Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
we would need evidence that no Jesus ever existed. It was a common name. So for the average joe, is it reasonable to say a guy name Jesus lived and had a following that took off to become a religion?
this aint that hard.
so is it resemble to say that a teacher was going around teaching against literal religion? We would hope so.
none of that changes the absurdity of died and rose for our sins. But I guess when someone lives in fear, defined by literal thinking, they need all or nothing to rule the rest of us.
I remember the business about the coin, and I'd love to know what sort of date they give it. But even if a remarkable astronomical phenomenon oocurred about the time, would it send magi from the east to Judea in search of a king of the Jews which they wanted to worship. For all they knew it was Herod's heir. It's too much Matthew constructing a story with all the signs of plot construction, plot plot -holes. Wouldn't Herod have sent an escort or trackers, at least, to see where the three went rather than trusting that they'd come and tell him? But that wouldn't do as Herod had to be at a loss and order a massacre. Unknown to history and indeed to any other gospel writer. In fact mark and John have never heard of a Bethlehem birth, though John knows that there ought to have been one, but suggests that there wasn't.
Matthew and Luke sought to rectify that omission - with two different and contradictory tales.
Of course people have to look as the case made by both sides and decide - if their minds aren't made up already.
From my thread, which shows again you did not read it.
Furthermore the magi*would have been well aware of this Messianic belief as one of their greatest teachers, long before the time in question, said that sometime in the future there would arise a king who would raise the dead and transform the world into a kingdom of peace and security and that the king would come forth from the stock of Abraham. The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics,*art. Zoroastrianism, XII.862–868.
As we can see the magi were well aware that a king coming from the stock of Abraham would come into the world and being astrologers they would have been watching the heavens for the time of this kings appearing. This is exactly what Matthew tells us of the magi, they saw this king’s star at its arising and followed it from the east to Jerusalem.
So as it has been shown you did not read the thread, tell us how it is you debunked it?
I will always give Trans the highest up most credit and my loyalty to a true person who at least believes what he says and stands behind what he believes.
I have the most upmost respect for him and I completely understand his agenda and what drives him to do what he does, afterall, I have been sitting in rooms with Atheists picking up my kids from school while the school wanted indocterinate my children with their own invented religion where they had no right. The anger and fury at the freaking system trying to ruin my children with what they thought was the only righteousness, THEIR stupid plumb line that doesn't make sense, and as far as I am concerned, '' CHILD ABUSE.''
I can see why he is working for what he is working toward, and that is freedom, LIBERTY.
Don't get me wrong I like trans and have mentioned that a few time and even stuck up for him on occasion,however when he reverts to rafs tactics I lose some respect for him because he he cannot see he does the same thing he accuses me of doing. but somehow when I do it I am wrong to do it.
Do you believe everything a historian has written or are there parts that are correct and parts that can be shown to be incorrect?
What trans does not like is the parts that I have shown by other historians to be incorrect so he reverts to what IMO is a very lame tactic.
What you don't like trans is I used historians to show Josephus was all over the map to prove my point all you got is Josephus said this or that so its gospel.
What YOU do not like is that I used THREE historians AND an eyewitness who wrote Herod's autobiography (and the three different calendars) to show that Josephus was NOT all over the map. Some of his copyists, yes, especially those who wrote in Latin.
So ONCE again we do NOT rely just on Josephus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
who says it is unknown? obviously Luke knew of it, but you do not like Luke's accounts so disregard it as being false.
Luke knew of some unknown revolt that he did not mention because he knew of some unknown revolt that he did not mention? How circular.
And we do like Luke's account, as he definitely puts the census during the time of Quirinius (which can only be 6 AD).
From my thread, which shows again you did not read it.
Furthermore the magi*would have been well aware of this Messianic belief as one of their greatest teachers, long before the time in question, said that sometime in the future there would arise a king who would raise the dead and transform the world into a kingdom of peace and security and that the king would come forth from the stock of Abraham. The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics,*art. Zoroastrianism, XII.862–868.
Have you read The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics,*art. Zoroastrianism, XII.862–868. or did you just copy that from the apologetic site that gets everything wrong - Chapter 2: Who Were the Wise Men?.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
So as it has been shown you did not read the thread, tell us how it is you debunked it?
Because he does not have to refute every point to demonstrate your position is not a good one.
obviously Luke knew of it, but you do not like Luke's accounts so disregard it as being false.
.
Christians don't accept the New Testament, not just Atheists. Christians invalidate the New Testament when they don't believe what they are reading(Like Trans) and if it is pick and choose for the Christian, they confirm the Atheist. I could quote Jesus already knowing that Christsians don't believe him. I could quote Paul and show the facts of his coming up to trial, and all Christians do is to show Paul as a lying two faced coward.
What you don't like trans is I used historians to show Josephus was all over the map to prove my point all you got is Josephus said this or that so its gospel.
who says it is unknown? obviously Luke knew of it, but you do not like Luke's accounts so disregard it as being false.
No, i believe that thread was closed down which is why I had to start the nativity thread.
No, I showed that Josephus made sense and you didn't like it. Luke did not obviously know of an unknown Judas' revolt, if that's what we are we talking about here), as he links it (Gamaliel's speech) to the 6 AD census. All you do is invent some unknown history to create a duplicate Quririnus census in Herodian times where there is no room for Quirinus, anyway. I love Luke's accounts because they provide me with my material. You neither like Luke or Josephus and so invent your own history to make a Herodian census work.
As I recall, Raffs and I carried on quite a while after you left, but you never addressed the important points but just dickered about the High Priests and loyalty censuses in Herodian times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
what you don't like is I had to point out your ignorance of astrology.
What has astrology got to do with it? Astrology doesn't get Magi rushing to Judea to 'worship' a messiah? Astrology doesn't have an astronomical phenomenon fingerpointing a particular house. Astrology does not help Matthew's nativity to be anything just a fairy - tale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
From my thread, which shows again you did not read it.
Furthermore the magi*would have been well aware of this Messianic belief as one of their greatest teachers, long before the time in question, said that sometime in the future there would arise a king who would raise the dead and transform the world into a kingdom of peace and security and that the king would come forth from the stock of Abraham. The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics,*art. Zoroastrianism, XII.862–868.
As we can see the magi were well aware that a king coming from the stock of Abraham would come into the world and being astrologers they would have been watching the heavens for the time of this kings appearing. This is exactly what Matthew tells us of the magi, they saw this king’s star at its arising and followed it from the east to Jerusalem.
So as it has been shown you did not read the thread, tell us how it is you debunked it?
I don't recall you ever making that argument, but now that you do - I remind you that I already debunked it - twice. These were magi - Persian or Chaldean astrologers who may have known the Jewish scriptures but would hardly have believed them. It doesn't make sense that they would gallop off to Judea to worship a Hebrew king, even if they saw it as scripturally messianic, which in Hebrew terms merely meant a leader of the Hebrews.
I'll look up the Zoroastrianism reference, but I'll be astonished if it has anything to do with Hebrew scriptural beliefs.
Nope - all I can find is a claim that Zoroastrianism derived a 'king' idea from the Abrahamic thing, and based on the 'Art' volume of this 1920's -30's encyclopaedia of religion. I suspect that is what you found, too, but, if you have the link to the passage from the encyclopaedia, I'd appreciate it. But even a Zoroastrian king derived from the line of Abraham doesn't validate even Jews rushing to Bethlehem to do worship, never mind Eastern Magi.
I don't recall that you used any historians to discredit Josephus, (though you did to try to invent an Augustan loyalty census in Herod's time) but you tried to do this by criticising Josephus' record itself - specifically the two term of Joazar and the vagueness about Priestly appointments before the Romans took over. That really is too thin to dismiss Josephus, especially as I explained the two terms of Joazar and you didn't like it at all.
You also (in case you bring it up later) tried to argue that the 6 AD census only disposed of Archelaus' wealth. Quoting Josephus who is now utterly reliable, since you can use him. But I saw the passage recently and it said that the takeover disposed of the assets of Judea itself as well as those of Archelaus. After all, aren't they the same thing? And we know the Romans took over anyway and what would they do with a new province but assess it for tax? It would have to be a tax census 6 AD whether Josephus said so or not. And it's Luke (Acts) who associates revolt of Judas with the Qurinus census which is the time when Quirinus was governor. All this done from Luke and history with Josephus merely agreeing with it.
I don't see that you have anywhere to go even if you dismiss Josephus and invent an earlier Judas and census. Qurinus is not governor in Herodian times.
This is still not looking at the Egypt or Nazareth discrepancy. As before, you are dickering with details and ignoring the biggies.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-30-2019 at 11:51 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
