diana

I get feedback from my website from time to time by people who are interested in enlightening me and/or trying to reason me into accepting Jesus Christ as my savior. The following exchange is taken from that. (Pending the person's permission, I've removed his name for the sake of privacy.)

That was quite some time ago, as I'm delinquent in checking my website feedback these days. I finally got to it Monday afternoon and responded:

He wrote back the following, to which I plan to reply with a link to this thread, as I was serious about having this discussion in public (btw, I have taken the liberty of dividing his epistle into paragraphs for ease of reading):

I'll send him this link, then respond to his points.

Y'all are invited to contribute to the discussion, of course.

d

diana

OK. I lied. I'm going for a run first. Then I'll respond.

[Edited to add: I know the points he's made are rather elementary to the regular denizens of this forum. I'm looking for those who are willing to take the time to address them politely, and perhaps deal--up front--with his ready answer to any response we offer that we've just made up our minds to not believe in Jesus and that's why we aren't convinced.

Thanks to those of you who are spending your Christmas morning relaxing at Infidels who are willing to knaw on this one a bit.]

d

Toto

I don't know if we can handle another debate on whether Jesus existed, especially one that starts at gournd zero. I would strongly advise doing it by email unless you want this to become another train wreck.

You can probably show that his reasons for being sure that there was a historical Jesus are wrong (especially if he starts out arguing from the calendar) but there is not enough data to prove that Jesus did not exist. And that's what it is going to come down to

edited for spling.

Doctor X

"All you need for a founding figure is a name and a place."

That is about the best we have.

--J.D.

diana

I know. My reasons for taking the discussion here are more psychological than anything. 'Tis one thing to make one poor argument after another via email. 'Tis quite another to do it on stage. Besides...if he is keen to discuss it, I stand by the benefits of public discourse in such matters over private.

Although my purpose is to show--should he show up--that there's no historical basis for the existence of Jesus (as opposed to arguing that Jesus didn't exist)--I'm quite sure that this was destined to become a trainwreck from the beginning. After all, I did link him to a good starter overview of the discussion material at the outset and offer my basic reasoning for why, at the very least, questioning the existence of Jesus is not ignorant...and he ignored it.

Trainwreck, yes.

Particularly if he begins by arguing that our calendar is based on Jesus.

I suspect he's unaware of when our calendar was created, by whom, and for what purpose. But if he's curious, he could do a little lookup on Dennis the Little and go from there.

d

Doctor X

Pssssst!

Can you post a link to your page?

--J.D.

offa

Dec 25 272

First official public celebration of Dies Natalis Invicti Solis, a
pagan Roman holiday that was later co-opted by Christians to celebrate the birth of their favorite Jew. Turning the holiday into "Christmas" (in 336 AD) was part of a pattern of the church stealing various pagan festivals and feast days.



Don't we use the Gregorian Calendar. Wasn't Gregory a Pope? So, then, isn't our calendar based on Christianity?

diana

Hi, offa! Hope you're well.

My apologies. I take information regarding our calendar creation and history for granted, I guess. Let's see...

From here: Here's a fun little essay on the mistakes of Dionysius Exiguus, in keeping with the spirit of the holiday which is upon us.

And here's more calendar info that goes a bit into the ab urbe condita dating Dionysius replaced: In essence, what we have is a calendar that was created in the sixth century by a monk (um...abbot) who wasn't the best at math in order to change the method of reckoning time from the founding of Rome/reign of Roman emporers to the supposed incarnation of his own god. The goes about as far toward proving the reality of that god as our calendar months and days go toward demonstrating the reality of Greek/Roman gods.

So yes. We do use the "Christian" calendar. But as evidence of the basis for it, it means squat.

d

Amlodhi

That depends on who you mean by "we". Beside consideration of the Hebrew calendar, IIRC the Eastern Orthodox Church uses a revised Julian calendar.

Nevertheless, your aim in stating that Western Christianity uses a Gregorian calendar pulls about fifty feet to the left of the target.

At issue is whether the traditional division between B.C. and A.D. in our current western calendar is indicative of a historical Jesus.

As diana mentions, this division was introduced by Dionysius Exiguus (little Denis) in the sixth century (A.D. or C.E.); long before the Gregorian adjustments were adopted.

Interestingly, however, to retroactively fix the starting date of his calendrical revisions to the date of Jesus' birth required the use of the Julian calendar which was itself based on the original Roman calendar. The date Dionysius calculated for the birth of Jesus was 754 AUC [Ab Urbe Condite or "the founding of the city (Rome)].

IOW, this date is derived from the calculation that Jesus' birth occured 754 years after the founding of Rome and the start of the original Roman calendar.

Now, the founding of Rome and the creation of the original Roman calendar is attributed to the personage of Romulus (along with his brother Remus).

According to legend, Romulus (and his twin Remus) were born to the vestal virgin Rhea Silvia (with the god Mars being their father). Rhea Silvia was imprisoned and the twins were placed in a basket and set adrift on the river Tiber. Upon drifting ashore, they were suckled by a she-wolf until a shepherd and his wife found and raised them. Later, when the twins reached adulthood they killed in revenge one Amulius (their uncle who had usurped Rhea Silvia's father's throne). It was from this point that the twins decided to found a city of their own which became the city of Rome. When Romulus was chosen by omen as the true founder of Rome, a dispute arose and Remus was killed. In time, Romulus is said to have disappeared in a thunderstorm and was thereafter worshipped as a god named Quirinus.

Thus, the division between B.C. and A.D. in our current Gregorian calendar, is the result of nothing more than the deliberate retroactive decision of a 6th century monk. This retroactive decision differs in no way from the decision to fix the starting date of the original Roman calendar to the legend of Romulus.

Further, the calculations used by Dionysius to fix the division between B.C. and A.D. were themselves, derived from the original Roman calendar and, thus, on the legend of Romulus.

Therefore, if it is fair to say that the division between A.D. and B.C. in our Gregorian calendar is indicative of a historical Jesus, it is even more fair to say that the original Roman calendar and, by derivation, even our Gregorian calendar is likewise indicative of a historical Romulus.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

diana

Amlodhi,

Perfecto. Thank you kindly. That is precisely the sort of rebuttal I was aiming for. (I was wondering if that was what "from the founding of the city" meant, but didn't go that far into my research. Thanks for filling in the blanks. That pretty much seals it, IMO.)

d