Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter BroomWagon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nan_S said:
Jesus was born during the time of year when shepherds stayed out all night. Shepherds stayed out in the fields all night during the lambing season. This was in the spring of the year.

Ergo, the Lamb of God was probably born during the lambing season, in the spring, and not at the winter solstice. However, since we already had one major Jesus holiday in the spring (I think it was the resurrection…) it seemed appropriate to select another date to focus solely on and celebrate the great gift of the incarnation.

If anything, the appropriateness of this timing (born with the other lambs) should strengthen our faith.
Click to expand...
This is more or less the old legend I referenced. Does it hold water? Not according to some bloggers and such, anyway. I don’t claim to know the truth of the matter myself.
 
chaunceygardner said:
I wonder if the Magi miscalculated as well and showed up 5 or 6 years too late?

Seriously, the idea that Jesus was several years earlier than our calendar would indicate is not news, and it is not new. I have been reading that for years. King Herod of the Nativity story died in 4 B.C. I guess I am surprised that people were not aware of this.
Click to expand...
Don’t be so arrogant? Did you even read the article?

This is covered as well as whether Christ was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth.

I would think the Pope being in an article from the Daily Telegraph is newsworthy, furthermore, we are suppose to cite the exact title of the article. If you have a problem, I suggest you notify the moderator.
 
austenbosten said:
So does that mean we are really in the year 2014-2019 Anno Domini? :confused:

Just a shame people reject Christianity now…no hope for a new Benedictine Calender! 😃
Click to expand...
Well, I’ll opt for 2017. That means Obama wouldn’t be president anymore. 🙂
 
This is why the Byzantine Calendar is the best. We’re based on the year the earth was created 👍
 
The article and Pontiff also deals with whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth. I had never heard of this controversy.
He also weighs in on the debate over Christ’s birthplace, rejecting arguments by some scholars that he was born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem.
Click to expand...
Christ’s birth date is not the only controversy raised by the Pope in his new book – he also said that contrary to the traditional Nativity scene, there were no oxen, donkeys or other animals at Jesus’s birth.
Click to expand...
But what would greeting cards be without these?
 
meltzerboy said:
The Dec. 21, 2012 doomsday prophecy is another miscalculation, Mayan-style. But just in case, I promised my students I would have the grades in before that date.

In regard to Jesus’ birth, for many years I had heard that 4 BC was the date.
Click to expand...
And I guess technically doomsday happened a little less than 4 years ago…😛
 
DaddyGirl said:
What he’s talking about in his book–the details of the birth–is very much what scholars have been saying and writing about for the last century. Wonder why he’s talking about it now?

Yeah, the birthplace controversy.
I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it because it’s a biggie:

The controversy is that in only one gospel, the writers explain why Mary and Joseph happened to be in Bethlehem–80 miles from Nazareth–when the baby was born.
It would seem odd that at 8-9 months pregnant Mary would take a long, arduous trip on foot or donkey that would take 1-2 weeks and that Joseph would allow such a trip in her condition.

The explanation in the gospel called Luke is that they went for an empire-wide census in which everyone had to return to the place where their ancestors where born. So Joseph goes to Bethlehem because ancestor David was born there 1000 years earlier.

First problem is…we have pretty good records for the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of an empire-wide census for which everyone had to register by returning to their ancestral home.

The second problem is…the logistics. How could everyone have possibly returned to the homes of the ancestors from a thousand years earlier? It wouldn’t be physically possible, and at the very least, it would cause such pandemonium that surely it would have been mentioned in at least one historical source apart from Luke.

So the controversy is that…whoever wrote Luke (about 40-50 years after Jesus died? Mark was written first, I believe) wrote that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in order to fit his birth to the prophecy in the Old Testament book of Micah that a savior would come from Bethlehem.

But instead of being born in the home of King David, royal ancestor of the Messiah…Jesus may have more likely been born in his tiny, unknown, hometown of Nazareth.
Click to expand...
You have to ask though why the early Church never questionned the account about the census them being so close to the events of the time. It could have been misrepresented to be emprie-wide but it could have been a local census.
 
DaddyGirl said:
What he’s talking about in his book–the details of the birth–is very much what scholars have been saying and writing about for the last century. Wonder why he’s talking about it now?

Yeah, the birthplace controversy.
I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it because it’s a biggie:

The controversy is that in only one gospel, the writers explain why Mary and Joseph happened to be in Bethlehem–80 miles from Nazareth–when the baby was born.
It would seem odd that at 8-9 months pregnant Mary would take a long, arduous trip on foot or donkey that would take 1-2 weeks and that Joseph would allow such a trip in her condition.

The explanation in the gospel called Luke is that they went for an empire-wide census in which everyone had to return to the place where their ancestors where born. So Joseph goes to Bethlehem because ancestor David was born there 1000 years earlier.

First problem is…we have pretty good records for the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of an empire-wide census for which everyone had to register by returning to their ancestral home.

The second problem is…the logistics. How could everyone have possibly returned to the homes of the ancestors from a thousand years earlier? It wouldn’t be physically possible, and at the very least, it would cause such pandemonium that surely it would have been mentioned in at least one historical source apart from Luke.

So the controversy is that…whoever wrote Luke (about 40-50 years after Jesus died? Mark was written first, I believe) wrote that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in order to fit his birth to the prophecy in the Old Testament book of Micah that a savior would come from Bethlehem.

But instead of being born in the home of King David, royal ancestor of the Messiah…Jesus may have more likely been born in his tiny, unknown, hometown of Nazareth.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your detailed response. I will reflect on this and may write more later. This definitely is an apologetics question.

When you mentioned this about the Census, I know exactly, I have read about the Census being discussed but as to the question of what this was about, I do not remember that part. This rings some bells.

So at some point, I will research this. It has surely been addressed.

Surely, there have been threads on this on this forums site as well.
 
Does this mean that the Statute of Limitations has run on some dicey issues I have going on in my life??? 7 years would be a big difference!!
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I am leaving the faith now. :mad:
Click to expand...
Please don’t leave the faith, this isn’t a new concept and its certainly not a reason to leave the faith. It doesn’t really matter if jesus was born 7 years earlier than previously thought.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Right, this has been the belief by scholars for many, many years now.

The only thing it messes up is that census for which Mary and Joseph were supposed to go to Bethlehem, just before Jesus’ birthday. It’s the reason they travelled while Mary was near-nine months pregnant (a week on a donkey?!) from Nazareth to Bethlehem.
But the dates in the gospels never quite jived with official recorded censuses dates anyway, I think…so it doesn’t make a difference in this respect.
Click to expand...
Although there are many Christmas images of Mary riding a donkey, nowhere in Luke or Matthew’s Gospels does it say she was carried on a donkey to Bethlehem

Anyone know the answer regarding the census?
 
I don’t believe John Ankerberg is not that hospitable to the Catholic Faith but in this case on Jesus being born in Bethlehem, I remembered one of his webpages and found it again. I read this maybe even 10 years ago.

jashow.org/Articles/editors-choice/EC1205W3C.htm
So, Luke tells us Augustus took a census before Jesus was born and this was the reason Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem. However, critics say there are five reasons why Luke’s account is historically incorrect.
Click to expand...
Go to webpage to read more.

I always thought he fielded this question well.

Also, wiki, Census of Quirinius, this is the Census that may relate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

I am sure there are many other sources.
 
meltzerboy said:
Of course Scott is joking. OTOH, he says he’s leaving the country and has already left the two major political parties, ergo…
Click to expand...
I figured. I saw that someone else took him seriously and just wanted to be sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top