With bafflement upon bafflement!

[Redemptionsong]

This I have to hear. How is it that my reasoning is faulty?

You only confirmed what I posted and then made your own baseless claim. The only census that Quirinius was involved with was the Census of Quirinius. There does not appear to be any others. Remember how apologetics are not allowed? Professional Christian apologists have to be liars for Jesus. They have to be The Bible is full of contradictions but they cannot own up to onw of them. This one just ruins them.

Yes, the author of Luke/Acts (probably not Luke himself since it was not called that until some time in the Second Century) got his facts right in Acts. But he screwed up in the Nativity myth. Whether on purpose or not can not be known. But where Quirinius was throughout his career was well known. At the time near the end of Herod the Great's reign he was up in what is now Turkey.

As to Judea it would not have been subject to a census before Herod's don failed. At that time Judea was a client state. That meant that they paid tribute for Rome to leave them alone. They did not pay taxes. As the author of Acts noted, Josephus recorded the census since the people, who were going to be taxed revolted against it. That did not work out for them too well.

Do you want to go over some of the bogus claims of that myth? Or do you want to go over the bogus claims of the one in Matthew? Both are clearly works of fiction and they do both clearly contradict each other.

So, you accept that both Luke and Josephus were correct about the taxation, which took place in 6 CE, after Archelaus was banished from Judea. That means that Luke was not confusing Jesus' birth with the 6 CE census. As Luke says, in Luke 2:2, '(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria)'.

Luke states that John, the son of Zacharias, was born during the days of Herod, king of Judea. In Luke 1:36, Mary is told that her relative, Elizabeth, is six months pregnant. Mary then visits Elizabeth, and Mary says, 'For he that is mighty hath done to me great things;' suggesting that Mary, too, had conceived. This would make the birth of Jesus about six months later than John.

Over to Matthew. Matthew says, in Matthew 2:1. 'Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king..'

I hope you notice this. There are now two independent Gospel records stating the same thing. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born during the days of Herod the king. What is more, Luke adds the following words after the shepherds visit the infant in the manger: 'But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.' So Mary, the mother of Jesus, was very conscious that the baby born to her was special. She had been visited by the angel Gabriel and told of the events that would come to pass; she conceived miraculously; she was witnessed to by her relative, Elizabeth; and then, at the time of the birth she has visits, firstly by shepherds, and later by wise men. The significance of these events is not overlooked by Mary.

Now, despite all the witnesses to the events that have occurred, you are convinced that none of it happened. You somehow imagine that Luke made the story up, and then colluded with Matthew to add to the lie. And, of course, you must deny that Zacharias, Elizabeth, and John ever existed, because they too were witnesses to key events, and must have been involved in the Quirinius census.

Finally, Mary, living her life in Nazareth, must have remained silent about these events, if the disciples were to be ignorant of Jesus' birth. Even though, when Jesus was crucified, he called upon his beloved disciple, John, saying, 'Behold your mother!' The Gospel of John also adds, 'And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.' So Mary lived with John, and, in your eyes, must have remained silent about the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem!

Then to wrap up your deception, you must explain why the Jewish historian, Josephus, records the ministry of John the Baptist. John was looked upon as a prophet of God, and directed his own disciples to follow Jesus!

It's easy for atheists to express doubts about things that they have not investigated carefully. It's much harder to provide evidence against the numerous testimonies that make up the Biblical record.

And, so far, you haven't ventured to give a reason why the evangelists would choose to devise such lies.

 

[blü 2]

Peace and love, brother!

These words sound great, until, led astray by the lusts of the flesh, my brother steals my life savings to fund his drug addiction. Or, living peacefully in a Ukranian village, l find myself being bombed by my Russian brother.

I have no argument with the lusts of the flesh ─ in fact I've greatly enjoyed them ─ as long as the Do no harm principle is observed, meaning sufficient maturity, equality, and absence of betrayal. Drug addiction fails the Do no harm test. As for the invasion of the Ukraine, look at the wars of invasion where God commands ─

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." (and again at 20:16)
​

So (for that and other reasons) I'm not persuaded that the bible teaches the Do no harm principle. If categories are needed, I have more confidence that humanism does.

As for all humans being sinners, if I'm anything to go by, humans aren't perfect, Still, we're capable of good and I'd say the aim was to do your best in that direction.

But if we can agree on Do no harm, and on decency, respect and inclusion towards others, well, I'm of the view that it's more important that we do that than, philosophically, why we do it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Oh my! Not Noah!! No, there is no doubt that there never was a Noah. God was never as immoral as that myth says that he was. This is a good thing. A proper Christian should wipe his brow in relief.

In fact it was early Christian geologists that refuted the flood myth. And since that time the evidence has continually rolled in that refutes the fairy tale.

I've mentioned the genealogies of the Bible. I'd like you to look up the list of Noah's sons, in Genesis 10, and then tell me where the myth begins. Did it begin with Noah, or was it with Shem, Ham and Japheth? Or was it with the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth? And does this mean that Jesus was a liar, too? For Jesus says, 'But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.' Now, that's a very odd thing to say if you believe the flood to be a myth!

 

[paarsurrey]

Writing some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, Isaiah provides a wonderful prophecy of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

But I'd like to begin with what the witnesses at Pentecost said about their own experience, fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus. Acts 2:1-13 tells the whole story. Verse 13 ends with the mocking words of the doubters, 'These men are full of new wine'!

At this point, Peter stood before the crowd in Jerusalem, along with the eleven other apostles, and said, 'Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:'

Now, instead of turning to the prophet Joel, let's return to Isaiah. In Isaiah 29:9 it says, (KJV) 'Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.'

Do you notice that Isaiah is speaking about 'they', as a people somehow estranged from the Jews, whom he refers to as 'you' and 'yours' ? Yet, we know that Peter and the apostles were all descendants of Abraham. Then, to make the estrangement even more poignant, Isaiah says (verse 10), 'For the LORD has poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.'

In 2 Corinthians 3:13,14, Paul says, 'And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.'

So, it is Christ who opens the sealed book, as it says in Revelation 5:9: 'And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.'

IMO, it's powerful stuff. What do Torah Jews make of Isaiah's prophecy?

" Acts 2:1-13, 2 Corinthians 3:13,14 and Revelation 5:9 "

The verses " Acts 2:1-13, 2 Corinthians 3:13,14 and Revelation 5:9 " are not from Jesus, one gets to know, please, right?:

Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.
World Messianic Bible

Right?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you accept that both Luke and Josephus were correct about the taxation, which took place in 6 CE, after Archelaus was banished from Judea. That means that Luke was not confusing Jesus' birth with the 6 CE census. As Luke says, in Luke 2:2, '(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria)'.

Let's try not to use any strawman arguments. If you do so you have as much as have admitted that you are wrong. Also why do you keep referring to Luke as a person? The author of both the Gospel of Luke and Acts is anonymous. The name "Luke" was attached many years later.

But yes, we know of the Census of Quirinius. One of the sources was Josephus. The Gospel of Luke, not so much. It was for taxation purposes and that is another fail of the myth.

Luke states that John, the son of Zacharias, was born during the days of Herod, king of Judea. In Luke 1:36, Mary is told that her relative, Elizabeth, is six months pregnant. Mary then visits Elizabeth, and Mary says, 'For he that is mighty hath done to me great things;' suggesting that Mary, too, had conceived. This would make the birth of Jesus about six months later than John.

Correct, but the author of Luke had a major brain fart when he tried to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. He was probably born in Nazareth.

Over to Matthew. Matthew says, in Matthew 2:1. 'Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king..'

I hope you notice this. There are now two independent Gospel records stating the same thing. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born during the days of Herod the king. What is more, Luke adds the following words after the shepherds visit the infant in the manger: 'But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.' So Mary, the mother of Jesus, was very conscious that the baby born to her was special. She had been visited by the angel Gabriel and told of the events that would come to pass; she conceived miraculously; she was witnessed to by her relative, Elizabeth; and then, at the time of the birth she has visits, firstly by shepherds, and later by wise men. The significance of these events is not overlooked by Mary.

You are still not paying attention. The story in Luke is flawed. He states that occurred in the days of Herod, but we know when the census was. In fact there could not have been a census before the Census of Quirinius. That is the huge error that is in Luke.

Now, despite all the witnesses to the events that have occurred, you are convinced that none of it happened. You somehow imagine that Luke made the story up, and then colluded with Matthew to add to the lie. And, of course, you must deny that Zacharias, Elizabeth, and John ever existed, because they too were witnesses to key events, and must have been involved in the Quirinius census.

Whoa!! What "witnesses"? There are no witnesses in either account. Just stories from oral tradition. If you properly read the start of Luke that is made clear. It is known roughly when these were written and it is highly dubious that any witnesses were available. This is why you need to study the Bible properly. You would not be making all of these errors if you did so.

Finally, Mary, living her life in Nazareth, must have remained silent about these events, if the disciples were to be ignorant of Jesus' birth. Even though, when Jesus was crucified, he called upon his beloved disciple, John, saying, 'Behold your mother!' The Gospel of John also adds, 'And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.' So Mary lived with John, and, in your eyes, must have remained silent about the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem!

Well that was a huge nothing burger.

Then to wrap up your deception, you must explain why the Jewish historian, Josephus, records the ministry of John the Baptist. John was looked upon as a prophet of God, and directed his own disciples to follow Jesus!

I would suggest that you reword this. There has been no deception on my part, nor have I accused you of lying. You are merely wrong.

And you are simply not following what happened. The Gospel of Luke got some things right and he got some things wrong. Why is that so hard to understand? You appear to be using a black and white fallacy. Getting one thing terribly wrong does not mean that all of it is terribly wrong. Luke screwed the pooch with his incredibly wrong "census story".

It's easy for atheists to express doubts about things that they have not investigated carefully. It's much harder to provide evidence against the numerous testimonies that make up the Biblical record.

Why accuse just atheists of this? Just about every Christian scholar knows of this error and agrees. Many of them are still Christians. It is easy for atheists to find fallacies in the Bible because they the book is rife with them. They have investigated carefully. You have not. Your are listening to liars. I myself went through various sources and found where Quirinius was and when. He was not in Judea at 2 or 4 BC. He became governor of Judea in 6 AD. Wikipedia is a good place to start, but there are many other sources that give his history:

Quirinius - Wikipedia

Also the whole census story is bogus. In a census, especially for taxation you do not count where the people came from. They did not do that then. We do not do that now. Governments count people where they live and work presently. Nazareth was not even in Judea. Joseph would have no reason to go to some ancient homeland. Why would he go to what was a different country at that time? The failed plot was an attempt to get Jesus to Bethlehem.

And, so far, you haven't ventured to give a reason why the evangelists would choose to devise such lies.

Which evangelists are you talking about? As to the author of Luke he needed an excuse to get Jesus into Bethlehem to "fulfill prophecy".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've mentioned the genealogies of the Bible. I'd like you to look up the list of Noah's sons, in Genesis 10, and then tell me where the myth begins. Did it begin with Noah, or was it with Shem, Ham and Japheth? Or was it with the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth? And does this mean that Jesus was a liar, too? For Jesus says, 'But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.' Now, that's a very odd thing to say if you believe the flood to be a myth!

Noah never existed. Neither did Adam so you might as well go to Genesis 1 1. Genesis is purely myth.

And what is it with Christians and not understanding their own book? Jesus could have been using a saying akin to "she is as old as the hills". That only refers to a very old woman. It is not "lying" to use such a literary tool. Now Jesus probably believed the Noah myth since he was just a man. He would make thee same mistakes that everyone else of his time did. But let's say that he was the Son of God and knew. He could still could have been using a literary tool. There is no need for him to lie.

Ironically, though they do not know it, those that claim that Genesis is factual are also claiming that God is a liar.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I have no argument with the lusts of the flesh ─ in fact I've greatly enjoyed them ─ as long as the Do no harm principle is observed, meaning sufficient maturity, equality, and absence of betrayal. Drug addiction fails the Do no harm test. As for the invasion of the Ukraine, look at the wars of invasion where God commands ─

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." (and again at 20:16)
​

So (for that and other reasons) I'm not persuaded that the bible teaches the Do no harm principle. If categories are needed, I have more confidence that humanism does.

As for all humans being sinners, if I'm anything to go by, humans aren't perfect, Still, we're capable of good and I'd say the aim was to do your best in that direction.

But if we can agree on Do no harm, and on decency, respect and inclusion towards others, well, I'm of the view that it's more important that we do that than, philosophically, why we do it.

Jesus said, Only God is good. I believe he was correct.

When I read the OT, I read for learning. Scripture is a parable, setting earth beside heaven; setting the temporal beside the eternal; setting OT shadows beside the luminosity of Christ. When I read passages such as Deuteronomy 7:1-2, I think of the eternal land, heaven, and of the forces of darkness that stand in the way of my possessing that land. Must all these spiritually forces be overcome if I am to enter in? Surely, for Christ demands righteousness of his followers.

 

[Harel13]

Please go ahead and make it!

Sorry I'm only getting back to you now. I had a busy week.

I'll start out by stating that I didn't make up this theory. I first heard about in an essay written in Hebrew in an Israeli academic journal called Sinai. The essay was written by someone who knew the originator of the theory, a Jewish scholar from pre-WWII named Heinrich Hammer (Google his name and Samaritan and Jesus and you'll probably find some critiques of and references to his theory). Hammer had written an entire book in German about the theory, which can be found online. I (still) can't read German, so the following is based on the Hebrew essay, which did not gain much attention, but did attract the attention of the modern-day Samaritans, who saw fit to publish a critique of the essay in their local newspaper.

Before explaining the theory, I would like to point out that unlike the Samaritans, we Jews do not have any problem with seeing as Jewish. We are well aware of various heresies that have sprouted out of Judaism. So this theory is not so much theology-based as history-based.

The base of the idea is rooted in a section of Josephus' Antiquities (XVIII 4:1):

"But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains...So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon the roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain."​

We see that during the time of Pilate, there had been a Samaritan messianic-claimant and he and his followers had been put to death by Pilate and the Romans.

Hammer believed that this story was to be identified with a story brought by Tacitus (Annals 15:44):

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment..."​

According to Hammer, these early Christians were the same group that followed the Samaritan messianic figure described by Josephus.

It is then pointed out that Jesus could not have been a member of any of the main sects of 1st century CE Judaism:

He could not have been an Essene because he did not think that bodily purity, one of their major tenets, was important (Matthew 15:2-11; Luke 7:5; Luke 7:18-19). From these stories we also see that he was not a Pharisee, because he taunted them and their beliefs. And he could not have been a Sadducee because according to Josephus, they did not believe in bodily resurrection, while Jesus did (Matthew 22:31-32; Mark 12:24-27; Luke 20:34-38).
But he also couldn't have been a commoner of the masses (עם הארץ as they were known in the Mishna) because though these people did not observe the laws of tithing and could not be trusted in matters of purity, they didn't do these things because they disagreed with the views of the Pharisees, unlike Jesus, who taunted them (the stories mentioned above and another example in Luke 6:1).

To strengthen the hypothesis, the author of the essay had brought some of the main proofs by Hammer - a list of sources from the gospels that can only be properly understood if we accept that Jesus was a Samaritan:

1. Jesus and his disciples came to Jerusalem for the first time in their lives when they went to the Temple to argue with the Pharisees and the priests. This is evident by their sightseeing afterwards (Matthew 24:1; Mark 13:1).​

2. John 2:13, 5:1, 7:2 uses the terms "the Jews' Passover", "a feast of the Jews", "the Jews' feast of the Tabernacles" as though these holidays belong to a group separate from Jesus and his disciples.​

Though in John 4:39 there were many Samaritans in one town that believed him, according to John 4:44 and Luke 9:53 he did not attain enough of a following in Samaria and seems to have decided to turn to the Jews instead.​

3. Jesus thought that he was exempt from paying the Temple tax, while the tax collector did not think so. It seems that during Jesus' time, the issue of collecting the tax from Samaritans was still a grey area. Some thought that they should be taxed and some thought they shouldn't. The latter view was only codified later (Mishna Shekalim 1:5; Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 1:4).​

4. In John 8:48-49 it says: "The Jews answered him, "Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?" "I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus [...]" - we see that the Jews outright called him a Samaritan and Jesus did not deny this. He only denied being possessed by a demon.​

5. He first preached in Samaritan locations: Bethany was near the Samaritan border. According to John 3:23 he went to Aenon near Salim, which is Shechem, the center of the Samaritan settlement. Magdala was a place that had many Samaritans (Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 1:9); Bethlehem may be udnerstood as the Galilean Bethelehem, not far from Nazareth (Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:19).​

6. One of the Samaritans' central tenets is the importance and holiness of a specific mountain - Mt. Gerizzim. Jesus makes mention many times of a particular mountain (The Sermon on the Mount; Matthew 17:20; Matthew 21:21; Mark 9:2; Mark 11:23; Luke 9:28; John 6:3). This mountain is never identified but in John 4:21 it is obvious that the term "this mountain" refers to Mt. Gerizzim.​

7. The discrepancies between the different versions of the date of Jesus' crucifixion:​

According to Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a, Jesus' corpse was hung on Passover Eve. So too, John 13:1 states that the crucifixion took place on Passover Eve (and see John 18:28; John 19:14-18).​

However, according to the Synoptic Gospels, the crucifixion occurred on Passover day (Mark 15:1; Mark 15:35; Luke 22:66; Luke 23:1).​

This problem can be rectified if we accept that Jesus was a Samaritan: The Samaritans were very strict at making sure that the second day of Passover came out on Sabbath, because that's how they understood the verse "the day after the Sabbath" as referring to literally the weekday after the Sabbath - Sunday. Based on their own calculations they would mislead the Jews in their calculations (Babylonian Talmud Rosh Hashanah 22b). According to Yitzchak Ben Tzvi, who was Israel's second president and a famous scholar of Samaritan culture and history, there is still a discrepancy between the Samaritan Passover and the Jewish one even through modern times.​

In other words, the year Jesus was killed, the first day of Passover was on Monday and so the Samaritans moved their Passover to Sabbath day. They prepared the Passover sacrifice on Mt. Gerizzim on Friday at twilight. Jesus therefore attended the Feast of the Paschal Sacrifice on Sabbath and on Sunday, the Jewish Passover Eve, he was put to death.​

Lastly, there are a number of Torah verses brought in the NT that actually match the versions brought in the Samaritan Pentateuch. I am attaching a comparison of some of these verses as a PDF.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Correct, but the author of Luke had a major brain fart when he tried to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. He was probably born in Nazareth.

You jump from one error to another.

In Micah 5:2 we have this prophecy: 'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.'

Now, you may, or may not know, that Jesse came from Bethlehem, and David, Jesse's son was born there, too. So it makes sense that the Messiah, 'son of David' should be born there.

Did the Jews of Jesus' day believe that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem? Well, there's a very instructive passage in Matthew chapter 2:1-10. Herod heard that wise men were looking for the King of the Jews, and this troubled Herod. 'And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, in Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.'

It's interesting that the chief priests and scribes collectively agreed that Bethlehem would be the place of birth of the Messiah.

Your baseless claim that Jesus was born in Nazareth, is not just a contradiction of the Gospel account, but a contradiction of the prophecy of Micah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You jump from one error to another.

In Micah 5:2 we have this prophecy: 'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.'

Now, you may, or may not know, that Jesse came from Bethlehem, and David, Jesse's son was born there, too. So it makes sense that the Messiah, 'son of David' should be born there.

Did the Jews of Jesus' day believe that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem? Well, there's a very instructive passage in Matthew chapter 2:1-10. Herod heard that wise men were looking for the King of the Jews, and this troubled Herod. 'And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, in Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.'

It's interesting that the chief priests and scribes collectively agreed that Bethlehem would be the place of birth of the Messiah.

Your baseless claim that Jesus was born in Nazareth, is not just a contradiction of the Gospel account, but a contradiction of the prophecy of Micah.

What error? And what makes you think that my claim of all things was baseless? You are projecting again. You seem to be terribly confused again. I told you that Luke likely did it to fulfill prophecy. You found the prophecy that he was trying to fulfill. That was all. It doe s not help your case one iota.

The simple fact is that the story fails just from claiming that Joseph had to go back to Bethlehem. That makes no sense at all. Leave the Bible out of it. It is just myth and misapplied verses. You need real history to refute this.

 

[blü 2]

Jesus said, Only God is good. I believe he was correct.

When I read the OT, I read for learning. Scripture is a parable, setting earth beside heaven; setting the temporal beside the eternal; setting OT shadows beside the luminosity of Christ. When I read passages such as Deuteronomy 7:1-2, I think of the eternal land, heaven, and of the forces of darkness that stand in the way of my possessing that land. Must all these spiritually forces be overcome if I am to enter in? Surely, for Christ demands righteousness of his followers.

It's interesting to compare views. I have very high confidence that when I die "I" will no longer exist in any form ─ that this is my one shot so make the most of it and try to leave the world a little better than I found it.

 

[dybmh]

The Talmudic discussions are interesting because they demonstrate a widely held belief, based on Psalm 90:4 and Hosea 6, that a day with God, as in Genesis 1, could be understood to refer to a thousand years.

"Widely held" - False. Not scriptural. Again.

So, maybe you won't be quite so quick to denounce my use of the 'day', now that you see it discussed so freely by the rabbis?

These are the reasons that "a day = 1000 years" is a weak argument in this thread:

Talmud is not scripture; this is a scriptural debate; commentary is **at best** weak evidence.

Talmud denies Christ ( just a few lines after the quote you brought ); so it can't be strong evidence coming from a Christian. At best it is correct in some places and incorrect in others. Sometimes correct / sometimes incorrect is weak.

Gen 1, Psalm 90, and Hosea 6... One day = 1000 years is the minority opinion, That means it's a weak argument.

Even if there is scriptural support for 1 day = 1000 years ( which there isn't ) not *every* instance of day = 1000 years. Example: did Abraham walk for 3000 years to get to Mt. Moriah? If day is sometimes a day and sometimes a 1000 years, that's a weak argument.

It isn't scriptural that a day is 1000 years in the Adam and Eve story. The entire idea comes from Adam continuing to live for almost 1000 years even though he broke the law of Eden. Yes God says, on that day you will surely die. But later God acting as Judge issues a reduced penalty. See Gen 3:17-19. God says "Because you listened and ate cursed is the ground ... with toil shall you eat ... " If the death sentence was applied, God would have said: "Because you listened and ate today you will surely die". So it doesn't matter how long Adam lived, it doesn't regulate the length of day to 1000 years. Since it's not scriptural, it's opinion = weak evidence.

Psalm 90:4 does NOT say that a day is a 1000 years. That is 100% false. Read the psalm. It diminshes 1000 years to a day then to shorter than that, "a watch in the night". The Psalm does NOT magnify a day to 1000 years. Magnifying does not fit the theme of the Psalm. Moses is asking God "Return O Lord how long???" He is praying to reduce the amount of time, not increase it. Weak.

Psalm 90:4 Clearly says this is NOT a direct equivilance. It is a simile. It says 1000 years is LIKE a day. Like a day IN GODS EYES. Not to humans. To humans a day is still a day. To God 1000 years "looks like a day". That's it, it's perception not reality. Weak.

OK, now let's get deep. Hosea 6 is NOT all the same level of prophecy. Read it very carefully. Start at chapter 5. It begins with God speaking through the prophet. Notice that the prophet exclusively speaks as God in the first person throughout chapter 5. Then beginning at chapter 6, the voicing changes. Now the prophet is including himself in the bound and torn and the ones who need healing. This indicates that the prophet is no longer receiving prophecy in the same way as before. It makes sense if you look back at the last verses in chapter 5. The prophet is speaking about the distance from God. "I will go away and return to my place..." After saying this, the prophet's awareness descends. To restablish the flow of prophecy, the prophet builds his faith. Chapter 6 is a proclaimation that build up the prophet's faith and then immediately after prophecy begins to flow again. Then the prophet starts speaking in God's voice, first person, again.

What does this mean? It means that the verse you are focusing on ( Hosea 6:2 ), is not very a strong prophecy. So again, even if you're right about the day=1000 years.... it's still weak evidence.

 

[dybmh]

In Micah 5:2 we have this prophecy: 'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.'

" ... to be ruler IN Israel ... " so not Jesus then. Jesus wasn't a ruler in Israel.

 

[dybmh]

And what did Tana debe Eliyyahu teach about the era of the Messiah?

Well... first of all they taught that Messiah hadn't come yet.

In relation to the discussion on the calculation of years, the Gemara states that one of the Sages of the school of Eliyahu taught: The world is destined to exist for six thousand years. For two thousand years the world was waste, as the Torah had not yet been given. The next set of two thousand years are the time period of the Torah. The last set of two thousand years are the period designated for the days of the Messiah, but due to our many sins there are those years that have been taken from them, i.e., such and such years have already passed and have been taken from the two thousand years that are designated for the Messiah, and the Messiah has not yet arrived.

Avodah Zarah 9a:5
​

But they also taught that a Christ isn't needed.

The school of Eliyahu taught: Anyone who studies halakhot every day, he is guaranteed that he is destined for the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “His ways [halikhot] are eternal” (Habakkuk 3:6): Do not read the verse as halikhot [ways]; rather, read it as halakhot. Consequently, the verse indicates that the study of the halakhot brings one to eternal life.

Megillah 28b:17
​

See what happens when you cite Talmud? It refutes Christianity.

​

 

[Redemptionsong]

Thank you for your interesting response.

There's a lot here to digest, but I'll try to deal with all the main arguments raised.

I'd like to begin with the passage you have quoted from Josephus. It's taken from 'Antiquities' XVIII 4:1. What I would like to do is attempt to date the events, given that Josephus writes a chronological account of Jewish history. Pontius Pilate, who governed Judea as a prefect, is thought to have governed from 26 CE to 36 CE. Pilate was preceded by Valerius Gratus (15 CE - 26 CE), and was succeeded by Marcellus, who governed for just one year.

So, at some point in Pilate's ten year residence in Judea, this incident occurred. If you proceed to read Book XVIII Ch.4. section 2, we hear that the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, the president of Syria, complaining about Pilate's actions against the people at Tirathaba. 'So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome', which gives us the date of 37 CE. So, the events at Tirathaba must have occurred in about 36 CE, close to the time of the accusation against Pilate.

Dating of events in the Gospels gives us a likely date of Jesus' crucifixion as 33 CE. This was during the reign of Pontius Pilate, but, in all likelihood, a number of years before the Tirathaba massacre. Jesus would not have been leading his disciples in 36 CE. At Pentecost, in the same year of the crucifixion, 33 CE, the Church was born, and in Acts we read that 'And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,'. So, we know that the Church established itself in Jerusalem after Pentecost.

What follows next in the book of Acts, alongside growth in the Church, is growing persecution. In Acts 8, Saul of Tarsus consents to the death of the deacon, Stephen. Acts 8:1 says, And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.' This is interesting, because it could be that Christians were present in Samaria when the massacre at Tirathaba occurred, but it would not have involved either Jesus or the apostles.

Attempting to connect Josephus' reference to Tacitus is stretching the chronology beyond breaking point. The emperor Nero reigned from 54 CE - 68 CE and the reference to the Great fire is placed at July, 64 CE. It was this catastrophe that led Nero to seek a scapegoat, and the Christians, who appeared poor and defenceless, were his chosen target.

The date of 64 CE for the Great Fire of Rome has an interesting connection with the book of Acts. Most commentators who follow the events of Paul's life in relation to Roman history, date Paul's final two years in Rome as occurring around 62-64 CE. The tradition that Paul was put to death in Rome, alongside Peter, fits with the dates of Nero's persecution following the Great
Fire.

The other evidence for Jesus being a Samaritan, goes against everything said in the Gospels.

1. Jesus has a genealogy that traces his descendants, in the flesh, to king David (Luke 3), through Nathan. He was also of the tribe of Judah.

2. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the birthplace of David, because his parents had to register for taxation in the ancestral home of their tribe. Both Joseph and Mary were descended from David, but through different sons of David.

3. In the opening chapter of John (1:11), it says, 'He came unto his own, and his own received him not.' Jesus' own were the Jews, he being of the tribe of Judah.

4. When Jesus chose his first disciples, he was in Galilee, at Capernaum. His first disciples were fishermen on the Sea of Galilee. There are number of references to the followers of Jesus being 'Galileans'.

5. The forerunner to Jesus, coming in the Spirit of Elijah, was John the Baptist. Much is said in all four Gospels about the role of John, and the high esteem in which he was held by Jews, and by Jesus.
The fact that John was the son of a priest, Zacharias, who was of the eighth course, of Abijah, helps to cement the case for Jesus being of Judah. The men were related, and their roles intertwined.

6. When sending out his disciples, Matthew says [Matthew 10:5], 'These twelve Jesus sent forth, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but rather to the lost sheep of the house of lsrael.'
That statement, l think, clinches it!

7. Jesus claimed to have come to fulfil the law of Moses. This meant that he attended all the pilgrim festivals, and did all that was required under the law.
The objection to this claim is that Jesus did not follow some of the traditions held by Pharisees and Jews. In Mark ch.7, Jesus deals with this exact issue, and quotes from scripture, 'This people honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.' He went on to say, 'Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandmemts of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.'

8. When Jesus did set foot in Samaria, and when he did converse with a Samaritan woman, the differences between the two was highlighted by the Samaritan woman. She said to Jesus, 'How is it that thou, being a Jew, asketh drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.'

Does this evidence convince you that Hammer is greatly mistaken?

 

[Redemptionsong]

"Widely held" - False. Not scriptural. Again.

These are the reasons that "a day = 1000 years" is a weak argument in this thread:

Talmud is not scripture; this is a scriptural debate; commentary is **at best** weak evidence.

Talmud denies Christ ( just a few lines after the quote you brought ); so it can't be strong evidence coming from a Christian. At best it is correct in some places and incorrect in others. Sometimes correct / sometimes incorrect is weak.

Gen 1, Psalm 90, and Hosea 6... One day = 1000 years is the minority opinion, That means it's a weak argument.

Even if there is scriptural support for 1 day = 1000 years ( which there isn't ) not *every* instance of day = 1000 years. Example: did Abraham walk for 3000 years to get to Mt. Moriah? If day is sometimes a day and sometimes a 1000 years, that's a weak argument.

It isn't scriptural that a day is 1000 years in the Adam and Eve story. The entire idea comes from Adam continuing to live for almost 1000 years even though he broke the law of Eden. Yes God says, on that day you will surely die. But later God acting as Judge issues a reduced penalty. See Gen 3:17-19. God says "Because you listened and ate cursed is the ground ... with toil shall you eat ... " If the death sentence was applied, God would have said: "Because you listened and ate today you will surely die". So it doesn't matter how long Adam lived, it doesn't regulate the length of day to 1000 years. Since it's not scriptural, it's opinion = weak evidence.

Psalm 90:4 does NOT say that a day is a 1000 years. That is 100% false. Read the psalm. It diminshes 1000 years to a day then to shorter than that, "a watch in the night". The Psalm does NOT magnify a day to 1000 years. Magnifying does not fit the theme of the Psalm. Moses is asking God "Return O Lord how long???" He is praying to reduce the amount of time, not increase it. Weak.

Psalm 90:4 Clearly says this is NOT a direct equivilance. It is a simile. It says 1000 years is LIKE a day. Like a day IN GODS EYES. Not to humans. To humans a day is still a day. To God 1000 years "looks like a day". That's it, it's perception not reality. Weak.

OK, now let's get deep. Hosea 6 is NOT all the same level of prophecy. Read it very carefully. Start at chapter 5. It begins with God speaking through the prophet. Notice that the prophet exclusively speaks as God in the first person throughout chapter 5. Then beginning at chapter 6, the voicing changes. Now the prophet is including himself in the bound and torn and the ones who need healing. This indicates that the prophet is no longer receiving prophecy in the same way as before. It makes sense if you look back at the last verses in chapter 5. The prophet is speaking about the distance from God. "I will go away and return to my place..." After saying this, the prophet's awareness descends. To restablish the flow of prophecy, the prophet builds his faith. Chapter 6 is a proclaimation that build up the prophet's faith and then immediately after prophecy begins to flow again. Then the prophet starts speaking in God's voice, first person, again.

What does this mean? It means that the verse you are focusing on ( Hosea 6:2 ), is not very a strong prophecy. So again, even if you're right about the day=1000 years.... it's still weak evidence.

The day of a thousand years is scriptural because it is gleaned from passages in both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. Peter tells the Church not to be ignorant 'of this one thing'! [2 Peter 3:8]

The reason that the day of a thousand years is not applied to all 'days' is because not all days are 'a day with the Lord'. Yet, the days of creation are God's days, not man's days. This is why they act as a prologue to the whole of the Bible, giving an outline of God's plan for the present heaven and earth. Only by defining the length of existence of the present heaven and earth it is possible to talk about a 'new heaven, and a new earth'. The new heaven and earth, spoken of by lsaiah, is yet to come.

Nor do the rabbis actually deny that the Messianic era should have started after four thousand years. Eliyyahu teaches that it is the transgressions of the people that delay his coming. Interestingly, Jesus was anointed as Messiah, but his reign over the whole earth did not take place. The kingdom present is a kingdom in the hearts of believers, not a visible kingdom.

 

[Redemptionsong]

" ... to be ruler IN Israel ... " so not Jesus then. Jesus wasn't a ruler in Israel.

This depends on how you view 'Israel'.

Israel is the name given to Jacob when Jacob met 'face to face' with the Lord. In my opinion, Jesus is the head of Israel, and all 'in lsrael' (the body) means the same as 'in Christ'. It comes to apply to both Jews and Gentiles who accept Jesus as the Saviour and Messiah.

Can you explain to me how it is that all lsrael 'shall be saved'?

 

[Harel13]

@Redemptionsong

I'd like to begin with the passage you have quoted from Josephus. It's taken from 'Antiquities' XVIII 4:1. What I would like to do is attempt to date the events, given that Josephus writes a chronological account of Jewish history. Pontius Pilate, who governed Judea as a prefect, is thought to have governed from 26 CE to 36 CE. Pilate was preceded by Valerius Gratus (15 CE - 26 CE), and was succeeded by Marcellus, who governed for just one year.

So, at some point in Pilate's ten year residence in Judea, this incident occurred. If you proceed to read Book XVIII Ch.4. section 2, we hear that the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, the president of Syria, complaining about Pilate's actions against the people at Tirathaba. 'So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome', which gives us the date of 37 CE. So, the events at Tirathaba must have occurred in about 36 CE, close to the time of the accusation against Pilate.

Dating of events in the Gospels gives us a likely date of Jesus' crucifixion as 33 CE. This was during the reign of Pontius Pilate, but, in all likelihood, a number of years before the Tirathaba massacre. Jesus would not have been leading his disciples in 36 CE. At Pentecost, in the same year of the crucifixion, 33 CE, the Church was born, and in Acts we read that 'And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,'. So, we know that the Church established itself in Jerusalem after Pentecost.

What follows next in the book of Acts, alongside growth in the Church, is growing persecution. In Acts 8, Saul of Tarsus consents to the death of the deacon, Stephen. Acts 8:1 says, And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.' This is interesting, because it could be that Christians were present in Samaria when the massacre at Tirathaba occurred, but it would not have involved either Jesus or the apostles.

Attempting to connect Josephus' reference to Tacitus is stretching the chronology beyond breaking point. The emperor Nero reigned from 54 CE - 68 CE and the reference to the Great fire is placed at July, 64 CE. It was this catastrophe that led Nero to seek a scapegoat, and the Christians, who appeared poor and defenceless, were his chosen target.

The date of 64 CE for the Great Fire of Rome has an interesting connection with the book of Acts. Most commentators who follow the events of Paul's life in relation to Roman history, date Paul's final two years in Rome as occurring around 62-64 CE. The tradition that Paul was put to death in Rome, alongside Peter, fits with the dates of Nero's persecution following the Great
Fire.

I have not looked much into the discussion of the chronology here, so I will take your word for the dates at the moment. A cursory search on google yields this essay: Crucifixion in A.D. 36: The Keystone for Dating the Birth of Jesus which suggests dating the crucifixion to 36 CE. The timing would then fit perfectly, no?

1. Jesus has a genealogy that traces his descendants, in the flesh, to king David (Luke 3), through Nathan. He was also of the tribe of Judah.

But referring only to one genealogy is problematic. He has two genealogies, after all, some including women. So it's not very clear that he was an actual direct descendant of David, nor that he was of the Tribe of Judah. But even if he was, we also know that there were Judeans who mixed with the Samaritans (Antiquities XI 8).

2. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the birthplace of David, because his parents had to register for taxation in the ancestral home of their tribe. Both Joseph and Mary were descended from David, but through different sons of David.

Yet Mark makes no mention of this. And as Hammer pointed out, if there's even a grain of truth in this, then it seems that this refers to the Galilean Beth Lehem (you do know there are two Beth Lehems, right?).

3. In the opening chapter of John (1:11), it says, 'He came unto his own, and his own received him not.' Jesus' own were the Jews, he being of the tribe of Judah.

But as pointed out by Hammer, the exact same could be said about the Samaritans. A few accepted him both by the Samaritans and by the Jews.

4. When Jesus chose his first disciples, he was in Galilee, at Capernaum. His first disciples were fishermen on the Sea of Galilee. There are number of references to the followers of Jesus being 'Galileans'.

I'm sure you'll agree that being a "Galilean" is not an ethnicity, because if you say otherwise, then you'd be undermining your own argument, that he went to the Jews. The term refers to people living in the Galilee and many Samaritans lived there as well.

5. The forerunner to Jesus, coming in the Spirit of Elijah, was John the Baptist. Much is said in all four Gospels about the role of John, and the high esteem in which he was held by Jews, and by Jesus.
The fact that John was the son of a priest, Zacharias, who was of the eighth course, of Abijah, helps to cement the case for Jesus being of Judah. The men were related, and their roles intertwined.

I don't understand what this has to do with Hammer's argument.

6. When sending out his disciples, Matthew says [Matthew 10:5], 'These twelve Jesus sent forth, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but rather to the lost sheep of the house of lsrael.'
That statement, l think, clinches it!

I don't see how. After all, I referenced verses in which Jesus went to preach in Samaritan towns and preached to Samaritan people. As Hammer pointed out, at some point he decided to change his tune because he wasn't getting anywhere with the Samaritans. The animosity between the two groups was well-known. Deciding to stay away from them was part of the plan to seem more appealing to the Jews.

7. Jesus claimed to have come to fulfil the law of Moses. This meant that he attended all the pilgrim festivals, and did all that was required under the law.

Yep, he started doing that when he decided to direct his attention to the Jews. Before that, he kept the festivals in the Samaritan manner, which was connected to Mt. Gerizzim.

8. When Jesus did set foot in Samaria, and when he did converse with a Samaritan woman, the differences between the two was highlighted by the Samaritan woman. She said to Jesus, 'How is it that thou, being a Jew, asketh drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.'

This seems to be the only argument that has some basis, and merits more thought and research. The next question would be: If the Samaritan woman called him a Jew and the Jews called him a Samaritan - who was correct?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I have not looked much into the discussion of the chronology here, so I will take your word for the dates at the moment. A cursory search on google yields this essay: Crucifixion in A.D. 36: The Keystone for Dating the Birth of Jesus which suggests dating the crucifixion to 36 CE. The timing would then fit perfectly, no?

I'd like to take a serious look at the evidence to support this claim, because Luke and Josephus together would suggest an earlier date.
I'll get back to you on this one.

 

[Harel13]

I'd like to take a serious look at the evidence to support this claim, because Luke and Josephus together would suggest an earlier date.
I'll get back to you on this one.

Thanks, appreciated.