Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope

[Novaheart]

Says the nonbeliever who could really care less.

You probably don't believe that Mohammed was a prophet or Sidhartha Gautama was enlightened but it doesn't preclude you from discussing them as historical figures, does it?

[AmPat]

Well there you have the difference between Roman justice and American justice. In America, Jesus would have had a lawyer who pointed out the error on the execution order related to an error on the birth certificate and ipso fatso the judge would have dismissed the case. Romans were like, "Meh, it's close enough for government work."

"Ipso FATSO?"

[Novaheart]

"Ipso FATSO?"

It's an Archie Bunkerism

[Wibbins]

Why do I not care what the pope thinks?

[noonwitch]

It doesn't matter to me. I've managed to reconcile evolution with Genesis in my head, so this is not much of a challenge to my faith.


The Bible gives no dates, one has to turn to outside sources like Josephus to put the events of Jesus life in a time frame more specific than that laid out in the gospels-Luke mentions that Augustus was Caesar at the time of Jesus' birth, for example.

[marv]

The 'mistake' was made by a sixth century monk known as Dionysius Exiguus or in English Dennis the Small, the 85-year-old pontiff claims in the book 'Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives', published on Wednesday.

"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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_o...#Date_of_birth

(snip)

But both Luke and Matthew associate Jesus' birth with the time of King Herod. Most scholars generally assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC.

However, many scholars see a contradiction, in that while the Gospel of Matthew places Jesus' birth under the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, the Gospel of Luke also dates the birth ten years after Herod's death during the census of Quirinius, described by the historian Josephus.

(snip)

...whatever. It's still my favorite time of the year...

[Novaheart]

It doesn't matter to me. I've managed to reconcile evolution with Genesis in my head, so this is not much of a challenge to my faith.


The Bible gives no dates, one has to turn to outside sources like Josephus to put the events of Jesus life in a time frame more specific than that laid out in the gospels-Luke mentions that Augustus was Caesar at the time of Jesus' birth, for example.

Exactly. The Bible contains some verified mileposts which give us an idea of when other undocumented and divine things allegedly happened, and some people think that those historically recorded mileposts make the whole thing a history book. It's not a history book, it's literature with some history, some geography, some philosophy, some folklore, some fairy tales. And a whole lot of murder and sex.

[noonwitch]

Exactly. The Bible contains some verified mileposts which give us an idea of when other undocumented and divine things allegedly happened, and some people think that those historically recorded mileposts make the whole thing a history book. It's not a history book, it's literature with some history, some geography, some philosophy, some folklore, some fairy tales. And a whole lot of murder and sex.

There's even bathroom humor in it-look up 1 Samuel 24 and see how David humiliates Saul.

[Zeus]

Exactly. The Bible contains some verified mileposts which give us an idea of when other undocumented and divine things allegedly happened, and some people think that those historically recorded mileposts make the whole thing a history book. It's not a history book, it's literature with some history, some geography, some philosophy, some folklore, some fairy tales. And a whole lot of murder and sex.

The Bible has proven to be more historically and archaeologically accurate than any other ancient book. It has been subjected to the minutest scientific textual analysis possible to humanity and has been proven to be authentic in every way.

The Bible has become a significant source book for secular archaeology, helping to identify such ancient figures as Sargon (Isaiah 20:1); Sennacherib (Isaiah 37:37); Horam of Gazer (Joshua 10:33); Hazar (Joshua 15:27); and the nation of the Hittites (Genesis 15:20). The biblical record, unlike other “scriptures,” is historically set, opening itself up for testing and verification.

Two of the greatest 20th-century archaeologists, William F. Albright and Nelson Glueck, both lauded the Bible (even though they were non-Christian and secular in their training and personal beliefs) as being the single most accurate source document from history. Over and over again, the Bible has been found to be accurate in its places, dates, and records of events. No other “religious” document comes even close.

The 19th-century critics used to deny the historicity of the Hittites, the Horites, the Edomites, and various other peoples, nations, and cities mentioned in the Bible. Those critics have long been silenced by the archaeologist’s spade, and few critics dare to question the geographical and ethnological reliability of the Bible.

The names of over 40 different kings of various countries mentioned in the Bible have all been found in contemporary documents and inscriptions outside of the Old Testament, and are always consistent with the times and places associated with them in the Bible. Nothing exists in ancient literature that has been even remotely as well-confirmed in accuracy as has the Bible.

...

[Novaheart]

...

Historical figures in the Bible no more confirm Christian mythology than the known location of Mt Olympus confirms Greek Mythology. Moreover, dreaming up fantastic ways that might explain why the earth is only 6000 years old is not science, it's desperation.