While the Scriptures do not state what date Jesus was born, there is in fact a wealth of evidence presented in the Gospels that a careful comparison with historical and archaeological data will demonstrate that the date that has been held as that of the birth of Jesus since very nearly the time of the Apostles is testified to by theologians as early as 50 years after the Apostles:

Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea (115-181)wrote: "We ought to celebrate the birthday of our Lord on what day so ever the 25th of December shall happen." (Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, de orign Festorum Chirstianorum)

Also Hippolytus (ca. 165 – 235 C.E.), in his commentary on Daniel 4:23 wrote: “The first coming of our Lord, that is in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the Kalends of January …”
Eight days before the calends of January is December 25.

And another citation: Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 171 – 183 C.E.), in his discussion about the proper time to observe Easter state that the Gauls contended that just as they celebrated the birth of the Lord on December 25, regardless of what day of the
week that fell on, so too Christians ought to celebrate Easter on March 25, regardless of what day of the week that fell on.

So there is ample evidence that the nativity of Jesus was being celebrated on December 25 from very shortly after the lifetime of the Apostles.

And the oft-repeated claim that the Roman Catholic Church started the Christmas celebration is also historically incorrect. The Church at Rome at first refused to observe the Feast of the Nativity deeming it an “oriental invention,” because it was primarily observed by the churches of Palestine and Egypt, the churches of these two great centers of Christian doctrine and practice being the primary authority and influence in the earliest development of the faith. The Church at Rome did not add it to their calendar of feasts until the mid 4th century.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, that supports the ancient December 25 date, there is far more to be considered.

So what does the bible say how he wants us to serve him and worship him ?

Is the birth of Christ correct ?

Yes.

Is it commanded in the bible, to celebrate his birth ? No, but is it wrong in and of itself ? No.

But many things have to be considered around this issue, especially Christmas.

What is the real truth around Christmas.

You’ll notice the average night time temperature in Bethlehem on Christmas Eve is 42 degrees F, mild by any standards, and certainly not so cold that woolly sheep could not be out in the fields. Temperatures on Christmas Day are in the 60's. Israel has a moderate climate. After all, this is a land of palm trees, and fig trees, and pomegranates, plants that only grow in climates with mild winter temperatures.

But for specific historical references on the actual practice at the time of Jesus’ birth, there are two references in the Talmudic literature (Bezah 40a and Tosephta Bezah iv. 6) that says specifically that during the 2nd Temple times the flocks of sheep laid out both in the summer and in the rainy season, ergo, summer and winter, which directly refutes the unsupported notion that woolly flocks of sheep couldn’t have been out in the fields Christmas Eve because of the weather.

But that aside, the primary issue is that the flock at Bethlehem was no ordinary flock anyway. You must understand that the temple cultus required literally thousands of animals to meet the sacrificial needs, so much so that sacrificial animals was the primary import commodity of Israel during the 2nd temple period (“Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus,” Joachim Jeremias Part One: II. A. 3. c) Josephus records that as many as a quarter million lambs could be slain on Passover alone. But the problem is that Rabbinic laws prevented the keeping of sheep near a city or town or village because of the smell, along with other activities that produced offensive odors. And if you have ever been anywhere near a stockyard then you
can appreciate why the Rabbis would not want to have thousands of lambs and goats and cattle kept anywhere near the city. Plus, if you’re familiar with the topography of Jerusalem, the only possible place which could be used for such a purpose would have been the slopes of Mount Scopus north of the city. But with the prevailing winds in winter and spring being from the west and north, the stench would have been blown directly into the city. So the solution was to quarter the animals 5 miles south of the city, at the village of Bethlehem. These flocks of sheep kept in Bethlehem were the “temple flock” spoken of in Talmudic literature, not ordinary flocks. So even if sheep were not kept out in fields at night in winter (which is not historically accurate), that would not apply to the flocks and herds kept at Bethlehem. These were not ordinary sheep but were inspected and then pastured there until they were needed and were brought up to the city for sacrifice.

And a second bit of historical data the Gospel provide to those familiar with the times and culture and laws, these were no ordinary shepherds at Bethlehem.
The reason we know this is that shepherds were among the class of Jews who were considered “unclean” because of their occupation, along with tax collectors, weavers, tanners, physicians, sanitation workers, etc. Because a shepherd had to travel with his flock seeking pasturage and water, he was unable to live a “kosher” life and was therefore considered defiled and the people were banned from socializing with them. And yet, on the night of Christ’s birth, we see the shepherds of Bethlehem going freely about the countryside speaking with everyone about the things they had seen and heard. The reason is that these were no ordinary shepherds, they kept watch over the flock of sheep destined for sacrifice in Jerusalem, so they were not isolated from the religious life of the community but in fact played a crucial role in that religious life.
And one more bit of data, this time from archaeology. We know that Bethlehem was the ancestral home of David, and was therefore a royal city. And at one time there was a castle there. Of course, even by the time of Jesus the castle had long since become a ruin. But it is believed that the “tower” from which the shepherds kept watch over the fields that lay just east of Bethlehem was in fact one of the old watchtowers from the royal castle. And there was an ancient prophecy from Micah (4:8) that foretold that the Messianic kingdom would be announced from this watchtower, the “Migdal Eder,” or “watchtower of the flock.” The Talmud also records that the Jews believed, based on that prophecy, that the Messiah would be born in the royal castle. How appropriate that the birth of the Savior should be announced by those very shepherds who kept watch from the royal "tower of the flock" over the lambs destined for sacrifice in Jerusalem.

Census time?
December would have been the most logical time for a country-wide census. The agricultural year for Israel began in March with the flax and barley harvest and ended in November with the last of the fall planting of the grain crops.

Students tend to think of the agricultural year as something similar to the west, where we plant crops in the spring and harvest in the summer or fall. But in Israel it was different. The primary planting season was the fall. After the long, summer dry-season ended and the rains came in the fall to soften the soil the farmers would go out into the fields and plant their grain crops. The crops would grow over winter and be harvested in spring and early summer. Then the summer dry season began and the fig harvest which was then followed by the vintage in late summer. Then the cycle began anew.

So the period of time between the vintage in late summer and the completion of the planting in late fall was a very busy time and it is unlikely that a census that would require an entire population to be uprooted and moved around would have been conducted then. And same with the spring and early summer when the grain crops had to be harvested. The summer dry season would have been brutal with scorching temperatures and no water. And in late summer the vintage took place. The only time that was economically feasible was in fact the early winter, after the olive harvest was finished and the crops were all planted and there was no more agricultural activity until the spring, and the heaviest rains had not yet begun.

And a second point, while it was Augustus who issued the decree, it was up to Herod to carry it out, and he did so, belatedly because of the intrigues and problems at court, but the census was conducted according to Jewish law, by tribes, which means every person had to return to the ancestral seat of their fathers, unlike the Roman method which required every man to be counted in the city of his birth. And undoubtedly Herod had every reason to try to assure that there was as little disruption to the agricultural-based economy as possible, his tax revenue depended on it.

And a third point, travel in late December certainly did not pose any problem, the heaviest rains were in January and February. There is ample historical evidence that the Jews traveled up to Jerusalem from all over Palestine for Chanukah, which occurs at the same time of year. Jesus even went up to the Temple for the feast one year. (see John 4:35 cf. John 5:1)

Christmas in the Bible
If the day Jesus was born was not a special day worthy of remembrance, why did the angelic host proclaim “unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.” In fact, if this day wasn’t worthy of remembrance, why was the nativity account even included in the Gospels? And why does it include so much historical detail about the time and place? Luke certainly made every effort to set the nativity in an historical context.

Constantine legalized Christianity?
That is a popular theory but historically it is grossly inaccurate. There are written records that Christians were observing the feast of the nativity on December 25 over 150 years before the time of Constantine.

It is also inaccurate to suggest that Constantine "changed the empire's religion to Christianity." Emperor Galerius in 311 A.D. stopped the Roman persecution of Christians ...

... and then Constantine in February 313 A.D. issued the "Edict of Milan" which declared that Roman citizens were free to practice the religion of their choice, including Christianity. In truth, all Constantine's edict did was legalize Christianity.

He also ordered that the property confiscated from Christians during the most recent, and particularly bloody persecution under Diocletian and Galerius, be returned to them, including churches and that restitution was to be paid out of the state coffers. Constantine did himself adopt Christianity, but he neither made it the official religion of the Empire nor yet did he use his power to influence or in any way control the development of Christian doctrine or practice. In point of fact, Constantine's bishop and all the royal court were Arians but the council at Nicea adopted the Trinitarian view as the official doctrine of Christendom.

Also, it was in fact Emperor Theodosius in 381 A.D. who made Christianity the official state religion of Rome, not Constantine.

There is a considerable amount of historical evidence in the Scriptures, and coupled with the rather extensive amount of secondary historical and archaeological material we can certainly make some very educated deductions about the dates. And "most" scholars with any expertise in 1st century Jewish history have concluded that the date traditionally held since the earliest period as that of the birth and death of Jesus is in fact supported by the weight of evidence.

Rockerduck said:

While the Scriptures do not state what date Jesus was born, there is in fact a wealth of evidence presented in the Gospels that a careful comparison with historical and archaeological data will demonstrate that the date that has been held as that of the birth of Jesus since very nearly the time of the Apostles is testified to by theologians as early as 50 years after the Apostles:

Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea (115-181)wrote: "We ought to celebrate the birthday of our Lord on what day so ever the 25th of December shall happen." (Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, de orign Festorum Chirstianorum)

Also Hippolytus (ca. 165 – 235 C.E.), in his commentary on Daniel 4:23 wrote: “The first coming of our Lord, that is in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the Kalends of January …”
Eight days before the calends of January is December 25.

And another citation: Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 171 – 183 C.E.), in his discussion about the proper time to observe Easter state that the Gauls contended that just as they celebrated the birth of the Lord on December 25, regardless of what day of the
week that fell on, so too Christians ought to celebrate Easter on March 25, regardless of what day of the week that fell on.

So there is ample evidence that the nativity of Jesus was being celebrated on December 25 from very shortly after the lifetime of the Apostles.

And the oft-repeated claim that the Roman Catholic Church started the Christmas celebration is also historically incorrect. The Church at Rome at first refused to observe the Feast of the Nativity deeming it an “oriental invention,” because it was primarily observed by the churches of Palestine and Egypt, the churches of these two great centers of Christian doctrine and practice being the primary authority and influence in the earliest development of the faith. The Church at Rome did not add it to their calendar of feasts until the mid 4th century.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, that supports the ancient December 25 date, there is far more to be considered.

Click to expand...

Well we may not know exactly when Jesus was born, but in the bible itself, not what is said to be by some historical figures, it does give hints at a totally different date.

And there are contrary things said in historical documents which I have read.

And concerning the quotes up above, I will carefully look at them, and compare it with other historical quotes.

Christians took over pagan Holidays.

Generally, the charge is that Christianity has adopted a pagan holiday, and the gross commercialization and abuses of the holiday are somehow supposed to prove its "pagan" origins. But in truth the commercialization and abuses of the holidays are not because Christians adopted pagan celebrations 1688 years ago, but rather quite the opposite, pagans and atheists have adopted Christian holidays, stripped them of their religious significance, and then filled the void with material excesses. It is pagans who have adopted Christians holidays, not the other way around.

Rockerduck said:

Constantine legalized Christianity?
That is a popular theory but historically it is grossly inaccurate. There are written records that Christians were observing the feast of the nativity on December 25 over 150 years before the time of Constantine.

It is also inaccurate to suggest that Constantine "changed the empire's religion to Christianity." Emperor Galerius in 311 A.D. stopped the Roman persecution of Christians ...

Edict of Serdica - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... and then Constantine in February 313 A.D. issued the "Edict of Milan" which declared that Roman citizens were free to practice the religion of their choice, including Christianity. In truth, all Constantine's edict did was legalize Christianity.

Edict of Milan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He also ordered that the property confiscated from Christians during the most recent, and particularly bloody persecution under Diocletian and Galerius, be returned to them, including churches and that restitution was to be paid out of the state coffers. Constantine did himself adopt Christianity, but he neither made it the official religion of the Empire nor yet did he use his power to influence or in any way control the development of Christian doctrine or practice. In point of fact, Constantine's bishop and all the royal court were Arians but the council at Nicea adopted the Trinitarian view as the official doctrine of Christendom.

Also, it was in fact Emperor Theodosius in 381 A.D. who made Christianity the official state religion of Rome, not Constantine.

Theodosius I - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is a considerable amount of historical evidence in the Scriptures, and coupled with the rather extensive amount of secondary historical and archaeological material we can certainly make some very educated deductions about the dates. And "most" scholars with any expertise in 1st century Jewish history have concluded that the date traditionally held since the earliest period as that of the birth and death of Jesus is in fact supported by the weight of evidence.

Click to expand...

Have you read foxes book of Martyrs, and various books on church history ?

Rockerduck said:

Christians took over pagan Holidays.

Generally, the charge is that Christianity has adopted a pagan holiday, and the gross commercialization and abuses of the holiday are somehow supposed to prove its "pagan" origins. But in truth the commercialization and abuses of the holidays are not because Christians adopted pagan celebrations 1688 years ago, but rather quite the opposite, pagans and atheists have adopted Christian holidays, stripped them of their religious significance, and then filled the void with material excesses. It is pagans who have adopted Christians holidays, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

Most of what is called Christian holidays are not even Christian, many of them (not all), actually are Roman Catholic, and are called Christian, but are not, such as lent, and even others.

The ones that God instituted in the bible, to were there was no mixture, are the Passover, feast of first fruits, Pentecost, and so on.

And when the bible talks about holy days, it is these days it is talking about.

Jesus' birth ???

Now in mentioning this article, some say that Jesus birth was either on the feast of trumpets or feast of tabernacles, and a lot of important things tended to happen on feast days, now I am not saying this in a strong way, but to me it seems to fit pretty well, with what scriptures point to.

Luk 1:5-7
(5) There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
(6) And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
(7) And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.

Luk 1:30-38
(30) And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
(31) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
(32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
(33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
(34) Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
(35) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
(36) And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
(37) For with God nothing shall be impossible.
(38) And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Rockerduck said:

While the Scriptures do not state what date Jesus was born, there is in fact a wealth of evidence presented in the Gospels that a careful comparison with historical and archaeological data will demonstrate that the date that has been held as that of the birth of Jesus since very nearly the time of the Apostles is testified to by theologians as early as 50 years after the Apostles:

Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea (115-181)wrote: "We ought to celebrate the birthday of our Lord on what day so ever the 25th of December shall happen." (Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, de orign Festorum Chirstianorum)

Also Hippolytus (ca. 165 – 235 C.E.), in his commentary on Daniel 4:23 wrote: “The first coming of our Lord, that is in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the Kalends of January …”
Eight days before the calends of January is December 25.

And another citation: Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 171 – 183 C.E.), in his discussion about the proper time to observe Easter state that the Gauls contended that just as they celebrated the birth of the Lord on December 25, regardless of what day of the
week that fell on, so too Christians ought to celebrate Easter on March 25, regardless of what day of the week that fell on.

So there is ample evidence that the nativity of Jesus was being celebrated on December 25 from very shortly after the lifetime of the Apostles.

And the oft-repeated claim that the Roman Catholic Church started the Christmas celebration is also historically incorrect. The Church at Rome at first refused to observe the Feast of the Nativity deeming it an “oriental invention,” because it was primarily observed by the churches of Palestine and Egypt, the churches of these two great centers of Christian doctrine and practice being the primary authority and influence in the earliest development of the faith. The Church at Rome did not add it to their calendar of feasts until the mid 4th century.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, that supports the ancient December 25 date, there is far more to be considered.

Click to expand...

It is also good to check these guys out, of who they are.

A lot of what we call church fathers, even the very earliest, were full of false doctrine.

Checking out things is important, and to compare history with history, because there are forgeries out there, there has been throughout history, and church history.

Right now I am checking things out, I have checked many things out in the past, even had discussions with people who research this stuff, we have to be so careful.

Though generally speaking, maybe not always in a perfect way, you can get an ideal of truth vs forgeries, etc, etc, etc, at times.

Some things are quotes of ancient past, others are forgeries which do not even show up in ancient texts.

Word Christmas

Now what about the actual word Christmas were does that truly originate from ?

And yes I do know the arguments people use to defend that word, such as saying the word "mas" means a celebration or festival, but when the word was actually framed, what did it actually mean, and point to ?

I know people tend to want to turn a negative to a positive, but God does not want us to mask things up, or hide it's true meaning, or Christianize something, he wants truth and honesty.

Now here is this other info, on the actual word "mass" itself:

(Encyclopedia Wikipedia (definition of word: "mass" (liturgy))))

(...The term "Mass" is derived from the Late Latin word missa (dismissal), a word used in the concluding
formula of Mass in Latin: "Ite, missa est" ("Go; it is the dismissal").[2][3]...)

And this saying was used in dismissing people from the Latin mass, which celebrated the Eucharist.

But concerning the actual word "Christmas" when it was actually framed and put together, what was that all about ?

(Ever wondered where the term 'Christmas' came from?)

(...To a point that is the case - the word is a shortened form of "Christ's mass", or "Cristes Maesse" as it was first recorded in 1038.
This was followed by the term Cristes-messe in 1131, according to the The Catholic Encyclopedia.

The term "Christ" - or Crīst as it originally read - comes from the Greek word Khrīstos, a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, which means "anointed".
The second part of Christmas - maesse - is a version of the Latin word missa, the celebration of the Eucharist...)
The word "mas" in the word Christmas, is short form for the word "mass", which pointed to the celebration of the Roman Catholic Eucharist, which pointed to Catholicism's transubstantiation doctrine.

The Roman Catholic celebration of the Eucharist, is abominable to God.

And would God call his son's birthday, Christmas ???

And does the bible call Jesus' birthday Christmas ???

Absolutely not.

Here is what the bible says:

Mat 1:18
(18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Christmas is indeed a blend of paganism, lies, lack of reverence and carefulness towards God and his name, and some biblical truths.

Certain days that I know are pure, but no longer commanded under the new testament, are days that were established by God, which were the feast of Passover, feast of unleavened bread, and so on and so forth.

(When Was Jesus Born?) (Was it really on December 25th? According to Luke 1:24-26, Mary conceived Jesus in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy with John the Baptist. This means that Jesus was born 15 months after the angel Gabriel appeared to Elizabeth’s husband, Zacharias, and informed him that his wife would bear a child. According to Luke 1:5, Zacharias was a priest of the division of Abijah. Luke 1:8 says that Gabriel appeared to Zacharias while he was serving as a priest in the Temple. We know from the Talmud and other sources that the division of Abijah served as priests during the second half of the fourth month of the Jewish religious calendar — which would have put it in late June (the Jewish religious calendar begins in March with Passover).)​

Click to expand...

It speaks here of Zacharias the priest was of the division of Abijah.

And it was during this time that Zechariah received a revelation of his wife conceiving, which she conceived during this time, and hid herself for 5 months.

Luk 1:24-25
(24) And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
(25) Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.

And in the six month of her pregnancy, Mary conceived.

Luk 1:35-36
(35) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
(36) And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

So according to the calculations up above in the "Quotes", firstly Elizabeth conceived about the time of Zacharias' priestly duty of the division of Abijah, which was near the end of June.

And from there, counting the 6 months of Elizabeth being pregnant, that is when Mary conceived Jesus, and then you go 9 months from there unto the birth of Christ.

So if you start with Zechariah's Abijah duty, and count 15 months from there, this is what you get.

It begins at the end of June, so we will start with July.

-Month 1. July (end of Abijah duty)
-Month 2. August
-Month 3. September
-Month 4. October
-Month 5. November
-Month 6. December (Elizabeth 6 months pregnant, conception of Jesus)
-Month 7. January
-Month 8. February
-Month 9. March
-Month 10. April
-Month 11. May
-Month 12. June
-Month 13. July
-Month 14. August
-Month 15 September (Jesus' birth)

In the months of September/October there are about 4 biblical types of feasts, which are Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Tabernacles, and a type of Solemn assembly.

These are all found in Leviticus.

More on Abijah

I did not know how the service of this particular course of Abijah lasted, but it is said to be 1 to 2 weeks long in the case of Zechariah, and in various opinions, it could have been anywhere from mid June to late June, even unto early July.

Here is my Monthly graph again:

-Month 1. July (end of Abijah duty)
-Month 2. August
-Month 3. September
-Month 4. October
-Month 5. November
-Month 6. December (Elizabeth 6 months pregnant, conception of Jesus)
-Month 7. January
-Month 8. February
-Month 9. March
-Month 10. April
-Month 11. May
-Month 12. June
-Month 13. July
-Month 14. August
-Month 15 September (Jesus' birth)

So anywhere within the 1 to 2 weeks, is when Elizabeth would have conceived.

So if it would have been say June the 15th, 15 months later would bring us to September 15th according to a search I did on Duckduckgo, which that answer corresponds to the year 2026, via of course our Roman calendar.

Now of course this time of Zechariah, was in the early A.D.'s to end of B.C., which was the year Jesus was conceived.

So it could have fallen on September 20th, September 30th, and so on and so forth, give or take, but somewhere within that vicinity.

Concerning the feast days of the months of October/September, it is said that Tabernacles usually occurs in late September to mid-October, and the feast of trumpets typically occurs from mid September to early October, and Atonement late September to early October.

There will be some historical refutations, coming to some degree, later on.