When

rhinefire · Dec 12, 2013

Question: In what year was Jesus born?

Answer: It is good that we want to know about Jesus. One can never learn too much about the greatest man to have ever walked on earth. The exact day of Jesus' birth is difficult to establish beyond all doubt. The fact of Jesus' birth, the place, the nature, and the purpose are clearly taught in the scriptures (Matt. 1; 2). However, God did not see fit to explicitly reveal the date. We do know that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the King (Matt. 2: 1). History informs us that this Herod died in 4 B. C. Hence, Jesus would have been born no later than 4 B. C. We also learn from the Bible that a census was being taken at the time of Jesus' birth, in fact, Joseph and Mary were at Bethlehem to enroll when Jesus was born (Luke 2: 1-7). Quirinius, the Governor of Syria, conducted this census. Based on the believed date of this census, some place Jesus' birth at 6 B. C. Some scholars believe Jesus was born in 5 B. C. In the center column reference of some versions of the King James Translation, we read regarding the time of Matthew 2, "The fourth year before the common account called Anno Domini (A. D., dm)." This date, I believe, is the product of the work of Dionysius Exiguus, a sixth century monk.

So to paraphrase Christians claim to many FACTS about this person thought to be the son of god but they don't know perhaps the single most miraculous thing about him, the precise moment of the Immaculate Conception birth? Odd, don't you think? Also on the miracle birth, if it was without sex why did it take nine months? Odd, don't you think? So and so said this and whoever did that but when he was born is somehow lost in all the material that has been published, not a single clue stands out. The catholic priest Father Johnathan Morris said the latest "guess" is between 2 and 7 AD. I guess some folks will believe anything.

Ockham · Dec 12, 2013

We know Jesus was probably not born in December as well - this is a celebratory date not an actual date. Archaeology and historians have nailed down many of the bibles happens and have found them to have actually occurred lending credence to the bible as a historical document as well as a religious text used in some form by all Abrahamic based religions to teach their followers. The sad part about Christmas is that pretty much all religious aspects of the celebration have in modern times been stripped out by minority views who make all sorts of claims or who claim offense to Christianity based on their atheistic views. Christianity is an easy target, since it's teachings are based in passiveness and love rather than aggressiveness and force. For example, we do not see atheists squawking about Islam, Ramadan and Eid. Humans morals, our basis in law, our understanding of right and wrong regardless of individuals claim as to where those came from, originally came from some basis in a belief system (aka Religion). To deny that is to deny reality.

RGacky3 · Dec 12, 2013

rhinefire said:
Question: In what year was Jesus born?

Answer: It is good that we want to know about Jesus. One can never learn too much about the greatest man to have ever walked on earth. The exact day of Jesus' birth is difficult to establish beyond all doubt. The fact of Jesus' birth, the place, the nature, and the purpose are clearly taught in the scriptures (Matt. 1; 2). However, God did not see fit to explicitly reveal the date. We do know that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the King (Matt. 2: 1). History informs us that this Herod died in 4 B. C. Hence, Jesus would have been born no later than 4 B. C. We also learn from the Bible that a census was being taken at the time of Jesus' birth, in fact, Joseph and Mary were at Bethlehem to enroll when Jesus was born (Luke 2: 1-7). Quirinius, the Governor of Syria, conducted this census. Based on the believed date of this census, some place Jesus' birth at 6 B. C. Some scholars believe Jesus was born in 5 B. C. In the center column reference of some versions of the King James Translation, we read regarding the time of Matthew 2, "The fourth year before the common account called Anno Domini (A. D., dm)." This date, I believe, is the product of the work of Dionysius Exiguus, a sixth century monk.

So to paraphrase Christians claim to many FACTS about this person thought to be the son of god but they don't know perhaps the single most miraculous thing about him, the precise moment of the Immaculate Conception birth? Odd, don't you think? Also on the miracle birth, if it was without sex why did it take nine months? Odd, don't you think? So and so said this and whoever did that but when he was born is somehow lost in all the material that has been published, not a single clue stands out. The catholic priest Father Johnathan Morris said the latest "guess" is between 2 and 7 AD. I guess some folks will believe anything.

Theologically ... why does it matter? At all ...

It It's not odd that it took 9 months because Jesus was a human being ..... and human beings take 9 months to develop in the womb.

We don't know when many People we're born in the ancient world .... and honestly .... it doesn't really matter that much to history OR theology.

KevinKohler · Dec 12, 2013

I know exactly when he was born. 32 years before he died. So...32 years before 0 AD. He was born right after 0 BC.

Porchev · Dec 12, 2013

Shouldn't he have been born 1 A.D.? [Anno Domini, which is a Latin phrase meaning “in the year of our Lord”]

brothern · Dec 12, 2013

rhinefire said:
So to paraphrase Christians claim to many FACTS about this person thought to be the son of god but they don't know perhaps the single most miraculous thing about him, the precise moment of the Immaculate Conception birth? Odd, don't you think? Also on the miracle birth, if it was without sex why did it take nine months? Odd, don't you think? So and so said this and whoever did that but when he was born is somehow lost in all the material that has been published, not a single clue stands out. The catholic priest Father Johnathan Morris said the latest "guess" is between 2 and 7 AD. I guess some folks will believe anything.

Well, to be fair, both Mark (65-70 CE) and Paul's authentic letters skip the immaculate conception, and is only first mentioned in Matthew (80+ CE). That means the Christology about the virigin birth was probably created between 70 CE and 80 CE. You're not going to make a big deal about recording a date of birth, if it's miraculous qualities are only later created.

Porchev said:
Shouldn't he have been born 1 A.D.? [Anno Domini, which is a Latin phrase meaning “in the year of our Lord”]

The Anno Domini calculation was created in 525 CE. They tried their best to calculate the birth date of Jesus, which is pretty stunning accuracy for 6th Century knowledge of history and their technology.

However Herod kicked the bucket in 4 BCE. You can't have a baby boy massacre without Herod, unless that too was made up by the Gospel writers (which is what I actually lean towards believing ... no Roman governor would go and kill babies due to a prophecy of a religion he thought was ridiculous). But the Herod-Jesus tradition predates the Gospels, even if there was no massacre.

Many of today's more conservative Christian traditions change his death to 1 BCE in order to conform with the Bible and the Anno Domini calendar, and refuse to believe the Roman governors actually kept their records correctly. :roll:

KevinKohler said:
I know exactly when he was born. 32 years before he died. So...32 years before 0 AD. He was born right after 0 BC.

You typed too fast. It goes 2 BC, 1 BC, 1 AD and then 2 AD. There is no 0 AD or 0 BC.

Porchev · Dec 12, 2013

brothern said:
Well, to be fair, both Mark (65-70 CE) and Paul's authentic letters skip the immaculate conception, and is only first mentioned in Matthew (80+ CE). That means the Christology about the virigin birth was probably created between 70 CE and 80 CE. You're not going to make a big deal about recording a date of birth, if it's miraculous qualities are only later created.

The Anno Domini calculation was created in 525 CE. They tried their best to calculate the birth date of Jesus, which is pretty stunning accuracy for 6th Century knowledge of history and their technology.

However Herod kicked the bucket in 4 BCE. You can't have a baby boy massacre without Herod, unless that too was made up by the Gospel writers (which is what I actually lean towards believing ... no Roman governor would go and kill babies due to a prophecy of a religion he thought was ridiculous). But the Herod-Jesus tradition predates the Gospels, even if there was no massacre.

Many of today's more conservative Christian traditions change his death to 1 BCE in order to conform with the Bible and the Anno Domini calendar, and refuse to believe the Roman governors actually kept their records correctly. :roll:

You typed too fast. It goes 2 BC, 1 BC, 1 AD and then 2 AD. There is no 0 AD or 0 BC.

I personally prefer the terms Before Christ (B.C.) and Anno Domini (A.D.) instead of sterile PC sounding "Before Common Era" and "Common Era".

Logicman · Dec 15, 2013

brothern said:
Well, to be fair, both Mark (65-70 CE) and Paul's authentic letters skip the immaculate conception, and is only first mentioned in Matthew (80+ CE). That means the Christology about the virigin birth was probably created between 70 CE and 80 CE.

That's hilarious. According to that kind of logic Jerusalem wasn't sacked in 70 AD but the idea was created years later when historians finally wrote about it.

brothern · Dec 15, 2013

Logicman said:
That's hilarious. According to that kind of logic Jerusalem wasn't sacked in 70 AD but the idea was created years later when historians finally wrote about it.

What do you mean? Neither the Gospel of Mark nor Paul's letters mention the sack of Jerusalem. All were written previous to 70 AD.

That's unlike both Matthew/Luke, which mention the fall of Jerusalem. Matthew/Luke were written after the sack of Jerusalem which marked the end of the First Jewish-Roman War: See Matthew 24:7-30 and Luke 21:12-28.

Remember the Synoptic Gospel problem and Markian priority? In October I showed you an example Biblical text (see below) where Matthew had revised the text of Mark, indicating that Matthew was written later. Like that particular example, the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD is just another example of how we are able to correctly date the Bible. The author of Mark could not "remember" a future event. However both authors of Matthew-Luke had seen Jerusalem fall to the Romans and were able to write accordingly.

brothern said:
Or take a look at the Rich and the Kingdom of God story:

Matthew 19:16-17 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Mark 10:17-18 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. Luke 18:18-19 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

This is an example of one of those word-for-word parts of the Gospels (but now slightly off, due to the English translation ... take a look at the Greek instead).

You can see that the story in Matthew is slightly different than Luke and Mark. Instead of the rich man saying, "Good teacher!", the rich man inquires about good things. Jesus' rebuke is omitted in Matthew. Why would Mark and Luke drastically change the sentence structure and add Jesus' rebuke for no discernible reason? That part seems irrelevant to the story.

Unless ... Matthew was written AFTER either Mark or Luke. In all likelihood, the person who wrote Matthew saw that Mark could be misinterpreted. That author realized that a careless reading of Mark could lead the reader into believing that Jesus is claiming that he (Jesus) is not divine. Thus, to fix the problem, Matthew changed the sentence structure in Mark's story to be a question about Good things rather than allowing a potential misquote about Jesus' nature.

It's through that type of contextual analysis (and not relying on what early Christians said) of the actual Bible that we are able to arrive to the conclusion that the Gospels were written by non-witness anonymous writers, in the order of Mark < Matthew < Luke < John.

Morton · Dec 16, 2013

Are you saying that eschatological passages in Matthey and Luke prove that they were written after the temple fell? It would be silly that such a huge event would be addressed in this manner. Why wouldn't they address it directly?

Logicman · Dec 16, 2013

brothern said:
What do you mean? Neither the Gospel of Mark nor Paul's letters mention the sack of Jerusalem. All were written previous to 70 AD.

That's unlike both Matthew/Luke, which mention the fall of Jerusalem. Matthew/Luke were written after the sack of Jerusalem which marked the end of the First Jewish-Roman War: See Matthew 24:7-30 and Luke 21:12-28.

Sorry, in Matthew and Luke, those are prophecies about the future fall of Jerusalem, not an historical account of what had already transpired. Jesus was a prophet, remember?

RGacky3 · Dec 16, 2013

Logicman said:
That's hilarious. According to that kind of logic Jerusalem wasn't sacked in 70 AD but the idea was created years later when historians finally wrote about it.

Sorry, in Matthew and Luke, those are prophecies about the future fall of Jerusalem, not an historical account of what had already transpired. Jesus was a prophet, remember?

That isn't an argument .... that's an asssertion ..... Mark and the Pauline episteles were written pre 70, Matthew and Luke are generally believed to be written post 70 my almost all scholars ... now you can argue that the prophesies are actual prophesies written pre 70 (there are very good arguments for it).

but just saying "Jesus was a prophet ... so it has to be that." Isn't an argument at all.

brothern · Dec 16, 2013

Logicman said:
Sorry, in Matthew and Luke, those are prophecies about the future fall of Jerusalem, not an historical account of what had already transpired. Jesus was a prophet, remember?

I know you're beginning to learn this. Humans can't predict the future, but that doesn't hinder the incredibly interesting story behind the creation of the Bible.

This real history explains how facts became mythical, where normal humans became prophets that could manipulate the water and the air. I know it is unsettling for a lot of people to come to this realization (it was surprising and scary to me too). You were taught by good-intentioned people who were taught the same. This guy narrates a 1.5 hour long video, that explains how he handled learning about Christianity.

RGacky3 said:
That isn't an argument .... that's an asssertion ..... Mark and the Pauline episteles were written pre 70, Matthew and Luke are generally believed to be written post 70 my almost all scholars ... now you can argue that the prophesies are actual prophesies written pre 70 (there are very good arguments for it).

but just saying "Jesus was a prophet ... so it has to be that." Isn't an argument at all.

Logicman · Dec 16, 2013

RGacky3 said:
That isn't an argument .... that's an asssertion ..... Mark and the Pauline episteles were written pre 70, Matthew and Luke are generally believed to be written post 70 my almost all scholars

That's not true.

Dozens of scholars below weigh in, and their results are:

The average date for when Matthew was written is 61-69 AD.

Dating Matthew

And the average date for when Luke was written is 64-68 AD.

Dating Luke

Logicman · Dec 16, 2013

brothern said:
I know you're beginning to learn this. Humans can't predict the future, but that doesn't hinder the incredibly interesting story behind the creation of the Bible.

This real history explains how facts became mythical, where normal humans became prophets that could manipulate the water and the air. I know it is unsettling for a lot of people to come to this realization (it was surprising and scary to me too). You were taught by good-intentioned people who were taught the same. This guy narrates a 1.5 hour long video, that explains how he handled learning about Christianity.

I'm not going to spend 1.5 hours watching a spiritual dwarf tell us why he hasn't experienced God when I and millions of others have, or why he has no real evidence but we do. Lay down your best (1) argument out of that and I'll look at it.

As for your "post 70 AD for when Matthew and Luke were written" claim see the following, which contradicts that claim:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/180705-when-2.html#post1062671886

brothern · Dec 16, 2013

Logicman said:
I'm not going to spend 1.5 hours watching a spiritual dwarf tell us why he hasn't experienced God when I and millions of others have, or why he has no real evidence but we do. Lay down your best (1) argument out of that and I'll look at it.

As for your "post 70 AD for when Matthew and Luke were written" claim see the following, which contradicts that claim:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/180705-when-2.html#post1062671886

God is not a proof that can be invalidated by a single argument. God is an experience for Christians, an intimate relationship. Your personal Savior. He is a mega-belief, made real by countless of your most convincing experiences and beliefs, loves/dislikes. All of us that were former Christians understand that. All of us were there at some point in our life. But it's just that -- in your life you grow spiritually and intellectually. You discover new ideas and facts and are forced to incorporate them into your thinking. Watch the video, even if you disagree with it, it'll make a lot of sense to you.

... you can't average out dates. The author of that website has GOT to be kidding. An opinion is based on evidence. Evidence on observation. Thus, some opinions will always be more correct than others, because some opinions have better evidence and observation. Just picking random sources, like your link has done, and then averaging them out (!?) is about as unscientific and totally ridiculous, as I have ever seen.

Logicman · Dec 16, 2013

brothern said:
God is not a proof that can be invalidated by a single argument. God is an experience for Christians, an intimate relationship. Your personal Savior. He is a mega-belief, made real by countless of your most convincing experiences and beliefs, loves/dislikes. All of us that were former Christians understand that. All of us were there at some point in our life. But it's just that -- in your life you grow spiritually and intellectually. You discover new ideas and facts and are forced to incorporate them into your thinking. Watch the video, even if you disagree with it, it'll make a lot of sense to you.

I seriously doubt any of those "former Christians" were ever 'born again' with the Holy Spirit, or they would have known beyond a doubt Christianity is real.

brothern said:
... you can't average out dates. The author of that website has GOT to be kidding. An opinion is based on evidence. Evidence on observation. Thus, some opinions will always be more correct than others, because some opinions have better evidence and observation. Just picking random sources, like your link has done, and then averaging them out (!?) is about as unscientific and totally ridiculous, as I have ever seen.

Yes you can average out the dates of all those scholars, and they did. The average was pre 70 AD.

brothern · Dec 16, 2013

Logicman said:
I seriously doubt any of those "former Christians" were ever 'born again' with the Holy Spirit, or they would have known beyond a doubt Christianity is real.

I thought I was. So did this guy on Youtube, apparently. I must have been like 16 at the time. I was lying in my bed on a Friday night, after having thinking about it for what seemed like hours. I actually had a physical and emotional wave that came over me. You know that creepy spine tingling thing that happens when you walk into someplace that is very quiet? The whole world kinda vibrates? Then you start crying?

... the brain is a powerful organ in the body. No two people experience the world in the same manner. It can play incredible tricks upon you.

Logicman said:
Yes you can average out the dates of all those scholars, and they did. The average was pre 70 AD.

The issue with that, is that 'averaging' method does not take actual evidence or observation into account. It assumes that all scholars included in the averaging are correct. But all scholars are not correct. If you were to choose a list of 20 sources (all Christian); the Matthew/Luke average would come out as pre-70 AD. If I were to choose 20 sources (all liberal Christian/secular Biblical scholars); the Matthew/Luke average would come out post-70AD.

brothern · Dec 16, 2013

Logicman said:
I seriously doubt any of those "former Christians" were ever 'born again' with the Holy Spirit, or they would have known beyond a doubt Christianity is real.

It seems that faith is reduced to a thought-process of screaming at yourself over and over again, that what you believe is 100% correct. That no "true" believer has doubts, and that if you accept one thing as true, you can never change your mind. That you couldn't have possibly ever made a mistake, because your Christian thinking must absolutely be perfect.

To me - that seems downright silly and fundamentalistic.

Logicman · Dec 16, 2013

brothern said:
It seems that faith is reduced to a thought-process of screaming at yourself over and over again, that what you believe is 100% correct. That no "true" believer has doubts, and that if you accept one thing as true, you can never change your mind. That you couldn't have possibly ever made a mistake, because your Christian thinking must absolutely be perfect.

To me - that seems downright silly and fundamentalistic.

It just seems that way to those who have never been born again in the Holy Spirit. Because if they had been born again they would have known it was true.

I was a believer in Christ for some twenty years before I was filled with the Holy Spirit. Previously I had never surrendered my life and will to Christ and asked him to live through me.

Morton · Dec 16, 2013

The conclusion of scholars seems reasonable - but this whole issue highlights a problem with biblical scholarship. They reject any supernaturalism from the get go. Their "proof" is their assertion. There's probably some kind of fancy latin name for that fallacy.

brothern said:
I know you're beginning to learn this. Humans can't predict the future, but that doesn't hinder the incredibly interesting story behind the creation of the Bible.

This real history explains how facts became mythical, where normal humans became prophets that could manipulate the water and the air. I know it is unsettling for a lot of people to come to this realization (it was surprising and scary to me too). You were taught by good-intentioned people who were taught the same. This guy narrates a 1.5 hour long video, that explains how he handled learning about Christianity.

brothern · Dec 16, 2013

Morton said:
The conclusion of scholars seems reasonable - but this whole issue highlights a problem with biblical scholarship. They reject any supernaturalism from the get go. Their "proof" is their assertion. There's probably some kind of fancy latin name for that fallacy.

The problem?

Do the police assume that fairies, trolls and witches cause homocides?
Do physicists assume that mind readers will solve cold fusion?
Are universities teaching that Shakespeare could predict the future?
Do meteorologist factor in Zeus, the god of thunder, when making weather predictions?

...

But when it comes to Jesus, well **** it, let's just throw the laws of physics and the entirety of reality out the window, because Iron-aged Bedouins without access to formal education believed that Gooooooooooooooooooood appeared in archaic Judea, broke every known physical and biological law of the universe, and it took thirty years after God's death before anyone thought to write it down. That's bloody fallacious?

You have got to be kidding me.

laska · Dec 16, 2013

Modern day revelation from Joseph Smith and other prophets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints gives April 6, 1 B.C. as the birth date of Jesus, which was the first day of Passover in 1 BC. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was officially organized on April 6, 1830 which would be Christ's birthday. John Pratt is an ancient calendar expert and he gives some evidence that this was likely the date.

Star of Bethlehem Forerunner

Yet Another Eclipse for Herod

RGacky3 · Dec 17, 2013

brothern said:
I know you're beginning to learn this. Humans can't predict the future, but that doesn't hinder the incredibly interesting story behind the creation of the Bible.

This real history explains how facts became mythical, where normal humans became prophets that could manipulate the water and the air. I know it is unsettling for a lot of people to come to this realization (it was surprising and scary to me too). You were taught by good-intentioned people who were taught the same. This guy narrates a 1.5 hour long video, that explains how he handled learning about Christianity.

You're assuming that Jesus was not who he claimed to be, of coarse he could predict the future if it was a prophesy from God ....

RGacky3 · Dec 17, 2013

Logicman said:
That's not true.

Dozens of scholars below weigh in, and their results are:

The average date for when Matthew was written is 61-69 AD.

Dating Matthew

And the average date for when Luke was written is 64-68 AD.

Dating Luke

All you've done is link to a website that lists conservative scholars, I can link to a bunch of liberal scholars and it would be just as valid.... but the fact remains, in scholarship those are out of the mainstream, the scholarly consensus, i.e. the majority view is 80-85 for Matthew and Luke.

When

Noblesse oblige