Shaber> Luke contradicts 4 B.C. According to him Jesus was born in 6 A.D.
And this discussion on Matthew's date and Luke's date for the birth of the Christian saviour relates to a discussion with Predator, who claims the dates given in the Bible must be taken literally.
I'm merely giving examples of contradictions in said book.
Originally posted by hobbit_dude
darth revan, u should see "friends" coz there's this episode called "the one with mister heckles dies" coz ross acts just like u!! u make me laugh,,PS: i still dont believe in evoluition and I dont think Ill chnage my mind!!
What Tpt said...
Also, if you're not going to offer a reason as to why you don't believe in evolution, please leave.
And I hate to burst your bubble but Friends sucks ass.
the Omega's Post-
Tell me which is right?:
Mt.2:14
"When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt."
Lk.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."
Then let’s assume we must take the DATES to be right.
If you pay any credence to the New Testament of the Christian Bible, there are at least two different dates and eras given to represent the birth of Christ.
1. The reign of king Herod, Found only in Matthew. Herod died in 4 BC So the " birth of Christ " must have been before the “official” Birth of Christ date.
2. In Luke, Jesus Christ is born at the time of the census Which is well documented in Roman records as being 6 A.D. This couldn't have been at the same time as Matthew's account as this was ten years after King Herod's death. And further more ths puts the " birth of Christ ", six years after the official Birth of Christ date.
My Post
I read your post Omega and I have an answer for you:Luke said that census that brougt Joseph and mary to Bethehem was conducted when Quirinius was goerning Syria and during the reign of Herod the great....That looks like a problem because Herod died in 4B.C., and Quirinius didn't begin ruling Syria until A.D. 6.That is a major gap. However this is not a problem because archeaologist have found coins with very small writing on them that places Quirinuis as proconsul of Stria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until afer the death of Herod. So there is a possibilty that there were two Quirinius. And also the late archeaologist and proffessor Sir William Ramsay, concluded a simular theory from various inscriptions that while there was only one Quirinius, he ruled on two seperate occasions, which would cover the time period of the earlier census. 💃 💃 💃 💃 💃
Ms.Understood>
“So there is a possibilty that there were two Quirinius.”
A possibility doesn’t make it a fact. Also, it doesn’t change the fact that in Luke, Jesus Christ is born at the time of a census. A census, mind you, which is well documented in Roman records as being 6 A.D.
But also in Luke 1:5 ”THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea…”
2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2:2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
Even if we assume Cyrenius was proconsul at the time og Herod, it is 10 years earlier than the census – which is well documented in Roman records.
I agree with your statement Shaber it is impossible to determine the exact year of Jesus's birth but that still has no bearing on my Fall of Babylon info. Shaber have you read my information? If you havnt read it then i suggest by all means read it, also ms. understood too. Then tell me if you think its factual or altered.
Shaber> But how’s anyone to take anything from the Bible serious then? I don’t, as you know. I’m an atheist. And how do Christians know that the books deleted don’t contain the real truth?
Predator> On the contrary. It has EVERYTHING to do with your Fall of Babylon info, as it assumes the dates in the Bible must be taken literally.
I have proven to you that that is by NO means the case.
This is to Omega....Well, the coins that the archeaologist found had Quirinius name on them. This puts one of the Quirinius in the times of Herod, (Quirinius conducted the census) So if Quirinius conducted the census, the census had to be during the time of Herod Plus even though the census was "well documented" by the Romans, it doesn't mean that it was the census that moved Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, because census were common, there wasn't just one.