₦airaland Forum

truthislight: Thanks for the advice, i will always read the bible.
But u need to read what i pen down with insight.
I said the interest was on proving Jesus right to the throne and for this male line was necessary.
So, Luke, when the line was female like mary coming up as the mother since a man cannot give birth the reference goes to the son inlaw of Heli Joseph.
Since Joseph is the father by adoption.
That is well illustrated on my write up.

truthislight: @dalafruita
still on the when of Herod's death,
accordind to Josephus, Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and befor a passover.
(jewish antiquities, XVII, 167 [ix, 3] ).
Since there was an eclipse on march 11,4BCE. (march 13, Julian calenda), some people have concluded that this was the eclipse refarred to by Josephus.

However, there was also another eclipse (total eclipse) of the moon in 1BCE.
This eclipse took place 3months befor passover, while the one of 4BCE , was a partial eclipse.
The total eclipse in 1BCE, was on January 8 (January 13, Julian), that was 18 days befor shebat 2, the traditional day of Herod's death.
In fact there was another clipse on Dec 27 of 1BCE (Dec 29, Julian calenda)

This is because Josephus said Herod died not quite long after an eclipse occurred.

With this we still pin the death of Herod to 1BCE. And not 4 or 5bce.
Peace

truthislight: @dalafruita
ur dishonesty is al the more obviouse since u did not point the limitations of the lonely historian Josephus.

In his record of the age of Herod when he receive his appointment he pen down 15yrs for Herod while all other historians says it is wrong that the right thing is 25yrs. There are so many inconsistencies in Josephus dating that makes it unreliable.
Ur dishonest heart that is aim at distroying other peoples faith were u could not stand is very clear on ur one sided research. (jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148[vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix,2] )
meanwhile, if u take that he was 70yrs at the time of Herod's death and that he started or got his appointment at age 25 it takes us to 2 or 1 BC depending on the month that he died..
Guy, left for you alone, i would just conclude that talking to u is a west of effort but for people on this forum u want to deceive.
Thanks, no peace

truthislight: @delafruita
GENEALOGY JESUS.
It is on nairaland that Guys like u like to show ur strenght.
The genealogy of Jesus as recorded by luke and mattew are of two different aproach,

while matt is concern with ancestry from Joseph his foster father, that of luke is concern with mary linage,
it is obviouse that afer both name David the ancestry does not agree on decendant and luke genealogy has fifteen more name than mattew.
The fact is that mattew aproach the matter at opposit end from that of luke after the mention of Joseph.
Luke begins with Jesus and and runs back to abraham and back to Adam.
Mattew begin with Abraham and runs down to Jesus while he leaves some male out, a number of names inbetween.
Mattew therefore concerns himself with tracing the genealogy man by man or through male.
And he does not include women diractly.
That is why he did not show women as being necessary in his linage desription, eg, were he does not have women in mind he mention women by describing it saying, " Judah becam father to perez and to Zerah by TAMAR" (a woman) or "salmon became father to Boaz by Rahab" or "boaz became father to Obed by Ruth".
Note, Tamar, Rahab, or Ruth are women and were not direct decendant of Abraham, hence it had to be through their husband that the line of decendant was carried along unbroken from Abraham. (male)
luke did not mention women directly,
but mattew did indirectly,
so, while mattew trace Jesus genealogy to the throne of david through the male linage as to proof Jesus right to the throne of David.
But, in luke's case, if there happen to be a woman, then the son-inlaw will have to be recognise(lets say my daughter is an only child then her husband will be recongnis) since Jewish linage is trace through the male.
Eg, Jesus is mention as the son of Joseph instead of mary that is in the lineage being the daughter of Heli.(luke3:23) and joseph son-inlaw, but joseph is mention.
So, luke was interested in showing the direct decent of Jesus from the line of david through male and no women mention, and this was important to prove Jesus Right to the throne of David

By being the daughter of mary it is proof that Jesus is the direct decendant of David.
And by being the son of Jesoph Jesus had a legal right to the throne of david.
Jesus right to the throne of David can not just be through adoption without a direct decent to david.
The importance of this prove to David linage is since the prophercy said that the messiah would come through David linage, mary was necessary to make this link.
Mattew showed that Jesus had a legal claim.
So, Joseph line is shown from solomon(matt 1:6)
it diverts.
Mary also through Natan(luke 3:32) it diverts
so, that is the divission of the linage.
One to mary after David, and the other to Joseph after David.
It should be noted there was an official public register for such info to be obtain and confirm this info in the temple in Jerusalem..
There is absolutely no need for this contentions.
But for the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans in 70CE and records destroyed, this info were open to the public for all to see.
Even the Enemy of Jesus could not contest his genealogy that he was son of David which such enemies world have surely done. Even Gentile enemy could not challange it until after 70CE.
Yes, enemies can now make wrong claim since no one can check the public register that has been destroyed.
Peace

truthislight: @delafruita
guy, i dont think i have time to thred this with you since u are a critic and ur souces of info is from critics. U did not mention that there are contrasting opinion as to the date of Herod death, u pick the once critics that fill this field present.
DATE OF HEROD's DEATH.
A problame arises with regard to the time of Herod's death.
Some chronologers hold that he died 5th or 4th BCE.
Using the time Herod was appointed king by Rome, by using the consular dating, it will be in refernce to other Romans consul whose date were well documented, this was the system emploid by Josephus, like u rightly said, phinl is not an issue on this matter.
So, according to this, Herod appoitment will be in 40 BCE.
But the date of another historian appianos, will place the date at 39BCE.
By the the same method Josephus place the capture of Jeruselam at 37BCE.
But he also said that this occurd after the capture of the city by pompey (which was in 63 BCE), (jewish antiquitoes XIV, 487, 487[xvi,4] his reference to that latter event would make the date of Herod taking the the city of Jerusalem at 36 BCE. now, Josephus says that Herod died at 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem. (Jewish antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [vii, 1]
This also indicate that the date of Herod's dead may be 2 or 1 BCE... making the base of ur argument untrust worthy.
So, you do the remaining maths.
Lets also use another system.

We also have the accession year mathod.
That historian uses,
this system is use for Jesus ancestry like use in the linage of David, we then have:
Herod appointed king by Rome in 40BCE his first reignal year will be from Nissan 39BCE to 38BCE.
Similarly if counting from his capture of Jerusalem in 37BCE (36BCE) , his first reinal year could start from 36(35)BCE. So, if as Josephus says, Herod dies at 37year after his appointment by Rome and that will be 34yrs after the capture of Jerusalem, and if those yrs are counted according to Reinal years, his death will be 1BCE. Do the maths.
Guy, this ur argument are all old argument from people that devoted all there life to refute the existance of Jesus, but that is what u brougth to Nairaland forum as though they are historian, and there are lot of fake info aim at deceit all over the place. Ur hatred for JESUS could not be bigger. Are we in doudt of Jesus existance. U brough a wrong reference point = Herods date of death and wants to proof what? .
Am even feeling that this effort to reply this post is wested.
Peace

truthislight: @delafruita
guy, i dont think i have time to thred this with you since u are a critic and ur souces of info is from critics. U did not mention that there are contrasting opinion as to the date of Herod death, u pick the once critics that fill this field present.
DATE OF HEROD's DEATH.
A problame arises with regard to the time of Herod's death.
Some chronologers hold that he died 5th or 4th BCE.
Using the time Herod was appointed king by Rome, by using the consular dating, it will be in refernce to other Romans consul whose date were well documented, this was the system emploid by Josephus, like u rightly said, phinl is not an issue on this matter.
So, according to this, Herod appoitment will be in 40 BCE.
But the date of another historian appianos, will place the date at 39BCE.
By the the same method Josephus place the capture of Jeruselam at 37BCE.
But he also said that this occurd after the capture of the city by pompey (which was in 63 BCE), (jewish antiquitoes XIV, 487, 487[xvi,4] his reference to that latter event would make the date of Herod taking the the city of Jerusalem at 36 BCE. now, Josephus says that Herod died at 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem. (Jewish antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [vii, 1]
This also indicate that the date of Herod's dead may be 2 or 1 BCE... making the base of ur argument untrust worthy.
So, you do the remaining maths.
Lets also use another system.

We also have the accession year mathod.
That historian uses,
this system is use for Jesus ancestry like use in the linage of David, we then have:
Herod appointed king by Rome in 40BCE his first reignal year will be from Nissan 39BCE to 38BCE.
Similarly if counting from his capture of Jerusalem in 37BCE (36BCE) , his first reinal year could start from 36(35)BCE. So, if as Josephus says, Herod dies at 37year after his appointment by Rome and that will be 34yrs after the capture of Jerusalem, and if those yrs are counted according to Reinal years, his death will be 1BCE. Do the maths.
Guy, this ur argument are all old argument from people that devoted all there life to refute the existance of Jesus, but that is what u brougth to Nairaland forum as though they are historian, and there are lot of fake info aim at deceit all over the place. Ur hatred for JESUS could not be bigger. Are we in doudt of Jesus existance. U brough a wrong reference point = Herods date of death and wants to proof what? .
Am even feeling that this effort to reply this post is wested.
Peace

Delafruita: your analogy is totally and utterly ridiculous.first,a prophecy about the fall of jerusalem isnt considered a prophecy till it pinpoints specific events.ofcourse a city will fall when an army encamps it especially when it was hitherto a tribute paying city without a standing army.
secondly,you dont know how old the disciples were as at the time jesus began his ministry so you analogy but assuming they were his age range,that would put them at about 80years old at the fall of jerusalem to the romans.
which josephus led the revolt against the romans?certainly not josephus flavius.
one thing that makes your entire argument ridiculous is the claim that the disciples were matryed.if indeed they were matyred,it means they were long dead before the siege of jerusalem of 70AD.so which one is,were they matyred or the escaped from jerusalem?

Delafruita: your analogy is totally and utterly ridiculous.first,a prophecy about the fall of jerusalem isnt considered a prophecy till it pinpoints specific events.ofcourse a city will fall when an army encamps it especially when it was hitherto a tribute paying city without a standing army.
secondly,you dont know how old the disciples were as at the time jesus began his ministry so you analogy but assuming they were his age range,that would put them at about 80years old at the fall of jerusalem to the romans.
which josephus led the revolt against the romans?certainly not josephus flavius.
one thing that makes your entire argument ridiculous is the claim that the disciples were matryed.if indeed they were matyred,it means they were long dead before the siege of jerusalem of 70AD.so which one is,were they matyred or the escaped from jerusalem?

Delafruita: your analogy is totally and utterly ridiculous.first,a prophecy about the fall of jerusalem isnt considered a prophecy till it pinpoints specific events.ofcourse a city will fall when an army encamps it especially when it was hitherto a tribute paying city without a standing army.
secondly,you dont know how old the disciples were as at the time jesus began his ministry so you analogy but assuming they were his age range,that would put them at about 80years old at the fall of jerusalem to the romans.
which josephus led the revolt against the romans?certainly not josephus flavius.
one thing that makes your entire argument ridiculous is the claim that the disciples were matryed.if indeed they were matyred,it means they were long dead before the siege of jerusalem of 70AD.so which one is,were they matyred or the escaped from jerusalem?

truthislight: @mr Anony
there are facts that is lost here with the say that the gospel came up late.
But lets face it, how was the Gospel from Jesus Apostle suppose to come and when?
Cosidering that it was written after Jesus death?
Some argument u enter into are plain too unnecessary.

If Jesus was born early in the first century and he live for 33yrs.
Say, 33CE
he gave a prophercy that Jerusalem will be destroyed.
That the sign will be when they see disgusting things, encamp army surround Jerusalem that they should flee from Jeruselem cus her distruction was near.

So, where should one expect the diciple to be at 70CE? In Jerusalem or that they bad fled from the city?
Inside Jerusalem? No,
they had all hidded the instructions and flee the city Jerusalem befor the destructions in 70ce.
So, when are there writings suppose to suffice from the place of hidding?
may well be over 70CE.
Besids, this historian like Josephus was a soldiar that led the revolt against the Roman, and later wrote the history.
When did you think he will settle down to start writing after the war of 70CE?

And when do u think that the diciple will consider it safe to release the gosple account after the war?

That the gosple appeared say 90CE should not be a suprising cus this was after a period of war or war times.
This are facts that those who dont care about the bible will not know.
People dont know but they will always argue.
That it came out 90ce does not mean it was written 90ce (mark was completed 65ce)
it is not on all things one should argur about. Rather, i think asking question is Good.
guy, leave em.
Peace

mazaje: As for the contradictory genealogies between Matthew and Luke. . .Your explanation does not fly. . .

Here is what I got from another site. . .The site completely destroys the bogus claim christians apologist use to explain away the obvious contradictions. . .

"Christians claim that Lukes account is Marys fathers genealogy through Heli and Matthews account is Josephs genealogy. This is very unlikely, as we shall soon see. If David was a common ancestor of both Marys fathers line and Josephs line then obviously the two genealogies split from David into his two sons, Nathan carried Mary's fathers line and Solomon carried Josephs line. All good to start off with, but we run into a major problem when we get to the name Salathiel and his son Zorobabel which are shared by both lists. See Mary's fathers line says that Salathiel was the son of Neri whereas Josephs line says that he was the son of Jechonias. Unless Neri and Jechonias were homosexual parents to Salathiel, there is no possible way to resolve this conflict. Even trying to go the way of father-inlaw like with Josephs father (both Heli and Jacob) doesnt work because if Salathiel wife's father was Neri and Salathiel's father was Jechonias then the Mary's fathers line would be broken. The only way to resolve the two accounts on this point is to say that one of the genealogies is wrong"

http://antecessor.hubpages.com/hub/Bible-Contradictions-The-Geneology-of-Jesus

thehomer: And this is why I said that problems can easily creep in with the way the word "authority" was being used. You're already demonstrating the problem since your senses aren't an object or a person.

Let me see if I can help you with another question.
If you're having a headache is there any person or object which you consider an authority that can tell you that you're not having a headache?

Delafruita: you call paul independent account?
oga,even paul contradicts himself on details of his "conversion"
Acts 9:7-and the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,hearing a voice but seeing no man
Acts 22:9-and they that were me saw the light and were afraid,but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
he tells luke a different thing and says another thing about his conversion.how then do we accept his words as infallible?

MyJoe: Maybe you have comprehension challenges - mind you, this is a mere suspicion arrising from your averment that you don't know what I want even though I spoke in simple terms. Or maybe it's a deep-seated confusion since you say you understand me, then say I want a fight, then say you don't know what I want. I suggest you re-read my posts. If you do find a single unfriendly post before you asked my to write letters to a branch office, I will apologise to you.

MyJoe: Aha.

The programmed mind kicks in. A mere discussion scares him. He is only comfortable where he is the one talking away while the other listens quietly. Subject what he is preaching to serious questions and he simply can't handle the cognitive dissonance so he takes the easy way out. The alternative cannot be contemplated for one second. It's too much.

By the way, I don't need any clarifications. You are the one who does, but not the kind you think.

proo212: @Truthislight

When one begins to overanalyse that is when you get into these arguments....Yes the Spirit came upon Peter and emboldened him, there is not question about that.

In Acts 13, the Spirit spoke like the Bible said, separate Saul and Barnabas unto Me for the work which I have called them. The Spirit spoke and acted like a person. I don't see what the argument is. Even as they went about the work the Spirt had called them, the Spirit stopped them preaching in Asia (Acts 16:6)

That is why He is a Spirit. He can be with you and in you. You have not addressed 1 John 5:7. What is your take on it?

Delafruita: some bible translatos notably the NIV has removed mark 16:9-20 from their versions because it has been confirmed to be an addition that wasnt in the original text.
its funny that the "blabbing in tongues" is actually supposed to be "speaking in other tongues".according to the bible,people actually understood what the disciples were saying and were amazed as to how they learnt those languages.but now,you wont hear anybody "speaking in tongues" in igbo or latin or even aramaic.all you'd hear is "lacsahs blo bla stah gate fjs yetk".some their own na "ble ble ble ble ble ble ble ble ble" you go wait tire if you think he'd complete it to "blessing".women own,they would start falling and screaming and sweating.one amazing thing is that the pastor,assistant pastor,deacons and deaconesses,ushers and even cameramen never ever fall down.abi those ones are immune to "falling under the spirit"?

Delafruita: some bible translatos notably the NIV has removed mark 16:9-20 from their versions because it has been confirmed to be an addition that wasnt in the original text.
its funny that the "blabbing in tongues" is actually supposed to be "speaking in other tongues".according to the bible,people actually understood what the disciples were saying and were amazed as to how they learnt those languages.but now,you wont hear anybody "speaking in tongues" in igbo or latin or even aramaic.all you'd hear is "lacsahs blo bla stah gate fjs yetk".some their own na "ble ble ble ble ble ble ble ble ble" you go wait tire if you think he'd complete it to "blessing".women own,they would start falling and screaming and sweating.one amazing thing is that the pastor,assistant pastor,deacons and deaconesses,ushers and even cameramen never ever fall down.abi those ones are immune to "falling under the spirit"?

Delafruita: this is your own version as gotten from your own doctrine.there are many other doctrines and you know that

Delafruita: first,this isnt a treatise to condemn the books of luke of mathew.i just stumbled across some inconsistencies
1.mathew accounts that the 3 wise men visited herod while luke didnt mention it
2.the book of luke records that jesus was born during the census ordered by augustus ceasar.this census occured after the death of herod the great.however,the book of mathew doesnt record this census(a very significant event) and also accounts that herod the great was alive when jesus was born
3.the book of mathew records that herod ordered the killing of all children,but that joseph took jesus and escaped to egypt and that upon his return,he feared for the child's life and stayed in nazareth.luke doesnt record this significant massacre and doesnt record a trip to egypt.it rather accounts that nazareth was actually their city and that they returned there after jesus birth.luke also records that they visited jerusalem every year till jesus turned 12.
while mathew tries to potray their going to nazareth as been an heppenstance,luke says it was actually their own city and that they "returned" to it after jesus was born.
while mathew accounts that they fled to egypt,luke says they went back to nazareth
while mathew says jerusalem was dangerous for the child to be in because of herod,luke accounts that they visited jerusalem every year
while mathew says herod was alive when jesus was born,luke says jesus was born after herod's death
any explanation for these discrepancies?

FXKing2012: Thanks for the advice bro, itz just that I hate seeing these guys that Jesus equally died for walking the dark path that leads to hell. I argue wt them wt the hope that they can see reason and change their ways.

MyJoe: Maybe you have comprehension challenges - mind you, this is a mere suspicion arrising from your averment that you don't know what I want even though I spoke in simple terms. Or maybe it's a deep-seated confusion since you say you understand me, then say I want a fight, then say you don't know what I want. I suggest you re-read my posts. If you do find a single unfriendly post before you asked my to write letters to a branch office, I will apologise to you.