With bafflement upon bafflement!

[Subduction Zone]

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?!

The Bible is not the evidence, it is the claim. And no, you should not make false claims about others. There is even a rule against it in the Bible. The reason that scholars do not believe that Quirinius was governor of Syria before is because there is no evidence for it. In fact another huge error in the nativity myth was that all of the Roman Empire was covered by a census. It's that is false. At that time they only did regional ones. The first empire wide census was in 74 AD. And the list of errors goes on. At the time you want there to have been a Roman census there could not have been one. Judea was not part of the Roman Empire before 6 AD. It was a "client state". That means that they kept their own government. They kept their own king. Remember, it was King Herod. They paid tribute. They were not directly taxed. It was not until Herod's son failed and the Romans took over in 5 AD that it became part of the Empire.

There is not just one flawnin Luke's myth, there are a slew of them.

 

[dybmh]

Mark 14:3-6:
'And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the Leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she break the box, and poured it on his head.
And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of an ointment made?
For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.'

The Song of Solomon 1:12: ' While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.
A bundle of myrrh is my wellbeloved to me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.
My beloved is unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of En-gedi.'

Spikenard is a perfume, and was used to anoint the dead. It is not associated with the giving of the Holy Spirit.

Olive oil was used to anoint, and is symbolic of anointing in the Holy Spirit. But, remember, when Jesus was baptised at the river Jordan, he was not being crowned as king. It was a parallel anointing to that made by Samuel upon David [1 Samuel 16:13], where a prophet was called upon to anoint a man chosen to be king. Then, God's Spirit came upon him, and the Spirit was upon David thereafter, even before being made king over either Judah, or lsrael.

Interestingly, the moment that the Spirit of God came upon David, was the moment that the Holy Spirit departed from Saul. In this allegory, Saul represents the old Israel, living under law. For, once the new covenant becomes effective, the old passes away.

OK. Interesting thank you. But where is Jesus *actually* anointed Messiah? Scripture please? ( the closest I can find is Luke if one goes the "spiritual anointing" route )

 

[dybmh]

Do you not know that Christ is the 'Word of God'?

"Christ" is a word of The Lord. One of many.

Psalms 12:6-7

 

[dybmh]

Tell me who the 'l' refers to. You must have a teaching on this subject.

Prophecy transmission begins: Verse 11, ends Verse 16. "I shall await The Lord ... I shall hope for Him" is prophecy departing.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The Bible is not the evidence, it is the claim. And no, you should not make false claims about others. There is even a rule against it in the Bible. The reason that scholars do not believe that Quirinius was governor of Syria before is because there is no evidence for it. In fact another huge error in the nativity myth was that all of the Roman Empire was covered by a census. It's that is false. At that time they only did regional ones. The first empire wide census was in 74 AD. And the list of errors goes on. At the time you want there to have been a Roman census there could not have been one. Judea was not part of the Roman Empire before 6 AD. It was a "client state". That means that they kept their own government. They kept their own king. Remember, it was King Herod. They paid tribute. They were not directly taxed. It was not until Herod's son failed and the Romans took over in 5 AD that it became part of the Empire.

There is not just one flawnin Luke's myth, there are a slew of them.

One could argue that you are guilty of a logical fallacy, argumentum ex silentio, or argument from silence.

While critics have pointed out that Publius Quintus Varus was the Legate of Syria from 7-4 BC, there is some debate around who followed him as Legate in Syria. Holden and Geisler conclude, “The probability that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two different occasions also cannot be ignored – once while prosecuting military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 BC, and then a second time beginning about 6 AD.”

Meanwhile, the testimony of numerous witnesses makes your argument against the Gospels appear very hollow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One could argue that you are guilty of a logical fallacy, argumentum ex silentio, or argument from silence.

While critics have pointed out that Publius Quintus Varus was the Legate of Syria from 7-4 BC, there is some debate around who followed him as Legate in Syria. Holden and Geisler conclude, “The probability that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two different occasions also cannot be ignored – once while prosecuting military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 BC, and then a second time beginning about 6 AD.”

Meanwhile, the testimony of numerous witnesses makes your argument against the Gospels appear very hollow.

No, that is not the case. You do not understand that fallacy. There is evidence to the contrary which makes your claim fail. When there is evidence against an idea an no evidence for it then that idea is clearly in trouble.

Also I found your source. The people quoted in it are not historians or even biblical scholars. They are apologists. You should try to find proper sources.

Quirinius: An Archaeological Biography

Do you understand that your argument fails because even if Quirinius was governor of Syria earlier that he still would not have had a census of Judea? Do you know why they had to have a census of Judea in the year 6 AD?

 

[Redemptionsong]

OK. Interesting thank you. But where is Jesus *actually* anointed Messiah? Scripture please? ( the closest I can find is Luke if one goes the "spiritual anointing" route )

The baptism in the Holy Spirit is the anointing. This is recorded in Matthew 3:1, Mark 1:9, Luke 3:21 and John 1:29.

Jesus does not become king during his earthly ministry. His cross bears the mocking words, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. Jesus came as the Suffering Servant, and given what he quoted from Isaiah in Luke 4:19, he knew his ministry did not involve reigning as King, or bringing vengeance on the world.

Daniel 7:13,14 tells us that one 'like the Son of man' 'came to the ancient of days' i.e. ascended to heaven. There he is given 'dominion, and glory, and a kingdom'.

Who do you know that has been resurrected and glorified?

 

[Subduction Zone]

One could argue that you are guilty of a logical fallacy, argumentum ex silentio, or argument from silence.

While critics have pointed out that Publius Quintus Varus was the Legate of Syria from 7-4 BC, there is some debate around who followed him as Legate in Syria. Holden and Geisler conclude, “The probability that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two different occasions also cannot be ignored – once while prosecuting military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 BC, and then a second time beginning about 6 AD.”

Meanwhile, the testimony of numerous witnesses makes your argument against the Gospels appear very hollow.

I need to go over a basic concept with you. During Herod's reign and the beginning of that of his son Archelaus, Judea was a client kingdom of Rome.

Client kings - Oxford Reference

Client kingdoms were not part of Rome. They did not pay taxes. They had their own rulers and had to pay tribute:

"Client kingdoms were usually located at the margins of Roman control, whether on the edge of the empire or in an area which Rome would find difficult and expensive to administer directly. At the frontier, client kingdoms were important reservoirs of manpower, resources, and local knowledge. Rome expected client kings to meet her demands whenever she saw fit to make them, but client kings were not required to pay regular taxes. In return, client kings expected Rome to ensure their positions locally. The nearest Roman legions forestalled the movements of client kings' enemies, "

They ruled themselves. Rome would not have power to hold a census since they were not part of the Empire. But sometimes Rome had to step in:

" Many kingdoms did indeed become provincial territory over the centuries, usually when Rome felt the need to step in to control local unrest: e.g. where kings failed to manage their succession, where a dynasty ended, or where local conditions had changed. "

That is what happened to Judea when Archelaus failed and Rome had to take over. That is why a census was held. Now that it was an actual property of Rome they did have to tax the people that lived there. Please note, Joseph did not live their so that is another failing. He lived in an area that was still a client kingdom.

The story is filled with fail after fail after fail.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, that is not the case. You do not understand that fallacy. There is evidence to the contrary which makes your claim fail. When there is evidence against an idea an no evidence for it then that idea is clearly in trouble.

Also I found your source. The people quoted in it are not historians or even biblical scholars. They are apologists. You should try to find proper sources.

Quirinius: An Archaeological Biography

Do you understand that your argument fails because even if Quirinius was governor of Syria earlier that he still would not have had a census of Judea? Do you know why they had to have a census of Judea in the year 6 AD?

The reason they had a census in 6 CE, if you read Josephus, was because Archelaus had been banished, and the Romans, including Cyrenius and Coponius, wanted to determine the substance of Judea for the purpose of taxation. Here's what it says in Josephus XVIII, ch.2, sect.1: 'When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus' money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which was made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Anthony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high-priesthood which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high-priest;'

So, Josephus is absolutely clear about the date and time of Cyrenius' second census. It could not have been confused, by anyone living in these times, with a registration that took place about eight/nine years earlier! Furthermore, Luke actually mentions the 6 CE census [Acts 5:37].

Herod the Great's kingdom was a client state of the Roman republic from 37 BCE. Herod was happy to keep the peace with Rome, and he did so by applying the laws in accordance with Jewish custom. The Jewish custom of registration was to gather families in their ancestral towns, and there to register the whole family. This is why both Joseph and Mary were required to register in Bethlehem, for both were descended from king David.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Prophecy transmission begins: Verse 11, ends Verse 16. "I shall await The Lord ... I shall hope for Him" is prophecy departing.

Seeing Christ in the various types and figures of scripture is important. In Numbers 25;12,13 you have two verses that could easily be applied directly to Jesus: 'Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.'

In Malachi 2:5-7, it says, 'My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.
The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.'

 

[dybmh]

.

Interestingly, Jesus was anointed as Messiah,

where is Jesus *actually* anointed Messiah? Scripture please?

The baptism in the Holy Spirit is the anointing. This is recorded in Matthew 3:1, Mark 1:9, Luke 3:21 and John 1:29.

That's a baptism, not anointing.

Jesus does not become king during his earthly ministry. His cross bears the mocking words, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. Jesus came as the Suffering Servant, and given what he quoted from Isaiah in Luke 4:19, he knew his ministry did not involve reigning as King, or bringing vengeance on the world.

So he WASN'T anointed Messiah. Maybe you misspoke before?

Daniel 7:13,14 tells us that one 'like the Son of man' 'came to the ancient of days' i.e. ascended to heaven. There he is given 'dominion, and glory, and a kingdom'.

Careful... per scripture this isn't prophecy. it's a vision at night in a cloud "LIKE" a son of man. Also the interpretation is given in verse 27. The one LIKE a son of man represents "the people of the high holy ones". The image of the son-of-man approaching God represents a nation gaining favor and being gifted eternal dominance.

Who do you know that has been resurrected and glorified?

Technically I don't "know" it, but, this story is equally plausible to the NT.

Rabbi Yossi of Peki'in
Zohar 3:205a:2

אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, זַכָּאָה חוּלָקָנָא דַּחֲמֵינָא תְּחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים, עֵינָא בְּעֵינָא
Said Rabbi Eliazer, worthy our lot to see ressurecting the dead eye to eye​

Rabbi Yossi of Pekien - Zissil

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reason they had a census in 6 CE, if you read Josephus, was because Archelaus had been banished, and the Romans, including Cyrenius and Coponius, wanted to determine the substance of Judea for the purpose of taxation. Here's what it says in Josephus XVIII, ch.2, sect.1: 'When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus' money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which was made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Anthony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high-priesthood which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high-priest;'

So, Josephus is absolutely clear about the date and time of Cyrenius' second census. It could not have been confused, by anyone living in these times, with a registration that took place about eight/nine years earlier! Furthermore, Luke actually mentions the 6 CE census [Acts 5:37].

Herod the Great's kingdom was a client state of the Roman republic from 37 BCE. Herod was happy to keep the peace with Rome, and he did so by applying the laws in accordance with Jewish custom. The Jewish custom of registration was to gather families in their ancestral towns, and there to register the whole family. This is why both Joseph and Mary were required to register in Bethlehem, for both were descended from king David.

Are you paying any attention at all? That is exactly what I said. It is rather frustrating when you are not paying any attention and try to use the arguments that refute you against me.

Yes, Judea went from being a client state to being part of the Roman Empire. That is why there had to be a census done. And since it was not part of the Roman Empire before then is why there could not have ben a census before 6 CE. There was no first census. How could Rome have ordered a census of a different country?

One more time, before 6CE Judea was not part of the Empire. It was a client state. I told you not to use apologists, or Liars for Jesus and that is just what you did. The historical source that i gave you explained that Judea was a client state before 6 CE

 

[dybmh]

Seeing Christ in the various types and figures of scripture is important.

And that's how idols are made...

In Numbers 25;12,13 you have two verses that could easily be applied directly to Jesus:

Not really... if Christ is salvation, these words are describing zealotry. Salvation is not zealotry, two totally different concepts/archetypes. Just ask yourself, does salvation kill?

In Malachi 2:5-7

But... but .... you skipped verse 4 .

"... My covenant be with Levi, says the Lord of Hosts. My covenant was with him, life and peace, and I gave them to him, fear; and he feared Me ... " and the rest is all directed to Levi.

But nice try.

Here you need this: Lying by omission

 

[Harel13]

My covenant be with Levi

It's fine, one of Jesus's ancestors through Joseph was named Levi. Everything works out.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So he WASN'T anointed Messiah. Maybe you misspoke before?

Jesus wasn't crowned king whilst on earth, but he was anointed as the Messiah.

This is a parallel to David. David was anointed by Samuel (and God) years before he was crowned king over Judah and lsrael.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The image of the son-of-man approaching God represents a nation gaining favor and being gifted eternal dominance.

Why would one like unto the Son of man represent a nation? Where are you getting this idea from?

If you follow this idea through to Daniel 7:14, then 'all people, nations, and languages' will serve a nation. That's illogical. They would then be serving themself!

 

[Redemptionsong]

And that's how idols are made...

Interesting response! And l would agree that idols are created by making a God out of a man (or dead object). Which is why it is so important to see Christ in the types and figures of OT scripture. To see Christ is to see God.

 

[Redemptionsong]

And that's how idols are made...

Not really... if Christ is salvation, these words are describing zealotry. Salvation is not zealotry, two totally different concepts/archetypes. Just ask yourself, does salvation kill?

But... but .... you skipped verse 4 .

"... My covenant be with Levi, says the Lord of Hosts. My covenant was with him, life and peace, and I gave them to him, fear; and he feared Me ... " and the rest is all directed to Levi.

But nice try.

Here you need this: Lying by omission

I intentionally left out Levi's name, as l did Phineas', because these are the 'types'. If you are only able to see the 'type' and not Christ, then you have become guilty of idolatry. If you continue to read scripture in this way, then the accusation of idolatry, made by the prophets against lsrael, still stands.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I need to go over a basic concept with you. During Herod's reign and the beginning of that of his son Archelaus, Judea was a client kingdom of Rome.

Client kings - Oxford Reference

Client kingdoms were not part of Rome. They did not pay taxes. They had their own rulers and had to pay tribute:

"Client kingdoms were usually located at the margins of Roman control, whether on the edge of the empire or in an area which Rome would find difficult and expensive to administer directly. At the frontier, client kingdoms were important reservoirs of manpower, resources, and local knowledge. Rome expected client kings to meet her demands whenever she saw fit to make them, but client kings were not required to pay regular taxes. In return, client kings expected Rome to ensure their positions locally. The nearest Roman legions forestalled the movements of client kings' enemies, "

They ruled themselves. Rome would not have power to hold a census since they were not part of the Empire. But sometimes Rome had to step in:

" Many kingdoms did indeed become provincial territory over the centuries, usually when Rome felt the need to step in to control local unrest: e.g. where kings failed to manage their succession, where a dynasty ended, or where local conditions had changed. "

That is what happened to Judea when Archelaus failed and Rome had to take over. That is why a census was held. Now that it was an actual property of Rome they did have to tax the people that lived there. Please note, Joseph did not live their so that is another failing. He lived in an area that was still a client kingdom.

The story is filled with fail after fail after fail.

Have you not read Luke? Luke states that the taxing in Judea was conducted when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. It does not say that it was conducted by Cyrenius or by the Romans! It clearly wasn't!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you not read Luke? Luke states that the taxing in Judea was conducted when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. It does not say that it was conducted by Cyrenius or by the Romans! It clearly wasn't!

So are you saying that Luke got that wrong too?

You really are not paying attention at all. Before 6 CE Quirinius could not have done so. Judea was not part of the Roman Empire until the year 6 CE. The titles King Herod etc. tell you that.

You lost.