With bafflement upon bafflement!

[Redemptionsong]

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.

Luke does not mention the 6 CE census in his Gospel. He mentions only the decree by Augustus and the taxing when Cyrenius was governor of Syria for the first time. This was during the days when Herod was king of Judea. And since Judea was a client state paying tribute to Rome, it was up to Herod to raise the tax and pay the tribute.

The reference to the 6 CE taxation appears in Acts 5:37. This was a Roman taxation and it did not require people to be registered in their ancestral towns. The Roman custom was to register the populace in their places of residence. Anger at Roman interference led to the uprising of Judas of Galilee. This incident is corroborated by Josephus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke does not mention the 6 CE census in his Gospel. He mentions only the decree by Augustus and the taxing when Cyrenius was governor of Syria for the first time. This was during the days when Herod was king of Judea. And since Judea was a client state paying tribute to Rome, it was up to Herod to raise the tax and pay the tribute.

The reference to the 6 CE taxation appears in Acts 5:37. This was a Roman taxation and it did not require people to be registered in their ancestral towns. The Roman custom was to register the populace in their places of residence. Anger at Roman interference led to the uprising of Judas of Galilee. This incident is corroborated by Josephus.

LMAO! Yes he does. Did you not ever read the book? He was quite clear about that. And yes, Josephus specifically wrote about the uprising due to the Census of Quirinius in 6 CE.

One more time, until Rome took over Judea it was an independent country and not part of the Roman Empire. How were they supposed to tax it? Please find as proper historical source that supports your claims. Please do not refer to liars for Jesus again.

Historians can be of any religion. There are many Christian historians that know that Luke's tale is BS. That does not stop them from being Christians. So find a source that publishes in history journals. Not some poser where one has to go to places where one has to agree that the Bible is true to publish.

 

[Soapy]

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,) full of grace and truth'.

Why do you think John used the term ‘Word of God’ for Jesus?

Wasn’t it because God said He would send a saviour - and here was that saviour: the very word God spoke put on flesh / Came to fruition?

 

[dybmh]

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.

The example you gave from scripture was a WATER baptism, aka a mikveh. That's not an OIL anointing. No oil, no anointing. Unless you have scripture that says otherwise.

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

The idea comes directly from the text of Daniel 7.

1: "Daniel saw a dream, and the visions of his mind on his bed; then he wrote the dream and said the beginnings of the matters."

( it's not prophecy )
( then there's 12 verses of details from the dream until the 'son-of-man' is mentioned)
​

13: "I saw in the visions of the night, and behold with the clouds of the heaven, one like a 'son-of-man' was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was brought before Him."

( whatever was seen, it was mixed with clouds )
​

14: "And He gave him dominion and glory and a kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and tongues shall serve him; his dominion is an eternal dominion, which will not be removed, and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed."

( notice "dominion" and "kingdom"; those are the connections to the later verse )
​

16: "I drew near to one of those standing, and I asked him the truth of all this, and he told it to me, and he let me know the interpretation of the matters."

( Daniel, in the dream, goes to one of the ministering angels, "the standing ones", ref: Ezekiel 1:7 )
( The angel explains Daniel's vision in detail, it takes 10 verses to return to the aspect of the kingdom amidst all the other details in the dream )
​

27: "And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under all the heavens will be given to the people of the high holy ones; its kingdom is a perpetual kingdom, and all dominions will serve and obey."​

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!

Not at all. It's describing a hierarchy. God >>> Israel >>> all other nations. Not that I like the idea, but that's what the text is describing.

It's not out of character, either. In Israel there is a similar hierarchy. God >>> High Priest >>> Priest >>> all other Israelites. Korach complained about it ... Ref Numbers 16.

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.

It looks like you're making a totem pole. But OK.

I intentionally left out Levi's name, as l did Phineas', because these are the 'types'.

lying by omission, proverbs 6:16-17, proverbs 12:22 proverbs 19:9, are you seeing the pattern? I am.

If you are only able to see the 'type' and not Christ, then you have become guilty of idolatry.

Oh? You have my attention, please elaborate.

If you continue to read scripture in this way, then the accusation of idolatry, made by the prophets against lsrael, still stands.

Show me with scripture, please.

 

[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?

"Isaiah 29:9,10, Acts 2:1-13,2 Corinthians 3:13,14,Revelation 5:9 "

Aren't the verses "Isaiah 29:9,10, Acts 2:1-13,2 Corinthians 3:13,14,Revelation 5:9 " quoted in one's post a mixture of Israelite Scriptures and the Hellenist-Pauline Scriptures, please? Right?
Why do the Pauline-Christians quote both from the Israelite Scripture and the Gospels, these scriptures together are not a “Unified Whole”, it transpires, please? Right?

Regards
____________
Note: "Jesus did not die a cursed death on the Cross", please, right?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Why do you think John used the term ‘Word of God’ for Jesus?

Wasn’t it because God said He would send a saviour - and here was that saviour: the very word God spoke put on flesh / Came to fruition?

To my understanding, the living Word of God [Rev.19:13] is the embodiment of the Spirit of God. This is what Christ was prophesied to be. He was to be the Word of God made flesh [John 1:14]. This means the 'full measure' of the Holy Spirit inhabited the body of a man.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The example you gave from scripture was a WATER baptism, aka a mikveh. That's not an OIL anointing. No oil, no anointing. Unless you have scripture that says otherwise.

I agree, John did not use oil, but there are a number of other symbols used of the Spirit of God, including wind, fire, water, and a dove!

Samuel never required David to submit to cleansing (unto repentance), but it was the role of John to call lsrael to repentance. John was therefore dealing with a national call to repentance, not an individual anointing. What we see, instead, is the Father dealing directly with his Son; firstly, with a visible sign (a dove), and then with words that were heard from heaven [Luke 3:22].

 

[Redemptionsong]

Not at all. It's describing a hierarchy. God >>> Israel >>> all other nations. Not that I like the idea, but that's what the text is describing.

It's not out of character, either. In Israel there is a similar hierarchy. God >>> High Priest >>> Priest >>> all other Israelites. Korach complained about it ... Ref Numbers 16.

I can see where you're coming from, and there is some scriptural validity to your argument. However, the seed of Israel is not the same as the head, and the Holy Spirit, which emanates from the head and fills the body, comes from Christ.

Here is what it says in Ephesians 5:23:
'For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.'

So, Daniel is referring to the ascension of an individual, Jesus Christ, but the seed of Christ, born of his Holy Spirit, do become the priesthood that represents Christ on earth in the future millennium.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Oh? You have my attention, please elaborate.

Idolatry is defined, in a dictionary l have by Easton, as 'image-worship or divine honour paid to any created object.'

Easton adds, 'The forms of idolatry are:
1. Fetishism, or worship of trees, rivers, hills, stones, etc.
2. Nature worship, the worship of the sun, moon, and the stars, as the supposed powers of nature
3. Hero worship, the worship of deceased ancestors, or of heroes.'

The interpretation of many scriptures that l believe refer to Christ, such as Psalm 110:1, Jews will often claim as referring to prophets or 'fathers', who, to my understanding, are dead and awaiting resurrection. This is the case with Abraham, Moses, David and Isaiah, all of whom are subject to 'replacing' Christ as the subject of prophecy (according to Torah Jewish interpretation).

If idolatry is hero worship, and Torah Jews are guilty of hero worship, then this is idolatry, is it not?

 

[Redemptionsong]

"Isaiah 29:9,10, Acts 2:1-13,2 Corinthians 3:13,14,Revelation 5:9 "

Aren't the verses "Isaiah 29:9,10, Acts 2:1-13,2 Corinthians 3:13,14,Revelation 5:9 " quoted in one's post a mixture of Israelite Scriptures and the Hellenist-Pauline Scriptures, please? Right?
Why do the Pauline-Christians quote both from the Israelite Scripture and the Gospels, these scriptures together are not a “Unified Whole”, it transpires, please? Right?

Regards
____________
Note: "Jesus did not die a cursed death on the Cross", please, right?

To a Christian, both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures are considered to be prophecy, or inspired by God.

It's important to remember that when the apostles first took the message of Jesus to the Jews in the lands surrounding Judea, they only had the written Hebrew scriptures to refer to. The written record we find in the NT appeared after the spoken word, and at a time that necessitated having a written record.

 

[Redemptionsong]

LMAO! Yes he does. Did you not ever read the book? He was quite clear about that. And yes, Josephus specifically wrote about the uprising due to the Census of Quirinius in 6 CE.

I'll repeat myself in the hope that it sinks in.

Luke does not mention the census of 6 CE in his Gospel. He mentions it only in the book of Acts. Not even a poor historian, living at that period, and in the land he speaks about, would be so stupid as to mix up two entirely different country-wide events! One occurs while Herod is king, and the other after Herod's son, Archelaus, has be deposed! One occurs under Jewish government (a client state of the Romans), and the other under direct Roman rule!

Get real!

 

[dybmh]

I agree, John did not use oil, but there are a number of other symbols used of the Spirit of God, including wind, fire, water, and a dove!

So never *actually* anointed. Thank you.

Samuel never required David to submit to cleansing (unto repentance),

Samuel used oil. 'nuff said.

John to call lsrael to repentance. John was therefore dealing with a national call to repentance, not an individual anointing. What we see, instead, is the Father dealing directly with his Son; firstly, with a visible sign (a dove), and then with words that were heard from heaven [Luke 3:22].

yes. they had an experience at the mikveh one day...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll repeat myself in the hope that it sinks in.

Luke does not mention the census of 6 CE in his Gospel. He mentions it only in the book of Acts. Not even a poor historian, living at that period, and in the land he speaks about, would be so stupid as to mix up two entirely different country-wide events! One occurs while Herod is king, and the other after Herod's son, Archelaus, has be deposed! One occurs under Jewish government (a client state of the Romans), and the other under direct Roman rule!

Get real!

LOL! The only one that he mentions is the 6 CE census since that is the only one that there was at that time. Talk about not sinking in. He never mixed up anything since there was nothing to mix up. That is your false narrative. And how do we know that there was no earlier census? Because as I showed you Judea was not part of the Roman empire. It was a client state. That is an autonomous country that is closely tied to Rome. Rome did not rule them. If Rome ruled them there would not have been a "King" Herod.

 

[dybmh]

I can see where you're coming from, and there is some scriptural validity to your argument.

Thank you.

However, the seed of Israel is not the same as the head, and the Holy Spirit, which emanates from the head and fills the body, comes from Christ.

Here is what it says in Ephesians 5:23:
'For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.'

So, Daniel is referring to the ascension of an individual, Jesus Christ, but the seed of Christ, born of his Holy Spirit, do become the priesthood that represents Christ on earth in the future millennium.

Still... Daniel 7:27.

Basically you can choose from 2:
If one considers it a vision in a cloud in a dream, then interpretation in verse 27 can be ignored. But whatever theory is proposed can't be considered reliable. Or, if one chooses to understand the details of the vision to be precisely what is captured in the text, then the explanation given in verse 27 needs to be read as precise and correct as well.

 

[dybmh]

Idolatry is defined, in a dictionary l have by Easton, as 'image-worship or divine honour paid to any created object.'

Easton adds, 'The forms of idolatry are:
1. Fetishism, or worship of trees, rivers, hills, stones, etc.
2. Nature worship, the worship of the sun, moon, and the stars, as the supposed powers of nature
3. Hero worship, the worship of deceased ancestors, or of heroes.'

The interpretation of many scriptures that l believe refer to Christ, such as Psalm 110:1, Jews will often claim as referring to prophets or 'fathers', who, to my understanding, are dead and awaiting resurrection. This is the case with Abraham, Moses, David and Isaiah, all of whom are subject to 'replacing' Christ as the subject of prophecy (according to Torah Jewish interpretation).

If idolatry is hero worship, and Torah Jews are guilty of hero worship, then this is idolatry, is it not?

So basically yes, but who has ever worshipped Abraham, Moses, David, or Isaiah? I've never seen or heard of such a thing. Is this coming from scripture? internet sources? commentary? It's a pretty major allegation.

I'll tell you what happens. In prayer ( or more technically leading up to prayer ) the liturgy quotes scripture, brings psalms, and speaks about the patriarchs and matriarchs as inspiring figures. But no one worships them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Redemptionsong , when it came to the paper that you never linked and claimed that it supported you it does not. Did you read it? If so you did not understand it. The article is about the history of the census in Rome and what led up to an Empire wide one. The examples that you gave were not the empire wide census. The first empire wide census was in 74 CE, by the way, this supports a later authorship of Luke Acts.

But let's get back to your source. He too knew that Luke screwed the pooch. He knew that the Census of Quirinius was not a second census. Talk about grasping at straw. As I pointed out to you many many times before Herod's son failed the Romans could not do a census. The first one was the census of Quirinius. Let's see what your article says about it:

"6 Actual responsibility for conducting the census generally lay with the emperor’s representatives, the provincial governors, who in turn relied on subordinates and local organs of government to see the process through.7 For example, during the well-known census of Syria and recentlyannexed Judaea ca. 6 CE, the assessment of the polis of Apamea was entrusted to a military prefect “on the orders of [P. Sulpicius] Quirinus,” the governor to whom Luke refers at the beginning of his work.8"

Do you see that line about "recently-annexed"? He knew that there could not be a census before that. I don't know what you think that the article was about but the title is rather clear. It is about the censuses in the provinces of Rome. In other words, countries on the outskirts that were now part of the Roman Empire. It appears that Egypt was part of the Empire at that time. Judea under Herod was not part of Rome. That is a different statue. It was as more than one source now (than you very much) not a province of Rome under Herod. It became a province in 5 CE which was why one of the first acts that Quirinius did after he arrived was to organize and hold a census. He was not there before because Judea was not a province.

Once again, Wikipedia is a useful site. If they got something like this wrong it would have been edited. At any rate they point out that the provinces are under Roman control. They were ruled by a governor. Like Quirinius. Judea became a province in 6 (sorry, I thought that it took them a year to get the census started) CE. Once again, that is 6 CE. When Quirinius first took over. The author of Luke got his census right for his myth. He apparently forgot the date.

The Roman provinces (Latin: provincia, pl. provinciae) were the administrative regions of Ancient Rome outside Roman Italy that were controlled by the Romans under the Roman Republic and later the Roman Empire. Each province was ruled by a Roman appointed as governor.[1]

• AD 6 – Judaea, imperial procuratorial province, created after deposition of ethnarch Herod Archelaus, formed initially from the territory of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea. Reverted to the status of client kingdom under king Herod Agrippa in AD 41 by Claudius and became province again after his death in AD 44, enlarged by territories of Galilee and Peraea; renamed Syria Palaestina by Hadrian in AD 135 and upgraded to proconsular province.

Under Tiberius

Roman province - Wikipedia

So there you have it. The author of Luke (almost certainly not Luke Paul's traveling companion) made a major mistake when he wrote his nativity myth.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Thank you.

Still... Daniel 7:27.

Basically you can choose from 2:
If one considers it a vision in a cloud in a dream, then interpretation in verse 27 can be ignored. But whatever theory is proposed can't be considered reliable. Or, if one chooses to understand the details of the vision to be precisely what is captured in the text, then the explanation given in verse 27 needs to be read as precise and correct as well.

The NT provides the answer, which is crystal clear.

Acts 1:9-11. 'And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven'.

If you take the words of Daniel at face value, then an individual 'man' approaches God in heaven, and is given dominion and a kingdom.

The return of the 'Son of man' must also be in the clouds from heaven. For Torah Jews this is not possible because their Messiah hasn't yet be born on earth, and isn't divine!

 

[Redemptionsong]

@Redemptionsong , when it came to the paper that you never linked and claimed that it supported you it does not. Did you read it? If so you did not understand it. The article is about the history of the census in Rome and what led up to an Empire wide one. The examples that you gave were not the empire wide census. The first empire wide census was in 74 CE, by the way, this supports a later authorship of Luke Acts.

But let's get back to your source. He too knew that Luke screwed the pooch. He knew that the Census of Quirinius was not a second census. Talk about grasping at straw. As I pointed out to you many many times before Herod's son failed the Romans could not do a census. The first one was the census of Quirinius. Let's see what your article says about it:

"6 Actual responsibility for conducting the census generally lay with the emperor’s representatives, the provincial governors, who in turn relied on subordinates and local organs of government to see the process through.7 For example, during the well-known census of Syria and recentlyannexed Judaea ca. 6 CE, the assessment of the polis of Apamea was entrusted to a military prefect “on the orders of [P. Sulpicius] Quirinus,” the governor to whom Luke refers at the beginning of his work.8"

Do you see that line about "recently-annexed"? He knew that there could not be a census before that. I don't know what you think that the article was about but the title is rather clear. It is about the censuses in the provinces of Rome. In other words, countries on the outskirts that were now part of the Roman Empire. It appears that Egypt was part of the Empire at that time. Judea under Herod was not part of Rome. That is a different statue. It was as more than one source now (than you very much) not a province of Rome under Herod. It became a province in 5 CE which was why one of the first acts that Quirinius did after he arrived was to organize and hold a census. He was not there before because Judea was not a province.

Once again, Wikipedia is a useful site. If they got something like this wrong it would have been edited. At any rate they point out that the provinces are under Roman control. They were ruled by a governor. Like Quirinius. Judea became a province in 6 (sorry, I thought that it took them a year to get the census started) CE. Once again, that is 6 CE. When Quirinius first took over. The author of Luke got his census right for his myth. He apparently forgot the date.

The Roman provinces (Latin: provincia, pl. provinciae) were the administrative regions of Ancient Rome outside Roman Italy that were controlled by the Romans under the Roman Republic and later the Roman Empire. Each province was ruled by a Roman appointed as governor.[1]

• AD 6 – Judaea, imperial procuratorial province, created after deposition of ethnarch Herod Archelaus, formed initially from the territory of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea. Reverted to the status of client kingdom under king Herod Agrippa in AD 41 by Claudius and became province again after his death in AD 44, enlarged by territories of Galilee and Peraea; renamed Syria Palaestina by Hadrian in AD 135 and upgraded to proconsular province.

Under Tiberius

Roman province - Wikipedia

So there you have it. The author of Luke (almost certainly not Luke Paul's traveling companion) made a major mistake when he wrote his nativity myth.

Responding on two threads to the same subject is pointless. You'll find my response on the other thread.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So basically yes, but who has ever worshipped Abraham, Moses, David, or Isaiah? I've never seen or heard of such a thing. Is this coming from scripture? internet sources? commentary? It's a pretty major allegation.

I'll tell you what happens. In prayer ( or more technically leading up to prayer ) the liturgy quotes scripture, brings psalms, and speaks about the patriarchs and matriarchs as inspiring figures. But no one worships them.

I accept that Torah Jews recite the Shema and claim to worship one God, and serve him alone. But if God has sent his own Son, and Jews reject that Son, then effectively they become idolatrous. Why? Because they now turn the salvation of God into a man. It is no longer Christ the Saviour, but Christ the man. How can you serve Christ the man, and claim him as your king?

When you read Psalm 110:1, who is it that sits at the right hand of God?

If you say to me, lt's Abraham, then l'll say to you, You're committing idolatry! You're making a man to sit upon the throne of God.

If you say, Ok, it's the Messiah; then l'll say to you, The Messiah is, therefore, both human and divine, because you cannot have a mediator 'of one'. A mediator must represent both God and man.

David, who wrote the Psalm, knew that he had a 'Lord', Christ, and a 'LORD', God in heaven (the Father).

 

[dybmh]

If you take the words of Daniel at face value, then an individual 'man' approaches God in heaven, and is given dominion and a kingdom.

a king represents a kingdom; it's very simple dream symbolism