Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 04-07-2005, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthCounsellor

"Josephus improperly counted Herod's 37th year from 40 BC instead of 37 BC,

This is silly. The Roman senate appointed Herod king in 40 BCE. He went back to Judea and fought against Antigonus, defeating him with Roman help (Sosius) in 37 BCE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthCounsellor

He missed the last one (as he was the passover lamb that year.) Now it's down to two, at the most. So, like I said, I'm not convinced.

You do have problems reading. This is what I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Also, John has Jesus going up to Jerusalem three times for the passover, ie three different passovers, so his ministry according to that gospel was at least two years long, assuming the minimal case of starting on a passover.

You must admit yours was a relatively shallow comment in its levity.

spin

TruthCounsellor · 04-07-2005, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is silly. The Roman senate appointed Herod king in 40 BCE. He went back to Judea and fought against Antigonus, defeating him with Roman help (Sosius) in 37 BCE.

I am not a historian, per se. My point was merely that some who have studied it much more than I have disagree with you, spin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You do have problems reading. This is what I said:

One of the disadvantages of limited time, and responding (from days old memory) without re-reading it. Or, maybe it's an afflicition of my age. Still, my point was that I am not yet fully persuaded to believe that his minitry was as long as you (and others) claim that it was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You must admit yours was a relatively shallow comment in its levity.

I'm no fool. (You'd probably do well not to mistake me for one.)

TC

spin · 04-07-2005, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthCounsellor

I am not a historian, per se. My point was merely that some who have studied it much more than I have disagree with you, spin.

Study is not sufficient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthCounsellor

One of the disadvantages of limited time, and responding (from days old memory) without re-reading it. Or, maybe it's an afflicition of my age. Still, my point was that I am not yet fully persuaded to believe that his minitry was as long as you (and others) claim that it was.

I am merely pointing out the evidence in John. The synoptics simply don't mention the matter, but don't contradict the notion. Why should you? After all it is gospel?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthCounsellor

I'm no fool.

Does taking undue "levity" cash out to foolishness in your books? What about "shallowness of statement"? What you said was "He missed the last one (ie last passover)", which seems to me to be levity, seeing as Jesus is portayed as dying during the lead up to (his third) pesach.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthCounsellor

(You'd probably do well not to mistake me for one.)

Interesting rush of blood.

spin

TruthCounsellor · 04-08-2005, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Study is not sufficient.

If you've already concluded your research/study in this area, its not likely that much of anything will change your mind about what you believe to be the truth here. So, I guess I don't see the point in discussing it any further.

TC

spin · 04-08-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthCounsellor

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Study is not sufficient.

If you've already concluded your research/study in this area,

I don't know what sort of machination produced that reaction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthCounsellor

its not likely that much of anything will change your mind about what you believe to be the truth here. So, I guess I don't see the point in discussing it any further.

And I can only let you blunder on.

spin

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.