Birth date of Christ[W:61]

RAMOSS said:

Those articles do not respond to the points made. Yes, they make those claims.. but let's see a pointer to the primary evidence. Have you noticed one similarity between those two articles?? They claim there is 'archeological evidence', yet, they don't point to what it is, nor the primary sources, They make claims about it, but don't back it up.

That is good for apoglistics, but not good as history. The actual historical evidence is different that what these apology sites claim.

Click to expand...

what degree do you have in theology i would like to know. if you don't have a degree in theology then you are going to have to incredible sources of information in order to say they are wrong.

why because the people that i am quoting have PHD's in theology and have been to seminary school.
so who am i going to believe more random internet poster with 0 degree in theology or a PHD with a theology degree?

so far you have posted 0 sources an 100% opinion.
you are not winning this at all.

that is the point of aplogetics is to defend what is written in scripture. history tells us exactly what is happening, and history does match exactly what was written by the gospels of luke and matthew and mark.

there is no contradiction.

the only contradiction is the made up one that people claims. yet they offer 0 support for their evidence.

as i showed you already.

the date Christs birth between 8-4CE.

the Roman empire was in control of Judea during that time and Augustus can order a census and a tax in israel as they are nation under Roman control.
This was shown in egyptian scrolls saying that all non-egyptians another country under Roman rule would have to return to their own nation.

yes they do back it up you evidently only read what you want to read.

Next we have it historically documented that Quintarsis held 2 high govenoring positions in Syria during that time frame.
He was first a military leader then he became the actual govenor.

the link you ignored that cites the orginal archeology.
A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2

the word govenor had several meanings.

he was first a govenor of the military and enacted the first census decreed by augustus in syria and the provence under it's control.
Once More: Quirinius's Census

there goes your argument on not citing orginal sources. you evidently didn't read the links posted and only read what you wanted to.

The purpose of calendars is to schedule things. The scriptures referring to Jesus as the Morning star and setting aside a holy day and feast on Passover, it makes sense that God would schedule the birth of the Savior on a Passover and when the two morning stars align on the first day or birth of their brightest cycle as bright morning stars. The wise men who understood the signs in the sky would see on Passover 1 BC, which is the first full moon after the spring equinox, that the new Morning star(Venus) was on its first day of its brightest cycle, the first day where it was really bright and noticeable, and that the other lesser morning star(Mercury) also was on the first day of its brightest cycle. This would make it a very rare date where all three aligned. It would be perfect symbolism for the birth of the Savior. The amazing conjunction of Jupiter and Venus ten months earlier fits the star of Bethlehem as the sign of the conception of Christ. So as far as the heavens testifying of the birth of Christ, there is none that comes close to April 6, 1 BC. Pratt shows in the Herod Eclipse article that the date, unlike all other commonly proposed dates, fits ALL the criteria. It appears most of the posters in this thread did not grasp the points he made.




Figure 1. Venus spends half of its cycle as evening star and half as morning. The cycle begins as a morning star at (1) conception ("Creation"), and then enters the dark womb as it sets below the horizon at (2) ("Quickening"). It lives its life as the evening star, "Born" at (3) rising, becoming an "Adult" at (4), being brightest at "Prime" (5) and has its "Death" at setting (6). It then "Resurrects" (7) as morning star and finally becomes "Lord" (8) at its brightest in the morning.

April 6, 1 BC was day Lord 1 on both the Venus and Mercury Calendars.

It just hit me, in Revelation it adds "bright" in front of Morning star: "I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." Why not just "morning star" in referring to Venus? That fits perfectly above where He was born on the first day when the Morning star is at its brightest and most recognizable in the morning sky.

I should further clarify something in my OP. Technically New years Day for the Morning star could be when it first resurrects as a Morning star, when it is dim. On April 6th 1 BC , it was the birth of the "bright" Morning star. That could be referred to as the New Years day of the "bright" morning star. That the Bible verse adds "bright" to Morning star makes the case presented even stronger.

ludin said:

what degree do you have in theology i would like to know. if you don't have a degree in theology then you are going to have to incredible sources of information in order to say they are wrong.

why because the people that i am quoting have PHD's in theology and have been to seminary school.
so who am i going to believe more random internet poster with 0 degree in theology or a PHD with a theology degree?

Click to expand...

When it comes to HISTORICAL CLAIMS, and that includes when Rome took a census, then, you don't need a theological degree.

Luke refers to a census when Quntaris became governor of Syria. It is a lie that there is evidence that he had a military position in Syria before 6 c.e. ,and it is mistaken that Augustus had the legal authority to have a census over Judah before that. So, theological degree does not matter. What matters is historical fact.

Yes, Herod the king died in 4 BC, which means the account in Matthew would have it been in that time period

Giving a link that gives BAD information about Quirnius still does not solved the contradiction. Your source tries to play word games to imply there was a previous census.. However, in the HISTORICAL record, you know, in reality, that thing you seem to be missing, Augustus did not have a census over Judah
before 6 c.e. Until 6 c.e., Augustus did not have the legal right to conduct a census, nor with the people of Judah Roman citizens, and all the claims for census that are pointed to before hand cover Roman citizens only, and to not include Judah.
Nor, is there any record of Quirnnius being in a military position in Syria prior to 6 c.e. This little things known FACT get in the way.

So, you might deny it all you want, you might want to whine, complain, and accept lies all you want, but the contradiction is there, and the contradiction remains.

SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH LUKE

and from Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1886, the theologian Emil Schürer, in his monumental study, Geschichte des judischen Volks im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ), closely criticised the traditional view. He raised five points which showed, he believed, that the Luke account could not be historically accurate:

Nothing is known in history of a general census by Augustus;
In a Roman census Joseph would not have had to travel to Bethlehem, and Mary would not have had to travel at all;
No Roman census would have been made in Judea during the reign of Herod;
Josephus records no such census and it would have been a notable innovation;
Quirinius was not governor of Syria until long after the reign of Herod.[31]

The suggested alternative translations have been described as "implausible" [32] and "almost impossible".[33]

Most modern scholars explain the disparity as an error on the part of the author of the Gospel,[34][35] concluding that he was more concerned with creating a symbolic narrative than a historical account,[36] and was either unaware of, or indifferent to,[37] the chronological difficulty. In The Birth of the Messiah (1977), a detailed study of the infancy narratives of Jesus, the American scholar Raymond E. Brown concluded that "this information is dubious on almost every score, despite the elaborate attempts by scholars to defend Lucan accuracy."[38] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders ascribe this to simple error: "on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could".[39] Fergus Millar suggests that Luke's narrative was a construct designed to connect Jesus with the house of David.

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

When it comes to HISTORICAL CLAIMS, and that includes when Rome took a census, then, you don't need a theological degree.

Click to expand...

if you are going to say that they are wrong and post nothing that supports it other than your opinion then yes you are going to need a theological degree of some kind or some really valid sources of informaiton to backup your claim.

I have already done so. i have posted at least 4-5 sources that backup what luke said and when he wrote it. all you can give is your opinion. if you want that opinion to be validated then you either need a theological degree of some kind or the sources to back it up. so far you have provided neither.

Luke refers to a census when Quntaris became governor of Syria. It is a lie that there is evidence that he had a military position in Syria before 6 c.e. ,and it is mistaken that Augustus had the legal authority to have a census over Judah before that. So, theological degree does not matter. What matters is historical fact.

Click to expand...

This means you didn't read the links. Quintaris was a governor of the military in Syria during that time. the word that luke used in greek has several meaning but a high ranking leader is one of them. We have historical evidence of this as Quintaris lead the syrian army against a revolt of some kind during the same time frame.

Augustus was the emperor and could do whatever he wanted regardless of what Herrod thought. again if you would have read the links by this time Augustus had pretty much had it with Herod. If the emperor said there was to be a census then they would have done a census or had a legion marching into make them take one.

again Luke has been denoted as one of the most accurate historians of his time therefore he would not write something down in error or make it up as you are suggesting.
if you are suggesting that then you need to provide something other than your opinion. that or educate yourself a bit more and read the links i have posted instead of ignoring them.

Yes, Herod the king died in 4 BC, which means the account in Matthew would have it been in that time period

Click to expand...

which is why they place Christs birth between 8-4BC.

Giving a link that gives BAD information about Quirnius still does not solved the contradiction. Your source tries to play word games to imply there was a previous census.. However, in the HISTORICAL record, you know, in reality, that thing you seem to be missing, Augustus did not have a census over Judah
before 6 c.e. Until 6 c.e., Augustus did not have the legal right to conduct a census, nor with the people of Judah Roman citizens, and all the claims for census that are pointed to before hand cover Roman citizens only, and to not include Judah.
Nor, is there any record of Quirnnius being in a military position in Syria prior to 6 c.e. This little things known FACT get in the way.

Click to expand...

because i say so is not an argument. on what authority do you claim this to be. please provide us your credentials.
yes he did you can keep repeating the lie bu it won't make it true. Augustus was the emperor he could do whatever he wanted and no one was going to question not even herrod who ruled only by permission of augustus.

So, you might deny it all you want, you might want to whine, complain, and accept lies all you want, but the contradiction is there, and the contradiction remains.

SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH LUKE

and from Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

The only one whining and complaining is you because well you have provided 0 evidence to support your claims where i have supplied at least 5 different sources all of which are legit.
you only argument is uh huh because i say so.

ludin said:

This means you didn't read the links. Quintaris was a governor of the military in Syria during that time. the word that luke used in greek has several meaning but a high ranking leader is one of them. We have historical evidence of this as Quintaris lead the syrian army against a revolt of some kind during the same time frame.

Augustus was the emperor and could do whatever he wanted regardless of what Herrod thought. again if you would have read the links by this time Augustus had pretty much had it with Herod. If the emperor said there was to be a census then they would have done a census or had a legion marching into make them take one.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. Ramoss is lost. Here's some more information to back you up:

William Ramsey noted (NBD, s.v. "Quirinius"):

Ramsay held that Quirinius was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.

Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.

And curiously enough, even if that were NOT the case somehow, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated 'BEFORE the census of Quirinius' instead of the customary 'FIRST census of Quirinius'--see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would 'solve the problem' without even requiring two terms of office for Q.

And, while we are talking about Greek here...the term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--Pilate, Festus, Felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.] My point is...nothing is really out of order here...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Logicman said:

I agree with you. Ramoss is lost. Here's some more information to back you up:

William Ramsey noted (NBD, s.v. "Quirinius"):

Ramsay held that Quirinius was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.

Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.

And curiously enough, even if that were NOT the case somehow, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated 'BEFORE the census of Quirinius' instead of the customary 'FIRST census of Quirinius'--see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would 'solve the problem' without even requiring two terms of office for Q.

And, while we are talking about Greek here...the term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--Pilate, Festus, Felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.] My point is...nothing is really out of order here...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Click to expand...

i know i think i even posted something similar to that and he ignored it.

ludin said:

if you are going to say that they are wrong and post nothing that supports it other than your opinion then yes you are going to need a theological degree of some kind or some really valid sources of informaiton to backup your claim.

I have already done so. i have posted at least 4-5 sources that backup what luke said and when he wrote it. all you can give is your opinion. if you want that opinion to be validated then you either need a theological degree of some kind or the sources to back it up. so far you have provided neither.



This means you didn't read the links. Quintaris was a governor of the military in Syria during that time. the word that luke used in greek has several meaning but a high ranking leader is one of them. We have historical evidence of this as Quintaris lead the syrian army against a revolt of some kind during the same time frame.

Augustus was the emperor and could do whatever he wanted regardless of what Herrod thought. again if you would have read the links by this time Augustus had pretty much had it with Herod. If the emperor said there was to be a census then they would have done a census or had a legion marching into make them take one.

again Luke has been denoted as one of the most accurate historians of his time therefore he would not write something down in error or make it up as you are suggesting.
if you are suggesting that then you need to provide something other than your opinion. that or educate yourself a bit more and read the links i have posted instead of ignoring them.


which is why they place Christs birth between 8-4BC.



because i say so is not an argument. on what authority do you claim this to be. please provide us your credentials.
yes he did you can keep repeating the lie bu it won't make it true. Augustus was the emperor he could do whatever he wanted and no one was going to question not even herrod who ruled only by permission of augustus.



The only one whining and complaining is you because well you have provided 0 evidence to support your claims where i have supplied at least 5 different sources all of which are legit.
you only argument is uh huh because i say so.

Click to expand...

And, you know what.. the one thing about ALL your sources is that , well, they do not have any evidence for their view, and they rely on poor lingquistics to try to make a case, and ALL in the name of Evangelistic Christianity and inerrancy.

Your argument is bad, well, because although Herrod was a 'subject ruler', Judah is not Rome. Judah paid tribute yes.. but the citizens of Judah, who were not Romans, were not taxed by Rome directly.

I will also note that repeating a claim does not address the problems that are brought up with the claims. I will also note there is a difference between the bad attempts to rationalize the discrepancy's by apologists, and actual scholarship.

Logicman said:

It's been awhile but years ago I read a work on the birth of Jesus where he was born in the fall of the year - on "Tabernacles." The author went into detail on the Gospels about the description of the season, etc.

Here's an article I found on it.

The Feast of Tabernacles

Evidence for Jesus being born at the Feast of Tabernacles

The Jews expected the Messiah (Mashiach in Hebrew) to appear at the Feast of Tabernacles – this is why Jesus's sceptical brothers taunted him to go to it (Jn. 7:2-3). What was the basis of this expectation?

Jeremiah 23:5-6 tells us that the Messiah would be a "Branch from David's line". Zechariah prophesies that the Branch will wipe away our guilt (Zech. 3:9), that he will build the temple of the Lord and have royal dignity (Zech. 6:12-13), and that "on that day", the Line of David will be "like the Angel of the Lord going before them" (Zech. 12:8). When will "that day" be? It will be the Feast of Tabernacles! Zech. 14:16 tells us that that is when all nations are commanded to celebrate “that day”.

Acts 15:16, quoting Amos 9:11, explains that God has returned to re-build David's tabernacle, while Ezekial 37:24-28 prophesies that David, the servant shepherd, will become king (melech in Hebrew) and that His people will live "under the shelter of my dwelling".

Isaiah (Yishaiyahu in Hebrew) explains that the Lord will save us in Jerusalem (Yerushali'im in Hebrew) – a "city of feasts" and a "sturdy tent" (Is. 33:20-22) – and that His throne shall be set up in David's tent (Is. 16:5).

In John 1:14, the word “dwelled” is literally “tabernacled” in the Greek – and this comes as the climax to John’s “version” of the story of Christ’s incarnation.

Click to expand...

While the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles may be the best date on the Hebrew Calendar that represents birth, Passover is much stronger in relation to Christ's birth: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/passover-was-it-symbolic-of-his-coming?lang=eng

The above link is a must read. Here is an excerpt that gives two strong secular evidences that support the 1 BC date for Christ's birth that posters in this thread ignore.


Birth

"Little is known about the date of the birth of Christ from secular histories. Most of the potentially useful biblical clues, such as the star of Bethlehem (see Matt. 2:2), the slaughter of the infants (see Matt. 2:16), or an empire-wide taxation (registration or census; see Luke 2:1) while King Herod reigned (see Luke 1:5; Matt. 2:1), have not been clearly identified in secular histories. Accordingly, dates from 7 B.C. to 1 B.C. have been proposed.

The only secular thread to which the birth of Jesus has consistently been tied is the death of King Herod, who was visited by the Magi after the birth of the Savior. For several centuries it has been believed that Herod died in 4 B.C., and so the birth of Christ has been placed about two years before (see Matt. 2:1, 16), in 6 or 5 B.C. However, recent reevaluation of the evidence suggests that Herod died some time later, in 1 B.C. , or A.D. 1. It is now a field of intense study , but with no clear solution in sight. The problem is the same as with the other biblical clues: lack of solid evidence. The Jewish historian Josephus is the only source for details about Herod’s life, and even he does not mention the year of Herod’s death.

One new historical argument for the occurrence of the birth of Christ somewhere in the 2 to 1 B.C. period is the view that the decree “that all the world should be taxed” (enrolled or registered; see Luke 2:1) has finally been identified as an empire-wide census and oath of allegiance to Augustus in 2 B.C. Josephus apparently mentions that oath , which, according to his history, would have been a year or so before Herod’s death. These new dates fit well with the Passover pattern discussed above—that Christ was born in the spring of 1 B.C. and that Herod died in early A.D. 1.

It has been pointed out that the 6 April 1 B.C. date also explains certain aspects of the New Testament account. For example, the date is during the short lambing season, which would explain why the shepherds were “keeping watch over their flock by night.” (Luke 2:8.) Moreover, the fact that “there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7) suggests that the birth probably occurred at the time of one of the three feasts, such as Passover, at which Jews were required to be in Jerusalem. That proposal is also consistent with the 6 April date.

Fortunately, although secular histories are not very useful in helping us to determine Christ’s date of birth, they offer clear testimony for the dates of his ministry and death.

Ministry. Secular evidence for the year of the beginning of Christ’s ministry is perhaps the strongest for any date in the New Testament, because it is closely tied to the reign of a Roman emperor. Luke 3:1–3 states that John the Baptist began his ministry during the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, which Roman historians equate to the Julian calendar year A.D. 29. Some months later, Jesus began his ministry at the Passover of A.D. 30."



So if Jesus began his ministry at age 30 on Passover, and we know that John who was like six months older than Christ began his ministry in A.D. 29, with Christ shortly following on Passover. Then April 6, 1 BC Passover birth would mean Jesus was exactly 30 yrs old on Passover 30 AD.

Here is another excerpt from the article(I know many don't open links.)


[h=2]The Exodus as a Type of His Birth[/h]Not only did the law of Moses point to Christ, the Exodus itself is also rich in symbolism of the Savior. Let us now see how Israel’s deliverance from the house of bondage apparently prefigured Jesus’ birth.
First, the Lord told Moses, “Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” (Ex. 4:22.) Thus, Israel represented Christ, the firstborn of God. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)
Second, the Lord related the day that Israel was delivered to the firstborn’s opening the mother’s womb. (See Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:13, Num. 8:17.) Because the firstborn was a type of Christ, we find here the birth of Jesus linked to the day 15 Nisan.
Third, in the light of understanding that Israel symbolized Christ, and Egypt the womb, one can find several other passages which may imply that Jesus would be born on the evening beginning 15 Nisan. For example, on the day before the Exodus the Lord told Moses, “I will pass through the land of Egypt this night.” (See Ex. 12:12; compare Ex. 13:1–4, 14–15; Deut. 16:1. Nisan was originally called Abib[SUP] 5 [/SUP].) Moreover, there is a Jewish tradition that the Messiah would come on the night of the Passover feast.[SUP]6[/SUP]
Finally, the Exodus was indeed the birth of the nation of Israel; that is, after a long gestation period in Egypt, the nation was literally born on the day it was delivered. Then followed the symbolic sojourn: crossing the water (which could symbolize birth), being led through the wilderness (which possibly symbolizes mortality), and again crossing the water into the promised land.[SUP] 7[/SUP]
Combining these correlations, we could conclude that not only was the Exodus apparently symbolic of Christ’s birth but also that perhaps the very night of Jesus’ birth was symbolically indicated to be the evening beginning (preceding) 15 Nisan. No wonder it was celebrated by a joyous feast; it was “that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations.” (Ex. 12:42; italics added.) Thus, it appears that Passover was the birthday feast both of Israel and of the Savior.

[h=2]Life Transitions at Passover[/h]The concept of Passover is closely linked to that of a transition to a new phase of life, even as the sun “passes over” the meridian at noon, when it is at the high point of its daily journey. But at sunrise each day, passage over that meridian is even more clearly symbolic of transition. This symbolism is commonly used in phrases such as “the dawning of a new age.” This is the time when the sun is “born” each day, passing over into our world at sunrise; then it “dies” when it passes over the horizon at sunset.
Since the death (14 Nisan), birth (15 Nisan), and resurrection (16 Nisan) of Christ are all associated with rites during Passover, it seems that the word also symbolizes Christ’s “passing over” from the premortality of the spirit world to the physical world, as well as from the physical world to the spirit world. For example, the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nisan “is the Lord’s Passover” (Lev. 23:5), when the lamb was killed. Using this symbolic meaning of passover, this verse suggests that the Savior wouldpass over into the spirit world on the afternoon of 14 Nisan. If thus interpreted, the phrase “pass over” is similar to the phrase “pass on” or “pass away,” used to mean death.
On 15 Nisan, the day of joyous feast of Passover when the firstborn were sanctified and Israel was born, the Savior passed over from spirit-world pre-mortality at his birth. On 16 Nisan, when the firstfruits of the harvest were offered (see Lev. 23:10–11), he again passed over from the spirit world into his body at the Resurrection (see Ensign, July 1985, p. 57) and became the firstfruits of them that slept. (See 1 Cor. 15:20.)
In addition to meridian symbolism, then, the term Passover can be used to symbolize transitions to new phases of life, such as birth, death, and resurrection.

More from article:

Not only was Passover a prophetic symbol of the Lord’s sacrifice, its timing foreshadowed the coming of the Savior in the meridian of time.

Passover—

Adam was given the promise that the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, would come “in the meridian of time.” (Moses 6:57.) Later, Enoch specifically asked when the Savior would come, and he was given the same response: “in the meridian of time.” (Moses 7:46.) This phrase is again used in the Doctrine and Covenants to refer to the time of the first coming of the Savior. (See D&C 20:26; D&C 39:3.)

But just what does this phrase, “the meridian of time,” mean?

In astronomy, the meridian is a north-south line passing exactly overhead that divides the sky in half. Meridian literally means “midday.” The sun culminates (reaches its high point) as it passes over the meridian. Time before that “passover” is called ante meridiem (A.M., or “before midday”), and afterward it is post meridiem (P.M., or “after midday”). (See Figure 1.)

The scriptural meaning of “the meridian of time” has been interpreted by Church leaders to be essentially the same as the astronomical meaning: that is, the coming of Christ marked the high noon, so to speak, of the earth’s temporal existence. Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote, “The meridian of time is the middle or high point of that portion of eternity which is considered to be mortal time. Since Christ lived, ministered, and worked out the atonement in time’s meridian, such era was truly the high point of history.” 1

Let us now see how the meridian of time may have been symbolized in the calendar of the law of Moses, because the law of Moses was given to prepare Israel for the “coming of Christ.” (2 Ne. 11:4.)

The Law of Moses Typified His Coming

The Nephites “did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses was a type of his coming.” (Alma 25:15; emphasis added.) Knowing that Christ’s coming was in the meridian of time and that the Mosaic law was a pattern of his coming, we can expect to see in the law of Moses symbolism referring to the meridian of time.

The law of Moses “was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ” (Gal. 3:24), wrote the Apostle Paul, offering “a shadow of good things to come” (Heb. 10:1). How? One example is the actual sacrificing of the Passover lamb, which was in similitude of the death of Jesus. (See 1 Cor. 5:7.) It appears that the symbolism also included the timing of the Savior’s death: the Passover lamb was killed between 3:00 and 5:00 P.M. 2 on the afternoon of the fourteenth day of the spring month specified in the law of Moses (see Ex. 12:1–6), which was when the Lamb of God actually died as a sacrifice (see John 19:14; Matt. 27:46). We are assured that not only the death but also the coming of Christ was typified in the law. Nephi rejoiced, “Behold, my soul delighteth in proving unto my people the truth of the coming of Christ; for, for this end hath the law of Moses been given.” (2 Ne. 11:4; emphasis added.)

But just where in the law of Moses is the “type of his coming”? (Alma 25:15.) Let us examine the calendar associated with the law of Moses to discover the rich symbolism of the meridian of time.

Lunisolar meridian: 15 Nisan. In order to understand the symbolism of the meridian of time, we need to consider the calendar that the Lord commanded Moses to use in determining days on which the sacrifices and feasts were to be held. That calendar is partly described in the five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). It was similar in many respects to the modern Hebrew calendar (see Figure 2) but very different from our Gregorian (Roman) calendar.

The Hebrew lunisolar calendar (luni: “moon”; solar: “sun”) uses the moon to reckon months and the sun to measure years. In contrast, our Gregorian calendar is not so complex: it is a solar calendar, meaning it keeps track of only the sun. By inserting leap days according to a fixed pattern, the spring equinox (when the sun rises due east) is always on March 20–21. Also, although we still use the word month—which derives from moon—our months are no longer tied to the moon as are Hebrew months.

The Hebrew day begins in the evening, the month begins at the new moon, and the year begins in the fall. 3 Because the Hebrew 24-hour day begins at sunset, the meridian—or middle point—of the full daily cycle is actually at sunrise. (See accompanying sidebar, “Sunrise Symbolism.”) The first day of any month is within two days of the new moon, and the fifteenth day of any month (of twenty-nine or thirty days) is near the full moon. Accordingly, the midpoint of every Hebrew month can be represented by the fifteenth day.

The meridian month of the year is the spring month Nisan. 4 Thus, 15 Nisan represents the meridian both of the Hebrew year and of that month. In the law revealed to Moses, this meridian day of the Hebrew year was also the annual Passover feast day.

Passover Feast: 15 Nisan. The day 15 Nisan was the day of the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt. (See Num. 33:3.) The Lord declared it to be an annual holy day in order to remind Israel of its liberation from the bondage of Egypt. (See Ex. 12:17, 42; Ex. 13:3.) It was a day of rejoicing, and even today Passover is practically synonymous with “liberation.”

On 15 Nisan, the Israelites began a one-week celebration called the feast of unleavened bread. (See Lev. 23:6.) The first day was the feast of the Passover, at which the Passover lamb was eaten. It was a special sabbath day of rest. (See Lev. 23:7.) It was held in the evening that began the day 15 Nisan, shortly after the sacrifice of the lamb in the afternoon that ended the previous day, 14 Nisan; thus, technically, the sacrifice of the lamb and the Passover feast occurred on different calendrical days. (See Lev. 23:5–6.)

We shall refer to 15 Nisan as the Passover feast day, but it is also called the first day of Passover or the first day of unleavened bread. Thus, our expectations are fulfilled that a meridian would be prominent in the law of Moses: 15 Nisan, the meridian of the Hebrew year, is the Passover feast day.

It's all been made up over the centuries. Adapted redacted and edited. Self-referentially retrofitted to support the myth. The clue is in "Secular history/evidence says little or nothing" Histories or evidence other than secular are manufactured from whole cloth to appease the credulous.

More from article(can't stop its just too good):

Death and Resurrection. Evidence for the very day of the Savior’s death and for the day of his resurrection is strong from the New Testament account. (See Ensign, June 1985, pp. 59–68.) First, we can conclude that it was three years after the beginning of the ministry, because four Passovers are mentioned or implied in the Gospels. Second, it is stated that Jesus was crucified on the day of the preparation of the Passover (seeJohn 19:14), which would be 14 Nisan. Finally, the day of his death is indicated as Friday (see Matt. 27:62), which at the time was called simply the “preparation”—a day of preparation, that is, for Saturday, the Sabbath. Counting the day of his trial and death as the first day, Christ’s resurrection occurred on the third day (see Luke 24:20–21), which is given in all four Gospels as “the first day of the week”—Sunday. (See Matt. 28:1;Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1.) In the implied crucifixion year, A.D. 33, astronomical calculations indicate that that Friday, 1 April A.D. 33 on our calendar[SUP] 23 [/SUP], was most likely to have been 14 Nisan that year.
Another witness comes from Phlegon, a Greek secular historian from Caria (in Asia Minor), writing soon after A.D. 137, who “reported that in the fourth year of the 202d Olympiad there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that the stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.’”[SUP] 24[/SUP]
The year mentioned began on 1 July A.D.. 32 and ended 30 June A.D. 33, a period which includes the time identified as that of the Savior’s crucifixion. The fact that Phlegon records both darkening of the sun at noon and earthquakes, just as Matthew describes (see Matt. 27:45, 51), in that same year, makes it apparent that he is describing the same events that were also witnessed in distant cities in modern-day Turkey. This also confirms traditions that “the terror of the earthquake continued from the sixth hour of the preparation until the ninth hour” (from noon till 3:00P.M. on Friday; compare 3 Ne. 8:17–19), and that “when he was crucified darkness came over all the world,” “the sun was altogether hidden,” “the stars were seen,” and “in all the world they lighted their lamps from the sixth hour until evening.”[SUP] 25[/SUP]
Thus, the Passover pattern in the law of Moses, the reckoning from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and related secular sources all supply corroborative evidence that the Savior was born on the night of, or preceding, Thursday, 6 April 1 B.C.; that he began his ministry Saturday, 6 April A.D. 30; that he died on the cross on Friday, 1 April A.D. 33; that he ministered in the spirit world on Saturday, 2 April A.D. 33; and that he was resurrected on Sunday, 3 April A.D. 33.
Such order in the remarkable timing of the Savior’s birth, ministry, and death bears eloquent testimony that his advent in the meridian of time had been planned long before and that the law of Moses, as the ancient prophets declared, truly did foreshadow the Lord’s coming.

One more:

Sunrise Symbolism
The word day has two distinct meanings: the daily period of light, and also the full cycle of both darkness and light. Both meanings are indicated in the Lord’s account of the Creation:

“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

“And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

“And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Gen. 1:3–5.)

Note that in the last verse, day refers first to the period of light, and then to the entire cycle. Each of these days has its own meridian. The meridian of the period of light occurs at noon (see figure 1); but the full cycle of the day, as the Lord told Moses (see Gen. 1:3–5) and Abraham (see Abr. 4:5), begins with the night and ends with the day. That means that the symbolic meridian of the full daily cycle occurs at sunrise, which is both the midpoint of the entire cycle and also the division between light and darkness. Note that both the meridian of the twelve-hour day at noon and of the twenty-four-hour day at sunrise are valid symbols; they are simply the midpoints of two different “days.”

The coming of light to darkness at the meridian of the first day of creation suggests that even those events bear record of Christ. (See Moses 6:63.) That is, on the first day God created light, and Christ is the Light of the world (see John 8:12, John 12:46), the Firstborn of creation (see Col. 1:15). Further, the light came to the darkness at the meridian of that first “day” of creation, just as the light of Jesus would come into the dark world (see John 3:19) in the meridian of time.

A clear example of the rising sun representing Christ is the prophecy that unto the righteous “shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings.” (Mal. 4:2.) This reference to the sun so clearly meant Christ that the phrase “Son of righteousness” is interchangeable with it. (See 3 Ne. 25:2; 2 Ne. 26:9.) Nephi pointed out that Christ would rise “with healing in his wings” at His resurrection. (See 2 Ne. 25:13.) Mark wrote that when the women arrived at the tomb, the sun had risen, and Christ also had risen (see Mark 16:2, 9), but it is not clear whether Mark intended an association of Christ with the sun. The tie of the rising of the Son at the Resurrection and the rising of the sun on that day is often noted during Easter sunrise services.

RAMOSS said:

And, you know what.. the one thing about ALL your sources is that , well, they do not have any evidence for their view, and they rely on poor lingquistics to try to make a case, and ALL in the name of Evangelistic Christianity and inerrancy.

Your argument is bad, well, because although Herrod was a 'subject ruler', Judah is not Rome. Judah paid tribute yes.. but the citizens of Judah, who were not Romans, were not taxed by Rome directly.

I will also note that repeating a claim does not address the problems that are brought up with the claims. I will also note there is a difference between the bad attempts to rationalize the discrepancy's by apologists, and actual scholarship.

Click to expand...

now i am going to ask you for your credientials that allow you to make these opinion and state them as fact. more so what credentials do you have that gives you the ability to call those with PHD's that have researched this subject wrong.
so what degree in theology do you have or theological archeology do you have.

your opinion are not facts.

Manc Skipper said:

It's all been made up over the centuries. Adapted redacted and edited. Self-referentially retrofitted to support the myth. The clue is in "Secular history/evidence says little or nothing" Histories or evidence other than secular are manufactured from whole cloth to appease the credulous.

Click to expand...

coming from someone that has no idea what they are talking about.

these things have been documented time and time again they have been historically proven to be accurate.

That claim is simply not true. A lie for Jesus is a lie nonetheless.

Logicman, another way to look at it is that the first and last day of Tabernacles are great dates on the Hebrew Calendar for birth and death, yet Christ's death is tied to the sacrificing of the first born male lamb without blemish preceding the Passover feast. If Christ's death is tied to Passover, it is logical to think His birth would too. And His birth was a great day for celebration!

ludin said:

now i am going to ask you for your credientials that allow you to make these opinion and state them as fact. more so what credentials do you have that gives you the ability to call those with PHD's that have researched this subject wrong.
so what degree in theology do you have or theological archeology do you hav
your opinion are not facts.

Click to expand...

No, it is not. I have to rely on others.. and I rely on ph'd , historians and archeologists that do not have religious axes to grind, one way or another. I will note that many of sources that I relayed are Christians.

I will also note that your sources are all evangelistic Christians who are coming from the viewpoint that the bible contains no contradictions as their primary assumption. They are trying to retrofit and twist things to fit their presumptions, rather than take from the evidence.

For example, your 'Association for Biblical Research' is run by Bryant Wood, who is an inerrantist, and who is taking a very minority point of view on a number of issues, despite a lot of evidence he is wrong'. The bible college in which he teaches is not accredited.

To re-emphasize a point. Luke chapter 3 is very strong evidence in support of 1 BC as the year of Christ's birth.


1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judæa, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituræa and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

"Roman historians equate the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar to the Julian calendar year A.D. 29."

So John the Baptist began baptizing people in 29 AD. A few verses later in the chapter it states the following:

21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph


So Jesus was "about 30" when John the Baptist baptized Him, ie He was 29, just shy of being 30. John the Baptist began baptizing in 29 AD. Which fits perfectly April 6 Passover 1 BC as being His birth date.

RAMOSS said:

No, it is not. I have to rely on others.. and I rely on ph'd , historians and archeologists that do not have religious axes to grind, one way or another. I will note that many of sources that I relayed are Christians.

I will also note that your sources are all evangelistic Christians who are coming from the viewpoint that the bible contains no contradictions as their primary assumption. They are trying to retrofit and twist things to fit their presumptions, rather than take from the evidence.

For example, your 'Association for Biblical Research' is run by Bryant Wood, who is an inerrantist, and who is taking a very minority point of view on a number of issues, despite a lot of evidence he is wrong'. The bible college in which he teaches is not accredited.

Click to expand...

The typical people who are professional anti-Mormons have "PHD's" from non-accredited institutions...theological schools. While the LDS scholars providing evidence in support of the LDS tend to have PHD's from Ivy League type schools, Stanford, University of Chicage, etc, and are some of the leading experts in their fields that get quoted in peer reviewed scientific journals. Does it automatically mean one side is wrong or right, no. But dealing with these types over the years, I have found it is useless debating them. But I do. A couple of evangelical scholars reviewing the debate between both sides stated in a paper that these people attacking the LDS beliefs are "losing the battle and not knowing it". Now these two evangelical scholars do not believe in the message of the LDS, but they are honest enough to admit the criticisms their side is throwing up against the LDS is full of errors and easily diffused by real scholars on the LDS side. And that there is no adequate response to the evidences being produced by the LDS scholars because those attacking the LDS faith do not have the training and skills necessary to respond in an adequate fashion.

RAMOSS said:

No, it is not. I have to rely on others.. and I rely on ph'd , historians and archeologists that do not have religious axes to grind, one way or another. I will note that many of sources that I relayed are Christians.

I will also note that your sources are all evangelistic Christians who are coming from the viewpoint that the bible contains no contradictions as their primary assumption. They are trying to retrofit and twist things to fit their presumptions, rather than take from the evidence.

For example, your 'Association for Biblical Research' is run by Bryant Wood, who is an inerrantist, and who is taking a very minority point of view on a number of issues, despite a lot of evidence he is wrong'. The bible college in which he teaches is not accredited.

Click to expand...

so far you posted 0 sources all opinion.

you either believe that the bible is the word of GOd or you don't. if you don't then you really aren't the christian that you claim to be.
people have tried to disprove the bible for years and have failed every time.
wrong your
since you can't list your credentials and therefore have no creditenials to prove my sources wrong you opinion is meaningless.

laska said:

The typical people who are professional anti-Mormons have "PHD's" from non-accredited institutions...theological schools. While the LDS scholars providing evidence in support of the LDS tend to have PHD's from Ivy League type schools, Stanford, University of Chicage, etc, and are some of the leading experts in their fields that get quoted in peer reviewed scientific journals. Does it automatically mean one side is wrong or right, no. But dealing with these types over the years, I have found it is useless debating them. But I do. A couple of evangelical scholars reviewing the debate between both sides stated in a paper that these people attacking the LDS beliefs are "losing the battle and not knowing it". Now these two evangelical scholars do not believe in the message of the LDS, but they are honest enough to admit the criticisms their side is throwing up against the LDS is full of errors and easily diffused by real scholars on the LDS side. And that there is no adequate response to the evidences being produced by the LDS scholars because those attacking the LDS faith do not have the training and skills necessary to respond in an adequate fashion.

Click to expand...

so if this is the case why have you yet to back up the inconsistantcies in the book of mormon to the bible yet?

we have asked you for like the past 10+ posts for you to backup what are major inconsistancies.

1. That the bible says God is a spirit, mormons claim he is made of flesh and bone.
2. The bibles says that the Holy spirit conceived Christ. Mormons claim that God had a physical sexual relationship with Mary.
3. The bible says that there is only 1 heaven the mormon bible claims there to be 3.
4.you claim the Great apostasy happened. i showed that it didn't. you have yet to support this claim.
5. you claimed that there were no inconsistancies in the between the book of mormon and the bible. when showed those inconsistantcies you went on a rant of anti-lds.
6. Joseph SMith didn't know 1 lick of hebrew or Greek so there is no way that he could have correctly translated the bible.
7. from what i have read there was a huge fire that destroyed many of the oringal smith writings. he couldn't reproduce what he wrote and so copied a ton of the missing pages from the bible itself.

so you are winning what exactly? you refuse to answer any question and just continue go that is just anti-lds which isn't an argument.



lol non-accredited is a mighty huge assumption. please provided your evidence for this as well