Author Topic: Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity  (Read 5230 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline stevusmagnus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3728
  • Reputation: +824/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • h
Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
« on: November 21, 2012, 11:00:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • With all due respect, may I ask how he knows any of this? Was he there?

    The new order is so quick to buy any historical revision of secular scientists/ historians it is sick.

    In the past I've heard "experts" say Christ was born in 7 AD. Now it's supposed to be 7 BC.

    BXVI is ever striving to latch on to the latest novel orthodoxy of science and history to remain "relevant" in a world which has long since rejected him and the Church as irrelevant.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9693576/Jesus-was-born-years-earlier-than-thought-claims-Pope.html

    The entire Christian calendar is based on a miscalculation, the Pope has declared, as he claims in a new book that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly believed.

    The 'mistake' was made by a sixth century monk known as Dionysius Exiguus or in English Dennis the Small, the 85-year-old pontiff claims in the book 'Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives', published on Wednesday.

    "The calculation of the beginning of our calendar – based on the birth of Jesus – was made by Dionysius Exiguus, who made a mistake in his calculations by several years," the Pope writes in the book, which went on sale around the world with an initial print run of a million copies.

    "The actual date of Jesus's birth was several years before."

    The assertion that the Christian calendar is based on a false premise is not new – many historians believe that Christ was born sometime between 7BC and 2BC.

    But the fact that doubts over one of the keystones of Christian tradition have been raised by the leader of the world's one billion Catholics is striking.

    Dennis the Small, who was born in Eastern Europe, is credited with being the "inventor" of the modern calendar and the concept of the Anno Domini era.

    He drew up the new system in part to distance it from the calendar in use at the time, which was based on the years since the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian.

    The emperor had persecuted Christians, so there was good reason to expunge him from the new dating system in favour of one inspired by the birth of Christ.

    The monk's calendar became widely accepted in Europe after it was adopted by the Venerable Bede, the historian-monk, to date the events that he recounted in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, which he completed in AD 731.

    But exactly how Dennis calculated the year of Christ's birth is not clear and the Pope's claim that he made a mistake is a view shared by many scholars.

    The Bible does not specify a date for the birth of Christ. The monk instead appears to have based his calculations on vague references to Jesus's age at the start of his ministry and the fact that he was baptised in the reign of the emperor Tiberius.

    Christ's birth date is not the only controversy raised by the Pope in his new book – he also said that contrary to the traditional Nativity scene, there were no oxen, donkeys or other animals at Jesus's birth.

    He also weighs in on the debate over Christ's birthplace, rejecting arguments by some scholars that he was born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem.

    John Barton, Professor of the Interpretation of the Holy Scripture at Oriel College, Oxford University, said most academics agreed with the Pope that the Christian calendar was wrong and that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly thought, probably between 6BC and 4BC.

    "There is no reference to when he was born in the Bible - all we know is that he was born in the reign of Herod the Great, who died before 1AD," he told The Daily Telegraph. "It's been surmised for a very long time that Jesus was born before 1AD - no one knows for sure."

    The idea that Christ was born on Dec 25 also has no basis in historical fact. "We don't even know which season he was born in. The whole idea of celebrating his birth during the darkest part of the year is probably linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice."

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #1 on: November 21, 2012, 11:07:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Good book on the Nativity Chronology:

    http://www.askelm.com/star/index.asp


    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4881
    • Reputation: +5654/-467
    • Gender: Male
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #2 on: November 22, 2012, 01:41:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0





  • Oh, it must have been the rabbis who told him this!
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline CathMomof7

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1045
    • Reputation: +1270/-10
    • Gender: Female
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #3 on: November 22, 2012, 06:40:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • His analysis only points to his personal philosophy of phenomenology.  You see, Christianity, in the New Catholic Church, is one of experience, not physical reality.  Declaring that we just cannot know exactly when Our Lord was born, aids better in his explanation of this idea.  You see, I KNOW when my son was born.  I was there.  It's real to me.  But if I just tell you about his birth, that it could have been a year or two before, it muddies the physical world for you.

    His comment that animals weren't present at the Nativity of Our Lord has a mixed message.  He is trying to say, and I have not read this book, only the articles, that one arrives at Christianity through mere reason.  Animals don't reason of course, so therefore they have no need in Our Lord.  That's number one.  He also is trying to imply that Our Lord is not King of the here and now, that He is King in the spiritual sense.  Animals represent the physical, the material, not the spiritual.

    It's all subtly diabolical.  A simple person cannot understand the Grand Massa's philosophy.  They only hold on to what B16 represents by his authority.  They hang on his every word.  So those that were already having troubling understanding that Christ really was physically born and a specific time, AS CHOSEN BY GOD, they will continue to wonder "Was Christ really born at all?"


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #4 on: November 22, 2012, 07:08:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The statement about animals is quite bizarre, and can't be interpreted charitably.

    If the child was put in a manger, and a manger is for animals to eat from, and shepherds came, why would you say there are no animals?

    That's an interesting theory cathmom, that he's making some sort of symbolic statement.

    What's undeniable, is that it's subversive of the Catholic religion.


    Offline Tiffany

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3111
    • Reputation: +1639/-27
    • Gender: Female
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #5 on: November 22, 2012, 07:26:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would have thought this was from The Onion.

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2468
    • Reputation: +2664/-330
    • Gender: Male
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #6 on: November 22, 2012, 08:28:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • cathmom:
    Quote
    His analysis only points to his personal philosophy of phenomenology. You see, Christianity, in the New Catholic Church, is one of experience, not physical reality


    I like your explanation.  Please help me to understand the meaning of 'phenomenology.'  I've never gotten my mind around the term.  Does it mean perceived reality vs. physical reality?  The language of philosophy is not my strong suit.

    Offline Elizabeth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4847
    • Reputation: +2190/-7
    • Gender: Female
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #7 on: November 22, 2012, 08:52:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have not read Benedict's words but at first glance this looks like a rolling out of the red carpet for the Antichrist.

    I can't help feeling there is some black magic associated with this line of thinking.



    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4553
    • Reputation: +3909/-365
    • Gender: Male
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #8 on: November 22, 2012, 09:23:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In The Dates of the Birth and Death of Jesus Christ, by General Hugues de Nanteuil (translated into English by J.S. Daly and Rev. F. Egregyi, Tradibooks, 2008), the General makes a very compelling and understandable case that Jesus was born on December 25, 1 BC, eight days before the first day of January in the year that is now designated AD 1.

    The world did not use a universal dating system at the time of Christ's birth but, instead, used a variety of dating methods including the reigns of various kings and Ceasars, the Olympiad, and other events.

    By comparing all of these factors, General de Nanteuil demonstrates that the most consistent dating methods prove that the traditional date of Christ's birth is, in actuality, the date Jesus was actually born and that modern methods that have dated His birth to be as early as 7 BC are based on a variety of erroneous calculations.

    As for the absence of animals, I take it to mean that we are to suppose that Christ was born in a manger store and he was laid in the latest model?  The so-called modern Christian worldview is designed to sew doubts in the Christian faithful.  I find it incredible that "Christian leaders" spend so much time trying to debunk their own history.  Next thing you know, Benedict 16 will be affirming Darwinian evolution!  

    Oops!  I think he already has.

    Offline CathMomof7

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1045
    • Reputation: +1270/-10
    • Gender: Female
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #9 on: November 22, 2012, 05:11:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: hollingsworth
    cathmom:
    Quote
    His analysis only points to his personal philosophy of phenomenology. You see, Christianity, in the New Catholic Church, is one of experience, not physical reality


    I like your explanation.  Please help me to understand the meaning of 'phenomenology.'  I've never gotten my mind around the term.  Does it mean perceived reality vs. physical reality?  The language of philosophy is not my strong suit.


    Hollinsworth,
    I'm not much of a philosopher myself, but my husband, who was a student of philosophy, put it into words that I could really understand.

    According to phenomenology, one cannot know the world exists in and of itself.  One can only know they world exists through one's perception.  In other words, nothing exists outside of how we perceive it.

    God does not exist unless we feel Him or experience Him in some way.  Does that make sense?

    This is crapola, but this is what B16 believes and is "teaching" through the new church.

    Animals can't experience God, therefore He doesn't exist for them.

    We can't know a specific date for Our Lord's birth, therefore it is not relevant except in how we perceive Him.

    This is an outrage.  If more people understood what he was, who his teachers were, what he believes, what he is trying to make the church into, they would run for their very souls!  B16 is truly diabolical.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23087
    • Reputation: +20244/-244
    • Gender: Male
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #10 on: November 22, 2012, 05:49:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Indeed -- by saying we don't know WHEN in the year Christ was born, what year, or what he looked like -- you turn Him into something ephemeral, who (God forgive me for even uttering such a phrase) "might not have existed at all!"

    That's exactly what these destroyers of the Faith would have your mind think.

    After all, what historical (real) figure do they cast such doubt about in this way?

    See how dangerous it is for the Faith, to start casting doubts like this?

    Christ took flesh and blood from a specific mother and became Man at a specific time in history. He is REAL, as is His Godhead, and His future judgment over us is equally REAL.

    They can take their phenomenology and shove it where the sun don't shine. I'll take objective reality, thanks.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8213
    • Reputation: +7164/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #11 on: November 22, 2012, 06:45:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The only thing Benedict's books are good for is firewood.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18173
    • Reputation: +8255/-635
    • Gender: Male
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #12 on: November 23, 2012, 03:49:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is such a great thread.  And at a marvelously appropriate time:   just before
    we hear Matthew xxiv for the Gospel this Sunday, the 26th and Last Sunday
    after Pentecost, and before the beginning of Advent the following Sunday.  

    I have been hearing Protestants murmur for years about how the date of
    Christmas was merely placed in late December to usurp the pagan feast day
    of winter solstice or Saturnalia or whatever, and that he was born as many as
    4 years B.C. or as late as 4 years A.D., and that there couldn't have been any
    larger animals there, or there weren't really any sheep, and on and on.  It takes
    every ounce of self-control to resist the urge to tear their heads off!  Oh, and
    the 3 kings were just a myth, too.  Nobody knows their names!  They're not in
    the Bible!
    A so-called Catholic priest lectured this when my mother was in the
    audience during the abominable 1960's, and she came home crying.  I was a child,
    and such things make an impression.  Years later I would sing in the great choir
    loft of the famous Cologne Cathedral in Germany, where one can look down from
    some 60 feet above at an angle of 30 degrees from the vertical, at the enormous
    reliquary behind the sanctuary that houses the first class relics of Melchior,
    Caspar and Balthazar...


    Quote from: CathMomof7
    His analysis only points to his personal philosophy of phenomenology.  You see, Christianity, in the New Catholic Church, is one of experience, not physical reality.  Declaring that we just cannot know exactly when Our Lord was born, aids better in his explanation of this idea.  You see, I KNOW when my son was born.  I was there.  It's real to me.  But if I just tell you about his birth, that it could have been a year or two before, it muddies the physical world for you.

    His comment that animals weren't present at the Nativity of Our Lord has a mixed message.  He is trying to say, and I have not read this book, only the articles, that one arrives at Christianity through mere reason.  Animals don't reason of course, so therefore they have no need in Our Lord.  That's number one.  He also is trying to imply that Our Lord is not King of the here and now, that He is King in the spiritual sense.  Animals represent the physical, the material, not the spiritual.

    It's all subtly diabolical.  A simple person cannot understand the Grand Massa's philosophy.  They only hold on to what B16 represents by his authority.  They hang on his every word.  So those that were already having troubling understanding that Christ really was physically born and a specific time, AS CHOSEN BY GOD, they will continue to wonder "Was Christ really born at all?"




    For years I've been hearing Protestants say these same things, and now we
    have our own pope saying them..  It comes down to his accommodation of the
    error of the enemies of Christ's Church.  But he does so under the guise of a
    philosophical subtlety.  Too bad for him, 100 years ago the Pope Saint warned
    us about his ilk.


    Quote from: Telesphorus
    The statement about animals is quite bizarre, and can't be interpreted charitably.

    If the child was put in a manger, and a manger is for animals to eat from, and shepherds came, why would you say there are no animals?


    There's another possibility:  The manger was abandoned, a minimalist manger,
    a manger that alludes to the deconstructed Church, whose
    bastions are torn down, or whose bastions he is still in the process of tearing
    down
    , a Church that is no more
    than a first class relic of something that once was, and has DIED.

    A museum piece!


    Quote
    That's an interesting theory cathmom, that he's making some sort of symbolic statement.

    What's undeniable, is that it's subversive of the Catholic religion.


    Subversive..  "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."  Who would have known
    that Our Lord was warning us that a time would come when our own pope could
    become the purveyor of such Pharisaical leaven?!


    Quote from: Matthew
    Indeed -- by saying we don't know WHEN in the year Christ was born, what year, or what he looked like -- you turn Him into something ephemeral, who (God forgive me for even uttering such a phrase) "might not have existed at all!"


    I have no doubts that Our Lord forgives you, Matthew.

    Quote
    That's exactly what these destroyers of the Faith would have your mind think.

    After all, what historical (real) figure do they cast such doubt about in this way?

    See how dangerous it is for the Faith, to start casting doubts like this?


    It is the sure way to KILL the faith of a child, to sew such doubts.  Such a thing
    is a scandal of the highest degree:

    "28 And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but
    rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew x).

    "1 AND he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come:
    but woe to him through whom they come. 2 It were better for him, that a
    millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he
    should scandalize one of these little ones" (Lk. xvii.).


    Quote
    Christ took flesh and blood from a specific mother and became Man at a specific time in history. He is REAL, as is His Godhead, and His future judgment over us is equally REAL.

    They can take their phenomenology and shove it where the sun don't shine. I'll take objective reality, thanks.


    It is philosophical insanity, is what it is.  To tamper with the very foundation of
    thought is to put your ability to think in grave danger.  To take such a risk in
    itself can be a mortal sin.  Woe unto them who do so.  Our most precious gift
    from God is our ability to reason with right thinking, and when we deliberately
    subvert that precious gift, there is no end to the error to which we subject
    ourselves as a consequence.

    Quote from: CathMomof7
    Quote from: hollingsworth
    cathmom:
    Quote
    His analysis only points to his personal philosophy of phenomenology. You see, Christianity, in the New Catholic Church, is one of experience, not physical reality


    I like your explanation.  Please help me to understand the meaning of 'phenomenology.'  I've never gotten my mind around the term.  Does it mean perceived reality vs. physical reality?  The language of philosophy is not my strong suit.


    Hollinsworth,
    I'm not much of a philosopher myself, but my husband, who was a student of philosophy, put it into words that I could really understand.

    According to phenomenology, one cannot know the world exists in and of itself.  One can only know [the] world exists through one's perception.  In other words, nothing exists outside of how we perceive it.

    God does not exist unless we feel Him or experience Him in some way.  Does that make sense?

    This is crapola, but this is what B16 believes and is "teaching" through the new church.

    Animals can't experience God, therefore He doesn't exist for them.

    We can't know a specific date for Our Lord's birth, therefore it is not relevant except in how we perceive Him.

    This is an outrage.  If more people understood what he was, who his teachers were, what he believes, what he is trying to make the church into, they would run for their very souls!  B16 is truly diabolical.


    The great Pope Saint Pius X saw this monster coming, this Beast of the
    Apocalypse, and he did his best to put a stop to it.  He enlisted a saintly man,
    his own secretary, the venerable Cardinal Merry del Val, for the task of writing
    Pascendi dominici gregis, the landmark encyclical that takes Modernism, slices
    and dices it, and hangs it out to dry.  Therein, he explains that first the
    philosopher proclaims that "God is immanent!"  And from that point alone all
    else follows like a freight train in transit.  When the gate is open, the shipment
    of goods is delivered, in spades!

    Think of it as an IV drip:  you get what the doctor ordered, even if you're
    unconscious.  

    Your husband has done very well, CathMomof7, giving you your "meat in due
    season," for you have internalized this doctrine and you can work with it.  You
    can read the writing on the wall.  He is a good student of good philosophy, and
    you should count your blessings, because there are a lot of students of bad
    philosophy, all around.  It is believed and it is popular because it can be a means
    to make a lot of money.  When their god is material prosperity, the truth is a
    victim of collateral damage, and the love of money is the root of all evil.


    Quote from: Tiffany
    I would have thought this was from The Onion.



    The Onion Sepulveda Unitarian Universalist community came to mind:







    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #13 on: November 23, 2012, 03:57:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • An empty manger divorcing the creator from his creation. The scene of animals in the manger subdued in the presence of Our Lord harkens back to the original animals in Genesis at peace with man before the Fall.

    The certainty of the year all Christendom's calendar was based on for thousands of years, suddenly thrown into doubt by our own pope. Suddenly we are skeptics who have no real way of knowing when our own Savior was born, left to guess with secular historians and archeologists.

    If the traditions about the manger scene and the year Our Lord was born were wrong and taught to us by the Church, what else is wrong? What else will be discovered in the future to make us doubt other teachings?

    Offline Anthony Benedict

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 533
    • Reputation: +509/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Pope Says Date of Christs Birth is Wrong No Animals at Nativity
    « Reply #14 on: November 23, 2012, 04:44:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The experts here may be able to find that to which I refer, but there does exist in the old liturgy a precise, detailed and authenticated itemization of the VERY PRECISE MOMENT IN TIME IN WHICH GOD THE SON WAS BORN IN THE FLESH, OF MARY EVER VIRGIN.

    It is, I believe, a "prologue" to a major celebratory rite.  References made throughout include a serious catalogue of known historical personae and major historical events.

    Anyway, no one has ever had more attention paid His life that Our Lord.

    So, the question is, if even the birthdays of ancient commoners and tribunes can be discerned, why not in this particular instance?

    Oh, wait!

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16