I was looking into the accounts of Jesus' birth both in Matthew and Luke and tried to make something of a chronology of the events on a piece of paper so that I can get it clear in my head. The thing that I came to notice is that there could be a large time gap in between Luke 2:38 and Luke 2:39... Now if we read the 2 accounts carefully we will understand that the wise men came to Jerusalem (The city of the King), expecting to find the newborn King there. However, Herod, consulting the scholars of the day sent them to Bethlehem (as it has been prophesied) (Mat. 2:1-6). Now, we are not actually told that they actually went to Bethlehem as the star appeared and guided them again. However, certainly that is the assumption of most people. Later we read (Mat. 2:16-18) that Herod went about killing all the male children aged 2 years or less, based on the information he had acquired from the wise men, concerning the time that the star appeared (Mat. 2:7). So it is safe to say that the wise men came to Jesus anytime before He was 2 years of age. However, what makes it more interesting is that it is written that after the wise men left, Joseph was told in a dream to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus. Knowing this, we look back into the account by Luke and see that they went into the Temple in Jerusalem, for the cleansing of Mary (Luke 2:22) as it is written in the Law (Lev. 12:3-8)... According to this passage for a male child this is done 33 days after (birth?). Which would mean that they visited the temple before the wise men came to them? And then returned to Bethlehem where the wise men came (even though Lk. 2:39 says they went back to Nazareth - assuming there is a gap and this speaks after their return from Egypt.) **OR** they went back to Nazareth straight after the cleansing in the temple (approx. a little over a month after the birth), meaning that even though the wise men were sent to Bethlehem by Herod, the star guided them to Nazareth..? **So, my question:** Now, more than one question arise from the comments above, however my main question is: According to my observations, is it safe to say that Jesus went to Jerusalem and into the Temple before the wise men got there? Are there other places in Scripture that confirm this or is there perhaps a flaw in my logic?

Relative to research I'm doing, I wanted to pick the brains of the community at large and see if anyone had an answer to a question. Josephus states that Pompey took Jerusalem in the third month (Sivan) of 63 BCE during the solemn fast. He then later states that Herod captured Jerusalem in the third month, on the same day, also on the solemn fast, in 37 BCE. >**Taken by Pompey:** [...] the city was taken on the third month, on the day of the fast, upon the hundred and seventy-ninth olympiad, when Caius Antonius and Marcus Tullius Cicero were consuls [...]. (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66) >**Taken by Herod:** This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls at Rome, on the hundred and eighty-fifth olympiad, on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calamities had returned since that which befell the Jews under Pompey; for the Jews were taken by him on the same day [...]. (Joseph. *AJ* 14.487-88) To head certain responses off at the pass, Josephus did not say that it was the Day of Atonement (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66, 487) as some are wont to suggest. In a careful examination of both instances, that of Pompey and Herod, you will find, first, that Pompey started his war with the Jews in the spring (Joseph. *AJ* 14.38). It was a three-month siege that ended in the “third month,” on a day of fasting (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66; *BJ* 1.149). In the case of Herod, he started his siege toward the end of winter (Joseph. *BJ* 1.343; *AJ* 14.465). It was a five-month siege that ended in the “third month,” on a day of solemn fasting (Joseph. *BJ* 1.351; *AJ* 14.487-8). In the case of Pompey, a three-month siege beginning around the “beginning of the spring” would have had its conclusion in late spring, coincident with the third month of the Jewish ecclesiastical calendar. In the case of Herod, a five-month siege, which he began in winter, puts the fifth month likewise in the vicinity of late spring. So, to be clear on the subject, by context, neither instance can be even remotely construed to have occurred in autumn, which is where Tishri and the Day of Atonement fall. Concerning the third month, Sivan, I can find no record in any of the Jewish literature to pinpoint what fast this might have been. Nor can I definitively establish a day of the week. For the fast, the 23rd of Sivan is the closest example I could find, observed in modern times as the fast for omitting the offering of the first fruits in Jerusalem during the days of Jeroboam (*Shulchan Arukh*, Orach Chayim 580.2). However, it is suspect, since the circumstances surrounding the incident of Jeroboam interfering with the sacrifice of the people in Jerusalem looks to be coincident to Tabernacles rather than anything occurring in Sivan (1 Kgs. 12:25-33; Joseph. *AJ* 8.225-230). The earliest reference I could find to corroborate such a fast was the *Shulchan Arukh*, by Joseph Karo, 1563, as noted. Meanwhile, his most significant predecessor, Maimonides, made no mention of this fast in his *Misneh Torah*, c. 1168-1178. Nor are there any such references in the Talmud. I did find another reference to weekly fasts on Mondays and Thursdays (Tosef. to Ta'an. 2:4), but I couldn't determine their origin in terms of date, whether this was a regular practice in the first century BCE, or if it was something that came in vogue much later, as so many other observances did. For the day, there is an inference that Pompey took the city on the sabbath (Joseph. *AJ* 14.64), but regular, ritual fasting is prohibited on the sabbath (bErub. 41a, bTa’an 27b), so this inference is likely just a coincidence of wording. Dio Cassius also tells us that Jerusalem was taken on the Day of Saturn, or Saturday, in the instances of both Pompey and Herod (Dio Cass. 37.16.1-4, 49.22.2-5). However, I suspect, because of the prohibition against fasting on the sabbath (apart from occasional exceptions), that he merely inferred the Day of Saturn because of Pompey's tactics. Soooooo, I'm at a bit of an impasse. I can live with the conclusion that there was some unnamed fast in the month of Sivan if I can't find an answer. That Josephus says there was one is proof enough for me that a ritual fast in the third month existed in the first century BCE. The lack of a specific answer will neither make nor break the conclusions of my research. However, I've seen some intelligent people on here already. I'm hoping someone might be able to point me in the right direction to discover the identify of this enigmatic fast. It would be nice icing on the cake. And I would be much obliged if responses were confined to the question. I know the temptation is great to expound upon the various death of Herod hypotheses. But I just want to know about the fast if anyone can provide me with some useful information. The relevance of this question concerns the birth and life of Christ. It is part of a greater study on the death of Herod, which has a direct impact on the nativity, and by extension the ministry of Jesus Christ.

So I'm curious if there exist any Christian sects which deny the physical birth of Jesus, i.e. that Jesus was born from Mary. Perhaps such a sect would say that Jesus simply appeared from the Heavens and didn't need anyone to bring him into the world.

Many depictions of the nativity have both the shepherds and the wise men at the stable on the night of Jesus' birth. However, it is commonly held that the wise men did not arrive until several months after the birth of Jesus. What specifically is the basis for this belief?

For those that believe some are predestined to reject Christ, is the gospel still offered to them?

It has been clearly asserted by Biblical Unitarians that Jesus Christ had no actual existence anywhere prior to his birth in Bethlehem. It has also been clearly asserted that Scriptures which appear to present some kind of pre-existence for Jesus (John's prologue, for instance) are really referring to his "notional existence" within the mind of God. There are many questions and answers which flesh this out. Here are a few: how-do-those-who-believe-that-jesus-is-a-created-being-understand-the-verses-whi , why-don-t-unitarians-believe-that-jesus-christ-pre-existed-before-incarnation , according-to-biblical-unitarians-how-much-does-notionalism-encompass-in-john The general idea is that God has always had the plan to cause Jesus' birth and this plan is what is referred to as the Word in John's Gospel. The Word also must incorporate the "plan in God's mind" for literally everything since all things were brought into existence through this same Word. For instance, God had the "plan" for light and when He said "Let light be" that plan was actualized. When we are told that the Word became flesh it is here that the "plan" of God regarding Jesus was actualized and where Jesus went from "notional" to "actual" existence. This Biblical Unitarian article presents a Word which encompasses all of God's plans and, indeed, God's rational thought itself. My question therefore is: According to Biblical Unitarians, when the Word became flesh (when the plan was actualized) was it *all* of the Word or *part* of the Word which became flesh?

In Matthew 2, it makes it clear that Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod and was a young child when Herod died. > After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.” We know that Herod died in 4 BC, so we know that Jesus must have been born in 4 BC or shortly beforehand. In Luke 2, it is made clear that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius >In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register. ... >He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. Quirinius became governor of Syria and performed his census in 6 AD. From this we know that Jesus must have been born in 6 AD. **This is a nine year discrepancy between the time of Jesus' birth as recorded by Matthew and the time of Jesus' birth as recorded by Luke**. How can these two accounts be reconciled?

The Old Roman Symbol was a forerunner of the Apostles Creed. The structure seems to imply a dual maternity. I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence He will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh (the life everlasting) Notice what could be understood as a dual maternity: "born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary". It seems if the Holy Spirit is the Eternal Matriarch of the Eternal Father then the dual-nature of the Son (Son of God; Son of Man) would be easily understood. Is their any evidence in church history that the Holy Spirit was understood as Eternal Matriarch? When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about being born again of the Holy Spirit, which could be understood then that God's children are born of the Holy Spirit?

This question is a spin-off from https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1360/when-was-christ-born There are differing views on the birth year of Christ, which also affect the dating of the resurrection (as we know Jesus's age on death). Which years are possible, and what are the arguments?

Where does the Catholic tradition that Mary's birth of Jesus was painless come from? My wife just got home from a non-denominational study about Mary and she said she thought everybody knew this, but apparently no one knew about it - especially the Protestants! In any event, what I'm looking for is the origin of the quote that Jesus' birth was "like light passing through glass" and whether that quote is wholly indicative of a painless birth or if it could have been painless in another way? I understand that it's a little t tradition in the Church, not a dogma or anything. But it's definitely a strong tradition; although it's one that could use a little preaching on from what I can tell.

I am trying to develop an accurate historical timeline (expressed on the Gregorian calendar) that includes the events surrounding the annunciation, birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I have come across a number of speculations in the 4-6 BC range for his birth, in the 25-30 AD range for the onset of his ministry, and in the 29-33 AD range for his crucifixion. I believe a persistent error in our Western tradition of designating Good Friday as the day of his crucifixion and Easter Sunday as the day he rose from the grave has developed as the result of a misunderstanding about when during the week the special Passover Sabbath occurred that year. Friday evening to Sunday morning does not reconcile with what Jesus said about being in the earth for 3 nights and 3 days before rising again (**see proposed alternate scenario here** ). This error could contribute to a number of other miscalculations about the dates I am looking for. Can any of you help me clarify the date problem and narrow this down further? Thanks!

Do any denominations teach that Christ was actually born in the Fall about Tabernacles? Most Christians observe His birth on 12/25 (the same date, regardless of the day it falls), but though observing, some may believe His actual birth at a different time. What is an overview of what different denominations teach about this subject? Do any teach He was born about Tabernacles in the Fall?

Note: I scoped this question to trinitarians because Christ could be rejected as God and thus it wouldn’t be relevant to non-trinitarians. I was recently inspired by user @Anne to ask this, as she said that Mary was not the mother of God, but didn’t want to discuss in the comments. Now this was a rather odd claim to hear. Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus, who is God. That’s true on trinitarian belief. Now as far as I’m aware, conceiving and giving birth to someone makes you a mother. So what’s the basis for rejecting Mary as the mother of God? ---------- Opposite question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/54531/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-the-belief-that-mary-is-the-mother-of-god

According to the Scriptures that were given through Matthew, Jesus Christ was born to a virgin. > "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the > prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and > they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”)" > (Matthew.1:22-23) However, the Scriptures that were given through the apostle Paul mention that Jesus was born of a woman. > "4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a > woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we > might receive adoption to sonship.[b]" (Galatians.4:4-5) Scriptures do not contradict. But the above two messages seem to contradict with each other. If they do not truly contradict with each other then how can they be reconciled?

The Star of Bethlehem has become an indispensable part of the Christmas Crib. But, we do not see the star in Gospel narrations till the time Magi arrive : In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising,...... Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. ................ When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. It is possible that the Magi had set out from their homeland(s) on seeing the star, the rising of which coincided with the Nativity. But, it is strange that there is no mention of the star at the time of Nativity in the gospels. The star could be mentioned along with the celestial song of the angels , and could work as a sign for the shepherds(Lk 2: 8-16). My question therefore, is: According to Catholic scholars, was the Star visible over Bethlehem on the day of Nativity ?

This is about a particular reason why it was not likely for Jesus to have been born in December, based on an explanation I remember hearing from a Jehovah's Witness over a decade ago. I know that multiple arguments can be provided against a December birth date but this particular one is of interest mainly because I forgot the exact reasoning behind it and have not been able to find it explained anywhere. From what I remember of it, it had to do with the Levite temple service schedule and possibly John the Baptizer's father serving at the temple. If there is a reasoning along these lines, what was the explanation for it?

Why was Christ born when he was born? Why not earlier? Why not later? Does the time period of his life have a symbolic or practical importance? I am not aware of any reason why Christ needed to live when he did other than to fulfill prophecy, but that prophecy only exists because God had previously chosen the time for Christ's birth. So why? The reason for Christ's life was to perform the Atonement , but I can't imagine the particular timing of it mattered much since it was an infinite atonement . Another effect of the atonement is that it enabled missionary work in the spirit world as well as performing temple ordinances for them. Many spirits had to wait a few thousand years for this to happen. It seems like they might have preferred if Christ had lived earlier so that they didn't have to wait so long. One might say that time only exists on this earth and not in the world of spirits, so why then is genealogy and temple work so important? I'm willing to accept that the answer to my question is "because God said so" but I would like to know if there happens to be more than that.

Is there any spiritual significance to the gifts the Magi brought – Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh – after they were led by a “star” to Bethlehem where they worshiped the young child Jesus? Why would this caravan of astronomers present expensive gifts to Joseph, Mary and their young child unless they were aware of the significance of his birth? Here is the biblical background information: >Matthew 2:1-6: After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the time of King Herod, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem saying, “Where is the one who is born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” When King Herod heard this he was alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him. After assembling all the chief priests and experts in the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. “In Bethlehem of Judea,” they said, “for it is written this way by the prophet: ‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are in no way least among the rulers of Judah, for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’” >Matthew 2:7-12: Then Herod privately summoned the wise men and determined from them when the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and look carefully for the child. When you find him, inform me so that I can go and worship him as well.” After listening to the king they left, and once again the star they saw when it rose led them until it stopped above the place where the child was. When they saw the star they shouted joyfully. As they came into the house and saw the child with Mary his mother, they bowed down and worshiped him. They opened their treasure boxes and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. After being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they went back by another route to their own country. I realise there are different traditions surrounding this advent, but what I’m looking for is biblical references to the significance of gold, frankincense and myrrh. Also, I would like to know if there are any Christian references (from old hymns, for example) that suggest the spiritual significance of these expensive gifts that were presented to the infant king.

> And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. - Mark 2:7 Swaddling clothes are narrow strips of cloth wrapped around an infant to restrict movement, and also to give it a snug feeling. Usually , the work of cleaning the new-born baby and clothing it , is done by the mid-wife , who could either be hired (Gen 35:17; Gen 38:28; Ex 1:16 ) , or be a close female relative of the expectant mother . Mary is traditionally believed to have been a teenager when Jesus was born to her. Notwithstanding the fact the Joseph and Mary were travelling, they could have taken along a close lady relative to take charge when the time would arrive. My question therefore is: Did Mary have the assistance of a midwife at the time of Jesus' birth? What do the traditions of Catholic Church say about it?

At Matthew 2:16 (RSVCE), we read about the visit of the Wise Men to Infant Jesus, and the massacre of children by Herod : > "Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men." That implies that Child Jesus was nearly two years of age when the Wise Men reached Him. Surely, they should have come from a far away place. The book "Travel in the Mogul Empire AD 1656- 1668" by Francois Bernier, with an English translation published in 1891 (available online on Rarebooks online State Central Library, Kerala), cites the presence of settlement of Jews in Kashmir, India in ancient times. Of course, other parts of the world could also have had Jewish settlements at the time of Jesus' birth. My question, therefore, is: **Were the Wise Men from the East, in fact, Jews who had settled in a far away place, say India? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say about such a prospect?**