uncle_onion

I have seen quite a few dates re the birth of Christ. I would be interested in WHY and HOW people date the "event".

UO

uncle_onion

just bringing this to the top.

Toto

Check out the sources listed in Many Roman Censuses. (The reference to the census in Luke is a primary dating device.

Of course, there is no evidence that Jesus was a real person who was actually born, or that, if he were real, he was born at the time the gospels imply, rather than much earlier.

Bede

Toto,

Would it not be true to say that that there is no evidence that you accept even though the vast majority of both Christian and non Christian scholars do accept it?

B

Toto

OK Bede - there is no indisputable evidence of Jesus' birth. There are some second hand accounts that allow those who want to believe that Jesus was born to think that their belief is not irrational, but which are not convincing to skeptics.

I think that many if not most of the scholars who think Jesus was born do not think that the Gospels provide any reliable historical evidence of the actual date of his birth.

Vorkosigan

Really? Even the vast majority of far eastern scholars? And those who study myth?

Let's rephrase that to say: the majority of scholars who work in the west on the NT. I suspect if we actually queried all scholars on earth, a different picture might emerge.

Michael

Bede

Toto,

There is indisputable (as the word is used by Richard Carrier) evidence that Jesus lived which is certainly indisputable evidence of Jesus's birth. Granted the stories we know are disputable.

Michael,

There are several thousand members of the SBL and I know of two who doubt Jesus's existence. Could you please name a good number of Eastern New Testament scholars or relevant Historians who also doubt Jesus existed and some place I can verify your claims.

Thanks

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto

Richard Carrier used the word to refer to interpretations of literary texts that anyone can read, and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. I don't know why the Christians have such trouble understanding it.

The hard evidence, of the sort that historians are used to crediting, that Jesus existed, comes down two disputed passages in Josephus, who was known to be inaccurate in other places, and whose manuscript has admittedly been tampered with. There is a lot of room for disputation, so that reasonable people can disagree on whether the evidence is genuine, or what conclusions can be drawn from it.

Vorkosigan

You're cute, Bede. Since you obviously do not know whether scholars of myth, literature, and other related fields, believe Jesus was a real person, and know nothing about scholars in other climes, you're not in a position to make the statement "the vast majority." Nor am I going to do your homework for you. All you can say is that the vast majority of SBL scholars od, and most of them are Christians of one flavor or another. If you want to claim the vast majority of scholars in all concerned disciplines around the world believe Jesus was a real person, you'll have to show some evidence. Otherwise, you are just making noise.

Michael

Bede

Michael,

I fear you are the one blowing in the wind. Unless you show some evidence you know what you are talking about I'll continue to say what I believe is the truth.

Toto,

Sorry, you are totally wrong. The entire NT and all early Christian documents are also hard evidence. Real historians are not so naive to only accept objective evidence because they know that none of it exists. The NT, extra canonical documents and the non Christian sources make it very clear that Jesus was a real person to anyone who can examine them.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason