Hey Min

[DeistPaladin]

When I start posting videos again, I plan to get back to my "Jesus Timeline" series.

For those not familiar, I made a video trying to map out when historical events named in the Gospels occurred and try to figure out exactly when Jesus was born, when his ministry was, etc. The Gospels also provide clues as to what Jesus age was, when the temple was built, etc. Needless to say, I conclude it can't be done.

This has attracted the attention of amateur Christian apologists who've offered a festival of ad hoc hypotheses to try to shoe horn the Gospel story into history.

The latest, that I wanted to ask you about, is the claim that John the Baptist wasn't killed for his objection to Herod Antipas' marriage to Herodius. It was for Herod's adultery with his brother's wife, that the relationship began before his brother's death.

My question for you is doesn't Josephus offer something of a date when JtB was arrested, and this date is somewhere around 36 CE?

Thanks for your help.

[theVOID]

Are you sure he existed to begin with? Trying to point down the 'history' of an imaginary man is rather difficult.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

This seems like a very interesting project.
I wouldn't mind seeing the result of it if you can finish it.

Mostly because it would be interesting to see the absurdity of the whole thing when attempting to put it into an actual historical background, especially when we try to add things like the book of mormon into the mix.

[Minimalist]

Oh, yeah...you have got to get those videos back online....among others, G-C would lose what's left of his fucking mind.

Complex question, though. Josephus does make a reference to JtB around 36 being killed in the narrative but Josephus is famous for his digressions. However, he says nothing about JtB being upset about any marriage of Antipas' he just sort of hints that he was a general troublemaker. Of course, at this precise point in time Judaea was a separate country from Galilee where Antipas ruled being a prefecture of Rome and still under Prefect, Pontius Pilatus which means that JtB must have moved to Galilee to do his rabble-rousing. It would have been dangerous to be seen as a rebel in Roman territory!

Josephus suggests that when Antipas married Herodias he first had to divorce the daughter of Aretas IV of Nabatea. Aretas then attacked into Antipas' territory and Tiberius ordered his newly appointed governor of Syria, Lucius Vitellius, to take two legions and go after him. We know that Vitellius was not consul until 34 and thus would not even have been eligible to govern Syria until he finished his term in 35. Thus, it cannot be before mid-35 that he would even have been on station and one has to think that with Parthia and Armenia to his front he would have had bigger fish to fry at first than worry about a shithole like Judaea.

Events suggest that Vitellius began his action against Aretas in 36. We know that at some point he went through Judaea and removed Pilatus as prefect and Caiaphas as high priest. When Tiberius died in 37, Vitellius suspended his campaign awaiting further instructions from Caligula.

I'll see if I can find the reference for you after breakfast. I think Pete Kirby's "Early Jewish Writings" site is back up.

It is the gospel accounts which all agree that 'jesus' started his ministry when JtB was arrested and since THEY claim he was arrested because of his opposition to Antipas and Herodias' marriage that must have been in the period 34-35 at the earliest. Josephus merely gives us dates and facts related to the wedding and subsequent military actions but if you compare the two it seems that had 'jesus' existed and done anything it would have been in the mid-30's AD but not later than Passover 36 which fell on March 30 that year.

[DeistPaladin]

This seems like a very interesting project.
I wouldn't mind seeing the result of it if you can finish it.

Mostly because it would be interesting to see the absurdity of the whole thing when attempting to put it into an actual historical background, especially when we try to add things like the book of mormon into the mix.

Well, it's more of an ongoing project. Right now I've got four videos on the subject. The project will never be over because no matter how much contrary evidence you present, fundies will always come back with "well, maybe this" and "perhaps that".





The next video will be on the subject of the Ad Hoc Hypothesis and when it's a logical fallacy. The Ad Hoc Hypothesis is where you keep coming up with additional variables to try to explain away contrary evidence. It's used in science and abused in apologetics. I plan to argue it's a logical fallacy when it's used as a knee-jerk reaction to stubbornly protect any cherished belief from being disproved.

Example:
Matt says Jesus was born during King Herod's reign (4 BCE or prior) while Luke says it was during the reign of Quirinius (6 CE or later).

"Maybe Quirinius was governor of Syria twice"

But that's unheard of. Strict Roman policy was against that, for fear a governor would gain too much influence over a province.

"Maybe an exception was made because Quirinius was so good at his job"

But there's no room for it. He was governor of another province at the time and Varus was governor of Syria.

"Maybe Quirinius was brought in to help administrate the census"

But the earlier census was around 8 BCE and Luke calls him "governor".

"Maybe Luke meant administrator when he wrote 'hegemon' and perhaps it took 4 years to run the census because King Herod delayed the process."

But King Herod paid tribute to Rome. No census would have even been needed. And these tax censuses was based on land ownership, not some convoluted process of having everyone report to their home town.

"Maybe Rome decided to run a census in Herod's kingdom. They could do anything they wanted since Judea was a client state."

But then Jesus would have been too old by the time JtB was arrested. Luke says he was "about 30".

"Maybe JtB wasn't executed after Herod Antipass' marriage but rather before, because JtB criticized Herod for having an affair with Herodius".

***That's where it currently stands.***

[Minimalist]

Found it.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/...ant18.html


Chapter 5.

1. ABOUT this time Aretas (the king of Arabia Petres) and Herod had a quarrel on the account following: Herod the tetrarch had, married the daughter of Aretas, and had lived with her a great while; but when he was once at Rome, he lodged with Herod, (15) who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high priest Sireoh's daughter. However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod's wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great. This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address, when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome: one article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas's daughter. So Antipus, when he had made this agreement, sailed to Rome; but when he had done there the business he went about, and was returned again, his wife having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and having learned it before he had notice of her knowledge of the whole design, she desired him to send her to Macherus, which is a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions. Accordingly Herod sent her thither, as thinking his wife had not perceived any thing; now she had sent a good while before to Macherus, which was subject to her father and so all things necessary for her journey were made ready for her by the general of Aretas's army; and by that means she soon came into Arabia, under the conduct of the several generals, who carried her from one to another successively; and she soon came to her father, and told him of Herod's intentions. So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at the country of Gamalitis. So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of themselves; and when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Aretas's army.. So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.

However, in Chapter 4 Josephus is already discussing Vitellius dealing with Pilate after the alleged Samaritan incident indicating that Vitellius was already there. He then continues the narrative.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of room for fucking jesus to be shoe-horned into the story!

---

BTW, sounds like you have a desperate asshole on your hands there.

They just can't bear to think that their fucking gospels are pure bullshit, can they?

[DeistPaladin]

BTW, sounds like you have a desperate asshole on your hands there.

Many, in fact. My sample "conversation" was actually a paraphrasing of ongoing objections by various amateur apologists.

Then again, that is the very essence of apologetics. It's not about finding out what's really going on or what really happened in the past. It's about finding reasons to believe in a story that has already been admitted to be a matter of faith. The festival of ad hocs should have been no surprise.

[Doubting Thomas]

Mostly because it would be interesting to see the absurdity of the whole thing when attempting to put it into an actual historical background, especially when we try to add things like the book of mormon into the mix.

Ah yes, the Book of Mormon which claims that there were great cities built here in North America (remains of which have never been found) and that the people who came here from Israel had swords (of which no evidence exists of anyone using swords until the Spanish came here).

[Minimalist]

BTW, sounds like you have a desperate asshole on your hands there.

Many, in fact. My sample "conversation" was actually a paraphrasing of ongoing objections by various amateur apologists.

Then again, that is the very essence of apologetics. It's not about finding out what's really going on or what really happened in the past. It's about finding reasons to believe in a story that has already been admitted to be a matter of faith. The festival of ad hocs should have been no surprise.

Yeah...I always found this observation to be particularly correct when dealing with such abject assholes.

Bible-believers are full of clever (and some not so clever) rationalizations. The crucial question, however, is not whether "answers" can be generated in response to Bible difficulties but whether credible answers can be produced. What is the best explanation? Bible-believers seem to think that any loophole, however improbable, that gets the Bible off the hook has solved the problem. Thus, it is not surprising that different, conflicting answers are often presented side by side. It never seems to occur to these people that such logic will also support the story of Goldilocks and the three bears! Or the Koran. Or, anything else.

http://davematson.edwardtbabinski.us/prophecy_tyre.html