Actually, there is no actual proof or evidence of a historical biblical 'jesus'. 'Jesus Christ' is a LATIN translational term stemming from the Latin vulgate translation circa 4th cenury CE.
If one looks at the Josephus references, in a general list of contempory 'messiahs' the text does include the name 'Jesus Christ' at the end of the list, more as an after thought, why would some, especially an ORTHODOX Jew usually writing in Kione Greek, use a latin term that didn't come in until the 4th century?!?
Secondly, Jospheus was born in 37 CE supposedly just after the 'time of Jesus' and all the 'miricles', why would he refer to him as nothing more than an after thought. The way people are, they talk about weird or 'miracle' stuff for generations. Especially, being born in Jeruselum wouldn't he even hear about 'Jesus' from first hand eye witnesses, or at least of someone that knew an eyewitness?!?
In the OTHER reference by Josephus in Chapter 3, it starts with sedition against Pilate who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate sent spies among the Jews with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. THEN IS THE GOLDEN 127 words about "Jesus'. BUT, the next line is 'And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews...’
Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be 'another terrible misfortune.' It is only a Christian who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy.
The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defense of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal.
In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ." Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written. It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.
In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, that great Church propagandist and self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD.
hehehehee just giving ya something to CHEW ON...
...but as to you question of the 'birth of 'JESUS"...
its a christian site, but they do put forth a pretty good analysis of the dates... http://www.biblestudying.net/christmas.html
2007-12-24 13:52:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Lion Jester 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
The key is to work from the birth of John. The priesthood was divided into courses. John's father was of the course of Abia( or Abijah)(Luke 1:5). This was the eighth course of the priesthood (see 1Chr 24:10) Each division served one week and all divisions served at the festivals (2 Kings 11, 2Chr 35:4-11). This puts Johns father serving in the Temple in the first week of Sivan (May-June). After his time to serve was up he goes home and his wife conceives. (Luke 1:23) John was born in the spring
around Passover, Nissan 14 (March- April) It was in the sixth month of Elizebeths pregnancy that Mary conceived (Luke 1:26) This would put Jesus being born 6 months after John , in the fall in the month of Tisri ( Sept- Oct) There is reason to believe Jesus was born on the first day of Feast of Tabernacles which would be Tisri 15 . This past year that fell on Sept 27.
You have to keep in mind that it is a different calendar than we use now so Tisri 15 will not fall on the same day on our calendar from year to year, current year is a leap year and contains 13 months. First course of the priesthood would have served in Nissan, in the spring .
2007-12-24 16:10:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by robb 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Look, my friend, is this so hard to understand? There were few birth records, little if any written documents about the birth of commoners. Most people during the time of Jesus could not read or write. Paper was a precious commodity.
But did Jesus live and die as told in the Bible? Of course.
Few people believe that he didn't. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, all believe that Jesus lived and died as told in the Bible. To deny that fact is to deny history.
People may dispute the Bible as to some facts, but above all it is one of the best history books ever written. The actual birth date of Jesus will probably never be known and it is irrelevant anyway.
2007-12-24 13:33:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
When reading Luke 2 you can tell Jesus was not born in December. It was the time to pay taxes and back in those times and into the pioneer days taxes were always paid after the harvest. Harvesting begins in September. Jesus was born on or around September 29, 5BC. Another clue is that the Shepard's were in the fields with their flocks. Sheep are not out in the fields in the winter, especially where it snows. It snows in Bethlehem in the month of December
2007-12-24 13:37:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by tebone0315 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are varying opinions. I have studied ancient astrology and based on the information given about the Magi and the "star" they "followed" the opinion I agree with most is April 17, 6 BCE. Their was a conjunction of the Sun, Saturn & Jupiter (the planet of kings) in Aries, which was considered to rule over Judea. This had great significance to the Magi, who were astrologers.
2015-03-29 09:39:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Lynx 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, nobody relly knew, debates are still ongoing until now as to when Christ was really born. Christmas day on December 25th is merely a commemoration of His birthday. I've chanced upon a book during my college yeras about a certain ancient man named Mitra who shared similar story about how Christ was born, brought up, his life and even similarities on how they were persecuted and died. Coincidentally (or is it?) they were also 'born' on December 25th. But Mitra came way before Jesus' time... You know what, It shook my faith for a while. But then I have to keep on believing on something and held on to what I was brought up to believe...
Some say Christ is a Taurean... because his character is close to that of a Taurus.
2007-12-24 13:41:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jinky Winky 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually there's virtually no evidence for Jesus' birth outside of the New Testament.
It's pretty much accepted as fact that the passage in Josephus' Antiquities that refers to Jesus (the Testimonium Flavianum) was later added by Eusebius.
There were also other people around that chronicled the history of the area for the first 150-200 years of the Common Era and none of them mention a Jesus-like character.
2007-12-24 13:33:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anthony Stark 5
·
0⤊
3⤋
He must have died on April 25, 31AD.
The best guess for His birth is September 11, 3 BC and was earlier conceived on December 13, 4 BC.
2007-12-24 13:30:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Holy Holly 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's thought that Jesus was born in the summer, as the "shepards were watching their flocks by night", in otherwards, the sheep were out in the pastures, instead of being in the corral, as they would have been in the winter. Exact month, we may never know.
2007-12-24 13:32:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by briteblsn 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you think He did exist, then why do you ask His real date of birth ?
That is not important. At the time, only important people ( according to the roman point of view ) were registered in the records. For the Romans, Jesus' birth was not important
If He was born in spring, summer, autumn, or winter, that is not important
2007-12-24 13:30:10
·
answer #10
·
answered by nadie 6
·
2⤊
1⤋