Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Jesus was born years earlier than thought

pope jesus dionysius exiguus

  • Please log in to reply
125 replies to this topic

#31    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 23 November 2012 - 03:21 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 23 November 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

i know. I have had this argument out with others on another thread. My answer was tongue in cheek cos I am not religious.
I was just trying to point out the sheer cheek of the whole thing!

Was aimed more at eveyrone, didn't specifcally mean to "pick on you". :P Just used your psot to make the point. :)

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#32    fordman1977

fordman1977

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Joined:27 Mar 2011

Posted 23 November 2012 - 06:27 PM

I never believed that Jesus was born on the 25th of December either. A Pastor that I watch on TV brought it to my attention. He feels that Jesus was conceived on the 25th of December but was born in September.


#33    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 6,468 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:03 PM

View Postfordman1977, on 23 November 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

I never believed that Jesus was born on the 25th of December either. A Pastor that I watch on TV brought it to my attention. He feels that Jesus was conceived on the 25th of December but was born in September.
does this mean that god is not the real daddy?

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#34    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,009 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:45 PM

As far as the year Jesus was born just before the Death of Herod the great I believe to be true.However what month is in question.


#35    JGirl

JGirl

    Pajama Goddess

  • Member
  • 8,788 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:British Columbia Canada

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:16 PM

it matters not to me what date they put on it
changes absolutely nothing in the big picture.
i find it disturbing that people spend so much of energy looking for the truth, rather than the 'truth'  where the bible is concerned.

JGirl's official tune of the day - hear it here!


Posted Image.. but as for this house of cards you are building..  a butterfly fart would knock it down.


#36    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:40 PM

View PostAlienated Being, on 23 November 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:


Your poorly formed sentence makes it difficult to understand your point. I will answer this point in terms of how I interpret it.

That was my point; it is hard to accept the notion of Jesus' existence as a reality simply because there are no remains (other than claims and loose references to him in other scriptures) of him in the physical sense. This is why there is much controversy surrounding other notable characters in history, such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the like. We don't know if they existed (Socrates moreso, as there exists a debate surrounding whether or not he was a character created by Plato).

To be say that existence can only be certain is entirely based on physical proof such as DNA, bones, body etc, is ridiculous, you dismiss a corpus of evidence ranging from written to oral and cultural references and references from other parts of the world coupled with references from his own people, civilisation and even enemies, totally dismissed just for a bone of the person or somet. That is the most umacademic approach I have seen even pseudo historians don't resort to such ridiculous notions. If that's how we determine things solely, then we have nothing credible in history. If that's the type of sole verification required then you can not even prove by your own standards that your great x 10 grandma existed. Yet you can be certain of her existence purely on logical deduction can you not? A corpus of evidence rejected just to see DNA or a bone etc. That's the most ridiculous approach ever........ We don't have such proofs of many historic figures unless mummified or we know where the bodies are, yet we can determine these figures existed based on corpus of written oral cultural etc references, logically deduced that they exist. To say Jesus did not would mean a conspiracy on such a scale and international conspiracy....you have to prove that mate, not just dismiss a a whole corpus of evidence!

Quote

Again, I am to assume that all of those historians whom discredit these scriptures and oral traditions as being evidence for anything are incredible? The reason for this is because oral traditions and scriptures can be tainted over time. Chances are, all of these oral reports that have been documented have been misinterpreted and mistranslated over the course of thousands of years...

You see the above illustrates you don't understand oral traditions nor Judaic history or of that region of Semitic people. You think oral traditions are like Chinese whispers, that's so naive. Historically Jews and semitic people have transmitted history, knowledge, culture etc via oral traditions, you see it's the best way to preserve any information, they used to do it all the time, you under the impression that written information is best way of preservation, your wrong, written work can be easily manipulated, lost, corrupted, not whole, etc etc. The worst you get with oral traditions isisinformation, but their easy to identify and throw out. For example, a 100 people see you feed 10 poor people out of your own pocket, they inform another 100, as the generations go, that can be diluted, but if it's not and the information is consistent from 100s or 1000s of sources, that alien fed 10 poor people, shows consistency and in order to prove it false, I would have to prove that this was a conspiracy amongst 100s and 1000s of people over time as well, spread over a large distance. The latter would be illogical, therefore logically you would say that tradition is correct and accurate as to many people concur the report. You see you just don't understand oral history, which is what is then documented. I mean if we are only depending on written proof then who is to say it's correct, especially if you don't have multiple sources confirming the same thing. Yet Jesus has his own culture, his enemies, other scriptures and cultures refer to him. But yeah dismiss it all for a bone lol.

Quote

It is hard to take these "scriptures" and "oral reports" as evidence for anything. From what I have gathered, also, is that the references in The Talmud were concluded to have been parodies based off of parallel passages in The New Testament.

Lmao! Parallel parodies of the new testament in which Jews had no belief. Talmud refers to Jesus, yet that's not good enough, their nasty about him, not praising him. They obviously felt threat from him, mentioned him, ridiculed him, yet even this information is not sufficient, cause you just don't want him to exist, just admit it! I'm giving you a written source referring to him, a source in existence before during and after him. The fact you reject it and others just shows your desperate bias!

Quote

To me, it seems that these historians are only incredible simply because their sentiments to not intertwine with yours.

No, like you they dismiss a corpus of evidence to create a thesis which fits theirs and your preconceived ideas. Like me learning about you, but dismiss everything your family, friends, town, country, school, etc had to say about you, and just opt for one sole source not related to you at all. Be honest is that academic or even
Just?

Quote

Other cultures at the time, huh... and you do not believe that these stories could not be passed on to other cultures as a result of hearsay? How do we know for certain that these people really saw Jesus?

Other cultures refer to him, other scriptures too, they have nothing to gain from it. It could be hearsay but you would have to prove that would you not? If you can't prove it's hearsay, then what? Your actually misunderstand the point, coupled with references which are oral, written, cultural, etc from his own people, region and culture etc, with references which come from other sources outside this, add more weight to it, especially if they concur information from sources closer to him. What do you have to prove he did not exist? Nothing, you say it simple based on absence of physical body, bones etc, I say he existed, based on much larger corpus of evidence, in fact you don't even have evidence, your conclusion is based on absence of evidence, and in philosophy absence of evidence does not negate the existence, it just means we don't have that evidence yet!


Quote

I most certainly do understand the nature of oral reporting, but the fact of the matter is that these oral reports have occurred over thousands of years, which leaves them as holding very little credibility or legitimacy. If you are believing in these oral reports that are thousands of years old, then I feel bad for you.

Oral traditions over 1000s years consisting of consistent information is not legitimate, why? If testimony (that's what oral reporting is) is not legit, why does it carry weight in law and in courts? Testimony alone can convict without direct proof yet if you were judge, that would not be the case hey, thank god your not a judge. ;)

Oral testimony if consistent and spread over 1000s of people, over a large distance, that's reliable testimony, to say otherwise would mean a conspiracy. In court you would have to prove the witness testimony is a conspiracy, yet here you seem to think you don't have to! So no you don't understand oral tradition and Judaic history and preservation of it, if testimony over 1000s of years is consistent its very powerful proof!


Quote

They are very vague, and these connections are made in terms of assumptions... very loose connections, also.

No these are your assumptions, they are so vague yet we can determine they refer to Jesus! That's contradictory!

Quote

Furthermore, read my above statement regarding the Talmud.

I did, clearly your clueless! Talmud is just one source referring to him, from the enemies mouth, yet you dismiss this on the basis that they are vague (really have you read the Talmud?), loose and parallel parodies to the new testament. Any proof? No! Just loose assumptions on your behalf. Come on you gonna have to give better reasons to dismiss such a source, or you could just say, I don't care, I just hope he dint exist as it meets my preconceived ideas, which you don't want shattering!


#37    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 23 November 2012 - 11:00 PM

Ps I think your confused how historians debate jesus's historicity and not his existence anymore. What's debatable is what happened in his life, but most scholars don't deny his existence bar a few exceptions!


#38    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 23 November 2012 - 11:52 PM

View PostLion6969, on 23 November 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

To be say that existence can only be certain is entirely based on physical proof such as DNA, bones, body etc, is ridiculous, you dismiss a corpus of evidence ranging from written to oral and cultural references and references from other parts of the world coupled with references from his own people, civilisation and even enemies, totally dismissed just for a bone of the person or somet.
Perhaps you should take time to note that I never once said that Jesus never existed. All I said was, "Assuming that Jesus existed". I never once said that he did not exist; the only thing I have claimed to that effect is that oral reports/traditions does not constitute as being evidence for his existence, especially considering how many years that they have been circulating. Again, you are taking things out of context (which is really not unusual for you to do, according to other UM members).

Quote

That is the most umacademic approach I have seen even pseudo historians don't resort to such ridiculous notions. If that's how we determine things solely, then we have nothing credible in history.
And this is very true for many events throughout history.

Quote

If that's the type of sole verification required then you can not even prove by your own standards that your great x 10 grandma existed.
Acknowledging the reproductive processes in biology suggests the contrary.

Quote

Yet you can be certain of her existence purely on logical deduction can you not? A corpus of evidence rejected just to see DNA or a bone etc. That's the most ridiculous approach ever........ We don't have such proofs of many historic figures unless mummified or we know where the bodies are, yet we can determine these figures existed based on corpus of written oral cultural etc references, logically deduced that they exist. To say Jesus did not would mean a conspiracy on such a scale and international conspiracy....you have to prove that mate, not just dismiss a a whole corpus of evidence!
Well, exactly... so we can never truly know whether or not something existed. We don't even know, exactly, how our own planet formed; we can assume based on logical theorem, but we don't really know for sure. That is the beauty of it all; we don't REALLY know. We know that the earth was created, but we don't know how exactly it took place.

Quote

You see the above illustrates you don't understand oral traditions nor Judaic history or of that region of Semitic people. You think oral traditions are like Chinese whispers, that's so naive. Historically Jews and semitic people have transmitted history, knowledge, culture etc via oral traditions, you see it's the best way to preserve any information, they used to do it all the time, you under the impression that written information is best way of preservation, your wrong, written work can be easily manipulated, lost, corrupted, not whole, etc etc. The worst you get with oral traditions isisinformation, but their easy to identify and throw out.
And it is just as easy to taint oral traditions, as well...

Quote

For example, a 100 people see you feed 10 poor people out of your own pocket, they inform another 100, as the generations go, that can be diluted, but if it's not and the information is consistent from 100s or 1000s of sources, that alien fed 10 poor people, shows consistency and in order to prove it false, I would have to prove that this was a conspiracy amongst 100s and 1000s of people over time as well,
Who is to say that this is a conspiracy amongst people? What if it was accidental?

Quote

The latter would be illogical, therefore logically you would say that tradition is correct and accurate as to many people concur the report. You see you just don't understand oral history, which is what is then documented. I mean if we are only depending on written proof then who is to say it's correct, especially if you don't have multiple sources confirming the same thing. Yet Jesus has his own culture, his enemies, other scriptures and cultures refer to him. But yeah dismiss it all for a bone lol.
The only thing that we have in reinforcement of his existence are



Quote

Lmao! Parallel parodies of the new testament in which Jews had no belief.
Yes. Exactly.

Quote

Talmud refers to Jesus, yet that's not good enough, their nasty about him, not praising him. They obviously felt threat from him, mentioned him, ridiculed him, yet even this information is not sufficient, cause you just don't want him to exist, just admit it! I'm giving you a written source referring to him, a source in existence before during and after him. The fact you reject it and others just shows your desperate bias!
And they also make fun of the virgin birth... lol


Quote

No, like you they dismiss a corpus of evidence to create a thesis which fits theirs and your preconceived ideas. Like me learning about you, but dismiss everything your family, friends, town, country, school, etc had to say about you, and just opt for one sole source not related to you at all. Be honest is that academic or even
Just?
All of these sources can say whatever they like about me, and it is only logical for you to assume that they would be telling the truth... however, you don't really know what is truth, and what is not truth. You only assume, just like we assume Aristotle existed, Plato existed, Socrates existed, Thales existed, Pericles existed, etc... we don't know, but we assume.

Quote

I did, clearly your clueless! Talmud is just one source referring to him, from the enemies mouth, yet you dismiss this on the basis that they are vague (really have you read the Talmud?), loose and parallel parodies to the new testament. Any proof? No! Just loose assumptions on your behalf. Come on you gonna have to give better reasons to dismiss such a source, or you could just say, I don't care, I just hope he dint exist as it meets my preconceived ideas, which you don't want shattering!
No offense Lion, but for the most part, I don't even take your arguments seriously. Watching you defend your petulant beliefs is more than enough to humour me. In fact, after this response I probably won't even waste my time with responding to any further posts from you. It was just like in the previous thread, where you intentionally made it seem as if I was saying things that I really did not say (which was noted by several other users who PMed me after they saw what you were doing, and mentioned that you have a history of doing so).

Cheers.

Edited by Alienated Being, 23 November 2012 - 11:59 PM.


#39    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,009 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 24 November 2012 - 12:09 AM

All I can say there was sure a lot written about Jesus, for someone that didn`t exist:0)


#40    libstaK

libstaK

    Nosce Te Ipsum

  • 5,996 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

  • Hello Reality and all that is True
    When Oxymoron was defined it was just for you

Posted 24 November 2012 - 12:34 AM

View Postfreetoroam, on 23 November 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

Is that all! thats an awful lot of book for just one message.
As for the love my neighbour...........well, you want to come and meet my old neighbour, love was the last word or thing on my mind.!
lol, you may not realise how much you just proved was in that one little passage right there.  It isn't easy to love one another as yourself is it?  So much is inside us that denies that one simple request, much of that book shines light on all those aspects of us that will not humbly love our neighbour.

The truth starts with the fact that what we dislike in others - is a judgement against others.  Here comes "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", we then allow this law to enact the same judgement against us.  Someone will say the very same thing about us "when you meet so and so, love was the last word or thing on my mind".

It has so many layers, why you could almost fill a book the size of the bible with it :P

"I warn you, whoever you are, oh you who wish to probe the arcanes of nature, if you do not find within yourself that which you seek, neither shall you find it outside.
If you ignore the excellencies of your own house, how do you intend to find other excellencies?
In you is hidden the treasure of treasures, Oh man, know thyself and you shall know the Universe and the Gods."

Inscription - Temple of Delphi

#41    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 24 November 2012 - 12:40 AM

View Postdocyabut2, on 24 November 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

All I can say there was sure a lot written about Jesus, for someone that didn`t exist:0)


There is a lot written about Harry Potter too. :D

Edited by Coffey, 24 November 2012 - 12:41 AM.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#42    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 24 November 2012 - 12:40 AM

View PostAlienated Being, on 23 November 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:


Perhaps you should take time to note that I never once said that Jesus never existed. All I said was, "Assuming that Jesus existed". I never once said that he did not exist; the only thing I have claimed to that effect is that oral reports/traditions does not constitute as being evidence for his existence, especially considering how many years that they have been circulating. Again, you are taking things out of context (which is really not unusual for you to do, according to other UM members).

Yeah what ever pal, I'm just gonna address what's relevant, you said assuming Jesus existed, meaning it's debatable whether he did. However virtually all modern scholars and historians of antiquity agree he existed, only the historicity is debatable, not his existence. So you for you to say assume he existed is indirectly saying he did not!

Quote

Well, exactly... so we can never truly know whether or not something existed. We don't even know, exactly, how our own planet formed; we can assume based on logical theorem, but we don't really know for sure. That is the beauty of it all; we don't REALLY know. We know that the earth was created, but we don't know how exactly it took place.

Do you believe your great x 10 grandma existed? If yes! Then surely it's entirely based on logical deduction arriving at the truth she existed. So did you get that truth via her bones or body, no, purely logic, which is still fact and true without empirical verification!

Quote

And it is just as easy to taint oral traditions, as well...

They can be tainted no doubt! But their easier to identify. However if both written and oral are susceptible to be tainted, so why favour one over the other or totally dismiss one? It's called selective evidence!

Quote

Who is to say that this is a conspiracy amongst people? What if it was accidental?

Conspiracy or accident over 1000s of years, huge distances huge numbers of people, no one realised it was an accident? Either way you would have to prove mate!



Quote

Yes. Exactly.


And they also make fun of the virgin birth... lol

And the relevance is? Nothing.

Quote

All of these sources can say whatever they like about me, and it is only logical for you to assume that they would be telling the truth... however, you don't really know what is truth, and what is not truth. You only assume, just like we assume Aristotle existed, Plato existed, Socrates existed, Thales existed, Pericles existed, etc... we don't know, but we assume.

We only know of Socrates through his students writings, corroborating and concurring. Yet all historians of antiquity accept he existed like the others, why would students make a mythical teacher figure up, and not take credit for anything themselves? The difference between Jesus and Socrates (I'm a philosopher nut, so I know Socrates well), is that there more references and information about Jesus than Socrates, yet no one believes the latter did not exist. We know logically both existed based on information about them reported and documented, Socrates is believed to exist based on two or four secondary sources, Jesus has many more, from a wider spectrum and a longer period!

Quote

No offense Lion, but for the most part, I don't even take your arguments seriously. Watching you defend your petulant beliefs is more than enough to humour me. In fact, after this response I probably won't even waste my time with responding to any further posts from you. It was just like in the previous thread, where you intentionally made it seem as if I was saying things that I really did not say (which was noted by several other users who PMed me after they saw what you were doing, and mentioned that you have a history of doing so).

Cheers.

Prove your hollow points mate! Include those who sympathise with you and PM you! Don't attack me personally stick to the topic! You have no legs to stand on, you dismiss existence of Jesus or questioned it entirely based on lack of empirical evidence which alone does not negate existence, you dismiss a corpus of evidence to stubbornly remain on the shaky ground your on! You troll religious threads to demean them, ridicule them, and derail them. I come put you and your gang straight! ;)

I mean I have no reason to defend Jesus as such I'm not even Christian, but I defend justice and fair platform, I clearly illustrate flows in your argument and deconstruct them and construct my own in response, all you and your gang do is accuse and make hollow claims.

I leave you with one more point regarding your doubt in Jesus existing. Why on earth Christian opponents and jesus's opponents never question his existence, why dint they simply destroy the foundation of the faith by showing doubt in existence in the first place, yet these opponents in antiquity ridicule him, praise him, shun him, deny him, try and offer natural alternatives to miracles, his birth etc, but not a single source question the mans existence!


#43    Lava_Lady

Lava_Lady

    Official UM Asylum Resident

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hawai'i

  • Wha? /:0\

Posted 24 November 2012 - 12:57 AM

Look at what the pope started!

I know, I know he didn't start the argument... But I'm going to blame him because apparently he does not need to apologize.

Anyway, what I would like to know is what exactly is the Popes job description?  What does he do and why its he so powerful?

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."  - F. Scott Fitzgerald


#44    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 24 November 2012 - 01:04 AM

View PostLion6969, on 24 November 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

Prove your hollow points mate! Include those who sympathise with you and PM you! Don't attack me personally stick to the topic! You have no legs to stand on, you dismiss existence of Jesus or questioned it entirely based on lack of empirical evidence which alone does not negate existence, you dismiss a corpus of evidence to stubbornly remain on the shaky ground your on! You troll religious threads to demean them, ridicule them, and derail them. I come put you and your gang straight! ;)
You honestly do not set anybody straight. You take things out of context, and you make others appear as if they said something that they do not, hence why I stopped responding to you in that "Cosmological Model" thread...


#45    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 24 November 2012 - 01:33 AM

View PostAlienated Being, on 24 November 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:


You honestly do not set anybody straight. You take things out of context, and you make others appear as if they said something that they do not, hence why I stopped responding to you in that "Cosmological Model" thread...

You keep telling yourself that mate ;)

Cosmological thread? Dude you had nothing to stand on in that thread nor this one.

I did not take anything out of context pal, I enjoy debating with stubborn people, shock and awe works better on them :)

You said assuming Jesus existed, indirectly saying the OP assumed he existed and that his existence is questionable.....how did I take U out of context? I put you straight, showing your whole argument is based on the notion of missing empirical proof, when you figured that's all you have, abscense of proof! That negates nothing does it?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users