Christmas
-
Who studied theology here? There seems to be a heated argument going on
-
My answer is always .. "I dunno" .. lol
As in research, I just do a literature review and show you what some experts think.
there r many people who believe in trinity and as such, it is true tat jesus do proclaim he is god by refering to himself as son of god. Unless u r going to tell me no group of christian believe in trinity, then I will eat my words. Frankly individual peopel have very different views from mainstream people. If we cater to all individuals,maybe some mad or attention grabbing then we r losing focusaiya .. this SIS lose liao nothing to say and so he resorted to using the majority vs minority argument. Very convenient huh?
Ha ! Tis argument has always been whether does any church practise masses on christmas eve. U r the one tat bring out a minority group of people into the picture, then u conveniently say tat because of a minority of people who practise christmas mass on other days, u try to ignore the people who really do go for masses on christmas day as well. Your job is to prove to me NO ONE had a masses on christmas eve, NOT a small group of people who do not do so. There r many small group of cults who do obscene and silly things, so u wanna include all their views in as well ?Not necessary for salvation doesn't mean they don't celebrate. My point is just that his real date is not a life and death matter for xtians. Your argument is that his date is not recorded precisely. I feel that precise or not makes no difference to the message of the gospel and of the Christian bible in general.
There r a lot of things tat were not life and death for christians as well. If salvation is the only thing u care for, then the story of jesus, or perhaps more than 50% of the bible can be deleted since they tell of story and nothing of salvation. The bible should simply be a book of laws. However the bible now include many small small details, such as some extraordinary star on the night of his birth yet the date is not recorded or cannto be traced, it just make little senseErm who recorded for these people? Maybe some of these people recorded their own life but Jesus never left any such records for us.
Can't the disciple, who can even quote out whole conversation or events to jesus birth record at least his birth date ?I was asking you how the author knew the date. I'm not questioning whether the date is written at all
There r tons of reference on the website I have givenPontius Pilate was recorded by the Jewish historian Josepheus. You don't doubt Josepheus do you?
No, I was saying he was not important enough at tat time. U can read the second part of your quoted sentence isn't it ?Josepheus wrote his works before AD 300
Christainity only get popular after 300 AD. Only then does people written in it get famous and there r interest in their birth dates etc. Before tat there is none and it is not a surprise for their record to be forgottenwhat's wrong with people from bible? You don't doubt Caesar Augustus do you?
I believe in Caesar but not Adam/eve/noah/job etc. Why not choose secular people instead of a book tat bring much controversies ?They wrong or not we also dunno, unless the date is verified by another author having no connections with the first one. I was trying to say you do not know the reason and process of the date recording.
How do u know the author is not the person himself. U r jumping to another point. If a person older than jesus had his date recorded, why can't his date get recorded ?I can show you other sites which put 'c' or 'ca'. The point is, we are not entirely clear of the dates. How you explain why some sites put circa?
I have already shown u site which do not put down c or ca. U should be the one tat prove the site is wrong, not me to prove to u why other site put c/ca. There is nothing wrong with the sites putting c/ca as technically they r still rightMy challenge to you is how you prove buddhism influences "more people for more years than the bible"?
More years because buddhism starts off early isn't it ? In the past they have influence more people, and in fact the most populous nations isn't it ?The experts do not know by virtue of the fact no one has knowledge of all records. But with the information we have now, we know - Whatever the precise figure, the Bible is by far the bestselling book of all time.
As said before, the writer himself do not know for certain which is the best selling book. If I am not wrong, probably is because they can't have statistic for a large number of literature such as the quran from past till now. Best guess is not absolute.
If you are not willing to accept this "best guess", it is fine with me. -
Marcus Borg (Ph.D., Oxford University, Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture) is one of the leading historical Jesus scholar and distinguished member of the Jesus Seminar. He knows what he is talking about, certainly not another Dan Brown or von Daniken.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If we cater to all individuals,maybe some mad or attention grabbing then we r losing focus
Why? You have problem with that? Or you want to mount an apologetic for the Christian faith?
Ha ! Tis argument has always been whether does any church practise masses on christmas eve. U r the one tat bring out a minority group of people into the picture, then u conveniently say tat because of a minority of people who practise christmas mass on other days, u try to ignore the people who really do go for masses on christmas day as well. Your job is to prove to me NO ONE had a masses on christmas eve, NOT a small group of people who do not do so.
You don't xiao ding dong la, friend. When did the argument become whether any church practise masses on christmas eve?
My argument has been, in the quote below, bold is from SIS:There r tons of people in tis world who say tat christmas is important
They mean the significance (commercial, religious etc.) and not the actual date. This is why Armenian Orthodox Christians observe the holiday on 6th January while other Orthodox churches, and at least one eastern Catholic church, mark Christmas on 7th January.However the bible now include many small small details, such as some extraordinary star on the night of his birth yet the date is not recorded or cannto be traced, it just make little sense
The bible is not a historical book, though Acts can be considered a historical narrative and parts of OT are chronological in nature? The bible was written to tell people the beginning, fall, redemption, salvation and endtimes. The gospels are "good news", to proclaim Jesus Christ to the world, hence details like the extraordinary star have higher significance than your precise date.Can't the disciple, who can even quote out whole conversation or events to jesus birth record at least his birth date ?
Birth date harder mah. Maybe the parents forgot liao? Or the gospel authors neve r bother to find out exactly whenThere r tons of reference on the website I have given
I'm not interested in how many references contain the date. I want to know, for example the date is found in a book by blah blah, how blah blah knew the date.Christainity only get popular after 300 AD. Only then does people written in it get famous and there r interest in their birth dates etc. Before tat there is none and it is not a surprise for their record to be forgotten
omg .. your reply in bold above .. doesn't it answer your own question? Maybe that is why Jesus' birthday was forgotten?
I have already shown u site which do not put down c or ca. U should be the one tat prove the site is wrong, not me to prove to u why other site put c/ca. There is nothing wrong with the sites putting c/ca as technically they r still right
Those sites are not wrong, just that their authors have more confidence on the date. It is like the best guess, but as SIS admitted himself, "best guess is not absolute".
c/ca basically means they are not sure, there are still doubts. Why the fark will we want to put, for example SIS to be born circa 19XX when it is so clear from his birth cert?In the past they have influence more people, and in fact the most populous nations isn't it ?
Even in china, there are many taoists also, do you count these people in? And I don't think the whole of India was influenced by buddhism for a long time. So your populous nations assumption cannot show more people are influenced. On the other hand, church life is integral to life in Europe before the Enlightenment. There may be Jews and Muslims, but not in large numbers other than in Muslim nations for the latter. But India and China? We find hindus and taoists as major religions also. In no book will you find buddhist life an integral part of life in China. -
By the way, christianity is the religion with the largest number of followers - http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
-
This discussion is utterly unedifying.
Please cease... -
-
Agree, I only started with a simple question and it degenerated into a pseudo flame warOriginally posted by M©+square:This discussion is utterly unedifying.
Please cease... -
Marcus Borg (Ph.D., Oxford University, Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture) is one of the leading historical Jesus scholar and distinguished member of the Jesus Seminar. He knows what he is talking about, certainly not another Dan Brown or von Daniken.
Yes, I have a problemwith tat because he is only ONE SINGLE individual. All along I have asked is the GENERAL perception of CHRISTIANS. They believe in the idea of the trinity, tat the son, father and holy spirit r one and is god. IS this marcus the only christian in the world ? Why talk about wat tis guy think and ttoally ignore wat christian thinks ? Is his opinion more important then the view of most of the churches and christians ?
Why? You have problem with that? Or you want to mount an apologetic for the Christian faithYou don't xiao ding dong la, friend. When did the argument become whether any church practise masses on christmas eve?
U fail to read the next reply on my post isn't it ?
My argument has been, in the quote below, bold is from SIS:tat is strange, his birth date is one of the most celebrated day yet u r telling me it is not important ? Doesn't a lot of churches hold special mass on tat day ?
Isn't tat already an answer to my poitn above ? Does a lot of people celebrate tis festival throughout the world ? DOes most churches perform specialmasses on att day ? If your answer is a yes to the 2 questions above, then my point tat it is a very important festival to tons of people is right ! U go out of point by talking about a small group of people then u blame me for going out of point ? ISn't tat wat u always do, answer back an answer tat is irrelevant to the topic at at hand by refering to the view of a small group or individual ? When their view is blown off, u become the person pointing fingers at tis group or individual u bring up and says it is not your stand as well. Wat a despicable way of debatingThe bible is not a historical book, though Acts can be considered a historical narrative and parts of OT are chronological in nature? The bible was written to tell people the beginning, fall, redemption, salvation and endtimes. The gospels are "good news", to proclaim Jesus Christ to the world, hence details like the extraordinary star have higher significance than your precise date.
Isn't your first sentence and your second contradict each other? ISn't acts part of the bible ? They talk about jesus and his story, isn't tat something like history as well ? They can recod minute details on hsi life yet they can't remeber the date he was borned ? Isn't tat strange ? Who r u to say tat his birth date r less important than perhaps many many small detailed action he performed and recorded in the bible ?Birth date harder mah. Maybe the parents forgot liao? Or the gospel authors neve r bother to find out exactly when
Tat is ridiculous, u mean it is harder to remember a date than the whole speech he given on a mountian ? Parents forget ? Maybe your parents forget your birthday. There r also tons of christian scholars tat research on his birth date and find nothing. WHo say about can't be bothered ?I'm not interested in how many references contain the date. I want to know, for example the date is found in a book by blah blah, how blah blah knew the date.
If u think I am so free, then u r wrong. I thought u r the one tat ask people to do their research if they r interested ? If u want to know, go search the reference yourself. I have already done my part showing u the reference and the wbsite to itomg .. your reply in bold above .. doesn't it answer your own question? Maybe that is why Jesus' birthday was forgotten?
OMG, is pontious pilate god ? Is he so important tat he is the focus of the whole NT ? U r comparing peanuts to god ! Even minute details about jesus r remembered, why forget about the date of his birth ?Those sites are not wrong, just that their authors have more confidence on the date. It is like the best guess, but as SIS admitted himself, "best guess is not absolute".
I have given u a website tat give of absolute figure for the birth date. Why ignore tat website ? WHy keep talking about other website when u should be focusing on the website where the date was clearly written without c/ca ? Wat is the fark wrong with u ? U lost your memory and forget tat there is a website with a proper absolute figure of the birthdate written ?
c/ca basically means they are not sure, there are still doubts. Why the fark will we want to put, for example SIS to be born circa 19XX when it is so clear from his birth cert?
If u read back my posts, from tis onwards
Even in china, there are many taoists also, do you count these people in? And I don't think the whole of India was influenced by buddhism for a long time. So your populous nations assumption cannot show more people are influenced. On the other hand, church life is integral to life in Europe before the Enlightenment. There may be Jews and Muslims, but not in large numbers other than in Muslim nations for the latter. But India and China? We find hindus and taoists as major religions also. In no book will you find buddhist life an integral part of life in China.
If u r talking about influence, in the past buddhism has a higher population than christainity.
Anyway both started at different times so in the past it is really true buddhist is more influencial, logically more since Christ is not born yet
I have already told u tat buddhism do have more people believing and more influential than christianity. Can u tell me tat at no time does buddhism have more people than christanity ? Your website shows the population now, I am talking about the past. WHy talk about different things altogther again ?
Never mind, tis has becoem a flaming war of some sort, and I do not want to waste my time discussing incredible stupid things like the opinion of marcus which according to someone outweighs the collective opinion of the church and christian. If u wanna continue fine. I am leaving tis thread unless otherwise forced to return -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Never mind, tis has becoem a flaming war of some sort, and I do not want to waste my time discussing incredible stupid things like the opinion of marcus which according to someone outweighs the collective opinion of the church and christian. If u wanna continue fine. I am leaving tis thread unless otherwise forced to return
My efforts has finally paid off. SIS is beating a retreat.
But I'm not giving up yet .. hehe .. I still have so many things to say and references to quote, to rebuke him.
But wtf .. EH rating is still so low?
-
My efforts has finally paid off. SIS is beating a retreat.
Wau lau man, I said your quoted statement simly because there r already people who r sick of this discussion. But since u r so "sporting" and "eager" to challenge, look like I am here to stay for "discussion" till the very end.
But I'm not giving up yet .. hehe .. I still have so many things to say and references to quote, to rebuke him.
But wtf .. EH rating is still so low? -
Let's work to raise EH rating then. -
But not at the expense of arguing for the sake of winning the debate?
-
Let's work to raise EH rating then.
How ? Maybe the best and only way is I not to come over -
Based on the accounts in the gospels of the shepherds' activities, the time of year depicted for Jesus' birth could be spring or summer. However, as early as 354, Roman Christians celebrated it following the December solstice in an attempt to replace the Roman pagan festival of Saturnalia. Before then, Jesus' birth was generally celebrated on January 6 as part of the feast of Theophany, also known as Epiphany, which commemorated not only Jesus' birth but also his baptism by John in the Jordan and possibly additional events in Jesus' life.
-
Brief timeline of Jesus
of important years from empirical sources.
c. 6 BC/BCE Suggested birth (earliest).
c. 4 BC/BCE Herod's death.
c. AD 6/6 CE Suggested birth (latest).
Quirinius census.
c. 26/27 Pilate appointed Judea governor.
c. 27 Suggested death (earliest).
c. 36 Suggested death (latest).
c. 36/37 Pilate removed from office. -
So how did the BC/AD year reference system come about?Originally posted by Honeybunz:Brief timeline of Jesus
of important years from empirical sources.
c. 6 BC/BCE Suggested birth (earliest).
c. 4 BC/BCE Herod's death.
c. AD 6/6 CE Suggested birth (latest).
Quirinius census.
c. 26/27 Pilate appointed Judea governor.
c. 27 Suggested death (earliest).
c. 36 Suggested death (latest).
c. 36/37 Pilate removed from office. -
I tried reading up to find an answer. All the answers are so long. It seems that the world history went thru a lot before deciding on the BC and AD thingy.Originally posted by F Takumi:So how did the BC/AD year reference system come about?
Let me see how I can summarise in very simple language, so that all can understand. In the meantime, anybody can help? -
Paiseh... dun really know how to summarise and not miss out any explanation...Originally posted by F Takumi:So how did the BC/AD year reference system come about?
Here you go...
Most humans use some chronology other than that known as the Christian or Common Era. As for B.C. and A.D., they are passé, and we now use B.C.E. for "Before Common Era" and C.E. for "Common Era." B.P., meaning "Before Present," is becoming popular in scientific writings; thus, one might read of a campsite which came into use approximately 13,500 B.P. (which would translate to 11,500 B.C.E.).
The Julian Calendar came with Julius Caesar in 45 B.C.E. Upon the advice of the Greek astronomer Sosigenes, Julius adopted a purely solar calendar. The Julian calendar fixed the normal year at 365 days and, with the naming of July after Julius and August after his successor Augustus, established the order of the months and the days of the week as we know them today.
Unfortunately, the Julian year was eleven minutes and fourteen seconds longer than a solar year. By 1582 the vernal equinox occurred ten days early, so Pope Gregory XIII dropped ten days from the calendar. He instituted the Gregorian calendar, which provided that any century year divisible by 400 should be a leap year, but all other century years should be regular or non-leap years.
The Gregorian Calendar was anything but widely accepted, and many European cultures still the old Greek calendar. The Protestants shunned the Gregorian calendar for a long time. Greece, for example, adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1923 for civil purposes, but it still has not gained widespread acceptance in countries dominated by members of the Greek Orthodox Church. This is particularly visible when it comes to festival days such as Christmas and Easter. Britain adopted it in 1752 (shortly before the American Revolution) and the Soviet Union adopted it in 1918. Of course, Hebrews, Muslims and Chinese all use their own calendars, so this is the year 2001 for only a relatively small fraction of the world.
The Christian era, now almost exclusive throughout the Western world for civil chronology, was established in 525 by the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus. He fixed the birth of Christ in the 753th year of Rome, and started counting over again, retroactively from that year. Those who suggest that his chronology is off by a few years are using the Christian Gospel accounts to get their information. Since the various Gospels contradict one another (as well as secular history), it's not surprising that by 1910, almost a dozen different years had been proposed for the year of Christ's birth! Certainly that number has grown since then. -
It doesn't seem to dawn on most people that just because the Gospel accounts are the only sources for the Christ story doesn't make them trustworthy: people will derive their understanding of truth from them nonetheless. Besides, many of our philosophical predecessors were marched off to a blazing death for even questioning the validity of the Christian claims. So, you won't find many people before the Enlightenment who were willing to dispute what the Christian Churches have asserted over the centuries. And even though today disputing the Christian Church seems to be a relatively safe activity, most people are still a bit jittery about doing so -- and for good reason.
The Christian Era chronology was fixed in Roman Catholic Europe and the English-speaking world long before any scholarship began to questions the historicity of Jesus. (As I mentioned above, the life-expectancy of any such scholars stopped being an issue only with the advent of the modern world's first openly secular nation, The United States of America.) Even atheism was not intellectually tenable until Charles Darwin answered the Argument from Design in 1859, so most people simple went along with what had been established because it was convenient and because the Gregorian Calendar works down to a few seconds every decade (which are adjusted out in nuclear clocks every so often by a world council appointed by the nations who use this system to keep track of such matters). But the historicity of Jesus stopped being an issue when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. The question of Christ's historicity did not resurface until after the Age of Enlightenment, when Strauss and Renan started to question the validity of the Gospel Accounts.
Even a hundred years ago, only very obscure scholars openly denied the historicity of Christ. One's tenure at a Church-owned university (or the state university of a Christian nation such as Germany or England) was always a concern, so even if a scholar personally doubted the historicity of Jesus, his writings did not reflect this in a way that encouraged open discussion; rather, facts were detailed without the accompanying conclusions spelled out. Arthur Drews, one of the earlier proponents of the Jesus Myth model, used arguments that are not popular amongst the Jesus Myth proponents of today.
Besides this, the Jesus Myth model itself is, by nature, not a "strong" argument but a "weak" argument. By this I mean that it does not assert that no historical Jesus existed, but rather shows that there is not enough evidence to show that a historical figure named Jesus did exist, whose life story eventually became embellished to become the Gospel story we all know. That is, the Gospel stories can be explained without there having been a historical figure behind them. The rules of logic show that it is impossible to disprove an existential claim (a claim that a thing exists). So, most Jesus Myth proponents of today will admit that they cannot prove that Jesus did not exist (and, indeed, do not make this claim, at least using that language).
In light of this, I don't foresee any drastic changes even being proposed on the basis of there never having been a Jesus, simply because nobody is claiming that no Jesus ever existed. We do recognize that Jesus is widely seen as the founder-figure of the religion which dominated Europe for sixteen centuries (up until after the First World War), and which has come to dominate the United States since the onset of the Cold War (though it was not the major player before then that Christians make it out to have been). So, even if Jesus is not who they say he is, he is still widely seen as an influential figure in Western culture, and this alone would probably prevail in any discussion regarding any changes that may be proposed.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8701.htm