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

lion6969 is 100÷ correct. Jesus was a real person. You are seriously and hopelessly debating uphill to prove otherwise. Those that argue against it aren't making definative claims or debating with relevant evidence.... Instead they are recklessly trying to cast doubt on oral/written tradition. Its quite funny because even secular, Roman, pagan, and Jewish historical documents from that time peroid confirm his existence... All these competing and contradicting interests agree Jesus exists for centuries. I suppose its easy for some random nobodies in the 21st century to cast doubt. Its even more hilariously to me that the vast majority of historians agree he existed, yet the argue keeps coming. Admit it, you wouldn't be sold if Jesus appeared in front of you and recapped his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus was a real person.but who knows if he was really the son of god.

He could have been just a preacher claiming to be the son of god.

Preachers say a lot of stuff thats fasle.

yehōshu‘a (Joshua), aka Jesus I believe was a real person, he may have been their equivalent to our Darren Brown, but obviously not as advanced.

But now we have the pope claiming the dates are wrong, we could well be looking at someone completely different,

The name Yehoshu was a very common name so chances are we the christians were following the wrong one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its pretty sad when the Bible doesn't even know when Jesus was born. Its all just a way for the select few to have power over others.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jeez lion let people have an opinion you melter

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever an article is posted that relates to Christianity there are about a half dozen folks that arrive for the sole purpose of bashing religion and or saying Jesus didnt exist etc....

Am i the only one who finds this annoying?

Seems to me that any person with some degree of tolerance would just ignore the article and move on to something else.

I came in to read about the popes thoughts on the birth and all i get is, "He didnt exist" etc...

Maybe he didnt, but does that mean that you need to come in and hijack the thread?

It would be a lot better if people could visit a thread and either contribute to the discussion as it is presented or just move along.

Or start your own thread titled "Did Jesus exist" and then have a field day.

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.

Love the Avatar!

Made me think of the show Dinosaurs years ago when the T-rex was upset that he never got invited to go bowling. :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever an article is posted that relates to Christianity there are about a half dozen folks that arrive for the sole purpose of bashing religion and or saying Jesus didnt exist etc....

Am i the only one who finds this annoying?

Seems to me that any person with some degree of tolerance would just ignore the article and move on to something else.

I came in to read about the popes thoughts on the birth and all i get is, "He didnt exist" etc...

Maybe he didnt, but does that mean that you need to come in and hijack the thread?

It would be a lot better if people could visit a thread and either contribute to the discussion as it is presented or just move along.

Or start your own thread titled "Did Jesus exist" and then have a field day.

I do think that the bible has some truth to it and a lot of people it mentions did exist. In my opinion though I think the bible was embellished

somewhat. Example, when a hollywood movie comes out and it says in the credits Based On a True Story, The movie will have truth to it

but the writters have added scenes to it to make the movie more a appealing to the audience. If they didn't, the movie would be somewhat boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think that the bible has some truth to it and a lot of people it mentions did exist. In my opinion though I think the bible was embellished

somewhat. Example, when a hollywood movie comes out and it says in the credits Based On a True Story, The movie will have truth to it

but the writters have added scenes to it to make the movie more a appealing to the audience. If they didn't, the movie would be somewhat boring.

Agreed.

The bible was put together from a collection of books by man.

I'm not a complete gullible koolaid drinker, i believe a lot of whats in the bible is very likely true to an extent.

Too many examples in the bible cross over to other religions and books for there not to be some truths there.

I just wish those who believe they have the answers for everything would just learn some tolerance for things they cant prove.

This is why i never say bad things about non-believers, i dont have the answers.

But i am a firm believer of live and let live, i am not going to try to interject into anothers right to celebrate their religion even if it doesnt line up with my thoughts.

I just wish others across the country could learn to do the same.

Maybe someday we will get the proof we are looking for as to where we came from and how we originated with 100% certainty but i really doubt it.

I dont believe our minds are wired in a way that would allow us to comprehend something that vast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I really don't care what the Pope thinks. Second of all, it really doesn't matter when it happened, what matters is that it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was said he was born at the time of a roman census.

http://en.wikipedia....us_of_Quirinius

Actually that is incorrect. The actual term used is not a census, but an enrollment or registration. Not for population purposes but part of an Empire wide oath of loyalty to Caesar Augustus when he was named Pater Patriae.

Such an enrollment and registration is historically documented as having happened in 2 B.C. There are a number of historical documents that cite said registration and are also proven archaeologically.

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.

No, he was born under the reign of Herod the great, Who did NOT die in 4 B.C. but rather in January of 1 B.C. Too many people have fallen under the error because of a supposed Lunar eclipse that was after all nothing but a partial eclipse.

They ignored Historians who put Herod alive and well in 3 B.C when the Empire wide enrollment of loyalty to Augustus Caesar took place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you have been scammed if you beleive Christmas was Jesus's Birthday.

It never was his Birthday, it was a pagan holiday and they made it Jesus's Birthday to push out paganbism and make the transition to Christianity easier.

Same with Easter etc.

He was born in September of 3 B.C. Christmas ironically is very close to the date of Hannuka and the magi arrived to visit him during that particular period. The thing is that when they did so it was in December of 2 B.C. Jesus was already a toddler, a little over 1 year old at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he was born under the reign of Herod the great, Who did NOT die in 4 B.C. but rather in January of 1 B.C. Too many people have fallen under the error because of a supposed Lunar eclipse that was after all nothing but a partial eclipse.

They ignored Historians who put Herod alive and well in 3 B.C when the Empire wide enrollment of loyalty to Augustus Caesar took place.

The writings say Jesus was born around at the time of Herod`s census.

The Jewish historian Josephus recorded that in the year 6–7,[2] after the exile of Herod Archelaus (one of the sons and successors of Herod the Great), Quirinius (in Greek, Κυρήνιος, sometimes transliterated Cyrenius), a Roman senator, became governor (Legatus) of Syria, while an equestrian assistant named Coponius was assigned as the first governor (Prefect) of the newly-created Iudaea Province. These governors were assigned to conduct a tax census for the Emperor in Syria and Iudaea.[

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I really don't care what the Pope thinks. Second of all, it really doesn't matter when it happened, what matters is that it did.

I think it does matter, it will mean that people have been following the wrong guy....which means that unless his mother was also called Mary and father called Joseph and his mother claimed Joseph was not the father because god was...then the guy being followed all these years is NOT the alleged son of god and is NOT anyone special.

But hey! not everyone will see it as an issue...personally if i were a christian i would like to know i was following the right guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The writings say Jesus was born around at the time of Herod`s census.

The Jewish historian Josephus recorded that in the year 6–7,[2] after the exile of Herod Archelaus (one of the sons and successors of Herod the Great), Quirinius (in Greek, Κυρήνιος, sometimes transliterated Cyrenius), a Roman senator, became governor (Legatus) of Syria, while an equestrian assistant named Coponius was assigned as the first governor (Prefect) of the newly-created Iudaea Province. These governors were assigned to conduct a tax census for the Emperor in Syria and Iudaea.[

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

http://en.wikipedia....us_of_Quirinius

The text is also quite clear that Jesus was born under Herod the Great, not Herod Archelaus.

The writings as you put it, are NOT referring to a tax census at all, that is NOT even the word that was used. It is an erroneous translation from the original greek text.

The word is ἀπογράφω (apographō)

Now, any lexicon will give us a concise meaning, I've taken the liberty of choosing two different sources. The 1st is Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexiconwhich gives us the following:

1) to write off, copy (from some pattern)

2) to enter in a register or records

a) spec. to enter in public records the names of men, their property and income

cool.gif to enrol

The 2nd is Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: which gave me the following result:

For TAXED, TAXING see ENROLL, ENROLMENT

After searching for Enroll, Enrollment I got the following:

<A-1,Verb,583,apographo>

primarily signifies "to write out, to copy;" then, "to enroll, to inscribe," as in a register. It is used of a census, Luke 2:1 RV, "be enrolled," for AV, "be taxed;" in the Middle Voice, Luke 2:3,5, to enroll oneself, AV, "be taxed." Confirmation that this census (not taxation) was taken in the dominions of the Roman Empire is given by the historians Tacitus and Suetonius. Augustus himself drew up a sort of Roman Doomsday Book, a rationarium, afterwards epitomized into a breviarium, to include the allied kingdoms, appointing twenty commissioners to draw up the lists. In Heb. 12:23 the members of the Church of the firstborn are said to be "enrolled," RV.

<B-1,Noun,582,apagraphe>

primarily denotes "a written copy", or, as a law term, "a deposition;" then, "a register, census, enrollment," Luke 2:2; Acts 5:37, RV, for AV, "taxing."

As far as I can see, the exact idea of this word means to be enrolled or to be included in a register. Essentially the idea is one of a compilation of names for a specific purpose, and can be denoted as a census, but there is no connotation to taxation of revenue as something intrinsic to the word. Not that it can't be used that way, but that is not what the word means as a whole. It is one possible meaning among others. It is the reason for the blooper in the majority of translations from the greek.

As such we can exclude the taxation Census' you mentioned in your post. The meaning is quite clear it is an enrollment or listing of people who have given an oath.

This is attested by at least two early historians.

The Armenian historian Moses of Khoren said that the native sources he had available showed that in the second year of Abgar, king of Armenia in 3 B.C., this oath of allegience brought Roman agents to Armenia, bringing the image of Augustus Caesar, which they set up in every temple. Abgar then a problem with Herod (who is supposed to be dead at this time). He also states categorically that this is the census referred to by Luke.

R.W. Thomson, Moses of Khoren's History of the Armenians, II.26.

Direct link to the book. Refer to pages 163 and 164

38428039.jpg

67058662.jpg

Here is another source for this oath of allegience...

“[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled. ... This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world, a published list of all men entered individually .... This first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made apart of one society”

Orosius, A History, against the Pagans VII.2.

Both make the connection between the oath of Allegience, and the census. Maybe there is no interest in actually verifying the nativity account, it makes it much easier to say that no such person as Jesus ever existed.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats' what we get for limited education of authorities in the early church used rudimentary astrological and astronomical techniques to find when exactly Jesus Christ supposedly was born. Personally, I can't be sure when exactly is the date and year of Jesus Christ's birth, but the point is we celebrate his alleged "birthday" and chronologically our calendar starts in 1BC (now the year is 2013), and that is OK by me.

Whether he's born in 4BC or 2BC, 2AD or 4AD, or his birthdates are guessed at Sep. or Dec. , Jan. or Mar. , the best method to honor the Christian "son of god" is to set the time tables of his birth that was available and convenient to followers to honor and celebrate his age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

herod died in 4 BC not AD... i already knew that before looking it up for a verification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you people really need to study the qumran texts.

they are written contemporary with jesus' life, and describe him as being nothing more than an essene jew.

ask yourselves the meaning of 'barabbas'?

do you think barabbas was some sort of criminal, set free on jesus' behalf, or do you understand who barabbas was, namely, jesus' brother james?

barabbas isn't a NAME, its a title, meaning 'son of the father'.

if you study the qumran texts, you'll realise that jesus WASN'T the son of god, he was nothing more than a prophet, and if history would've taken james' point of view instead, your world view would be totally different.

you are supposed to look at the bible as an allegory, not as literal truth, but when confronted with earlier, contemporary versions of scriptures, you deny them as heresy.

why is that?

because they don't fit your misconception?

no wonder the church tried banning monty python's 'life of brian'

it was too close to the truth for their liking.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

That has been know for a long time. As a kid, I was told it was 4BC that he was born.

peace

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Jesus even exist, he shares so many similarities with other 'characters' in other religions across the globe, its unreal...the sun god, born of a virgin, Dec 25th, the Resurrection etc etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Jesus even exist, he shares so many similarities with other 'characters' in other religions across the globe, its unreal...the sun god, born of a virgin, Dec 25th, the Resurrection etc etc..

Methinks you've been looking at too many conspiracy sites :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

you people really need to study the qumran texts.

they are written contemporary with jesus' life, and describe him as being nothing more than an essene jew.

ask yourselves the meaning of 'barabbas'?

do you think barabbas was some sort of criminal, set free on jesus' behalf, or do you understand who barabbas was, namely, jesus' brother james?

barabbas isn't a NAME, its a title, meaning 'son of the father'.

if you study the qumran texts, you'll realise that jesus WASN'T the son of god, he was nothing more than a prophet, and if history would've taken james' point of view instead, your world view would be totally different.

you are supposed to look at the bible as an allegory, not as literal truth, but when confronted with earlier, contemporary versions of scriptures, you deny them as heresy.

why is that?

because they don't fit your misconception?

no wonder the church tried banning monty python's 'life of brian'

it was too close to the truth for their liking.....

Actually, the majority of the Qumran scrolls date to the century before Jesus, and none of them mention Jesus at all. Some have tried to date the texts to the time of Jesus and link him to the "Wicked Priest", but the vast vast vast vast majority of scholars dismiss that line of reasoning as totally baseless. So with respect, perhaps it is you who needs to study the Qumran texts.

P.S - I'm a Christian and absolutely LOVE Monty Python's Life of Brian.

Edited by Paranoid Android
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That has been know for a long time. As a kid, I was told it was 4BC that he was born.

peace

mark

What has been told is a baseless assumption. There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus was born in 4 BC, just as there is no evidence that Herod died in 4 BC. There is evidence though that in 3 BC, (when he was supposed to be dead) he was involved in a dispute with the neighbouring state of Armenia, which at the time belonged to the Persian Empire.

Now the question is, how can a man who is supposedly dead, do any of this in 3 B.C. if he died in 4 B.C.?

The only reason and I mean that quite literally, the only reason why the death of Herod is tied to the year 4 B.C. is because of a supposed lunar eclipse in that year. The proponents of this theory conveniently forget to tell us that it was only a partial eclipse and that there was another such eclipse in 1 B.C., which was a total eclipse. The difference is important since it was an eclipse that turned the moon blood red, and these only happen on a full lunar eclipse.

total_lunar_eclipse_1.jpg

Full Lunar Eclipse Sequence

http://www.astronomy...akedeye/s14.htm

This information comes from Josephus Antiquities and there is absolutely no reason to remember a partial lunar eclipse, there would be no symblism attached to such an occurence. Only a full lunar eclipse with a bllod red colour satisfies the reasoning for an eclipse to be mentioned at all in relation to Herods death.

Other arguments are used especially in regrads to the number of years Herod reigned in Israel from the time he conquered Jerusalem, but these too are based on a number of assumptions which are easily demonstrated to be false.

All indications lead me to believe that the year Jesus was born was in 3 B.C., specifically in Septemebr.

Edited by Jor-el
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Methinks you've been looking at too many conspiracy sites :yes:

Don't take my word for it do your own research...the virgin birth, the resurrection, born 25th, the sun god etc etc..all attributes you can find in other deities from other religions.

Horus born 25th Dec born of a virgin 'Isis' star in the east, adored by three kings, was betrayed, crucified and resurrection after three days,

Attis

Krishna,

Dionysus

Mithra and many many more all have attributes similar to those of Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://www.gather.co...81814240

http://en.wikipedia....-and-rising_god

I could post links all day long showing those same attributes exist in deities from every religion ever conceived, If a mod wants to call them conspiracy fair enough..but at least do the research before dismiss *snip* :tu:

Almost every aspect to Catholicism is taken from earlier dogma, mainly the Torah and Egyptian paganism, much like how Mohammad took Catholicism spun it and regurgitated it as Islam

Edited by Paranoid Android
Removed offensive remark

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.