Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, Mercury in Libra, Jupiter in Aires or something in Virgo. I am astonished at reputable astronomers coming up with celestial conjunctions as the 'Star of Bethlehem'. I must doubt that anything could conjunct in the skies so as to send wise men scuttling off to Judea in search of a new born Messiah, much less with intent to 'worship; him.
The Matthew story is silly, as I have explained, and attempts to link the moving star, a single light that led the way to Bethlehem and indicated a particular house, with a conjuction of stars and planets suggests that some astronomers should attend to their telescopes and leave explanations of Bible nonsense to those with the ability to understand what they read.
Well of course! It was all made up by the writers of the New Testament in order to discredit Christ!
I have already shown that Paul says he escaped Damascus to avoid the Nabatean army. Acts (Luke) lies as he says it was to avoid a Jewish plot to kill him. Luke (Acts) gets his insurgents the wrong way round. Theudas came after Judas, not before. I have explained this before and if you refuse to listen it is your credibility that is shot, not mine.
Don't you ever get tired of being shown up to be wrong all the time?
Oh how did Christianity not see this for 2000 years?! We have AREQUIPA to thank for showing us how Luke purposely lied in order to discredit Christ and give a very very bad name to Christendom. Of course! It all makes sense . . . to one whose brain no longer functions.
Next thing you will tell us is that Jesus was an atheist!
Yes, Mercury in Libra, Jupiter in Aires or something in Virgo. I am astonished at reputable astronomers coming up with celestial conjunctions as the 'Star of Bethlehem'. I must doubt that anything could conjunct in the skies so as to send wise men scuttling off to Judea in search of a new born Messiah, much less with intent to 'worship; him.
The Matthew story is silly, as I have explained, and attempts to link the moving star, a single light that led the way to Bethlehem and indicated a particular house, with a conjuction of stars and planets suggests that some astronomers should attend to their telescopes and leave explanations of Bible nonsense to those with the ability to understand what they read.
Elsewhere I referenced a book that describes a rather more reasonable scenario involving a series of uncommon celestial events. It could very well add up to astronomers/astrologers (same thing in those days) from Babylon going to Jerusalem looking for the new born King of the Jews. I am not going to try to defend that speculation (as even the astronomer author calls it) because the book is not readily available to me and I do not recall all the details.
But if this were actually the case, the Magi would have come out of curiosity, not to worship. They would have been familiar with Jewish ideas from the Jewish community that remained behind in Babylon after the Captivity and was still thriving at that time. But nothing in Jewish scriptures indicates that the Messiah was to be worshiped.
Something that suggests that Matthew may have used records from Babylonian astronomers is that he gives no scriptural source for the Magi story. Matthew is fanatical about referencing scripture at every opportunity. Like I said elsewhere, I find this story to be the most believable part of Matthew's nativity story. Which I guess is not saying all that much.
Well of course! It was all made up by the writers of the New Testament in order to discredit Christ!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Oh how did Christianity not see this for 2000 years?! We have AREQUIPA to thank for showing us how Luke purposely lied in order to discredit Christ and give a very very bad name to Christendom. Of course! It all makes sense . . . to one whose brain no longer functions.
Next thing you will tell us is that Jesus was an atheist!
Your cheap sarcasm is not only doing you no good but is against Tos. Luke was making an effort to concoct a historically feasible mechanism for a Galilean to be born in Bethlehem. We have information or understanding now about political conditions and chronology that casts serious doubt on it. Matthew is happy with miracles. As we saw, people still seem willing to sideline plain Biblewritten miracles in trying to make it look believable, like a conjunction of stars when the thing plainly trundled along fifty or feet above the ground (at least when it got to Bethlehem).
Don't ask me (1)why Luke wrote a total falsehood that could be seen by anyone who compared Acts with Paul. But it is there, plain to be seen. I would just like to know why nobody else, including you, with your impressive Bible knowledge (which is one of the things about your debate that does impress me) failed to see and so did 2,000 years of Bible scholars, apparently. Why was it Arq who pointed it out? I have got to bite the bullet and say: somebody had to do this first. Believers did not want to see contradictions and unbelievers were content to compile lists of them and argued a number of good points, but Arq seems to be the first to have put the whole thing together in a way that shows how the Gospel -writers worked, and therefore who they were, why they wrote as they did and therefor what the gospels (and Jesus) are and what they are not. If anyone else has done this, I haven't heard of it.
(1) oh go on...ask me.. I think it is because Luke let his hatred of Jews get the better of him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
Roma had it's own ideas about who Aries was, and that's why they depicted the coin.
....
The rest deleted as it looks to me like pretty free interpretation - too free to really be taken as evidence. Just to start establishing a credible base, please establish that "Roma" hd its own ideas about who Aires was. If it was a messiah, or even a Jewish royal pretender, I shall be astonished.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-04-2014 at 04:00 AM..
Elsewhere I referenced a book that describes a rather more reasonable scenario involving a series of uncommon celestial events. It could very well add up to astronomers/astrologers (same thing in those days) from Babylon going to Jerusalem looking for the new born King of the Jews. I am not going to try to defend that speculation (as even the astronomer author calls it) because the book is not readily available to me and I do not recall all the details.
But if this were actually the case, the Magi would have come out of curiosity, not to worship. They would have been familiar with Jewish ideas from the Jewish community that remained behind in Babylon after the Captivity and was still thriving at that time. But nothing in Jewish scriptures indicates that the Messiah was to be worshiped.
Something that suggests that Matthew may have used records from Babylonian astronomers is that he gives no scriptural source for the Magi story. Matthew is fanatical about referencing scripture at every opportunity. Like I said elsewhere, I find this story to be the most believable part of Matthew's nativity story. Which I guess is not saying all that much.
Matthew2
1. Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”
Matthew says this. Worship. Maybe we could look up the Greek and find what it literally means, but curiosity it ain't. This is all of a piece with trying to make a mobile star into a conjunction of planets. It is not only not feasible anyway, but is rewriting the Bible to try to get over glaring problems by making them look at least credible.
The reason Matthew doesn't reference scripture is not a toughie. He made the whole thing up, reference it TO the scriptures about the messiah but not basing it on prophecy because he had to invent the whole scenario to get Jesus out of Judea and into Nazareth as opposed to Luke who has to get Jesus out of Nazareth and into Bethlehem.
Of course, Matthew does this by sending Jesus into Egypt in order to avoid Herod (incidentally, it is not generally realized, but this is placed a year or two after the birth (1) possibly because of this Moses -identification that you pointed up very usefully.
But Matthew soon digs out some bits of scripture to hang onto his story. 2 15.'out of Egypt I have called my son' and 2.18 a supposed prediction of the Herodian massacre, which really does require the eye of retrospective prophetic faith in order to see a text relating to the destruction of the two tribe state of Israel by Assyria as anything to do with a massacre of children that almost certainly is not historically true.
Matthew is a bit clumsy in his plot, since an angel comes to tell Joseph that it is safe to return to Judea. Well, plainly that won't do as he obviously intends to return to his own city, Bethlehem (as distinct from Joseph's own city in Luke's nativity - Nazareth) and Matthew needs to get Joseph into Galilee. So to avoid the Herodian tetrarch Archelaus, Matthew has a dream warning to go to Galilee, ruled by the Herodian tetrarch Antipas, but this frying -pan -to -fire solution doesn't bother Matthew who signs off with a relieved sigh 'That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets "He shall be called a Nazarene".
Which it wasn't as is well known unless one references Sampson taking a Nazirite vow which is really utterly irrelevant to where Jesus lived.
Matthew may have felt that he has got past all his problems, but in fact, they are only just beginning. because Jesus has returned after Herod's death (4 BC) only to find Archelaus running the place. So Joseph takes Jesus (around 2 or more years old when Herod dies(1) to Galilee. About ten years later, when Jesus is about twelve and has already (according to Luke) told his Parents that they should have realized that he should be in the temple teaching the priests their business rather than going with them back to Nazareth, Archelaus is removed, Judea is made a roman province and Quirinus, Roman governor of Syria, sends Coponius (if memory serves me correctly) to carry out a tax -census of Judea and for some reason Joseph in Galilee, to which the tax did not apply, decides to take along his pregnant wife to his ancestral town to register for this tax. And there she gives birth to..well, not Jesus, who is still practicing dovetail joints in Nazareth, but one of the other of his brethren or sisters.
This is of course why Tertullian suggested that there had to be (and this is taken by Biblical apologists as his certain knowledge) an earlier census carried out in Herod's time, which would not only reconcile Luke's dating with Matthew's but would apply the census to the whole kingdom, including Galilee. Though it would not make that daft trek back to Bethlehem, taking along Mary, unwilling or sinlessly whining to be taken along, any less pointless.
But the problem there is that no census - based tax is known in Herod's time and Quirinus was not governor. Tertullian knows this, but the argument goes that the Syrian governor is not actually mentioned but (whoever actually organized this secret census for Herod) it was before (2) Quirinus was appointed governor of Syria.
But, as I said, what an odd thing to say - as daft as referring to a 'Gettysburg address' made (unknown to history) during the revolutionary war before Lincoln became president (3). Of course it is more reasonable to suppose this is the one made during the civil war and trying to relate it to 1776 is merely to satisfy some unfeasible theory.
That unfeasible theory is a secret census carried out for Herod by the Romans of which Josephus knew nothing, but Joseph and everyone else did and acted like there was nothing secret about it. It is more likely, given the 'Nazareth or Bethlehem town of residence' and other contradictions, that the two stories contradict on date as well. Matthew has Jesus born in 4 BC or earlier and Luke in 6 AD or later. because of course, if this was the first carried out in Judea (the 6 AD census) then how long it took or how often they were held after that (both "arguments" that have been presented to me) is utterly irrelevant.
Thank you for your patience and attention. There will be a silver collection at the door.
(1) because that is why Herod asks the apparently pointless question of when the star appeared. The reply is why he targets two year olds instead of new-born.
(2) greek 'pro' can, as well as 'when ' or 'while' also mean 'before'.
(3) in order to make the analogy quite clear, the historian would of course have said who DID make this 18th century address rather than who didn't.
P.s And in case anyone thinks I don't find this Christmas cagmag -story charming as well as totally unworkable,....let me indulge meself yet again...
Matthew2
1. Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”
Matthew says this. Worship. Maybe we could look up the Greek and find what it literally means, but curiosity it ain't. This is all of a piece with trying to make a mobile star into a conjunction of planets. It is not only not feasible anyway, but is rewriting the Bible to try to get over glaring problems by making them look at least credible.
The Greek word for "worship" is used 60 times in 54 verses as "worship."
Quote:
The reason Matthew doesn't reference scripture is not a toughie. He made the whole thing up, reference it TO the scriptures about the messiah but not basing it on prophecy because he had to invent the whole scenario to get Jesus out of Judea and into Nazareth as opposed to Luke who has to get Jesus out of Nazareth and into Bethlehem.
Well of course! Matthew, and in fact all the writers of the New Testament just made it all up just to either snooker the populace into believing Christ was the Messiah (after all, who would fact check their documents [rather implausible they wouldn't if you ask me]) or to present all the wrong information in order to keep everyone from believe Christ was the Messiah. And we have AREQUIPA to thank for this grand demonstration of ignorance.
AREQUIPA you are digging yourself into such a deep hole you will end up where I live pretty soon on the other side of the globe!
Your cheap sarcasm is not only doing you no good but is against Tos.
It's not cheap. It comes at great expense to those whose ignorance calls for such responses. And it wasn't sarcasm. It was the truth.
Quote:
Luke was making an effort to concoct a historically feasible mechanism for a Galilean to be born in Bethlehem. We have information or understanding now about political conditions and chronology that casts serious doubt on it. Matthew is happy with miracles. As we saw, people still seem willing to sideline plain Biblewritten miracles in trying to make it look believable, like a conjunction of stars when the thing plainly trundled along fifty or feet above the ground (at least when it got to Bethlehem).
You've been seeing too many Christmas plays. Where in the Bible does it state it "trundled along fifty or so feet above the ground"? Only you.
And why would Luke concoct anything? Was he trying to stumble "mighty Theophilus" to whom he wrote? Was he hoping against hope Theophilus would not fact check his treatise? Really, AREQUIPA, your ideas are absolutely nonsensical!
Quote:
Don't ask me (1)why Luke wrote a total falsehood that could be seen by anyone who compared Acts with Paul.
Sure, theologians from the first century to the present never caught any of Luke's so-called "falsehoods" yet grandiose AREQUIPA has miraculously uncovered them for us!
Quote:
But it is there, plain to be seen. I would just like to know why nobody else, including you, with your impressive Bible knowledge (which is one of the things about your debate that does impress me) failed to see and so did 2,000 years of Bible scholars, apparently.
Why? Because you are 2,000 years removed from the time they wrote and truly don't know what you are talking about.
Quote:
Why was it Arq who pointed it out? I have got to bite the bullet and say: somebody had to do this first. Believers did not want to see contradictions and unbelievers were content to compile lists of them and argued a number of good points, but Arq seems to be the first to have put the whole thing together in a way that shows how the Gospel -writers worked, and therefore who they were, why they wrote as they did and therefor what the gospels (and Jesus) are and what they are not. If anyone else has done this, I haven't heard of it.
Oh brother. Delusions of grandeur! mixed with ignorance is the worst type of person to deal with.
Quote:
(1) oh go on...ask me.. I think it is because Luke let his hatred of Jews get the better of him.
The rest deleted as it looks to me like pretty free interpretation - too free to really be taken as evidence. Just to start establishing a credible base, please establish that "Roma" hd its own ideas about who Aires was. If it was a messiah, or even a Jewish royal pretender, I shall be astonished.
Really? Luke hated the Jews? Really? I'm glad you just couched your statement with "I think" giving the possibility you could be wrong, which, in fact, you are wrong.
Interesting that the 12 apostles backed up Paul's apostleship. They would hardly do that if Paul has been, as you so wrongly state "mentally ill" and "a fake apostle." You really need to prove your assertions. Anyone can blather out balogna, but proving it is an altogether different matter.
The fact of the matter is that Christ's birth is an historic fact.
It's pretty much established fact that most people in antiquity were illiterate. It's also not historical fact because there is nothing to corroborate it independently outside of 2 gospels .
What we do today and what they did 2000 years ago need not be the same way things are done.
Yes, the Romans thought it made more sense to have people go to the home of their ancestral birth rather than do a census in the town they lived in . You obviously need to read a book on the Roman Empire to see how ignorant your opinion is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
that have been presented to me) is utterly irrelevant. 
mixed with ignorance is the worst type of person to deal with.
.
