The Historical Jesus

S-word said:

And from where did they get the evidence that Jesus is a living historical figure?

Click to expand...

The wiki article presents the sources quite well.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the list:

1 New Testament writings
1.1 Pauline Epistles
1.2 Gospels
1.3 The Acts of the Apostles
2 Ancient Christian creeds
2.1 Biblical
2.2 Extra-biblical
3 New Testament apocrypha
3.1 Gnostic texts
4 Early Church fathers
5 Greco-Roman sources
5.1 Josephus
5.2 Pliny the Younger
5.3 Tacitus
5.4 Suetonius
5.5 Mara bar Sarapion
5.6 Others

Oberon said:

Rather, virtually all scholars with relevant degrees.

Click to expand...

virtually all scholars with relevant degrees believe there was a historical Jesus.

I will repeat my question, "From where did they get the evidence that proved to them that the biblical Jesus is a living historical figure?"

*looks at AE's last post*

*Looks at S-word's question*

S-word said:

virtually all scholars with relevant degrees believe there was a historical Jesus.

I will repeat my question, "From where did they get the evidence that proved to them that the biblical Jesus is a living historical figure?"

Click to expand...

*shakes head*

angellous_evangellous said:

The wiki article presents the sources quite well.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the list:

1 New Testament writings
1.1 Pauline Epistles
1.2 Gospels
1.3 The Acts of the Apostles
2 Ancient Christian creeds
2.1 Biblical
2.2 Extra-biblical
3 New Testament apocrypha
3.1 Gnostic texts
4 Early Church fathers
5 Greco-Roman sources
5.1 Josephus
5.2 Pliny the Younger
5.3 Tacitus
5.4 Suetonius
5.5 Mara bar Sarapion
5.6 Others

Click to expand...

So virtually all scholars with relavent degrees, whether they be atheists, agnostics, or christian, etc, do believe God's Holy word, or believe those parts of the bible that they choose to believe. Thank you angellous_evangellous.

S-word said:

So virtually all scholars with relavent degrees, whether they be atheists, agnostics, or christian, etc, do believe God's Holy word, or believe those parts of the bible that they choose to believe. Thank you angellous_evangellous.

Click to expand...

Some never cease to amaze

See Nate? This is why I suggested creating a scholars DIR way back when.

That way we could have at least one serious thread on a topic.

That way, people like you and Oberon and Jay could have decent discussions about these things and people like myself could ask questions or just reference facts without having to sort through a lot of ravings by people like...

well I'll stop there.

Quagmire said:

See Nate? This is why I suggested creating a scholars DIR way back when.

That way we could have at least one serious thread on a topic.

That way, people like you and Oberon and Jay could have decent discussions about these things and people like myself could ask questions or just reference facts without having to sort through a lot of ravings by people like...

well I'll stop there.

Click to expand...

On a side note, given my interest in the historical Jesus, I have wondered about getting a diverse number of members informed and interested with different theories (e.g. Jayhawker, angellous, sojourner, and others) to debate on this topic (the historical jesus).

fallingblood said:

This is as far as I got. First, there is no evidence that Herod killed or ordered to have killed all of the Jewish males who were 2 years old or younger. There is first no historical evidence (no literary sources or archeological sources). We only see it mentioned in one of the Gospels, while being completely left out of the other birth story.

Second, we can assume that if this was true, that Herod had a infant males killed, the Jewish population would have revolted. However, this simply did not happen. The first major revolt we see under Roman control was after Herod had died. The simple fact, that event, the massacre of the innocents, never happened.

Second, no historian or scholar support your idea of their being two Josephs who had a relationship with Mary. Simply, there is no evidence, no scholar or historian would support it, and it's based on faulty reasoning. Simply, it's untrue.

I had to go no further than that. The premise that what you are writing is based on a compilation of many historical and religious scholars simply is either a lie, or you a misrepresentation, as the two points that I covered, for your stance, have no credible backing by scholars.

Click to expand...

quote=fallingblood; First, there is no evidence that Herod killed or ordered to have killed all of the Jewish males who were 2 years old or younger.

Then I presume that you've never read the bible.

quote=fallingblood; Second, we can assume that if this was true, that Herod had a infant males killed, the Jewish population would have revolted.

They did.

quote=fallingblood; Second, no historian or scholar support your idea of their being two Josephs who had a relationship with Mary.

I've read your historians and the works of your scholars, and frankly, I believe that any person who beleives the two genealogies recorded in the New Testament are of the one person, are in desperate need of help.


Any person who can take two entirely different Genealogies, from two different sources, one, having only 24 ancestors from Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, to Solomon the great ancestor of Joseph the stepfather of Jesus. The other of Jesus the son of Joseph, who is the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi, having 40 ancestors to the half brother of Solomon, who is Nathan, the Levite son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, who became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba, the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom, who is a descendant of Moses the Levite through his second wife, the daughter of Hobab the Kennite, one of the two father-in-laws of Moses.


If each gospel writer recorded everything that happened in the life of Jesus, we would need a whole library to contain all the books. Although the gospels do record the same events in some cases, each will tell of some event that the other has not bothered to record, but they are all in harmony with each other.

Luke 2: 21; A week after Jesus was born he was circumcised according to the law of Moses. Then when the Time came, for Mary to perform the ceremony of purification as the law of Moses commanded (Leviticus 12: 3-4; “On the eighth day the male child shall be circumcised. Then it will be thirty three days more until she is ritually clean from her loss of blood and then can she enter the tent/temple and perform the ceremony of purification).

When the baby was about 41 days old, and The Time came for Mary to perform the ceremony of purification, she openly carried the baby from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, (No mention of the wise men or of Herod’s butchers as yet). After she had performed everything according to the law of Moses some 33 days after the baby was circumcised, and when the baby was just under two months old, they returned to the home of Mary in Nazareth, to where the wise men would later travel and shower the young child with gifts of Gold, frankincense, and myrrh. and it was in that district in 4 B.C. Just following the death of Herod after his failed suicide attempt, that the people in the district of Bethlehem of Galilee, Nazareth and Sepporhus rioted.

In the book of the Hebrews, there is a prophecy of an event that would occur in the far distant future. Numbers 24: 17; “Behold a star shall come out of Jacob and a king shall arise in Israel, etc.” The greater majority of Christian denominations believe that the man Jesus who walked the earth some 2,000 years ago, was the fulfilment of this prophecy, but any who have read the entire prophecy would find this hard to accept; for this prophesied future king would smite Moab and destroy the children of Sheth, He would give the land of Edom as a possession to their enemies and the Amelakites would perish by his hand etc.

No! this prophecy does not refer to the man Jesus or even to the days in which Jesus lived. But the wise men from the East, who were presumably, Astronomer Astrologers from Mesopotamia, did see some heavenly phenomenon around the time of the birth of Jesus, that led them to believe that here was the sign that was prophesied would herald the birth of the long awaited Messianic King of Israel.


What was it that the wise men saw? It must first be understood that according to ancient Jewish tradition, the promised Messiah was identified with the King planet Jupiter, or “Mushtari” as the Persian astronomers would have known the planet and those learned men who studied the heaven nightly, would have observed that heavenly phenomenon long before the casual observer would have viewed it.


In those days and even up until recent times, comets were believed to herald great historical events and the rise and fall of mighty Kings. For almost two years they studied the incoming star before they travelled to Israel to pay homage to the promised Messianic King. We know from Matthew 2: 7; that Herod called those visitors from the east to a secret meeting and enquired of them, the exact time that they had first observed the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus, and it was in accordance to this information that Herod determined the age of the children that were to be slaughtered; see Matthew 2: 16.

When Herod realised that the visitors had tricked him and were not going to return and reveal the child’s location as they had promised, he was furious and gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its surrounding districts, who were two years and below in accordance with the time that he had learned from the visitors as to when they had first sighted the star that had heralded the birth of the now young child.


Herod, who died in April of 4 B.C., rightfully believed that the young child Jesus had been born when the wise men had first sighted the star in either late 7 B.C. when a conjunction occurred between the King planet Jupiter and Saturn, or 6 B.C. with the triple conjunction of the King planet Jupiter, then in 5 B.C., the year prior to the death of Herod, there appeared a comet with a huge vertical tail that remained visible for some 70 nights, this has been recorded in ancient Chinese astronomical records which have proved very reliable.


The attention of the Persian Astronomers, would have been drawn to the planet Jupiter whose expanding size and brilliance would have appeared to be as a pregnant goddess about to give birth, it was then that they would have observed the pin point of light that had seemed to come out of Jupiter/Jacob as it headed toward the sun were it would form its massive vertical tail in 5 B.C.. With the arrival of the heavenly body which had appeared to have been born of the King planet Jupiter, they would have been convinced that here was the sign that heralded the birth of the Messianic King of Israel.


All short period comets that appear every two hundred years or less, have their aphelia in the orbit of Jupiter, having been captured from their greater orbits by the mass of that planet and flung in toward our sun. Up until recent times, all short period comets were called the family of Jupiter and were believed to have been created by material that had been ejected by that planet, and so it is no wonder that the wise men from the East, saw the comet of 5 B.C. that had heralded the birth of Jesus, as the star coming out of Jupiter/Jacob.


By the time that the wise men reached Israel, the comet was apparently hidden in its orbit behind our sun, but on leaving the palace of Herod, as we are informed by Matthew, the star that they had first seen and which had been hidden, appeared once again as it headed out to the orbit of Jupiter which was in the northern sky, and OH, what Joy was theirs etc. Although, after learning from his priests that the promised King was to be born in Bethlehem of Judaea, and advising the wise men to go there and search for the young child, who was believed to have been a little older than one year. But nowhere does it say that they travelled to the southern town of Bethlehem, where just over a year previously, the baby Jesus was seen by the shepherds, laying in the manger of the Inn where the baby had been born, before being taken to Jerusalem when he was about 40 days old, from where his parents returned to the house of Mary in Nazareth, but rather, we learn that the star/comet in its return to the orbit of Jupiter in the northern hemisphere, guided the wise men to where the young child then lived.


We can almost picture the scene, the wise men and their entourage travelling along the dusty road to Galilee, and late in the afternoon upon coming to a small rise, there, in the deepening evening sky, Just above the horizon behind the small village of Nazareth, which is but a few kilometre from the northern town of Bethlehem, which is today known as “Beitlahm,” the comet with its massive and spectacular vertical tail streaming off into the heavens, “Stood Over” the House where the young child Jesus then lived. Not the stable or the Inn, but the house. And the term “Stood Over,” in ancient literature refers to comets and comets only.

After paying homage to the child and presenting their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, they were warned not to return to Jerusalem, and they returned to their own country by a different route than that by which they had came, which presumably was by way of the Kings Highway and returned by way of Damascus. Because Herod had eyes and ears throughout the land of Israel, He would have known approximately to where the wise men had gone, and Joseph the step-father of Jesus, was warned in a dream to get up there and then and flee into the land of Egypt.

There is no historical record whatsoever of any upheaval in the district of the southern town of Bethlehem of Judaea, but in 4 B.C., Just prior to the death of Herod, there was an uprising in the district surrounding the northern towns of Bethlehem, Nazareth and the magnificent Hellenistic city of Sepphorus, which suffered much damage in the ensuing turmoil in which many families lost their lives. One of the first acts of Herod’s son “Herod Antipas” who became tetrarch of Galilee in 3 B.C., was to rebuild The beautiful Hellenistic of Sepphorus.

Oberon said:

I've read the gospels (in Greek actually). I know what they say. I am also very familiar with ancient history in general and with Jesus scholarship. So I know that it is possible to say that the gospels record some things fairly accurately, and others they do not. One criterion (one of many) for historicity is whether or not some piece information is TOO convenient. The whole move to bethlehem for a census which didn't happen (especially given the wrong date for the governer) was invented to conform to the expectations of the messiah. Which is why it is only in the highly ficticious birth narratives that we find this.

Click to expand...

Here you go; I just Googled this up for your further education

Archaeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson writes:

[Critics] challenged the Bible’s claim that Quirinius [the Latin spelling of Cyrenius] was governor of Syria at the time. He was governor at the time of the census fourteen years later, in AD 6, but, it turns out that he was also a high official in central Asia Minor in 8 BC, actually being in charge of the Army in Syria. It appears that he was able to repulse a local uprising that proba­bly delayed the implementation of the poll tax in Syria for some time” (Wilson, C. 1980. Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 116).

Luke 2:3-5 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David. To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Early in the twentieth century, a papyrus was discovered which contained an edict by G. Vibius Maximus, the Roman governor of Egypt, stating:
Since the enrollment by households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their own district to return to their own home, in order to perform the usual business of the taxation… (Cobern, C.M. 1929. The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament. New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, p. 47; Unger, M.F. 1962. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 64).
The same papyrus also confirms Luke’s assertion that a man had to bring his family with him when he traveled to his place of ancestry in order to be properly counted by the Roman authorities (Lk. 2:5).

The document reads: I register Pakebkis, the son born to me and my wife, Taas­ies and Taopis in the 10th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator [Emperor], and request that the name of my aforesaid son Pakeb[k]is be entered on the list” (Boyd, R.T. 1991. World’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, p. 415).

This sheds light on why Joseph had to bring his highly pregnant wife along with him when he went to Bethle­hem. Such discoveries caused the late George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Semitic Languages at Bryn Mawr and former Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, to comment: Luke’s statement, that Joseph went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to enroll himself with Mary (Luke 2:4, 5), turns out to be in exact accord with the governmental regulations as we now know them from the papyri. (Barton, G.A. 1917. Archaeology and the Bible. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, p. 435).

Roman Catholic biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown in The Birth of the Messiah lists several reasons he does not believe the biblical account, including the fact that such a bright star would have been mentioned by others, but despite fairly good astrological records it is mentioned nowhere. (Source: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Magi)

&

(My Ref: #3: ) Some critics wonder why "the star" led the Magi first to a hostile enemy of Jesus, and only then to the child's location—the argument being that if this was an event from God, it makes no sense for them to be led to a ruler with intentions to kill the child before taking them to Jesus. Indeed, if due to the activity of this star, or the visit from the Magi, motivated Herod to want to seek out Jesus and destroy him (Mathew 2:13), why would God, knowing this, set up a situation that would lead to a slaughter of innocents two years old and under? These lingering questions cause some scholars to be skeptical about the story of the Magi. (Source: [URL]http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Magi[/URL])

Not only that, IF such a phenomonen had taken place, many Jewish witnesses would have observed it and notified the Jewish authorities if they had somehow allegedly missed seeing it themselves. But there is no record of that either?

Composer said:

Roman Catholic biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown in The Birth of the Messiah lists several reasons he does not believe the biblical account, including the fact that such a bright star would have been mentioned by others, but despite fairly good astrological records it is mentioned nowhere. (Source: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Magi)

&

(My Ref: #3: ) Some critics wonder why "the star" led the Magi first to a hostile enemy of Jesus, and only then to the child's location—the argument being that if this was an event from God, it makes no sense for them to be led to a ruler with intentions to kill the child before taking them to Jesus. Indeed, if due to the activity of this star, or the visit from the Magi, motivated Herod to want to seek out Jesus and destroy him (Mathew 2:13), why would God, knowing this, set up a situation that would lead to a slaughter of innocents two years old and under? These lingering questions cause some scholars to be skeptical about the story of the Magi. (Source: [URL]http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Magi[/URL])

Not only that, IF such a phenomonen had taken place, many Jewish witnesses would have observed it and notified the Jewish authorities if they had somehow allegedly missed seeing it themselves. But there is no record of that either?

Click to expand...

I know! He also refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, born of human parents, I don't believe him in that either.

Whether or not the conjuntion of Saturn and the king planet Jupiter in 7 B.C. or the triple conjuntion of the king planet Jupiter in 6 B.C. or the comet of 5 B.C. was recorded by the Jews, they all happened around the time of the birth of the historical Jesus, irrelevant to the belief of Ramond E Brown.

quote=Composer; Some critics wonder why "the star" led the Magi first to a hostile enemy of Jesus

The star did not lead the wise men to Herod. After witnessing the triple conjuntion of the King planet Jupiter in 6 B.C., and seeing what they believed to be a star coming out of, or being born from the brilliant body of the King planet Jupiter: The Astronomer/Astrologers would have been convinced that this was the sign that was prophesied to Herald the Great king of Israel. And where do you believe that they would go in seach for this promised child, if not to Jerusalem, the seat of the current ruler of that country?

S-word said:

I know! He also refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, born of human parents, I don't believe him in that either.

Click to expand...

The story book confirms there was only one human parent involved (Mary)

The literal father of the story book jesus according to trinitarians has to be their ' Holy Spirit person ' (Luke 1:35) trinitarian corrupt story book version as opposed to non-trinitarian story book believers.

S-word said:

Whether or not the conjuntion of Saturn and the king planet Jupiter in 7 B.C. or the triple conjuntion of the king planet Jupiter in 6 B.C. or the comet of 5 B.C. was recorded by the Jews, they all happened around the time of the birth of the historical Jesus, irrelevant to the belief of Ramond E Brown.

Click to expand...

Even if there was a conjunction of stars, there is no reason why it should be taken as evidence of anything!

Composer said:

Some critics wonder why "the star" led the Magi first to a hostile enemy of Jesus

Click to expand...

S-word said:

The star did not lead the wise men to Herod.

Click to expand...

You contradict yourself. You claimed you didn't believe the catholic biblical scholar Raymond E Brown who doesn't believe the biblical star account and now say you do agree that the biblical account is spurious?

Composer said:

The story book confirms there was only one human parent involved (Mary)

The literal father of the story book jesus according to trinitarians has to be their ' Holy Spirit person ' (Luke 1:35) trinitarian corrupt story book version as opposed to non-trinitarian story book believers.


Even if there was a conjunction of stars, there is no reason why it should be taken as evidence of anything!




You contradict yourself. You claimed you didn't believe the catholic biblical scholar Raymond E Brown who doesn't believe the biblical star account and now say you do agree that the biblical account is spurious?

Click to expand...

quote=Composer; The story book confirms there was only one human parent involved (Mary)

Luke 3: 23;Jesus, the son of Joseph the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi. And don't worry about the interpolation in Brackets (As was supposed) which was added at a leter date by those who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being and wish to discredit the human parentage of the historical Jesus.

quote=Composer; Even if there was a conjunction of stars, there is no reason why it should be taken as evidence of anything!

Every one knew in those days that a heavenly sign would Herald the birth of the long awaited Messiah and that it would be revealed by Jupiter the King planet.

quote=Composer; You contradict yourself. You claimed you didn't believe the catholic biblical scholar Raymond E Brown who doesn't believe the biblical star account

Correct! I don't.

quote=Composer; now say you do agree that the biblical account is spurious

No I don't agree that the biblical account is spurious. The biblical account makes no mention of the star guiding the wise men to Jerusalem. The biblical account is, as I said it was, some men who studied the stars came from the east to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the baby born to be the king of the Jews? We saw his star when it came up in the east, and we have come to worship him."

They saw his star while in the east and understood it to be the star that was prophesied to herald the birth of the long awaited Messianic King of Israel. No mention at all of the star guiding them to Jerusalem.

One must learn what is written in scripture before attempting to debate something of which they are totally ignorant. Good night child with the story book, you would be well advised to read a chapter or two of the greatest story book ever written, then in a year or so you may be equipted to debate on a junior level.

S-word said:

So virtually all scholars with relavent degrees, whether they be atheists, agnostics, or christian, etc, do believe God's Holy word, or believe those parts of the bible that they choose to believe. Thank you angellous_evangellous.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said.

S-word said:

Then I presume that you've never read the bible.

Click to expand...

You presume wrong.

They did.

Click to expand...

When? The first major revolt was in 4 B.C.E. This was after Herod died and was, in short, to gain power. It had nothing to do with killing infants. There is no record of a single revolt that was caused by the death of infants in the Jewish homeland. So when did revolt occur and why is there no record?

]I've read your historians and the works of your scholars, and frankly, I believe that any person who beleives the two genealogies recorded in the New Testament are of the one person, are in desperate need of help.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you have, even though I've never given a list of the scholars and historians that I've read or been lectured by, or watched documentaries on. Also, you have yet to prove that both genealogies are from different people.

Any person who can take two entirely different Genealogies, from two different sources, one, having only 24 ancestors from Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, to Solomon the great ancestor of Joseph the stepfather of Jesus. The other of Jesus the son of Joseph, who is the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi, having 40 ancestors to the half brother of Solomon, who is Nathan, the Levite son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, who became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba, the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom, who is a descendant of Moses the Levite through his second wife, the daughter of Hobab the Kennite, one of the two father-in-laws of Moses.

Click to expand...

There you go again. A completely useless ramble. The thing you do not realize is that the Gospels are not inerrant. How many times do Luke and Matthew disagree with each other? Well, first, look at the Herod incidence about killing infants. Why does it occur only in one of the sources? Why does one writer completely ignore this supposedly major event? Why do both birth stories have different people coming to Jesus at his birth? Why does one ignore Jesus teaching in the temple at an early age? Why does one ignore Jesus being moved to Egypt?

There are many discrepancies between the two birth stories in Luke and Matthew. Why? Is it any surprise then that there would be a discrepancy in the genealogies then? Not at all.

If each gospel writer recorded everything that happened in the life of Jesus, we would need a whole library to contain all the books. Although the gospels do record the same events in some cases, each will tell of some event that the other has not bothered to record, but they are all in harmony with each other.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? So even though the Gospels do not agree on the time that Jesus was crucified, they are still in harmony with each other? And don't you think the act of Herod having all infants massacred is important enough that it would be included in each Gospel? Biographies have a tendency to record the most important aspects as well as important events in ones life. Why do the Gospels, which you are assuming are biographies, do not subscribe to that same idea? You would think that it would be logical to record the major events, yet they always don't. And as stated above, just even in the birth story there many things that do not work in harmony with one another.

After she had performed everything according to the law of Moses some 33 days after the baby was circumcised, and when the baby was just under two months old, they returned to the home of Mary in Nazareth, to where the wise men would later travel and shower the young child with gifts of Gold, frankincense, and myrrh. and it was in that district in 4 B.C. Just proir to the death of Herod after his failed suicide attempt, that the people[/COLOR] in the district of Bethlehem of Galilee, Nazareth and Sepporhus rioted.

Click to expand...

Where is your support that that riot was caused by the massacre of the innocents?

Yes, in 4 B.C.E, there was a riot. However, it had nothing to do with the massacre of infants. Also, this riot happened after Herod had already died. What you are saying is that Herod had all the infants killed, ended up dying, and then the people revolted. Why such a time gap then? Why wouldn't the Jewish people revolt at the same time that Herod was having the infants murdered? Why wouldn't they have put up some fight? The fact is, you have no proof and are really stretching.

fallingblood said:

You presume wrong.

Click to expand...

quote=fallingblood; You presume wrong.

Yea, well I meant the entire Bible, not just the bits and pieces that you were told to look at, by some of your expert scholars who you have named in previos posts, which your chosen scholar have taken out of context or used to support their erroneous interpretation of the particular section of the bible in question.


quote=fallingblood; When? The first major revolt was in 4 B.C.E. This was after Herod died and was, in short, to gain power. It had nothing to do with killing infants. There is no record of a single revolt that was caused by the death of infants in the Jewish homeland. So when did revolt occur and why is there no record?

Righto, let me first give first you a little background to this event in order that you might better understand the truth as revealed in God’s Holy word.
The heavenly sign that the wise men from the east who studied the stars, (Astronomer/Astrologers) See Matthew 2: 1; would have been the triple conjunction of the star planet Jupiter, which was associated with the promised Messianic King.
These wise men who were convinced that this was the promised sign that would reveal the birth of the prophesied Messianic King of Israel and then travelled to Jerusalem, the seat of the ruling authority of that country, where one would expect to find the heir to the throne of Israel.

It would have been in the spring of 5 B.C, with the appearance of the great comet with it’s vertical tail that remained visible for 70 nights that is spoken of in the reliable Chinese records, when the shepherds were able to remain in the fields at night, that the wise men came in search of the child which they believed had been born in 6 B.C., with the triple conjunction of the King planet Jupiter.

Matthew 2: 7; So Herod called the visitors to a secret meeting and found out from them the exact time the star (Which had heralded the birth of the promised Messiah) had first appeared. Now we know that that they saw the star over a year before they had travel to Jerusalem in search of the promised King, as Herod chose the age of the children who were to be slaughtered as two years and below, “now listen to this, because I want that you should understand,” Matthew 2: 16; When Herod realised that the visitors from the east had tricked him, he was furious. He gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem (Of Galilee) and its neighbourhood who were two years old and younger— this was done in accordance with what he had learned from the wise men about the time when the star (That had heralded the birth of Jesus) had first appeared. I’ll just repeat that as I know how difficult it is for you to grasp what you have read; this, (The choice of the age of the boys who were to be killed) was done in accordance with what he had learned from the wise men about the time when the star had first appeared.

Now, can you understand that, because I’m sure that any other person reading this will be able to.
Luke reveals that after Mary had preformed the ceremony of purification in the temple at Jerusalem, when the baby Jesus was less than two months old, they then returned to the home of Mary in Nazareth, which is only about two kilometres from Bethlehem of Galilee, which town today is called “Beitlahm.” While Matthew reveals that it was when Jesus was a young child, over a year old that the wise men, who, when leaving Herod, saw the comet of 5 B.C. once again, which must have been hidden behind the sun in its orbit back to Jupiter’s orbit in the northern hemisphere. Matthew 2: 9-10; When they left Herod they saw the same star Comet, that they had seen in the east, which had appeared to come out of the brilliant and expanded body of the king planet Jupiter, and had convinced them that the triple conjuntion of 6 B.C., was the sign that had heraled the birth of Jesus, and, 'O how happy they were when they saw it again.'

We can almost picture the scene, the wise men and their entourage travelling along the dusty roads of Galilee, follow in the direction of the comet in its return to its aphelia in the orbit of the King planet Jupiter in the northern sky. It’s late in the afternoon and upon coming to a small rise, there, in the deepening evening sky, Just above the horizon, directly behind the small village of Nazareth, with its massive and spectacular vertical tail streaming off into the heavens, stood over the house where the young child Jesus, then lived, which was not in Bethlehem of Judaea in the stable of the Inn where he had been born, but the house of his mother in Nazareth to which they had returned when he was less than two months old. And the term “STOOD OVER,” in ancient literature refers to comets and comets only.

After paying homage to the child and presenting their gifts of gold, frankincense, and Myrrh, Matthew 2: 12; Then they returned to their country by another road than that upon which they had travelled to Jerusalem, which was most probably the Kings Highway, and returned by way of Damascus, since God had warned them in a dream not to go back south to Herod.

Saddam Hussien had nothing on Herod, he had secret police and spies throughout the country and would have known approximately to where the wise men had gone, and Joseph was warned in a dream to get up there and then and take his wife and her child and flee into the land of Egypt.

There is no historical record whatsoever of any upheaval in the district of the southern town of Bethlehem of Judaea, but shortly after Herod’s failed suicide attempt, (Which may have been suggested by Caesar) and following his death in April of 4 B.C., there was an uprising of the peasant’s in the district around Bethlehem/Beitlahm, Nazareth and Sepphoris. In order to stop the attack on Herod’s arsenal in Sepphoris, Quintillius Varus of Syria, under orders from Rome, attacked and burned the city of Sepphoris.

When one of the heirs of Herod the Great, "Herod Antipas" returned from Rome in the spring of 3 B.C., he rebuilt Sepphoris as his chosen city for ruling over Galilee. I very much doubt that the true reason for the uprising of the peasants in the district of Bethlehem of Galilee would have been recorded by the Roman historians of that day.

Well old matey, the missus wants to go to town today, and as we live on a small rural block some 50 kilometres out of town, I will not be able to answer the rest of your post until tonight, God willing of course. And so until then, enjoy your day.

S-word said:

[quote=Composer;] The story book confirms there was only one human parent involved (Mary)

Click to expand...

S-word said:

Luke 3: 23;Jesus, the son of Joseph the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi. And don't worry about the interpolation in Brackets (As was supposed) which was added at a leter date by those who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being and wish to discredit the human parentage of the historical Jesus.

Click to expand...

The Jews (monotheists) are hardly going to record that a child is the literal offspring of a God? Joseph was recorded therefore as his earthly adoptive father.

Composer said:

Even if there was a conjunction of stars, there is no reason why it should be taken as evidence of anything!

Click to expand...

S-word said:

Every one knew in those days that a heavenly sign would Herald the birth of the long awaited Messiah and that it would be revealed by Jupiter the King planet.

Click to expand...

There is no record of any Jewish hierarchy (or any Jews) attending the birth place of the story book Jesus. IF there were such a significant sign literally occurring, they would likely be the first to investigate it and check it out and attend the birth place for themselves. There is NO record that they did?

Composer said:

You contradict yourself. You claimed you didn't believe the catholic biblical scholar Raymond E Brown who doesn't believe the biblical star account

Click to expand...

S-word said:

Correct! I don't.

Click to expand...

Composer said:

You now say you do agree that the biblical account is spurious

Click to expand...

S-word said:

No I don't agree that the biblical account is spurious. The biblical account makes no mention of the star guiding the wise men to Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

You are in error! -

When they had heard the king, they departed; and , lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh . {presented: or, offered} (Matt. 2:9-11) KJV story book

S-word said:

. . . . No mention at all of the star guiding them to Jerusalem. . . . .

Click to expand...

You are in error still! -


When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. (Matt. 2:9) KJV story book


After listening to the king they left, and once again13 the star they saw when it rose14 led them until it stopped above the place where the child was. (Matt. 2:9) NET story book

S-word said:

One must learn what is written in scripture before attempting to debate something of which they are totally ignorant.

Click to expand...

Your ignorance and foolish arrogance in these matters is exposed!


I have taught you that it is time for you to apply your advice to yourself, in order to try to prevent you making a further fool of yourself.

S-word said:

Good night child with the story book, you would be well advised to read a chapter or two of the greatest story book ever written, then in a year or so you may be equipted to debate on a junior level.

Click to expand...

Alas for you, it is proven that it is purely your ignorance and arrogance that reigns supreme on these matters between us.

Pre-kindy classes for you to start attending as a student asap!

You never know, I might end up as one of your teachers there as well as here? LOL!

S-word said:

Yea, well I meant the entire Bible, not just the bits and pieces that you were told to look at, by some of your expert scholars who you have named in previos posts, which your chosen scholar have taken out of context or used to support their erroneous interpretation of the particular section of the bible in question.

Click to expand...

And again, you presume wrong. Logical fallacies do not count as logical arguments. I've read the Bible multiple times. I grew up in a fundamental Christian household, and was attending Bible studies as a little boy. I had read the entire Bible myself for the first time by the time I was 10. Sure, I did not fully understand it, but that is also why I've reread it over and over again. Many of these times were under the supervision of ministers who helped guide me through the readings. Others were simply of my own doing so that I could understand the religion more. So before making ignorant remarks, such as attacking my credibility, make sure you know what you're talking about.

Righto, let me first give first you a little background to this event in order that you might better understand the truth as revealed in God’s Holy word.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't care what you say is the truth revealed in God's Holy word. You've already shown that you are not backed by scholars or historians. You outright dismiss your opponents by insulting them. And your version of the truth seems to be only true to yourself. So really, I don't care what your truth may be. Show me some facts.

As for the rest of what you said, it is not based on facts. First, you claim that the wise men visited Jesus when he was about 1 year old? That does not appear in the Bible. It is very clear that they went to him when he was born, not a year after. It clearly states that they went to Bethlehem, as order by Herod, to see the boy. To say it states anything else is imposing your own view point on it.

Also, how do you support the idea that Jesus was born in 6 B.C.E.? Most scholars tentatively put it at around 4 B.C.E.; however, there is no exact date that can logically be set from what we know in the Bible. It does not give a date or a year. The best that scholars can do is assume it was around 4 B.C.E. So you first have to prove your idea of the year of his birth, which you simply haven't.

Finally, based on the fact that you were wrong about where the wise men went to see Jesus (the Bible clearly states it was in Bethlehem very shortly after his birth), there is no reason to believe that Herod, two years after Jesus was born, offered this decree and that he died shortly after, and then people revolted. The fact still stands that there was no supposed revolt at the time of the decree. According to you, the Jewish people simply allowed their infants to be killed, waited until Herod died, and then decided to revolt. That simply is not logical, especially since it is already clear why there was a revolt in 4 B.C.E. after Herod died. It was a power struggle. The Jewish people were very unhappy being under Roman control and the commercialization that was destroying them (the Jewish society). They wanted to take back control of their land, and they tried doing just that. This fact is well documented.

Misrepresenting what the Bible says, and only believing parts of it that you want, will not go for logical or rational arguments. But go ahead, call me ignorant again. It really doesn't matter as you still have yet to prove anything. Show me some facts, not your "truth."

Composer said:

The Jews (monotheists) are hardly going to record that a child is the literal offspring of a God? Joseph was recorded therefore as his earthly adoptive father.

There is no record of any Jewish hierarchy (or any Jews) attending the birth place of the story book Jesus. IF there were such a significant sign literally occurring, they would likely be the first to investigate it and check it out and attend the birth place for themselves. There is NO record that they did?

You are in error! -

When they had heard the king, they departed; and , lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh . {presented: or, offered} (Matt. 2:9-11) KJV story book

You are in error still! -

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. (Matt. 2:9) KJV story book

After listening to the king they left, and once again13 the star they saw when it rose14 led them until it stopped above the place where the child was. (Matt. 2:9) NET story book

Your ignorance and foolish arrogance in these matters is exposed!

I have taught you that it is time for you to apply your advice to yourself, in order to try to prevent you making a further fool of yourself.

Alas for you, it is proven that it is purely your ignorance and arrogance that reigns supreme on these matters between us.

Pre-kindy classes for you to start attending as a student asap!

You never know, I might end up as one of your teachers there as well as here? LOL!

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by S-word: …. Luke 3: 23; Jesus, the son of Joseph the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi. And don't worry about the interpolation in Brackets (As was supposed) which was added at a later date by those who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being and wish to discredit the human parentage of the historical Jesus.

quote=Composer; The Jews (monotheists) are hardly going to record that a child is the literal offspring of a God? Joseph was recorded therefore as his earthly adoptive father.

The adopted father of Jesus, is Joseph the son of Jacob whose genealogy is found in Matthew 1; which is in no way related to Jesus, as he is recorded in scripture, as having had no sexual relations with Mary the mother of the human child Jesus until after she had given birth to her firstborn son Jesus. That Joseph, if you care to take the time to read the genealogy in Matthew, Is the 24th descendant of Solomon from the tribe of Judah.

The Joseph, who is recorded in scripture, In Luke 3: 23; as being the biological father of Jesus, Is Joseph the son of the grandfather of Jesus’ who is Heli, and that particularJoseph is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the half brother of Solomon, And Nathan the son of Bathsheba from a marriage prior to her union with King David, was of the tribe of Levi. As I have said to you previously, you must learn to read and understand that which is recorded in God’s Holy word, before you come to the debating table.

quote=Composer; from Post 31….. Some critics wonder why "the star" led the Magi first to a hostile enemy of Jesus, (Herod) and only then to the child's location

Reply by S-word post 32….The star did not lead the wise men to Herod. After witnessing the triple conjunction of the King planet Jupiter in 6 B.C., and seeing what they believed to be a star coming out of, or being born from the brilliant body of the King planet Jupiter: The Astronomer/Astrologers would have been convinced that this was the sign that was prophesied to Herald the birth of the Great king of Israel. And where do you believe that they would go in search for this promised child, if not to Jerusalem, the seat of the current ruler of that country?

Now my little friend, from your little story book, show to all who will read this post, where in the bible it is said that the star guided the wise men to Herod in Jerusalem. You will not find such a statement written therein, and I was correct when I said, “The star did not guide the wise men to Herod.” The bible does say that star went ahead of them, or that the wise men followed the direction of the star until they saw it standing over the HOUSE, I’ll Just repeat that; the star stood over the HOUSE in which the young child (not the baby in the manger) but the young child Jesus who had been born over a year earlier in a stable in Bethlehem of Judaea, and now lived in his mothers house in Nazareth of Galilee.

Originally Posted by S-word
. . . . No mention at all of the star guiding them to Jerusalem.

quote=Composer; You are in error still! –

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. (Matt. 2:9) KJV story book

After listening to the king they left, and once again13 the star they saw when it rose14 led them until it stopped above the place where the child was. (Matt. 2:9) NET story book

So, all you have shown here, is that the star went before the wise men from the palace of Herod to the house where the young child Jesus then lived, or that the wise men followed in the direction of the comet as it headed out to its aphelia in the orbit of Jupiter, which was in the northern hemisphere. Something that you will find in all my posts as being correct.
But now you have to eat you words, in making the accusation, “ that I am in error,” For it is you my little friend, who is shown to be totally ignorant to the Words of the Holy scriptures with your erroneous statement, "that it is written in the bible that the star guided the wise men from their country in the east to Herod in Jerusalem," which it is not.