Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter BroomWagon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don_Jackson said:
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 .
Click to expand...
Actually, I just looked up both Matthew and Luke, and they put the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.
The Birth of Jesus. 1* In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus* that the whole world should be enrolled. 2This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town. 4And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,a 5to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.b 6While they were there, the time came for her to have her child, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn son.* She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. Luke 2: 1-7
Click to expand...
The Visit of the Magi.* 1When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod,* behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, 2saying, “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star* at its rising and have come to do him homage.”
Matthew 2: 1-2.
Click to expand...
Also, it was because Jesus was born in Bethlehem that Herod had the infants of Bethlehem slaughtered.

Jim
 
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.
Click to expand...
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...
Well this is really big and significant as recorded in the Gospel of John. When on of the Temple authorities stated to the people after Jesus’s testimony about himself. Search the scriptures, does any prophet come from Nazerth?
Click to expand...
Nathanael said to him, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” **Philip … It was a proverb, however, that no prophet was to come from Galilee **(John 1:46).

Temple priests in a discourse stated:
“Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.” (John 7:52)

Remember, these Gospels were written under the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If they were twisted to fit the OT prophecy or the facts were changed around, then it would amount to deceit at the worse and integrity issues at the very least on the part of the authors. If we cannot trust the accuracy of Scripture, then how can we trust anything stated in the Gospels including the Resurrection? We would descend into debate in similar fashions to the Jesus Seminar folks debating which word or statement is scripturally accurate or not.

If Jesus was born in Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, it would be a really big issue as it does not fulfill OT Prophecy. Micah 5:1-2, Genesis 49:10, Jeremiah 23:5, etc. 😦

bethlehemstar.net/about/faq/
Christ’s Star, described in the Book of Matthew, correlates precisely with celestial events we know occurred in 2 and 3 B.C. But the story of the Star is a series of events, and this affects statistical probabilities. Any one of the events might well recur — some more frequently, but some only once in hundreds of years. When we stack all of the events together, the probability of them all recurring in the right order to match events of 2 and 3 B.C. drops to near zero. Apart from the Star, this complete series of events has never happened while man has observed. They will not stack up this way again in any span of time meaningful to us. What might happen in 10,000 years or a million has little bearing on us.

Besides the points stated above, Christmas was marked on the winter solstice to counter the Pagans celebration on that day. "December 25 is referred to in documents as Christmas Day in A.D. 324 for the first time. Under the Roman emperor Justinian [A.D. 527-565] it was recognized as an official holiday. It is not the true birth date of Christ. This day was apparently chosen to coincide with pagan mid-winter festivals in order to unify pagan and Christian worship celebrations within the Roman Empire.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Actually, I just looked up both Matthew and Luke, and they put the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

Also, it was because Jesus was born in Bethlehem that Herod had the infants of Bethlehem slaughtered.

Jim
Click to expand...
Thank you JimR-OCDS: Besides this being an informative (saying enlightening is too flattering!) post, this is an important matter to clarify and when I read this I thought, wow, I’m not sure of this, we can’t let something misleading be said. Very well said post with the citations. Post of the day!
 
Ecoclimber said:
Nathanael said to him, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” **Philip … It was a proverb, however, that no prophet was to come from Galilee **(John 1:46).

Temple priests in a discourse stated:
“Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.” (John 7:52)

Remember, these Gospels were written under the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If they were twisted to fit the OT prophecy or the facts were changed around, then it would amount to deceit at the worse and integrity issues at the very least on the part of the authors. If we cannot trust the accuracy of Scripture, then how can we trust anything stated in the Gospels including the Resurrection? We would descend into debate in similar fashions to the Jesus Seminar folks debating which word or statement is scripturally accurate or not.

If Jesus was born in Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, it would be a really big issue as it does not fulfill OT Prophecy. Micah 5:1-2, Genesis 49:10, Jeremiah 23:5, etc. 😦

bethlehemstar.net/about/faq/
Christ’s Star, described in the Book of Matthew, correlates precisely with celestial events we know occurred in 2 and 3 B.C. But the story of the Star is a series of events, and this affects statistical probabilities. Any one of the events might well recur — some more frequently, but some only once in hundreds of years. When we stack all of the events together, the probability of them all recurring in the right order to match events of 2 and 3 B.C. drops to near zero. Apart from the Star, this complete series of events has never happened while man has observed. They will not stack up this way again in any span of time meaningful to us. What might happen in 10,000 years or a million has little bearing on us.

Besides the points stated above, Christmas was marked on the winter solstice to counter the Pagans celebration on that day. "December 25 is referred to in documents as Christmas Day in A.D. 324 for the first time. Under the Roman emperor Justinian [A.D. 527-565] it was recognized as an official holiday. It is not the true birth date of Christ. This day was apparently chosen to coincide with pagan mid-winter festivals in order to unify pagan and Christian worship celebrations within the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...
So he could have grown up in Nazareth the way a lot of us grew up in other places than where we were born. Jesus of Nazareth.
 
Broomwagon is 100% correct. Iwas born in Plainfield, NJ. But I would never say I was from Plainfield (God forbid). I tell people I’m from Northern NJ (we lived in several towns growing up) or Warren, which is where my parents havelived for the past 25 years, even though I only was there for high school.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I am leaving the faith now. :mad:
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s it for me too. This changes everything…

Ha I’m back, tried the Amish and the Rastafarians but it just didn’t work out. Anyway, of course you guys know Jesus was probably born in March or early April? I learned that in a Christmastime planetarium show, many years ago. The lecturer explained that the clue is that the shepherds were “in the fields by night,” which only happens during lambing season.
 
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...
I’ve heard recent. data to support a 2 or even 1bc date
If the monk did the calculation 700 years later his data wasn’t that bad.
Wasn’t that in the middle of. the dark age
when everyone was ignorant
 
One thing which would be important to remember is that Pope Benedict is on record stating that his “Jesus of Nazareth” books are not to be taken as authoritative in terms of the Magisterium. They are authoritative in the way that any text written by a very learned scholar is on his/her subject of expertise, but they do not go beyond that.

Pope Benedict actually discusses this is his interviews with Peter Seewald. He goes on to state that some of what he has written in these books is intended to spark discussion among theologians.

Peace,
 
jwinch2 said:
One thing which would be important to remember is that Pope Benedict is on record stating that his “Jesus of Nazareth” books are not to be taken as authoritative in terms of the Magisterium. They are authoritative in the way that any text written by a very learned scholar is on his/her subject of expertise, but they do not go beyond that.

Pope Benedict actually discusses this is his interviews with Peter Seewald. He goes on to state that some of what he has written in these books is intended to spark discussion among theologians.

Peace,
Click to expand...
Surely, it would have an “Imprimatur” meaning nothing contained therein goes against Church Teachings.
 
BroomWagon said:
Surely, it would have an “Imprimatur” meaning nothing contained therein goes against Church Teachings.
Click to expand...
Not that I can see in the Kindle version of any of the three volumes.

In addition, this is a quote from the forward of Volume 1 of the series:
Pope Benedict XVI:
It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search ‘for the face of the Lord’ (Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.
Click to expand...
 
ProdglArchitect said:
It makes me happy that the Church is still seeking to expand it’s knowledge, even in areas that have been generally accepted for centuries. I, for one, look forward to our new Calendar. Until I get a new driver’s licenses I can claim to be seven years older than I am. 😃
Click to expand...
Same here very true. In other words the Church continues to get closer to God in this case it is history.
 
BroomWagon said:
Surely, it would have an “Imprimatur” meaning nothing contained therein goes against Church Teachings.
Click to expand...
jwinch2 said:
Not that I can see in the Kindle version of any of the three volumes.
Click to expand...
I have hardcopies of the books (1-2), an I can confirm that neither of them contain an Imprimatur. Neither does Spirit of the Liturgy.

This is always one of the arguments I use against people who suggest that you should only read books with Imprimaturs. You wouldn’t be able to read one of the best theologians of our time in that case.
 
In this case, “possibly” there is no higher authority to appeal to, on earth, than the Pope for an imprimatur. Or in other words, maybe his writings don’t need it.
 
BroomWagon said:
In this case, “possibly” there is no higher authority to appeal to, on earth, than the Pope for an imprimatur. Or in other words, maybe his writings don’t need it.
Click to expand...
That does not make sense. If that was the case Pope Benedict would hardly have stated that his works were not intended to be taken as magisterial and that people were free to contradict him.
 
jwinch2 said:
That does not make sense. If that was the case Pope Benedict would hardly have stated that his works were not intended to be taken as magisterial and that people were free to contradict him.
Click to expand...
He’s the Pope!
 
I’ve been studying the about the bible for 3 plus decades now, and while not wanting to go into details I’ll just say that I can’t remember a bible scholar who doesn’t believe that this is true. That Jesus was born a few years earlier that previously thought.

:coffeeread::manvspc: simeon
 
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...
:rotfl: ha that was funny. Thanks for sharing.

P.S. I am a future teacher
 
Simeon_Hovey said:
I’ve been studying the about the bible for 3 plus decades now, and while not wanting to go into details I’ll just say that I can’t remember a bible scholar who doesn’t believe that this is true. That Jesus was born a few years earlier that previously thought.

:coffeeread::manvspc: simeon
Click to expand...
I am a biblical scholar specializing in chronology and I am convinced the Church traditionally has the dates correct. I have been studying at the graduate level for more than 3 decades. I have not yet read the pope’s new book (but I have read the first two on the life of Christ). The pope tends to at least acknowledge the major opinions of other biblical scholars. However, something like 80% of the bible scholars don’t believe the gospels so many can be ignored immediately. Second, the 4BC date is based on a lunar eclipse that doesn’t work see the excellent article by a Mormon astronomer johnpratt.com/items/docs/herod/herod.html
Pratt proposes the eclipse of Dec 29 1BC which places Herod’s death in at least Passover 1AD. This eclipse is in the correct time of the year, visible at sunset and on the horizon so it would be red with much more significance as a sign of God’s displeasure, which Josephus is alluding to mentioning the eclipse the only one he mentions. Second, the Star of Bethlehem disproves the 4 B.C. date see www.scripturescholar.com/VenusStarofBethlehem.pdf
Also, Dionysius Exiguus was commissioned by the Pope and an ecumenical counsel to determine the dates for the proper celebration of Easter so his work was done in an official capacity as a scholar and he lived before the records of Rome had been destroyed.
Grace and peace,
Bruce
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top