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

[Redemptionsong]

This is poor reasoning. Luke may have remembered the rebellion. He had a hazy recollection at best since historians can demonstrate why there was no prior census.

Once again you are ignoring history when it contradicts the Bible. No, you are actually denying history. When you cherry pick you lose the ability to claim that history supports the Bible.

So far, you have rejected not only Luke's record, but also the writings of Tacitus and Josephus, both of whom support his claims.

Which historians support your case? It's time you started naming names.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So far, you have rejected not only Luke's record, but also the writings of Tacitus and Josephus, both of whom support his claims.

Which historians support your case? It's time you started naming names.

Nope, first off Luke's account is not a "record". Luke's account is the claim. I have not rejected either of the works of Tacitus or Josephus. I have merely pointed out Luke's obvious error. Which ironically is supported by Tacitus and Josephus. The census was in the year 6 CE. There is no record nor evidence, nor logical reason for an earlier one.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Nope, first off Luke's account is not a "record". Luke's account is the claim. I have not rejected either of the works of Tacitus or Josephus. I have merely pointed out Luke's obvious error. Which ironically is supported by Tacitus and Josephus. The census was in the year 6 CE. There is no record nor evidence, nor logical reason for an earlier one.

We both acknowledge that there was a census in 6 CE. Luke tells us about this census in the book of Acts (5:37).

In Matthew's Gospel we have confirmatory evidence that Joseph, Mary and Jesus were in Egypt in the years leading up to Archelaus reigning in Judea (Matthew 2:22). Joseph did not want to return with his family until Herod the Great was dead. And, as you accept, the census of 6 CE was only conducted after Archelaus, who reigned in Judea after his father died, was replaced by direct Roman rule.

Matthew and Luke provide independent evidence for the nativity in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great. So, by claiming Luke is inaccurate, you are also claiming Matthew is inaccurate because they both record the birth of Jesus as having taken place during Herod's reign.

We have, therefore, good reason to believe that these two Gospels are accurate because they supply independent witness to the same event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We both acknowledge that there was a census in 6 CE. Luke tells us about this census in the book of Acts (5:37).

And the census in Luke's Nativity appears to be the same one. Have you read the myth?

In Matthew's Gospel we have confirmatory evidence that Joseph, Mary and Jesus were in Egypt in the years leading up to Archelaus reigning in Judea (Matthew 2:22). Joseph did not want to return with his family until Herod the Great was dead. And, as you accept, the census of 6 CE was only conducted after Archelaus, who reigned in Judea after his father died, was replaced by direct Roman rule.

No, that is not "confirmation". It is merely another claim from a suspect source. Virgin birth myths were fairly common back then. Quite a few characters were born that way.

Matthew and Luke provide independent evidence for the nativity in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great. So, by claiming Luke is inaccurate, you are also claiming Matthew is inaccurate because they both record the birth of Jesus as having taken place during Herod's reign.

No, they are not independent and they conflict with each other. But yes, Matthew is inaccurate too. They both had a false reason to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. Matthew based his on a misinterpreted non-prophecy.

We have, therefore, good reason to believe that these two Gospels are accurate because they supply independent witness to the same event.

Sorry you forgot why these sources cannot be claimed to be "independent". All you have are similar claims that are not supported by evidence. In fact the evidence refutes the two.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

We both acknowledge that there was a census in 6 CE. Luke tells us about this census in the book of Acts (5:37).

In Matthew's Gospel we have confirmatory evidence that Joseph, Mary and Jesus were in Egypt in the years leading up to Archelaus reigning in Judea (Matthew 2:22). Joseph did not want to return with his family until Herod the Great was dead. And, as you accept, the census of 6 CE was only conducted after Archelaus, who reigned in Judea after his father died, was replaced by direct Roman rule.

Matthew and Luke provide independent evidence for the nativity in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great. So, by claiming Luke is inaccurate, you are also claiming Matthew is inaccurate because they both record the birth of Jesus as having taken place during Herod's reign.

We have, therefore, good reason to believe that these two Gospels are accurate because they supply independent witness to the same event.

Or they're both INACCURATE because they provide different versions of the same story--just like their genealogies.

 

[Redemptionsong]

And the census in Luke's Nativity appears to be the same one. Have you read the myth?



No, that is not "confirmation". It is merely another claim from a suspect source. Virgin birth myths were fairly common back then. Quite a few characters were born that way.



No, they are not independent and they conflict with each other. But yes, Matthew is inaccurate too. They both had a false reason to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. Matthew based his on a misinterpreted non-prophecy.



Sorry you forgot why these sources cannot be claimed to be "independent". All you have are similar claims that are not supported by evidence. In fact the evidence refutes the two.

The baseless criticisms you make regarding both Luke and Matthew cannot be sustained because you have nothing substantial to support your position. What you conveniently ignore is the fact that it is man's knowledge that constantly plays 'catch up' with the prophetic word of scripture. Time and time again, archaeologists uncover artefacts that confirm a portion of the Biblical record, be it a place (like Jericho), a person (like Pontius Pilate), or an event (like the Assyrian siege of Lachish). Has there ever been an archaeological discovery that disproved the biblical account?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Or they're both INACCURATE because they provide different versions of the same story--just like their genealogies.

The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are complimentary. In fact, the truth of the genealogy can only be ascertained when both accounts are blended together.

What you have failed to understand is that each Gospel provides a unique perspective on the life of Jesus Christ, each one necessary to our understanding of the person and his mission.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The baseless criticisms you make regarding both Luke and Matthew cannot be sustained because you have nothing substantial to support your position. What you conveniently ignore is the fact that it is man's knowledge that constantly plays 'catch up' with the prophetic word of scripture. Time and time again, archaeologists uncover artefacts that confirm a portion of the Biblical record, be it a place (like Jericho), a person (like Pontius Pilate), or an event (like the Assyrian siege of Lachish). Has there ever been an archaeological discovery that disproved the biblical account?

Projection. You cannot support your beliefs. Why they are wrong has been explained to you


But thanks for bringing up another flaw in the Bible. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are contradictory. The bogus claim of one being Joseph's line and one being Mary's is a prime example of apologetics, people lying for Jesus. If you looked into the history of this claim you would have found that the excuse is old, but whose line is whose has shifted over the years. The existence of Jericho does not support the mythical attack on it. Myth and history get mixed quite often in ancient works. We find that quite often with Greek works. People easily recognize the mythical parts of many Greek stories. You should try to do the same with the Bible.

There have been events that should have left clear evidence, but none is to be found. For example the Exodus. The problem with finds is that Liars for Jesus will interpret finds in dishonest ways. Many of the so called finds are just matching of rough details, nothing that really confirms myth.

And please, you have to be joking. The prophetic nature of scripture fails constantly. You do not understand how to properly evaluate prophecy when it comes to your own beliefs. You have to appear such severe apologetics to the failed prophecies of the Bible as to make them all worthless.


By the way, I need to ask, do you believe the clear myths of Genesis? You do realize that there never was a worldwide flood I hope.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are complimentary. In fact, the truth of the genealogy can only be ascertained when both accounts are blended together.

What you have failed to understand is that each Gospel provides a unique perspective on the life of Jesus Christ, each one necessary to our understanding of the person and his mission.

So Luke doesn't mention Joseph and company fleeing to Egypt and Herod's slaughter of babies because he doesn't think it's an important detail in the story and Matthew doesn't mention the census and Joseph returning to Bethlehem to register because HE doesn't think it's an important detail in the story??????

Sounds fishy to me....and to a lot...I mean A LOT of historians.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Projection. You cannot support your beliefs. Why they are wrong has been explained to you


But thanks for bringing up another flaw in the Bible. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are contradictory. The bogus claim of one being Joseph's line and one being Mary's is a prime example of apologetics, people lying for Jesus. If you looked into the history of this claim you would have found that the excuse is old, but whose line is whose has shifted over the years. The existence of Jericho does not support the mythical attack on it. Myth and history get mixed quite often in ancient works. We find that quite often with Greek works. People easily recognize the mythical parts of many Greek stories. You should try to do the same with the Bible.

There have been events that should have left clear evidence, but none is to be found. For example the Exodus. The problem with finds is that Liars for Jesus will interpret finds in dishonest ways. Many of the so called finds are just matching of rough details, nothing that really confirms myth.

And please, you have to be joking. The prophetic nature of scripture fails constantly. You do not understand how to properly evaluate prophecy when it comes to your own beliefs. You have to appear such severe apologetics to the failed prophecies of the Bible as to make them all worthless.


By the way, I need to ask, do you believe the clear myths of Genesis? You do realize that there never was a worldwide flood I hope.

You say that the nativity has no basis in history, yet you cannot substantiate your claim.
You say that Matthew and Luke provide inaccurate Gospels, but you cannot substantiate your claim.
You say that much of the Bible is myth, and without historical support, yet you cannot substantiate your claim.

Luke and Matthew set their Gospels within an historical framework that allows us to investigate the truth. We have enough information to know that both men knew their history, and consulted with eyewitnesses. Luke says in Luke 1:1, 'Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.'

In these words of Luke we are told that 'many' had written a declaration about Jesus, 'which from the beginning were eyewitnesses'.
Luke also tells us that he had a 'perfect understanding of all things from the very first', that Theophilus 'mightest know the certainty of those things'.

This hardly sounds like a man who is in doubt about his material, or its accuracy.

But two thousand years later YOU appear and try to tell us that Luke's account is uncertain because he lacked understanding and eyewitnesses!

 

[Redemptionsong]

So Luke doesn't mention Joseph and company fleeing to Egypt and Herod's slaughter of babies because he doesn't think it's an important detail in the story and Matthew doesn't mention the census and Joseph returning to Bethlehem to register because HE doesn't think it's an important detail in the story??????

Sounds fishy to me....and to a lot...I mean A LOT of historians.

Each of the Gospel writers supply us with a portrait of Jesus; Matthew shows us the King of the Jews; Mark shows us the servant of God; Luke shows us the Son of Man; and John shows us the Son of God.

Have you ever wondered why only Matthew and Luke tell us of Jesus' birth and provide genealogies? Or why John's Gospel stands apart from the synoptic Gospels?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Each of the Gospel writers supply us with a portrait of Jesus; Matthew shows us the King of the Jews; Mark shows us the servant of God; Luke shows us the Son of Man; and John shows us the Son of God.

Have you ever wondered why only Matthew and Luke tell us of Jesus' birth and provide genealogies? Or why John's Gospel stands apart from the synoptic Gospels?

Let me explain to you how the gospels came together: Mark, the first gospel had Jesus as a flawed prophet not able to heal people on some occasions and his own family thinking he's crazy as a loon. Matthew didn't like this portrait because it made jesus look weak so he set about to make jesus just a demi-god subordinate to the father. Luke comes along and expands this story but still having Jesus as not fully god. It isn't until John some 40 years later that Jesus is made fully God and equal with the father. Here we see the typical attributes of the growth of a legend from weak to mighty. It's typical of many legends.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say that the nativity has no basis in history, yet you cannot substantiate your claim.
You say that Matthew and Luke provide inaccurate Gospels, but you cannot substantiate your claim.
You say that much of the Bible is myth, and without historical support, yet you cannot substantiate your claim.

What are you talking about? Have you forgotten Luke's failed story? Are you forgetting Matthews failure based upon a non-prophesy? Besides that the burden of proof is upon Christians when they have a ridiculous story. Trying to shift the burden of proof is close to being an admission that you are wrong.

Luke and Matthew set their Gospels within an historical framework that allows us to investigate the truth. We have enough information to know that both men knew their history, and consulted with eyewitnesses. Luke says in Luke 1:1, 'Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.'

In these words of Luke we are told that 'many' had written a declaration about Jesus, 'which from the beginning were eyewitnesses'.
Luke also tells us that he had a 'perfect understanding of all things from the very first', that Theophilus 'mightest know the certainty of those things'.

This hardly sounds like a man who is in doubt about his material, or its accuracy.

But two thousand years later YOU appear and try to tell us that Luke's account is uncertain because he lacked understanding and eyewitnesses!

I see that you do not even understand what Luke wrote. He only claims that the first accounts came from eyewitnesses. He did not claim to talk with any eyewitnesses himself. And you appear to be under the mistaken belief that the authors of Matthew and Luke were Matthew and Luke. That is church tradition. It is not based upon actual records. And I am not the one that knows Luke's errors to be wrong He convicted himself. Do you want to over it again?

Luke based his Nativity myth on a Roman Census. By the way, there was not even an empire wide one at his time. He screwed up right there. Different censuses were held for different areas at different times. He specifically states that it was when Quirinius first became governor of Syria. This date is well recorded. So is the census. So is the reason for it. Then he shoots himself in the foot for a second time. The purpose of the census was given. It was done for taxation purposes. Now you have shown that you do not understand censuses. They are only effective when done where people live. There would be no point in a trip. If you want to tax people in Nazareth, you would take a census in Nazareth. Requiring people to go back to ancestral homes is self defeating. No one cares where people came from. What matters is where they live and work now.

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia.

"These "exegetical acrobatics" (in the words of Géza Vermes)[11] spring from the assumption that the Bible is inerrant.[12] They have generally been rejected because there is no time in the career of Quirinius before 6 CE when he could have served as governor of Syria, the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms, and the hostile reaction of the Jews in 6 CE suggests direct taxation by Rome was new at the time.[13][14] Most scholars have therefore concluded that Luke's account is in error.[6]"

If you had researched real history instead of sites written by Liars for Jesus you would have known this. I can find other sources hat support my claims as well. All you have are the "what ifs" of apologists.

 

[Redemptionsong]

What are you talking about? Have you forgotten Luke's failed story? Are you forgetting Matthews failure based upon a non-prophesy? Besides that the burden of proof is upon Christians when they have a ridiculous story. Trying to shift the burden of proof is close to being an admission that you are wrong.



I see that you do not even understand what Luke wrote. He only claims that the first accounts came from eyewitnesses. He did not claim to talk with any eyewitnesses himself. And you appear to be under the mistaken belief that the authors of Matthew and Luke were Matthew and Luke. That is church tradition. It is not based upon actual records. And I am not the one that knows Luke's errors to be wrong He convicted himself. Do you want to over it again?

Luke based his Nativity myth on a Roman Census. By the way, there was not even an empire wide one at his time. He screwed up right there. Different censuses were held for different areas at different times. He specifically states that it was when Quirinius first became governor of Syria. This date is well recorded. So is the census. So is the reason for it. Then he shoots himself in the foot for a second time. The purpose of the census was given. It was done for taxation purposes. Now you have shown that you do not understand censuses. They are only effective when done where people live. There would be no point in a trip. If you want to tax people in Nazareth, you would take a census in Nazareth. Requiring people to go back to ancestral homes is self defeating. No one cares where people came from. What matters is where they live and work now.

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia.

"These "exegetical acrobatics" (in the words of Géza Vermes)[11] spring from the assumption that the Bible is inerrant.[12] They have generally been rejected because there is no time in the career of Quirinius before 6 CE when he could have served as governor of Syria, the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms, and the hostile reaction of the Jews in 6 CE suggests direct taxation by Rome was new at the time.[13][14] Most scholars have therefore concluded that Luke's account is in error.[6]"

If you had researched real history instead of sites written by Liars for Jesus you would have known this. I can find other sources hat support my claims as well. All you have are the "what ifs" of apologists.

At least you have come clean on your source! WIKI..without edits.

You say that there is no time in the career of Quirinius before 6 CE (Publius Sulpicius Quirinus c.51 BCE - 21 CE) when he could have served as governor of Syria. Is this true? Under Augustus, he was made a consul, and then, Tacitus tells us, he was sent to Cilicia as a military commander. This fits, as we know that Pompey defeated Cilician pirates in a war that ended in 63 BCE. The region was then divided up and military commanders placed in charge of each sector. Roman Cilicia, which had a military commander, was joined to the province of Syria as Syria-Cilicia Phoenice in 27 BCE. The conclusion, based on the organisation of the provinces, and the word of Tacitus, is that Quirinus (Cyrenius) was a military commander, and governor in Cilicia, which was part of Syria. This is where he would have been at the time of the 'enrolment' (census for the purpose of taxation) under Herod the Great, the client king in Judea. Quirinus was not made legate, or governor of Syria in a civilian role, until Archelaus was banished, around 6 CE. This was when the uprising took place in Galilee under Judas, as Luke accurately records in Acts 5:37.

It's not surprising that Jesus said, 'scripture cannot be broken', because it's a sealed truth. You're either with him, or against him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least you have come clean on your source! WIKI..without edits.

You say that there is no time in the career of Quirinius before 6 CE (Publius Sulpicius Quirinus c.51 BCE - 21 CE) when he could have served as governor of Syria. Is this true? Under Augustus, he was made a consul, and then, Tacitus tells us, he was sent to Cilicia as a military commander. This fits, as we know that Pompey defeated Cilician pirates in a war that ended in 63 BCE. The region was then divided up and military commanders placed in charge of each sector. Roman Cilicia, which had a military commander, was joined to the province of Syria as Syria-Cilicia Phoenice in 27 BCE. The conclusion, based on the organisation of the provinces, and the word of Tacitus, is that Quirinus (Cyrenius) was a military commander, and governor in Cilicia, which was part of Syria. This is where he would have been at the time of the 'enrolment' (census for the purpose of taxation) under Herod the Great, the client king in Judea. Quirinus was not made legate, or governor of Syria in a civilian role, until Archelaus was banished, around 6 CE. This was when the uprising took place in Galilee under Judas, as Luke accurately records in Acts 5:37.

It's not surprising that Jesus said, 'scripture cannot be broken', because it's a sealed truth. You're either with him, or against him.

There is nothing wrong with Wiki when it comes to anything that has been well settled, as this has been. I can find other sources as well. Meanwhile you do not link any sources. It is it because all that you have are Liars for Jesus that support your claims? Wikipedia beast the pants off of any apologist site when it comes to reliability. The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia is a strength and not a weakness. If a post is incorrect it is quickly edited and corrected. One does not get to edit willy nilly If one is new to Wiki one goes through what is essentially a probation period first. And purposefully posting false info once one is okayed can cost a person one's ability to edit posts. Trolling Wiki is a thing of the past.

Do you have any valid sources that support your claims?

 

[leroy]

Because the evidence is quite strong against it and very weak for it.

You have multiple independent and early sources from people, who knew the disciples, what else do you want? The is by far the best you can ever get in ancient history

The event is theologically irrelevant (therefore why would someone invent the burial of jesus)and we know that sometimes romans allowed the burial of crucified jews,

No, that is not thought to be the case by many any longer. The author of John appears to have been very aware of the Gospel of Makr:

How the Gospel of John Uses and Completes the Gospel of Mark – Vridar

Irrelevant, even if John knew the other gosples, we still know that John, Mark, Luke/Matt and Paul relied on different sources when it comes to the burial of Jesus.

 

[leroy]

He is trying to use that to claim that there was a prior census. Of course there is no evidence of one and very good arguments against it. This is why I do not like apologetics. They are perfectly willing to accept history when it supports or even comes close to supporting the Bible and then they will loudly proclaim "history supports the Bible". But when history refutes the Bible they pretend that the history does not exist or they try to make weak excuses for the failure of the Bible. In other words they try to play a variation on the dishonest game of "Heads I win tails you lose". This is why I often call professional apologetics sites "Liars for Jesus".

Of course there is no evidence of one and very good arguments against it.

and what woudl that evidence be?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have multiple independent and early sources from people, who knew the disciples, what else do you want? The is by far the best you can ever get in ancient history

The event is theologically irrelevant (therefore why would someone invent the burial of jesus)and we know that sometimes romans allowed the burial of crucified jews,

No, you do not have multiple independent sources. This has been explained to you many times.

Irrelevant, even if John knew the other gosples, we still know that John, Mark, Luke/Matt and Paul relied on different sources when it comes to the burial of Jesus.

Very relevant. It refutes your "independent" claim. You also forgot why you cannot claim that your sources are not independent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

and what woudl that evidence be?

Your question is vague. Can you be specific what you are asking about?

 

[leroy]

No, you do not have multiple independent sources. This has been explained to you many times.




Very relevant. It refutes your "independent" claim. You also forgot why you cannot claim that your sources are not independent.

Only with your own personal and irrelevant definition of “independent”