Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How old was Jesus when . . .

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 37818
    replied
    Originally posted by 3 Resurrections View Post
    Hi Paul,

    I don't go with the AD 33 year for the crucifixion just to match a mistaken Friday date for Christ's death. I go with this AD 33 date because it is consistent with every prophecy and historical event from scripture that intersects with AD 33 at some point. And there are several notable prophecies, which all intersect or align with this AD 33 year at some critical juncture.

    It sounds as if you might believe in a Wednesday crucifixion day with a Saturday resurrection just at sunset. If you do, that's my view also. We know by comparing the gospel accounts that Passover preparation day was followed by a "High Sabbath", then a weekday when the women could purchased and prepare the spices to anoint the body of Christ, after which they rested during a regular weekday Sabbath. Christ resurrected Himself just at evening as that weekday Sabbath ended and the first day of the week began (just as you noted with Jewish days beginning at sunset). This resulted in a literal 3 days and nights in the sepulchre, which satisfied Christ's own prediction about His death and burial. The first day of the week before dawn, after the "SabbathS" (PLURAL - Matthew 28:1 YLT), the women came to find that Christ had already left the tomb the night before.

    It doesn't bother me that some want to say that the AD 33 date for Christ's crucifixion would have been on a Friday. I believe they are wrong in assigning that week day to that event of that year. Calendar disparities are notorious for fouling up interpretations, so I try to go with the evidence in scripture alone and let the calendar-makers slug it out between themselves. We already know that the Seder Olam Jewish calendar dating has subtracted about 243 years from ancient history, just to erase the Daniel 9 prophecy that pointed directly to Jesus Christ as being the anointed Messiah. By this means, they switched the Daniel 9 fulfillment to Simon Bar Kokhba instead. So men are not above monkeying with the calendar if they have ulterior motives to do so. Add natural error into the mix, and I can well understand why Friday might be mistakenly assigned to the crucifixion day in AD 33.

    As far as the 474 BC date for the beginning of Artaxerxes I's co-regency with his father, this is confirmed by hieroglyphic records in Egypt, as well as Thucydides who wrote of Themistocles's coming to Artaxerxes I in Persia in the beginning year of his co-regency (474 BC). Ussher's "Annals of the World" is available to check out this information in the #1177 notes, the #1184 notes, and the #1228 notes.
    3 Resurrections,

    I hold a Thursday crucifixion. Jewish calendar date 3790 Nisan 15 [Julian date April 6, 30 AD], the day after the Passover Day per Mark 14:12-16 KJV. So because the 15th is a type of Jewish sabbath, Joseph had to wait until that day had ended in that following evening which was the Perperation Day before the weekly Sabbath, Mark 15:42-43 KJV. Use this Calendar Coverter tool to check dates: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
    Last edited by 37818; 04-18-2021, 09:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3 Resurrections
    replied
    Hi Paul,

    I don't go with the AD 33 year for the crucifixion just to match a mistaken Friday date for Christ's death. I go with this AD 33 date because it is consistent with every prophecy and historical event from scripture that intersects with AD 33 at some point. And there are several notable prophecies, which all intersect or align with this AD 33 year at some critical juncture.

    It sounds as if you might believe in a Wednesday crucifixion day with a Saturday resurrection just at sunset. If you do, that's my view also. We know by comparing the gospel accounts that Passover preparation day was followed by a "High Sabbath", then a weekday when the women could purchased and prepare the spices to anoint the body of Christ, after which they rested during a regular weekday Sabbath. Christ resurrected Himself just at evening as that weekday Sabbath ended and the first day of the week began (just as you noted with Jewish days beginning at sunset). This resulted in a literal 3 days and nights in the sepulchre, which satisfied Christ's own prediction about His death and burial. The first day of the week before dawn, after the "SabbathS" (PLURAL - Matthew 28:1 YLT), the women came to find that Christ had already left the tomb the night before.

    It doesn't bother me that some want to say that the AD 33 date for Christ's crucifixion would have been on a Friday. I believe they are wrong in assigning that week day to that event of that year. Calendar disparities are notorious for fouling up interpretations, so I try to go with the evidence in scripture alone and let the calendar-makers slug it out between themselves. We already know that the Seder Olam Jewish calendar dating has subtracted about 243 years from ancient history, just to erase the Daniel 9 prophecy that pointed directly to Jesus Christ as being the anointed Messiah. By this means, they switched the Daniel 9 fulfillment to Simon Bar Kokhba instead. So men are not above monkeying with the calendar if they have ulterior motives to do so. Add natural error into the mix, and I can well understand why Friday might be mistakenly assigned to the crucifixion day in AD 33.

    As far as the 474 BC date for the beginning of Artaxerxes I's co-regency with his father, this is confirmed by hieroglyphic records in Egypt, as well as Thucydides who wrote of Themistocles's coming to Artaxerxes I in Persia in the beginning year of his co-regency (474 BC). Ussher's "Annals of the World" is available to check out this information in the #1177 notes, the #1184 notes, and the #1228 notes.
    Last edited by 3 Resurrections; 04-17-2021, 09:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 37818
    replied
    Originally posted by 3 Resurrections View Post
    Hi 37818,

    There is a problem with the AD 30 date for Christ's crucifixion. It doesn't coincide with the mid-week mark of the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy. The decree beginning this no-gap, 70-weeks prophecy was given in 454 BC, which was in the 20th year of Artaxerxes I's reign (whose reign first started in 474 BC as co-regent with his father). Counting down to the middle of Daniel's 70th week yields an AD 33 date. Christ as "the messenger of the covenant" being cut off by crucifixion in the middle of this week "caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease", as Daniel 9:27 predicted.
    Hi 3 Resurrecctions,

    The 30 AD date is more sure than the 474 BC date. The 33 AD date though it was picked for a Friday crucifixion places crucifixion on a Sabbath in 33 AD per Mark 14:12-17!

    Jewish days begin with their evenings.

    "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. . . ." See per Exodus 12:18, the 7 days of unleavend bread were the 14-20 ending on the evening of the 21. During the week of the feast 15th-21st there were only 6 days of unleavened bread, Deuteronomy 16:8. So the 7 days of unleavened bread of the 7 days of the feast Numbers 28:16-17 begins on the 14th and ends on the 20th per Exodus 12:18 and Deuteronomy 16:8. There are only 7 days of unleavened bread commanded through out all the instructions, not 8. The 7 days of unleavened bread and the 7 days of the feast of unleavened bread are not the same instruction. Numbers 28:16-17.

    In Jesus day the feast of unleavened bread was also called the Passover, Luke 22:1. The reason for the Friday notion for the Passover is John 19:14, "And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: . . ." Not noon but our Roman 6 AM. Jesus was on the cross per the Hebrew time, Mark 15:25, the third hour, about 9 AM. And during week of the feast there was preperations of the Passover every morning, Numbers 28:16-25, ". . . Ye shall offer these beside the burnt offering in the morning, which is for a continual burnt offering. After this manner ye shall offer daily, throughout the seven days, . . ." Compare Ezekiel 45:21-23.

    Best regards,
    Paul aka 37818

    Leave a comment:


  • 3 Resurrections
    replied
    Hi 37818,

    There is a problem with the AD 30 date for Christ's crucifixion. It doesn't coincide with the mid-week mark of the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy. The decree beginning this no-gap, 70-weeks prophecy was given in 454 BC, which was in the 20th year of Artaxerxes I's reign (whose reign first started in 474 BC as co-regent with his father). Counting down to the middle of Daniel's 70th week yields an AD 33 date. Christ as "the messenger of the covenant" being cut off by crucifixion in the middle of this week "caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease", as Daniel 9:27 predicted.

    Leave a comment:


  • 37818
    replied
    Originally posted by 3 Resurrections View Post
    Hi 37818,

    Are you of the mindset that Jesus' baptism was the official launching of His public ministry? Because there is definitely a "season" of time between Jesus' baptism by John and when He began His public, miraculous ministry later on in Cana. It could be compared to our election process, followed later on by an inauguration into office.
    I have the understanding Christ was crucified on the 15th of Nisan in 30AD. The Passover day the 14th of Nisan was the day before per Mark 14:12-17.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3 Resurrections
    replied
    Hi 37818,

    Are you of the mindset that Jesus' baptism was the official launching of His public ministry? Because there is definitely a "season" of time between Jesus' baptism by John and when He began His public, miraculous ministry later on in Cana. It could be compared to our election process, followed later on by an inauguration into office.

    Leave a comment:


  • 37818
    replied
    We can read about Christ's very first Passover attendance in John 2:13. At that time, the Pharisees contemptuously asked Christ, "FORTY AND SIX YEARS was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" (John 2:20). If we look backward to when Herod started the rebuilding and renovation of the temple, that was in 17 BC. This makes Christ's very first Passover attendance at the beginning of His public miraculous ministry to begin in AD 30 - forty-six years later down the road.
    With the understanding of Jesus' first Passover at the beginning of His public ministry being in 28AD. 28AD - 46 years = -18AD which is 17BC. (No zero BC or zero AD)

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post

    There is an unrecognized problem with the 33AD crucifixtion date. According to the literal understanding of Mark 14:12-17, Exodus 12:18, the Passover would have to be the day before His crucifixion. The 33AD date was picked for a Friday crucifixion on the 14th Jewish calendar Passover date. And that has to do with another interpretation issue regarding John 19:14 it being the day of the crucifixion, which it was. The 15th not the 14th per Numbers 28:16-24, compare Ezekiel 45:21-24.
    Are you quite sure it wasn't "Saturday afternoon, about tea-time"?

    Leave a comment:


  • 37818
    replied
    Originally posted by 3 Resurrections View Post
    Coming at this attempt to determine Christ's age at the beginning of His ministry from another angle entirely...


    We can read about Christ's very first Passover attendance in John 2:13. At that time, the Pharisees contemptuously asked Christ, "FORTY AND SIX YEARS was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" (John 2:20). If we look backward to when Herod started the rebuilding and renovation of the temple, that was in 17 BC. This makes Christ's very first Passover attendance at the beginning of His public miraculous ministry to begin in AD 30 - forty-six years later down the road.

    Christ had already been baptized three years earlier in AD 27 when He "began to be about 30 years old" according to Luke 3:23. Christ immediately after His baptism was driven by the Spirit into the wilderness for 40 days and experienced Satan's temptation. Then Satan left Christ "for a SEASON" (kairos) - which is a predetermined period of time set up for a particular God-ordained purpose. I believe that "season" when Satan left Christ alone lasted for a 3-year span of time. This provided a sort of novitiate period during which Christ allowed John's ministry of baptism to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord" and for when Christ's miraculous ministry would begin in AD 30. That made Christ about 33 years old in AD 30 when He performed His first ministry at Cana, causing His disciples to believe on Him (John 2:11). Consequently, Christ was then crucified in AD 33 when He was about 36-1/2 years old.

    All of this is more important than many realize, because this is directly connected to a fulfillment of Daniel's 70-week prophecy. According to Daniel 9:26, the Messiah would be "cut off" in death sometime after the 69th "week" had ended. At that time, Christ would "cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease" in the middle of the 70th "week" during which 7 years a belief in the New Covenant was being confirmed with many of Daniel's people. This tallies with Christ the "messenger of the covenant" dying in AD 33 in the middle of that 70th week that lasted from AD 30 until AD 37. For the remaining 3-1/2 years of that 70th "week" after Christ's ascension to heaven, (from mid AD 33-37), the disciples continued to concentrate their evangelism efforts on their own people in Jerusalem and Judea. Only later after Paul's God-ordained commission in the Jerusalem temple to evangelize the nations of the Gentiles (Acts 22:17-21) did that evangelistic emphasis noticeably switch from Daniel's people the Jews over to the Gentiles. WE are now the blessed recipients of that commission given to Paul, and have a vested interest in getting the dates of that 70th "week" determined correctly. If Christ had not fulfilled the terms of that 70th "week" to the letter, then our faith is in vain because we would be basing it on a false Messiah who did not keep His word precisely.
    There is an unrecognized problem with the 33AD crucifixtion date. According to the literal understanding of Mark 14:12-17, Exodus 12:18, the Passover would have to be the day before His crucifixion. The 33AD date was picked for a Friday crucifixion on the 14th Jewish calendar Passover date. And that has to do with another interpretation issue regarding John 19:14 it being the day of the crucifixion, which it was. The 15th not the 14th per Numbers 28:16-24, compare Ezekiel 45:21-24.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3 Resurrections
    replied
    Coming at this attempt to determine Christ's age at the beginning of His ministry from another angle entirely...


    We can read about Christ's very first Passover attendance in John 2:13. At that time, the Pharisees contemptuously asked Christ, "FORTY AND SIX YEARS was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" (John 2:20). If we look backward to when Herod started the rebuilding and renovation of the temple, that was in 17 BC. This makes Christ's very first Passover attendance at the beginning of His public miraculous ministry to begin in AD 30 - forty-six years later down the road.

    Christ had already been baptized three years earlier in AD 27 when He "began to be about 30 years old" according to Luke 3:23. Christ immediately after His baptism was driven by the Spirit into the wilderness for 40 days and experienced Satan's temptation. Then Satan left Christ "for a SEASON" (kairos) - which is a predetermined period of time set up for a particular God-ordained purpose. I believe that "season" when Satan left Christ alone lasted for a 3-year span of time. This provided a sort of novitiate period during which Christ allowed John's ministry of baptism to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord" and for when Christ's miraculous ministry would begin in AD 30. That made Christ about 33 years old in AD 30 when He performed His first ministry at Cana, causing His disciples to believe on Him (John 2:11). Consequently, Christ was then crucified in AD 33 when He was about 36-1/2 years old.

    All of this is more important than many realize, because this is directly connected to a fulfillment of Daniel's 70-week prophecy. According to Daniel 9:26, the Messiah would be "cut off" in death sometime after the 69th "week" had ended. At that time, Christ would "cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease" in the middle of the 70th "week" during which 7 years a belief in the New Covenant was being confirmed with many of Daniel's people. This tallies with Christ the "messenger of the covenant" dying in AD 33 in the middle of that 70th week that lasted from AD 30 until AD 37. For the remaining 3-1/2 years of that 70th "week" after Christ's ascension to heaven, (from mid AD 33-37), the disciples continued to concentrate their evangelism efforts on their own people in Jerusalem and Judea. Only later after Paul's God-ordained commission in the Jerusalem temple to evangelize the nations of the Gentiles (Acts 22:17-21) did that evangelistic emphasis noticeably switch from Daniel's people the Jews over to the Gentiles. WE are now the blessed recipients of that commission given to Paul, and have a vested interest in getting the dates of that 70th "week" determined correctly. If Christ had not fulfilled the terms of that 70th "week" to the letter, then our faith is in vain because we would be basing it on a false Messiah who did not keep His word precisely.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Faber View Post
    Unless it's the translations of Luke 2:2 that are wrong.

    The Greek says, "αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου." (This [was] the first census taken [while] Quirinius was governor of Syria.)

    Unfortunately, every translation takes πρώτη as an adjective, translating it "first", which makes a lot of sense, being in the feminine gender, same as ἀπογραφὴ (census). But the result is a blatant discrepancy of ten years in the historical account, as you notice.

    Josephus even tells us how turbulent those ten years were:



    Luke starts out in 1:3, "....having investigated everything carefully from the beginning", then makes a preposterous mistake in skipping over the ten years that Archelaus mismanaged Judea and got booted out by the Roman Emperor Augustus, who turned Judea into a Roman province subject to Syria and appointed Cyrenius governor of Syria? Absurd!!!

    But suppose we took πρώτη to be a preposition instead of an adverb. Then what do we have? "This [was] the census taken BEFORE Quirinius was governor of Syria." Granted, we are more accustomed to the preposition being spelled πρώτον.

    But this not only make grammatical sense, but it also makes absolute historical sense. The AD 6 census under Quirinius was so notorious that Luke wanted to distinguish it from the census which took place when Jesus was born. But instead, a misunderstanding of Luke’s statement had the opposite effect.

    So what was Luke’s big blunder? A blatant contradiction in history, wherein a learned scholar places the birth of Jesus in the time of Herod in one chapter, and during the Roman control of Judea under Quirinius, governor of Syria, at least ten years later, in the next chapter? Or was it simply using an adjective where rules of grammar say he should have used a conjunction? Or maybe for some reason he modified the spelling of that conjunction? Maybe he didn't know how to spell πρίν, or didn't want to.

    Besides, the census under Quirinius was for a taxation. Augustus Caesar didn't exert the authority to impose a tax on client kingdoms.
    The problem of the historical reliability of Luke’s statements concerning the census of Quirinius has been discussed on numerous occasions. Luke’s historical accuracy in connection with his statement on the census under Quirinius cannot be defended on the basis of the available evidence.

    Josephus documents Herod’s reign in meticulous detail [Jewish Antiquities, Books 14-17] and is remarkably well informed on Herod’s final years. Yet he makes absolutely no reference to any census conducted during the lifetime of this ruler. Moreover, the assessment carried out, by Quirinius, after the deposition of Archelaus, in 6 CE, is described by Josephus as something totally new and absolutely unprecedented among the Jewish people. He would hardly have made such an observation had a previous Roman census, which would have been deeply offensive to Jewish sensibilities, already taken place.

    Like Matthew, Luke supposes that Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod. He therefore places the Census mentioned by him during Herod's reign. He also says expressly that it was held: ήγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου which can only mean - 'while Quirinius had supreme command over Syria', i.e. when he was Governor of Syria.

    With regard to the translation of the Greek adjective πρωτος the word is only sometimes found as a comparative with the genitive case, meaning before, or sooner than. [Latin = priusquam]. However, in this specific textual instance both απογραφη and πρωτη (noun & adjective) are in the nominative case. Hence it is obvious that Πρωτη in Luke 2.2 can be translated only in the usual sense. It means 'first'. If the author had actually intended to convey the definite sense of, “before,” he would have employed the rather more direct Greek term, προτερος.

    Your comments are therefore nothing more than pure speculation and suggest an attempt to manipulate and misconstrue the text in order to make it conform with preconceived beliefs. It would appear, contrary to your conjectures, that the author of Luke had a definite apologetic purpose in mind when he connected the birth of Jesus with the Roman census.

    See, H.R. Moehring: “The Census in Luke as an Apologetic Device” pp. 144 - 160 in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour of A.P. Wikgren, Edited by D.E Aune.Brill, Leiden 1972 for a full discussion of the issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • DesertBerean
    replied
    Originally posted by Faber View Post
    Unless it's the translations of Luke 2:2 that are wrong.

    The Greek says, "αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου." (This [was] the first census taken [while] Quirinius was governor of Syria.)

    Unfortunately, every translation takes πρώτη as an adjective, translating it "first", which makes a lot of sense, being in the feminine gender, same as ἀπογραφὴ (census). But the result is a blatant discrepancy of ten years in the historical account, as you notice.

    Josephus even tells us how turbulent those ten years were:



    Luke starts out in 1:3, "....having investigated everything carefully from the beginning", then makes a preposterous mistake in skipping over the ten years that Archelaus mismanaged Judea and got booted out by the Roman Emperor Augustus, who turned Judea into a Roman province subject to Syria and appointed Cyrenius governor of Syria? Absurd!!!

    But suppose we took πρώτη to be a preposition instead of an adverb. Then what do we have? "This [was] the census taken BEFORE Quirinius was governor of Syria." Granted, we are more accustomed to the preposition being spelled πρώτον.

    But this not only make grammatical sense, but it also makes absolute historical sense. The AD 6 census under Quirinius was so notorious that Luke wanted to distinguish it from the census which took place when Jesus was born. But instead, a misunderstanding of Luke’s statement had the opposite effect.

    So what was Luke’s big blunder? A blatant contradiction in history, wherein a learned scholar places the birth of Jesus in the time of Herod in one chapter, and during the Roman control of Judea under Quirinius, governor of Syria, at least ten years later, in the next chapter? Or was it simply using an adjective where rules of grammar say he should have used a conjunction? Or maybe for some reason he modified the spelling of that conjunction? Maybe he didn't know how to spell πρίν, or didn't want to.

    Besides, the census under Quirinius was for a taxation. Augustus Caesar didn't exert the authority to impose a tax on client kingdoms.
    Interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • DesertBerean
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Using your own logic then Luke's birth narrative must be wrong.

    ....or Josephus was wrong about the date.

    Leave a comment:


  • Faber
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    If Jesus was born around 6-5 BCE he could not have been born during Quirinius' census of 6 CE. Therefore Luke's account of Joseph and Mary travelling to Bethlehem for the census and Mary giving birth there, must be wrong.
    Unless it's the translations of Luke 2:2 that are wrong.

    The Greek says, "αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου." (This [was] the first census taken [while] Quirinius was governor of Syria.)

    Unfortunately, every translation takes πρώτη as an adjective, translating it "first", which makes a lot of sense, being in the feminine gender, same as ἀπογραφὴ (census). But the result is a blatant discrepancy of ten years in the historical account, as you notice.

    Josephus even tells us how turbulent those ten years were:

    In the tenth year of Archelaus’ rule, the leading men among the Jews and Samaritans, finding his cruelty and tyranny intolerable, brought charges against him before Caesar the moment they learned that Archelaus had disobeyed his instruction to show moderation in dealing with them. Accordingly, when Caesar heard the charges, he became angry, and summoning the man who looked after Archelaus’ affairs at Rome–he was also named Arcelaus–, for he thought it beneath him to write to Archelaus (the ethnarch), he said to him, “Go, sail at once and bring him here to us without delay.” So this man immediately set sail, and on arriving in Judaea and finding Archelaus feasting with his friends, he revealed to him the will of Caesar and speeded his departure. And when Archelaus arrived, Caesar gave a hearing to some of his accusers, and also let him speak, and then sent him into exile, assigning him a residence in Vienna, a city in Gaul, and confiscating his property. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:342-4; Whiston xvii.13.2), Ralph Marcus, Ph.D., trans., Josephus, with an English Translation In Nine Volumes, Vol. VIII (Jewish Antiquities, Books XV-XVII) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963, 1969) 531.)
    Luke starts out in 1:3, "....having investigated everything carefully from the beginning", then makes a preposterous mistake in skipping over the ten years that Archelaus mismanaged Judea and got booted out by the Roman Emperor Augustus, who turned Judea into a Roman province subject to Syria and appointed Cyrenius governor of Syria? Absurd!!!

    But suppose we took πρώτη to be a preposition instead of an adverb. Then what do we have? "This [was] the census taken BEFORE Quirinius was governor of Syria." Granted, we are more accustomed to the preposition being spelled πρώτον.

    But this not only make grammatical sense, but it also makes absolute historical sense. The AD 6 census under Quirinius was so notorious that Luke wanted to distinguish it from the census which took place when Jesus was born. But instead, a misunderstanding of Luke’s statement had the opposite effect.

    So what was Luke’s big blunder? A blatant contradiction in history, wherein a learned scholar places the birth of Jesus in the time of Herod in one chapter, and during the Roman control of Judea under Quirinius, governor of Syria, at least ten years later, in the next chapter? Or was it simply using an adjective where rules of grammar say he should have used a conjunction? Or maybe for some reason he modified the spelling of that conjunction? Maybe he didn't know how to spell πρίν, or didn't want to.

    Besides, the census under Quirinius was for a taxation. Augustus Caesar didn't exert the authority to impose a tax on client kingdoms.
    Last edited by Faber; 06-30-2020, 03:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 37818
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Using your own logic then Luke's birth narrative must be wrong.
    Why? Luke wrote Jesus was about 30. How close to 30 does Jesus have to be for " about 30" to be a true statement?
    . . . ωσει ετων τριακοντα . . . .

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Heero Yuy, 06-11-2021, 05:23 PM
7 responses
51 views
0 likes
Last Post Cerebrum123  
Started by 37818, 08-15-2015, 07:47 AM
83 responses
21,964 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X