(June 19, 2015 at 12:00 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 4:57 am)pocaracas Wrote: hmmm.... Randy seems to have changed his avatar to a pretty lady...


Not looking at the camera, and a taint of high quality lenses and lighting makes me think it's a stock photo!


Here, Randy, this is how it's done:


Looking at the camera: clear sign that it was a photo taken by some amateur who told the subject to look at the birdie and say cheese
Crappy lighting: Amateurish photographer.... possibly a parent.
Uneven white balance: clear sign of inexpensive camera

Darn. Maybe I should have been a blonde.

Maybe you should be as open to other ideas as aCatholicLady.

(June 19, 2015 at 12:20 am)Jenny A Wrote: And as I tire of reminding you the NT does contradict what we know about ancient history repeatedly.  We don't need to get to the miracles to know that.  If it's wrong about when Herod was king, why should we trust it about walking on water?

I posted on that at length. Did you miss it? Or did I miss your reply? (sorry, but I do have my hands full here...)

I wrote:

Matthew tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great.

Matthew 2:1-2
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, 2 “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him.”

Logically, Jesus had to have been born before the death of Herod the Great.

In the late 1800’s, German scholar Emil Schurer claimed that Herod died in 4 BC. Thus, Jesus had to have been born no later than 4 BC. Since Herod slaughtered all the newborns who were two years old and under, those newborns would have been born between 6 BC and 4 BC. Therefore, Jesus may have been born as early as 6 BC – maybe earlier.

But is this correct? No. Schurer may have relied on Josephus who made errors in his reporting of the dates of key events. If Josephus is incorrect, how can we determine the accurate date for the death of Herod? By going back to the beginning of Herod’s reign.

When was Herod the Great appointed king?

Josephus offers two possibilities: 40 BC and 39 BC. These can’t both be right, but there are other sources that suggest 39 BC is the correct date: Roman historians Appian and Dio Cassius. Appian wrote a history of Roman civil wars which mentions the appointment of Herod. It is possible to compare those events with Dio Cassius’ Roman History to determine that key events contained in these two works including the appointment of Herod occurred in 39 BC.

How long was Herod’s reign?

We know that Herod reigned as king for 37 years. Therefore, in order to work out when Herod died, we simply add 37 years to the year of his appointment as king to arrive at a date of 1 BC.

When did Herod conquer Jerusalem?

Once again, Josephus offers two dates for Herod’s conquering of Jerusalem: 37 BC and 36 BC. He further tells us that Herod 34 years later. Since Josephus did not count partial years (Herod did not begin his reign on January 1, for example), this puts the death of Herod in either 2 BC (if he conquered Jerusalem in 37 BC) or 1 BC (if he conquered Jerusalem in 36 BC). Is there any way to determine which of these is correct? Yes.

Which lunar eclipse is the correct one?

Josephus recorded that Herod died between the occurrence of a lunar eclipse and Passover. Astronomers have confirmed that there was a partial lunar eclipse in 4 BC and a total lunar eclipse in 1 BC. Since 4 BC is not an option for the death of Herod based on the two previous points, the eclipse of 1 BC must be the one that Josephus is referencing.

When did Herod die?

Putting all of these facts together, we have:

• Reason to believe that Herod died in 1 BC based upon the date of his appointment and length of reign
• Reason to believe that he died in either 2 BC or 1 BC based upon his conquest of Jerusalem
• Reason to believe that he died in 1 BC based upon the lunar eclipse that occurred just prior to his death.

More specifically, Herod died sometime between January 10, 1 BC (the date of the eclipse) and April 10, 1 BC (the date of Passover that year).

So, Jesus was born as late as 1 BC?

There’s a bit more to consider. If Jesus was born before the death of Herod in 1 BC and before Herod’s slaughter of the infants up to the age of two years old, then working backward from 1 BC, Jesus could have been born as late as 3 BC. Add a year just to be conservative, and we would appear to arrive at date range of 4-3 BC for the birth of Jesus.

But we have to remember that Herod wanted to be sure of killing a rival to his throne, so he based his decision on which infants to kill upon a range of plus or minus some amount of time from the date he learned from the magi. For example, if the magi had told Herod that the star appeared one year earlier, Herod may have chosen to kill all the boys two years old and under – just to be safe from his perspective.

So, Jesus may have been born around 2 BC?

Let’s work backwards beginning with Herod’s death in 1 BC. Assume that Herod met the magi a year earlier. That would be 2 BC. Assume further that the magi told Herod that the birth had occurred a year earlier. That would be 3 BC. Upon hearing that news, Herod ordered the deaths of all boys two and under – putting Jesus’ likely birth date in the 2-4 BC range. However, Herod almost certainly over-estimated just to be sure of wiping out his rival, and that makes it more likely that the birth of Jesus occurred around 2-3 BC at the latest based upon the testimony of Matthew, Josephus and modern astronomy.

Is there additional evidence for this date?

Yes. And here I'll just quote Jimmy Akin straight up since what he provides is concise enough.

"Luke records that Tiberius became emperor after Augustus died in August of A.D. 14. Roman historians (e.g., Tacitus, Suetonius), however, tended to skip part years and begin counting an emperor’s reign with the first January 1 after they took office. On that reckoning, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar would correspond to what we call A.D. 29. (Remember, the 15th year is the time between the completion of the 14th year and the completion of the 15th year, the same way a child’s first year is the time between his birth and his first birthday.)

"Jesus’ ministry starts somewhat after John’s, but it doesn’t appear to be very long. Perhaps only a few weeks or months. If so, Jesus’ ministry also likely started in A.D. 29.

"That’s important, because Luke gives us a second clue: He says Jesus was “about thirty years of age” when he began his ministry (Lk 3:23). So, if you take A.D. 29 and back up thirty years, when does that land you? You might think in 1 B.C., but remember that there’s no Year Zero, so it would actually be 2 B.C. or the end of 3 B.C. if Luke was counting Tiberius’s reign from when he became emperor rather than from the next January 1. Thus, 2-3 B.C. is a reasonable estimate based on Luke’s reporting."

Significantly, using two completely different means of working out the dates, Matthew and Luke agree on the birth date of Jesus.

(June 18, 2015 at 11:52 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 12:44 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Well, yours couldn't see it when I was. I wonder why?

I cannot say. Nor do I know how old you are and what effort you really made. I take you at your word.

But if it takes a lifetime, pursuing God is the most important thing you will ever do.

You're as bad as Drippy with making success a part of the process. If we don't find gawd, we didn't try hard enough, for long enough, sincerely enough. It's bullshit. I sought, I asked, I fucking begged for a sign, I wanted to believe so bad.

What did I get?





























































































[getting the point?]

(June 19, 2015 at 12:22 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 12:00 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Darn. Maybe I should have been a blonde.

Maybe you should be as open to other ideas as aCatholicLady.

Let's ask:

CL, are you open to any of the standard ideas and arguments put forward by atheists in support of their non-belief in God?

(June 19, 2015 at 12:35 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 11:52 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I cannot say. Nor do I know how old you are and what effort you really made. I take you at your word.

But if it takes a lifetime, pursuing God is the most important thing you will ever do.

You're as bad as Drippy with making success a part of the process. If we don't find gawd, we didn't try hard enough, for long enough, sincerely enough. It's bullshit. I sought, I asked, I fucking begged for a sign, I wanted to believe so bad.

What did I get?

I don't need to know exactly but in round numbers, how old are you? Under 30? Over 50? What?

(June 19, 2015 at 12:38 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 12:35 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: You're as bad as Drippy with making success a part of the process. If we don't find gawd, we didn't try hard enough, for long enough, sincerely enough. It's bullshit. I sought, I asked, I fucking begged for a sign, I wanted to believe so bad.

What did I get?

I don't need to know exactly but in round numbers, how old are you? Under 30? Over 50? What?

Let's just say I was old enough to see Van Halen live, before the split. What does it even matter? You christers like to claim that anyone who sincerely searches for gawd will find it. I did so, for years. I can't claim I ever actually believed, because I didn't. But, I sure fucking wanted to. Badly

So, you've got a guy who sincerely wants, and is searching for a sign, and (so you claim) an omnipotent, omniscient gawd that can give me exactly what I need in order to believe, yet has failed to do so? Either it doesn't exist or it's as malevolent as described in the old testament.

(June 19, 2015 at 12:36 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 12:22 am)Jenny A Wrote: Maybe you should be as open to other ideas as aCatholicLady.

Let's ask:

CL, are you open to any of the standard ideas and arguments put forward by atheists in support of their non-belief in God?

Ohhhhh shoot! Now you guys have put me on the spot lol. I can't take sides now.

---

(June 19, 2015 at 1:04 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 12:38 am)Randy Carson Wrote: I don't need to know exactly but in round numbers, how old are you? Under 30? Over 50? What?

Let's just say I was old enough to see Van Halen live, before the split. What does it even matter? You christers like to claim that anyone who sincerely searches for gawd will find it. I did so, for years. I can't claim I ever actually believed, because I didn't. But, I sure fucking wanted to. Badly

So, you've got a guy who sincerely wants, and is searching for  a sign, and (so you claim) an omnipotent, omniscient gawd that can give me exactly what I need in order to believe, yet has failed to do so? Either it doesn't exist or it's as malevolent as described in the old testament.

I just want to say I feel for you here.

(June 19, 2015 at 1:13 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I just want to say I feel for you here.

Meh. I got over it a looooooong time ago. I've never believed and once I realized there was no reason to...

Let's just say life's been much better ever since.

Really, it's why I find the "if you'd only examine the claim" and "if you look with an open mind" arguments to be pure drivel. Been there, done that.

(June 19, 2015 at 1:04 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 12:38 am)Randy Carson Wrote: I don't need to know exactly but in round numbers, how old are you? Under 30? Over 50? What?

Let's just say I was old enough to see Van Halen live, before the split. What does it even matter? You christers like to claim that anyone who sincerely searches for gawd will find it. I did so, for years. I can't claim I ever actually believed, because I didn't. But, I sure fucking wanted to. Badly

So, you've got a guy who sincerely wants, and is searching for  a sign [emphasis added], and (so you claim) an omnipotent, omniscient gawd that can give me exactly what I need in order to believe, yet has failed to do so? Either it doesn't exist or it's as malevolent as described in the old testament.

If true, might it be useful to find a forum where you could chat with folks who might be a little more supportive of your efforts?

Just sayin'.

(June 19, 2015 at 7:28 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If true, might it be useful to find a forum where you could chat with folks who might be a little more supportive of your efforts?

Just sayin'.

Randy, people in other forums don't have any more evidence than you do. The fact that evidence is required to justify belief for most of us here is still kicking your ass. All you are offering is camaraderie among those that believe shit without sufficient reason to do so.