According to Matthew, Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the King. Herod is supposedly to order all the kids born in that timeframe to be killed (Oh. btw, the Gospel of Matthew is the only source for this accustation, no other source for this story exists). Herod the King died in 4 B.C.E.
According to Luke, Jesus was born during the census that happened when Quintarsis first became govenor of Syria. Judeah first became part of the providence of Syria in the same year. That year was 6. C.E. Before that time, Juddah was supposedly an independant kingdon, and Rome did not have the authority to conduct a census.
So, which year was Jesus born? During the reign of Herod the king< or when Judah had a census when it first became part of the providence of Syria? There is a 10 year historical gap in there.
This message has been edited by ramoss, 12-11-2004 10:27 AM
This message has been edited by ramoss, 12-11-2004 10:30 AM
Have you read any apologetic attempts at explaining that 10 year gap away? I'm wondering what the general approaches are? I'd guess to fuss with the datings.
Well, the basic one is to say that Quintiliuswas actuallygovenor to Syria twice, (Based on a tablet that mentioned a mentioned someone that MIGHT fit into a govenor of syria, but whose name has been destroyed.).
However, there is no evidence that Quintilius was actually govenor of Syria twice, nor would the Roman empire have the authority to ask for a census in Judah before 6 C.E. So, as I said, I have seen no apologist 'explaination' that makes any kind of sense. It is enough that many latch on to the non-explaination to save their face for them.
Why , they even bring out the idea of someone coin that alledgedly has information in micro-engraving on the coins edge to 'prove' that. However, there are no pictures of the coin, just the person who alledgely found it's hand drawing of it!
With less than 100 posts left, I still have not been shown an "offer" that would disown the Jewish people because everyone or their leaders did not repent and/or did not believe that Jesus was the messiah.
As shown in Message 197 I found no evidence that even those who did repent, changed from the normal Jewish practices. The fact that around 80-90AD the Jews had to add the 12th petition to discern who were Nazarenes, shows they were not obvious by their worship practices.
Tentative Conclusion: After they received the Holy Spirit, the apostles did, according to the author, reveal that Jesus was the messiah after his death, they did teach that the prophets spoke of Jesus and what he was to endure, they did not appear confused as to the message they were supposed to spread, and the apostles still preached the message of repent and be baptized. They also continued their practice of temple Judaism.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
So Jesus gave Paul the authority to bring the name of Jesus before the Gentiles etc.
Not quite the same as speaking for God and declaring Judaism obsolete.
OK, so Paul said that the Jews refused Jesus...We have discussed your belief that Paul was trying to create a new religion. The Dispensationalists say that God reveals more of Himself through scripture in time.
Stam writes:
, God has revealed truth to man, not all at once, but a little at a time, historically. Noah knew more of God's revelation than Adam, Abraham than Noah, Moses than Abraham, the twelve than Moses, Paul than the twelve.
Of course, you will then resort to your belief that the Bible was written by man and that humans made up all of this! I like the idea that God has revealed a bit more of Himself to each generation throughout History. Comments?
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
Of course, you will then resort to your belief that the Bible was written by man and that humans made up all of this! I like the idea that God has revealed a bit more of Himself to each generation throughout History. Comments?
Not quite. I will resort to the actual evidence instead of my belief and let the conclusion be determined by the evidence not what I like.
The whole "the Jews rejected God's offer" gambit only makes the God character small and picayune; petty and mean.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
