When was Jesus born?

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
When was Jesus born?

Most of us know it's certain Jesus wasn't born on 12/25. I just read the latest issue of Freethought Today - they looked into the Jesus birth story in the Bible and compared it to actual history and astronomy - according to what they found, if Jesus ever actually lived, and the story of his birth in the Bible is accurate, he was born April 17, 6 BCE. It's easy to see why this would not do. Even if they didn't worry about copying the rituals from other Dec 25 Holidays, Easter and Christmas would range anywhere from falling on the same day to about a month apart. Stores would have a hell of a time combining the sales. And there wouldn't be a December holiday.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Most of

MattShizzle wrote:
Most of us know it's certain Jesus wasn't born on 12/25. I just read the latest issue of Freethought Today - they looked into the Jesus birth story in the Bible and compared it to actual history and astronomy - according to what they found, if Jesus ever actually lived, and the story of his birth in the Bible is accurate, he was born April 17, 6 BCE. It's easy to see why this would not do. Even if they didn't worry about copying the rituals from other Dec 25 Holidays, Easter and Christmas would range anywhere from falling on the same day to about a month apart. Stores would have a hell of a time combining the sales. And there wouldn't be a December holiday.

An actor playing the character Harry Potter is a real person, but who the hell believes that a boy can actually fly around on a broom?

Irrelivent issue to me. Proving that an actuall person named Jesus existing doesnt mean his mommy got pregnant via a "spirit" or that he got knocked off only to dance the jig after 3 days of death.

The city of New York is used as the backdrp of Superman movies but no rational person believes a man in red underwear with a cape can reverse the spin of the earth.

So, although I might have cut the fun out of this thread, which I hope I didnt for some. But it is people like Doublebleu who wont face direct questions about these magical claims and is why I avoid distracting issues.

Saying "Jesus" existed in no way proves any of the magical claims of the Bible.

But, if people want to argue this point, if it will help deconstruct an indoctrinated mind, please do so. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Most of

MattShizzle wrote:
Most of us know it's certain Jesus wasn't born on 12/25. I just read the latest issue of Freethought Today - they looked into the Jesus birth story in the Bible and compared it to actual history and astronomy - according to what they found, if Jesus ever actually lived, and the story of his birth in the Bible is accurate, he was born April 17, 6 BCE. It's easy to see why this would not do. Even if they didn't worry about copying the rituals from other Dec 25 Holidays, Easter and Christmas would range anywhere from falling on the same day to about a month apart. Stores would have a hell of a time combining the sales. And there wouldn't be a December holiday.

 Nobody knows for certain - and this is part of the reason people like Carrier and Price and myself are mythicists - there is just nothing compelling save second century speculation as per when Christ supposedly lived, when he died and basically all they had was paul's works, and they filled in the gaps - of EVERYTHING.  Nobody can do that shit that Freethought Today did without grossly ignoring some Christians, and not ignoring enough others.  It's dishonest to claim a date for Christ when so many were posed, and it's ignorant of them to claim they have a method to propose themselves when clearly, Jesus never existed. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
"when clearly, Jesus never

"when clearly, Jesus never existed." 

I've always had a problem with both Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar - I think from now on, I'm just going to deny that they ever existed too.!!

  


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
MattSizzle:  I could be

MattSizzle: 

I could be wrong, but I don't think that there were meticulous records kept at government buildings 2,000 years ago and that "newspapers" of the day published the births and deaths the way the New York Times, for example, does today. 

As I say, I could be wrong, but I think things were a little different in that part of the world 2,000 years ago than they are today.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The reason I believe he

The reason I believe he never existed is a combination of there being NO evidence for it, and how much of the story is copied from earlier myths (almost all of it.) Also, there are plenty of things wrong historically with the bible story - There's no mention of the slaughter of the innocents outside the Bible (you'd think people would take note of such an atrocity!), and the trial of Jesus under Pontius Pilate is VERY inconsistant with Roman Law at the time.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: The

MattShizzle wrote:
The reason I believe he never existed is a combination of there being NO evidence for it, and how much of the story is copied from earlier myths (almost all of it.) Also, there are plenty of things wrong historically with the bible story - There's no mention of the slaughter of the innocents outside the Bible (you'd think people would take note of such an atrocity!), and the trial of Jesus under Pontius Pilate is VERY inconsistant with Roman Law at the time.

Not to mention the rediculous claim that a spirit knocked up a girl. People are so quick in the west to condemn Islam's hero as being a pediophile when all cultures back then married off young girls like property exchanges to build family alliances. Mary would have been in the cultural standards between 9-14 when she got married.

So it is not just the traditional bullcrap people try to defend, but the outragious clearly fictional magic is logically indefensable by any rational standard.

"God did it" is an excuse that allows the believer to buy such redicuolous claims. I simply cannot sugar coat it. If fiction is fiction I am not going to lie to people and say it isnt.

Christians rightfully reject "Allah did it" and "Vishnu did it" but that logic is lost to emotional attachments to what amounts to a club of Star Trec fans deluding themselves into believing in Klingons as being real. This is what makes it so easy for people to sell ice cream to Eskimos. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
If the Bible story is true,

If the Bible story is true, God is a pedophile. Damn, Christians, your God is sooo good. I'm so glad he doesn't exist.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: If the

MattShizzle wrote:

If the Bible story is true, God is a pedophile. Damn, Christians, your God is sooo good. I'm so glad he doesn't exist.

How any Jew or Christian can defend the OT and the sexual explotaition that God either allows to happen or makes a deal with a man is sick. How anyone could call that just or loving is abhorant.

"Take their women and do with them what you want"

"Sacrifice your daughter to me, even though she did nothing and was not involved"

"Rape my daughter insted of distroying my property or hurting me"

This is all in the Bible and either is allowed by God to happen or sanctioned as ordered by God.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


hellfiend666
Rational VIP!
hellfiend666's picture
Posts: 192
Joined: 2007-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Re: When was Jesus born?

Y'all seem to be getting off topic, so if I may.  I don't think being able to narrow it down to a specific day is realistic.  Maybe a month and year, maybe.  So, just for the sake of argument, let's say Jesus did exist.  For the question of when was he born, I've heard, and I can't remember where, that all one needs to do is read the story, and look at the societal structure of the time and place.  Since the story claims that he was born in a manger because there was no room at the inn, it stands to reason that he was born in April or March.  The reason behind this is simple, in the winter months inns where virtually vacant, it wasn't untill spring that all the travellers came out, the merchants started setting up shop, and trade routes bustled.  If anyone can give me more info, or perhaps enlighten me of any mis-information contained in this post, I beg you, please do!  I am on an eternal and honest search for fact and truth!

The darkness of godlessness lets wisdom shine.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
rowdyyates2u wrote:

rowdyyates2u wrote:

"when clearly, Jesus never existed."

I've always had a problem with both Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar - I think from now on, I'm just going to deny that they ever existed too.!!

This is clearly a projection of your inability to understand critical history, and how a critical historian comes to conclusions.

1.) Caesar did exist, we have his own WRITINGS (The Gallic War - look it up), we have contemporary accounts of Caesar's life from friends and also ENEMIES like that of Cicero who had wished he'd been part of the conspiracy to assasinate him. We have coins minted by the Roman Empire which depicted the life of Caesar and his crossing of the Rubicon when marching on Rome. We have nothing for Jesus.

2.) Alexander the Great is well established historically. We have the writings of Arrian, while late, names his sources and when souces conflict he compares them and then makes critical judgements based on historical methods which were far more advanced then any ancient historian of his day. We also have coins minted of Alexander the Great which are contemporary and know who his parents were, his childhood life, his teacher (Aristotle) is well established contemporarily and historically.

Again, we have nothing of the sort for Christ. Please reveiw this thread to gain some perspective on why Jesus' historicity is in doubt and why these two people are not. (aside from the fact that up until now you probably didn't realize any of the above information) Imagine how much you will learn.

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Thandarr
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
What if . .


And I'm not close to you guys in scholarship, so this may be ridiculous, but what if instead of there being no Jesus of Nazareth there were really several of them.  Maybe one of them was all loving and all forgiving, another was nasty to the Pharisees, one was peaceful while another one threw the money changers out of the temple, and another just had it in for fig trees, etc.  The various stories came together when people were reminiscing and writing Q (Quelle, not the guy on Star Trek).  Then Jesus could have multiple birthdays.  You atheists might have to go to war on six or eight Christmases a year! 

Thandarr 


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Although not all of the

Although not all of the gospels state that Jesus was the son of Joseph (Mark doesn't, it actually says that Joseph was one of his brothers):

"Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him." Mark 6:3.

And John doesn't say what Jesus's mother's name was (although she does appear), they all do say that he is from the line of David, and there is enough overlap to safely conclude that this is the same person (Matthew, Luke and John name Joseph as his father, and Mathew, Mark, and Luke state Mary as his mother). 


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
I think it's safe to assume

I think it's safe to assume that most of us know why December 25 was choosen to be Jesus's birthday.  My question is, why was the year 0 decided for his birth?

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
From what I understand some

From what I understand some monk in the middle ages researched it and came up with the year.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: And I'm not close to

Quote:
And I'm not close to you guys in scholarship, so this may be ridiculous, but what if instead of there being no Jesus of Nazareth there were really several of them.

Well, I feel that's not too far from what happened. Just take some ideas from those crazy prophets from a long time ago, then take some ideas from other religions. Make a tall tale from it.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Thandarr, did you mean

Thandarr, did you mean multiple versions of a mythological Jesus?  Or multiple messiahs (mythological or otherwise) named Jesus?


rowdyyates2u
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
Gee, I think I'll stop

Gee, I think I'll stop believing in rockets and submarines - after all, the ideas were "lifted" from a work of fiction by a writer who lived in the 1800's (Jules Verne).


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
rowdyyates2u wrote: Gee, I

rowdyyates2u wrote:
Gee, I think I'll stop believing in rockets and submarines - after all, the ideas were "lifted" from a work of fiction by a writer who lived in the 1800's (Jules Verne).

All hail the king of flawed analogies! You, Sir, are outstanding.


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
rowdyyates2u wrote: Gee, I

rowdyyates2u wrote:
Gee, I think I'll stop believing in rockets and submarines - after all, the ideas were "lifted" from a work of fiction by a writer who lived in the 1800's (Jules Verne).

I'm pretty sure there is a difference between mechanical things (which fiction can inspire, and people can subsequently create), and people who can't be created from fiction.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: All hail the king of

Quote:
All hail the king of flawed analogies! You, Sir, are outstanding.

 Best line ever!


Thandarr
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
I don't know what I meant, but here's my best guess

Thandarr, did you mean multiple versions of a mythological Jesus?  Or multiple messiahs (mythological or otherwise) named Jesus?

I think what I meant was that there probably was at least one, and maybe several actual people who were models for the Jesus who was written up in the Gospels.  I kind of doubt he was an entirely fictional character, mostly because if you were to create an entirely fictional character, you could do better.  I suspect there were a lot of magicians and traveling preachers and political revolutionaries at the time, maybe several of whom were called Jesus or something close.  Various stories about these Jesuses (Jesii?) converged after a few decades of people playing "telephone" and the most common stories, sufficiently blown up in the retelling, made it into the gospels.Thandarr

Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Thandarr wrote:    

Thandarr wrote:


    Thandarr, did you mean multiple versions of a mythological Jesus? Or multiple messiahs (mythological or otherwise) named Jesus?

I think what I meant was that there probably was at least one, and maybe several actual people who were models for the Jesus who was written up in the Gospels. I kind of doubt he was an entirely fictional character, mostly because if you were to create an entirely fictional character, you could do better. I suspect there were a lot of magicians and traveling preachers and political revolutionaries at the time, maybe several of whom were called Jesus or something close. Various stories about these Jesuses (Jesii?) converged after a few decades of people playing "telephone" and the most common stories, sufficiently blown up in the retelling, made it into the gospels.
Thandarr


This actually doesn't sound too different from what I believe happened , although I think he came from many mythological characters, such as Mithras, Dionysis, Horus, etc. Simply because we know that people already believed in these characters, and they share so many features as Jesus (especially Mithras).  With that said, we do know that there were tons of people during that time who also claimed to be the Messiah (although none of the ones we know of were named Jesus).  At least two of these people are mentioned in the bible, John the baptist (in the gospels, he is a secondary figure, but in real life, he was someone who claimed to be the messiah, and would baptise those who joined his cult), and Simon Magus (who was called Simon the Sorcerer in Acts of the Apostles).  So it is very possible that some of the Jesus story was inspired by actual people claiming to be the messiah, along with the mythological ones.  This of course, only increasingly shows that you don't need to have an actual Jesus for the story of Jesus to form.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Piper2000ca

Piper2000ca wrote:
Thandarr wrote:


Thandarr, did you mean multiple versions of a mythological Jesus? Or multiple messiahs (mythological or otherwise) named Jesus?

I think what I meant was that there probably was at least one, and maybe several actual people who were models for the Jesus who was written up in the Gospels. I kind of doubt he was an entirely fictional character, mostly because if you were to create an entirely fictional character, you could do better. I suspect there were a lot of magicians and traveling preachers and political revolutionaries at the time, maybe several of whom were called Jesus or something close. Various stories about these Jesuses (Jesii?) converged after a few decades of people playing "telephone" and the most common stories, sufficiently blown up in the retelling, made it into the gospels.
Thandarr


This actually doesn't sound too different from what I believe happened , although I think he came from many mythological characters, such as Mithras, Dionysis, Horus, etc. Simply because we know that people already believed in these characters, and they share so many features as Jesus (especially Mithras). With that said, we do know that there were tons of people during that time who also claimed to be the Messiah (although none of the ones we know of were named Jesus). At least two of these people are mentioned in the bible, John the baptist (in the gospels, he is a secondary figure, but in real life, he was someone who claimed to be the messiah, and would baptise those who joined his cult), and Simon Magus (who was called Simon the Sorcerer in Acts of the Apostles). So it is very possible that some of the Jesus story was inspired by actual people claiming to be the messiah, along with the mythological ones. This of course, only increasingly shows that you don't need to have an actual Jesus for the story of Jesus to form.

I have reason to doubt your claim on John here.  John has no real mention anywhere outside the Gospels.  Not even in Josephus is the story so clear.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: I have

Rook_Hawkins wrote:


I have reason to doubt your claim on John here. John has no real mention anywhere outside the Gospels. Not even in Josephus is the story so clear.


I think you may just be right about this.  I re-read the part in Antiquities (Book 18, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2 for those who want to read it), and it doesn't actually state that he claimed he was the messiah, instead it says it was to purify the body.  And for that matter, I can't seem to find any reference to him outside of Josephus (although, this is only after about thirty minutes of searching).  In which case, I stand corrected.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Also it's important to note

Also it's important to note that in both times John appears in Josephus he isn't called John the Baptiser but "John the Essene" which is a distrintly different thing all together. A lot of jewish sects probably practiced baptising as an initiation rite, but that doesn't mean they were all Essenes. I suspect this is not the same John from the Gospels.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Eggplant
Eggplant's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-01-13
User is offlineOffline
V1per41 wrote: My question

V1per41 wrote:
My question is, why was the year 0 decided for his birth?

Both the Gregorian Calendar and Julian Calendar before it lack a year 0, both starting at year 1 (AD/CE). As for the reasoning of why that date was chosen as the year of birth for Jesus, that was at the time the best guess based on gospel and record. Currently, I believe the estimate is actually around 6 BC/BCE.


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Also it's important to note that in both times John appears in Josephus he isn't called John the Baptiser but "John the Essene" which is a distrintly different thing all together. A lot of jewish sects probably practiced baptising as an initiation rite, but that doesn't mean they were all Essenes. I suspect this is not the same John from the Gospels.


There is one part that does refer to John as the Baptist (well, sort of, it says "John, that was called the Baptist" ) in Antiquities:

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him." Book 18, Chapter 5, Paragraph (It's interesting to note, that his is the same book as the TF).

I couldn't find any where in Antiquities where John is refered to as John the Essene, is this in a different work of Josephus? (The Antiquities of the Jews is the only work of Josephus that I happen to have).


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I'm using two variants of

I'm using two variants of Josephus - hendrickson publishings (Which is generally very pro-Christian) and Loeb classics - both have the translation as "Essene" - there are a lot of people out there who mistranslate the word to "baptist" but as far as I can tell, this is the same word used in Greek in Antiquities when Josesphus writes of the Essenes.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Ok, thanks. I think I

Ok, thanks. I think I should probably start learning Greek Eye-wink


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Piper2000ca wrote: Ok,

Piper2000ca wrote:
Ok, thanks. I think I should probably start learning Greek Eye-wink

 Learn Greek.  Expose the lie.  =D

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
As I was reading this

As I was reading this thread I see two different questions: Did Jesus exist and (2) if he did exist, when was he born.

 As far as the second question we all know that his birthday was not December 25th.  The day is simply those who do believe in him celebrate it.  Think of it in terms if your birthday was on Monday so you decided to celebrate it on Sunday instead so it would be easier for family and friends to all get together.  I think everyone should be in agreement of that...

 As far as if Jesus actually lived...I started wondering what about the other historical figures discussed in the gospels?  Did Pontius Pilate?  What about the brothers of Jesus?  The Herods?  Caiaphas?  All these have proof that they have in fact existed so its interesting how many of you dismiss it so easily.  Of course the biggest source of external proof was the book "Antiquities of the Jews".  I looked up a few things from the William Whiston translation (http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/josephus/).  Book 20, Chapter 9, section 1 discusses one of Jesus' brothers, James.  I was reading elsewhere on the net about an archaeological find of James' burial box, concerning the findings of Pilate and Roman documents that prove he was around, and of course the additional Jewish information of a man they condemed.  So with all these signs pointing to the most probable existence of Jesus, are you guys basing your thought of he didn't exist only because you don't believe in God?  I don't believe in Islam but I don't deny that Muhammad existed.  I find it interesting that those who value science won't accept good scientific evidence.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Just because the Bible

Just because the Bible includes historical figures doesn't make evidence every character in the Bible existed.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
But we aren't talking about

But we aren't talking about every character, only one.  Now I made reference to those around Jesus at the time because if the surrounding evidence supports that Jesus existed, why is it that you won't accept the evidence of Jesus himself OUTSIDE THE BIBLE as a source?  Know what I mean? 

If I told you that Charles Darwin never existed and the man in the picture was actually someone else and Darwin was really a nom de plume from someone who just made the whole thing up, would you show me the evidence to prove that I was wrong?  And I told you that I didn't like that evidence because it was against my belief....what would you say?  Would you be confused how I cannot accept actual scienctific proof?  Would it be even more ignorant of me to selectively select what science I believe and which I don't?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
My two cents;

My two cents;


AFAIK the birth of Jesus is usually placed between 7BC and 3-4BC.

The two events used to fix the year of his birth, Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents talked about in Matthew and the Roman census talked about in Luke never actually occured. There is no historical evidence for either event, so people typically take the alleged age of Jesus at death and count backwards - and then fudge a little to put it within Herod's reign. That sort of "logic" never sat well with me.

One thing is for damn sure, if he existed, he wasn't born on December 25th.


Look at it this way, remember the shepards who were tending their flocks at night in Matt (or was it Luke?), and saw the star and heard the angels sing? Well, it gets pretty damn cold in Judea during December. Livestock were not historically tended at night then (nor even now) except during the Spring time when the ewes were giving birth. The shepherds had no reason to be in the field in the middle of winter in the middle of night.

Now consider that December 25th coincides with the Winter Solstice and was probably adopted from or used to incorporate and attract pagans to Christianity.

The early Christian Church celebrated the birth of Christ on probably a dozen different dates over the years: January 6th (still used in some places, actually), March 24th, November 17th, etc.

Look closer at the glaring contradictions between Matthew and Luke (the geneologies given, the specific accounts of who and what was there, the context of events and events themselves), the only accounts of the Savior's supposed birth, and you have to begin questioning why we believe Jesus was ever born at all - at least in the fashion the Bible asserts.

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.