Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

When was Jesus Born?


Heimdall

Recommended Posts

This is something that most Christ Cultists are not aware of (or ignore because it shakes their faith) and many ExC's may not be aware of it either. This is a little puzzle for triv, Berserk, or any others of their ilk. When was Jesus (assuming that he actually existed) born? What year was his birth year? :shrug: Mark and John never mention his birth; only Matthew and Luke mention it, highly embellished with miraculous happenings and mythological creatures in the manner of Mithra, Osiris, Krishna and other earlier dying/resurrecting/savior God-men. :lmao: However, it is impossible to set a date based on Matthew and Luke, because neither agrees. In order to address the problems facing the establishment of a date of birth, we must first set forth those dates that are fairly well established historically: :nono:

 

Herod the Great - reigned 40 to 4 BCE

Caesar Augustus – reigned 24 BCE to 14 CE

Quirinius (known as Cyrenius in Luke) – 1st term as Governor 6 to 4 BCE (this is in contention, as some records show Varus as governor of Syria from 6BC-4BC), second term 6 to 9 CE

John the Baptist – 28 CE to 31 or 32 CE

Pontius Pilate – served from 26 to 36 CE

Tiberius Caesar – reigned 14 to 37 CE

 

Matthew says that the birth took place during the reign of King Herod. So by Matthew, he had to have been born no later than 4 BCE, but probably around 6 BCE. There are several problems here: First, there was no Roman census conducted during the reign of Herod the Great. Although Judah was a protectorate of Rome, as an independent nation (theoretically), it was free from arbitrary Roman demands such as a census. Second, Jesus’ ministry would have started between 23 – 25 CE which would have been much too early for John, who started his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius’ reign (about 28 CE), and third, his ministry would also be too early for Pilate. :loser:

Luke says that the birth took place during the census ordered by Augustus Caesar in Quirinius’ second term as Governor of Syria (by this time Judah was no longer a protectorate, but instead a minor province of the Empire, so Augustus could then have ordered a census and according to Josephus did. so). So by Luke, he would have been born between 6 and 9 CE. Once again there are problems: Jesus would have started his ministry much too late for John the Baptist (he would have had to be only 21 – 23 when baptized by John, in this scenario) and much too late for Pontius Pilate (he would have been only 24-27 when Pilate took office and would have been only 30 when Pilate was relieved of duty and returned to Rome. Even the traditional birth year of 1 CE won’t work, in that it would be too late for Herod the Great and too early for Quirinius’ second term as Governor (and consequently Augustus’ census). :loser: It may seem that I am nit-picking, but this lack of agreement at the very least casts serious doubts upon the Cultist claim that the Gospels were written either by eyewitnesses or by people with access to the memories of eyewitnesses, which in turn casts doubts upon their being the inspired word of God or the very existence of Jesus of Nazareth. :eek: Here we have two of the first three gospels showing a major contradiction (11 years difference is a major contradiction), what next? Proof that the whole religion is just so much BS? :eek: . - Heimdall :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Just another side to add to the already intriguing puzzle as to the birth of Christ.

It is only a puzzle if you assume that he was actually born. The strange part to me is that since the church picked which books to canonnize, why did they pick books that contradict each other so thoroughly? I guess they were committed to having four accounts, no matter what, and these were the four that matched the best. The rejected gospels (Mary, Thomas, Peter, etc) were too different doctrinally to be considered-- which apparently was criteria number one. I don't think there IS another gospel that matches up with history or any of the other gospels, so their hands were pretty much tied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

Quirinius (known as Cyrenius in Luke) – 1st term as Governor 6 to 4 BCE (this is in contention, as some records show Varus as governor of Syria from 6BC-4BC), second term 6 to 9 CE

 

Quirinius was certainly not governor twice. Read this essay on the matter.

 

Here is a small portion...

Some Christian apologists, following extremely outdated scholarship, have tried to argue (or have even stated as if it were a fact) that Quirinius was actually governor of Syria on two different occasions--the first time, conveniently, while Herod was alive. Therefore, this argument goes, the census Luke is talking about happened in the days of Herod the Great. Unfortunately, this fails to solve the other contradictions between Luke's and Matthew's accounts. It is also both groundless and implausible.  Nevertheless, every single piece of evidence we have about Quirinius has been twisted into "evidence" of a second or earlier governorship of Syria, and evidence has even been invented wholesale--once by an innocent mistake, and once by pseudoscientific insanity. This "evidence" consists of three inscriptions and one coin, which I will examine in detail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole birth of Jesus scene was a much later embellishment, so it had less time to "get on message" hence the contradictions, it’s apologetics, a counter adoption myth, not a historical report. Jesus's nature as a saviour deity was always the most important factor, the peripheral ideas, such as his early “life”, teachings, miracles, and "birth" were a matter of later dispute after a basic dogma had been settled. We should be surprised if they did harmonise, short of one gospel just copying from the other this could not have happened.

 

Luke was the 1st to think up any date for jesus's life at all, and this was just a approximate guess based on previously established elements, Pilot, the Sanhedrin etc. These were narrative devises, no real thought as to time frame was ever considered, Luke’s lack of success in fixing it shows in the later works which droped any date once more. The theology and message (especially in John) was always more important than accuracy as this was not meant as history at first, but was interpreted as such for doctrinal purposes later. Mark was a Homeric inversion, Mathew a Midrash style expansion, Luke a Josephus "inspired" fake history and John a anti-Gnostic tract, to try to find a history in this lot or a harmony of detail is pointless. Though I do enjoy it when xtians try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, whether he was governor twice or not is a moot point, no matter how you try to put the pieces together Matthew and Luke do not agree. Check each year from 6 BCE to 9 CE and you will find that something (sometimes more than one thing) keeps all the ducks from falling into a row. So whether Quirinius was governor once or twice doesn’t mean anything, It’s all mythology anyway, written probably half a century or more after the supposed fact. What your average Christ Cultist does not understand, is that the gospels weren’t written as biographies, but as evangelizing material and has been rewritten and reedited (check the original ending of Mark as opposed to the longer version existing today) to reflect the changing politics of the religion. I agree that there is probably no historic Jesus, there is no contemporary evidence of one and as great a personage as he was supposed to be would have shown up in several histories. - Heimdall :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only a puzzle if you assume that he was actually born.   The strange part to me is that since the church picked which books to canonnize, why did they pick books that contradict each other so thoroughly?  I guess they were committed to having four accounts, no matter what, and these were the four that matched the best.  The rejected gospels (Mary, Thomas, Peter, etc) were too different doctrinally to be considered-- which apparently was criteria number one.  I don't think there IS another gospel that matches up with history or any of the other gospels, so their hands were pretty much tied.

 

Because a lot of this information was not available to the cardinals, or they just didn't check, or didn't care. They took everything by faith, and not logic.

 

And yes, it was decided that 4 books, for the 4 corners of the world ( :lmao: ) and the 4 winds, and whatever else 4 of something.

 

I would say they probably had square heads too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you noticed that the only ones to respond to this thread are all ExC's. Guess the Cultists are afraid to address this subject. The ones on Unexplained-Mysteries.com at least made an attempt to explain why the contradiction existed - Guess our resident Calvinists :loser: are just more chicken than the fundies over there! - Heimdall :wicked: :

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess our resident Calvinists :loser:   are just more chicken than the fundies over there! - Heimdall    :wicked:   :

 

It really wouldn't matter if they posted to this thread or not. It's not like they ever really address the topics of the threads they contribute to anyway.

 

Say you start a thread comparing homemade meatloaf to premade box mix.

 

One of our favorite specimens of xtian joins in. At least they seem to, seeing as their first sentence is: "My grandmother made meatloaf every Sunday after church....."

 

BUT....they follow this with a huge block of babble, abandoning all concept of paragraphs.

And when you read the babble...for some strange reason, it's a mish-mash of Intelligent Design and absolute truth badly mated with bible verses that are just there and don't actually contribute with whatever point the author is trying to make, with a sprinkling of web links that take you off to see Troy and Hovind and flat-earthers.....

 

And.....wait.....wasn't your original topic about meatloaf? :twitch:

 

So whether they join this one or not, they'll just try to misdirect the conversation anyway. The notion of starting their own damn thread is just crazy talk!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the discussions of the Greeks, in trying to determine the exact birthdate of Hercules. Good luck

 

I used to question the accuracy of the gospels when I thought that they were written sometime between 70 CE and 100 CE

 

More recently, scholars are coming to the opinion that the gospels were formed more like 170 to 185 CE.

 

Justin Martyr, around 150 CE has a volume of writings that cite the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, but make no mention of the four gospels.

 

The reason that these four gospels were selected (out of almost 50), is that they had the LEAST contradictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mythra is bang on, for centuries there was a chaotic mix of many denominations and theologies, and many more epistles and gospels than made it into the N.T. If you study the surviving non-canonical you'll see why they were not included as they directly contradict the orthodox theological position as it was in 325. Whereas the ones in the N.T. contain comparatively superficial disagreements. They cover this up through harmonisation and the fact that most xtians are exposed to the fully developed dogma of a virgin birth, Jesus as god etc, combining the favourite elements from the synoptics with the theology of the gospel of John, before they read the bible, (if at all). So when theists read the N.T. they fill in the gaps and gloss over the contractions with their expectations, for e.g. John's Jesus as god is what is seen in even Mark's gospel, and the biographies themselves are grafted onto the epistles. They probably would have made further changes to the material but by then they were too widely distributed.

 

The gospels were from different schools at different stages in the christological development, such contradictions are what we would expect and help us to plot out xtianity’s evolution. And yes I consider it likely that at least Luke and John were written after 132ce, as their move away from Judaism would coincide with the second rebellion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd to think that God came down in human form, even though his birth and what not was already done in "pagan story's, He wasn't original enough to do something different I guess.

 

 

There is NO real evidence of his (Christ's) existence. You'd think God himself would leave a real sign for all those not alive during his "brief" time on earth, other then some vague halfassed code of sometime soon returning.

 

Also questionable is that the Jewish God broke his own laws and created someone else to worship first before himself. :shrug:

 

 

Also what's the big deal of raising from the dead, didn't Lazareth rise from the dead also? Does that make him gods son also, what did he see when he died? how come no one ever says??

 

(Sorry, I'm having problems twisting my brain to even form these absurd questions, but questions that also need to be asked to Blind Christians of which they will have no answers other then calling me a heretic. ) :twitch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ears perk up whenever someone starts talking about Matthew. The Book of Matthew is just a treasure trove of horrible mistakes that can't be reconciled. My favorite of all can be summed up of this paraphrase of the first chapter of Matthew: "Jesus was born of a virgin... here's his lineage of male progenetors." :Doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Mary was actually a hermaphrodite. It's the biggest secret of the whole church: Mary's Big Balls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Mary was actually a hermaphrodite. It's the biggest secret of the whole church: Mary's Big Balls.

 

Yeah, her true name was Bertha, but it's unknown to most Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.