Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Still Waters

Jesus was born years earlier than thought

126 posts in this topic

The entire Christian calendar is based on a miscalculation, the Pope has declared, as he claims in a new book that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly believed.

"The calculation of the beginning of our calendar – based on the birth of Jesus – was made by Dionysius Exiguus, who made a mistake in his calculations by several years," the Pope writes in the book, which went on sale around the world with an initial print run of a million copies.

"The actual date of Jesus's birth was several years before."

http://www.telegraph...laims-Pope.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for gods sake Dennis the Small, get it right!

Edit: I actually posted this several seconds earlier however Dennis the Small made and error in a script line and it calculated the time wrong.

Edited by Timonthy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this claim is made with the assumption that Jesus was a real person.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a shocker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's got some pension back-payments to come then.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was born 4BC

And this claim is made with the assumption that Jesus was a real person.

He was.

He's got some pension back-payments to come then.

Hmmm mabye I can change my name.

doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was.

doug

Perhaps since you know this, you can settle the debates amongst theologian scholars. I am sure they would be very interested to see what evidence you bring to the table.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps since you know this, you can settle the debates amongst theologian scholars. I am sure they would be very interested to see what evidence you bring to the table.

Most scholars, even though who are unbelievers believe that Jesus existed. Here is a sampleing.

Bultmann (1958): “Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.”

Bornkamm (I960): “To doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all . . . was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here.”

Marxsen (1970): “I am of the opinion (and it is an opinion shared by every serious historian) that the theory ['that Jesus never lived, that he was a purely mythical figure'] is historically untenable.”

Grant (1977): “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.’ In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

M. Martin (1991): “Well’s thesis [that Jesus never existed] is controversial and not widely accepted.”

Van Voorst (2000): “Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e., Jesus mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.”

Burridge and Could (2004): “There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.”

doug

Edited by dougeaton
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most scholars, even though who are unbelievers believe that Jesus existed. Here is a sampleing.

Bultmann (1958): “Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.”

Bornkamm (I960): “To doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all . . . was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here.”

Marxsen (1970): “I am of the opinion (and it is an opinion shared by every serious historian) that the theory ['that Jesus never lived, that he was a purely mythical figure'] is historically untenable.”

Grant (1977): “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.’ In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

M. Martin (1991): “Well’s thesis [that Jesus never existed] is controversial and not widely accepted.”

Van Voorst (2000): “Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e., Jesus mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.”

Burridge and Could (2004): “There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.”

doug

Most scholars? I would not say that most scholars believe that he existed. In fact, a look at the history of debates surrounding the existence of Jesus will reinforce my statement. Many, many scholars believe that so many fantastical claims surrounding Jesus' existence taint the validity and legitimacy of the story, making it appear as being very unlikely that such a man existed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this claim is made with the assumption that Jesus was a real person.

Thats gotta be a joke right?.......wait no, it's alien so it's not, you must genuinely believe in the fringe academics who question this.

The fact he is mentioned documented after his death by 1000s, there are more reports that he existed than you there are reports for you, there is oral reporting, reporting from different global regions, different religions, scriptures, historical, philosophical and logical data show he must have existed, yet you assume he did not.

As debatable as it is, the majority of credible academics believe he did, otherwise you have to prove all the oral traditions, historical mentioning, global mentioning, scriptural reference from various religions, etc etc were all a massive global conspiracy stretching over about 2000 years give or take. When you have proof of this conspiracy we will take you seriously :)

*snip*

Edited by libstaK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats gotta be a joke right?.......wait no, it's alien so it's not, you must genuinely believe in the fringe academics who question this.

Nice ad hominem.

The fact he is mentioned documented after his death by 1000s, there are more reports that he existed than you there are reports for you,

I don't need reports to reinforce my existence... my existence can be proven through the collection of cultures from my body. As for Jesus, no skeletal or DNA remains have been found of him to reinforce his existence. All we have are loose descriptions of him. Secondly, holy books have been written and translated so many times that it is hard to accept them as being credible pieces of evidence.

there is oral reporting, reporting from different global regions, different religions, scriptures, historical, philosophical and logical data show he must have existed, yet you assume he did not.

Oral reporting? Reporting from different regions? All of what you claim acts as agents in support of Jesus can be used to support Noah's Ark. I guess we can assume Noah's Ark existed, as well...

As debatable as it is, the majority of credible academics believe he did, otherwise you have to prove all the oral traditions, historical mentioning, global mentioning, scriptural reference from various religions, etc etc were all a massive global conspiracy stretching over about 2000 years give or take. When you have proof of this conspiracy we will take you seriously :)

So, am I to assume that you are implying that all academics whom dispute the claim that Jesus existed are incredible? The proof is that there are so many vague descriptions of this man claimed to be Jesus that it is hard to accept him as being a real person, hence why so much debate surrounding his existence continue to this day.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Augustus reigned from 31 BC to 14 AD, so if there is any accuracy at all in those infancy accounts, Jesus had to have been born sometime between those dates. Tiberius reigned until 37 AD so Jesus had to have died before then.

Pontius Pilate was governor from 26-36 AD so the mission, trial and execution of Jesus had to have been sometime in there.

Herod the Great was king from 40 BC until his death in 4 BC, so again if there's any truth to those birth narratives at Jesus, Jesus was born during that time, probably closer to the time of Herod's death than the beginning of his rule.

So if the Bible is true, Jesus died at age 33, and giving him a birth date of 4 BC means he was executed in the spring of 29 AD.

Edited by TheMacGuffin
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one problem, though. Do we have to count the year 0 as one full year or is it just a nothing?

If we count the year 0 as a real year, then Jesus was executed in 28 AD.

Obviously I am making the assumption here that he really existed between these approximate dates, and we cannot have his trial and execution before 26 AD or there would be no Pontius Pilate on the scene there in Judea.

Edited by TheMacGuffin
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where does this leave Mary? where was she when he wasn`t born at the time she was supposed to have given birth?

What about his pals, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? when did they exist?

And Herod?

This must mean that the conception time differs too............OMG, god aint the dad!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Jesus was a real man and it doesn't surprise me they got his birthday wrong. We celebrate his birth every year on the wrong day. Considering the bible was written years after the fact I bet part of that is wrong. Most holly books were written to control. I also don't think we should literally be following them. I'm not saying don't be religious, I am but not blindly so but some things that may of been right or accepted in that time isn't today. Fortunately most of us have grown up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice ad hominem.

Thanks

I don't need reports to reinforce my existence... my existence can be proven through the collection of cultures from my body. As for Jesus, no skeletal or DNA remains have been found of him to reinforce his existence. All we have are loose descriptions of him. Secondly, holy books have been written and translated so many times that it is hard to accept them as being credible pieces of evidence.

No! You see if you existed then we would have no record of you too, no bones no DNA etc or hugely unlikely. So we would not be able to say you definetly existed. However you don't understand this point, reports of Jesus orally go much further back than written documents, you see the problem used to be with western historians whereby they dismissed oral traditions and scripture too, but credible and contemporary historians take the whole picture, for example to dismiss scripture in jesus's case would be tantamount to learning the history about the Romans from the Persians and not accept any roman sources. It's not an academic approach to do so, is it! So the point is simple there are 1000s of oral reports added to scriptural support, concurrent reporting, the same person mentioned in other cultures of the time and later, mentioned in other scriptures etc. To dismiss all that just to support some conspiracy you have is ridiculous as saying jesus did not exist.

Oral reporting? Reporting from different regions? All of what you claim acts as agents in support of Jesus can be used to support Noah's Ark. I guess we can assume Noah's Ark existed, as well...

That's because you dont understand the nature of oral reporting and verifying it. For example if a 100 people said you existed and they saw you, met you etc, these 100 people report this to another 100 people, years later or hundred years later the same tradition and oral report is doing the rounds, for me to claim those are false, I would have to prove the first 100 conspired, followed by the generations, until it goes into to the realms of impossibility unless all those people conspired on huge massive international scale! Go ahead prove the conspiracy.

So, am I to assume that you are implying that all academics whom dispute the claim that Jesus existed are incredible? The proof is that there are so many vague descriptions of this man claimed to be Jesus that it is hard to accept him as being a real person, hence why so much debate surrounding his existence continue to this day.

So many vague descriptions, not so vague if we can determine they refer to the same one person, if you believe they are false you have to prove them to be so and prove the conspiracy. There maybe discrepancies in the reports but that does not negate his existence, simply because there are so many reports that concur too. Overwhelming belief of many generations internationally in the existence of this man, even the talmud which is rabbinic commentary on the Torah refers to Jesus, written by rabbis during his time and later, clearly they knew this man existed, but because you dismiss religious documentation and like your scholars you are part timers and selective in what evidence you prefer to support your arguments that sources like the Talmud which curse and talk about him in a derogatory manner refer to his existence and claims, the Talmud was there before Jesus was still being added to during his lifetime and after. Why dismiss such a source, it's simply rabbinic commentary on the Torah and the book Jews take above the Torah in how to live like a Jew etc as well containg laws, dogma, parables, commentary, it also refers to Jesus. Is that not good enough proof too?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Jesus was a real man and it doesn't surprise me they got his birthday wrong. We celebrate his birth every year on the wrong day. Considering the bible was written years after the fact I bet part of that is wrong. Most holly books were written to control. I also don't think we should literally be following them. I'm not saying don't be religious, I am but not blindly so but some things that may of been right or accepted in that time isn't today. Fortunately most of us have grown up.

Its not just his birthday, his name at the time was yehōshu‘a (Joshua), he would not have been called jesus, thats the Greek name for him. but thats just a small technical change and misunderstanding compared to the rest of the novel.

Edited by freetoroam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus aka yehōshu‘a (Joshua) was a common name in those areas. i believe they still are, so this looks like a case of mistaken identity, right name, wrong person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean i can get a refund on all those christmas presents i bought over the years? I am sure I can drag out my bank statements for the month December over the past 20 odd years.

I am not religions, but for the sake of my friends, bought them all a little something over the years....I FEEL AS IF I HAVE BEEN SCAMMED!!!!! :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i never thought there was a debate on if he was real always thought it was whether or not he was a magical god baby.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To dismiss all that just to support some conspiracy you have is ridiculous as saying jesus did not exist.

How about the church proves that the bible isn't a 2000 year old fiction book first? For all we know Jesus could literally be like the Forrest Gump of ancient times. Isn't it just as ridiculous to claim a character from a story book is real as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important? How many useless arguments will be raised to flee the heart of the issue? The message is important. Not the messenger. The message remains valid there more than 2000 years. But how people can not understand or do not want to understand the message, then they stay losing time around of the peripheral aspects of the matter. And the message is: Love your neighbor as yourself, whoa!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was said Herod the Great died in 4bc so maybe the census was under Herod Archelaus

Herod Archelaus (23 BC – c. 18 AD) was the ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea (biblical Edom) from 4 BC to 6 AD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's birth were we celebrating then??? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.