September 11th: Happy Birthday Jesus?

[Adrift]

Many many years ago, as a teen growing up in a cult called the The Way Ministry, the Way had this peculiar belief that December 25th wasn't the day that Jesus was born, rather, he was likely born on September 11th, 3 BC.

Years after leaving The Way I had mostly forgotten about it, but then 9/11 happened. Maybe a month later, I might have been watching the news or something, but it was like, September 11, where had I heard that date before? And then it came back to me, "Oh right, that was supposed to be Jesus's birthday!"

Now, I'm pretty certain that Jesus wasn't born on Christmas day, but I sorta/kinda dismissed the 9/11 thing as a Way gaffe, and went about my days. However, over the course of the last year or so I've been diving into Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser's work, and wouldn't you know it, he too holds that Jesus was born on Sept. 11th 3 (or 4) BC!

So, now, something about The Way. The Way billed itself as a research ministry and would often incorporate good scholarship (and sometimes in the case of Aramaicist George Lamsa, bad scholarship) into their unorthodox theology. So, while I was blown away to hear that Heiser agreed with something uniquely Way-ish, it didn't surprise me too much that they might have accidentally stumbled into something legit.


Back to Dr. Heiser. I don't think Heiser knows anything about The Way Ministry. He says that he was convincedThe Star that Astonished the World (which can be found read here for free).

What is the actual argument for Sept. 11th? Well...it's complicated. Basically it boils down to Hebrew astronomical signs that John wrote into Revelation 12. Heiser goes into the subject in this brief Youtube video here:

And you can find more in his podcast here:

To be clear, I'm not asserting that Jesus was, for certain, born on Sept. 11, only pointing out that there is teaching out there that suggests that he was, and thought it was relevant for posting today. I believe he almost certainly wasn't born on Dec. 25th.

[Sparko]

Personally I don't think anyone can know the exact date of his birth. All these astrological theories seem pretty much made up to fit the theory as much as anything else. Like the people who use numerology or bible codes then conveniently find exactly what they want in the text.

I really don't have time to listen to those videos, though. Is there a text summary I could look at somewhere of the theory?

[Raphael]

Oddly enough we were talking about this exact thing at Home Group last night.

[Adrift]

Personally I don't think anyone can know the exact date of his birth. All these astrological theories seem pretty much made up to fit the theory as much as anything else. Like the people who use numerology or bible codes then conveniently find exactly what they want in the text.

Heiser is strongly against Bible code nonsense, which makes me a little more confident that this is a bit more legit than your average astrological garbage, but yeah, I get what you're saying. I think it's possible that John, who was in a place to know Jesus' birth, might paint imagery in Revelation that can point us to a date, so I don't think it's completely out of the realm of plausibility.

I really don't have time to listen to those videos, though. Is there a text summary I could look at somewhere of the theory?

I'll see if I can find one. I might have to pull it from the transcript of that podcast.

[Adrift]

Oddly enough we were talking about this exact thing at Home Group last night.

Oh wow. Was it just the date itself, or did they mention Dr. Heiser?

[Raphael]

Oh wow. Was it just the date itself, or did they mention Dr. Heiser?

Both. One of the guys even shared a link to his #138 podcast to our WhatsApp group.

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcas...as-jesus-born/

[Adrift]

I'm not sure if I can, but I'm going to attempt to summarize this.

• line

• This collection in Revelation 12 isn't rare, although to be fair, there are only a handful of dates in real time that could accommodate them in the context of New Testament chronology for the birth of Jesus. But those dates narrow to one date once other astronomical events that occurred at the same time (which are not noted in Revelation 12) are added to the celestial profile.
• The constellation above the head of Virgo (the very next one in the zodiac) is Leo, the lion. The lion was the symbol associated with the tribe of Judah and royalty (Genesis 49:9-10).
• Leo was considered a royal constellation since it was dominated by the star Regulus. The star Regulus was known by astrologers as the "King Star." So we have the king constellation (Leo, Lion of Judah) and the star Regulus in Leo.
• Leo also comes into conjunction with Jupiter, the "King Planet."

[I]

that's just the bare bones of the transcript found here: https://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp...Transcript.pdf. Heiser goes into much more detail, also making other points like how the discussion of the heavenly appearance of the temple and the Ark of the Covenant immediately preceding Revelation 12 (Revelation 11:19) is significant.

That's Beale (page 620), and he actually alludes to the Babylonian Talmud: Rosh Hashanah 16 for that information. Now incredibly, the astronomical reconstruction of the circumstances of Revelation 12:1-7 that produces a September, 3 B.C, date for the birth of the Messiah was also the beginning of the Jewish new year in 3 B.C. (Rosh Ha-shanah, Tishri 1, the Day of the Trumpets, the Feast of Trumpets). Tishri 1 was also the day that many of the ancient kings and rulers of Judah reckoned as their inauguration day. This procedure was followed consistently in the time of Solomon, Jeremiah, and Ezra. If you want proof of that, you can look at Edwin Thiele's Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (page 28, 31, 161, 163). I would say this is a powerful piece of evidence for the astronomical reading of Revelation 12:1-7 as celestial signs of the birth of the messianic king.

Not much of a summary, but hope that's helpful.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I think it's generally agreed across Christianity that Jesus's actual birth wasn't December 25th. I think the date was picked to supplant a major pagan holiday on that date. I've read His birth was more likely in the spring because that's when shepherds would be watching the flocks at night.

[Raphael]

I think it's generally agreed across Christianity that Jesus's actual birth wasn't December 25th. I think the date was picked to supplant a major pagan holiday on that date. I've read His birth was more likely in the spring because that's when shepherds would be watching the flocks at night.

The Dec25 date lines up to a Jewish (and most likely early church) belief that a prophet would die on the same day of the year as he was concieved. Easter is (roughly) 9 months before December 25th.

Edit to add: the 11 September date suggested above would be early autumn in Israel so would also work for shepherds to be watching their flocks at night.

[QuantaFille]

I think it's generally agreed across Christianity that Jesus's actual birth wasn't December 25th. I think the date was picked to supplant a major pagan holiday on that date. I've read His birth was more likely in the spring because that's when shepherds would be watching the flocks at night.

I've read that the supposed "pagan holiday" wasn't actually celebrated until after Christmas became popular, and was intended to supplant it, not the other way around. I'll have to see if I can find the article.

[QuantaFille]

I've read that the supposed "pagan holiday" wasn't actually celebrated until after Christmas became popular, and was intended to supplant it, not the other way around. I'll have to see if I can find the article.

http://apologetics-notes.comereason....pagan.html?m=1

[Adrift]

The Dec25 date lines up to a Jewish (and most likely early church) belief that a prophet would die on the same day of the year as he was concieved. Easter is (roughly) 9 months before December 25th.

I'm open to either view. This view is the one that the scholars I read usually support, but the supplanting one makes sense to me as well (wouldn't be the first time).

Edit to add: the 11 September date suggested above would be early autumn in Israel so would also work for shepherds to be watching their flocks at night.

[Teallaura]

I think it's generally agreed across Christianity that Jesus's actual birth wasn't December 25th. I think the date was picked to supplant a major pagan holiday on that date. I've read His birth was more likely in the spring because that's when shepherds would be watching the flocks at night.

The idea stems from shepherds only staying out during lambing - but it is possible to lamb in fall (ewes go into estrus if separated from rams several weeks before reintroducing the ram). I wonder if they didn't do this - it would make yearlings more available for purification.

But even if not, goats breed year round, with breeding season from Sept to March and 150 days ave. gestation - shepherds could easily be standing watch in Sept for the late breeders.

[Sparko]

I'm not sure if I can, but I'm going to attempt to summarize this.

• line

• This collection in Revelation 12 isn't rare, although to be fair, there are only a handful of dates in real time that could accommodate them in the context of New Testament chronology for the birth of Jesus. But those dates narrow to one date once other astronomical events that occurred at the same time (which are not noted in Revelation 12) are added to the celestial profile.
• The constellation above the head of Virgo (the very next one in the zodiac) is Leo, the lion. The lion was the symbol associated with the tribe of Judah and royalty (Genesis 49:9-10).
• Leo was considered a royal constellation since it was dominated by the star Regulus. The star Regulus was known by astrologers as the "King Star." So we have the king constellation (Leo, Lion of Judah) and the star Regulus in Leo.
• Leo also comes into conjunction with Jupiter, the "King Planet."

[I]

that's just the bare bones of the transcript found here: https://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp...Transcript.pdf. Heiser goes into much more detail, also making other points like how the discussion of the heavenly appearance of the temple and the Ark of the Covenant immediately preceding Revelation 12 (Revelation 11:19) is significant.

That's Beale (page 620), and he actually alludes to the Babylonian Talmud: Rosh Hashanah 16 for that information. Now incredibly, the astronomical reconstruction of the circumstances of Revelation 12:1-7 that produces a September, 3 B.C, date for the birth of the Messiah was also the beginning of the Jewish new year in 3 B.C. (Rosh Ha-shanah, Tishri 1, the Day of the Trumpets, the Feast of Trumpets). Tishri 1 was also the day that many of the ancient kings and rulers of Judah reckoned as their inauguration day. This procedure was followed consistently in the time of Solomon, Jeremiah, and Ezra. If you want proof of that, you can look at Edwin Thiele's Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (page 28, 31, 161, 163). I would say this is a powerful piece of evidence for the astronomical reading of Revelation 12:1-7 as celestial signs of the birth of the messianic king.

Not much of a summary, but hope that's helpful.

Thanks. I have seen this same imagery used for various other purposes. I believe Tim LaHaye (Left Behind) used pretty much the exact thing to interpret this as explaining the end times and the dragon as the devil seeking out God's remnant at Petra (the desert).

And recently David Meade used it to claim that the apocalypse and rapture were upon us on Sept 23, 2017. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...k-off-saturday

So I am pretty leery of such things.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm not sure if I can, but I'm going to attempt to summarize this.

• line

• This collection in Revelation 12 isn't rare, although to be fair, there are only a handful of dates in real time that could accommodate them in the context of New Testament chronology for the birth of Jesus. But those dates narrow to one date once other astronomical events that occurred at the same time (which are not noted in Revelation 12) are added to the celestial profile.
• The constellation above the head of Virgo (the very next one in the zodiac) is Leo, the lion. The lion was the symbol associated with the tribe of Judah and royalty (Genesis 49:9-10).
• Leo was considered a royal constellation since it was dominated by the star Regulus. The star Regulus was known by astrologers as the "King Star." So we have the king constellation (Leo, Lion of Judah) and the star Regulus in Leo.
• Leo also comes into conjunction with Jupiter, the "King Planet."

[I]

that's just the bare bones of the transcript found here: https://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp...Transcript.pdf. Heiser goes into much more detail, also making other points like how the discussion of the heavenly appearance of the temple and the Ark of the Covenant immediately preceding Revelation 12 (Revelation 11:19) is significant.

That's Beale (page 620), and he actually alludes to the Babylonian Talmud: Rosh Hashanah 16 for that information. Now incredibly, the astronomical reconstruction of the circumstances of Revelation 12:1-7 that produces a September, 3 B.C, date for the birth of the Messiah was also the beginning of the Jewish new year in 3 B.C. (Rosh Ha-shanah, Tishri 1, the Day of the Trumpets, the Feast of Trumpets). Tishri 1 was also the day that many of the ancient kings and rulers of Judah reckoned as their inauguration day. This procedure was followed consistently in the time of Solomon, Jeremiah, and Ezra. If you want proof of that, you can look at Edwin Thiele's Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (page 28, 31, 161, 163). I would say this is a powerful piece of evidence for the astronomical reading of Revelation 12:1-7 as celestial signs of the birth of the messianic king.

Not much of a summary, but hope that's helpful.

A couple points: The magi going to Bethlehem is not an indication that they were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures; they got that information from Herod's advisers (Mat. 2:1-6). Also, if the date were so important that John encoded it into Revelation, why is there no evidence the early church knew of this date?