Julian

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

Julian

spin

It sounds like "awesome", but with a /t/ instead of an /s/! :blush:

nspi

spin

The only way one would consider anything other than the possibility of Matthew's birth story was set in Joseph's home in Bethlehem, is because of the conflict with Luke. This seems to be relatively simple...

Joseph, not wanting to cause Mary trouble was going to "put her away privately" so as not to arouse local public opinion. The angel comes and tells Joseph that it's all okay, so he takes her to himself. She has the baby. We are told the birth was in Bethlehem.

I don't think this in any way misrepresents the Matthean version, which gives no scope for a change of venue between the time Joseph receives Mary and the time she gives birth.

I would be surprized if praxeus would claim any differently if he didn't have to make allowances for Luke. There's just no room in the Matthean version but that Mary bore the child in his house after he'd received her as his family.

The verb is actually katoikew, for which S&L give 1. settle in, colonize; 2. settle, dwell ... esp. of non-citizens. This is very much in the keeping of Mt 2:22 which says that because of Archelaus they didn't go to Judea -- they'd come from Bethlehem in Judea, but couldn't go back. They had to settle somewhere else. Because of another dream, they went to Galilee.

If you think this way, seriously, why do you deign to post on IIDB?


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
According to Sanders it's almost beyond dispute that it was during the reign of Augustus.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

Where does Matthew say the Magi come when the pay homage to Jesus?


JG

jgibson000

I think the only thing that's been proven here is that you don't understand or know what "c." signifies.


JG

Ted Hoffman

Great. Since some scholars prefer 5BCE and others prefer 6 BCE and others prefer 7BCE, we can simply sum it up by stating that it is almost beyond dispute that Jesus' year of birth is circa 4BCE?
You think "c" gives Sanders that much wriggle room? Or you simply dont undestand that the hyperbolic "almost beyond dispute" cannot survive the weight of the variations in "some scholars prefer 5BCE and others prefer 6 BCE and others prefer 7BCE"?

jgibson000

Having just re-read Brown's discussion of the historicity census in his Birth of the Messiah (Appendix VII, pp. 547-556), I find your claim above about what Brown would do vis a vis Sander's statement about when Jesus was most likely born absolutely inexplicable, especially if you have done what you claim you have done -- that you have read this section from Brown.

As is readily apparent to anyone who reads Appendix VII, Brown's whole discussion, and his conclusions about the historicity of the census and Luke's (lack of) accuracy ib saying that in Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria, presupposes, and works from, the validity of the claim that Jesus was born c. 4 BCE.

So, can you please tell me, Ted/Jacob: Have you or have you not read the entirety of Appendix VII. Or did you crib what you "quoted" from the Appendix from a web page somewhere?

JG

jgibson000

I think it shows that you have misrepresented him when you clam, as you have, that he said only 4 BC.

How is "almost beyond dispute" hyperbolic?

And, again, Ted/Jacob, have you actually read Brown's Appendix VII in his Birth of the Messiah, or is your acquaintance with what Brown says there only second hand?

JG

spamandham

Sorry messiah, but that's not the way reality works, and it's not the way BC&H works either. The Bible is not a trump card in historical analysis. It's just another bit of evidence like any other.