Post Reply
Page 5 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View When Was Jesus Born?
3 years ago  ::  Nov 23, 2010 - 10:43AM #41
teilhard
Posts: 48,278

Even today, SOME people like to try to manipulate these Questions ( and Answers ) for their own Purposes, which sometimes indeed have a lot to do with exercising POWER over others ... ( not only "Political" but Spiritual Power ) ...


This may explain something of WHY The Skeptics and Atheists quickly become ... ANGRY !!! ... and FRUSTRATED !!! ... that People of Faith don't just roll-over-and-submit ... but PERSIST ...


Nov 23, 2010 -- 7:30AM, Dennis wrote:


Oct 21, 2010 -- 1:07PM, whatson2nd wrote:


There are no known facts, just gospel fictions written for religious purposes.





That is correct. Religious purposes were also political purposes in antiquity. One must also realize that the dating wasn't particularly important to the ancients. It is just important to the materialist literalists of today; otherwise, the author of Matt wouldn't have just begun with "In the time of King Herod" (some quarter of a century), leaving no other markers. Of course, anyone familiar with the literature of the time would realize that the author, especially in the opening chapters, was basically doing midrash. His concern was his message, not any birthdate.... Then, the only other source (the author of Luke/Acts), sought to pinpoint the date, placing it over ten years outside that of Herod's time! So much for the importance of dates! (Apologists have sought to reconcile this, which goes to their incredible amount of insecurity in their religion, because the date is really irrelevant to their theology. If they believed, truly believed, they wouldn't have a problem with the details, now, would they!





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 23, 2010 - 10:46AM #42
teilhard
Posts: 48,278

But anyway ...


We know that The Historical Lord Jesus ( The Christ ) of Nazareth (reportedly) began His public Ministry at around the age of thirty, and that He was Crucified on order of Pontius Pilate, who Governed Judea during 26 - 36 C.E. ...


So we can say with certainty that He was born in the very Early First-Century C.E. ... or so ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 23, 2010 - 12:48PM #43
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Could have something to do with you apologists having no answers but faith ("firm belief, esp. without logical proof... spiritual apprehension of divine truth apart from proof" from my Oxford dictionary)... And since "when was Jesus born" has nothing to do with "divine truth," but of the authors' differing stories, you have to have a dissociative reaction in dealing with it, or create your own fantasies, when the differing stories are brought into question. In actuality, the question of the thread hits right at the heart of whether the gospels are fictive in nature or are historical. There is no "manipulation" of the question. It is a valid question, one that shows, in the answers, the gospels to be contradictory.


Nov 23, 2010 -- 10:43AM, teilhard wrote:


Even today, SOME people like to try to manipulate these Questions ( and Answers ) for their own Purposes, which sometimes indeed have a lot to do with exercising POWER over others ... ( not only "Political" but Spiritual Power ) ...


This may explain something of WHY The Skeptics and Atheists quickly become ... ANGRY !!! ... and FRUSTRATED !!! ... that People of Faith don't just roll-over-and-submit ... but PERSIST ...


Nov 23, 2010 -- 7:30AM, Dennis wrote:


Oct 21, 2010 -- 1:07PM, whatson2nd wrote:


There are no known facts, just gospel fictions written for religious purposes.





That is correct. Religious purposes were also political purposes in antiquity. One must also realize that the dating wasn't particularly important to the ancients. It is just important to the materialist literalists of today; otherwise, the author of Matt wouldn't have just begun with "In the time of King Herod" (some quarter of a century), leaving no other markers. Of course, anyone familiar with the literature of the time would realize that the author, especially in the opening chapters, was basically doing midrash. His concern was his message, not any birthdate.... Then, the only other source (the author of Luke/Acts), sought to pinpoint the date, placing it over ten years outside that of Herod's time! So much for the importance of dates! (Apologists have sought to reconcile this, which goes to their incredible amount of insecurity in their religion, because the date is really irrelevant to their theology. If they believed, truly believed, they wouldn't have a problem with the details, now, would they!









Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 23, 2010 - 1:10PM #44
teilhard
Posts: 48,278

LOL ... Indeed, since we don't have Access to His Birth Certificate or to any Parish Records, we simply have to accept the APPROXIMATION ...


The Reports we HAVE are The Reports we HAVE ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 23, 2010 - 2:35PM #45
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

The most humorous record (for anyone who has read Books 17 & 18 of Josephus' Antiquities) is the one of Eusebius in his first Church History book, where he attempts to use Josephus to conflate the two fictions. It's a hoot! Talk about "selective attention!"


Nov 23, 2010 -- 1:10PM, teilhard wrote:


LOL ... Indeed, since we don't have Access to His Birth Certificate or to any Parish Records, we simply have to accept the APPROXIMATION ...


The Reports we HAVE are The Reports we HAVE ...





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 24, 2010 - 12:22PM #46
teilhard
Posts: 48,278

Yeah, well ...


Believe it or don't, there are some Folks in The 20th-21st Centuries who proudly insist that THEY  ***sinff***sniff***  KNOW  "What REALLY happened in The First Century C.E. ... "


THAT is Funny ...


Nov 23, 2010 -- 2:35PM, Dennis wrote:


The most humorous record (for anyone who has read Books 17 & 18 of Josephus' Antiquities) is the one of Eusebius in his first Church History book, where he attempts to use Josephus to conflate the two fictions. It's a hoot! Talk about "selective attention!"


Nov 23, 2010 -- 1:10PM, teilhard wrote:


LOL ... Indeed, since we don't have Access to His Birth Certificate or to any Parish Records, we simply have to accept the APPROXIMATION ...


The Reports we HAVE are The Reports we HAVE ...









Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 25, 2010 - 6:17AM #47
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Actually, scholars don't know when  Jesus was born, so Teil's "laughter" is the laughter of ignorance. The gospels are contradictory. If born in the time frame of Matt, it was sometime before 4 bce. If born during the time frame of Luke, no telling, since he has him born during the 7 ce census of Cyrenius, yet he wants him born during the "days of Herod." Obviously it wasn't important to those who wrote the fictions, since Matt uses Herod to fulfill scripture and Luke uses Cyrenius as a way to get Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem... Both used the settings for literary purposes, not historical ones.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 28, 2010 - 8:20AM #48
teilhard
Posts: 48,278

IOW, The Historical Lord Jesus ( The Christ ) of Nazareth WAS born some time in the VERY EARLY First Century C.E. ...


ALL of The Accounts agree that His Mother's Name was Mary ... that She was very young, and that the Circumstances of Conception and Birth were -- and remain -- controversial ...


Nov 25, 2010 -- 6:17AM, Dennis wrote:


Actually, scholars don't know when  Jesus was born,...


The gospels are contradictory. If born in the time frame of Matt, it was sometime before 4 bce. If born during the time frame of Luke, no telling, since he has him born during the 7 ce census of Cyrenius, yet he wants him born during the "days of Herod."





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 28, 2010 - 10:18AM #49
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Nope, three of those statements you made are are possibilities, but each has problems attached....


1. Herod the King died around 4 bce. According to Matt, Jesus had been born and spirited away to Egypt. This would put his birth before 4 bce. Luke has him born in the first decade of the first century ce.


2. Mary, if that was the name of the mother, was not necessarily very young. Matt has her as a virgin because he didn't read the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14. He was dependent on the Greek. Luke, writing in the second century, is either playing off Matt or that Matthean tradition, or he needed a "virgin" to signify a miraculous birth. Because she was betrothed and a "virgin" according to the two gospels doesn't mean she was young... She might have been a relatively unmarriable older woman. 


3. Mary, Miriam, means "strong." It was not that uncommon a name... It could have easily have been an example of a cue name, hearkening back to the mother of Moses. Jesus was a "new Moses" in the gospel tradition. It was also a Hasmodean name, the name of one of the remaining Hasmoneans, who Herod had killed, actually one of Herod's wives. (Rumors were she was unfaithful... with Joseph, a relative of Herod... The first "Joseph and Mary," perhaps?)


 


Nov 28, 2010 -- 8:20AM, teilhard wrote:


IOW, The Historical Lord Jesus ( The Christ ) of Nazareth WAS born some time in the VERY EARLY First Century C.E. ...


ALL of The Accounts agree that His Mother's Name was Mary ... that She was very young, and that the Circumstances of Conception and Birth were -- and remain -- controversial ...


Nov 25, 2010 -- 6:17AM, Dennis wrote:


Actually, scholars don't know when  Jesus was born,...


The gospels are contradictory. If born in the time frame of Matt, it was sometime before 4 bce. If born during the time frame of Luke, no telling, since he has him born during the 7 ce census of Cyrenius, yet he wants him born during the "days of Herod."









Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 28, 2010 - 11:00AM #50
teilhard
Posts: 48,278

Your Speculation is interesting ...


But all we have to go on ... is The TEXTS ...


Nov 28, 2010 -- 10:18AM, Dennis wrote:


Nope, three of those statements you made are are possibilities, but each has problems attached....


1. Herod the King died around 4 bce. According to Matt, Jesus had been born and spirited away to Egypt. This would put his birth before 4 bce. Luke has him born in the first decade of the first century ce.


2. Mary, if that was the name of the mother, was not necessarily very young. Matt has her as a virgin because he didn't read the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14. He was dependent on the Greek. Luke, writing in the second century, is either playing off Matt or that Matthean tradition, or he needed a "virgin" to signify a miraculous birth. Because she was betrothed and a "virgin" according to the two gospels doesn't mean she was young... She might have been a relatively unmarriable older woman. 


3. Mary, Miriam, means "strong." It was not that uncommon a name... It could have easily have been an example of a cue name, hearkening back to the mother of Moses. Jesus was a "new Moses" in the gospel tradition. It was also a Hasmodean name, the name of one of the remaining Hasmoneans, who Herod had killed, actually one of Herod's wives. (Rumors were she was unfaithful... with Joseph, a relative of Herod... The first "Joseph and Mary," perhaps?)


 


Nov 28, 2010 -- 8:20AM, teilhard wrote:


IOW, The Historical Lord Jesus ( The Christ ) of Nazareth WAS born some time in the VERY EARLY First Century C.E. ...


ALL of The Accounts agree that His Mother's Name was Mary ... that She was very young, and that the Circumstances of Conception and Birth were -- and remain -- controversial ...


Nov 25, 2010 -- 6:17AM, Dennis wrote:


Actually, scholars don't know when  Jesus was born,...


The gospels are contradictory. If born in the time frame of Matt, it was sometime before 4 bce. If born during the time frame of Luke, no telling, since he has him born during the 7 ce census of Cyrenius, yet he wants him born during the "days of Herod."













Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook