Jesus was born, um, somewhere around this time

[DeistPaladin]

The Jesus Timeline (posted in the general religion section because Muslims have to account for it, too)

Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great

Matthew
2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, so Jesus would have to have been born before then.

Jesus was also born during the administration of Gov Quirinius of Syra

Luke 2:2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
...
2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria until 6 CE, so Jesus was born after that year.

So Jesus was born before 4 BCE and after 6 CE at the same time. Now that is a miracle.

Jesus started his ministry after his baptism by John the Baptist. JtB didn't start his ministry until 29 CE, during the 15th year of Tiberius.

Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

So Jesus didn't start his ministry until after 29 CE. Actually, JtB needed to start his ministry, become so renown as to be called the second coming of Elijah, p.o. Herod Antipas, get arrested, get thrown in prison, executed and then Jesus started his ministry. That would be a lot to happen in just one year.

Jesus was about 30 at his baptism

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,

So Matt's Jesus who was born circa 5 BCE (Herod died in April of 4 BCE) would have been "about 30" around 26 CE, three years before JtB even started his ministry, never mind all the other events. This is such a stretch that some apologists try to argue that "about 30" could mean 37 years old.

Additionally, Judea was a client state of Rome under the reign of King Herod the Great, so Luke's tax census wouldn't have happened even if we could somehow grant Quirinius an earlier governorship of Syria (an ad hoc that apologists often appeal to despite that we know where Quirinius was at the time and it wasn't Syria).

Luke's Jesus seems a little more plausible. The age of 30 fits with a birthday around 6 CE and it also fits with events of the arrest and execution of JtB, which based on Josephus' writings, would have been around the mid 30s CE. Where we run into problems is with the ministry and execution of Jesus.

Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea, was called back to Rome in 36 CE. This means the latest that Jesus could have been crucified would have been on Easter of that year. This would have only given him months, not years, to conduct his ministry.

The Gospel of John articulates that there were three Passovers over the course of Jesus' ministry and therefore 2-3 years. One needs a big shoe-horn to squeeze that in the months Luke's Jesus would have had.

John 2:13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
6:4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
13:1 Now before the feast of the passover...

The devil's in the details, they say.

[Anomalocaris]

You are missing the faith for the details! How dare you! Impossibility does not stand in the way of god! Would you not rather believe then scrutinize? You are a sheep to be fucked by, uhem, I meant shepparded, by Jesus. How can you let such trivial details as the fact that he appearently had no opportunity to be born stand in the way of joining his flock? Shame on you!

[Minimalist]

So Jesus didn't start his ministry until after 29 CE.

Oh, dear...except Phillip wasn't dead until late 33/34 AD which means that Antipas could not have married his brother's wife and he didn't divorce Aretas IV's daughter until about 34 also....Josephus then tells us that Lucius Vitellius, the newly installed governor of Syria was directed by Tiberius to punish Aretas but Vitellius was not consul until 34 and could not have been governor of Syria until 35 at the earliest which doesn't leave an awful lot of time for ole jebus to do his schtick, does it?

Shame when history gets in the way of a good yarn!


http://www.livius.org/vi-vr/vitellius/lucius.html

Having the emperor's support, he became consul in the first months of 34.

Next year, Vitellius was governor of Syria, one of the most important provinces of the Roman empire.

Oddly, the bio of Vitellius duly accounts for his dismissal of Pilate in 36 but then goes on to say that his expedition against Aretas did not take place until 37!

Somehow, this actual history makes a whole lot more sense than xtian ramblings about their god boy which were obviously inexpertly tacked on later to the story.

[DeistPaladin]

Oh, dear...except Phillip wasn't dead until late 33/34 AD which means that Antipas could not have married his brother's wife and he didn't divorce Aretas IV's daughter until about 34 also....Josephus then tells us that Lucius Vitellius, the newly installed governor of Syria was directed by Tiberius to punish Aretas but Vitellius was not consul until 34 and could not have been governor of Syria until 35 at the earliest which doesn't leave an awful lot of time for ole jebus to do his schtick, does it?

And we have to figure that JtB couldn't have been an overnight success. He had a massive following, so much that his Mandaen followers were rivals of the early Christians. Ken speculates, quite aptly I think, that the whole reason for JtB making an appearance at all is to place him in a subservient position to their god figure.

Side note, do you notice with later and later Gospels, JtB sinks lower and lower on his knees?

Mark: JtB baptizes Jesus, but only after putting himself down.
Matt: JtB first asks why he should baptize Jesus instead of the other way around.
Luke: It doesn't say JtB baptizes Jesus. Luke uses the passive voice and there is no conversation between them.
John: JtB never baptizes Jesus but only recognizes him as the "Lamb of God"

In any case, one doesn't build such a following overnight as JtB had. In order to shoe-horn JtB's entire ministry into one year, on Christian apologist I'm currently exchanging videos with actually invoked the "power of God" card. Seriously. So God made JtB an overnight success? Apparently free will isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I always find it interesting when a Christian is backed into a corner and forced to play the "power of God" card. It's a tacit admission that the story makes no sense.

[Minimalist]

Not to mention the simple geopolitical fact that in 36 AD John would have been a citizen of Judaea ( and thus a subject of Pontius Pilate ) while Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee. It would be a bit like an American criticizing the wife of the President of France because his wife was a porn star...or whatever. Who'd care?

However, if this gospel bullshit was written at a much later time when the memories of the political division of Palestine into separate tetrachies had faded then it makes some sense that the fiction writer who penned these gospels might have gotten that part totally wrong. It would also explain "Luke's" obvious mistake in having citizens of Galilee journey all the way to fucking Bethlehem for a census which did not involve their country in the slightest.

[Justtristo]

John the Baptist is mentioned a fair bit in Josephus works, this quote is from book 18 of the Jewish antiquities. Unlike the passing mention about Jesus scholars have never doubted this passage was written by Josephus.

Interestingly enough the gospels say Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John, who was called the Baptist. For Herod had killed this good man, who had commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, righteousness towards one another and piety towards God. For only thus, in John's opinion, would the baptism he administered be acceptable to God, namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as it was taken for granted that their souls had already been purified by justice.

Now many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses might put them into his power and enable him to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best to put him to death. In this way, he might prevent any mischief John might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late.

Accordingly John was sent as a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I already mentioned, and was put to death. Now the Jews thought that the destruction of his army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure with him.

[Minimalist]

Now many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses

It would mean that Antipas executed someone who was a subject of the Roman Prefect of Judaea. The Romans might well have said "go ahead" but the passage in question does not even indicate that Antipas asked. He knew his limitations as a client-king. When he wanted to marry Herodias he sailed all the way to Rome to get Tiberius' permission. More to the point, Josephus knew Antipas' limitations as a client-king.

The gospel writers, OTOH, don't seem to have known shit.

[mamamia88]

There is evidence that most of the story of Jesus was simply plagiarized from other religions. Check this out http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms....births.htm

[GANIMEDE]

Bible schollars and anybody who has poured hours of study into the "Holy Scriptures" knows that these scriptures contradict themselves. The story about the "census" is an invention: There was no such Roman census as described. Neither was there a "Massacre of Innocents" committed by Herod. One story has the "Holy Family" going into Egypt, the other not. The whole story about the figure "Jesus" is in fact a collection of stories and tales written down centuries after the supposed crucifiction and resurection event. Depictions of the "Christ" with beams of light eminating from his head are hyjacked from Mythraism. Mythra was a sun-god and represented the victory of light over darkness.

The historical fact is, the existance of wandering preachers and "false messiahs" such as Jesus of Nazareth, was a commonplace for the times in ancient Judea. It was common for these bizarre behaving fanatics to be tried for blasphemy and heresy by local Jewish authority and, in severe cases, to be tried by Roman Consul on charges of sedition. The story of the "Crusifiction" is a conglomerate of these common occurances of the time. Bible schollars know full well that there were at least TWO "Jesuses" on trial as mentioned in the Bible: One "Jesus of Nazareth" and one "Jesus Bar Abbas". The crowd begged that "Jesus Bar Abbas" be released to them. Their "Son of the Father" "Bar Abbas" means "Of the Father". Every false Messiah claimed to be a "Son of God" and a future king.

Jesus of Nazareth, (if he ever existed as a single person), was in fact born in Nazareth and not in Bethlehem. This falsification concerning birthplace would be made to coinside with Jewish Prophesy requiring being born of the "House of David". His birth in Nazareth excluded "Jesus of Nazareth" from this qualification.

If he existed as one person, and was executed, it was for blasphmy, (claiming equality with God). Being a self appointed Rabi, (Teacher) and thereby violating the sactity of the Jewish temples. Performing works on the Jewish Sabeth. Making threats against Jewish religious authority and various other offences. Criminal fanatics such as these were commonly crucified by Roman Authority only because such "rabbel-rousers" could also be considered a threat to Roman legal authority in the provinces.

It should also be noted that many of these strange acting fanatics were members of the Saducean Sect. A Doomsday Sect founded by John the Baptist. They preached that "the End was Near" and required all to "cast away all ther material possesions and repent". They preached the existance of a human "soul" which required "redemption" The Saduceans had been banned from Israel and took refuge near the Dead Sea, hence the "Dead Sea Scrolls" . . . . .

[Justtristo]

Now many people came in crowds to him, for they were greatly moved by his words. Herod, who feared that the great influence John had over the masses

It would mean that Antipas executed someone who was a subject of the Roman Prefect of Judaea. The Romans might well have said "go ahead" but the passage in question does not even indicate that Antipas asked. He knew his limitations as a client-king. When he wanted to marry Herodias he sailed all the way to Rome to get Tiberius' permission. More to the point, Josephus knew Antipas' limitations as a client-king.

The gospel writers, OTOH, don't seem to have known shit.

Herod Antipas did authority over the Galilee and Perea even despite being limited as a client king, that would assume John the Baptist came from either one of those areas.