U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-06-2018, 06:55 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
1,961 posts, read 666,126 times
Reputation: 933

Advertisements

I’m curious as to why a god would have himself so buried in obscurity. It is reasonable for a human to search and desire sound evidence when committing to worship a higher being. You would think that this being would make himself available in a way that relinquishes all doubt.

To the honest reader, the Bible is clearly information that would lead the reader to conclude it unreliable when claimed to be the message from a higher being. With no supporting evidence, it is reasonable to conclude it is not divinely inspired, hence this ongoing debate.

Why should a human have to search a needle in a hayfield to maybe find this god? It makes no rational sense. IMO, you must open yourself to blind faith and following the herd to be a Christian, Muslim or Jew.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-06-2018, 08:37 AM
 
Location: Germany
2,700 posts, read 448,579 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
As it is Josephus and only Josephus were the atheist gets their defence against the gospel nativity I will start with Josephus.
And Tacitus, and Seutonius, and Cassius Dio.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
In the past I have pointed out where Josephus get chronological dates mixed up; and although the atheists will cry about me attacking their bible, the fact that Josephus has a habit of getting his chronological dates mixed up does come into play historically speaking.
A habit? Poison the well, much? Sometime he does get dates wrong, but this may well be because of his sources. Josephus used the writings of Herod's friend, Nicolaus of Damascus, who used his first hand knowledge plus the memoirs of Herod. So just because Josephus made some mistakes elsewhere does not mean he did so with Herod, especially as his account is often backed up by other sources you claim we do not use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
And if this is so, and it will become evident that it is, then we must question the dating of Achelaus reign that Josephus gives as either 9 or 10 years as Josephus sates in one place that Achelaus reigned 9 years and in another place that Archelaus reigned 10 years.
It depends on which calendar Josephus was using, Consular, Jewish or Olympiad. Even then, 9 or 10 years is STILL a problem for the two accounts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Josephus states that Herod the great started his reign when Herod was 15 years old (Josephus,*Antiquities*XIV.158–159.), however today we know that Herod did not being his reign until he was about 25 years old.
You will have to quote the book, chapter and section as I can not find it in my copy (which uses a different notation).

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Jospehus states that Archelaus reign 9 years in (Josephus,*War*II.111.) and 10 years in (Josephus,*Antiquities*XVII.342.)
It depends on which calendar Josephus was using, Consular, Jewish or Olympiad. Even then, 9 or 10 years is STILL a problem for the two accounts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Josephus states in (Josephus,*Antiquities*XVII.342; Life, 5.) ...

Has it not become obvious that Josephus is not a very reliable source for looking at the chronological years of things?
So Josephus made a few mistakes. The problem for you is that for Herod, Josephus used the writings of Herod's friend, Nicolaus of Damascus, who used his first hand knowledge plus the memoirs of Herod. So just because he made mistakes elsewhere does not mean he did so with Herod, especially as his account is often backed up by other sources you claim we do not use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Because of these obvious discrepancies in Josephus chronological time table historians and scholar today suspect the motives of Josephus in writing his history.
Indeed. No historian should treat Josephus as impartial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
One of those discrepancies, which is important to the subject at hand, is that of the son of Herod the great, Philip. According to Josephus Philip reigned for 37 years and died in the 20th year of Tiberius. This would bring the start of Philips reign to 3 B.C.E. This all coming from the manuscript copies from 1700 C. E. until today.
The problem is Josephus account of Philip is confused, so is a problem when trying to use it to determine precise dates. But yes, the 20th year of Tiberius and the 37 years of Philip's reign gives you 3 BC. That is still at least 9 years difference between Matthew and Luke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
However D. Beyer in his work Josephus re-examined: Unravelling the Twenty-second year of Tiberius states the earlier manuscripts, those written before 1544 C.E. all state that Philip died in the 22nd year of Tiberius. Thus the start of Philips reign would have started in 1 B.C.E. Now this date is significant as I believe Herod the great died in 1 B.C.E. and the earlier manuscripts of Josephus actually back up that belief.
Lol, Beyer. One, we do not have his paper as it was never published; and two, when it was discussed at a meeting, it was as an "experimental and initial research on a subject. Therefore they should not be considered finished works but works in progress".

As all the modern translations I know of use 20 years, I presume earlier manuscripts ALSO say 20 years, and Beyer has it wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
So far, without even looking at the gospels nativity account, we can see from the works of Josephus alone that the reign of Archelaus is very suspect; therefore we cannot use what Josephus says about the reign of Archelaus to back date the death of Herod the great to 4 B.C.E as both historians and scholars of today do.
Poison the well much? So far you have pointed out a few possible errors and misrepresented a few problems that arise because of the three dating systems used. This does not make Josephus 'very suspect', it just means we need to verify where possible. By using other sources you claim we do not use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
We have also seen via the older manuscripts of Josephus Philip started his reign in 1 B.C.E which he obviously did not start to reign until the death of Herod the great.
Based on one unpublished paper while ignoring all the other papers that HAVE been published.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
So let’s look at the other factor that historians and scholars use to date Herod’s death in 4 B.C.E
Not so fast. Typically you have ignored the other dates Josephus uses that are not in dispute, and backed up by other historians such as Cassius Dio. All of which indicate Herod died in early 4 or late 5 BC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2018, 08:55 AM
 
Location: USA
3,133 posts, read 1,080,504 times
Reputation: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Trans sorry for the late reply, I did say it would take awhile, as there was much to search out especially when you look into different fields of historical evedence. Anyway I said I would put together an artical on the nativity to show it is historically founded. This is quite big so will be posting it in a few different posts. enjoy.

The Nativity

Preface

Are the gospels historically reliable? To the atheist the answer is no, to the Christian the answer is a resounding yes.

The atheist and most scholars of today use the historian Josephus to point out that the gospels nativity of Jesus is not historically accurate. They do so because of 3 things Josephus mentions.
1 being the eclipse
2 being the length of reign of Archelaus
3 being the date of the census believed to be in 6 C.E.

When these 3 things are looked at together via Josephus writings we get a date of the death of Herod the great placed in 4 B.C.E. and as no census is recorded by Josephus as taking place during the last days of Herod the great the atheist and modern scholar leap to the conclusion that the gospels are not historically accurate. The atheist even go further in stating the gospel are nothing more than a myth perpetuated up mankind by the Christians.

What this amount to (and I have belabored this in the past) is that the atheists have made Josephus their bible of historical facts. Thus if anyone disagrees with what Josephus states; those disagreeing with Josephus are wrong and Josephus is correct.

Now I have heard atheist say many times that Christians cannot use the bible to defend the bible, the atheist call this circular reasoning. Yet when it come to Josephus that circular reasoning that they say the Christian cannot do with the bible the atheist does with Josephus; Because Josephus says something that is good enough for them.

I have tried to point out that to be historically accurate the historian has to use all available information they can find before they come to a conclusion of what is historically accurate and what is not. This has fallen on deaf ears, as the atheist will not take any historical evidence supplied by any Christian whether that Christian is a historian or not. Their defence for this is simply they are Christian so cannot be trustworthy. Now to other atheist this simple reply by atheists is enough to persuade other atheist, which is a shame, however all the atheist is really doing is ignoring any evidence contrary to their own belief in order to not have to deal with the evidence the Christian historians provide.

Before I go on with the evidence of whether the gospels are historically accurate or not I need to point out one other thing I have encountered in dealing with this subject is that the historians, scholars and atheists seem to have the habit of lumping together events that have nothing to do with each other. A prime example of this is they try to lump the census of 6 C.E. with what Luke says in his nativity. Another example is how they lump together Matthews’s nativity with that of Luke. In neither case can they be lumped together in the fashion that they do so, as the one is separated by about 8 or 9 years and the other is separated by about 2 years. Does one really then have to wonder why there is so much confusion concerning the historical accounts recorded in the gospels.

However the historian, scholar and atheist today would point out that Cyrenius is the common link that lumps Luke gospel and Josephus tax account in 6 C.E. together as speaking of the same event. Now this might seem like a good argument for lumping Luke’s account and what Josephus says, but is it really? Using this same type of argument we could then say World War 1 and World War 2 are the same event as General George Patton was in both wars. True Patton was not a General in WW1 as he was in WW2, but then again Cyrenius was not a Governor in Luke’s account as he is in Josephus account. Therefore we can see that lumping together 2 separate events because someone is mentioned in both events would lead to nothing but confusion of the actual events. Yet this is what the historian, scholars and atheist of today have done and why there is so much confusion of the nativity events that took place.
So let’s proceed to the evidence.
Gospel Matthew makes it clear that Jesus was born at the end of the reign of Herod the Great. Herod died at a known time, 4 BCE. Gospel Luke indicates that the reason Joseph brought his heavily pregnant wife to Bethlehem was to fulfill the the order of the Roman governor of Syria, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, for a census. This also occurred at a known date, 6 CE. So unless Jesus was born twice, Biblical accounts are NOT accurate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2018, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Germany
2,700 posts, read 448,579 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
The eclipse...

Do we really need any more proof that the eclipse of March 13, 4 B.C.E is NOT the eclipse Josephus was talking about?
All accounted for if Josephus was referring to the eclipse on 10 September, 5 BC.

And Jewish custom celebrates the death of Herod on 7 Shivrot, which occurs in November / December. which is why Herod may well have died in 5 BC. Even if he died early 4 BC, as 'before Passover' tells us.

And if Herod did die on 7 Shivrot, which happened AFTER the eclipse, that matches what Josephus said. The eclipse of 1 BC happened AFTER 7 Shivrot, so can NOT be the eclipse mentioned by Josephus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
However if one would look at the eclipse of January 10, 1 B.C.E everything falls into place very nicely as from the time of this eclipse until the Passover was 12 and a half weeks.
Except Herod died while Varus was legate of Syria, a position he held until 4 BC. Which means Herod must have died in 4 BC or earlier. And this does not rely on tweeking dates, it is a cold, hard fact that utterly destroys EVERY argument that Herod died AFTER 4 BC.

You know, the fact you ignored so that you could call such incomfortable facts "a load of crap".

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
With these facts in evidence we can see a 4 B.C.E death for Herod the great simply cannot be attained.
Thus again 1 B.C.E is standing out to be the year of the death of Herod the great.
Not if you include facts you must ignore to come to your conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
So let’s move on to what the gospels tell us of the nativity of Jesus Christ.
Oh yes, let us do this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2018, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Germany
2,700 posts, read 448,579 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
The nativity of Jesus Christ

Even though Matthew comes first in the gospels I will start with Luke as to follow the chronological order; as Luke nativity is about 2 years earlier then what takes place in Matthew.

Luke’s account of the Nativity

...

First it needs to be pointed out that Luke is NOT talking about a tax, the word tax in the KJV is the Greek word apographe which simply means an enrollment or registration.
Fail 1. When a client state was taken into the Roman empire, the first thing the relevant governor did was take a census for taxation purposes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Now here is the problem, historians, scholars and atheist keep looking for a taxation of the people somewhere around 3 B.C.E and are unable to find one so they state that Luke must have been in error.
Fail 2. We do no such thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
They then proceed to lump together what Luke said with what Josephus said about a tax in 6 C.E. stating that they are one and the same tax. They have no evidence to support this lumping together of Luke and Josephus, it is all based on opinion and denies any evidence to the contrary.
Fail 3. The evidence is that Luke, Josephus and Roman custom agree. To dismiss this as opinion is just dishonest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
I have in the past (and will do so again) given evidence of a registration that did indeed take place in 3 B.C.E.
Fail 4. Irrelevant. The census of Quirinius explains this perfectly. But please keep on digging.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Note that Luke says there was a registration (NOT A TAX) that took place. Thus we are not looking for a tax but a registration that took place.
Fail 5. See fail 1 for an explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
On February 5, 2 B.C.E. Augustus was given the title Pater Patriae*(Father of the Country) and all territories held by Rome had to swear an oath of allegiance to Augustus. This swearing of oath would have taken some kind of registration and indeed historical records state just that.
Except Judea was not held by Rome until 6 AD. Galilee was not a part of Rome until about 40 AD. So Joseph would have been exempt from both censuses. Another pointer to Luke being reinvented history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Also of note is that Luke indicates this registration was throughout the whole Roman Empire and the tax of Josephus in 6 C.E. is speaking only of a tax in Syria.
Except Judea was not a part of Rome until 6 AD, and Galilee until about 40 AD. So Joseph would have been exempt from both censuses. Another pointer to Luke being reinvented history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Thus we can see that there was indeed a registration that took place in 3 B.C.E just as Luke said there was. Thus there is no reason to lump Luke’s registration of 3 B.C.E with Josephus tax in 6 C.E.
Indeed. Luke makes no mention of that 'registration'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Another reason historian and scholars lump Luke and Josephus together is that Luke say Cyrenius was governor of Syria at the time of Jesus birth and Josephus states the Cyrenius was not governor until the tax in 6 C.E. However Luke does not call Cyrenius a governor (Proconsul), Luke calls Cyrenius a hegemoneuontos. The term hegemoneuontos can refer to any type of administrational duties and is one of the terms used for a procurator.
Ah, this stupid excuse. ἡγεμονεύω means to rule, to command, to govern. And as the Legate, Quirinius was the governor of Syria, he was the one who governed. And as Quirinius had been of consular rank for over 18 years, it was the only possible position Luke could have meant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
That Cyrenius was a procurator is in fact testified by Justin Martyr in Apology,*I.34. Martyr states that Cyrenius at the time of the birth of Jesus was a procurator.
A governor governs, a procurater procures. But they are not mutually exclusive. Herod was the procurator for the Roman emperor while he was a king. Pilate was both a mere prefect AND a procurator. So Quirinius could well have been both, although as a governor he could only have been a procurater for the emperor, just as Herod was.

That is if Justin was correct in his position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
The Cambridge Ancient History, vol, X, p. 216 states this about the roman procurators “Each province had its equestrian procurator who in the eyes of the provincials was almost as important as the governor himself.”*
Except Quirinius was of consular rank, not equestrian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Thus we can see that a procurator and a governor are not speaking of the same office.
Only by missing out key facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
In fact a procurator was a financial officer who worked alongside the imperial governor but was not subordinate to the governor; and reported directly to the emperor. The procurator had his own staff, and was in charge of the provinces financial affairs which include the following.

· the collection of taxes, especially the land tax (tributum soli),*poll tax*(tributum capitis), and the*portorium, an imperial duty on the carriage of goods on public highways
· collection of rents on land belonging to*imperial estates
· management of mines
· the distribution of pay to public servants (mostly in the military)
Yes, procurators of equestrian rank. Civilian procurators, no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Now when we add this information with what Josephus in ant.18.1.1 tells us about Cyrenius; which is that Cyrenius had passed through many other magistracies before 6 C.E when he in fact became governor and what Tacitus in Annals,*III.48 states about Cyrenius; which is that Cyrenius was one having considerable talent for business can we really doubt Luke’s account that Cyrenius was a hegemoneuontos in the days of Herod the great.
No, considering what we know about Quirinius, we do not doubt that Luke said Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Thus we can see the historical records do bear out that Luke’s account is indeed historical.
Semi historical. And even then, it still refutes the crap argument you are so desperately trying to make.

See what happens when you put in the facts you need to miss out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
But what about Matthews account? Is Matthews account also historical? Let’s take a look.
Oh, yes please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2018, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Germany
2,700 posts, read 448,579 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Matthew’s account of the Nativity


Matthew starts off in agreement with Luke’s account that Jesus was born in the days of Herod the great;
And immediately there are problems.

First, Josephus refers to Archelaus as both ethnarch and king.
Matthew 2:22 says Archelaus, who 'was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod'. Josephus tells us Archelaus was given control after his father died. So Matthew's 'king' could NOT have been Herod the Great (died 4/5 BC).

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
and as we have seen Luke’s account is historically accurate I need not go into the details again here.
Sweet, you concede defeat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Matthew tells us that wise men followed a star to Jerusalem and were come to worship the king of the Jews.

No one really questions the fact that these wise men were Magi who were the astrologers of those days, so I will not even try to prove this point.
Many people question this. Your evasion is noticed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Now during the time in question
Vague correlation and wishful thinking deleted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Now historians, scholars and atheists think this star was a magical star of some type and even make fun of it, thus showing their ignorance of astrology.
We do not think it was magical. What a crap argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
However to the astrologer there is nothing magical about this star. Astrologers are well aware that planets do become stationary to the human eye at the times for retrogradation. Before a planet goes into retrogradation it begins to slow down dramatically and then seems to stop in its tracks all together. In astrology this phenomenon is known as the station of a planet. When a planet goes retrograde it actually goes through the same span of the zodiac 3 times, forward then backwards, then forwards again. When the planet changes direction, this is called a "station" or "being stationary" (motionless). The planet's progress through the zodiac slows down until it pauses (the station). Then it gradually starts moving again in the opposite direction.

This retrogradation of a planet is exactly what the magi seen when the planet/star they followed stopped above Bethlehem.
A very common event. Yet this one was somehow special?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Thus we can see this so called magical star is not so magical at all but rather a regular occurrence of a planets traverse through the heavens.
Except they stay stationary in relation to the stars. But as the sky revolves, they move across the sky just like stars do. So not exactly stationary above a house.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Thus we can see that Matthew’s account of that which took place did indeed take place just as he said it did. As a matter of fact for a period of 18 months from May, 3 B.C.E. to December, 2 B.C.E. the phenomena that took place in the heavens has evoked astonishment of modern astronomers.
But by then Herod was dead, and Jesus had been born while yet to be born in the future.

Rest of the crap cut, do I really need to go on?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2018, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Germany
2,700 posts, read 448,579 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Precisely! In the thread about the 'Historical Jesus', pneuma couldn't praise Josephus enough when he was using Josephus to claim that Josephus mentioned Jesus. He quoted Josephus profusely and took every opportunity to tell us that we should trust Josephus as one of the most accurate and reliable historians of history. He accused us of wanting to - "...pick and choose what is historical from the historians and what is not." And now he does just that. Now, when Josephus goes against what pneuma wants to be true, Josephus is untrustworthy, unreliable and is 'all over the place with his dates.'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2018, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Germany
2,700 posts, read 448,579 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Which takes care of the question of Herod's death, and I am certainly open to a re-dating there, if only because the Loyalty oath was (apparently) 3 B.C and if it was Herod who fined the 6,000 Pharisees for refusing to take it, he was still alive after 4 B.C.
The loyalty oath is undated. Christians just presume some details to get a later date.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2018, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Germany
2,700 posts, read 448,579 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Certainly Varus seems to have been left in charge of Syria as an unofficial 2nd term, which is why the years 4 -1 B.C don't have a governor.
Calpurnius Piso was governor then. And you only ever had one governor, so Varus could not even be a co governor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
The 3 B.C loyalty oath was a new one, too, and though i don't think it works as a Lucan registration, it's all part of the picture. Then all those revolts have fallen into place and those years don't seem so dark after al.

Btw, I'm wondering whether anyone even cares about this subject enough to post more. Input, anyone?
That is pneuma mixing sources to come up with something he has no evidence for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2018, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Germany
2,700 posts, read 448,579 times
Reputation: 441
[quote=pneuma;48966308]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense View Post

Yes the TF is a christian interpolation. The James passage however is historically accurate.

Thus there is historical truth in Josephus, but he must be read with a critical eye.
No, the James passage is a grammatical bad dream, and more likely to be a later scribal 'correction'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top