Question: Are we going all round the houses debating whether it was autumn, winter, or spring when Jesus was born, when it’s what the Bible does ***not*** say about the date of his birth that should speak volumes to us? Are we apparently deaf to that?

What I mean is that if the date of Jesus’ birth was important, would it not have been clear, in scripture? If God wanted us to note the date of Jesus’ birth, the Bible surely would have stated it?

Further, if God wanted us to annually celebrate that birth-date, would there not have been a command to do that, in the Bible? After all, Jesus expressly told his followers to remember his death, even though the exact date of it is debatable, given that the year of his death depends on knowing the year of his birth, and that’s not known as a fact. Yet the omission in the Bible as to any kind of celebration of Christ’s birth stands in stark contrast to the command to remember his death.

I'm ***not*** wanting this question to turn into reasons as to why we should celebrate Jesus' birth every year, or not. I just want to know if anyone else has pondered the absence of information about this, in the Bible, and your thoughts.

I look for answers from Christians who believe that Jesus Christ “became flesh and dwelt among us” as stated in John 1:1-14, obtaining his human nature from the virgin Mary.

Answer: 
A "Why didn't God include a certain piece of information in Scripture?" question is most likely to generate only speculation (which is fine as long as it is identified as such). Here is mine:

I think it is likely that, since the Word becoming flesh was first, a penultimate act of condescension and humility (God in flesh and blood) and second, a necessary means to an end (no atoning death without a birth first), a dateless birth is well in keeping with both the mind and purpose of Christ.

> 
> Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, **but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself** by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. - Philippians 2:5-8
> 
> 
> 

Another important aspect is that the birth of Jesus (the man) is not the beginning of the Son of God. Perhaps the exact date is left out as emphasizing that, in the beginning, "the Word was with God and the Word was God". The one who has always existed "took on flesh" but did not "come into being". This is different from any other human birth.

The Son of God has no birthday!
One of the things the ambiguity of Scripture indicates is that Scripture was never meant to be read like some read it today, as having the answer for every question. Instead, it demonstrates the need for Church authority which is quite clear in Scripture (think of the erring fellow to whom we go privately to correct, then with one or two brothers, etc., and then bring him before the Church). That parenthesized reference demonstrates clearly that there are individuals in the Church that have authority to welcome the erring party into the Church or to exclude that one from communion.