JoeWallack

Happy Birthday Mr. King

JW:
Jack's point is that pretty much everyone dates Herod the Great's death to
4 BCE (because that's where Josephus places it) so per "Matthew" here Jesus was born before Herod the Great died. If you accept the straight-forward meaning of Luke 2:2, that Jesus was born during a census while Quirinius was governor of Syria, than Josephus places that around 6 CE. Thereby the Date of Jesus' birth would differ between "Matthew" and "Luke" by over 10 years.

By an Act of Providence we just happen to have a live Thread here devoted to this very subject:

Carrier's Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth Now Up At ErrancyWiki

where I would love to discuss this Issue further with you.

I know it must seem Amazing to you that the two best Sources according to you regarding the Birth of Jesus have such Significantly different Birth dates for Jesus. But all is not lost as perhaps even more Amazing is that it allows "John" a Prophecy Fulfillment:

John 3

"In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."



Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

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

Faithful

Begat- make children
Born - brought forth by birth (same meaning I would say)

There are many branches to a family tree. Bottom line, Joseph was from the lineage of Jacob, thus being called the son of Jacob. Ask your Jewish friends to explain it.

Faithful

There are some 143 contradictions. I'm sure the administrators wouldn't be too happy if I used up all of the storage space answering every one of them


Do you have a scripture to back this up?

Luke's Jesus was only 8 days old when his parents took him to Jerusalem to be circumcised.

You said that there was no prophecy of Jesus being called out of Egypt. Everything in the OT ties in with Jesus and the NT.
Hosea 11: 1 When Israel was a child, I loved him as a son and I called my son out of Egypt.

Such as God symbolically rescued the Israelites and brought them safely out of Egypt's oppression, He would also bring Jesus out of Egypt, safely away from impending oppression.

Just as a little sidebar: There were many Herods during Bible times -
" the dynastic title of a succession of tetrarchs who governed Palestine for the Roman Empire.
Herod was the name of many rulers mentioned in the N.T. and in history. It was known long before the time of the biblical Herods.
Herod was the name of several members of the Herodian dynasty of Roman Judea"

Diogenes the Cynic

You tried to distort the meaning by arguing that the genealogy only claimed Joseph as a figurative son of the Patriarch. That's patently false. Matthew plainly and unambiguously claims that Joseph's literal father was named Jacob.
The genealogy starts with ABRAHAM (not Jacob) and descends link by link all the way until a DIFFERENT Jacob (not the patriarch) who was begat by MATTHIAN (not Isaac) is listed as the literal, biological, sperm donor father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. You either need to learn to read with better comprehension or try being a little more honest.

Diogenes the Cynic

I'll just ask you to clear up one. Was Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great, yes or no? That one should be easy for you.
Luke 2:2

This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria

The census of Quirinius took place in 6 CE. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. That means that By the time Luke's census took place, Herod had already been dead for ten years. I assure you, this contradiction cannot be reconciled. You're welcome to try, though, you wouldn't be the first.
The problem is that Luke also says that as soon as they were finished in Jerusalem, Joseph took his family right back to his home in Nazareth without any trip to Egypt (Lk 2.39). This actually contradicts Matthew in more than one way. Matthew says that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem before Jesus was born and that they settled in Galilee after they came back from Egypt only because Joseph feared Herod's son, Archelaus, in Judea (and the ethnarchy of Archelaus stil happened before Luke's census). Luke says Jospeh had already lived in Nazareth and was only in Bethlehem for a census (which actually never would have affected him in Galilee or required anybody to travel back to their ancestral villages but that's a different subject). So which s correct? Where did Joseph live before Jesus was born, Nazareth or Bethlehem. Who's wrong. Matthew or Luke...or both?
There isn't.
If by "everything," you mean "nothing," you're correct.
Pay careful attention to the second word of that quotation. That's who the verse refers to. It's not a messianic prophecy. It's not even a prophecy at all. It's a refernce to the Exodus.
What does that verse have to do with Jesus again? Oh yeah...nothing.
We know who the Herods were, thank you. Matthew explicitly identifies the Herod of his nativity as the father of Archelaus (who was also a Herod). That leaves no doubt that he was talking about Herod the Great. Not that it matters much. NOBODY from the Herodian Dynasty ever held power in Judea after it was annexed as a provincial territory (which means that no one named Herod ever shared power in Judea with any Governor of Syria).

aa5874

A contradiction overlooked ' with respect to Matthew and Luke' is the event after the so-called birth Jesus, which indicates that Luke's Jesus is truly different.
In Matthew 2:12-13, ' And being warned of God in a dream that they(the wise men) should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child, and his mother and flee into Egypt....'

Now, Luke's angel says something completely different. Luke 2:10-11 , 'And the angel said them (the shepherds), 'Fear not: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David, a Saviour which is Christ the Lord.

Luke 2:16-18, 'And they came with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manager.
And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

So, we see Matthew's Jesus is born under a cloud of fear and fleeing in the dark of night to Egypt, only the three wise men know of his birth, however Luke's Jesus is born in a celebratory atmosphere with a multitude of heavenly host and shepherds. The shepherds even spread the news of the birth of Jesus to others.

Sven

But it's a bit strange that you don't start with number 1 and work down from there.

James Brown

Where does this incredible foresight come from that we can so accurately predict the future? Who else can we kill for fear their kids and grandkids and yet-to-be-born great-grandkids will be even worse down through the ages? If my no-good neighbor beats his son mercilessly, should I just go ahead and kill the both of them, thus breaking the endless chain of parental abuse?

Likewise, if anyone in the world today worships another God besides Jehovah (that's, what? roughly four billion people--and counting), can we go ahead and kill them now? After all, if four billion people don't worship Jehovah today, what's going to happen in another hundred years?

Honestly, listen to yourself. Suppose George Bush said, we need to kill every Iranian on the face of the earth, because they don't worship Jehovah and if their evil continues, their wicked heritage will get worse throughout the ages. Why is it perfectly acceptable for God to command something that would be horrific if a human leader commanded the same thing?

"They deserved to die" is a common defense made by conquering armies. It helps your soldiers sleep at night after a hard day of slaughtering women and children.

James Brown

This is not a prophecy; it's a description of an historical event. (Notice the past tense). If I said, "Last Thursday, I ate pizza for dinner," no one in their right mind would call that a prophecy. Even if I eat pizza for dinner again next Thursday, that still doesn't make my statement a prophecy, nor does my eating pizza in the future mean it is a fulfillment of prophecy. At best, one could simply call this a parallel, and parallels are always in the eye of the beholder.

Tell you what. Find an Orthodox Jew and ask him or her if the Hosea verse is really a messianic prophecy that they are eagerly waiting to be fulfilled by someone. After all, Jews and Christians should agree on every single occurrence of a biblical prophecy, right? They just disagree on who fulfilled them.

In order for your event to be a prophecy, all someone has to do is travel from Israel to Egypt and return. And that's something that has been done by countless travelers, slave traders, camel caravans, merchants, pilgrims, etc. down through the centuries. You could do it today with a simple round-trip airline ticket from Tel Aviv to Cairo. Just think, for a few hundred dollars you too could be the messiah.

Faithful

If Joseph was literally the son of Jacob, that would make him probably about 1000 years old when Jesus was born. Are you people playing coy with me?

Jesus was referred to the son of David. This explains the Jewish tradition -http://www.abecedarian.org/Pages/Lineage.htm

This referring to Luke's Jesus and Matthew's Jesus is all new to me. When I read the Bible I don't jump all over the place nit-picking every book,chapter and verse..

What does it matter if it was begat or born, or the Great Herod, or little Herod, the Bible tells me that Jesus' parents had to flee with him to Egypt because he would be killed according to the instructions of a guy called Herod, and they had to remain there until after Herod's death. It is in the Bible in black and white, so that is good enough for me.

Adam allowed sin to enter this world, so God had to send his Son to defeat the prince of this world. Have you not read Jesus' new covenant of love in the New Testament?

Matthew 5:
Teaching about Revenge
38"You have heard that the law of Moses says, `If an eye is injured, injure the eye of the person who did it. If a tooth gets knocked out, knock out the tooth of the person who did it.'[l] 39But I say, don't resist an evil person! If you are slapped on the right cheek, turn the other, too. 40If you are ordered to court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. 41If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile,[m] carry it two miles. 42Give to those who ask, and don't turn away from those who want to borrow.


Teaching about Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that the law of Moses says, `Love your neighbor'[n] and hate your enemy. 44But I say, love your enemies![o] Pray for those who persecute you! 45In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and on the unjust, too. 46If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. 47If you are kind only to your friends,[p] how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. 48But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.