What was the real date of Jesus' birth?

[Justice]

If we were to use Enoch's Solar Calender we would be correct on the day of the week every year. The correct date is 6th April 1 BC.

Somewhere along the way in the last two thousand years..we lost a year.

I don't think this means we lost a year. To me, all it means is that there was no year "0."

Christ turned 1 on His first birthday, in the year 1 AD.

1 year previous to 1 AD was 1 BC, since there was no year 0.

[mrmarklin]

I always thought that the Lord was born in the spring due to the fact that the "shepards were tending their flocks", normally associated with a spring activity, at least here in the northern hemisphere. Assuming that to be true, then the Lord could have been born in the spring.

Due to Herod's death date, however, it would seem that He would have had to have been born prior to 1BC. Of course that assumes that the Herod spoken of was "the Great" and not the Herod that reigned at the time of Christ's death.

Who really knows? It was a very interesting article. Different scholars can even disagree as to what the "facts" are, so we can certainly have a lot of interesting speculation. I personally always assumed that the revelation was correct in every way, but as I have studied the scriptures more and more I have come to realize that everything needs to be taken in context. Not only in the literal sense of the scripture itself, but of the times in which it was written. I came to my own independent conclusiion that the date in Sec 20 was probably a little dogmatic, and I'm certainly open to not taking it literally. It may be 100% correct, but if proven not, it would not affect my testimony of the truth.

[bert10]

You are right...but it Depends on which calender one is using. The Calender Enoch used...Spring begins on the Spring EQuinox. Christ was born in April and J. Smith who is right also says so.

The Spring Equinox is the same regardless of which calender we use. In this Satan cannot deceive us.

Without a foundation of knowledge of the ancients...it is easy to see who we can make errors in our assumptions. And Satan has also nudged us away from this so that we can continue to be deceived that Christ was born in December when the pagans used to to their rituals.

The Calender that God gave the Hebrews because of their wickedness dealt with lunar cycle and it also prevented them from knowing with days were truly sacred according to the heavenly lights. The Lunar calender is based on the lesser light.

Today we use a calender inspired from Satan where the days and the months are marked using the names of Demons and false Gods such as Thor for thursday...June from Juno and so on.

bert10

[Wingnut]

I think Satan has better things about which to deceive us than the date of Christ's birth. I don't think he really cares when we think it is. Celebrating Christ's birth in December doesn't make us any more pagan than reading Harry Potter makes us wizards.

[catalyst]

August 14th and his real name was Jonathan Richman. I'm pretty sure the "revelation" came from one of the Seventy back in the late 70's.

[volgadon]

Ex. Juno (June), Mars (March) Thor (Thursday) are names of false gods.

Not only are we walking by a lower light, We are using the names of demons to mark the days and month of the Calender we use and some do pronounce their names more often then that of our own GOD.

Speak for yourself. I also use yom rishon (day first), yom sheni (day second), yom shlishi (day third), yom revii (day fourth), yom hamishi (day fifth), yom shishi (day sixth), and shabbat, as well as voskresenye (resurrection), ponedelnik (according to the week), vtornik (recurring), sreda (middle), chetverg (quarter), pyatnitsa (five), subbota (sabbath).

[JohnnyRudick]

All I can say is "Very Interesting":rolleyes:

[volgadon]

I always thought that the Lord was born in the spring due to the fact that the "shepards were tending their flocks", normally associated with a spring activity, at least here in the northern hemisphere. Assuming that to be true, then the Lord could have been born in the spring.

In ancient Israel down to today tending sheep was a year-round activity. For us, winter is really more akin to autumn in Europe and North America. Rain falls and grass grows. Good for the sheep, miserable for the shepherds. They have to be out during all weather, from shivering wet and cold to blistering heat. By may the sun scorches and shrivels the vegetation. As the young Jewish idealists at the turn of the century found, tending sheep is a great way to break your health. Practically the only time shepherds could relax is right after the shearing season.

My brother, BTW, was a shepherd for a time. Conditions are a lot better than they were in Christ's time, but shepherds still tend sheep year round. I personally think the Saviour was born some time in April, because of the salvation motive inherent in Passover, but shepherds tending flocks makes for a lousy indicator.

[JohnnyRudick]

In ancient Israel down to today tending sheep was a year-round activity. For us, winter is really more akin to autumn in Europe and North America. Rain falls and grass grows. Good for the sheep, miserable for the shepherds. They have to be out during all weather, from shivering wet and cold to blistering heat. By may the sun scorches and shrivels the vegetation. As the young Jewish idealists at the turn of the century found, tending sheep is a great way to break your health. Practically the only time shepherds could relax is right after the shearing season.

My brother, BTW, was a shepherd for a time. Conditions are a lot better than they were in Christ's time, but shepherds still tend sheep year round. I personally think the Saviour was born some time in April, because of the salvation motive inherent in Passover, but shepherds tending flocks makes for a lousy indicator.

Does the feast of tabernacles have anything to do with this?

When Jesus was tabernacled in flesh?

[Maureen]

...Today we use a calender inspired from Satan where the days and the months are marked using the names of Demons and false Gods such as Thor for thursday...June from Juno and so on.

Oh no! Does that mean that those people born in the months January to August are going to hell due to mythological gods or roman emperors? And September to December we're safe because they're all about numbers? Or maybe numbers are just as evil.

M.

[rameumptom]

Bert,

The problem isn't the Gregorian, Julian, and Hebrew Calendars (of which there are a lunar, solar, and lunar/solar calendars, depending on the era and sect).

The problem has to do with things the Bible tells us and how it fits in historically. First, Gabriel told Mary she was pregnant in the 6th month of the Jewish calendar (about March our timeframe). Nine months later? December, not April!

Second, Herod died in the spring of 4 BC. That is solid historical fact. You cannot have Herod demanding the deaths of Bethlehem's babes any time after that time. This means Christ was NOT born in 1 BC, as Elder Talmage and B.H. Roberts speculated. It means Jesus was born between 5-6 BC, probably in December.

Either this, or we have to rewrite Matthew to exclude Herod the Great as the king in Jesus' day. And we have to change the date of the Annunciation of Mary. So, do you believe what the Bible says, or do you believe an interpretation of D&C 20:1 given by Elder Talmage a century ago, which we now know was not part of the original revelation?

[rameumptom]

The common reference seems to be D&C 20:1.

So the question is, as Suzie framed it, how do you react to Presidents Lee and Hinckley using D&C 20:1 as the revelation forming the basis of the belief that the Savior was born on April 6th?

Prophets teach from the perspective of what they believe to be previously revealed revelation.

For instance, many GAs talked about the curse of Cain on blacks for over a century. Elder McConkie referenced it, yet after the 1978 revelation, had to backpedal. Why? Because there was an assumption made by Brigham Young and other early church leaders that was then read into scripture (even though it really is not there).

We can see the same thing occurring with this issue of D&C 20:1. Interestingly, Elder McConkie initially stated that Christ's birth was April 6, 1 BC, but near the end of his life changed his mind and preferred 5 BC!

[bert10]

It only matters in the sense that the Lord's people are to walk in knowledge and wisdom and not in ignorance in order to not be deceived by Satan.

Also if one were given the correct manner in determining the Lord's day which is also the day of the true passover, it is a holy day and that person would be responsible for this knowledge before the Lord. So in one week one would literally have two Holy Days. Even though the world is unaware of this day at this time.

I believe I made a mistake in how to determine the exact day of the passover which is okay with me. I was off by one day. Those of you if you wish to know it, will have to do some asking, seeking and knocking.

bert10

Does it really matter what day Christ came into the world? Knowing the date does nothing to enhance our testimony that Christ is the Son of God and our Savior. I'd rather learn for a surety that He is my Savior and that through him I can be forgiven of my sins. April 6? Dec 5? April 10? Gee whiz information if you ask me.

[MarginOfError]

It only matters in the sense that the Lord's people are to walk in knowledge and wisdom and not in ignorance in order to not be deceived by Satan.

Also if one were given the correct manner in determining the Lord's day which is also the day of the true passover, it is a holy day and that person would be responsible for this knowledge before the Lord. So in one week one would literally have two Holy Days. Even though the world is unaware of this day at this time.

I believe I made a mistake in how to determine the exact day of the passover which is okay with me. I was off by one day. Those of you if you wish to know it, will have to do some asking, seeking and knocking.

bert10

Ah! The classic I-can't-be-bothered-to-provide-references-that-don't-exist-so-I'm-going-to-say-that-other-people-should-prove-my-theories-for-me defense!

If you can't justify your claims, it's okay to say so.

[Backroads]

It only matters in the sense that the Lord's people are to walk in knowledge and wisdom and not in ignorance in order to not be deceived by Satan.

Also if one were given the correct manner in determining the Lord's day which is also the day of the true passover, it is a holy day and that person would be responsible for this knowledge before the Lord. So in one week one would literally have two Holy Days. Even though the world is unaware of this day at this time.

I believe I made a mistake in how to determine the exact day of the passover which is okay with me. I was off by one day. Those of you if you wish to know it, will have to do some asking, seeking and knocking.

bert10

How does Satan's deception work into the exact date of the birth of Christ?

I think Satan's deception would come in when overreacting and basing a testimony on an exact date!

[bert10]

If it were 5 BC it would mean that the Lord died at 38 years old. The accepted age of His death is 33. We did not make such a huge mistake with the calender we lost a year - Not 5.

It is important at this time that mankind do not know which date it is. To know how to determine the day of the True Passover is to also know about that Holy Day. For the passover was a holy day and still is. For those of you if you wish to pursue this further and get to know it....you would have to observe it as a Holy Day. In effect for that week you would have another Holy day other than Sunday.

This would be an added burden for some, for others it would be another opportunity to have another Holy day to keep. Still few in the world knows about how to do this, so that they can keep it.

bert10

Prophets teach from the perspective of what they believe to be previously revealed revelation.

For instance, many GAs talked about the curse of Cain on blacks for over a century. Elder McConkie referenced it, yet after the 1978 revelation, had to backpedal. Why? Because there was an assumption made by Brigham Young and other early church leaders that was then read into scripture (even though it really is not there).

We can see the same thing occurring with this issue of D&C 20:1. Interestingly, Elder McConkie initially stated that Christ's birth was April 6, 1 BC, but near the end of his life changed his mind and preferred 5 BC!

Edited December 30, 2010 by bert10

[pam]

I am with CaptainMoroni. It matters not to me the exact date. It doesn't halt my progression. It doesn't hinder my testimony. Nor does it matter which dang calendar we use.

What matters is that he is my Savior and I know this. Whether we celebrate December 25th or April 6th, we celebrate His birth.

Edited December 31, 2010 by pam

[MarginOfError]

If it were 5 BC it would mean that the Lord died at 38 years old. The accepted age of His death is 33. We did not make such a huge mistake with the calender we lost a year - Not 5.

It is important at this time that mankind do not know which date it is. To know how to determine the day of the True Passover is to also know about that Holy Day. For the passover was a holy day and still is. For those of you if you wish to pursue this further and get to know it....you would have to observe it as a Holy Day. In effect for that week you would have another Holy day other than Sunday.

This would be an added burden for some, for others it would be another opportunity to have another Holy day to keep. Still few in the world knows about how to do this, so that they can keep it.

bert10

I see...so now you're just better informed and more holy than the rest of us for keeping an extra Holy Day in the year. And on top of that, you're trying to protect us from the inconvenience of another day off of work.

Thanks for your compassion, Brother bert.

:notworthy:

[Suzie]

I am with CaptainMoroni. It matters not to me the exact date. It doesn't halt my progression. It doesn't hinder my testimony. Nor does it matter which dang calendar we use.

What matters is that he is my Savior and I know this. Whether we celebrate December 25th of April 6th, we celebrate His birth.

I don't think the point here is whether or not it matters the exact date. The point here (IMO) is whether or not as Church believed (doctrinally speaking) that He was born indeed on April 6th, teach about it from the pulpit, to each other, in general conference through the voice of our leaders, and even Institute manuals and what we make out of all this after reading the article that was presented on this thread. That's the issue here.

[captmoroniRM]

The real point is, if we have sufficient time to sit here and debate petty things like the real date of Christ's birth, what would be a better use of our time? How is our home/visiting teaching? How is our family history coming along? Could it be better spent developing and improving family relationships? It's these kind of pointless debates that resulted in abominable creeds of the apostasy and the bogus rules of the Jewish pharisees.

[JohnnyRudick]

Oh no! Does that mean that those people born in the months January to August are going to hell due to mythological gods or roman emperors? And September to December we're safe because they're all about numbers? Or maybe numbers are just as evil. M.

I do not think that he believes anything of the kind:mellow:

[JohnnyRudick]

Bert,

The problem isn't the Gregorian, Julian, and Hebrew Calendars (of which there are a lunar, solar, and lunar/solar calendars, depending on the era and sect).

The problem has to do with things the Bible tells us and how it fits in historically. First, Gabriel told Mary she was pregnant in the 6th month of the Jewish calendar (about March our timeframe). Nine months later? December, not April!

Second, Herod died in the spring of 4 BC. That is solid historical fact. You cannot have Herod demanding the deaths of Bethlehem's babes any time after that time. This means Christ was NOT born in 1 BC, as Elder Talmage and B.H. Roberts speculated. It means Jesus was born between 5-6 BC, probably in December.

Either this, or we have to rewrite Matthew to exclude Herod the Great as the king in Jesus' day. And we have to change the date of the Annunciation of Mary. So, do you believe what the Bible says, or do you believe an interpretation of D&C 20:1 given by Elder Talmage a century ago, which we now know was not part of the original revelation?

Please help me:mellow:

It is most likely as plain as the head on my shoulders, but -

How can I know that Mary was told by the Angel in the

spring or better yet in May?

[JohnnyRudick]

I am with CaptainMoroni. It matters not to me the exact date. It doesn't halt my progression. It doesn't hinder my testimony. Nor does it matter which dang calendar we use.

What matters is that he is my Savior and I know this. Whether we celebrate December 25th of April 6th, we celebrate His birth.

Or both:D

I would of loved to had two birthdays celibrated:p

[JohnnyRudick]

The real point is, if we have sufficient time to sit here and debate petty things like the real date of Christ's birth, what would be a better use of our time? How is our home/visiting teaching? How is our family history coming along? Could it be better spent developing and improving family relationships? It's these kind of pointless debates that resulted in abominable creeds of the apostasy and the bogus rules of the Jewish pharisees.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[bytor2112]

Please help me:mellow:

It is most likely as plain as the head on my shoulders, but -

How can I know that Mary was told by the Angel in the

spring or better yet in May?

And when exactly should we believe anything uttered by an Apostle or Prophet? Talmage? nope. McConkie? um, no. Kimball? no. Hinkley? naw. Monson? :) Joseph Fielding Smith? no sir.

I read threads and think to myself....I am glad I have a testimony because IF I didn't I would be gone. No wonder we catch such grief from others.