HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Jesus was born years earl...

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:26 PM

Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9693576/Jesus-was-born-years-earlier-than-thought-claims-Pope.html

Not from The Onion.

45 replies, 3443 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope (Original post)
FarCenter Nov 2012 OP
KansDem Nov 2012 #1
arthritisR_US Nov 2012 #15
LadyHawkAZ Nov 2012 #28
rock Nov 2012 #34
valerief Nov 2012 #37
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #2
FarCenter Nov 2012 #5
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #3
HereSince1628 Nov 2012 #4
mulsh Nov 2012 #6
Autumn Nov 2012 #7
bluestateguy Nov 2012 #8
HereSince1628 Nov 2012 #9
LiberalAndProud Nov 2012 #12
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #13
HereSince1628 Nov 2012 #24
Cleita Nov 2012 #41
Shadowflash Nov 2012 #27
libdem4life Nov 2012 #10
scheming daemons Nov 2012 #17
BlueMTexpat Nov 2012 #11
arcane1 Nov 2012 #20
kestrel91316 Nov 2012 #21
gkhouston Nov 2012 #23
arthritisR_US Nov 2012 #14
Prism Nov 2012 #16
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #18
oswaldactedalone Nov 2012 #26
LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #44
ieoeja Nov 2012 #29
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #33
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #19
GeorgeGist Nov 2012 #22
Posteritatis Nov 2012 #25
Rambis Nov 2012 #30
matt819 Nov 2012 #31
Poll_Blind Nov 2012 #32
meow2u3 Nov 2012 #35
Berlum Nov 2012 #36
pinboy3niner Nov 2012 #39
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #38
LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #45
Cleita Nov 2012 #40
DavidDvorkin Nov 2012 #42
SidDithers Nov 2012 #43

Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:31 PM

1. We can settle this...

Let's see his birth certificate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:49 PM

15. Ha! Brilliant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:02 PM

28. The LONG FORM! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:41 PM

34. A chortle and two guffaws to ya

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 03:22 PM

37. DUzy!!!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:31 PM

2. This means it is actually 2016 already..... time for another Presidential race!!!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:35 PM

5. It would also push creation back from 4004 to 4008 BC and make the earth 6023 years old!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:31 PM

3. He is, in Catholic fashion, accepting scholarship as a worthwhile thing

It has been known for a long time that Jesus was not born in 1 AD.

I find his statement that Jesus was not born in a manger even more fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:31 PM

4. This one's going to require the LONG FORM birth certificate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:36 PM

6. annother warrior in the war on Christmas, whoda thunk it?

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:37 PM

7. So was he the midwife?

Where is the birth certificate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:39 PM

8. While I am a big critic of the Catholic church hierarchy

I do applaud how they take science and history seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:41 PM

9. Yes, very serious...they recognized Galileo was right in the 1990's

That sort of seriously well-aged rumination over an earth-centered universe must be applauded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:47 PM

12. +++

(sarcasm noted)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:47 PM

13. That is false. The church accepted that Galileo was right long ago

what they admited in the 1990s was that the church's persecution of him had been wrong.

The Catholic church is big on correcting its course while not admitting there was anything wrong with the old course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:46 PM

24. Yes, the not admitting anything wrong part is patently obvious.

BTW, I still want to see something that is contemporary evidence of Jesus birth date before I accept that he even lived.

I understand how this could be difficult, but pissing around arguing about what year he was born without contemporary evidence that he WAS born by necessity leaved it faith-based in the hands of people who will by your own admission say there was nothing wrong with the way it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:14 PM

41. I went to Catholic schools before 1990.

They recognized, Galileo, Linneaus and many other scientists from that time were right. I had very good science classes in Catholic school and there was no Creation nonsense ever mentioned in our science classes. Of course there was plenty of it in religion classes but never did they cross each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:01 PM

27. Ha ha! Yeah.

They are revising where and when a child, born of a virgin mother, who is the son of the almighty creator of the universe, was born.

A lot of science being taken really seriously in that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:41 PM

10. So Jesus was born BC and I'm chronologically a few years younger. I like it.

But seriously, this is why some of us still wonder about a lot of Christian history and its historical validity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:50 PM

17. Actually, it would mean we are now in 2016-2018 instead of 2012


And your birth year would also be 4-6 years later.... so you'd be chronologically exactly the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:43 PM

11. And this statement from the article is also worth noting,

just as heads are beginning to explode about the so-called "War on Christmas."

...
"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."

...

And, as one poster noted above, heads may explode at this as well:

The inclusion of domestic animals in the Nativity scene may have been inspired by pre-Christian traditions, for instance in the Book of Habakkuk, a part of the Hebrew Bible which was probably written by an early prophet in the seventh century BC, Benedict wrote.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9691295/Nativity-donkeys-and-cattle-are-a-myth-says-Pope.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:04 PM

20. "probably" linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:21 PM

21. Gee, YA THINK???????????????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:39 PM

23. Actually, I've heard that we may not have translated those passages well. Shocker.

The verse is traditionally something about Mary laying Jesus "in a manger, because there was no room for them at the inn". "Inn", instead of meaning something like a Motel 6, was likely a cataluma, an upper room, probably belonging to a distant relative. Animals may indeed have been kept on a lower level, which would have sheltered the animals and provided cheap heat for the people. Since giving birth would have made Mary ritually unclean, if there were other guests already staying in the guest area, they would have become unclean if they'd touched her or anything she'd touched and that would have been a "reason" to stay with the animals, which is apparently something the kids did anyway, if there was overflow.

Dunno if any of this is true, of course, but makes a heck of a lot more sense than the traditional Nativity story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:49 PM

16. My Jesuit university taught us 4 BC

This isn't that new. Catholics always knew there was some wiggle room on the date.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:52 PM

18. That was the catholic best estimate when I was growing up also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:00 PM

26. I was wondering why this is considered new info.

I marveled as a kid, which was quite a few years ago, that Christ's actual birth was thought to be 4 B.C.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oswaldactedalone (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:31 PM

44. Did the Pope just learned about it?

What was he doing masturbating when it first came out?

Jesus was born before Christ. Wouldn't that mean that Jesus is not Christ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:04 PM

29. 4 BC is when Herod died. So he could have been born "no later" than 4 BC.


The whole Magi and Star of Bethlehem stories works for 17 April 6 BC. Jupiter was eclipsed by the moon as it rose in the east within the constellation of Aires on that date.

According to Magi astrology of the time, that meant a great king was born in Israel at that moment.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #29)


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:57 PM

19. Dionysius approximated the conventional date

in relation to when Tiberius became emperor. Changes from the Julian to the Gregorian calender would have had an affect too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:21 PM

22. I'm trying ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:52 PM

25. I'm agnostic and biblical chronology still fascinates me a great deal

Ussher's whole 4004 BC thing was flat-out wrong, of course - the actual figure needed information he wouldn't have had on hand - but the chronology he put together was a really impressive piece of work in its own right, for instance. I'd still like to drop a geology textbook on him of course, but what he did was much more difficult than modern descriptions of the process would have you believe.

Watching people gradually dig up and adjust to awareness of some of the flubs or outright omissions in early church history's interesting too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:05 PM

30. Proof positive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:05 PM

31. I have only one question

Does this mean that the world ends on December 21, 2012, or not?

It's already on my calendar, and I've made plans accordingly.

Enquiring minds want to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:05 PM

32. My interest in the Pope is with a person in a position of power. I find it interesting that...

...he's willing to shake things up a bit.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:55 PM

35. Did he personally witness the birth of Jesus?

If he didn't, which is absolutely true, he shouldn't speculate.

If he did, then he's too old to be Pope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:59 PM

36. Pope fires salvo in War on Christmas. Bill 'Draft-Dodger' O'Reilly (R) is gonna be pissed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:02 PM

39. Pope to BillO: "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know."

The Pope also pointed out that "Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 06:38 PM

38. Unless you believe the Gospel of Luke, of course

in which case, Luke 2:2 says he was born AD 6 or later:

2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.


Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in AD 6: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius

Or, both birth stories are the best guesses someone could make about 70 years later, while fitting in with the Jewish prophesies they personally thought were important, and neither can be taken as an accurate account of dates or events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #38)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:35 PM

45. Having a census requiring everyone

go back to the town they were born is totally ludicrous. I don't think the Romans were that stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:04 PM

40. I was always taught this in parochial school and that was sixty years ago,

so it's not a new idea. I guess the Pope is just making it official.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:23 PM

42. This makes as much sense as arguing about the birthdate of

Brthflx, a name I just made up.

Or Apollo or Ishtar or any other mythological figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:25 PM

43. A fictitious character was born earlier than a previously recognized arbitrary date...

Interesting.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread