History shows that December 25 was popularized as the date for Christmas, not because Christ was born on that day, but because it was already popular in pagan religious celebrations as the sun’s birthday. But could December 25 be the date of Christ’s birth?
Early Christian teachers suggested dates all over the calendar. Clemen picked November 18. Hippolytus figured Christ must have been born on a Wednesday. An anonymous document believed to have been written in North Africa around A.D. 243 placed Jesus’s birth on March 28″ (Joseph L. Sheler, U.S. News & World Report, “In Search of Christmas,” December 23, 1996, p. 58).
However, a careful analysis of Scripture indicates that December 25 couldn’t be the date for Christ’s birth. Here are two primary reasons:
First, we know that shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke:2:7-8). Shepherds were not in the fields during December. According to The Complete Book of American Holidays, Luke’s account suggests that Jesus may have been born in summer or early fall. Since December is cold and rainy in Judea, shepherds would likely have sought shelter for their flocks at night” (p. 309).
Similarly, The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary says this passage argues “against the birth [of Christ] occurring on December 25 since the weather would not have permitted” shepherds watching over their flocks in the fields at night. Second, Jesus’ parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census (Luke:2:1-4). Such censuses are not taken in winter, when temperatures often dropped below freezing and roads were poor. Taking a census under such conditions would have been self-defeating.
If Jesus Christ wasn’t born on December 25, does the Bible indicate when He was born? The biblical accounts point to the fall of the year as the most likely time of Jesus’ birth, based on John the Baptist’s conception and birth.
Since Elizabeth (John’s mother) was in her sixth month of pregnancy when Jesus was conceived (Luke:1:24-36), we can determine the approximate time of year Jesus was born if we know when John was born. John’s father, Zacharias, was a priest serving in the Jerusalem temple during Abijah’s course (Luke:1:5). Historical calculations indicate this service course corresponded to June 13-19 in that year ( The Companion Bible, 1974, Appendix 179, p. 200).
During this time of temple service, Zacharias learned that he and his wife, Elizabeth, would have a child (Luke:1:8-13). After he completed his service and traveled home, Elizabeth conceived (Luke:1:23-24). Assuming John’s conception took place near the end of June, adding nine months brings us to the end of March as the most likely time for John’s birth. Adding another six months (the difference in ages between John and Jesus (Luke:1:35-36)) brings us to the end of September as the likely time of Jesus’ birth.
Although it is difficult to determine the first time anyone celebrated December 25 as Christmas Day. Historians agree that it was sometime during the fourth century. Christmas was not celebrated in Rome, the Roman Empire’s capital, until about 300 years after Christ’s death. Its origins cannot be traced back to either the teachings or practices of the earliest Christians.
13 Responses
The harms due to these tendencies are many. Things like ethical hacking may seem cool, but in general, destructive forces will never achieve for mankind, a miniscule of what pure creativity does. Getting broken glass replaced may not be a big deal, but the broken hearts and souls may never get their due. In the name of ethical destruction, or spreading civilizations, destructive creativity has already done substantial damage. Let us not idolise the destructive creativities. It takes years for a tree to grow, but our creative lots may take a few minutes to turn the clock back. There will be two alternative solutions, for example, for India-Pakistan conflict: diplomacy or a war. First is constructive and second is destructive. And hence, the biggest question in front of mankind is: how to ensure that creativity remains constructive and not destructive?
It is a matter of great alarm that the Union Home Ministry has not taken the draft national counter-terrorism doctrine seriously, and as a result has not even come close to implementing it. This draft doctrine was formulated in 2006 by the Intelligence Bureau in consultation with the police forces of some States and Central Police organisations. The Government’s lethargy in taking counter-terrorism seriously is inexplicable given the threat to national security that terrorism poses. The doctrine stresses the use of pre-emptive strikes and covert action to protect national security. It also puts forward compelling arguments in favour of using adequate force instead of minimum force to combat terrorist activities. More importantly, the doctrine stresses that the country should employ all means, including diplomatic, economic, administrative, legal and military, to counter terrorism. Such a policy has long been needed as in its absence the country has been seriously handicapped on the security front. This has allowed terrorists to get away with many outrages which could have been prevented. So far, especially so under the UPA regime, the country has followed a soft line against terrorism. This is in stark contrast to the hardline stand that countries like Israel maintain for which they have been better off. The United States took strong measures immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attack, as a result of which since then there hasn’t been a single terror strike on US soil. But despite several attacks over the last five years, the UPA Government has not deemed it fit to formulate a strong action plan against terror. This is totally unacceptable and goes to show the extent to which certain political parties are dictated to by vote-bank politics.
No one can deny that the provocations for a tough response to terror have been strong. From the attack on Parliament to the shocking fidayeen strike on Mumbai last year, scores of innocent men, women and children have fallen victim to terrorism. These attacks have also created a sense of insecurity among the people which also needs to be overturned and confidence restored. The soft policy of the Indian state has allowed terrorist cells to proliferate in the country and has enabled them to widen their ambit of operations by gathering funds, setting up training camps, and recruiting fresh foot-soldiers to their heinous cause. At the same time terrorist camps have flourished in India’s neighbourhood, both across the LoC and in Bangladesh. These camps should also have been dealt with an iron fist. It is therefore a must for the incoming Government to keep the national counter-terrorism doctrine high on the agenda when it comes to power.
A bizarre turn of events, Karasik & Associates, attorneys for Indian National Overseas Congress, a subsidiary of Indian National Congress, headed by Sonia Gandhi, in INOC v. Kataria, et al. served a Notice of Discontinuance in the above-named action to Justice Emly Jane Goodman of the Supreme Court of New York on September 29, 2008. The Notice of Discontinuance tantamount to an unconditional surrender by the Congress Party and could be construed as a victory of Dharmic forces. In actuality, the hearing in this case, originally, was scheduled to be held October 2, 2008. The prominent Law Firm of Kornstein, Veisz, Wexler & Pollard represented Narain Kataria, Arish Sahani and Indo Caribbean Council. The stipulation between the attorneys of the two parties was agreed to, signed and stamped in the Court on October 2, 2008. Prior to this last month a similar case filed by INOC in New Jersey Court against Sunanda Thali, Satyanarayana Dosapati, Naresh Sharma, and Mahatma Gandhi International Foundation, Inc., was summarily dismissed by the Judge who found that the Plaintiff had no locus standi in filing such a frivolous case. It is a matter of great happiness for all NRIs, particularly Hindus, that the famous adage from Vedic literature Satya Mev Jayate (Truth shall always prevail, once again, prevailed in New York and New Jersey Courts, on the Birthday of Mahatma Gandhi! In this connection, it should be noted that the INOC had filed these two lawsuits on the alleged grounds that Kataria, Sahani et al had defamed President of Indian National Congress, Sonia Gandhi, by bringing out a full page advertisements in The New York Times, dated October 6, 2007. Some extracts from that advertisement are as follows: “UN’s declaration of Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday on October 2nd as the International Non-Violence Day is commendable. However, instead of a true Gandhian delivering his message of peace and non-violence, Sonia Gandhi who is not a representative of Gandhian values is chosen. “Sonia Maino Gandhi is NOT related to Mahatma Gandhi. She is attempting to misappropriate his name for political mileage and international legitimacy. “Sonia is known to be vindictive and undemocratic. Her party uses various mechanisms, such as tax raids, direct threats to subjugate opposition. “Due to her party’s pro-terrorist policies, India has second highest number of terrorism victims after Iraq. Her Government is requesting clemency to Afzal Guru, the mastermind of attack on Indian Parliament. In pursuit of Muslim vote bank, she has created soft borders and turned a blind eye towards Islamic fundamentalism. “Her husband Rajiv Gandhi is alleged to have received payments from KGB. According to Schweizer, Illustrierte, Rajiv has a secret Swiss Bank account of 2 billion dollars. Her son Rahul projected as next Prime Minister of India, was detained by FBI with large unaccounted cash at Boston Airport in 2001. (Swiss magazine Schweizer, Illustrierte 11/1991, Indo Asian News Service). “Her party was involved in the UN Oil for Food Scam that helped Saddam Hussain. She was involved in numerous scams, scandals and controversies. Before entering India, she was an au-pair with modest means. Since then, she and her family members have amassed millions through questionable means. (Know Your Sonia by India First Foundation)
The purpose of these cases, it is believed, was to silence the voice of the critics of Sonia Gandhi through her surrogates, stifle the voice of freedom, make defendants financially bankrupt, frighten them into submission, and suppress the truth. It is also worthwhile to mention here that these two cases had generated an inquisitive interest in media, a sense of unity and brotherhood among Indian Diaspora, particularly Hindus and Sikhs, who had organized fund raisers and established Hindu Support Fund to defray attorneys’ fees and other related expenses to be incurred in these cases. It is a matter of great satisfaction and joy that the Right of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment of American Constitution has been upheld by the judges and the sinister designs of enemies of freedom of speech, actuated by the malicious desire to muzzle the voice of free speech, truth, and vilify the defendants, have been nipped in the bud. . `From the time Sonia entered India, she has looted the country on a large scale’. INOC have objected to this statement. Sonia Gandhi’s acts of Himalayan corruption have been graphically brought out by Dr. Subramanian Swamy in his website under the title `Know your Sonia’. If Dr. Swamy’s allegations were false, Sonia could have easily issued a legal notice regarding her defamation to Dr. Swamy in the same way in which INOC Inc. have issued to Narain Kataria and Arish Sahani. I propose to deal with this aspect in a detailed and documented manner with reference to the available information regarding several deeds and misdeeds of corruption of Sonia Gandhi and her family. The mass media in India — I mean the pseudo-secular mafia (not very different from Italian mafia!) of mass media in India _will black out all news relating to the political exposures of the known murky deeds of Sonia Gandhi by her political opponents. The daily tone for this type of prejudiced, lopsided and even criminal approach to news reporting and dissemination of information is set by our own surrogate Prime Minister who never loses an opportunity to extol Sonia Gandhi as `the tallest leader in our Country’.
The time tested and proven bulletproof armor of every ambitious Congressman lies in open flattery and sycophancy. Nothing in the Sonia Congress Party succeeds like excess _excess of servility laced with excessive flattery and sycophancy. That is the only acid test of your `official’ performance as a Cabinet Minister. This gets proved by the reported fact that one of the disgusting and crawling Cabinet Ministers in the UPA Government described Sonia Gandhi as `a rare combination of Jesus Christ, Gautama Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi’. In order to understand the political issue of super-corruption of Sonia Gandhi, it is very necessary to go into the issue of the known public fraud of the story of her citizenship from 1968 till April 29, 1983. Sonia married Rajiv Gandhi in 1968 but she retained her Italian citizenship till April 29, 1983, even though she could have applied for Indian citizenship in 1968 itself. Her continuance in India and her being part of Indira Gandhi’s household, as a foreign national from 1968 to April 29, 1983 was kept as a closely guarded political secret. The pseudo-secular mafia of mass media extended its full cooperation to this subterranean, nationally subversive plot from 1968 to April 29, 1983. It was `The Pioneer’ newspaper in Delhi, which put an end to the prevailing confusion regarding the shady citizenship status of Sonia Gandhi in May 1999 when it published details about the grant of Indian citizenship to her. After living in India as a foreign national (owing no allegiance whatsoever to the Indian State or the Indian Constitution) she applied for Indian citizenship on April 7, 1983 —15 years after her marriage to Rajiv Gandhi. She was granted Indian citizenship on April 30, 1983. Thus Sonia Gandhi proved that the Indian Citizenship Act is vulnerable and that she is invulnerable! To quote the brilliant words of A. Surya Prakash, Editor of a landmark book titled `Sonia under Scrutiny, Issue of Foreign Origin’: `Once it was public knowledge that she preferred to retain Italian citizenship for long years after her marriage, even though she was the daughter-in-law of India’s Prime Minister and lived in the Official residence of the Prime Minister, she began indulging in a bit of obfuscation. She has been saying that she accepted Indian citizenship the day she became Indira Gandhi’s bahu and that applying for citizenship was a `mere technicality’. All Italy-bound Indians must test Sonia’s theory of citizenship at the touchstone of Italian immigration! It is difficult to find another naturalized citizen who indulges in such dishonesty, but then let us not forget, that is `the stuff’ she is made of’. Thus Sonia clung to her Italian citizenship for 15 years after her marriage but strangely enough, she was able to get voting rights in India long before April 30, 1983! Just as she created a world record relating to her Cambridge University Qualifications, she also created a record by smuggling herself into the voters’ list in New Delhi in January 1980, using the high authority of the Prime Ministers’ [Indira Gandhi’s] household which ran the office of the Prime Minister and indeed the whole of government of India those days! The name of Sanjay Gandhi, who died in a plane crash in June 1980, was deleted from the voters’ list when the Electoral Rolls were revised in 1981, but Sonia Gandhi’s name remained at No.388 in Polling Station 145 of New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency. The point to be noted is that, Sonia was an Italian citizen and not an Indian Citizen. K.L.Sethi, the then Election Officer in Delhi, deleted her name, only after the eruption of a controversy in 1982. The fraudulent entry of Sonia at that time would have gone unnoticed but for Surya India, a news magazine edited by her estranged sister-in-law Menaka Gandhi, who raked up the issue. Her magazine did a cover story on Sonia Gandhi in October 1982, and asked how a citizen of Italy could be a voter in India. An official in Delhi’s Chief Electoral Office had told the `Surya India’ magazine at that time that it was a blatant violation of the Electoral Rules, but had pleaded his helplessness. That magazine also quoted him saying, `It is not for us to check whether applicant’s are bona fide citizens of this country. We expect only genuine citizens to enroll themselves. Besides, who can expect an official to question the veracity of statements made by a responsible member of the Prime Minister’s family when they go to crosscheck the Voters’ List?’ Even after this public exposure of electoral fraud, Sonia Gandhi re-entered the Voters’ List following a fresh revision in 1983. She was listed at Serial No.236 in Polling Station 140 of the New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency. It has been reported that she had not become an Indian citizen even at that time. She applied for Indian Citizenship on April 7, 1983 and was granted the same on April 30, 1983 _in a matter of 23 days. Thus her re-entry into the Electoral Rolls of 1983 was also dubious because the qualifying date for entry into the Electoral Rolls was January 1 of 1983 and on that day Sonia Gandhi was a citizen of Italy. Sonia Gandhi has therefore shown little respect for Indian Laws during her stay in India as a foreign national from 1968 and this gives us a sublime (as distinct from the `Staleness Doctrine’ of the Supreme Court of India!) glimpse of `the stuff’ she his made of. According to the Representation of People Act, only Indian Citizens can be voters (unless she happens to be a Sonia!). Even according to our Supreme Court, perhaps, this type of rule of law (totally stale!) is just not applicable to Sonia Gandhi and her family who are accorded a `sublime’ status above the Law of the Constitution. In a classic article has completely brought to the public view the lurid story relating to the Himalayan folly, fraud, force and farce of Sonia’s corruption. Courtesy by – Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad,Ex. Vice President, Advocate’s Association, Chamber No. 139,High Court, Trained Mediator of the first batch of Mediation Team, Registration No. 946 of 1974 ( U.P.Bar Council of Allahabad),Special Counsel in Ganga Pollution Matter. Executive Member, World Parliament Experiment (Bonn) Germany 22nd Feb. 7th March 2008, Yoga superior studies &meditation science technique, 4215 NW 7 Street, #34, Miami, FL33126 , International conferences of Chief Justices of the World , (Co Coordinators and Co- Organizers) at City Montessori School, Lucknow , yogrekha@gmail.com, yogrekha@rediffmail.com, 0532-2637720, 2436451, 9415284843, 9792131584,
Hello, I enjoy reading all of your article post.
I like to write a little comment to support you.
Hi i am kavin, its my first occasion to commenting anywhere, when i read this article i thought
i could also make comment due to this sensible piece of writing.
It’s nearly impossible to find well-informed people in this particular subject,
however, you sound like you know what you’re talking about!
Thanks
Have you ever thought about including a little bit more than just your
articles? I mean, what you say is important and all.
Nevertheless imagine if you added some great visuals or video clips to give
Your content is excellent.
Superb blog!
Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your webblog and wished to say that I’ve truly enjoyed browsing
your blog posts. I hope you write again very soon!
Excellent way of telling, and nice paragraph to take information regarding my presentation topic, which i am going to present
in university.
Everything is very open with a really clear description of
the issues. It was definitely informative. Your site is useful.
Many thanks for sharing!
Appreciate this website.