Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope

[ProVobis]

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.

I would have loved to see that 4 BC calendar. (ANTECHRISTUM IV)

Also was it a leap year?

 

[ProVobis]

Oh, please don’t!!! Just start a new church which holds to the original date. You can be Pope!

Like JP-1 (minus one.)

 

[TimeEntrance]

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?

I’ve read one of Pope Benedict’s books on Jesus. I recall in the foreward or something that he said he decided to begin writing books on Jesus to rescue the image of Christ in a secular age that tends to distort His image as one of a hippie or something.

He’s a scholarly man and interestingly enough seems to refrain from being uncharitably critical towards other very conservative or liberal scholars he might disagree with on certain issues. I found it most interesting and impressive he when he brought up the name of Hans Kung in the book I was reading that he did not blast the guy. Actually, I think he agreed with him on some point.

I’ve read papers by scientists that disagree with other respected scientists on some minute points of evolution who were far more hostile and uncharitable than the Pope - and most think of “Pope” as synonymous with lack or charity and full of rage, intolerance, and burning people at the stake for the slightest scholarly disagreement.

 

[TimeEntrance]

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.

Historians have a bloated opinion of themselves.

Ask one (historian) who killed Nicole Brown Simpson? With the best of modern forensics and so much physical evidence and living witnesses that their investigation would have to be easier than few things they (in the 21st Century) have to go on from thousands of years ago.

I doubt they can answer.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Brown_Simpson

You’d think we’d replace our current juries with professional historians the way many of us - and historians themselves - take historians.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I’ve read one of Pope Benedict’s books on Jesus. I recall in the foreward or something that he said he decided to begin writing books on Jesus to rescue the image of Christ in a secular age that tends to distort His image as one of a hippie or something.

He’s a scholarly man and interestingly enough seems to refrain from being uncharitably critical towards other very conservative or liberal scholars he might disagree with on certain issues. I found it most interesting and impressive he when he brought up the name of Hans Kung in the book I was reading that he did not blast the guy. Actually, I think he agreed with him on some point.

I’ve read papers by scientists that disagree with other respected scientists on some minute points of evolution who were far more hostile and uncharitable than the Pope - and most think of “Pope” as synonymous with lack or charity and full of rage, intolerance, and burning people at the stake for the slightest scholarly disagreement.

^^^

 

[chaunceygardner]

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.

I always heard that the manger scene with animals was started by St. Francis. As to the exact scene and environment where Jesus was born, the Bible is silent (it probably wasn’t important to the meaning of the event). Tradition and popular culture gives us the images we use today.

Keep in mind that Matthew has the three Magi visiting Jesus in the “house” where he was staying. It is thought that these men arrived well after the birth (Herod had all the boys under two murdered). So again, our Christmas manger scenes are incorrect showing the Magi and the shepherds all gathered together.

But really, what is the difference in terms of our faith?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Historians have a bloated opinion of themselves.

Ask one (historian) who killed Nicole Brown Simpson? With the best of modern forensics and so much physical evidence and living witnesses that their investigation would have to be easier than few things they (in the 21st Century) have to go on from thousands of years ago.

I doubt they can answer.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Brown_Simpson

You’d think we’d replace our current juries with professional historians the way many of us - and historians themselves - take historians.

Haha! Good one!

 

[adrift]

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.

People traveled in caravans that covered about 20 miles a day. That would be about four days from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. We are not talking about women of today. They were heartier and use to hard work even when pregnant. They didn’t have doctors telling them what they couldn’t do. That is probably why infant mortality was so high. In today’s mind this trip would seem odd but not in the minds of that society.

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.

Warren H. Carroll in The Founding of Christendom provides an answer for such a census. BroomWagon has also provided an excellent source that agrees with Carroll.

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.

I miss your point here. Why would it have not been possible? . I don’t see why it would cause pandemonium at all. It explains why there was no place for Mary and Joseph to stay

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.

This is my own opinion on scholars. They wish to make a name for themselves, which isn’t going to happen by going a long with the status quo. They cannot accept the traditional rendition, no name in that. As a result, they now claim the tradition of Matthew being first is wrong. Give it another thousand years and the scholars will say that today scholars had it wrong. It is my understanding that Mark being written first was arrived at without considering the traditional reasons that Matthew came first. I prefer the traditional rendering.

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.

He didn’t need to fit the truth or did you forget that Matthew also says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Jesus was born exactly where Matthew and Luke says He was in Bethlehem.

 

[Bruce_Killian]

Hi All,
I’m Bruce and this is my first post. I am going to disagree with our Pope and say that I am convinced that Jesus was bron on the 25 of December in the year 1BC and the Star of Bethlehem is the primary proof (and the laywer from Texas who did the DVD did not get it right.

The magi said we saw His Star as it rose. Jesus identified His Star as the Bright Morning Star which is Venus. Venus marked a sign in the heavens of the Lion of the tribe of Judah receiving a scepter. The sign they saw in Bethlehem was His Star marking the Passover Sacrificial Lamb on passover. Lambing season was winter not spring. And because the sun was darkened in His presence and the moon turned to blood at both His birth and death only the winter solstice meets the requirements and only in Dec 1 BC was the moon eclipsed on the horizon so that it was red. Once one knows the story one realizes that it also links to Our Lady of Guadalupe. See my site www.scripturescholar.com for many more details.
Grace and peace
Bruce

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Oh, please don’t!!! Just start a new church which holds to the original date. You can be Pope!

Perfect. Habemus Papam! I shall take the name Purry. Pope Purry.

(satire off for those who don’t know me. My signature still applies)

 

[novusCatholic]

I couldn’t care less about the date that Jesus was born. I’m just glad that it happened.

I read a lot of the comments following the news “story”. Most are anti-Christian and many are specifically anti-Catholic.

It’s very frustrating to read comments like these. Misinformed, ignorant, hateful… Very sad. I wish that Christians were at least as vocal.

 

[The_Scott]

I couldn’t care less about the date that Jesus was born. I’m just glad that it happened.

I read a lot of the comments following the news “story”. Most are anti-Christian and many are specifically anti-Catholic.

It’s very frustrating to read comments like these. Misinformed, ignorant, hateful… Very sad. I wish that Christians were at least as vocal.

Rule of thumb: never read comments to religious and political news articles. Your blood pressure will thank you.

Because the Internet gives people a sense of anonymity, some may think they can say anything they want without any consequence to their actual lives.

 

[BroomWagon]

I once took a psychological test years ago and a strange question on it was asking if you wrote letters to the local newspaper. Seemed to be an odd question but maybe in some ways it gauges one’s psychological makeup. Making comments on a lot of new stories per articles seems the right way. A lot of people post to articles have an axe to grind. A lot of newspaper websites now have comments but you have to press a button to see them and otherwise, they are hidden. I think comments on mainstream newspaper sites can have the foulest comments.

This story was linked up at drudge report and since then, I have seen it also at the Blaze where I am sure comments are more friendly. But I’m not even sure if the Blaze is an acceptable source to post an initial article on. Just being at drudge gives some merit to this story being news worthy. Also, Daily Telegraph is conservative from what I understand. And one would have to register there, an English newspaper, to comment anyway.

 

[adrift]

We all have this idealized picture of the birth of Jesus.

We have Joseph and Mary arriving in Bethlehem on a donkey where there is no room in the Inn. They are told they can have the barn to stay in where Jesus is born among the donkey, sheep and cows.

Nice but probably not realistic. Joseph and Mary were poor and probably would not have been able to afford a donkey.

Also look at what Luke says

1 Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled.
2 This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
3 And all went to enroll themselves, every one to his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David;
5 to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child.
6 And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered.

The scripture does not say that it was a requirement for them to go to their own city only that they did. The scripture does not state when Mary had Jesus nor when they arrived only that “while they were there” she had them. They might have been there a couple of months before Jesus was born.

 

[Santi2]

Pope Purry.

 

[Threep]

Hi All,
I’m Bruce and this is my first post. I am going to disagree with our Pope and say that I am convinced that Jesus was bron on the 25 of December in the year 1BC and the Star of Bethlehem is the primary proof (and the laywer from Texas who did the DVD did not get it right.

The magi said we saw His Star as it rose. Jesus identified His Star as the Bright Morning Star which is Venus. Venus marked a sign in the heavens of the Lion of the tribe of Judah receiving a scepter. The sign they saw in Bethlehem was His Star marking the Passover Sacrificial Lamb on passover. Lambing season was winter not spring. And because the sun was darkened in His presence and the moon turned to blood at both His birth and death only the winter solstice meets the requirements and only in Dec 1 BC was the moon eclipsed on the horizon so that it was red. Once one knows the story one realizes that it also links to Our Lady of Guadalupe. See my site www.scripturescholar.com for many more details.
Grace and peace
Bruce

This is the first time I have ever heard of such thing. I’ll definitely give your work a read, but for now remain unconvinced. Thank you very much.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I am leaving the faith now.

Stay. It’s an opinion and it’s nothing new.

 

[Don_Jackson]

The article and Pontiff also deals with whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth. I had never heard of this controversy.

But what would greeting cards be without these?

It’s not a new controversy really. Read the infancy narratives of Luke and Matthew and one puts them in Nazareth the other in Bethlehem.

The church as long acknowledged and claimed that differences in the gospels are not a big deal .

 

[RACJ]

This is exactly what the late Fr. Robert Barone stated in a college Biblical exegesis course at the U. of Scranton back in about 1976. It’s not a big deal, but it’s interesting. Rob

 

[RACJ]

It’s not a new controversy really. Read the infancy narratives of Luke and Matthew and one puts them in Nazareth the other in Bethlehem.
Interestingly, this same Fr. Barone, who visited the Holy Land many times, said that this is not a controversial issue over there. Everyone believes that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and it's only that town which makes the claim. :getholy: