Does anyone else get the sense that something downright miraculous might be up ahead?

a reply to: cooperton

You do know that BC/AD has been dropped don't you?

It's now BCE/CE

originally posted by: cooperton
If the Jewish people can keep their lineage to Abraham then yeah the church fathers and the ensuing priests and monks would have been able to know when Jesus was born. .

1 - The calendar is actually 4-6 years off from when Christ was born. Their calculations were wrong.
What Christians Want To Know

2 - Calculating the date of Christs birth from the year 525ad is NOT PROOF that Christ lived. It's just calculations based on faith and not based on forensic scientific evidence.

You're making Catholics look bad,

I make Catholics look just fine. Your easily debunked pseudo-scientist babble is what makes Christians look stupid.

and defending atheist talking points that don't make sense.

When the atheists are correct, I say so. And in the case of the calendar they are correct. The Calendar is NOT proof that Christ existed. The year is a calculation, done in the 500s, and it's based on FAITH .. not on any forensic evidence that proves Christ existed. For Gods sake ... just stop talking.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

You do know that BC/AD has been dropped don't you?

It's now BCE/CE

Yeah because the secularists are trying to destroy history. AD/BC has been going for almost 1500 years and they want to change it to an arbitrary meaning of "common era" to try to erase the history of Christ. 'common era' (CE) is derived from the same date as 'the year of our Lord' (AD).

a reply to: cooperton

What history of christ?
A ton of hearsay and second hand references a few hundred years after is now historical fact?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

1 - The calendar is actually 4-6 years off from when Christ was born. Their calculations were wrong.
What Christians Want To Know

2 - Calculating the date of Christs birth from the year 525ad is NOT PROOF that Christ lived. It's just calculations based on faith and not based on forensic scientific evidence.

Dating back to the historical figure of Christ is not historical evidence of Christ? Lol. What's next, Is the Julian calendar not historical evidence of Julius Caesar? So dumb it blows my mind.

I make Catholics look just fine. Your easily debunked pseudo-scientist babble is what makes Christians look stupid.

Me defending the Bible makes Christians look stupid? Lol. You vehemently attacking the Bible makes Christians look stupid

When the atheists are correct, I say so. And in the case of the calendar they are correct. The Calendar is NOT proof that Christ existed. The year is a calculation, done in the 500s, and it's based on FAITH

You think the monk just made up a random date? Lol. He estimated an approximation based off the evidence. The historical evidence. 'The year of our Lord' also may not even be referring to his birth. The point is, that it points to the historical fact of Jesus. Are you a CE kind of gal?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

What history of christ?
A ton of hearsay and second hand references a few hundred years after is now historical fact?

Who do you think Nero was persecuting lol? People wouldn't stand up to an emperor based on a fake guy they made up. Get over it, you can try to claim Christ wasn't the firstborn Son of God, but there's overwhelming historical evidence that Christ and his ensuing followers were real people. As much as you and flyersfan would love to disprove the Bible, it is one of the best corroborating documents available to humankind

a reply to: cooperton
So when was Jesus born then??

Even though both abbreviations refer to the same dates, there is a reason to use BCE and CE over BC and AD. For one, people who aren’t Christian can use the abbreviations freely without contradicting their own beliefs by simply stating the year. Secondly, the historical evidence isn’t quite there for how Dionysus picked the year Jesus was born, so it’s a questionable starting date when set to Jesus’s birth year.

I'm suprised you can make a decision in life without first having to check with the bible and religious pesudo-science.

a reply to: Kurokage

As much as you and flyersfan would love to disprove the Bible, it is one of the best corroborating documents available to humankind

I didn't realise you had a comedy routine!!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton
So when was Jesus born then??

I'm suprised you can make a decision in life without first having to check with the bible and religious pesudo-science.

I wouldn't be so condescending, you would hold on to your mutated ape theory against all prevailing evidence until the whitecoats told you to change your mind.

AD designates the time when he was on earth.

originally posted by: Kennyb75
a reply to: Kurokage

...
There is nothing New Age about the ancient knowledge that I understand .. These days it feels like I am communicating with disconnected, soul less automatons, that have no self awareness and completely separated from their own divinity.
...

Isn't it interesting how those concepts were used in the article about The New Age movement in comparison with your comment?

Perhaps it is time to investigate the influence of "the god of this system of things" (2 Cor 4:4), "who is misleading the entire inhabited earth" (Rev 12:9), on every aspect of your life, heart and mind (how you think, what you think about, what interests or intrigues you, what you feed your mind with, your behaviour, your mental attitude or spirit, what is going on in your figurative heart as the centre of your emotions and this spirit/attitudes, etc.).

2 Corinthians 4:1-7,13,18

Therefore, since we have this ministry through the mercy that was shown us, we do not give up. 2 But we have renounced the shameful, underhanded things, not walking with cunning or adulterating the word of God; but by making the truth manifest, we recommend ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God. 3 If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination* [Or “light.”] of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. 5 For we are preaching, not about ourselves, but about Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God is the one who said: “Let the light shine out of darkness,” and he has shone on our hearts to illuminate them with the glorious knowledge of God by the face of Christ.

7 However, we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the power beyond what is normal may be God’s and not from us.
. . .
13 Now because we have the same spirit of faith as that of which it is written: “I exercised faith, therefore I spoke”; we too exercise faith and therefore we speak, . . .
. . .
. . . 18 while we keep our eyes, not on the things seen, but on the things unseen. For the things seen are temporary, but the things unseen are everlasting.

I know, it's only 144p, but the audio still sounds fine:

The good news about the Christ spoken of by Paul is illustrated below (there are some things quoted below in German, anyway, just wanted to point out that "Bald" means "soon", not "bald"). Ecclesiastes 8:9:

All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury. [that's the text being quoted below at the start]

Forgot one, Daniel 2:44 (also quoted above, but in German):

“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;

It truly will be a miraculous event of great benefit for those with eyes to see and the ability to understand, hence very "good news" (the word “gospel” is derived from the old English godspel, which means “good news; good tidings.”)

originally posted by: cooperton
Dating back to the historical figure of Christ is not historical evidence of Christ?

No. It's not. You obviously don't understand what historical evidence is. I could just as easily calculate a calendar and backdate it 10,000 years to the time of the fictional Atlantis and falsely claim that the calendar is proof of Atlantis. Making up a calendar 500+ years after the events is NOT proof of the events.

Me defending the Bible makes Christians look stupid?

You claiming the calendar is proof of Christ looks stupid because it is.

Lol. You vehemently attacking the Bible makes Christians look stupid

Stating the fact that the calendar is not forensic proof of Christ is not attacking the bible. It's stating the truth. Stating the fact that the Noahs Ark story is mythological and not to be taken as literal history is not attacking the bible. It's stating the truth. Learn how to read the bible.

You think the monk just made up a random date? Lol. He estimated an approximation based off the evidence.

He based it off of FAITH in the gospel story and on the science of astronomy and how the world turns, revolves around the sun. He did NOT base it off any forensic evidence of Christ existing ... just faith in the gospel stories. IT IS NOT EVIDENCE.

a reply to: cooperton

So when was he born, what evidence is there???

the historical evidence isn’t quite there for how Dionysus picked the year Jesus was born, so it’s a questionable starting date when set to Jesus’s birth year.

originally posted by: cooperton
As much as you and flyersfan would love to disprove the Bible,..

The calendar isn't the bible. It's not historical evidence. It's just a date set in the 500s by someone who had faith in the gospel stories. Nothing more. You trying to make it 'evidence' is making Christians look like idiots.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
No. It's not. You obviously don't understand what historical evidence is. I could just as easily calculate a calendar and backdate it 10,000 years to the time of the fictional Atlantis and falsely claim that the calendar is proof of Atlantis.

Yeah but that's not what the monk did. There was other estimates too:

Clement of Alexandria: He estimated Jesus' birth in the 28th year of Augustus' reign, which in our calendar translates to 3 or 2 BC.

Tertullian: He also connected Jesus' birth to the reign of Augustus, suggesting a date ranging from 4-2 BC.

Irenaeus of Lyon: He believed Jesus was born around the 41st year of Augustus' reign, potentially placing his birth between 4-2 BC. This is from Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 11): This chapter specifically discusses the timing of Christ's life and ministry. Here, Irenaeus states that Jesus was born during the 41st year of Augustus' reign. This corresponds to either 2 BC or 1 BC depending on whether the reign is counted inclusively or exclusively.


The historicity of Christ is verified in every era after his coming. What would even quantify for you as historical evidence if not this? The Julian calendar allows us to calibrate all these dates with our contemporary AD/BC system.

You claiming the calendar is proof of Christ looks stupid because it is.

Ahh yes so now the early church followers, along with the Bible are stupid according to you? You're academically lazy. You just trust random secular sources or wolves in sheep clothing to feed you your daily leaven.

originally posted by: FlyersFan It's not historical evidence.

A historical calendar based around the time of someone's coming isn't historical evidence? You sound like the enemy here. Just go watch your sports.

originally posted by: Kurokage
So when was he born, what evidence is there???]

Scripture gives some information that can be drawn on.
When Was Jesus Born
Looks like 4-6 bc based on what is said in scripture.
The story matches up with some historical events and people.
That's not 'proof', but that's what is used to determine birthdate.

a reply to: cooperton

I see lots of 'he estimated' and 'he believed' in there???? So like I said, no actual real evidence and just hearsay

This is more like how the myth of Jesus was created I bet....

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Kurokage
So when was he born, what evidence is there???]

Scripture gives some information that can be drawn on.
When Was Jesus Born
Looks like 4-6 bc based on what is said in scripture.
The story matches up with some historical events and people.
That's not 'proof', but that's what is used to determine birthdate.

I never said "proof" I said "historical evidence". Documents from early 2nd century AD Christians referring to the year of Christ's birth is most certainly historical evidence of Christ's existence.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

I see lots of 'he estimated' and 'he believed' in there???? So like I said, no actual real evidence and just hearsay

This is more like how the myth of Jesus was created I bet....

Just because there is a year range for his birth doesn't mean he wasn't born. They don't know Genghis Khan's exact birth year but does that mean he didn't exist? Of course not. There are many historical figures where we don't know their exact birth year with absolute certainty, yet that doesn't mean they didn't exist lol

I see there is no possible stance outside the two echo chambers clashing...

None of you are helping their credibility and for once I find the religious crowd to be much more reasonable in this debate...

There is so much denial amongst the scientific minds here it's almost unreal they claim to be the rational ones...

Thanks for playing...

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah but that's not what the monk did.

Yeah .. it is. He estimated based on BELIEF and FAITH ... 500+ years after the fact.
That's not proof. That's belief and faith.

Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Irenaeus of Lyon:

Still not proof that Christ existed. Those are all estimates of a date of Christ based on FAITH in the gospels and not in any kind of forensic evidence. The calendar, and all the estimates of Christs birth, are not historical or archaeological evidence.

The historicity of Christ is verified in every era after his coming. What would even quantify for you as historical evidence if not this? The Julian calendar allows us to calibrate all these dates with our contemporary AD/BC system.

A calendar made up 500+ years after Christ lived is NOT proof that He lived. Having the crown of thorns with blood on it to be tested, and with an unbroken chain of ownership for 2,000 years ... THAT would be historical proof.

Ahh yes so now the early church followers, along with the Bible are stupid according to you?

No. Their faith is not stupid. But you calling a calendar 'evidence of Christ' IS.

You're academically lazy. You just trust random secular sources or wolves in sheep clothing to feed you your daily leaven.

You're arrogant and not too bright ... dismissing actual scientific and historical facts while at the same time pretending to be an expert in science, archaeology, history and theology.

A historical calendar based around the time of someone's coming isn't historical evidence?

No. It's not. For the millionth time ... it's just a calendar based on a persons faith in a story that happened 500 years prior. You do not understand what historical evidence is. I could make up a calendar and start counting years from ANY story being told, that doesn't validate the story.

You sound like the enemy here. Just go watch your sports.

You sound like an atheist faking being Christian in order to punk everyone into thinking Christians are morons. Be useful - go get a job or go to college.