Is Yahweh A Liar? Yes, He Is. I Can Prove It.

[leroy]

It is if you use it to justify a key part of a myth. And of course it is not just the date that is wrong. So is the entire trip to Bethlehem. It indicates that the author either made stuff up or did not know enough to recognize when people were telling him nonsense.

.

How do you justify that the trip to Bethlehem is also a mistake? All you have is a possible wrong date….

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you justify that the trip to Bethlehem is also a mistake? All you have is a possible wrong date….

That is not how censuses work. In fact the verses are self refuting since it tells you the purpose of the census. It was done so that they "whole world could be taxed". It would make no sense at all to count Joseph in Bethlehem where he did not live. Just like today people are taxed based upon where they live and work, they are not taxed based upon where they come from.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you without sin?

Why should God, who is perfect and pure, wish to spend eternity with unrepentant sinners?

I think the real question is, why would he wish to send people to eternal torture chambers.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes. But this confirms that you really do not understand enough history to use the history argument.

Luke screwed up because he has a ten years pregnancy for Mary.. He has her with child during the reign of Herod the Great. He has the Nativity occur during the Census of Quirinius. Jesus was probably born in Nazareth. Luke needed an excuse to get him to Bethlehem to get born so he concocted a fictitious story.Luke was written about seventy years after the census so getting the date wrong is not that surprising.

Luke would not have made such an obvious blunder (regarding the census) because his Gospel provides a number of other secure historical markers. And Luke is not alone.

In choosing to 'pit' yourself against Luke, you also pit yourself against Matthew, whose Gospel supplies necessary and complimentary information on the nativity and genealogy of Jesus.

Both Matthew and Luke mention that Herod the Great was the king at the time of the birth of Jesus. Matthew goes on to tell us about the death of Herod, and the return of Joseph and Mary from Egypt, their place of refuge after the massacre of the children at Bethlehem.

Matthew 2:19-23.
'But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.'

Matthew and Luke together provide us with key events, which, when taken together, can be formed into a chronology.
1. Luke mentions Caesar Augustus [Luke 2:1] From other sources we know that 'Octavian' was Emperor between 27 BCE and 14 CE.

2. Herod the Great was king in Judea ( poss. 37 BCE - 4 BCE) during the reign of Octavian. Judea became a Roman province with a 'client king' after the capture of Jerusalem by Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey) in 63 BCE. Following the death of Herod, his son Archelaus reigned. Direct Roman rule began in 6 CE when Archelaus was deposed as king of Judea (by Augustus) and sent to Gaul.

3. It was during the time that Octavian was Caesar that Cyrenius (Quirinius), the governor of Syria, taxed his territory. Luke adds, '(And this was the first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria)' Note that Luke would not have found it necessary to add these words if there was ONLY ONE CENSUS during Cyrenius' governorship of Syria!

4. Josephus records that there was a census in Judea in 6CE, which must have been the second under Cyrenius. The big difference between the two censuses under Cyrenius is that the first was conducted under Jewish methods, by Herod the Great, the second under Roman method. This is why citizens under Herod, who followed Jewish custom, were told to return to their ancestral homes, which for the progeny of Jesse/David meant travelling to Bethlehem.

5. In chapter 3 of Luke, we are given additional information that takes us from Jesus' birth to his manhood. 'Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrach of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaiphas being the high priests...'
Tiberius became emperor in 14 CE and remained emperor until 37 CE. So Luke is talking about 29 CE, maybe 30 CE, when he mentions 'the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar'. At this time Pontius Pilate is governor of Judea (governor between 26-36 CE).

6. In Luke 3:23 we are told that Jesus was 'about thirty years of age' when he was baptised by John. Since Jesus was baptised in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign, we can calculate that Jesus was born about the year 5/4 BCE. This is a full ten years before the second census of Cyrenius (6 CE).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke would not have made such an obvious blunder (regarding the census) because his Gospel provides a number of other secure historical markers. And Luke is not alone.

And yet he did make that.blunder there is no doubt about it. I have seen the claim of getting history right, but that is usually made by apologists so ignorant that they do not know the difference between geography and history.

In choosing to 'pit' yourself against Luke, you also pit yourself against Matthew, whose Gospel supplies necessary and complimentary information on the nativity and genealogy of Jesus.

Both Matthew and Luke mention that Herod the Great was the king at the time of the birth of Jesus. Matthew goes on to tell us about the death of Herod, and the return of Joseph and Mary from Egypt, their place of refuge after the massacre of the children at Bethlehem.

Matthew 2:19-23.
'But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.'

Matthew and Luke together provide us with key events, which, when taken together, can be formed into a chronology.
1. Luke mentions Caesar Augustus [Luke 2:1] From other sources we know that 'Octavian' was Emperor between 27 BCE and 14 CE.

2. Herod the Great was king in Judea ( poss. 37 BCE - 4 BCE) during the reign of Octavian. Judea became a Roman province with a 'client king' after the capture of Jerusalem by Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey) in 63 BCE. Following the death of Herod, his son Archelaus reigned. Direct Roman rule began in 6 CE when Archelaus was deposed as king of Judea (by Augustus) and sent to Gaul.

3. It was during the time that Octavian was Caesar that Cyrenius (Quirinius), the governor of Syria, taxed his territory. Luke adds, '(And this was the first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria)' Note that Luke would not have found it necessary to add these words if there was ONLY ONE CENSUS during Cyrenius' governorship of Syria!

4. Josephus records that there was a census in Judea in 6CE, which must have been the second under Cyrenius. The big difference between the two censuses under Cyrenius is that the first was conducted under Jewish methods, by Herod the Great, the second under Roman method. This is why citizens under Herod, who followed Jewish custom, were told to return to their ancestral homes, which for the progeny of Jesse/David was Bethlehem.

5. In chapter 3 of Luke, we are given additional information that takes us from Jesus' birth to his manhood. 'Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrach of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaiphas being the high priests...'
Tiberius became emperor in 14 CE and remained emperor until 37 CE. So Luke is talking about 29 CE, maybe 30 CE, when he mentions 'the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar'. At this time Pontius Pilate is governor of Judea (governor between 26-36 CE).

6. In Luke 3:23 we are told that Jesus was 'about thirty years of age' when he was baptised by John. Since Jesus was baptised in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign, we can calculate that Jesus was born about the year 5/4 BCE. This is a full ten years before the second census of Cyrenius (6 CE).

Okay, I have seen all of this before. You have nothing. Half of your claimed facts do not help you and some harm your claim. You have been relying on apologists, also known as liars for Jesus. Actual historians know when Quirinius became governor of Syria. They also know why there was no census during Herod's time. I can explain that to you. Herod was the king of Judea. It was not a Roman territory so the people were not taxed by Rome. The county paid tribute to Rome. Judea was ruled by Herod. At Herod's death his sons took over. Archelaus inherited Judea, and did a terrible job of running the kingdom. He was removed in, and this date is important, 6 CE. At that time the kingdom came under direct Roman rule. Guess what that meant? It meant no tribute and a census was needed to decide what taxes were owed. That was why we also know the date of the Census of Quirinius.


Herod Archelaus - Wikipedia

Also Luke used a really weak plot device. Jesus's folks lived in Nazareth. Which was not in Judea. Not only do you not have people traveling to where they were supposedly born for a census, he was in an area that was not under direct Roman rule. He would not have gone for several reasons. Whoever you he author of The Gospel of Luke was he really screwed the pooch with that story.

 

[Redemptionsong]

And yet he did make that.blunder there is no doubt about it. I have seen the claim of getting history right, but that is usually made by apologists so ignorant that they do not know the difference between geography and history.




Okay, I have seen all of this before. You have nothing. Half of your claimed facts do not help you and some harm your claim. You have been relying on apologists, also known as liars for Jesus. Actual historians know when Quirinius became governor of Syria. They also know why there was no census during Herod's time. I can explain that to you. Herod was the king of Judea. It was not a Roman territory so the people were not taxed by Rome. The county paid tribute to Rome. Judea was ruled by Herod. At Herod's death his sons took over. Archelaus inherited Judea, and did a terrible job of running the kingdom. He was removed in, and this date is important, 6 CE. At that time the kingdom came under direct Roman rule. Guess what that meant? It meant no tribute and a census was needed to decide what taxes were owed. That was why we also know the date of the Census of Quirinius.


Herod Archelaus - Wikipedia

Also Luke used a really weak plot device. Jesus's folks lived in Nazareth. Which was not in Judea. Not only do you not have people traveling to where they were supposedly born for a census, he was in an area that was not under direct Roman rule. He would not have gone for several reasons. Whoever you he author of The Gospel of Luke was he really screwed the pooch with that story.

Once again, you dismiss evidence that comes from sound sources.

The reason that Joseph and his espoused, Mary, had to travel to Bethlehem for the 'first' census was not, as you say, because they were born in Bethlehem, but because Joseph was of 'the house of David'.

Luke 1:26,27.'And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.'

The Romans did not require that censuses be conducted in ancestral cities! The census in 4 BCE was not a census conducted by the Romans, but a census conducted by a client Jewish king over his Jewish population on behalf of Romans (on behalf of the governor of Syria)!

Now, you also make the statement that Galilee was not a territory under the rule of Herod the Great. This is clearly wrong. Had it not been under Herod's control it would not have passed to his son, Herod Antipas. Herod Antipas became the ruler of Galilee and Perea, whilst his older brother, Archelaus, became the ruler of Judea, Idumea and Samaria. Philip 1, another of Herod's sons, was given territory in the north, around Iturea. So, Herod the Great did rule over Galilee, and it was, therefore, within his jurisdiction to demand that the inhabitants of that region go to their ancestral homes for the 5/4 BCE census!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, you dismiss evidence that comes from sound sources.

The reason that Joseph and his espoused, Mary, had to travel to Bethlehem for the 'first' census was not, as you say, because they were born in Bethlehem, but because Joseph was of 'the house of David'.

Luke 1:26,27.'And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.'

The Romans did not require that censuses be conducted in ancestral cities! The census in 4 BCE was not a census conducted by the Romans, but a census conducted by a client Jewish king over his Jewish population on behalf of Romans (on behalf of the governor of Syria)!

Now, you also make the statement that Galilee was not a territory under the rule of Herod the Great. This is clearly wrong. Had it not been under Herod's control it would not have passed to his son, Herod Antipas. Herod Antipas became the ruler of Galilee and Perea, whilst his older brother, Archelaus, became the ruler of Judea, Idumea and Samaria. So, Herod the Great did rule over Galilee, and it was, therefore, within his jurisdiction to demand that the inhabitants of that region go to their ancestral homes for the 5/4 BCE census!

No, I dismissed claims, not evidence, from refuted sources. Do you have anything by actual historians?

And you are now ignoring both history and the Bible. Herod did not call for a census, nor would he have any reason to do so. Luke claimed that the order for the census came from Rome. He got that right. He got the date wrong.

This is why you cannot claim history supports the Bible. If you only count the hits or near hits and ignore the total misses then you are merely using apologetics. Apologizing for the errors in the Bible.

 

[leroy]

Let's take a look at what the experts say:

"....a decade-long study on the biblical book of Acts carried out by the Acts Seminar, a collaborative research effort le

Let's take a look at what the experts say:

"....a decade-long study on the biblical book of Acts carried out by the Acts Seminar, a collaborative research effort led by scholars affiliated with the Westar Institute. The Acts Seminar scholars set out to answer the questions, “When was Acts written? What historically can Acts tell us about Christian origins?”

The Acts Seminar concluded that Acts was written around 115 CE and used literary models like Homer for inspiration, even exact words and phrases from popular stories."

Did you get that? Act is a fictional novel based on the letters of Paul.

When Was Acts Written? Not in the First Century. - Westar Institute

Granted, experts disagree on the date in which Luke wrote his stuff………..however the author got many historical details correct, meaning that ether he lived during the mid 1st century or he was a very talted and well informed historian form the second century , in both cases it follows that Luke is a reliable source.

 

[leroy]

I did not do that. It is gross errors that disqualify people.

you words imply that you where asking for 100% certanity
"Not necessarily. Paul supposedly died in Rome. If the author stayed in Jewish territory the news may never had gotten back to him. If you are going to use Wikipedia you should look at why your date is rejected today:"

It was not just one mistake and the mistake indicates that either the author lied, and if that is the case that will cause a person to be dropped, or has rather poor judgement. It does hurt a person's claims when a major point is wrong.

The motive for why Joseph went to Bethlehem is not a mayor claim, it’s a secondary, marginal and irrelevant detail. … this mistake is minor compared to all the corrects stuff that he got……………as I said before all ancient historians make mistakes, it arbitrary to demand “perfection” when you dot require perfection with ancient secular sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Granted, experts disagree on the date in which Luke wrote his stuff………..however the author got many historical details correct, meaning that ether he lived during the mid 1st century or he was a very talted and well informed historian form the second century , in both cases it follows that Luke is a reliable source.

He got an extremely important one amazingly wrong. When his Nativity myth relies on a huge boner it throws all of his work into doubt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you words imply that you where asking for 100% certanity
"Not necessarily. Paul supposedly died in Rome. If the author stayed in Jewish territory the news may never had gotten back to him. If you are going to use Wikipedia you should look at why your date is rejected today:"





The motive for why Joseph went to Bethlehem is not a mayor claim, it’s a secondary, marginal and irrelevant detail. … this mistake is minor compared to all the corrects stuff that he got……………as I said before all ancient historians make mistakes, it arbitrary to demand “perfection” when you dot require perfection with ancient secular sources.

No, I am relying on reasonable certainty. Luke fails at that.

 

[leroy]

And the reason that needs to be supported much better than it has been is because that was not the norm for Roman executions. If it was a Jewish execution this would have happened, but part of the punishment of Roman crucifixions, which this was, was for the body to be left on the cross. Why didn't anyone marvel at the Romans allowing Jesus to be taken down in the first place? This is a problem that needs an answer.

That has been answered

1 Romans made many exceptions in Judea, we know this because we have found the bodies of crucified people in tombs.

2 Jesus didn’t do anything wrong from the point of view of Pilate. (no additional punishment was required)

3 A wealthy and influential man (Joseph of arimathea) asked for the body

So the claim that Jesus was buried is not intrinsically improbable.

As I said before we have the testimony of Paul, a man who knew James and the disciples is pretty much the best kind of testimony that you will ever get in ancient history

 

[leroy]

That is not how censuses work. In fact the verses are self refuting since it tells you the purpose of the census. It was done so that they "whole world could be taxed". It would make no sense at all to count Joseph in Bethlehem where he did not live. Just like today people are taxed based upon where they live and work, they are not taxed based upon where they come from.

This doesn’t prove that the trip to Bethlehem never occurred, it simply means that the motives for why joseph moved are wrong.

 

[leroy]

No, I am relying on reasonable certainty. Luke fails at that.

You have to do a better job in supporting that assertion, pointing to a few minor and secondary details that might be historical errors is not enough. …. By that logic you should also reject Josephus, Tacitus, Plutarc, and all other ancient historians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That has been answered

1 Romans made many exceptions in Judea, we know this because we have found the bodies of crucified people in tombs.

Romans were not the only ones to use crucifixion. Jews used it too at times. Finding bodies of crucified people in tombs does not support your claim. The sources that I can find say that for Roman crucifixion leaving the bodies up was part of the punishment. You can read about how a Jewish king crucified 800 Pharisees here:

crucifixion | Description, History, Punishment, & Jesus | Britannica

2 Jesus didn’t do anything wrong from the point of view of Pilate. (no additional punishment was required)

Are you sure about that? You are basing that claim upon the Bible, in this case it would definitely not be very reliable.

3 A wealthy and influential man (Joseph of arimathea) asked for the body

Again, only according to the Bible.

So the claim that Jesus was buried is not intrinsically improbable.

As I said before we have the testimony of Paul, a man who knew James and the disciples is pretty much the best kind of testimony that you will ever get in ancient history

No, it is still highly improbably even if what you claim is true. And when it comes to strong personal beliefs those are rarely accepted as being reliable. A person would have to prove that he was reliable first and Paul never did that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This doesn’t prove that the trip to Bethlehem never occurred, it simply means that the motives for why joseph moved are wrong.

Since the trip would have been pointless and highly risky and rather arduous it pretty much does.

You are once again making the error of shifting the burden of proof. When your story is shown to be wrong you then rely on a whole slew of "what ifs?" You really need reasonable evidence that Jesus went to Nazareth and a prophecy based upon a mistranslation is not even close to reasonable evidence. There is rather strong evidence against the trip and no reliable evidence for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have to do a better job in supporting that assertion, pointing to a few minor and secondary details that might be historical errors is not enough. …. By that logic you should also reject Josephus, Tacitus, Plutarc, and all other ancient historians.

I am sorry., that is a major one. You could admit the obvious. That the virgin myth story is just that, a myth. It is based upon a mistranslation of an event that was not even a prophecy in the first place has fail written all over it.

 

[leroy]

Since the trip would have been pointless and highly risky and rather arduous it pretty much does.

You are once again making the error of shifting the burden of proof. When your story is shown to be wrong you then rely on a whole slew of "what ifs?" You really need reasonable evidence that Jesus went to Nazareth and a prophecy based upon a mistranslation is not even close to reasonable evidence. There is rather strong evidence against the trip and no reliable evidence for it.

I am not saying that there is strong an conclusive evidence for the trip, I am just saying that you haven’t refuted that such a trip took place (at most you proved that the motives reported by Luike are wrong)

I am not making the positive claim that there was a trip to Bethlehem, (we simply don’t know)………..if you don’t know ether then we both agree……….if you think you have good conclusive evidence then you do have a burden proof.

 

[leroy]

I am sorry., that is a major one. You could admit the obvious. That the virgin myth story is just that, a myth. It is based upon a mistranslation of an event that was not even a prophecy in the first place has fail written all over it.

The virgin birth was not a main thing for early Christians; Jesus could have still died for our sins and rise from the death even without a virgin birth.

And even more relevant for this conversation, Luke and Acts can still be good historical sources, even if some details of Jesu´s birth are wrong…………………the historian Josephus for example claims that Adam and Eve where real historical people, but you would not drop his 20 volume work just because of that

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not saying that there is strong an conclusive evidence for the trip, I am just saying that you haven’t refuted that such a trip took place (at most you proved that the motives reported by Luike are wrong)

I am not making the positive claim that there was a trip to Bethlehem, (we simply don’t know)………..if you don’t know ether then we both agree……….if you think you have good conclusive evidence then you do have a burden proof.

Actually I have. There was no point to the trip in the first place. The last thing a man would do at that time was to take a pregnant woman on a difficult trip.

But then denial and shifting of the burden of proof is your way of admitting that you lost.