Monday, April 6, 2009

Was Jesus Born or Conceived on April 6th?

April Sixth and the Conception of Jesus - Kevin Barney (By Common Consent)
Posted by at

4 comments:

Kevin Barney said...

Thanks for the timely blast from the past.

April 6, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Johnna said...

Nope, he wasn't.

April 6, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Papa D said...

You're welcome, Kevin.

Johnna, any ideas then - about either question?

April 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Mom M said...

The link in your blog about the date of Christ's birth brought to mind a statement made by Daniel H. Ludlow while we were on our Israel trip the summer of 1989.

At virtually every identified Biblical site there are two, sometimes three, churches in the area--Jewish, Catholic, Muslim--each claiming to be build over THE site. Would Abraham really have ignored a ram in the thicket and tried again at a different/near-proximity site? ("Oops, the Lord intervened, so let's go over there and try again . . ." Explain that one to Isaac's mother!)

There are a few Biblical events where a claim to a definite site really is THE site. For example to get from point A to point B, Christ would have walked across perpendicular line C/D. The other alternatives would have been to swim or walk around around the Sea of Galilee. The road from Bethany to Jerusalem alternatives would have been over or around the mountain.That does not imply that my footprint was embedded within His, only that I have walked where Jesus walked.

But does any of that matter? Dan emphasized that the key point is not WHERE it happened but that it DID happen.

Applying that principle to 6 April: Does it really make any difference whether Christ was born in March, April, or December? What that event means in my life is because it truly DID happen; precisely when it happened is irrelevant.

April 12, 2009 at 5:58 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)