FORUMula1.com

[Jabberwocky]

If Jesus was born on Christmas Day, why does the year not increment until a few days later?

[bud]

actually Jesus wasnt born on 25th of December.They dont actually know his real birth date. Roman Catholics made it up that he was born on the 25th to appease the Romans Pagan/Celtic populous who worshipped the winter solstice on december 25th to try and convert them to Christianity.

[Jabberwocky]

I feel cheated even more now

[al4x]

as i understand it his real bday is in august.. but its all rubish [imo] so doesnt matter to me

xmas is supposed to be a pagan holiday that was hijacked by christianity

[cap-dude]

I believe his real birthday was never

[7UpJordan]

If Jesus was born on Christmas Day, why does the year not increment until a few days later?

You know, that's something I've always wondered...

[McLaren]

I believe his real birthday was never

agreed

[Juliet P]

I believe his real birthday was never

agreed

I was wondering when someone would be ignorant enough to say that.

Believe what you believe, Jesus existed - he is as real a historical figure as Cleopatra, Mohammed or Alexander the Great. His existence is not up for debate. Everything else, is, of course, a matter of personal belief.

[scotty]

Believe what you believe, Jesus existed - he is as real a historical figure as Cleopatra, Mohammed or Alexander the Great. His existence is not up for debate.

Where did you hear that then?

[Juliet P]

Believe what you believe, Jesus existed - he is as real a historical figure as Cleopatra, Mohammed or Alexander the Great. His existence is not up for debate.

Where did you hear that then?

Independent (i.e. non-biblical) contemporary references to Jesus include the writings of the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius and those of the Jewish historian Josephus.

I have no desire to argue with you or anyone else - indeed I'm a great believer in avoiding religion as a subject of 'polite' conversation altogether. But I take issue slightly at being challenged by uninformed secularists who know so little about the subject they're pontificating on that they would say something as preposterous as suggesting Jesus didn't exist. It's like saying Henry VIII didn't exist. I can express an opinion about Henry VIII - for example that I think he was a murderous, dishonourable ba$tard who didn't deserve the position he held. But if I suggest he didn't exist, then I'm simply demonstrating my lack of historical knowledge.

[7UpJordan]

According to my Dad when he did his R.E. O Levels, Jesus went to Nazereth to see the FA Cup Final, and he brought that boy back to life by saying "Come alive with Pepsi".

[cap-dude]

Believe what you believe, Jesus existed - he is as real a historical figure as Cleopatra, Mohammed or Alexander the Great. His existence is not up for debate.

Where did you hear that then?

Independent (i.e. non-biblical) contemporary references to Jesus include the writings of the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius and those of the Jewish historian Josephus.

I have no desire to argue with you or anyone else - indeed I'm a great believer in avoiding religion as a subject of 'polite' conversation altogether. But I take issue slightly at being challenged by uninformed secularists who know so little about the subject they're pontificating on that they would say something as preposterous as suggesting Jesus didn't exist. It's like saying Henry VIII didn't exist. I can say that I think Henry VIII was a murderous, dishonourable ba$tard who didn't deserve the position he held. But if I suggest he didn't exist, then I'm just demonstrating my lack of historical knowledge.

My bad then

But I still don't believe there was such a man who preformed miracles and such. More just an ordinary man. I mean, this was before the time when people believed in witchcraft and witches. We could just as easily believe witchcraft was real. But none the less, it's next to impossible to know what really was, so I rather believe nothing and concentrate on the future rather than the past. Less time spent worrying about what was, is more time spent thinking about what could be.

[scotty]

Believe what you believe, Jesus existed - he is as real a historical figure as Cleopatra, Mohammed or Alexander the Great. His existence is not up for debate.

Where did you hear that then?

Independent (i.e. non-biblical) contemporary references to Jesus include the writings of the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius and those of the Jewish historian Josephus.

I have no desire to argue with you or anyone else - indeed I'm a great believer in avoiding religion as a subject of 'polite' conversation altogether. But I take issue slightly at being challenged by uninformed secularists who know so little about the subject they're pontificating on that they would say something as preposterous as suggesting Jesus didn't exist. It's like saying Henry VIII didn't exist. I can express an opinion about Henry VIII - for example that I think he was a murderous, dishonourable ba$tard who didn't deserve the position he held. But if I suggest he didn't exist, then I'm simply demonstrating my lack of historical knowledge.

Nah, wasn't spoiling for a fight, i've just never seen or heard of Jesus being referenced in 'viable' historic texts.

[Juliet P]

Believe what you believe, Jesus existed - he is as real a historical figure as Cleopatra, Mohammed or Alexander the Great. His existence is not up for debate.

Where did you hear that then?

Independent (i.e. non-biblical) contemporary references to Jesus include the writings of the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius and those of the Jewish historian Josephus.

I have no desire to argue with you or anyone else - indeed I'm a great believer in avoiding religion as a subject of 'polite' conversation altogether. But I take issue slightly at being challenged by uninformed secularists who know so little about the subject they're pontificating on that they would say something as preposterous as suggesting Jesus didn't exist. It's like saying Henry VIII didn't exist. I can express an opinion about Henry VIII - for example that I think he was a murderous, dishonourable ba$tard who didn't deserve the position he held. But if I suggest he didn't exist, then I'm simply demonstrating my lack of historical knowledge.

Nah, wasn't spoiling for a fight, i've just never seen or heard of Jesus being referenced in 'viable' historic texts.

Ah, well the question of which historical sources to give credence to and which not is a whole other argument. Pretty much every historical document that exists - from the egyptian papyrus to the babylonian texts; the roman historians to the victorian moralists - they are all tinged to some extent by mysticism, religion or ideology of some kind. Why? Well, there are some who would argue that there is something hardwired in us to believe in something beyond ourselves. But in saying that because a document is associated with a particular religion, then it is not 'viable', there is a risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because a person, for example, does not believe in the ideology behind the Quran or the Bible, does that mean that those documents hold no value at all for that person - not even as a source of historical or anthropological evidence?

Anyway, I'll stop - I could bore for Britain on this stuff...

[darwin dali]

I don't give a rat's arse other than that it's a day or two off in this country, so basically an extra weekend (unless it falls on a weekend ).