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.
If Christianity is the result of a thirteen-year-old then I wonder what else is too? It certainly would explain a great many Hollywood movies. It may sound like I'm just being facetious but there have been times when I have actually wondered whether the movie I had just seen was written by 12 year olds. Is this all some big joke that the rich people are playing on us?
Now you are just being impudent. Ad hominem, when I observe that you own Bible refutes your claim that Bethlehem was actually Jerusalem, and then show you where.
And rather than argue, you pull the cheapest of tricks.
I am actually disappointed in you. I was bracing myself for a rebuttal. "Look at it. Herod told them to go out (into the streets) and search out Jesus in the streets of Jerusalem."
I would argue that then the text would make it quite clear that it was in the same city, not sounding so much like it was somewhere else.
Chum, your argument is not just a train wreck but a multiple train pile up, and just now the honey -tanks ruptured.
...
Oh dammit.
Can't you see that Matthew has Joseph fleeing Bethlehem (or Jerusalem, if you like, it makes No Difference) and going to Egypt. Then coming back to Judea, being warned off Archelaus and going to Nazareth for the first time?
Now you may scrap Luke and it's late date, though why if we reject that, we should believe Matthew is a Question. But your last effort tried to mix in apparently Lucan elements about going to Nazareth as per Matthew, and then a year (or more) later coming back to Bethlehem (which name, for some unknown reason, the Bible uses, without explanation, for Jerusalem, you claim) just as the wise men arrived. Then Herod, who was still alive, arranged the massacre and there was the flight to Egypt, and then the death of Herod, and then moving to Nazareth for the first time in order to avoid Archelaus.
Don't you see that sinks your argument of going back to Nazareth after circumcision (as per Luke) and then returning next year for the whole star and massacre scenario?
I shouldn't even have to point this stuff out.
In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary
Matthew doesnt say where they were from originally. But there's certainly nothing in Matthew that contradicts the idea that they were indeed from Nazareth
Search (control f) the page above for Birth of Joshua
LOL! No point in sending me on a wild goose chase.
Of course you were not aware that Jesus was born in the sixth month (Elul) when the dates at the time were ripe enough for Mary to eat after giving birth.
LOL! No point in sending me on a wild goose chase.
Of course you were not aware that Jesus was born in the sixth month (Elul) when the dates at the time were ripe enough for Mary to eat after giving birth.
In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary
Matthew doesnt say where they were from originally. But there's certainly nothing in Matthew that contradicts the idea that they were indeed from Nazareth
That they were not stated to have come from Galilee for the registration, festival or some other reason should be enough, but that the intention was o return to Judea, but hat to be warned not to do so, but to go and live somewhere else (Galilee, as it turned out) is the clincher.
It is very, very strange to me that after decades of assiduous study by accredited experrts on the Bible, I don't recall ever having seen that argument made, and the one about the census only applying to Judea was made by one German professor, and that was not generally picked up.
I can understand why the Believeers wouldn't mention it , but it's odd that (apart from that German historian) I see these points nowhere else. Farrell Till preferred to pick joles in the OT. Matt Dillahunty prefers to point up moral failings in the Bible. Dawkins takes the evolutionists view that unseats Genesis. Hitchens opted to dwell on the harm religion does.
I guess that everybody else either accepted that the gospels was a substantially reliable account and simply ignores any problems or contradictions.
The ones who didn't believer it simply dismissed it on 'miracles don't happen' grounds. I began by trying to see whether the story worked, and what didn't and couldn't and rejecting that as reliable history and seeing what could at least be given some credit for being true.
The Nativity was in fact the first to go. That was really the Touchstone case for Gospel credibility. The account of Judas' death followed and explained how those "Prophecies" worked. They were invented to fulfil the rather improbable prophecies ferreted out of the OT in the first place. As I say, once you know, it seems obvious and incredible that others don't see it.
I suppose that when you know the trick, it seems obvious. But it took me AGES to realize that the resurrection accounts were all invented, and that Mark was no 'lost' but never had a resurrection (appearance) account. In fact it was a poster here who suggested it to me. So maybe the temptation to swallow it all as History and never mind the problems, or reject it all as fairy -tales and never mind the factual basis, explains why nobody else seems to have done this stuff.
However dun it is, and it means that quoting passes of a story shown to be tripe is a waste of time, and so is looking up Hebrew terms and names, and your remarks about kids writing Hollywood movies are indeed facetious and no more than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif
LOL! No point in sending me on a wild goose chase.
Of course you were not aware that Jesus was born in the sixth month (Elul) when the dates at the time were ripe enough for Mary to eat after giving birth.
When you get two people blindly quoting from two books of fairy -tales and insisting the other must be wrong on Faith, best to leave them to cosh each others' brains out.
I have presented a perfectly reasonable and consistent explanation of the birth of Jesus. But you seem determined to believe what you want to believe. You are doing the exact same thing that you accuse Believers of doing.
I have presented a perfectly reasonable and consistent explanation of the birth of Jesus. But you seem determined to believe what you want to believe. You are doing the exact same thing that you accuse Believers of doing.
And I have shown that it does not work in respect of Matthew and Luke separately, or combined or even rejecting Luke and going with Matthew. It would make Jesus indeed about 30, even if you swallowed all the miracles.
Your response has been to address none of that but try to make up excuses as you go along (perhaps they went back to Nazareth and came back next year) which I debunk, and you don't address that at all but insist that you "presented a perfectly reasonable and consistent explanation". This is what we in the apologetics business call "Fingers -in -the -ears denial". Part of which song and dance involves irrelevant piddling about with original Hebrew names or just Assuming your deposition so far and surging on.
That kind of apologetics trickery is as familiar to us as the accusation that I am doing what demonstrably you are doing yourself - ignoring everything and believing what you want to believe.
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard. It's not even worth discussing.
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.
Ad hominem, when I observe that you own Bible refutes your claim that Bethlehem was actually Jerusalem, and then show you where. 
, but it's odd that (apart from that German historian) I see these points nowhere else. Farrell Till preferred to pick joles in the OT. Matt Dillahunty prefers to point up moral failings in the Bible. Dawkins takes the evolutionists view that unseats Genesis. Hitchens opted to dwell on the harm religion does. 
that when you know the trick, it seems obvious. But it took me AGES to realize that the resurrection accounts were all invented, and that Mark was no 'lost' but never had a resurrection (appearance) account. In fact it was a poster here who suggested it to me. So maybe the temptation to swallow it all as History and never mind the problems, or reject it all as fairy -tales and never mind the factual basis, explains why nobody else seems to have done this stuff.
