every christian needs to read this article (woman, scripture, priest)

[daqq]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Dear, dear If you can produce some persuasive evidence you certainly can change my mind. And it is the evidence (when one understands it) that 'says so'. My opinion is just my opinion.

I already showed evidence that it is not likely Josephus would have called Matthias by the name Theudas because it is a Greek name, (and therefore like a slur if he was Jewish). If it was true that Josephus was indeed from a priestly family then it does make sense that he would use Matthias in the account concerning the golden eagle because that was the name of that particular Rabbi-Teacher of the Law. However there were stark differences and vehement disputes between both Pharisees and Sadducs, (the Pharisees despised the Sadducees), and even between the several Pharisaic sects themselves; so it is no surprise that Luke by way of the mouth of Gamaliel might call him Theudas, (again, a slur to a Jew with a Jewish name, such as Matthias, but the author of Acts may indeed have been actually quoting what someone named Gamaliel had said). It really is no different from where Paul says that he no longer recognizes the chief Priest as the chief Priest, in Acts 23:1-5, and calls him a whited wall, (and again this is the same author of Acts). In addition there were at least three men of the name Gamaliel in that time, so we cannot be sure which one this is, but clearly he is a pacifist and that makes even more sense as to why he would use the name Theudas to describe one from an opposing view who was "taken away" for his violent actions, (ανηρεθη - Acts 5:36 - perhaps because he was burned alive). Additionally four hundred men is really not all that many and there is no problem seeing the possibility of Matthias having had such a following just from what Josephus already says of him in the passages which I quoted, (and the Theudas of Josephus also likely had a greater following because a "troop of horsemen" was sent out against him and his followers). As for the "apographe", (which same word the author uses here in Acts 5:37), I did not bring it up because it clearly speaks of the one carried out circa 6-7AD but does not contradict my understanding of the scripture. What I am suggesting is that you are lumping these two different occasions together for cumulative effect but that is not how it works: they are separate issues which need to be dealt with separately.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. It did strike me that Theudas wasn't a name that sounded familiar as a Jewish one. So what's your point? It seems to me to increase the improbability of there being two revolting people called Theudas, one before the Romans made Judea a province and one afterwards.

Since Josephus doesn't mention a Theudas or his revolt before Judea became a Roman province, but does mention the AD 46 Theudas put down by Procurator Felix, that is the one Luke (in Acts) is referring to, and he simply gets it wrong putting it before the revolt of Judas the Galilean and Josephus is right.

That only scotches the claim that Luke is somehow a more reliable historian than Josephus. That doesn't in itself mean that he is wrong about the revolt of Judas the Galilean in the 'days of the census'. It does rather suggest that his gospel is quite late and draws on various sources (as he says in his preamble) and very likely Josephus is one of these.

Thus he sees the 6 AD census as the likely reason a Galilean would go to another city to register. He is no historian so doesn't understand that the 6 AD census was not at the same time as the taxing of 'the whole world' by Augustus in 8 BC but only kicked in when Judea was taken over in 6 AD. He doesn't understand that Galilee wasn't subject to the Judean tax census so Joseph wouldn't need to register anyway, and even if he had, it would be absurd to go to his ancestral (or at least former) city to register; he would do it in Sepphoris of Capernaum.

And even if that absurd confusion of the order to register in your Own city with registering in your ancestral city, there was no need to drag Mary along (1). And there is only one reason he does so - to get Jesus (living in Nazareth) born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill scripture.

I'd say the evidence indicates:
Luke is quite unreliable,
the Nativities do not work separately, never mind utterly contradicting each other,
the nativity unreliability is simply a touchstone example the sort of unreliability, contradiction and nonsense we find all through the Gospels.
The Gospels are unreliable, untrustworthy, unbelievable and full of fabrication.

Though, like the 6 AD census, they are based on fact. There was a Jesus who was crucified by Pilate. But why is a matter that will be discussed when I put the Bethany/Temple material together (again).

And Pneuma ...I am working through two of the accounts you mention - I presume Jewish war and antiquities. What were the other two 'accounts' please?


(1) in fact that registration order found in Egypt indicates that the head of the family registered for the whole family.

Gaius Vibius Maximus, the Prefect of Egypt, declares:
The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration

[daqq]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Yes. It did strike me that Theudas wasn't a name that sounded familiar as a Jewish one. So what's your point? It seems to me to increase the improbability of there being two people called Theudas, one before the Romans mad Judea a province and one afterwards.

Since Josephus doesn't mention a Theudas or his revolt before Judea became a Roman province, but does mention the AD 46 Theudas put down by Procurator Felix, that is the one Luke (in Acts) is referring to, and he simply gets it wrong putting it before the revolt of Judas the Galilean and Josephus is right.

Hmmm, well, the point is that Luke quoting Gamaliel might be speaking of Matthias who was burned to death in the days of Herod for the golden eagle incident just before Herod died. Josephus does relate those events but calls him by his Hebrew/Jewish name, Matthias, while Gamaliel calls him Theudas in the Acts passage, (and thus a mild slur because he was considered a failure and a rebel by the pacifist Gamaliel).

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by daqq

Hmmm, well, the point is that Luke quoting Gamaliel might be speaking of Matthias who was burned to death in the days of Herod for the golden eagle incident just before Herod died. Josephus does relate those events but calls him by his Hebrew/Jewish name, Matthias, while Gamaliel calls him Theudas in the Acts passage, (and thus a mild slur because he was considered a failure and a rebel by the pacifist Gamaliel).

I don't think they can be the same person. Those involved in the Eagle incident were hunted down and dealt with by Herod before his death in 4 BC. (though some argue for 1 B.C) whereas Theudas led a rather whacky revolt in 46 AD (as I recall) and was grabbed by procurator Felix and executed. Also if they had been the same person, Josephus would have said so and if he wouldn't use the name 'Theudas' because it was insulting (not that he worried about insulting revolutionaries), why use it when he referred to the Theudas revolt? For that matter, why would Gamaliel use the name?

You must bear in mind the gospel mention of 'That Egyptian' Paul (a Jew) was mistaken for, and the 'Greeks' that John refers to. These were Jews living in other countries and whom might have adopted foreign names and even customs.

[daqq]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I don't think they can be the same person. Those involved in the Eagle incident were hunted down and dealt with by Herod before his death in 4 BC. (though some argue for 1 B.C) whereas Theudas led a rather whacky revolt in 46 AD (as I recall) and was grabbed by procurator Felix and executed. Also if they had been the same person, Josephus would have said so and if he wouldn't use the name 'Theudas' because it was insulting (not that he worried about insulting revolutionaries), why use it when he referred to the Theudas revolt? For that matter, why would Gamaliel use the name?

You muse bear in mind the gospel mention of 'That Egyptian' Paul (a Jew) was mistaken for, and the 'Greeks' that John refers to. These were Jews living in other countries and whom might have adopted foreign names and even customs.

How quickly your argument, (concerning Theudas), devolves into opinion and that is because it has now become nothing more than opinion. Your "I don't think" simply doesn't cut it for me. If you are going to insist that Luke is wrong about Theudas then you need to be able to actually prove it by backing it up with more than your opinion. By demanding that Luke must be wrong, simply because Josephus only mentions one person by the name Theudas, you reveal that your position demands that there were no other people by the same name around the time Herod died or in the early first century with all of the revolts and rebellions that were almost ongoing in those times. For all we know Theudas may have even become a nickname for failed rebel leaders who ended up being killed or run out of town by the rulers, kings, governors, etc. Essentially you are back to square one when it comes to Theudas because you are trying to pass judgment on the author of Acts without having all of the necessary information to make the judgment you wish to impose.

[TRANSPONDER]

All right then, 'The weight of probability based on the evidence indicates...' rather than 'I think'. The explanation of where the evidence points remains exactly the same.

If you have a counter -argument, do make it, but it will have to be a better argument than 'just your opinion...' "Perhaps..." and 'we don't know all the facts'.

[daqq]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

All right then, 'The weight of probability based on the evidence indicates...' rather than 'I think'. The explanation of where the evidence points remains exactly the same.

If you have a counter -argument, do make it, but it will have to be a better argument than 'just your opinion...' "Perhaps..." and 'we don't know all the facts'.

Am I the one saying that Luke is wrong or mistaken about Theudas?
The burden of proof is on the one who make the claim and that is not me.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by daqq

Am I the one saying that Luke is wrong or mistaken about Theudas?
The burden of proof is on the one who make the claim and that is not me.

I am perhaps in a minority here, but I do accept the burden of proof is on the skeptic to show that the Bible is NOT reliable rather than the believer to show that it is.

I consider that I have done that in respect of the Nativity and Resurrection so that the burden now falls on the believer to make those stories work. As I have shown, there is really nothing substantial to do so.

Without trying to be personal, your attempt to argue...I'm not sure actually what...from Theudas didn't stack up for the reasons I gave.

Burden of proof now is on you to show that your argument...whatever it is...does work. I'd say that trying tactics like the one in your latest post is admission that you have nothing better. If you do, let's have it.

N.b. Your own case. I do not fall for the ploy of referring me to a sitelink or a book or video and expecting me to treat that as your argument. Just saying.

and a p.s

Erratum

"And even if that absurd confusion of the order to register in your Own city with registering in your ancestral city, there was no need to drag Mary along"

should have read:

"And even if that absurd confusion of the order to register in your Own city with registering in your ancestral city, could be made to work, there was no need to drag Mary along..."

[daqq]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I am perhaps in a minority here, but I do accept the burden of proof is on the skeptic to show that the Bible is NOT reliable rather than the believer to show that it is.

I consider that I have done that in respect of the Nativity and Resurrection so that the burden now falls on the believer to make those stories work. As I have shown, there is really nothing substantial to do so.

Without trying to be personal, your attempt to argue...I'm not sure actually what...from Theudas didn't stack up for the reasons I gave.

Burden of proof now is on you to show that your argument...whatever it is...does work. I'd say that trying tactics like the one in your latest post is admission that you have nothing better. If you do, let's have it.

N.b. Your own case. I do not fall for the ploy of referring me to a sitelink or a book or video and expecting me to treat that as your argument. Just saying.

and a p.s

Erratum

"And even if that absurd confusion of the order to register in your Own city with registering in your ancestral city, there was no need to drag Mary along"

should have read:

"And even if that absurd confusion of the order to register in your Own city with registering in your ancestral city, could be made to work, there was no need to drag Mary along..."

Suit yourself but your argument that the author of Acts is wrong just because you say Josephus disagrees with him, and your insistence that the only Theudas Josephus ever mentions must by default be the same Theudas mentioned in the book of Acts, is more preposterous than what you have claimed about the author of Acts himself. And no doubt anyone else willing to see that this is the case may readily see it. As for the enrollment I already stated that the commonly held time frame does not conflict with my understanding of the scripture, (those ten days, a day for a year, are like the "incubation period" of the seed of the Word; for Messiah must be formed in you, the parables and sayings of Messiah expound these things). Maryah is to Yoseph his "wife of youth" and "wife of covenant" who brings forth an "Elohim seed", (it is an allegory, see Malachi 2:14-15 and Galatians 4:22-26).

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

So your suggestion is that, as we can have different players with the same name doing the same thing or perhaps the same person dong the same thing twice, that could be the case with the census of Quirinus, the revolt of Judas the Galilean and I suppose the revolt of Theudas, yes? You can't be suggesting here was one revolt that the Romans took 10 years to put down because you already tried to make ne look a fool for suggesting (though I actually didn't). The only other thing I can think of is that you are suggesting that Herod dies, Archelaus rules, is deposed and Rome takes over and conducts a census all at the same time (it would have to be in order to have Jesus born in the time of Herod and after Rome takes over, which is the only way to reconcile the 6 AD census with Matthew. But it can't work unless Herod dies, his son rules and was deposed and Rome took over during - say ... minus 4 months.

I think it Josephus recorded one (maybe two) rebellions that ended in about 3BC, and this includes the census rebellion, that Josephus places in AD/6 but could not have been in AD/6. I think Josephus used two different sources for his accounts thinking they were different accounts but were really the same account. Again look at the names.

You can't be suggesting here was one revolt that the Romans took 10 years to put down because you already tried to make ne look a fool for suggesting (though I actually didn't). The only other thing I can think of is that you are suggesting that Herod dies, Archelaus rules, is deposed and Rome takes over and conducts a census all at the same time (it would have to be in order to have Jesus born in the time of Herod and after Rome takes over, which is the only way to reconcile the 6 AD census with Matthew. But it can't work unless Herod dies, his son rules and was deposed and Rome took over during - say ... minus 4 months.

There is no 10 years Trans, I see all these rebellions as happening before Archelaus rules and ending with his taking away the priesthood of Joazar at the BEGINING of his reign. Look at the list of high priests. I will highlight the two priest that concern this topic.

Ananelus 37-36 BC
Aristobulus III 36 BC
Ananelus (restored) 36-30 BC
Joshua ben Fabus 30-23 BC
Simon ben Boethus 23-4 BC
Joazar ben Boethus 4 BC
Eleazar ben Boethus 4-3 BC
Joshua ben Sie 3 BC-AD 6
The Dominiation of the House of Ananus (6-43)
Ananus ben Seth 6-15
Ishmael ben Fabus 15-16
Eleazar ben Ananus 16-17
Simon ben Camithus 17-18
Joseph Caiaphas 18-36
Jonathan ben Ananus 36-37
Theophilus ben Ananus 37-41 [Taylor: I think that this “Most Excellent Theophilus” is the addressee of Luke-Acts, although Luke-Acts was not written till about 60-63.]
Simon Cantatheras ben Boethus 41-43
Matthias ben Ananus 43
Aljoneus 43-44
Jonathan ben Ananus 44 (restored)
Josephus ben Camydus 44-46
Ananias ben Nebedeus 46-52
Jonathan 52-56
Ishmael ben Fabus 56-62 (restored?)
Joseph Cabi ben Simon 62-63
Ananus ben Ananus 63
Joshua ben Damneus 63
Joshua ben Gamaliel 63-64
Mattathias ben Theophilus 65-66
Phannias ben Samuel 67-70

So if Joshua ben Sie was high priest from 3BC until AD/6 how can Quirinus be said to take away the priesthood of Joazar in AD/6?

Now to be fair other lists of the high priests put a ? mark with Joazar and with Sie, but this is probably do to Josephus jumping all over the map concerning Joazar. Josephus has Joazar losing the priesthood 3 different times, twice by Archelaus (once before he leaves for Rome and then again upon the start of his reign) and once by Quirinus. And Josephus does all this with only stating ONCE where the high priesthood was conferred upon Joazar and that in the days of Herod the great.

This alone has to make one wonder about Josephus credibility on these events.

The only way this can be reconciled is that Josephus did indeed use two different sources for his accounts, thinking they were different accounts but were really the same accounts.

I would like you to link your sources fr these 'accounts' so I can check your claim out, but first I'll ask - these apparent history - duplications are known because they are recorded. No doubt because they were both times worthy of recording. So why are the duplications you are claiming about the census of Quirinus, the revolt of Theudas and Judas the Galilean only mentioned once? Even though the times and events around the last days of Herod and the first years of Archelaus are documented? Doesn't that suggest that, although duplication of names and events may have occurred ( I shall have to check that) the record suggests in this case, it didn't.

I gave the link that got me started looking at these things, but the rest actually comes from Ant.17 and 18, JW 2 and my own research of things, which in part you can see in this thread concerning the high priesthood.