This is confusing? Can you help?

Question

I was reading a textbook, and it stated that the birth of Jesus is not exactly known. They estimate it to be within 4-8 B.C. That doesnt neccesarily makes sense, because how can he be born, before he was born. Also before Jesus rose, were those thirty years still accounted for in human time, beacause we measure dates A.D. And lastly if that were true, wouldnt that mean that the all the world history is incorrect?

Answer 1

Well read the Bible. Quit trying to disprove the Bible.



Pic Pic Pic

Answer 2

The person who decided the year Jesus was born (and therefore to start our calendars from that date) was a pope who was really giving the best estimate he could without using the kind of science we currently have. Our estimates now are slightly more accurate, so we've discovered it's likely the pope was off by a few years.

The 33 years that Jesus lived were measured in human, earth years.

A small discrepancy in a date doesn't change history, at worst it changes the exact years some events happened. We aren't really reliant on a Biblical event to tell us what happened throughout the rest of history, we just keep using the system we have in place out of convenience more than anything else.

Answer 3

When the time of Jesus' birth was calculated for the calendar, there were some inaccuracies in the estimations of historical events. This caused the year 1 to be set incorrectly.

There is still some inaccuracy of historical events, but researchers believe they have Jesus' birth narrowed down to about 6 to 4 B.C.

That means when Jesus was "about 30" (at the beginning of his ministry -- Luke 3:23), that would have occurred between A.D. 25 and 27 (remember, there is no year 0). And his ministry is said to have lasted 3-1/2 years. That would bring the year of his death and resurrection to about A.D. 29 to 31.

We measure date TODAY in terms of A.D. (Anno Domini) for general use. But historians keep track of the dates of events differently -- they try to account for the errors in various calculation methods.

Answer 4

First of all, A.D. doesn't mean "after death" It means "anno domoni" which means "in the year of our lord"

They didn't suddenly start numbering the years right after Jesus was born. The Romans originally measured years according to the emperor like most empires did at the time. It wasn't until around 500 AD or so that they decided to use the birth of Jesus. One of the guys, don't remember who, calculated how long ago Jesus was born based on adding up dates from historical records. The fact that he was only about 6 years off is actually pretty amazing

Answer 5

The year of Jesus' birth was not calculated until many centuries later. The calculator, one Dionysius Exiguus, made a good faith effort, and it was accepted by the Church, which proceded to redate everything in history and thenceforth according to the new dating system. However, Dionysius had made a few errors and these were not discovered until much later. By that time, no one was interested in renumbering everything all over again for the sake of a few, debatable years. It doesn't matter that much.

A.D. means Anno Domini or Year of the Lord, so it is supposed to count from Christ's birth, not his death, commemorating the enfleshment of God in the world. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, so the dating is obviously "incorrect", but it's just a number. God doesn't care what we call it. Do YOU want to change all those history boooks and calendars?

Answer 6

It might seem obvious that Jesus was born in the year 1 (of the Christian era, AD, Anno Domini). However, the Christian calendar was only developed around 500 years later, and it took another 500 years before it was generally accepted. As it happens, the Monk (named Dionysius Exiguus) who developed the concept, was apparently off in his calculations by around 4 years, as to exactly when Jesus was born. This results in the fact that Jesus was apparently born in around 4 BC, an odd statement!

The actual calendar that was used during Jesus' life was the Roman calendar. His family would have described His birth to have occurred in (probably) 750 AUC.

Historically, it is known that Herod the Great died in 4 BC, and the Gospels mention him, so Jesus was born prior to his death.

Luke gives the age of Jesus at His Baptism as "about thirty years" (Luke 3:23). This would put the time of the Baptism as being about 26 AD. Historical records show that Herod the Great had begun the reconstruction of the Temple in 20 BC, so the "forty and six years" mentioned by the Jews at the first Passover during Jesus' public Ministry (John2:13-22) brings us to about 26 or 27 AD for that first Passover. This again suggests that Jesus was probably born around 4 BC.

Scientifically, astronomers have determined that a very rare series of "conjunctions" of the brightest planets (among the brightest things in the night sky) occurred during 4 BC. Some suggest that this might be an explanation for the "star in the East".

-


links googled on "the exact year of Jesus birth".
...

Answer 7

It means that mans calculations of things were errant. We are not told the exact day either. Was it Dec. 24th, Jan. 8th. Feb. 2nd. ? What difference does it make? The main thing is that it happened. Stories are told of people coming from other countries to America around WW I. Their birth records were misplaced or lost and errant ones replaced them. That doesn't mean they were born before they were actually born. It means the records were incorrect. The 30 years thing. Good question but I'm not going to worry about it. It changes nothing.

Answer 8

He was born Friday 14 Nisan 6 CE, the day before a Great Sabbath (when the Saturday is also Passover).

He was crucified on Friday 14 Nisan 36 CE.

These dates have been known for millenia by the Vatican.

There is no doubt about it.

So the question is- why does the church continue to keep such fundamental and symbolic dates confusing, when it has had clear evidence for 2,000 years?

See:
http://one-faith-of-god.org/final_testament/end_of_darkness/heresy/heresy_0010.htm

Answer 9

Scripture itself indicates 2 BCE as the year of Christ's birth, during Quirinius' first governorship, and the 'first registration'.

"Now in those days a decree went forth from Caesar Au·gus′tus for all the inhabited earth to be registered; (this first registration took place when Qui·rin′i·us was governor of Syria;) and all people went traveling to be registered, each one to his own city." --Luke 2:1-3

Was Luke in Error about the Birthplace of Jesus?
http://watchtower.org/library/w/1998/12/15/diagram_01.htm

Apparently, in secular records, only a second registration is mentioned, as well as Quirin′ius' second governorship--both in 6 BC.

There are no 'lost years'.
1 BCE advanced to 1 CE, with no '0' year between them.
The common era includes all the years of Christ's life on earth.
The change between BCE & BC are off 2 years, is all.
It would cost MANY $$$$$$ to change all the books that have the mistake within them, so, it will likely never be attempted.

Answer 10

It is what it is. If Jesus was born in 1 BC all of history wouldn't be wrong. That would be overreacting. It just means that some of those time tables to help explain when things happened need to be adjusted.

Answer 11

BC/AD Is a fixed point in time from which the calenders are dated for the western world. It has nothing to do with Jesus birthday. His birthday is unknown. It has more to do with the time of your birth and of my birth 3/21/1989AD