How come?

[taiko]

I swear three times a week I have to ask someone at work what the date is. I imagine if I lived in that era and didn't have constant access to a computer, iPhone or a coworker then I may lose all track of what exact date my kid was born.

There are people alive today who don't know the exact date of their birth. Their governments just arbitarily assign a date later if it is needed for official forms.

[Robert Z]

While some think "this is the stupidest question ever," and others make cute excuses why it isn't documented... I say when the wise men came to worship THE SON OF GOD one would think this would have been carefully documented. The bible documents all sorts of stuff except the birth date of gods son on Earth. That just doesn't happen every day... god having a son.

 

I didn't say it was a stupid question. My pun about Mary and Joseph addresses the idea that the average person may not have typically known the date back then. The rest of the suggested answers were completely serious. It may be something historians can estimate but there is no reason to believe that people kept track of these things back then. When did average people first start celebrating their birthday? I don't know, do you?

[M30USA]

While some think "this is the stupidest question ever," and others make cute excuses why it isn't documented... I say when the wise men came to worship THE SON OF GOD one would think this would have been carefully documented. The bible documents all sorts of stuff except the birth date of gods son on Earth. That just doesn't happen every day... god having a son.

 

YellowShark,

 

Use your brain! When Jesus was living, we did not even use the same calendar/year system that we do now! Don't you understand? It would be like, if two hundred years from now we created an entirely new calendar/year system, someone comes along and says, "In what year did YellowShark make his posts on LoveShack?" The question is impossible. In this case all you can do is make reference to contemporary events--which is exactly what the accounts in the Bible have done.

[YellowShark]

There are people alive today who don't know the exact date of their birth. Their governments just arbitarily assign a date later if it is needed for official forms.

 

You are drawing a parallel between "some people" and "the son of GOD." You would think the birth date of the son of god would be carefully documented.

 

From here.

I have seen this date given in other sources of information, and from what I read, it's relatively spot-on....

 

Interesting read. But I really think Jesus was born in Sept. In Luke 2 Joseph and Mary "hopped the train" to Bethlehem. She "laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." The best reason I have read is it was "the Feast of Tabernacles," so the inn was already full of pilgrims who had come to celebrate Sukkot. Sukkot is in late fall, which ties into the late-fall harvest. But who really knows.. somebody forgot to write it down.

 

YellowShark,

 

Use your brain! When Jesus was living, we did not even use the same calendar/year system that we do now! Don't you understand? It would be like, if two hundred years from now we created an entirely new calendar/year system, someone comes along and says, "In what year did YellowShark make his posts on LoveShack?" The question is impossible. In this case all you can do is make reference to contemporary events--which is exactly what the accounts in the Bible have done.

 

Don't play the old calendar shell game with me. There were highly advanced calendars in use when Jesus was born. The Julian calendar based on a 12-month system (introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 BC) and the Hebrew calendar, also 12-month-based - (which is currently at year 5772.) After all you can't tell me Noah was 900 years old (and you do) and then tell me people were just too "confused" to also jot down the birthdate of Christ.

 

The bible is FULL of ages, dates, lineages... it even says the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. So how was all that calculated then if there was no way to keep track of time? And why is the most important date of all missing? You had Jesus being born, wise men, angels coming to Earth, shepherds "making it known abroad," Simeon blessing Jesus, Anna who prophesied about Jesus... Man o'man.. Jesus was a Superstar! But somehow all these people forgot to jot down the day angels appeared on Earth and the son of god was born.

[TheFinalWord]

While some think "this is the stupidest question ever," and others make cute excuses why it isn't documented... I say when the wise men came to worship THE SON OF GOD one would think this would have been carefully documented. The bible documents all sorts of stuff except the birth date of gods son on Earth. That just doesn't happen every day... god having a son.

 

Another potential explanation: God did not want us focusing on "days" but instead on the message. Man has a habit of making idols out of everything.

[M30USA]

You are drawing a parallel between "some people" and "the son of GOD." You would think the birth date of the son of god would be carefully documented.

 

 

 

Interesting read. But I really think Jesus was born in Sept. In Luke 2 Joseph and Mary "hopped the train" to Bethlehem. She "laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." The best reason I have read is it was "the Feast of Tabernacles," so the inn was already full of pilgrims who had come to celebrate Sukkot. Sukkot is in late fall, which ties into the late-fall harvest. But who really knows.. somebody forgot to write it down.

 

 

 

Don't play the old calendar shell game with me. There were highly advanced calendars in use when Jesus was born. The Julian calendar based on a 12-month system (introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 BC) and the Hebrew calendar, also 12-month-based - (which is currently at year 5772.) After all you can't tell me Noah was 900 years old (and you do) and then tell me people were just too "confused" to also jot down the birthdate of Christ.

 

The bible is FULL of ages, dates, lineages... it even says the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. So how was all that calculated then if there was no way to keep track of time? And why is the most important date of all missing? You had Jesus being born, wise men, angels coming to Earth, shepherds "making it known abroad," Simeon blessing Jesus, Anna who prophesied about Jesus... Man o'man.. Jesus was a Superstar! But somehow all these people forgot to jot down the day angels appeared on Earth and the son of god was born.

 

I'm not playing games with you. The Gospels list countless events that were occuring at the time of Jesus' birth. It listed who was in power on both a national and local level, who ordered his cruxifiction, information regarding the census...it goes on...

[taiko]

You are drawing a parallel between "some people" and "the son of GOD." You would think the birth date of the son of god would be carefully documented.

!nd if I told you to carefully document this child life because he is God would you? No becaue you did not believe it. The people keeping the records did not believe so why would they be so careful that they keep records of a child whose mother was with child before marriage? Son of God who was said to walk on Earth as part of the "some people" and not of the ruling caste.

[TaraMaiden]

Yeah, I have to say, really, those arguing for the fact that the Bible wouldn't have a specific date, and reasons given are absolutely right.

 

Hell, there are people I know, today, who have no clear record of their own birth... I know two elderly Thai monks, in a monastery here, who have no idea of when their birth-days were, because no such registration was necessary at the time they were born...

[YellowShark]

OK. I give up. I guess it just wasn't important enough to take the time to jot down the day the son of god was born to a virgin human. They recorded guys living in fish, talking snakes, Adam and Eve, 900-year-old men, epic world-wide floods.... but the birth date of god's son on Earth was just somehow missed. (Enter your rationalization for that here.)

 

Consider the thread closed.

[TaraMaiden]

It's all to do with current mind-set against ancient record-keeping....

 

His birth may have been recorded in the Census, but nobody put 'son of god' next to his name... and it may have just been '1 son'.

 

The Gregorian calendar threw previous timings out of synch.

 

And we got Christmas now, because they had saturnalia then....

 

It's really no big deal....

 

Oh and, just to clear another time-factored issue - "40 days and 40 nights" generally meant - "Quite a while".

Could have been more, could have been less....

[YellowShark]

It's all to do with current mind-set against ancient record-keeping....

 

His birth may have been recorded in the Census, but nobody put 'son of god' next to his name... and it may have just been '1 son'.

 

The Gregorian calendar threw previous timings out of synch.

 

And we got Christmas now, because they had saturnalia then....

 

It's really no big deal....

 

Oh and, just to clear another time-factored issue - "40 days and 40 nights" generally meant - "Quite a while".

Could have been more, could have been less....

 

 

Actually it's a really big deal. It's a big deal that we cannot validate even the simplest facts about his birth. Like the day he was born. Seems really odd that the second most important figure in Christianity lives on under a shroud of mystery. The entire religion is built around this one guy after all. In Leviticus 23 god even gives Moses SPECIFIC dates to celebrate "the appointed festivals of the Lord.." But somehow forgot to tell everyone what day to celebrate his son's birth.

 

Seems really weird that out-of-the-blue a virgin had a baby, all these people came to worship this baby in Bethlehem and nobody remembered to jot down what day that was. It also seems really weird that Luke and Mathew contradict each other as to when the birth occurred. It also seems pretty odd that local historians of the first century didn't write about him and that the story was only picked up and ran with decades and centuries after his death.

 

My feeling is no one who ever wrote about Jesus ever really met him.

[YellowShark]

I feel your pain.

 

Funny. But it's not pain. It's curiosity. If the bible is gospel and people are supposed to adhere to it why does it omit important facts? Why do Christians celebrate Jesus based upon traditional Pagan dates? It's just all so messy that I cannot fathom believing so strongly in something that was "recorded" with such ineptitude. I guess I will go to hell because I shouldn't even ask such things.

[TheFinalWord]

Funny. But it's not pain. It's curiosity. If the bible is gospel and people are supposed to adhere to it why does it omit important facts? Why do Christians celebrate Jesus based upon traditional Pagan dates? It's just all so messy that I cannot fathom believing so strongly in something that was "recorded" with such ineptitude. I guess I will go to hell because I shouldn't even ask such things.

 

Do any of your prophets say anything about "days" being detested by God, and if so, why??

 

Hint: http://www.hilltopbaptistnewport.net/King%20James%20Bible%20Audio/Isaiah%2001.mp3

[YellowShark]

People should always ask questions. Yet, people have offered you reasons as to why there is no recorded date for Jesus's birth, and you ignore every single one of them.

 

Because none of them make sense. God did all these amazing things, even created the Universe and all life. But forgot to tell mankind what day to celebrate his son's birthday. Odd that.

 

Do any of your prophets say anything about "days" being detested by God, and if so, why??

 

Hint: http://www.hilltopbaptistnewport.net/King%20James%20Bible%20Audio/Isaiah%2001.mp3

 

I don't have any prophets. And I like it that way. And my universe doesn't need supernatural beings like God, the Devil, Angels, or Demons to run smoothly. I like it that way too.. why? Because I feel faith is belief in spite of evidence.

Edited August 25, 2012 by YellowShark

[TheFinalWord]

I don't have any prophets. And I like it that way. And my universe doesn't need supernatural beings like God, the Devil, Angels, or Demons to run smoothly. I like it that way too.. why? Because I feel faith is belief in spite of evidence.

 

No problem. I was trying to help you see that perhaps there was a spiritual reason.

 

“The multitude of your sacrifices—

what are they to me?” says the Lord.

“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,

of rams and the fat of fattened animals;

I have no pleasure

in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

When you come to appear before me,

who has asked this of you,

this trampling of my courts?

Stop bringing meaningless offerings!

Your incense is detestable to me.

New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations —

I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.

Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals

I hate with all my being.

They have become a burden to me;

I am weary of bearing them.

When you spread out your hands in prayer,

I hide my eyes from you;

even when you offer many prayers,

I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood!

[YellowShark]

No problem. I was trying to help you see that perhaps there was a spiritual reason.

 

I appreciate the sentiment, and I will never tell *you* what to believe. The presumption that it's a virtue to be satisfied with not questioning or understanding just doesn't sit well with me. That is why I need to evaluate evidence rather than just throw my hands up in the air and go "It's god's will."

 

I've always loved this quote... I think it comes from Carl Sagan..

 

"Science is a Candle in the Dark.."

[TheFinalWord]

I appreciate the sentiment, and I will never tell *you* what to believe. The presumption that it's a virtue to be satisfied with not questioning or understanding just doesn't sit well with me. That is why I need to evaluate evidence rather than just throw my hands up in the air and go "It's god's will."

 

I've always loved this quote... I think it comes from Carl Sagan..

 

Yeah, I was like that for many years myself. Keep asking the hard questions my friend. BTW Carl Sagan and the fourth dimension is a classic (if you're a nerd like me that is)

 

[M30USA]

When he was born maybe not, but after he started performing all of these miracles then everything about him would have been documented. And it was. Except that, and that is what YS is saying. You are right that it wouldnt be important when he was born, but unless Mary and Joseph, and God forgot his birthday, after he started doing all those things everything in his life would have been brought out.

 

Most people, including 11 out of 12 disciples, did not know who Jesus was--even right up until his cruxifiction. They said among themselves in confusion:

 

"What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?" (Matthew 8:27)

 

To my knowledge, only 3 people are mentioned in Scripture who knew EXACTLY who Jesus was from the first time they saw him: 1) John the Baptist, 2) Peter, and 3) the demon-possessed man named Legion in the cave.

 

Everyone else either NEVER knew who Jesus was or didn't know until they saw/touched him after the resurrection.

[YellowShark]

Yeah, I was like that for many years myself. Keep asking the hard questions my friend. BTW Carl Sagan and the fourth dimension is a classic (if you're a nerd like me that is)

 

 

Speaking of Carl Sagan...

 

 

You're thinking in terms of modern day thought. In those times, birthdays probably weren't celebrated, and I wonder how many people had a record kept of when they were born. I'm also fairly sure God isn't too preoccupied with the trivialities of a world celebrating His son's birthday.

 

If you don't mind me asking, if you don't believe at all, why are you on here, asking questions? Nothing we say will convince you, and nor should it. You're asking questions about things in which you don't believe existed, happened etc, so all of this feels fairly pointless. No answer will suffice.

 

I just don't buy that it wasn't important enough to jot down the day God's son was born... and for the next 2000 years Christians are ok celebrating Jesus birth and Resurrection on pagan-inspired dates.

 

Why do I ask? I ask because I find it puzzling why human beings would devote themselves entirely to a book of bronze-age myths. Especially since we know this book is highly flawed regarding the natural history of the Earth, which they generally reject. It puzzles me greatly why someone would chose to believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years while looking at 100-million-year-old dinisaur bones at the Museum of Natural History... or beleieve everyone on Earth was wiped out YET the Egyptian and Chinese cultures make no mention of this Earth-ending flood.

 

It is those kinds of inconsistencies which I am discussing in this forum.

[M30USA]

It puzzles me greatly why someone would chose to believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years while looking at 100-million-year-old dinisaur bones at the Museum of Natural History... or beleieve everyone on Earth was wiped out YET the Egyptian and Chinese cultures make no mention of this Earth-ending flood.

 

It is those kinds of inconsistencies which I am discussing in this forum.

 

I don't recall TFW ever saying the earth is less than 10,000 years old. In fact I believe he is an Old Earth Creationist. Even though I am a staunch creationist, I have not decided what I believe about the age of the earth. The Bible is pretty nebulous about it. However, it is pretty detailed about how long mankind ("Adam" in Hebrew) has been here: somewhere around 6,000 years.

[TheFinalWord]

Speaking of Carl Sagan...

 

 

I saw that, funny

 

When he was born maybe not' date=' but after he started performing all of these miracles then everything about him would have been documented. And it was. Except that, and that is what YS is saying. You are right that it wouldnt be important when he was born, but unless Mary and Joseph, and God forgot his birthday, after he started doing all those things everything in his life would have been brought out.[/quote']

 

I personally believe it was purposely left out. I believe there is more than one method to arrive at a conclusion

 

Can anyone think of any reasons why God (assuming God inspired the authors of the bible) would not inspire the writer's to list the exact date and time of Jesus' birth?

 

I don't recall TFW ever saying the earth is less than 10,000 years old. In fact I believe he is an Old Earth Creationist. Even though I am a staunch creationist, I have not decided what I believe about the age of the earth. The Bible is pretty nebulous about it. However, it is pretty detailed about how long mankind ("Adam" in Hebrew) has been here: somewhere around 6,000 years.

 

Good points. I don't want to get off the target of this thread, but many believe there are gaps in the Genesis genealogies.

 

Reasons To Believe : From Noah to Abraham to Moses: Evidence of Genealogical Gaps in Mosaic Literature, Part 1

 

Couple different perspectives regarding creation:

 

• The BioLogos View
  
• Young Earth Creationism
  
• Old Earth Creationism
  
• Intelligent Design
  
• Scientism
  

I ask because I find it puzzling why human beings would devote themselves entirely to a book of bronze-age myths.

 

...or beleieve everyone on Earth was wiped out YET the Egyptian and Chinese cultures make no mention of this Earth-ending flood.

 

Why do people believe in the bible? Well, I think many people have experienced Jesus Christ directly in their lives. For me that is the case. I think we have talked about that before.

 

Regarding the flood covering the earth, how do you read this?

 

"And the famine was over all the face of the earth: and Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt.

And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."

 

"And Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought an east wind upon the land all that day, and all that night; and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts.

And the locust went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt: very grievous were they; before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such.

For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt."

 

hmmm....I'll let you ponder over it

 

Many Christians do not believe the flood was global, which they interpret on biblical grounds....

 

Psalm 104:

 

Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.

Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:

Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

 

Have a good day!

[YellowShark]

However, it is pretty detailed about how long mankind ("Adam" in Hebrew) has been here: somewhere around 6,000 years.

 

Adam I'd like you to meet the "Herto fossils."

 

160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans

 

Skulls of Oldest Homo sapiens Recovered

 

Oldest human skulls found

[M30USA]

Adam I'd like you to meet the "Herto fossils."

 

160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans

 

Skulls of Oldest Homo sapiens Recovered

 

Oldest human skulls found

 

YellowShark,

 

Would you like me to begin listing the assumptions your "science" is making when it throws out those claims? They confidently tell you what they've found, and confidently tell you how old they are; but they don't mention the hundreds of assumptions they are making.

 

Not very "empirical" to assume things, is it?

[YellowShark]

YellowShark,

 

Would you like me to begin listing the assumptions your "science" is making when it throws out those claims? They confidently tell you what they've found, and confidently tell you how old they are; but they don't mention the hundreds of assumptions they are making.

 

Not very "empirical" to assume things, is it?

 

Yup. The molecular anthropologists and I are in on a big conspiracy. We're sooooo busted!

 

 

Dating the Fossils and Artifacts that Mark the Great Human Migration

 

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/fossil-dating.html#ixzz24aBCljKu

[M30USA]

Just a few assumptions that are universally made when dating human remains which are allegedly extremely old:

 

1) That carbon dating is accurate and the half-life of C is constant in the face of all variables. Even those who correctly understand that it's NOT constant still have the boldness to say they know exactly how deviant the error is.

 

2) That "anatomically modern" means they are modern. It makes sense they would say this, since science merely deals with what is physical and tangible. Yet it ASSUMES that there is nothing else (ie, a spiritual component which perhaps could differntiate the two). It's funny how scientists even say that chimpanzees have somthing like 95% the same DNA as humans. Okay, sure, bet let's see a chimpanzee compose 95% of a classical symphony. My point is that apparent physical similarities are not the whole story.

 

3) That we even originated from these "anatomically modern" humans. We don't know this. Could it be true? Perhaps, but it's an assumption. We also assumed in the past that we came from Neanderthals. We were told this as fact. Turns out we did not, and that Neanderthals were a race which coexisted with modern humans but were not our ancestors. My point: if you had argued against Neanderthals as being our ancestors a few decades ago you would have been laughed at and told to learn the "facts" and what "science" has proven.

 

Assumptions are everywhere. Many assumptions may, in fact, be correct. But my point is that Einstein correctly stated that many scientists base their views on numerous assumptions WITHOUT EVEN REALIZING IT.