A Christmas debate between curiosity and faith

It must've been so hard to lack birth certificates during the ancient times. 


For eight years I've studied in two private schools, and I was spiritually conditioned to always participate in Nativity scenes and Christmas carol performances. Even in our high school days, we laboriously worked on our best and most intimidating exchange gifts. For 18 centuries, almost half the world has generously adopted December 25 as Christ's birthday. But the issue remains a debate: was kuya Jesus really born that winter night?

One of the dilemmas, I believe that somehow made Jesus' birthday too vague and unsettled was the use of different calendars during the early times. Others referred to our adopted Julian calendar (invented by Julius Caesar), with the 365 1/4 days standard. Others used the Gregorian calendar embraced in Catholic Europe.


WHY DECEMBER 25?


While the Norse people (Northern Europe) greeted the sun on December amidst a winter solstice, and the Romans honored their gods on December 25, the early Church decided to celebrate Christmas on the same imperative date. Also, early Christians focused more in honoring Jesus as the Son of God (that is, his resurrection) than as a Son of Man (his birth). The Church revived the  Son of Man's birthday celebration, but when nobody even knew when, it simply paralleled the date to December 25.

www.oliviatravels.com

THE HARD EVIDENCE: THE SHEEP FLOCK


Thank God the Bible mentioned something about the shepherds and the flock.
A handful of theories coincidentally digged up the same evidences to prove Jesus was either born on December or September: the shepherds and the sheep flocks. Biblical scholars argued sheep in Bethlehem should be under cover from November to March. While the Bible says shepherds out in the fields that night saw a star and an Angel leading them to the historical place, this makes it impossible for Christmas to be on December.
But then they continued those sheep were an exception in Bethlehem to be flocked outside that time because they were sacrificial lambs. It somehow made sense that those lambs were meant to be offerings for the baby Jesus.

John the Baptist
www.frtim.wordpresscom

Another theory authored by Biblical scholar E.W. Bullinger traced Jesus' birth through the latter's cousin John the Baptist. With the help of Zacharia's (John's father) scheduled job the same day when Elizabeth conceived John, and counting the 6 months ahead when Mary followed to conceive Jesus resulted to the 15th of Tishri in Hebrew calendar, and equivalent to the 29th of September. December 25 makes the day of Mary's conception.


Through the flock of sheep as well, he also argued there was no grazing for flocks during December in Israel that time.


ASTROLOGY SAYS...


These claims might just be doubtful after all.


Star watchers, on the other hand, believe Christmas should be celebrated on April 17 (same day as Easter). Astronomer Dr. Michael Molnar studied a "Star in Bethlehem" research where Jesus was born bearing the zodiac sign Aries . Others claim Jesus being born in September makes it more appropriate, because Libra's zodiac sign (September-Glitnir) is more parallel to Jesus' character than Capricorn's (December-Thrudheim).

It is much food for thought that the Bible's inaccuracy led people to fabricate dates and even names and enthusiastically filled in the blanks. To some extent, this even drew a bold line between squabbling religions (other people didn't celebrate Christmas believing it was subject to paganism).


Given this phenomenon, I believe the Bible is trying to say something past the Scriptures, the story and the prescience of our after-world. It might be testing and tickling our curiosity and open-mindedness to ask questions and stop being contented with what's written on any published book. It might also be testing our faith to stop arguing and simply believe in what we have not seen and witnessed.