Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 04-24-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I took a math class last quarter in which we had to prove lots of negatives. Shall I tell the professor that he was asking us to do the impossible?

Perhaps you might suggest how Jeffrey might prove his negative?

Larsguy47 · 04-24-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

While I am sure I will regret asking this, I can't help myself. Why 'fall?' And what do you consider 'fall?'

Julian

The primary reason is the interpretation that the 8-day Festival of Booths is fulfilled by Jesus' birth and circumcision on the 8th day of that Festival, and that the Passover Festival celebrates the time of Jesus' death. His ministry was just 3-1/2 years where he fulfills "gift and sacrifice" ends in the middle of the 70th week after his arrival.

Both the Passover week and the Festival of Booths are week-long events with two special sabbath days, the 1st and the 7th days for the Passover festival, but the 1st and the 8th day for the Festival of Booths.

LEV 23:33 And Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: 34 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the festival of booths for seven days to Jehovah. 35 On the first day is a holy convention. No sort of laborious work may YOU do. 36 Seven days YOU should present an offering made by fire to Jehovah. On the eighth day there should occur a holy convention for YOU, and YOU must present an offering made by fire to Jehovah. It is a solemn assembly. No sort of laborious work may YOU do.

The celebration of the Festival of Booths or Taberacles entailed the Jews making booth for themselves and living outside the house for 8 days. This thus foretold that Jesus, representing God, would arrive in a booth, that is, outside the home and in an animal shelter, usually made of similar booths. Of course, Jews had their male children circumcised on the 8th day of life. This would correspond to the special sabbath day on the 8th day of the festival. Thus the assumption is that Jesus fulfilled this specifically. If he specifically died 3-1/2 years after his ministry began in the spring during the time of Passover, then likewise he would fulfill the time of the Festival of Booths and be born on the 15th day of the festival and then circumcised on the 8th day to fulfill those two special sabbath days. That being the case, in 2 BCE Jesus would have specifically been born on.

USING SKYMAP: Just in case some are interested. There's a free demonstration version of the astronomy program called "Skymap" that will give you the phases of the moon for any given month. This is great for determining what calendar day certain events happened in the ancient past since many feast days were lunar dates say linked with the full moon (i.e. Passover and Fesitval of Booths). Thus using that program, the full moon occurs on September 14th which likely means it was celebrated on the 15th of September. So that would be the date Jesus was born, September 14-15, 2 BC, with his circumcision occurring on the 8th day which would be the 21-22nd of September.

September near the beginning of Fall.

LG47

Larsguy47 · 04-24-2007, 09:36 PM

Just in passing regarding the 4 BCE dating. Josephus gives two rulerships for Herod, one 34 years and one 37 years. That's a clue that Herod's rule was adjusted 3 years. We correct this by simply combining the reference of the 37-year rule where the 34-year rule now begins. The result is the likely correct and original dating for Herod's death. Thus 37 years beginning in 37 CE would date his death on Shebet 2, 1 AD. Jesus would have been two years old by this time if he was born c. September 14-15, 2 BC.

The eclipse Josephus mentions which must occur in the month of Tebet just after the annual Jewish Fast of the 10th of Tebet, and thus only 22 days before Herod's death on Shebat 2, does occur on Tebet 14, 1 BC. There is no eclipse on Tebet 14 in 4BCE or 3BCE, thus this eclipse reference is likely a hint to when to correctly date the death of Herod in spite of his representation of a different date for Herod's death. When you use the Bible's reference for when Herod would have died and combine that with the eclipse information, you get the same dating for Herod's death on Shebat 2, 1 AD. Otherwise, the eclipse doesn't even begin to work; as I noted, no eclipse fitting this reference works in either 4BCE or 3 BCE.

LG47

mountainman · 04-24-2007, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

Determined by whom? Would you please document this claim?

The closest I can get to a citation on this date 4 BCE
right now is F. A. Campbell, in his `Apollonius of Tyana,' :

"The birth of Apollonius is assigned to the year 4 B.C. But as everybody knows, the current computation of the beginning of the Christian era is incorrect, and the first year of our Lord ought to be dated four or five years earlier. If the Apollonian and Christian nativities both belong to the same year, the coincidence is entitled the more attention than it has received."

I dont know what Campbell used at this stage.

spin · 04-24-2007, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Just in passing regarding the 4 BCE dating. Josephus gives two rulerships for Herod, one 34 years and one 37 years. That's a clue that Herod's rule was adjusted 3 years. We correct this by simply combining the reference of the 37-year rule where the 34-year rule now begins. The result is the likely correct and original dating for Herod's death. Thus 37 years beginning in 37 CE would date his death on Shebet 2, 1 AD. Jesus would have been two years old by this time if he was born c. September 14-15, 2 BC.

The eclipse Josephus mentions which must occur in the month of Tebet just after the annual Jewish Fast of the 10th of Tebet, and thus only 22 days before Herod's death on Shebat 2, does occur on Tebet 14, 1 BC. There is no eclipse on Tebet 14 in 4BCE or 3BCE, thus this eclipse reference is likely a hint to when to correctly date the death of Herod in spite of his representation of a different date for Herod's death. When you use the Bible's reference for when Herod would have died and combine that with the eclipse information, you get the same dating for Herod's death on Shebat 2, 1 AD. Otherwise, the eclipse doesn't even begin to work; as I noted, no eclipse fitting this reference works in either 4BCE or 3 BCE.

Herod was given kingship by the Romans back in 40BCE. However, the Parthians aided Antigonus in his taking control of Judea until 37BCE when Herod with support of Roman forces (the only non-Roman I know of who led Roman forces) reconquered Judea in 37BCE, a fact which Herod celebrated through the issuing of coins: nearly every coin that Herod minted throughout his reign was dated Year 3, the year of his reign when he defeated Antigonus and took control of his kingdom.

Josephus's years tended to be inclusive. The 37th year, starting from 40BCE is 4BCE.

spin

jgibson000 · 04-25-2007, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The closest I can get to a citation on this date 4 BCE
right now is F. A. Campbell, in his `Apollonius of Tyana,' :

"The birth of Apollonius is assigned to the year 4 B.C. But as everybody knows, the current computation of the beginning of the Christian era is incorrect, and the first year of our Lord ought to be dated four or five years earlier. If the Apollonian and Christian nativities both belong to the same year, the coincidence is entitled the more attention than it has received."

I dont know what Campbell used at this stage.

Let me guess the reason why you don't know. It's because your source for Campbell's remark is not Campbell himself, whose work Apollonius of Tyana was published in 1908 (during the height of the religionsgeschichtliche Schule), but is instead the online edition of the 1956 "work" of B.H. Bernard entitled Apollonius The Nazarene which Bernard (a pseudonym of Walter Seigmeister, a non degreed health food writer with a history of failed attempts to found a utopian colony in the tropics whose most famous book was The Hollow Earth: The Greatest Discovery in History: Made by Admiral Richard E. Byrd in the Mysterious Land Beyond the Poles: The True Origin of the Flying Saucers (or via: amazon.co.uk)) describes as

"An Astounding Revelation Saved From the Flames that burnt the Alexandrian Library, which the Roman Churchmen razed to the ground to destroy all records of the Mystery Man of Christianity, APOLLONIUS OF TYANA, the historical Christ and World Teacher of the First Century, Now Revealed to the World for the First Time.

PROVING that APOLLONIUS OF TYANA was the TRUE FOUNDER of early Christianity and that the "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament had NO EXISTENCE except in the IMAGINATION of the Pagan Roman priests at Nicea, subsequently called the "Church Fathers," who INVENTED him as a SUBSTITUTE for APOLLONIUS, THE TRUE CHRIST"

In other words, your source for a quote from a conspiracy theorist is the work of another conspiracy theorist and crank whose work you found online.

Am I correct?

JG

Doug Shaver · 04-25-2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Perhaps you might suggest how Jeffrey might prove his negative?

Well, lessee. I was responding to Chris, who was responding to Ted, who was responding to this statement by Jeffrey (in post #43):

Quote:

All we have now is an assertion, but no demonstration.

Is that the negative you meant?

jgibson000 · 04-25-2007, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

... Sanders c. 4 BCE almost beyond dispute is just another misleading, overstated, criminally negligent, fraudulent and dishonest conclusion by mainstream Christian Bible scholarship that is not supported by the related argument

Speaking of "overstated" ... "Criminally negligent"???:huh:

And I'm still waiting for your proof that Sanders is a Christian, let alone, especially after his Paul and Palestinian Judaism (or via: amazon.co.uk), Sanders is either mainstream or an apologist.

Quote:

Do you think I enjoy demonstrating that Jeffrey is wrong?

I think you enjoy trying to show that I'm wrong. But I cannot recall that you've ever succeeded in doing so.

Jeffrey Gibson

Chris Weimer · 04-25-2007, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I took a math class last quarter in which we had to prove lots of negatives. Shall I tell the professor that he was asking us to do the impossible?

I don't know if you've figured it out yet, but this ain't no math class.

Ted Hoffman · 04-25-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Ted, I think Brown would deserve more criticism here than praise for the extent to which I think he would agree with Sanders. Gibson has not presented the most relevant comments of Brown here but I'm sure that was not intentional.

Page 666 of his classic, The Birth of the Messiah:

"My own judgment was that Luke confused the troubled times accompanying the death of Herod ten years previously."

The same Apologetic nonsense as Sanders, discrediting (without proper evidence) "Luke's" birth dating of c. 6CE as a serious contradiction to "Matthew's" supposed birth dating. Sanders/Brown share the same fatal flaw here in their arguments as Mainstream Christian bible scholarship, being officially Neutral concerning the Impossible (by the Way Jeffrey, are you ever going to give your position on this subject?). Since both Infancy Narratives consist primarily of the Impossible there is serious doubt in each regarding any possible claim such as birth date. This argument is exponentially better evidence than any other evidence considered by Sanders/Brown.

Actually in the Impossible category "Matthew" is much more impossible than "Luke" as Brown indicates. Their Apology is based on relatively little evidence that there was supposedly some confusion in ancient times between c. 4 BCE and c. 6 CE. It is just a thinly disguised Apology to seize on some reason, any reason, to impeach one of the dates thereby posturing a relatively definite date for the birth of Jesus.

Brown is most relevant here on page 607:

"A. Date of Jesus' Birth (before Herod's death in 4 B.C.). According to Matt, Jesus was born "in the days of Herod the king" (and Luke 1:5 places the annunciation of JBap's conception "in the days of herod, king of Judea"). Above (166-67) there was only a brief note pertaining to the date of Herod the Great's death: "While other possibillities are 5 B.C. and 1 B.C., the best evidence favors March/April 4 B.C. [ = 750 A.U.C.]." I do not have a major commitment to that date, but recent discussions offer no compelling reason to change despite some contrary voices."

Note the significant difference here between Brown and Sanders. Brown is only postulating a date for Herod the Great's death because that is what the secular references refer to. Sanders is going beyond this and postulating the date of Jesus' birth. This is representative of the superiority of Brown's scholarship over Sanders. Brown's term here that I think he would use to describe Sanders effort is "overhistoricizing".

Overall Ted, I think another righteous observation on your part, that Sanders c. 4 BCE almost beyond dispute is just another misleading, overstated, criminally negligent, fraudulent and dishonest conclusion by mainstream Christian Bible scholarship that is not supported by the related argument. Just another Apology, a step removed from claiming that "Luke" meant 4 BCE. A concession that "Luke" is in error but discrediting of her witness as a contradiction to "Matthew" in order to cling to a supposedly definite historical fact of Jesus, he was born c. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 BC (before his birth).

I think your secondary point is correct as well, Brown would disagree with Sanders statement of c. 4 BCE almost beyond dispute. It would be nice though Ted if you could explain why.

I have cited brown already and he writes in p.548 that it is "more plausible" to "recognize that one or both of the Lukan datings are confused, and that there is neither a need nor a possibility of reconciling them."
That position is similar to Carrier's and I lean towards it. Brown writes in the citation you provided that he does "not have a major commitment to that date" of c4BCE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Do you think I enjoy demonstrating that Jeffrey is wrong?

Do you? I have never thought about it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-24-2007, 09:36 PM	#73
Larsguy47 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 976	Just in passing regarding the 4 BCE dating. Josephus gives two rulerships for Herod, one 34 years and one 37 years. That's a clue that Herod's rule was adjusted 3 years. We correct this by simply combining the reference of the 37-year rule where the 34-year rule now begins. The result is the likely correct and original dating for Herod's death. Thus 37 years beginning in 37 CE would date his death on Shebet 2, 1 AD. Jesus would have been two years old by this time if he was born c. September 14-15, 2 BC. The eclipse Josephus mentions which must occur in the month of Tebet just after the annual Jewish Fast of the 10th of Tebet, and thus only 22 days before Herod's death on Shebat 2, does occur on Tebet 14, 1 BC. There is no eclipse on Tebet 14 in 4BCE or 3BCE, thus this eclipse reference is likely a hint to when to correctly date the death of Herod in spite of his representation of a different date for Herod's death. When you use the Bible's reference for when Herod would have died and combine that with the eclipse information, you get the same dating for Herod's death on Shebat 2, 1 AD. Otherwise, the eclipse doesn't even begin to work; as I noted, no eclipse fitting this reference works in either 4BCE or 3 BCE. LG47

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.