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

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

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

Those contradicting Gospels!

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Rationalizations are typically considered as excuses, rather than actual reasons. According to the definition of the word, they are "the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate."

When I say a lot of apologetics are simply rationalizations, that's not meant to speak of them being actual valid supporting reasons. There is a difference between solid support, and using logic arguments as excuses for error. "I did it because they made me," is an example of rationalizing away error.

This is something I struggle with truly appreciating. I have no problem in accepting and embracing a loving God, with the fact there are errors and contradictions in scripture. I don't see the need to take scripture and make it something that it isn't. God is not the Bible. The Bible is a book. God is Spirit, not ink on paper.

As I said before, it's a dangerous position to hold that the Bible cannot be without error, because all it takes is for one error to collapse the whole house of cards. If you make it's flawlessness a criteria for faith in God, you set yourself and your faith up for a real problem. It's unnecessary to believe that, in order to believe in God.

I think it's Jesus that is the Word of God, according to scripture. The Bible is simply a collection of different writings that was compiled by later church administrators, pulling together which texts to include or exclude, finalizing more or less around the 5th century AD. Clearly, Christians were believing in God for at least 4 centuries prior to their being a collection called the bible. So I think the emphasis on the texts as the equivalent of Jesus Christ, or The Word of God, or the Logos as he is termed in John 1:1, is a little misguided.

And "all scripture", when that verse was written in the 2nd century (according to modern scholars), the only scriptures that those Christians had were the books of what we call the Old Testament today. There was no New Testament for those Christians. It had not been compiled yet. What the author of 2nd Tim meant by scriptures did not include the books of the NT. Those weren't included in "All scripture", as they weren't scripture yet.

Note, that if Paul did write 1 Tim, then it was before there were any gospels written, so that would exclude Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as scripture. So if we say Paul meant the gospels, that would be incorrect.
The Jewish Scriptures "inspired" by God. Yes, once a human gets in there and writes things down, they are not going to be perfect and without mistakes. Most all Scriptures run into this problem. The followers, and especially the leaders of the religion, are always going to be in a tough spot... Is their Scripture the absolute truth? Usually, it is only for them that there are no errors. Everybody else can find mistakes everywhere.

well, we were talking about the text being flawed or not.
As flawed as humans may be ... this doesn't mean the text has to be flawed.
So the written Torah has no flaws? What about the Oral Torah? If you say, "no"... that the "oral" Torah was a work of men, then you still have a problem... at some point of time, the written Torah was handed down orally too. So these men remembered and repeated oral traditions about Creation, the flood and the exodus without ever changing the stories?

Then same thing with the gospel stories. If there are differences, then the stories are different and do contradict each other. That shows human involvement in the telling and repeating of the story. God would not have forgotten how many people went to the tomb and what they saw. People would. If different people told the story, especially people that weren't there, people that had heard the story from others, might very well have things added and things missed. That's what it sounds like to me. To you, no flaws, no errors, no contradictions? Unfortunately, that sounds to me more like denying the obvious. Can God and Jesus still stand if the book people wrote about them isn't accurate? By denying flaws, it is saying that "no" they can't stand.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
So these men remembered and repeated oral traditions about Creation, the flood and the exodus without ever changing the stories?
Good questions Didymus.
It's my belief that God wanted these changes that I believe took place.
That's a way of communicating, too. When every oral agent - or say 80% of them - make an alteration at the same passage, God might say it's ok then. I see God as behaving pretty democratically sometimes.
But now the canon is closed, as I see it.
Then same thing with the gospel stories. If there are differences, then the stories are different and do contradict each other.
Here I think differently personally: Differences enrich the text without being contradicting.

God would not have forgotten how many people went to the tomb and what they saw. People would.
yeah of course... but this does not necessarily produce a contradiction. The tomb stories perfectly fit together as I see it.
Here again: I see differences between the different gospels... but no contradiction.
To you, no flaws, no errors, no contradictions?
yes exactly.

Theoretically, God and a Jesus making mistakes might stand perhaps. Strange idea though, I think. I happen to not believe them to have made mistakes.

Thomas
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Where did you dig that up from?
The Baptist was fearless, or he would never have challenged the priesthood and Temple in the first place. He doubted Jesus because of the stories about Jesus's behaviour.


John had the guts, while in prison, to accuse Antipas and his 'wife' of breaking the marriage laws.
Jesus was annoyed at the questions and was answering them with 'attitude!'....... a kind of '..well you can tell him that I'm saving and healing and winning, then! Huh!'.

Where did you get that idea of yours?

Do you think that John, a first cousin of Mary, being the son of Elizabeth, the sister to Hanna the mother of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus, who doubted that Jesus was the one who was to free the Jews from the yoke of Roman rule, or whether they had to wait for another, actually believed that his cousin Mary was still a virgin, after she had conceived her child?

Surely, if he believed that Jesus was born of a virgin, which would have been the greatest of all miracles, he would never have doubted.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Do you think that John, a first cousin of Mary, being the son of Elizabeth, the sister to Hanna the mother of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus, who doubted that Jesus was the one who was to free the Jews from the yoke of Roman rule, or whether they had to wait for another, actually believed that his cousin Mary was still a virgin, after she had conceived her child?
Hello.....
Firstly, I think Luke's delightful story of how a very young pregnant wife in 1st century Palestine could go walkabout down to Jerusalem way .......... is total bunkum. And since Luke was not witness to any of it at all I think I can put that manipulation to one side.
Secondly, Jesus's (and John's) first objective was to sort out a corrupt, greedy, quisling, hypocritical cheats.... the Temple priesthood.
Thirdly, John clearly had no idea whether Jesus was right to take over from him or not, or he wouldn't have made such enquiries.

Surely, if he believed that Jesus was born of a virgin, which would have been the greatest of all miracles, he would never have doubted.
Surely not, I'm afraid. This story appeared after Jesus's death. Christians have needed to reverse their faith backwards in to so many old prophecies for the purposes of impressing the people. I suppose that back then folks would believe such reports.

No....... John was worried about Jesus, and certainly no relative of his.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Hello.....
Firstly, I think Luke's delightful story of how a very young pregnant wife in 1st century Palestine could go walkabout down to Jerusalem way .......... is total bunkum. And since Luke was not witness to any of it at all I think I can put that manipulation to one side.
Secondly, Jesus's (and John's) first objective was to sort out a corrupt, greedy, quisling, hypocritical cheats.... the Temple priesthood.
Thirdly, John clearly had no idea whether Jesus was right to take over from him or not, or he wouldn't have made such enquiries.


Surely not, I'm afraid. This story appeared after Jesus's death. Christians have needed to reverse their faith backwards in to so many old prophecies for the purposes of impressing the people. I suppose that back then folks would believe such reports.

No....... John was worried about Jesus, and certainly no relative of his.

The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC and is believed to have been murdered at the orders of Herod the Great. The sonless Yehoshua, had three daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth and Anna/Hanna, whose mother was from the tribe of Asher.

Knowing that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his daughters were placed with future husbands according to the Torah, he married them off to chosen husbands.

Joanna, was betrothed to Joachim from the non-royal genetic lineage of David. The second daughter of Yehoshua III, was Elizabeth. This was the Elizabeth, who, at a very advanced age was to become the mother of John the Baptist in 7 BC, a year before the birth of Jesus and some 16 years after the death of her father ‘Yehoshua/Jesus III,’ in 23 BC, and she was betrothed to a Levite priest by the name Zacharias of the priestly course of Abijah.

The young Davidian prince Heli, [Alexander Helios III] the son of Mattathias ben Levi, was chosen by Yehoshua/Jesus III the high priest in Jerusalem, as the candidate to marry his daughter Hanna/Anna.

There are two men from around this period, who were named ‘Alexander Helios III’, one was the son of Cleopatra and Mark Anthony, who was adopted out after the suicidal deaths of his parents, with absolutely no historical evidence whatsoever of what may have happened to him, the other, was the son (Or adopted son) of Mattathias=Mattat and his wife Esther of Jerusalem, or Queen Alexandra II, a very close friend of Cleopatra the Queen of Egypt.

Alexandra was to became the mother (Or step-mother) of Heli ben Mattat or Prince Alexander Helios III. who became the father of Mary the mother of Jesus.

Esther of Jerusalem can be identified as the future Maccabee Queen known by her Greek name as Queen Alexandra II, who was the great grandmother of Yeshua (Jesus).

Hanna/Anna, the third daughter, was betrothed to Alexander Helios III (Heli) a young Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through Nathan the Levite, who was the stepson of King David.

The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 19b).” In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house, which means, that Heli and his descendants, who were born from the genetic line of Nathan ‘the prophet,’ who was the adopted son of King David, were legitimate heirs to King David, although originally, not to the throne of Israel, as the prophesied Messiah had to come through the genetic line of Solomon.

It is believed that Mary was born 2- 3 years after the death of her Grandfather in 23 B.C. and was 14 years old when she gave birth to Jesus in 6 B.C.

Alexander Helios=Heli, the grandfather of Jesus, was to later sire the child Mary to the seventy year old Hanna, the daughter of the high priest Yehoshua III around 20 BC, before [Heli] Alexander Helios III was murdered in 13 BC, by order of Herod the Great, in the pogroms which saw the demise of many of the heirs to David’s throne.

It is said that after the death of her father, Alexander Helios=Heli, “who was a father of renowned,” the seven-year-old Mary [who is believed by some to be the grand-daughter of Mark Antony, and by others, to have been the grand daughter of Queen Alexandra II,] was removed from her mother and taken north into the land of Galilee where she was raised under the protection of the Jewish zealots whose aim it was, to throw off the yoke of Roman rule and establish a descendant of King David, back on the throne of Israel.

There are those who believe that the union between Mary, the daughter of Alexander Helios, with her half-brother Joseph the son of Heli, from which union the child Jesus was born, was arranged by the Zealots, as it was the custom in those days for the female heir to the throne, (Mary, the daughter of Alexander Helios,) to unite with their brother, as Cleopatra and all female heirs had done before her.

But because Joseph the son of Alexander Helios and any male offspring of his, would have been seen as a threat to the throne of Herod the Great as was his father, the biological father of Jesus had to remain hidden, and for the safety of the child, the pregnant Mary, was married off to Joseph the son of Jacob, a descendant of the cursed genetic line of King Jehoiachin.

Herod’s chief advisers, would not have seen Jesus, who they believed was the son of Joseph ben Jacob as a threat to the throne of Herod, because Mary, unbeknown to the Jewish authorities was already pregnant to her half-brother “Joseph the son of Alexander Helios,” and was taken to wife by Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah. This Joseph ben Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary and who was only the step-father of Jesus, was a descendant of Solomon through the cursed line of Jehoiachin, of whom we read in Jeremiah 22: 30; “This man is condemned to lose his children, to be a man who will never succeed. He will have no descendants who will rule in Judah as David’s successor. I, the Lord, have spoken.” This, would appear to rule out the hope of any son of Joseph ben Jacob ever sitting on the throne of David, whereas Jesus the son of Joseph ben Heli=Alexander Helios was a legitimate successor to that throne.

The Messenger of God, told the young virgin Mary while still in Nazareth, that she would in the future become pregnant and bear a son who would be made a King as his ancestor David was and that her aged aunty Elizabeth was pregnant

One of the zealots would have escorted the 13 year old Mary from Nazareth to the land of Benjamin, where many friends and family members had gathered at the home of Elizabeth, to celebrate her pregnancy, apparently, among whom, was her half brother Joseph the son of Heli=Alexander Helios.

It was Elizabeth, the sister of Hanna, who lived in the land of Benjamin, and who was the aged pregnant mother of John the Baptist, whose first words to her niece Mary, were; “How happy you are to believe that the Lords message to you (While she was still in Nazareth of Galilee) will come true.”

How did Elizabeth know that the message to young Mary was, that she was to become pregnant and bear the future King of Israel, ‘Jesus,’ a descendant of King David, and that the act by which the child would be conceived, would be hidden in the shadow beneath the wings of the Lord of spirits who would over-shadow her act of obedience.

Was Elizabeth a party to the conspiracy? And was Joseph the son of Alexander Helios already there among the family and friends of the aged and pregnant Mother of John the Baptist? John, who later on in life, and while in prison sent his disciples to Jesus to ask if he really were the promised king and saviour of the Israelites, or if they had to wait for someone else?

Surely John would not have doubted for one moment that Jesus was the promised Messiah, if he believed that his cousin Mary was an ever virgin, in whose womb, a supposed alien life form that pre-existed the creation of the cosmos, created for itself a human like body that was not of the seed of Adam, which body had not inherited the penalty of Adams sin?

When the baby Jesus was some 40 days old, Mary took him from the southern town of Bethlehem, to the temple in Jerusalem to perform the ceremony of purification, where Hanna, the grandmother of Jesus gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were waiting for God to set Jerusalem free from the yoke of Roman rule.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC and is believed to have been murdered at the orders of Herod the Great. The sonless Yehoshua, had three daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth and Anna/Hanna, whose mother was from the tribe of Asher.
Are you telling me that Jesus the tekton who grew up on a hill of peasant tent dwellers near Zippori (Sepphoris) and later hung around with a bunch of Eastern Aramaic speaking Galilean boatmen......... was in fact a high ranking Levite?
I don't think so..... :)

Knowing that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his daughters were placed with future husbands according to the Torah, he married them off to chosen husbands.

Joanna, was betrothed to Joachim from the non-royal genetic lineage of David. The second daughter of Yehoshua III, was Elizabeth. This was the Elizabeth, who, at a very advanced age was to become the mother of John the Baptist in 7 BC, a year before the birth of Jesus and some 16 years after the death of her father ‘Yehoshua/Jesus III,’ in 23 BC, and she was betrothed to a Levite priest by the name Zacharias of the priestly course of Abijah.

The young Davidian prince Heli, [Alexander Helios III] the son of Mattathias ben Levi, was chosen by Yehoshua/Jesus III the high priest in Jerusalem, as the candidate to marry his daughter Hanna/Anna.

There are two men from around this period, who were named ‘Alexander Helios III’, one was the son of Cleopatra and Mark Anthony, who was adopted out after the suicidal deaths of his parents, with absolutely no historical evidence whatsoever of what may have happened to him, the other, was the son (Or adopted son) of Mattathias=Mattat and his wife Esther of Jerusalem, or Queen Alexandra II, a very close friend of Cleopatra the Queen of Egypt.

Alexandra was to became the mother (Or step-mother) of Heli ben Mattat or Prince Alexander Helios III. who became the father of Mary the mother of Jesus.

Esther of Jerusalem can be identified as the future Maccabee Queen known by her Greek name as Queen Alexandra II, who was the great grandmother of Yeshua (Jesus).

Hanna/Anna, the third daughter, was betrothed to Alexander Helios III (Heli) a young Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through Nathan the Levite, who was the stepson of King David.

The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 19b).” In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house, which means, that Heli and his descendants, who were born from the genetic line of Nathan ‘the prophet,’ who was the adopted son of King David, were legitimate heirs to King David, although originally, not to the throne of Israel, as the prophesied Messiah had to come through the genetic line of Solomon.

It is believed that Mary was born 2- 3 years after the death of her Grandfather in 23 B.C. and was 14 years old when she gave birth to Jesus in 6 B.C.

Alexander Helios=Heli, the grandfather of Jesus, was to later sire the child Mary to the seventy year old Hanna, the daughter of the high priest Yehoshua III around 20 BC, before [Heli] Alexander Helios III was murdered in 13 BC, by order of Herod the Great, in the pogroms which saw the demise of many of the heirs to David’s throne.

It is said that after the death of her father, Alexander Helios=Heli, “who was a father of renowned,” the seven-year-old Mary [who is believed by some to be the grand-daughter of Mark Antony, and by others, to have been the grand daughter of Queen Alexandra II,] was removed from her mother and taken north into the land of Galilee where she was raised under the protection of the Jewish zealots whose aim it was, to throw off the yoke of Roman rule and establish a descendant of King David, back on the throne of Israel.

There are those who believe that the union between Mary, the daughter of Alexander Helios, with her half-brother Joseph the son of Heli, from which union the child Jesus was born, was arranged by the Zealots, as it was the custom in those days for the female heir to the throne, (Mary, the daughter of Alexander Helios,) to unite with their brother, as Cleopatra and all female heirs had done before her.

But because Joseph the son of Alexander Helios and any male offspring of his, would have been seen as a threat to the throne of Herod the Great as was his father, the biological father of Jesus had to remain hidden, and for the safety of the child, the pregnant Mary, was married off to Joseph the son of Jacob, a descendant of the cursed genetic line of King Jehoiachin.

Herod’s chief advisers, would not have seen Jesus, who they believed was the son of Joseph ben Jacob as a threat to the throne of Herod, because Mary, unbeknown to the Jewish authorities was already pregnant to her half-brother “Joseph the son of Alexander Helios,” and was taken to wife by Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah. This Joseph ben Jacob, who married the already pregnant Mary and who was only the step-father of Jesus, was a descendant of Solomon through the cursed line of Jehoiachin, of whom we read in Jeremiah 22: 30; “This man is condemned to lose his children, to be a man who will never succeed. He will have no descendants who will rule in Judah as David’s successor. I, the Lord, have spoken.” This, would appear to rule out the hope of any son of Joseph ben Jacob ever sitting on the throne of David, whereas Jesus the son of Joseph ben Heli=Alexander Helios was a legitimate successor to that throne.

The Messenger of God, told the young virgin Mary while still in Nazareth, that she would in the future become pregnant and bear a son who would be made a King as his ancestor David was and that her aged aunty Elizabeth was pregnant

One of the zealots would have escorted the 13 year old Mary from Nazareth to the land of Benjamin, where many friends and family members had gathered at the home of Elizabeth, to celebrate her pregnancy, apparently, among whom, was her half brother Joseph the son of Heli=Alexander Helios.

It was Elizabeth, the sister of Hanna, who lived in the land of Benjamin, and who was the aged pregnant mother of John the Baptist, whose first words to her niece Mary, were; “How happy you are to believe that the Lords message to you (While she was still in Nazareth of Galilee) will come true.”

How did Elizabeth know that the message to young Mary was, that she was to become pregnant and bear the future King of Israel, ‘Jesus,’ a descendant of King David, and that the act by which the child would be conceived, would be hidden in the shadow beneath the wings of the Lord of spirits who would over-shadow her act of obedience.

Was Elizabeth a party to the conspiracy? And was Joseph the son of Alexander Helios already there among the family and friends of the aged and pregnant Mother of John the Baptist? John, who later on in life, and while in prison sent his disciples to Jesus to ask if he really were the promised king and saviour of the Israelites, or if they had to wait for someone else?

Surely John would not have doubted for one moment that Jesus was the promised Messiah, if he believed that his cousin Mary was an ever virgin, in whose womb, a supposed alien life form that pre-existed the creation of the cosmos, created for itself a human like body that was not of the seed of Adam, which body had not inherited the penalty of Adams sin?

When the baby Jesus was some 40 days old, Mary took him from the southern town of Bethlehem, to the temple in Jerusalem to perform the ceremony of purification, where Hanna, the grandmother of Jesus gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were waiting for God to set Jerusalem free from the yoke of Roman rule.
Source?

I don't mind hearing that Mary was in fact a Levite because Celsus wrote that she was a Temple virgin in one of the Zippori Temples, that she had an affair with a Roman Soldier and was thus dishonoured, but that would have been around 4BC. Joseph the carpenter took her on and they fled South after Zippori was overrun by the Bandit Judas Bar Ezekiah.

That could explain how Jesus grew up as a Galilean peasant.

How does that fit with your history?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Good questions Didymus.
It's my belief that God wanted these changes that I believe took place.
That's a way of communicating, too. When every oral agent - or say 80% of them - make an alteration at the same passage, God might say it's ok then.
What you do not understand here is that there was never a single story, which others tried their best to repeat verbatim. A storyteller, alters the story, adds stuff, removes stuff, etc. But it's around a central theme. Oral traditions carried forward different elements that were popular with audiences, and so forth.

At some point, down the road, a scribal tradition takes some of these stories and puts them into a written form. That's like taking a single recording of a musician playing a performance of a piece. You have that tape recording, but that is not the only way that song can be performed for all times, locked, sealed, and threatened with the judgment of hell, should any musician from that time forth ever dare perform it differently.

This is what you have in essence, when you try to say that one single recording, that scribal tradition, is the one and only way the story can be told, even completely contradicting the details of that one that got written down, or recorded.

The reason a canon of scripture can be so limiting, is because it suppresses the living narrative of the story, told from human to human, society to society, culture to culture. Like music, it is allowed to evolve with use. But to say, "these texts, these words, and these words only!," is to stifle musical, or spiritual creativity.

I see God as behaving pretty democratically sometimes.
But now the canon is closed, as I see it.
So just because scribes wrote down the story, it can never be interpreted or told in any other way? Just because, it's what you have today, and God intended you to have this as you do today and not question anything or look at it from any other perspective? Everything in the world of religion, is absolutely ordained to be what it is for you at this time in history?
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Are you telling me that Jesus the tekton who grew up on a hill of peasant tent dwellers near Zippori (Sepphoris) and later hung around with a bunch of Eastern Aramaic speaking Galilean boatmen......... was in fact a high ranking Levite?
I don't think so..... :)


Source?

I don't mind hearing that Mary was in fact a Levite because Celsus wrote that she was a Temple virgin in one of the Zippori Temples, that she had an affair with a Roman Soldier and was thus dishonoured, but that would have been around 4BC. Joseph the carpenter took her on and they fled South after Zippori was overrun by the Bandit Judas Bar Ezekiah.

That could explain how Jesus grew up as a Galilean peasant.

How does that fit with your history?

You don't think too much at all do you, and it is obvious that you have never studied the scriptures in any great detail.

Herod the Great died in 4 B.C, after a failed suicide attempt, and after he had ordered the slaughter of all the young boys in the district to where the wise men had gone, who were two years and below. This was because Jesus was born in 6 B.C.

According to the Encyclopedia Britt, ‘Philip of Bethdaida, [Herod Philadelphus Boethus} the only son of a young Jewess by the name of ‘Cleopatra’ (A Macedonian name) who was sired by her husband ‘Herod the Great’ was born in 20/19 B.C. This was not Cleopatra the Queen of Egypt who in 40 BC, gave birth to her twins Cleopatra Selena and Alexandra Helios (Heli), the children of Mark Antony the Macedonian, and a few years later, Cleopatra gave birth to a younger brother to Selena and Heli, who was named Philadelphus.

This Cleopatra, the wife of Herod the Great, who I believe was the daughter of Cleopatra the Queen of Egypt, who carried her name, became the mother of Herod Philadelphus who, I believe, she named after her young half brother Philadelphus the son of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra.

Herod Philadelphus also called ‘Philip of Bethsaida,’ was about 14/15 years older than ‘Jesus’ who was born around 6 BC as the grandson of Alexander Helios [Heli,] and the son of Mary from the tribe of Levi, whose Aunty Elizabeth, were both, of the daughters of the house of Levi.

Philip [Philadelphus] the son of Cleopatra and Herod the Great, married his niece Herodias the daughter of his half brother Aristobulus, one of two sons of Miriamne, who were murdered by Herod the Great.

Herodias the mother of Philips daughter, eventually left her husband Philip to live with his half brother Herod Antipas. the tetrarch of Galilee.

After the death of his father, Herod the Great in 4 B.C, Philip was given control of southern Lebanon and modern Syria, to the east of the Lake Galilee, and Philip was a model ruler of whom almost nothing is known except for the fact that he ruled (throughout the life of Jesus) the district in which Jesus spent much of his ministerial time and in which he worked most of his miracles. Matthew 11: 20-21, “The people in the towns where Jesus performed MOST of his MIGHTY MIRACLES, did not turn from their sins, so he reproached those towns on the eastern side of the lake, “How terrible it will be for you, Chorazin! How terrible for you too, Bethsaida etc.”

It was outside the walls of ‘Bethsaida Julias’ that had been rebuilt by Philip, that Jesus healed a blind man, See Mark 8: 22-26. It was in Caesarea Philippi, which according to Luke in Acts 16: 12; was the chief city in that part of Macedonia, a city rebuilt by Philip, (PHILIP, is a Macedonian name) that Jesus asked his disciples ‘who people were saying he was.’ It was in this district that Philip from Bethsaida played a part in the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes, and in medieval art Philips symbol was loaves, See John 6: 1-7 where Jesus puts Philip to the test.

The last Testament of Herod the Great, which was approved by Augustus, provided that Archelaus receive ruler ship of Judea, with Philip and Antipas ruling two of the remaining tetrarch’s.

When returning from Egypt with Mary and her child Jesus, after the death of Herod the Great, Joseph Ben Jacob, the step-father to Jesus, wanted to live in the land of Judaea rather than to return to their home in Nazareth near Bethlehem of Galilee, which town today, is called “Beithlahm,” and is only a few kilometres from Sepphorus, which towns suffered extensive damage in the great riots of 4 BC, which was the same year in which Herod died after a failed suicide attempt, (Which suicide I believe,) was an option given to him by Caesar Augustus, because of the riots that he caused in the territory around Bethlehem/Beitlahm, Nazareth and Sepphorus, in which so many families were murdered and others removed to Rome where they were sold as slaves. Those riots occurred immediately after the parents of the young, ‘one to two’ year old Jesus were warned to flee from their home in Nazareth, into Egypt.

The reason why Joseph ben Jacob, the step-father to Jesus, who, on their return from Egypt after the death of Herod the Great, wanted to live in Judea and yet was afraid to live there, was because Herod’s son, the cruel, depraved, and despised Herod Archelaus was ruling there. For this reason they returned to Nazareth in Galilee. Archelaus was later recalled to Rome and banished because he had antagonized the entire population of Judea and Samaria. Judea then became a Roman province and the Herod, who was in Jerusalem at the time of Passover when Jesus was being tried by Pontius Pilate, was Herod Antipas who ruled from Sepphorus and Jericho, and was the Herod who had John the Baptist beheaded at the request of Herodias the wife of Philip, and mother of Philip’s daughter, and sister to Herod Agrippa I, Herodias and Agrippa I, both having been sired by Aristobulus the son of Miriamne.

In 34 AD, shortly after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Philip’s reign came to an abrupt end. Philip of Bethsaida simply vanishes from the pages of history, and in 36 AD, Herod Agrippa I, the grandson of Herod the Great and nephew of Herod Philip and Herod Antipas, received the tetrarch of the Macedonian district of Batanaera and Trachonitis to the east of the sea of Galilee, formerly held by his uncle Philip.

When Herod Antipas and Herodias tried to discredit Agrippa I, who was in favour with the Emperor Caligula, they themselves were banished, Antipas’ tetrarch passing on to Agrippa 1 in AD 39. Then in 41 AD and after the assassination of Caligula, Agrippa’s support for Claudius was rewarded with the government of Judea, which had, since the banishment of Herod Archelaus, been ruled by Roman procurators for about 30 years. It was this Herod who enjoyed the support and adoration of the Jewish authorities, who did all in his power to crush the infant Apostolic Church of Jesus.

It was he who executed James, the son Zebedee, whose mother, is believed to have been named Salome, a sister of Jesus, and a close friend of Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s minister of finances, who was one of the women who supported Jesus using their own resources. And Agrippa would have killed Peter also, had he not have escaped from prison. Agrippa’s sudden death in 44 AD is recorded in Acts 12: 21-23.

Joanna the wife of Chuza is recorded in Luke 8: 2-3; as one of the women who "had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities" who accompanied Jesus and the Apostles, and "provided for Him from their substance."

Bethsaida on the eastern side of the Jordan in the old Macedonian territory where it enters Lake Galilee, was the birth place of Peter and his brother Andrew, who were close friends of Philip, who with Andrew, were the two men to who John the Baptist pointed out Jesus, the son of Mary his cousin, as the one whom the ‘LIGHT of MAN’ had chosen, as the man through who he would reveal himself to the world; the man that he had promised Moses that he would in the future, raise up from among the Israelites, the one who would come in the name of the Lord ‘Who I Am’ and speak only that which he was commanded to say by ‘Who I Am’ [The Son of Man] and the Most High in the creation. Deut 18:18-19.

So, in answer to your question; "How does your non biblical rubbish, fit with my history of the life of Jesus," I must now ask you, "Why did you bother to enter a thread of the Gospels, when you are obviously totally ignorant to the subject in question?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You don't think too much at all do you, and it is obvious that you have never studied the scriptures in any great detail.
You can't win a debate with personal jibes and insults. I won't bother with you after this post........ you're insulting.
Now, let's see what you've got.

Herod the Great died in 4 B.C, after a failed suicide attempt, and after he had ordered the slaughter of all the young boys in the district to where the wise men had gone, who were two years and below. This was because Jesus was born in 6 B.C.
Yes, we know Herod died in 4BC. ..
And 'No' Matthew's gospel tells us that Jesus was born just after 6 AD. You see? A contradiction in the gospels which is what this thread is about.

According to the Encyclopedia Britt, ‘Philip of Bethdaida, [Herod Philadelphus Boethus} the only son of a young Jewess by the name of ‘Cleopatra’ (A Macedonian name) who was sired by her husband ‘Herod the Great’ was born in 20/19 B.C. This was not Cleopatra the Queen of Egypt who in 40 BC, gave birth to her twins Cleopatra Selena and Alexandra Helios (Heli), the children of Mark Antony the Macedonian, and a few years later, Cleopatra gave birth to a younger brother to Selena and Heli, who was named Philadelphus.
The bible tells us that Philip was a friend of Andrew's. He may well have come to Genesarret with Andrew and Simon for work and a living. He was interested in the Baptist's movement against Temple greed, corruption, hypocrisy and treachery so he definitely wasn't any kind of Levite.

This Cleopatra, the wife of Herod the Great, who I believe was the daughter of Cleopatra the Queen of Egypt, who carried her name, became the mother of Herod Philadelphus who, I believe, she named after her young half brother Philadelphus the son of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra.
You believe........... and believe........ the things that you believe......
How long must this go on for?......... yawn......

After the death of his father, Herod the Great in 4 B.C, Philip was given control of southern Lebanon and modern Syria, to the east of the Lake Galilee, and Philip was a model ruler of whom almost nothing is known except for the fact that he ruled (throughout the life of Jesus) the district in which Jesus spent much of his ministerial time and in which he worked most of his miracles.
Modern Syria? The Roman Legate Ruled all Syria and was over-seer of all Palestine!
Philip (and a sister) sub ruled the Northern provinces and Antipas ruled Galilee AND PEREA! Archelaus was deposed/retired in 6AD and a Roman Prefect took over Idumea, Judea and Samaria from that time. You need to get this stuff right.

Matthew 11: 20-21, “The people in the towns where Jesus performed MOST of his MIGHTY MIRACLES,” did not turn from their sins, so he reproached those towns on the eastern side of the lake, “How terrible it will be for you, Chorazin! How terrible for you too, Bethsaida etc.”
Chorazin is in Galilee. And if you had only read just a little further you would have noticed that Jesus was not just moaning about communities to the East of Jordan, thus:-
Matthew {11:23} And thou, Capernaum,
which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to
hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee,
had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this
day.

Chorazin and Capernaum are both in Galilee.

It was outside the walls of ‘Bethsaida Julias’ that had been rebuilt by Philip, that Jesus healed a blind man, See Mark 8: 22-26. It was in Caesarea Philippi, which according to Luke in Acts 16: 12; was the chief city in that part of Macedonia, a city rebuilt by Philip, (PHILIP, is a Macedonian name) that Jesus asked his disciples ‘who people were saying he was.’ It was in this district that Philip from Bethsaida played a part in the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes, and in medieval art Philips symbol was loaves, See John 6: 1-7 where Jesus puts Philip to the test.

The last Testament of Herod the Great, which was approved by Augustus, provided that Archelaus receive ruler ship of Judea, with Philip and Antipas ruling two of the remaining tetrarch’s.

You've still overlooked their sister who ruled one province.

When returning from Egypt with Mary and her child Jesus, after the death of Herod the Great, Joseph Ben Jacob, the step-father to Jesus, wanted to live in the land of Judaea rather than to return to their home in Nazareth near Bethlehem of Galilee, which town today, is called “Beithlahm,” and is only a few kilometres from Sepphorus, which towns suffered extensive damage in the great riots of 4 BC, which was the same year in which Herod died after a failed suicide attempt, (Which suicide I believe,) was an option given to him by Caesar Augustus, because of the riots that he caused in the territory around Bethlehem/Beitlahm, Nazareth and Sepphorus, in which so many families were murdered and others removed to Rome where they were sold as slaves. Those riots occurred immediately after the parents of the young, ‘one to two’ year old Jesus were warned to flee from their home in Nazareth,
They were not riots. Judas BarEzekias had overrun Zippori (Sepphoris) after Herod had died, intending to hold it. The Syrian Legate Varus was ordered to sort out the mess. He did. All women and children in Sepphoris were sold in to slavery to pay for the expedition costs. All the men were forced to raze Sepphoris to the ground and then crucified, either around the Sepphoris ruins or in Jerusalem..... we don't know.

The reason why Joseph ben Jacob, the step-father to Jesus,
Oh.... stop you there. Jesus was a Galilean. All the peasants (there was no middle class) in the Northern Provinces spoke Eaastern Aramaic so as soon as you make mention of 'Ben' I think you are way out.

However, it is possible that Judas's full name was Judas BenSimon but that's it. All the other's were 'Bar'.

In 34 AD, shortly after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,
So you reckon Jesus was 40 years old when he died.
He may not have died.....probably did not.

Philip’s reign came to an abrupt end. Philip of Bethsaida simply vanishes from the pages of history, and in 36 AD, Herod Agrippa I, the grandson of Herod the Great and nephew of Herod Philip and Herod Antipas, received the tetrarch of the Macedonian district of Batanaera and Trachonitis to the east of the sea of Galilee, formerly held by his uncle Philip.
When Herod Antipas and Herodias tried to discredit Agrippa I, who was in favour with the Emperor Caligula, they themselves were banished, Antipas’ tetrarch passing on to Agrippa 1 in AD 39. Then in 41 AD and after the assassination of Caligula, Agrippa’s support for Claudius was rewarded with the government of Judea, which had, since the banishment of Herod Archelaus, been ruled by Roman procurators for about 30 years. It was this Herod who enjoyed the support and adoration of the Jewish authorities, who did all in his power to crush the infant Apostolic Church of Jesus.
It was he who executed James, the son Zebedee, whose mother, is believed to have been named Salome, a sister of Jesus, and a close friend of Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s minister of finances, who was one of the women who supported Jesus using their own resources. And Agrippa would have killed Peter also, had he not have escaped from prison. Agrippa’s sudden death in 44 AD is recorded in Acts 12: 21-23.
Joanna the wife of Chuza is recorded in Luke 8: 2-3; as one of the women who "had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities" who accompanied Jesus and the Apostles, and "provided for Him from their substance."
We know........... but all of this is after Jesus, and not relevant to the Thread.

Bethsaida on the eastern side of the Jordan in the old Macedonian territory where it enters Lake Galilee, was the birth place of Peter and his brother Andrew, who were close friends of Philip, who with Andrew, were the two men to who John the Baptist pointed out Jesus, the son of Mary his cousin, as the one whom the ‘LIGHT of MAN’ had chosen, as the man through who he would reveal himself to the world; the man that he had promised Moses that he would in the future, raise up from among the Israelites, the one who would come in the name of the Lord ‘Who I Am’ and speak only that which he was commanded to say by ‘Who I Am’ [The Son of Man] and the Most High in the creation. Deut 18:18-19.
Most of that is correct, but your mention of 'Peter' is hardly accurate for one who professes to be a scholar of Jesus. Andrew's brother was Simon BarJonah and Jesus never called him Peter, never knew that name. Jesus called Simon Cephas.
I only mention these things because you think you're smart.

So, in answer to your question; "How does your non biblical rubbish, fit with my history of the life of Jesus," I must now ask you, "Why did you bother to enter a thread of the Gospels, when you are obviously totally ignorant to the subject in question?
I never did ask you such a question. Never was so rude.
So that finishes my answers to you....... See ya later.......... much later.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Oldbadger said in post #229.
Yes, we know Herod died in 4BC. ..
And 'No' Matthew's gospel tells us that Jesus was born just after 6 AD. You see? A contradiction in the gospels which is what this thread is about.


So then, you believe that Jesus was born 11/12 years after the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C., do you. And nowhere does Matthew state that Jesus was born just after 6 AD,

But something that Matthew does tell us, is that the wise men came to Herod the Great in search of the child that had been born to be the King of Jews, because they had seen the heavenly sign that was prophesied to herald the birth of the promised Messiah, while they were still in the East.

Matthew 2: 7; GNB; “So Herod called the visitors from the east to a secret meeting and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared.”

Then we read in verse 16. “When Herod realized that the visitors from the east had tricked him, (And were not going to return and reveal to him the whereabouts of the young two year-old child,) he was furious. He gave orders to kill all the boys in the district to which the wise men had visited, who were two years old and younger — this was done in accordance with what he had learned from the visitors about the time when the star (that had heralded the birth of the child) had appeared.

Oldbadger said....I won't bother with you after this post

That would be my advice to all who are as biblically ignorant as you appear to be.

Oldbadger said......You've still overlooked their sister who ruled one province.

This is what I mean, if I have to correct every piece of misinformation of yours in your recent post, I would here until god come Sunday.

Salome, a common female name, was the sister of Herod the Great. With a brother such as Herod and a patroness such as Livia, Salome must have been a wealthy woman. When Herod died in 4 BCE she became even wealthier. Herod bequeathed his sister a toparchy (a small state) which included the cities of Jamnia, Ashdod, and Phasaelis, from which she received revenue of sixty talents per annum. His bequest to Salome also included five hundred thousand drachmae of coined silver. Caesar Augustus supplemented Herod’s bequest to Salome with a royal palace at Ashkelon. Salome was truly a powerful woman, and now, with her inheritance, her influence could be felt outside of Herod’s court.

It would be my advice that you do as you said you would, and refuse to bother me after this post, as it will only prove to all, just how ignorant you are to the holy scriptures.

BTW, Bethsaida, Capernaum, and Chorazin, are three villages within about five miles of each on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee; all three figure prominently in the Gospel narratives.
 
Last edited:

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Continued from post #230.

As it was prophesied, that a heavenly event would herald the birth of the promised Messiah, we must ask if there was any significant heavenly event in 6 BC.

"Astronomy, Astrology, and the Star of Bethlehem." BY John Clevenger of the Lake Country Astronomical Society," which says as follows, "Did any unusual astronomical phenomenon occur between 8 and 2 BC? As it happens there were several notable celestial events during that period. The Chinese astronomical records, which have proved very reliable, reported two comets during that time. The comet of 5 BC which was visible for 70 days, was reported to have a tail. Professor Humphreys of Cambridge University believes that this comet, which he describes as having a vertical tail, appeared at the time of the Jewish Passover. Professor Humpherys believed that this started the Magi, who were knowledgeable of the Jewish prophecy recorded in the book of Micah, concerning the birth of a Jewish king, on their journey.

If right about the vertical tail, this could agree with the biblical account in Matthew that the "Star Stood Over" [THE HOUSE] where the young child was" as the term “STOOD OVER” in ancient literature, according to Professor Humphreys of Cambridge University, refers to comets and comets only.

The comet of 4 BC had no tail and whether it was a comet or a nova is unknown. If it was a nova in 4 BC, which is the death of a star, it would have coincided with the death of Herod the Great in that same year. While historians have usually suggested that comets were always bad omens. Humphreys believes that history shows them to be either good or bad omens.

.I could use any of a number of authorities to supply evidence of the 6 BC triple conjunction of the "King Planet" Jupiter, with Mars, the “God of War” and Saturn the “God of Time,” who brings the golden age of peace to the earth, which I believe was read by the wise men as the sign that was prophesied to herald the birth of the promised King, (Jupiter) who was to succeed to the throne of David the warrior king, (Mars) as the prophesied Messianic King of Israel, who is to come and subdue the surrounding Nations and bring in the golden Age of one thousand years of peace. (Saturn.)

All short period comets which re-appear every two hundred years of less, have their aphelia in the orbit of Jupiter and even up until relatively recent times, those short period comets were thought to have been created from material ejected from the King Planet Jupiter and were called the family of Jupiter.

The comet of early 5 B.C., would have been captured by the gravitation pull of the triple conjunction, and IMO, would have been seen as the child born of the glorious expanded body of Jupiter, and it was this that set them on their Journey to Israel.

The Comet of 5 B.C., which is said to have a tail and remained visible to those in the northern hemisphere for 70 days and led the Magi to the child Jesus in Nazareth, would have been very similar to the comet Hale-bopp, which was first seen March 1-10 low on the eastern horizon

By May 8, the Comet Hale-Bopp would be approaching its last hurrah, and would have become increasingly difficult to see low in the fading glow of sunset.

During the next week or two, you could still follow the fading comet right down into the sunset with the naked eye or binoculars, etc.

The Comet, or Hairy star as they were called in those days, would have first been seen low on the eastern horizon, having of itself no apparent movement other than being one among the background of stars that appear to travel from the east to the west according to the rotation of the earth, and yet each night it would appear in a different heavenly position relative to the background stars as it travelled toward the western horizon in its 70 days of visibility in the northern hemisphere.

The title "wise men" is translated from the original Greek word magos. The word refers to a priest of the Persian religion Zoroastrianism. These priests, or magi, frequently looked to the stars for signs of the future and gained an international reputation for astrology and revelation/divination.

It is more than probable that the "wise men" were in fact Zoroastrian priests from Persia. And as there was a sizable Jewish presence in Babylon at that time, they obviously studied the old Hebrew scriptures. (Historians estimate that there were about 6-7 million Jews living in the Roman Empire (plus another 1 million from Persia.)

Although the history of the Jews in Iraq in the 5th century BCE is largely unknown, we know that the exiles were allowed to practice their religion while in Persia, and that they would have established schools/colleges in which to teach the children born while they were in exile.

The Bible also states that when the magi found the child Jesus, they "fell down and worshiped him." This verse references or indicates bowing, kneeling or prostration, which was generally viewed by both the ancient Jews and Romans as undignified, and in Jewish tradition was reserved for their God alone. However, for Persians, bowing or kneeling was a sign of respect generally directed toward kings.

I believe that the Bible should only be interpreted by the scriptures themselves. The Books of the Bible are like wheels of perfectly interlocking cogs, wheels within wheels, here a little and there a little etc.

Luke tells us that Mary gave birth to her firstborn son in the town of Bethlehem of Judea, as opposed to the Bethlehem, which was about two miles from Nazareth in Galilee, and that eight days after the child was born, it was circumcised and named Jesus. Then thirty-three days later, and before the wise men from the east had come and lavished their gifts of Gold, Frank-incense and mire, on the baby Jesus, he was taken OPENLY carried to the temple in Jerusalem by his not so financial parents, where his mother performed the purification ceremony, in accordance to the time demanded by the law handed down through Moses.

And after they had completed everything in ACCORDANCE TO THE LAW, they returned to their home in Nazareth. Luke makes no mention of any wise men traveling to Bethlehem of Judaea, or of any slaughter of the innocents.

How do we know, even though it is not mentioned in Luke, that it was thirty-three days after the circumcision that the ceremony of purification was performed? Because Luke says, "And when the days of her purification ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.

According to scripture, the child was taken to the temple in Jerusalem for the ceremony of purification at the correct time demanded by the law of Moses, which was 41 days after the birth, immediately after which, the family returned to their home in Nazareth.

To find out when the days of her purification according to the Law of Moses were accomplished, we simply turn to Leviticus 12: 3-4; and let the Bible reveal itself to us: (3) On the eighth day the child shall be circumcised. (4) Then it shall be 33 more days until she is ritually clean from her loss of blood; etc.

How do we know that the parents of Jesus were not flushed financially? Again, we must let the Bible reveal that to us, Leviticus 12: 8, "If the woman cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two doves or pigeons etc," the fact that the birds were offered, shows that they were unable to afford a lamb, and had not yet received the gifts of Gold, etc.

How long was it before the wise men, after seeing the comet early in the spring of 5 BC, which is believed to have been the inspiration for them to travel to Jerusalem, decided that they should go to pay homage to the heir of that throne, and to organize that trip? And how long did it take them to travel from Mesopotamia to Jerusalem?

The only help that we receive from the Bible is found in Ezra 7: 8-9; "They (Ezra and his group) left Babylonia on the first day of the first month, and with God’s help they arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month."

Four months, it took them to travel to Jerusalem. Even if we halve that time and take into account that the comet which inspired them to travel to Jerusalem had not appeared until sometime after the triple conjunction of 6 BC, which had heralded the birth of Jesus, there is no possible way that the wise men could have seen the baby Jesus in the manger in Bethlehem of Judaea, as the family (According to Luke) had returned to Nazareth 2 months after the birth of the child in Bethlehem.

On bright moonlit or cloudy nights or dust storms, the comet would be hidden from view, and apparently this was what had happened before they reached Jerusalem and went to the Palace of Herod and asked; Matthew 2: 2-“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 believed that the child had been already been born.

Matthew 2: 7; So Herod called the visitors from the east to a secret meeting and found out from them the the exact time that the star had appeared, etc.

After revealing to Herod in 4 B.C., the exact time that they had seen the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of the promised Messiah, we read in Matthew 2: 16; it was in accordance to this information that Herod determined the age of the children who were to be slaughtered, all those who had been born in 6 B.C., or after. This reveals that the wise men had seen the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus, almost two years previously.

Having been told that the child was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem of Judaea, (Although we know from Luke that the family had left Bethlehem 41 days after the child had been born and had returned to their home in Nazareth) the wise men Left the palace of Herod, and behold, there in the north norwest of Jerusalem, the star that they had seen in the east, was visible once again, and Oh what joy was theirs.

Traveling north in the direction of the hairy star, we can almost picture the scene, the wise men with their entourage travelling along the dusty roads of northern Israel, it’s late in the day and as they come to a rise, there, just above the distant horizon, in the deepening darkness of the evening sky, is the star with its tail streaming up into the heavens and appearing to STAND OVER the small and insignificant hamlet, or Zealot Commune, called "Nazareth," as it slowly followed the setting sun.

After entering, not the manger in Bethlehem of Judah, but the ‘HOUSE’ of Joseph and Mary in Nazareth, the wise men paid homage to the child Jesus, That very same night, the wise men, who would presumably have travelled to Jerusalem across the Kings Highway, were warned in a dream not to reveal to Herod the child’s whereabouts, and they returned home by a different route from which they had come, which would, more than likely, have been up through the northern route of Damascus, and Joseph was also warned to get out of bed immediately and take the child and his mother and flee into Egypt.

Herod’s secret police had eyes and ears throughout the entire land, and when he realised that he had been tricked and the wise men were not going to return and reveal the child’s location as promised, he was furious and gave the order to kill all the male children in the district that Herod's spies had confirmed that the wise men with their entourage had travelled to, which was around Bethlehem of Galilee, who were two years and below according to the time that he learned from the wise men about when they had first sighted the star that had heralded the birth of the promised king and savour.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
This is what you have in essence, when you try to say that one single recording, that scribal tradition, is the one and only way the story can be told, even completely contradicting the details of that one that got written down, or recorded.
there are no contradictions in the Bible, in my opinion. God managed to keep them out, however human his agents may be/ may have been.
God is almighty. Don't tell me he is unable to deal with human agents and all their limits when putting down a piece of divine literature.

I'm not saying that the Bible was the only way in which certain things could have been told. God certainly adapted, too, while working on his piece of literature collaborating with mankind.

The reason a canon of scripture can be so limiting, is because it suppresses the living narrative of the story, told from human to human, society to society, culture to culture. Like music, it is allowed to evolve with use. But to say, "these texts, these words, and these words only!," is to stifle musical, or spiritual creativity.
take a Beethoven symphony, for instance. It's set. There is nothing to be altered when it comes to composition. Yet there are different interpretations of the piece... al notes being equal.
The canon is similar to a Beethoven symphony. No musician in the world would change notes in it.
This doesn't prevent the canon from living.
The Beethoven symphony is closed to further alterations, so is the Bible.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
there are no contradictions in the Bible, in my opinion. God managed to keep them out, however human his agents may be/ may have been.
God is almighty. Don't tell me he is unable to deal with human agents and all their limits when putting down a piece of divine literature.

I'm not saying that the Bible was the only way in which certain things could have been told. God certainly adapted, too, while working on his piece of literature collaborating with mankind.


take a Beethoven symphony, for instance. It's set. There is nothing to be altered when it comes to composition. Yet there are different interpretations of the piece... al notes being equal.
The canon is similar to a Beethoven symphony. No musician in the world would change notes in it.
This doesn't prevent the canon from living.
The Beethoven symphony is closed to further alterations, so is the Bible.

Do you honestly think so Thomas t?

Tell me, was Luke lying when he said in Luke 3: 35-36, that Cainam the son of Arpachshad, was the father of Shelah, when the father of Shelah is only mentioned twice in your OT: Genesis 11: 12, and 1 Chronicles 1: 18, which both state that Arpachshad is the father of Shelah.

Either Luke lied, or he went outside the books of your canon to discover the truth, what do you think Tt.

Perhaps Luke may have studied from scripture that is not included in your canon, such as the book of Jubilees [Chapter 8] 1 In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week, in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu’eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she 2 bare him a son in the third year in this week, and he called his name Kainam. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for 3 himself a city. And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and 4 stars in all the signs of heaven. And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was 5 afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it. And in the thirtieth jubilee, in the second week, in the first year thereof, he took to himself a wife, and her name was Melka, the daughter of Madai, the son of Japheth, and in the fourth year he begat a son, and 6 called his name Shelah; for he said: ’Truly I have been sent.’
 
Last edited:

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Either Luke lied, or he went outside the books of your canon to discover the truth, what do you think Tt.
I think that there is no contradiction in mentioned passage.

Luke certainly has read the passage in Chronicles, as well as the passage in Genesis. He knew that, he was not dumb, I think.

I think, Genesis uses wording that's different from Luke. This is how you could explain the differences in lineage:
Genesis talks about biological forefathers, Luke about real sonship. Perhaps, for God it's not enough to just procreate to be real parents...

For instance, I have a friend whose daughter calls him "my father". Yet he did not father her. He married her mother.

My conclusion: Luke neither lied nor went outside the canon.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
I think that there is no contradiction in mentioned passage.

Luke certainly has read the passage in Chronicles, as well as the passage in Genesis. He knew that, he was not dumb, I think.

I think, Genesis uses wording that's different from Luke. This is how you could explain the differences in lineage:
Genesis talks about biological forefathers, Luke about real sonship. Perhaps, for God it's not enough to just procreate to be real parents...

For instance, I have a friend whose daughter calls him "my father". Yet he did not father her. He married her mother.

My conclusion: Luke neither lied nor went outside the canon.

Then from where did he learn the truth, that Shelah was actually the son of Cainam and not the son of Arpachshad, as your erroneous limited OT canon would have you believe? certainly not from your OT, and there was no NT in his day..

Luke would have learned from the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew bible that was still in existence some 300 years before Jesus, and in Genesis 11: 12; and 1 Chronicles 1: 18; it is written that Cainan/Kainam, is the father of Shelah, and unlike your erroneous bible, which states that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years to the day, the Septuagint reveals that they were only in Egypt for 215 years which is supported by Paul.

Catch ya later young fellow.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Surely not, I'm afraid. This story appeared after Jesus's death. Christians have needed to reverse their faith backwards in to so many old prophecies for the purposes of impressing the people. I suppose that back then folks would believe such reports.
And they still impress and people still believe... and believers still need to come up with good reasons why they believe the stories are true. The writers had to have perfect and reliable sources that told them about the events and the things that Jesus said. But, since the stories vary, there wasn't just one source. But, so what? Who cares if the stories don't match perfectly? Because some believers needed it to be perfect and say it is perfect, it causes some people to call the whole thing into question.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
And they still impress and people still believe... and believers still need to come up with good reasons why they believe the stories are true. The writers had to have perfect and reliable sources that told them about the events and the things that Jesus said. But, since the stories vary, there wasn't just one source.
Or you could reverse that last sentence:
But since there was not one source the stories vary.

But, so what? Who cares if the stories don't match perfectly?
Well, it doesn't matter if stories vary, but when they support a religion that would (in total power) subdue all people... then miserable old grumps like me might come along to call them out on the obvious junky bits. :)

Because some believers needed it to be perfect and say it is perfect, it causes some people to call the whole thing into question.
Nobody minds folks believing in amazing ..... beliefs.... No probs there.

But some extremist believers want to see a Christian Theonomy in place where Old Testament punishments from cherry-picked laws would be delivered in public. They would even execute child defaulters. Women would be returned to the home, no votes, no offices.

Truly....... :)
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
your erroneous bible,
I don't think my Bibl is erroneous. Neither do I think the canon is flawed.
You didn't/couldn't back up your claim about Paul having supported the theory that Israel being was in Egypt for a shorter time (215 years) by citing scripture. So I consider this to be presumption from your part,

I reject the whole idea of God coming up with a flawed Bible. Why would he?

I'm not an extremist believer.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
I don't think my Bibl is erroneous. Neither do I think the canon is flawed.
You didn't/couldn't back up your claim about Paul having supported the theory that Israel being was in Egypt for a shorter time (215 years) by citing scripture. So I consider this to be presumption from your part,

I reject the whole idea of God coming up with a flawed Bible. Why would he?

I'm not an extremist believer.

Because He only wants those who diligently search, to find him.

Isaiah 6: 8; Then I heard the Lord say, “Whom shall I send? Who will be our messenger?”
I answered, “I will go! Send me!”
9 So he told me to go and give the people this message: “No matter how much you listen, you will not understand. No matter how much you look, you will not know what is happening.” 10Then he said to me, “Make the minds of these people dull, their ears deaf, and their eyes blind, so that they cannot see or hear or understand. If they did, they might turn to me and be healed.”

**mod edit**

The Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which was translated by Hebrews in Alexandria, some 2/3 centuries before Jesus, states in Exodus 12: 40-41; "The Israelites had lived in the land of Canaan and the land of Egypt for 430 years.

Whereas, your erroneous canon, which was translated in the fourth century C.E. for the Roman church of Emperor Constantine by Jerome, states in Exodus 12: 40-41; "The Israelites had lived in Egypt for 430 years. On the day the 430 years ended, all the tribes of the LORD's people left Egypt."

In Galatians 3: 17; "What I mean is that God made a covenant with Abraham and promised to keep it. The Law, which was given 430 years later, cannot break that covenant and cancel God's promise."

God's first covenant=promise to Abraham, was, that if he would leave the family of his father and travel into the land of Canaan, He would be given that land as his inheritance.

Abraham was 75 when he moved into the land of Canaan, 25 years later at the age of 100, Abraham became the father of Isaac to his half sister Sarah. When Isaac was 60, he became the father of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel, and when Israel was 130 he moved his entire family into the Land of Egypt where they remained for 215 years before God, through his prophet Moses, gave to Israel the law, 430 years after God made his first promise=covenant to Abraham/

75+60+130=215 years in the land of Canaan. 215 years from the 430 years that they were in the land of Canaan and the land of Egypt, as revealed in the Greek translation of the Hebrew, from which Jesus and his apostles including Paul and his companion Luke had taught, because your erroneous OT that did not exist until the 4th century C.E., is; 430-215=215 years that the Israelites were in Egypt.

So there you go youngen, I can and have backed up my claim about Paul having supported the truth that Israel was in Egypt for (215 years) by citing scripture. Just not from your erroneous canon.

Catch ya later young fellow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
**mod edit**

Now back to the content of what you wrote:
Because He only wants those who diligently search, to find him.
so this is reason why God has inserted some erroneous passages, according to you.
You shall not lie, he says. Inserting errors into texts is similar to lying as I see it.
Your assertion that those who dilligently search him will find him... is still correct though.

Galatians 3:17 does not negate the 430 years... it merely cites them. Paul knew the figure of 430 as cited in Exodus, I suppose. He recalls it as to indicate that the law came thereafter.

It's not wrong, btw.

Let's now dive into the Greek word Greek Concordance: Μετὰ (Meta) -- 299 Occurrences .
Paul uses this word a 50 times appart from the Galatians passage. Always translated as "with" according to Bible Hub. So... if we go ahead and understand the meta in Galations as "with", it gets clear what is meant I think: with/after the time of the (known) 430 years [in Egypt] ...

I think it's like this.
The point Paul is making is clear though.

Thomas
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top