Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof

@caissad4 said
You know very little about me. I seek truth and understanding.
You only seem to seek to confirm your unsubstantiated opinions and dismiss anything which might threaten your superstitions.
What I do know is your god is evil, inconsistent and manmade.

You don’t know anything about my God, the one between your ears is more than likely all of that.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

[quote] Why would Jesus have been born in Bethlehem, other than as a deliberate attempt by the gospel writers to fulfill the OT prophecy? (This is clearly evidenced by the weak and historically unsupported reason why Joseph went to Bethlehem).

In short, his birth was not 'engineered' to have been in Bethlehem, but 'placed' there fictitiously to fulfill ...[text shortened]... o in the former earlier centuries protested that it was known that His birth was elsewhere ?

There was 'no' census that required Joseph to return to Bethlehem. So for what reason would he have been placed in Bethlehem by the gospel writers, other than to try and fulfill the prophecy?!

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Why would Jesus have been born in Bethlehem, other than as a deliberate attempt by the gospel writers to fulfill the OT prophecy? (This is clearly evidenced by the weak and historically unsupported reason why Joseph went to Bethlehem).

In short, his birth was not 'engineered' to have been in Bethlehem, but 'placed' there fictitiously to fulfill the prophecy.

You assume He was not born there, because it means it was fulfilled?

@kellyjay said
You assume He was not born there, because it means it was fulfilled?

See above.

@caesar-salad removed their quoted post

I read it as simply a claim of exclusive access to God.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star at its rising and have come to worship Him.

And when Herod the king heard this he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him.

And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people,, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. And they said to him, In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written through the prophet:

And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, by no means are you the least among the princes of Judah, for out of you shall come forth a Ruler, One who will shepherd My people Israel." (Matt, 2:1-6) comp Micah 5:2)

There was 'no' census that required Joseph to return to Bethlehem. So for what reason would he have been placed in Bethlehem by the gospel writers, other than to try and fulfill the prophecy?!

In other words you have NO specimen of far earlier voices protesting that it was known that Jesus was born elsewhere.

Now, since you have on your perpetual skeptical glasses, ie. "Propose something. And I will show you how I can cast doubt on it perpetually."


Which do you propose?

1.) The magi never came seeking this information. Matthew lies.

2.) Herod gathered the religious experts but nothing was said about Bethlehem. Matthew lies.

3.) The Micah prophecy was written AFTER all these events and retrofitted into the phony story. Matthew lies and/or the Pharisees and scribes lied about what took place.

4.) The Pharisees and priests (NONE of which it says, bothered to go see for themselves) all together were in error about what they thought Micah's prophecy meant. Matthew lies to force it to be about Jesus.

5.) Herod actually didn't CARE a bit about a "born king" in his domain. So Matthew lies that Herod was concerned about the magi.

How does your conspiracy theory work?

As for Luke knowing less about the census then some historians two thousand years latter who are so sure it never happened -



The following persons in Luke's writing ARE elsewhere outside of the New Testament attested to as being AUTHENTIC. Why suddenly should I doubt his details about the census?

Pontius PilateLuke 3 v 1; Luke 13 v 1, Luke 23 v 1, 3, etc
Herod the Great, BerniceLuke 1 v 5; Luke 25 v 13; Luke 26 v 30
Sergius PaulusActs 13 v 7
DrusillaActs 24 v 24
GallioActs 18 v 12
AnnasLuke 3 v 2; Acts 4 v 6
FelixActs 23 v 24; Acts 23 v 26
CaiaphasLuke 3 v 2; Acts 4 v 6
FestusActs 24 v 27; Acts 25 v 1, etc.
AnaniasActs 23 v 2; Acts 24 v 1
King Herod Agrippa IActs 12 v 1
GamalielActs 5 v 34; Acts 22 v 3
King Herod Agrippa IIActs 25 v 13, Acts 25 v 26
Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of GalileeLuke 3 v 1

From The Incredibly Accurate Dr. Luke


http://www.ichthus.info/Luke/intro.html

Luke's track record

So Luke included an incredable amount of historical information in his two works... he refered to hunderds of people and places in ancient history (e.g., Derbe, Lystra, Lysanias, Annas, Caiaphas, etc)
By including all these historical information, Luke had given the skeptics plenty of reasons to criticize his gospel for accuracy, for Luke's gospel was under a tremendous criticism for a long time (that was before archaeology came to Luke's defense)

You have to understand that some people and places that Luke reported in his gospel were not very prominent (some are city officials): there are no historical evidence that these people or places (some are tiny towns) existed...

Any writer who relates his story like this to the wider context of world history is asking for trouble if there are historical inaccuracies in his record, because he gives his critics many opportunities for testing his accuracy.
Luke was indeed under heavy criticism - especially concerning his reference to less prominent people, such as "tetarchs" (see below)

Only the last century, when archaeology discovers many new facts of the new world, did Luke got his vindication.
Luke has not only withstood the test but he is NOW considered to be a highly acclaimed historian::

Kenneth Wuest in "Word Study in the Greek New Testament": click here
John Hitchen, National Principle - Bible College of New Zeelan: click here
Miscelaneous: click here

Check out more at http://www.ichthus.info/Luke/intro.html

The Incredible Accuracy of Dr. Luke

@ghost-of-a-duke said
There was 'no' census that required Joseph to return to Bethlehem. So for what reason would he have been placed in Bethlehem by the gospel writers, other than to try and fulfill the prophecy?!

Luke on how the census was taken in Jesus' time....
In Luke 2:1-2, Luke gave a description of the way in which the census was carried out -- by the enrollment of all persons at their place of origin.
In other words, everyone must go back to the place of their origin to be counted.

Liberal biblical scholars critized Luke as being fanciful - you will never do a census like that ! It will upset the whole economical (merchant) system in the area by having the whole population move back to their place of origin just to be counted.... that's just plain fantasy.... it's must be only a story, without any historical truth behind it.
Well, the liberal scholars had to swallow their words when the following edict from C.Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt, dated to the year 104 AD was discovered:
C.Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt, gives notice:
The enrollment by household being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause soever are outside their nomes (administrative divisions of Egypt) to return to their domestic hearths, that they may also accomplish the customary dispensation of enrollment and continue steadfastly in the husbandry that belongs to them.”

I have a local webpage with more information about this edict: click here

From http://www.ichthus.info/Luke/intro.html

@ghost-of-a-duke said
There was 'no' census that required Joseph to return to Bethlehem. So for what reason would he have been placed in Bethlehem by the gospel writers, other than to try and fulfill the prophecy?!

Coming from a guy who knows what happen millions of years ago, not really impressed.

@eladar said
Yep, thanks for sharing your beliefs.

So, just to be clear, are you denying the whole of science?

@indonesia-phil said
So, just to be clear, are you denying the whole of science?

I am denying the part of science that cannot be directly observed.

You really are an arrogant misled fool. But hey as l9ng as the rest of your skinhead buddies agree with you your circular reasoning based on assumption must surely appear absolute truth.

@kellyjay said
Why do we have to look at the fossils, where are all of the living not quite creatures living today? If mankind is the top of the line newest model, where are all of the other models with just small changes not quite human, going back until the older models all disappear? We should see these types of lifeforms for every life! Getting a very small change within DNA would not ...[text shortened]... ons it becomes a much larger number and DNA has a very large numbers representing information in it.

I wasn't talking about fossils in this post. There is plenty of evidence for primitive hominids predating humans, as there is plenty of evidence of closely related species, as I made clear in my previous post. DNA can be analyzed to see how closely related species are.

I don't think you understand how natural selection works. Small changes in DNA which can ultimately produce a new species do not necessarily mean that those animals without the new DNA will die out. This is how species diversify. Only if the DNA change confers some kind of advantage to the new animal will the old species die out, but this by no means always happens. DNA changes are random and accidental, and most of them don't work to the animals' advantage.

Because we share 99 percent of our genes with chimps (which is not a 'claim', it can be scientifically proven, over and over again) does not mean that there have to be 99 + intermediary forms. The 1% change in DNA is enough to account for the differences between chimps and humans.

And I ask again for about the fourth time, what is your explanation for the gaps in the fossil record? Why are you ducking this question?

@indonesia-phil said
I wasn't talking about fossils in this post. There is plenty of evidence for primitive hominids predating humans, as there is plenty of evidence of closely related species, as I made clear in my previous post. DNA can be analyzed to see how closely related species are.

I don't think you understand how natural selection works. Small changes in DNA which can ult ...[text shortened]... time, what is your explanation for the gaps in the fossil record? Why are you ducking this question?

No questions on that.

One question for you on a different track...

If Adam was created, how old would he have appeared 1 min after he was created?

@caissad4 said
You know very little about me. I seek truth and understanding.
You only seem to seek to confirm your unsubstantiated opinions and dismiss anything which might threaten your superstitions.
What I do know is your god is evil, inconsistent and manmade.

How do you know, your not the one who seeks to confirm your unsubstantiated opinions and dismiss anything that might threaten your beliefs? I have no idea what you base your opinion on when it comes to God. With respect to my god, I don't have a god, I don't own one, nor did I make one up.