With bafflement upon bafflement!

Redemptionsong · Nov 20, 2022

Harel13 said:
Yet Mark makes no mention of this. And as Hammer pointed out, if there's even a grain of truth in this, then it seems that this refers to the Galilean Beth Lehem (you do know there are two Beth Lehems, right?).

I'm also happy to look closely at the genealogies of Jesus, which must be considered as complimentary, not independent and self-explanatory. It's the marriage of Joseph to Mary that fulfils the requirements of both royal and natural legitimacy.

In the meantime, you might like to consider Jeremiah 22:30, and tell me whether the curse on Jeconiah was ever lifted!

I was not aware that there was a Bethlehem in Galilee, but l don't believe that this in any way undermines the very specific references to Bethlehem in Judea.

Subduction Zone · Nov 20, 2022

Redemptionsong said:
I'd like to take a serious look at the evidence to support this claim, because Luke and Josephus together would suggest an earlier date.
I'll get back to you on this one.

No, they don't. Josephus gave the date of the Census of Quirinius. Luke screwed the pooch, this is almost unanimously held by modern biblical scholars and there is no argument about an earlier Quirinius that holds up. He was far from being a nobody. He was a real person and his history is well known.

Quirinius - Wikipedia

Do you want to discuss why Luke's story is full of holes? Or would you like to gracefully accept the truth?

Subduction Zone · Nov 20, 2022

Redemptionsong said:
I'm also happy to look closely at the genealogies of Jesus, which must be considered as complimentary, not independent and self-explanatory. It's the marriage of Joseph to Mary that fulfils the requirements of both royal and natural legitimacy.

In the meantime, you might like to consider Jeremiah 22:30, and tell me whether the curse on Jeconiah was ever lifted!

I was not aware that there was a Bethlehem in Galilee, but l don't believe that this in any way undermines the very specific references to Bethlehem in Judea.

That is merely more apologetics. It is not a refutation of the fact that there were two different and contradicting genealogies.

Harel13 · Nov 20, 2022

Redemptionsong said:
In the meantime, you might like to consider Jeremiah 22:30, and tell me whether the curse on Jeconiah was ever lifted!

As I mentioned already, even identifying Jesus as a direct descendant of David is not clear-cut evidence against Hammer's theory, because we know that there were Judeans who joined the Samaritans. So for now, I will refrain from debating the issue of Jeconiah's kingship status.

Redemptionsong · Nov 20, 2022

Harel13 said:
I'm sure you'll agree that being a "Galilean" is not an ethnicity, because if you say otherwise, then you'd be undermining your own argument, that he went to the Jews. The term refers to people living in the Galilee and many Samaritans lived there as well.

l'm sure that you must be aware that Galilee was a territory ruled by Herod the great; and when he died the lands designated as Jewish territories were divided between Herod Antipas, Archelaus, and Philip; the cities of Jamnia, Ashdod and Phasaelis went to Salome. ['Antiquities XVll, ch.Vlll, sect.1]

For the first thirty years of his life, Jesus lived as a Jew under the law. It says in Luke 4, that just after his baptism in the Holy Spirit (and in water, by John), he 'returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee:' 'And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.'

Would a Samaritan have been welcomed in the synagogues of the Jews?

When Jesus was cast out of the synagogue in Nazareth, it was because he claimed to be the anointed of God, and criticised the Jews for not recognising a prophet in their midst.

Thereafter, Jesus moved to Capernaum, 'and taught them on the sabbath days.' [Luke 4:31].

Harel13 · Nov 20, 2022

Redemptionsong said:
l'm sure that you must be aware that Galilee was a territory ruled by Herod the great; and when he died the lands designated as Jewish territories were divided between Herod Antipas, Archelaus, and Philip; the cities of Jamnia, Ashdod and Phasaelis went to Salome. ['Antiquities XVll, ch.Vlll, sect.1]

I am. Take note that "the lands designated as Jewish territories" that were divided between the sons of Herod refers not just to the Galilee but the whole of Herod's kingdom.

Redemptionsong said:
Would a Samaritan have been welcomed in the synagogues of the Jews?

What evidence have you that he wouldn't have been?

Redemptionsong · Nov 20, 2022

Harel13 said:
As I mentioned already, even identifying Jesus as a direct descendant of David is not clear-cut evidence against Hammer's theory, because we know that there were Judeans who joined the Samaritans. So for now, I will refrain from debating the issue of Jeconiah's kingship status.

I'd like to refer you back to the conversation that Jesus had with the Samaritan woman in John 4. In verses 19-23, it says this:
'The woman saith unto him, Sir, l perceive that thou art a prophet.
Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship what ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.'

Not only does Jesus allude to the destruction of the temple, but he makes it clear that the salvation of God, the central theme of his ministry, can only come from the Jews.

Harel13 · Nov 20, 2022

Redemptionsong said:
I'd like to refer you back to the conversation that Jesus had with the Samaritan woman in John 4. In verses 19-23, it says this:
'The woman saith unto him, Sir, l perceive that thou art a prophet.
Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship what ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.'

Not only does Jesus allude to the destruction of the temple, but he makes it clear that the salvation of God, the central theme of his ministry, can only come from the Jews.

Your point being?

Redemptionsong · Nov 20, 2022

Subduction Zone said:
No, they don't. Josephus gave the date of the Census of Quirinius. Luke screwed the pooch, this is almost unanimously held by modern biblical scholars and there is no argument about an earlier Quirinius that holds up. He was far from being a nobody. He was a real person and his history is well known.

Quirinius - Wikipedia

Do you want to discuss why Luke's story is full of holes? Or would you like to gracefully accept the truth?

Wikipedia is reliant upon people providing information. This particular link, on Quirinius, fails to take account of much that Josephus writes.

You keep repeating the same old generalised accusations without providing the evidence to back it up.

I have now shown you, on more than one occasion, that Luke was well aware of the census under Quirinius in 6 CE. He writes about it in Acts 5:37.

Luke could not have been confused by the census of 6 CE.

Do you know who governed in Syria in 3/2 BCE? This is important if we are to establish if Cyrenius was the governor at the time of the birth of Jesus.

What Luke does tell us is that Caesar Augustus was the Roman emperor, and that Herod the great was king in Judea. Do you dispute these claims made by Luke?

Subduction Zone · Nov 20, 2022

Redemptionsong said:
Wikipedia is reliant upon people providing information. This particular link, on Quirinius, fails to take account of much that Josephus writes.

You keep repeating the same old generalised accusations without providing the evidence to back it up.

I have now shown you, on more than one occasion, that Luke was well aware of the census under Quirinius in 6 CE. He writes about it in Acts 5:37.

Luke could not have been confused by the census of 6 CE.

Do you know who governed in Syria in 3/2 BCE? This is important if we are to establish if Cyrenius was the governor at the time of the birth of Jesus.

What Luke does tell us is that Caesar Augustus was the Roman emperor, and that Herod the great was king in Judea. Do you dispute these claims made by Luke?

You have provided no evidence at all. Even a little evidence tops that.

I personally do not know who was the governor prior to Quirinius. Why would that make one fig of difference? And why couldn't Luke have been confused? That happens quite often when people make up stories.

Do you know how idiotic and pointless the claim that people were required to go to their ancestral homes was? Do you know that at that time there was no census of the entire Roman Empire? The story is loaded with errors.

Redemptionsong · Nov 20, 2022

Harel13 said:
Your point being?

Jesus was claiming to be the 'salvation of God'. He knew that this salvation must come from the Jews.

Luke 2:30. Simeon, a devout Jew, says, 'For mine eyes have seen thy salvation'.

The salvation of God is a 'who', not a 'what'!

Redemptionsong · Nov 20, 2022

Subduction Zone said:
You have provided no evidence at all. Even a little evidence tops that.

I personally do not know who was the governor prior to Quirinius. Why would that make one fig of difference? And why couldn't Luke have been confused? That happens quite often when people make up stories.

Do you know how idiotic and pointless the claim that people were required to go to their ancestral homes was? Do you know that at that time there was no census of the entire Roman Empire? The story is loaded with errors.

If you were genuinely interested in establishing the truth, you would make an effort to research and study the relevant texts.

I am asking you to find out who governed in Syria in 3/2 BCE. This might help you to build a case against Luke.

Harel13 · Nov 20, 2022

Redemptionsong said:
Jesus was claiming to be the 'salvation of God'. He knew that this salvation must come from the Jews.

Luke 2:30. Simeon, a devout Jew, says, 'For mine eyes have seen thy salvation'.

The salvation of God is a 'who', not a 'what'!

I still don't see how this is relevant to what we were talking about.

Redemptionsong · Nov 20, 2022

Harel13 said:
I still don't see how this is relevant to what we were talking about.

You have been arguing that Jesus might have been a Samaritan. I'm trying to demonstrate, from scripture, that Jesus was a Jew, through and through.

IMO, there is no indication from the Gospels that Jesus, or his apostles, ever considered themselves anything other than Jewish. But Jesus, if he happens to be the Anointed One of scripture, is going to be more than the expectation of the Jews. He is going to become the Saviour of the whole world, not just Saviour to a particular earthly race of people. Why else would the Messiah be described as 'a light to the Gentiles'?

Redemptionsong · Nov 20, 2022

paarsurrey said:
" Acts 2:1-13, 2 Corinthians 3:13,14 and Revelation 5:9 "

The verses " Acts 2:1-13, 2 Corinthians 3:13,14 and Revelation 5:9 " are not from Jesus, one gets to know, please, right?:

Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.
World Messianic Bible

Right?

Regards

Acts 2:1-13 takes place after Jesus has ascended to heaven. It is not possible to send the Holy Spirit, from the Father, whilst on earth.

However, if you want to know whether Jesus promised the Holy Spirit prior to his resurrection and ascension, then look to the Gospel of Luke 24:49.
'And, behold, l send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high'.

This prophecy of Jesus was fulfilled at Pentecost, Acts 2:1.

Subduction Zone · Nov 20, 2022

Redemptionsong said:
If you were genuinely interested in establishing the truth, you would make an effort to research and study the relevant texts.

I am asking you to find out who governed in Syria in 3/2 BCE. This might help you to build a case against Luke.

You make me laugh. You are the one that is afraid to see what scholars say.

And now you are trying to shift the burden of proof. If who governed Syria before Quirinius matters you would have to prove it. It was not part of my argument. It is not my burden of proof.

Harel13 · Nov 20, 2022

Redemptionsong said:
You have been arguing that Jesus might have been a Samaritan. I'm trying to demonstrate, from scripture, that Jesus was a Jew, through and through.

IMO, there is no indication from the Gospels that Jesus, or his apostles, ever considered themselves anything other than Jewish.

Oh, I don't know. You haven't dissected the arguments I raised point by point. You've mostly tried to bring more proofs for your side, though most of them aren't particularly strong.

As for Jesus focusing on Jews - I already talked about that a few times. He wasn't gaining enough traction by the Samaritans so he changed his tune and turned to the Jews.

dybmh · Nov 20, 2022

Redemptionsong said:
The day of a thousand years is scriptural because it is gleaned from passages in both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. Peter tells the Church not to be ignorant 'of this one thing'! [2 Peter 3:8]

False. Again.

"A day of a thousand years" does not exist in Hebrew scripture. I already explained this. You did not / could not refute it. If you have something from Jewish scripture to support this then bring it. Otherwise you are just spreading falsehood. Proverbs 13:3, Proverbs 19:9.

Peter's epistles are opinion. What reasons are there to believe it's word of God?

He never speaks in God's name or in God's voice.

The vision he supposedly had in Acts 10 describes his god instructing him to break the law of Moses. So, really he's not connected to the same god as Jewish scripture? Thus his epistle is not word of God.

If you go back to the Gospels, Peter is far from a perfect vessel of faith in Jesus. So, again, **at best** anything coming from Peter is weak evidence because according to the story his faith is inconsistent. He could backslide at anytime.

Look closely at 2 Peter 3:8, he is NOT directly quoting scripture. If he were, it would indicated as in 1 Peter 1:6. "διότι περιέχει ἐν γραφῇ ... " "There contained in scripture ..." If it's not a direct quote, then Peter's assertion about days and years is opinion, not scripture.

Per Jewish scripture Peter is a false prophet. He spoke falsehood about The Lord.

Deut 13:6 And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.

Where does Peter speak falsehood?

1 Peter 4:11 If anyone speaks, he should speak as one conveying the words of God. If anyone serves, he should serve with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the power forever and ever. Amen.

But the Lord doesn't share glory... Isaiah 42:8

8 I am the Lord, that is My Name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to the graven images.

But, if a person ignores ( or is blind

) to all that... Let's assume Peter is writing holy scripture. Does it make sense to apply it to Hosea 6:2 as "1 day = 1000 years"? No. it doesn't fit.

2 Peter 3:8 does NOT provide a direct equivalence 1 day = 1000 years. Look at the text. It is using a simile, a poetic device. The verse says "one day with the Lord is LIKE [ὡς] a thousand years, and a thousand years are LIKE [ὡς] day one". So you cant use this verse to do any date-math.

2 Peter 3:8 CANNOT be used to interpret Hosea 6:2. Again, look at the text. The condition in Peter's letter is "With God". The speaker in Hosea 6:2 is NOT with God. They are bound, smitten, and in need of healing. So the comment from Peter does not apply here.

So again, at best 2 Peter 3:8 is weak evidence that 1 day = 1000 years. You're still stuck with a weak argument in this debate. So much is dependent on one word "day". Deriving a thousand years for this day is NOT scriptural.

Do you have any scriptural reasons to think Jewish people are spiritually blind? You have utterly failed to this point.

dybmh · Nov 20, 2022

Redemptionsong said:
Only by defining the length of existence of the present heaven and earth it is possible to talk about a 'new heaven, and a new earth'. The new heaven and earth, spoken of by lsaiah, is yet to come.

"Only by defining the length ... " FALSE. Talking about a new heaven and earth in future without defining the time parameters further is a perfectly valid understandable concept.

What are you trying to say here?

Redemptionsong · Nov 20, 2022

Harel13 said:
Oh, I don't know. You haven't dissected the arguments I raised point by point. You've mostly tried to bring more proofs for your side, though most of them aren't particularly strong.

As for Jesus focusing on Jews - I already talked about that a few times. He wasn't gaining enough traction by the Samaritans so he changed his tune and turned to the Jews.

You cannot claim that Jesus and his disciples were Samaritans when everything Jesus did and said disproves it!

Jesus only passed through Samaria out of necessity. Here is what it says in John 4:
'He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee.
And he must needs go through Samaria' [John 4:3,4].
In other words, the only reason Jesus went to Samaria was because it lay between Judea and his home in Galilee! Since he was walking, he stopped near Sychar, at Jacob's well, to get a drink!

With bafflement upon bafflement!

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Am Yisrael Chai

Well-Known Member

Am Yisrael Chai

Well-Known Member

Am Yisrael Chai

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Am Yisrael Chai

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Am Yisrael Chai

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש

Well-Known Member