It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"JESUS was born in 4-6 B.C, and crucified in 34 A.D.???

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Kapyong
 



No-one in history ever met Jesus, no-one knows when he was born, the Gospels stories are from long afterwards and give different dates.


That's not true. You can pinpoint a general time frame using material in the Gospels to see when Jesus lived. That's how the "line" between AD and BC was placed. It wasn't random.

The latest Gospel written was John, which was written between AD 90 and 95.


I didn't say it was 'random'.
Please pay attention :-)

No-one ever met Jesus, not one of the NT writings is from anyone who met a historical Jesus.

The two Gospels give CONTRADICTORY dates, about 10 years apart.

So no-one can know for sure exactly when Jesus was born, or even IF he was born.

Like I said.


The Gospel stories were unknown until mid 2nd century - after two wars, and more than a CENTURY after the alleged events.


K.




posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Udo Hohnekamp Lux.
Every day you all are looking on a thermometer. Where is the problem ?

The new millennium did not start as of the first of January 2001, but on
first of January 2000. The celebrations were correctly timed.



Well, my celebrations were timed correctly because I celebrated twice. No need to waste an excuse for a party.


But if you only celebrated on 1 January 2000, then you got it wrong. Too bad, you'll have to wait until 3001 to celebrate a millennium change.

Edit: but the thermometer is a good analogy though. I wish I had thought of it for the essay I did above.

[edit on 25/10/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
The truth is the Bible does not contradictscientific evidence, and science does not disprove the biblical record. The point most people on both sides of the argument miss is that the bible does not say when the universe was created.

According to the Bible, Adam was the first man (I Corinthians15:45;I Chronicles 1-1,) and adding the figures in the biblical genealogies does yield a date of about 6,000 years ago for Adam's creation.

The truth is that the Bible does not state that the creation of mankind and the creation of the universe happened at the same time. The age of the universe is simply not stated in the Bible. It well have been 10 or 20 billion years ago.

I know this is kind of off the point, but others brought the argument about creation of man and I just wanted to put my two cents in.


Peace to all,
Grandma



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
The Roman calendar change based upon Anno Domini the year of our Lord also came with some navigational aide in the way of 23.5 degrees of latitude between each of the tropics and the equator.. I think that part got worked out in the Hipparchus of Rhodes era 170 - 120 BC. They found a device from the Greek island of Rhodes that is named the Antikythera device.

This device had most of the planetary motions built into its gearing. There was an instruction label printed on the device that read "Spiral divided into 235 sections" That leads me to believe that the navigation aspects were related to the 235 month Metonic cycle. Sort of a Casio watch with calender function and built in GPS!

The Metonic cycle was alluded to in Homers' Odyssey as well as older works that cover sun and moon motions abstractly. The calendar function of the Metonic cycle was easier to calculate but the GPS function probably was hidden or delayed for almost 4200 years till Hipparchus.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
he was born in Bayt Lahm 035E11' 36'' 31N41' 51''
March 22nd. -6. (Julian calender was at that time) at 05:24:57 AM LAT (local time) or 03:12:06 UT (universal time)



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by brooklyn87
 


B.C. goes backwards. It's like a countdown to A.D. If he was born in 4 B.C. and died in 34 A.D. he would have been 38 which isn't hard to believe.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grandma
The truth is the Bible does not contradictscientific evidence, and science does not disprove the biblical record. The point most people on both sides of the argument miss is that the bible does not say when the universe was created.

According to the Bible, Adam was the first man (I Corinthians15:45;I Chronicles 1-1,) and adding the figures in the biblical genealogies does yield a date of about 6,000 years ago for Adam's creation.

The truth is that the Bible does not state that the creation of mankind and the creation of the universe happened at the same time. The age of the universe is simply not stated in the Bible. It well have been 10 or 20 billion years ago.

I know this is kind of off the point, but others brought the argument about creation of man and I just wanted to put my two cents in.


Peace to all,
Grandma


Wonderful insight Grandma. (off topic but wonderful
).

It is interesting what science tells us about mankind 6000 years ago and what the Bible says about mankind 6000 years ago.

According to science, we were "learning civilization" 6000 years ago (OK 6 to 10 thousand years maybe, it isn't exact). We were learning how to farm, how to breed useful animals, developing engineering technology, building astronomical observatories, learning to write and recording our stories.

And what does the Bible say about the period? With a bit less modern detail as I just listed from the sciencific point of view, the first thing God said to Adam is recorded as


(from the KJV)

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion of the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

"...I have given you every herb bearing seed... and every tree in which is the fruit... "


Sounds a lot like the Bible is tying the "creation of Adam" to beginning of civilization as science describes it. And the first job God gives to Adam is explicitly a scientific one: name the animals, (and by so doing begin the science of taxonomy). An extremely useful science for someone starting down the road to farming, animal husbandry, and civilization.

Notice that the Genesis never specifically says that Adam was the first human only that Adam was created in His likeness and no other humans are mentioned earlier. Perhaps what we are talking about here is that Adam was the first civilized man, and there may well have been other humans around. After all, the Bible does clear say that He 'created every living creature that moveth' (and humans are indeed living creatures that moveth) well before he created Adam.

In some ways this actually allows the Bible to make sense where there are huge gaps. For example, where did Adam and Eve's children get wives from?

[edit on 25/10/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
reply to post by brooklyn87
 


BECAUSE AD DOESNT STAND FOR AFTER DEATH. you answered that for yourself...read your quote you put in....come on dude...





Thats funny! We wonder why we're in the state we're in! I feel your pain.
Its already been put in several spots and they still cant get it!



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
[edit on 25-10-2009 by brooklyn87]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
That is very interesting I will have to do some research on this Antikythera device, It still makes me wonder why is the Jewish calendar so different, if Jesus was the "king of the Jews"? wouldn't there calendar be correct and not ours and we really are in the 5773?, or are they wrong and if so that might disprove our time line of events



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   


Originally posted by iamsupermanv2 reply to post by brooklyn87 BECAUSE AD DOESNT STAND FOR AFTER DEATH. you answered that for yourself...read your quote you put in....come on dude... Thats funny! We wonder why we're in the state we're in! I feel your pain. Its already been put in several spots and they still cant get it! signature In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine. -------------- Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success.


Um I actually did say several times that I knew B.c. went backwards, and that was not really my question, so don't try to be so superior when you have no idea what you are talking about, thanks get off my thread



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
The starting point was picked because Denis the Little didn’t like Diocletian


In about C.E. 523, the papal chancellor, Bonifatius, asked a monk by the name of Dionysius Exiguus to devise a way to implement the rules from the Nicean council (the so-called "Alexandrine Rules") for general use.
Dionysius Exiguus (in English known as Denis the Little) was a monk from Scythia, he was a canon in the Roman curia, and his assignment was to prepare calculations of the dates of Easter. At that time it was customary to count years since the reign of emperor Diocletian; but in his calculations Dionysius chose to number the years since the birth of Christ, rather than honour the persecutor Diocletian.
Dionysius (wrongly) fixed Jesus' birth with respect to Diocletian's reign in such a manner that it falls on 25 December 753 AUC (ab urbe condita, i.e. since the founding of Rome), thus making the current era start with C.E. 1 on 1 January 754 AUC.
How Dionysius established the year of Christ's birth is not known (see section 2.10.1 for a couple of theories). Jesus was born under the reign of king Herod the Great, who died in 750 AUC, which means that Jesus could have been born no later than that year. Dionysius' calculations were disputed at a very early stage.
When people started dating years before 754 AUC using the term "Before Christ," they let the year 1 B.C.E. immediately precede C.E. 1 with no intervening year zero.
Note, however, that astronomers frequently use another way of numbering the years B.C.E. Instead of 1 B.C.E. they use 0, instead of 2 B.C.E. they use -1, instead of 3 B.C.E. they use -2, etc.
It is frequently claimed that it was the venerable Bede (673-735) who introduced B.C. dating. Although Bede seems to have used the term on at least one occasion, it is generally believed that B.C. dates were not used until the middle of the 17th century.
webexhibits.org...



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
That is very helpful, thanks for your post, I would love to go to the Vatican and somehow find out more information this, they hide all the good books and data there, lol,



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by brooklyn87
 


i think what everyone trying to explain this is trying to say is this:

it doesn't matter.

does it matter if jesus was born in 34554bc or 3454 ad? before christ after death? before common ere, or common era?

man made time. man made the calendar.

i fully understand your interest and love asking questions..but this seems to have gotten to the point of nick picking when there really isn't too much of a way to be sure one way or the other. it'd save you a lot of time and headaches just to let it go.

if i wanted to make year one when i was born, i could fight enough about it and probably get a few people to believe it...then who knows, maybe a thousand years from now, year one would be 1987. but even then...it wouldnt matter...



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 


thanks or acknowledging my wit...

and brooklyn, i apologize if that was insulting...i just got frustrated.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alethea

Originally posted by brooklyn87
so was he over one thousand years old before he started performing these miracles that eventually got him crucified at 34 A.d.???


I don't think it was the miracles that got him crucified.

When he overturned the money changers at the temple it was because of the practice of blood sacrifices. Jesus spoke out about the nonsense of some of the religious rituals of the time.

Jesus was crucified because he was upsetting the pocketbooks of those in power. He was crucified for telling the truth about the deceptions. He was set up by a secret brotherhood that had infiltrated the Sanhedrin as well as the Roman government.


I hold a statement very true to me. Well because it gets me out of alot of arguements.
"Never talk religion unless your looking for a fight."

I have to make an expection to this.

Where did you hear that? If you have an article or a decent read about it id like to take a look. Personally i do not believe the whole heaven/hell. so it doesn't upset me in the slightest. But it would give me some extra firepower with all the bible thumpers that come to my door. Lol

If you could provide an article or link. Be much appreciated. Thanks



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by brooklyn87
It still makes me wonder why is the Jewish calendar so different, if Jesus was the "king of the Jews"? wouldn't there calendar be correct and not ours and we really are in the 5773?


Jesus wasn't the king of the Jews. In fact, he wasn't anything to them and most doubt he even existed. But surely you know that and this is just another aimless question to extend the thread.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join