Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Jesus born earlier than thought, claims pope


www.telegraph.co.uk

The entire Christian calendar is based on a miscalculation, the Pope has declared, as he claims in a new book that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly believed.

The 'mistake' was made by a sixth century monk known as Dionysius Exiguus or in English Dennis the Small, the 85-year-old pontiff claims in the book 'Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives', published on Wednesday.

"The calculation of the beginning of our calendar – based on the birth of Jesus – was made by Dionysius Ex.
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 11/21/2012 by subjectzero because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/21/2012 by subjectzero because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-11-2012 by Maxmars because: Please use the exact headline from your source




posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
This is the first time I've read that Jesus' date of birth was in dispute. I've never heard that any attempt has been made to correct the error.

It is believed that Jesus was born between 7BC and 2BC.

It is also the first time I have heard anyone from the Church officially admit that anything pagan was incorporated into Church tradition. The pope admits that no one knows Christ's actual birthdate and that December 25th is likely a date associated with paganism.

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 11/21/2012 by subjectzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by subjectzero
 


This is the first time I've read that Jesus' date of birth was in dispute. I've never heard that any attempt has been made to correct the error.

It is believed that Jesus was born between 7BC and 2BC.


If I understand the article properly, that's what the Pope is saying. He is saying that Jesus wasn't born in 1 A.D., but a few years earlier. He's just stating the accepted view. It may be that this is newsworthy because the Pope said it, but I don't see anything dramatic here.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by subjectzero
 

As the article points out, this is not a new theory.
In fact the assumption that the monk got it wrong is now commonplace among scholars. For example, his result is contradicted by the dates of Herod the Great.

However, nobody will do anything to change the dates assigned to historical events, because it would be too inconvenient.
We just have to accept the anomaly that Christ was probably born around a date which we call "seven years Before Christ". (I think I was about ten years old when I first met this in an encyclopedia).

edit on 21-11-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Not looking for any drama. I was just surprised to hear the Church admit something like this. It isn't often they admit to errors of any kind.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
If I put on my optimist hat; I find myself thinking that this may be a good thing....

The Institution's leader, and the central theological compass for the Catholic Church has finally acknowledged faith in the body of the church...

faith to know and understand that the date doesn't matter... it never did. Our fixation on it was a cultural phase.

On the other hand, [hat off] this admission of truth and fact is far too little.... it's time to admit to the "church what has transpired in the name of the 'religion.' And what exactly is it doing now.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
How would that effect the whole Dec, 21 2012 thing?


Jus' goofin'.


edit on 21-11-2012 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   


The idea that Christ was born on Dec 25 also has no basis in historical fact. "We don't even know which season he was born in. The whole idea of celebrating his birth during the darkest part of the year is probably linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice."


Oh, ok... and when I bring this up at church I get evil looks? pss... pagans!



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
It is far to cold in the desert, in the winter, for the three wise men to be traveling.

He was probably born in the spring.

12/25 is heathen BS!!



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Jesus was born in September at the Passover every one knows that!






posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by meremortal
 


That is also a good possibility!!

Do you have a link for that bit of info??



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
How would that effect the whole Dec, 21 2012 thing?


That depends.
The people who calculated the Mayan calendar to that date presumably did so by counting days, so the label we give to the days ought to be irrelevant.
On the other hand, it's very awkward for the people who get excited by the number symbolism, because the last digit in 21-12-2012 probably ought to be a "9", which wrecks the whole thing.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Just another thing wrong with the church.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
The Conservative right wants to see Obama's birth Certificate....perhaps Jesus should show his as well so we can see if he is qualified to be the Christ.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Here is some good info on the real birth date of the King of Kings.

Enjoy!

en.144000.net...



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Nooooooooooooooooooo! this means we are really in 2019.

Whats the significance of this I hear you asking ? well a friend of mine well versed in financial circles come across a white paper that stated WW3 would start around 2020 and that it would involve the Chinese and Russians versus the West to prevent the Western Alliances ( US UK France Germany Canada Italy Spain ) from collapsing totally under a financial ruinous heap.

I thought I had more time and now I obviously don't



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Certainly Christmas doesn't exactly fall on Dec 25th due to the winter solstice. In year 1 AD the Roman Solstice occurred Dec 23 at about 1:00 AM LMT? Maybe those sneaky Pythagorean mathematicians had an older secret they wanted enshrined?



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by radpetey
 


google it and research for your self i did!




posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS



The idea that Christ was born on Dec 25 also has no basis in historical fact. "We don't even know which season he was born in. The whole idea of celebrating his birth during the darkest part of the year is probably linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice."


Oh, ok... and when I bring this up at church I get evil looks? pss... pagans!


What are you in for?



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by subjectzero
 


This is the first time I've read that Jesus' date of birth was in dispute. I've never heard that any attempt has been made to correct the error.

It is believed that Jesus was born between 7BC and 2BC.


If I understand the article properly, that's what the Pope is saying. He is saying that Jesus wasn't born in 1 A.D., but a few years earlier. He's just stating the accepted view. It may be that this is newsworthy because the Pope said it, but I don't see anything dramatic here.


Hallmark Cards would beg to differ with you....just kidding Charles. I agree...no biggie....


Des





new topics




 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join