Jesus Is The Reason For The Season

In the New Testament of the Holy Bible (the King James version is the most accurate), in the book of Luke, chapter 2, you can read that Cesar Agustus has ordered a census. This means that all heads of household (menfolk) must return to the city of their birth to be counted. For Joseph, Jesus' earthly father, that meant traveling about 80 miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem, the city of David, because Joseph was a descendant of David. Mary, Jesus' mother, went with him because she had been shunned for becoming pregnant out of wedlock (although Joseph did Mary her after her holy conception as God told him to do) and, I'm sure she didn't want to be alone at the time of her son's birth, which wasn't far off. Besides, about 700 years or so ago, God's prophets had proclaimed that the Son of God would be born in Bethlehem!
As most folks know, when Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem and tried to find a room, "there was no room at the inn." They ended up staying in a manger for shelter and privacy. Mary delivered her baby boy (most likely on her own with God), wrapped Him in "swaddling clothes" (which have been described as being anything from medical bandages to fine linen!) and laid Him in the manger, probably in an empty animal trough which would make a pretty good make-shift crib.

Here's a note of interest: This man Luke, who recorded all of this information was a MEDICAL DOCTOR. He had a very good reputation and would not be likely to record falsehoods or to "stretch" the truth. He would be most likely to record FACTS and not be so concerned with things like "what color was Mary wearing?" or "what did the place look like where Jesus was born?" I think it's also important to note that Luke had no doubt of Mary's virgin conception or birth.

Although we celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25th, it's actually more likely that that date is the date of his conception, the date that God sent the Holy Spirit to come over her and cause her to be pregnant. No sexual act was committed, the Holy Spirit was completely INSIDE of Mary with NO defiling of her physical body, therefore, she remained a virgin. (At the end of this article, I will give a link to a fantastic article giving MEDICAL and SCIENTIFIC evidence that this HAD TO BE a virgin birth.) Jesus was more likely to have been born in late September. One of the reasons we believe this is because the weather during that time of year would have been mild enough for all those people to travel back to their home towns. Also, in December, shepherds probably would not have been spending nights in the fields with their flocks, as that is normally a wet and rainy time of year in that part of the world. September is the time of the annual Feast of Tabernacles. It would have been appropriate for Jesus to have been born on this date, because it was at His birth that 'the Word was made flesh and dwelt (literally tabernacled) among us' (John 1:14)
Another reason that we believe that Jesus was born in September is this:
Revelation 12:1-2 says, "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered."
In 3 B.C., it was on September 11th, which was the ONLY day when the constellation Virgo (represented as a woman) "clothed with the sun" as it entered the mid-body in its ecliptic course, had the moon under her feet. Therefore, it was during this day when Jesus Christ was born. This indicates that Jesus was born in September rather than December. However, it IS a birth certificate recorded in the Bible and supported by science!

Now I'll give you some information and quotes that are NOT from the Holy Bible, one is even from the Romans who hated all Christians. If Jesus was never born, if He was nothing more than a story, why would these people bother to write about Him in their OFFICIAL writings or go to such lengths to destroy Him and record it? Why not just "let it blow over?" The very enemies of Christianity claimed that he lived--and that he performed miracles!

Very old Jewish documents such as the Mishnah and even a noted Jewish historian named Josephus, as well as first-century Gentile historians such as Thallus, Serapion, and Tacitus, all have written that the man Jesus, the one called Christ and Savior, lived in Palestine and died under Pontius Pilate.
As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar" (NT Documents, 119). If they document his death, how could it be that He was never born?
One of the writings is actually hostile to Christianity, but still documents the historical fact of Jesus.

JOSEPHUS, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this, and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 )

Most scholars agree that the statements in parentheses were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of Josephus' statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus, which means he had to have been born.

TACITUS-Gentile Historian

Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman
Emperor Neros' actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Annals 15 -44
"Mischievous Superstition" in this passage means destructive, fatal, deadly. So it would seem that what tacitus actually said was it was "a destructive or fatal or deadly superstition". He was calling Christianity evil. So, it is obvious that he was not a Christian, so it stands to reason that he would not be writing about the death of Jesus which would support the fact that there WAS a historical Jesus that was killed by Pontius Pilate. Note that Tacitus is not referring to the death of the Jesus as superstition but the practice of Jesus' followers.
Tacitus, being a famous historian who was reputed in his own days as being extremely careful and factual, would not have written about a movement without first checking the Roman archives to be sure to get the most accurate report possible. He wrote his history of Rome covering the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian, that's 14-96 AD. He used earlier works by historians, cross checking them with each other. He worked hard to verify his facts, this was unusual in the writings of the time. There is clearly a bias slant to his views as he wasn't a big fan of Tiberius, but this would have no bearing on mentions of Christ.

NOTE: The above photo is from the movie "The Passion Of The Christ." It is the scene where the Romans are asking the crowd to make the choice to free either Jesus of Nazareth or the murderer, Barabbas. The Romans were so afraid of Jesus that they chose Barabbas.

Jesus is such an important part of the history of man that the Encyclopedia Britannica has 20,000 words describing Him. His description is larger even than the space that was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napoleon Bonaparte. How could there possibly be so much information a man who was never born?
The Encyclopedia Britannica, concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, states:
"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

In the Reader's Digest Book of Facts, 1989.Jesus is recorded as a fact, as is His death, burial and missing body.

There are over 24,000 original manuscripts of the New Testament and portions of the New Testament. The earliest known manuscripts of the New Testament were written 25 years, and 85 years after the last documented event. Most scholars and historians agree that the closer to the time of the original event, the more accurate a writing is likely to be of portraying that event.