So, last night (December 6, 2009) I'm remembering all the Christmas Songs that I used to sing in Junior High on the way home from Basketball practice at night when I was twelve or thirteen years old. It was about a mile and a half walk of about a half hour and that through the country, for the most part, with the fields clad in snow and the stars shining down and I would be singing to my hearts content, as loud as I could cause I knew there wasn't anyone around for miles to hear me and, my favorite song was the First Noel.
Then I realized that, perhaps, the songs that Abba (and our Lady) likes to hear the most are the songs about the birth of Y'shua and my mind strayed, eventually, to the big argument concerning the timing of our Lord's birth and I realized that, as with most everything else concerning the Church's Theology, that the Catholics were probably right.
So, I just got to the Library and checked out the argument and it all hinges upon when John's father ministered in the Temple. Those who say he was born on Tabernacles like to point out that Zacharias served in the Second Week of the Third Month (the tenth week of the year starting in Nisan), which they determine from the Courses of the Priests which Luke includes in his narrative. If that were the case then, in fact, Y'shua would have been born on Tabernacles.
However, what these people do not tell you is that this same course of Priests would also have served in the 34th Week of the Year which corresponds to Yom Kippur which is exactly how the Angel appears to Zacharias - right in front of the Veil of separation from the Holy of Holies. This, then, places John's birth in the following third month and Y'shua's conception right around Nisan first and his birth right exactly during Hanukkuh.
Some have argued that the Shepherds would not have been in the field during that time however, the flocks that were for the Temple would have been (for my source for this info click on the title of this post) and that is the primary reason the Angels appeared to those particular shepherds. Edersheim who, in my (and other's) opinion, is the expert on the life of Y'shua said there is no logical reason to change the date for the birth from December 25th.
But, most importantly, the Church has always placed his birth at this time dating back to the first century and confirmed by Hippolytus in the second - long before the 'dreaded' Catholic Church of the third century decided to use a pagan holy day for this festival. In other words, as with many of the other mythological points, the Pagan's got their teachings from the constellations which were given by God to Adam, Seth and Enoch and which predicted the Life of Messiah 6,000 years ago - including the time of his birth (see Seiss' Gospel in the Stars as well as Bullingers work on the same subject).
Now, get this, Jerusalem has been known to receive snow and, two thousand years ago, it was supposedly a little colder, globaly, then it is now and it is very possible that there was actually a light dusting of snow that night, and I refer the reader to my post the Eye of the Storm for my reasoning concerning this.
But now, lets take this all a little further. It has been determined that Y'shua had to have been born between 4 and 3 BC due to the timing of the death of Herod and, therefore, we can know that Y'shua was born around Hanukkuh of 4 BC (3BC would be too late) making him 33 Years old in 30 AD precisely, when he started his ministry. This places the First Day of Hanukkuh (24th day of the 9th month), according to one Site, around December 13, 4 BC, but they assuredly forgot to take into account the ten days that were added by Pope Gregory XIII during the Gregorian Reformation
I say this because, if we use Your Sky - we see that Astronomical New Moon of the Ninth Month occured precisely on November 29th, 4 BC , and the actual sighting of the New Moon of the Ninth Month would have occured the next night, thus making December 1, 4 BC to be the First Day of the Ninth Month and that would place the First Day of Hanukkuh - the Twenty Fourth Day of the Ninth Month - to have occured, literally, exactly on December 25th, 4 BC and that, my friends, is just about the most incredible piece of Chronological Work I have ever seen in my entire life.
Thus, Y'shua ben Y'hava was born precisely on December 25, 4 BC on the First day of Hanakkuh and he would have been circumcised on the Eighth Day of Hanakkuh.
I've got my Christmas Back!!!
Hail Mary, Full of Grace, Blessed are thou among women and Blessed is the Fruit of Your Womb - Y'shua ben Y'hava...

The First Noel
And, get this! The King Planet - Jupitor - was in the constellation of Auriga - the Shepherd! Now you know why Y'shua associated with the Shepherds so much!

The reader can check the comment section for any more relevant information that I add to this post at a later date.

14 comments:
ReplyDeleteTheoferrum said...
According to the website below, which presents the Tabernacles birth view, it was common to present a tax during a religeous festival - as was Hanukkah :
"Due to the difficulties during travel, it was common for the officials to declare tax time during a temple Feast (Luke 2:1). "
http://biblicalholidays.com/Tabernac..._of_christ.htm
December 7, 2009 2:39 PM
Theoferrum said...
This guy records that Justin Martyr and Tertullian both make reference to the tax involved in our Lord's Birth and they name Cyrenius and Augustus respectively as being responcible :
Justin Martyr, attempting to persuade the Roman government to stop persecuting Christians, refers the Romans to their own tax registers to verify Jesus’ birth. After mentioning the prophecy of the Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem he continues: Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judæa.- Justin Martyr, First Apology XXXIV (circa 150-155 A.D.)
Tertullian, emphasizing Jesus’ true humanity and actual birth against the Gnostics, makes the same type of appeal to the Roman imperial archives.
His enrollment in the census of Augustus — that most faithful witness of the Lord’s nativity, kept in the archives of Rome – Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:7 (circa 210 A.D.)
http://weekendfisher.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesus-in-roman-taxcensus-archives.html
December 7, 2009 2:45 PM
Theoferrum said...
Now Judea came under direct Roman Authority (contrary to one persons statements to the contrary that I just read) in 6 BC thus allowing them to impliament a tax if they so chose (as opposed to only Herod being able to tax them as that person said).
After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus in 6, Iudaea Province (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea and Idumea) came under direct Roman administration with Coponius as prefect; at the same time Quirinius was appointed Legate of Syria, with instructions to assess Iudea Province for taxation purposes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius
December 7, 2009 2:48 PM
Theoferrum said...
Now get this. The Wiki article mentions a tax by Agustus during the reign of Quirinius over Syria sometime after this date when they obtained Judaea in 6 BC but then they say this couldn't be the one cause Herod died ten years before then and promplty contradict themselves in the article on Herod that states Herod died in 4BC as I have stated and which the date in question is connected to.
"One of his first duties was to carry out a census as part of this.[8] The assessment was greatly resented by the Jews, and open revolt was prevented only by the efforts of the high priest Joazar.[9] As it was, the census did trigger the revolt of Judas the Galilean and the formation of the party of the Zealots, according to Josephus.[10] The Gospel of Luke links the birth of Jesus to a "world-wide" census ordered by Augustus carried out while Quirinius was governor of Syria; however, Luke also, like the Gospel of Matthew dates the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died nearly ten years before the census of 6 or 7 AD.
Herod (Hebrew: הוֹרְדוֹס, Hordos, Greek: Ἡρῴδης, Hērōdēs), also known as Herod I or Herod the Great (born 74 BC, died 4 BC in Jericho, was a Roman client king of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
It would seem to me that this is, in fact, the Tax in question and requires further research.
December 7, 2009 2:56 PM
ReplyDeleteTheoferrum said...
Apparently we don't know when this tax occured or the revolt under Judas only that it occured "around 6 BC" according to the article from Wiki.
"Judas of Galilee or Judas of Gamala led a violent resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Iudaea Province around AD 6. The revolt was crushed brutally by the Romans. These events are discussed by Josephus in Jewish Wars and in Antiquities of the Jews."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_the_Galilean
December 7, 2009 3:08 PM
Theoferrum said...
Nope - that probably ain't it cause its referring to 6AD not BC - my mistake.
December 7, 2009 3:12 PM
Theoferrum said...
Well, actually, I am right and so is Luke :
Cyrenius : the Grecized form of Quirinus
His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. Recent historical investigation has proved that Quirinius was governor of Cilicia, which was annexed to Syria at the time of our Lord's birth. Cilicia, which he ruled, being a province of Syria. He is called the governor, which he was de jure, of Syria. Some ten years afterwards he was appointed governor of Syria for the second time. During his tenure of office, at the time of our Lord's birth (Luke 2:2), a “taxing” (Revised Version, “enrolment;” i.e., a registration) of the people was “first made;” i.e., was made for the first time under his government.
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/cyrenius.html
December 7, 2009 3:18 PM
Theoferrum said...
And his first tour in office was the very period of time in question 6-4BC :
Ingersoll was on the right track. But his oration needs some clarification. Yes, Cyrenius was an important Roman official in the time of Augustus. His name was really Quirinius, which became Kyrinios in Greek, and Cyrenius in English. (The RSV bible has corrected his name back to Quirinius.) He was in charge of Roman military matters in Syria, which placed him over the legions in Judea as well, on 2 different occasions: 6-4 BCE and 6-9 CE. Apparently this information was unknown to Ingersoll, who claims Cyrenius did not come into power until ten years after the death of Herod the Great. What Ingersoll is speaking of is Cyrenius' second term, from 6-9 CE.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/herod.html
December 7, 2009 3:27 PM
ReplyDeleteTheoferrum said...
Now, this website says that there was, in fact, a tax under Augustus and which occured in 8-7 BC - I would guess this is the tax in question and that they are off by three years.
History records that Varus was governor of Syria from about 7 B.C. to about 4 B.C. and was not a trustworthy leader. However, Cyrenius was a notable military leader. During the census of 8-7 B.C., Augustus entrusted Cyrenius with Palestine, effectively superseding the authority and governorship of Varus by appointing Cyrenius to a place of special authority. Cyrenius administered in Syria on two separate occasions, once while prosecuting the military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 B.C., and later beginning about A.D. 6. A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 has been interpreted to refer to Cyrenius as having served as governor of Syria on two occasions.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/45325
December 7, 2009 3:28 PM
Theoferrum said...
And here is the conclusion. The Tax was ordered in 8 BC and would have taken two to three years to impliament :
We also know that Augustus Caesar ordered a Census in 8 B.C., this would have taken a good two to three years to implement and complete in all the provinces under direct and indirect control of Rome. The following is an account given by Augustus of the census:
"...during my sixth term as consul (28 B.C.), I along with my comrade Marcus Agrippa, commanded a census be taken of the people. I directed a lustrum, the first in forty-one years, in which 4,063,000 Roman citizens were counted. And once again, with imperial authority, I single handedly authorized a lustrum when the consuls of Rome were Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius (8 B.C.), during which time 4,233,000 Roman citizens were counted." (Res Gestae 8 - The Deeds of Augustus by Augustus)
http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/cyrenius.htm
December 7, 2009 3:35 PM
Theoferrum said...
And this site tells us that often the Roman Census/Tax was a form of a property tax - thus requiring people to travel to possible landed estates other than where they were living - Joseph traveling to Jerusalem.
The essential uniformity of organization of taxes and assessments throughout the empire, such as is proved for the later imperial times by the classic legal sources, although no traces are apparent of a sudden reorganization in relation to the provinces under the earlier period, was early anticipated by the census regulations of Augustus. As to the detailed constitution of this provincial census, which later became universal, there is still some debate; it is fairly certain, however, that it regulated a real estate tax for proprietors and a personal tax for the landless; that it included the taxpayers' personal assessment; that its organization was not communal but provincial; and that the formal declaration took place in the principal centers of the fiscal districts. Of the interval between censuses there is certain knowledge only in relation to Egypt, through the new discoveries of Egyptian papyri (U. Wilcken, Griechische Ostraka, in Archiv für Papyrusforschung, vol. i., 1899), according to which in that country two kinds of assessments (apographai) were executed at stated times: a popular enumeration every fourteen years, and a declaration of movable property annually.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.vi.ccxxx.htm
December 7, 2009 3:47 PM
ReplyDeleteTheoferrum said...
Early in the twentieth century, a papyrus was discovered which contained an edict by G. Vibius Maximus, the Roman governor of Egypt, stating:
Since the enrollment by households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their own district to return to their own home, in order to perform the usual business of the taxation… (Cobern, C.M. 1929. The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament. New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, p. 47; Unger, M.F. 1962. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 64).
The same papyrus also confirms Luke’s assertion that a man had to bring his family with him when he traveled to his place of ancestry in order to be properly counted by the Roman authorities (Lk. 2:5). The document reads:
I register Pakebkis, the son born to me and my wife, Taasies and Taopis in the 10th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator [Emperor], and request that the name of my aforesaid son Pakeb[k]is be entered on the list” (Boyd, R.T. 1991. World’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, p. 415).
This sheds light on why Joseph had to bring his highly pregnant wife along with him when he went to Bethlehem. Such discoveries caused the late George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Semitic Languages at Bryn Mawr and former Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, to comment:
Luke’s statement, that Joseph went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to enroll himself with Mary (Luke 2:4, 5), turns out to be in exact accord with the governmental regulations as we now know them from the papyri. (Barton, G.A. 1917. Archaeology and the Bible. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, p. 435).
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/10/A-Brief-Comment-on-the-Census-in-Luke-2.aspx
December 7, 2009 3:54 PM
Theoferrum said...
An additional point is the fact that the word “enrollment” in the edict of G. Vibius Maximus is apographe in Greek (the universal language of the eastern half of the Roman Empire). This is exactly the word used in Lk. 2:2, translated “taxing,” not in the sense of taxation but in the sense of enrolling or registering for taxation (Unger 1962: 64, n. 17).
I hope this helps---Steve Caesar
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/10/A-Brief-Comment-on-the-Census-in-Luke-2.aspx
December 7, 2009 3:55 PM
Theoferrum said...
For those of you who consider the Tabernacles date based on John's words that Y'shua "pitched his tent" among us, you should consider that the Festival of Lights as Hanukkah is also called, was originally celebrated as a Second Tabernacles cause, at the time of the Maccabees, during the Feast of Tabernacles, the Temple was defiled and wasn't cleansed until the time of Hanukkah and the Maccabees celebrated Tabernacles at that time.
December 8, 2009 12:37 PM
So, here is the deal.
ReplyDeleteElizebeth had already experienced menopause and, therefore, there was no specific period of the month that she could get pregnant and since the conception was a miricle from the start then the chances are great that the first time they got together, after he finished serving in the temple, she would have been pregnant. This is only logical considering the excitement (in more ways then one) that they would have been experiencing. Thus, since he served in the second week of the third month then the chances are great that she was pregnant in the third week of the third month from this first choice for a tabernacles birth and this would have John born in the third week of the twelveth month and this requires no reconning for any leap year that may have occured.
This places her sixth month as occuring from the third week of the eighth month to the third week of the ninth month as the time that Y'shua was conceived - Mary's first month of pregnancy.
This places Y'shua's birth anywhere from the third week of the fifth month to the third week of the sixth month and this makes a tabernacles birth completely out of the question. Further, if there was a leap month between, there is no possible way he was born on tabernacles. In fact, the chances are that he would have been born in the fifth month by this theory which is the anniversary of the destruction of the temple twice. Poor symbolism for the birth of the Messiah - just the opposite of what you would expect.
Now, however, if you use the second date then Zecharias served in the 34th week of the year which is the third week of the ninth month meaning Elizebeth was pregnant in the fourth week of the ninth month - Hannakkuh - and John would then have been born the fourth week of the sixth month and Mary's first month of pregnancy would have been from the fourth week of the second month to the fourth week of the third month. Y'shua could have been conceived anytime during that time and the reader will no doubt notice that, in fact, Pentecost - when Israel was married to Y'hova - occurs the very next week and is assuredly when Y'shua was conceived. This would then place his birth, under 'normal' conditions, during the first week (or fourth week if you stick to a strict approach) of the twelveth month or close to Nisan first.
Now, however, Y'shua's birth was not normal. First off, since there was no sin involved either on Y'shua's or on Mary's part, then there was no curse involved and it is very possible that the normal gestation period before the fall would have been only seven months ("I will greatly increase they birth" - i.e. gestation).
So with that information we can make an educated guess as to what occured that fits all the facts together in a logical chain of events.
In 8 BC the Emperor orders a Census for property tax purposes and it takes about five years to complete during which at any time the person could travel to his respective home town to register. Joseph knows he has to got to Bethleham to register and he has to take Mary with him. Is he gonna wait until her ninth month to go - making pilgrammage for Passover - or is he, more likely, going to go in her seventh month when they can check out Jerusalem during Hannakkuh which the Rabbim will tell you was a spectacular event during the Festival of Lights. Of course they will head out when Mary is only seven months pregnant. However, either because the trip caused a forced labor, or because of a sinless conception and birth, Y'shua is born in the seventh month, just as they get to Bethleham which was packed with tourist, not coming to register, per sae, but to go up to the feast of Hannakkuh, which is also when the Foundation Stone was placed in the Temple.
Thus, Y'shua honored this Festival cause it was his birth day when the Light came into the world, which he claimed to be on that very holiday, and because he is also the Stone that the builders rejected.
The Norway Spiral occured exactly two days after this post.
ReplyDeleteThe New Jerusalem's First Noel since its return...
Here is the info
ReplyDeletehttp://theoferrum.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=136070&p=3&topicID=37167309
The Norway Spiral
ReplyDelete[video=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cGuTU2Gf30]