Originally Posted by Schabesbert
Try to THINK about what you quoted.
Herod the Great's demise as occurring between March 29th and April 4th in 4 B.C.
So, christ had to be born, Mary had to recover. They had to present Him at the Temple for circumcision (8 days later). The Magi had to come and visit. Herod had to wait for them to return, only to find out that they hadn't. An indeterminate time later
, Herod had to decide to kill all the newborns under 2 years of age, after which Joseph had to pack up & move to Egypt. Then, an indeterminate time later
, Herod dies, and Joseph is given the all-clear to return to Judah.
Tell me again why you think that Christ had to be born in the spring based on this evidence?
Shepherds were not in the fields during December. According to Celebrations: The Complete Book of American Holidays, Luke's account "suggests that Jesus may have been born in summer or early fall. Since December is cold and rainy in Judea, it is likely the shepherds would have sought shelter for their flocks at night" (p. 309).
First, weather isn't consistant. Second, even today shepherds oftentimes are in the fields during December, although not as often for safety reasons:
In Bethlehem, shepherds watching their flocks by night are a dying breed
Aren't you at least a little embarassed about posting such easily refuted "evidence?"
I'm still waiting for you refute to the evidence. And if you didn't bother to realize it, that evidence comes direct from religious people, who I'm sure are way more educated in the bible than you are. So are you trying to say they're wrong and you're right?
So, who is right? The author of Matthew, who claims that Jesus was born shortly before the death of Herod, which happened around 4 BC, or Luke, who claims Jesus was born during the Roman census, which happened around 6 AD.
Yet another contradiction of your mighty book.