View previous topic | View next topic

series D christmas special - the date of Jesus birth

Page 1 of 13
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13  Next

lkodua
830221.  Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:14 am Reply with quote

Hello I am a Jehovah's Witness and would just like to say we do not believe that Jesus was born on October 1. I have spent my entire life trying to tell people that the date of Jesus birth is not recorded and cannot be calculated. The Require brochure that talks of Jesus date of birth does say 'about October 1' but that was an estimation calculated by factors which include the shepherds bringing their sheep outside at night, the time of the census etc..
anyway the birth of Jesus Christ doesn't really matter and its what he said, don't know why people care so much about his birthday.

 
Efros
830225.  Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:45 am Reply with quote

S'ok we don't believe in Jehovah's Witnesses! So your post is obviously a figment of my delusional mind, and this post too for that matter.

 
rewboss
830226.  Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 am Reply with quote

Ooh, Efros, that's a bit harsh, isn't it?

Ikodua, I think the point about QI is to challenge and debunk the stuff we think we know, and the birth of Jesus -- which "everyone knows" was 25th December in the year 1 -- is one such. It's trivial, yes, but it's good to practice on the trivial stuff.

And in any case, it's knowledge, and all knowledge is valuable.

 
lkodua
830241.  Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:57 am Reply with quote

thank you

i guess you make a good point but as you can see from efros, its hard to get people to listen to us as it is, without wrong info being given on tv panel shows.

 
Efros
830253.  Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:25 am Reply with quote

Don't take it personally Ikodua I don't believe in all kinds of things.

 
CB27
830260.  Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:14 pm Reply with quote

As rewboss says, it's about challenging conventional wisdom, though I should add that the conventional wisdom that 25th December was based on is that he would have been born in 1BC, not 1AD.

Of course, current conventional wisom suggests he was not born in 1BC after all :)

 
rewboss
830266.  Sun Jul 10, 2011 1:12 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
As rewboss says, it's about challenging conventional wisdom, though I should add that the conventional wisdom that 25th December was based on is that he would have been born in 1BC, not 1AD.


Took me a while to find it, but you're quite right -- although I did learn that the process which eventually led to Jesus's birth being traditionally assigned to 1BC was a great deal more complicated than I ever thought possible.

Quote:
Of course, current conventional wisom suggests he was not born in 1BC after all :)


If you accept at face value the Biblical assertion that Herod was still alive when Jesus was born, he must have been born before 4BC. If you think it likely that that part of the birth narrative is as dodgy as the rest of it, it's pretty much anybody's guess.

 
Posital
830267.  Sun Jul 10, 2011 1:25 pm Reply with quote

If we can work out the year, from the massacre of the innocents. Then we can work out the month from the fact it was snowing.

Oh - didn't either of these happen?

Bah!

 
soup
830456.  Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:45 am Reply with quote

rewboss wrote:
the birth of Jesus -- which "everyone knows" was 25th December in the year 1


I know you have to lose the "everybody" from that statement. I know that is the date GENERALLY accepted by the christian churches (note generally not universally). Since I was old enough to wonder about these things I have known this probably wasn't the date of his birth.

Shouldn't his birth be year Zero rather than 1?

 
samivel
830461.  Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:54 am Reply with quote

People generally don't start counting at 0, though.

 
rewboss
830475.  Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:21 am Reply with quote

soup wrote:
I know you have to lose the "everybody" from that statement.


That's "everybody" in the sense that somebody who would quote what some bloke down the pub told me as reliable evidence would use it. :)

Quote:
I know that is the date GENERALLY accepted by the christian churches (note generally not universally).


Well, no; the date generally accepted by all the mainstream churches today is "some time before 4BC, probably somewhere between 6BC and 8BC or thereabouts".

Quote:
Shouldn't his birth be year Zero rather than 1?


No, because when the supposed date of Jesus's birth was worked out, nobody thought to include a year zero. This is probably because BC years are not "minus years" (and the concept of negative numbers hadn't been invented then); rather, people counted either forwards or backwards from the Nativity, and as has just been said, we don't traditionally start counting at zero.

Thus the year immediately following 1BC is 1AD. This actually causes problems when calculating the number of years between a BC date and an AD date.

 
Posital
832004.  Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:44 am Reply with quote

In this time, would it be possible that JC was delivered by C-section?

 
Jenny
832098.  Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:23 am Reply with quote

Not if Mary was going to carry on living afterwards. And since, according to the Bible, she lived to see her son grow up and die, she presumably had him the natural way.

Interested parties can find a history of Caesarean sections here, and this was a quote from the preface that I thought was very interesting:
Quote:

Cesarean section has been part of human culture since ancient times and there are tales in both Western and non-Western cultures of this procedure resulting in live mothers and offspring. According to Greek mythology Apollo removed Asclepius, founder of the famous cult of religious medicine, from his mother's abdomen. Numerous references to cesarean section appear in ancient Hindu, Egyptian, Grecian, Roman, and other European folklore. Ancient Chinese etchings depict the procedure on apparently living women. The Mischnagoth and Talmud prohibited primogeniture when twins were born by cesarean section and waived the purification rituals for women delivered by surgery.

Yet, the early history of cesarean section remains shrouded in myth and is of dubious accuracy. Even the origin of "cesarean" has apparently been distorted over time. It is commonly believed to be derived from the surgical birth of Julius Caesar, however this seems unlikely since his mother Aurelia is reputed to have lived to hear of her son's invasion of Britain. At that time the procedure was performed only when the mother was dead or dying, as an attempt to save the child for a state wishing to increase its population. Roman law under Caesar decreed that all women who were so fated by childbirth must be cut open; hence, cesarean. Other possible Latin origins include the verb "caedare," meaning to cut, and the term "caesones" that was applied to infants born by postmortem operations. Ultimately, though, we cannot be sure of where or when the term cesarean was derived. Until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the procedure was known as cesarean operation. This began to change following the publication in 1598 of Jacques Guillimeau's book on midwifery in which he introduced the term "section." Increasingly thereafter "section" replaced "operation."

 
Posital
832108.  Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:55 am Reply with quote

So it would be a miracle if she had a C-section and survived. I suppose you have to start somewhere...

 
exnihilo
832123.  Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:13 pm Reply with quote

The Copts and many Orthodox Christians celebrate Christmas on January 7th (because of the Julian/Gregorian issue), but I mention it because when Band Aid released 'Do They Know It's Christmas' to raise money for famine-struck Ethiopia the answer would have been 'no, they don't, because those of them that are Christian are largely Coptic, so it isn't'.

 

Page 1 of 13
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group