well I do know zeitgeist says the bible says jesus was born on december 25 which to me was a glaring mistake?or an outright misdirection becuase it obviously makes no such claim.
No, Zeitgeist never claimed that the Bible says
Jesus was born on December 25th. It merely says Jesus was born on December 25th, which according to many sources, is true. There are other sources for Christian mythology besides the Bible, just like there are other sources for Judaism besides the Old Testament, like the Talmud for example, and other sources for Egyptian mythology besides just the Pyramid Texts or the Book of the Dead, and other sources for Greek mythology besides just the Iliad or the Odyssey, etc.
It is only a small portion of the Christian community that abides by the belief of "sola scriptura", and even that belief is comparatively recent in the full scale of Christian history, hell, it didn't even begin with the Protestant reformation.
But especially in the early years of Christianity, there was no sola scriptura rule because there simply was no scriptura. The earliest of the church fathers cite Apostolic tradition and the Old Testament as their authority more than they do any "New Testament" literature. Just give Clement of Rome a read over.
And even after the New Testament books came along, sola scriptura was still not a common practice because there still wasn't a SOLE scriptura. There were many different Christianities, all claiming to be just as valid as the next, and each claiming to have their own canon. Did you know that the first New Testament canon in church history was composed by a heretic? And as late as 140 CE? Marcion collected the earliest New Testament in church history, and it didn't have all the books now included. It was only AFTER he did that, THEN the Catholics like Irenaeus, in their jealousy, started claiming the rights to those books and started forming their own canon. And even the earliest orthodox New Testaments had MORE books than the New Testaments today. Look in your Bible and see if you can find the Shepherd of Hermas or the Epistle of Barnabas. They used to be in the New Testament, but not anymore.
To quote renown biblical scholar, Dr. Bart Ehrman-
"The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.
In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that God had created the world. But others believed that this world had been created by a subordinate, ignorant divinity. (Why else would the world be filled with such misery and hardship?) Yet other Christians thought it was worse than that, that this world was a cosmic mistake by a malevolent divinity as a place of imprisonment, to trap humans and subject them to pain and suffering.
In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that the Jewish Scripture (the Christian "Old Testament") was inspired by the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews, who was not the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed it was not inspired.
In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine and not humans at all. (For them divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a man than a man can be a rock.) There were other who insisted that Jesus was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ, who had temporarily inhabited Jesus' body during his ministry and left him prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath.
In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus' death brought about the salvation of the world. There were other Christians who though that Jesus' death has nothing to do with the salvation of the world. There were yet other Christians who said that Jesus never died.How could some of these views be considered Christian? Or to put the question differently, how could people who considered themselves Christian hold such views? Why did they not consult their Scriptures to see that there were not 365 gods, or that the true God had created the world, or that Jesus had died? Why didn't they just read the New Testament?
It is because there was no New Testament. To be sure, the books that were eventually collected into the New Testament had been written by the second century. But they had not yet been gathered into a widely recognized and authoritative canon of Scripture. And there were other books written as well, with equally impressive pedigrees--other Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses claiming to be written by the earthly apostles of Jesus.
There has never been a sole scriptura, let a alone a doctrine of sola scriptura, until AFTER the protestant reformation, and even then, not even most protestants abide by the canon alone, they will adhere to traditions as well.
And so for those of us outside of the Christian community, the various canons of scirpture have no more authority concerning the Jesus biography than do the many traditions and non canonical scriptures floating around.
And BTW, Irenaeus lets us know that the idea that Jesus was born in December goes back at least as early as Simon Magus, who was a contemporary with the apostles.
One good reason to believe the jesus account is because the talmud makes such a point of telling how he is being tortured for eternity along with mary,and relates how they are low fornicators and prostitutes. so that would give one thought why would they do this for a myth? I think not.
I've never read anything in the Talmudic literature about Jesus or Mary being prostitutes. It does say Mary his mother was a fornicator who cheated on her husband with a Roman soldier named Panthera, and that this Panthera was the biological father of Jesus.
But you're on a slippery slope by appealing to Talmudic tradition, because for one thing, you are now allowing for appeals to oral tradition that was finally written down only after the canonical NT books, and that itself is not considered canonical by Christianity. Yet those are the very two reasons why some Christians reject the December 25th birthday- it's not canonical, and it's only an (allegedly) late oral tradition.
So to appeal to the Talmud while rejecting Christian oral tradition sounds like special pleading.
The other slippery slope here is that the Talmud also says a lot of other things that contradict the canonical New Testament story.
Like that Jesus only had five disciples, that he was born from adultery, that he lived in Egypt until adulthood, which is were he learned Egyptian magical spells that he tattooed on his skin, and that this was the means by which he performed his miracles, and because of this he was put to trial, and then stoned, not crucified, but stoned to death, and then post-humously hung on a tree, as Deuteronomy commands. And it says that Mary's husband was not Joseph, but Pappos Ben Yehuda, and this guy lived until the early 2nd century.
Etc., etc. So again, appealing to the Talmudic traditions puts you in a very weird position that I am curious to see how you reconcile without admitting to special pleading.