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.
When I first started out looking at whether the Gospels where historically accurate I did not really care one way or the other if they were or were not, as my faith in God is not tied to whether the Gospels are historically accurate or not. However the more I search out the historical accuracy of the Gospels the more I see just how accurate they actually are.
Scholars and historians; whether Christian or secular always seem to hold the historian Josephus up as the golden standard of historical accuracy of his day. Thus they compare what Luke and Mathew wrote in the Gospels with what Josephus says and if there is a disagreement between the writers Josephus is automatically assumed to be correct and Luke and Mathew are deemed historically inaccurate.
This got me wondering why this should be as Luke is also a historian so should be given equal treatment as Josephus. With that thought in my head I started to look at just how accurate Josephus actually is.
Josephus states that the census took place in the 37th year from Actium which give us the date of AD/6. But how do we know Josephus was not just making this date fit for his own purposes or he simply misread his source. After all he did the same thing with Herod stating Herod was only 15 years old when he was given charge of Galilee, when in fact Herod was 25 years old. That is a 10 year difference and if Josephus did the same thing with Actium and added 10 years it would mean it was actually in the 27 years from Actium which would place the census in Herod the greats day and match up perfectly with what Luke said.
I can already hear the mythisist and atheist screaming you got no proof of that.
However there is ample proof to suspect Josephus records of the census being in AD/6 instead of in the days of Herod the great as Luke and Mathew state that it was. John H Rhoads in his article "Josephus misdated the census of Quirinius" does a very good job of making his case. You can read his article here.
For those who will not take the time to read the article Here is the closing arguments made by Rhoads.
Admittedly, some readers may still find the standard reading more plausible.
These readers may acknowledge that Josephus was susceptible to mistaking numbers or changing dates but insist that he did not err with the date
of the census. They may acknowledge that Josephus was susceptible to the
ambiguity between “Archelaus” and “King Herod” but insist that he was not
guilty when reporting the mission of Quirinius. These readers may additionally
find it more plausible that two insurgents against Herod were active
within weeks of each other around the time of Herod’s death, both named
Judas, both with connections to Sepphoris, and both nicknamed in connection
with a famous father. They may also prefer that while one was executed by
Herod the Great for raiding Herod’s temple, the other one would wait ten years
after raiding Herod’s armory to adopt the same manner and substance of the
teaching of the first, only to have his revolt against the taxation-census be
opposed by the very same high priest who had opposed the earlier Judas even
though this high priest was reportedly deposed twice during those ten years.
Indeed, remaining faithful to the story as told by Josephus, they insist that
the similarity between Sabinus and Quirinius in both title and activity must
be just as coincidental as the similarity in the accounts of Judas and Joazar
but that the mention of Coponius at Antipater’s trial is some unexplained
spurious insertion into the text. Admittedly, these readers may with stomped
foot insist that all these features of the standard account are more plausible
than this reconstruction offered here.
To these readers, this study has sought to respond, “Really?” Admittedly,
this study has built a circumstantial argument that Josephus misplaced the
census of Quirinius. However, historiography is about making the case for
the most plausible reconstruction. In each case, this study has provided a
rationale for why Josephus reasonably located each account of Judas where
he did. Moreover, it has accounted for the narrative references to Joazar and
for his participation in events. It has attributed to Josephus only those errors
to which he has been shown demonstrably susceptible. It has argued that this
reconstruction of the underlying history is more plausible than the standard
reading. A source-critical solution that accounts for anomalies rather than
ignoring them in favor of a fideistic reading of a fallible source is correct:
Josephus misdated the census of Quirinius.
it's easy for one like you to apply a double standard to what history is. Among the thousand nations in this planet earth. Why don't you just compile a list of which history written 2000 years ago can be considered as credible.
By applying your standard, no human history can be classified credible. This is however the nature of what human history is, which you are trying leverage pointlessly.
And what you want, despite your wriggling, is evident. You want the gospels to be true (in whatever sense allows you to pin that label onto it), and that there Gospel Jesus to be True - in whatever way allows you to keep believing in a Gospel Jesus.
It's what we said all along my old cabbage. Get the HJ in and then drag the gospel one in on his tail. Before long he'll be demanding that you have the burden to prove his claims wrong, just like he did with me.
When I first started out looking at whether the Gospels where historically accurate I did not really care one way or the other if they were or were not, as my faith in God is not tied to whether the Gospels are historically accurate or not. However the more I search out the historical accuracy of the Gospels the more I see just how accurate they actually are.
Scholars and historians; whether Christian or secular always seem to hold the historian Josephus up as the golden standard of historical accuracy of his day. Thus they compare what Luke and Mathew wrote in the Gospels with what Josephus says and if there is a disagreement between the writers Josephus is automatically assumed to be correct and Luke and Mathew are deemed historically inaccurate.
This got me wondering why this should be as Luke is also a historian so should be given equal treatment as Josephus. With that thought in my head I started to look at just how accurate Josephus actually is.
Josephus states that the census took place in the 37th year from Actium which give us the date of AD/6. But how do we know Josephus was not just making this date fit for his own purposes or he simply misread his source. After all he did the same thing with Herod stating Herod was only 15 years old when he was given charge of Galilee, when in fact Herod was 25 years old. That is a 10 year difference and if Josephus did the same thing with Actium and added 10 years it would mean it was actually in the 27 years from Actium which would place the census in Herod the greats day and match up perfectly with what Luke said.
I can already hear the mythisist and atheist screaming you got no proof of that.
However there is ample proof to suspect Josephus records of the census being in AD/6 instead of in the days of Herod the great as Luke and Mathew state that it was. John H Rhoads in his article "Josephus misdated the census of Quirinius" does a very good job of making his case. You can read his article here.
For those who will not take the time to read the article Here is the closing arguments made by Rhoads.
Admittedly, some readers may still find the standard reading more plausible.
These readers may acknowledge that Josephus was susceptible to mistaking numbers or changing dates but insist that he did not err with the date
of the census. They may acknowledge that Josephus was susceptible to the
ambiguity between “Archelaus” and “King Herod” but insist that he was not
guilty when reporting the mission of Quirinius. These readers may additionally
find it more plausible that two insurgents against Herod were active
within weeks of each other around the time of Herod’s death, both named
Judas, both with connections to Sepphoris, and both nicknamed in connection
with a famous father. They may also prefer that while one was executed by
Herod the Great for raiding Herod’s temple, the other one would wait ten years
after raiding Herod’s armory to adopt the same manner and substance of the
teaching of the first, only to have his revolt against the taxation-census be
opposed by the very same high priest who had opposed the earlier Judas even
though this high priest was reportedly deposed twice during those ten years.
Indeed, remaining faithful to the story as told by Josephus, they insist that
the similarity between Sabinus and Quirinius in both title and activity must
be just as coincidental as the similarity in the accounts of Judas and Joazar
but that the mention of Coponius at Antipater’s trial is some unexplained
spurious insertion into the text. Admittedly, these readers may with stomped
foot insist that all these features of the standard account are more plausible
than this reconstruction offered here.
To these readers, this study has sought to respond, “Really?” Admittedly,
this study has built a circumstantial argument that Josephus misplaced the
census of Quirinius. However, historiography is about making the case for
the most plausible reconstruction. In each case, this study has provided a
rationale for why Josephus reasonably located each account of Judas where
he did. Moreover, it has accounted for the narrative references to Joazar and
for his participation in events. It has attributed to Josephus only those errors
to which he has been shown demonstrably susceptible. It has argued that this
reconstruction of the underlying history is more plausible than the standard
reading. A source-critical solution that accounts for anomalies rather than
ignoring them in favor of a fideistic reading of a fallible source is correct:
Josephus misdated the census of Quirinius.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!
So after spending weeks arguing how Josephus was such an accurate historian and we must accept that Jesus existed because Josephus mentioned him....he now wants to argue that Josephus can't be trusted.
Josephus is an accurate, reliable and trustworthy historian when he supports pneuma's argument....and an incompetent buffoon when he doesn't.
Luke has the Christian man-god being born during the census of Quirnius (6CE) and Matthew says he was born before the death of Herod (4BCE). They can't both be true because there is 10 years difference between the two events. It is a contradiction that cannot be reconciled, however hard apologists try to twist and 'invent' history. The verifiable history is against them.
The one and only time that Quirinius was governor of Judea was 6CE. Apologist attempts to invent a Quirinius census prior to 6CE fail miserably because before that time there was no need for a census because then, Judea was a client kingdom and the Romans did not need a census for a client kingdom....the king took care of taxes. The Romans took over the area in 6CE and that is why the census was required.
So...
1. Quirinius wasn't governor before 6CE so there could not have been an earlier Qurinius census of Judea.
2. Before 6CE, Judea was not under the control of Rome. It was a client state that was, until 4BCE, ruled Herod.
3.The Romans didn't collect taxes in client kingdoms.
4. Following the death of Herod, his son Herod Archelaus took over. In 6CE, Herod Archelaus was kicked out for screwing up and the Romans took control of Judea. 5. They installed Quirinius as governor and his first job was to conduct a census so that the area could be taxed.
There was no Roman census of Judea before 6CE because Judea was not under the control of Rome, so no census was required. The census was a literary tool to get the Christian man-god to Bethlehem to be born.
Even if we completely ignore that the time line makes no sense, the rest of the story does not make any sense either. One has to be a idiot to believe that the Romans uprooted their entire empire and had people travel for days to sign a tax form at the home of some dead ancestor. That it was for tax purposes makes the story even more ridiculous because for tax purposes it does not matter where you are from, what matters is where you live NOW.
....and what kind of jerk would Joseph have to be to make his wife who is due to pop any day make a 90 mile journey on foot to watch him sign a tax form? She did not matter...only Joseph would have to have been there.
The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE. The Jewish historian Josephus portrays the annexation and census as the cause of an uprising which later became identified with the Zealot movement.
The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means by which Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5) and places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who actually died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE. No satisfactory explanation has been put forward which could resolve the contradiction, and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
is NOT evidence. It is just your opinion of why Jesus, as you say, perverted the golden rule. Yet the whole of the gospel message tells us that your opinion is not correct. Lying down ones life for others is not interfering with others. Placing others ahead of oneself is not interfering with others.
You missed the point - it seems by not understanding my argument. This is NOT Jesus saying anything, because it is neither in John nor Mark. I said it was Luke's own addition, but you pointed out it was in Matthew, too, so that makes it "Q" material.
But what makes it a perversion is that all the other versions, including the Jewish one the Gospels clearly quote have the non invasive version across the cultures and times. Why change it? For a bad reason of just having Jesus go one better or the good bad reason of inverting it to allow evangelistic interference.
But whatever reason, it had been undeniably altered, and it is pointless to argue about what Jesus might have said or thought. There is and was no Gospel Jesus. It is Christian writing and thought. I've given plenty of evidence of that and all I had back was excuses, denial and pointing a finger at my supposed biases of which you are totally uninformed and are used only as something to hit back with.
You know that, if you come up with a good argument, I'll give it credit. You also know i don't respond well to excuses, denial and attempts to slather me with fundywash accusations.
That reference to laying down the life for others is just an example of evasion. If you attempt to counter an aphorism advocating interference by pointing out talk of laying down one's life for friends does not cancel out the other by contradiction - it discredits both of them. That's why I say the Gospel Jesus is absurdly overdone, nasty, unbalanced and given to mood -swings. But not because Jesus was like that, but because different remarks from different sources are combined and never mind the picture of a crazy man that emerges. Of course, the believers will simply ignore that and pick the bits that look good. Even if they are invented by one writer only. John 15. 13 only. None of those sermons appear in the gospels and none of the parables in John. To say they wrote from a different point of view is crafty evasions. They only point of view was to tell people what Jesus said and did, to let them know how they had to believe and why.
The extreme form of this evasion is Mark leaving the bulk of it out as everyone 'knew it'. If so, why the need to dd it all in in bulk in the later gospels? Add to that the evidence of invention and we know it is just an excuse - the other stuff was invented.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-10-2016 at 08:51 AM..
Pneuma "I can already hear the mythisist and atheist screaming you got no proof of that. "
I bet you can. But in your own head is the only place you will hear it. We don't need to scream and we only need to point out that you don't have a workable apologetic for the nativities even if the apologetic was convincing in itself, which it really isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
When I first started out looking at whether the Gospels where historically accurate I did not really care one way or the other if they were or were not, as my faith in God is not tied to whether the Gospels are historically accurate or not. However the more I search out the historical accuracy of the Gospels the more I see just how accurate they actually are.
Scholars and historians; whether Christian or secular always seem to hold the historian Josephus up as the golden standard of historical accuracy of his day. Thus they compare what Luke and Mathew wrote in the Gospels with what Josephus says and if there is a disagreement between the writers Josephus is automatically assumed to be correct and Luke and Mathew are deemed historically inaccurate.
This got me wondering why this should be as Luke is also a historian so should be given equal treatment as Josephus. With that thought in my head I started to look at just how accurate Josephus actually is.
Josephus states that the census took place in the 37th year from Actium which give us the date of AD/6. But how do we know Josephus was not just making this date fit for his own purposes or he simply misread his source. After all he did the same thing with Herod stating Herod was only 15 years old when he was given charge of Galilee, when in fact Herod was 25 years old. That is a 10 year difference and if Josephus did the same thing with Actium and added 10 years it would mean it was actually in the 27 years from Actium which would place the census in Herod the greats day and match up perfectly with what Luke said.
I can already hear the mythisist and atheist screaming you got no proof of that.
However there is ample proof to suspect Josephus records of the census being in AD/6 instead of in the days of Herod the great as Luke and Mathew state that it was. John H Rhoads in his article "Josephus misdated the census of Quirinius" does a very good job of making his case. You can read his article here.
For those who will not take the time to read the article Here is the closing arguments made by Rhoads.
Admittedly, some readers may still find the standard reading more plausible.
These readers may acknowledge that Josephus was susceptible to mistaking numbers or changing dates but insist that he did not err with the date
of the census. They may acknowledge that Josephus was susceptible to the
ambiguity between “Archelaus” and “King Herod” but insist that he was not
guilty when reporting the mission of Quirinius. These readers may additionally
find it more plausible that two insurgents against Herod were active
within weeks of each other around the time of Herod’s death, both named
Judas, both with connections to Sepphoris, and both nicknamed in connection
with a famous father. They may also prefer that while one was executed by
Herod the Great for raiding Herod’s temple, the other one would wait ten years
after raiding Herod’s armory to adopt the same manner and substance of the
teaching of the first, only to have his revolt against the taxation-census be
opposed by the very same high priest who had opposed the earlier Judas even
though this high priest was reportedly deposed twice during those ten years.
Indeed, remaining faithful to the story as told by Josephus, they insist that
the similarity between Sabinus and Quirinius in both title and activity must
be just as coincidental as the similarity in the accounts of Judas and Joazar
but that the mention of Coponius at Antipater’s trial is some unexplained
spurious insertion into the text. Admittedly, these readers may with stomped
foot insist that all these features of the standard account are more plausible
than this reconstruction offered here.
To these readers, this study has sought to respond, “Really?” Admittedly,
this study has built a circumstantial argument that Josephus misplaced the
census of Quirinius. However, historiography is about making the case for
the most plausible reconstruction. In each case, this study has provided a
rationale for why Josephus reasonably located each account of Judas where
he did. Moreover, it has accounted for the narrative references to Joazar and
for his participation in events. It has attributed to Josephus only those errors
to which he has been shown demonstrably susceptible. It has argued that this
reconstruction of the underlying history is more plausible than the standard
reading. A source-critical solution that accounts for anomalies rather than
ignoring them in favor of a fideistic reading of a fallible source is correct:
Josephus misdated the census of Quirinius.
How do we know that Josephus wasn't being pretty accurate and that others are trying to discredit his dating to try to make the gospels look good? The whole argument is to try to make what appears to be two somewhat different accounts of the same event - the revolt associated with the the census when Archelaus was deposed and Rome took over - into two different revolts, one being backdated to Herod's time to make the '2nd census' apologetic work. It doesn't. The situation is what gives the lie to the Nativities, not the dating.
So far as I can gather, it makes a whole string of 'maybe this mistake or that was made' suggestions apparently to suggest that Josephus got confused about two separate revolts by Judas the Galilean -one on the death of Herod and one connected with the Roman takeover, and got them mixed up. Josephus may have made mistakes but he wasn't stupid. But Luke was with his absurd and pointless journey to Bethlehem when he lived and worked in Galilee, or Matthew's absurd star, clumsy plot and contradiction with Luke about whether they were Galileans or Judeans. It is rubbish even if this argument - and I am far from sure how it is even relevant - held water, and it seems based on a load of unfounded accusations really and makes no point other than try to make us doubt enough Accepted History' claims that we can be sold a fantasy.
I'm not sure whether it is the same man but there was an argument redating Herod's death and simply backdating the accession of his sons as a co -regency. Even though that is possible, it doesn't get the Roman census into place until after the son Archelaus was deposed. So the Roman census has to be backdated to the death of Herod and anything that doesn't fit waved away as a mistake.
Even if that worked or was true, it still doesn't make Matthew's account work as Herod was still alive and organizing assassinations and the family on return had to avoid Archelaus. It makes no sense that Luke's Joseph would walk into the lion's jaws in Bethlehem for a census he could sign up for in Galilee.
Add to that that Matthew and Luke's stories utterly contradict, Luke was hardly a historian but used history as a mechanism the way Matthew used OT prophecy and made errors, too (1) and you can't make the nativities work, even if you totally rewrite Josephus to fiddle the dates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!
So after spending weeks arguing how Josephus was such an accurate historian and we must accept that Jesus existed because Josephus mentioned him....he now wants to argue that Josephus can't be trusted.
Josephus is an accurate, reliable and trustworthy historian when he supports pneuma's argument....and an incompetent buffoon when he doesn't.
Hypocrisy or what?
Priceless!!
I missed that one! Yes, there is the reliance on Josephus as utterly reliable when he even looks like he supports the Gospels but tossed in the bin as hopelessly confused when he doesn't and Josephus rewritten pretty totally to agree with the gospels. It is uncannily like the rewriting of the Bible when it doesn't work to fit an imaginary faith -based scenario that does.
(1) Luke (Acts) putting Theudas ahead of Judas is wrong whether you put 'the days of the census' at the death of Herod or the at the dismissal of Archelaus, and there again we got an apologetic excuse about a mythical 'Theudas' doing a similar revolt unknown to Josephus before the similar Judas revolt unknown to Josephus, before the Judas revolt he does know about and the later Theudas revolt he knows about -with no real evidence and no need -other than to try to save Luke's credibility.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-10-2016 at 10:05 AM..
Pneuma "I can already hear the mythisist and atheist screaming you got no proof of that. "
I bet you can. But in your own head is the only place you will hear it. We don't need to scream and we only need to point out that you don't have a workable apologetic for the nativities even if the apologetic was convincing in itself, which it really isn't.
How do we know that Josephus wasn't being pretty accurate and that others are trying to discredit his dating to try to make the gospels look good? The whole argument is to try to make what appears to be two somewhat different accounts of the same event - the revolt associated with the the census when Archelaus was deposed and Rome took over - into two different revolts, one being backdated to Herod's time to make the '2nd census' apologetic work. It doesn't. The situation is what gives the lie to the Nativities, not the dating.
So far as I can gather, it makes a whole string of 'maybe this mistake or that was made' suggestions apparently to suggest that Josephus got confused about two separate revolts by Judas the Galilean -one on the death of Herod and one connected with the Roman takeover, and got them mixed up. Josephus may have made mistakes but he wasn't stupid. But Luke was with his absurd and pointless journey to Bethlehem when he lived and worked in Galilee, or Matthew's absurd star, clumsy plot and contradiction with Luke about whether they were Galileans or Judeans. It is rubbish even if this argument - and I am far from sure how it is even relevant - held water, and it seems based on a load of unfounded accusations really and makes no point other than try to make us doubt enough Accepted History' claims that we can be sold a fantasy.
I'm not sure whether it is the same man but there was an argument redating Herod's death and simply backdating the accession of his sons as a co -regency. Even though that is possible, it doesn't get the Roman census into place until after the son Archelaus was deposed. So the Roman census has to be backdated to the death of Herod and anything that doesn't fit waved away as a mistake.
Even if that worked or was true, it still doesn't make Matthew's account work as Herod was still alive and organizing assassinations and the family on return had to avoid Archelaus. It makes no sense that Luke's Joseph would walk into the lion's jaws in Bethlehem for a census he could sign up for in Galilee.
Add to that that Matthew and Luke's stories utterly contradict, Luke was hardly a historian but used history as a mechanism the way Matthew used OT prophecy and made errors, too (1) and you can't make the nativities work, even if you totally rewrite Josephus to fiddle the dates.
I missed that one! Yes, there is the reliance on Josephus as utterly reliable when he even looks like he supports the Gospels but tossed in the bin as hopelessly confused when he doesn't and Josephus rewritten pretty totally to agree with the gospels. It is uncannily like the rewriting of the Bible when it doesn't work to fit an imaginary faith -based scenario that does.
(1) Luke (Acts) putting Theudas ahead of Judas is wrong whether you put 'the days of the census' at the death of Herod or the at the dismissal of Archelaus, and there again we got an apologetic excuse about a mythical 'Theudas' doing a similar revolt unknown to Josephus before the similar Judas revolt unknown to Josephus, before the Judas revolt he does know about and the later Theudas revolt he knows about -with no real evidence and no need -other than to try to save Luke's credibility.
Trans I was not dealing with anything other then the census and there is enough in what the author says that shows Josephus seemed to flip from one date to another and his perchance of dating things in error by years. Thus making Josephus account suspect. Did you read the article or just the summery I gave at the end?
That is a load of crap, hell even you and raf do not think everything in Josephus writings are historically based facts yet you use Josephus for your own points. I guess only atheist are allowed to question the writings of Josephus.
You missed the point - it seems by not understanding my argument. This is NOT Jesus saying anything, because it is neither in John nor Mark. I said it was Luke's own addition, but you pointed out it was in Matthew, too, so that makes it "Q" material.
.
I did understand your point Trans, but that is only your opinion. Many others (both christian and secular scholars) believe Jesus did say many of the things recorded in the gospels, the golden rule being one of them.
Quote:
You know that, if you come up with a good argument, I'll give it credit. You also know i don't respond well to excuses, denial and attempts to slather me with fundywash accusations.
I have seen enough of the fundy arguments to know you are basing your understanding of the scriptures on the same premises. This is not an accusation, it is an observation because of how you use the scriptures and come up with a schizophrenic God and a wishy washy Jesus. Atheist or Christians turned atheist cannot help doing this because they only ever hear about a God who is nothing more then a monster who would make Hitler out to be a choir boy. You only ever hear of an eternally tormenting God that does so just because people do not believe in Him. That is the fundamental view of God and is all crap Trans. If that was the God I seen in the scriptures I would not want anything to do with Him either.
So all your atheists apologetic posts are only really against a certain view of God seen in the scriptures, That is why you view the golden rule as you do and not the way it is actually meant.
Two questions will show this to be true trans.
How do you view the God of the bible?
How do you view Jesus of the bible?
it's easy for one like you to apply a double standard to what history is. Among the thousand nations in this planet earth. Why don't you just compile a list of which history written 2000 years ago can be considered as credible.
By applying your standard, no human history can be classified credible. This is however the nature of what human history is, which you are trying leverage pointlessly.
Actually I am sticking up for history, the history recorded in the gospels and in Josephus. The only reason AD/6 is given for the date of the census is Josephus stance that it took place in the 37th year of Actium.
If he is wrong on that point, and by the looks of things he made those same mistakes on other occasions, then the rest of his history actually matches up with the history of the Gospel record. But atheists and mythisist cannot have that as it would add credibility to the gospels.
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.
I bet you can. But in your own head is the only place you will hear it. We don't need to scream and we only need to point out that you don't have a workable apologetic for the nativities even if the apologetic was convincing in itself, which it really isn't.
I missed that one! Yes, there is the reliance on Josephus as utterly reliable when he even looks like he supports the Gospels but tossed in the bin as hopelessly confused when he doesn't and Josephus rewritten pretty totally to agree with the gospels. It is uncannily like the rewriting of the Bible when it doesn't work to fit an imaginary faith -based scenario that does.
