With bafflement upon bafflement!

[Subduction Zone]

I don't expect someone who doesn't accept the existence of God to even entertain the idea that his Word can become flesh, but this is exactly what John records:
'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'

'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) fullof grace and truth'.

If your beliefs were true you should expect someone to accept them.

I see that you could not answer any of my questions. Perhaps your own belief is not that strong.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You just quoted a verse from Song of Songs that shows it had other uses...

Although, a small nitpick on your translation: The Hebrew is נרד, nard. It was the translator's decision to identify that nard with spikenard.

What l read was that it is the root of an lndian plant, the Nardostachys jatamansi, of the family of Valerianoe, growing on the Himalayan mountains. It was very precious and costly, and described as a 'much-valued perfume'.

 

[Redemptionsong]

If your beliefs were true you should expect someone to accept them.

I see that you could not answer any of my questions. Perhaps your own belief is not that strong.

I'm not sure where you've been living, but the written (Bible) and living (Christ) Word, the source of my beliefs, is shared by millions.

And, as regards questions, it appears as if you cannot answer mine. Had you done so, l would now have evidence of who governed in Syria in 3/2 BCE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure where you've been living, but the written (Bible) and living (Christ) Word, the source of my beliefs, is shared by millions.

And, as regards questions, it appears as if you cannot answer mine. Had you done so, l would now have evidence of who governed in Syria in 3/2 BCE.

That was a pointless question. You could not justify it. In fact it appears to have been a rather stupid question. What was the point of it?

Your Bible even tells you that you are not answering properly. Vagueness tells us that you either don't know or don't believe.

 

[Redemptionsong]

If your beliefs were true you should expect someone to accept them.

I see that you could not answer any of my questions. Perhaps your own belief is not that strong.

Jesus claimed to be 'the way, the truth, and the life', yet you do not believe his words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus claimed to be 'the way, the truth, and the life', yet you do not believe his words.

So what? That is an incredibly poor argument. Not only that it is not true. In the Bible it is claimed that Jesus said that. That does not mean that Jesus actually said that.

For example do you believe that Jesus told the unfaithful wife "Go, and sin no more"?

 

[Redemptionsong]

That was a pointless question. You could not justify it. In fact it appears to have been a rather stupid question. What was the point of it?

Your Bible even tells you that you are not answering properly. Vagueness tells us that you either don't know or don't believe.

It's not a pointless question at all.

I suggested that Jesus might have been born in 2 BCE, based on a persuasive argument presented by Greg Biltz. If his research is accurate, then Cyrenius would have been governor in Syria at that time. My claim stands until you can demonstrate that l'm in error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a pointless question at all.

I suggested that Jesus might have been born in 2BCE, based on a persuasive argument presented by Greg Biltz. If his research is accurate, then Cyrenius would have been governor in Syria at that time. My claim stands until you can demonstrate that l'm in error.

You make me laugh. No, your claim does not stand. That is not the way that it works. Wikipedia alone refutes that claim. I can't even find Greg Blitz when I search his name. Wikipedia is a superior source than any apologist. Lying gets one in trouble at Wiki. It is required to be an apologist.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So what? That is an incredibly poor argument. Not only that it is not true. In the Bible it is claimed that Jesus said that. That does not mean that Jesus actually said that.

For example do you believe that Jesus told the unfaithful wife "Go, and sin no more"?

Yes, l believe the words of scripture. I have stated this many times. It should come as no surprise.

The challenge to an atheist is to demonstrate the error of scripture, and thereby disprove the belief that the Bible is the revealed word of God.

I have already stepped beyond the point of doubt, but only as the result of study and experience. It seems to me that one should study the scriptures in good faith BEFORE reaching conclusions. What is apparent from your posts is that you haven't searched the scriptures with an open mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, l believe the words of scripture. I have stated this many times. It should come as no surprise.

The challenge to an atheist is to demonstrate the error of scripture, and thereby disprove the belief that the Bible is the revealed word of God.

I have already stepped beyond the point of doubt, but only as the result of study and experience. It seems to me that one should study the scriptures in good faith BEFORE reaching conclusions. What is apparent from your posts is that you haven't searched the scriptures with an open mind.

And that belief needs to be justified. Otherwise a mere handwave refutes it. And a person that denies the endless self contradictions in the Bible cannot claim to have studied it.

That you do not understand the problems with Luke is due to an inability to accept reality. You can't claim that the Bible is historical when you deny the history of the book.

 

[Redemptionsong]

And that belief needs to be justified. Otherwise a mere handwave refutes it. And a person that denies the endless self contradictions in the Bible cannot claim to have studied it.

That you do not understand the problems with Luke is due to an inability to accept reality. You can't claim that the Bible is historical when you deny the history of the book.

I don't deny the history that is written in Luke and Acts, just your dating and authorship!!

I understand very clearly that the internal integrity of the scriptures can be used as evidence of truth. Jesus said, 'scripture cannot be broken', suggesting that God inspires words that form a tight weave of self-evident truth.

The starting point of faith is very simple. Believe that God created the heaven and the earth, and that his will has been made known to mankind through the prophetic word.

 

[Harel13]

What l read was that it is the root of an lndian plant, the Nardostachys jatamansi, of the family of Valerianoe, growing on the Himalayan mountains. It was very precious and costly, and described as a 'much-valued perfume'.

Could be, but I'm not going to wade into the complicated subject of identifying biblical plants. At least, not on this thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't deny the history that is written in Luke and Acts, just your dating and authorship!!

I understand very clearly that the internal integrity of the scriptures can be used as evidence of truth. Jesus said, 'scripture cannot be broken', suggesting that God inspires words that form a tight weave of self-evident truth.

The starting point of faith is very simple. Believe that God created the heaven and the earth, and that his will has been made known to mankind through the prophetic word.

I am not the one that dated anything. I used valid sources. It appears that you did not. Richard Carrier can explain why the twice governor claim is not supported. To refute the claim of the error in Luke you would need evidence since the error was found by looking at evidence that showed the error.

Where is your evidence? Where are your biblical scholars that support you?

 

[Harel13]

I don't.'

I'm glad you appear to agree that there is no place in such debates for "must have"s. Unfortunately I often find academics that use that term. Sometimes they then end up completely reversing their position after further study or new discoveries being made. It irks me. Let's stick with what we've got.

But the route along the river Jordan to Jericho was well trodden by pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem. And the parable of the Good Samaritan is set on this particular road. We also have stories of Jesus healing a blind man.

Luke 18:35. ' And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging:
And hearing the multitude pass by, asked what it meant.
And they told him that Jesus of Nazareth passed by.'

Luke 19:1. ' And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.
And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.'

And it was to Zaccheaus that Jesus said: 'This day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which is lost.'

Now, this is interesting. If we go back to your previous position, how would we know that Jesus's regular route was through Jericho? Perhaps he usually went through Samaritan territory but on this one occasion, "the holy spirit", as you said, led him near Jericho to heal the man? Or to meet Zacchaeus and influence him? Right now I'm not sure we can really know for certain either way.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Could be, but I'm not going to wade into the complicated subject of identifying biblical plants. At least, not on this thread.

Thank goodness for that !

 

[Redemptionsong]

I am not the one that dated anything. I used valid sources. It appears that you did not. Richard Carrier can explain why the twice governor claim is not supported. To refute the claim of the error in Luke you would need evidence since the error was found by looking at evidence that showed the error.

Where is your evidence? Where are your biblical scholars that support you?

A biblical scholar is someone who investigates the matter. We are now two thousand years from the events, and somehow you think that a scholar working in the Twenty-First century knows better than the multitudes who witnessed the events of Jesus' life first hand.

It's your problem that you don't accept the numerous eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ.

I can't imagine that you apply the same scepticism to Roman historians as you do to the writings of Jesus' disciples. Yet, these were men who lived through the events described, and offered an honest eyewitness account of events.

Why do you think their testimony is not worthy of respect and consideration?

 

[Harel13]

Thank goodness for that !

So back to my initial point on nard. You yourself demonstrated that nard was not only used for dead people. By the way, it was also a component of the incense used in the Temple.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'm glad you appear to agree that there is no place in such debates for "must have"s. Unfortunately I often find academics that use that term. Sometimes they then end up completely reversing their position after further study or new discoveries being made. It irks me. Let's stick with what we've got.

Now, this is interesting. If we go back to your previous position, how would we know that Jesus's regular route was through Jericho? Perhaps he usually went through Samaritan territory but on this one occasion, "the holy spirit", as you said, led him near Jericho to heal the man? Or to meet Zacchaeus and influence him? Right now I'm not sure we can really know for certain either way.

There is no reason to doubt a testimony without good reason.

I'm sure that there must be evidence, even from satellite imagery, that shows that the main highway from Capernaum in Galilee to Jerusalem in Judea was along the Jordan valley.

Jesus, during the years of his ministry, was followed by disciples, and, owing to his reputation, by large crowds. We are told that this was the case when he passed through Jericho.

It was also the practice of whole villages to travel together for the pilgrim festivals; a practice that is mentioned when Jesus became separated from his parents, aged twelve. In Luke 2:41,42 it says, 'Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of Passover. And when Jesus was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.'

From Luke's account we also discover that the parents travelled in a large party, because they would not have otherwise lost their son, whom they assumed was amongst the company of travellers:

Luke 2:44. 'But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.'

It all makes perfect sense to me. To travel to Jerusalem for the three Pilgrim festivals, and also to do what he was called on to do, namely, to preach the Kingdom of God to the Jews throughout the land.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I am not the one that dated anything. I used valid sources. It appears that you did not. Richard Carrier can explain why the twice governor claim is not supported. To refute the claim of the error in Luke you would need evidence since the error was found by looking at evidence that showed the error.

Where is your evidence? Where are your biblical scholars that support you?

Below is a chart of the dates provided for Paul's ministry in Acts. 'Acts of the Apostles' was the second book written by Luke [Acts 1:1].

26 different scholars, some Church fathers, provide evidence of their studies, showing dates for the historical events recorded by Luke in the book of Acts.

This information is important, because it demonstrates that the record of Paul's ministry ended before the Jewish Wars (beginning 66 CE). Since Acts was written after the Gospel of Luke, it proves that all the New Testament books, apart from Revelation, were written at a much earlier date than (some) modern scholars claim. And the only reason modern scholars cannot accept the early dating is because it entails an acceptance of prophecy. For, if Jesus' prophecies of the destruction of the temple were genuine, it makes Jesus a prophet, and God true.

Now, we can't have scholars believing in God and still being serious scholars, can we?!

 

[Redemptionsong]

So back to my initial point on nard. You yourself demonstrated that nard was not only used for dead people. By the way, it was also a component of the incense used in the Temple.

Whilst I'm thinking about it, in respect of chronology and the crucifixion, let me make a few preliminary remarks.

Time and space are relative concepts, and chronology deals with relative concepts. This makes it immensely difficult to provide an accurate chronology of history during ancient times. I think we are both aware of this.

The greatest problem for chronologists is to find events that can be used as an 'anchor', or 'marker' from which to determine the passage of time. All types of evidence can be accumulated (geological, meterological, botanical, architectural, linguistic, etc) in the search for precise events in time that can be corroborated. Some calendars have used A.M, the beginning of the world; others have used AUM, the foundation of Rome; others have used the birth of Christ; others the Hejira to Medina, and so on.

Amongst historians, dealing with Roman times, the battle of Actium has become one such 'marker'. It is said to have been fought in 31 BCE between Augustus and Anthony. Other dates that gain prominence are the dates of Roman emperors: here are a few:

• Augustus (31 BCE–14 CE)
  
  
• Tiberius (14–37 CE)
  
  
• Caligula (37–41 CE)
  
  
• Claudius (41–54 CE)
  
  
• Nero (54–68 CE)

Then, when we think about Judea, we have the procurators to consider. Here is a list with some suggested dates:


Coponius 6–9 CE 3 yrs Roman Prefect

Marcus Ambivulus 9–12 CE 3 yrs Roman Prefect

Annius Rufus 12–15 CE 3 yrs Roman Prefect

Valerius Gratus 15–26 CE 11 yrs Roman Prefect

Pontius Pilatus 26–36 CE 10 yrs Roman Prefect

Marcellus 36–37 CE 1y r Roman Prefect

Marullus 37–41 CE 4 yrs Roman Prefect

Marcus Julius Agrippa 41–44 CE 3 yrs King of Judaea

Cuspius Fadus 44–46 CE 2 Yrs Roman Procurator

Then we have the list (selection) of High Priests in Jerusalem:

• Ananelus, 37-36 BC
  
  
• Aristobulus III, grandson of Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, 36 BC
  He was the last of the Hasmoneans; brother of Herod's second wife Mariamne I.
  
  
• Ananelus (restored), 36-30 BC
  
  
• Joshua ben Fabus, 30-23 BC
  
  
• Simon ben Boethus, 23-5 BC (his daughter Mariamne II was third wife of Herod the Great)
  
  
• Matthias ben Theophilus, 5-4 BC[11]
  
  
• Joazar ben Boethus, 4 BC
  
  
• Eleazar ben Boethus, 4-3 BC
  
  
• Joshua ben Sie, 3 BC - ?
  
  
• Joazar ben Boethus (restored), ? - 6 AD
  
  
• Ananus ben Seth, 6-15
  
  
• Ishmael ben Fabus (Phiabi), 15-16
  
  
• Eleazar ben Ananus, 16-17
  
  
• Simon ben Camithus, 17-18
  
  
• Joseph ben Caiaphas, 18-36 (son-in-law of the high priest Ananus ben Seth)
  
  
• Jonathan ben Ananus, 36-37
  
  
• Theophilus ben Ananus, 37-41
  
  
• Simon Cantatheras ben Boethus, 41-43
  
  
• Matthias ben Ananus, 43
  
  
• Elioneus ben Simon Cantatheras, 43-44
  
  
• Jonathan ben Ananus, 44 (restored)
  
  
• Josephus ben Camydus, 44-46

Then, of course, we have all the NT records to consider. And one's attitude to scripture makes a difference to the priority that one gives to the evidence. Some biblical scholars, believing scripture to be the word of God, use the scripture first, and the evidence of non-Christian sources second.

In the case of the 'Academia' paper on Jesus' crucifixion, it would appear that the biblical evidence is largely ignored. The primary sources used are Roman, and Jewish (Josephus) historians. From this, I see that the author has used Tiberius' death in 37 CE as a 'marker'.