Re: The New Year

"Thomas R. Wier" nevesht:
>
>Quoting Peter Clark <peter-clark@...>:
>
> > On Sunday 29 December 2002 09:13 am, James Landau wrote:
> > > Therefore Jesus would be born right about the
> > > year 7215 by the Kankonian calendar, the Roman Empire (or at least the
> > > Western Roman Empire) would fall in 7691 (that's 7,215 + 476) and
> > > <u>1984</u> would be retitled <u>9199</u>.
> >         Minor nit-pick: Jesus was most likely born B.C. 4-7,  but you
>may
> > have already known that.
>
>The concensus (if such it be) seems to be that it was precisely
>6 B.C., since that coincided with a conjunction of Jupiter and
>the Moon in Ares, which to ancient astrologers was the sign of
>Judaea.  According to this same theory, the gospel-writer simply
>confused the Roman governor Quirinius with Quintilius, who served
>a decade before, in 6 B.C.
>
The problem is that the Star is only mentioned in one Gospel, and the
Gospels were written at least 50 years after his birth, it is quite possible
mistakes were made. On the other hand, the Crucifiction is datable from the
eclipse mentioned.




-Wayne Chevrier







_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_eliminateviruses_3mf