• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

With bafflement upon bafflement!

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
No. It doesn't. You need to go deeper than that to be a scholar. If you were you would have known what I was talking about.

And to answer your question, when does Matthew have Jesus born? Roughly what year is what I would like to know.
If you read Matthew's Gospel, then you will know that it doesn't give a date. Various different systems of dating were in use at the time, and all are relative to specific events in history. This does not, however, prevent scholars from using all available evidence to suggest dates.
Here's an article by Greg Biltz, giving one such argument. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I believe the arguments presented by Biltz are persuasive. He suggests that Jesus was born on Tishri 15, 2 BCE.
The Mysteries of the Rosary: Dates of the birth and death of Jesus- Jewish Temple Priest Rotation- Courses of Priest from 70 AD to 4 BC
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If you read Matthew's Gospel, then you will know that it doesn't give a date. Various different systems of dating were in use at the time, and all are relative to specific events in history. This does not, however, prevent scholars from using all available evidence to suggest dates.
Here's an article by Greg Blitz, giving one such argument. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I believe the arguments presented by Blitz are persuasive. He suggests that Jesus was born on Tishri 15, 2 BCE.
The Mysteries of the Rosary: Dates of the birth and death of Jesus- Jewish Temple Priest Rotation- Courses of Priest from 70 AD to 4 BC
Close enough. Though most appear to think that it was more like 4 BC. But I will accept either one.

Luke has hm born about 6 CE 8 or 10 years later. And Luke did give a date, even if you do not realize it. That is what tells us that you are not a scholar of the Bible. Luke specifically mentions the Census of Quirinius and the date of that is well known. And it is also understood why it is that date.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
That certainly appears to be the case.
My starting point with the books of the bible is the same as I'd use for any other ancient document ─ what, when, where, who, why?
The conclusion I've reached, which is consistent with the historical approach I mentioned, and thus by no means a view confined to me, is that Jesus is nowhere mentioned in the Tanakh, that 'prophecy' was a tool employed by writers in the politics of the bible's world, and that folk tales and folk histories are not at all confined to the bible but are found in various forms across all ancient cultures who have left us records.
My view is unbiased, in the sense that my concern with the bible, as with any other ancient document, is to see what it actually says, and when it makes historical claims, to see how well those claims fit with the evidence of other ancient writers, and of archaeology, and so on. Within that frame I don't wish the bible to say any particular thing or to be silent about any particular thing. If it foresaw Jesus, I'd find that interesting, and certainly not a matter to be avoided. But of course it doesn't.

And as you know, when we use reasoned enquiry to explore and seek to understand the past, we use historical method. Thus supernatural claims in the bible are not of themselves more credible than supernatural claims of any other culture.
Because I'm familiar (in outline) with the evidence by which modern cosmology seeks to explore, describe and explain the nature and origins of the universe from examinable evidence; and with the facts and modern theory of evolution. Thus I understand the Genesis account to be another creation myth, dependent on magic (ie the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality). And as you know, the number of authenticated examples of magic is presently zero.

Creation myths and stories of magic illuminate our understanding of the various cultural strands of ancient thought. They don't illuminate our modern understanding of the physical or biological sciences as such.

Here's a link (which I posted some time ago) to the >cosmology of the bible<. You'll note that it contains no concept of heliocentry, gravity, orbits, the nature of stars or planets or satellites, no understanding of deep space or galaxies, the cosmic microwave background radiation, on and on ─ and why should we expect anything else? It's basically the cosmology of Babylon in the first millennium BCE.
The Bible states that God created the heaven and the earth, and we take it from there. What Jewish thinking reveals, both in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, is that the days of God's creation, as mentioned in Genesis 1, are intended as a prologue for the life of the earth from the time of Adam. From Adam until the end of the Millennial Sabbath is a period of seven thousand earthly years [see Talmud: Sanhedrin 97b]. From a Christian perspective on the Bible, this means Adam to Abraham is about 2000 years; Abraham to Jesus another 2000; and from Jesus to our present time, 2000 years. The final 1000 years is what the Bible describes as the Millennium reign of Christ [Revelation 20].

What you have failed to explain is how the universe came into being. And I know that you have no way of pronouncing authoritatively on an issue that goes back before time and space.

This is why your approach to the Bible is immediately subject to bias. You have determined that God cannot have created the heaven and earth, but your arguments are directed at particular (creationist) interpretations of time in scripture.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The Bible states that God created the heaven and the earth, and we take it from there. What Jewish thinking reveals, both in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, is that the days of God's creation, as mentioned in Genesis 1, are intended as a prologue for the life of the earth from the time of Adam. From Adam until the end of the Millennial Sabbath is a period of seven thousand earthly years [see Talmud: Sanhedrin 97b]. From a Christian perspective on the Bible, this means Adam to Abraham is about 2000 years; Abraham to Jesus another 2000; and from Jesus to our present time, 2000 years. The final 1000 years is what the Bible describes as the Millennium reign of Christ [Revelation 20].

What you have failed to explain is how the universe came into being. And I know that you have no way of pronouncing authoritatively on an issue that goes back before time and space.

This is why your approach to the Bible is immediately subject to bias. You have determined that God cannot have created the heaven and earth, but your arguments are directed at particular (creationist) interpretations of time in scripture.
That is not a 'Christian perspective'. Most Christians do not believe that time table. Worldwide most Christians accept the fact of evolution. Genesis is not a book that a Christian needs to take literally.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Close enough. Though most appear to think that it was more like 4 BC. But I will accept either one.

Luke has hm born about 6 CE 8 or 10 years later. And Luke did give a date, even if you do not realize it. That is what tells us that you are not a scholar of the Bible. Luke specifically mentions the Census of Quirinius and the date of that is well known. And it is also understood why it is that date.
I have written at length about this subject, and if you read the article above you will see that Biltz mentions it as well. Josephus provides us with all the evidence needed to show authoritatively that Jesus could not have been born in 6 CE, at the time Archelaus was banished from Judea. Luke specifically states that Jesus was born in the days of Herod, king of Judea.

Do you think that Jesus' mother, Mary, who was alive at the crucifixion in 33 CE, would not have given testimony to the birth of her own son? Once again, this is irrational thinking!
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
see Talmud: Sanhedrin 97b
This is hilarious! Have you actually read this? You didn't provide a link, you didn't show the text... How sly, how cunning. Boo Hisssssss, the serpent rises again... Don't you know that this refutes the need for Jesus?

Rabbi Eliezer says: If the Jewish people repent they are redeemed, as it is stated: “Return, wayward children, I will heal your iniquities” (Jeremiah 3:22).

Sanhedrin 97b:15
And there's other verses that Rabbi Eliezer brings to support this idea. Jesus isn't needed! Since you cite this Talmud as authoritative, I guess you must accept it in its entirety. Unless of course you're cherry picking and hiding it.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
That is not a 'Christian perspective'. Most Christians do not believe that time table. Worldwide most Christians accept the fact of evolution. Genesis is not a book that a Christian needs to take literally.
Your unwillingness to study the Bible carefully is evident once again.

Turn to 2 Peter 3:8 and you will find these words spoken by the apostle:
'But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.'
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
This is hilarious! Have you actually read this? You didn't provide a link, you didn't show the text... How sly, how cunning. Don't you know that this refutes the need for Jesus?

Rabbi Eliezer says: If the Jewish people repent they are redeemed, as it is stated: “Return, wayward children, I will heal your iniquities” (Jeremiah 3:22).

Sanhedrin 97b:15
And there's other verses that Rabbi Eliezer brings to support this idea. Jesus isn't needed! Since you cite this Talmud as authoritative, I guess you must accept it in it's entirety. Unless of course you're cherry picking and hiding it.
You're missing my point. I said that it was Jewish belief, and I have not just demonstrated from the Talmud, but from Peter's epistle in the New Testament. The belief in a day as a thousand years is an interpretation from scripture. What the discussions in the Talmud demonstrate is that the rabbis disagreed about when the Messiah would arrive.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I have written at length about this subject, and if you read the article above you will see that Biltz mentions it as well. Josephus provides us with all the evidence needed to show authoritatively that Jesus could not have been born in 6 CE, at the time Archelaus was banished from Judea. Luke specifically states that Jesus was born in the days of Herod, king of Judea.

Do you think that Jesus' mother, Mary, who was alive at the crucifixion in 33 CE, would not have given testimony to the birth of her own son? Once again, this is irrational thinking!
No, you have that backwards. Historians know where Quirinius was and when. Your sources appear to be lying to you. Worse yet Josephus is one of the main sources for the dating of the Census of Quirinius.

Also if you understood anything at all about censuses you would know why that story is make believe. Both nativities are clearly fiction, but the one in Luke failed far worse than that one in Matthew.

And yes. Luke really screwed the pooch since it appears that he has Mary pregnant for ten years.

The author of Luke (probably not the Luke mentioned as a companion of Paul) was not a historian. And he got his history very very wrong. The author of Luke knew the geography of the area at that time. For some odd reason apologists seem to think that makes him a "historian".

So we have one clear contradiction. Do you need more?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Your unwillingness to study the Bible carefully is evident once again.

Turn to 2 Peter 3:8 and you will find these words spoken by the apostle:
'But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.'
I am willing to study it honestly. You do not appear to be willing to do so. it is not proper to twist the Bible so that it matches your beliefs.

As to your quote mine: So what?

You are ignoring the fact that most Christians do not share your beliefs. That means that it is incorrect to label them as 'Christian beliefs'. You are a Christian and they are your beliefs, but other people are also Christians and they will tell you that those particular beliefs are wrong.

EDIT: Also 2 Peter, almost certainly not written by Peter.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You're missing my point. I said that it was Jewish belief, and I have not just demonstrated from the Talmud, but from Peter's epistle in the New Testament. The belief in a day as a thousand years is an interpretation from scripture. What the discussions in the Talmud demonstrate is that the rabbis disagreed about when the Messiah would arrive.
That would be Peter's belief. Peter was a Jew, but that does not mean that it was a belief of all Jews.

You are using what is called a black and white fallacy.

By the way, you seem to have forgotten about 2 Tim 3 16.

That could not have been about the New Testament at all. The New Testament did not exist at that time.

Oh wait. I just realized. You may have a valid point . It is dubious that that was written by Paul. It could have been written as late as 140 CE.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
You're missing my point. I said that it was Jewish belief, and I have not just demonstrated from the Talmud, but from Peter's epistle in the New Testament. The belief in a day as a thousand years is an interpretation from scripture. What the discussions in the Talmud demonstrate is that the rabbis disagreed about when the Messiah would arrive.
What it demonstrates is lack of academic integrity. If you believe the Rabbis of the Talmud that a day is a thousand years, then you also need to agree with the Rabbis when they say that the Jewish Messiah has not arrived and MOST important, no one needs to die for our sins to be forgiven. Especially when these statements are sepereated by a few lines.

The quoted section of Talmud refutes Christianity in its entirety.

To avoid the problem, simply quote Paul and leave the Talmud out of your mess.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Bible states that God created the heaven and the earth, and we take it from there.
"In the beginning, Eurynome, the Goddess of All Things, rose naked from Chaos, but found nothing substantial for her feet to rest upon, and therefore divided the sea from the sky, dancing lonely upon its waves. She danced towards the south, and the wind set in motion behind her seemed something new and apart with which to begin a work of creation. Wheeling about, she caught hold of this north wind, rubbed it between her hands, and behold! the great serpent Ophion. Eurynome danced to warm herself, wildly and more wildly, until Ophion, grown lustful, coiled about those divine limbs and was moved to couple with her. Now, the North Wind, who is also called Boreas, fertilizes; which is why mares often turn their hind-quarters to the wind and breed foals without aid of a stallion. So Eurynome was likewise got with child.

Next, she assumed the form of a dove, brooding on the waves and, in due process of time, laid the Universal Egg. At her bidding, Ophion coiled seven times about this egg, until it hatched and split in two. Out tumbled all things that exist, her children: sun, moon, planets, stars, the earth with its mountains and rivers, its trees, herbs, and living creatures.

Eurynome and Ophion made their home upon Mount Olympus, where he vexed her by claiming to be the author of the Universe. Forthwith she bruised his head with her heel, kicked out his teeth, and banished him to the dark caves below the earth.

Next, the goddess created the seven planetary powers, setting a Titaness and a Titan over each. Theia and Hyperion for the Sun; Phoebe and Atlas for the Moon; Dione and Crius for the planet Mars; Metis and Cocus for the planet Mercury; Themis and Eurymedon for the planet Jupiter; Tethys and Oceanus for Venus; Rhea and Cronus for the planet Saturn. But the first man was Pelasgus, ancestor of the Pelasgians; he sprang from the soil of Arcadia, followed by certain others, whom he taught to make huts and feed upon acorns, and sew pig-skin tunics such as poor folk still wear in Euboea and Phocis."
So said the Pelasgians, among the ancient Greeks. Why don't we take it from there instead? What fault, if any, do you find with that tale, other than it's not the one you prefer?

You'll have noticed that I prefer to enquire into the nature of the universe and the possibilities of its origins by skeptical reasoned enquiry, the specialty of cosmology, which as you know proceeds by scientific method, which is empirical and inductive.
What Jewish thinking reveals, both in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, is that the days of God's creation, as mentioned in Genesis 1, are intended as a prologue for the life of the earth from the time of Adam. From Adam until the end of the Millennial Sabbath is a period of seven thousand earthly years [see Talmud: Sanhedrin 97b]. From a Christian perspective on the Bible, this means Adam to Abraham is about 2000 years; Abraham to Jesus another 2000; and from Jesus to our present time, 2000 years. The final 1000 years is what the Bible describes as the Millennium reign of Christ [Revelation 20].
But what the examinable evidence tells us is that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that the universe is at least 13.8 bn years old, and that life has existed on earth since between 3.5 and 4 bn years ago.
What you have failed to explain is how the universe came into being. And I know that you have no way of pronouncing authoritatively on an issue that goes back before time and space.
Yes, but rather than being persuaded that Eurynome, the Goddess of All Things, created All Things, I'm more interested in how it actually happened. And at this point of time we don't know (and when I say 'we', I include all religions). But we're interested enough in the topic to put the James Webb up in the sky to tell us more, in succession to the Hubble. It was science, not any religion*, that put men on the moon and rovers on Mars and put Voyager 1 on the far side of the heliopause. Not even the concept of such things existed when the bible was written.

* But an argument can be made that empiricism and skeptical enquiry historically trace their origins back to the ancient Greeks.
This is why your approach to the Bible is immediately subject to bias. You have determined that God cannot have created the heaven and earth, but your arguments are directed at particular (creationist) interpretations of time in scripture.
No, my "bias" is for reasoned skeptical enquiry, hence in this case for scientific method.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
No, you have that backwards. Historians know where Quirinius was and when. Your sources appear to be lying to you. Worse yet Josephus is one of the main sources for the dating of the Census of Quirinius.

Also if you understood anything at all about censuses you would know why that story is make believe. Both nativities are clearly fiction, but the one in Luke failed far worse than that one in Matthew.

And yes. Luke really screwed the pooch since it appears that he has Mary pregnant for ten years.

The author of Luke (probably not the Luke mentioned as a companion of Paul) was not a historian. And he got his history very very wrong. The author of Luke knew the geography of the area at that time. For some odd reason apologists seem to think that makes him a "historian".

So we have one clear contradiction. Do you need more?
Your reasoning is faulty, yet you cannot admit it.

Luke specifically mentions the taxing that took place in Judea when the Romans took over Judea from Archelaus in 6CE. In Acts 5:36,37 he records the speech of Gamaliel, who said, 'For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nought.
After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.'

So Gamaliel, a Jewish Pharisee, made this statement about a taxing during which Judas of Galilee started a rebellion. Can this bit of history be corroborated? Well, thanks to Josephus, it can.

Let's now turn to Josephus' '. Here, Book XX, ch.5, section 2, it says, 'Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which Queen Helena brought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those in want, as l have related already ; and besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; l mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take account of the estates of the Jews, as we have shown in a foregoing book.'

In the 'foregoing book', which is book XVIll, Josephus tells us much more about the events of 6 CE. He says, in chapter 1, section 1, 'Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take account of their substance: Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews.'

Josephus then goes on to tell us about the uprising under Judas, who said 'that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery.'

Hence, we have the corroborating evidence that Luke knew about the census of 6 CE, and the uprising that took place under Judas of Galilee.

Now, unlike your baseless claims, this is the actual evidence that Cyrenius, also called Quirinius, must have been involved in conducting more that one census.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
"In the beginning, Eurynome, the Goddess of All Things, rose naked from Chaos, but found nothing substantial for her feet to rest upon, and therefore divided the sea from the sky, dancing lonely upon its waves. She danced towards the south, and the wind set in motion behind her seemed something new and apart with which to begin a work of creation. Wheeling about, she caught hold of this north wind, rubbed it between her hands, and behold! the great serpent Ophion. Eurynome danced to warm herself, wildly and more wildly, until Ophion, grown lustful, coiled about those divine limbs and was moved to couple with her. Now, the North Wind, who is also called Boreas, fertilizes; which is why mares often turn their hind-quarters to the wind and breed foals without aid of a stallion. So Eurynome was likewise got with child.

Next, she assumed the form of a dove, brooding on the waves and, in due process of time, laid the Universal Egg. At her bidding, Ophion coiled seven times about this egg, until it hatched and split in two. Out tumbled all things that exist, her children: sun, moon, planets, stars, the earth with its mountains and rivers, its trees, herbs, and living creatures.

Eurynome and Ophion made their home upon Mount Olympus, where he vexed her by claiming to be the author of the Universe. Forthwith she bruised his head with her heel, kicked out his teeth, and banished him to the dark caves below the earth.

Next, the goddess created the seven planetary powers, setting a Titaness and a Titan over each. Theia and Hyperion for the Sun; Phoebe and Atlas for the Moon; Dione and Crius for the planet Mars; Metis and Cocus for the planet Mercury; Themis and Eurymedon for the planet Jupiter; Tethys and Oceanus for Venus; Rhea and Cronus for the planet Saturn. But the first man was Pelasgus, ancestor of the Pelasgians; he sprang from the soil of Arcadia, followed by certain others, whom he taught to make huts and feed upon acorns, and sew pig-skin tunics such as poor folk still wear in Euboea and Phocis."
So said the Pelasgians, among the ancient Greeks. Why don't we take it from there instead? What fault, if any, do you find with that tale, other than it's not the one you prefer?

You'll have noticed that I prefer to enquire into the nature of the universe and the possibilities of its origins by skeptical reasoned enquiry, the specialty of cosmology, which as you know proceeds by scientific method, which is empirical and inductive.
But what the examinable evidence tells us is that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that the universe is at least 13.8 bn years old, and that life has existed on earth since between 3.5 and 4 bn years ago.
Yes, but rather than being persuaded that Eurynome, the Goddess of All Things, created All Things, I'm more interested in how it actually happened. And at this point of time we don't know (and when I say 'we', I include all religions). But we're interested enough in the topic to put the James Webb up in the sky to tell us more, in succession to the Hubble. It was science, not any religion*, that put men on the moon and rovers on Mars and put Voyager 1 on the far side of the heliopause. Not even the concept of such things existed when the bible was written.

* But an argument can be made that empiricism and skeptical enquiry historically trace their origins back to the ancient Greeks.
No, my "bias" is for reasoned skeptical enquiry, hence in this case for scientific method.
The Biblical text tells us about a time that pre-exists the myths that you quote.

The genealogies of the Bible take us back to the origins of the Adamic race, and this pre-dates the generations of the sons of Noah [see Genesis 10].

Your myths are all post-Noah. Yet, archaeology has proven much of the text of Genesis 10 to be correct. There was a kingdom at Babel, and there were cities at Erech, Accad and Ninevah. And geographical place names provide clues to the ancient origins of the descendants of Noah's sons.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Biblical text tells us about a time that pre-exists the myths that you quote.

The genealogies of the Bible take us back to the origins of the Adamic race, and this pre-dates the generations of the sons of Noah [see Genesis 10].

Your myths are all post-Noah. Yet, archaeology has proven much of the text of Genesis 10 to be correct. There was a kingdom at Babel, and there were cities at Erech, Accad and Ninevah. And geographical place names provide clues to the ancient origins of the descendants of Noah's sons.
There's a big problem with that. We know from evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that the earliest life on earth we can date takes us back at least 3.5 bn years, and perhaps a great deal more. We know from the fossil record that animals with backbones existed more than 500 million years ago, four-legged critters existed at the least by 375 mya, proto-reptiles on dry land were breathing air by 325 mya, mammals existed for sure by 200 mya, there were placental animals by 160 mya, our branch of the monkey line (proto-chimps, bonobos and gorillas) were around by 4 mya, homo sap by 2 mya, and modern homo sap sap over the last 200,000 years or so, with an apparent boost 100,000 - 70,000 years ago.

We also find from genetic studies that "mitochondrial Eve", the woman from whom all modern humans are descended, lived about 150,000 years ago, and "Y-chromosomal Adam", the male from whom all modern humans are descended, lived at least 200,000 years ago ie by no means necessarily at the same time or in the same group.

So we can say with confidence there was no Creation, no Garden, no naming of the animals. There was, though, the very human curiosity about how it all started and where humans came from, which is why we find virtually all cultures have a creation story of some kind.

But if you're cool with your position, and not curious about whether it's factual or not, who's to argue? I trust we can agree that the more important thing for humans is to do no harm and treat others with decency and respect and inclusion.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
What it demonstrates is lack of academic integrity. If you believe the Rabbis of the Talmud that a day is a thousand years, then you also need to agree with the Rabbis when they say that the Jewish Messiah has not arrived and MOST important, no one needs to die for our sins to be forgiven. Especially when these statements are sepereated by a few lines.

The quoted section of Talmud refutes Christianity in its entirety.

To avoid the problem, simply quote Paul and leave the Talmud out of your mess.
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.

Here is part of the discussion, which l quote from the Soncino Talmud, compiled by Dr Judah J. Slotki and first published in 1952.
Nezikin 3, Sanhedrin 97a-97b:
'R.Kattina said: Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. Abaye said: lt will be desolate two [thousand], as it is said, After two days will he revive us: in the third day , he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. (Hosea 6:2)
It has been taught in accordance with R.Kattina: Just as the seventh year is one year of release in seven, so is the world: one thousand years out of seven shall be fallow, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day, and it is further said, A Psalm and song for the Sabbath day, meaning the day that is altogether Sabbath - and it is also said, For a thousand years in thy sight are us as yesterday when it is past.
The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.

Elijah said to Rab Judah, the brother of R.Salla the Pious: 'The world shall exist not less than eighty five jubilees, and in the last jubilee the son of David will come'. He asked him, 'At the beginning or at the end? - He replied. 'I do not know.' Shall [this period] be completed or not? - 'l do not know, ' he answered. R.Ashi said: He spoke thus to him, 'Before that, do not expect him, afterwards thou mayest await him.'

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?

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

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
There's a big problem with that. We know from evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and that the earliest life on earth we can date takes us back at least 3.5 bn years, and perhaps a great deal more. We know from the fossil record that animals with backbones existed more than 500 million years ago, four-legged critters existed at the least by 375 mya, proto-reptiles on dry land were breathing air by 325 mya, mammals existed for sure by 200 mya, there were placental animals by 160 mya, our branch of the monkey line (proto-chimps, bonobos and gorillas) were around by 4 mya, homo sap by 2 mya, and modern homo sap sap over the last 200,000 years or so, with an apparent boost 100,000 - 70,000 years ago.

We also find from genetic studies that "mitochondrial Eve", the woman from whom all modern humans are descended, lived about 150,000 years ago, and "Y-chromosomal Adam", the male from whom all modern humans are descended, lived at least 200,000 years ago ie by no means necessarily at the same time or in the same group.

So we can say with confidence there was no Creation, no Garden, no naming of the animals. There was, though, the very human curiosity about how it all started and where humans came from, which is why we find virtually all cultures have a creation story of some kind.

But if you're cool with your position, and not curious about whether it's factual or not, who's to argue? I trust we can agree that the more important thing for humans is to do no harm and treat others with decency and respect and inclusion.
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.

The message of the Bible is that all men are sinners, and there can be no hope of peace until sinful inclinations are replaced by the Spirit of holiness. Wealth, power and sex are all attractions of the flesh.

How can the flesh be subdued? How can people without a holy spirit hope to get one? And where does the Holy Spirit come from?

These are questions answered by the Bible.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Your reasoning is faulty, yet you cannot admit it.

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


Luke specifically mentions the taxing that took place in Judea when the Romans took over Judea from Archelaus in 6CE. In Acts 5:36,37 he records the speech of Gamaliel, who said, 'For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nought.
After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.'

So Gamaliel, a Jewish Pharisee, made this statement about a taxing during which Judas of Galilee started a rebellion. Can this bit of history be corroborated? Well, thanks to Josephus, it can.

Let's now turn to Josephus' '. Here, Book XX, ch.5, section 2, it says, 'Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which Queen Helena brought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those in want, as l have related already ; and besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; l mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take account of the estates of the Jews, as we have shown in a foregoing book.'

In the 'foregoing book', which is book XVIll, Josephus tells us much more about the events of 6 CE. He says, in chapter 1, section 1, 'Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take account of their substance: Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews.'

Josephus then goes on to tell us about the uprising under Judas, who said 'that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery.'

Hence, we have the corroborating evidence that Luke knew about the census of 6 CE, and the uprising that took place under Judas of Galilee.

Now, unlike your baseless claims, this is the actual evidence that Cyrenius, also called Quirinius, must have been involved in conducting more that one census.


gif.gif


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.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The Biblical text tells us about a time that pre-exists the myths that you quote.

The genealogies of the Bible take us back to the origins of the Adamic race, and this pre-dates the generations of the sons of Noah [see Genesis 10].

Your myths are all post-Noah. Yet, archaeology has proven much of the text of Genesis 10 to be correct. There was a kingdom at Babel, and there were cities at Erech, Accad and Ninevah. And geographical place names provide clues to the ancient origins of the descendants of Noah's sons.
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.
 
Top