Pope Benedict Disputes Jesus’ Date of Birth

  • Share
  • Read Later
REUTERS / Osservatore Romano

Pope Benedict XVI holds a copy of his book "Jesus' Childhood" as he meets RCS publisher Paolo Mieli and Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, in the Vatican on Nov. 20, 2012

Pope Benedict XVI has revealed in the third installment of his trilogy, dedicated to the life of Christ, that Jesus may have been born earlier than previously thought. The calendar we use today, which commences with the birth of Christ and was created by a Dionysius Exiguus, a 6th century monk, may be mistaken. According to the Telegraph, the Pope explains in his book that Exiguus, who is considered the inventor of the Christian calendar, “made a mistake in his calculations by several years. The actual date of Jesus’ birth was several years before.” The suggestion that Jesus wasn’t actually born on Dec. 25 has been tirelessly debated by theologians, historians and spiritual leaders, but what makes this case different is that now the leader of the Catholic Church is the one asking the questions.

Pope Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives, was published on Tuesday. Like the previous two installments, it’s predicted to be a best seller, and a million copies of the book have already been printed. It is expected that the book will be translated into another 20 languages for publication in 72 countries. The Infancy Narratives follows the life of Jesus from conception to his presentation in the temple at the age of 12. The Pope describes this third book as a “small antechamber” to the trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth, reports the Vatican Press Office.

(MORE: Holy Hashtags! The Pope Will Soon Join the Tweeting Masses)

Pope Benedict makes some controversial statements in the book. He writes of how the Gospel of Matthew claims that Jesus was born when Herod the Great ruled in Judea. However, given that Herod died in 4 B.C., Jesus must have been born earlier than Exiguus originally documented. Arguments surrounding Jesus’ exact date of birth have confounded scholars for centuries. Even the Gospel of Luke contends that the birth took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria in A.D. 6.

The author takes the opportunity not only to dispute the date of Jesus’ birth, but also to reaffirm the doctrine of the virgin birth as an “unequivocal” truth of faith. Reuters writes that Benedict reminds his readers that sexual intercourse did not play a part in the conception of Jesus. He states that a belief in the virgin birth of Christ is a “cornerstone of faith” and a sign of “God’s creative power.” “If God does not also have power over matter, then he simply is not God,” the Pope argues. “But he does have this power, and through the conception and resurrection of Jesus Christ he has ushered in a new creation.”

Pope Benedict also examines the “question of interpreted history,” referring in particular to the attempts of the Gospels, like those of Matthew and Luke, to make sense of events after they had occurred, notes Reuters. “The aim of the evangelists was not to produce an exhaustive account,” the Pope explains, “but a record of what seemed important for the nascent faith community in the light of the word. The infancy narratives are interpreted history, condensed and written down in accordance with the interpretation.”

(MORE: Why Popes Never Have to Say Sorry)

There have been countless interpretations of the birth, life and death of Christ throughout history. One such interpreter is Bill Darlison, former Unitarian Church minister and current vice president of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches in the United Kingdom. Like others before him, he asks whether Christ was actually born on Dec. 25 or whether perhaps he was born “on one of about 150 other dates which have been proposed down through the centuries. Was he born in Nazareth or in Bethlehem and, if Bethlehem, was it Bethlehem in Judea or Bethlehem in Galilee?” He also argues that the spiritual birth “is always a virgin birth, because it is not related in any sense (except symbolically) to physical birth.” In 2004, TIME asked the same question, with David Van Biema wondering if “one might be tempted to abandon the whole Nativity story as ‘unhistoric,’ mere theological backing and filling.”

The historical revisionism continues with the Pope raising the issue of the presence of animals at the birth of Christ. He reveals in Jesus of Nazareth that “there is no mention of animals in the Gospels.” This may come as a shock to the thousands of schools currently preparing their Nativity plays. But Pope Benedict reassures his readers not to worry — that “no one will give up the oxen and the donkey in their Nativity scenes,” notes the Telegraph. Even if animals did not feature at the birth, the Vatican seems happy to keep up the myth as it presents an elaborate life-size Nativity scene in St. Peter’s Square this Christmas.

Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives is available in English and published by Image Books. It follows the first two books, which dealt with Christ’s adult life and death.

This article has been amended. The original version referred to the conception of Jesus as “the Immaculate Conception.” The term refers to the life of Mary, mother of Jesus.

82 comments
IbrahimSuprapto
IbrahimSuprapto

Read AlQuran (Quran) and you will know... Alquran is a book of life. From God to human.

chris.yarsawich
chris.yarsawich

To paraphrase Allen Ginsberg: America, are you going to let our intellectual life be run by Time Magazine?

The depth and breadth of ignorance behind this article is truly astounding. I suppose no one would seriously fault Time for employing the proven tactic of sensationalism to boost their sales, but this really is an embarrassment. Confusing the Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth? Acting as if the discussion of the dating of the birth of Christ is new and "revealing"? The inability to distinguish "myth" from tradition? Maybe they should hire someone actually educated in this history of Christianity and, especially when writing about the Catholic Church, perhaps even a Catholic journalist? 

CrimsonJebakumar
CrimsonJebakumar

The first census decreed by Caesar Augustus could give a clue if we go through Roman Historical archives. Still, it is difficult to trace the exact date of Christ's birth. Theologians believe it could be 8 years before the Anno Domini. Anyhow, God was manifested in the flesh I Tim 3:16, The Alpha and the Omega Rev:1:17, was born in a manger to the virgin Mary as per the fulfillment of the Holy Scriptures Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 7:14.  Psalm 2:7 can give some explanation." Today", however could mean --- even before the foundation of the world.  Please read Proverbs 8:22-31.

4 hours ago · Like · 1

jr9del
jr9del

@CrimsonJebakumar

Out of wedlock children are likely to be the only logical consistency that can come from concept of a virgin birth so that no child need share in the "original" sin of the parents, to be ostracized, robbed of their dignity, nor promise in life. It is that view that makes other Biblical passages make sense among the judgements of humans, but this has not been the favored, nor morally sanctioned view, sadly - for 2,000 years.

Andy1000
Andy1000

"First of all, the earliest writings of the New Testament were done between 35-70 years AFTER the events they describe."

This is completely inaccurate.  Most of the New Testament consists of letters written to specific churches or people that are describing current controversies and events.  I can only assume you are referring to the "Gospels" as opposed to the "New Testament", which would make your argument slightly more accurate (but only slightly), other biographies of people of that time (eg Alexander the Great) were not written until over 400 years had passed since their death, so biographies written within a few decades were rather remarkable.

 "The Romans, who kept meticulous records, have none regarding a prophet being tortured or crucified, let alone as described in the bible."

If they were such good record keepers, why was no hard evidence found as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judea, until 1961?  It would be analogous to us having no records of the Governor of Vermont.  People often confuse ancient Romans with Nazi-era Germans in the keeping of records.  Much of what we know about people of this era come from writers like Plutarch and Josephus, not from mountains of government documents.

"In fact, there's no record of Jesus as described in the bible anywhere OUTSIDE of the bible.  "Jesus" was as common of a name in Galilee at the time as "Joe" is today, likely indicating an archetype rather than an actual person."

 Except for Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, etc.

"The rest of the New Testament was written piece meal by a large variety of writers working off of the first writings over the next 400 or so years before they were combined with cherry-picked parts from the Torah, turned into the Old and New Testament and codified by the Synod (A precursor to the Catholic Church, if I'm not mistaken) as one holy scripture."

No.  There were multiple authors of the New Testament, but hardly a "large variety". The latest written entry into the New Testament was likely completed within 60-70 years of Jesus's death, not 400 years.  The Old Testament was not cherry picked but was essentially based on the books of the Septuagint.  The Torah is the first five books of the Tanakh, all of which are included in the Old Testament.  Also, the New and Old Testament were not codified by a Synod, which was not a precurser to the Catholic Church.  If you are Protestant, it was set forth by Martin Luther/another reformer/based on Church tradition.  The Catholic Church did not officially stamp out an official canon until the Council of Trent, though a traditional canon went back as far as the 4th century.

"All christian holidays were predated by pagan celebrations generally based on the cycles of the northern hemisphere seasons - including "Christmas", which was once the winter solstice (which happened on the 25th in about 400 AD when it was selected as the date of Jesus' birth."

No.  Easter was not based on a pagan holiday.  It is the primary Christian holiday.  The dating of Christmas came later.

"All it took was a bunch of people who didn't like the major religions of the time (Roman Paganism and Judaism) and the eventual fall of Rome (which pretty much ended Roman Paganism) which allowed them to step into the religious power vacuum."

Are you talking about the 12 Apostles?  11 of whom were martyred?  I'm pretty sure Saul of Taursus was fine and dandy with Judaism until the Road to Damascus.  Also, you seem to imply Christianity gained a boost when Rome fell, which is inaccurate since it was the official religion of Rome under Theodosius I.  The Western Empire stood for another 100 years after this development, the Eastern Empire lasted over another 1000 years.

"And this is scientifically supported, by the way, because the figure of Jesus is based on the Christian myth of needing a redeemer to be redeemed from "original sin" so that man could get into heaven when he dies.  But evolution proves there was no Adam and no Eve.  You can't propagate an entire species from a single man and a single woman, as is asserted by the Garden of Eden myth.  Everyone, it asserts, is a descendant of Adam and Eve, and therefore stained with original sin.  Evolution (and genetics, by the way) says that never happened.  So, since there was no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin to be stained by.  No garden of Eden, no fall from grace, no need to be redeemed, no point to a redeemer to be redeemed from something that never happened and absolutely no reason to believe in a redeemer to go anywhere when we die."

You seem to be dueling with modern day Protestantism that leans to the Fundamentalist bent.  People from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas to Protestant Reformers discussed...at GREAT length... original sin.  Whether there were a literal Adam and Eve or they were simply referring to the first beings in which God infused a soul, the discussion of Original Sin is not dependent on whether or not the first soul-infused beings had "Adam" or "Eve" stamped on their birth certificates.

"It would be nice if we finally entered the age of reason and left superstition - and its baggage - behind."

Thank goodness the "age of reason" had no baggage...like 40,000 severed heads rolling down the Champs-Élysées or 2 decades of uninterrupted combat embroiling the majority of Europe or the rise of 20th century totalitarianism.





 

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

First of all, the earliest writings of the New Testament were done between 35-70 years AFTER the events they describe.  The Romans, who kept meticulous records, have none regarding a prophet being tortured or crucified, let alone as described in the bible.  In fact, there's no record of Jesus as described in the bible anywhere OUTSIDE of the bible.  "Jesus" was as common of a name in Galilee at the time as "Joe" is today, likely indicating an archetype rather than an actual person.

The rest of the New Testament was written piece meal by a large variety of writers working off of the first writings over the next 400 or so years before they were combined with cherry-picked parts from the Torah, turned into the Old and New Testament and codified by the Synod (A precursor to the Catholic Church, if I'm not mistaken) as one holy scripture.  All christian holidays were predated by pagan celebrations generally based on the cycles of the northern hemisphere seasons - including "Christmas", which was once the winter solstice (which happened on the 25th in about 400 AD when it was selected as the date of Jesus' birth.

All it took was a bunch of people who didn't like the major religions of the time (Roman Paganism and Judaism) and the eventual fall of Rome (which pretty much ended Roman Paganism) which allowed them to step into the religious power vacuum.

In short, it's all made up.

So basically what we're debating is exactly when Jack from the Titanic or Rhett Butler from Gone with the Wind were born.  Both were works of fiction.  So was Jesus.

And this is scientifically supported, by the way, because the figure of Jesus is based on the Christian myth of needing a redeemer to be redeemed from "original sin" so that man could get into heaven when he dies.  But evolution proves there was no Adam and no Eve.  You can't propagate an entire species from a single man and a single woman, as is asserted by the Garden of Eden myth.  Everyone, it asserts, is a descendant of Adam and Eve, and therefore stained with original sin.  Evolution (and genetics, by the way) says that never happened.  So, since there was no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin to be stained by.  No garden of Eden, no fall from grace, no need to be redeemed, no point to a redeemer to be redeemed from something that never happened and absolutely no reason to believe in a redeemer to go anywhere when we die.

So believers have a choice to continue to pay (and they DO pay) into a bronze-age mythology that does nothing but impose guilt and take away all personal responsibility from them (After all, if no one is beyond redemption, then anyone can do anything and be redeemed in the end - and that's how it works regardless of the rationalizations some have come up with to argue otherwise.  By that light, Hitler went to heaven and Samuel Clemens went to hell.), or to face the fact that they've been believing in something that doesn't exist and maybe they should tend to their own spiritual lives and let others tend to theirs.

It would be nice if we finally entered the age of reason and left superstition - and its baggage - behind.

DCreader2
DCreader2

So if God can make a virgin pregnant if He wants to, then what exactly is the problem with condoms?

DanCarranza
DanCarranza

What a lot of BS this bloody pope is saying.... Faith is definitely gullibility..

RandyDowdy
RandyDowdy

I am a believer, but I have to continuosly ask why God doesn't do the public appearances of miracles and such that are talked about in the Bible.   Voices from above,   burning bush, images, etc.     If only 1 were to happen,  many more would believe, and thei souls would be saved from Hell.     I think God could do better advertisement, but I know it isn't for me to judge.

CrimsonJebakumar
CrimsonJebakumar

@RandyDowdy  John 20:29.  You will be blessed more if you still believe without experiencing miracle.   Magicians can work out miracles but that's not the way the Lord wants Him to be believed.  "If you believe you will see the glory of God"  John 11:40.  

Ellisa
Ellisa

Immaculate conception was said to be on December 8, then why would it be instantly December 25

jesstura
jesstura

The Bible NEVER mentioned of Jesus' exact date of birth. So why a top religious leader is wasting time on irrelevant issue? Ona side note, if someone is seriously looking for a book (aside from the Bible) that beautifully narrates Jesus' life from childhood to His ascension to heaven, the book DESIRE OF AGES by Ellen G. White will never disappoints you. It will really brings you to Jesus' feet and the Bible, and not to the author of the book. Just read the reviews of those people already had read it. 

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/744346.The_Desire_of_Ages 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Desire-Ages-Ellen-White/dp/0816321833 

http://books.google.co.th/books?id=PWU61IzQE-0C&sitesec=reviews

tethime
tethime like.author.displayName 1 Like

December 25 was the date of the winter solstice, the pagan festival of the birth of the Sun; the point when the sun has reached its southern most trek below the equator, where it appears to stand still for three days.Thisdate of the winter solstice came to be adopted by the Christian Church as the nativity of Jesus, and was called Christmas" (Crosbie). 

Why is it not possible that Jesus Christ was ever born on December 25? 

Kindly read the article below ==>  

http://esoriano.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/ignorance-is-pardonable/

Jerry
Jerry like.author.displayName 1 Like

Virgin birth – Myth or Historical Truth?

This question falls over from the start if the virgin birth story doesn’t appear in the New Testament. And it doesn’t.

With the missionary activities of Paul and others, the passing of the original followers of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem, the NT soon fell into the hands of the Greeks and Latins.

They interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures through the prism of their own culture, and gave meanings to words and phrases never intended by the NT authors.

For example the Holy Spirit coming “upon” Mary is read as a virginal conception. However there are dozens of instances in the Bible where the Holy Spirit came “upon” individuals, usually men, but only in Mary’s case is it read as God impregnating someone.

Also a ridiculous interpretation was given to Mary’s question to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" It interprets these words as Mary saying that she does not know how she could get pregnant in the future because currently she is a virgin!

I could go on, but to cut a long story short, the NT says nothing about a virgin birth. What it does say is that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. Luke 3:23, when properly translated, names Heli as the father of Jesus.

The few passages about the birth of Jesus in the NT are analysed comprehensively on — http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=26

RovicBalunsay
RovicBalunsay like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Why not ask the only sensible preacher in our time to know the date of birth of the Lord Jesus Christ... Non other than Bro Eliseo F. Soriano

Randy
Randy like.author.displayName 1 Like

@RovicBalunsay 

The preaching authority of Mr. Eliseo Soriano distinguishes no different from the pretensions of all self-made preachers of today claiming that the Lord appeared and spoke to them personally and entrusted to them the work of salvation. If all such claims were true and authentic… why is it then that their doctrines completely differ from one another? Appropriateness of times attested to King Herod orders to conduct national census about population during summer and that was the reason why the couple of Mary and Joseph made their way to Jerusalem to register. And not during the harsh winter of December.

e2mac
e2mac

it is very clear that the pope himself didn't know the truth,!........ is the pope reading the bible????.......  is the pope obeying the will of god????? i don't think so......

Mr.357
Mr.357 like.author.displayName 1 Like

The christian God, supposedly all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful.  What major contradictions.  How about the date be never...

Glades2
Glades2

When a child the "lavish" nativity scene was widely accepted here in America, but today most Christians realize that Jesus was not born in a modern-type wooden stable with a straw floor, but more likely in a cold cave - life was very difficult back then, and no doubt when the time came Joseph needed to find somewhere for Mary to give birth, and the most likely place was a cave. 

My own opinion for a long time is that God permitted the error now spoken of by Pope Benedict, in order that Christmas would be held during the darkest and coldest time of year in the northern hemisphere - since the large majority of the world's population lives there, instead of having Jesus' birth celebrated in late March, as many historians claim, and it makes sense, since late March is also the first of Spring (and Spring fever), and Christmas would not be "as needed" by the world at that time, than it is in cold and dark late December, so my guess is that God permitted Christmas to be as it is as an act of mercy, since that also has a Scriptural connection regarding the Final Tribulation, and the Scripture passage that says, "Pray it does not come during Winter", so no doubt that was God's way of acknowledging the harshness of Winter, and perhaps is the reason He permitted Christmas to come during Winter, to offset this physically and mentally demanding time of year...

melbee
melbee like.author.displayName 1 Like

@Glades2 "God permitted the error"  Gosh, how nice of him.

DrorBenAmi
DrorBenAmi

While I am not sure when Jesus was born (the Jewish holy day of Shavout seems the most logical to me) I am absolutely sure that Jesus was not a carpenter. What it says in Hebrew is that Jesus was a plowman, not a carpenter. So, for example, in messianic times we shall beat our swords into plowshares, not saws. In fact, last year I offered a 100,000 dollar prize to anyone who could give 5 reasons why the two references in the gospels describing Jesus as a carpenter are correct. I gave ten reasons why these two references are mistranslations and Jesus was indeed a plowman.

Not one single person responded to the challenge....

eyeseethruyou
eyeseethruyou

Why doesnt the pope just ask the god for the truth? And lets hope the pope shares everything. Or we can all just forget all this charade about these fantasy book characters ever existing.

ansonlau912
ansonlau912 like.author.displayName 1 Like

Actually no matter which day Jesus were born, Jesus is Jesus. He is the spirit of the chirists . The birthday make less sense in my mind. Nobody will doubt his position even he wasn't born on 25th December . So Pope's research will impress by the working attitude of himself.

rogerwabbit
rogerwabbit like.author.displayName 1 Like

This ranks right up there with "Were Mickey and Minnie doing it?"

PlumbLine
PlumbLine

2 Peter 3:13Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

stowevt024
stowevt024 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

All this fuss about a supposed prophet's birthday based on some book that is filled with nothing but myths and fairy tales that are so fabricated that a child can see through them is amazing. The Vatican and the Catholic Church harbor and protect pedophiles. It’s about time the Catholic Church and ALL their property, money and anything worthy of value were liquidated and all the proceeds used to feed the hungry in this world. When are people going to grow up and stop believing in an invisible man up in space who allegedly dispenses justice to mankind.

theladyleo13
theladyleo13

well from your writting I can see you don't believe in God or you would carefully look before you open your mouth and say there is no God. read the book of acts and see where paul was blinded byh the light and was asked by a voice " Saul Saul why are you persecting me?" paul answered " who are u Lord?" and the voice answered I am Jesus who you are persecuting?" Paul went on to b e a great evanglist for spreading the word of God

sverry7
sverry7 like.author.displayName 1 Like

On virgin birth: Mary as embodiment of the Church (Holy Mother Church) gives birth, through the action of the Holy Spirit, to all Christians. This of course is a spiritual procees that in time and with effort yields a mature and rounded pearl of great price as it were, within the bossom of Christ's followers. It follows then that her own virgin birth throws a spotlight on this process. On a more prosaic level, years of arduous study gives birth to physicists, lawyers, doctors, and so on. This is real and verifiable change in what constitues an individual human being. Even reading an article that implants a new and marvelous idea within the mind is a small example of a much broader spiritual principle.       

sverry7
sverry7 like.author.displayName 1 Like

P.S. Apologies for the spelling errors! There should be an edit feature added here.  

FrankLangholf
FrankLangholf

I do not know who thinks this is some how NEW NEWS.  Anyone- conservative or progressive- who has ever had a college level introduction to the New Testament knows about the problem with dating.  It is based on when Herod the Great died which is documented.  As far as Dec. 25 likewise.... yawn.... nothing new nor even close to controversial here.  This is "yawn" article for anyone who actually knows this material. 

mailrick12
mailrick12 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

"And the fairy tale continues........"

tcementco
tcementco

"The historical revisionism continues with the Pope raising the issue of the presence of animals at the birth of Christ. He reveals in Jesus of Nazareth that 'there is no mention of animals in the Gospels.'"

Reveals?  A bit of info gleaned from an 1,800 or so year old text is a revelation?  What, no one noticed this before?  

Only revelation here is that TIME writers and editors are losing touch with English language.  Come to think of it, that's no revelation either, is it?

conwaykram
conwaykram like.author.displayName 1 Like

I have always heard, and thought  that it was common knowledge , that Jesus birth was not  at the  time  we celebrate his birth. What we call Christmas, was the time of the celebration of the winter solstice . Christians wanted to celebrate the birth of Christ instead of do all the "pagan stuff" that the romans indulged in. Kid if weird though - now in our time, Christmas has taken a turn back to paganism. Or maybe it never changed. Who knows.

J.LamarFerren
J.LamarFerren like.author.displayName 1 Like

Why does it matter when his birth was?? What matter is that he was born right? If we want to observe it on December 25th, then so be it. It's an observation. lol Get over it. Our focus should not be on the date, but the event. Not when, but why!

Indelible
Indelible

There is a ebible out called The Chronological Truth Bible that includes a very convincing scientifically, and historically researched discussion and conclusion on the date of Christ's birth. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005ESFTRC

Margery
Margery like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

The joy of being an atheist is that I can put my mind to things that have no wishful thinking, myth making or pie-in-the-sky stories.   Virgin birth?  Rising from the dead?  Accending into heaven with two prophets accompanying him?   Walking on water?  Raising a dead man into life again?  

As my young relative often says "for cripes sake, give me a break."

PlumbLine
PlumbLine

Galatians 4:4-5.............4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

breindrein
breindrein like.author.displayName 1 Like

Yeah, I thought it was a bit suspicious that Jesus' birthday was the same time that Santa Claus was dropping of presents. Way too coincidental. I smell an illuminati/lizard people/freemason consipiracy stirring in my gut. Or that might be the 23 Twinkies I ate for lunch.

Mr.357
Mr.357

@breindrein I bet it's the twinkies.  We masons don't bother with such trivial matters.

Lynn1949
Lynn1949

You have got to be kidding me. An adult human being is actually saying these things?

PetraSpahr
PetraSpahr like.author.displayName 1 Like

On the virgin thing - what does that actually mean?  No human father at all, or simply that Mary was impregnated without penetration?  Perhaps Jesus's conception was through what we were warned about in "health class" - you can get pregnant even if a little is deposited close enough on the outside.  Miracles aside, a virgin conception could only result in a female since there is no X chromosone contributed.

PlumbLine
PlumbLine

@PetraSpahr He had to be conceived by the Holy Spirit, to be born without inherant sin, unlike the human race. This was so He could be sinless and be the perfect sacrifice for our sins.......

.......Romans 8:3-4............3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

NativeSonKY
NativeSonKY like.author.displayName 1 Like

This debate about the time of Jesus' birth is pathetic. If you can't read the Bible and understand the passages which speak of "shepherds watching over their flocks" at the time of Jesus' birth and understand that that could NEVER imply that it was during December, then you probably have no reading comprehension whatsoever. So many "Christian traditions" are passed off as Biblical fact and cannot ever be taken seriously. Even Christmas as an example is nothing more than the Roman pagan festival of Saturnalia dressed up in Christian clothing. I learned many years ago just how much the Romans had distorted many things which were previously taught as heresy in the early Christian church, just like the Sabbath being "changed" to Sunday. Hogwash - I read and understand the Bible and don't need the "city of seven hills" telling me anything they believe.

MATTWES67
MATTWES67 like.author.displayName 1 Like

His birth in relation to Herod’s death. While the date of Herod’s death is a debated one, there is considerable evidence pointing to 1 B.C.E. (See HEROD No. 1 [Date of His Death]; CHRONOLOGY [Lunar eclipses].) A number of events intervened between the time of Jesus’ birth and Herod’s death. These included Jesus’ circumcision on the eighth day (Lu 2:21); his being brought to the temple in Jerusalem 40 days after birth (Lu 2:22, 23; Le 12:1-4, 8); the journey of the astrologers “from eastern parts” to Bethlehem (where Jesus was no longer in a manger but in a house—Mt 2:1-11; compare Lu 2:7, 15, 16); Joseph and Mary’s flight to Egypt with the young child (Mt 2:13-15); followed by Herod’s realization that the astrologers had not followed his instructions, and the subsequent slaughter of all boys in Bethlehem and its districts under the age of two years (indicating that Jesus was not then a newborn infant). (Mt 2:16-18) Jesus’ birth taking place in the fall of 2 B.C.E. would allow for the time required by these events intervening between his birth and the death of Herod, likely in 1 B.C.E. There is, however, added reason for placing Jesus’ birth in 2 B.C.E.Relationship to John’s ministry. Further basis for the dates given at the start of this section is found at Luke 3:1-3, which shows that John the Baptizer began his preaching and baptizing in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” That 15th year ran from the latter half of 28 C.E. to August or September of 29 C.E. (See TIBERIUS.) At some point in John’s ministry, Jesus went to him and was baptized. When Jesus thereafter commenced his own ministry he was “about thirty years old.” (Lu 3:21-23) At the age of 30, the age at which David became king, Jesus would no longer be subject to human parents.—2Sa 5:4, 5; compare Lu 2:51.According to Numbers 4:1-3, 22, 23, 29, 30, those going into sanctuary service under the Law covenant were “from thirty years old upward.” It is reasonable that John the Baptizer, who was a Levite and son of a priest, began his ministry at the same age, not at the temple, of course, but in the special assignment Jehovah had outlined for him. (Lu 1:1-17, 67, 76-79) The specific mention (twice) of the age difference between John and Jesus and the correlation between the appearances and messages of Jehovah’s angel in announcing the births of the two sons (Lu 1) give ample basis for believing that their ministries followed a similar timetable, that is, the start of John’s ministry (as the forerunner of Jesus) being followed about six months later by the commencement of Jesus’ ministry.On this basis, John’s birth occurred 30 years before he began his ministry in Tiberius’ 15th year, hence somewhere between the latter half of 3 B.C.E. and August or September of 2 B.C.E., with Jesus’ birth following about six months later.

Lynn1949
Lynn1949 like.author.displayName 1 Like

Who f**king cares.