The Nativity (disciples, prophet, priests, gospel)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As promised here are the links to the heavens concerning the 18 month period from May, 3 B.C.E. to December, 2 B.C.E. and the phenomena that took place during this time.
As it is Josephus and only Josephus were the atheist gets their defence against the gospel nativity I will start with Josephus.
In the past I have pointed out where Josephus get chronological dates mixed up; and although the atheists will cry about me attacking their bible, the fact that Josephus has a habit of getting his chronological dates mixed up does come into play historically speaking. And if this is so, and it will become evident that it is, then we must question the dating of Achelaus reign that Josephus gives as either 9 or 10 years as Josephus sates in one place that Achelaus reigned 9 years and in another place that Archelaus reigned 10 years.
Josephus states that Herod the great started his reign when Herod was 15 years old (Josephus,*Antiquities*XIV.158–159.), however today we know that Herod did not being his reign until he was about 25 years old.
Jospehus states that Archelaus reign 9 years in (Josephus,*War*II.111.) and 10 years in (Josephus,*Antiquities*XVII.342.)
Josephus states in (Josephus,*Antiquities*XVII.342; Life, 5.) that Hyrcanus was 81 years old at his death, but historians clearly realize that Hyrcanus was in his early 70’s when he was killed
In*Antiquities, XV.181 Josephus related that the interval between Pompey’s restoration of Hyrcanus to power and the time of Antigonus’ usurpation was more than 40 years, but that span of time was actually only about 23 years.
In*Antiquities, XV.231 Josephus said that Mariamme was executed late in 29 B.C.E., but in his*War, I.442 he said it was in 34 B.C.E.
In War*II.115 Josephus states that Archelaus married Galphyra, wife of King Juba of Mauritania, after Juba died,*but he was clearly in error. It is well known that Juba was alive about 20 years after Archelaus married Galphyra.
In War 70 Jospehus states that the first year of Cyrus the great was in what today is known as 570 B.C.E. Yet in Antiquities*X.233 Josephus says it was in 578 B.C.E. and yet again in Antiquities*X111.301 Josephus says it was in 586 B.C.E. whereas historians today believe the first year of Cyrus was in 538 B.C.E.
Is that anything like...
2KI 8:25-26 Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign. 2CH 22:2 He was 42 when he began his reign.
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign. 2CH 36:9 He was eight.
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin reigned three months. 2CH 36:9 He reigned three months and ten days.
Ok, so the thread is to show that the Gospel nativity (as recorded by Luke and matthew) could be reliable.
Let's first agree on what the sequence of historically agreed events is and then get some dates.
Herod was ruling Judea, Galilee, Perea and Trachontis. Towards the end of his life he got rid of his son Antipater and decreed that Antipas would rule Galilee and Peraea and Archelaus Judea after his death.
There was a the business of chopping up the golden eage he set over the temple he built and he killed those responsible for that.
He died, and Antipas went to rule Galilee and Archelaus Judea -provisionally, as he said he would have to be confirmed in his position by Augustus. There was a disturbance by supporters of the people Herod had killed in connection with the golden eagle business. Then Archelaus goes to Rome. While there, Antipas makes representations that he should have been ruling Judea and then letters from Varus arrive to say that revolts had broken out in Judea.
Augustus confirms Archelaus as ruler of Judea and he returns to find Varus putting down the various revolts. Archelaus gets involved in this (as I recall, the revolt of Athronges, or it may have been Simon - I'll check) and so he rules until reports of bad rule get back to Augustus and he deposes Archelaus and appoints Quirinus (governor of Syria) to send Coponius to dispose of Archelaus' assets, and run Judea as a Roman province, including setting up a taxation system based on a family census. This provokes yet another revolt - that of Judas the Galilean which is put down.
Now Pneuma, mate, is that ok or do you have some comments? If we can agree the events and sequence of events, I suggest we'll both assign a dates framework and see where to go from there in deciding which seem to fit the facts.
Last edited by mensaguy; 01-20-2017 at 05:02 AM..
Reason: Spelling
Ok, so the thread is to show that the Gospel nativity (as recorded by Luke and matthew) could be reliable.
Let's first agree on what the sequence of historically agreed events is and then get some dates.
Herod was ruling Judea, Galilee, Perea and Trachontis. Towards the end of his life he got rid of his son Antipater and decreed that Antipas would rule Galilee and Peraea and Archelaus Judea after his death.
There was a the business of chopping up the golden eage he set over the temple he built and he killed those responsible for that.
He died, and Antipas went to rule Galilee and Archelaus Judea -provisionally, as he said he would have to be confirmed in his position by Augustus. There was a disturbance by supporters of the people Herod had killed in connection with the golden eagle business. Then Archelaus goes to Rome. While there, Antipas makes representations that he should have been ruling Judea and then letters from Varus arrive to say that revolts had broken out in Judea.
Augustus confirms Archelaus as ruler of Judea and he returns to find Varus putting down the various revolts. Archelaus gets involved in this (as I recall, the revolt of Athronges, or it may have been Simon - I'll check) and so he rules until reports of bad rule get back to Augustus and he deposes Archelaus and appoints Quirinus (governor of Syria) to send Coponius to dispose of Archelaus' assets, and run Judea as a Roman province, including setting up a taxation system based on a family census. This provokes yet another revolt - that of Judas the Galilean which is put down.
Now Pneuma, mate, is that ok or do you have some comments? If we can agree the events and sequence of events, I suggest we'll both assign a dates framework and see where to go from there in deciding which seem to fit the facts.
Trans not sure what good that would do, you put out an article on the nativity, I put out an article on the nativity, I am content to leave it at that and let the readers decide who has made the better case historically.
We have been at this for about 6 mo. my friend and I simply need some time away from the net as that last post took me almost month to search out and it is just taking up to much of my time right now.
I have enjoyed speaking with you trans and when I decide to get back on the forum maybe we can hook up again on other issues.
Take care
Last edited by mensaguy; 01-20-2017 at 05:03 AM..
Reason: Edited quoted post
Cannot possibly be? No, we can see that we need to re-examine the evidence, not that it cannot possibly be. How did Josephus get all his information? He wasn't born then. He was born in 37 CE. He would have been how old when he started taking an interest in history?
Hi guy, unless you can show me how 60+ days can be squeezed into 29 days I will stick with my assessment of cannot possibly be.
If the math don't add up it don't add up.
It was math that made me see all the animals on the planet could not possibly fit into a boat, thus the flood story is not a historical event. Hopefully math here will help you see "cannot possibly be" is a true statement.
I know many "resounding" Christians that rely on Josephus to say that Jesus was mentioned as a historical figure by a contemporary (although Josephus could have been talking about any other Joshua, as there were many, and Josephus would have been a child if Jesus had preached very late).
I also know many resounding Christians that take Josephus more seriously on the point of the claimed birth then even the non-canonical gospels or other mythological accounts.
I don't doubt that LT as some countries have canonized Josephus as part of their bible. So you see atheist and Christians alike have made Josephus their bible.
However all I am saying about Josephus is that he must be read with a critical eye.
Trans not sure what good that would do, you put out an article on the nativity, I put out an article on the nativity, I am content to leave it at that and let the readers decide who has made the better case historically.
We have been at this for about 6 mo. my friend and I simply need some time away from the net as that last post took me almost month to search out and it is just taking up to much of my time right now.
I have enjoyed speaking with you trans and when I decide to get back on the forum maybe we can hook up again on other issues.
Take care
I thought you might ask. The point is that all the posts above are about the details - dating, feasibility of the astrologers linking some astronomical event with the prediction about a Jewish messiah etc. But, if they simply don't work to start off with, debating the details is pointless. And here I would argue, that no matter how you change the dating, if the census of Luke is associated with the Roman takeover of Judea through his reference in Acts to the revolt of Judas the Galilean, then it doesn't matter when herod died or whether the loyalty oath of 3 B.C was a registration requiring people to sign on at their home town, or a declaration of loyalty in the market -place or local temple - it can only be after the death of herod and the sacking of his son as ruler.
Which means that Matthew cannot be reconciled with Luke on dating, never mind the actual story (whether they moved house to Nazareth as in Matthew or went back to their home there as in Luke), and if you can't squeeze the events of Herod's final year and death into 4 B.C , you sure as hell can't shoehorn the visit of the magi the flight to Egypt and the return to Judea into Luke's week or so required for the circumcision before they returned to Nazareth.
Similarly, even if the astrologers were aware of the messiah prediction and linked it with some conjunction in the night sky (not a retrograde motion - Mars does that all the time and they would no more associate that with the long -awaited messiah than they would lunar eclipses) would they decide to trek to Judea to offer gifts, never mind worship? Not even Jews would worship the messiah. The story is written with the Christian interpretation of The Messiah in mind.
So you see the point - if the story does not work to start off with, arguing for a revision of the dating is academic. Which takes care of the question of Herod's death, and I am certainly open to a re-dating there, if only because the Loyalty oath was (apparently) 3 B.C and if it was Herod who fined the 6,000 Pharisees for refusing to take it, he was still alive after 4 B.C.
I think we can also pass over (no pun intended, I swear) the talk of Bible critics treating Josephus as a sort of Canonic Bible. He is by far the best source we have for the events of the time. The Gospels, demonstrably, are not.
That's if you agree the general sequence of events.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-20-2017 at 07:58 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ps..
sorry for Freudian slip I meant "thread", not "threat".
