According to my checks 5 of 7 years the Christmas morning low is above
48.
The argument "Jesus coult not have been born on 25 Dec is a bunch of hooey. God gave every sheep a wool coat & every shepherder a few sheep. It is nothing uncommon to find 'shepherds abiding by their sheep all of December.
Well seasonally you are looking at lows during a "winter season" from mid-December through March. It reasonably could have been anytime in that period.
Add to the fact that the census ordered by Caesar Augustus would have been targetted after the harvest and before the planting season begun it is likely to have been between December and March as well.
The weather/climate point is not a strong argument imho. Honestly given the traveling patterns, length of time to travel to and from Galilee to Bethlehem, it is not too awfully hard to push the date of birth to mid to late January. There really is no way to know for certain about what time of year.
There are good arguments on all sides of this issue. :)
"Could not have been", sure, but the argument "was note likely to have been" remains solid. If Mary and Joseph already lived in Bethlehem, you'd have a point. But they didn't. They travelled to Bethlehem from Galilee, likely passing through Jerusalem while en route. Snowy and windy conditions are commonplace in the winter there. The travel and trade routes routes used in the 1st century were inhospitable during the winter months. People typically didn't travel during december. Remember, Ceasar issued a decree ordering that everyone travel to their own town to be registered (it wasn't the first census; Romans had some experience with this). This would have put a heavy strain on the trade routes, and doing so during months of bad travelling weather would preclude people from being able to travel. The purpose of a census is to levy taxes, so it would have been done when the ability to travel would result in the highest taxable number of registrants. These factors, plus others, practically rule out December through March as likely times of Jesus' birth.
This is one of those subjects that will never be proven one way or another, and if we knew, what difference would it make?
I saw a theory I posted a while back.
It is as good as any.
Jewish extra Biblical records indicate the section of Abijah was on duty as for cheif priest duties around the week of June 24th, which Zachariah was part of in Luke 1.
That is when John the Baptist was conceived.
Six months later, the Lord was conceived. That would be late December.
If that is true, it follows the Lord was born in late September.
Who knows?
Its all interesting to speculate about, but is not important one way or the other.
Monday, December 21, 2009, 7:27:24 AM
If you asked the average Christian what Christmas was, they would no doubt
associate Christmas with the birth of Christ and in some way see it as a celebration of His birth. Is it? Is Christmas about Christ? The word "Christmas" means: "Mass of Christ," or, as it came to be shortened, "Christ-mass"; a Roman Catholic Mass which grew out of a specific feast day established in A.D.1038. It has nothing to do with Scripture or the birth of Christ! The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed. says this: "Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the church. It was not instituted by Christ or the Apostles, or by Bible authority. It was picked up after-ward from paganism."
What about the birth of Christ, that’s important, isn’t it? Was Jesus born on December 25?
This message preached by David B. Curtis on December 20th, 2009. Media #488.
Berean Bible Church provides this material free of charge for the edification of the Body of Christ.
You can help further this work by your prayer and by sending a contribution to: Berean Bible Church
2000 Centerville Turnpike
Chesapeake, VA 23322 488.mp3