Christ's birthday

[Violet]

There is no proof in the natural world, but there is evidence

EvF

Which we must take on faith

One of the problems with gods... is that there is no scientific evidence for them. They also usually illogical in at least some way or another. So while faith in the truth of a logical idea (like 1+1=2) is logical, and requires very little faith to agree with (to the point that it might not be thought of as faith at all? )... faith in the truth of of an illogical idea (like a god) is illogical, and requires so much more faith to agree with (to the point that one might be baffled with as to how a person could have faith in it at all).

The religious defend their non-temporal beings with stating that it takes a great deal of faith to believe in their god (I agree wholeheartedly!)... But I see no reason to believe in one god more than any other... for there can be no evidence for any of them (probably because they don't exist... but they might), and they are not inherently logical beings.

[Ace Otana]

The god hypothesis in my view is unprovable in the natural world. The fact that it requires faith which in itself is an unscientific and unreasonable concept puts it out of the reach of mankind to know god through any other way.

Funny that isn't it. Faith only and nothing else.
You can apply faith to every imaginable character and you'd get the same results.
You can apply faith to santa or the tooth fairy. What's the differance? That is why evidence is so vital.

God probably doesn't exist. It's the only reasonable explanation to why there is no evidence of him.

[downbeatplumb]

Whose side are you on?

Oooh, you shouldn't, oughta have said that. hock:

I see what you mean.

Twas meant in jest but taken seriously.

Ah well.

---

There is as much evidence for the matrix as for god or gods.

discuss.

[Joe Bloe]

It's been a few days since anyone has posted on this thread, so I thought I'd mention a couple of things regarding Christ's birthday...

Nowhere in the bible is the day or the month of Jesus' birth mentioned, but it is possible to get an idea of the year of the nativity.

Matthew (2:1) says Jesus was born while Herod was king of Judea and since Herod ruled from 37BC to 4BC it had to be sometime during that period - many Christians have decided that 6BC is the most likely year.

Luke (2:2) however, says that Jesus was born at the time of the census when Quirinius was Governor of Syria - and the historical record shows that this occurred in 6AD.

But when we get to Luke (3:1-23) we are told that Jesus was about thirty years old when he was baptised by John in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius. That 15th year was 29AD which means that Jesus was born in about 1BC.

And over in John (8:57) the Jews refer to Jesus as "not yet fifty". It's a vague statement, but they are surely referring to someone over forty and possibly closer to forty-five, which suggests that he may have been born as early as 15BC.

That's what the bible says.

Me? I think the whole Jesus story is a myth.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Sae

I understand faith to be belief without evidence. So to take evidence on faith, is incompatible with my definition.

Evidence is something that gives indication, that you take in. If there is such indication, if there is evidence, then your belief is evidence-based. If, however, you believe without any evidence whatsoever, if you take it on faith, if you just "have faith", which is blind, then your belief is faith-based and not evidence-based. And there is nothing more baseless, at least in my opinion, than faith-based belief.

EvF

[Minimalist]

Luke (2:2) however, says that Jesus was born at the time of the census when Quirinius was Governor of Syria - and the historical record shows that this occurred in 6AD.

Very true, but there was no world-wide census for the purpose of taxation even then. In fact, direct taxes on Roman citizens in Italy had been discontinued in the middle of the second century BC, so "Luke" is clearly made up bullshit.

[Rhage]

It's been a few days since anyone has posted on this thread, so I thought I'd mention a couple of things regarding Christ's birthday...

Nowhere in the bible is the day or the month of Jesus' birth mentioned, but it is possible to get an idea of the year of the nativity.

Matthew (2:1) says Jesus was born while Herod was king of Judea and since Herod ruled from 37BC to 4BC it had to be sometime during that period - many Christians have decided that 6BC is the most likely year.

Luke (2:2) however, says that Jesus was born at the time of the census when Quirinius was Governor of Syria - and the historical record shows that this occurred in 6AD.

But when we get to Luke (3:1-23) we are told that Jesus was about thirty years old when he was baptised by John in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius. That 15th year was 29AD which means that Jesus was born in about 1BC.

And over in John (8:57) the Jews refer to Jesus as "not yet fifty". It's a vague statement, but they are surely referring to someone over forty and possibly closer to forty-five, which suggests that he may have been born as early as 15BC.

That's what the bible says.

Me? I think the whole Jesus story is a myth.

See, that where the whole thing goes in the toilet. Just because the buybull says anything doesn't make it true.

The buybull is, if anything, a very flimsy version of a history book and back then, the record keeping must have been horrid.

JMO

[Joe Bloe]

Luke (2:2) however, says that Jesus was born at the time of the census when Quirinius was Governor of Syria - and the historical record shows that this occurred in 6AD.

Very true, but there was no world-wide census for the purpose of taxation even then. In fact, direct taxes on Roman citizens in Italy had been discontinued in the middle of the second century BC, so "Luke" is clearly made up bullshit.

In Josephus' Antiquities, he refers to the exile of Archelaus which is usually dated to 6AD, and he goes on to say that the territory subject to Archelaus was added to Syria, and Quirinius was charged with taking a census of the property in Syria and selling the estate of Archelaus.

You're right about Luke's story being bullshit (no census was ever conducted in the way he describes) but if we take the bare bones of his story (Quirinius/Syria/Census) we get a Nativity in 6AD - which directly contradicts the guesses made by other New Testament authors.

[Minimalist]

It's a little more absurd even than that, Joe. By the time "Luke" was written....whenever the hell that was... the author did not know that Bethlehem (in Judaea) had been in a different country than "Nazareth" (which most likely did not exist at all) but was in Galilee in any case. As you say, Archelaus was deposed in 6 AD and Quirinius as the new governor of Syria was directed to incorporate Judaea as a prefecture into his command. However, Galilee remained under the rule of Herod Antipas until 39 AD when Herod Agrippa I was made king of both regions by his boyhood friend, Gaius (Caligula.) Thus, for the entire period of time covered by "Luke" the notion of someone going from Nazareth to Bethlehem would be like an American going to Canada for a census. Laughable but explainable in the sense that the division of the territory actually lasted for only a short period of time in the early first century. For whatever reason the Romans were always eager to find a member of the Herodian clan to run the place for them. When Herod Agrippa I died in 44 it ushered in a period of direct Roman rule under a series of procurators while the Romans waited for Herod Agrippa II to become old enough to be invested as king.

Thus, perhaps the author of "Luke" can be forgiven for not knowing that bit of historical minutiae concerning the political realities of Judaea/Galilee in 6 AD but he still fucked up the story.

[theVOID]

It's a little more absurd even than that, Joe. By the time "Luke" was written....whenever the hell that was... the author did not know that Bethlehem (in Judaea) had been in a different country than "Nazareth" (which most likely did not exist at all) but was in Galilee in any case. As you say, Archelaus was deposed in 6 AD and Quirinius as the new governor of Syria was directed to incorporate Judaea as a prefecture into his command. However, Galilee remained under the rule of Herod Antipas until 39 AD when Herod Agrippa I was made king of both regions by his boyhood friend, Gaius (Caligula.) Thus, for the entire period of time covered by "Luke" the notion of someone going from Nazareth to Bethlehem would be like an American going to Canada for a census. Laughable but explainable in the sense that the division of the territory actually lasted for only a short period of time in the early first century. For whatever reason the Romans were always eager to find a member of the Herodian clan to run the place for them. When Herod Agrippa I died in 44 it ushered in a period of direct Roman rule under a series of procurators while the Romans waited for Herod Agrippa II to become old enough to be invested as king.

Thus, perhaps the author of "Luke" can be forgiven for not knowing that bit of historical minutiae concerning the political realities of Judaea/Galilee in 6 AD but he still fucked up the story.

It would be forgivable if he had not such an air of certainty in his remarks.