What was the real date of Jesus' birth?

[Suzie]

It's these kind of pointless debates that resulted in abominable creeds of the apostasy and the bogus rules of the Jewish pharisees.

If it's pointless then maybe you shouldn't participate and let others decide what is pointless and what it isn't.

[pam]

If it's pointless then maybe you shouldn't participate and let others decide what is pointless and what it isn't.

So basically what you are saying is, it's okay for everyone else to voice their opinion on something we don't have fact on..but not okay for CaptainMoroni to voice his opinion.

[Suzie]

So basically what you are saying is, it's okay for everyone else to voice their opinion on something we don't have fact on..but not okay for CaptainMoroni to voice his opinion.

Pam, I think you know I did not mean that. My point being that if a thread is pointless to you then don't participate, whether we have facts or not on the topic at hand is irrelevant, IMO. We do not have to agree, right?

[IAmTheWork]

Slap me for saying something as a new member, but I agree with Pam. If someone feels that something is irrelevant in a theological (or any other) kind of forum, then surely they have every right to say so without being made to feel that they should stay out of the thread?

It might make someone who's wrapped up in it too much realise that actually, the whole topic isn't really important to their life in following Christ. Let's face it, if you were face to face with him right now, would your most pressing question be, "Hold on... exactly what date where you born on earth Lord..?" Then again, perhaps it would, and would no doubt make him laugh heartily!

[HiJolly]

The article and the referenced article in BYU Studies, if I am correct, point out that John Whitmer's introduction appears to have been incorporated into verse 1, and some have interpreted that to mean that 6 April 1830 is exactly 1830 years since Christ's birth.

But the recently printed volume (Volume II, I believe) of Joseph Smith papers shows that it was originally an introduction written by the Church Historian at the time, John Whitmer.

All in all, not important to me when Christ was born..so much more important that he lived and died and lived again.

I was just looking in my copy of REVELATION BOOK 1 page 79. You state (bolded above) that this "shows that it was originally an introduction". I don't see where this volume says what you state it says, anywhere.

Can you tell me where this book supports your statement?

HiJolly

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

I'm a little amazed at what an uproar one little piece in the DNews caused here. I wonder how many contributors to the thread actually read it, since many of them seem to be merely reiterating the error that the piece points out.

I can scarcely believe that the DNews is trying to lead us all away to hell.

As for fixing a single date, I'd point out that if you ask the same question about Caesar Augustus, you get four different (correct) answers. One for before the Julian reform, one for after (he observed both so that he had two birthdays per year) and two more for each of these after the Gregorian reform.

You don't have to go that far back to hit a problem. We say that George Washington was born on 22 Feb 1732, but if his Mom had looked at a calendar the day he was born, it would have told her that it was 11 Feb 1731. Same month, but different day and year.

Give all of this a rest.

[IAmTheWork]

@Captain; wonderful nick, and good points too.

We come out of eternity, walk a short dreamtime upon the earth, and slip back into eternity. Yet we worry so much about calendar dates, caffeine, and so on...

[rameumptom]

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

Actually, you are wrong again. There is only one sabbath per week. In the Gospel of Barnabas, the apostle explained the change from Saturday to Sunday this way: The original Sabbath day was to celebrate the day in which God rested. However, we celebrate the 8th day as a way to look forward to the heavenly week when the world will rest. Christ resurrected on the 8th day, symbolizing a new Creation and a new World. It looks forward to an end of this worldly existence (seen as a week), and moving into a Millennial existence in the following holy week.

I suggest you start reading what the ancient prophets and apostles taught, so you know what they actually mean. You make amazing statements, but there is no provenance for them, except for yourself. Which is okay, if you want to begin every statement saying, "In my opinion...." However, if you are going to sound like a mystic that is revealing ancient concepts, you are either going to be taken as a quack or who knows what. Give us opinion, or back up your statements with scripture or something solid, please.

[rameumptom]

My big concern isn't which day/date it is. My big concern is that we have members insisting that only April 6th, 1 BC is the date.

I also have a big concern about those who still insist that the curse of Cain was passed on to blacks, quoting Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie, and Alvin S. Dyer. They were wrong. Yet that error is still taught as gospel in many of our wards and stakes, because Grandpa passed his 1965 copy of Mormon Doctrine or whatever on to the grandkids to learn "the gospel." We do not know why there was a priesthood ban, but we do know it was not because of a curse.

And we do not know when Christ was born - day or year. It could be April 6, 1 BC. However, that would mean we have to scrap big chunks of the Christmas story in Matthew and Luke as being non-historic. Or it could be in 5 BC sometime, meaning we are misreading D&C 20:1.

I substitute taught an Institute class about 5 years ago, where part of the discussion was Christ's birth. The Institute manual (which dates back to 1980 or so) quotes Elder McConkie as stating that according to D&C 20:1 his birth was 6 April 1 BC. Yet in 1979, Elder McConkie came out saying he preferred 5 BC for Christ's birth! When I brought up the issue of Herod's death in 4 BC, etc., and that Christ may not have been born in 1 BC, I had returned missionaries treating me like I was a heretic! My point for them was to say it doesn't matter when it was, just that it happened.

Oh, and bert, Christ would not have necessarily died at 38 years of age. He could have died about 33 years of age, just 5 years earlier on the calendar.

[rameumptom]

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?

I suggest you read the article again. It states in it that Gabriel came to her in the springtime (according to the Jewish calendar). The only question would be, was she pregnant then, or did some time pass before she became pregnant.

[IAmTheWork]

I'm a friend of the angel. He didn't actually say what was written - that was paraphrased. He said much more, because she was kind of concerned and he was trying to be nice, her getting over the double shock of him arriving and her not having a fire extinguisher to hand, and the actual message and all. Consequently, the date of his message, and her subsequent birthing, didn't matter at all. In fact in his case dates never did, and they don't in hers now either.

Why is anyone concerned about these things? Please remind me - I think I may have missed the point.

Oh, and Happy New Year! (Just passed midnight here).

Edited January 1, 2011 by IAmTheWork
Acronym removed in case it gives offense!

[volgadon]

I suggest you read the article again. It states in it that Gabriel came to her in the springtime (according to the Jewish calendar). The only question would be, was she pregnant then, or did some time pass before she became pregnant.

Actually, it would probably have been September or so. The first month (Nissan) corresponded roughly to our April.

[volgadon]

I'm a friend of the angel.

???

[IAmTheWork]

Why the question marks? Don't you think angels have friends? Sheesh! :)

[bert10]

Better informed?

It just depends how much works and faith one puts in asking, seeking and knocking. These are promises of GOD to us.

If you remember, the Lord is no respecter of person...and those who spend their time in asking, seeking and knocking will in time know more than those who do not spend the time. It is the way it works in heaven as well as on the earth.

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:

[bert10]

You guys were warned by our Church leaders that many things in the bible has been changed.

In December/January...the Sheep are still in the pen...not in the hills foraging for food which has already been eaten up in the fall. The Shepherds were in the hills in the Spring when they heard the Angels.

Joseph Smith received this date by revelation and he was correct. Now, the birth and death of the Lord were on the same day. And the death of the Lord was on the true passover. The rest of the dates do not matter...the Holy Day is the Passover where both the birth and death of Jesus occurred.

bert10

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?

[volgadon]

In December/January...the Sheep are still in the pen...not in the hills foraging for food which has already been eaten up in the fall. The Shepherds were in the hills in the Spring when they heard the Angels.

bert10

Nonsense, Bert. From personal experience growing up in Israel, as well as researching into the topic, I can state with absolute confidence that sheep are out almost year round in Israel. December is actually a very verdant month, important forage-wise.

[volgadon]

Why the question marks? Don't you think angels have friends? Sheesh! :)

You make it sound like you are personally acquainted with the angel in question.

[bert10]

Weather is not the same from year to year. Each Century has it own problems. Anyway...every one is free to believe what they will.

bert10

Nonsense, Bert. From personal experience growing up in Israel, as well as researching into the topic, I can state with absolute confidence that sheep are out almost year round in Israel. December is actually a very verdant month, important forage-wise.

[volgadon]

Weather is not the same from year to year. Each Century has it own problems. Anyway...every one is free to believe what they will.

bert10

So you are claiming that the climate of Israel changed extremely and drastically sometime during the past 2000 years and we have utterly no record of such?

[JohnnyRudick]

So you are claiming that the climate of Israel changed extremely and drastically sometime during the past 2000 years and we have utterly no record of such?

I believe we have had climate change all over the world from

time to time back and forth over the years.

The Old Test tells us during the time it (the discription of the land)

was written that it was a "land of milk and honey".

It is so again in places after much work.

[IAmTheWork]

You make it sound like you are personally acquainted with the angel in question.

I was just being light-hearted. I don't know that particular angel.

[volgadon]

I believe we have had climate change all over the world from

time to time back and forth over the years.

Right, but nothing as drastic as what Bert is proposing, without their being some record or indication of such. The climate changing from a northern-European or north-American one would have had far-reaching consequences

The Old Test tells us during the time it (the discription of the land)

was written that it was a "land of milk and honey".

It is so again in places after much work.

This has nothing to do with climate changes.

[Whynot]

There is good evidence that Jesus was conceived on Christmas, which would place His birthday in late September or early October. This is based upon the timing of John the Baptist's father being told by the angel that he would have a son. Then the days he was serving in the temple, when those days ended, then how long it took him to walk home. Then when his wife was about six months pregnant Mary visited her and she had already become pregnant before her visit.

I'd rather base my belief on some scriptural reasons than someone declaring something that just doesn't fit that well with the evidence. Does it really matter? Indirectly it does.

[rameumptom]

Obviously, Bert has not read the article nor our responses very well. The article states that D&C 20:1 was NOT part of the revelation Joseph Smith received. It was added by his scribe later as a heading. We learn this from the recent volume published on the Joseph Smith Papers. D&C 20:1 is NOT part of the revelation Joseph Smith received.

So, Bert, your insistence on it being by revelation is baseless, just as your claims on climate change, etc. Facts are what makes the difference between a real discussion and just spouting nonsense. Volgadon has given real evidence, including personal experience living in Israel. You claim to receive all your claims by personal revelation. Well, I'd suggest your personal revelations are not all coming from the right place! Otherwise, where is your evidence?