Jesus Christ Birthday today - 06 april

[Hemidakota]

Just remind everyone who loves the Savior, it is the Lord's birthday. If any birthday that should be celebrated beside close family, is His birthday. Just reminder....

[Dravin]

If you think about it, that's a lot of candle on his cake. :)

[Vort]

I assume you're referring to the opening of Section 20. To me, that reads like a formalized opening, not in any sense a declaration of Jesus' day of birth. Consider: What would "April 6, AD 1" mean in our present Gregorian calendar? It's not even well-defined.

In short, I see no compelling reason to believe that April 6 is Jesus' "birthday".

[Hemidakota]

So tell me, when? But before you leap, read on what former prophets had spoken about this subject.

[Vort]

When what? When was Jesus born? About 2000 years ago, give or take. As far as I know, the day of his birth has not been revealed.

I am well aware what a few previous apostles had to say on the subject, including President Kimball, who was convinced Jesus was born on April 6. I am also well aware of what other apostles had to say on the subject, including Elder McConkie, who saw no convincing reason to believe that Jesus was born on April 6.

Again, I ask you: What does "April 6 AD 1" mean in the Gregorian system? Or are we to understand it as a Julian date? Or does it mean 15 days before the Spring Equinox? Or maybe we aren't talking about solar or seasonal years at all; maybe "April 6 AD 1" really refers to a sidereal year corresponding to April 6, 1830. Is that what it means?

Unless you can define what "April 6 AD 1" means, declaring it as Jesus' birthday is not meaningful, totally beside the question of whether it's a correct assertion.

[Hemidakota]

Nisan was the first month of the year for the Hebrew calendar? Correct? Which is the equivalent to our what is now called April by the Romans. You noticed, I did not list the year since I do not believe He was born in 1 A.D. John Pratt is one who I can concur with calendar events and pretty much accurate with calendar events.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Vort]

Hemi,

What does "April 6 AD 1" uniquely mean? And by what authority can you make that determination?

[Hemidakota]

Reading the Book of Luke and noting the Hebrew Calendar, the lambing season occurs in the spring. In the Middle East sheep drop their lambs within a period of about two weeks from late March to early April. During this season the flocks require the constant attention of their keepers.

During lambing, for the safety of their flocks and preservation of the newborn, shepherds keep careful watch over their sheep. At no other time in the year are shepherds more closely tied to their flocks. . . . Only in the spring, during the lambing season, are shepherds anxious about the lives of their sheep—so anxious that they keep watch over their flocks throughout the night.

Many pilgrims in Bethlehem during the middle of winter have been struck by the coldness of the Judean nights. At that time of year the hills and valleys are in the grip of frost, and there are few, if any, shepherds keeping watch over their flocks by night. The sheep are protected from the cold in simple shelters, or have been taken south to the desert. . . . Judean shepherds can be found in the fields keeping watch over their sheep any time from mid-March to early November. . . . Considering how the seasons of the year affect the behavior of the sheep and the shepherds, it seems reasonable to conclude that the shepherds in the hills of Judea would be "keeping watch over their flocks by night" (Luke 2:8) in the spring of the year and that, therefore, spring was a likely time for the birth of Christ.

Concerning December time frame and usage of the Gregorian Calendar, Lefgren, April Sixth, page 15 and 16, he states, "Concerning the date of Christ's birth, one of the earliest known references to December 25 was in the third century A.D. Scholarly consensus recognizes that early Christians probably appropriated December 25 from pagan festivals.

Presidents of the Church, including Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimball have reaffirmed that April 6 is the true anniversary of Christ's birth, but have encouraged Church members to join with other Christians in observing Christmas as a special day for remembering Jesus' birth and teachings" (John Franklin Hall, "April 6," in Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1:61–62).

Vort, why would Joseph Smith pick such date to organize the church if there was no significance? In keeping with the wonderful traditions and remembrance of such great events, my own temple sealing [marriage] vows is done in the same week of the church and Lord's birth for a reason.

Some further evidence: http://www.ancientamerica.org/library/media/PDF/2423THE-DATE-OF-CHRIST-Warren.pdf

Edited April 6, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Vort]

Reading the Book of Luke and noting the Hebrew Calendar, the lambing season occurs in the spring. In the Middle East sheep drop their lambs within a period of about two weeks from late March to early April. During this season the flocks require the constant attention of their keepers.

During lambing, for the safety of their flocks and preservation of the newborn, shepherds keep careful watch over their sheep. At no other time in the year are shepherds more closely tied to their flocks. . . . Only in the spring, during the lambing season, are shepherds anxious about the lives of their sheep—so anxious that they keep watch over their flocks throughout the night. . . . Considering how the seasons of the year affect the behavior of the sheep and the shepherds, it seems reasonable to conclude that the shepherds in the hills of Judea would be "keeping watch over their flocks by night" (Luke 2:8) in the spring of the year and that, therefore, spring was a likely time for the birth of Christ.

Very interesting, though probably overstated. I am confident that, for example, wolves are a threat in times other than early spring. I doubt that spring was the only time of the year when shepherds watched their flocks.

In any case, I have no problem believing that Jesus was born in the spring. Seems more logical than winter, for example, for several reasons. I simply think that declaring April 6 to be "Jesus' birthday" is unwarranted.

Concerning December time frame and usage of the Gregorian Calendar, Lefgren, April Sixth, page 15 and 16, he states, "Concerning the date of Christ's birth, one of the earliest known references to December 25 was in the third century A.D. Scholarly consensus recognizes that early Christians probably appropriated December 25 from pagan festivals.

I don't think any knowledgeable person believes Jesus was born on December 25.

Presidents of the Church, including Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimball have reaffirmed that April 6 is the true anniversary of Christ's birth

By "reaffirmed", you mean "opined". The opening words of Section 20 are no such declaration.

Vort, why would Joseph Smith pick such date to organize the church if there was no significance?

There was significance. It was the date the Church was to be organized.

What is the great celestial significance of December 23? Or March 15? Or June 27? If you really want to, you can find or invent a significance for any date you care to (witness the work of John Pratt, an apparently able and intelligent man who appears to focus his efforts on astonishingly superstitious nonsense). To say, "Well, Jesus must have been born on April 6, because look, that's when the Church was reorganized!" just doesn't wash.

Hemi, you still haven't answered my simple questions above. What is the unique day pointed to be the term "April 6 AD 1", and by what authority do you derive that date?

Edited April 6, 2009 by Vort
Clarify wording

[pam]

Wasn't there something also in history about their tax season being in April? That was another consideration in determining the month and day of his birth.

[Vort]

Pam, you're getting confused. That's OUR tax season! :)

[pam]

Pam, you're getting confused. That's OUR tax season! :)

No I'm not confused. That's why Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem. To pay their taxes.

Maybe that's why April is OUR tax time.

[Vort]

No I'm not confused. That's why Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem. To pay their taxes.

Maybe that's why April is OUR tax time.

They did not return to Bethlehem to be taxed. They returned there to be counted in a census. At least, that's my understanding.

Requiring people to travel many days' journey just to collect taxes from them would be hugely inefficient and wasteful, certainly not something the Romans would have done.

My understanding:

The traditional explanation of Luke's account "all the world should be taxed" was that the taxes for a region were based on population as determined by census. Jews returned to the cities associated wtih their lineage to be counted, so that's why Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem.

I don't think there is any evidence that Caesar actually required a census at the time, so the account in Luke may be based on a false tradition. Matthew doesn't say anything about taxes or a census, but he also puts the birthplace at Bethlehem. (Interestingly, the Book of Mormon says simply "the land of Jerusalem", which would include Bethlehem but doesn't specify it.) Maybe Mary and Joseph simply lived in Bethlehem, and somehow Luke got ahold of a tradition of census-taking for tax purposes to place them there. The Lord later was considered as being from Nazareth, so maybe that's why Luke passed on the tradition of a tax census, as a way of explaining why Jesus of Nazareth would have been born in Bethlehem. Matthew was obviously concerned about this point, too, since he quotes scripture (badly) to justify the necessity of the Lord being born at Bethlehem.

Or, who knows, maybe there really was a Roman census that brought them to Bethlehem that just hasn't survived in history except through Luke's account.

[pam]

Luke 2:1-6

1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all all world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

I have always learned since I was a child that they went to pay their annual taxes. Perhaps that was a way for a census to be done as well.

[Vort]

I have always learned since I was a child that they went to pay their annual taxes. Perhaps that was a way for a census to be done as well.

A little reflection will show this to be highly unlikely. Requiring farmers and tradespeople in an agrarian society to take a week off to travel to and from another city to pay taxes, right when they should be preparing their fields for planting (or selling their skills to said farmers), would defeat the purpose of raising money. (Remember that the Jews also had to make a yearly pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which judging by the story of Jesus at the temple was a big deal. Two such trips in a year would be completely unreasonable for such a situation, I would imagine.)

The Bible makes it clear that certain Jews, called publicans, were authorized by the Romans to collect taxes from their fellow Jews, so no such annual gathering would have been needed anyway. Furthermore, Luke's account states that the reason for their journey was a decree from Augustus (Octavian, I presume?), which is very unlikely to have been an annual occurrence. The most logical reason for such a "taxing" would have been to conduct a census for tax purposes.

Though Luke does mention Cyrenius, so I wonder if there was a local tax levied by him at the same time as the census was taken. The hoi polloi, being unaware of and unconcerned with Roman census methodology, would have simply understood this to be a tax they had to pay when Caesar ordered it. That would make sense, and would explain the account Luke gives.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think Vort's explanation is pretty well in-line with statements by both secular and LDS scholars.

The Romans weren't the most merciful of rulers, but emptying Nazareth (or any other village, however inconsequential) on an annual basis makes no sense. It'd destroy the local economy for a week or more; it would siphon potential tax revenues off into the expenses concomitant with a lengthy trip; and it would create a glut of money-laden travelers on roads where robbery was common.

Moreover, the grown-up Jesus seems to have had no trouble digging up local tax collectors to teach wherever He happened to be ministering.

EDIT: Oops--cross-posted with Vort.

[Vort]

Another possibility:

The Census of Quirinius

Since Quirinius (or Cyrenius) was appointed by Caesar, a census instituted by him may well have been understood (or even represented) as being ordered by Caesar himself.

Interestingly, this suggests Jesus' year of birth to have been around AD 6, which is in line with some of what Hemi was suggesting.

[pam]

Also the way I understood it..not everyone went to Bethlehem. They had to go to the city of their ancestors. So entire towns weren't vacant. Some had to travel many miles, some still lived in the villages or hamlets they had grown up in. For Mary and Joseph however, they had to travel to Bethlehem as that was the town of Joseph's ancestors.

[pam]

I took the following from the institue manual available online:

(3-4) Luke 2:1–2. Jesus Was Born in Bethlehem,

April 6, 1

B.C.

Joseph and Mary did not live in Bethlehem at the time

of Christ’s birth. Rather, they lived in Nazareth (see

map). But obedient to the dictum of prophecy,

circumstances transpired that brought them to

Bethlehem for the birth of Christ. (See Micah 5:2.)

After summarizing the opinions of various scholars in

the matter of Christ’s birthday, Elder James E.

Talmage compares their conclusions with modern

revelation and then affirms: “We believe that Jesus

Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, April 6,

B

.C. 1.” (Jesus the Christ, p. 104.) Of this President

Harold B. Lee declared:

“This is the annual conference of the Church. April 6,

1973, is a particularly significant date because it

commemorates not only the anniversary of the

organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday

Saints in this dispensation, but also the

anniversary of the birth of the Savior, our Lord and

Master, Jesus Christ.

” (CR, Apr.1973, p. 4.)

[Vort]

I took the following from the institue manual available online:

The institute manual doesn't define our doctrine. Interestingly, Elder McConkie apparently felt no compunction about disagreeing with these opinions.

[pam]

So I should just consider what is taught in the institute manual as false information? Why have the manuals and have that taught if it is false information?

[Vort]

So I should just consider what is taught in the institute manual as false information? Why have the manuals and have that taught if it is false information?

So if the institute manuals contain any false information, they are useless? I disagree.

[prospectmom]

Wow...... Vort you could be right just as well as Hemi and Pam could be..... Is this something we really need to pick apart??? It's very probable and so I do not see why you seem so offended or whatever about it....

[pam]

So if the institute manuals contain any false information, they are useless? I disagree.

My point is..why would the Church knowingly allow false information to be taught in its institutes? I guess that's the point I'm having a hard time with.

[Vort]

My point is..why would the Church knowingly allow false information to be taught in its institutes? I guess that's the point I'm having a hard time with.

I am sure the Church never knowingly teaches false information. Correlation has done away with a lot of the unevenness of Church manuals and such, but the CES is not perfect.

On my mission, the discussions I used very clearly taught that we could not feel joy premortally. The exact wording, which I remember to this day, was "We could not feel joy or pain." Being a stickler for this sort of thing, I was quite upset about this blatantly false (and First-Presidency-approved) doctrine. I complained to my mission president (now a Seventy), and he seemed frankly a bit bewildered by my complaint. It was as if he were thinking, "Elder Vort, who cares? Why is it a big deal?" But it was obviously a big deal to me, and he gave me permission to modify the discussion so I didn't have to teach that.

From that incident, I learned two important lessons:

• Church educational materials, even those approved by the First Presidency, might contain inaccuracies.
• The spiritual giants who lead God's kingdom on earth don't seem particularly fazed by such inaccuracies, brushing them off as one might brush off a pesky fly on a hot day.

I am who I am, and I can't just completely change my personality to suit a whim, but I have tried to incorporate my mission president's attitudes in my own life. When I see an inaccuracy in a Church manual or teaching, I don't get all hot and bothered any more, at least not as much as I used to. But I'm certainly not naïve enough to believe that no such mistakes exist, or that just because such-and-such prophets said that such-and-such idea is true, therefore it is unassailable.

As far as I can tell, the whole idea that "Jesus was born on April 6" originates in the wording of the opening to Section 20. To my eyes and ears, that opening does not in any way read as a revelatory proclamation on the birthdate of Jesus Christ, but merely a statement of the date of the Church's formal restoration. Other overly literal interpretations seem to me misguided. That some previous Church presidents obviously believed the idea to be true doesn't really bother me, nor does it sway me. Other apostles disagreed with them on that idea.

For the, what, fourth time now, I ask you: What does "April 6 AD 1" mean, and by what authority do you make that determination?