Since Christmas has just passed I thought that this would be a good topic to gather some insight of fellow Christians or non Christians. Whoever has read the Bible should be able to shed an opinion.
I, myself, am a Christian, however, I have never been given evidence that Christ was born any time near December 25th. Living in the south, many people just wave the assumption off that Christ was not born on the 25th. "Oh He was born on the 25th. It must be. It's what we have always observed." Ok those are just assumptions to me. I know we have a lot of intelligent minded people that have read the Bible and can shed some light on the subject of what approximate date Christ was born. I look forward to see what you come up with.
Jesus existence. Ever thought about that assumption?
Let's just assume that Julius Ceasar or any of the great Pharoahs, King Tut, Agamemnon,,, never existed either. No use in using history Beelzedad... Come on just answer the question or don't bother to post fella.
Hi Fenixfan and welcome!
I found that Carrie Bradshaw (Judah's daughter) has written some well researched Hubs on this exact topic at:
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Bible-Revea … s-was-Born
Which I likewise briefly touched apon at:
...Where most of the evidence points towards a September birthdate for Christ, actually corresponding with the Jewish New Year and fall festival of "Rosh HaShanah".
The December-January dates (Winter) observed by most Christian churches are actually more accurate timing for the immaculate conception of Jesus or the "annunciation".
Hope that helps... Rev.Ted
Actually - there is no evidence whatsoever. Perhaps instead of these self promotional links - you could show us the "evidence" instead?
Nice avatar by the way - is that a Golden Cross you are idolozing?
An old co-worker of mine who is a Jehovah Witness once told me that Jesus was born on November 9th. I really don't know where they got this date from. I would have to read up on it myself.
All of these other dates given are interesting....
Thanks for sharing, I like learning new things from you guys.
I'm a JW, not sure where the Nov 9th came from, that's certainly not one of our beliefs. The evidece suggests thought that Jesus was born Sep/Oct time. Certainly not on dec 25th.
Andyoz is correct. The Bible does not teach that and your friend may not have been knowledgable in the truth. Just like some people are well informed when it come to their jobs and some are very uniformed. I am sure you have met such people on the job.
Think about this, when you go into a store, say, Home Depot for instance and you are looking for a certain item, then you may go to that department where you think that item is located to speak to the perosn that work in that department just to find out that, that person has no clue as well. Have that ever happen to you somewhere.
Now, how about this, me, I would go locate the most well informed checkout person in the store, inquire from that person where I might find a certain something and guess what, 9 times out of ten, they will know where that product is located. Why?
Because everything in that store, no matter if that checkout person has never worked in any other department before, will have to checkout anything and everything in that store. It all must be paid for and it has to come through the checkout. They deal with ALL merchandise. make sense to you?
Yes, then again, that Witness may not have been Baptised or anything but that certainly wasn't correct. When you read about the account of Jesus's birth, you will come to find that he must have been born sometime around the Fall, Sept or October but not in December. I spent much time in the Middle East and let me tell you, it can get just as cold in the Desert just as it do in Philly, Pa, colder.
Ask any Soldier in todays' wars.
Judah's Daughter wrote a very informative hub on this issue that makes a lot of sense.
By cross referencing a lot of issues she came up with, give or take a couple of days ;.. Sept. 10Th to 13th of 3 BC which I would have to agree.
I had already come to approx the same conclusion, give or take a few weeks.
I may be a little slow on the uptake but why 3 BC? Doesn't BC refer to "Before Christ" and AD doesn't that refer to "After Death" after the death of Christ, or Anno Domini in the year of.... If BC refers to "Before Christ shouldn't it be ( 1 ) BC.?
I forget when it happened (17Th century I think) the pope pushed to have that distinction changed.
This is the Julian calendar that we go by. Established by the Roman Empire before Christ was even known.
If that were true where did the years go that Jesus lived?
BC ... Before Christ was born; 33 years go by, then AD After death.
I forget the words that these abbreviations come from.
But. it is not before Christ of after death.
Just came home for a few minutes or I'd look it up.
Gotta go back to work, later
According to Webster's New World Dictionary:
AD = Anno Domini = "In the year of" This is Latin as created by the Roman empire.
BC = Before Christ
BCE = Before Common Era
Therefore prior to Jesus Birth would be BC and from birth to present would be AD regardless of what Constantine might or might not want.
You claim that the calendar being used today is created in the 17th century, what happened to the years before it? Are they lost in space and time?
Really as far as I'm concerned, it makes no real difference as there is no significant scriptural date set for His birth,September December October November, so long as we remember the fact that He was born, that He died and that He rose again for the remission of all of our sins, pick a date.
how can you say it's a fact that he was born, died, rose if his birthdate isn't even known?
The jewish people did not celebrate birthdays. Have you seen any birthdates in the bible? There are no recordings in the bible of birthdays at all. In fact Jesus never says to celebrate his birthday. This is a non-jewish tradition.
So since many birthdays are not celebrated how can we then say anybody was born?
Being risen from the dead has nothing to do with a birthday. Thats like saying 'how can u know he drove a red colored car when his favorite color was green'.
how did they know how old people were? Especially in the OT, way before recorded in writing? Just plucked some numbers out of the sky?
There are recordings of birthdays in the Bible. The Bible makes direct reference to only two birthday celebrations, those of Pharaoh of Egypt (18th century B.C.E.) and Herod Antipas (1st century C.E.).
These two accounts are similar in that both occasions were marked with great feasting and granting of favors; both are remembered for executions, the hanging of Pharaoh’s chief baker in the first instance, the beheading of John the Baptizer in the latter.—Ge 40:18-22; 41:13; Mt 14:6-11; Mr 6:21-28.
I'd have to look into my notes on this one, but the best I remember.... it is due to when the start of the "common era" (C.E. or A.D.) in the new calendar system was decided on by the church and the variances in the different calendar dating systems that had been used in comparison
As it has since been redefined and more accuratley proven, the actual astrological dating has verified it as having been slightly off by 3 years.
Carrie's article on the subject also goes into this in more detail as well:
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Bible-Revea … s-was-Born
didn't they forget to put zero in there too? went straight from 1BC to 1AD?
Supposedly the time difference between BC and AD was because of Herod. As you know Herod was killing all male newborns. I've read on it, but to go in depth I will have to go back to the Bible. I could but I'd like to stay on the subject of what date Jesus may have been born. I do agree it should have been in spring-summer some time.
I recently published a hub about the star of Bethlehem in which several scenarios give differing dates for the supposed birth of JC.
Since Herod died in 4 BC and according to Matthew he supposedly had male children up to 2 years in age killed, the date had to be at least 6-7 BC at the earliest date.
But according to Luke the census played a role in Joseph returning to Bethlehem. The census took place in 6-7 AD. So these two alleged gospel authors do not agree on the date of JC's birth. Apparently, at least one of these writers, if not both, were not "inspired by god" when they penned their books.
The shepherds were tending their flocks. They do this at birthing time, which is, and always has been, in the spring. The sign of the fish, indicates Pisces. "Come, I will make you fishers of men." and the tale of the loaves and fishes, and the fish has been an early christian symbol from the very beginning, even serving as a secret sign during the Roman persecutions, which only started at Golgotha. You're assumption, Randy, is that either Herod had two years left from the slaughter of the innocents, when actually, he died very soon after giving the order. Or is it that he killed them over a period of two years? The killing was localized to a small area, not all Judea, they were all killed within three days. 3 or 4 B.C.E. is commonly accepted among the New Testament Scholars.
As I explain in my hub, Matthew told of the Magi informing Herod of the star and its significance. Since Herod called for all male children under 2 years of age to be killed, it means the Magi had been following the star, or at least knew of its existence, for at least 2 years.
Since Herod died in 4 BC, it stands to reason the Magi first saw the star 2 years earlier or Herod would have only ordered the death of newborn children. But then again, Matthew, or the writer posing as him, may have added contemporary events into the book around 63 AD.
Coincidentally, around that time period Halley's ccomet was making an appearance in the skies over Rome. The King of Armenia was visiting the city for conformation of his title accompanied by a group of Magi bearing gifts.
This king returned home by a different route. Compare this with Matthew's account of the nativity. It seems the writer incorporated Halley's comet as the star of Bethlehem, and the visit of a King and Magi, into the gospel. Sound familiar?
Actually outside the New Testament is there any real evidence that Jesus Christ even existed ? For instance we know for a fact that that wasn’t his name, it’s a title.
As to when he was born or where....again no evidence whatsoever, for the uninitiated I can guarantee it wasn’t December the 25th that’s for sure. That date was stolen by the early Christians when they hijacked the Pagan celebration on that date celebrating the birth of the Sun God, not the son of God. (see the pathetic similarity ).
Everything about Jesus is a made up myth, no evidence that can be substantiated by independent sources, if he was such a big pain in the backside to the Romans he would have probably got a quick mention. So everything is pure hearsay, extremely prejudicial third and forth party hearsay at that.
So anybody can make up a date for his birthday, look at the Commercial examples, according to them you can start any time from the end of September until the event itself !
actually, it was overkill on his point. He just wanted to make sure he gotta da Cockaroach. He was actually quite upset, and so, not thinking too clearly. Not to change the subject, but aren't we, in this, and other countries participating in a genocidal slaughter of the innocents on a level which would make even Hitler do a double take. Perverse generation.
check out melchizedek. There are verses (genesis 14) about him in the OT and psalm 110:4 and is referred to again in hebrews chapter 5 and 7.
sidenote: To call God "visiting" the earth Jesus (prior to the NT) i don't like to place my money on that, But as to the point, 'did God visit the earth ', well we know He walked in the garden, so this melchizedek seems to me a very good candidate for pre-jesus visitation. There are other examples also but i can't recall scripture and verse just now.
The year that Herod died is not recorded in any public records the same as the death of Jesus is not.
Historians can only guess as to when Herod died from referencing statements made by Flavius Josephus, and again I can't remember the other names.
The date of his death can be pinpointed to be between 4 BC and 1 BC though most historians believe 1 BC.
And concerning the census? Who knows how many times one was taken in different regions. How many of these public records even survived 2000 years?
Sorry Jerami, but most biblical scholars and historians agree the date of Herod's death was around 4 BC. By the info left by Josephus and the two sons of Herod, who split his kingdom into 2 parts and began ruling them around 4 BC, it is fairly well established that Herod the Great died in 4 BC.
If Matthew was telling the truth (still iffy) JC could have been born no later than 4 BC.
wasn't Jesus a fairly common name back then?
How about this for some food for thought. Biblical scripture states that Jesus was approximately 6 months young than John the Baptist. It stated that when John's mother was pregnant (6 months) with him, she went to visit Mary, who had just found out she was expecting. Can we narrow down the dates of John's birth that would give us a near about number anyone?
His real name wasn't Jesus anyway. Yoshua, I think it was supposed to be. And there was no year zero.
I did a great deal of research on this issue five or six years ago and it seemed that there was no clear winner.
7 BC .. 3 BC was the general consensus.
However Judas Daughters' Hub she seemed to combine several recognized scenarios and showed that 9.11 3BC was the most likely answer but stated that there was a couple of days margin of error, given that this is arrived by NASA research concerning celestial occurrences reported to have been taking place at the time of Jesus' birth.
Sounded very compelling to me.
I was investigating this in relationship to ..When was Jesus actually crucified. This date also can not be agreed upon by scholars either.
For reasons other that the date of Herod's death, Scholars can not agree upon the years 26, 30 and 33 AD.
I was looking for the correct date of the crucifixion because if in 538 BC Gabriel said that in 62 weeks they were going to kill the Messiah.
I wanted to know how many earth years was equal to 62 weeks.
Was 62 weeks equal to 564, 568. or 571 of our years?
This should give us an equation worthy of applying to ALL of bible prophesy where a time line is mentioned.
A very interesting subject whatever date it was supposed to have happened. I have researched the possible heavenly bodies which may have been called the star of Bethlehem during the suspected time of JC's birth.
Yes, the 3-2 BC scenario is interesting but how can one trust NASA's scientists? You know how scientists are always going against the bible's teachings. You know, evolution and everything.
But as you said, there is still no definite nativity date. Matthew's version has some troubling aspects and so does Luke's, hampering research even more.
I have nothing against scientists.
As I have been saying for a long time. Most confusion over the scriptures are due to the way we have been taught to understand them.
GOD Whoever/whatever? created the universe and everything in it.
This was the first day.
A few million or billion years later the second came around. You know, the earth had to cool down.
and green things started growing. I don't know where the seeds came from.
Any way, nowhere does scripture say that these are seven consecutive days.
And does scripture say that Adam was the FIRST man on earth.
Scripture just says that God created him from the dust.
Doesn't say what process he used or how long that took.
The generations of Adam had to begin somewhere.
why do things need seeds? The mildew that grows in your bathroom grows very readily without seeds
Was this a serious question?
What ya think about the rest of that post.
Mildew reproduces from airborne spores.
I hillbilly would call these invisible seeds.
These are then carried almost everywhere.
When they find a suitable environment they grow into colonies producing more air born spores.
spores are simpler than seeds. Seeds are in fruit and require sexual reproduction. Spores don't.
and so............. you now disbelieve because things have seeds? Really bailey am i supposed to be crediting this sort of thing to your superior brain or posterior brain?
you missed the point entirely, as per usual
According to what I am told the birth of Jesus occurred sometime in the month of October. His birth is only celebrated on December 25th. It took time for the news of his birth to spread among the communities and it took some time for the three wise men to bring him gifts. It was around December 25th when they arrived to see baby Jesus.
The early church designated Dec. 25th as a compromise between the Roman pagen festival of Saturnalia (celebrate the Roman God, Saturn. The festiavl consisted of a week long celebration that included caroling, feasting, gift giving, slaves were free for the week, charity to the poor, etc.) and picking a date to celebrate Jesus' birth. As far as the virgin birth (a translation error since "virgin" and "young girl" are the same word in ancient Greek), the nativity scene, angles (who were former Roman gods), the three wise guys, is a product of someone's wild imagination.
You are correct ... The early Roman Catholic Church designated December 25 as his birthday because the Roman citizens were already celebrating on that day.
This was done as one of the enticements for gaining a larger membership.
Then half a century later the new Emperor declared Christianity as the official state religion.
Further enticements were not necessary
Anyone not joining were severely punished if not killed.
Sounds familiar to another story I read.
The early Roman Catholic Church designated December 25 to be precise this was done by pope damasus I, a murderer and usurper.
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
know means intercoursed
Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
there are a few definitions, yes... but i will always trust scripture to give the accurate definition. Believe what you will but virginity has always been more important to Gods people than we of north america have ever put to it. Ever wonder why a rapee was given in marriage to the raper? because no man wanted to marry a non-virgin, she was basically broken goods... Was this a fitting punishment for the crime.. ask the family of the woman who probably put their entire efforts into making this man do the right thing.
Nobody knows the exact date. Christmas is close enough for me.
Not really. There's no historical record that Jesus existed.
Not without accurate dates it isn't. No matter how much you want it to be true.
Sure it is. It talks about all sorts of places which still exist today. And as far as dates go, a date in the bible is written pretty much the same way, ie third year of the reign of Hesakiah and so forth. Today's standard calendar says two thousand and ten years from some sort of event. What was it that happened? Thats right, baby Jesus.
So does many novels. Historical fiction is nothing new. The first books of the New Testament are merely part of the fashionable Greek serials concerning the latest religion to strike the fancy of the people.
You might have even read another historical fiction book besides Joseph Smiths plagiarized version of the bible. There are millions of such novels which use history to make them seem real. But some folks just don't know the difference between fiction and non-fiction.
It's like the movie "Titanic". The ship existed, the places existed, some of the passengers and crew existed. But the main and support characters along with good guy vs. bad guy senerio (to create conflict to add interest to the story) is totally fictional.
So the places and events are true but the people in the bible never existed. It is actually quite common for people (even some religious,) not to be able to hang on to every aspect of the Bible. Lots of religions like to pick and choose which parts of the bible to take literally. And I'm not implying that you are ignorant or void of integrity in any way for prescribing to those same methods. Just misguided.
No one could accuse you of allowing the facts to alter your preconceptions.
it's possible a person, Jesus that said he was God existed. The gospels weren't written until nearly a century after his time (just because they are named after disciples doesn't mean disciples wrote them). Plenty of time for legends of miracles & other tall stories - none of which are original
God never forgets and God is accurate and God has good reason for everything and Gods word is marvelous if you have the spirit of God within you, if not, it will never make sense.
Jesus was crucified in 30ad the gospels were written (which means finalized - they were around before that as pieces of parchment, pages here and there as they were finished, i suppose with all the tumult caused by the roman empire perhaps 'going to press' as the saying goes, wasn't an option until later; then, when they were rounded up and combined as a single document they became known as the gospels) around 30yrs later after his death not 100s of years later or nearly a century as you stated. They started as notes recorded by the disciples. Marks was finished first (as is supposed) and then passed to the other two writers who elaborated as inspired by God of course, to give the three witness account. John eventually contributed and then wrote revelation.
funny how it gives exact ages of people from times when there was no writing, yet no-one can remember when Jesus was supposed to have been born
not really. When listing geneologies or discussing time periods the bible includes how long they lived but when talking about jesus these facts fall quickly into the background and even including that jesus has few following books and is not involved in a long list of time such as can be thought back too. Since he was recent the pattern of bible is not askew.
See how clearly God spoke to the saints of Old. If one slowly reads the prophecies you will have to note that in order for a man to stand before a town and proclaim the atrocities that would come or to declare future events the word of God would have to be IN them so strongly that error was not a factor. The same effect in the writing of the torah for the most part of genesis and after that it is the governmental laws and history and prophets.
bible is a historical record just like Iliad and odyssey.
christmas - christianity celebrating its pagan roots
The catholic church combining paganism into its doctrines to appease the people of that time. Christendom has blindly followed along, yes, but that is neither here nor there. Catholicism is being unwrapped and exposed for it heresies today and many catholic eyes are being opened and this is good. There is a movement today about NOT celebrating christmas which is wonderful and dandy.
sept 11 is the day, if not (just saying) its a more sincere date than dec 25th and christendom should get ahold of this date and if they must celebrate jesus birthday, this date should be used and without trees, tinsel and santa. A good idea if you ask me.
You don't get a bad christian because they celebrate christmas, you do get a blended religion because of it and this, i suppose, has helped to lead to a weakened church condition.
There are a number of clues in the bible. The course of abia.
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.
then mostly can be figured out from there.
sept 11, 3 bc is to my conclusion the most accurate date.
Seeing as prior posts have indeed noted that the catholic church mingled christs (supposed) birthday (shows what the catholics know) with pagan solstice, i affirm that it would be both more sincere and truthful if the church grabbed this date and celebrated christs birthday (if indeed they must celebrate his birthday) on this very day without a tree, tinsel, holly or a jolly santa.
even if it is a few days off.. this date is more precise, shows sincerity and honor to our Lord, than does just blindly adopting the 25th of dec. As truth seekers, we as christians should be concerned about truth. A more true date is obviously, lol more truer.
There's all kinds of clues throughout the Bible of places and people. King Harod existed and is known as a great builder. But as for being responsible for a mass killing of Jewish boys, there's no historical record of that event.The Noah's ark points out that when the story was written, people believed that earth was flat, the sky consisted of a great canopy (an ancient Eqyption and Greek belief) and the earth was the center of the universe. But as for a world wide flood and building a wooden ship 2/3 the size of the Titanic is a work of fiction.
every culture has flood stories & creation stories. I've just written a hub about evolution of christianity
yah i bet Herod wanted that information in the books lol
To tell you all the truth, no where does the Bible say anything about trying to remember the date of Jesus birth.
The point, as one fellow hubber above stated, He was born, and that's the fulfillment of the whole Old Testament, and gives us the opportunity to celebrate everyday for the rest of our lives.
Wouldn't we rather know why He came like He did, and what He came to do?
When was Jesus born?!
I don't know! Why don't you ask him?!
He probably did. My guess is he sent you to scripture and that messed ya up big time.
nah, being indoctrinated with the lies you believe messed me up
i doubt it. God never fails people who allow God to lead.
My guess is you looked at some people who were doing 'bad' things and let that dissuade you. You are always saying "oh look at what this person is doing and that person, that this church and this guy drives a limo.".. lol.
another theory, legalistic pentecostalism tried to make you conform to the rules that make a 'good christian' and thereby you felt in a box and lost the feel of gods love and forgot that the holy spirit deals with sin and changes the life.. not the congregation around you.
Many people have slipped because of these two things. The doctrines are 90% sound in pentecostal churches (except the oneness pents) but the churches can often be legalistic (the zeal of the BHG eats them up lol) but if one remembers that God does the changing and not the dictates of the people, that person does well.
Its a period of grace and grace is found if one humbles themselves before the lord and asks to be changed. God power suffices for all there is no question of that and there is always a second chance.
Thank Goodness He didn't answer back! If he did, can you imagine how many interpretations there would be for his answer?!
God impresses his answers inside the person. It would not be a loud booming voice to a crowd. It would be a still quiet voice inside prompting that person to listen or a revelation somewhere in the word of God, a scripture that comes to mind or a page turned and a verse that sticks out and when given further thought... revelation and problem addressed.
This is my personal experience.
hanging out, I fully agree. This is my personal experience also. One can miss God answers to prayers if not in tune with his still quiet voice. I had to learn this when I first acceped Jesus. We also have to remember that God's thoughts is not our thoughts and his ways is not our ways. God usually does not answer prayers in the way which we expect him, but he always answers every prayer.
So if hungry children do not get food when they pray for it, the answer from god is no?
Is there any way that anyone could get you to see that this is only your imagination, and that God doesn't have a voice, therefore He can't talk, and that He can't answer any prayers, because He, simply, doesn't exist? Is there any way that anyone could convince you that this is MOST LIKELY just a severe symptom of your indoctrination?
Can you even consider this, or is it hopeless?
If you say that God can't talk then you dismiss the bible completely. God talks from the beginning when he spoke the universe into existence and in revelation when he says Revelation 21:7 "He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son".
God talks to the prophets in very powerful ways.
A God who cannot talk is just a stupid idea.
my vote is: hopeless
because you talk nonsense as usual
It was in September,i remember like it was yesterday.Some star experts say his real birth date is September or October.
Except for deciphering prophesy, I do not think that the actual date of his birth is important.
The actual date of his death holds much more significance.
For it is written in prophesy that (from 538 BC) it will be 62 weeks and then they will kill the Messiah.
This, I believe, is one of the most important passages in prophesy
This gives us a timeline comparison that we can use (Must use) when attempting to understand prophesy. Then this knowledge spills over onto all other beliefs concerning all of scripture.
But this appears to be just my beliefs.
Too bad we don't know if Jesus was real or not. We don't even know if the gospels were really based on facts or not. Perhaps we never will.
I'm pretty sure that we will. We may even already know if we were to be honest with ourselves.
Light bulb in the brain moment.
What if that is our purpose in life? Learn how to be honest with ourselves.
Might not be our purpose; but I betcha that this is a good idea. Don't lie to ourselves.
We are all smarter than we know we are?
No, actually, to bad millions or even billions of people don't know history and secular history at that. There are those who believe that the Holocaust never happen or that thr Roman Empire didn't last almost a thousand years.
The Bible itself is the principal evidence that Jesus Christ is a historical person. The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly states time and place in great detail. For an example, see Luke 3:1, 2, 21-23.
The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63, 64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.
Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: “Christus [Latin for “Christ”], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), “The Annals,” Book 15, par. 44.
It is not to be expected that Roman historians would have much to say about an apparently small religious movement in faraway Palestine. At best we would expect to find scanty references, and such is the case
To begin with, there is the testimony of the early Talmudical writings. The noted Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner, after thoroughly investigating their testimony, reports that the “early Talmudical accounts” of Jesus confirm ‘both the existence and the general character of Jesus.’—Jesus of Nazareth, p. 20.
Additionally, there are also two references to Jesus in the works of Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian. One of these is often questioned because it makes Josephus sound like a Christian. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chap. III, par. 3)
But, as Klausner and other scholars point out, it is unreasonable to conclude that Josephus would have made no reference to Jesus’ ministry when he dealt at length with that of John the Baptist. Besides, in a later reference, Josephus tells that “the sanhedri[n] of judges [had] brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chap. IX, par. 1)
Rightly, these scholars hold that this quotation intimates that something had been previously said about Jesus, otherwise why identify an unknown James as being his brother? They therefore hold that Josephus did tell about Jesus’ ministry but that some other, later hand embellished the account.
A number of other Roman Writers, including Pliny the Younger, Seneca and Juvenal also make references to Christ’s followers.
With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”—(1976), Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 145.
Not only is the historicity of Jesus established by such “independent” accounts, but the Gospel records by their very contents do the same. How so? John Stuart Mill, noted nineteenth-century English economist and philosopher, observed: “Who among His followers, or among their proselytes, was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels? Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee.” Making the same point is the American Theodore Parker: “Shall we be told such a man never lived, the whole story is a lie? Suppose that Plato and Newton never lived. But who did their works, and thought their thoughts? It takes a Newton to forge a Newton. What man could have fabricated a Jesus? None but a Jesus.”
And English philosopher David Hartley makes a related and telling point: “If we compare the transcendent greatness of this character [Jesus] with the indirect manner in which it was delivered, . . . it will appear impossible that they should have forged it,—that they should not have had a real original before them . . . How could mean and illiterate persons excel the greatest geniuses, ancient and modern, in drawing a character? How came they to draw it in an indirect manner? This is, indeed a strong evidence of genuineness and truth.”
Even stronger evidence as to the historicity of Jesus Christ is the fact that his influence does not depend upon his physical presence on earth. While the influence of such mighty rulers as Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar is no more, the impact that Jesus Christ made on history remains. Millions today still follow his teachings.
Though a powerful man in his day, Napoleon was forced to recognize the uniqueness of Jesus’ influence as a person. He noted: “An extraordinary power of influencing and commanding men has been given to Alexander, Charlemagne and myself. But with us the presence has been necessary. . . . Whereas Jesus Christ has influenced and commanded His subjects without His visible bodily presence for eighteen hundred years.” And again: “Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and myself founded empires, but upon what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ alone founded his kingdom upon love.”
The noted eighteenth-century French philosopher Rousseau wrote the following about Jesus: “What sublimity in his maxims. What profound wisdom in his discourses! What presence of mind, what subtlety, what fitness, in his replies! How great the command over his passions! Where is the man, where the philosopher, who could so live and so die, without weakness, and without ostentation?”
Coming to modern times, Mahatma Gandhi, the Hindu ‘father’ of the nation of India, once stated to Lord Irwin, former viceroy of India: “When your country and mine shall get together on the teachings laid down by Christ in this Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems, not only of our countries but those of the whole world.” Bearing similar testimony to Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, the veteran American psychiatrist J. T. Fisher wrote, toward the end of his very successful career, that the Sermon on the Mount far excelled the best that all the world’s philosophers, psychologists and poets had to offer.
WHAT ABOUT JESUS’ MIRACLES?
Perhaps more than any other one aspect of the Gospels that has proved a stumbling stone to many is their record of miracles. If the miracles were presented as ordinary happenings, there might be a basis for people to object. But this is not the case. The Gospels present the miracles as extraordinary occurrences confirming that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. We read: “Jesus performed many other signs also before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll. But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (John 20:30, 31) Surely it would not have been enough for Jesus simply to claim that he was the Son of God. He had to be able to prove that this was so. And what better way was there to do this than by performing miracles?
But what about the argument that miracles are contrary to the laws of nature? On this point, Victor Hess, discoverer of cosmic rays, once stated: “It is sometimes said that the ‘necessity’ of the ‘laws’ of nature is incompatible with . . . miracles. This is not so. . . . Many of our physical laws are, in fact, merely statistical statements. They hold for the average of a great number of cases. They have no meaning for an individual case. . . . Must a scientist doubt the reality of miracles? As a scientist I answer emphatically: No. I can see no reason at all why Almighty God, Who created us and all things around us, should not suspend or change—if He finds it wise to do so—the natural, average course of events.”—Faith of Great Scientists, edited by W. Howey, p. 10.
Also supporting the genuineness of Jesus’ miracles is the effect they had on those that witnessed them. As Dr. W. Paley shows, they “passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and . . . they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.” The Works of William Paley, p. 300.
We cannot escape it. The foregoing evidence allows us as objective, reasoning persons to come to but one conclusion. And that is, not only that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived, but that the record of his life as portrayed in the Scriptures does present us with the historical Jesus.
You have your proof and you certainly can do your own research but how you accept the truth is up to you. With respect of course.
"he first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.”
just read on the name of jesus is also given- Jesus, the son of Damneus.
even if consider all these true josephus was BORN only after 37 bc and it is noteworthy that no contemporary historians like Philo of alexandria wrote about jesus. also no christian writers knew about this testimony before 4th AD though they extensively quoted from josephus bfore 4th AD. rest of all the people given above are all after 1st century and they were saying about christians and not christ. the fact is there is no known historical records of jesus the christ exist, all that we have got is stories that were revised so many times which started only late in 1st century(after 70 Ad) or only after 2nd century. about the gospels nobody even know who really wrote it. the first gospel is supposed to be by mark who heard from peter who heard from some women that jesus got resurrected and so on.........HEARSAY...
Iliad will be more authentic than bible as we at least know who wrote it.
"Even stronger evidence as to the historicity of Jesus Christ is the fact that his influence does not depend upon his physical presence on earth. While the influence of such mighty rulers as Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar is no more, the impact that Jesus Christ made on history remains. Millions today still follow his teachings."
same is true about allah...
"though a powerful man in his day, Napoleon was forced to recognize the uniqueness of Jesus’ influence as a person"
what else you expect from a man born and bought up as a Christian in a Christian nation??
"The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly states time and place in great detail. For an example, see Luke 3:1, 2, 21-23"
i think you never heard about historical fiction, the less said the better. again who was luke? luke heard from paul who heard from Oh! never mind it........
"You have your proof and you certainly can do your own research but how you accept the truth is up to you. With respect of course."
selective readings will never be proof. conclusions are not bought by just finding a few things that suit us. we make conclusion by considering all facts available to us and not by the opinion of a few persons who never questioned their beliefs nor researched on it. to get the opinion of napolean or gandhi on christ is like asking your real estate broker about your diseases instead of asking a doctor....
so the answer will be jesus was born only after christians started to believe in jesus. if your asking about any persons there are so many jesus in history like Jesus ben Sirach, Jesus ben Damneus, Jesus ben Sirach so on but never somebody like the one in christian mythologies er! gospels.
The answer is how you accept the truth is up to you. Your proof has been given reasonable people with thinking abilities coupled with common sense recognize the truth.
There are those who would believe as I said before, that the Holocuate didn't happen. You see them all the time at the AirPorts.
Have a nice day.
there are people who were involved or observed who wrote about it, say ann frank's diary is the least one i can offer. we won't be thinking of holocaust as something happened if it was written by somebody after 100 years of it happening. who will ever remember, after 100 years, the incident accurately? human exaggerate things even after 10 years of it occurrence, then better forget the stories. i was just pointing that what you presented as facts was either half truths or has no relevance.
In your opinion, it has no relevance because obviouslt, truth does not concern you. With respect of course. What was presented was fact and certainly relevant and why? Because whether you know it or believe it, your life depends upon it.
John 17: 3
This is where I shake the dust off my feet and venture on. Good night and Goodbye.
Delusion collapses, believer gets angry, spouts untrue delusional nonsense, takes ball and goes home.
sometimes you have to do that. I know this to be true. You don't listen or try to grasp what people say, you turn away when something doesn't match your belief and eventually people just give up talking to you.
classic reapin what yer sowin, cowboy.
please hanging out. instead of the rally can you point out any valid reason for what you are saying, or are just raving that somebody don't accept your fiction......
Asking for validation of the nonsense being spouted by delusional Christians is all I'm doing...and they have none.
Nothing but nonsensical delusional answers that support nothing but delusion. All I can grasp is that believers are delusional.
And it's not that your assertions don't match MY beliefs. It's that they make no darn sense at all. This is madness.
Whats madness is that you are even here.
What business have you here when you don't believe anything about it.
Couldn't you find something that you agree with a be of a positive influence instead of banging your head against a wall all the time.
Can you not see the obsessive madness of your actions.
You choose to be negative when, you could be positive somewhere else.
be happy getitright
we wont miss you that much
getitrite is right, you are delusional kane.
how can bible prove itself?
you can either refute the points i stated with valid explanations or not. if yes, i am all ears, if not , and if your still maintaining it as historical facts, you are "believing" without evidence, which is called as delusion
about truth does not concerning me
something becomes true only when it is based on realty and not imagination. if you call bible truth, may it is your truth. As long as you can close your eyes it will remain true, too. but if you open your eyes, you will find that it is just fiction with some outdated morals and nothing else, made for humans of 1st and 2nd centuries and not fit for our era.
once again i am asking you to state clearly why you accept bible as historical facts? what are the evidences?
well looks like darned if ya do and darned if ya don't
There is a history book called "the history of america". Do you doubt that?
There is a history book called "torah" or "tanakh" Just because other history books are different than the american history book is probably due to its being recorded by a different culture, but its viability is no less that the history book of russia, italy, china.
You cannot doubt these because they are not written as you would like them to be.
I believe that documents of importance when addressed by people who consider them important (if not holy) would be handled with conscientious gloves. The masoretics were fanatical about precision which leads me to thinking... accuracy. And then of course when we take God out of the equation we just get books written by men. When we put God into the equation ... well.. yknow ...
When was Jesus born?
I think Jesus did not think it is that important; otherwise he would have told it. Jesus's teachings are important and one should concentrate on them; Paul and the Church changed his teachings. Jesus's true teachings have been revived in Quran.
quran is a vulgar copy of the bible with something that appeal to the barbaric Arabs of that time and nothing else. which paul are you talking about? the paul that is mentioned in acts or the paul who wrote the letters spanning over a century?
bible(old or new testament) or quran is good for fanatics and people who hate to think but not for a rational man....
rational man will never understand the things of God, in that you are correct and that is amply displayed here in hubpages every single day. The carnally minded wrestling with bible basics. Hardened hearts and dull ears refuting everything that is said which supports the bible.
In that we agree
but all else you write is fodder
a bit too rational i see
thanks for proving my point
rational man will never understand the things of God,
if a rational man will not understand , then who will understand? an idiot? a schizophrenic?
do you understand?
if not why in the hell are you lecturing about something you don't understand?
as you said all you write is fodder.........
Jesus is born over and over again, in the heart of every child and in the spirit of every believer.
So - he is not a actual person then? Just a figment of your imagination. Why can't you leave him there?
That is a matter of conjecture, and is most likely just a delusion.
Lots of things are a figment of the imagination. Love, Fear, Hate, Feelings, Emotions. They're not real at all. But they still exist!
At least 2000 years ago and the world was created 6000 years ago.
by Julie McFarland4 years ago
I was a missionary in the christian faith for years. I went to a bible college. I've read the bible - at least a dozen times, cover to cover. I've studied the dogmas, the doctrines and the theology -...
by Thom Carnes4 months ago
I was talking to a couple of nice friendly neighborhood Jehovah's Witnesses yesterday (there's a Kingdom Hall just around the corner from where I live so I tend to get them quite frequently) and we eventually got on to...
by anothermathgeek7 years ago
I was surprised to hear from a friend of mine who's a born-again Christian that Jesus was probably born in spring time. She told me that its commonly agreed by Christian scholars.She told me that December 25 was...
by Pratonix7 years ago
Just wanted to know if there are any Christians here on HubPages. I mean those who believe 100% in the Bible (the canon of 66 books), and that it is the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God. Only those who are...
by Disappearinghead3 years ago
.......in terms of behaviours and activities?I've just read a hub by someone talking about the old Chestnut that not all who call themselves Christian are going to heaven citing Jesus "Not all who cry Lord will...
by Captain Redbeard2 years ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.