Well proofs of the birth of Christ is not just from the Bible. History proves it if you study it carefully. Many first and second century Historians who were anti Christian have written about Christ. Some of them are Phlegon, Josephus and Tacitus. The entire dating method of BC(Before Christ) and AD(Anno Domini meaning the year of our Lord) wouldn’t have been there if Christ did not live during that time. We possibly cannot be wrong with our measuring of time. And BC and AD are not propagated or even given a mention in the Bible, but is only present in history.
32 comments
Many first and second century Historians who were anti Christian have written about Christ. Some of them are Phlegon, Josephus and Tacitus.
Later interlineations don't count.
We possibly cannot be wrong with our measuring of time.
Even most Christians admit that we are wrong about BC and AD. Learn your own faith.
Exiguus got it wrong.
That's all I'll say.
And those anti-Christian historians back up the gospel stories, do they?
... Nope, they don't. And Dennis the Short doesn't count as proof of anything, idiot.
I don't know about Phlegon or Tacitus, but we know the ownership records of Josephus' manuscripts: after he died, they were owned by Christians, and almost all the mentions of Jesus were not written by Josephus.
One thing I'll never understand in many of the thousands of quotes on FSTDT and for which this is a prime example: Do these people not understand that it's 2008 and that you can actually fact-check their claims without even leaving your chair? It's not the 1960s anymore when you actually had to go to a library, or the middle ages when you had to be priviledged to access information.
Listen, "Wer", it's 2008 - if you claim something so abysmally stupid or wrong like you did in that post, people can and will find out in less than a minute, so read up about Josephus or Dionysius Exiguus first before you make any grand statements. Because you will only look like a pathetic retard to anyone with half a brain cell who knows how to use Google.
The entire dating method of BC(Before Christ) and AD(Anno Domini meaning the year of our Lord) wouldn’t have been there if Christ did not live during that time
Then why did that dating system have to be created years, if not centuries after the supposed death of your supposed "christ"
We possibly cannot be wrong with our measuring of time
We can if we're going to set completely arbitrary dates for
Since all of these events have never been chronicled by any eyewitness (or even credible) sources and the placement of these events in the timeline have varied with religious ideology and interpretation it can be inferred that yes, our mesuring of time based off of supposed and quite likely non-existant events can be wrong.
auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat;
Oddly the entire book of Tacitus Histories which would have dealt with the period of Christ's supposed life span is completley missing,one would imagine that this above all would have been preserved by later Christians if it had actually mentioned their Messiah
"We possibly cannot be wrong[...]"
True, but that's not quite what you meant to write, is it?
Uh, the AD and BC measurements were cooked up arbitrarily by religious leaders, and they got it WRONG! Many modern historians accept that the man known as Jesus did exist, and he was born in AD 4.
The BC and AD was established, AFTER CHRISTIANITY WAS ESTABLISHED AS OFFICIAL RELIGION. Bear in mind that Muslims think we´re in 1458 because it´s the chronology after they fled from Mecca to Medina. Or the Jews, who think that we´re in 5389 because they rely on their own calendar. Yes, convention, that sucks.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
