If Jesus was so important...

reply to post by BeastMaster2012


We don't know exactly where Obama was born, or when for that matter..

Sorry, I couldn't resist..

reply to post by broahes


It seems like when you hide facts about your birth people begin to question it? Interesting isn't it!

It's not that we aren't sure, the point is that we have VARYING answers - showing it's NOT based on history :

One Gospel has Jesus born before 4BC (G.Matt, Herod),
another has him born after 6AD (Luke, Quirinus).

One Christian writer even says he was born around 100BC (Epiphanius.)

No, it shows that not all of these writers were witnesses to the birth.

Matthew makes no witness claim, and Luke discloses that its author wasn't a witness. I freely confess that I can't find The Gospel according to Epiphanius. Maybe you could provide a link.

A straightforward test of your theory that discrepancies in reported birth dates indicates non-historicity is to Google an unambiguously historical figure of about the same time as the gospels were written, and see how specifically that person's birth date is reported.

I chose Epictetus. I find

www.web-books.com...

Very little is known of the life of Epictetus. It is said that he was a native of Hierapolis in Phrygia, a town between the Maeander and a branch of the Maeander named the Lycus. Hierapolis is mentioned in the epistle of Paul to the people of Colossae (Coloss. iv., 13); from which it has been concluded that there was a Christian church in Hierapolis in the time of the apostle. The date of the birth of Epictetus is unknown. The only recorded fact of his early life is that he was a slave in Rome, and his master was Epaphroditus, a profligate freedman of the Emperor Nero. There is a story that the master broke his slave's leg by torturing him; but it is better to trust to the evidence of Simplicius, the commentator on the Encheiridion, or Manual, who says that Epictetus was weak in body and lame from an early age. It is not said how he became a slave; but it has been asserted in modern times that the parents sold the child. I have not, however, found any authority for this statement.

Hmm, not only is there uncertainty about Epictetus' birth date, but there are different stories about many elements of his life.

One might even write VARYING stories, except that my computer isn't infected with the dreaded atheist-fundie CAPS LOCK virus. Or is it not a virus, but some article of your faith that in the absence of evidence or coherent argument, capital letters suffice?

In any event, thank God that you pointed this problem out to me. Now I know that Epictetus and Jesus are equally historical characters. Here I was, agnostic that I am, thinking that the case for a historical Jesus was somehow thin. Nope, it's as solid as the case for a historical Epictetus, according to a test chosen by an atheist evangelist. WooHoo.

By the by, I was really confident that Julius Caesar was a historical figure. So I Googled him, too, and read that he was born

www.incwell.com...

July 12 or 13, 100 BCE. Well, a pretty tight interval that one is. OK.

But then I read that his dad was rich, a member of what passsed for the nobility in then-republican Rome.

I wonder if that might be a factor in why I can get one J.C.'s birthdate to within 48 hours, and the other J.C.'s only to within a few years.

Maybe it wasn't who you turned out to be that determined whether your birth was recorded back then, but rather who those around you already were when you were born. Rich, literate, public figures maybe favor good record keeping, not-so-well-off anonymous provincial construction workers, maybe not so much.

Nah. That couldn't have anything to do with it. It's not like there's some crowd of ancient people whose birthdates are given as circa.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by eight bits]

reply to post by eight bits


The posting to which you refer:

It's not that we aren't sure, the point is that we have VARYING answers - showing it's NOT based on history : One Gospel has Jesus born before 4BC (G.Matt, Herod), another has him born after 6AD (Luke, Quirinus). One Christian writer even says he was born around 100BC (Epiphanius.)

That statement was posted by an author whose contention is that "Jesus is a myth"; however, in a subsequent posting he refers to Celsus who ridiculed the virgin birth of Jesus.

Now all we know about Celsus comes from the writings of Origen, a second century Christian author (185CE-254CE) and in "Contra Celsus by" Origen we have the following quote:

[Celsus] accuses [Jesus] of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."...

www.bluffton.edu...

I think this is highly strange for Celsus is stating that Jesus was a real man and his mother was convicted of adultery. To me this sames like a strange kind of logic:
1. Poster states Jesus was a myth.
2. Poster uses statement that says Jesus was real to indicate Christian beliefs of virgin birth attacked.
3. But attacks on virgin birth beliefs indicate that Jesus was a historical figure and his mother committed adultery.

I hope you see why this seems somewhat humorous.

Gday,

Originally posted by eight bits
I freely confess that I can't find The Gospel according to Epiphanius. Maybe you could provide a link.

Riiiiiight.

So you either :

Have never heard of Epiphanius' claim that Jesus was botn 100BC and refuse to even look or check.

OR

You know full well that Epiphanius dated Jesus to 100BC, and simply refuse to admit it.


Which ?



K.

reply to post by Kapyong


Well you are the one who brought up the subject of Epiphanius, so you could be very kind and provide a link to the proper information.

reply to post by jagdflieger


Google is a wonderful thing:

www.archive.org.../n0/mode/2up

That is a book with the title "Did Jesus Live 100 Years B.C.?"
Subtitle:
An enquiry into the talmud Jesus stories, the toldoth Jeschu, and some curious statements of Epiphanius - being a contribution to the study of Christian origins. By G.R.S. Mead, B.A., M.R.A.S.

This is a book by G.R.S. Mead, who's name sounded familiar to me so i googled him:

en.wikipedia.org...

He was part of the Theosophical Society:
en.wikipedia.org...

They have very questionable beliefs but interesting nonetheless.

reply to post by BeastMaster2012


Well it is common courtesy for some one (our friend) to add a quote of indicate a source when they make an assertion. To make an assertion without referring to a source is typically a example of bad scholarship and laziness. When question about their assertion, the person who makes that assertion should be able to point to a source which supports that assertion (rather than saying go look it up). Did you see my posting about Celsus?

Originally posted by jagdflieger
reply to post by BeastMaster2012

 

Well it is common courtesy for some one (our friend) to add a quote of indicate a source when they make an assertion. To make an assertion without referring to a source is typically a example of bad scholarship and laziness. When question about their assertion, the person who makes that assertion should be able to point to a source which supports that assertion (rather than saying go look it up). Did you see my posting about Celsus?

I have been accused of being lazy many times in my life so i don't mind helping a brother out.

Yes i just read your post on Celsus. He could be saying some elements of his life are myths, but he could have been a real person. I for one, at this point in time, don't believe most of the miracles of Jesus. I think the virgin birth is laughable as is the walking on water, along with the idea of resurrection.

I have heard a very interesting theory on the resurrection though.

From the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail:
journal.equip.org...

The basic theory of the book is simple. The authors allege that Jesus was a well- to-do Jewish opportunist who had a legitimate claim to the Jewish throne. Supposedly arranging His life to correspond to Old Testament messianic prophecies, He married Mary Magdalene for dynastic reasons, had a child (or children) by her, and staged his Own crucifixion.

I will try to find quotes from the book. I listened to the audio book and i can not pull quotes ATM.

------------

As for Jesus in India, i am currently watching this documentary:

Don't you just love the internets!
krishnatube.com...

reply to post by BeastMaster2012


Well that particular fellow is saying the whole story of Jesus is a myth and a fabrication. Therefore any statements (such as from Celsus) which refers to a historical Jesus must also be a fabrication. Yet he uses a misquote to of Origen's commentary about Celsus to give the impression that Celsus labeled the whole story of Jesus as a myth. However Celsus' comment of dubious birth indicates that Celsus must have considered Jesus as being a real person.

reply to post by ReelView


For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. 25I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

one night as I began to open the cover of a small green Gideon NT that an American chick had left on the bar a few days earlier I heard an audible voice as if sitting to my left that said-my name, I am Jesus I died for your sins believe in me and you will never perish-AWESTRUCK (not raised religious or knowing the scriptures) I stood to my feet and said yes Lord

Christ has indeed been raised from the dead

For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.

for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

no one will hear his voice in the streets.

Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

For the nation or kingdom that will not serve you will perish; it will be utterly ruined.

just look at history

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.

whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death."

reply to post by No King but Jesus


The eyes of the arrogant man will be humbled and the pride of men brought low; the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.

There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms.

The LORD sits enthroned over the flood; the LORD is enthroned as King forever.

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

are you two quoting scripture? I don't know what you guys are talking about.

edit: my inglesh is reel gooder

[edit on 8-5-2010 by BeastMaster2012]

K

Have never heard of Epiphanius' claim that Jesus was botn 100BC and refuse to even look or check.

Which Epiphanius? The 4th Century bishop of Salamis? The 6th Century patriarch of Constantinople? That monk from Jerusalem who thought Jesus was six feet tall with well-trimmed eyebrows and long, flowing auburn hair?

Or maybe you had somebody else in mind.

When you are asked for a link, "Go fish" doesn't cut it. If you've got a source, then please furnish it.

Thanks for the lead, Beastmaster, but K needs to do his own homework.

BTW, since when is Mead a scholarly source? And since when is an entire 476 page book the source for a single sentence?

And finally, the question that only K can answer, posed in the style that K has made famous:

Suppose some guy actually is a century out of step with his coreligionists. ( ... wait for it ... )

So what?

reply to post by BeastMaster2012


just to make sure you didn't miss it-

one night after picking up a small green Gideons NT that an American chick had left on the bar a few days earlier I heard an audible voice that said-my name, I am Jesus I died for your sins believe in Me and you will never perish

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.

reply to post by eight bits


About the fellow you mention, here is his contentions from elsewhere

1. There is no historical Jesus. Paul in his Epsitles was writing about a spiritual Jesus who had nver existed on earth.
2. The Gospels were later written as "_________" (fables, stories, myths, fabrications, forgeries), just insert what word you like in the blank. Jesus was a myth.

However his statement:

n fact, no early Christian, or anyone else, even HEARD about the virgin birth story.
Paul never even mentioned Mary, or any birth stories, or any miracles.
Neither did the other early NT epistles.
When the virgin birth stories DID become widely known, they were ridiculed :
Celsus, late 2nd century :
"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

First no one knows what Paul or the early Christians heard about the virgin birth story, only that Paul did not make mention of it. However both Matthew and Luke did make mention of virgin birth, so we must assume that by 100CE, the early Christian community was familiar with the story.

Now he uses quotes from Celsus to indicate that the virgin birth stories were ridiculed and he selectively used a quote which would indicate that Celsus was saying that Jesus was a myth. Since all of what we know of Celsus' writings come from quotes in Origen, and we have from Origen (Contra Celsus):

..[Celsus] accuses [Jesus] of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."...

web.archive.org...

Now we have Origen quoting Celsus saying that the mother of Jesus was convicted of adultery, Jesus was born in a certain Jewish village, a servant in Egypt, etc. Therefore Celsus is referring to a historical figure (even though of dubious birth). Then there are two options:
1. Jesus was a historical figure and there were disputes as to the legitamcy of His birth.
2. Jesus was a myth and Celsus' statements about Jesus were in themselves fabrications.

Since he claims that Jesus was a myth, then he must chose Option 2. However when he made you original quote from Celsus he did not mention that Celsus was using fabrications to ridicule the virgin birth, he made it seem that Celsus was trying to state that the entire story of Jesus was a myth (rather than Jesus was a illegtimate child). Seems like an attempt to misconstrue what Celsus actually wrote.

Uhm well it's 2010. The entire world uses his birth date as reference for time, believers or not.

With regards to his death, look up Good Friday.

I believe his exact age is your actual question