Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king.
Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Note: Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. Wikipedia: Herod the Great -------
2) After 6 CE.
Luke 2:1-2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
Note: Quirinius (in Greek, Cyrenius) became governer of Syria in 6 CE, ten years after king Herod's death. Wikipedia: Quirinius
The Gospel of Luke mentions the census taken by Quirinius when he was governor of Syria, as part of a census of the "whole world", in connection with the birth of Jesus. However Luke and the Gospel of Matthew date the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, nearly ten years before Quirinius became governor. Most historians argue that Luke is in error.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To date, the only census documented outside the Bible near this time under Quirinius is the one referred to by the historian Josephus (Antiquities XVIII, 26 [ii.1], which he says took place in 6 A.D.
But notice that Luke 2:2 says that the census taken around the time Joseph and Mary went down to Bethlehem was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This implies that there was a later census--most likely the one referred to by Josephus--which Dr. Luke would have also certainly known about.
There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated "governor" really just means "to be leading" or "in charge of") over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been "military governor."
A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 adds weight to the idea that Quirinius was in a position of authority in Syria on two separate occasions. There was definitely a taxing during this time and therefore, quite possible, an associated census, the details of which may have been common knowledge in Luke's time, but are now lost to us.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
I just love apologetics. They speculate and speculate. The main goal of apologetics is to give their readers the impression that the historical critics cannot prove that Biblical verses are in error. They are focused on tiny possibilities as opposed to the preponderance of the evidence.
They take advantage of their readers ignorance. You see the informed historians, who are trying to piece together what the historical record tells us as opposed to trying to defend a prejudiced chronology despite evidence to the contrary, know why the apologists speculations don't work. The "possibilities" that the apologists try to exploit often don't exist, but they are plausible enough to satisfy the dissonance in the minds of the uninformed. Those who want to believe it is true often look no further into the issue because they are content to accept the explanation of the intelligent apologist.
For a list of references to historians who concur that the account in Luke is in error:
James Douglas Grant Dunn, Jesus Remembered, (Eerdmans, 2003) p344.
Erich S. Gruen, 'The expansion of the empire under Augustus', in The Cambridge ancient history Volume 10, p157.
Geza Vermes, The Nativity, Penguin 2006, p.96.
W.D Davies and E. P. Sanders, 'Jesus from the Jewish point of view', in The Cambridge History of Judaism ed William Horbury, vol 3: the Early Roman Period, 1984, Anthony Harvey, A Companion to the New Testament (Cambridge University Press 2004), p221.
Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Doubleday, 1991, v. 1, p. 213.
Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. London: G. Chapman, 1977, p. 554.
Fergus Millar Millar, Fergus (1990). "Reflections on the trials of Jesus". A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOT Suppl. 100) [eds. P.R. Davies and R.T. White]: 355-81, Sheffield: JSOT Press. repr. in Millar.
Fergus (2006). "The Greek World, the Jews, and the East". Rome, the Greek World and the East 3: 139-163. University of North Carolina Press.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I just love people who decide to pick on people's beliefs because they don't agree with them, just for fun and to provoke controversy.
No, really, I love you. At least, I try. Want a hug?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Aww...c'mon. It's cute. He thinks he's telling us something new!
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
How is this picking on religious beliefs? It is just pointing out the facts. Fun trivia for the upcoming re-reading of Luke 2 in homes on Christmas Eve. If you believe in Christ, you shouldn't be threatened by facts, but welcome them. Who wouldn't want to learn more about the birth of their Lord and Savior that is so celebrated every year?
This isn't new, but it may be new to some people.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that it is trivia. I also suspect that, rather than trying to enhance Christmas reenactments, your motive might be to score points.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by enochville: How is this picking on religious beliefs? It is just pointing out the facts. Fun trivia for the upcoming re-reading of Luke 2 in homes on Christmas Eve. If you believe in Christ, you shouldn't be threatened by facts, but welcome them. Who wouldn't want to learn more about the birth of their Lord and Savior that is so celebrated every year?
This isn't new, but it may be new to some people.
So you celebrate the fact that Christians are deluding ourselves about Christ by deluding yourself about your motives for your post.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
What's the point? Was Luke around when Jesus was born? Most likely he's relying on what other people told him, and recounting it several years after the fact. So he got the date wrong, big deal. My wife can't remember when my birthday is or what year I was born or how old I was. I can't tell you what my nephew's birthdays are. Does that make me a liar if I get them wrong? No, it just makes me human.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Snarky Christians at Christmas time - the irony is so delicious!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not sure what exactly this is supposed to add to my family's reenactment of Luke 2.
It doesn't bother me if Luke got the details wrong, by the way. The details described here just aren't that important.
I don't think enochville's criticism of Dagonee's article is fair; nor do I feel his attitude toward apologetics correct.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I really feel like this thread is about an interesting topic, that we could have a great discussion of, without any ill-will whatsoever.
Because there are different kinds of knowing.
For instance, when someone asks you how many states are in the United States, you reply 50 from rote memory. The number 50 is associated with the states in your mind.
When someone asks you how many chairs are in your living room, however, you think about it, probably bring up a mental picture of your living room, and mentally count the number of chairs in that picture. That's a different kind of knowing from the first. I guess you could call that eidectic knowing.
When someone asks you how a phonograph works, some people like me will answer with a rote answer because machines and technology are things we think about often and have at the tip of our minds, but some who don't do that still know operationally, because maybe they used the things over their lifetime (if they're old like me) and they remember, from hundreds of times of actually using it, that vinyl records were apt to skipping grooves, they remember the sound that it made when the record was over and it hit that final circle at the end of the spiral, they remember the crackling of a dirty or old record, that special sound of bacon frying that came from scratches or lint in the grooves. Operational knowledge is a very powerful way of knowing, and the only way you can gain it is to exercise it, you have to have a lot of trial and error, and just put in a lot of hours on the thing. So even if there are principles of it that you don't entirely understand, you might know some things about it even better than the designer, just because you've used it for so long.
As a machine designer, I try to talk to operators, the people who actually use my machines day after day in their work. They know some things about my machines far better than I do. It helps me greatly in my future designs when they impart their knowledge to me.
Confusion over the importance of the historicity of religious stories comes from confusion of the various kinds of knowledge, in my view. Objectivist materialist scientific types get frustrated because religious people don't really even necessarily care about the historicity of some of the stories associated with their religion. That's because some of the objectivist materialist scientific types don't realize there are different ways of knowing.
The religious facts that I know in an incontrovertible way are known operationally, by putting them to use in my daily life for years and years. I don't understand completely all the theory behind it, I just know that it works. My life is profoundly better, and there are many good things I can do now that I could never do before. I have access to a strength not my own, an infinite strength. It's something like the strength that Sam drew upon in the tower, after he failed to find Frodo, when he sat down and began to sing the song about the stars not failing.
The most powerful force in the universe is our will, our determination, coupled with our sense of what is right. I've seen it, in my lifetime, completely remake the society in which I lived, during the civil rights movement. I've seen it literally move a mountain, when someone decided to build a road through it. I've seen how it has played out in my own life. How well it works, it fits, how right it is.
For different people it can come through different images, different stories. For me it starts with a baby born in a barn. Trying to convince me that he really wasn't just is so beside the point. It's like trying to convince me that my car is an illusion when I'm using it to get back and forth to work every day. It can't be an illusion or it wouldn't be so successful at transporting me. It's like telling me my mp3 player doesn't work even though I'm hearing the music. You can claim I'm hallucinating the music, but it's okay if you want to think that. I've got Radiohead and Tool and Nine Inch Nails and you're left with the muzak that's playing in the store. I feel bad for you and want to share but your all "no, no, I don't want any part of your hallucinations" so what can I do? It's up to you, and I don't want to take the choice away from you. It's your divine right, as it seems to me, and I would never disparage it or try to contravene it. I fully support you in your religious and philosophical beliefs, your foundational beliefs, whatever they are. I wish you well.
So the story of this thread, to me, is a fascinating one of people talking past each other. Because that baby born in a barn touched me and awoke the divine spark in me. He took a broken crippled girl and made her strong and whole and powerful. He put himself beneath us all, and so I fall on my knees in awed, abject worship.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I thought we could all be reasonably sure that Jesus was born on Christmas because some roman emperor determined it for us based on evidence he found in the book of I'm The Freaking Emperor Of Rome
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I thought we could all be reasonably sure that Jesus was born on Christmas because some roman emperor determined it for us based on evidence he found in the book of I'm The Freaking Emperor Of Rome
I don't know a single adult Christian who thinks that Christ was born on Christmas day.
BTW, are you Sam on sakeriver?
quote:Aww...c'mon. It's cute. He thinks he's telling us something new!
This is pretty much my usual reaction to things like this. It's like the people who say "Do you eat shellfish? Then why are you opposed to X?" as if we had never thought of that before.
Silly me, I decided to actually try to present an alternative viewpoint, as if the thread starter were actually interested in discussion and not just trying (badly) to score cheap points.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
The blog blurb is "For those who believe in remaining teachable and are receptive to lifetime learning. In particular, the topics of leaving Mormonism, public policy, genealogy, and psychology will be explored."
** I don't know if that's enochville's blog or not, but I guess so.
If it is, Enochville, I think you are being disingenuous in starting this conversation without revealing your motive.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I thought we could all be reasonably sure that Jesus was born on Christmas because some roman emperor determined it for us based on evidence he found in the book of I'm The Freaking Emperor Of Rome
I don't know a single adult Christian who thinks that Christ was born on Christmas day.
I know lots. My parents, to name two (intelligent, life-long Christians). Of course, their faith wasn't so much as nudged by me telling them that Jesus (if he existed) wasn't born on Dec. 25.
It's just not that central to belief to have all the dates exactly right.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Enochville, did you copy your own or somebody else's blog for the starting post of this thread?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I know lots. My parents, to name two (intelligent, life-long Christians). Of course, their faith wasn't so much as nudged by me telling them that Jesus (if he existed) wasn't born on Dec. 25.
Interesting. As far as I can tell, December 25 was not put forth as the actual date of Christ's birth when it was added to the liturgical calendar.
This is markedly different than the date of Easter. Even if it's in error now, the discussion was always about which Sunday the Resurrection occurred on. Both sides of the dispute agreed that accuracy was the determinative factor.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 adds weight to the idea that Quirinius was in a position of authority in Syria on two separate occasions. There was definitely a taxing during this time and therefore, quite possible, an associated census, the details of which may have been common knowledge in Luke's time, but are now lost to us."
How is that speculation? Its evidence. Its answering the speculation of the writers above of "we have no information other than a particular tax, therefore it doesn't exist." Well, it isn't perfect, but "A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 adds weight" is true enough. It exists. It can be seen. It can be interpreted. I find those who scorn apologetics as sheep following the heard. If apologetics is wrong, then prove your point on the presented evidence. Otherwise, it sounds like YOU are the one that sounds glib. Don't show how many scholars have mentioned something that the article doesn't even reject.
Besides, history is speculation with lots of notes. Unless you have a time machine.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Well, to be fair, it seems like there are a lot more of what I'd call 'cultural Christians' in the South. I know dozens of people who believe but don't really know that much about their faith.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Interesting. As far as I can tell, December 25 was not put forth as the actual date of Christ's birth when it was added to the liturgical calendar.
That is too Catholic scholarly to understand how people can believe Dec. 25 is the actual birth day of Jesus. It falls on Dec 25, right? That is all that many people really need to know to come to the conclusion.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ah, but which December 25th?
*Gets ready to celebrate the 12 days of Christmas*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I just took an informal poll of about a dozen people working in my office as to whether they thought that Jesus was born on December 25. Some but not all are Catholic; none are theologians. All of them looked as me like I had lost my mind and explained to me that December 25 was a day we chose to celebrate Christmas (a couple explained the solstice connection), not the actual historical day.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There's only 50 states if you don't count Guam, American Samoa, D.C. and Puerto Rico.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And since they're not states, it makes perfect sense not to count them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Massachusetts isn't a state either, but it doesn't make sense not to count it. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is a state, it is just also a commonwealth.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The easiest way to tell if something is a state right now is to determine if has two seats in the U.S. Senate.
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Virginia all have two senate seats even though they are called commonwealths.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
And The Free State of Winston dosen't have any.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Enochville, did you copy your own or somebody else's blog for the starting post of this thread?
It would appear so. Enochville, didn't anyone ever tell you that plagiarism is wrong? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Um, Jon, I was responding to that link which Imogen provided.
I'm just asking whether he plagiarized or whether that blog is his. I suspect it's the latter.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I seem to remember enochville's debut on Hatrack consisting of a couple of threads that were also blog entries. Oh, it wasn't a debut, but I'm thinking of the protect kids from brainwashing thread and the other one that wasn't that different from it. How to produce spiritual experiences.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I thought it was very commonly and widely known that Jesus wasn't born on December 25th (he was most likely born in the spring [or some people believe the fall] according to what we know of the biblical account. Plus, the tradition of celebrating it in December can be traced pretty readily.
But that really isn't the point with most who celebrate it. It is just a traditional recognition that he was born, chose as a God to become human, and to die and be resurrected. No matter which day we chose to acknowledge that fact, it is something we acknowledge.
I know our pastor, at least, mentions each Christmas season that "we know this most likely is NOT the month in which Jesus was born" but that we just choose a time to recognize his incarnation. And most of that just follows tradition; much of which is important to many families.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
I am also known as Hueffenhardt. I posted the original post on my blog as well.
What is it with all the speculation about motives. Let the post speak for itself. Either my comments stand on their own or they fall. There is no need to project all sorts of motives onto my words that serve only to prejudice minds against them. Is what I said true or not. That is debatable. Everyone can have their own opinion.
Yes, I am atheist. I have stated that before on Hatrack. I have also stated that the "Easy to be Entreated" blog is mine as well. I am not doing anything in secret. I find this discrepancy in the timeline of Christ's birth interesting, especially during this season. I thought I'd share. Big whooping deal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:here is no need to project all sorts of motives onto my words
Then you can stop doing that to others as you have in this thread.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What is it with all the speculation about motives. Let the post speak for itself.
Your post does not exist in a vacuum, and your previous interactions on this board color how people react to what you say. To expect otherwise is unrealistic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
enochville, why, as an atheist, is this remotely interesting to you? Why do you care about the exact year when Jesus was born?
As you can see, it isn't all that interesting (or new) to the Christians who have posted in this thread. For me, the only remotely interesting thing about this conversation is wondering why you are bothering to share this information with us. Or why you think it would matter to us?
Oh, and by the way, MightyCow, the fact that Christians are not immune to exasperation even during the holidays is not exactly earth-shattering news either.
[ December 19, 2007, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Dagonee,
My comments about apologists were in reference to the authors at ChristianAnswers.net, the ones who wrote the quote you provided. I should qualify my comments as applying to some apologists, not all. I do not believe I have projected all sorts of motives onto the people of this board. If you took my comments about apologists as applying to you, I apologize.
And to anyone who still cares at this point about the actual content of the original post, as opposed to all the focus on speculating about my motives, the following quote is from here here (the author overstates the strength of his position sometimes by using words like "impossible", but his argument is strong regardless):
"The second point of the conservative apologists is that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, once in 6 CE and once earlier, during the reign of Herod the Great. This suggestion (apart from the obvious need to save the faith of the theologians) is based on a fragmentary inscription found in Antioch which supposedly referred to Quirinius as the governor of Syria at an earlier date than 6 CE (McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: p71).
However this explanation is, as usual, flawed. The suggestion that the inscription could be understood to refer to Quirinius a governor was first made by the apologist Sir William Ramsey (1851-1939). The inscription simply mentioned that Quirinius was honored for his role in achieving a military victory. It was Ramsey who guessed that Quirinius' reward for his role was an earlier appointment, prior to 6 CE, as governor of Syria. Nothing in the inscription even suggests this. It is not surprising that most historians are of the opinion that the inscription does not provide any evidence to support the assertion that Quirinius was governor of Syria earlier than 6 CE (Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: p61; Cary & Scallard, A History of Rome: p630).
Furthermore we know that the two Roman governors of Syria during the last years of Herod's reign was C. Sentius Saturninus who held the post from 9 to 6 BCE and P Quintilius Varus was his successor from 6 to 4 BCE. And it was Quintillus Varus who, as the governor, suppressed the uprising that occurred after the death of Herod. The only years in which we have no record as to who the governor of Syria was in 3 to 2 BCE, by the time which Herod was already dead (Caird, Saint Luke: p28 Guignebert, Jesus: p100-101)."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I should qualify my comments as applying to some apologists, not all. I do not believe I have projected all sorts of motives onto the people of this board.
I'm at a loss as to why you think questioning motives of people not posting here is somehow better than questioning the motives of people who are here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I am at a loss as to why this matters to enochville. What is his goal in this thread?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What is his goal in this thread?
It seems like sort of an oblique attempt at atheist evangelizing.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And I am at a loss as to why this matters to enochville. What is his goal in this thread?
To shake the faith of the faithful. I think that is his intent. Maybe it's wrong to ascribe that to him, but I think he's found a belief system (atheism) that works for him and he is dedicated to the idea of enlightening others. I think this is consistent with most of his previous interactions with Hatrack, particularly those relating to religion, as well as the professed intent of his blog.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But why would he think this bit of trivia would shake anyone's faith? Does he think that the gospels were written by journalists or historians? That they are to be read that way? These were people recording an oral tradition of stories that were meaningful. What meaning is dependent on what year Jesus was born? Is it some kind of zodiac thing? "Jesus was actually born in the year of the Tiger which means..."
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Um, Jon, I was responding to that link which Imogen provided.
I'm just asking whether he plagiarized or whether that blog is his. I suspect it's the latter.
Whoops. That's what I get for skimming.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I have to admit, when I started really reading the Gospels this summer and found they contradicted each other, a lot, I was mildly perplexed. But I read some more on it (including a book by a Catholic priest named Stephen Bridge) and was ultimately affirmed in my faith by the experience.
Bridge had a funny illustration of the conflicts between the Nativity events, in which he blends the storylines of "A Christmas Carol" and "It's a Wonderful Life", two stories about business men and their underlings who have supernatural visits showing them what might have been, and tombstones.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But why would he think this bit of trivia would shake anyone's faith? Does he think that the gospels were written by journalists or historians? That they are to be read that way? These were people recording an oral tradition of stories that were meaningful. What meaning is dependent on what year Jesus was born? Is it some kind of zodiac thing? "Jesus was actually born in the year of the Tiger which means..."
I imagine it was evidence like this that convinced him of the incorrectness or non-truthiness of the Bible. He finds it persuasive and therefore posts it to try to persuade others. I think he likely views (what he perceives as) internal inconsistencies in the Bible as evidence that the Bible was not inspired by God. But I should probably let enochville speak for himself. This is all just speculation.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: It seems like sort of an oblique attempt at atheist evangelizing.
That's a great way to put it, Matt. Hadn't thought of it that way, but I often feel like the atheists here "evangelize" (or try to "enlighten") those of who chose to believe. Instead of just allowing us to believe as we so choose.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But why would he think this bit of trivia would shake anyone's faith? Does he think that the gospels were written by journalists or historians?
Exactly. This is easily attributed to human error, I think. Really, what motivation would the authors of the gospels have for including such an error?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What motivation do any of us have for making errors? Did I mention "oral tradition"? What do atheists think "inspired by God" means?
And really, while we are speculating, does he think that being sneaky is a good way to evangelize?
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
From the User Agreement for this site:
quote:You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs.
I am not trying to convert people away from Christianity. As kmboots points out, this historical tidbit should not be challenging to anyone's beliefs. Am I correct in that? So, have I established that the purpose of this thread is not to get anyone to leave their religious beliefs nor am I disparaging anyone for their beliefs with this tidbit of info.
There are many things that people grow up thinking are true that turn out not to be supported by the evidence. For instance, we were told romanticized tales of the First Thanksgiving that turn out not to be entirely accurate. This thread was to introduce evidence that the First Christmas probably did not happen during the census when Quirinius was governor as the Gospel of Luke says, and is tradition to be read each Christmas Eve.
Some people find this sort of thing mildly interesting. People here are making such a big deal that an atheist posted this historical tidbit and are projecting all sorts of motives on to me. They would not likely do that if I had posted a tidbit about the First Thanksgiving. Why can't I discuss such things in peace? I am frankly disappointed in the treatment I have received from many of you, not only in this thread, but others as well.
I am not an atheist missionary, and that is not my blog's stated purpose as SenojRetep claimed. I respect the right of everyone to have whatever religious or non-religious beliefs they have.
I am now sorry I ever started this thread because of the frustration at having people gang up on me. I am open to a debate on the merits of arguments and evidence, but things should never get personal as they have here.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
I still celebrate Christmas with my extended family each year, so things like this are still relevant to me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How is the date of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth relevant to the celebration of Christmas by an atheist?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
enochville, I don't really keep most hatrackers straight and I didn't know about your blog. Dagonee responded with some counter evidence which seems like the discussion you claim to want and to which you responded with some snide comments about apologists.
I will try to respond to your first post as if I knew none of those things. Here goes...
That isn't new information to many of us, enochville. It isn't particularly important and kind of misses the point for most of us. Why do you think it is important?
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
kmbboots: It isn't important. It is trivia, a tidbit of info. Interesting to some. New to some. When I am not interested in a thread, I skip it.
mr_porteiro_head: Every Christmas, our extended family gets together and reads,
"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child."
It is relevant because I will now think about these verses differently as we read the story, yet again.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. I'll be skipping it from now on.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I thought it was very commonly and widely known that Jesus wasn't born on December 25th (he was most likely born in the spring [or some people believe the fall] according to what we know of the biblical account.
My mom still insists that we can prove Jesus was born in the spring because there are so many baby animals in the nativity scene. *shakes head*
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by enochville: I am not an atheist missionary, and that is not my blog's stated purpose as SenojRetep claimed.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your blog's purpose. The headline does say you will be discussing "leaving Mormonism" which I took to mean offering reasons/methods/ideas for leaving Mormonism. Also, to my surface perusal, the focus of the blog seemed most decidedly to be an evangelical strain of atheism. My apologies if I misread your intent. FWIW, I don't find it offensive that you would have a certain zeal for your new-found beliefs, nor was I disparaging you for them. Anyway, my apologies.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
a little late on the discussion:
quote:But why would he think this bit of trivia would shake anyone's faith? Does he think that the gospels were written by journalists or historians? That they are to be read that way?
kmbbookts, assuming enochville is arguing against a large and particular Christian group, your questions are easy to answer. There is a sizable belief that the Bible is whole, without contradiction, and no mistakes. They are called inneranists and are a very loud and influencial group. Most people at Hatrack do not hold this belief and therefore his arguments become less of a problem.
As an example: I dare you to say to random Christians (particularly Protestant) the reasonable "I believe in the Bible so far as it is translated correctly," or even "the Bible is not perfect." I will bet that four out of five times that person will get vindictive and accusatory.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)