Monday, December 12, 2011

*BEST OF DTB #115* The case for December 25th, 2 BC- The video

We are so proud to present this to you. We hope it makes your Christmas more Merry.

There are some that question the efficacy of such an effort on the grounds that it really doesn't matter when Jesus was born, only that He was.

There is merit to the argument up to a point.

Where the argument loses it salience is when the difficulties presented call into question the reliability of the early church fathers, or even the fact that Jesus Christ was a historical person after all.

Those difficulties have long hinged around a number of popular misconceptions about the dates of some of the Gospel events. For example;

  1. It has long been assumed by many that Herod the Great died in 4 BC but this conclusion is
    simply untenable, given the evidence we have. A far more compelling case points to January 1BC.
  2. The issue of Quirinius as Governing Syria. His reign did not commence until 6 AD. Many point to this, and point # 1 as making Christ's birth impossible to reconcile. Knowing that Quirinius would have been governing temporarily, in 2 BC, removes this objection.
  3. Zechariah's appearance in the Temple was not according to the rotation established in 1 Chronicles 24, which begins on 1 Nisan but rather on the one that was set after the temple was rebuilt by Zerubbabel. This rotation begins on Tisha B' AV
These, and other facts, clear up the complications and show, quite clearly, that the early church knew what it was talking about. The gospel accounts are not fairy tales, they are true historical events. This should give pause to the misguided folks who say that Christmas is more about the sun god than the Son of God. That you establish the date of December 25 as belonging to Mithros or Nimrod orfalling during Saturnalia means nothing to me. The only point of contention is whether Jesus was, or was not, born on this date. The answer to that question must rest on the merits and not on who else lays claim to the date.

At the end of the day, we believe we have established December 25th, 2 BC as the only plausible date that fits the totality of the evidence. Unless someone can counter this conclusion with unimpeachable evidence, juxtaposing us against Mithros will result in a yawn.

The larger question is what this means for you. If this baby was born when we say He was, than you may just have to accept that He is who we say He is. What are you going to do with that revelation? Will you continue to remain frozen in denial or will yearning impulses move you to explore the potential reality of this possibility? If this boy child be God made flesh, it is reasonable of you to conclude that there must be some tangible evidence of this. Yet, if the evidence did exist, it is just as reasonable to conclude that you would incur guilt in making no effort to seek it out.

Yes, the reality that the Christmas story just might be a true story may shake you from your atrophy and place you on a new, exciting, and sometimes challenging path....

....but is that really such a bad thing after all?

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

No comments:

Post a Comment