What time period did Jesus die?

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,319
Portugal
#21
In the Iberian Peninsula the Spanish Era or Era of Caesar was used, counting from 38 BCE. The Anno Domini dating system was adopted by Aragon in AD 1349, Valencia in 1358, Castile in 1383, and Portugal in 1422.

Spanish era - Wikipedia
Spanish or Hispania, more often Era of Caesar, Julian Era, or even Era of Augustus was used, if I am not mistaken I even saw Era of the Goths in documents, the terminology could change much, anyway even after the year of 1460 of the Julian Era, with the royal decree of D. João I, in Portugal still continued to be used even in the official chronicles.
 
Jun 2017
2,510
Connecticut
#22
Because Herod was supposedly alive when Jesus was born, and possibly for two years afterwards, since the Massacre of the Innocents supposedly included boys two years old and younger, it is generally supposed that Jesus was born before Herod died.

So the date of Herod's death is a major clue to the date of Jesus's birth, and the date of Jesus's birth is a major clue to the date of Herod's death. And since I describe it as working both ways, you should realize that both dates are rather uncertain.

If Jesus really was born before Herod died, then Herod must have died after the date - whatever date that was - when Jesus was born. If Herod really was alive after Jesus was born, then Jesus must have been born before the date - whatever date it was - that Herod died. And if Herod the Great actually died before Jesus was born, the Herod in the story of the birth of Jesus perhaps being Herod II Archalus, then the Massacre of the Innocents, if it happened, would have to have been ordered by someone else and not Herod the Great.
It's not Herod the Great, one of his successors(I think it's the one you mentioned) is the one attributed to the New Testament. His behavior was a key factor in the Romans taking direct control of Judea. Herod the Great was a good puppet and that's part of why he was unpopular among the Jews. The next one(who controlled only part of Judea) was supposedly a mad man. Then again the Bible focuses more on moral and message than historical accuracy so I'm going to make the inference that the events in the New Testament are only loosely based on his IRL brutality.
 
Oct 2018
726
Adelaide south Australia
#23
I'm not convinced. But Ok if he existed, is he the son of God?



:lol:
Did he exist?

There is no contemporary evidence of Jesus' existence. My opinion is that his existence is probable, so I accept it for the sake of argument, but not as established fact.

Is Jesus the son of God? The answer to that depends on whom you ask:

To Jews ;a resounding NO!

Christians swear yes.

Muslims revere 'Isa' (Jesus) as a prophet like Abraham and Moses. They reject the Christian triune god and consider the claim that Jesus is the son of god to be blasphemy.

Hindus: Not sure. I think Jesus could fit easily within Hinduism . They would probably laugh at the notion of Jesus as the only son of the only god.

Me? I don't believe in gods, so the claim is meaningless to me. My response to anyone who makes the claim to me is "please prove it, or go away".

I think the only honest answers are " I believe X Y or Z' or "nobody knows" . I say that because so far nobody in recorded history has managed to prove the existence of god (s) Any dependant questions are irrelevant.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
2,589
Las Vegas, NV USA
#24
I haven't looked into it but how can Christ die 6 years before Christ? Funny old world.
A mistake was made in fixing the date of birth to the appropriate Roman year. I think this was already addressed re the date of the Massacre of the Innocents.

Plus did he exist? :)
It's a matter of faith, not fact. Personally I think it's more likely than not that he did exist or at least that his story is based on a real person. Why would the Gospels be made up? Roman accounts refer to him although that might be simply recounting early Christian accounts. The huge role Christianity has played in European history is hard to reconcile with a fictional character IMO.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
726
Adelaide south Australia
#25
Some people get on with their lives and accept that what they`ve always been told is true. Perhaps they really are the enlightened ones.

Just as likely that they are lazy and intellectually shallow. Not to say ineffably gullible.

"The unexamined life is not worth living" . Socrates.

I'd add a caveat; Unless you are quite stupid. In that case, '"where ignorance is bliss, t'is folly to be wise" . Thomas Grey

If I had me druthers, I'd druther be stupid and happy.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,866
#26
Because Herod was supposedly alive when Jesus was born, and possibly for two years afterwards, since the Massacre of the Innocents supposedly included boys two years old and younger, it is generally supposed that Jesus was born before Herod died.

So the date of Herod's death is a major clue to the date of Jesus's birth, and the date of Jesus's birth is a major clue to the date of Herod's death. And since I describe it as working both ways, you should realize that both dates are rather uncertain.

If Jesus really was born before Herod died, then Herod must have died after the date - whatever date that was - when Jesus was born. If Herod really was alive after Jesus was born, then Jesus must have been born before the date - whatever date it was - that Herod died. And if Herod the Great actually died before Jesus was born, the Herod in the story of the birth of Jesus perhaps being Herod II Archalus, then the Massacre of the Innocents, if it happened, would have to have been ordered by someone
. else and not Herod the Great.
Except lot of scholars don't put much faith in the historical reliability of the birth narratives.in Luke and Matthew, and the stories were mostly invented for theological reason. The OT predicts per some interpretations that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but it was known Jesus grew up in Nazereth. Luke and Matthew came up with their own stories to reconcile these discrepancies.

While not in explicit comflict, the stories of Luke and Matthew seem to have different assumptions. Luke seems.to think Joseph was a native of Nazareth, and the Census story was the mechanism to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth.

Matthew seems to assume Joseph was from Bethlehem , and his story was to explain how Joseph, Mary, and Jesus wound up in Nazareth.

Neither Mark, John record Jesus birth, and Paul and the other NT Epistles writers were interested in recording neither details of Jesus birth nor the town he group up in. It was obviously not an important topic for most of the earliest Christisns , and by the time the gospels were written, most of the potential eyewitnesses to Jesus birth would have been dead of old age, so.the accuracy of Matthew's and Luke's birth narrative would be suspect on just that ground - from whom did they get their details if all the potential eyewitnesses were dead?

But Luke does given Jesus age as around 30 years old when his ministry began during the time of Pilate which could possibly place Jesus birth just before the time of Herod's death The gospel of Luke specifically states that Pontius Pilate.was gonvernor when Tiberius was emperor, and we have Josephus, Philo of Alexandria that also.attest to that fact, so.even without the archaelogical.findz, we would know when Pilate was governor, and hence when Jesus lived.
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,866
#27
Did he exist?

There is no contemporary evidence of Jesus' existence. My opinion is that his existence is probable, so I accept it for the sake of argument, but not as established fact.
We have testimony of Tacitus, that Jesus existed, which is better than what we have for Muhammad, where we have no early non Muslim writer giving any biographical details that matches Muslim arrounts of Muhammad.

And why would expect there to be any contemporary accounts of Jesus? He was a non violent Jesus preschers who attracted crowds of followers numbering in the 5,000, enough to be a potential concern for local.officials but not large enough to warrant interest by historians of the time. (To put in perspective, the Coloseum held crowds of 50,000 at a time.). The Romans crucified a lot of people, but we don't have contemporary accounts for most of them, why would Jesus be any different? It was only when his followers became a lot more numerous hat they attracted the attention of historians, but Christians own sources say he was attracting crowds just in the thousands, not tens of thousands.

Is Jesus the son of God? The answer to that depends on whom you ask:

To Jews ;a resounding NO!

Christians swear yes.

Muslims revere 'Isa' (Jesus) as a prophet like Abraham and Moses. They reject the Christian triune god and consider the claim that Jesus is the son of god to be blasphemy.

Hindus: Not sure. I think Jesus could fit easily within Hinduism . They would probably laugh at the notion of Jesus as the only son of the only god.


Me? I don't believe in gods, so the claim is meaningless to me. My response to anyone who makes the claim to me is "please prove it, or go away".

I think the only honest answers are " I believe X Y or Z' or "nobody knows" . I say that because so far nobody in recorded history has managed to prove the existence of god (s) Any dependant questions are irrelevant.
Good answer.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,866
#28
A mistake was made in fixing the date of birth to the appropriate Roman year. I think this was already addressed re the date of the Massacre of the Innocents.



It's a matter of faith, not fact. Personally I think it's more likely than not that he did exist or at least that his story is based on a real person. Why would the Gospels be made up? Roman accounts refer to him although that might be simply recounting early Christian accounts. The huge role Christianity has played in European history is hard to reconcile with a fictional character IMO.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
It is a matter of faith that any ancient person existed. One could argue that alleged proof was forged, that ancient inscriptions showing the existence of the person were later (but still ancient) forgeries. Maybe Alexander the Great never existed, and all the evidence and writings about him were created by the the ancient Greeks to given themselves a national hero who could rival Cyrus the Great.

But judging Jesus by the same standard we judge other historcal figures we should conclude he existed. The evidence for Jesus is.as good as for most historical figures we don't question the existence of.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,195
Sydney
#29
Zero is not a quantity , it's a numeral position
Jesuah is reportedly born during a government census of Augustus
people had to return to their place of birth to be registered ,even heavily pregnant
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,127
Republika Srpska
#30
As far as I know, the earliest non-Muslim source that mentions Muhammad is Doctrina Iacobi nuper Baptizati which was created during the 630s in Palestine. It mentions a false prophet that appeared among the Arabs, while the first detailed account of Muhammad's actions is in the Armenian Chronicle of pseudo-Sebeos from 660s.