Today I'm neither Angry nor Happy about....

[thebish]

We may not know much about shepherds in winter, but we do know the Census of Quirinius was - 6-7 A (so to speak) D. If Joseph was registering for the census and had to go to Bethlehem, we have a closer idea of the year of the (alleged) birth.

and to take any time worrying about that you'd have to believe that Jesus was born at the same time as some kind of census... which would involve accepting that the Lukan birth narrative is about the facts of Jesus' birth...

[thebish]

^^

Exactly....it's not difficult, is it?

no - it isn't...

we have no idea when Jesus was born - not what day/month or even year..

your assertion that it was definitely not 25th Dec. is simply ludicrous... it is as likely it was the equivalent of dec 25th as it was any other day of whatever year it was...

there - easy!

I said definitely?

you blew a whistle (or farted - it is unclear which) to draw attention to your announcement and then declared: "he wasn't even born on that day......."

you then went on to assert that being a "man of the cloth" I would know that Jesus wasn't born on 25th December..

that sounds like you are being pretty definite to me even without using the word "definite"

are you less sure now? if you're not sure - then it would seem odd that you decided to pull Tango up in the first place!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

As I cannot help it, can I throw into the mix, we haven't even got the faintest idea as to whether he was born at all...

if you've got as far as accepting there was a "he" - then I think it stands to reason he was born at some time...

Straws... Clutching at. I'm assuming the traditional narrative that Cheist was male. Whatever he/she/it was supposed to be, there is no evidence, from a scientific point of view, that he/it/she existed at all. Only faith... and faith is just that, an idea in your own head with no evidence whatsoever that what you believe is TRUE.

[bobo the clown]

Harry Belafonte knew.

"Long time ago in Bethlehem, Mary's boy child Jesus Christ was born on Christmas Day."

That's good enough for me, even if it was a massive co-incidence.

[Annoyed Grunt]

^^

Exactly....it's not difficult, is it?

no - it isn't...

we have no idea when Jesus was born - not what day/month or even year..

your assertion that it was definitely not 25th Dec. is simply ludicrous... it is as likely it was the equivalent of dec 25th as it was any other day of whatever year it was...

there - easy!

I said definitely?

you blew a whistle (or farted - it is unclear which) to draw attention to your announcement and then declared: "he wasn't even born on that day......."

you then went on to assert that being a "man of the cloth" I would know that Jesus wasn't born on 25th December..

that sounds like you are being pretty definite to me even without using the word "definite"

are you less sure now? if you're not sure - then it would seem odd that you decided to pull Tango up in the first place!

Your definite I'm being definite?

Judging by what's on the internet, he wasn't born on the 25th......there's nothing on there to say it was.....so on the balance if that...he wasn't born on the 25th.......

[Annoyed Grunt]

Harry Belafonte knew.

"Christ was born on Christmas Day". That's good enough for me, even if it was a massive co-incidence..

How does he know though?

[bobo the clown]

Harry Belafonte knew.

"Christ was born on Christmas Day". That's good enough for me, even if it was a massive co-incidence..

How does he know though?

Well, apparently, "the Holy Bible say"!!

I will brook no further argument on the matter.

[Annoyed Grunt]

Harry Belafonte knew.

"Christ was born on Christmas Day". That's good enough for me, even if it was a massive co-incidence..

How does he know though?

Well, apparently, "the Holy Bible say"!!

I will brook no further argument on the matter.

[thebish]

Judging by what's on the internet, he wasn't born on the 25th......there's nothing on there to say it was.....so on the balance if that...he wasn't born on the 25th.......

I'm very happy to leave you be if your standard of proof for statements is "judging by what it says on the internet"

given what little you have shared of the reasoning behind this ludicrous assertion is an appeal to what Luke's gospel says - and you have very carefully failed to respond to my question "do you believe Luke's account of Jesus's birth?" - then I will have to say that I am very sorry but you have not persuaded me away from my own theory - a much simpler one - which is that we just don't know and that it was as likely to be 25th december as any other day.

I suspect you and your internet sources are getting a bit carried away with some very old and poorly argued nonsense about winter in Palestine and what happened to sheep (perhaps confused by the christmas cards we get which have snow and robins in them) and nonsense arguments about stars and where they were and who had censuses where and how...

was it a whistle or a fart, by the way - which heralded your riposte to tango?

[Worthy4England]

But judging by what's on the internet, it's all true !

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Annoyed Grunt]

Judging by what's on the internet, he wasn't born on the 25th......there's nothing on there to say it was.....so on the balance if that...he wasn't born on the 25th.......

I'm very happy to leave you be if your standard of proof for statements is "judging by what it says on the internet"

given what little you have shared of the reasoning behind this ludicrous assertion is an appeal to what Luke's gospel says - and you have very carefully failed to respond to my question "do you believe Luke's account of Jesus's birth?" - then I will have to say that I am very sorry but you have not persuaded me away from my own theory - a much simpler one - which is that we just don't know and that it was as likely to be 25th december as any other day.

I suspect you and your internet sources are getting a bit carried away with some very old and poorly argued nonsense about winter in Palestine and what happened to sheep (perhaps confused by the christmas cards we get which have snow and robins in them) and nonsense arguments about stars and where they were and who had censuses where and how...

was it a whistle or a fart, by the way - which heralded your riposte to tango?

I did respond to your question, I said I don't believe in God or such like.

Why is it all nonsense? Honest question.....

It was neither.....

[Gooner Girl]

So if you don't believe in God AG, then you won't be celebrating his birthday? No presents, tree or festive food?!

[Annoyed Grunt]

So if you don't believe in God AG, then you won't be celebrating his birthday? No presents, tree or festive food?!

Not on Dec 25th, no......

[thebish]

I did respond to your question, I said I don't believe in God or such like.

Why is it all nonsense? Honest question.....

It was neither.....

i didn't ask you whether you believed in God - I asked you whether you believed Luke's account of Jesus' birth! if you don't - then i don't get why you would use luke's account to back up your theory about the date of jesus' birth - Luke is the only one who mentions the shepherds in the fields.

you appealed to Luke's account by saying it couldn't be dec 25th because the shepherds would not be out in the fields..

it's nonsense for several reasons..

1. because it's entirely possible the shepherds would be in the fields in december - often-times there is more grass in winter, for one thing - because the rains come... shepherds wandering further in search of pasture would not always bring the sheep back to the town/village every day - they could very easily have been out in the field.

2. the account by Luke of Jesus' birth is merely a later allegorical/metaphorical addition to the gospel - he has theological points to make about who Jesus is - and he makes those points by means of a birth narrative - which is not that uncommon a device.

so - any attempt to take details from luke (or matthew for that matter) to argue about the historical circumstances of Jesus' birth is simply nonsense.

if pffft is not a whistle or a fart - what is it?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

As I cannot help it, can I throw into the mix, we haven't even got the faintest idea as to whether he was born at all...

if you've got as far as accepting there was a "he" - then I think it stands to reason he was born at some time...

Straws... Clutching at. I'm assuming the traditional narrative that Christ was male. Whatever he/she/it was supposed to be, there is no evidence, from a scientific point of view, that he/it/she existed at all. Only faith... and faith is just that, an idea in your own head with no evidence whatsoever that what you believe is true.

Come on bish, don't leave me out in the cold (palestinian winter)... you've got to respond to my fallatial arguments in the same spirit as AG's.

[Annoyed Grunt]

I did respond to your question, I said I don't believe in God or such like.

Why is it all nonsense? Honest question.....

It was neither.....

i didn't ask you whether you believed in God - I asked you whether you believed Luke's account of Jesus' birth! if you don't - then i don't get why you would use luke's account to back up your theory about the date of jesus' birth - Luke is the only one who mentions the shepherds in the fields.

you appealed to Luke's account by saying it couldn't be dec 25th because the shepherds would not be out in the fields..

it's nonsense for several reasons..

1. because it's entirely possible the shepherds would be in the fields in december - often-times there is more grass in winter, for one thing - because the rains come... shepherds wandering further in search of pasture would not always bring the sheep back to the town/village every day - they could very easily have been out in the field.

2. the account by Luke of Jesus' birth is merely a later allegorical/metaphorical addition to the gospel - he has theological points to make about who Jesus is - and he makes those points by means of a birth narrative - which is not that uncommon a device.

so - any attempt to take details from luke (or matthew for that matter) to argue about the historical circumstances of Jesus' birth is simply nonsense.

if pffft is not a whistle or a fart - what is it?

So, the shepherds were in their fields watching their flock in the cold of winter?

[thebish]

As I cannot help it, can I throw into the mix, we haven't even got the faintest idea as to whether he was born at all...

if you've got as far as accepting there was a "he" - then I think it stands to reason he was born at some time...

Straws... Clutching at. I'm assuming the traditional narrative that Christ was male. Whatever he/she/it was supposed to be, there is no evidence, from a scientific point of view, that he/it/she existed at all. Only faith... and faith is just that, an idea in your own head with no evidence whatsoever that what you believe is true.

Come on bish, don't leave me out in the cold (palestinian winter)... you've got to respond to my fallatial arguments in the same spirit as AG's.

not really sure what your argument is! there is very little of what anyone could call real proof for the existence (and therefore birth) of many ancient figures of history

[Lord Kangana]

So if you don't believe in God AG, then you won't be celebrating his birthday? No presents, tree or festive food?!

I take Bank Holidays off.

I don't work in a bank.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

As I cannot help it, can I throw into the mix, we haven't even got the faintest idea as to whether he was born at all...

if you've got as far as accepting there was a "he" - then I think it stands to reason he was born at some time...

Straws... Clutching at. I'm assuming the traditional narrative that Christ was male. Whatever he/she/it was supposed to be, there is no evidence, from a scientific point of view, that he/it/she existed at all. Only faith... and faith is just that, an idea in your own head with no evidence whatsoever that what you believe is true.

Come on bish, don't leave me out in the cold (palestinian winter)... you've got to respond to my fallatial arguments in the same spirit as AG's.

not really sure what your argument is! there is very little of what anyone could call real proof for the existence (and therefore birth) of many ancient figures of history

I think you misunderstand my 'argument'. There is no proof (as an example) that Zeus was born on April 1st... not because it is as equally likely that he was born on November 7th, but because he wasn't born at all...

[Il Pirate]

As I cannot help it, can I throw into the mix, we haven't even got the faintest idea as to whether he was born at all...

if you've got as far as accepting there was a "he" - then I think it stands to reason he was born at some time...

Straws... Clutching at. I'm assuming the traditional narrative that Cheist was male. Whatever he/she/it was supposed to be, there is no evidence, from a scientific point of view, that he/it/she existed at all. Only faith... and faith is just that, an idea in your own head with no evidence whatsoever that what you believe is TRUE.

When you're banging on his door; you start to believe. Believe me, you start to believe..............