"Proper" date to put out Nativity scene?
brian...@aol.com
What's the "proper" date to put out an outdoor Nativity
scene?
Day after Thanksgiving? No.
December 1? Probably not.
First day of Advent? More plausible than either of the above.
Christmas Eve? This seems the best, technically, but
see I spent a lot of money on it and I want to get some
use out of it. :-)
What do you all think?
Brian McCarthy
Bob Doyle
>What's the "proper" date to put out an outdoor Nativity
>scene?
Whenever the season grips you! Enjoy your nativity, don't worry about "proper"
dates. I doubt there is one.
OR
Ask your local priest?
----------------------------------------
Bob Doyle
Small Planet Enterprises
rdo...@cts.com http://www.htmlbob.com
----------------------------------------
Walter Tappert
On 21 Nov 1996 brian...@aol.com wrote:
> What's the "proper" date to put out an outdoor Nativity
> scene?
We have an indoor Nativity Scene, and it has been our practice to put it
up gradually.
That is, on the 1st Sunday in Advent, we put up the stable, and the empty
manger.
On the 2nd Sunday in Advent, we add animals.
On the 3rd Sunday in Advent, we add various villagers.
On the 4th Sunday in Advent, we add Mary and Joseph.
On Christams Eve, after we return from Church, we place the Christ Child
in the Manger. This was always the task of our children, after which they
went to bed to wait for Santa Claus to come.
Christmas Day, we add the shepherds, and bring the Magi close, etc.
*The Nativity Scene stays up until February 2, the Feast of the
Presentation of our Lord*. If you really want impact for your outdoor
Nativity Scene, keep it up during Christmas and Epiphany, _after_ all the
stores have taken down their Christmas decorations, and put up their
Valentine's Day decorations!
Peace,
Walt
Craig Tranfield
In article <5737h8$h...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, <brian...@aol.com> wrote:
>What's the "proper" date to put out an outdoor Nativity
>scene?
>
place it in autumn before they brought them in for winter.
So nativity outdoors - try September 25th.
Don't you just love it ;-)
Craig
Philip West
In <5737h8$h...@geneva.rutgers.edu> brian...@aol.com writes:
>
>What's the "proper" date to put out an outdoor Nativity
>scene?
>
>December 1? Probably not.
>First day of Advent? More plausible than either of the above.
>Christmas Eve? This seems the best, technically, but
>see I spent a lot of money on it and I want to get some
>use out of it. :-)
>
>What do you all think?
>
>Brian McCarthy
>
Our Church sets up its indoor Nativity set on Christmas Eve (or at
least after the last service prior to Christmas Eve,) so I would say
the "proper" day to set up the outdoor Nativity would be Christmas Eve.
It should be left up through the feast of the Epiphany which falls on
January 6, although some Churches celebrate it on the first Sunday
after January 1.
If it's a really fancy set and includes the wise men they should not be
put out until the last day.
But if you really need to get your money's worth, maybe you could
compromise between the beginning of Advent and Christmas and put up the
Nativity set on Gaudete Sunday.
Sharon
Dean and Charmaine Tiegs
brian...@aol.com wrote:
>What's the "proper" date to put out an outdoor Nativity
>scene?
>Day after Thanksgiving? No.
>December 1? Probably not.
>First day of Advent? More plausible than either of the above.
>Christmas Eve? This seems the best, technically, but
>see I spent a lot of money on it and I want to get some
>use out of it. :-)
>What do you all think?
>Brian McCarthy
I think you ought not to put it out at all, regardless of how much you
spent. Jesus is God, and God has commanded his people not to make or
display statues of him ("You shall not make...any likeness of anything
in heaven above...you shall not bow down yourself to them or serve
them." Exodus 22). The Christian God is living God, not a piece of
plastic or ceramic. Because Christianity is the one true faith, let's
be different from the Hindus and ancient pagans, let's not use statues
of our God.
DAT
Dean Tiegs, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. dct...@planet.eon.net
pyotr filipivich
}Day after Thanksgiving? No.
}December 1? Probably not.
}First day of Advent? More plausible than either of the above.
}Christmas Eve? This seems the best, technically, but
}see I spent a lot of money on it and I want to get some
}use out of it. :-)
}What do you all think?
You put out the nativity scene on the first sunday in Advent
(Which also happens to be the Sunday closest to St Andrew's Day[Nove
30]) You put the Baby Jeuse out on Christmas Eve/Day - and start bring
the Wise Men round the corner for the Twleve Days of Christmas [Dec 25
to Jan 6]. You then put it all away till next year.
So what if the goyim put out their Xmas decorations after Samhain (All
Saint's Day) and are so unchurched they don't know that the Christmas
season _starts_ on Christmas day ... rant, rave, it's enough to make me
agree with Scrooge "Bah, humbug!"
"Season's Greetings" indeed :-)
pyotr
--
"If once a man indulges himself in Murder, very soon he comes to think
little of Robbing, and from Robbing he comes next to Drinking and
Sabbath-breaking, and from that to Incivility and Procrastination." T.
De Quincy (1785-1859) "Murder Considered As One of the Fine Arts"
stephen (s.h.) watson
>scene?
>
>Day after Thanksgiving? No.
>December 1? Probably not.
>First day of Advent? More plausible than either of the above.
MHO, FWIW, would be First of Advent -- which this year just happens to
be Dec 1, I think.
Or else put it out on Christmas Eve, and leave it there until Epiphany
(Jan. 6) -- traditionally, these were start and end of the "Twelve
Days of Christmas". Is it all one piece, or does it have separate
figures? If so, the Magi shouldn't show up until Epiphany (IIRC --
there's a day called "Adoration of the Magi").
--
#Steve Watson# swa...@nortel.ca #Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ont. Canada #
## The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on ##
## this group for the past month. Not only is it not BNR's opinion, it's ##
## not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions! ##
Phil
On 21 Nov 1996 22:43:36 -0500, brian...@aol.com wrote:
>What's the "proper" date to put out an outdoor Nativity
>scene?
>
>What do you all think?
>
>Brian McCarthy
>
Well I think it is entirely up to you. I would say sometime in the
week of Dec. 8 or two weeks before Christmas.
-God Bless,
Phil
*************
http://www.execpc.com/~pnajera/tgsmain.html
*************
In that day (the Lord's Day) shall the deaf
hear the words of the book, and the eyes of
the blind shall see out of obscurity, and
out of darkness.
Isaiah 29:18
David Henderson
> In <5737h8$h...@geneva.rutgers.edu> brian...@aol.com writes:
> >
> >What's the "proper" date to put out an outdoor Nativity
> >scene?
FWIW:
My family is from Scandinavia (Sweden, Finland). The Scandinavian
tradition is that no preparations for Christmas (outdoor scenes,
trees, greenery, etc.) occur until St. Lucia's Day (13 Dec). Nice
symmetry there -- the Twelve Days of Christmas are the twelve days
_after_ Christmas, while the lead-up from St. Lucia's Day is also
twelve days.
BTW: In the Roman Catholic/Anglican tradition, the Wise Men are
not added to a creche until the Epiphany (6 Jan). The Magi, contrary
to popular belief, were not at the manger the night of Christ's birth --
they came later (some commentators say as much as two years later).
Regards all!
*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
David Henderson, Ft. Worth, TX, USA email: dav...@airmail.net
*-------------------------------------------------------------------*
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog,
it's too dark to read. -- Mark Twain
Gerry Palo
In article <57b3h5$2...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
Craig Tranfield <cr...@ecs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <5737h8$h...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, <brian...@aol.com> wrote:
>>What's the "proper" date to put out an outdoor Nativity
>>scene?
>>
>Given that the shepherds were out minding their flocks etc. it would
>place it in autumn before they brought them in for winter.
>So nativity outdoors - try September 25th.
This is the shortest statement of a popular notion held by many from pious
Bible believing Christians to scornful skeptics. But it ignores some
elementary facts and shows inattention to the details of Luke's account.
Luke does not say what time of year it was, but there are many details
that do point to it, and these lend support to the traditional date.
The fact that the shepherds were out at night with their sheep at all is
extraordinary. Even during the pasturing season they do not normally
stay up at night with their flocks. Shepherds, as a rule, are human
beings, and they need sleep like most people. They usually pen the sheep
at night in a sheepfold and sleep in their huts and leave the guarding to
their sheep dog. So something special was happening here.
We also should realize that sheep are eminently well designed for staying
out at night in cold weather. Beyond the fact that this was Palestine and
not Minnesota, sheep do have wool fleeces. In any case, to this day
Palestinian shepherds keep their sheep out of doors in December. There
was an AP story showing Palestinian Arab shepherds in the fields outside
Bethlehem last December.
The wording Luke uses also must be taken in carefully. The word for
abiding in the fields is "agricolauntes", it refers not to the grazing
pastures where the sheep would be in the growing season but rather the
agricultural farm fields, which during that time would be under
cultivation. Only after the harvest was in (and in the moderate climate
of Palestine the harvest would extend very late) would it make sense to
have the sheep in the farm fields. Before that they would be up in the
hills where the pasture land was. One more point in favor of it being
closer to December than to September.
The shepherds were not "tending" their flocks, they were "keeping guard."
This indicates that there was some sort of extraordinary situation that
would keep the shepherds up at night when they would normally be
sleeping, either in their shepherd's huts or at home. Such a situation
might be an influx of wild beasts, which required them to keep an
extraordinary watch. More likely, though, it would have been a human
danger, for example from large numbers of strangers on the road,
traveling to and fro because of the census and filling the hostelries in
the towns. There must also have been more than the usual number of Roman
soldiers about to keep the peace. These fellows would have had no qualms
about confiscating sheep.
Another point indicative that the shepherds were keeping special watch is
that they seem to have been there together. Usually shepherds go one by
one with their flocks, one flock, one shepherd, one sheep dog, who go out
to their own pastures and keep pretty much to themselves. But in this case
it seems that they had banded their flocks together in the dormant farm
fields just outside Bethlehem in order to keep a common guard over them.
In any case, sheep, with their wooly coats, would not have been kept
indoors during the winter. The gospel indicates that they were there
with their shepherds, in the cultivated fields not far from Bethlehem,
which would have been near to the barns containing the hay and winter
fodder, being guarded, quite extraordinarily, by their shepherds at
night. All in all this points to the traditional December date of the
Nativity as described by Luke.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Palo Denver, Colorado
pa...@netcom.com
James Battista
: Day after Thanksgiving? No.
: December 1? Probably not.
: First day of Advent? More plausible than either of the above.
: Christmas Eve? This seems the best, technically, but
: see I spent a lot of money on it and I want to get some
: use out of it. :-)
: What do you all think?
: Brian McCarthy
I say first Sunday in Advent.
One nice touch that you might be able to do is to have the magi far
away at the beginning of advent and 'travel' towards the main part of
the creche.
Jim Battista
PhD candidate, Dept of Political Science, Duke Univ.
jim...@mail.duke.edu
king of the impossible
David Henderson
Craig Tranfield wrote:
>
> In article <5737h8$h...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, <brian...@aol.com> wrote:
> >What's the "proper" date to put out an outdoor Nativity
> >scene?
> >
> place it in autumn before they brought them in for winter.
> So nativity outdoors - try September 25th.
>
>
> Craig
Actually, the shepherds didn't watch their flocks by night in the
autumn. They watched them in the spring during the lambing season.
So, a mid-March date would be more appropriate.
BTW: Until the Church settled on 25 Dec for the date of the Nativity,
there was no generally accepted date for Christmas. Many local
churches celebrated Christmas on 25 March. Two reasons: (1) They
knew about the lambing season, we urban dwellers don't; (2) 25 March
was the date of the new year under the Roman calendar -- so celebrating
the birth of Christ on this day had a nice symbolism.
Regards all!
--
Frank Kurucz
: What's the "proper" date to put out an outdoor Nativity
: scene?
: What do you all think?
In Mexico it is customary to set up the Nativity Scene ("Nacimiento")
early in Advent, but to leave out the Baby Jesus until Christmas.
Frank
Frank Kurucz
: How can nativity scenes be proper or improper?
: Would Jesus put a nativity scene in his yard? I doubt it.
: J ...who fell from a star.
Why not? The original was in a humble stable.
Frank
Mark Kessinger
>How can nativity scenes be proper or improper?
>Would Jesus put a nativity scene in his yard? I doubt it.
Of course not -- he didn't *have* a yard!
brian...@aol.com
Subject: Re: "Proper" date to put out Nativity scene?
>
>Given that the shepherds were out minding their flocks etc. it would
>place it in autumn before they brought them in for winter.
>So nativity outdoors - try September 25th.
Good point. That *is* when the stores start putting up
their stuff! :-)
Brian McCarthy
Alexander R Pruss
brian...@aol.com wrote:
: Day after Thanksgiving? No.
: December 1? Probably not.
: First day of Advent? More plausible than either of the above.
: Christmas Eve? This seems the best, technically, but
: see I spent a lot of money on it and I want to get some
: use out of it. :-)
Advent is a time of waiting for the Lord, a time recalling the thousands
of years that people were waiting for the birth of the Messiah. It is a
time of fasting and penance, of preparation. Thus I don't think Christmas
decorations are particularly appropriate before Christmas Eve. We tend
to compromise a little and turn on outdoor lights about a week (or two)
before Christmas, and we put up a Christmas tree usually one or two days
before Christmas Eve. And then of course we keep it up as long as the
Church's Christmas season lasts, namely up to the Feast of Three Kings,
January 6th. (From lack of time to take it down, we sometimes keep it up
longer.)
Alex.
Gerry Palo
In article <57dpat$3...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
David Henderson <dav...@airmail.net> wrote:
>Craig Tranfield wrote:
>>
>> In article <5737h8$h...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, <brian...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >scene?
>> >
>> Given that the shepherds were out minding their flocks etc. it would
>> place it in autumn before they brought them in for winter.
>> So nativity outdoors - try September 25th.
>>
>>
>> Craig
>
>autumn. They watched them in the spring during the lambing season.
>So, a mid-March date would be more appropriate.
Actually, they didn't watch their sheep by night at any time of the year
under normal conditions. Shepherds sleep at night like you and me. They
pen their sheep and let the sheepdog keep watch. This was obviously an
exceptional situation. I posted once on this but will touch on it again.
The word "keeping watch" means just that, keeping guard. Something
obviously exceptional was going on to keep the shepherds up at night and
to keep them banded together (normally each shepherd takes his own flock
alone to the pastures in spring and summer). Here they were abiding not
in the pastures in the hills but in the farm fields (agricaulantes),
which would have been dormant in winter. Palestinian shepherds do this
even today.
>
>BTW: Until the Church settled on 25 Dec for the date of the Nativity,
>there was no generally accepted date for Christmas.
The Church first formalized its calendar in the fourth century after
Constantine embraced Christianity and they could tend to such things.
This does not mean that there were no traditions about the date.
Important is the fact that in the early Church the Feast of the Nativity
was a minor festival. The most important ones were Easter and the other
moveable feasts around it, including Ascension and Pentecost. The
fanciful idea that the December 25 date was chosen to compete with the
Roman Saturnalia or the birth of "Sol Invictus" (a relative latecomer
introduced during the third century during a period of Roman decadence by
an egomaniacal emperor) makes no sense at all in view of the persecution
of Christians by those same Romans.
On the contrary, there is documentary evidence based on the Hebrew
reckoning of the course of Abijah at the time that would place John's
birth in mid June, the traditional date of his birth, which would place
the Nativity described by Luke six months later. Although there is no
documentary evidence of the traditional date, there is every reason to
believe that, while it was not to begin with a festival, the date would
have been known by John, who cared for Mary until she died and who himself
lived to an old age, doubtless passing on what he knew to his pupils. If
the date of the Nativity had been arbitrarily manufactured it is likely
that there would have been some degree of protest from Christians who knew
of the tradition.
All in all, whatever the astronomical coincidences and parallels to pagan
festivals might have been, the evidence for a December 25 Nativity is as
strong or stronger than for any other time of year. I will post the
details about the course of Abijah if anyone is interested.
dwil...@aol.com
Dear ALL,
Well, if it makes anybody feel better, Jesus is called
the "morning star" and is figuratively represented by
the SUN. It would appear from the HISTORICAL record,
however, since he was about 30 when he was baptized,
that is, around his birthday that he was born sometime
around or before the Festival of Booths. Jesus'
ministry of 3-1/2 years would make him about 33-1/2
when he died.
But since we know EXACTLY when he died, the week of
Passover, it is not hard to understand he must have been
born in the fall because Passover and the Festival of Booths are exactly
six months apart. This is where the
1260 days, 1290 days come in. 1260 days is exactly
six lunar months but 1290 days is 30 additional days
which reflects the leap year involved in the period of
the 3-1/2 years. But also the Bible mentions 1335 days.
That is, 45 days more than 1290 days. So since Jesus
first, after being baptized went into the wilderness for
40 days, it might be that his official ministry of 1290
days did not start until the time of the Festival of Booths
though he was baptized 40-43 days earlier. So his birth
date might have been 6 weeks before the Festival of
Booths.
It is interesting, however, that some don't like the
December 25th date because it involves the winter solstice. But with a
fall birth, Jesus would have been
CONCEIVED around December 25th. Thus is Jesus'
conception was in any way coordinated with the winter
solstice, then we could presume his birthdate was
exactly nine months later, which fits all the facts.
By the way, Sheep might have a lot of wool, but people
don't. I think the sheppards were out of doors because
it was HOT! So I prefer a late winter birth date for Jesus,
sometime around August 25th? That would also be a
good time for travel as well.
Darryl
Dean and Charmaine Tiegs
dwil...@aol.com wrote:
>Dear ALL,
>Well, if it makes anybody feel better, Jesus is called
>the "morning star" and is figuratively represented by
>the SUN. It would appear from the HISTORICAL record,
>however, since he was about 30 when he was baptized,
>that is, around his birthday that he was born sometime
>around or before the Festival of Booths. Jesus'
>ministry of 3-1/2 years would make him about 33-1/2
>when he died.
Darryl,
Since the passage is worded, "about 30," it could mean "more than 25
but less than 35," so I would be careful about assuming it means "30
give or take a week."
>But since we know EXACTLY when he died, the week of
>Passover, it is not hard to understand he must have been
>born in the fall because Passover and the Festival of Booths are exactly
>six months apart. This is where the
>1260 days, 1290 days come in. 1260 days is exactly
>six lunar months but 1290 days is 30 additional days
>which reflects the leap year involved in the period of
>the 3-1/2 years. But also the Bible mentions 1335 days.
>That is, 45 days more than 1290 days. So since Jesus
A synodic lunar month is about 29.53 days. 1260 days divided by 29.53
days is 42.67 months, not "exactly six." Get a calculator! I am
confused about this entire paragraph. Are you suggesting that there
is something significant about the numbers 1260 and 1290, or that
these numbers are mentioned in the Bible? More details, please.
>So I prefer a late winter birth date for Jesus,
>sometime around August 25th?
August was in the summer in Judea. I presume "late winter" is a typo.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
In article <57j3b6$a...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
pa...@netcom.com (Gerry Palo) wrote:
snip
>All in all, whatever the astronomical coincidences and parallels to pagan
>festivals might have been, the evidence for a December 25 Nativity is as
>strong or stronger than for any other time of year. I will post the
>details about the course of Abijah if anyone is interested.
Gerry, please do.
This is interesting and totally new to me....
jrw
posted and mailed
Terry Reed
I would be in favor of a law that states that no Christmas decorating may
be done until the first day of Advent.
On the nativity scene question, I say one week before Christmas.
Gerry Palo
In article <57tk4p$d...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
Here it is,
Gerry
There is indication in Luke that, together with extant records, can
pinpoint the December date more exactly, namely the temple schedule
containing the course of Abijah, in which Zecharias served at the time the
annunciation of the birth of John was made to him. According to the Old
Testament, this would place the birth of John some time in spring, with
that of Jesus six months later in the fall. But, as Ormond Edwards shows,
a contemporary record, from AD 70, puts the birth of John at the end of
June.
>From Ormond Edwards' "The Time of Christ: A Chronology of the Incarnation"
Floris Books, Edinburgh. ISBN 0-86315-030-6. Copyright The Christian
Community, 1986:
John the Baptist
"We shall first examine a little more closely the timing of the
annunciation of John's birth. Luke (1:5,8) states that tat the time
John's father Zechariah was serving in the Temple belonging, as he did,
to the priests' course of Abijah. Chronological interpretation of this
statement is not unproblematic. According to the First Book of the
Chronicles (24:7-9) the first course to serve in the rota was Jehoiarib,
which was appointed to serve for a week commencing on the sabbath, before
being relieved by the next course. The course of Abijah, to which
Zechariah belonged, was the eighth of twenty-four courses. Unfortunately
we are not told the time of year when each course served.
Jewish date Julian date Course
Ab 8-14 August 5-11 1 Jehoiarib
Ab 15-21 August 12-18 2 Jedaiah
Ab 22-28 August 19-25 3 Harim
Ab 29-Elul 6 Aug 26-Sep 1 4 Seorim
Elul 7-13 September 2-8 5 Malchijah
Elul 14-20 September 9-15 6 Mijamin
Elul 21-27 September 16-22 7 Hakkoz
Elul 28-Tishri 4 September 23-29 8 Abijah
Table 5. Priests' courses due to serve in AD 70.
"We do know, however, that the first course of Jehoiarib was serving on
Ab 9, August 6, AD 780 when the Temple was destroyed by the Romans. In
both Talmuds, the Tosefta (A Tannaitic collection only less ancient than
the Mishnah) and in the Chronicle Seder Olam Tabbah, Rabbi Jose ben
Halafta (c. AD 150) is reported on this point (Beckwith 1977). 'Rabbi
Jose said, "Fortunate things happen on a fortunate day, and evil things
on an evil day. For as the first temple was destroyed on a Sunday, the
year after a sabbatical year, when the course of Jehoiarib was on duty,
on Ab 9, so it was with the second temple".' Had the Temple not been
destroyed in AD 70, they would have continued to serve as in Table 5.
"... Each course served one week twice a year, apart from the joint
participation of all courses at the time of the pilgrim festivals. Table
5 shows that Abijah was due to serve at the new year in the autumn of AD
70. Assuming that the pattern repeats each year Zechariah also would
have served at new year in 2 BC. This corresponds to a birth at the
traditional midsummer.
"Luke informs us that a large number of people were present while
Zechariah was making the offering, ' the whole number of people'
presumably implying that the day was of more than ordinary importance.
Early Christian writers sometimes treated Zechariah in an unwarranted
fashion as the high priest entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of
Atonement, Tishri 10. Table 5 would identify the special day as the
autumn new year's day Tishri 1, October 1, 2 BC. John's birth would then
follow nine months later around AB 9, June 30, 1 BC.
Jesus of Nazareth
"Luke (1:26) places the annunciation of the birth of Jesus six (lunar)
months after that of John, that is on Nisan 1, March 26, 1 BC. The
resultant date of the Nativity, which was in antiquity reckoned to follow
after a gestation period of 10 sidereal months (273 days) is Tebeth 9,
December 25, 1 BC."
Phil
On 4 Dec 1996 00:02:31 -0500, pa...@netcom.com (Gerry Palo) wrote:
>In article <57tk4p$d...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
>Joyce Reynolds-Ward <j...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>>In article <57j3b6$a...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
>> pa...@netcom.com (Gerry Palo) wrote:
>>snip
>>
>>>All in all, whatever the astronomical coincidences and parallels to pagan
>>>festivals might have been, the evidence for a December 25 Nativity is as
>>>strong or stronger than for any other time of year. I will post the
>>>details about the course of Abijah if anyone is interested.
>>
>>
>>Gerry, please do.
>>
>>This is interesting and totally new to me....
>
> According to the Old
>Testament, this would place the birth of John some time in spring, with
>that of Jesus six months later in the fall. But, as Ormond Edwards shows,
>a contemporary record, from AD 70, puts the birth of John at the end of
>June.
>
This is not a real big deal to me. But the Nativity happened on our
September 29th.
Could Mary being well along in her pregnancy have made such a trip to
the place He was born?
The shepherd's would not have been in the fields at this time, Dec.
25th.
The course of Abia is the eighth of priestly courses. As was stated
each course was served twice a year. The first ministration was from
12-18 Chisleu or December 6-12 The second was from 12-19 Sivan or June
13-19.
The announcement to Zacharias of the conception of John took place
between 12-18 Sivan (June 12-19).
The day following the end of the course of Abia was a Sabbath (Sivan
19) and Zecharias would not been able to leave Jerusalem before the
20th. A couple day to travel back home would put it about 21st or
22nd. Time enough for the miraculous conception of John to occur on
the 23rd of Sivan, our June 22 or 23.
Six-months later Gabriel would appear to Mary the 25th of December to
announce our Lord's conception. Jesus's birth would have then taken
place on the 15th of Tisri or September 29th. The Feast of
Tabernacles, when He would tabernacle in the flesh.
The conception of John 23rd Sivan = June 23-24
The birth of John 7 Nisan = March 28-29
The Miraculous "Begetting" 1st Tebeth = December 25
The Nativity 15 Tisri = September 29
Nik Taylor
> >> Given that the shepherds were out minding their flocks etc. it would
> >> place it in autumn before they brought them in for winter.
> >> So nativity outdoors - try September 25th.
> Actually, they didn't watch their sheep by night at any time of the year
> under normal conditions. Shepherds sleep at night like you and me. They
> pen their sheep and let the sheepdog keep watch.
However, they did watch them near passover, implying that Christ was born
near passover. It would be very appropriate symbolism, as a lamb was slain
on passover, and Christ is the "lamb of God."
Ben Warner
In article <57j3ci$a...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, pru...@pitt.edu says...
>
>brian...@aol.com wrote:
>: Day after Thanksgiving? No.
>: December 1? Probably not.
>: First day of Advent? More plausible than either of the above.
>: Christmas Eve? This seems the best, technically, but
>: see I spent a lot of money on it and I want to get some
>: use out of it. :-)
>
>Advent is a time of waiting for the Lord, a time recalling the thousands
>of years that people were waiting for the birth of the Messiah. It is a
>time of fasting and penance, of preparation. Thus I don't think Christmas
>decorations are particularly appropriate before Christmas Eve.
In my wife's family, they have a tradition of putting out the
Nativity scene early, with the Infant Jesus not present.
This serves as a reminder, especially of the great anticipation
of the birth of the Messiah -- after all, part of the Christmas
Story is that the Babe was eagerly expected for centuries,
so a few weeks of waiting and remembering that waiting is certainly
(IMHO) appropriate.
Then, on Christmas Eve, with great solemnity the Child
is placed in the manger.
We have adopted a similar tradition in our household,
and it has really helped our children.
In this way, the forces of commercialism are
daily rebuted by the visible presence of the
Nativity (NOT a Santa ...), and then we
can sing songs of rejoicing and praise just as
the angels did when the Christ Child was born.
Question -- would it be "improper" to
have the Birth commemorated in your home
year-round? We have pictures of Jesus
throughout our home, detailing His entire mortal
ministry and anticipating His Second Coming.
One of the pictures (that NEVER is taken
down) remembers His birth Why make the
celebration of His life temporary or
time-limited?
Ben.
Gerry Palo
In article <585h0f$i...@geneva.rutgers.edu>, Phil <pna...@execpc.com> wrote:
>This is not a real big deal to me. But the Nativity happened on our
>September 29th.
You have apparently not read my lengthy post on this subject, or you
choose to ignore it and make assertions of your own. I suggest you try
to retrieve it and consider what I have posted.
>
>Could Mary being well along in her pregnancy have made such a trip to
>the place He was born?
Luke does not say when they went to Bethlehem.
>The shepherd's would not have been in the fields at this time, Dec.
>25th.
Read what I posted. I am not going to post it again for you.
[Lengthy details about the course of Abijah deleted]
Once again, what I posted shows that the calender of courses had changed
over time. The document from the year 70 AD shows a date corresponding
to June 24 for the birth of John and around December 25 for the birth of
Jesus described in Luke.