Wednesday 31 December 2008
Robert Fisk: Leaders lie, civilians die, and lessons of history are ignored
taken from -- http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-leaders-lie-civilians-die-and-lessons-of-history-are-ignored-1215045.html
We've got so used to the carnage of the Middle East that we don't care any more – providing we don't offend the Israelis. It's not clear how many of the Gaza dead are civilians, but the response of the Bush administration, not to mention the pusillanimous reaction of Gordon Brown, reaffirm for Arabs what they have known for decades: however they struggle against their antagonists, the West will take Israel's side. As usual, the bloodbath was the fault of the Arabs – who, as we all know, only understand force.
Ever since 1948, we've been hearing this balderdash from the Israelis – just as Arab nationalists and then Arab Islamists have been peddling their own lies: that the Zionist "death wagon" will be overthrown, that all Jerusalem will be "liberated". And always Mr Bush Snr or Mr Clinton or Mr Bush Jnr or Mr Blair or Mr Brown have called upon both sides to exercise "restraint" – as if the Palestinians and the Israelis both have F-18s and Merkava tanks and field artillery. Hamas's home-made rockets have killed just 20 Israelis in eight years, but a day-long blitz by Israeli aircraft that kills almost 300 Palestinians is just par for the course.
The blood-splattering has its own routine. Yes, Hamas provoked Israel's anger, just as Israel provoked Hamas's anger, which was provoked by Israel, which was provoked by Hamas, which ... See what I mean? Hamas fires rockets at Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, Hamas fires more rockets and Israel bombs again and ... Got it? And we demand security for Israel – rightly – but overlook this massive and utterly disproportionate slaughter by Israel. It was Madeleine Albright who once said that Israel was "under siege" – as if Palestinian tanks were in the streets of Tel Aviv.
By last night, the exchange rate stood at 296 Palestinians dead for one dead Israeli. Back in 2006, it was 10 Lebanese dead for one Israeli dead. This weekend was the most inflationary exchange rate in a single day since – the 1973 Middle East War? The 1967 Six Day War? The 1956 Suez War? The 1948 Independence/Nakba War? It's obscene, a gruesome game – which Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, unconsciously admitted when he spoke this weekend to Fox TV. "Our intention is to totally change the rules of the game," Barak said.
Exactly. Only the "rules" of the game don't change. This is a further slippage on the Arab-Israeli exchanges, a percentage slide more awesome than Wall Street's crashing shares, though of not much interest in the US which – let us remember – made the F-18s and the Hellfire missiles which the Bush administration pleads with Israel to use sparingly.
Quite a lot of the dead this weekend appear to have been Hamas members, but what is it supposed to solve? Is Hamas going to say: "Wow, this blitz is awesome – we'd better recognise the state of Israel, fall in line with the Palestinian Authority, lay down our weapons and pray we are taken prisoner and locked up indefinitely and support a new American 'peace process' in the Middle East!" Is that what the Israelis and the Americans and Gordon Brown think Hamas is going to do?
Yes, let's remember Hamas's cynicism, the cynicism of all armed Islamist groups. Their need for Muslim martyrs is as crucial to them as Israel's need to create them. The lesson Israel thinks it is teaching – come to heel or we will crush you – is not the lesson Hamas is learning. Hamas needs violence to emphasise the oppression of the Palestinians – and relies on Israel to provide it. A few rockets into Israel and Israel obliges.
Not a whimper from Tony Blair, the peace envoy to the Middle East who's never been to Gaza in his current incarnation. Not a bloody word.
We hear the usual Israeli line. General Yaakov Amidror, the former head of the Israeli army's "research and assessment division" announced that "no country in the world would allow its citizens to be made the target of rocket attacks without taking vigorous steps to defend them". Quite so. But when the IRA were firing mortars over the border into Northern Ireland, when their guerrillas were crossing from the Republic to attack police stations and Protestants, did Britain unleash the RAF on the Irish Republic? Did the RAF bomb churches and tankers and police stations and zap 300 civilians to teach the Irish a lesson? No, it did not. Because the world would have seen it as criminal behaviour. We didn't want to lower ourselves to the IRA's level.
Yes, Israel deserves security. But these bloodbaths will not bring it. Not since 1948 have air raids protected Israel. Israel has bombed Lebanon thousands of times since 1975 and not one has eliminated "terrorism". So what was the reaction last night? The Israelis threaten ground attacks. Hamas waits for another battle. Our Western politicians crouch in their funk holes. And somewhere to the east – in a cave? a basement? on a mountainside? – a well-known man in a turban smiles.
Pakistan, India on War Footing
-from http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5785.4154.0.0
December 30, 2008 From theTrumpet.comAs India and Pakistan maneuver toward war, the U.S. loses out.
Pakistan withdrew 20,000 troops from its Afghan border and redeployed them along the Indian border last week. As Pakistan focuses on the prospect of fighting India instead of fighting the Taliban, the United States is going to have more trouble in Afghanistan.
Following the Mumbai attacks on November 26, the people of India have pressured their government to respond. The government cannot afford to look weak against terror, and has reacted by deploying troops along the Pakistani border, threatening Pakistan with war if it does not crack down on the terrorist groups it harbors.
Pakistan has responded in kind, redeploying a large number of its own troops to the Indian border and canceling all troop leave.
Still, both countries are trying to calm the waters. The directors general for military operations from the two countries spoke to each other over the “hotline” on Sunday. Leaders of both sides have stressed a desire for peace, and most analysts now believe that war is unlikely—though in such a highly charged situation, a small spark could ignite a conflict.
But even without war, America is one of the biggest losers here. The 20,000 troops Pakistan has redeployed away from its Afghan border represent one fifth of all the forces it has dedicated to fighting the Taliban in the northwest of the country.
“This is a serious blow to the war on terror in the sense that the whole focus is now shifting toward the eastern border,” said former Pakistani general and military analyst Talat Masood. “It will give more leeway to the militants and increased space to operate.”
At the moment, Pakistan is refusing to cooperate with India in cracking down on militants. If Islamabad continues its defiance, analysts say the most likely outcome is a “no war, no peace” situation. Under this scenario, the two sides will use non-state proxies to destabilize each other. This would be similar to the situation before 2002, leading to periodic crises between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.
This scenario would be very bad for the U.S. In addition to having to invest political and real capital in calming down the region, Washington would be faced with a major defeat in the war on terror. Instead of fighting Islamist terrorists, Pakistan would fund them—using the terrorists to fight India.
Islamist militants are already operating in Pakistan and causing major problems for the U.S. The Taliban uses Pakistan as its base for launching attacks into Afghanistan. Insurgents are attacking U.S. supply lines that run through Pakistan to Afghanistan. In one week this month, terrorists set fire to 300 trucks carrying supplies and military vehicles.
If Pakistan does not deal decisively with the militants, or worse, builds them up, life will get very difficult for the U.S. in Afghanistan. And the U.S. has a history of failing to finish difficult wars.
The situation between India and Pakistan is yet another setback for the United States. For more about America’s war in Afghanistan, read “Afghanistan: Back to Where We Started.”
December 30, 2008 From theTrumpet.comAs India and Pakistan maneuver toward war, the U.S. loses out.
Pakistan withdrew 20,000 troops from its Afghan border and redeployed them along the Indian border last week. As Pakistan focuses on the prospect of fighting India instead of fighting the Taliban, the United States is going to have more trouble in Afghanistan.
Following the Mumbai attacks on November 26, the people of India have pressured their government to respond. The government cannot afford to look weak against terror, and has reacted by deploying troops along the Pakistani border, threatening Pakistan with war if it does not crack down on the terrorist groups it harbors.
Pakistan has responded in kind, redeploying a large number of its own troops to the Indian border and canceling all troop leave.
Still, both countries are trying to calm the waters. The directors general for military operations from the two countries spoke to each other over the “hotline” on Sunday. Leaders of both sides have stressed a desire for peace, and most analysts now believe that war is unlikely—though in such a highly charged situation, a small spark could ignite a conflict.
But even without war, America is one of the biggest losers here. The 20,000 troops Pakistan has redeployed away from its Afghan border represent one fifth of all the forces it has dedicated to fighting the Taliban in the northwest of the country.
“This is a serious blow to the war on terror in the sense that the whole focus is now shifting toward the eastern border,” said former Pakistani general and military analyst Talat Masood. “It will give more leeway to the militants and increased space to operate.”
At the moment, Pakistan is refusing to cooperate with India in cracking down on militants. If Islamabad continues its defiance, analysts say the most likely outcome is a “no war, no peace” situation. Under this scenario, the two sides will use non-state proxies to destabilize each other. This would be similar to the situation before 2002, leading to periodic crises between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.
This scenario would be very bad for the U.S. In addition to having to invest political and real capital in calming down the region, Washington would be faced with a major defeat in the war on terror. Instead of fighting Islamist terrorists, Pakistan would fund them—using the terrorists to fight India.
Islamist militants are already operating in Pakistan and causing major problems for the U.S. The Taliban uses Pakistan as its base for launching attacks into Afghanistan. Insurgents are attacking U.S. supply lines that run through Pakistan to Afghanistan. In one week this month, terrorists set fire to 300 trucks carrying supplies and military vehicles.
If Pakistan does not deal decisively with the militants, or worse, builds them up, life will get very difficult for the U.S. in Afghanistan. And the U.S. has a history of failing to finish difficult wars.
The situation between India and Pakistan is yet another setback for the United States. For more about America’s war in Afghanistan, read “Afghanistan: Back to Where We Started.”
The U.S.-Israeli Collision Course Is Near
December 26, 2008 From theTrumpet.comThe upcoming changes of leadership in both the U.S. and Israel will likely drive these nations further apart.
Now that America has lurched to the left by electing a president with the most “openly radical” background of “any significant American political figure,” which is how Rolling Stone described Barack Obama in 2007, the little nation of Israel appears to be placing its faith in a future prime minister coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum—the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu.
Numerous commentators have already weighed in on the likelihood of an oncoming U.S.-Israeli collision with respect to foreign policy. “Persuading Netanyahu to follow a new American president’s fresh leadership in the Middle East will not be easy if for no other reason than that Jerusalem and Washington’s interests simply do not run on parallel tracks,” wrote the Christian Science Monitor last week. Columnist Barry Rubin says that a Netanyahu administration in Israel would certainly make for potential “friction between him and Obama.” Dick Morris and Eileen McGann add that if Netanyahu wins, “he will bring with him a determination to stop Iranian nuclear weapons no matter what and a refusal to concede more territory in the name of the peace process. But Obama will be focusing on pushing Israel in just the opposite direction” (emphasis mine throughout).
What, then, is the significance of these two starkly divergent paths? There are at least three prophecies, in particular, whose fulfillment we need to watch closely:
1) Hosea 5:13: “When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah [modern Israel] saw his wound, then went Ephraim to the Assyrian, and sent to king Jareb: yet could he not heal you, nor cure you of your wound.” That wound, as theTrumpet.com has so often explained, is the misnomered “peace” process.
Since kicking off its land-for-peace strategy in Oslo in 1993, Israel has pulled out of Southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, only to be replaced by Iran’s most lethal proxies—Hezbollah and Hamas, both sworn enemies of Israel’s right to exist. At least 1,500 Israeli citizens have been murdered by terrorists during the Oslo process. And with Hezbollah and Hamas furiously amassing a much deadlier arsenal, the body count will inevitably rise.
Yet, despite these realities on the ground, as Caroline Glick recently noted, “President-elect Barack Obama will move quickly to place massive pressure on the next Israeli government to withdraw from Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the interests of advancing a ‘peace process’ with the Palestinians and the Syrians.” In another column, Glick wrote,
By pressuring Israel to cede land to Syria and the Palestinians, Obama’s apparent foreign policy will provide Iran with still more territory from which to attack Israel both through its terror proxies and with its expanding ballistic missile arsenal.
It’s an incurable wound that will soon result in Israel’s desperate turn to the German-led European Union for help—a move that will trigger the beginning of the Great Tribulation (Matthew 24:21-22).
But before that, half of Jerusalem will be taken by force.
2) Zechariah 14:2: “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.”
According to this prophecy, a Hamas-dominated Palestinian insurgence, backed by Iran, will take half of Jerusalem by force shortly before the Messiah sets foot on the Mount of Olives (verse 4). This makes the U.S.-Israeli collision course especially significant because while President-elect Obama will pressure Israel to give away what little land it has left, a growing consensus of Israelis are losing faith in the land-for-peace strategy.
After nearly 15 years of retreat and appeasement, Israel appears to be ready to finally draw a clear line in the sand. Earlier this week, Benjamin Netanyahu said he would stop absorbing the repeated blows from Hamas and instead go on the offensive to topple the terror group’s leadership. The popularity of his hard-line stance in Israel is even forcing his more dovish opponent, Tzipi Livni, to campaign on a stronger position against Hamas. You can feel it building toward a clash.
This prophesied conflict over Jerusalem is why, for three years now, we have been preparing our readers for a more hawkish rightward swing in Israeli politics. As my father stated in March 2006,
[B]ased on the conflict Zechariah describes between the Palestinians and the Israeli government … Benjamin Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party could bounce back and win the Israeli elections ….
From a prophetic standpoint, the stage is being set perfectly for a violent clash over Jerusalem. (For much more about this prophesied clash, study our booklet Jerusalem in Prophecy.) But before that, we will first witness the sad demise of a long-standing alliance that is rooted in the very first book of the Old Testament—the broken brotherhood of the United States and Israel.
3) Zechariah 11:14: “Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.”
Because of this prophecy, we have been repeatedly preparing our readers for an eventual split in the U.S.-Israeli relationship. We wrote about it here in 2004 and here in 2005. Last year, even though President Bush has been widely regarded as a staunch supporter of Israel, we warned about the “dangerous erosion of U.S. support for Israel.”
With many of Barack Obama’s advisers now advocating for U.S. abandonment of Israel, and with the anticipated rightward swing in Israel’s upcoming election, what little carryover is left to the U.S.-Israeli alliance is about to disappear.
Back in July, on the heels of Barack Obama’s much ballyhooed visit to Israel, Caroline Glick told National Review that while Obama would simply roll over a left-leaning Israeli government,
if a Likud-led government is installed during his tenure and tries to extricate Israel from the failed “land-for-peace” policy paradigm while gearing up to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, he will treat the government with hostility and strengthen the position of Israel’s enemies in his administration.
This is now happening! Even as the new U.S. administration pressures Israel into land giveaways, a majority of Israelis want badly to abandon the failed land-for-peace policy. It’s building to the inevitable end of what Winston Churchill called the “special relationship” between two historic brothers.
Once Israel’s enemies realize they have extracted all the land they can get through negotiation, the next prophesied step is for them to ramp up demands by violence—resulting in the division of Jerusalem.
Abandoned by its American ally, Israel will then turn to Germany for protection.
All of this is prophesied—and all of it is happening. To learn more about the prophesied events that soon impact every life on Earth, study The United States and Britain in Prophecy. •
Now that America has lurched to the left by electing a president with the most “openly radical” background of “any significant American political figure,” which is how Rolling Stone described Barack Obama in 2007, the little nation of Israel appears to be placing its faith in a future prime minister coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum—the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu.
Numerous commentators have already weighed in on the likelihood of an oncoming U.S.-Israeli collision with respect to foreign policy. “Persuading Netanyahu to follow a new American president’s fresh leadership in the Middle East will not be easy if for no other reason than that Jerusalem and Washington’s interests simply do not run on parallel tracks,” wrote the Christian Science Monitor last week. Columnist Barry Rubin says that a Netanyahu administration in Israel would certainly make for potential “friction between him and Obama.” Dick Morris and Eileen McGann add that if Netanyahu wins, “he will bring with him a determination to stop Iranian nuclear weapons no matter what and a refusal to concede more territory in the name of the peace process. But Obama will be focusing on pushing Israel in just the opposite direction” (emphasis mine throughout).
What, then, is the significance of these two starkly divergent paths? There are at least three prophecies, in particular, whose fulfillment we need to watch closely:
1) Hosea 5:13: “When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah [modern Israel] saw his wound, then went Ephraim to the Assyrian, and sent to king Jareb: yet could he not heal you, nor cure you of your wound.” That wound, as theTrumpet.com has so often explained, is the misnomered “peace” process.
Since kicking off its land-for-peace strategy in Oslo in 1993, Israel has pulled out of Southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, only to be replaced by Iran’s most lethal proxies—Hezbollah and Hamas, both sworn enemies of Israel’s right to exist. At least 1,500 Israeli citizens have been murdered by terrorists during the Oslo process. And with Hezbollah and Hamas furiously amassing a much deadlier arsenal, the body count will inevitably rise.
Yet, despite these realities on the ground, as Caroline Glick recently noted, “President-elect Barack Obama will move quickly to place massive pressure on the next Israeli government to withdraw from Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the interests of advancing a ‘peace process’ with the Palestinians and the Syrians.” In another column, Glick wrote,
By pressuring Israel to cede land to Syria and the Palestinians, Obama’s apparent foreign policy will provide Iran with still more territory from which to attack Israel both through its terror proxies and with its expanding ballistic missile arsenal.
It’s an incurable wound that will soon result in Israel’s desperate turn to the German-led European Union for help—a move that will trigger the beginning of the Great Tribulation (Matthew 24:21-22).
But before that, half of Jerusalem will be taken by force.
2) Zechariah 14:2: “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.”
According to this prophecy, a Hamas-dominated Palestinian insurgence, backed by Iran, will take half of Jerusalem by force shortly before the Messiah sets foot on the Mount of Olives (verse 4). This makes the U.S.-Israeli collision course especially significant because while President-elect Obama will pressure Israel to give away what little land it has left, a growing consensus of Israelis are losing faith in the land-for-peace strategy.
After nearly 15 years of retreat and appeasement, Israel appears to be ready to finally draw a clear line in the sand. Earlier this week, Benjamin Netanyahu said he would stop absorbing the repeated blows from Hamas and instead go on the offensive to topple the terror group’s leadership. The popularity of his hard-line stance in Israel is even forcing his more dovish opponent, Tzipi Livni, to campaign on a stronger position against Hamas. You can feel it building toward a clash.
This prophesied conflict over Jerusalem is why, for three years now, we have been preparing our readers for a more hawkish rightward swing in Israeli politics. As my father stated in March 2006,
[B]ased on the conflict Zechariah describes between the Palestinians and the Israeli government … Benjamin Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party could bounce back and win the Israeli elections ….
From a prophetic standpoint, the stage is being set perfectly for a violent clash over Jerusalem. (For much more about this prophesied clash, study our booklet Jerusalem in Prophecy.) But before that, we will first witness the sad demise of a long-standing alliance that is rooted in the very first book of the Old Testament—the broken brotherhood of the United States and Israel.
3) Zechariah 11:14: “Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.”
Because of this prophecy, we have been repeatedly preparing our readers for an eventual split in the U.S.-Israeli relationship. We wrote about it here in 2004 and here in 2005. Last year, even though President Bush has been widely regarded as a staunch supporter of Israel, we warned about the “dangerous erosion of U.S. support for Israel.”
With many of Barack Obama’s advisers now advocating for U.S. abandonment of Israel, and with the anticipated rightward swing in Israel’s upcoming election, what little carryover is left to the U.S.-Israeli alliance is about to disappear.
Back in July, on the heels of Barack Obama’s much ballyhooed visit to Israel, Caroline Glick told National Review that while Obama would simply roll over a left-leaning Israeli government,
if a Likud-led government is installed during his tenure and tries to extricate Israel from the failed “land-for-peace” policy paradigm while gearing up to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, he will treat the government with hostility and strengthen the position of Israel’s enemies in his administration.
This is now happening! Even as the new U.S. administration pressures Israel into land giveaways, a majority of Israelis want badly to abandon the failed land-for-peace policy. It’s building to the inevitable end of what Winston Churchill called the “special relationship” between two historic brothers.
Once Israel’s enemies realize they have extracted all the land they can get through negotiation, the next prophesied step is for them to ramp up demands by violence—resulting in the division of Jerusalem.
Abandoned by its American ally, Israel will then turn to Germany for protection.
All of this is prophesied—and all of it is happening. To learn more about the prophesied events that soon impact every life on Earth, study The United States and Britain in Prophecy. •
When Was Jesus Christ Born? - 4
When Was Christ Born? --
taken from http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4567.3965.0.0
December 19, 2008 From theTrumpet.comIf Jesus was born December 25, does this not give Christians a convenient time to celebrate the Messiah’s birth? By Wayne Turgeon
We are a few days away from the biggest holiday of the so-called “Christian” year—Christmas. This event is of indisputably pagan origin. This website has previously discussed why true Christians do not observe this proposed date of Christ’s birth (December 25). (See our article, “Why Christmas Is So Important to God.”)
This date, however, is traditionally used by both ancient and modern Gentiles to worship the “birth” of their sun god. Here is proof that Jesus Christ was definitely not born on December 25, but instead, sometime in the autumn.
There is much evidence available on this subject; but after the dust of studious research has cleared, the exact date of Christ’s birth still does not appear. One is left with the impression that God does not want people to celebrate such an occasion!
A strong case for thinking that the season of Christ’s birth most likely was autumn appears in Luke 2:8. Here we see that the sheep were still out in the fields at night. Some scholars argue that this refers to temple sheep, but that is not what this scripture states. Historically, winters were more severe in the land of Palestine than they are today, with frequent heavy snowfall not uncommon. Flocks were traditionally kept in various forms of shelters from about mid-October to mid-March.
For the benefit of a reading audience that may not have access to many references, allow us to quote portions of the note on this verse appearing in Clarke’s Commentary: “It was a custom among the Jews to send out their sheep to the deserts, about the passover, and bring them home at the commencement of the first rain: during the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As the passover occurred in the spring, and the first rain began early in the month of Marchesvan, which answers to part of our October and November, we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole of the summer. And as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks would be out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up. The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact, which casts considerable light upon this disputed point …. The time in which Christ was born has been considered a subject of great importance among Christians. However, the matter has been considered of no moment by Him who inspired the evangelists; as not one hint is dropped on the subject, by which it might be possible even to guess nearly to the time, except the chronological fact mentioned above.”
Another piece to the puzzle is the fact that John the Baptist was six months older than his cousin Jesus (see Luke 1:26-27, 36). Biblical evidence tells us that John was conceived about mid-June and was therefore born in late March. Why? Because John’s father, Zacharias, was serving in the temple during the priestly course of Abia, or as it is referred to in the Old Testament, Abijah (1 Chronicles 24:10), when the angel appeared to him to bring him the great news of his son’s arrival (Luke 1:5). (A study of and by itself: Remember when sequencing these courses that the priests would serve a common course with the other priests in addition to their own during the holy day seasons.) Add six months to this time and Jesus’s birth must have occurred in mid-September, or at least sometime in early autumn.
Further support for this assertion is that Jerusalem and the surrounding towns were very crowded with visitors at the time that Jesus was born—His parents had to take refuge in a stable for there was no room at the inn. Scholars who do not know about (or believe in) God’s master plan as portrayed by His annual holy days, attribute this mass gathering solely for the purpose of collecting taxes after the fall harvest. What they are missing is that many people filled Jerusalem at the time of the fall holy day season. These autumn festivals took place in the seventh month of the sacred year (Leviticus 23), corresponding to our September-October. Luke 2:41 and John 7:1-10 show that it was the custom for Jesus’s parents to travel from Nazareth to Jerusalem for this sacred gathering.
These are just a few of the convincing proofs that Jesus was born sometime in the early autumn, not in the dead of winter when the pagans observed, and still celebrate, the birth of Nimrod.
taken from http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4567.3965.0.0
December 19, 2008 From theTrumpet.comIf Jesus was born December 25, does this not give Christians a convenient time to celebrate the Messiah’s birth? By Wayne Turgeon
We are a few days away from the biggest holiday of the so-called “Christian” year—Christmas. This event is of indisputably pagan origin. This website has previously discussed why true Christians do not observe this proposed date of Christ’s birth (December 25). (See our article, “Why Christmas Is So Important to God.”)
This date, however, is traditionally used by both ancient and modern Gentiles to worship the “birth” of their sun god. Here is proof that Jesus Christ was definitely not born on December 25, but instead, sometime in the autumn.
There is much evidence available on this subject; but after the dust of studious research has cleared, the exact date of Christ’s birth still does not appear. One is left with the impression that God does not want people to celebrate such an occasion!
A strong case for thinking that the season of Christ’s birth most likely was autumn appears in Luke 2:8. Here we see that the sheep were still out in the fields at night. Some scholars argue that this refers to temple sheep, but that is not what this scripture states. Historically, winters were more severe in the land of Palestine than they are today, with frequent heavy snowfall not uncommon. Flocks were traditionally kept in various forms of shelters from about mid-October to mid-March.
For the benefit of a reading audience that may not have access to many references, allow us to quote portions of the note on this verse appearing in Clarke’s Commentary: “It was a custom among the Jews to send out their sheep to the deserts, about the passover, and bring them home at the commencement of the first rain: during the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As the passover occurred in the spring, and the first rain began early in the month of Marchesvan, which answers to part of our October and November, we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole of the summer. And as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks would be out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up. The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact, which casts considerable light upon this disputed point …. The time in which Christ was born has been considered a subject of great importance among Christians. However, the matter has been considered of no moment by Him who inspired the evangelists; as not one hint is dropped on the subject, by which it might be possible even to guess nearly to the time, except the chronological fact mentioned above.”
Another piece to the puzzle is the fact that John the Baptist was six months older than his cousin Jesus (see Luke 1:26-27, 36). Biblical evidence tells us that John was conceived about mid-June and was therefore born in late March. Why? Because John’s father, Zacharias, was serving in the temple during the priestly course of Abia, or as it is referred to in the Old Testament, Abijah (1 Chronicles 24:10), when the angel appeared to him to bring him the great news of his son’s arrival (Luke 1:5). (A study of and by itself: Remember when sequencing these courses that the priests would serve a common course with the other priests in addition to their own during the holy day seasons.) Add six months to this time and Jesus’s birth must have occurred in mid-September, or at least sometime in early autumn.
Further support for this assertion is that Jerusalem and the surrounding towns were very crowded with visitors at the time that Jesus was born—His parents had to take refuge in a stable for there was no room at the inn. Scholars who do not know about (or believe in) God’s master plan as portrayed by His annual holy days, attribute this mass gathering solely for the purpose of collecting taxes after the fall harvest. What they are missing is that many people filled Jerusalem at the time of the fall holy day season. These autumn festivals took place in the seventh month of the sacred year (Leviticus 23), corresponding to our September-October. Luke 2:41 and John 7:1-10 show that it was the custom for Jesus’s parents to travel from Nazareth to Jerusalem for this sacred gathering.
These are just a few of the convincing proofs that Jesus was born sometime in the early autumn, not in the dead of winter when the pagans observed, and still celebrate, the birth of Nimrod.
When Was Jesus Christ Born? - 3
CHRIST’S BIRTH
When Was Christ Born?
In the recent holiday season many Christians have been merrily, joyously, and some perhaps even seriously, solemnly, and reverently, celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. However, one wonders how many gave any significant thought to the issue of when was Christ born. If they had they would quickly have discovered that despite all thy mythology and legend that surrounds this holiday season, we really do not know when Christ was born. We know neither the year, nor the month, nor the day. For that matter we don’t know the time of day either. God in his wisdom has chosen not to reveal to us anything concerning the exact date of this momentous event so long foretold by the prophets and awaited by the faithful. That should teach us something about the wisdom of even having such a holiday season when God in his wisdom has denied us the information that is absolutely necessary as a foundation for it. The purpose of this article is not to develop that thought, but to establish what the Scriptures do teach about the timing of Christ’s birth, about the date of the incarnation.
Let us begin by examining the sacred record of Christ’s birth as recorded in the Scriptures. While the Scriptures give us no definitive dates, there are a number of clues that point as to the time of year that Christ must have been born. Luke’s account of the nativity of our Lord is the most detailed and almost all these clues are found in his gospel. We will develop a number of these clues and see where they lead us…
1. The Birth of John the Baptist: We are told by Luke (1:36) that John the Baptist was born six months earlier than Christ. If we can determine the date of John’s birth it will give us an approximate date for our Savior’s birth. John’s birth was also miraculous and Luke again is the one who gives us a detailed account of it. John’s father was Zacharias and the key points that Luke makes are that he was officiating in the Temple when the prophecy came to him of the birth of his son, the future John the Baptist, and that he was of the course of Abijah. This gives us the time of year that he was officiating in the temple. From the time that his course was completed and he returned home until his wife conceived would in fulfillment of the angel’s prophecy and according to "the manner of women" would have been within one month. Approximately nine months later John would have been born. And approximately six months later Christ would have been born. Computing all this out gives us a rough window in time within which the Lord Jesus Christ would have been born. And this likely period of time turns out to be from some time in mid to late September to mid to late October. Exact computation is not possible because the Hebrew calendar depended on the phases of the moon. The course of Abijah was the eighth course so Zacharias would have officiated the eighth week after the beginning of the New Year. The new year was in the Spring as the Passover was on the fifteenth of the first month. This places the conception of John approximately in June and the birth of Christ about 15 months later in September. (Note: Since there were only 24 courses they each served for a week twice a year so it is of course possible that that all this was exactly six months later in the year. However, as we shall see all the other clues point to the fall of the year and almost every commentator that has studied this and has rejected the traditional December 25th date has arrived at a date in the fall.)
2. The Shepherds of Bethlehem:Luke is also the one to inform us that the shepherds were still overnighting in the fields around Bethlehem. It was not the custom for shepherds to keep the flocks out in the fields in the dead of winter. It would be very cold in the Judean hills in December and the shepherds did not abide in the fields by night that late in the season. In fact late fall was the rainy season in Palestine and the shepherds brought the flocks in from the fields before the beginning of the heavy fall rains. The rainy season generally started sometime from mid to late October.
3: No Room at the Inn:Isaiah prophesied that the Servant of Jahweh would be despised and rejected of men. In that light much has been made of the fact that his birth was under extremely humble conditions and that there was no room for him in the inn. But why was there no room for him in the inn? There is no suggestion by Luke or any other of the inspired authors of the events of Christ birth that the circumstances of his birth was due to any specific rejection of the Christ child and his parents by the people of innkeepers of Bethlehem. We are simply told that the inn(s) were full. Bethlehem was filled with visitors and the local inns etc. were apparently overwhelmed beyond their capacity. There is no indication that Joseph was too poor to provide lodging for his family, simply that it wasn’t available. The question we need to ask is why was this so.
One answer that has come to mind to commentators is that it may have coincided with the annual Feast of Tabernacles. Bethlehem is only about five miles from Jerusalem and either overflow crowds of pilgrims from Jerusalem for the Feast or pilgrims traveling to and from Jerusalem in connection with the Feast may have filled the inns of Bethlehem. The Feast of Tabernacles is in the fall of the year after the harvest and before the rainy season. It starts on the fifteenth of Tishri which is five days after the Day of Atonement. The Hebrew ecclesiastical calendar was related to the phases of the moon and so its dates are somewhat flexible. Generally speaking though this feast would be held according to our calendar sometime in late September or October. This is only a speculation, but if it is so it confirms the other Biblical data about the general time of year of our Lord’s nativity. (Note: I’m not sure how modern Jewry computes these dates but last year the Day of Atonement fell on September 26th, and this year it falls on September 15th.)
4: Born in a Stable: We are of course not absolutely certain that Christ was indeed born in a stable, but it appears that that may have been the case. All we are told is that they could not find lodgings at the inn and that when the Christ child was born he was laid in a manger. A manger is a kind of feed trough or feed box for livestock in which feed, typically hay is placed for the animal’s consumption. It is hard to imagine, especially with mid-Eastern ideas about the sacredness of hospitality, that a man with a pregnant wife about to give birth would have been relegated to a freezing stable in the dead of winter at night. It is also difficult to imagine Mary putting the baby Jesus in a manger if the temperatures reflected the cold of a winter night in the Judean hills. She would surely have kept him in her bosom and warmed him with her body warmth. However, in late September or early October it could have been quite comfortable and been a reasonable expedient in light of the circumstances.
5: The Baptism of Christ:Christ public ministry started with his baptism by John. This seems to have been his consecration into his ministry. This is logical because according to the laws of Moses the Levites (and probably the priests also) began their ministry at age thirty, and Luke tells us that Jesus was about thirty years old when this occurred. Christ seems to have alluded to this when the scribes and Pharisees asked by what authority he did these things (i.e. his teaching and his cleansing of the temple, etc.). He responded with a question, "The baptism of John, was from heaven or from men?" The scribes and Pharisees refused to answer that question and Christ refused to answer their question. Jesus was not simply avoiding their question by asking one in return that they could not answer. The two questions were related. Christ’s authority, humanly speaking, came from his consecration into the ministry of the Jewish Church by John’s baptism. If John was a true prophet of God, the true herald of the Messiah sent by God, then his consecration of Christ and his testimony that Jesus was the Messiah validated Christ’s ministry as much as the signs and the wonders that he performed. Christ’s baptism was certainly not a baptism of repentance as he was the spotless, sinless Lamb of God. When John protested baptizing him, Jesus responded "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." Righteousness has to do with keeping the law of God and Christ’s baptism was therefore the lawful means by which he was inducted into his earthly ministry. Now all this reinforces the fact that all this must have occurred either on or very shortly after Christ’s 30th birthday.
Now if all this happened when Christ became thirty then he was baptized about the same time of year that he was born. Now for me at least it is hard to imagine the great crowds that the Scriptures record as incessantly flocking to John all coming in the dead of winter in the height of the rainy season. One does not need to be an immersionist to see the extreme unlikelihood of that (How Baptists can believe in a December date for our Lord’s birth is hard for me to imagine with the cold, the rain, and the Jordan raging in flood.).
6: The Death of our Lord:We all know that Christ as our Passover, as the Lamb of God, sacrificed himself on the cross at the very time of the Jewish Passover. We do not know the exact time of year that that occurred because it is again dependent on the phases of the moon. To determine that exactly we need to know the year of the crucifixion and that is as elusive as the year of his birth. In fact if we know the one we can compute the other because we know that he was thirty-three years old when he died. However, we do know that this is in the spring of the year, late March or April. If we can compute the length of Christ’s ministry and work backward to its start then we can calculate the approximate time of his birth.
A ministry of three and a half years is commonly attributed to Christ by a number of commentators. If this is correct than that would compute to birth in September or October.
7. A Time of Taxation:We pay taxes year round. We pay sales taxes whenever we purchase things, income taxes are taken from our pay checks on a weekly basis, and property taxes are generally paid quarterly. Things are different in an agricultural society. There is basically one pay day, harvest time. And that is also generally when taxes are paid. The Romans were wise administrators of their empire. They did their best to maintain peace in the Empire and not needlessly provoke the subject peoples and precipitate costly uprisings. Taxes were therefore generally collected at harvest time. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but people tend to protest the least when they are best able to pay them. In Palestine that would be at the time of the harvest in the early fall. To try to collect them months after the big annual harvest pay day and to compel people to travel far in the cold of winter and in the height of the rainy season to pay them would have maximized the discontent of any subject people. The Jews were always a difficult race to rule and The Romans were not so stupid as to needlessly provoke them with respect to these hated taxes. This tax-census was most likely in the fall of the year right after the harvest and before the onset of the rainy season.
Conclusion:Ultimately we will never really know exactly when our Lord was born. And that does not matter because we really do not need to know. If we needed to know God in his goodness and wisdom would have caused the inspired authors of the gospels to record that information. And if God had intended that his church celebrate the birth of his Son he most certainly would have both provided the necessary information and instructed us to do so. Jesus was the King of the Jews. The Jews did not celebrate their birthdays, not even the birthdays of their kings. The only birthdays recorded in the Bible are the birthdays of Pharaoh and of Herod, the Edomite. Both these recorded birthdays were celebrated with bloody cruelty, with Pharaoh’s baker being hung and John the Baptist being decapitated. The Bible does not give us much incentive to celebrate birthdays and no instructions or examples to celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ, The King of the Jews.
What the Bible does clearly teach is that Christ was born in the fall and not on December 25th. The latter date was the great pagan holy day of the ancient world. It was the birthday of the sun god, when at the winter solstice, the sun that had been in decline grew stronger again and regained new life. It was Baal’s birthday. It was Tammuz’ birthday. To the Romans it was the birthday of the invincible sun. God has given us just enough information for his purposes. He has not given us enough information to determine the exact date of Christ’s birth and thus be able to institute on mere human authority a celebration of his birth. He has also given us enough information to clearly demonstrate that Christ was not born at the time of the winter solstice and thus show us that participating in pagan traditions and resurrecting pagan festivals on the basis of a pretended birth of Christ at that time of year is totally without foundation or merit. God in his wisdom has given us the information that we need. May we have the wisdom to walk according to that knowledge and depart from evil.
When Was Christ Born?
In the recent holiday season many Christians have been merrily, joyously, and some perhaps even seriously, solemnly, and reverently, celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. However, one wonders how many gave any significant thought to the issue of when was Christ born. If they had they would quickly have discovered that despite all thy mythology and legend that surrounds this holiday season, we really do not know when Christ was born. We know neither the year, nor the month, nor the day. For that matter we don’t know the time of day either. God in his wisdom has chosen not to reveal to us anything concerning the exact date of this momentous event so long foretold by the prophets and awaited by the faithful. That should teach us something about the wisdom of even having such a holiday season when God in his wisdom has denied us the information that is absolutely necessary as a foundation for it. The purpose of this article is not to develop that thought, but to establish what the Scriptures do teach about the timing of Christ’s birth, about the date of the incarnation.
Let us begin by examining the sacred record of Christ’s birth as recorded in the Scriptures. While the Scriptures give us no definitive dates, there are a number of clues that point as to the time of year that Christ must have been born. Luke’s account of the nativity of our Lord is the most detailed and almost all these clues are found in his gospel. We will develop a number of these clues and see where they lead us…
1. The Birth of John the Baptist: We are told by Luke (1:36) that John the Baptist was born six months earlier than Christ. If we can determine the date of John’s birth it will give us an approximate date for our Savior’s birth. John’s birth was also miraculous and Luke again is the one who gives us a detailed account of it. John’s father was Zacharias and the key points that Luke makes are that he was officiating in the Temple when the prophecy came to him of the birth of his son, the future John the Baptist, and that he was of the course of Abijah. This gives us the time of year that he was officiating in the temple. From the time that his course was completed and he returned home until his wife conceived would in fulfillment of the angel’s prophecy and according to "the manner of women" would have been within one month. Approximately nine months later John would have been born. And approximately six months later Christ would have been born. Computing all this out gives us a rough window in time within which the Lord Jesus Christ would have been born. And this likely period of time turns out to be from some time in mid to late September to mid to late October. Exact computation is not possible because the Hebrew calendar depended on the phases of the moon. The course of Abijah was the eighth course so Zacharias would have officiated the eighth week after the beginning of the New Year. The new year was in the Spring as the Passover was on the fifteenth of the first month. This places the conception of John approximately in June and the birth of Christ about 15 months later in September. (Note: Since there were only 24 courses they each served for a week twice a year so it is of course possible that that all this was exactly six months later in the year. However, as we shall see all the other clues point to the fall of the year and almost every commentator that has studied this and has rejected the traditional December 25th date has arrived at a date in the fall.)
2. The Shepherds of Bethlehem:Luke is also the one to inform us that the shepherds were still overnighting in the fields around Bethlehem. It was not the custom for shepherds to keep the flocks out in the fields in the dead of winter. It would be very cold in the Judean hills in December and the shepherds did not abide in the fields by night that late in the season. In fact late fall was the rainy season in Palestine and the shepherds brought the flocks in from the fields before the beginning of the heavy fall rains. The rainy season generally started sometime from mid to late October.
3: No Room at the Inn:Isaiah prophesied that the Servant of Jahweh would be despised and rejected of men. In that light much has been made of the fact that his birth was under extremely humble conditions and that there was no room for him in the inn. But why was there no room for him in the inn? There is no suggestion by Luke or any other of the inspired authors of the events of Christ birth that the circumstances of his birth was due to any specific rejection of the Christ child and his parents by the people of innkeepers of Bethlehem. We are simply told that the inn(s) were full. Bethlehem was filled with visitors and the local inns etc. were apparently overwhelmed beyond their capacity. There is no indication that Joseph was too poor to provide lodging for his family, simply that it wasn’t available. The question we need to ask is why was this so.
One answer that has come to mind to commentators is that it may have coincided with the annual Feast of Tabernacles. Bethlehem is only about five miles from Jerusalem and either overflow crowds of pilgrims from Jerusalem for the Feast or pilgrims traveling to and from Jerusalem in connection with the Feast may have filled the inns of Bethlehem. The Feast of Tabernacles is in the fall of the year after the harvest and before the rainy season. It starts on the fifteenth of Tishri which is five days after the Day of Atonement. The Hebrew ecclesiastical calendar was related to the phases of the moon and so its dates are somewhat flexible. Generally speaking though this feast would be held according to our calendar sometime in late September or October. This is only a speculation, but if it is so it confirms the other Biblical data about the general time of year of our Lord’s nativity. (Note: I’m not sure how modern Jewry computes these dates but last year the Day of Atonement fell on September 26th, and this year it falls on September 15th.)
4: Born in a Stable: We are of course not absolutely certain that Christ was indeed born in a stable, but it appears that that may have been the case. All we are told is that they could not find lodgings at the inn and that when the Christ child was born he was laid in a manger. A manger is a kind of feed trough or feed box for livestock in which feed, typically hay is placed for the animal’s consumption. It is hard to imagine, especially with mid-Eastern ideas about the sacredness of hospitality, that a man with a pregnant wife about to give birth would have been relegated to a freezing stable in the dead of winter at night. It is also difficult to imagine Mary putting the baby Jesus in a manger if the temperatures reflected the cold of a winter night in the Judean hills. She would surely have kept him in her bosom and warmed him with her body warmth. However, in late September or early October it could have been quite comfortable and been a reasonable expedient in light of the circumstances.
5: The Baptism of Christ:Christ public ministry started with his baptism by John. This seems to have been his consecration into his ministry. This is logical because according to the laws of Moses the Levites (and probably the priests also) began their ministry at age thirty, and Luke tells us that Jesus was about thirty years old when this occurred. Christ seems to have alluded to this when the scribes and Pharisees asked by what authority he did these things (i.e. his teaching and his cleansing of the temple, etc.). He responded with a question, "The baptism of John, was from heaven or from men?" The scribes and Pharisees refused to answer that question and Christ refused to answer their question. Jesus was not simply avoiding their question by asking one in return that they could not answer. The two questions were related. Christ’s authority, humanly speaking, came from his consecration into the ministry of the Jewish Church by John’s baptism. If John was a true prophet of God, the true herald of the Messiah sent by God, then his consecration of Christ and his testimony that Jesus was the Messiah validated Christ’s ministry as much as the signs and the wonders that he performed. Christ’s baptism was certainly not a baptism of repentance as he was the spotless, sinless Lamb of God. When John protested baptizing him, Jesus responded "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." Righteousness has to do with keeping the law of God and Christ’s baptism was therefore the lawful means by which he was inducted into his earthly ministry. Now all this reinforces the fact that all this must have occurred either on or very shortly after Christ’s 30th birthday.
Now if all this happened when Christ became thirty then he was baptized about the same time of year that he was born. Now for me at least it is hard to imagine the great crowds that the Scriptures record as incessantly flocking to John all coming in the dead of winter in the height of the rainy season. One does not need to be an immersionist to see the extreme unlikelihood of that (How Baptists can believe in a December date for our Lord’s birth is hard for me to imagine with the cold, the rain, and the Jordan raging in flood.).
6: The Death of our Lord:We all know that Christ as our Passover, as the Lamb of God, sacrificed himself on the cross at the very time of the Jewish Passover. We do not know the exact time of year that that occurred because it is again dependent on the phases of the moon. To determine that exactly we need to know the year of the crucifixion and that is as elusive as the year of his birth. In fact if we know the one we can compute the other because we know that he was thirty-three years old when he died. However, we do know that this is in the spring of the year, late March or April. If we can compute the length of Christ’s ministry and work backward to its start then we can calculate the approximate time of his birth.
A ministry of three and a half years is commonly attributed to Christ by a number of commentators. If this is correct than that would compute to birth in September or October.
7. A Time of Taxation:We pay taxes year round. We pay sales taxes whenever we purchase things, income taxes are taken from our pay checks on a weekly basis, and property taxes are generally paid quarterly. Things are different in an agricultural society. There is basically one pay day, harvest time. And that is also generally when taxes are paid. The Romans were wise administrators of their empire. They did their best to maintain peace in the Empire and not needlessly provoke the subject peoples and precipitate costly uprisings. Taxes were therefore generally collected at harvest time. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but people tend to protest the least when they are best able to pay them. In Palestine that would be at the time of the harvest in the early fall. To try to collect them months after the big annual harvest pay day and to compel people to travel far in the cold of winter and in the height of the rainy season to pay them would have maximized the discontent of any subject people. The Jews were always a difficult race to rule and The Romans were not so stupid as to needlessly provoke them with respect to these hated taxes. This tax-census was most likely in the fall of the year right after the harvest and before the onset of the rainy season.
Conclusion:Ultimately we will never really know exactly when our Lord was born. And that does not matter because we really do not need to know. If we needed to know God in his goodness and wisdom would have caused the inspired authors of the gospels to record that information. And if God had intended that his church celebrate the birth of his Son he most certainly would have both provided the necessary information and instructed us to do so. Jesus was the King of the Jews. The Jews did not celebrate their birthdays, not even the birthdays of their kings. The only birthdays recorded in the Bible are the birthdays of Pharaoh and of Herod, the Edomite. Both these recorded birthdays were celebrated with bloody cruelty, with Pharaoh’s baker being hung and John the Baptist being decapitated. The Bible does not give us much incentive to celebrate birthdays and no instructions or examples to celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ, The King of the Jews.
What the Bible does clearly teach is that Christ was born in the fall and not on December 25th. The latter date was the great pagan holy day of the ancient world. It was the birthday of the sun god, when at the winter solstice, the sun that had been in decline grew stronger again and regained new life. It was Baal’s birthday. It was Tammuz’ birthday. To the Romans it was the birthday of the invincible sun. God has given us just enough information for his purposes. He has not given us enough information to determine the exact date of Christ’s birth and thus be able to institute on mere human authority a celebration of his birth. He has also given us enough information to clearly demonstrate that Christ was not born at the time of the winter solstice and thus show us that participating in pagan traditions and resurrecting pagan festivals on the basis of a pretended birth of Christ at that time of year is totally without foundation or merit. God in his wisdom has given us the information that we need. May we have the wisdom to walk according to that knowledge and depart from evil.
When Was Jesus Christ Born? - 2
A New Hypothesis Proposed
Recently some have proposed a new explanation to attempt to reconcile Luke's account of shepherds tending sheep in the fields with a December 25 birth of Jesus Christ. According to this theory, the shepherds were out at night in winter because they were caring for sheep destined for temple sacrifices: "Luke records that Jesus' birth was announced to shepherds in the fields. These may have been the shepherds who supplied the lambs for the temple sacrifices that were performed for the forgiveness of sin" (Life Application Bible, 1988, note on Luke 2:8).
What are the weaknesses of this hypothesis? First, Luke, who meticulously describes the events surrounding the birth of Jesus, mentions simply that the shepherds were out at night, as would be customary during the normal season from spring to fall. He carefully notes the two rulers of the time and the location, as well as the fact that the shepherds were tending their sheep in the fields at night.
If this had been winter, surely Luke, being the painstakingly accurate historian evidenced by his writing, would have explained the reason so his knowledgeable readers would not have been confused. Yet he doesn't explain extenuating circumstances at all. The account certainly cries out for an explanation from Luke for shepherds tending sheep out of doors in the dead of winter at night. Also of significance is that the argument about sheep for the temple was advanced only recently.
Let's look at what the Talmudic sources say regarding the temple-sheep argument. The Talmud, in Baba Kamma 79b-80a mentions a rule prohibited overgrazing: "The rabbis taught: 'Flocks of animals should not be raised in Israel, but can (be) in the wooded areas or in Siria, and also where it is inhabited.' Another teaching says: 'No flocks should be raised in Israel, but can (be raised) in the wilderness area of Judea.'"
These prohibitions were measures to avoid depleting the agricultural resources of Israel, normally the valleys in which wheat and barley would be planted and sheep could ruin the soil. In upper Judea this was not a problem because no grains were cultivated there, and the Talmud expressly permitted grazing sheep close to towns, which would be the situation with Bethlehem. This restriction, which was concerned only with overgrazing, would not apply to the shepherds near Bethlehem.
Concerning the temple sheep, the Talmudic source is speaking of the Passover sacrifices and places the limit of finding the sacrificial lambs within one month before the Passover, meaning they would have to be determined in February or March. This is a far cry from the temple-sheep theory, which proposes that the sheep were grazing three months before Passover, with their shepherds weathering freezing weather so the priests would have sheep available for Passover.
Notice also that in Luke's account many shepherds were out in the fields. Many shepherds would not have been with many sheep in December.
The argument regarding their being sacrificial sheep contradicts the plain sense of God's Word. GN
When Was Jesus Christ Born? - 1
When Was Jesus Christ Born? - from The Good News January/February - Volume 2, Number 1
Surprisingly, not only is the traditional year for Christ's birth off by several years, but His supposed December 25 birthday, widely celebrated as Christmas, is also off.
by Mario Seiglie
The year 2000 is approaching, and excitement is in the air. Magazines and newspapers report on the celebrations scheduled for January 1, 2000, the purported beginning of the 21st century and the third millennium. Even though the new century and new millennium really begin January 1, 2001, it is a rare generation that can witness such an event.
The numbering system in our calendar was originally intended to reflect the years since the birth of Christ. Yet, before too much is said about this celebration, perhaps we should ask how accurate is the numbering system. Has it really been 1,996 years since the birth of Jesus?
The history of the Gregorian calendar is indeed fascinating and enlightening. The calendar not only impacts the bimillennial celebrations being planned, but the true 2,000th year since Christ's birth.
The year of Christ's birth
Neither the Bible nor the early Church fathers mentioned the date of Jesus' birth, although they did provide details of the circumstances surrounding His birth.
Why this omission? In the case of the Church fathers, the reason is that, during the three centuries after Christ's life on earth, the event considered most worthy of commemoration was the date of His death. In comparison, the date of His birth was considered insignificant. As the Encyclopedia Americana explains, "Christmas... was, according to many authorities, not celebrated in the first centuries of the Christian church, as the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth..." (1944 edition, "Christmas").
So how was the year determined for His birth? In 525 Pope John I commissioned the scholar Dionysius Exiguus the task of establishing a feast calendar for the Church. Dionysius also estimated the year of Christ's birth, but through several errors in his calculations arrived at a date at least a few years later than the actual event.
According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Dionysius set the year of Christ's birth as the 753rd year since the founding of Rome. However, this was an impossibility, since the Gospels record Jesus' birth as occurring during the reign of Herod the Great, and thus He could not have been born later than the 750th year from the founding of Rome (15th edition, Vol. 4, p. 580, "Chronology").
Herod's death was recorded by Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and would have fallen in 4 B.C. Therefore, according to the adjusted calculations, Christ's birth took place some four years before the traditional date. Counting forward from 4 B.C. for 2,000 years (one year has to be added because there was no year 0) yields 1996 as the true 2,000th calendar year after Christ's birth. This might prove disappointing to the celebrants of the January 1, 2000, date, but they shouldn't worry too much, since the tide of tradition has usually overwhelmed the facts of history.
Confusion over dates
Surprisingly, not only is the traditional year for Christ's birth off by a few years, but His supposed December 25 birthday, widely celebrated as Christmas, is also off. Both history and the Bible give many strong indications against December 25 as the day of Christ's birth.
Certainly, if the ancients had known when Christ was born, we would expect to find ample evidence of the celebration in early writings. Yet, in the first 200 years of Christian history, no mention is made of the calendar date of His birth. Not until the year 336 do we find the first mention of a celebration of Christ's birth.
Speculation on the proper date began in the 3rd and 4th centuries, when the idea of fixing Christ's birthday started. Quite a controversy arose among Church leaders. Some were opposed to such a celebration. Origen (185-254) strongly recommended against such an innovation. "In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 edition, Vol. 3, p. 724, "Natal Day").
During this time eight specific dates during six different months were proposed by various groups. December 25, although one of the last dates to be proposed, was the one finally accepted by the leadership of the Western church.
A summary of the debate on the dates of Christ's birth appears in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: "Though speculation as to the time of year of Christ's birth dates from the early 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria suggesting the 20th of May, the celebration of the anniversary does not appear to have been general till the later 4th century. The earliest mention of the observance on Dec. 25th is in the Philocalian Calendar, representing Roman practice of the year 336. This date was probably chosen to oppose the feast of the Natalis Solis Invicti (nativity of the unconquerable sun) by the celebration of the birth of the 'Sun of Righteousness' and its observance in the West, seems to have spread from Rome" (1983 edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 1983, p. 280, "Christmas").
Around 200, when Clement of Alexandria mentioned the speculations about Christ's birthday, he said nothing about a celebration on that day. He casually reported the various ideas extant at that time: "And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day..., the 25th day of Pachon... Furthermore, others say that He was born on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi" ("The Stromata, or Miscellanies," The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1986, p. 333).
Later, in 243, the official feast calendar of the time, De Pascha Computus, places the date of Christ's birth as March 28. Other dates suggested were April 2 and November 18. Meanwhile, in the East, January 6 was chosen, a date the Greeks had celebrated as the birth of the god Dionysus and the Egyptians as the birth of the god Osiris. Although pagans commonly celebrated the birthdays of their gods, in the Bible a birthday is never celebrated to the true God (who, of course, had no birth or day of origin).
December 25 popularized
In Rome December 25 was made popular by Pope Liberius in 354 and became the rule in the West in 435 when the first "Christ mass" was officiated by Pope Sixtus III. This coincided with the date of a celebration by the Romans to their primary god, the Sun, and to Mithras, a popular Persian sun god supposedly born on the same day. The Roman Catholic writer Mario Righetti candidly admits that, "to facilitate the acceptance of the faith by the pagan masses, the Church of Rome found it convenient to institute the 25th of December as the feast of the birth of Christ to divert them from the pagan feast, celebrated on the same day in honor of the 'Invincible Sun' Mithras, the conqueror of darkness" (Manual of Liturgical History, 1955, Vol. 2, p. 67).
Protestant historian Henry Chadwick sums up the controversy: "Moreover, early in the fourth century there begins in the West (where first and by whom is not known) the celebration of December 25th, the birthday of the Sun-god at the winter solstice, as the date for the nativity of Christ. How easy it was for Christianity and solar religion to become entangled at the popular level is strikingly illustrated by a mid-fifth century sermon of Pope Leo the Great, rebuking his over-cautious flock for paying reverence to the Sun on the steps of St. Peter's before turning their back on it to worshipinside the westward-facing basilica" (The Early Church, Penguin Books, London, 1967, p. 126).
If the date of Christ's birth had been celebrated in early Christianity, there would not have been the immense confusion of the dates and the ensuing controversy. Church historians of that time could have simply quoted the Bible for support or shown the examples of celebrations in the early centuries. But none did.
Simply speaking, the date chosen had nothing to do with biblical precedent and everything to do with ecclesiastical authority.
The Encyclopedia Americana makes this clear: "In the fifth century, the Western Church ordered it (Christ's birth) to be observed forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the birth of Sol (the sun god), as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ's birth existed" (1944 edition, "Christmas").
What about the internal biblical evidence for the timing of Christ's birth? We can at least determine the probable season of His birth, and all scriptural indications argue against a December or other winter date.
When were shepherds in the fields?
Israeli meteorologists tracked December weather patterns for many years and concluded that the climate in Israel has been essentially constant for at least the last 2,000 years. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible states that, "broadly speaking, weather phenomena and climatic conditions as pictured in the Bible correspond with conditions as observed today" (R.B.Y. Scott, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1962, p. 625).
The temperature in the area of Bethlehem in December averages around 44 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius) but can drop to well below freezing, especially at night. Describing the weather there, Sara Ruhin, chief of the Israeli weather service, noted in a 1990 press release that the area has three months of frost: December with 29 F. (minus 1.6 C.); January with 30 F. (minus 1.1 C.) and February with 32 F. (0 C.).
Snow is common for two or three days in Jerusalem and nearby Bethlehem in December and January. These were the winter months of increased precipitation in Christ's time, when the roads became practically unusable and people stayed mostly indoors.
This is important evidence to disprove a December date for Christ's birth. Note that, at the time of Christ's birth, the shepherds tended their flocks in the fields at night. "Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields," wrote one Gospel writer, "keeping watch over their flock by night" (Luke 2:8). A common practice of shepherds was keeping their flocks in the field from April to October, but in the cold and rainy winter months they took their flocks back home and sheltered them.
One commentary admits that, "as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up. The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact, which casts considerable light upon this disputed point" (Adam Clarke's Commentary, Abingdon Press, Nashville, note on Luke 2:8).
Another study source agrees: "These humble pastoral folk are out in the field at night with their flock—a feature of the story which would argue against the birth (of Christ) occurring on Dec. 25 since the weather would not have permitted it" (The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1971, note on Luke 2:4-7).
The census described by Luke
Other evidence arguing against a December birth of Jesus is the Roman census recorded by Luke. "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered... So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem..., to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son..." (Luke 2:1-7).
The Roman rulers knew that taking a census in winter would have been impractical and unpopular. Generally a census would take place after the harvest season, around September or October, when it would not seriously affect the economy, the weather was good and the roads were still dry enough to allow easy travel. According to the normal dates for the census, this would probably be the season of Christ's birth.
One author states that this census "could hardly have been at that season (December 25), however, for such a time would surely not have been chosen by the authorities for a public enrollment, which necessitated the population's traveling from all parts to their natal districts, storms and rain making journeys both unsafe and unpleasant in winter, except in specially favorable years" ("Christmas at Bethlehem," Holy-Days and Holidays, Cunningham Geikie).
Luke's account of the census argues strongly against a December date for Christ's birth. For such an agrarian society, an autumn post-harvest census was much more likely.
The birth of John the Baptist
We can find still more biblical evidence against a December birth of Christ. John the Baptist was born six months before the birth of his cousin Jesus. Just before Mary miraculously conceived Jesus, the angel said to her: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren" (Luke 1:35-36).
If we can determine when John was born, then six months later we will come to the approximate date of Christ's birth. Can we find evidence indicating the time of John's birth?
The Bible mentions that Elizabeth conceived shortly after her husband, the priest Zacharias, had finished serving his course at the temple, called "the division of Abijah" (Luke 1:5,8). This was six months before Mary became pregnant with Jesus. Back in King David's day, the priestly course had been separated into 24 turns, or divisions (1Chronicles 24:7-19). These began in the first month (1Chronicles 27:2), March or April of our modern calendar, and, according to Talmudic and Qumran sources, rotated every week until they reached the end of the sixth month, when the cycle was repeated (beginning in September-October) until the end of the year.
During the festival season, all the priests would come to the temple to serve. Luke shows us that Zacharias' service was not during a feast season, since it was the division of Abijah that was in charge of the temple, and Zacharias was chosen to present the incense offering.
The division of Abijah was the eighth division, or shift, which normally would take place close to three months after the start of the cycle in March-April. This would place Elizabeth's conception around June or, if it was Zacharias' second yearly turn, around December.
The Bible does not specify which of the two shifts it was. Regardless, nine months after one of the two dates John the Baptist was born. This would place his birth in March or September. Six months later, Jesus' birth would have been around September or the following March. Whichever way it occurred, according to the time of the division of Abijah, a December birth for Christ is out of the question.
What was celebrated by the early Church?
We find no command in Scripture by Christ or His apostles to celebrate His birth. In the 60 years of Church history after Christ's death recorded in the New Testament, we find that, rather than celebrating His birth, the Church commemorated His death through the biblically mandated observance of the Passover.
Around 55 the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian church: "For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1Corinthians 5:7-8).
Christ's Church through the ages has faithfully remembered His sacrifice by observing the New Testament Passover. Neither Christ nor the apostles indicated, by word or example, that we should celebrate His birth. On the contrary, the Bible carefully conceals His exact birthday. The early Church never bothered to invent and celebrate such a feast but focused on the biblical celebration that foreshadowed and commemorated His sacrificial death for us.
Let us not fix on an artificially contrived date for Christ's birth at Christmas. If we follow Christ's instructions, we will annually commemorate His sacrifice: "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God... This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:15-16,19).
For more information about the observance commanded by Jesus Christ and the Paul, request our free booklet God's Holy Day Plan: The Promise of Hope for All Mankind. Contact the address nearest you on the contact page. GN
Surprisingly, not only is the traditional year for Christ's birth off by several years, but His supposed December 25 birthday, widely celebrated as Christmas, is also off.
by Mario Seiglie
The year 2000 is approaching, and excitement is in the air. Magazines and newspapers report on the celebrations scheduled for January 1, 2000, the purported beginning of the 21st century and the third millennium. Even though the new century and new millennium really begin January 1, 2001, it is a rare generation that can witness such an event.
The numbering system in our calendar was originally intended to reflect the years since the birth of Christ. Yet, before too much is said about this celebration, perhaps we should ask how accurate is the numbering system. Has it really been 1,996 years since the birth of Jesus?
The history of the Gregorian calendar is indeed fascinating and enlightening. The calendar not only impacts the bimillennial celebrations being planned, but the true 2,000th year since Christ's birth.
The year of Christ's birth
Neither the Bible nor the early Church fathers mentioned the date of Jesus' birth, although they did provide details of the circumstances surrounding His birth.
Why this omission? In the case of the Church fathers, the reason is that, during the three centuries after Christ's life on earth, the event considered most worthy of commemoration was the date of His death. In comparison, the date of His birth was considered insignificant. As the Encyclopedia Americana explains, "Christmas... was, according to many authorities, not celebrated in the first centuries of the Christian church, as the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth..." (1944 edition, "Christmas").
So how was the year determined for His birth? In 525 Pope John I commissioned the scholar Dionysius Exiguus the task of establishing a feast calendar for the Church. Dionysius also estimated the year of Christ's birth, but through several errors in his calculations arrived at a date at least a few years later than the actual event.
According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Dionysius set the year of Christ's birth as the 753rd year since the founding of Rome. However, this was an impossibility, since the Gospels record Jesus' birth as occurring during the reign of Herod the Great, and thus He could not have been born later than the 750th year from the founding of Rome (15th edition, Vol. 4, p. 580, "Chronology").
Herod's death was recorded by Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and would have fallen in 4 B.C. Therefore, according to the adjusted calculations, Christ's birth took place some four years before the traditional date. Counting forward from 4 B.C. for 2,000 years (one year has to be added because there was no year 0) yields 1996 as the true 2,000th calendar year after Christ's birth. This might prove disappointing to the celebrants of the January 1, 2000, date, but they shouldn't worry too much, since the tide of tradition has usually overwhelmed the facts of history.
Confusion over dates
Surprisingly, not only is the traditional year for Christ's birth off by a few years, but His supposed December 25 birthday, widely celebrated as Christmas, is also off. Both history and the Bible give many strong indications against December 25 as the day of Christ's birth.
Certainly, if the ancients had known when Christ was born, we would expect to find ample evidence of the celebration in early writings. Yet, in the first 200 years of Christian history, no mention is made of the calendar date of His birth. Not until the year 336 do we find the first mention of a celebration of Christ's birth.
Speculation on the proper date began in the 3rd and 4th centuries, when the idea of fixing Christ's birthday started. Quite a controversy arose among Church leaders. Some were opposed to such a celebration. Origen (185-254) strongly recommended against such an innovation. "In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 edition, Vol. 3, p. 724, "Natal Day").
During this time eight specific dates during six different months were proposed by various groups. December 25, although one of the last dates to be proposed, was the one finally accepted by the leadership of the Western church.
A summary of the debate on the dates of Christ's birth appears in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: "Though speculation as to the time of year of Christ's birth dates from the early 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria suggesting the 20th of May, the celebration of the anniversary does not appear to have been general till the later 4th century. The earliest mention of the observance on Dec. 25th is in the Philocalian Calendar, representing Roman practice of the year 336. This date was probably chosen to oppose the feast of the Natalis Solis Invicti (nativity of the unconquerable sun) by the celebration of the birth of the 'Sun of Righteousness' and its observance in the West, seems to have spread from Rome" (1983 edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 1983, p. 280, "Christmas").
Around 200, when Clement of Alexandria mentioned the speculations about Christ's birthday, he said nothing about a celebration on that day. He casually reported the various ideas extant at that time: "And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day..., the 25th day of Pachon... Furthermore, others say that He was born on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi" ("The Stromata, or Miscellanies," The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1986, p. 333).
Later, in 243, the official feast calendar of the time, De Pascha Computus, places the date of Christ's birth as March 28. Other dates suggested were April 2 and November 18. Meanwhile, in the East, January 6 was chosen, a date the Greeks had celebrated as the birth of the god Dionysus and the Egyptians as the birth of the god Osiris. Although pagans commonly celebrated the birthdays of their gods, in the Bible a birthday is never celebrated to the true God (who, of course, had no birth or day of origin).
December 25 popularized
In Rome December 25 was made popular by Pope Liberius in 354 and became the rule in the West in 435 when the first "Christ mass" was officiated by Pope Sixtus III. This coincided with the date of a celebration by the Romans to their primary god, the Sun, and to Mithras, a popular Persian sun god supposedly born on the same day. The Roman Catholic writer Mario Righetti candidly admits that, "to facilitate the acceptance of the faith by the pagan masses, the Church of Rome found it convenient to institute the 25th of December as the feast of the birth of Christ to divert them from the pagan feast, celebrated on the same day in honor of the 'Invincible Sun' Mithras, the conqueror of darkness" (Manual of Liturgical History, 1955, Vol. 2, p. 67).
Protestant historian Henry Chadwick sums up the controversy: "Moreover, early in the fourth century there begins in the West (where first and by whom is not known) the celebration of December 25th, the birthday of the Sun-god at the winter solstice, as the date for the nativity of Christ. How easy it was for Christianity and solar religion to become entangled at the popular level is strikingly illustrated by a mid-fifth century sermon of Pope Leo the Great, rebuking his over-cautious flock for paying reverence to the Sun on the steps of St. Peter's before turning their back on it to worshipinside the westward-facing basilica" (The Early Church, Penguin Books, London, 1967, p. 126).
If the date of Christ's birth had been celebrated in early Christianity, there would not have been the immense confusion of the dates and the ensuing controversy. Church historians of that time could have simply quoted the Bible for support or shown the examples of celebrations in the early centuries. But none did.
Simply speaking, the date chosen had nothing to do with biblical precedent and everything to do with ecclesiastical authority.
The Encyclopedia Americana makes this clear: "In the fifth century, the Western Church ordered it (Christ's birth) to be observed forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the birth of Sol (the sun god), as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ's birth existed" (1944 edition, "Christmas").
What about the internal biblical evidence for the timing of Christ's birth? We can at least determine the probable season of His birth, and all scriptural indications argue against a December or other winter date.
When were shepherds in the fields?
Israeli meteorologists tracked December weather patterns for many years and concluded that the climate in Israel has been essentially constant for at least the last 2,000 years. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible states that, "broadly speaking, weather phenomena and climatic conditions as pictured in the Bible correspond with conditions as observed today" (R.B.Y. Scott, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1962, p. 625).
The temperature in the area of Bethlehem in December averages around 44 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius) but can drop to well below freezing, especially at night. Describing the weather there, Sara Ruhin, chief of the Israeli weather service, noted in a 1990 press release that the area has three months of frost: December with 29 F. (minus 1.6 C.); January with 30 F. (minus 1.1 C.) and February with 32 F. (0 C.).
Snow is common for two or three days in Jerusalem and nearby Bethlehem in December and January. These were the winter months of increased precipitation in Christ's time, when the roads became practically unusable and people stayed mostly indoors.
This is important evidence to disprove a December date for Christ's birth. Note that, at the time of Christ's birth, the shepherds tended their flocks in the fields at night. "Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields," wrote one Gospel writer, "keeping watch over their flock by night" (Luke 2:8). A common practice of shepherds was keeping their flocks in the field from April to October, but in the cold and rainy winter months they took their flocks back home and sheltered them.
One commentary admits that, "as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up. The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact, which casts considerable light upon this disputed point" (Adam Clarke's Commentary, Abingdon Press, Nashville, note on Luke 2:8).
Another study source agrees: "These humble pastoral folk are out in the field at night with their flock—a feature of the story which would argue against the birth (of Christ) occurring on Dec. 25 since the weather would not have permitted it" (The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1971, note on Luke 2:4-7).
The census described by Luke
Other evidence arguing against a December birth of Jesus is the Roman census recorded by Luke. "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered... So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem..., to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son..." (Luke 2:1-7).
The Roman rulers knew that taking a census in winter would have been impractical and unpopular. Generally a census would take place after the harvest season, around September or October, when it would not seriously affect the economy, the weather was good and the roads were still dry enough to allow easy travel. According to the normal dates for the census, this would probably be the season of Christ's birth.
One author states that this census "could hardly have been at that season (December 25), however, for such a time would surely not have been chosen by the authorities for a public enrollment, which necessitated the population's traveling from all parts to their natal districts, storms and rain making journeys both unsafe and unpleasant in winter, except in specially favorable years" ("Christmas at Bethlehem," Holy-Days and Holidays, Cunningham Geikie).
Luke's account of the census argues strongly against a December date for Christ's birth. For such an agrarian society, an autumn post-harvest census was much more likely.
The birth of John the Baptist
We can find still more biblical evidence against a December birth of Christ. John the Baptist was born six months before the birth of his cousin Jesus. Just before Mary miraculously conceived Jesus, the angel said to her: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren" (Luke 1:35-36).
If we can determine when John was born, then six months later we will come to the approximate date of Christ's birth. Can we find evidence indicating the time of John's birth?
The Bible mentions that Elizabeth conceived shortly after her husband, the priest Zacharias, had finished serving his course at the temple, called "the division of Abijah" (Luke 1:5,8). This was six months before Mary became pregnant with Jesus. Back in King David's day, the priestly course had been separated into 24 turns, or divisions (1Chronicles 24:7-19). These began in the first month (1Chronicles 27:2), March or April of our modern calendar, and, according to Talmudic and Qumran sources, rotated every week until they reached the end of the sixth month, when the cycle was repeated (beginning in September-October) until the end of the year.
During the festival season, all the priests would come to the temple to serve. Luke shows us that Zacharias' service was not during a feast season, since it was the division of Abijah that was in charge of the temple, and Zacharias was chosen to present the incense offering.
The division of Abijah was the eighth division, or shift, which normally would take place close to three months after the start of the cycle in March-April. This would place Elizabeth's conception around June or, if it was Zacharias' second yearly turn, around December.
The Bible does not specify which of the two shifts it was. Regardless, nine months after one of the two dates John the Baptist was born. This would place his birth in March or September. Six months later, Jesus' birth would have been around September or the following March. Whichever way it occurred, according to the time of the division of Abijah, a December birth for Christ is out of the question.
What was celebrated by the early Church?
We find no command in Scripture by Christ or His apostles to celebrate His birth. In the 60 years of Church history after Christ's death recorded in the New Testament, we find that, rather than celebrating His birth, the Church commemorated His death through the biblically mandated observance of the Passover.
Around 55 the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian church: "For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1Corinthians 5:7-8).
Christ's Church through the ages has faithfully remembered His sacrifice by observing the New Testament Passover. Neither Christ nor the apostles indicated, by word or example, that we should celebrate His birth. On the contrary, the Bible carefully conceals His exact birthday. The early Church never bothered to invent and celebrate such a feast but focused on the biblical celebration that foreshadowed and commemorated His sacrificial death for us.
Let us not fix on an artificially contrived date for Christ's birth at Christmas. If we follow Christ's instructions, we will annually commemorate His sacrifice: "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God... This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:15-16,19).
For more information about the observance commanded by Jesus Christ and the Paul, request our free booklet God's Holy Day Plan: The Promise of Hope for All Mankind. Contact the address nearest you on the contact page. GN
6 Easy Things You Can Do For Islam in 2009
C Change and hope were the buzzwords of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. Let's let the coming year be the time to put them into action. Normally, we begin a new year with hope for change, but then we change and lose hope that we can ever accomplish our goals. One way to to reverse this cycle is to start small to build big. Here are six easy things you can do in the coming year:
1) Read the Quran 5 for 5
Just five days a week, read the Quran for not more than five minutes, but here's the catch: you must shut yourself off from everyone and everything and give Allah's Word absolute attention. This small step will give you with a deeper appreciation for life's meaning, ultimately leading to change in surprising ways. Some ways to do this: in the morning before everyone wakes up; in the evening after everyone has gone to bed; during lunch hour in the car; on the bus/train on the way to school/work; on breaks between classes; when the baby's napping; at the laundromat doing your weekly laundry. Just remember to watch the time and set an alarm if needed so you read for only five minutes.
2) Call or sincerely pray for your parents no less than once a week
In the Quran, Allah orders us not to say even “Uff” to our parents (17:23). Today, many of us may not utter this demeaning word to mom and dad. However, we express our disrespect by not keeping in touch.
Yes, life is busier than ever and time is stretched to the max. But these are not valid excuses for ignoring those who nurtured us when we could do nothing on our own. While visiting is also very important, this may not always be possible on such a regular basis if you live in another state or country.
Calls are the first step in reestablishing greater connection.In the upcoming year, set a time in your appointment book to call your parents at least once a week. And call, don't email, Facebook or anything else.
While these technological tools are great to send and show pictures of yourself or grandchildren, most older folks would rather hear your voice than read witty status updates or forwarded jokes.If your parents have passed away, spend five minutes weekly to make a sincere, deep Dua for their forgiveness and for Allah to grant them the best in the Hereafter for all they did for you.
3) Read to a child for just 10 minutes
Young children whose parents read aloud to them have better language and literacy skills when they go to school, according to a number of studies. This in itself is an incentive to take just a few minutes during the week to do so. But reading to kids, whether that is your own children, a younger sibling or a nephew/niece is also a wonderful way to offer some short but long-lasting Islamic lessons. Today, the range and quality of Islamic books for kids is better than ever. Start off with a couple of simple ones from the Quran, the life of the Prophet and some timely theme and then continue this great habit as the year continues. On the days you can't read in person, do it over the phone or by webcamera.
4) Transfer the money saved from 1 cost-cutting habit for a continuous good cause
About 80 percent of Americans are stressed because of the economy, according to a recent survey (http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/10/07/economic.stress/). This has led many to cut back on all kinds of spending, from holiday gift giving to the ritual morning latte. While we tighten our belts though, let's use at least some of the money saved for a good cause. Consider this: the International Labor Organization estimates the number of workers living on $2 a day or less will surge by 100 million (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-global-food_goeringnov14,0,1773395.story). Use some of your saved cash to support a family, the education of one child or one orphan for a year in a developing country.
5) Attend one regional or national Islamic conference
A strong community is built by great individuals, but great individuals are products of their communities. That's why it's so important to connect and network with other Muslims not just in our own neighborhoods and cities, but on a state-, country- and worldwide basis as well. Doing so allows us to not only hang out socially, but to discuss some of the common problems we face and come up with viable solutions for them. Aim to attend at least one Muslim conference in 2009 so you can reap the blessings of community and strengthen your own faith on a personal level.
6) Adopt and share one habit to save the planet
Thanks to the environmental movement, we are now more aware of how our daily habits are leading to our planet's destruction. In the coming year, pick just one habit that can help you become a better steward of the earth. Some simple ideas: turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth; recycle your newspapers and magazines; turn off the shower when soaping up; bring your own canvas bags to the grocery store instead of using plastic ones. Then, get your youth group, Halaqa group and mosque/Islamic center to adopt the same.
Take a look.... This has been told 1400yrs ago!!!!
* Camels will no longer be used as a means of transport;
* People will ride on saddles that aren't saddles (cars?)
* The distance on earth will become short; * Horses will not be used in wars;
* Muslims will defeat the Byzantines which will end with the conquest of Constantinople Istanbul);
* The Jews will gather again to live in Bilad Canaan;
* Very tall buildings will be built;
* The disappearance of knowledge and the appearance of ignorance, with much killing;
* Adultery will become widespread, and the drinking of wine will become common;
* The number of men will decrease and the number of women will increase until there are 50 women to be looked after by one man.
* Islam will become worn out like clothes are, until no one will know what fasting, prayer, charity and rituals are;
* Allah will send a disease to fornicators that will have no cure (Aids?);
* People will begin to believe in the stars and reject AL QADAR (THE DIVINE DECREE OF DESTINY);
* Men will pass by people's graves and say: 'Would that I was in his place'; (large amount of suicidal deaths?)
* The Euphrates will uncover a mountain of gold for which people will fight over (the river of Alfurat that lies near Syria );
* Two large groups of people will fight one another, and there will be many casualties; they will both be following the same religion World War II?);
* Approximately 30 DAJJALS will appear, each one claiming to be the messenger of ALLAH; * Earthquakes will increase;
* Time will pass quickly;
* Afflictions will appear;
* Killing will increase;
* Wealth will increase;
* Women will be wearing clothes but not wearing clothes
THE PROPHET (saw) SAID: 'IF MY UMMAH BEARS 15 TRAITS (QUALITIES), TRIBULATION WILL FOLLOW IT.' (DAY OF JUDGEMENT) SOMEONE ASKED,'WHAT ARE THEY O MESSENGER OF ALLAH?' HE (saw) SAID:
* When any gain is shared out only among the rich, with no benefit to the poor;
* When a trust becomes a means of making profit;
* When paying ZAKKAT becomes a burden; * When voices are raised in the mosque;
* When the leader of a people is the worst of them; when people treat a man with respect because what he may do;
* When much wine is drunk; red wind or the earth swallow them, or to be transformed into animals.'
* 'IMRAN IBN HUSAYN SAID: 'THE PROPHET (AS) SAID, 'SOME PEOPLE OF THIS UMMAH WILL BE SWALLOWED BY THE EARTH, TRANSFORMED INTO ANIMALS, AND SOME WILL BE BOMBARDED WITH STONES'. ONE OF THE MUSLIMS ASKED, WHEN WILL THAT BE O MESSENGER Of ALLAH?' HE SAID, 'WHEN SINGERS AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS WILL BECOME POPULAR, AND MUCH WINE IS DRUNK.'' THE GREATER SIGNS OF THE HOUR The Quran will disappear in one night, even from the people's hearts, and no Ayah will be left on earth. (Some groups of old people will be left who will say: 'We heard of fathers' saying 'LAILLAHA ILLA ALLAH' so we repeat it);
* The appearance of the MAHDI;
* The appearance of the DAJJAL (Anti Christ);
* The appearance of Ya'juj and Ma'juj (biblical Gog and Magog);
* Isa (Jesus) will come during the time of Dajjal;
* The rising of the sun from the west;
* The destruction of the Ka'ba and the recovery of its treasures;
* The smoke.
MAY ALLAH SWT GUIDE US TO FOLLOW THE TRUE PATH OF ISLAM AND KEEP US AWAY FROM EVIL AAMIN
* People will ride on saddles that aren't saddles (cars?)
* The distance on earth will become short; * Horses will not be used in wars;
* Muslims will defeat the Byzantines which will end with the conquest of Constantinople Istanbul);
* The Jews will gather again to live in Bilad Canaan;
* Very tall buildings will be built;
* The disappearance of knowledge and the appearance of ignorance, with much killing;
* Adultery will become widespread, and the drinking of wine will become common;
* The number of men will decrease and the number of women will increase until there are 50 women to be looked after by one man.
* Islam will become worn out like clothes are, until no one will know what fasting, prayer, charity and rituals are;
* Allah will send a disease to fornicators that will have no cure (Aids?);
* People will begin to believe in the stars and reject AL QADAR (THE DIVINE DECREE OF DESTINY);
* Men will pass by people's graves and say: 'Would that I was in his place'; (large amount of suicidal deaths?)
* The Euphrates will uncover a mountain of gold for which people will fight over (the river of Alfurat that lies near Syria );
* Two large groups of people will fight one another, and there will be many casualties; they will both be following the same religion World War II?);
* Approximately 30 DAJJALS will appear, each one claiming to be the messenger of ALLAH; * Earthquakes will increase;
* Time will pass quickly;
* Afflictions will appear;
* Killing will increase;
* Wealth will increase;
* Women will be wearing clothes but not wearing clothes
THE PROPHET (saw) SAID: 'IF MY UMMAH BEARS 15 TRAITS (QUALITIES), TRIBULATION WILL FOLLOW IT.' (DAY OF JUDGEMENT) SOMEONE ASKED,'WHAT ARE THEY O MESSENGER OF ALLAH?' HE (saw) SAID:
* When any gain is shared out only among the rich, with no benefit to the poor;
* When a trust becomes a means of making profit;
* When paying ZAKKAT becomes a burden; * When voices are raised in the mosque;
* When the leader of a people is the worst of them; when people treat a man with respect because what he may do;
* When much wine is drunk; red wind or the earth swallow them, or to be transformed into animals.'
* 'IMRAN IBN HUSAYN SAID: 'THE PROPHET (AS) SAID, 'SOME PEOPLE OF THIS UMMAH WILL BE SWALLOWED BY THE EARTH, TRANSFORMED INTO ANIMALS, AND SOME WILL BE BOMBARDED WITH STONES'. ONE OF THE MUSLIMS ASKED, WHEN WILL THAT BE O MESSENGER Of ALLAH?' HE SAID, 'WHEN SINGERS AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS WILL BECOME POPULAR, AND MUCH WINE IS DRUNK.'' THE GREATER SIGNS OF THE HOUR The Quran will disappear in one night, even from the people's hearts, and no Ayah will be left on earth. (Some groups of old people will be left who will say: 'We heard of fathers' saying 'LAILLAHA ILLA ALLAH' so we repeat it);
* The appearance of the MAHDI;
* The appearance of the DAJJAL (Anti Christ);
* The appearance of Ya'juj and Ma'juj (biblical Gog and Magog);
* Isa (Jesus) will come during the time of Dajjal;
* The rising of the sun from the west;
* The destruction of the Ka'ba and the recovery of its treasures;
* The smoke.
MAY ALLAH SWT GUIDE US TO FOLLOW THE TRUE PATH OF ISLAM AND KEEP US AWAY FROM EVIL AAMIN
Sunday 28 December 2008
MUMBAI BOMBINGS - The underlying causes
Jugnu Mohsin on how Ajmal Qasai took to radical Islam as a way of claiming an identity and a livelihood in a state that has failed to provide both
Faridkot of Ajmal 'Qasai' fame is a mere ten miles from my ancestral village in tehsil Depalpur, Punjab. Before the 21 year-old went on his killing spree in Mumbai, Faridkot was known only because it is one of many thus named towns and villages celebrating and honouring the great Chishti sufi, Sheikh-al-Islam, Fariduddin Masud Ganj-e-Shakar (1173-1266) known inPakistan, northern India and as far as Afghanistan and Central Asia, as Baba Farid. The saint's followers or murids spread throughout the Punjab and beyond across north India. Everywhere, they named their settlements Faridkot. Now one such Faridkot is on Google Earth as the home of the sole surviving terrorist of India's 9/11, as many Indians see it. How this came to pass is a story of countless impoverished Pakistanis who have taken to jihad and radical Islam as a way of claiming an identity and a livelihood in a state that has failed to provide both in sixty years of independence.
This Punjab, where I grew up in the 60s and 70s, appeared to me peaceful, bucolic, unconcerned with caste or creed and at one with its ancient spirit. But then I was a child of privilege. My father, tracing his lineage to the 16th century Qadiri sufi Daud Bandagi Kirmani, whose Akbar Shahi tomb still dominates the pinnacle of our village, Shergarh, farmed land in the areaowned by his family for generations. Immersed in his culture and history, my father took my siblings and me on tours of this ancient part of the Punjab.
We went to Pakpattan, Ajjodhan of antiquity, the land of the Joiya tribe, on the banks of the Sutlej. Pakpattan has been known for nearly a thousand years for its most famous resident, Hazrat Baba Farid, whose tomb is the locus of the town and all the countryside surrounding it. Local lore has it that Taimur, on a rampage through north India, visited Pakpattan in 1398 andspared the town and its inhabitants out of respect for Baba Farid's shrine. Hundreds of years after his death, Baba Farid's poetry was incorporated into the Guru Granth Sahib and Sikhism considers him to be one of its fifteen bhagats .
We visited Depalpur, a seat of Aryan civilisation and a town continuously inhabited for two millennia. It was famously conquered by Alexander and even today, after a good monsoon, villagers dig up old Greek coins. We visited the intact Hindu temples of Depalpur and the townspeople took ownership of the buildings, preserving them by putting them to use. We visited Hujrah Shah Muqeem, another town of the area made famous for its Sufi preacher ofpeace and brotherhood. We visited Haveli Bhuman Shah, a town named after the elaborate and richly decorated homes of Hindu banias or Kiraarh, as they are still known. The havelis had new inhabitants and if age and wear had taken their toll, the frescoes were not defaced in my childhood; the residents showed them off to us proudly.
This, my Punjab, was not to remain the placid idyll it appeared to be on the surface. Powerful social and political forces were at work to alter the landscape. Unlike in Indian Punjab, where the state carried out a decent land reform, Pakistan undertook a later and half-baked exercise in the '60s and '70s. Many powerful landowners were able to circumvent the reforms. The land stayed with the "landlords" and the poor remained poor even if standards of living improved somewhat. More importantly, opportunity and mobility became available to only the few in rural Punjab who could get a decent education. The Qasais of Faridkot were not amongst the lucky ones.Amir Qasai, Ajmal's father, sold pakoras in the chowk on a rehri or cart. He could not educate his sons or marry off his daughter.
In the 1970s, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (former Pakistan Premier) had been the great white hope of people such as the Qasais of Faridkot. But he delivered much less than promised; all he gave them in the end was a voice, a consciousness. And finally, he gave his life for the "awam", the people, or so it seemed to them when he was executed by General Zia ul Haq in 1979. The people of Faridkot remembered Bhutto and venerated him as they did the Sufis buried in theirancient land. They made their way to the Urs or death anniversaries of their sufi murshids every year, celebrating the saints' union with the Beloved, and they gave Bhutto's daughter Benazir their votes whenever they had the chance. But she too could do nothing for them; it's not that she didn't want to, they believed throughout the '80s and part of the '90s, it's because she couldn't. The powerful organs of the state were never going to share their clout with civilian politicians again, not after they had done away with Bhutto. Never again, they knew, would the awam get a real stab at power.
The people of Faridkot began to look again to the local landowners in order to survive. They began to vote for whoever offered them the jobs, water, schools, roads that they craved. And when that too failed, they began to look to the mosque. They began to take heart from the message that came blaring down from the pulpit every Friday. "There is suffering everywhere inthe world. Your brethren in Kashmir, whose right to be in Pakistan as a Muslim majority area has been thwarted for decades, need to be liberated. Pray for their liberation. Your brethren in Bosnia, who are being killed in genocide by Crusaders, need to be liberated. Pray for their liberation." The message from the pulpit was reinforced by the call of Jihadists to action. They spread this message all across the Punjab, most notably in the province's poorest districts where previously Bhutto's PPP had won with landslides. The jihadists were flush with funds, arms, strength and support of the state.
With poverty having driven young Ajmal from his home, he was easy prey for these jihadists. He was already on his way as a petty thief when they got him. Life as a jihadist gave Ajmal a livelihood, money for his family (they were able to marry off his sister Ruqaiya), respect, a sense of belonging and importantly, independence from the local landowner. No longer would heor his father have to go and sit at Mian Manzoor Wattoo's feet, waiting for hours in his dera, for petty favours. No longer would they be herded at election time to the Pakistan People's Party booth or to the Muslim League's stall to cast their vote in line with the current allegiance of theiroverlord. No longer would they be bullied or their votes bought.
The Qasais had powerful patrons who in turn were patronised by the most powerful in the land; villagers say Ajmal Qasai's cocky gait when he occasionally returned to Faridkot with gifts for his mother was a thing to see. It so tempted the other urchins of the village. It so impressed all the weary old men. But his mother's heart would sink when he'd say, "I am going to liberate Kashmir". They say she broke down and went to pieces the minute she saw that famous CCTV photo grab of him in his blue Versace T-shirt and the killing machine in his hand. In the end, Ajmal Qasai (he calls himself Qasab, a fancy, high Urdu label for butchers, sealing the upward mobility he acquired as a jihadist) could not bite the poison pill and do away with the evidence. No wonder Hafiz Saeed, amir Lashkar-e-Taiba, refused to call him a "mujahid" when asked on a recent television interview. Ajmal's story is as much the story of hopeless poverty as of state failure as of recalcitrant regional hegemony as of misplaced concreteness.
Jugnu Mohsin is Managing Editor & Publisher of The Friday Times.
Tuesday 16 December 2008
The Face of Terror in Mumbai
m
The Face of Terror in Mumbai
Rupa Chinai - 3 December 2008
http://www.iofc.org/node/39107
How can those young men with hard eyes be made to understand that such acts of cowardly violence do not help the cause of India's Muslims? We need a more thoughtful response to the crisis our society now faces.
One of the abiding images that will remain with me was the face of terror. Young boys, well dressed, smart, eyes filled with hatred, remorseless, highly trained and motivated. They took on the might of India and what a fight they gave! Yet, one can only feel pity for such bravado that is so mindless and misguided.
An overwhelming question many are asking is 'Why?' What motivated them? Why did they plan and train for so long and then plunge into a suicidal operation that sought no tangible results? What did they possibly hope to achieve? Where did they come from? What was the journey that brought them to this terrible end?
I wonder what went on in the minds of their mothers as they saw the final hours of their son's lives being played out through the television screen.
I began to think of a trip I had made to Islamabad, Pakistan two years ago, when I attended a conference on sanitation. One night we were taken up into the hills surrounding Islamabad, on the road to Peshawar. There, I sat at a tea shop and talked with the villagers. Within that group was a young man who remained silent, in whose eyes I saw that same hardness and hostility that was also reflected in the terrorists who struck Mumbai.
In the few minutes we spent together, the villagers, like most other Pakistanis I met, were full of questions about India and eager to discuss a multitude of issues, including what we felt about Kashmir. I asked the villagers: 'What message can I take back from you for the people of India?' One of them was thoughtful for a while, then quietly said, 'Tell them that the Muslim community who were born in India, will also die there. They are Indians first and last.'
My young colleague from a prominent Hindi newspaper, who was also listening to this conversation, bristled. 'You should not believe everything that the media reports,' he burst out. It was a tense moment. The implied criticism of the Pakistani villager was gentle but obvious. Hindu fundamentalists have missed no opportunity to question the patriotism of India's Muslim community.
For us Indians collectively, this was a moment of truth. As one who covered the riots in Mumbai and then in Ahmedabad, witnessed the impact of communal clashes in Goa, I know for a fact that innocent Muslims were targeted and this cannot be justified on any grounds. That the poison of communalism has infiltrated deep inside our society, and permeates our own family is a fact that many educated and secular thinking Indians now have to contend with. I admitted this, and suddenly the tension eased.
At a seminar on human rights, leaders from Waziristan, a Pakistani tribal province, bordering Afghanistan related how the US and Pakistan government had subjected them to repeated air bombing in order to smoke out Bin Laden and the Taliban. This led to a large number of civilian deaths, particularly women and children and enraged the local population.
The Waziri then spoke of how an entire generation in his province, suffering neglect and illiteracy, have grown up believing that it is good to support the cause of the Taliban - a view that was nurtured by successive Pakistan governments, he said. And now, suddenly after 9/11, the Taliban, they were told, was their enemy. Instead of strafing the civilian population with air bombs, inflicting death on the innocent and alienating the general population, could the government not think of educating his people, he pleaded. This speech clearly indicated the widespread sympathy for the Al-Qaida and the Taliban in his province and the reasons behind it.
As I listened to those speeches, I recognized how similar is the treatment of both the Pakistan and Indian government, who have lost no opportunity to alienate its border populations, be it in Kashmir or the North-East in the case of India, or Baluchistan, Waziristan and other border areas, by Pakistan. We have pushed people there to the wall, denied them any opportunity for dialogue, access to mass media or systems of justice. Then we wonder how terrorists are created!
I wonder today how those young Pakistani men with hard eyes can be made to understand that such acts of cowardly violence do not help the cause of India's Muslims. That they also undermine the efforts of millions of Hindus within secular India who face a tough job overcoming communalism and hatred that also exists within our own families and communities.
We need a more thoughtful response to the crisis our society now faces. Yes, politicians need to be made accountable, military and paramilitary forces need to be strengthened. But there is a fine balance we have to strike. While holding politicians to account, we also have to call for a better class of political leadership because we believe in the institution of democracy. We have to support the role of human rights groups who seek justice for innocent Muslims.
While our security systems must be strengthened, there is no real protection in this age of urban guerilla warfare. The North-East and Kashmir have time and again taught us that the military cannot undertake the real battle which lies in the winning of hearts and minds within the general population that has been alienated.
Having closely followed for more than 20 years, the situation in North-East India I know for a fact, that 18 year olds who pushed a bus load of innocent civilians over a cliff were not born terrorists. I have watched the process that ultimately brought them there. While talking to one such group in Manipur I realized how important it was for the media to reach out to these young people, to listen to them and help create a dialogue of understanding so that there can be change.
The Lashkar-e-Toiba or Al Quida may have manipulated some of these young people, but it is our societies, both in Pakistan and in India, that denied them any other avenue. How do we now work to open up the spaces for dialogue and interaction with our minority and marginalized groups? That is the real challenge we face.
[Rupa Chinai is an independent writer based in Mumbai, writing on health and development issues.]
The Face of Terror in Mumbai
Rupa Chinai - 3 December 2008
http://www.iofc.org/node/39107
How can those young men with hard eyes be made to understand that such acts of cowardly violence do not help the cause of India's Muslims? We need a more thoughtful response to the crisis our society now faces.
One of the abiding images that will remain with me was the face of terror. Young boys, well dressed, smart, eyes filled with hatred, remorseless, highly trained and motivated. They took on the might of India and what a fight they gave! Yet, one can only feel pity for such bravado that is so mindless and misguided.
An overwhelming question many are asking is 'Why?' What motivated them? Why did they plan and train for so long and then plunge into a suicidal operation that sought no tangible results? What did they possibly hope to achieve? Where did they come from? What was the journey that brought them to this terrible end?
I wonder what went on in the minds of their mothers as they saw the final hours of their son's lives being played out through the television screen.
I began to think of a trip I had made to Islamabad, Pakistan two years ago, when I attended a conference on sanitation. One night we were taken up into the hills surrounding Islamabad, on the road to Peshawar. There, I sat at a tea shop and talked with the villagers. Within that group was a young man who remained silent, in whose eyes I saw that same hardness and hostility that was also reflected in the terrorists who struck Mumbai.
In the few minutes we spent together, the villagers, like most other Pakistanis I met, were full of questions about India and eager to discuss a multitude of issues, including what we felt about Kashmir. I asked the villagers: 'What message can I take back from you for the people of India?' One of them was thoughtful for a while, then quietly said, 'Tell them that the Muslim community who were born in India, will also die there. They are Indians first and last.'
My young colleague from a prominent Hindi newspaper, who was also listening to this conversation, bristled. 'You should not believe everything that the media reports,' he burst out. It was a tense moment. The implied criticism of the Pakistani villager was gentle but obvious. Hindu fundamentalists have missed no opportunity to question the patriotism of India's Muslim community.
For us Indians collectively, this was a moment of truth. As one who covered the riots in Mumbai and then in Ahmedabad, witnessed the impact of communal clashes in Goa, I know for a fact that innocent Muslims were targeted and this cannot be justified on any grounds. That the poison of communalism has infiltrated deep inside our society, and permeates our own family is a fact that many educated and secular thinking Indians now have to contend with. I admitted this, and suddenly the tension eased.
At a seminar on human rights, leaders from Waziristan, a Pakistani tribal province, bordering Afghanistan related how the US and Pakistan government had subjected them to repeated air bombing in order to smoke out Bin Laden and the Taliban. This led to a large number of civilian deaths, particularly women and children and enraged the local population.
The Waziri then spoke of how an entire generation in his province, suffering neglect and illiteracy, have grown up believing that it is good to support the cause of the Taliban - a view that was nurtured by successive Pakistan governments, he said. And now, suddenly after 9/11, the Taliban, they were told, was their enemy. Instead of strafing the civilian population with air bombs, inflicting death on the innocent and alienating the general population, could the government not think of educating his people, he pleaded. This speech clearly indicated the widespread sympathy for the Al-Qaida and the Taliban in his province and the reasons behind it.
As I listened to those speeches, I recognized how similar is the treatment of both the Pakistan and Indian government, who have lost no opportunity to alienate its border populations, be it in Kashmir or the North-East in the case of India, or Baluchistan, Waziristan and other border areas, by Pakistan. We have pushed people there to the wall, denied them any opportunity for dialogue, access to mass media or systems of justice. Then we wonder how terrorists are created!
I wonder today how those young Pakistani men with hard eyes can be made to understand that such acts of cowardly violence do not help the cause of India's Muslims. That they also undermine the efforts of millions of Hindus within secular India who face a tough job overcoming communalism and hatred that also exists within our own families and communities.
We need a more thoughtful response to the crisis our society now faces. Yes, politicians need to be made accountable, military and paramilitary forces need to be strengthened. But there is a fine balance we have to strike. While holding politicians to account, we also have to call for a better class of political leadership because we believe in the institution of democracy. We have to support the role of human rights groups who seek justice for innocent Muslims.
While our security systems must be strengthened, there is no real protection in this age of urban guerilla warfare. The North-East and Kashmir have time and again taught us that the military cannot undertake the real battle which lies in the winning of hearts and minds within the general population that has been alienated.
Having closely followed for more than 20 years, the situation in North-East India I know for a fact, that 18 year olds who pushed a bus load of innocent civilians over a cliff were not born terrorists. I have watched the process that ultimately brought them there. While talking to one such group in Manipur I realized how important it was for the media to reach out to these young people, to listen to them and help create a dialogue of understanding so that there can be change.
The Lashkar-e-Toiba or Al Quida may have manipulated some of these young people, but it is our societies, both in Pakistan and in India, that denied them any other avenue. How do we now work to open up the spaces for dialogue and interaction with our minority and marginalized groups? That is the real challenge we face.
[Rupa Chinai is an independent writer based in Mumbai, writing on health and development issues.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)