Friday, September 30, 2016

Pope Benedict XVI: The Critique Reactions to the Popes comment.

Each religion has certain rituals which deeply involved with the religious beliefs. The base of this religious beliefs are on authentic scriptures, religious personalities and on the history and culture. The Prophets, those are the religious personalities, accepting unlimited sacrifice and sufferings, try to to establish truth, justice, and beneficial laws removing all prejudice and falsehood for the welfare of the society through the ages.Those prophets personally followed those laws and selflessly invited derailed people to the right path under his guidance for their salvation. Therefore, celebrating legitimate ceremonies such as birth day, death anniversaries etc in memory of these great men of honor are consider normal and never treated religiously offensive even those dates are not accurate but based on assumption.  But if somebody celebrate those days  in accordance with a different religious culture, then it should be taken seriously whether the celebration imposing any falsehood on God and his messenger or not 

Religion teaches people to be upright and truthful. Hence a confused religious activities can not be acceptable to anyone. Finally, Pope Benedict XVI, opened his mouth on the Birth of Jesus. Time magazine reported as--

Nativity Scene.
“The calendar we use today, which commences with the birth of Christ and was created by Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Small/Little/Dwarf/Short), a 6th century monk, may be mistaken. The Pope Benedict XVI explains in his book “Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives” that Exiguus, “made a mistake in his calculations by several years. The actual date of Jesus’ birth was several years before.” The suggestion that Jesus wasn’t actually born on Dec. 25 has been tirelessly debated by theologians, historians and spiritual leaders, but what makes this case different is that now the leader of the Catholic Church is the one asking the questions."-TIME, Nov 22, 2012; and TELEGRAPH, Nov 21, 2012. reports-

“The Pope has declared that the presence of animals like cattle and donkeys in traditional Nativity scenes is based on little more than a myth. He writes in in his book that Jesus's birth was not presided over by oxen, asses, camels or indeed any other beasts- "There is no mention of animals in the Gospels," The inclusion of domestic animals in the Nativity scene may have been inspired by pre-Christian traditions, But he reaffirms that the virgin birth and the story of Christ's resurrection are still "cornerstones of faith".”

Now we will see what are the Public Reactions:

#  At last the myth of mid-winter Christmas cribs, oxen and donkeys is exposed- by the Church itself! Many of us have known this for years. How long before they admit that there is no evidence that he was even born at all?

Pope Benedict XVI
@  So the testimony of all Jesus's disciples who died testifying about him did it for no reason. Which historians today would actually die rather than deny their own testimony, unless it were truth. The evidence for Jesus is overwhelming! So, the above opinion is not sane.

# Maybe this will dispel the misbelief that the Bible is historically accurate to many who base their whole existence on the exact words of the God Book. Don't get me wrong: the Bible is the basis of all Christian teachings and beliefs (as it should). But had the Disciples tried to teach the ignorant masses who were their followers, and told stories with the tiniest bit of science in them, they would have been ignored if not killed. So the Disciples did what we call today "KISS": Keep It Simple. So the calendar is off a few what? It's served us well all these centuries, no use complaining about it. 

@ The only dating and placement of Jesus' birth referred to in the Bible is that he was born in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod.There was not much science known then, so God was not going to inspire the apostles of Christ to write about scientific realities that would only have baffled both them and their readers.That was not the point.The Bible had to go through the ages and be comprehensible in all times, not just our times.

Today's calendar is not Christian. It is a solar calendar essentially created by Julius Caesar and amended by Pope Gregory in the 16th century because it was getting out of sync with the seasons. The only reason for a pope instead of a scientist making these changes is the political power the Catholic Church wielded at the time. It is very similar to the way Universal Time was set to Greenwich, England-the British Empire was the main power at the time. The medieval church did not do astronomy. Dionysus Exiguus made his calculations solely to determine a formula for the date of Easter every year. He did not put in a year zero, which puts the dating system in disarray.

#  In another remark that will shock Catholics everywhere, the Pope mentioned that Jesus was Jewish.
@  It may also interest Catholics to know that Hitler was a Catholic

I always find it hard to understand how anyone in their right mind can just take it in "faith" that the bible has any relevant truth in it

#  I'm sure this is news because the Pope has it in his book, which is fine, but it really is old news. I studied this in Bible college in 1979. It is the same story. Our conclusion then was that Jesus was born between 2BC and 7BC. It is interesting that all of history centers around one over which a legitimate debate of his historicity is still being waged.

#  Pope is correct because there is no Roman Gregorian calendar in the entire Scriptures. He is disclosing the truth as end time is approaching (not 21/12/2012) but the signs in the sky and the seasons show the end time is approaching.
IF you know which number of priest at Luke 1:5, you would know when He, the Saviour and Messiah (Anointed One) was born.

# The idea that this is some earth-shaking revelation shows how woefully inadequate the reporter is at covering religion. He should be embarrassed at his lack of simple knowledge and study up on the concept of fact-checking before he writes a story.

#  The terms Common Era (CE) and Before Common Era (BCE) are fine, which removes the most overt link to Christianity's imaginary deities, and disposes with any need for a religious tie-in without requiring even the ability to count on one's fingers might make sense.

#  Why are there so many statements in this article that there are no clues in the bible as to when Jesus was born? The bible is very clear on the timing of that, if little else: M&J went to Bethlehem for a Roman Census. Now, the Romans were pretty good at many things, and one of them was keeping records. There will be, somewhere, a record of the fact that a census was held.That does narrow the field quite a bit, so much so that we can state, based on documentary evidence, that the answer to the question "when was Jesus born?" is: "definitely not the year 1 AD" when there was no census in Israel.

Let us hope that they will also be updating the birth year of Mary. Otherwise the virgin birth becomes the pre-pubescent birth- undoubtedly miraculous but it raises some questions about divine ethics.

Maybe the resurrection isn't true either. Or should I say definitely?
HECTOR: "The actual date of Jesus's birth was several years before." I'll have to think about this very carefully. It might mean I'll live several years longer, or it might mean I'll die several years sooner.
Hard to tell....

I say He was born about 2500 years before the Bible scholars think. That or The Jews just stole the idea of Christ from the Egyptians who's god of Horus has a very striking likeness to Jesus Christ. The birth of Christ being on December 25th is like ALL Christian holidays, it was placed on days of pagan holidays to get rid of them. But however, both Christian and pagan holidays were mixed. Christmas for the winter solstice, Easter for the birth of Ishtar/Spring Solstice. All Christian views, and holidays are stolen in some sort of form from other pagan traditions and beliefs.

@  Actually, as Jesus was crucified during the feast of the Passover celebrations, Easter, as we wrongly call it in Britain, has been linked to the Jewish Passover and is probably the nearest we get to a true time of a Christian festival. Because the Passover is set by a lunar calendar, the date varies.
@  But years before Christ was even Born, Easter or Oester is the festival of the spring solstice and birth of Ishtar, the goddess of rebirth (Ishtar the goddess of reproduction; that is where the eggs come from.).

#  It really does not matter when the holy child was born. As to what time of year; The Bible tells that "shepherds were tending their sheep BY NIGHT." That only occurs in April when the sheep are giving birth. But it really does not matter when, exactly, the Saviour was born. We are celebrating that birth and acknowledging the Christ. And that, my friends, is the reason for the season.

It doesn't really matter at the END OF THE DAY!! Christ must have existed although his life was not written about for hundreds of years after his birth we are told. By then it must have been part true, part fiction if it was word of mouth for so long. Now vast amounts of money, estates are involved far removed from the man, son of a carpenter and his wife having a child in a stable and no doubt living a very simple life. It is a matter of belief by each individual. the money now invested in property, churches and the leak has little to do with the story of that time. What will happen in the future, will Christ return as he said he would? Has he in fact been back and been ignored again. -It is all conjecture.

No doubt there will always be a church of some sort, new sects and the like will always spring up and die away. It is a matter of having something to believe in and clinging onto the idea that death is not the end;

The Pope laughs and snickers in his chamber at the gullibility of the public. Satan Rules, and the Pope is his agent.

#  Any intelligent person who takes an "objective" look at the Catholic Church should come away with the opinion that it is a morally bankrupt cesspit. If the Pope is Christ's representative here on Earth, what does that say about his involvement in the cover up of child abuse (see '1997 Vatican letter child abuse') within his organisation?

#  "Dennis the Small?" Talk about Pythonesque... And that's before we even get onto the fact that Jesus was born seven years before he was born.

#  The Holy Father's book contains nothing new on the topic of “Dennis the Small”, BUT this changes NOTHING. Even if it does not reflect the literal cycle of the years, it is right and proper that the calendar reflects the Incarnation, for theological reasons that were understood in the Apostolic era and beyond.

Seems strange that successive pontiffs have had access to divine knowledge all this time and yet it has taken 1400 years for one to realize that they've been getting it wrong. Clearly omniscience isn't what it used to be.

#  "It rings true that Jesus was born earlier than generally supposed. If you look at someone you can usually place them in the right decade: consider John's gospel 8:57, "You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" -That wouldn't be said to someone in their thirties would it? The speaker implies that Jesus was in his forties."

#  The birth date of Jesus has never been any kind of article of faith, so where's the con. pal? It's simply an interesting scholarly debate that the pope is choosing to enter in to.

#  So Pope Rats-Zinger is rewriting history. Yesterday it was proof that Mary was a virgin. He personally knows that. Today he is redoing the calendar....who cares?   So do the Catholic churches buy up this book to hand out to the faithful to make it look like a blazing success?

#  Satanist pope, Pope Gregory XIII, who created our calendar, fudged the actual dates by burning to death anyone who pointed out the error of his math (good ol' pope is infallible, right?). So finally, after a few dozen burning men, they gave up and accepted his timeline. And now the current pope says it's off by a few years?!!
“.....and in the end of days, all will be revealed”

#  It is not new- scholars have pondered this for many years. What difference does it make? We celebrate the Queen's birthday in June, though she was born in April. Christmas is based on a fixed date- but Easter is movable feast based on moon phases (pagan or what?) But none of it matters- the fundamental faith of Christianity is unchanged- and I am sure that such is the message that the media misses, either intentionally or not.

#  He was born on February 15th at 6.30 am. sometime around 6 BC. I have this from the excellent authority of "me", a part time scribe, prophet, and soon to be writer of a significant number of books that possibly if they are sufficiently controversial, will be sold off the Hollywood for millions. If I can assist in writing the script, I am "quids in". Anyone want my autograph before I become a celebrity?

#  “I want my kids to learn about real, worthwhile stuff that’s grounded in logic and reason. Like how a virgin had a magic baby in a stable, and some men arrived with presents after following a UFO.” Extraordinary that we're still discussing this nonsense in the 21st century.

#  Its a story and we're pretty damn good at telling stories ourselves especially in America where the sob stories never end. Nice try Pope but it would not change the cold hard facts of life. We all got to earn our way of living and life demands change.

When you read the different stories in Matthew and Luke of the conception of John the Baptist it sets the time that John was conceived. When Mary went to visit her Aunt Elizebeth who is the mother of John the Baptist she was 6 months pregnant. John was conceived after his father returned from the Temple. He was of the order of Abia and it was about June that John's father did his service. So if you consider all this Jesus probably was conceived in Dec. and born in late Aug or Sept. The life Jesus lived from a miraculous birth to a death and resurrection all go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. His birth is a fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy that is important.

#  It can be shown that Jesus was actually born about July/August time and not the romantic tale told in the bible about no room at the inn on Christmas Eve. The truth is that the Christians wanted something to counter the Pagans' celebration of the winter solstice (21-22 December) and created the nice warm friendly story that Christ was born then.

On top of that we have the other fallacy that the "Three wise men" turned up on January 6th the following year. In fact the bible clearly states in other epistles and books that they did not turn up until Jesus was about 6 years old.

Then we have Easter, which is supposed to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, following Good Friday crucifixtion and the miracle of his resurrection on the third day. It has been proven that although Christ was indeed in a serious condition (I wonder how that's been proved?), when the disciples took him down from the cross, he was semi conscious. They put him in the cave to cool him down and to keep it a secret that he was still alive, as well as allowing him to be fed to regain strength.

It is of no coincidence that Easter is a "movable feast", running anywhere between mid march and late April. This coincides with other religions where the rebirth of the the planet (called spring) when all the trees burst in to flower and annual plants start to flower, being put down to "God" re-creating and resurrecting the Earth.

Again this is another Pagan festival, long before Christ was born which celebrated the optimism for spring, warmer weather and the ability to plant crops. Plough Monday was hi-jacked as the blessing of the Plough that was to create the farm land to grow the crops through God's intervention.

And don't forget that the Church of England was only created because Henry the VIII could not get his own way with Rome regarding the frequent divorces and beheading of his wives; all because they could not provide him with a son, which is again ironic because it is the male Y chromosome that creates the male Xygote.
Funny how the religious always find something to jump on the back of to promote themselves. 

“The Handbook of Biblical Chronology by Jack Finegan reports: “In 1995 David W. Beyer reported to the Society of Biblical literature his personal examination in the British Museum of forty-six editions of Josephus’ Antiquities published before 1700 among which twenty-seven texts, all but three published before 1544, read “twenty-second year of Tiberius”, while not a single edition published prior to 1544 read the “twentieth year of Tiberius.” Likewise in the Library of Congress five more editions read the “twenty-second year,” while none prior to 1544 records the “twentieth year.”

The twenty-second year of Tiberius’ reign is AD 36. If Philip died in the year AD 36, and he reigned thirty-seven years, then King Herod died between 2 and 1 BC. This is also the date held by most early Christian writers for the birth of Christ. The later date also coincides nicely with the enrollment of Quirinius proclaiming Augustus ‘Father of the Country’. Of those Early Church Fathers that actually give a date, 3/2 BC was the one given by the majority.” -Jones, Steven,“The Time of the Christ.”

#  “There was no census- contemporary records say that. The idea of a census was invented to explain the Nativity taking place in Bethlehem to fulfill Old Testament prophecies; Jesus, the Nazarene, was born in Nazareth. Same with The Slaughter of the Innocents... it never happened.”

#  No actual evidence he was real- All documentation mentioning him was written many years after his death with each document contradicting the next- There is simply no reason to believe he ever existed- I cannot prove he didn't exist no more than you can prove he did -
Mohamad on the other hand is a real historical figure with actual documentation mentioning him when he was alive

Comes to something when the pope disses the nativity! Would his time and effort not be better spent caring for HIS flock and the disgraces that go with that rather than worry how the Immaculate Conception happened.
# Also if your staying at the Inn you telling me I can't get any mutton with my lentel stew? and was the goat milk cheese imported?

He should issue a retraction. Ever the German rationalist. For all these hundreds and hundreds of years we simple people have all been laboring under the delusion that there were animals in a manger. Josef Ratzinger has just enlightened the whole world and all of his predecessors combined.

“I don't know but wishes....if he declare Christ and Christianity its self is a cooked story... ”
# Well, what would be kept in a stable, if not animals? The authors most likely felt they didn't need to mention them.

Reality has little to nothing to do with peoples religious beliefs.They believe whatever they want. As the Scriptures well predicted people in later times will prefer to have their "ears tickled" and go to the religious leaders that tell them what "they want to hear"' not what is the truth! (2Tim 4:3)

#  So explain, dear pontiff, why the holy family was in Bethlehem for a census that never occurred.Trying to claim there are "facts" involved in a story of fiction is like counting the number of fairies dancing on the head of a pin. If faith is based on belief without evidence, why on earth are so many Christians trying so hard to prove their myths are factual?

#  No animals at the birth of Jesus? Just because the Bible does not include everything, does not mean it did not happen.

"In a section of the book entitled "Virgin Birth- Myth or Historical Truth?", he reaffirms that Christ was not conceived through sexual intercourse but by the power of the Holy Spirit." So- if the Vatican had a drop of Jesus' blood and allowed it to be tested (ha!)- and the DNA was analysed and the genome sequenced- what on earth would it show?
Perhaps it's a good job no drop of blood exists...

I am in the process of building the crib for our church. Already the faithful say that the shepherds , the three wise men cannot go into the crib. Jesus can only go in the 25th. Some even question that Mary and Joseph should be in the scene before the 24th.Now the bloody Pope comes and tells us no donkey or cattle.I repaired both last year. Now I will be left with an empty stable and a soddled inn keeper who is never seen.

The whole concept of Christianity is a myth. The Roman Army relied on slave labour to grow its food, make its clothes and armour and provide most of the brute force to for its transport. Carrying a pack on a man's back was the fastest and most efficient means of moving things around.

The slaves were, mainly, prisoners of war taken as the Empire expanded its territories. The massive expansion of the Empire into North Western Europe in the closing years of the Republic resulted in vast numbers of slaves from primitive backgrounds, small fragmented tribes with a multiplicity of languages.

The newly captured slave was suddenly alone, unable to communicate with most of the people around him, cut off from his religious roots and displaced from the rigid social order he had grown up with. Many slaves suffered traumatic stress syndrome and many committed suicide or were killed for failing to accept their new lot.

The Army finally came up with the solution to the problem. The Army provided their slave population with a religion that the slaves could embrace and which would be the sole, exculsive possession of the slave population. The new religion had to be entirely cost free to the participants. No priests. No temples. No sacrifices. No organised "services" of communal worship. No books and no secret rituals.

To keep it simple there would be one "God" who live up above. The "God" had one prophet, who would be a simple man, much as the slave had been before he became a slave.

The revelation of this new religion was centred on Israel because Israel was effectively at the other end of the Empire to the area where the slave problem existed and because the inhabitants of Israel were the only large population in the Empire with a monotheistic religion.

Simple, Christianity is the consequence of a construct of the Roman Army's psychological warfare division to accommodate the unacceptable death rates in the Army's slave population.

What am I going to tell my donkey, that his ancestors weren't at the birth of Jesus? -Its really Cruel.

But there was a talking snake present at the creation of humanity or is the pope disputing that as well?

#  Goodness gracious! A pope making some sense! He appears not to mention Jesus birth being in a cave and no inn being in existence, but maybe when the book is reviewed properly this will be revealed. Hopefully he reads the letter to the Hebrews next and amends the mistakes of his church also.

Interestingly there is no mention of Christians co-opting early pagan festivals never mind asses and cattle. The Census of Quirinius which Mary & Joseph were allegedly attending happened in mid June/July four years after Jesus was reportedly born. Other inaccuracies include it being in the time of King Herod the Great who had died 10 years earlier. The whole story has more holes than a good Swiss cheese.
@ Yet the Director of the British Museum called Luke a first-rate historian. Oh- BTW, did you know there were a number of 'Herod's? And that Quirinius was Governor twice, on two different occasions? No? Well, of course you weren't there to ask the witnesses. Luke was.

#  It might pay people who dismiss the Nativity story as myth to think about "Luke", the name given to the man who gives the most detailed account. Luke was a friend of St Paul, and while Paul was imprisoned he had plenty of time to put together his account of the life of Jesus.What would you do if you were in his position? You would go to the source- Mary. Mary would still be alive. She was a young girl (a "maiden"/"Virgin") when she conceived Jesus. I believe Luke visited Mary and write down her account.
Why? There's a very odd phrase which Luke uses."And Mary stored all these things in her heart".

"The Pope also sounded a note of caution over the popular belief that angels sang to the shepherds to proclaim Christ's birth, as recalled in the Christmas carol "Hark! The herald angels sing, Glory to the new-born King." "
Does the Pope think we're idiots? I think we know the difference between a Christmas carol and the account given in the Gospels.

#  So it's a myth that there were animals in a myth? How does that work? Seems a bit Hit and Myth.

#  This is not new at all, 5 BC is the date most agree on as the the more likely date. It doesn't matter anyway, as theology is not science, something the modern mind has trouble dealing with. Theology is more like poetry or music, it tries to capture what is the inexpressible and put it in a form that can be appreciated by the many. It is why relying solely on a literal reading of the Bible makes for a shrunken understanding of what is being conveyed as the concept of Christianity is tied into an organic process of understanding enabled by what is referred to as the Holy Spirit. I think the closest to compare it to, is how science has moved away from classic mechanics towards quantum mechanics... it is just a more developed and intricate understanding of matter. It does not do away with former but enhances the picture.
@ Are you calling the greatest physicists in history whose proofs you rely on today to give you all the creature comforts of modern man, superstitious and ignorant ?

@ The trouble with religious indoctrination from an early age is that it runs in the background of the most intelligent people.
@ Are you saying that brilliant minds like Blaise Pascal, James Prescott Joule or the many other scientists of the past were just indoctrinated.. I think not.. they were able to see science in its place and still hold onto the mysteries of existence.

25th December was an invention, political, military, proven tactic to suppress conquered nations. The true meaning is now Hijacked by CONsumerism, the drug Retail illness, teach children to be greedy, ungrateful and to clear out old stock. Same as for Halloween, Easter, etc Christmas, no longer has any real meaning for many, lost in a sea of shopping, stock clearances and false hood. Banking bonuses etc.... Yes of course lovely for children as we teach them to become retail drug addicts. But do they learn real value? Ans on a post card to the North Pole.

Xmas comes now every 9 myths, 25th Dec then 9 myths later the shops fill up with decorations to get selling, be first to drug the Consumer to buy. 3 myths of the great sell. But where is Christmas. 'Peace on Earth and Good will to all men (and Women/children)'... lost in buying more chocolate. 359th day of the Georgian calendar.

Yet Xmas event is actually Hijack from Pagan festivals where the new religion was surplanted for control and conversion to the new conqueror, and will of the Pope.

Yule Tide- Yule Log- Sun God (Tammuz, Mithra, Saturn, Adonis or BAAL- to Egyptian god of the sun Ra, Mary echoed in many sculptures as Isis holding Ra the sun god in her arms)

Turning point/ Festival for Celts- end of year/beginning of a new year as per the celestial calendar. Preparation and more:-

In ancient Babylon, the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast.

In Rome, the Winter Solstice was celebrated many years before the birth of Christ. The Romans called their winter holiday Saturnalia, honoring Saturn, the God of Agriculture. Preparation for the coming of sowing when the suns ray return.

If you want to convert the population, surplant one religious festival with year own and force the population to honour the new festival and convert -

Or Else!! No one expects the Spanish Iquisition!!!

@  And let us not forget that despite the fact that Christmas Day (25th) is also a "Quarter Day" when all taxes and debts were supposed to be paid by. We still have Quarter Days now, which is to do with the collection of rents from commercial/retail property, as well as things like VAT returns. Interesting though every thing is closed on Christmas Day.

#  It doesn't matter when He was born. It matters that we live a life worth of Him when he returns. Everyone will see him and confess 'Jesus is Lord'...even the liberals that call evil good and good evil. The day of reckoning will come for everyone.

"Jesus" was not even the name of the Messiah! And if you bothered to do a little research for yourself instead of drinking wholesale all the lies that are spewed from the pulpits, you'd be shocked to find out who you've really been worshiping. "The Lord" translated back into Hebrew is "HA-BAAL"!

  • His name IS Yeshua which means "he will save" (Strong's H3442), according to the angel's precise instructions in Matthew 1:21, and surely NOT "Jesus", which an English version of the Greek version of the pagan Latin alias assigned to him by his murderers, and which means NOTHING in any language.
  • He was born in a SUKKAH ("tabernacle"), and NOT in a "manger" on the first day of the Feast of Sukkot ("Tabernacles"), in fulfillment of prophecies in the Tanakh ("Old Testament"), which was SEPTEMBER 23, 3BC.
  • NO true disciple of Yeshua of Nazareth celebrates birthdays, since it is forbidden by YHVH Elohim ("the LORD God"). The ONLY people who celebrated birthdays in the entire Bible were Herod, Pharaoh, and Lot's sons, who were annihilated for it.
# The theory that Christ's birth date is a holdover from pagan culture is a common myth. It is actually based on accounts from Chapter 1 of Luke's gospel. When Zechariah is serving in the temple on the Day of Atonement- the only day when one can enter the temple- he is told by Gabriel he will have a child. That day is September 25. Nine months after that, John the Baptist is born, on June 25. Luke also tells us that Jesus is six months older than John, hence the birth date of December 25. Now, this does not mean we actually know the date... it could still be off by a few days, but this is the method used to derive the estimate of his birth date.

@ Actually Luke account strongly suggest than Jesus is six months YOUNGER than John. Mary goes to visit Elizabeth right after the Annunciation and Elizabeth seems to be in her third trimester.

@ A closer study of the bible will clearly reveal the exact date of Jesus, as we have proofs and bible references, though, some might or might not believe, but the truth remains the same. Luke chapter 1. vs. 24: “after these days, his wife Elizabeth conceived on the SECOND MONTH of the year, and for FIVE MONTHS she hid herself saying…” 

The above bible passage states that Elizabeth got pregnant (conceived) on the second month of the year, which is FEBUARY. And for five months, she hid the pregnancy; Five months from february is JUNE. vs. 26: “in the SIXTH MONTH, the angel Gabriel was sent from God…” This sixth month stated in the passage is still June, in which is the fifth month Elizabeth hid her pregnancy, but God sent an angel to Mary (vs. 27) and revealed to her of Elizabeth’s hidden pregnancy (vs. 36). The angel also told Mary that she will concieve (vs. 31). After that, Mary went to stay with Elizabeth (vs 39-40) vs 56: “and Mary remained with her about THREE MONTHS, and returned to her home” 

This states clearly that On the ninth month which when Elizabeth should give birth was October (9 months from Febuary is October) vs 59-60 states that John was born & circumsied on the 8th of october. Futhermore bible researchs shows that John the baptist was 3months older than Jesus Christ; (vs. 26: mary returned home because her own pregenacy was due) Luke chapter 2. Now 3months later, Mary gave birth (vs. 1-7). Ceaser Augustus made a decree on the first day of a new year, that everyone should enroll in the first world census. Mary and Joseph travelled to bethlehem few days after the decree, and that day happened to be 8th of January, in which was the same day Jesus was born. (vs. 6,7,21), Surprisingly Jesus was born on the 8th of January. 

#  I wonder when the Pope will discover and announce some other much more important things like:
  1. That Jesus was not born on 25th December, which is a pagan festival.
  2. That His mother (The Virgin Mary) did not rise from the dead.
  3. That He did not die and rise at Easter (the Feast of the Goddess Astarte).
  4. That He did not build His church on Peter, but on Peter's confession that He (Jesus) was the Christ.
  5. That the words that he (the Pope) is 'God almighty here on earth' that are recited at papal coronations are nowhere to be found in the Bible.
But then again, when will Turkeys vote for Christmas?!

#  When Was Jesus Born?
The Bible’s answer: The Bible does not give a specific date for the birth of Jesus Christ, as these reference works show:
“The true birth date of Christ is unknown.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.
“The exact date of Christ’s birth is not known.”—Encyclopedia of Early Christianity.

While the Bible does not directly answer the question, ‘When was Jesus born?’ it does describe two events surrounding his birth that lead many to conclude that he was not born on December 25.

Not in winter:
The registration. Shortly before Jesus was born, Caesar Augustus issued a decree ordering “all the inhabited earth to be registered.” Everyone had to register in “his own city,” which might have required a journey of a week or more. (Luke 2:1-3) That order—probably made to support taxation and military conscription—would have been unpopular at any time of year, but it is unlikely that Augustus would have provoked his subjects further by forcing many of them to make long trips during the cold winter.

The sheep. Shepherds were “living out of doors and keeping watches in the night over their flocks.” (Luke 2:8) The book Daily Life in the Time of Jesus notes that flocks lived in the open air from “the week before the Passover [late March]” through mid-November. It then adds: “They passed the winter under cover; and from this alone it may be seen that the traditional date for Christmas, in the winter, is unlikely to be right, since the Gospel says that the shepherds were in the fields.”

In early fall:
We can estimate when Jesus was born by counting backward from his death on Passover, Nisan 14 in the spring of the year 33 C.E. (John 19:14-16) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his three-and-a-half-year ministry, so he was born in the early fall of 2 B.C.E.—Luke 3:23.

Why is Christmas on December 25?
Since there is no evidence that the birth of Jesus Christ occurred on December 25, why is Christmas celebrated on this date? The Encyclopedia Britannica says that church leaders probably chose it “to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the ‘birthday of the unconquered sun,’” at the time of the winter solstice. According to The Encyclopedia Americana, many scholars believe that this was done “in order to make Christianity more meaningful to pagan converts.”

#  First of all, the earliest writings of the New Testament were done between 35-70 years AFTER the events they describe. The Romans, who kept meticulous records, have none regarding a prophet being tortured or crucified, let alone as described in the bible. In fact, there's no record of Jesus as described in the bible anywhere OUTSIDE of the bible. "Jesus" was as common of a name in Galilee at the time as "Joe" is today, likely indicating an archetype rather than an actual person.

The rest of the New Testament was written piece meal by a large variety of writers working off of the first writings over the next 400 or so years before they were combined with cherry-picked parts from the Torah, turned into the Old and New Testament and codified by the Synod (A precursor to the Catholic Church, if I'm not mistaken) as one holy scripture. All christian holidays were predated by pagan celebrations generally based on the cycles of the northern hemisphere seasons- including "Christmas", which was once the winter solstice (which happened on the 25th in about 400 AD when it was selected as the date of Jesus' birth.

All it took was a bunch of people who didn't like the major religions of the time (Roman Paganism and Judaism) and the eventual fall of Rome (which pretty much ended Roman Paganism) which allowed them to step into the religious power vacuum.
In short, it's all made up.

So basically what we're debating is exactly when Jack from the `Titanic' or Rhett Butler from `Gone with the Wind' were born. Both were works of fiction. So was Jesus.

And this is scientifically supported, by the way, because the figure of Jesus is based on the Christian myth of needing a redeemer to be redeemed from "original sin" so that man could get into heaven when he dies. But evolution proves there was no Adam and no Eve. You can't propagate an entire species from a single man and a single woman, as is asserted by the Garden of Eden myth. Everyone, it asserts, is a descendant of Adam and Eve, and therefore stained with original sin. Evolution (and genetics, by the way) says that never happened. So, since there was no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin to be stained by.  No garden of Eden, no fall from grace, no need to be redeemed, no point to a redeemer to be redeemed from something that never happened and absolutely no reason to believe in a redeemer to go anywhere when we die.

So believers have a choice to continue to pay (and they DO pay) into a bronze-age mythology that does nothing but impose guilt and take away all personal responsibility from them (After all, if no one is beyond redemption, then anyone can do anything and be redeemed in the end- and that's how it works regardless of the rationalizations some have come up with to argue otherwise. By that light, Hitler went to heaven and Samuel Clemens went to hell.), or to face the fact that they've been believing in something that doesn't exist and maybe they should tend to their own spiritual lives and let others tend to theirs.
It would be nice if we finally entered the age of reason and left superstition- and its baggage - behind.

“First of all, the earliest writings of the New Testament were done between 35-70 years AFTER the events they describe."

This is completely inaccurate. Most of the New Testament consists of letters written to specific churches or people that are describing current controversies and events. I can only assume you are referring to the "Gospels" as opposed to the "New Testament", which would make your argument slightly more accurate (but only slightly), other biographies of people of that time (eg Alexander the Great) were not written until over 400 years had passed since their death, so biographies written within a few decades were rather remarkable.

"The Romans, who kept meticulous records, have none regarding a prophet being tortured or crucified, let alone as described in the bible."

If they were such good record keepers, why was no hard evidence found as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judea, until 1961? It would be analogous to us having no records of the Governor of Vermont. People often confuse ancient Romans with Nazi-era Germans in the keeping of records. Much of what we know about people of this era come from writers like Plutarch and Josephus, not from mountains of government documents.

"In fact, there's no record of Jesus as described in the bible anywhere OUTSIDE of the bible. "Jesus" was as common of a name in Galilee at the time as "Joe" is today, likely indicating an archetype rather than an actual person." Except for Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, etc.

"The rest of the New Testament was written piece meal by a large variety of writers working off of the first writings over the next 400 or so years before they were combined with cherry-picked parts from the Torah, turned into the Old and New Testament and codified by the Synod (A precursor to the Catholic Church, if I'm not mistaken) as one holy scripture."

No. There were multiple authors of the New Testament, but hardly a "large variety".The latest written entry into the New Testament was likely completed within 60-70 years of Jesus's death, not 400 years. The Old Testament was not cherry picked but was essentially based on the books of the Septuagint. The Torah is the first five books of the Tanakh, all of which are included in the Old Testament. Also, the New and Old Testament were not codified by a Synod, which was not a precurser to the Catholic Church. If you are Protestant, it was set forth by Martin Luther/another reformer/based on Church tradition.The Catholic Church did not officially stamp out an official canon until the Council of Trent, though a traditional canon went back as far as the 4th century.

"All christian holidays were predated by pagan celebrations generally based on the cycles of the northern hemisphere seasons- including "Christmas", which was once the winter solstice (which happened on the 25th in about 400 AD when it was selected as the date of Jesus' birth." No. Easter was not based on a pagan holiday. It is the primary Christian holiday. The dating of Christmas came later. "

“All it took was a bunch of people who didn't like the major religions of the time (Roman Paganism and Judaism) and the eventual fall of Rome (which pretty much ended Roman Paganism) which allowed them to step into the religious power vacuum."

Are you talking about the 12 Apostles? 11 of whom were martyred? I'm pretty sure Saul of Taursus was fine and dandy with Judaism until the Road to Damascus. Also, you seem to imply Christianity gained a boost when Rome fell, which is inaccurate since it was the official religion of Rome under Theodosius I. The Western Empire stood for another 100 years after this development, the Eastern Empire lasted over another 1000 years.

"And this is scientifically supported, by the way, because the figure of Jesus is based on the Christian myth of needing a redeemer to be redeemed from "original sin" so that man could get into heaven when he dies. But evolution proves there was no Adam and no Eve. You can't propagate an entire species from a single man and a single woman, as is asserted by the Garden of Eden myth. Everyone, it asserts, is a descendant of Adam and Eve, and therefore stained with original sin. Evolution (and genetics, by the way) says that never happened. So, since there was no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin to be stained by. No garden of Eden, no fall from grace, no need to be redeemed, no point to a redeemer to be redeemed from something that never happened and absolutely no reason to believe in a redeemer to go anywhere when we die."

You seem to be dueling with modern day Protestantism that leans to the Fundamentalist bent. People from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas to Protestant Reformers GREAT length... original sin. Whether there were a literal Adam and Eve or they were simply referring to the first beings in which God infused a soul, the discussion of Original Sin is not dependent on whether or not the first soul-infused beings had "Adam" or "Eve" stamped on their birth certificates.

"It would be nice if we finally entered the age of reason and left superstition - and its baggage - behind." Thank goodness the "age of reason" had no 40,000 severed heads rolling down the Champs-Élysées or 2 decades of uninterrupted combat embroiling the majority of Europe or the rise of 20th century totalitarianism.

@  So if God can make a virgin pregnant if He wants to, then what exactly is the problem with condoms?

#  I am a believer, but I have to continuosly ask why God doesn't do the public appearances of miracles and such that are talked about in the Bible. Voices from above, burning bush, images, etc. If only 1 were to happen, many more would believe, and thei souls would be saved from Hell. I think God could do better advertisement, but I know it isn't for me to judge.

#  It is very clear that the pope himself didn't know the truth,!... is the pope reading the bible?..  is the pope obeying the will of god? i don't think so......

#  And when was the tooth fairy born? -As someone smarter than the pope once said -'Man will only be truly free when the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest'.

#  "The historical revisionism continues with the Pope raising the issue of the presence of animals at the birth of Christ. He reveals in Jesus of Nazareth that 'there is no mention of animals in the Gospels.'"
Reveals? A bit of info gleaned from an 1,800 or so year old text is a revelation?  What, no one noticed this before? 
Only revelation here is that TIME writers and editors are losing touch with English language.  Come to think of it, that's no revelation either, is it?

#  The joy of being an atheist is that I can put my mind to things that have no wishful thinking, myth making or pie-in-the-sky stories. Virgin birth? Rising from the dead? Accending into heaven with two prophets accompanying him? Walking on water?  Raising a dead man into life again? 
As my young relative often says "for cripes sake, give me a break."

#  On the virgin thing- what does that actually mean? No human father at all, or simply that Mary was impregnated without penetration? Perhaps Jesus's conception was through what we were warned about in "health class"- you can get pregnant even if a little is deposited close enough on the outside. Miracles aside, a virgin conception could only result in a female since there is no X chromosome contributed.
Yeah, I thought it was a bit suspicious that Jesus' birthday was the same time that Santa Claus was dropping of presents. Way too coincidental. I smell an illuminati/lizard people/freemason consipiracy stirring in my gut. Or that might be the 23 Twinkies I ate for lunch.

Don't tell "birthers" Sheriff Joe "Barney Fife" Arpaio and Donald "Legend in his own mind" Trump about the Pontiff's theory... Or there will be no Christmas until Jesus Christ produces a "Certified Copy" of his birth certificate! While they're at it... these BUFFOONS will also want transcripts of whatever "bible college" Pope Benny attended!

Let us be correct here. I am not a Looney... I do admit to being a Fool For Jesus Christ. That like Paul I can attest to being.

Let us be fully understanding here. God Created the Earth and all that is with on it and with out it. All that you see and do not see are His Creation. What was not created by God was SIN. That was Satan;s contribution. How Proud Satan must have been to have gotten to God... But then How upset Satan was when he got word Jesus had resurected from the dead. Bet his Party went South real fast after that. I discover I seen toi be repklying to myself. Just hit the wrong button.
Have you ever considered that it might have been the devil who waved the magic wand and created "all we can see" and it was god who spoiled the party and invented sin. There is identical evidence for both theories: zilch.

#  The story of Jesus is many thousands of years old repeated almost exactly in numerous religions. Its an allegory- a very valid morality play. The Romans under Emperor Constantine decided to make the latest re-incarnation of it "real" at Nicaea 325 years after the mythical event. The objective was to merge several competing religions in the declining Roman Empire in an attempt to re-assert control.

Then just as now, most people believed any kind of psychobabble that was foisted on them (check out the latest bin laden nonsense- you think its true don't you???)

However, Palestine at the time, was actually very well advanced and literate, with multiple historians documenting what was really going on. Not one of them mentioned this bloke called Jesus performing all these miracles and getting crucified at the time. The first mention didn't come until at least 70 years after he had supposedly been crucified rose from the dead and then ascended into heaven...
At this point you should smell a rat.
They are making this stuff up...

Admittedly, I used to believe all this nonsense too. Even after I rejected the Catholic Religion on moral grounds 45 years ago, I continued to believe that Jesus Christ had actually existed around 2,000 years ago...
Then I read "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold  by Acharya S" and lots of other historical stuff around 10 years ago.
Don't buy it if you still want to go to heaven.
St. Peter will ask at the gates of heaven "What you been reading Laddie??? You can't come in here believing that"

#  : ...back to the musings of bronze-age goat herders... who cares what they believed. It is slightly worrying, however, that there are still people 2000-odd years later that are willing to debate it seriously.

#  Of the trillions of stars in the universe, and the quadrillions of planets that orbit them God in his infinite wisdom decided to visit our insignificant planet.
(Astronomically improbable)
He came in human form and at a point in our history when it was difficult to record this single most important event e.g. before anything such as a camera was invented.
(How inconvenient/convenient)
"and God made Man in his own image" more like "and Man made God in his own image"

Only one in this galaxy? How do you figure that? Our Galaxy, 'The Milky Way' is ~110kly across, and ~1kly thick. If there was a civilization using radio (which we've only had ourselves in the last 100+ years) on the other side of the galaxy, it could take a very long time to get to us (you know what a kly is, right, Kilo Light Year, ie, it takes light about about 110,000 years to travel across our Galaxy. Of course, at such distances, the signal would be weakened, Doppler shifted attenuated by the ISM, and interfered with by the CMBR. Or do you simply not understand the difference between 'Galaxy' and 'Solar System', given you've mentioned two planets in our _Solar System_ but used the word 'Galaxy'? I think we have hit the nail on the head, you know very little about astrophysics,.....

#  Surely this will impact on his astrological sign? Are we dealing with a Virgo or a Pisces here? How on earth or in heaven can we know how to word our prayers if we do not have such vital information?\

The end.
Not Yet Verified.

Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity,
J Stewart, When did our Lord Actually Live?
Davis, John D., A dictionary of the Bible.
Donald A. Hagner, The Word Biblical Commentary.
Manfred Kudlek, Erich H. Mickler, Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East.
W. & R. Chambers, Chambers's Encyclopaedia,
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews,
Encyclopaedia Britannica.
en.wikipedia, Census_of_Quirinius
New Catholic Encyclopedia.
Encyclopedia of Early Christianity.
Henri Daniel-Rops, Daily Life in the Time of Jesus.
Herbert W. Armstrong (Publisher), The Plain Truth,
Dr. Jeff Schweitzer, A War on Reason, Not on Christmas
Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives
Isaac Newton, Of the Times of the Birth and Passion of Christ.
F.W. Farrar, The Life of Christ (1874)
Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy

No comments:

Post a Comment