Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Reformism is Good Actually

Now Reformism can mean different things to different people in different contexts.

Bad Mouse made a recent video critiquing Electoralism and I agree with most of it. I also refuse to be bullied into voting for the lesser of two evils, but he then ties that into his overall anti-Reformism.  You can be an Anti-Reformist who engages in Electoralism, getting allises into the state to help the Revolution from within is a valid strategy.  And you can be a Reformist who rejects Electoralism, but even I don’t reject Electoralism entirely, I am willing to vote for someone who isn’t even a fellow Communist, but they have to be advocating for actual meaningful Reforms like the Basic Income or Universal Healthcare, not the mere bandages the Democrats run on.

When Karl Marx famously said about certain Socialist in France "ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas marxiste" ("what is certain is that [if they are Marxists], [then] I myself am not a Marxist"). He was talking about the radical Anti-Reformists, Jules Guesde and Paul Lafargue. And their opposition to reformists tactics is exactly what he was objecting to, not any of their policy goals (I very much like and recommend LaFargue’s The Right To Be Lazy).

After the programme was agreed, however, a clash arose between Marx and his French supporters arose over the purpose of the minimum section. Whereas Marx saw this as a practical means of agitation around demands that were achievable within the framework of capitalism, Guesde took a very different view: “Discounting the possibility of obtaining these reforms from the bourgeoisie, Guesde regarded them not as a practical programme of struggle, but simply ... as bait with which to lure the workers from Radicalism.” The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers ’89.” [4.] Bernard H. Moss, The Origins of the French Labour Movement, 1830-1914, 1976, p.107.
Now I’m not the kind of Leftist who thinks Marx was infallible and thus his opinion is all I need.  There are in fact some things that I feel History has not vindicated Marx on, however his assessment of the nature of French Anti-Reformists was very vindicated.

During the Dreyfus Affair the Anti-Reformists said that Socialists shouldn't get involved in such internal conflicts of the Bourgeois with the one exception of Jean Allemane, besides him the Socialists actively flocking to oppose the birth of modern Anti-Semitism were the Anti-Reformists like Jean Jaures and the Possibilitists lead by Paul Brousse and Benoit Malon.  Honestly it sounds a lot like today where a certain type of Marxist-Leninist sees it as a distraction to get involved with anything that even remotely seems like a “Culture War '' issue or “Identity Politics”.

Wikipedia is very frustrating, the Wiki Pages for some of these Reformist figures I just mentioned have clearly been partially edited by people who just accept at face value that notion that Reformism is itself Non-Marxist even though on other pages Wikipedia itself quotes what Marx said in favor of Reformism.

Modern Anti-Reformist like Bad Mouse love to cite the history of the SPD as a vindication, that their support of entry into WWI and every betrayal of the working class they committed after the German Revolution is the result of them once being well intentioned Marxists who were corrupted by involvement with the State.  And the funny thing is these Marxists wind up without realizing it agreeing with the very Kropotkin Anarchist attitude that is the very reason I largely stopped calling myself an anarchist, their very cartoonish “Power corrupts absolutely” worldview.

First of all Germany wasn’t the only country with an established Socialist Party when WWI started.  In Italy and Britain and the United States it was the Pro-War Socialists who were the minority forced out of the established Party to start new ones, and those new parties they started became early Fascism or something analogous.  And no, those Socialist Parties were not any less engaged in Electoralism and Reformism then the SPD was.  The Labor Party had Pro-War elements but no one claims they were ever Marxists.

In France the split the war caused was closer to being 50/50 but it was mostly the surviving Anti-Reformists (with Allemane not being an exception this time) who supported the War and became firmly Nationalists, Guesde, Hubert Lagardelle, Gustave Hervé and they too like other Pro-War Leftists are tied to the origins of French Fascism.  Meanwhile the leading French Reformist Jean Jares virulently opposed the War and was Martyred for it, he’s the Rosa Luxemburg of France. 

Even Anarchists, the people more Anti-Electoralism than any Marxists back then had a split over the War with even Kropotkin himself supporting it.  Lately a lot of MLs on Twitter have been trying to build an “Anarchism to Fascism pipeline” thesis based on how many Italian Anarchist became Fascists, however it was only Pro-War Anarchists who became Fascists and plenty of Pro-War Marxists and even a Leninist became Fascists in Italy.

The problem with painting the SPD’s history as Bad Mouse likes to is that the SPD was founded by Ferdinand Lassale not Marxists, the German Socialists who never even claimed to believe that the State should ever be abolished or wither away.  Marxists wound up being in the Party but its leadership was always more Lassalean even if they sometimes paid lip service to Marxist ideas.  So they can’t be identified with any internal disagreement between Marxists.

The Reformist Marxists were Kautsky and Bernstein, they were different from each other  in a lot of well documented ways, but Kautsky was always a Reformist the claim of Leninists that he betrayed his early ideals while reacting to the Russian Revolution is a lie, he in the 1890s sided with the French Reformists I talked about above.  Tristam Pratorius has some Medium articles defending Kautsky and Bernstein, they seem to be more a Bersnteinist while I like Kautsky more but still her articles are good.

One important observation they make is that when Marx and Engles talked about “Bourgeois Democracy” they were being literal not euphemistic, Britain, Germany and even much of the United States still had property requirements on the very right to Vote.  It never meant that Communists are supposed to reject anything that a Liberal would recognize as Democratic.  Now I do believe we need more Direct Democracy and less Representative Democracy, but even a Representative Democracy as corrupt as ours still can be used.

Let’s take this historical analysis even further back.  The Marxist view of history is often oversimplified as making The French Revolution of 1789 the key turning point from Feudalism to Capitalism.  And that helps cause some Marxists to think of Reform as futile, if it took a fully blown violent Revolution for Capitalism to overthrow Feudalism then certainly it will have to be the same for the replacement of Capitalism.

The problem is France was closer to being the Last nation to become Capitalist than the first.  Marx was born and raised in Prussia then lived in Britain from 1848 till he died.  So the Capitalism he knew was Capitalism as it functioned in countries that became that way by Reform not Revolution.  

But even France had also been subject to a lot of Capitalist Reforms before 1789 without which the Bourgeois Revolution could not have happened.  Anne Robert Jacques Turgot was doing Reaganomics already in the 1770s.

As I explained in a prior post about Basic Income and The New Deal, when the so-called Working Class Party is opposing something obviously helpful to the Working Class on the grounds of “it’s a Capitalist Appeasement” or whatever it alienates the Working Class from that party.

Saturday, March 2, 2024

Agape and Eros and other words for Love

I have a prior post on this Blog deconstructing the notion that the various Greek words for Love are mutually exclusive types of Love, and I've touched on the subject in some others.  I stand by essentially everything I said there but I've also refined my understanding a bit.

Eros is absent from The New Testament, that fact is the main cause of this commotion, the idea that Eros is the only Greek word for Love that is inherently Sexual is the invention of Augustinian Puritanical Christians who want to separate Sex form all the positive Love talk in The New Testament, especially when it says God IS Love and that Jesus commanded us to Love one another or when it mentions Love Feasts as a sacrament.  Because if they did they might have to accept that The Church was meant to be a giant Polycule.

Problem is the Septuagint Greek Translation of The Song of Songs aka The Song of Solomon also only uses Agape and never Eros, the most obviously "Erotic" book uses Agape not Eros.  Elsewhere the Septuagint uses Agape and Eros interchangeably to translate the Hebrew Ahav.  You also can't define Agape as the pure kind of Love that can't be corrupted by Sin when the Septuagint also uses a form of Agape when it says Amnon "loved" Tamar when he raped her in 2 Samuel 13:1.

People who have bought into this concept can't even agree on how to define Agape, in ContraPoints' new excellent video on Twilight (which I'll mention again later) Agape is defined as "Spiritual Love", the King James Bible in many passages translates it as "Charity".  Now the concept of Charity is very Biblical but every appearance of that word in the KJV is a mistranslation of Agape.

The issue with Agape is the overwhelming vast majority of Ancient usage of the word is by Christians and Greek Speaking Jews.  It does exist in Greek independent of that influence, a form of it does appear in Homer.  But using it as a standard part of every day vocabulary as much or more then Philia and Eros seems to have been the exclusive practice of Abrahamic Monotheists.

There is usually said to be Five Greek words for Love, but only three concern me here.  Eros, Philia and Agape.  There are distinctions between them that would cause a careful writer to prefer one over the other in a given context, but those differences are more connotative then definitional.

Because I'm a Weeb I'm once again going to use some Japanese words to help clarify how I feel these three Greeks should be thought of.

Agape = Ai

Eros = Koi

Philia = Suki

In the 24th episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion the character Kowaru uses the word Suki to describe how he feels about Shinji.  In the first ever officially licensed English Localization of NGE which was the ADV films VHS Subtitled release Suki was translated Like "I like you".  Later ADV releases however would upgrade this to "I love you".  And so when the Netflix versions of Eva went up a few years ago well a lot of things were disliked for good reasons but the most intense discourse was about it translating Suki as Like, with most not even knowing that was what ADV did the first time.  The idea that this decision inherently straight washed the scene is silly because what makes Kowaru and Shinji's relationship very obviously Gay are the Vibes not any of the specific words they use.  The English word Love is not always Romantic/Sexual and English usage of Like very much can be, I know this because I'm an older Millennial with a lot of childhood memories of watching The Wonder Years.

All that context is why I identify Philia with Suki, even Philia is not inherently asexual as shown by there being a sexual goddess named Philotes, in fact it survived in how many modern terms use Philia to describe a Sexual attraction.  However it is the only of the three that can be used with a complete absence of Passion.  In John 11 Philia is used twice when it is only Jesus feelings for Lazarus being described while Agape is used of Lazarus and his Sisters.  That's why when it comes to the "Beloved Disciple" verses in later chapters I view it as Mar (Magdalene and "Of Bethany" are the same Mary in my view)y when Agape is used but Lazarus the one time Philia is used.

Ai is a word for Love that is clearly associated with Romantic Love and Sexual Love and Love that is neither of those.  Koi however is the most connotatively sexual of the Japanese words for Love in a way that makes it more likely to be used in the title of a Hentai.  

Eros isn't absent from the New Testament because what it does refer to is inherently sinful, it's just not the best word for what these authors are focusing on.  It has to do with the association of Eros with not just Passion but intense uncontrollable Passion. Agape absolutely does include what a modern English Speaker usually mean by Romantic or Erotic Love.

In ContraPoints's Twilight video she introduces the discussion of Eros by repeating the common error that the Greek words for Love refer to different things.  However her elaboration on Eros shows that she understands it connotatively to be even more specific then just Romantic/Sexual, it's about Passion, Desire, Longing, Craving, a bunch of obscure words I've already forgotten.  The problem is when you equate that proper understanding of Eros with the notion that the other Greek Words for love have nothing to do with Sex or Romance it causes one to have a very demeaning view of Romantic relationships that lack this unbridled Passion and thus her characterizing most Committed Long Term Relationship where the Passion has died out as not even truly being Romantic anymore.  I think it cam be very Romantic to just wholesomely enjoy another person's company.

And that's my only criticism of the video, overall it's fantastic.  

Well I'm also annoyed by her reference to Stoicism, once again the average YouTube Philosopher's understanding of Stoicism is entirely filtered through Late or Roman Stoicism which had incorporated aspects of Pythagorean Sexual morality.  Zeno Stoics were the Communist Free Love Hippies of the Hellenistic World.  Zeno tried to redefine Eros in a way that made it no longer about uncontrollable Passion but still absolutely Sexual.  It is still my hypothesis that there is a connection between Zeno's Eros and New Testament Agape.

Tuesday, February 6, 2024

Jezreel is New Testament Nazareth.

 I'm not questioning the traditional identification of Nazareth because I'm impressed by any New Atheist pseudo Archeological claims it didn't exist till the 2nd century.  I think that Nazareth is perfectly Ancient but probably wasn't called Nazareth originally being one of the villages of Japhia mentioned in Joshua 19:12-16.

The Problem is Matthew 4:13-15's application of Isaiah 9:1 (which I'd often willfully misread in the past) clearly says that when Jesus left Nazareth for Capernaum He was entering the land of Zebulun and Naphtali, meaning where He was before can't be part of either of those tribal allotments.  And both traditional Nazareth next to Japhia and Sepphoris which was my former alternative theory are firmly in Zebulun.  Since NT Nazareth was definitely part of the Greco-Roman era definition of Galilee that pretty much narrows it down to Issachar, possibly including areas originally first allotted to Issachar that Manasseh wound up taking according to Joshua 17:11, Judges 1:27, 1 Chronicles 7:29 and 1 Kings 4:12.

Why is Zebulun seemingly already added to Isaiah 9's definition of Galilee since everywhere else the name of Galilee appears in the Hebrew Bible it's just to the sea of Galilee and thus when talking about west of the Jordan tribal allotments only tied to Naphtali?  Well Isaiah was contemporary with the Fall of the Northern Kingdom when the people of Naphtali were carried away into captivity by Tilgathpilneser King of Assyria, Zebulun however was among the tribes specifically not deported, they are still there for Hezekiah's Passover.  So I think once Naphtali's lands were depopulated the people of Zebulun who had a pretty small allotment originally basically expanded to absorb formally Naphtalite territory.  And that's why I believe all of the 12 Disciples except Judas Iscariot were of the Tribe of Zebulun.

The popular theory that the name of Nazareth is related to the Hebrew word for Branch used in Isaiah 11 is often criticized on the grounds that the Hebrew letter Tsade usually becomes a Sigma in Hellenic transliteration, so the spelling of Nazareth in the Greek texts of the NT using a Zeta implies the letter for Z used in the Hebrew or Aramaic was probably Zayin.

Did you know the medieval/modern Arabic name for the city of Jezreel is Zir'in?  At first glance I found that weird, but it does descend from the same Semitic root that is the core of the Biblical Hebrew Jezreel, the Hebrew word Zerah commonly translated Seed.  And indeed in both Zerah and Jezreel the Hebrew letter for Z is Zayin.  Meanwhile the Hebrew letter for N is sometimes used as a Prefix meaning "we will".  If Jezreel is the Hebrew and Zir'in the Arabic then it could be that in-between Nazareth was the Aramaic.  Meanwhile the meaning of "Branch" is still related poetically.

Joshua 19:18 placed Jezreel in the territory of Issachar which is outlined in Joshua 19:17-23, though it could be that verse is referring to the valley not the city.  Being associated with the border it could indeed be an area that was ultimately taken by Manasseh.  I think in the NT era those tribally of Issachar were called Iscariot and that the family of Mary was probably of Manasseh.

The Prophet Hosea mentioned Jezreel by name four times in total, thrice in chapter 1 in verses 4, 5 and 11, and then one last time in chapter 2 verse 22.  They first speak of YHWH Avenging the blood of Jezreel agaisnt the house of Jehu.  The concept being alluded to there is the Goel/Redeemer of The Torah who is supposed to be a Kinsman.  

But then the other uses of the name are more positive happy ending references.  They also involve Hosea naming one of his sons Jezreel.  I think it's reasonable to interpret Hosea as foretelling that the Messiah who will Redeem Israel will be of Jezreel, and that this is the Nazarene Prophecy Matthew 2:23 spoke of.  Also Paul in Romans 9:25 quotes passages of Hosea that were in the context of those Jezreel prophecies.

Meanwhile the role that Megiddo plays in the history of Jehu in 2 Kings 9:29 and how it parallels Megiddo's role in the fate of Josiah in 2 Kings 23:29-30 and 2 Chronicles 35:22, has me thinking that the avenging of the Blood of Jezreel agaisnt Jehu is tied to the Eschatological role of Megiddo in Zachariah 12:11 and Revelation 16:16.  After all the Valley of Jezreel is also called the Valley of Megiddo.

When Herodotus in Book 2:159 of his histories while discussing Pharaoh Necho refers to the Battle of Megiddo where King Josiah died, he spells the name of Megiddo as Magdolos.  Maybe the Magdalene epithet used in The Gospels actually refers to Megiddo?

There is also the matter of Jesus foretelling He would not be accepted in His "own country", or Hometown in some translations (referring to Nazareth) in Luke 4:24, Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4 and John 4:4.  Traditional Nazareth and nearby Japhia/Yafa became Christian in antiquity and still have significant Christian populations to this day, in fact they were majority Christian as recently as the British Mandate Census of 1922 and again in 1931.  But Jezreel never became Christian, it was visited by Christian Pilgrims in the 4th century who depict it as still practicing it's Pre-Christian rites, and then Zir'in was a purely Muslim city.

Now you could argue that Muslims view Jesus as a Prophet so Zir'in accepted Jesus as a Prophet and as Messiah Ben-David when they became Muslim, but that's a very roundabout indirect way to accept Jesus.  When one converts to Islam it is the Prophethood of Muhammad they are chiefly accepting, Jesus just plays a role in that message.  It would be like referring to Christian Europe as Mosaic.

It can also be argued that Jesus meant at the time, clearly all those past Prophets "not accepted in their own town" He had in mind were accepted Posthumously by their Prophecies becoming canonized Hebrew Scripture.  And as a proponent of Universal Salvation I believe everyone accepts Jesus eventually.  So no I would not rule out traditional Nazareth and look for a city that never became Christian based on this argument alone. It again comes down to these Hosea prophecies, can they arguably be viewed as not fully completely fulfilled till everything in Revelation is fulfilled?  I think they can but I don't see it as something to be dogmatic about.

But also just how shocking it is that this city never became Christian even during the Byzantine period when it was the dominant Religion in the region and some Emperors actively sought to persecute those who didn't convert?  Jezreel's stubborn refusal to convert is frankly admirable in that context.

Monday, January 1, 2024

No Purgatory still isn't Biblical in Universal Salvation based Theology.

Every now and then I'll see an ally on Universal Salvation say something like "The Catholics were right about Purgatory" and even I have bordered on the sentiment in the past.  However that completely misunderstands the purpose Purgatory has in Augustinian, Mediaeval and Tridentine Theology.

The root word that Purgatory comes from is Biblical, there is talk about Purging Fire in Scripture, however it is used as a verb not a noun.  Purgatory as a name of a plane of existence is based on pointing to the verses that most undeniably refer to Corrective Judgment like in Malachi 3 and 1 Corinthians 3 and all the Refining Fire passages The Total Victory of Christ likes to talk about and saying they are referring to something different from The Lake of Fire in Revelation or from the Gehenna Fire Jesus warned of .  While those of us who have a proper Biblical understanding of Universal Salvation conclude those are all the same and can't be separated from each other.  

Augustine was clear that Purgatory was only for the Baptized.  It was in origin explicitly about rejecting Universal Salvation by creating an alternate explanation for the existence of Corrective Punishment passages.

It also when combined with the Platonist denial of Soul Sleep created a teaching that Purgatory is a place many of the dead currently are in, and this is where the idea of Praying for The Dead came from, which lead to the whole Indulgences thing, the Indulgences never claimed to get anyone out of "Hell" they were about shortening one's potential stay in Purgatory.  I however view all of the relevant passages as not happening till The White Throne Judgment after the Bodily Resurrection of even Unbelievers.

Purgatory was not an incidental doctrine that came to be labeled Catholic during the Reformation, it was actually vital to understanding the inciting Incident, Martín Luther wasn't even agaisnt the Office of the Papacy yet when he nailed the 95 Theses, everything he initially talked about were Symptoms of the false Doctrine of Purgatory.

Purgatory isn't a term for affirming Corrective Punishment, it's a term for limiting it only to Believers.

The Sheep and Goats Judgment is a Judgment of Nations not Individuals

While I don't always agree with The Total Victory of Christ YouTube channel (like their overreliance on the Creeds) their discussions of the Sheep and Goats Judgment of Matthew 25 are pretty good.  What I have to say here is in addition to all of that not in opposition to it.

Because another key point believers in Universal Salvation should stress is that this is a judgment of Nations not Individuals, that is explicitly the word used in verse 32.  I know Dispensationalists want to say "nations" here means "Gentiles" and that "the least of these my brethren" are The Jews.  But the Hebrew "Goyim" Biblically meant Nations, the modern "Gentiles" meaning came later, even if it is relevant to some NT uses of "Ethnos" it's not universal and in a context like this certainly doesn't work.  It's obvious from the context that "the least of these my brethren" means the poor and suffering and marginalized and least privileged of society not people literally genealogically "brethren" to Him in a way others are not.  Jesus is The Son of Man, all children of Adam are his brethren no matter if they recognize Him as their Savior yet or not.

As a Parable I don't think this is the most literal depiction of what the coming Judgment will look like. But the Moral of the Story is that Nations will be Judged based on whether or not they fed and cared for the poor and needy, an idea The Hebrew Bible already communicated in Ezekiel 16:49.

And so this understanding of Matthew 25 isn't just relevant to Universal Salvation but also to Christian Communism.  The argument of Conservative and Libertarian Christians that the Communalism of the Early Church in Acts or all the stress Jesus put on caring for The Poor all over this Gospels are only calling for Voluntary Charity and do not support Government Action are destroyed by this clear and simple reading of Matthew 25:31-46.  Yet everyone forgets to consider it relevant to that topic because we're so caught up in arguing over what it says the Punishment will be rather then who's being Punished and what The Sin is.

Sunday, December 31, 2023

Stephen implied Moses was born near the Winter Solstice

 Acts 7:20-21
In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father's house three months: And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son.
Which agrees with Exodus 2:2 (and Hebrews 11, this period of time being three months is said three times in Scripture).  Three months separated the Birth of Moses from him being taken in by Pharaoh's Daughter.

But Stephen goes on to evenly divide the rest of Moses life into three periods of 40 years.  40 years in the house of Pharaoh king of Mizraim, 40 years in the house of Jethro, and then the 40 years of the Wilderness Wandering.

The Forty years of the Wilderness Wandering began in Nisan, the Nisan of the First Passover, and ended in a Nisan, the Passover recorded early in the Book of Joshua.  It seems reasonable then to infer all three 40 year periods begin and end in Nisan.

Just looking at the account of Pharaoh's Daughter finding Moses in Exodus 2, there are good circumstantial reasons to suspect this is happening near the Spring Equinox.

So if Moses was born three months before events that happened near the Spring Equinox, then he was born near the Winter Solstice, in December or January.

Likewise, three months means he was taken in by Pharaoh's Daughter at about the anniversary of his Conception. 

Saturday, December 30, 2023

Fast Days becoming Joyful Celebrations

Zechariah Chapter 8 starting in verse 18 is an interesting Prophecy.
And the word of YHWH of hosts came unto me, saying, "Thus saith YHWH of hosts; The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love the truth and peace. Thus saith YHWH of hosts; It shall yet come to pass, that there shall come people, and the inhabitants of many cities: and the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, Let us go speedily to pray before YHWH, and to seek YHWH of hosts: I will go also.  Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek YHWH of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before YHWH.  Thus saith YHWH of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you."
The Four Fast days alluded to here are the four tied in their origins to the Fall of Jerusalem who's dates are determined by Chronological statements in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.  The fast of the Fourth Month is the 17th of Tammuz, the Fast of the Fifth Month if the 9th of Av, the Fast of the Seventh Month is Yom Gedaliah the 3rd of Tishri and the Fast of the Tenth Month is the 10th of Tevet.

The 10th of Tevet is perhaps the most obscure of these to Gentiles so let me highlight the Exact Biblical support for The Tenth Month's Fast being the 10th Day of the Month.  2 Kings 25:1, Jeremiah 52:4 and Ezekiel 24:1-2.  

From a New Testament Christian Doctrinal perspective Jerusalem is no longer a single Earthly location but rather the Mishkan is anywhere multiple Believers gather together.

The main point is that the Fast Days are traditionally the Sad days of the Hebrew Calendar.  But YHWH is promising to make them Joyful Celebrations.

Perhaps the last of these listed is the first to be fulfilled?  Perhaps how that day becomes a Joyous Celebration is how The Gospel Narrative Begins? 

A lot of the arguments for Jesus being born around December 25th or January 6th are tied to seeing the Conception of Jesus, the Annunciation and Visitation in the Gospel Narratives, happening around the same time of year as The Crucifixion and Resurrections meaning near the Aviv/Nisan Holy Days.  For example it's believed that must be what Julius Africanus meant when he placed the Incarnation on March 25th, since at the Visitation in Luke 1:41-45 Jesus seems to be already incarnated in Mary's Womb.

Zola Levitt developed a theory about a correlation between the Gestation Cycle and The Torah Holy Days.
I am a little skeptical of all the parts of it, but significance of the 14th Day of the First Month seems to hold up.

Gestation is typically 280 days or 9 Month and 10 Days being.  So if the First Month of Mary's cycle happened to line up with the first month of the Biblical calendar, the day those days would be completed in Luke 2:6 would be the Tenth Day of The Tenth Month, the 10th of Tevet Fast Day.  And on that day an Angel appeared to the Shepherds in verse 10 to bring tidings of Great Joy.


Right now the Spring Equinox most often falls on March 20th, so if we decide to equate the first of Aviv with the day after, which would be March 21st, that would make the 10th of Tevet December 25th since five 31st days occur in between. 

A January 6th Nativity would then put the start of Aviv on April 2nd, while happening to have December 25th fall during Hanukkah.

Now Ezekiel 33:21 does provide a small justification for alternatively considering the Fifth Day the Fast Day of the Tenth Month, which if that was synchronized to December 25th would make either of the last two days of Hanukkah the Winter Solstice.  And would counting backwards make the Fifth of November the Feast of Jeroboam and Halloween the day the Flood started.

My argument that Biblical Days are Sunrise to Sunrise not Sunset based actually impacts the timing of Christmas.  You see the concept of Christmas Eve came from the Biblical days begin at Sunset assumption, and Luke 2 clearly has Jesus born during the Nighttime Hours.  So it's the night that begins at Sunset December 24th through Sunrise December 25th that is most directly being tied to when Jesus was Born by this tradition.  So if the Fifth of Tevet is synchronized to December 24th then counting backwards Tom Kippur is September 30th making sunset of September 29th the start of the evening of the 9th day of the Seventh Month.  Which would mean Michaelmas could have it's origins in a Christianized Yom Kippur observance.  And it would make March 24th traditional Annunciation Day the first of Aviv, but makes April 7th the Coptic Annunciation day Aviv 14.

But going back to the Tenth of Tevet theory.  If the Day of the Tenth is December 24th then counting backwards that would make Yom Kippur the 25th of September the first day of Tabernacles the 30th which can also be a theory for the origin of Michaelmas.  And it makes March 20th the first of Aviv.

So there ya go, I made a Biblical Argument for celebrating The Birth of The Messiah on December 25th.  One that's flexible even.