Jesus wasn't ACTUALLY born on 25th December 2008 years ago, was he???!

[Alambil]

RE issue at school.

It's a C of E school and I was asked this in RE today, so I said

"well, no - we aren't sure exactly what day he was born on, but the festival of lights was at the time, so the Christians use this to remember the birth of Jesus because they believe Jesus is the light of the world."

It transpires that one MUST tell the children that Jesus was born on Christmas day. As in 25th December. Because word of mouth from the time of his birth confirms this

Is it me, or is that a tad ..... false?!

scottishmummy, I too am a non-believer and non churgh goer.

I still think that this is not really the thread to be saying things like "jesus h christ" is it?? seriously??

it isn't about any "dissent" as you call it. it's just about being polite.

I couldn't care less what you believe in. but I do think that saying things like that on a thread full of people who DO believe is a bit, well, not on really.

I don't believe in many religions- I wouldn't be deliberatly offensive to those who do believe though- there's just no need for it.
I don't go around being rude to people I meet, regardless of what they do/don't believe.

Hi ScottishMummy - people are not dissenting from your assertion that Jesus is not (the son of) God (well, obviously those who believe are dissenting from that, but you get what I mean); rather that he was an historical figure. You could agree that this is the case, even if you don't believe in Christianity. There is historical evidence that a man named Yeshua formed some kind of Messianic cult in the early first century CE, and that he was crucified by the Romans. Pretty much nobody disputes the historical reality of Jesus. Lots, though, as you point out, dispute his Christological reality...

you are all getting a bitty giddy and a bitty got at.i have not insulted anyone.i asserted my belief whilst recognising yours. i do believe one of you squawked "crap" pretty early on too.see that fell on deaf ears, goes unnoticed then with no chastisement

when it became evident this was touchy,i did query why so touchy.evidently someone else must have said similar

what about the numerous books and academic debates

anyhoo i must go

just because a lot of religiuos people are stupid doesn't mean a lot of athiests aren't. A lot of athiests assume they have some intellectual superiority but unfortunately fail to follow it up with any, well, intellectual superiority. [am agnostic btw]

It's amazing how much more evidence there is that Jesus lived than there is for many of the events in history. Romans and Jews kept records of what Jesus got up to, from his preaching to people claiming he healed them, they even said (both Jews and Romans) that his body disappeared, that was a big thing because the guards posted at his tomb would have been under threat of death if they let his followers take him, which given what he was saying in the week leading up to his death they knew was a possibility.

typing one hander whilst expressing can acually spell.

No, ScottishMummy - you are wilfully misunderstanding the debate here (aside from people's irritation at your criticism of their faith).

You said that Jesus did not exist.

But he did.

Whether he was God is up for debate.

But not whether he existed.

As I said, a man named Yeshua went about claiming to be the son of God, and that the end of days was coming, etc. etc. And he was crucified by the Romans.

Look up Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, chapter 9 for a mention of James, the brother of Jesus (called the Christ).

So any 'giddiness' as you call it is down to frustration that you are refusing to accept historical fact, even if - and you are quite entitled not to - you don't accept it as religious fact!

Oh for pity's sake get off ScottishMummy's back. She's entitled to her view. How is it insulting to state that Jesus didn't exist? I just don't get this taking offense thing when people state opinions. If you don't agree with someone's opinion, fair enough, but why do you have to take offense? Life's to bleedin' short, IMO (and there ain't no Afterlife so make the most of the one you've got).

But what SM is saying is the equivalent of stating that Alexander the Great didn't exist. Or William the Conqueror or something. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of historical fact.

How is it insulting to state that Jesus didn't exist?

It isn't INSULTING, it is just like saying NAPOLEON DIDN'T EXIST - just SILLY

Is is disputable that he was THE THIRD PERSON OF THE TRIUNE GOD or indeed, that his middle name began with 'H'

OP I am for you!

Um, ScottishMummy's view, Soprana, is a denial of historical fact. A chap named Yeshua did exist. Denial of historical fact is called revisionism, and it is an ugly thing.

Ironically, given ScottisMummy's commitment to atheism, what she is doing is actually akin to upholding creationism - another denial of historical fact. How strange.

Please read people's posts. They accept that ScottishMummy can deny that Yeshua was/is God. No-one is insisting that she have Christian faith. But they are asking that she accept the historical reality of the historical figure of Jesus.

Sigh.

Hits. Head. On. Brick. Wall.

Well, what a surprise. A religious thread kicks off

Back on track if you will....

I am still in shock to be honest.

I thought a Christian school would at least make sure their historical facts were straight, even if you do think the rest is baloney!

Well, despite your attempts, Penthesileia, to patronise me with in an inch of my life, I continue to assert that if ScottishMummy wants to believe that Jesus did not exist, she's entitled to that belief. You think it's nuts; fair enough. I'm not insulted or offended by that. The real issue here, as I see it, is people "taking offense" at others expressing their views. If christians really, really believe in Jesus, why should they take offense at others' disbelief? You make think us sadly deluded, but surely your faith can withstand the views of a few non-belivers without taking offense? Too many believers, of whatever faith, nowadays, attempt to silence unbelievers by professing to be offended by their views. Denial of free speech and freedom of belief (or the freedom not to believe) is also an 'ugly thing', is it not?

There, I'll let you get back to hitting your head against the brick wall. Hope you find it helps.

I think Scottishmummy is getting beliefs and fact muddled up, bless her. I know she likes to have a pop Christians at every opportunity but really she is the one coming across as giddy.

Lewis, how old are the children? I know it shouldn't make that much difference but a bunch of 5 yr old probably wouldn't understand or care why Christmas isn't really on 25th December but 10 yr olds could handle it, I'm sure.

I would hope that no teacher told my children that anyway - it is a tad false as you say.

As I recall, themildmanneredjanitor the holocaust is not a religious belief, so I don't see how this follows as an analogy.

Soprano, you don't appear to know the difference between a fact and a belief either.

Jesus existed is a fact. Jesus is the Son of God is a belief.

OK, Soprana - and apologies if you felt patronised. That wasn't my intention.

You're so right. I do take offense at denial of historical fact. I consider it a moral issue, actually.

I don't give a monkey's, really, about the denial of religious faith, though I think it should be expressed politely, if possible.

Yes, yes, yes. I KNOW ALL OF THAT.

My point is that it was suggested that it is offensive to state that he (Jesus) did not exist. I do not think that it is offensive to state that, any more than it's offensive to say that Henry the Eighth didn't exist. Even if it might be bonkers.

The only reason that people take offense is that Jesus has, for them, religious significance. In my view, this should not stop ScottishMummy from saying what she said. That's all.

Now, can we drop the whole Holocaust analogy? Or I might "take offense"at the insinuations. .

I thought the issue was that it is rediculous for a COE school to insist on teaching the children that Jesus was indisputably born on 25th December when actually there is well documented dispute to that date.

Scottishmummy's posts are plain rude. It is fine to disagree with the belief in Christianity. But, you don't have to be rude about it.

This thread is about when Jesus was born, not whether he existed. And it certainly didn't invite comments about Christianity being a fairy tale.

And what is this about his middle name beginning with H. You made me laugh, morningpaper.

Nobody is taking offense that she doesn't believe in Jesus, they are amazed that she insists that the person Jesus, the flesh and blood man didn't exist when historical fact says he did.

But you are right, if she wants to dispute a fact and pretend he didn't exist that is nobody's business but her own. However, if she insists on gloating that she has 'hit a raw nerve' and everybody else is getting giddy then frankly, she looks foolish.