When was Jesus's birthday, really?

[BurtWorm]

(Full disclosure: I don't believe in the historical Jesus.)

I've heard that Biblical "evidence" suggests Jesus was born not in December but rather in September. I don't recall what the evidence was. Anyone? When would a census have taken place?

[SlackJawedYokel]

1. This might help

http://www.geocities.com/logic_faith/date_of_birth_jesus_christ.htm

Cletus

[BurtWorm]

18. Very interesting!

Thanks! :toast:

[RevolutionaryActs]

60. Wow,

that is interesting, I love the bible its so easy to prove the fundies wrong. :evilgrin:

[BeyondThePale]

2. Hard to know for sure with fairy tale characters!

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

4. Show some respect!

[Razorback_Democrat]

23. Can you prove they are fairy tale characters? n/t

[Johonny]

42. This is a hard question

And yet easy to answer in one way. Basically the life of Jesus was not recorded by his contemporaries. So even if he existed the information we have about him is at best 3rd hand. Clearly the earliest Christian writing is not a story of his life but the idea of Christ as a go between this Earth and God.

So without any first hand historical documentation of his life you can pretty much say that much of his story is myth making. Many of his life stories clearly are lifted from the old testiment. But of course mixing myth and reality was not uncommon back then, and is still not uncommon (think of the myths around George Washington).

[Razorback_Democrat]

59. Another fact is that ALL of the accounts of Jesus are through the

prism or lens of the post Easter Jesus. In other words, no one was writing down his life at the time of it, and no one was writing down what he said or looking at it in the same way as it was looked at post Easter. Resurrection is the event in Christianity's history that changes the life of Jesus from a spiritually devoted man to the life of man/God on earth. There is also a lot of thought that Jesus never declared his divinity except in the book of John which was written the latest of the 4 gospels included in the bible. This could mean that a)Jesus didn't know of his divinity clearly as a man, or b) that the divinity and resurrection are myth.

No one KNOWS what really happened. Maybe Jesus as a historical figure didn't exist at all. Maybe the idea of Jesus is what is important.

Personally I believe that Jesus did exist. It think that politics, and the early church have created the portrait of Jesus that we have today. Certainly in the gospels that are in the bible, Jesus is not quite the same person that Paul proclaims him to be, nor any other writers of epistles.

As to his divinity, I decided once that it didn't matter to me as much as what he said and the message which is to love thy neighbor as yourself.

I believe in a creator who has revealed themselves to humans in many ways over time, including through the person/story/idea of Jesus and other prophets. I think that humans have been responsible for the exclusionary aspects of any religion and that has been the cause of wars and all kinds of problems.

[Az]

70. Not quite right

The lens is through the filter of Christian editors. There may or may not have been some contemporary evidence of Jesus existance (for the record I do not necissarily believe he did exist). But for the past 2000 years all evidence about him has been put through the blender with the aim of supporting only what the church approves. Copies and translations tend to favor the dominant view. Particularly when contrary views can lead to death. Speak out agains the official church position and you can find yourself in a very warm place and I don't mean the afterlife variety.

The rise to Christian power was not a singular event. It was a series of interfactional wars. Different sects battles for control of defining Jesus and the religion. When one sect was struck down the other sects would purge all information regarding that sect. Any stories or evidence they may have had were destroyed.

It was the council of Nicea in 376AD that finally set down the official canon that the world now accepts (to some degree) as the official story. With the completion of their meetings all other versions were defined as heresy and punishible by death.

Researching the truth behind Jesus is unlike researching any other individual in history. No one else has ever been forced through such a filter. Simultaneously trying to prove his existance but denying any existance that does not agree with the official version.

It is for this reason that relics such as the Shroud of Turin (a fake) are of such import to believers. Because there simply is no hard evidence that the man Jesus existed.

[Razorback_Democrat]

88. We can agree to disagree, but I'm not sure we do

I read your post, and re-read my post and see the differences as semantics and not substance

post easter is everything since the easter story, right?

the "winners" in history get to write history

[Az]

96. Belief does not need truth to propogate

In the end that which enables a belief to spread is its methodologies and efficacy. Neither of which are necissarily tied to the truth. Thus as you put it the winners get to write history. In fact it is their writing of history that in part enables them to write it.

Thus the issue of Jesus' existance is clouded from our current ability to know. In time some surviving documents chronicled during his life may surface that escaped the destruction of the dominant sects. But till then we simply cannot 'know' whether he existed or not.

That being said we are left with the message contained within the surviving stories attributed to him. The fact that they did in fact suvive suggests that they contain some factor which lend themself to surviving social structures. In fact we find very similar threads of thought in far flung religions and philosophies.

A society that is corrupt and weak cannot effectively spread its belief system. Thus belief systems that develop strong and healthy societies can be expected to posess factors which lead to these conditions. Thus it is that we find the ideas of the Golden Rule and other basic tenents of morality contained within wildly differing philosophies. It is the efficacy of the tenents that build the strength in the society, not the truth of whether it was the son of God or some enlightened being with the head of a blue elephant that brought us this teaching.

Religions and philosophies which do not build strong societies are quickly forced out by those that do. Thus nihilistic and hedonistic systems will alway be on the periphery. They cannot counter the more organised beliefs. They simply do not have an effective distribution system built into their construct. So to more tolerant and open systems when met with aggressive assertive systems will tend to lose ground. In the end it has nothing to do with the truth behind the story and everything to do with the ability to survive.

[Cleita]

47. Can you prove they are not?

Even many theologians believe that the gospels are a compiliation of many stories of preachers and prophets that walked in the Holy Land back then, much like the Hindu holy men do in India today. The fact that he seems to come from two places, Bethlehem and Nazareth points to a certain confusion of origins there. The man who was crucified could have been a different one from the man who was born in Bethlehem.

With no real records other than the Bible, or other artifacts to back up his existence, I am afraid, these are stories meant to teach about the founders of a religion, not necessarily a particular person. The fact that there are twelve apostles points to the fact that this was a sect that had evolved from mainstream Judaism and tales were passed by word of mouth about the leaders of the movement and often of their martyrdom.

They probably got rolled into one person before the first word was written down. Perhaps the Dead Sea scrolls and any new scroll discoveries might clear up the matter eventually.

[Razorback_Democrat]

57. Truthfully I can't argue with you as I am not in disagreement at all

I personally believe that Jesus (or the idea of Jesus) did in fact exist. I believe that the real thrust of the gospels is in fact to let people know that God is not unapproachable and that God does not insist that people follow dietary and other strict Judaic laws in order to commune with God. I also feel that whether the actual person of Jesus existed or not, that the idea became manifest in a religion that preached the idea that God could be found by anyone.

I think that the Canon of the Roman Church weeded out gospels that didn't fit it's political scheme of things (relegating women to second class citizens, declaring that Jesus was the only way to heaven, etc.) and left us with what we have (to a large extent) as the bible.

Recent (last century) findings of documents, and other gospels even indicate the wide range of thought and practice at the time of Jesus and in the next couple of centuries.

When Rome proclaimed Christianity as it's religion of choice, I think that they "cherry picked" that which kept the power in Rome and left the rest.

[Az]

97. Further information

Mark is thought to be the oldest of the Gospels. It is likely it was written about 70+ years after the events it preports to be about. Scholars have found that some of the other Gospels directly lift passages from Mark (as well as some other unknown source).

There is even a theory that Mark was actually a retelling of the stories of Homer (Odyseus and the Illiad). This is not as far fetched as it may seem. The notion of copyrights are a very recent idea. Back in ancient times it was accepted that people copied others work and modified it. The idea was to try to improve on the story and add new ideas to it. Thus instead of a suffering warrior solving his troubles with violence Mark rewrote the story with Jesus the pacifist solving his problems with peace.

[Razorback_Democrat]

104. It's possible, but I'll stick with the beliefs I have thanks n/t

[Az]

107. As is your right, but

I was not really trying to sway you. Merely adding further information to someone else's post. :)

[EOTE]

40. There is very little doubt.....

amongst historians that Jesus was a real person. The point of contention is whether or not he was the son of god.

[Ms_Mary]

41. The existence of Jesus is not generally debated

Rather, his divinity is. I think history makes it pretty clear he is not a fairytale.

[BurtWorm]

43. I think his existence will only be more and more debated.

The number of people skeptical about his historical existence has increased radically since I was a kid, probably because it has become more socially acceptable to express skepticism.

[Behind the Aegis]

44. This is very true

I am just starting to read the "Jesus Mysteries" and it starts off how the very book would have had a hard time finding a publisher just a few years ago.

[BurtWorm]

48. Is that the one about Christianity as a pagan mystery?

Very interesting book! :thumbsup:

[Ms_Mary]

45. It's a good possibility you are right.

[Az]

99. His existance is not debated by those that believe

Amongst scholars and nonbelievers his existance is considered unproven. The debate lays dormant because there is no new evidence to consider. And the evidence that exists is far from compelling.

Suffice to say that few people's existance have historically lead to death when questioned. Questioning his existance is pretty effectively bread out of a people if you kill off those that do. Even today any suggestion that he did not exist is met with howls of protest. It is true that debates concerning this issue are not well publisized but they do exist.

[hippiechick]

3. I thought it was late summer ...

Based on historical records, the Census was done around harvest time, ie, August/September. Which would have caused Joseph and Mary's roadtrip.


My limited understanding of Christianity vs. Paganism is that the Christians co-opted the Pagan St. Michaelmas and Winter Solstice celebrations and turned Dec 25th into Jesus Birthday.

I may be totally wrong.


:hippie:

[rurallib]

8. Co-opted saturnalia and Yule

I heard - both solstice related festivities.

[emcguffie]

30. I think you are right.

That's where the gift-giving came in. There was already a gift-giving period in celebration of the lengthening days.

[kentuck]

5. Some astrologers put his birth in July or August...

according to the "star of Bethelhem" - which some say was a conjunction of two stars which made it appear so bright.

[lastliberalintexas]

49. I thought the astronomers

placed his birth in early March? I'd read somewhere that this timeline explained the connection to the fish symbol even from early times of the church. Who really knows though? Maybe that was just an after the fact explanation made up by someone who was a Pisces? :shrug:

[BurtWorm]

52. We are approaching the end of the age of Pisces.

The zodiac shifts backwards (or the earth's position in relation to it shifts) one sign every 2,000 years. Four thousand years ago, it was the age of the Aries, which is why the ram was a prevalent symbol in Mediterranean religions. The age of Aquarius is going to dawn in 2614, when Aquarius will rise for the first time on the vernal equinox.

http://starryskies.com/articles/dln/3-98/precession.html

[rurallib]

6. I've quit believing in a historical jesus also

From what I have heard many secular type biblical scholars place the birth in March or April. This is based on such things as who was governing Judea and sheep being in the field. Also something to do with the star which was calculated to be a supernova that appeared in the spring @3bc.
Seems a lot of socalled christian teaching is based on Paul. Irrelevant comment.

[emcguffie]

33. Even non-Christians say he existed...

There is, I think, real historical evidence that he existed. Maybe he wasn't divine, but he was there. I think.

[Johonny]

37. Nope

There is no historical evidence of Jesus birth and death. The best you got is Mark which is at best a third hand account of his life written 60-70 years after his birth. Historically we know next to nothing about Jesus. Not that it really matters.

[BurtWorm]

39. True that many non-Christians say he existed.

Even a lot of atheists say he did. But they have no more proof of his historical existence than Christians do. The evidence is very scarce and, where it exists, shockingly flimsy.

[catbert836]

111. He did exist, even for non-Christians

In the Roman histories there are several mentions of a Jewish prophet named Yeshua during the reign of Augustus Caesar who was crucified. Since Hebrew (and aramaic for that matter) have no vowels, Jesus' name wuld be spelled out in those languages like this:
Y SH A (hebrew) or J S S (Aramaic)
or, more specifically,
YESHUA or JESUS

[scarlett1]

46. on my reading of History

The Shepards in the Fields tending the sheep places the event in Spring and the Calendar when it was revised by St Gregory? miscalculated and it about 3-5 years off on Before Christ ( BC) and doesn't have a year Zero, hence the controversy of when the new millennium began.

[tanyev]

7. Wait a minute.

You don't believe that a person named Jesus who had a religious sect start following him even existed? I believe there are non-Biblical sources that also mention his existence.

If you don't believe in the divine nature/miracles/resurrection from the dead and so forth, that I can understand.

[rurallib]

10. I believe Jesus probably lived

And probably did some preaching and had some followers. After that I start questioning the stories.

[Razorback_Democrat]

25. It's amazing that followers of him have died (millions of them) for their

beliefs

and persecuted in the times he lived and thereafter

why would so many people do that if Jesus weren't real and there wasn't something very special about his life and ministry? and ressurection?

[BurtWorm]

26. Do you believe Mohammed really received revealed religion

from God? Is that why millions of his followers have died in the name of Islam?

The reason people die for any cause is because they *believe* in it, but that doesn't in any way mean that what they believe in is *real* or *true.*

[Razorback_Democrat]

62. I think that it is very possible that Mohammed did receive "revealed

religion", a view of God that has been over time, like all other religious ideas "humanized" and made to suit the whims of those in charge.

Remember, the ones who win get to write history!

So Islam, like any religion, is a compilation of the "winner's" views of the subject.

Humans take religion to great lengths and many die for their beliefs.

What I was particularly referring to were the early writers and followers who were subjected to ridicule, imprisonment, and death within a time frame of a generation away or less from the death of Jesus (historically) and for them to risk it all for nothing gained except to further the Church is to me evidence of a reality that Jesus did exist!

I think the same is true for other Churches as well. I believe that God has revealed God's self to humankind throughout history in ways that they could understand.

[BurtWorm]

75. Well, who were those people you're referring to?

Most of the Christian persecutions occurred hundreds of years after the gospels first appeared, when the Roman nobility finally started to get paranoid over the growing numbers of Christians and felt threatened by it. And there was a period when Christianity and paganism were duking it out, followed by a period when Arianism and orthodoxy were duking it out. These people were killing and maiming each other for beliefs, just as they continue to do and have fone for all time. Beliefs.

[Razorback_Democrat]

87. for one John the Baptist

and other apostles and followers were persecuted, imprisoned, and killed

[BurtWorm]

90. If we believe the gospels.

And the gospels are kind of hard to believe.

[Razorback_Democrat]

106. Well we should just agree to disagree then, I'm still a Democrat

and a liberal
and a believer in God
and a Christian
and a voter


if we want our party to come together we have to get along and let everyone have a place at the table I think.

[BurtWorm]

108. I agree. I'd hate to see the party become like the GOP

in which the party line is rigid and the people have to go trolling at Democratic forums to have a good argument.

And RD, I hope you know I'm not talking about you. ;)

[BurtWorm]

16. The non-Biblical textual evidence is very, very slim.

If you take away all of the divine nature/miracles/resurrection, you're left with a lot of contradictory "bibliographical evidence," a mishmash of Stoic and Jewish aphorisms, and a name that looks pretty suspiciously like a symbolic one. So if there really was a historical person on whom the Biblical Jesus was based, he is nothing at all like the one who is worshipped today. He might as well be all myth.

[ClintonTyree]

19. I believe in a historical Jesus.................

just like I believe in a historical George Bush. The biblical Jesus? No way am I believing that tripe. Just like I wouldn't believe in the tripe they'll write about G. W. Bush in the future.

[Walt Starr]

20. The Josephus accounts of Jesus are discredited

apparently, the vatican added those portions to the antiquities centuries after the death of Josephus.

[anti-fundie]

51. You might want to read The Case for Christ.

In it, the author notes that the Gospels were written some 20 to 50 years after Jesus' ministry on earth. Thus, there is a much less elapse in time between Jesus' life and the Gospels than there is say in Herodotus', Thucydides', or Plinys' historical works--in some instances these ancient historians wrote about events that occurred over 300 years in the past.

Moreover, the earliest manuscript of any of the ancient, non-biblical, historians is from the Middle Ages. With the Gospels, its from the second century (or a mere 100 to 150 years after the events occurred).

Furthermore, the Gospel accounts were well circulated among those who actually saw Jesus. Paul, in his letters, actually refers to many accounts from the Gospels. Although Paul was not one of the original 12 disciples, he did meet with many of them (specifically Peter) according to Acts. Surely Paul, a well-trained rabbinical scholar, would have investigated and questioned these original 12 to determine whether their account of Jesus was accurate. Paul, in addition to 11 of the original 12, ended up dying as martyrs for Christ.

Did they die for something that knew was a lie? No, they did not.

[BurtWorm]

53. Welcome to DU, anti-fundie.

Interesting method of fighting fundamentalism you've got there. ;)

[anti-fundie]

56. Are all Christians fundies?

Please let me know how Jesse Jackson responds when you inform him of that.

[BurtWorm]

58. You tell me which fundies you're anti.

Probably the ones who believe Josephus wrote that Jesus was the son of God, right? :eyes:

[anti-fundie]

61. Anti those fundies who dogmatically hold to a rigid orthodoxy.

You know, the kind who put more faith in ancient histories so long as the "God" is plural and the names are Greek. :-)

[BurtWorm]

63. Must be lonely being that kind of anti-fundie.

Considering there aren't many of that kind of fundamentalists around anymore.

[anti-fundie]

67. On this forum, it certainly is.

[Razorback_Democrat]

71. LOL n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

74. LOL

Welcome to DU

[Razorback_Democrat]

66. LOL n/t

[Razorback_Democrat]

68. Real heart felt welcome?

He was talking about a book that I've read as well.

Remember that a large percentage of democrats are Christians as well and that the right has hijacked Christianity, but Christians on the left are the hope (in my opinion) to win back the majority. Christians on the left are tolerant and not demanding that others follow the will of anything.

I think the right hijacked Christianity with dominion Christianity and while the book he talks of is written by a rather right leaning writer, the book author on the other hand seems to have a ministry that is NOT a dominionist ministry and really tries to help people.

[anti-fundie]

69. You're a smarter person than I.

Good to be with you Razorback.

[Razorback_Democrat]

72. Hey, lots of Democrats are Christians n/t

[BurtWorm]

78. It was a welcome.

;)

I'd like to learn why this anti-fundie has Karl Marx as an avatar. To fight fundies, I presume.

[anti-fundie]

79. No more a contradiction than having a lit bulb as an avatar, I guess.

;)

[BurtWorm]

81. Interesting.

Why do you have Marx as an avatar? Why not Jesus?

[anti-fundie]

82. Interesting, too.

Why do you have a lit bulb as an avatar? Why not Marx?

[BurtWorm]

84. I believe in electricity.

How about you?

[anti-fundie]

85. Alas, something we can agree on!

:)

[BurtWorm]

86. Alas, indeed!

;)

[Razorback_Democrat]

89. You sound suspicious

:tinfoilhat:

fundies are everywhere? infiltrating?

[BurtWorm]

92. I'm not the one with a nickname proclaiming an aversion to "fundies."

Am I suspicious? Mmmm, could be.

[Razorback_Democrat]

93. Hey, I steer clear of questioning that anymore

I got warned about "calling out" people I was suspicious of, but you never know.

[BurtWorm]

95. We'll see whose senses are working, overworking or underworking.

It could be unjust of me, but something strikes me as fundamentally dishonest in the exchange above.

[anti-fundie]

98. Open-mindedness

Fundies, you know, could (also) refer to those who attacked us on 9/11 rather than the ones you really fear.

[BurtWorm]

100. I think certain fundamentalists are dangerous, in a way.

They breed a kind of thought process that makes life itself less valuable than the object of worship. In that sense, you could say I "fear" fundamentalists, I suppose, whether they're motivated to become martyrs as they murder infidels, or to overthrow democracy because they believe America is a Christian nation.

[anti-fundie]

101. Again, on that we agree.

[BurtWorm]

103. Alas.

[Razorback_Democrat]

64. Case for Christ is a good read

To me it is helpful, especially in the part "did they die for something that they knew was a lie?" I think there are some flaws in the writer's logic, but he did experience a transformation in his own life that is included in the pages that is interesting.

The author is more to the right in his beliefs about Christianity than I am, but I did find the book to be valuable and helpful to me in a time of doubt, needing reinforcement.

Welcome to DU!

[BurtWorm]

80. With all due respect, RD, that's one of the weakest cases for Christ

That others behaved in a certain way does not prove anything about the reality of JC. Christian myth is extremely powerful. It's not surprising that people would die (or kill) for it, even hundreds of years after it first appeared on earth. This is not testament to the power of the alleged person, but it certainly is to the power of the legend.

[Razorback_Democrat]

91. Why would a myth be so powerful

if it didn't have truth to it?

myth does not mean "fairy tale", nor is it necessarily untrue.
It may be half true, or based in truth

American Heritage Dictionary:

myth (mth) KEY

NOUN:


A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).

[BurtWorm]

94. Does the Mayan creation myth have truth to it?

Or any creation myth? Why do they have power if they don't have truth to them? Or do they have truth to them, too? Can they all be true?

My answer: they have power because they're mental objects, not material objects, to worship. They're stories, and stories have a lot of power over us humans.

[Razorback_Democrat]

102. Since creation is something that cannot be proven or disproven

and evolution has it's scientific basis, but still has some holes to fill in terms of things like how long do changes take, are they sudden or gradual, etc.

I think it is very possible that all creation myths have some degree of truth to them.

I don't know Mayan creation myths, but is it not possible that a creator gave them to the Mayans?

Of course, if you don't believe in a creator than that would be a non-starter.

There is so much we don't understand about this universe and all universes and creation, and life, and afterlife, after death, whatever,

I get real simple with spiritual beliefs.

If they make me feel comforted and better, then they must be okay for me. If they bother you then don't embrace those ideas. If it bothers you that it makes me feel comfortable, that's your problem.

So, what's next?

[BurtWorm]

105. Faith and reason

once again talk past each other. :shrug:

[anti-fundie]

109. A matter of faith?

Creation cannot be proven or disproven. I think the same can be said about the theory of evolution. Creationists would tend to believe that the evolutionists' faith--and it is faith--is misplaced, and vice-versa.

Also, I'm not so sure creationism and evolution are entirely mutually exclusive. There is no doubt scientific fact of micro-evolution (e.g., the increasing height of humans or the lack of wisdom teeth in many) versus macro-evolution (e.g., the change of a rudimentary hominid to modern man). Of course, I'm neither a theologian nor anthropologist.

[BurtWorm]

110. No, there is a difference between believing in creation

and believing in evolution. You can't disprove creation, but you can disprove the theory of evolution, or revise it, if the facts don't agree with it. So far, the facts agree with evolution. I don't think theologists are sitting around waiting to have the facts disprove their faith in creation. Do you?

Nice avatar change. ;)

[trotsky]

112. "Did they die for something that knew was a lie?"

Every religion has martyrs. Even Mormonism - people who *swore* the gold plates were real, were killed for it, and never renounced their faith.

Zealots willing to die for the cause do not "prove" anything.

[anti-fundie]

50. Josephus in his Antiquities not only mentioned that Jesus

was the founder of a new "sect," but also that he was the Son of God. Josephus was a Jew and no Christian, and arguably a sell-out to the very authorities who crucified Jesus.

[BurtWorm]

54. It might help you in your battle against fundamentalism

to know that the Josephus mention of Jesus is pretty well accepted to be a Christian interpolation.

[anti-fundie]

65. Are these the same people

who well accept the idea that Jesus never existed?

[BurtWorm]

83. The Catholic Encyclopedia

for one, acknowledges that "The passage <the Flavian testimony> seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." Maybe they're not Christian enough for you? ;)

[ucmike]

9. it sucks to have your birthday on christmas.

he wishes he was born in september.

[rurallib]

11. BTW - my birthday is 9/24

Guess what my dad got for christmas the previous year?

[annabanana]

55. LOL!

Welcome ucmike!
:toast:

[arwalden]

12. The "Shepherds Tending Their Sheep" Thing Suggests

April or May to some folks.

-- Allen

P.S. I don't believe that there was actually a Jesus either.

[On the Road]

13. No Basis for Selecting Any Month

I believe the Christmas stories in Matthew and Luke are invented. The census story does not jibe with anything known about Romans. The only purpose seems to be to get Jesus in a location to fulfill the star prophecy.

Jesus probably grew up in Sepphoris in Galilee, which is referred to as "his city" in the Gospels. And nothing that's known about Jesus before his ministry is at all trustworthy.

[Johonny]

38. Yes

Both books are based on Mark. Luke and Matthew clearly filled in back story. Which is clearly stolen from Exodus and other old testiment stories. Not that is matters.

[ClintonTyree]

14. There is no definitive answer................

there is no mention of it in the Bible, which we all know is the definitive source for ALL of man's questions ( :eyes: ) so nobody knows for sure. Pick a day, any day. It doesn't matter.

[AngryOldDem]

15. I've always understood his birthday to be sometime in the summer

I think that was calculated through astronomy, or something...not sure...sorry for the vague answer. But the reason why it is celebrated at this time of year was because this was a major pagan feast time. But you knew that.

[villager]

17. maybe even Sept. 11?:

http://askelm.com/news/n011224.htm

Or Rosh Hashanah, as the above-linked piece states. And note this line:

"the Bible shows not the slightest indication that Christ’s birth should be acknowledged in any manner..."

[manhattanite]

21. Jesus never existed.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

[Cheswick2.0]

76. As long as it says so on the internet it must be true

:shrug: LOL

[0007]

22. Halloween!

[AllegroRondo]

24. The Romans kept very accurate records

and some things don't line up.

For example, Herod died in 3BC. This has been explained as problems with the Gregorian calendar during the dark ages, which threw things off by a couple years. Historians now believe Jesus was born between 6-3BC.

[Cheswick2.0]

77. What historians are those?

[kydo]

27. Depending on which sources ....

Depending on which sources you believe Jesus was born either on March 1, 7BC or Sept 15, 7BC. It wasn't until 314AD that Constantine arbitrarily changed the date of Jesus’ official birthday to Dec 25. Constantine's reason for making the change was two-fold. Firstly, it separated the Christian celebration from any Jewish association, thereby suggesting that Jesus was himself a Christian and not a Jew. Secondly, the adjustment of Jesus' official birthday was designed to coincide with the customary pagan Sun Festival of "Sol Invictus."


~kydo

[BurtWorm]

28. When did Christians start celebrating Christ's birth?

My suspicion is that the birthday has always been an essential part of the religion, because the object of worship is "god made man." Thus, it had to have been important all along when that event took place. So how is it that Christians would have tolerated an arbitrary judgment about the date by a guy who wasn't even a Christian, apparently, until he knew he was going to die?

There is something poetic about the birth being in midwinter, because it stands as a sign of hope that the darkness won't last. It also mirrors the death in spring.

Christianity is so much more satisfying as a religion when it is understood to be purely symbolic and not at all historic. In my opinion.

[Ian David]

29. The hypothetical Jesus was born in September during Sukkot

Since John was born on Passover, the 15th day of Nisan (the 1st Jewish month),
Jesus would have been born six months later on the 15th day of Tishri (the 7th
Jewish month). The 15th day of the 7th month begins the Feast of Tabernacles
(Lev. 23:34-35), also known as Sukkot. Jesus was born on the 1st day of the
Feast of Tabernacles! In the year 5 B.C.E., this fell in the month of
September.

This explains why there was no room at the inn for Joseph and Mary. A multitude
of Jewish pilgrims from all over the Middle East had come to Jerusalem to
observe the Feast of Tabernacles, as God required (Deu. 16:16). Bethlehem,
which was only a few miles outside of Jerusalem, was also overflowing with
visitors at this time because of the Feast.

See:
http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/birthday.htm

[goodbody]

31. no room at the inn

Just yesterday, we were discussing why there was no room at the inn as I was looking at a collection of nativity scenes as part of the family x-mas routine. Thanks for this link.

[Petrushka]

113. Born in September . . . conceived in December . . . so-o-o . . .

. . . Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, etc., etc.:loveya:

[Jim Warren]

32. 9/11/-03

Coincidence? I think not!

[emcguffie]

35. Other 9/11's

The Pinochet coup happened on a Sept. 11. And the end of the republic (if that is the right word) of Catalonia, in Spain, happened on a Sept. 11. It's a day of mourning of sorts for Catalans.

[Jim Warren]

36. yeah, and like the obfuscation of xmas

9/11 will probably be remembered as the date in which our republic ended rather than the actual date 12/12/2000

[Kablooie]

34. 7/6/1946 GW is the second coming of the Christ. Hallelujah!

[LWolf]

73. I've heard spring, summer, and fall

based on lambing time, the "star," taxing time...

Whenever it was, it was moved to December to take advantage of the seasonal solstice celebrations from many traditions; the sun/son returns. I don't know if anyone (outside of the fundie flock) believes he was really born in December.

And me? I believe he existed. I believe he was a real person. I don't think we know much about him. I don't consider the gospels an accurate, or complete, story, and won't waste time or breath on Paul. I don't know if nothing was ever written down, or if whatever writings may have existed were suppressed and transformed by the early church.

I've never doubted, though, that he was an actual man who attracted actual followers.