August.

He was serving in that period of time, and after his two weeks of responsibility as a priest at the temple, verse 23 tells us that when it came to pass, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished. What's that talking about? Well, Zacharias, like every priest, had responsibilities after their two weeks of service in the temple as a priest, and they had to go through the ritual baths, they had to go through many activities that would keep them from returning home until all of these activities were finished.

Well, it says in verse 23, when they were accomplished, he departed to his own house, which was located in Incarum, about seven miles from the Temple Mount. Notice verse 24, and after those days, his wife Elizabeth conceived. As the angel Gabriel had told Zacharias, the priest, his wife Elizabeth, who had had a barren womb until this time, and up in age was going to give birth to a child.

He returns to his home after his ministration, which follows his two weeks of service. We're talking about the first week of September, when Zacharias would actually get home, and his wife conceived, and then the text tells us that she hid herself for a five-month period of time. Look at verse 26.

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee named Nazareth.

(There’s about 500 more words that I won’t paste.)

From Prophecy Today: Prophecy Today Weekend - December 7, Dec 7, 2024


This material may be protected by copyright.
 
Interesting. Jimmy's reasoning is absolutely correct, IF the Talmud is correct. His entire argument hangs on the timing of the temple division services given in the Talmud. The Talmud is the written tradition of the descendants of the Jewish priests and scholars who rejected Jesus Christ 300 years earlier. It is notoriously unreliable in many ways. The Word of God is always more reliable than the word of man, and especially far more than the words of the rabbis whose teachings actually directly contradict the Word of God --literally reversing what God has said-- which is why Jesus condemned them so strongly. The Talmud is their teachings in written form, created starting in the third century after Jesus.

So, who can we trust? How about Josephus? If we can trust Josephus at all, then the timing would change. Here's the relevant passage from my quoted source above--

Josephus tells us that each course served for one week from Sabbath to Sabbath, and changing at noon—8 calendar days, but actually serving seven full days.​
He (David) divided them also into courses: …and he ordained that one course should minister to God eight days, from Sabbath to Sabbath. And thus were the courses distributed by lot, in the presence of David, and Zadok and Abiathar the high priests, 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. [Josephus: Antiquities 7.14.7; see also Against Apion 2:8 – parenthesis mine]​
This means that the first course, Jehoiarib (1Chronicles 1:7) began its ministry on the first Sabbath of the first month (Nisan), not necessarily the first day of the month, unless the first day happened to be a Sabbath. Technically, this means that Zacharias would begin serving out his week on the 8th Sabbath of the year at noon and would continue to the 9th Sabbath at noon. However, all courses were to appear before the Lord three times a year: Passover, Firstfruits (Pentecost) and Tabernacles (Deuteronomy 16:16). Therefore, Zacharias actually served two weeks at the Temple, back to back. Once for his course’s duties to accommodate the influx of the pilgrims coming to worship the Lord at Jerusalem during the festival of Pentecost and also one week immediately before or immediately after Pentecost (depending on what date the first Sabbath of the year fell). Afterward, he would have returned home to Elizabeth in the hill country, and Elizabeth would have become pregnant mid to late June.​
Anyway, that is why, though I love Jimmy DeYoung, I think he's absolutely wrong on this issue. It's not Jimmy, it's the source he trusted. And having read Eitan Bar and Golan Brosh's excellent investigative book Rabbinic Judaism Debunked, I wouldn't put two cents worth of trust in anything in the Talmud.
 
The problem with the above calculations is, as I've come to believe from my studies, that it is wrong in it's determination of when the priestly division of Abijah actually served in the temple. I believe that the Biblical evidence --supported by Josephus-- is that the eighth course of Abijah --the division in which Zachariah served-- performed it's duties in the second week of the month of Sivan, which is analogous to our late May/early June period. Rather than unpacking the reasoning from scratch, I'm going to take a shortcut and use an excellent article really available online. It's written by a Bible teacher and older Christian brother who lives in the Blue Mountains of eastern Pennsylvania. His name is Eddie Bromfield and his article is here: The Course of Abijah.

As I believe that I will show, and as Eddie demonstrates, Zachariah would have finished his duties and returned to his wife Elizabeth around the middle or so of June. This is when the Bible says she got pregnant. Count 6 months from that date and you get the middle or so of December, which is when the Holy Spirit, speaking through Luke, says Mary got pregnant. Now count 9 months from that date and where do you wind up? September. So, based on Bible timings, Jesus was born in mid to late September. Which lines up with the timing of when the temple shepherds would have been with their flocks in the fields near Bethlehem.

Jesus began his ministry on his 30th birthday. Now, count 3 and a half years from September. Well clearly the three years takes us to the same time 3 years later. But the half year (six months) takes us from late September up to late March which is the time of Passover, when the Bible tells us Jesus was crucified.

As I said, this timing lines up with what the Bible says. So, for me, I'm satisfied that He was born in September and died 33 and a half years later in late March.

All that said, this is not a matter of critical importance; it's merely of interest. Therefore I'm not going to argue with anybody about it. Others can come to their own conclusions based on known facts drawn from Scripture and supporting historical knowledge. But when I saw the OP question and some of the ideas shared in responses, I thought I'd step in and share what I believe and why I believe it. The evidence is there for each person to decide for themselves, if they think it's time well spent.

Anyway, as always I enjoy the discussion. I love it when people dig into God's Word. In the hands of the Holy Spirit, Scripture is the greatest source of true knowledge we will ever have in this life. And we can never have a better teacher than Him.
That is what I understand. Dr Ken Johnson and others who have examined these things in detail agree with the Josephus account. This would have Jesus conceived during Hanukkah (the light of the world) and born during the great Fall Feasts (tabernacling among us).

And as you say, it's a fun topic that gets people digging into the Bible, into historical data. It's like the year of the Cross. Depends on the sources used.

Same for the Star of Bethlehem. I think that was a manifestation of the Shekinah Glory, and not a conjunction of stars or planetary alignments that provided a bright but stationary object.

Not saying a particular star or planetary conjunction didn't happen to start the Wise Men on their journey, but that Star LED them, and rested over the place where Jesus was.

It's in Matthew's gospel, chapter 2 and it has some interesting details - Matthew presents Jesus as the King of the Jews. The Magi were a very powerful group of "kingmakers". Daniel the prophet became their leader and these Magi according to early Church Fathers, were in possession of wealth from Daniel to bring to the coming king, and they knew what signs to look for. They were terrifying to Herod because they did have great power, not the least of which was their confirmation on kings and leaders.

Notice that the Magi ask where the King is right away. They followed his star- and assumed he'd be born into royal circles. Herod is horrified, and checks with the Jewish religious authorities. The Magi are interested to hear where to find the King, so they listen.

After that they are called to a secret meeting with Herod to find out WHEN the star arrived. Assuming rightly that this would indicate WHEN the baby had been born. Herod knew (and Satan too) that this child MUST be eliminated. Which is why all the children under the age of 2 are killed. This tells us, the star arrived a while back, and the child is 2 or under.

That tells us this star has been shining for 2 years straight as we learn from verse 16 of chapter 2 which reads: 16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.

Not too many of these conjunctions last that long, so the star appears in a particular constellation, but keeps burning brightly for 2 years, and then to top it off, when they get to Bethlehem the Star does something strange. It goes ahead of them, and stops over the place where the child (no longer a baby) was.

Notice also that Herod and the religious leaders didn't seem to be aware of the star because Herod has to ASK the MAGI when that star first appeared. Herod was no fool, he was a sly and manipulative man. He would have had people adept in the Roman ways of looking at the stars, and determining things. He was a very Roman connected guy. But this caught him by surprise, nor could his people tell him when this star arrived, he had to ask the Magi!

This is why I think while the Star might have started out with a bright conjunction of planets or a super nova or something in a particular constellation to announce to the Magi, it's happened, time to go give those gifts to the King that Daniel foretold, but at some point this became a manifestation of the Shekinah Glory of God or an angelic light to lead and guide them

--- in the same way that God was a pillar of cloud by day and a fire by night to lead and protect the children of Israel leaving Egypt.

If we believe God did that (and we do) then it shouldn't be a stretch to believe that He would do that for the Magi too. It doesn't have to be a known planetary conjunction or super nova.

I personally believe it was the Shekinah Glory of God all along, that God didn't need to use an alignment of stars or planets or a super nova. I believe that the Glory (or an angel) shone in that particular part of the sky to catch their attention, and lead them to Christ.

1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem

2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.

5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:

6 “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’ ”

7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared.

8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”


9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was.

10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed.

11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

12 And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.
 
@Margery, I understand your points and I think I agree with just about everything you said. My one hesitation is in the age of the child when the Magi met Him. If he were close to two, as some people believe, then it means Joseph decided not to return to Nazareth where he and his entire family lived, but decided to stay in Bethlehem and open his business there. Then, once his two years stay in Egypt was over, surely we would expect him to return to his home in Bethlehem if that's where he was now living. But instead he returned to Nazareth. None of which makes particular sense. But if you deal with the age of the child according to ALL of the clues we can draw from scripture and Jewish practice, I think that problem disappears.

My personal studies have led me to the following timeline. Jesus is born. The night he's born the shepherds come and worship. Sometime within the next few days the magi arrive with their gifts. By this time Joseph and Mary have apparently been able to move the child from the stable area into the house itself. The wise men had been traveling for some time. They have probably seen the star and determined it's significance within the previous two years, plan the trip, and then followed what they read in the stars, winding up in Jerusalem where they naturally went to Herod's Palace. I think it is a presumption to believe that they saw the star immediately set out and took two years to get there.

From Herod's Palace they were told to go to Bethlehem, and the star led them to the very stable attached to the house where they found the child. Within a few days a threatened Herod sent his troops to Bethlehem to slaughter all children under two (based on what the magi had told him about the first appearance of the star.)

Why did this happen in the first few days? For two reasons. First Mary had to go through 7 days of purification after giving birth and would have been unable to travel. Second the firstborn male child had to be presented at the temple in Jerusalem eight days after birth. And Mary had to offer the sacrifice for her cleansing following birth. She would have been able to be totally cleansed and, along with Joseph, present her son at the temple on the eighth day because it was only 6 miles or one easy day's walk from Bethlehem to Jerusalem.

I do not know if Joseph intended to return to Nazareth once he performed his levitical duties in Jerusalem, but he was warned by the angel to leave Israel completely and go to Egypt, where he stayed with Mary and Jesus until Herod died about two years later. When he was told it was safe to return, he returned to where he started-- Nazareth. Not Bethlehem where some people would have us believe he was living prior to going to Egypt.

Anyway that's how I read it.
 
@Margery, I understand your points and I think I agree with just about everything you said. My one hesitation is in the age of the child when the Magi met Him. If he were close to two, as some people believe, then it means Joseph decided not to return to Nazareth where he and his entire family lived, but decided to stay in Bethlehem and open his business there. Then, once his two years stay in Egypt was over, surely we would expect him to return to his home in Bethlehem if that's where he was now living. But instead he returned to Nazareth. None of which makes particular sense. But if you deal with the age of the child according to ALL of the clues we can draw from scripture and Jewish practice, I think that problem disappears.

My personal studies have led me to the following timeline. Jesus is born. The night he's born the shepherds come and worship. Sometime within the next few days the magi arrive with their gifts. By this time Joseph and Mary have apparently been able to move the child from the stable area into the house itself. The wise men had been traveling for some time. They have probably seen the star and determined it's significance within the previous two years, plan the trip, and then followed what they read in the stars, winding up in Jerusalem where they naturally went to Herod's Palace. I think it is a presumption to believe that they saw the star immediately set out and took two years to get there.

From Herod's Palace they were told to go to Bethlehem, and the star led them to the very stable attached to the house where they found the child. Within a few days a threatened Herod sent his troops to Bethlehem to slaughter all children under two (based on what the magi had told him about the first appearance of the star.)

Why did this happen in the first few days? For two reasons. First Mary had to go through 7 days of purification after giving birth and would have been unable to travel. Second the firstborn male child had to be presented at the temple in Jerusalem eight days after birth. And Mary had to offer the sacrifice for her cleansing following birth. She would have been able to be totally cleansed and, along with Joseph, present her son at the temple on the eighth day because it was only 6 miles or one easy day's walk from Bethlehem to Jerusalem.

I do not know if Joseph intended to return to Nazareth once he performed his levitical duties in Jerusalem, but he was warned by the angel to leave Israel completely and go to Egypt, where he stayed with Mary and Jesus until Herod died about two years later. When he was told it was safe to return, he returned to where he started-- Nazareth. Not Bethlehem where some people would have us believe he was living prior to going to Egypt.

Anyway that's how I read it.
That makes sense and adds further clarity. A closer focus on the details. Love it!! :thankyou:

Since Herod is using human reasoning to attach a date- he fixes on 2 years and under for the age to kill. That doesn't mean he was right. Interesting detail there. Makes me think God is hiding His Son from the attention of the enemy, who must have breathed a sigh of relief when Herod killed the little ones in Bethlehem and why Satan wasn't hyperfocused on Nazareth to spot any up and coming Messiah figures from there. He must have figured the problem was dealt with.

Sorry, rabbit trailing in my head here, but that opens up a whole set of possibilities.
 
Back
Top