• Strange Notions Strange Notions Strange Notions

What Year Was Jesus Born? The Answer May Surprise You

Nativity2

What year was Jesus born? The answer may surprise you.

You might think that Jesus was born in the Year Zero–between 1 B.C. and A.D. 1. You often hear that Jesus was born around 6-7 B.C. The evidence from the Bible and the Church Fathers, however, support a different year.

Here’s what the evidence says . . .

Not in Year Zero

There is a good reason why Jesus wasn’t born in Year Zero: there wasn’t one. The sequence of years before Christ ends at 1 B.C. and the A.D. series picks up the very next year with A.D. 1. This is a bit surprising to us, since we’re used to working with number lines that have a zero on them, but zero wasn’t a concept on the intellectual scene when our way of reckoning years was developed.

If it helps, you can think about it this way: suppose you have a child and you want to date events relative to that child’s birth. The first year before the child was born would be 1 B.C. (Before the Child), and the first year after his birth (that is, the year ending with his first birthday) would be the first year of the child. If the child happens to be the Lord, that would be the first year of the Lord, which in Latin is Anno Domini, from which we get A.D. Thus there is no Year Zero between 1 B.C. and A.D. 1.

(By the way, please note that the “A.D.” goes before the number. “A.D. 2013″ = “The Year of the Lord 2013,” which is an intelligible phrase. If you write “2013 A.D.” that would be “2013 the Year of the Lord,” which is gibberish.)

So what year was Jesus born?

1 B.C.?

The guy who developed the way we reckon years was a 6th-century monk named Dionysius Exiguus (“Dennis the Short”). He apparently thought Christ was born in 1 B.C. (actually, it’s a bit more complex than that, but we’ll keep this simple).

Today most think this date is a little too late and that the evidence supports a date a few years earlier.

6-7 B.C.?

For a little more than a century, the idea has been popular that Jesus was born in 6-7 B.C. The reasoning goes like this: Jesus was born late in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C. Furthermore, the wise men saw the star rise in the east two years before they came to visit Jerusalem, where they met Herod. Back up two years from 4 B.C. and you get 6 B.C. Back up another year in case Herod didn’t die immediately after they visited, and you get 7 B.C.

So: 6 or 7 B.C.

The problem, as we saw in a previous post, is that the arguments that Herod died in 4 B.C. are exceptionally weak.

3-4 B.C.?

Let’s take the same logic as above and plug in the more likely date of Herod’s death.

As we saw in a previous post, the evidence points to him dying in 1 B.C. So . . . back up two years from that and you get 3 B.C. Back up another year for cushion and you get 4 B.C.

Thus: 3-4 B.C.

That’s not an unreasonable estimate, but there are two issues with it:

  1. It’s got a couple of problematic assumptions.
  2. Other evidence, including other evidence from the Bible, suggests it’s a little too early.

The problematic assumptions are that the star was first visible in the east at the moment of Jesus’ birth and that it was visible for a full two years prior to the magi’s arrival.

The first of these assumptions is problematic (among other reasons) because its appearance could be connected with another point in Jesus’ life, such as his conception. If that were the case, you’d need to shave nine months off to find the point of his birth. It’s also problematic because Matthew doesn’t say that the star appeared two years earlier. What he says is that Herod killed all the baby boys in Bethlehem that were two years old and under, in accord with the time he learned from the magi. That means that there is some approximating going on here.

Herod would certainly want to make sure the child was dead, and he would err on the side of . . . well, the side of caution from his perspective. That is, he would to some degree over-estimate how old the child might be in order to be sure of wiping him out. Thus all the boys two and under were killed. That means Jesus was at most two years old, but he was likely younger than that.

What may well have happened is Herod may have been told that the star appeared a year ago and he decided to kill all the boys a year on either side of this to make sure of getting the right one.

And then there’s the fact that the ancients often counted parts of a year as a full year in their reckoning, so “two years” might mean “one year plus part of a second year.”

All this suggests that two years was the maximum amount of time earlier that Jesus was born, and likely it was less than that.

Thus . . .

2-3 B.C.?

This date would be indicated if we start with Herod’s death in 1 B.C. and then, taking into account the factors named above, backed up only one year, suggesting 2 B.C. Then, if we back up another year to allow for the fact Herod didn’t die immediately, that would suggest 3 B.C. So, sometime between 2-3 B.C. would be reasonable, based on what we read in Matthew.

Do we have other evidence suggesting this date?

We do, both inside and outside the Bible.

The Gospel of Luke

Although Luke offers some helpful clues about the timing of Jesus’ birth, we don’t know enough to make full use of them. The date of the enrollment ordered by Augustus is notoriously controversial, for example, and too complex to go into here. However, later indications he gives in his gospel are quite interesting.

He records, for example, that John the Baptist began his ministry in “the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar” (3:1). Tiberius became emperor after Augustus died in August of A.D. 14. Roman historians (e.g., Tacitus, Suetonius), however, tended to skip part years and begin counting an emperor’s reign with the first January 1 after they took office. On that reckoning, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar would correspond to what we call A.D. 29. (Remember, the 15th year is the time between the completion of the 14th year and the completion of the 15th year, the same way a child’s first year is the time between his birth and his first birthday.)

Jesus’ ministry starts somewhat after John’s, but it doesn’t appear to be very long. Perhaps only a few weeks or months. If so, Jesus’ ministry also likely started in A.D. 29.

That’s important, because Luke gives us a second clue: He says Jesus was “about thirty years of age” when he began his ministry (Lk 3:23). So, if you take A.D. 29 and back up thirty years, when does that land you? You might think in 1 B.C., but remember that there’s no Year Zero, so it would actually be 2 B.C. or the end of 3 B.C. if Luke was counting Tiberius’s reign from when he became emperor rather than from the next January 1.

Thus: 2-3 B.C. is a reasonable estimate.

That’s still only an estimate, though, because Jesus could have been a little less or a little more than thirty.

(For purposes of comparison, note that when Luke describes the age of Jairus’s daughter, he says she was “about twelve” (Lk 8:42). So Luke doesn’t seem to go in for rounding things to the nearest 5 years; he tries to be more precise than that. When Luke says Jesus was “about thirty,” he’s probably not envisioning anything between 25 and 35 but a range narrower than that.)

To confirm our estimate, it would be nice if we had an exact naming of the year Jesus was born, and in fact we do . . .

The Fathers Know Best

There is a startling consensus among early Christian sources about the year of Jesus’ birth.

Here is a table adapted from Jack Finegan’s excellent Handbook of Biblical Chronology (p. 291) giving the dates proposed by different sources:

 The Alogoi  4 B.C. or A.D. 9
 Cassiodorus Senator  3 B.C.
 St. Irenaeus of Lyon  3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
 St. Clement of Alexandria  3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
 Tertullian of Carthage  3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
 Julius Africanus  3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
 St. Hippolytus of Rome  3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
 “Hippolytus of Thebes”  3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
 Origen of Alexandria  3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
 Eusebius of Caesarea  3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
 Epiphanius of Salamis  3 B.C. or 2 B.C.
 Orosius  2 B.C.
 Dionysius Exiguus  1 B.C.
 The Chronographer of the Year 354  A.D. 1

 
As you can see, except for a few outliers (including our influential friend, Dionysius Exiguus), there is strong support for Jesus being born in either 3 or 2 B.C.

Note that some of the sources in this table are quite ancient. Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Hippolytus of Rome all wrote in the late 100s or early 200s.

We thus have strong indication–from a careful reading of Matthew, from Luke, and from the Church Fathers–that Jesus was born in 3 or 2 B.C.
 
 
 
PS. If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club. If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email. I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with theology, science, history, and more.

Just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

If you have any difficulty, email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com.

Originally posted at JimmyAkin.com. Used with permission.

Jimmy Akin

Written by

Jimmy Akin is a Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a member on the Catholic Answers Speakers Bureau, a weekly guest on the global radio program, Catholic Answers LIVE, and a contributing editor for Catholic Answers Magazine. He's the author of numerous publications, including the books The Fathers Know Best (Catholic Answers, 2010); The Salvation Controversy (Catholic Answers, 2001); and Mass Confusion: The Do's & Don'ts of Catholic Worship (Catholic Answers, 1999). Many of Jimmy's books are also integrated into the Logos software. Follow Jimmy's writing at JimmyAkin.com.

Note: Our goal is to cultivate serious and respectful dialogue. While it's OK to disagree—even encouraged!—any snarky, offensive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Before commenting please read the Commenting Rules and Tips. If you're having trouble commenting, read the Commenting Instructions.

  • (By the way, please note that the “A.D.” goes before the number. “A.D. 2013″ = “The Year of the Lord 2013,” which is an intelligible phrase. If you write “2013 A.D.” that would be “2013 the Year of the Lord,” which is gibberish.)

    Not to one who has always heard it thus spoken and seen it thus written. Either way is perfectly intelligible to me.

    There seems to be no hard and fast rule. I checked several grammar tutors online and some agreed with you. Some did not. And one, said,

    RULE #5:

    Use the abbreviations BC and AD, without periods, to indicate dates. BC always follows the year, but AD may follow or precede the year.

    Examples of Rule #5:
    400 BC 400 AD AD 400

    So, is that comment simply personal preference or are you following some official convention?

    • Doug Shaver

      So, is that comment simply personal preference or are you following some official convention?

      It was the official convention of most reputable publishing companies several years ago. There seems to have been a growing acceptance of the alternative, but those who use it must expect to be criticized by those who think the older rule should still apply.

      • Thanks, Doug.

        • Doug Shaver

          You're very welcome. Glad I could be helpful.

    • Ron Van Wegen

      Jesus was in fact 9 months old on the day He was born!

      • SuperPutzPutz

        He was 308 days in Mary's womb, not 274 days (9 months) and post-mature. The 8 tells us there were 8 leap years in His life and 308 - 274 = 34 which means 2034 AD is His due date for return. In timeanddate.com, Israel is country number 34. http://theagesanddatesofjesus.blogspot.com includes free e-book.

    • Ye Olde Statistician

      1. Some documents use the expression "the xxxth Year of the Lord", much like "the nth year of Tiberius Caesar" or "the kth year of Charles the Great." The can easily support the usage 2015 AD.

      2. However, the modern fashion is more likely due to a passion for uniformity. Folks want to put AD after the number because dadgummit, the BC comes after the number. There is a creepy inability to accommodate diversity in nomenclature.

      3. The year "after the foundation of the city" also comes after the number for reasons of Latin grammar. The "A" in "AUC" is for ab which is "from" or "since." So 475 AUC, not AUC 475. However, the Byzantine "Year of the World" comes before the number: EK 5327.

      4. Why is it that people who chuckle over the foolish lack of a Year Zero are never nonplussed by the absence of a Day Zero in the month? 1 February comes directly after 31 January. There is no Day 0 Feb. OMG!

      • Lazarus

        Some thirty years ago my Latin professor also insisted on the AD preceding the year. When challenged on this, she produced a six or seven page essay that was published in an academic quarterly. The details are lost in time, but I remember that at the time her argument made a lot of sense, especially as far as the grammar related aspects were concerned.

      • Tony Dattoli

        your analogy of the chronology of Jesus' birth would be interesting........ would it be to taxing for you to consider, or are you validating the above? No malice intended, looking for authentication for personal consumption

  • Loreen Lee

    Merry Christmas everyone. I'm off to the kitchen today to feed dinner to the homeless, and have a meal for myself!!! I guess I can live with or without any exact date for the birth of Christ. But I think I still prefer the '0'. That makes it timeless.

  • Lazarus

    Post removed by author

  • Lazarus

    Well then, may I wish all a happy, safe and blessed New Year for 2016 here from sunny SA.

    • OldSearcher

      Happy New Year from Spain.

  • Lazarus

    I wish to express my disappointment in the management of SN in the manner in which this site was neglected over the Christmas and New Year period. Two or three recycled articles, absolutely no moderator participation, not even a basic message of Merry Christmas and / or Happy New Year.

    It is really quite disrespectful towards your members.

    • neil_pogi

      Hi lazarus, belated merry christmas and a happy new year! from The philippines. anyway, our wait for the miss Universe crown is over, after 42 years, we have now the Miss Philippines as the new Miss universe!

      i'm waiting for pageant for Miss Multiverse!

      • Lazarus

        Hi Neil, thank you, and a happy New Year to you and your family too.

        I do not follow these contests, I find them to be appalling displays of stupidity on many levels, but good for you and the Philippines if there is some benefit there.

        A Miss Multiverse ... what a thought ;)

        • neil_pogi

          christmas here in the philippines is the longest celebration in the universe! we've gone thru the negatives of 2015 (typhoons, island and sea grabbing activities of China, etc). we still have much to thank God! we are poor and yet we are content and happy with our lives!

          • Lazarus

            A great example to all of us.

  • Nick Durrer

    He was born in the year before he became one year old. In other words it doesn't matter to me in what year he was born as long as we leave Christmas the way it is.

  • Lazarus

    I'm going to treat myself to ten days of no blog commenting, reading, lurking, anything related to it. Not just here, everywhere. A posting fast, a bit of reflection on the entire exercise of online posting, debating, arguing. Is it really time well spent, in my personal case? I am convinced that this will be a healthy little break. I may even post again ;)

  • Amrita Sharma

    For a little more than a century, the idea has been popular that Jesus
    was born in 6-7 B.C. The reasoning goes like this: Jesus was born late
    in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C. Furthermore, the
    wise men saw the star rise in the east two years before they came to
    visit Jerusalem.

    http://www.predictionlife.com/crystal-ball-for-fortune-telling/

  • SuperPutzPutz

    Check out this link for more proof when Jesus was born plus more at http://TheAgesandDatesofJesus.blogspot.com I hope you enjoy this discovery and blessing for all us to believe Jesus did exist!

    • Doug Shaver

      Check out this link for more proof

      You have a really odd concept of proof.

      • SuperPutzPutz

        Sorry To Doug and others. I shouldn't have used the word "proof", but my theories help by giving us more proof that He did exist. Check out the blog again since I have added more proof for me to believe when He was born and crucified, etc. plus His due date of return being around the year 2034! Free short story included. God blesses me with wisdom regarding many things, since I have more inventions waiting, the patent fees are a hindrance.

        • Are you here to discuss anything or just to promote your website?

          • SuperPutzPutz

            Neither of the above and the website blog is free. Just want to share it so maybe more ppl will believe He may have existed. I used some things from your website and what Jimmy Akins wrote about 2 B.C. being the most likely year He was born. I requested to use an image from one of Jimmy's articles for a book, but received no answer yet, maybe resend in January.

          • Are you here to discuss anything or just to promote your website?

            Neither of the above . . . . Just want to share it so maybe more ppl will believe He may have existed.

            If you don't want to discuss it, then I don't have time to read it. If I take the time, I will then want to explain why your argument does not convince me. That will require a discussion, which you have indicated you have no interest in.

            Now you may ask how, without having read it, I know that it won't convince me. Because I did read the introduction. You are clearly engaging in some kind of numerology. I regard numerology as an ancient superstition. I don't think there is anything scientific about it.

          • SuperPutzPutz

            Sure I am willing to discuss it, but I don't use gmail much so it may be awhile I get back to you. Please explain why you are not convinced. I think you my have presumed I wasn't interested in discussing it, I didn't mean to indicate that. You may give me any kind of criticism, but constructive is most appreciated.
            I explain why I used the numerology technique and astrology also, but it was not necessary, it just reinforced my theory, and it was to convince the users of these techniques that God exists and make Him their first priority, not numerology or astrology, etc. Numbers and star positioning do mean something and not superstitious just like a black cat crossing your path is not superstitious, that is the devil's schemes making you superstitious and causing you to believe something bad will happen to you. It is not much scientific but mathematical. Science is destroying the earth, but science can save it if it does in time. Those nuclear waste tanks dumped in the ocean may open any day now and the oceans may all soon be dead - that will be when the last trumpet sounds. Please read it all before you judge. You may be a little obstinate to believe what you want, that is okay, but we must work with all people and beliefs to make the world a better place.
            Just kidding, but thanks for saying It was odd - planting a seed like that in my mind - I appreciate it.

          • I think you my have presumed I wasn't interested in discussing it

            I presumed only that you knew what you were saying. I asked: “Are you here to discuss anything or just to promote your website?” and your answer was “Neither.” In elementary logic, “Neither A nor B” means both “Not A” and “not B.”

            Numbers and star positioning do mean something

            Why should I believe that? So far as I am aware, there is not a scrap of evidence to support it and a great deal of evidence that contradicts it. I have been on the lookout for evidence since I was a child, and that was well over a half-century ago.

            just like a black cat crossing your path is not superstitious, that is the devil's schemes making you superstitious and causing you to believe something bad will happen to you.

            I don’t believe in your devil any more than I believe in your God.

            I don't use gmail much so it may be awhile I get back to you.

            No hurry. I have plenty to keep me busy in the meantime.

          • SuperPutzPutz

            You are right about my bad grammar concerning the word neither, thanks for pointing that out to me.

            Numbers mean something. Why would God use the numbers 1,3,7,12,40, etc.? Well He uses the number 31 also. Read the four gospels, there are more verses using the numbers 6, 13, and 18 to state the crucifixion and death of Christ then other numbers. For example -

            Mark 15:13 KJV - And they cried out again, Crucify him. (This helps us believe He was crucified on the 13th and rose on the 15th of AD April 31. His resurrection is more important than His death or He would still be dead and useless to us).

            John 18:31- Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.
            Astronomers say the Star of Bethlehem may have been the positioning of Jupiter and (Saturn or Venus) close together making the brightness.
            Who are you and why are you reading this stuff if you don't believe in God? Concerning the devil - you can't get rid of the alligator in the water by ignoring it! The devil knows when He is going to make something bad happen to you and may send a black cat to cross your path if there is one, nearby your area, within walking distance. Therefore Satan causes bad events, but uses your fear, anger, and hatred of the black cat happening to feed off these negative destructive emotions in order for him to manifest his dirty work easier. I hope I can say, "Case closed," here concerning this.

          • Numbers mean something.

            You say so.

            Why would God use the numbers 1,3,7,12,40, etc.?

            Since I don’t believe in God, I don’t need an answer to that question.

            This helps us believe He was crucified on the 13th and rose on the 15th of AD April 31.

            Why do you need any help to believe that?

            Astronomers say the Star of Bethlehem may have been the positioning of Jupiter and (Saturn or Venus) close together making the brightness.

            Some astronomers say that. Most of them think the story is just a legend.

            why are you reading this stuff if you don't believe in God?

            I come to this forum for the same reason you do. I have certain beliefs that I think would make the world a better place if they were more widely accepted. One respect in which you and I differ is that I don’t expect anyone to believe what I say just because I say it.

            Concerning the devil - you can't get rid of the alligator in the water by ignoring it!

            If I’ve checked for alligators and haven’t found one, I’m not at fault if I don’t just take your word for it that there is an alligator.

            I hope I can say, "Case closed," here concerning this.

            I suspect the case is closed as far as you’re concerned. You say it, you believe it, and that settles it.

          • SuperPutzPutz

            I said us not you. So are you an atheist? If all religion was illegalized, the evil would be channelled somewhere else and it would be even worse. If satan doesn't exist then people are truly evil, that is rubbish. In Ancient Hebrew the word tannin means alligator and not serpent or snake as written about Moses when he cast down his rod before Pharaoh. You can't see the alligator called satan. He casts all kinds of illusions to cause us to argue and fight. What are your beliefs and do you have any solutions for the world like I do? I am a little stubborn about my beliefs just like you are about yours, that doesn't settle it and I said I HOPE I can say case closed. You are very intelligent and know a lot of things, but I thought Mr. Perfect was a wrestler in the WWF, but do you have wisdom like I do based on just what I know? Did you read my other blogs which give a hint what will come next out of me? My name is already famous around the world, but everyone seems dumbfounded since I have invented something everyone thought was impossible. I have my first paperback book published and much more to come, because I have an abiding connection with Christ and He will prune me in order to produce more abundance and fruit. I am very busy with my endeavours and you will being using the technological innovations coming someday initiated by me who has all of IT together. IT meaning Information Theology.

          • What are your beliefs and do you have any solutions for the world like I do?

            I've copied the following from the home page of my website:

            What I believe:

            I believe the greatest impediment to human progress is the confusion of epistemology with ethics. This confusion is manifest in many ways, and they are all bad, because they all suppose that in at least some important instances, the truth must be what we wish it to be. It is wrong ever to suppose that virtue confers wisdom on anyone. A moral giant can be an intellectual pygmy; and many of them are, simply because they suppose that since they are good, they must also be wise.

            The wisest men are good because it is wise to be good. This is not widely understood because many evil men have claimed to be wise and fooled many into believing their claim. People who believe them cite them as evidence of the dangers of wisdom. What they are really evidence of is the ease with which some people can pretend to be wise.

            Fundamentalism in all its forms, religious or political, liberal or conservative, is based on some idea that virtuous people are more receptive than others to the truth, especially moral truth. It supposes that some transcendent power has in some way revealed all important truths to a few people because of their extraordinary virtue and that all other people, if they themselves are virtuous, will intuitively know that those few people must be believed. It supposes that all people are more or less receptive to the truth according to their moral character, that good people know the truth when they hear it and bad people don't. For fundamentalists of all kinds, the only proper exercise of reason is to confirm what virtuous people have already discerned. Any exercise that disconfirms their insights is necessarily improper.

            I believe in no revealed truths, because I believe there is no transcendent entity to do any revealing. We can, and we do, discover truths. We all, so long as we remain mentally competent, do it throughout our lives, some more successfully than others. But since none of us can do it perfectly, we also discover many falsehoods and think they are truths. True or false, it is when reason will not confirm our ideas that we most readily suppose that they must have been revealed, since if reason will confirm them, then we need no appeal to revelation. But if reason will not confirm an idea, then there can be only one correct answer to the question "How do we know it?" That answer is: "We do not know it." We may believe it, and if we cannot believe otherwise then we must believe it. But we cannot justifiably claim to know it.

            As for solutions: I have some ideas that I believe would make the world a better place if they were more widely accepted. I do not believe that a world free of problems is even remotely possible.

          • Rob Abney

            Doug, your manifesto seems to use a variety of terms to describe what is good, yet you never explain what you mean by "good". You refer to truth, virtue, wisdom, intellect, belief, intuition, revelation, reason, and knowledge in an effort to suggest that agnosticism is the only answer.
            You're usually more precise than this.
            You can propose your ideas for making the world a better place but first you should define what better (or good) means to the world or else it will be subjective to you.
            Do you think "being" is good? Do you think "being" is revealed or discovered?

          • yet you never explain what you mean by "good".

            Two reasons for that.

            1. I was striving for maximum brevity.

            2. I was trying to answer the question "What do you believe?" not "What do you mean by _____?"

            but first you should define what better (or good) means to the world or else it will be subjective to you.

            I think it is subjective to everyone. I think that to call anything good or bad is to make a value judgment, not to utter a statement of objective fact.

            Do you think "being" is good?

            I don't know what it would mean to say either that it is or isn't.

            Do you think "being" is revealed or discovered?

            Neither. It's an abstraction, a concept that our minds create to facilitate the processing of certain data about the universe we find ourselves living in.

          • You can propose your ideas for making the world a better place but first you should define what better (or good) means to the world

            If you and I disagree about what would make the world a better place, then we should be trying to resolve that dispute. There are various methods we could employ in our attempt to reach that resolution. I hope you would agree that it would be a good thing if we were both adamantly determined to avoid certain of those methods.

          • SuperPutzPutz

            Scientific proof is for secular individuals and therefore not spiritual. Proof that God exists would cause everyone to jump on the bandwagon, but then it would be too late for them since that is not genuine faith, the kind of faith Gods wants from us. He feeds off us in believing in Him and worshipping, praising, adoring, etc. since He is LOVE, not hate and needs our love to fight hate. We need to help Him more and the world will become a better place!

          • that is not genuine faith, the kind of faith Gods wants from us.

            That tells me nothing unless I know what you mean by faith, and I can't know unless you tell me. I have asked many Christians what they mean by faith, and I've yet to get the same answer twice.

          • SuperPutzPutz

            Genuine faith is more based on believing in God exists as opposed to knowing He exists. This makes you want to attend church at least once a week. I define faith as belief with action, very similar to what the Law of Attraction teaches.
            I replied to your message copied from your website, but lost it. Maybe the webmaster deleted it due to some bad things I said about allah and satanic worshippers. May reply again later. The first thing I said was "It seems your God is called Reason."

          • I define faith as belief with action

            The trend continues. When Christians talk about faith, they're not all talking about the same thing. Far from it, it would seem.

            I replied to your message copied from your website, but lost it.

            Disqus sent me a copy of it.

            Maybe the webmaster deleted it due to some bad things I said about allah and satanic worshippers.

            Could be. I suspected as much when I didn't find it in the forum.

      • SuperPutzPutz

        Concerning the numbers in this blog, they recur too many times so they can't be coincidences since the probability of the coincidences recurring is too high, so it is the next thing to being 100% proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.

        • so it is the next thing to being 100% proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.

          I don't need certainty. I'm OK with proof beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Jerry Miller

    Please explain something. How is it possible that Jesus could be born any number BC? If BC stands for "Before Christ," then it seems odd that he could be born 2, 3, 4, 6 or seven before himself. Also, isn't it true that when people spoke of the year back in ancient times they didn't know what the BC meant and therefore never used it themselves? So, BC Is really after the fact because of our knowledge of Christ. If this is true and we acknowledge that history is divided by Christ in history, then his birth is essentially Year Zero and Herod's life and death is relative to Jesus' chronology and not the other way around.

    I mean, did Cicero ever go about saying
    when he was talking to people, "I am writing this in the year 50 BC?" Of course not.

    Go ahead. I'm listening.

  • yaridanjo

    Jesus was born 31 March 3 BC at about 8:20 AM. Passover started the previous evening at sundown.

  • Hilaire Witika-murphy

    I have heard that Jesus was born during the month of September ;However December 25th Catholic's changed the month to December when Pagans celebrated .. What do you think ??

    • SuperPutzPutz

      From December 25th of 2 BC to Thursday April 12th of AD 31, that is equal to 31 years plus 102 full 24 hour days. December 25th and April 13th, He lived part of those days, not 24 hours each. There are 31,102 verses in the Protestant King James Bibles. They didn't round off numbers back then like we do now. The Catholics are right, but how many verses does their Bible have? Much more - 1074 chapters and 27570 verses in just their Old Testament. Add the New Testament number of verses and you may figure this out like I did above for 31102.

    • What do you think ??

      I think any evidence that would tell us the date of his birth just doesn't exist. Therefore, nobody knows what that date was. Anybody's guess, including Dec. 25, has a probability of 1/365 of being correct.

  • Hilaire Witika-murphy

    Thank you everyone , however I am no further along . I believe there was such a person who impressed many . to this day. If other religions have different names for him with respect and celebrate on different days / months I am still not informed of his birthday Just saying

  • auskiwi

    There is an interesting website at BiblicalChronology.com, by a Catholic researcher who advances the theory that Jesus was born in 15 BC. The reason for the major discrepancy with commonly accepted estimates of the year of Christ's birth, is that the calendar itself is wrong due to a phenomenon called "antedating", where the calendar itself is 10 years out due to one of the Roman emperors using the year of his adoption as the start of the new calendar, instead of the year of the previous emperor's death 10 years later.

  • Excellent Jimmy. Thanks for sharing.

  • Justin Carpenter

    CHRIST WAS BORN IB THE SPRING APRIL 30 WICCAN WHY DO U THINK HE COULD DO WHAT HE DID SPRING IS NEW BIRTH LIFE

  • Justin Carpenter

    THE CATHOLICS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THAT TO MANIPULATE YOUR MIND IN YOUR MIND FOR THEIR PAGAN RITUALS DURING THE WINTER SOLSTICE

  • DR T

    no credentials - no wonder

    interesting theories, but little evidence. fairly good guesswork sometimes.

    wrong about the AD position. 2o centuries of literature have placed it after the year. which one would only notice having read any. but at least you're not devolving to the the trendy new google/wiki idiocy of CE and BCE.