Roger Pearse wrote:That's probably an overstatement. But the thrust of the data points to that period.
I wonder what Eusebius has in his chronicle for this...?
If this is what you think, I wonder if you've ever really looked into it?
Example:
"It has taken these 46 years to build this temple and YOU can do it in three days?"
Temple construction began Nisan 19 BC
19 + 27 = 46 years
This statement was made in 27 AD, at a time Luke says Jesus was "about 30 years of age". Voila! Simple math and you get a clue for Jesus' date of birth.
(You can also date the time this statement was made with a margin of error of only a few days early in April 27 AD, and for that matter the beginning of Jesus' ministry.)
Eusebius gives 2016 AA, which seems to be about 1 BC in our reckoning, in the 194th Olympiad, for the birth of Christ; and dies in year 18 of Tiberius, AA 2047, about 31 AD I think.
Roger Pearse wrote:Eusebius gives 2016 AA, which seems to be about 1 BC in our reckoning, in the 194th Olympiad, for the birth of Christ; and dies in year 18 of Tiberius, AA 2047, about 31 AD I think.
I don't take Eusebius to be a valid source for many reasons:
1--He was born 300 years after Jesus and can do nothing more than rely on other sources (like the ones I'm using)
2--He was at least a mild anti-Semite, and the only time this can be overlooked is when he's quoting someone else (I don't trust bias of any kind)
3--His information was incomplete and sources available to him in the 300's were already dwindling
4--He relied on a faulty calendar (corrected 1200 years later by Pope Gregory)
5--He wasn't Jewish and didn't appear to understand Jewish points of view (I certainly can't trust him to understand Jewish sources)
Roger Pearse wrote:Eusebius gives 2016 AA, which seems to be about 1 BC in our reckoning, in the 194th Olympiad, for the birth of Christ; and dies in year 18 of Tiberius, AA 2047, about 31 AD I think.
I don't take Eusebius to be a valid source for many reasons:
1--He was born 300 years after Jesus and can do nothing more than rely on other sources (like the ones I'm using)
2--He was at least a mild anti-Semite, and the only time this can be overlooked is when he's quoting someone else (I don't trust bias of any kind)
3--His information was incomplete and sources available to him in the 300's were already dwindling
4--He relied on a faulty calendar (corrected 1200 years later by Pope Gregory)
5--He wasn't Jewish and didn't appear to understand Jewish points of view (I certainly can't trust him to understand Jewish sources)
You do realize that it is literally impossible to write a history without bias. Even the determination of what events to include in the history involves certain biases. If you don't trust bias of any kind, you don't trust what you write and say, and you don't trust any history whatsoever. That's a pretty big statement.
Andrew wrote:You do realize that it is literally impossible to write a history without bias. Even the determination of what events to include in the history involves certain biases. If you don't trust bias of any kind, you don't trust what you write and say, and you don't trust any history whatsoever. That's a pretty big statement.
I think what you mean is that it's impossible for you to write without bias.
You don't speak for me, nor do you set my limits. I write without bias on a regular basis, and I consciously deny my own. It's called wanting the facts.
Last edited by Mental flatliner on Tue May 13, 2014 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mental flatliner wrote:There are more than 2 dozen datable events and clues in the four gospels, and all of them agree that Jesus was born in 4 BC and died in 30 AD. The reason why we "go with it" is because none of them point to another date.
You just love to make stuff up, don't you? Luke dates Jesus' baptism to either 27 or 29 CE (depending on where he places Tiberius' regnal dates). He doesn't date the crucifixion itself. None of the Gospels do. None of them date Jesus' birth to 4 BCE either. Matthew dates it to the reign of Herod and implies that Jesus was born at least a couple of years before Herod died, but he doesn't actually say how many years. Luke unequivocally dates the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirenius in 6-7 CE (which contradicts his assertion that Jesus was "about 30 years old" in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, but it's not the only time that Luke contradicts himself. He needed a better editor to catch those things.
Mental flatliner wrote:There are more than 2 dozen datable events and clues in the four gospels, and all of them agree that Jesus was born in 4 BC and died in 30 AD. The reason why we "go with it" is because none of them point to another date.
You just love to make stuff up, don't you? Luke dates Jesus' baptism to either 27 or 29 CE (depending on where he places Tiberius' regnal dates). He doesn't date the crucifixion itself. None of the Gospels do. None of them date Jesus' birth to 4 BCE either. Matthew dates it to the reign of Herod and implies that Jesus was born at least a couple of years before Herod died, but he doesn't actually say how many years. Luke unequivocally dates the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirenius in 6-7 CE (which contradicts his assertion that Jesus was "about 30 years old" in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, but it's not the only time that Luke contradicts himself. He needed a better editor to catch those things.
The reason why you didn't ask me to back up my assertion is because you're afraid of the answer.
I don't have time for ankle-biters. When you want a serious response, let me know.
Andrew wrote:You do realize that it is literally impossible to write a history without bias. Even the determination of what events to include in the history involves certain biases. If you don't trust bias of any kind, you don't trust what you write and say, and you don't trust any history whatsoever. That's a pretty big statement.
I think what you mean is that it's impossible for you to write without bias.
You don't speak for me, nor do you set my limits. I write without bias on a regular basis, and I consciously deny my own. It's called wanting the facts.
No, it is almost literally impossible to write anything without bias. That goes for everyone. You can be biased in favour of the truth, or of specific aspect of the truth, or what you want to be the truth. Even in your above-quoted post, you show bias towards yourself, declaring yourself unbiased, which no one can do on their own, for fear of being biased in their favour. You also display bias against me, declaring that it's impossible for me to write without bias, but you are capable of it yourself. Try thinking it through. A lack of bias is impossible. Bias is part of what makes us human.
Mental flatliner wrote:There are more than 2 dozen datable events and clues in the four gospels, and all of them agree that Jesus was born in 4 BC and died in 30 AD. The reason why we "go with it" is because none of them point to another date.
You just love to make stuff up, don't you? Luke dates Jesus' baptism to either 27 or 29 CE (depending on where he places Tiberius' regnal dates). He doesn't date the crucifixion itself. None of the Gospels do. None of them date Jesus' birth to 4 BCE either. Matthew dates it to the reign of Herod and implies that Jesus was born at least a couple of years before Herod died, but he doesn't actually say how many years. Luke unequivocally dates the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirenius in 6-7 CE (which contradicts his assertion that Jesus was "about 30 years old" in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, but it's not the only time that Luke contradicts himself. He needed a better editor to catch those things.
The reason why you didn't ask me to back up my assertion is because you're afraid of the answer.
I don't have time for ankle-biters. When you want a serious response, let me know.
I already gave you the information that you lacked and I didn't have to ask you to support your assertions because I already know you can't. I know this material well. I gave you the only dates in the Gospels that come close to locating Jesus' birth or crucifixion. I already know you can't produce any more of them, so why should I ask?
Andrew wrote:You do realize that it is literally impossible to write a history without bias. Even the determination of what events to include in the history involves certain biases. If you don't trust bias of any kind, you don't trust what you write and say, and you don't trust any history whatsoever. That's a pretty big statement.
I think what you mean is that it's impossible for you to write without bias.
You don't speak for me, nor do you set my limits. I write without bias on a regular basis, and I consciously deny my own. It's called wanting the facts.
No, it is almost literally impossible to write anything without bias. That goes for everyone. You can be biased in favour of the truth, or of specific aspect of the truth, or what you want to be the truth. Even in your above-quoted post, you show bias towards yourself, declaring yourself unbiased, which no one can do on their own, for fear of being biased in their favour. You also display bias against me, declaring that it's impossible for me to write without bias, but you are capable of it yourself. Try thinking it through. A lack of bias is impossible. Bias is part of what makes us human.
I'm convinced that, in your world, you're absolutely right.
Obviously I know something you don't.
(Your first clue should have been the general nature of your claim. They never work out to be true, not the absolutist ones.)