Mary's Ten Year Pregnancy

[Bucky Ball]

[quote pid='1861726' dateline='1543623534']


As far as Richard Carrier goes, you'd be naive to believe that a guy who was basically begging for money on his blog, and asking for patreon donations would be completely objective when being funded by special interest groups, when you cannot find an example of that anywhere else, be it Politics or Religion.

[/quote]

Um ... how many Christians GET PAID to advance their shit ? 
You can't possibly be serious that special interest groups don't fund BOTH religious schools and "research" and politics. LMFAO

[Huggy Bear]

As far as Richard Carrier goes, you'd be naive to believe that a guy who was basically begging for money on his blog, and asking for patreon donations would be completely objective when being funded by special interest groups, when you cannot find an example of that anywhere else, be it Politics or Religion.

Um ... how many Christians GET PAID to advance their shit ? 
You can't possibly be serious that special interest groups don't fund BOTH religious schools and "research" and politics. LMFAO

That's not what I said... Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

If you read what I said carefully, then you'd see that you're saying the same thing.

[Bucky Ball]

Um ... how many Christians GET PAID to advance their shit ? 
You can't possibly be serious that special interest groups don't fund BOTH religious schools and "research" and politics. LMFAO

That's not what I said... Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

If you read what I said carefully, then you'd see that you're saying the same thing.

No I don't, but you obviously are incapable of writing clearly.

[Godscreated]

Every one is ignoring the actual comment, the ten year pregnancy. It's not possible, why, because Jesus was born before Herod died and that was 4BC, Jesus was born in 6BC and was taken to Egypt before Herod died and returned to Judea soon after Herod died. It doesn't matter which Herod was ruling at the time it only matters that the same Herod was referenced in the story of Jesus birth and first couple of years. Jesus was born nine months after the Holy conception, if He was not then the rest of His life and history would not mesh which it does.  

GC

You're talking about Matthew's Jesus who was clearly born under the reign of Herod the Great, since the "slaughter of the innocents" happened on his order in a story lifted right from Moses. Jesus' family fled to Egypt and then later came to settle in Nazareth. 

Luke's Jesus followed a different story. Mary came to Bethlehem for the census and gave birth there. Luke specifies that she immediately returned to Nazareth with no trip to Egypt (see Luke chapter 2). This census couldn't have happened sooner than 6 CE because Judea wasn't a province of Rome until that time. Also, Luke refers to Antipas as "the Tetrarch" not "king of Judea" (see Luke chapter 9:7). Luke also places the birth of Jesus when Quirinius was governor of Syria, which didn't begin until 6 CE.

Though I can't give an answer to the Quirniius dating, Luke did not need to give the entire story of Jesus birth and the time in Egypt because Matthew had already covered it. There are reasons why Jesus could not have been born in 6 AD and one is the timing of His life with John the Baptist. Man you were gone for a while, I've been away too, and this is the only thread I've been involved in and do not want to get involved in any others because I'm not ready to participate yet. 

GC

[Pat Mustard]

You are describing yourself there. You are so desperate to prove your point that you put links to tabloid magazines! I mean even Times Of Israel ridiculed that article


It's not my fault your religion is bullshit. An no, no credible historian thinks that Adam existed, or Noah, or that hairy strongman Sampson or David or Moses.

What religion?  What tabloid magazine?  I posted a link from the NY Post, which originated in The Sun.  Which one of those do you believe to be a tabloid?

Also, ridicule means squat...

Thomas Edison - Invented Light Bulb (Ridiculed)
Wright Brothers - Invented Airplanes (Ridiculed)
Albert Einstein - Came up with Theory of Relativity, as well as many other things (Ridiculed)
Gregor Mendel - Established the scientific field of genetics.  (Ridiculed)
(Don't think I need to go on with this list)

Anytime there is a statement made about anything related to religion or politics, there will always be people who don't like it and find a reason to ridicule it.

Oh wow, we don't get the Gallileo fallacy here too often, probably because it's too visably stupid.

Let me explain, just because the religious refused to believe Gallileo's scientific observations because they contradiced their unevidenced religious assertions, it doesn't follow that your unevidenced religious assertions magically develop some quality of rightness because we refuse to entertain them.

In short your idea is among the 99.999999999999999% of ridiculed ideas that deserve it

[T0 Th3 M4X]

What religion?  What tabloid magazine?  I posted a link from the NY Post, which originated in The Sun.  Which one of those do you believe to be a tabloid?

Also, ridicule means squat...

Thomas Edison - Invented Light Bulb (Ridiculed)
Wright Brothers - Invented Airplanes (Ridiculed)
Albert Einstein - Came up with Theory of Relativity, as well as many other things (Ridiculed)
Gregor Mendel - Established the scientific field of genetics.  (Ridiculed)
(Don't think I need to go on with this list)

Anytime there is a statement made about anything related to religion or politics, there will always be people who don't like it and find a reason to ridicule it.

Oh wow, we don't get the Gallileo fallacy here too often, probably because it's too visably stupid.

Let me explain, just because the religious refused to believe Gallileo's scientific observations because they contradiced their unevidenced religious assertions, it doesn't follow that your unevidenced religious assertions magically develop some quality of rightness because we refuse to entertain them.

In short your idea is among the 99.999999999999999% of ridiculed ideas that deserve it

You haven't demonstrated how that applies to anything I've said.  Keep trying though.

What I asserted was a value of 1 (credible historian who shares a view) when someone asserted a value of 0.  That's not a religious assertion.  That's a direct assertion about that individual.  Everything else is inconsequential to the discussion.  If someone says 0 must be it, and you show 1, what else does there need to be?

My other assertion was that "ridicule means squat."  Why? Because it's not a determining factor to whether something is true or not. I also provided examples of people who were ridiculed and validated.  So your assertion here is actually proving my point.  Good job hanging yourself though.

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah, this guy failed to see that even the archeologist himself cited in the article was ridiculing the tabloid article that said he discovered David from Bible.

Also to be honest I don't get why Religious people get so worked up which historians think Jesus was based on real person and which not because there is a very small difference. Even those historians that think there was some historical Jesus see that person as perhaps 1% to 5% of what was said in the New Testament he did and said, so it's not like so called "historical Jesus" is any more real to the one they believe existed.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Yeah, this guy failed to see that even the archeologist himself cited in the article was ridiculing the tabloid article that said he discovered David from Bible.

Also to be honest I don't get why Religious people get so worked up which historians think Jesus was based on real person and which not because there is a very small difference. Even those historians that think there was some historical Jesus see that person as perhaps 1% to 5% of what was said in the New Testament he did and said, so it's not like so called "historical Jesus" is any more real to the one they believe existed.

You apparently didn't read all of what was posted. Not only was a value of 1 demonstrated, but it was also likely greater in the piece from the NY Post.

First line:

"Archaeologists are divided over whether or not Biblical figures such as King David and King Solomon ever existed."

If they're divided, I think it's safe to say there is more than even just x1.  Unless you're suggesting that none of them qualify as historians.

Your statement:

"No credible historian considers that any of the patriarch of the Old Testament existed like Noah and his flood, Adam, Sampson, David, Moses..."

As far as any new statements, even in a tabloid, they would not impact his original statement that the view is "divided", because he could be on the "doesn't believe" side, but by his own admission there is another side that thinks differently.  You can't have a different side that thinks differently if there's nobody there, so there has to be implied that a value exists of at least 1.

The problem you're having here isn't with religion, it's with math.  1 > 0

[DeistPaladin]

Though I can't give an answer to the Quirniius dating, Luke did not need to give the entire story of Jesus birth and the time in Egypt because Matthew had already covered it. There are reasons why Jesus could not have been born in 6 AD and one is the timing of His life with John the Baptist. Man you were gone for a while, I've been away too, and this is the only thread I've been involved in and do not want to get involved in any others because I'm not ready to participate yet. 

GC

Luke has Mary immediately return to Nazareth. There is no time for a trip to Egypt. 

Luke 2:39 

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

[Godscreated]

Though I can't give an answer to the Quirniius dating, Luke did not need to give the entire story of Jesus birth and the time in Egypt because Matthew had already covered it. There are reasons why Jesus could not have been born in 6 AD and one is the timing of His life with John the Baptist. Man you were gone for a while, I've been away too, and this is the only thread I've been involved in and do not want to get involved in any others because I'm not ready to participate yet. 

GC

Luke has Mary immediately return to Nazareth. There is no time for a trip to Egypt. 

Luke 2:39 

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Of coarse they did, it wasn't until Jesus was about two that they went to Egypt. Joseph had a home and business in Nazareth.