(April 10, 2019 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 9:41 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Quite a range.

When did Herod die?

Wikipedia -- Herod the Great

he lived from 73 bc to 4 bc which is why christ birth starts as early as 4 bc in some circles. You do understand the numbers work backwards in BC time? the bigger the number the longer ago it was.. meaning herod was born in 73 lived 69 years and died in 4bc. and again the birth of Christ can go as late as 8 AD because again of celestial events that could have been identified as the star of David.

Okay, here's the timeline:

4 BC:  Herod dies.
6 AD:  Supposed census.

Now, here is Luke's account:

Quote:In the days of King Herod of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah.
   — Luke 1:5 

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child.
    — Luke 2:1–5

And, so, when was Jesus born, again?

(April 10, 2019 at 3:18 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 10, 2019 at 10:32 am)Drich Wrote: he lived from 73 bc to 4 bc which is why christ birth starts as early as 4 bc in some circles. You do understand the numbers work backwards in BC time? the bigger the number the longer ago it was.. meaning herod was born in 73 lived 69 years and died in 4bc. and again the birth of Christ can go as late as 8 AD because again of celestial events that could have been identified as the star of David.

Okay, here's the timeline:

4 BC:  Herod dies.
6 AD:  Supposed census.

Now, here is Luke's account:

Quote:In the days of King Herod of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah.
   — Luke 1:5 

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child.
    — Luke 2:1–5

And, so, when was Jesus born, again?

I've already went over this 10 times.. what happens between chapter 1 and chapter 2? I even put the event in big letters and told you to read the chapter for yourself not only that I even left a link to the bible so you could read it.. I can see now you did not do that. rather you decided to drag this out 3 extra days to try and make me seem foolish by locking me into several chain questions.

Since your either petulent or just plain stupid I will now bring the conversation down to your level.

So you ready retard?

Again The whole of Chapter one describes the prediction via angel/john father's loss of his speech and what was going on in the world at the time. meaning who reigned the region. which was herod. All of this before John the baptist was even conceived all of these things are mentioned in chapter one. Then LATER meaning days weeks months or years... Elizabeth John the baptist's mom got prego with john....

Do you understand now?

The time of herod is a measure of not John or Christ's birth, but the point far back in time where the angel of the lord came and foretold of the birth of John the baptist and the angel naming john, which also marked the point in time where john's father lost his voice only to regain it at the point where the boy john was to be named. 

But between the silencing of John's father and John's conception comes verse 24 "later" meaning time had past. how much? apparently enough to put the birth of Christ under quinitus.

Do you finally understand? Do you get your commentary was a lie? as it hadto omit a whole verse of the bible to make this supposed contradiction work???

I have not found 1 supposed contradiction to be valid all of them can be sorted out with either a plain reading of the passage or sometimes we have to go back to the greek or hebrew, but all can be sorted. As 90% of the time what your atheist commentators do is misrepresent or simply lie about the content of the passage. this is just another example of a lie by omission.

So we done?

Your not going to formally conceded?

No Sorry Drich you where right yet again and I and my atheist 'scholars' where wrong again?

No sorry for treating you like crap because (i)/you thought I/Drich was wrong, because you don't want what I've shared with you to be true. That 90% of these supposed contradictions are literally lies by omission, like the dropping of the word 'latter' in luke one.

So what else you got or was this the be all and end all of biblical contradictions?

The overwhelming majority of the scholars whose consensus you selectively value, are believers of one stripe or another. You're arguing with your fellow faithful dipshits, who..like you, are gullible enough to believe in god men...but unlike you, to their credit and your endless shame, are educated enough to understand that the history of magic book and the mythology of magic book are not equivalent.

(April 11, 2019 at 9:39 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 10, 2019 at 3:18 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Okay, here's the timeline:

4 BC:  Herod dies.
6 AD:  Supposed census.

Now, here is Luke's account:


And, so, when was Jesus born, again?

I've already went over this 10 times.. what happens between chapter 1 and chapter 2? I even put the event in big letters and told you to read the chapter for yourself not only that I even left a link to the bible so you could read it.. I can see now you did not do that. rather you decided to drag this out 3 extra days to try and make me seem foolish by locking me into several chain questions.

Since your either petulent or just plain stupid I will now bring the conversation down to your level.

So you ready retard?

Again The whole of Chapter one describes the prediction via angel/john father's loss of his speech and what was going on in the world at the time. meaning who reigned the region. which was herod. All of this before John the baptist was even conceived all of these things are mentioned in chapter one. Then LATER meaning days weeks months or years... Elizabeth John the baptist's mom got prego with john....

Do you understand now?

The time of herod is a measure of not John or Christ's birth, but the point far back in time where the angel of the lord came and foretold of the birth of John the baptist and the angel naming john, which also marked the point in time where john's father lost his voice only to regain it at the point where the boy john was to be named. 

But between the silencing of John's father and John's conception comes verse 24 "later" meaning time had past. how much? apparently enough to put the birth of Christ under quinitus.

Do you finally understand? Do you get your commentary was a lie? as it hadto omit a whole verse of the bible to make this supposed contradiction work???

I have not found 1 supposed contradiction to be valid all of them can be sorted out with either a plain reading of the passage or sometimes we have to go back to the greek or hebrew, but all can be sorted. As 90% of the time what your atheist commentators do is misrepresent or simply lie about the content of the passage. this is just another example of a lie by omission.

Please give me a date.  Why is that so hard?

(April 12, 2019 at 12:17 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 11, 2019 at 9:39 am)Drich Wrote: I've already went over this 10 times.. what happens between chapter 1 and chapter 2? I even put the event in big letters and told you to read the chapter for yourself not only that I even left a link to the bible so you could read it.. I can see now you did not do that. rather you decided to drag this out 3 extra days to try and make me seem foolish by locking me into several chain questions.

Since your either petulent or just plain stupid I will now bring the conversation down to your level.

So you ready retard?

Again The whole of Chapter one describes the prediction via angel/john father's loss of his speech and what was going on in the world at the time. meaning who reigned the region. which was herod. All of this before John the baptist was even conceived all of these things are mentioned in chapter one. Then LATER meaning days weeks months or years... Elizabeth John the baptist's mom got prego with john....

Do you understand now?

The time of herod is a measure of not John or Christ's birth, but the point far back in time where the angel of the lord came and foretold of the birth of John the baptist and the angel naming john, which also marked the point in time where john's father lost his voice only to regain it at the point where the boy john was to be named. 

But between the silencing of John's father and John's conception comes verse 24 "later" meaning time had past. how much? apparently enough to put the birth of Christ under quinitus.

Do you finally understand? Do you get your commentary was a lie? as it hadto omit a whole verse of the bible to make this supposed contradiction work???

I have not found 1 supposed contradiction to be valid all of them can be sorted out with either a plain reading of the passage or sometimes we have to go back to the greek or hebrew, but all can be sorted. As 90% of the time what your atheist commentators do is misrepresent or simply lie about the content of the passage. this is just another example of a lie by omission.

Please give me a date.  Why is that so hard?

what date? the only date you asked for was a range from when christ was born and I gave you one explaining the numbers.

what other date are you asking for?

Why can't you admit that you where beaten? that you took some atheist anti god propaganda as gospel did not do any reading or research for yourself and took the anti god hate speech to heart? Then when I showed you that there was indeed a time desperation between what you thought was the prophesy of Jesus and his birth but turned out to be the prophesy of john and his birth which came well before Christ as he was prophesied to literally be the herald of Christ. You can't honestly admit you where wrong, rather now you are pretending I was deficent in some way shape or form.

Fake thread sport. it time to admit you where wrong. admit I gave you the time line you asked for and admit your trying to shift the goal posts now to try and save face.

The problem? the truth is already contained with in these pages.

You have your answer twice now and you have your time line, now it is time to admit you where wrong.

---

(April 12, 2019 at 11:36 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: The overwhelming majority of the scholars whose consensus you selectively value, are believers of one stripe or another.  You're arguing with your fellow faithful dipshits, who..like you, are gullible enough to believe in god men...but unlike you, to their credit and your endless shame, are educated enough to understand that the history of magic book and the mythology of magic book are not equivalent.

I'm not arguing against anyone who believes.. My argument is with lady jay over there who can't admit when she is wrong. that she took a 1/2 anti god propaganda/fake exegesis/broken contradiction as gospel truth and can not admit I with a simple and direct reading of luke 1 broke her little anti god/bible argument in half and have since wiped myself with it and fed it back to her. She is still feigning anti god legitimacy with her argument even after I clearly show a separation of time from the prophesy of john's birth and the physical birth of Christ in Chapter 2 well after herod's death.

OFC you are, but you're too ignorant to look into it, or even want to look into it. You're convinced for no reason at all that it must be "atheist scholars", but it just isn't.

The overwhelming majority of the scholars who's consensus you selectively value..are believers. Those are the people telling you, with receipts, that you're full of shit.

(April 12, 2019 at 5:14 pm)Drich Wrote: what date? the only date you asked for was a range from when christ was born and I gave you one explaining the numbers.

what other date are you asking for?

One last time, honey:

Death of King Herod                 :  4 BCE
Quirinius, Governorship of Syria:  6 CE

Ergo, Luke contradicted the historical record.  Jesus could not have been born in 4 BCE and again in 6 CE.

(April 13, 2019 at 10:50 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 12, 2019 at 5:14 pm)Drich Wrote: what date? the only date you asked for was a range from when christ was born and I gave you one explaining the numbers.

what other date are you asking for?

One last time, honey:

Death of King Herod                 :  4 BCE
Quirinius, Governorship of Syria:  6 CE

Ergo, Luke contradicted the historical record.  Jesus could not have been born in 4 BCE and again in 6 CE.

look sweet heart read luke 1 & 2. if you will not read luke 1 and 2 you will never understand.

In luke 1 when herod is alive the book is not speaking of jesus. so in 4 bc the bible/luke is speaking of john, and only in so far as an angel speaking to john's father about the coming baby (john)  name and his role in the future of being the herald of the coming messiah (jesus.) this all happened while herod was alive. then in verse  24 it says later meaning away from the time the angel told John's father and took his voice. IE later from the time of herod/4bc.

do you understand? the first 1/2 of luke 1 happened at the end of the time of herod. 4(bc) from verse 24 it would seem we where now then in the time of quintius.

do you get it? do you understand why your question is invalid?

(April 15, 2019 at 10:00 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 13, 2019 at 10:50 am)Jehanne Wrote: One last time, honey:

Death of King Herod                 :  4 BCE
Quirinius, Governorship of Syria:  6 CE

Ergo, Luke contradicted the historical record.  Jesus could not have been born in 4 BCE and again in 6 CE.

look sweet heart read luke 1 & 2. if you will not read luke 1 and 2 you will never understand.

In luke 1 when herod is alive the book is not speaking of jesus. so in 4 bc the bible/luke is speaking of john, and only in so far as an angel speaking to john's father about the coming baby (john)  name and his role in the future of being the herald of the coming messiah (jesus.) this all happened while herod was alive. then in verse  24 it says later meaning away from the time the angel told John's father and took his voice. IE later from the time of herod/4bc.

do you understand? the first 1/2 of luke 1 happened at the end of the time of herod. 4(bc) from verse 24 it would seem we where now then in the time of quintius.

do you get it? do you understand why your question is invalid?

Quote:In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. (Luke 2:1-5)

Okay, Jesus was born in 6 AD, but...

Quote:At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!” (Luke 1:39-45)

Okay, Mary not yet pregnant in 4 BC??  She would wait another 10 years???