EVERLASTING OLD COVENANT (Jew V Christian)

[rosends]

Isaiah 59:20; 'And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.'

Please explain who the Redeemer is, and when you think this will happen.

Many commentators see that as a reference to a future king. As to when that will happen, there is no computing it. It will happen when it is supposed to happen. The Hebrew word is "go'el". Did you happen to notice that word elsewhere in Isaiah? The root is used as a verb in the past tense in chapters like 48 and 49 but there, it is tied (in that past tense) explicitly to God redeeming his nation (pay careful attention to 48:20), or used to describe God as a redeemer because of his past actions. In 59, it is not tied to God, but is what God talks about in the future, so it isn't God.

 

[oldbadger]

Well, let's see if we can clear up one mistake at a time.

I only gave you one mistake.
And...... sorry, I thought you would know of these verses already......

Which verses are you referring to in Luke:1/2?

Mary became pregnant about six months after her cousin. True? So..... before or during 4BC

Luke {1:5} There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth. {1:6} And they were both righteous before

{1:13} But the angel said unto him, Fear not,
Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth
shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

............... and so both Elizabeth and Mary became pregnant in Herod's lifetime. Of course, in Matthew Herod the Great is aliove and kicking adter Mary bore Jesus, True?

But here we have Joseph and pregnant Mary about to travel to Bethlehem........ in 6AD...

{2:1} And it came to pass in those days, that there went
out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world
should be taxed. {2:2} ([And] this taxing was first made
when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) {2:3} And all went
to be taxed, every one into his own city.

See? 10 years?
We know that the census was held in 6AD when Auchelus was deposed, the first Prefect was posted to Jerusalem, and Quirinius/Cyrenius was instructed to hold a census there.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I only gave you one mistake.
And...... sorry, I thought you would know of these verses already......



Mary became pregnant about six months after her cousin. True? So..... before or during 4BC

Luke {1:5} There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth. {1:6} And they were both righteous before

{1:13} But the angel said unto him, Fear not,
Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth
shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

............... and so both Elizabeth and Mary became pregnant in Herod's lifetime. Of course, in Matthew Herod the Great is aliove and kicking adter Mary bore Jesus, True?

But here we have Joseph and pregnant Mary about to travel to Bethlehem........ in 6AD...

{2:1} And it came to pass in those days, that there went
out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world
should be taxed. {2:2} ([And] this taxing was first made
when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) {2:3} And all went
to be taxed, every one into his own city.

See? 10 years?
We know that the census was held in 6AD when Auchelus was deposed, the first Prefect was posted to Jerusalem, and Quirinius/Cyrenius was instructed to hold a census there.

What you're asking me to do is accept the fallibilty of one man's research over the infallibilty of God's Word!

So, let's see just how fallible YOU are!

Bishop Ussher did an exhaustive study of events in the ancient world in his work, The Annals of the World. It contains more than twelve thousand footnotes from secular sources, alongside two thousand quotes from the Bible.

Here are just a few selections from the year 4000a AM, 4709 JP, 5BC. [Note carefully sections 6057, 6058]

6051. Augustus ordered that all the Roman world should be taxed. This taxing first happened when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. [Luke 2:1] From this, a little book was made by Augustus, containing all the public riches, as well as the number of Roman citizens and armed allies. It listed the navies, kingdoms and provinces, and it recorded what tribute and customs were required to be paid. [Tacitus, Annals1. 1.c.11.3:267] [Seutonius, Augustus, 1,2. c.101.s.4.1:309]

6052. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was called Cyrenius in the Greek, and had been a consul at Rome for seven years prior to this. Strabo wrote about the Hasmonadensians, a people of Cilicia: [Stabo, 1.12.c.6.s.5.5:479]
'Quirinius overcame them by famine and took four thousand men and distributed them into neigbouring cities.'

6054. Augustus himself had decreed that the magistrates should not be sent into the provinces as soon as they had left office. [Seutonius, Augustus,1.2.c.36.1:207] They should wait five years after their term of office expired. [Dio, 1.53. (14) 6:227]

6055. [A lengthy section - so first paragraph missing] A little later, Quintilius Varus was made successor to Saturninus, with the proconsular authority. So nothing is incorrect, in that Quirinius may be said to have succeeded to, or rather to have been added to, the office of administrating Caesar's affairs, as King Herod was. Josephus noted that Herod was the governor of all Syria. [Josephus, Jewish War, 1.1.c.27.s.2(538) 2:255]
This was so constituted by Augustus, in order that Herod was added to the governors and so that all things would be done according to his wishes. [Josephus, Antiq. 1. 15. c.10s.4. (360) 8:175] Hence, both would govern together.
Tertullian stated: [Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1.4.c.19. 3:378]
'There was a tax raised under Augustus in Judea, by Sentius Saturninus.'

6056. Luke stated when this same taxing was made: [Luke 2:1,2.] 'when Cyrenius or Quirinius was governor of Syria.'

6057. Luke would rather mention him than the governor Saturninus, because he would compare this taxing with another that was made ten years later by the same Quirinius, after Archelaus was sent into banishment. He stated that, of the two taxings, this was the first taxing and this was the time of the birth of Christ.

6058. When this first taxing was enacted, Joseph went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, called Bethlehem. He was of the house and lineage of of David and would be taxed there with his wife Mary, who was due to deliver. [Luke 2:4,5.]

So, there we have the explanation about the taxing. There were two taxations levied by Quirinius, ten years apart.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Many commentators see that as a reference to a future king. As to when that will happen, there is no computing it. It will happen when it is supposed to happen. The Hebrew word is "go'el". Did you happen to notice that word elsewhere in Isaiah? The root is used as a verb in the past tense in chapters like 48 and 49 but there, it is tied (in that past tense) explicitly to God redeeming his nation (pay careful attention to 48:20), or used to describe God as a redeemer because of his past actions. In 59, it is not tied to God, but is what God talks about in the future, so it isn't God.

Other commentators may see it, but do YOU see it as a reference to a future king? If so, do you understand the passage to refer to the personal Messiah, the son of David, whose throne will be everlasting?

So, can we agree that God HAS redeemed Jacob (in the wilderness, following the Exodus), and WILL redeem again [future to Isaiah]? Can we also agree that he will use a Messiah as His redeemer on earth in the future [future to Isaiah]?

 

[rosends]

Other commentators may see it, but do YOU see it as a reference to a future king? If so, do you understand the passage to refer to the personal Messiah, the son of David, whose throne will be everlasting?

Well, yes and no. I don't know what you mean by a "personal" messiah nor do I understand "throne will be everlasting." The notion of a physical death in the messianic age is a difficult concept (as there are differing ideas about the timing and the impact on our present reality) so whether there will be a single human king, or one who has children who reign after him is unclear to me.

So, can we agree that God HAS redeemed Jacob (in the wilderness, following the Exodus), and WILL redeem again [future to Isaiah]? Can we also agree that he will use a Messiah as His redeemer on earth in the future [future to Isaiah]?

God has redeemed us, yes. Whether the future king will appear as a leader before, during or after God redeems us again is likewise unclear. The text says that he (this future king) will come to redeem/lead those who have turned away from sin. This does not exactly comport with other textual understandings of the generation of the messiah. You are asking for specifics and mechanisms. The underlying expectation is that there will be a leader who will (eventually) be a king.

 

[oldbadger]

What you're asking me to do is accept the fallibilty of one man's research over the infallibilty of God's Word!

So, let's see just how fallible YOU are!

How challenging! How aggressive!
And so, It looks as if you are telling me here that Luke's words were fallible? True?
Let's look at your proposals................

Bishop Ussher did an exhaustive study of events in the ancient world in his work, The Annals of the World. It contains more than twelve thousand footnotes from secular sources, alongside two thousand quotes from the Bible.

So Bishop Usher obviously fgelt that he needed to do a great deal of 'exhaustive study'. OK..... moving on.....

Here are just a few selections from the year 4000a AM, 4709 JP, 5BC. [Note carefully sections 6057, 6058]
6051. Augustus ordered that all the Roman world should be taxed. This taxing first happened when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. [Luke 2:1] From this, a little book was made by Augustus, containing all the public riches, as well as the number of Roman citizens and armed allies. It listed the navies, kingdoms and provinces, and it recorded what tribute and customs were required to be paid. [Tacitus, Annals1. 1.c.11.3:267] [Seutonius, Augustus, 1,2. c.101.s.4.1:309]

Youi've got a problem.... right there. At the age of 57yrs Cyrenius (Quirinius) was appointed Legate Governor of Syria (which controlled Palestine) in 6AD at the same time that the Ethnarch Herod Archelaus had been banished, and Coponius was named as the Prefect of all three provinces and known jointly as Judaea. The Roman World was not involved in the taxation census, but only the provinces of Idumea, Samaria and Judea (Judaea) which Archelaus had ruled (incompetently). It was Coponius who first tried to introducre the new taxation program but a Jew called Judas of Gamala gathered quite a following to challenge the unfair demands in a strong revolt. Coponius could not cope (excuse the pun) and Quirinius had to step in to complete a taxation census. Sadly Luke did not mention this revolt. However, the idea that Rome would require all of its subjects and cirizens to leave their homes and places of work (where they were taxed) and go to their ancestral homes for the purpose of a taxation census is so ridiculous that one can only read Luke's account with merriment at such a manipulation to get Jesus tied in to Bethlehem as a Judean, when in fact he was like Joseph, a Galilean peasant.

6052. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was called Cyrenius in the Greek,

Yes..... I wrote both names, as no doubt you remember....

6055. [A lengthy section - so first paragraph missing] A little later, Quintilius Varus was made successor to Saturninus, with the proconsular authority. So nothing is incorrect, in that Quirinius may be said to have succeeded to, or rather to have been added to, the office of administrating Caesar's affairs, as King Herod was. Josephus noted that Herod was the governor of all Syria. [Josephus, Jewish War, 1.1.c.27.s.2(538) 2:255]
This was so constituted by Augustus, in order that Herod was added to the governors and so that all things would be done according to his wishes. [Josephus, Antiq. 1. 15. c.10s.4. (360) 8:175] Hence, both would govern together.

No....... Varus was the Syrian Legate on the death of Herod the Great, and it was varus who was instructed to send a cohort and two legions to relieve Sepphoris/Zippori after it was overthrown by Judas BarEzekiah the bandit as soon as Herod had died.

'There was a tax raised under Augustus in Judea, by Sentius Saturninus.'
6056. Luke stated when this same taxing was made: [Luke 2:1,2.] 'when Cyrenius or Quirinius was governor of Syria.'

Yes........ in 6AD.

6057. Luke would rather mention him than the governor Saturninus, because he would compare this taxing with another that was made ten years later by the same Quirinius, after Archelaus was sent into banishment. He stated that, of the two taxings, this was the first taxing and this was the time of the birth of Christ.

No..........
9 – 7/6 BC Gaius Sentius Saturninus
7/6 – 4 BC Publius Quinctilius Varus
4 – 1 BC Unknown[1]
1 BC – 4 AD Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus
4 – 5 Lucius Volusius Saturninus
6 – 12 Publius Sulpicius Quirinius
In fact, it could well have been Varus as Legate from 6BC until 1BC because Herod the Great could possibly have died in 2/1BC and a careful study of moon phases does support this possibility. But no Quirinius/Cyrenius befor 6AD. He was in Rome until then.
But here we have your own words that suggest that Luke did not write an accurate account, that he would RATHER MENTION CYRENIUS than SATURNINUS.
You see? Luke account.... riddled with incorrect details.
Which part of this do you not understand?
Luke's account has many such strangenesses, possibly because he was niot a witness, and clearly not guided by God to a perfect account.
You should read Matthew as well...... lots of errors.
And John was composed from a bundle of very useful accounts, reports and anecdotes but because he was not the disciple and no witness he didn't even know the correct timeline, and had Jesus demonstratiin in the Temple during the first dayus of his mission, rather than in the last week of his life! I like John, but not for an accurate timeline. G-Mark's time line was the one, except fotr the last verses.

6058. When this first taxing was enacted, Joseph went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, called Bethlehem. He was of the house and lineage of of David and would be taxed there with his wife Mary, who was due to deliver. [Luke 2:4,5.]

Nazareth was not a city. A Citadel possibly, because of it's high elevation above the surrounding plains. The two Canas and a couple of other hills were similar citadels for the workmen of Sepphoris. See? Handworkers on Nazareth? Joseph? But please don't have Joseph as more than a Galilean peasant. Bethlehem? Nah!

So, there we have the explanation about the taxing. There were two taxations levied by Quirinius, ten years apart.

Rome did not send its citizens and subjects all over Europe for the purpose of reporting to be taxed at their ancestral homes! Rome wasn't that daft!
And the taxation census was all about Samaria, Judea and Idumea...... ONLY!

You see? I knew something after all...... and that just off the top of my head. I can produce much more info than what's in my head today.

 

[Redemptionsong]

How challenging! How aggressive!
And so, It looks as if you are telling me here that Luke's words were fallible? True?
Let's look at your proposals................

So Bishop Usher obviously fgelt that he needed to do a great deal of 'exhaustive study'. OK..... moving on.....


Youi've got a problem.... right there. At the age of 57yrs Cyrenius (Quirinius) was appointed Legate Governor of Syria (which controlled Palestine) in 6AD at the same time that the Ethnarch Herod Archelaus had been banished, and Coponius was named as the Prefect of all three provinces and known jointly as Judaea. The Roman World was not involved in the taxation census, but only the provinces of Idumea, Samaria and Judea (Judaea) which Archelaus had ruled (incompetently). It was Coponius who first tried to introducre the new taxation program but a Jew called Judas of Gamala gathered quite a following to challenge the unfair demands in a strong revolt. Coponius could not cope (excuse the pun) and Quirinius had to step in to complete a taxation census. Sadly Luke did not mention this revolt. However, the idea that Rome would require all of its subjects and cirizens to leave their homes and places of work (where they were taxed) and go to their ancestral homes for the purpose of a taxation census is so ridiculous that one can only read Luke's account with merriment at such a manipulation to get Jesus tied in to Bethlehem as a Judean, when in fact he was like Joseph, a Galilean peasant.


Yes..... I wrote both names, as no doubt you remember....


No....... Varus was the Syrian Legate on the death of Herod the Great, and it was varus who was instructed to send a cohort and two legions to relieve Sepphoris/Zippori after it was overthrown by Judas BarEzekiah the bandit as soon as Herod had died.

Yes........ in 6AD.

No..........
9 – 7/6 BC Gaius Sentius Saturninus
7/6 – 4 BC Publius Quinctilius Varus
4 – 1 BC Unknown[1]
1 BC – 4 AD Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus
4 – 5 Lucius Volusius Saturninus
6 – 12 Publius Sulpicius Quirinius
In fact, it could well have been Varus as Legate from 6BC until 1BC because Herod the Great could possibly have died in 2/1BC and a careful study of moon phases does support this possibility. But no Quirinius/Cyrenius befor 6AD. He was in Rome until then.
But here we have your own words that suggest that Luke did not write an accurate account, that he would RATHER MENTION CYRENIUS than SATURNINUS.
You see? Luke account.... riddled with incorrect details.
Which part of this do you not understand?
Luke's account has many such strangenesses, possibly because he was niot a witness, and clearly not guided by God to a perfect account.
You should read Matthew as well...... lots of errors.
And John was composed from a bundle of very useful accounts, reports and anecdotes but because he was not the disciple and no witness he didn't even know the correct timeline, and had Jesus demonstratiin in the Temple during the first dayus of his mission, rather than in the last week of his life! I like John, but not for an accurate timeline. G-Mark's time line was the one, except fotr the last verses.

Nazareth was not a city. A Citadel possibly, because of it's high elevation above the surrounding plains. The two Canas and a couple of other hills were similar citadels for the workmen of Sepphoris. See? Handworkers on Nazareth? Joseph? But please don't have Joseph as more than a Galilean peasant. Bethlehem? Nah!

Rome did not send its citizens and subjects all over Europe for the purpose of reporting to be taxed at their ancestral homes! Rome wasn't that daft!
And the taxation census was all about Samaria, Judea and Idumea...... ONLY!

You see? I knew something after all...... and that just off the top of my head. I can produce much more info than what's in my head today.

The question is not whether you know something, but whether the account given by Luke is accurate. You claim it is not.

The following note is supplied by the Speaker's commentary.

'St. Luke is supposed to refer to a registration which took place, as is assumed, when Quirinius was first governor of Syria. The fact that Quirinius did hold that office twice appears to be established by a combination of notices. First, Tacitus states [Annals,iii.48; A.U.C.774] that Tiberius demanded a public funeral for Quirinius, on the grounds that he had been a distinguished soldier, and that after his consulate he had attained the honours of a public triumph for a victory over the Hamodanenses in Cilicia. He must therefore at that time have been Imperial Legate in the province, in other words governor of Syria. This success, which refers to a previous period, is also noticed by Strabo, lib. xii.6,5. Secondly, in the year 1764 a fragment of a sepulchral inscription, now in the the Museum of the Vatican, was found in the Tiber. It states that the person, to whose memory it was dedicated, was Proconsul of Asia, and that he was TWICE governor of the imperial province of Syria and Phoenicia. Mommsen, Merivale, and other historical critics of the highest authority, hold that the person thus designated was Quirinius. The date of the first appointment, accepting it as all but certain, may be thus determined. He was consul B.C.12, and thus qualified for the office. We find, however, that after that date there were three other governors, M.Titius, C.Sentius Saturninus, and P.Quinctilius Varus, up to the latter half of the year B.C.4. Quirinius may have been then appointed; but he must have been recalled about Midsummer B.C.2, when he was selected as monitor of Caius Caesar. It is therefore possible that a registration under his authority may have been held within that interval, and if so that St. Luke may have referred to it as a first registration.'

Now, you, oldbadger, have boldly stated that Luke is wrong. But you happen to live 2000 years from the event! Luke lived during some of the events discussed. Hence this, from the commentary;
'We must bear in mind the certain fact that St. Luke refers distinctly to the census of Quirinius in his report of Gamaliel's speech, Acts 5:37. This is admitted by Schurer. St.Luke there shews that he was well acquainted with the circumstances of the enrolment, which was the immediate cause of great disturbances, such as he knew did not occur at that time under Herod.'

Do you not think that Luke, living at the time of these important events, would have been able to record them accurately?

 

[oldbadger]

T
Now, you, oldbadger, have boldly stated that Luke is wrong.

Just a sec......... You clearly showed how Luke had adjusted the truth in his gospel, how he had 'adjusted' details of (what you claim) were two tax censuses.
I didn't need to read further....... Luke is not absolute truth.

'We must bear in mind the certain fact that St. Luke refers distinctly to the census of Quirinius in his report of Gamaliel's speech, Acts 5:37. This is admitted by Schurer. St.Luke there shews that he was well acquainted with the circumstances of the enrolment, which was the immediate cause of great disturbances, such as he knew did not occur at that time under Herod.'

We know about that!
In fact there were two attempts at a census in 6AD after the removal of Archelaus ..... The Prefect Coponius made a total mess of the whole thing and nearly dumped the whole area in to revolt, and Quirinius needed to step in and supervise the task himself.

And that confirms what you've already been told...... that Mary was pregnanty during Herod the Gret's lifetime 4BC (possibly as late as 1BC actually) and 6AD = 7 to 10 years of pregnancy.
And you still want to duck that simple fact.

Do you not think that Luke, living at the time of these important events, would have been able to record them accurately?

Luke had no knowledge of the events nor was he a witness!
He built his letter to Theophilus on the basis of the writings in G-Mark, another document which recorded many of Jesus's speeches, and one other document.

Luke's gospel is of great value to historians studying the life and campaigns of the Baptist and Jesus, but NOT AS A DIRECT ACCOUNT! Equally, Celcus (copied by Origen) offers high value info although he was anti-Christian and not a witness either.

And so...... copied accounts can have great value but they are not Primary reports.

You've already written that his account was 'adapted' in so many words. Read your own post. The Bible is not infallible.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Just a sec......... You clearly showed how Luke had adjusted the truth in his gospel, how he had 'adjusted' details of (what you claim) were two tax censuses.
I didn't need to read further....... Luke is not absolute truth.



We know about that!
In fact there were two attempts at a census in 6AD after the removal of Archelaus ..... The Prefect Coponius made a total mess of the whole thing and nearly dumped the whole area in to revolt, and Quirinius needed to step in and supervise the task himself.

And that confirms what you've already been told...... that Mary was pregnanty during Herod the Gret's lifetime 4BC (possibly as late as 1BC actually) and 6AD = 7 to 10 years of pregnancy.
And you still want to duck that simple fact.


Luke had no knowledge of the events nor was he a witness!
He built his letter to Theophilus on the basis of the writings in G-Mark, another document which recorded many of Jesus's speeches, and one other document.

Luke's gospel is of great value to historians studying the life and campaigns of the Baptist and Jesus, but NOT AS A DIRECT ACCOUNT! Equally, Celcus (copied by Origen) offers high value info although he was anti-Christian and not a witness either.

And so...... copied accounts can have great value but they are not Primary reports.

You've already written that his account was 'adapted' in so many words. Read your own post. The Bible is not infallible.

Nowhere have I said that Luke's Gospel was adapted. This is your reading, not mine.

My position is very clear. Whilst different versions of the Bible may contain the minor errors of translators, the Word of God (written and living) is without error. The efforts of Biblical scholars down the ages has been to edge ever closer to the inspired words spoken by the prophets.

As it says in 2 Timothy 3:16, 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.'

So, when a man comes along claiming that the words of scripture are not inspired, I want to see the evidence. You have made such a claim.

I believe that you are pitting yourself against God, and against his Son, Jesus Christ.

But, of course, since you believe that the Bible is uninspired, it shouldn't be a problem showing me that it's riddling with inconsistency and contradiction. If we accept that the Bible took in the region of 1500 years to complete (Moses to John), with more than 40 writers involved, it really shouldn't be difficult to find a contradiction.

All I ask for is ONE meaningful and irrefutable contradiction. The case of Luke's census has, I believe, been answered quite adequately.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Well, yes and no. I don't know what you mean by a "personal" messiah nor do I understand "throne will be everlasting." The notion of a physical death in the messianic age is a difficult concept (as there are differing ideas about the timing and the impact on our present reality) so whether there will be a single human king, or one who has children who reign after him is unclear to me.

God has redeemed us, yes. Whether the future king will appear as a leader before, during or after God redeems us again is likewise unclear. The text says that he (this future king) will come to redeem/lead those who have turned away from sin. This does not exactly comport with other textual understandings of the generation of the messiah. You are asking for specifics and mechanisms. The underlying expectation is that there will be a leader who will (eventually) be a king.

Please clarify who you think the redeemer is in Isaiah 59:20. Do you believe that God, and only God, can redeem Israel?

 

[rosends]

Please clarify who you think the redeemer is in Isaiah 59:20. Do you believe that God, and only God, can redeem Israel?

God sent people to help take others from bad situations. The person who "redeems" a relatives blood through vengeance is textually a "go'el". A relative who marries a widow of a relative is a redeemer. The leader who will help take the people from the midst of exile is a go'el, a redeemer. That's how the word is used -- to describe a force that takes people out of a situation. I don't recall, though, that it is ever used textually to refer to sin. Can you show me that?

EDIT -- a side note: I fear you are confused between two Hebrew words, each of which is translated at various points as "redeem". The one in which someone pays for something (like redeemed a child, or a hostage) is Podeh. The "redeemer" here, who doesn't pay for anything but simpy saves is Go'el. The future king is described as a go'el, one who saves. He does not have to pay for it with anything.

 

[oldbadger]

Nowhere have I said that Luke's Gospel was adapted. This is your reading, not mine.

Here we go........

6057. Luke would rather mention him than the governor Saturninus, because he would compare this taxing with another that was made ten years later by the same Quirinius, after Archelaus was sent into banishment. He stated that, of the two taxings, this was the first taxing and this was the time of the birth of Christ.

6058. When this first taxing was enacted, Joseph went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, called Bethlehem. He was of the house and lineage of of David and would be taxed there with his wife Mary, who was due to deliver. [Luke 2:4,5.]

So, there we have the explanation about the taxing. There were two taxations levied by Quirinius, ten years apart.

This shows that you believe that Luke adjusted his story, and, by the way, there were only two taxations in the provinces of Idumea, Judea and Samaria (known jointly as Judaea) both in the same year.

And you STILL have a Mary that was pregnant in Herod the Great's life and in 6AD!

There the first of scores and scores of errors and maniopulations.

My position is very clear. Whilst different versions of the Bible may contain the minor errors of translators, the Word of God (written and living) is without error. The efforts of Biblical scholars down the ages has been to edge ever closer to the inspired words spoken by the prophets.

Rubbish.
A typical example of error and manipulation is in John's timeline, where he sends Jesus in to the Temple to demonstrate in the first days of his campaign, rather than in the last week of his life.

As it says in 2 Timothy 3:16, 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.'

So, when a man comes along claiming that the words of scripture are not inspired, I want to see the evidence. You have made such a claim.

In Timothy.......... !!! Pauline waffle.??

I believe that you are pitting yourself against God, and against his Son, Jesus Christ.

You believe. .....
I've got no problem with beliefs, it's just that you're claiming certitude about how perfect the bible and gospels are, and you're wrong.

How come that G-John gives and different date for the last supper to the synoptics? (Nisan 14 and not Nisan 15 ..... which is right... please?)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Therin is the problem, you await your expectations.

Regards Tony

I await the completion of the prophecies of the Tanakh. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I await the completion of the prophecies of the Tanakh. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then I see you have missed and are missing them being fulfilled, nothing less.

I see Gods hands have never been chained, even if men have done and as such, think they have been.

My Carmel has witnessed the 'Glory of the Lord' and the 'Glory of God' has come via the way of the 'Gate', facing East.

The Arc of the Covernant has settled on Zion and the law now issues forth.

Why have we chosen not to see this?

Regards Tony

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This represents an interpretation of ancient scripture from one narrow cultural perspective, nothing more.

The Tanakh was written by Jews for Jews about Jews. It is also to be interpreted by Jews. But even scholars who have no axe to grind (IOW secular scholars who aren't trying to force our texts into a Christian or Bahai mold) agree with the Jewish interpretations.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

These are Prophecies where man builds expectations out of their own limited understanding of scripture. As we have One God, we must likewise beleive God looks after all His creation, God is all embracing.

God has always sent His Messenger or Prophet to warn the people that unless they returned to God, trouble would soon visit them. History has shown the vast majority reject Gods new Covernant. Thus this is important to consider. God will send the Messiah to give adequate warning.

So lets consider these 3 points.

• Issuing in an era of peace

The starting date for Gods promise was may 23rd 1844. The Elijah for this age the Bab came to prepare us for the promised 'Day of God', in this respect the day could be a thousand years. Baha'u'llah was the one the Bab prepared humanity for and it was Baha'u'llah as a prisioner that sent out the offer of the Most Great Peace to all humanity.

That humanity as a majority rejected it at that time, does not negate tye fact that the Most Great Peace was given and that it will still unfold. The rejection brought more warnings for humanity to cling to a Lesser Peace, now to be built by the governments of the world.

The way to acheive it is available to all people. God gives us the choice and always has.

• Ruling from Jerusalem (being "David")

If we look at what Jerusalem in a material sense, it means an 'Abode of Peace'. When this has been lost, Christ offered that when the new Messiah comes, that there will be a New Jerusalem, a new 'Above of Peace'. Likewise a new Jerusalem can also be seen as a new Covenant or Message from God.

Baha'u'llah's genealogy is supportive.

• Bringing all the Jews out of diaspora back to the Land of Israel

The event that started this process was the Edict of Toleration that was signed before the May 23rd declaration of the Bab.

The Bab was the Gate, that opened to those that choose to return to the Holy Land. The material land is but one step, the heart is what God always asks of us.

These are just a glimpse of other ways to view the same prophecies.

Regards Tony

I've had just about enough of the Baha'i twisting of our Prophets. Your explanations clearly dont meet the criteria. For example, the Edict of Toleration, for example, did not happen due to the declaration of the Bab. Indeed according to you it preceded it. An effect cannot precede the cause. Another example being that there is no New Jerusalem, there is only Jerusalem, and there is no messiah ruling from it. The final example being that Bahais say "Peace, peace, when there is no peace."

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I've had just about enough of the Baha'i twisting of our Prophets. Your explanations clearly dont meet the criteria. For example, the Edict of Toleration, for example, did not happen due to the declaration of the Bab. Indeed according to you it preceded it. An effect cannot precede the cause. Another example being that there is no New Jerusalem, there is only Jerusalem, and there is no messiah ruling from it. The final example being that Bahais say "Peace, peace, when there is no peace."

It is our choice not to be happy and full of joy and peaceful. Personally I can only find happiness when I talk of G_d.

I also consider that the suns ray penetrate the darkness well before the Sun has risen. In fact the Bab and Baha'u'llah were being proclaimed starting in the late 1700's, the Sun was due to rise again and the heat and rays were beginning to penetrate the Mind of man.

They are God's Prophets for all of Humanity, no person or race owns them. They claim our hearts and we give to them one and all our hearts freely, if we so choose.

Regards Tony

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I see the Bible as one book; all God's Word. If there is a problem, it's far more likely to lie with me, or you!

Where does it say that a sin offering is not offered with blood? The reference given by Wandering Monk [Leviticus 5:11] is not valid because it states that 'the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin' [Leviticus 5:13] So blood is offered.

Adding the NT to the Tanakh is like adding the Book of Mormon to the Bible. It's just ludicrous.

Here are two examples of atonement without blood.

1. And Aaron took as Moses spoke, and ran into the midst of the assembly; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people; and he put on the incense, and made atonement for the people. Numbers 17:12 JPS (16:47 in Christian Bibles).

2. But if his means suffice not for two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that wherein he hath sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering. Leviticus 5:11 JPS

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why have we chosen not to see this?

Regards Tony

It's normal not to see what's not there.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's normal not to see what's not there.

Wheras the history quoted in the Bible says that is normal to reject what is there and choose not to see it. It is written many are called and few are chosen.

To which this gives many balanced thoughts and talks of God's Covernants;

Jews as the chosen people - Wikipedia

Regards Tony