When was Jesus Born?

Best Guess: September 29, 5 B.C.

Want the details? Read more below.

Biblical scholars readily tell us that it was most likely NOT on December 25th, A.D. 0. Why?

When were shepherds in the fields?

Israeli meteorologists tracked December weather patterns for many years and concluded that the climate in Israel has been essentially constant for at least the last 2,000 years. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible states that, "broadly speaking, weather phenomena and climatic conditions as pictured in the Bible correspond with conditions as observed today" (R.B.Y. Scott, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1962, p. 625).

The temperature in the area of Bethlehem in December averages around 44 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius) but can drop to well below freezing, especially at night. Describing the weather there, Sara Ruhin, chief of the Israeli weather service, noted in a 1990 press release that the area has three months of frost: December with 29 F. [minus 1.6 C.]; January with 30 F. [minus 1.1 C.] and February with 32 F. [0 C.].

Snow is common for two or three days in Jerusalem and nearby Bethlehem in December and January. These were the winter months of increased precipitation in Christ's time, when the roads became practically unusable and people stayed mostly indoors.

This is important evidence to disprove a December date for Christ's birth. Note that, at the time of Christ's birth, the shepherds tended their flocks in the fields at night. "Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields," wrote one Gospel writer, "keeping watch over their flock by night" (Luke 2:8). A common practice of shepherds was keeping their flocks in the field from April to October, but in the cold and rainy winter months they took their flocks back home and sheltered them.

One commentary admits that, "as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up. The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact, which casts considerable light upon this disputed point" (Adam Clarke's Commentary, Abingdon Press, Nashville, note on Luke 2:8).

Another study source agrees: "These humble pastoral folk are out in the field at night with their flock—a feature of the story which would argue against the birth [of Christ] occurring on Dec. 25 since the weather would not have permitted it" (The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1971, note on Luke 2:4-7).

The Companion Bible, Appendix 179 says:

Shepherds and their flocks would not be found "abiding" (Gr. agrauleo) in the open fields at night in December (Tebeth), for the paramount reason that there would be no pasturage at that time. It was the custom then (as now) to withdraw the flocks during the month Marchesven (Oct.-Nov.) from the open districts and house them for the winter.

The census described by Luke

Other evidence arguing against a December birth of Jesus is the Roman census recorded by Luke. "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered... So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem..., to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son..." (Luke 2:1-7).

The Roman and Judean rulers knew that taking a census in winter would have been impractical and unpopular. Generally a census would take place after the harvest season, around September or October, when it would not seriously affect the economy, the weather was good and the roads were still dry enough to allow easy travel. According to the normal dates for the census, this would probably be the season of Christ's birth.

One author states that this census "could hardly have been at that season [December 25], however, for such a time would surely not have been chosen by the authorities for a public enrollment, which necessitated the population's traveling from all parts to their natal districts, storms and rain making journeys both unsafe and unpleasant in winter, except in specially favorable years" ("Christmas at Bethlehem," Holy-Days and Holidays, Cunningham Geikie).

Luke's account of the census argues strongly against a December date for Christ's birth. For such an agrarian society, an autumn post-harvest census was much more likely.

The year of Christ's birth

Jesus wasn't born in A.D. 0 either. In 525 Pope John I commissioned the scholar Dionysius Exiguus to establish a feast calendar for the Church.. Dionysius also estimated the year of Christ's birth based upon the founding of the city of Rome. Unfortunately because of insufficient historical data he arrived at a date at least a few years later than the actual event.

The Gospels record Jesus' birth as occurring during the reign of Herod the Great. Herod's death is recorded by Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus, Book 17, Chpt. 8) and occurred in the spring of 4 B.C. (New Testament History, F.F. Bruce, Anchor Books, p.23). Therefore, Christ's birth had to take place at least four years before the traditional date!

Jesus was not born on December 25, A.D. 0. [Actually there is no such year as A.D. 0. Our calendar jumps from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 with no intervening year of zero.]

The celebration of Christ's birth in the the early church

In the first 200 years of Christian history, no mention is made of the calendar date of Jesus' birth. Not until the year 336 do we find the first mention of a celebration of His birth.

Why this omission? In the case of the Church fathers, the reason is that, during the three centuries after Christ's life on earth, the event considered most worthy of commemoration was the date of His death. In comparison, the date of His birth was considered insignificant. As the Encyclopedia Americana explains, "Christmas... was, according to many authorities, not celebrated in the first centuries of the Christian church, as the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth..." (1944 edition, "Christmas").

Speculation on the proper date began in the 3rd and 4th centuries, when the idea of fixing Christ's birthday started. Quite a controversy arose among Church leaders. Some were opposed to such a celebration. Origen (185-254) strongly recommended against such an innovation. "In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 edition, Vol. 3, p. 724, "Natal Day").

During this time eight specific dates during six different months were proposed by various groups. December 25, although one of the last dates to be proposed, was the one finally accepted by the leadership of the Western church.

A summary of the debate on the dates of Christ's birth appears in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: "Though speculation as to the time of year of Christ's birth dates from the early 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria suggesting the 20th of May, the celebration of the anniversary does not appear to have been general till the later 4th century. The earliest mention of the observance on Dec. 25th is in the Philocalian Calendar, representing Roman practice of the year 336. This date was probably chosen to oppose the feast of the Natalis Solis Invicti [nativity of the unconquerable sun] by the celebration of the birth of the 'Sun of Righteousness' and its observance in the West, seems to have spread from Rome" (1983 edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 1983, p. 280, "Christmas").

Around 200, when Clement of Alexandria mentioned the speculations about Christ's birthday, he said nothing about a celebration on that day. He casually reported the various ideas extant at that time: "And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day..., the 25th day of Pachon... Furthermore, others say that He was born on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi" ("The Stromata, or Miscellanies," The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1986, p. 333).

Later, in 243, the official feast calendar of the time, De Pascha Computus, places the date of Christ's birth as March 28. Other dates suggested were April 2 and November 18. Meanwhile, in the East, January 6 was chosen, a date the Greeks had celebrated as the birth of the god Dionysus and the Egyptians as the birth of the god Osiris. Although pagans commonly celebrated the birthdays of their gods, in the Bible a birthday is never celebrated to the true God (who, of course, had no birth or day of origin).

December 25 popularized

In Rome December 25 was made popular by Pope Liberius in 354 and became the rule in the West in 435 when the first "Christ mass" was officiated by Pope Sixtus III. This coincided with the date of a celebration by the Romans to their primary god, the Sun, and to Mithras, a popular Persian sun god supposedly born on the same day. The Roman Catholic writer Mario Righetti candidly admits that, "to facilitate the acceptance of the faith by the pagan masses, the Church of Rome found it convenient to institute the 25th of December as the feast of the birth of Christ to divert them from the pagan feast, celebrated on the same day in honor of the 'Invincible Sun' Mithras, the conqueror of darkness" (Manual of Liturgical History, 1955, Vol. 2, p. 67).

Protestant historian Henry Chadwick sums up the controversy: "Moreover, early in the fourth century there begins in the West (where first and by whom is not known) the celebration of December 25th, the birthday of the Sun-god at the winter solstice, as the date for the nativity of Christ. How easy it was for Christianity and solar religion to become entangled at the popular level is strikingly illustrated by a mid-fifth century sermon of Pope Leo the Great, rebuking his over-cautious flock for paying reverence to the Sun on the steps of St. Peter's before turning their back on it to worship inside the westward-facing basilica" (The Early Church, Penguin Books, London, 1967, p. 126).

The Encyclopedia Americana makes this clear: "In the fifth century, the Western Church ordered it [Christ's birth] to be observed forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the birth of Sol [the sun god], as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ's birth existed" (1944 edition, "Christmas").

Is there any evidence from the Bible that will help us fix the date and year of Christ's birth?

Actually from the Bible, we can at least determine the probable season and year of His birth. The most convincing proof of when Jesus was born comes in understanding the evidence that is presented in the book of Luke concerning the birth of John the Baptist.

Luke 1:5-17 says:

In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord. But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were getting on in years. Once when he was serving as priest before God and his section was on duty, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to enter the sanctuary of the Lord and offer incense. Now at the time of the incense offering, the whole assembly of the people was praying outside. Then there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was terrified; and fear overwhelmed him. But the angel said to him: "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He must never drink wine or strong drink; even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit. He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Zechariah was of the division of Abijah (Luke 1:5,8). Back in King David's day, the priests had been separated into 24 turns or divisions. These turns began in the first month of the Jewish calendar (1 Chronicles 27:2), March or April of our modern calendar. According to Talmudic and Qumran sources, the turns rotated every week until they reached the end of the sixth month, when the cycle was repeated again until the end of the year. This would mean that Zechariah's division served at the temple twice a year.

We find in 1 Chronicles 24:10 that Abijah was the eighth division of the priesthood. Thus, Zechariah’s service would be in the tenth week of the Jewish year. Why the tenth week? Because all divisions served during primary feast weeks of the Jewish year. So all of the divisions of the priesthood would serve during Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread (the third week of the year). Likewise, all of the divisions of the priesthood would serve during the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost (the ninth week). Thus, the eighth course of the priesthood would end up serving on the tenth week of the year.

Now we must make an assumption here. Remember we said that Zechariah's division served at the temple twice a year. The Bible does not specify which of the two shifts of service it was. Regardless, nine months after one of the two dates John the Baptist was born. This would place his birth in March or September.

We will assume that Luke is recording Zechariah's first shift of service for the year. We will find that assumption tends to prove true as we discover the dates of John the Baptist's and Jesus' birth. Therefore, the date of Zechariah's service would be the Jewish date of Sivan 12-18 (See the Companion Bible, Appendix 179, Section III).

Picking up the story in Luke 1:23-25:

When his time of service was ended, he went to his home. After those days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she remained in seclusion. She said, "This is what the Lord has done for me when he looked favorably on me and took away the disgrace I have endured among my people."

After his service in the temple, Zechariah went home to his wife. Due to the laws of separation (Leviticus 12:5; 15:19,25), two additional weeks have to be counted. Now I don't know about you, but if an angel had told me that I was going to have a special child, I would get to it just as soon as the law allowed. So we will make a second assumption, that Elizabeth conceived a child two weeks after Zechariah's return.

Allowing for this and going forward a normal pregnancy places the birth of John the Baptist at the time of the Passover (Nisan 15)! The Jews always looked for Elijah to return on the day of Passover. Even in modern times there is an empty chair and a table setting for Elijah whenever Passover is celebrated. Little children also go to the door of the home and open it in anticipation of Elijah's coming. The Old Testament prophets had said that God would send Elijah before the coming of the Messiah (Malachi 3:1; 4:5-6). According to these calculations John the Baptist was born at Passover. Remember the angel's words to Zechariah? The angel said that John the Baptist was to come "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17). Elijah came at Passover!

Continuing in Luke 1:26-36:

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren.

Luke tells us that Elizabeth was six months pregnant when the angel Gabriel visited Mary. The beginning of Elizabeth's sixth month would have been the celebration of the Jewish feast of Hanukkah, which occurs in December of our modern calendar. Hanukkah (Chanukkah) is known as the "Feast of the Dedication" (John 10:22) because it is connected with the dedication of the second Jewish temple and the rededication of the temple after the Maccabean revolt. Mary was being dedicated for a purpose of enormous magnitude: God's presence in an earthly temple, i.e. a human body (John 2:18-21).

If Mary did conceive on Hanukkah, John the Baptist would have been born three months later at Passover. And assuming a normal pregnancy of 285 days, Jesus would have been born on the 15th day of the Jewish month of Tishri (September 29 by modern reckoning). This is significant because it is the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot). It is a high day, a special Sabbath, a time of great rejoicing.

The Feast of Tabernacles and Jesus

As you have seen, the birth of our Lord can be reasonably shown to have occurred in the autumn of the year on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles. The Feast of Tabernacles is a joyful feast. Jewish believers would build a tabernacle or booth known as a "sukkah" out of green tree branches. They would eat their meals and sleep in this sukkah for eight days.

There are some very interesting connections in Scripture with Jesus and aspects of the Feast of Tabernacles.

John 1:14 says:

And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. [literal translation of the Greek]

Look at what Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi has to say concerning this verse:

To introduce the nature and mission of Christ, John in his Gospel employs the metaphor of the "booth" of the Feast of Tabernacles. He explains that Christ, the Word who was with God in the beginning (John 1:1), manifested Himself in this world in a most tangible way, by pitching His tent in our midst: "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, as of the only Son from the Father" (John 1:14).

The Greek verb skenoo used by John means "to pitch tent, encamp, tabernacle, dwell in a tent." The allusion is clearly to the Feast of Tabernacles when the people dwelt in temporary booths. In his article "The Feast of Tents: Jesus’ Self-Revelation," published in Worship (1960), David Stanley notes that this passage sets the stage for the later self-revelation of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7 and 8. Stanley writes: "The most basic clue to the mystery pervading this entire narrative [John 7 and 8] is provided by the symbolic action that gives this feast its name: the ceremonial erection of little bowers, made with branches of trees, in which every Jew was expected to live during the festival. These shelters were commemorative of the forty years’ wandering in the desert when Israel had lived as a nomad in such intimate union with her God. For John this dwelling in tents is a primordial symbol of the Incarnation: ‘Thus the Word became a mortal man: he pitched his tent in the midst of us’ (John 1:14). It is this insight which presides over the composition of John’s narrative which we are considering [John 7-8]. All that happened, all that Jesus said on this occasion has some reference to the Incarnation."

In seeking to describe the Messiah’s first coming to His people, John chose the imagery of the Feast of Booths since the feast celebrates the dwelling of God among His people. This raises an interesting question on whether or not John intended to link the birth of Jesus with the Feast of Tabernacles.

[from: God’s Festivals in Scripture and History Part II: The Fall Festivals, page 241.]

According to the Companion Bible, Appendix 179:

The word tabernacled here receives beautiful significance from the knowledge that "the Lord of Glory" was "found in fashion as a man", and thus tabernacling in human flesh. And in turn it shows in equally beautiful significance that our Lord was born on the first day of the great Jewish Feast of Tabernacles, viz. the 15th of Tisri, corresponding to September 29 (modern reckoning).

The Circumcision of our Lord took place therefore on the eighth day, the last day of the Feast, the "Great Day of the Feast" of John 7.37 ("Tabernacles" had eight days. The Feast of Unleavened Bread had seven days, and Pentecost one. See Lev. 23).

From The Seven Festivals of the Messiah by Eddie Chumney we read this:

As we have stated earlier in this chapter, the Feast of Sukkot (Tabernacles) is called "the season of our joy" and "the feast of the nations." With this in mind, in Luke 2:10 it is written, "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings [basar in Hebrew; otherwise known as the gospel] of great joy [Sukkot is called the 'season of our joy'], which shall be to all people [Sukkot is called 'the feast of the nations']." So, we can see from this that the terminology the angel used to announce the birth of Yeshua (Jesus) were themes and messages associated with the Feast of Sukkot (Tabernacles).

Light was also a prominent feature of the Feast of Tabernacles. At the end of the first day of the Feast, the Temple was gloriously illuminated. According to the Mishnah (Succah 5:2), gigantic candelabras stood within the Court of the Women in the temple. Each of the four golden candelabras is said to have been about 75 feet tall. Each candelabra had four branches, and at the top of every branch there was a large bowl. Four young men bearing 10 gallon pitchers of oil would climb ladders to fill the four golden bowls on each candelabra. And then the oil in those bowls was ignited. Picture sixteen beautiful blazes leaping toward the sky from these golden lamps. There was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated by this light (Succah 5:3).

According to Alfred Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, chpt. 8):

...the Court of the Women was brilliantly illuminated.... In connection with this we mark, that the term 'light' was specially applied to the Messiah. In a very interesting passage of the Midrash we are told, that, while commonly windows were made wide within and narrow without, it was the opposite in the Temple of Solomon, because the light issuing from the Sanctuary was to lighten that which was without.

This reminds us of the language of devout old Simeon in regard to the Messiah, as 'a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of His people Israel.'

John 1:6-9 says:

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

In these verses John refers to Jesus as "the light"; and as we have also seen, verse 14 says that he "became flesh and tabernacled [literal meaning of the Greek] among us". Since John chapter one is a passage about Jesus' coming, these verses could be references to the Feast of Tabernacles at which time Jesus was born.

Magi from the east

The Scriptures tell us that there were wise men (scholars) who came from the east looking for the birth of the Messiah, saying "we have seen his star in the east". Who were these scholars from the east? Why were they looking for a Jewish Messiah?

Matthew 2:1-6 says:

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, and have come to pay him homage. When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet: 'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.'" [cited from Micah 5:2]

Babylon was known as "the land to the east." At the time of the birth of Jesus, the largest Jewish population was actually in Babylon, not in Palestine! Nearly five hundred years earlier, the entire nation of Judah had been carried away captive into Babylon by King Nebuchadnezzar. Only a small colony of Jews returned to Palestine after sixty-three years of captivity. The greater number of them remained where they had established homes in the land of Babylon.

The Greek for "wise men" is magoi. Daniel was referred to by this same title (Daniel 4:9). The word is somewhat equivalent to the Jewish term "rabbi." It is possible that the wise men from the east were Jewish rabbis who had been anticipating the coming of the Messiah because of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy [Daniel 9:24]. They had spotted a new star in the sky and took it to be a sign of the coming of the Messiah.

At the very least, even if the wise men were not Jewish, they would have been influenced by Daniel's writings. At an earlier time, Daniel had been the Master of the Magians of Babylon (Daniel 2:48; 4:9; 5:11), so anything Daniel wrote would have been important to even Gentile magoi. Parts of the book of Daniel are even written in Aramaic (the international language of the eastern Gentiles), so that it could be read by them.

The star and the Feast of Tabernacles

There is one time of the year when Jews would typically look at the stars. That time was during the Festival of Tabernacles. As we already said, Jewish believers would build a tabernacle or booth known as a "sukkah" out of green tree branches. They would eat their meals and sleep in this sukkah for eight days. It was customary to leave a hole in the roof of the sukkah so that one could look at the stars. If the magoi were Jewish, then Jewish "wise men" celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles would have noticed the appearance of a new star.

Of course, if the magoi were Gentile, it is still likely that a new star would have been noticed by them rather quickly. The Babylonian magoi excelled at astrology. As a matter of fact, the Babylonians are generally credited with the birth of astrology.

The year of Jesus' birth

Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still living (Matthew 2:1). Wise men appeared in Jerusalem asking about "one who has been born king of the Jews?" Of course, this upset Herod, who had been given the title "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate. Herod talked to the wise men secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared (Matthew 2:7). The wise men then journeyed to Bethlehem and found Jesus, Mary, and Joseph in a house (Matthew 2:11) and they bowed down and worshiped Jesus.

When the wise men did not return to give Herod a report, "Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the wise men. He was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the wise men" (Matthew 2:16).

This tells us that Jesus may have been born two years before the appearance of the wise men and the death of Herod. Herod died the spring of 4 B.C. (according to the Jewish historian, Josephus). Let's assume that the star appeared at Jesus' birth. Let's also assume that Herod was already close to death when the wise men appeared. It was the custom in ancient Israel to count the years of one's age from the date of conception - in other words, when a child is born he is one year old until his first birthday (this is still a practice in some oriental cultures). Therefore, Herod actually killed the children one year old and under according to the way that age is calculated today. This would mean that Jesus had to have been born in 6 B.C. (if Jesus was one year old) or 5 B.C. (if Jesus was under one year and Herod was just being extra careful).

This date for Jesus' birth fits with other Biblical data such as Jesus being "about thirty years old" when He began his ministry (Luke 3:23). From evidence given to us in John 2:20 about the construction of the temple, we know Jesus' ministry began in A.D. 26. Counting forward from 6 B.C. to A.D. 26 (one year has to be subtracted because there is no year zero) would make Jesus 31 years old when he began his ministry -- that is, about thirty years old. Counting forward from 5 B.C. to A.D. 26 would make Jesus 30 years old when he began his ministry. The birth years of 5 or 6 B.C. also fit with the best date for the crucifixion, that is A.D. 30. Personally I opt for the 5 B.C. date, because I assume the wise men would want to come at once and the time for a journey from Babylon to Jerusalem takes only four months.

When was Jesus born? Nothing is absolutely certain, because we are dealing with implications and assumptions, but a good guess from the Scriptures and history is September 29, 5 B.C.

Sources of Information for this Article:

• The Biblical Festivals: God's Appointed Times from Hebraic Roots of Christianity by Eddie Chumney.
• The Gospel of Luke by William Hendriksen, Baker Book House.
• When was Jesus born? by Christian Renewal Ministries International.
• New Testament History by F.F. Bruce, Anchor Books.
• When Was Jesus Christ Born? by Mario Seiglie, The Good News, United Church of God, 1997.
• Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim, 1890.
• The Companion Bible, Published by Kregel Publications.
• God’s Festivals in Scripture and History, Part 2 by Samuele Bacchiocchi, PhD.
  Available from: Biblical Perspectives
  4990 Appian Way
  Berrien Springs, MI 49103

---

The purpose of this article is NOT to suggest that we change the day of Christmas or the year of our calendars! It is to give added meaning and insight to our Lord's birth, particularly from a Jewish perspective. But shouldn't we celebrate Jesus' birthday on the correct day? If it really mattered to Jesus when we celebrate His birth, then He would have made the exact day crystal clear with absolute certainty. What we celebrate is far more important than the day we celebrate it one. For example, in the United States we celebrate Presidents Day in February, but this doesn't mean that all the presidents were born in February.

The essential fact is that God did enflesh Himself in time and space (1 John 4:2). He was born from a woman on a specific day in a specific year, walked among us, died for our sins, was raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven. This is what we celebrate at Christmas: God was (and is) with us!

Pathetic Apathetic Singaporeans

I am beginning to realise the big frocking problem with us Singaporeans. Instead of looking inwards to build our virtues and morals, we criticise others for the lack of it. Instead of looking outwards to widen our horizons, we try to shoot down every compliment we give to others.

I read on the forum page of our No.1 English newspaper(there is only one, New Paper is not even a paper, it is Sensation Extravaganza!) ...

There was this lady who wrote in, saying that we singaporeans should learn from civic minded Japanese. Why she said this was becos she had a very pleasant experience while on tour in Japan. NICE!:D She noticed how the recycling bins are FULLY utilised, and that the jappys are keeping the place clean, etc etc... Great example for us inconsiderate Singaporeans to learn from.

All good init? Not so for one woman, who apparently could not take it lying down.

Something interesting about this woman though. She gives the impression that she is a Singaporean, probably loved Japan so much that she married one. Settled there. Fine. Then what? She couldn't trade her Straits Times for Asahi Shimbun. Somehow she read the same forum article. That article ignited some unknown hatred towards Japanese in her. She blasted the writer of the former article. She lambasted her that Japanese are NOT what she says they are. That shopping bags are 5yen a piece. That rubbish are strewn all over the streets, etc... Bottomline, they are NOT civic minded from 'where she lives'( Somewhere near Kobe). She went on further to attack her point by point. Interesting isn't it? Perhaps there are 2 Japans, with bi-polar attitudes towards graciousness.

I felt amused, bemused, angry and pity after I read the reply from this Singapore export.

One, why the hell did she marry a Japanese if she is so unhappy with them? Perhaps she is like a Xmas log cake after Christmas? Free also 'bo lang ai'? When the first writer commented on 'civic minded Japanese'. Did this woman literally take it that she meant the entire Japanese population? Immigrants included? For all we know, those rubbish on the streets are partly contributed by this "Singaporean comfort woman".

Two. When we make a statement, like men are logical, whereas women are emotional. Are there not ONE man who is emotional, or one woman who is logical? Of course there is. So, do we smash that aforesaid statement into pieces? No, of course not. We KNOW that the statements that are made are usually generalised, not absolute.

Sadly, there are many Singaporeans, many highly educated, who think exactly the same way as this woman. (Hmm... The word 'think' might sound complimentary to these pathetic souls...) Proof? The very fact that her forum contribution was published. Such small and petty views from a obasan wannabe actually gets approval from the editors of our "number one newspaper".

I meet these people everyday. And I think to myself, who made us such? Our society, our peers, ourselves? Nobody really knows. But we really need to change our mindset. Be gracious, be nice. Learn from those who have a reputation of being gracious. And realise, that in all civilisations, there are blacksheep. When I stepped on dog poo, while in Paris(not once, but many times), I did not stop thinking that Paris is romantic.

Rule of thumb: If you keep quiet, you look intelligent. If you speak gibberish, we know you are a fool.

Is Buddhism a Religion?

By Dorothy Figen

This is a question which is often asked. It really depends upon how one defines religion. If it is thought of as a belief in a supreme being to whom one prays for redemption, security, favors or relief from suffering, then, no, Buddhism is not a religion.

The Buddha himself never claimed divinity -- only clear-sightedness and purity of apprehension of truth through deepest intuition, leading to equanimity and enlightenment. He was a great and rare individual but not a god. If some simple and mistaken few have elevated him to godship and worship him with requests for favors and special dispensations, this does not alter the situation one bit.

It seems that in these troubled times, as, indeed, since time immemorial, man has felt the need to have a faith in a supreme being, one who could redeem him from "sin" and relieve his suffering. This is a great fallacy. If indeed there were such a being, why should he be asked to give redemption? Isn't it more important for man to redeem himself? This is what the Buddha believed. Man, he said, is born to suffering. Life is suffering. That is the first of the Four Noble Truths he enunciates -- that there is suffering. In the Second Truth he points out that all suffering has its origins which we must learn to understand, because this is the only way we can arrive at the Third Truth, which is that cessation of this suffering can be achieved. His Fourth Truth clarifies the way out from suffering via the Eightfold Path which we will discuss later.

Therefore we ask, if Buddhism is not a religion, what then is it? Our reply is: Buddhism is a way of life, a philosophy, a psychology, a way of thinking, through which we may ourselves take on the responsibility of determining how our life-bearing kamma (karma) will work out for us. Meditation is one of the procedures of mental discipline and purification through which we may begin to learn such responsibility.

Many young people have come to me saying, "How can I embrace Buddhism without destroying my own beliefs and culture?" I tell the Christians among them to think about the precepts of Christ. Are they so totally opposed to, and different from, those of the Buddha? Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal or commit adultery. The ethical injunctions among the Ten Commandments -- are they not almost exactly the same as the precepts of the moral life laid down by the Buddha (the Five Precepts)?

I tell them that the Dhamma, the sacred texts of Buddhism, are much more voluminous and explicit than those of the Old and New Testaments and commentaries. The Buddhist texts are, in fact, elevenfold as extensive and contain an enormous range of wise teachings, none of them derogatory to the faiths of other creeds. He did not deny the existence of deities, but he did reserve scepticism as to the infinity of their duration, their omnipotency, their powers to help mankind in every kind of urgency. Have these gods and messiahs, which we of Western faiths have been prone to believe in, been sublimely successful in the mitigation of human suffering, hunger, sorrow and affliction? The answer is open to doubt.

So to these young Christians I can say, "Believe in Christ if you wish, but remember, Jesus never claimed divinity either." Yes, believe in a unitary God, too, if you wish, but cease your imploring, pleading for personal dispensations, health, wealth, relief from suffering. Study the Eightfold Path. Seek the insights and enlightenment that come through meditative learnings. And find out how to achieve for yourself what prayer and solicitation of forces beyond you are unable to accomplish.

There are many young people who believe that God answers their prayers. Does he? Is prayer-answering the purpose of a supreme being? A young man recently came to us asking for food and shelter. He was young, able-bodied, and, yes, intelligent. We received him, fed him and gave him a room for several days. When it became apparent that this fellow had no intention of ever leaving, we felt he should go off on his own. He was highly indignant! When he left we asked him if he intended to work and earn enough to take care of his own needs. He answered, "No, God will provide. If I follow his light, that is enough. He will take care of me!"

If there is a God, why should he take care of able-bodied young men simply because they have unreserved and total faith in him, when there are so many really unfortunate, desolate people who really need help? Did God provide for the millions of Jews in concentration camps who were slowly gassed to death en-masse, their agonies of asphyxiation often lasting a full half-hour, before they were incinerated in German ovens? Is he there offering respite each day to the millions who are dying of cancer and other agonizing diseases all over the universe? Does he provide for all the masses of people, victims of floods, disasters and earthquakes, who are homeless and starving daily throughout the world?

Yes, believe in a God, if you will, I tell them, but don't ask, ask and ask. Don't beg. Provide, as best you are able, for yourself first. Then fill your heart and mind with love, with metta, and help, to the fullest possible extent, in the relief of suffering among others. This is the answer I give them. But cease your petitioning, your constant solicitation for private preference.

A Jewish girl from Israel came to meditate. She felt happy and calm in meditation, but she was worried. She said, "I do not want to forget my heritage. I was born in Jerusalem and am steeped in Jewish tradition." I answered her: "No problem. When you finish meditating, say the 'Shmah'!" This is the ancient prayer of the Jews to be said each morning of their lives and on their deathbeds. It consists of the words, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." This, to those of the Jewish faith, may be a solacing thought, one that may yield them comfort, I told her. There is nothing in Buddhism, as a matter of fact, denying the right to believe in God if you so wish. Yet it must be pointed out that Buddhism places deityship on quite a different plane than monotheistic and polytheistic religions do. Still, with all your beliefs intact, you can benefit from much that Buddhism teaches, for instance from Buddhist meditation. We are all inter-related in common suffering. Even the word religion, derived from Latin, means joined or linked. Just as the word yoga also means the same, united. Whether this is expressed through a belief in a deity or not is of less importance than the fact that we recognize and accept the wonder of our common interrelationship. Certainly, I told her, there is nothing in the practice of Judaism that denies man's common relationship. The young lady was satisfied. As far as I know she sill meditates daily and recites the "Shmah."

Sometimes it is said that the Buddhists worship idols. Why all the incense, oil lamps, flowers set before Buddha-images? You must understand, I tell these young people, that the Buddhists are merely expressing their reverence for a great man of overwhelming vision and insight, one of the wisest teachers that ever lived, a man who laid out a whole way of life an a means of alleviating sorrow, strife and suffering. When they bow to him with hands clasped before them they do so in reverence and worship. But the meaning they attach to "worship" is not that of Western religionists. They ask nothing for their separate selves, no intercession of gods, no personal favors. Why is that? Because the Buddhist, neither in his life practice nor his philosophy, believes himself to be a separate being, a singular self, apart from others. Therefore, lacking separate personhood, there is no one for whom preference is sought. For the Buddhist "worship," then mean praise, reverence, a desire to imitate and be like the Buddha, to follow his ways and show appreciation for his teachings. He offers them no dispensations or favors, only a body of wisdom contained in the Dhamma which, if they but apply it to themselves, amounts to self-dispensation. In essence this means dispensing with all vanity, clinging, attachments, greed and ignorance, which may yet hamper them from being like the Buddha and aspiring to the perfection of being, which he in his life attained when reaching Nibbana here and now!

The great American statesman Thomas Paine said, "My mind is my church." In this statement he reiterates the belief of the Buddha. Buddhists do not believe it is necessary to have a middleman intercede between them and the perfection of the Master they chose to emulate and be like. In Buddhism there is no need for priests, ministers and preachers to pray for them in churches or temples. The Buddhist monk teaches, not preaches. He teaches man to find his way. He teaches purity of mind, and compassion, and love for all beings. He does not perform marriage service, but devotes his life only to teaching and scholarship and study, and to continuing self-purification through meditation, so that he can be an example to others.

Who may become a Buddha? And how does one become one? These are questions frequently asked me. The answers are that one has to enroll or join nothing, sign no document, be initiated by no baptism, nor disavow any other belief. All he has to do is to begin to live as Buddhists live, to find inspiration in the Buddha, to like and reverence his teachings, to begin to try to follow his Eightfold Path and, through meditation, to seek to gain merit and purity. To aspire, in fact, to become a Buddha himself! For Buddhahood is not a limited society. It is open to all. Many have attained it. Even the Buddha himself, in previous lives (so goes one of the legends built around him) chose to deny himself release through Nibbana and chose rebirth so that he might stay on and teach others.

Now let us examine the Buddha's remedy for the ending of suffering. A friend of mine once said, with respect to this, "It is all very simple: practice right thought, right speech and right action! Very good and very important. However, not so fast, my friend! All of the Eightfold Path is necessary, not just the small part of it you mention. It is all beautifully interrelated. There must be right understanding with right speech. There must be right action. There must be right effort. And with the right effort must follow right livelihood. And for all of these steps to work, think of them as steps. You don't get very far just moving up one step and remaining there. You have to combine them, join them, link them, and finally, climax them with still one more step to reach the top. And that step is right mindfulness.

How beautifully all these hang together like pearls on a necklace. But now think for a moment about what is meant by "right": that is to say, the rightness of speech, thought, action. Few pause to think what "right" means within this context. Does it mean right as opposed to wrong? Perhaps it does. And then, again, perhaps it doesn't. How many of us are able to discriminate at every juncture of our lives what is right and what is wrong? Does right, then, mean appropriate? Appropriate action, appropriate speech, etc.? Appropriate means suitable, suitable for the occasion. Is that always so easy to determine? What, then, does the Buddha's use of the word right come down to? Does it not come down to the fact that he is pointing out that there is choice, and that we have choice, that we can go this way or go that way, and that it is up to us and not him, and no god or supreme being, to determine our way? Is he not saying that this choice or volition amounts to our own kamma? And that while a lot of it is predetermined through our past lives or genetically, however you want to think of it, we can still alter, correct, change, refine re-aim this kamma, change its course? We and nobody else! And does not all of this point back to such qualities of action, speech, and thought, as are characterized as greedy, selfish, hateful, hostile, hurtful? As opposed to such qualities as generousness, selflessness, lovingness, kindliness, helpfulness? Do you not see that the Buddha is telling us to look behind words and not to accept them for their face value but for their internal, shall we say nuclear, meanings?

So we return again to the question as to whether Buddhism is a religion. In the sense that it offers us a moral code helping to conjoin us in the living together of a better life, yes, it is a religion. For that is the inner or nuclear meaning of religion -- relinking, rejoining. But if Buddhism is taken to imply belief in a supreme being who rules the universe and can be bribed to alter his decisions by our prayers and solicitations for personal preference, it is not a religion. And this Buddhism does not do. Well, then, the Christian may argue, man without God, without conscience, without a ruler of the universe, will revert to bestiality. Is this not like saying a being can't exist without a taskmaster? Are we then children? So weak that we can't exist without being "told" what we can and cannot do? How can we justify this?

The answers should be obvious. Man can rely on himself. Man can train his mind to right thinking, not because thereby he will be saved by a righteous God, but because right thinking will lead him on to the path of final liberation from suffering, which consists of right moral conduct, right meditation and right wisdom.

Now look at Buddhism. Does it not look up to you rather than down to you, treat you as an adult rather than a child, not demand and command, but patiently teach and instruct what practically amounts to the same thing? The Buddha states that we are heirs to our kamma, that we make it, form it, and that what we do in this existence does affect our lives in the next one. However, in Buddhism, there is no need of beating our breasts and heeding authoritarian demands that we repent. We can rise up out of our sloth and torpor, out of evil and ugliness, by "following the path." If it were true that without a vengeful God man would be less than human, how do we justify the existence for thousands of years of Buddhists living in peace and love with each other?

Christ and Buddha were alike in many ways. It is not my intention to disparage anyone's belief in Christ. Christ said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Buddha said, "Show compassion and loving-kindness to all beings." God said to the Jews, "Do not unto others that which you would not do unto yourself." This is what Christ later said in reverse, positively, but with the same meaning. It was Moses who interpreted the words of God to his people, but for that reason they did not clothe him in divinity, nor did he do so himself. Where the Buddhists and Christians part company is the Christ's followers accorded him divinity, whereas Buddha's disciples accord him reverence as a great being.

Law of Physics apply to life as well?

In physics, a denser medium always diffuses to a less dense medium. That was what I was taught in school. But does that also happen in life in general?

The richer folks, the better-to-do ones, are oftentimes called upon to give to the less blessed relations. Or rather, the more compassionate ones are always giving, and the others just receive. That way, it doesnt sound so 'physic-al' anymore.

How can people, especially those we call 'family', just shamelessly keep plundering from their better off and more compassionate members? Don't they have dignity? Don't they have pride and integrity?

Integrity, that was something that stuck to me, since my secondary 2 teacher gave me that word.
He said, you can lose everything. But remember, never never lose your integrity. That is what makes you a man. A person worthy of respect. And it costs you nothing. You have it to begin with. It is yours to lose. Fine words indeed.

Well, I have to learn to live with being more uncompassionate. Can't always give. Have to save some for myself. When I die alone and lonely. No one will pity me. Because I will be poor then. Like my friend's old grand parents always say. ' your kids will be filial to you, as long as you don't give them their inheritance! That's another fine saying I must say!

Mondays with Alfie

I will try to write something every monday. Don't come banging my door if I don't. I said I try, didn't I?


We do not decide what happens to us, no matter how we procrastinate. All the crap that we can make things happen if we try hard enough, that if only we BELIEVE...all BS. Ultimately, the ancient saying, 'man proposes, GOD disposes', still apply. Unless, you are talking about really making things happen. For example, smashing a bottle on yer own head, yes, you have succeeded in giving yourself a broken and bleeding head.

Therefore, since we cannot decide what happens to us, let's decide what we can do about it. We can decide how we take it, how we go on from there, how we tweak life's decisions to our favour.

THAT is probably what they mean, because if we can subscribe to that kind of thinking, we will have the ability to 'make things happen', without having to REALLY make things happen. Just go with the flow. Just see the positives and move on.

Pretty easy? Not really. Support from friends and family becomes the key ingredient.

I'm not going to quote examples on how to deal with life. Because simply put, I am not old enough to teach. I can put across the idea, the direction to think, that is all. We all have our own lives to live. It won't be fair to you, if I want have you live your life, my way.

Life's but a sport and a past time...

Remembering one of my heroes...

Mohammed Alí Amar, Nayim (born 5 November 1966 in Ceuta, Spain) is a Spanish footballer who played for Barcelona, Tottenham Hotspur and Real Zaragoza.

Nayim scored one of the most famous goals in European football when scoring the winner for Real Zaragoza in the 1995 European Cup Winners' Cup final, an outrageous lob over the Arsenal goalkeeper David Seaman from almost the half way line in the final minute of extra time.

There has been a famous tune sung by Tottenham Hotspur F.C. fans after their bitter rivals, Arsenal lost in the 2005/2006 Champions League Finals. "Chim-chimney Chim-Chimney Chim Chim Maroo, Nayim from 50, Belletti from 2". meaning to taunt Arsenal's fall from grace in both competititions

Career

He came to Spurs originally on loan from Barcelona in November 1988 and signed the following year for £400,000. Then Nayim made 11 league appearances during the 1988-89 campaign, scoring twice. His first goal for the club came in a 2-0 win at Southampton and he also found the net in Spurs 3-0 home win over West Ham United.

In 1989-90 Nayim made a total of 23 appearances, helping the North London club to a 3rd place finish. The League Cup offered Nayim his first experience of English cup competition, the Moroccan playing in 4 of Spurs games en route to the semi-final and scoring 3 goals.

The following season proved to be Nayim's most successful campaign in English football. Although Spurs finished in only 11th position in the table, Nayim enjoyed 33 league outings and scored 5 times. His path to a Wembley final was again halted at the League Cup semi-final stage but Spurs would not fail in the FA Cup; overcoming Nottingham Forest 2-1 in the final. Nayim replaced Paul Gascoigne early in the final, - after a series of reckless challenges by the Geordie threatened to end his own career - and set up both Spurs goals that afternoon to bring success to White Hart Lane.

Nayim's marvellous skills and deft touches made him a crowd favourite and he appeared in 31 games in the league throughout 1991-92. The former Barcelona midfielder played 6 times in Spurs League Cup campaign, including both legs of the semi-final where Nottingham Forest gained revenge for the previous season's FA Cup final defeat by proving too strong for the London club.

In May 1993, after 144 appearances and 18 goals for Spurs, Nayim signed for Real Zaragoza for £500,000.

A year later the former Spurs man attained immortality by lobbing David Seaman from 50 yards in the final seconds of extra-time to beat Arsenal in the 1995 European Cup Winners Cup Final.

Pasta La Pizza, Baby!

That's to corrupt Arnie's phrase in Terminator 2 with some corrupt Italian of the same... hehe

Well, I have to write this, becos I had the best pizza in my entire mediocre life on monday! Service is pretty typical of all italian restaurants. They leave you alone till you are ready.

The serving of Sambvca was generous, the coffee beans offered was generous, I mean. An entire saucer of it! The menu was totally unnecessary, as I never liked the idea of letting the restaurants dictate my choice of food. And true enough, as with most italian restaurants, I was able to have my way.

The insalata(salad) was Caprese. That's all I want for salad man! Not some greens and reds and yellows tossed in balsamic vinegar... I have that when I have my other cuisines, not Italian! The tomatoes were sweet and succulent. Mozarella was chewy and the basil... simply aromatic, lah!

Then suddenly, my mate Liow and I, realised that we lacked bread. Ask and you will receive, JC said. Lo and behold, bread, balsamic vinegar and extra virgin olive oil appeared within the minute! While we were savouring the bread with oil and vinegar, there was time to survey the surroundings.

Right in front of me was the most beautiful pizza oven i have ever seen! Hahaha... The picture will tell you why.


The Osso Buco was beyond description! Osso buco is a regional dish from Piedmont, I was told. Osso buco translates literally to "bone hole", a reference to the marrow which gives the dish its distinctive flavour and body. Traditionally, a veal shank is used in this dish. Other staples include white wine, broth or stock, and aromatics. And ours was served with risotto, rice lah!

Pizza? Cant really call it a pizza, becos there is no way we could eat it like pizza. There is the pizza base, ok, 8 inch and all. Generous spread of rocket, then topped with huge shavings of PARMA HAM, WOOHOO~. I hate rocket! Bitter and taste like burnt rubber! EEEEWWW... but had to eat it anyway. It was there right?

So we proceeded to disect the 'pizza'. Take some ham, take some rocket(eeww), then take a slice of pizza base. Try putting the stuff back onto the pizza, and savour the flavor of parma ham. The experience was simply heaven...(so long as we try to forget the rocket)

So, we came, we ate, and we left, after a good 2 hours.

Divine...guess I was a Franco-italian in my previous life...