Board index ‹ God

[Zoltgeist]

> While hard evidence for Moses is wanting, there has been an intriguing discovery of a statue that possibly mentions him, though that writing is highly disputed. But we all know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. New discoveries are made every day.

source

> Again, you are too quick to jump to conclusions. First of all, our information about Quirinius comes from Josephus, a source quickly and uniformly spurned when talking about other aspects of Jesus and the Gospel record, but blindly accepted when it goes against the Gospel records. It's a double standard, and hypocritical.

> Acts 5.37 mentions the census of AD 6, while Quirinius was governor of Syria. There is a record of a periodical 14-yr census in Egypt that goes back to AD 20, 14 years after the one we know about in AD 6. It's not at all implausible to assume a census in 8 BC. The Deeds of the Divine Augustus reveals that Caesar Augustus himself ordered a census in 8 BC —one that from the record sounds empire-wide in scope.
A careful analysis of Luke 2 also helps. We know Quirinius was a governor of Syria from AD 6-9, but Luke uses the term hegemon (general for "leader" or "ruler"), not governor. The title is important because Luke is very precise in the titles he uses for public officials. According to Tacitus, before Quirinius was governor of Syria, he was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Empire, with some evidence that he was a co-ruler (hegemon) with the then governor of Syria, Quintilius Varus. This could be the position to which Luke refers. 2nd, Luke specifies that this was the first registration, which would indicate there were at least two such censuses (and we know of the one in AD 6). The exact idea of “first” (πρώτη, Lk. 2.2) is not certain, however. It seems reasonable to assume Luke's idea is that there was more than one registration under Quirinius. It is the first of a series. This could be a previous one to AD 6 to which Luke refers. 3rd, the definite article doesn't occur with “This was (the first)” in v. 2. The text just says, “This was proete…” This grammatical form often points to something previous in time. It could possibly indicate the earliest or earlier of the possible references—in other words, one before the known one of year 6. 4th, the verb Luke uses in Lk. 2.2 is ἐγένετο (NIV: “that took place”), a term that is subject to a variety of possible meanings. Perhaps a straightforward alternative translation is warranted: “This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria.”

> In other words, it’s not as clean as the critics would have one believe.

source?

Also, the Romans never once issued a decree that required people to go back to the place lf their birth. That would be a massive disruption. There is simply no record of that kind of census happening, and the Romans kept extensive records of such things.

> The mention of only one animal doesn't require that there was only one animal. If I'm at a party and I say, "Sean and Emma were there," I am not implying they were the only ones there, but rather that they were the two who mattered to me. For the other Gospel writers, the donkey Jesus actually rode on was the one that mattered to them.

The reason Matthew (he made the mistake, not Mark, my apologies on the error) erroneously includes both a horse colt and donkey foal is because he misreads a prophesy from the OT (Zechariah 9:9). The original prophecy has the Messiah riding into Jerusalem "on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey). Clearly the author means one animal. Matthew mistakenly inteprets it as meaning two, so he is forced to write two in for Jesus to satisfy OT Messianic prophecy. Mark never mentioned another animal, and Luke never did either, which is especially telling given that both Luke and Mark drew from the same source, Q. Luke was simply smart enough to recognize Matthew's error and not repeat it. Your explanation is nothing more than handwaving.

> This is incorrect. Jesus never predicted or said he would be returning within the lifetime of the disciples.

Matthew 16:28, Matthew 24:34 are both predictions of imminent parousia. Matthew 24:34 is especially hard to reinterpret to be metaphorical considerong the greek word here is temporal and means quite literally THIS CURRENT GENERATION. I'll tag the expert u/koine_lingua here, but safe to say you are very very wrong here.

> The two accounts have many elements in common, referring to the same event, and some elements in distinction, showing their particular reason to writing. The two don't contradict.

Yes they do. Matthew and Luke have Herod the Great being king of Judaea during Jesuss birth. However, Luke ALSO has Quirinius as governor of Cyria at the time of Jesus birth, which is impossible because he wasn't in power until 9 years after Herod's death.

The genealogies are completely different as well. I've seen apologists claim that one is a maternal line and one paternal, but this makes no sense because ancestry was traced patrilineally. Also there simply isn't any reason to believe it is matrilineal. Especially since both are traced through Joseph, not Mary.

> Actually it is not. He died by suicide by hanging, as Matthew says. it was a common literary motif in ancient literature to describe the death of the wicked in very gruesome details. These were literary conventions to speak of the wickedness of the person, not the details of his death.
> 2 Maccabees 9.5-7, 9-10, 28 describe the death of Antiochus Epiphanes as follows: “But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him with an incurable and invincible blow. As soon as he stopped speaking, he was seized with a pain in his bowels, for which there was no relief, and with sharp internal tortures – and that very justly, for he had tortured the bowels of others with many strange inflictions. Yet he did not in any way stop his insolence, but was filled even more with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, and giving orders to drive even faster. And so it came about that he fell out of his chariot as it was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body…and so the ungodly man’s body swarmed with worms, and while he was still living in anguish and pain, his flesh rotted away, and because of the stench the whole army felt revulsion at his decay.... so the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate...” King Joram (2 Chr. 21.18-19): “And after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease. In the course of time, at the end of two years, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great agony.” When a friend of hated Tiberius Graccus died, Plutarch wrote, it is said that his “dead body burst open and a great quantity of corrupt humours gushed forth, so that the flame of the funeral pyre was extinguished.”
> Acts is not telling the method of death, but only metaphorically describing his wickedness.

You aren't addressing my question at all. Matthew has the priests of the temple by the field, while Acts has Judas himself by it. Matthew specifies that they bought the potter's field to fulfill a prophecy from Jeremiah: "Spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." However, this is actually a misquote from Zechariah 11-12-13. So hear you have an inconsistency sandwhich. Matthew disagrees with Paul on what happened, names the wrong book of the OT in quoting prophecy, and completely bungles the original prophecy from Zechariah. It isn't a good look.

Also, Acts has Judas purchasing a field with his silver, while Matthew has him cast down the silver in the temple. So clearly a lot of explaining is required here.

> 2000 years ago the division of the OT was different than the division we know today. And it was common practice to call a set of books by the name of one of the books it contained. The Pentateuch (Torah) was called “Moses”. The writings were labeled as “Psalms” or “David”. The same goes for the prophetic writings. They called them “Isaiah” and “Jeremiah”. That is to say that Matthew refers to the prophets as “Jeremiah”. Mark, by the way, did the exact same thing. In the first chapter of his gospel he refers to the book of Malachi using the label “Isaiah”. In brief, “Jeremiah” and “Isaiah” served as a label for all the prophets. By the way, whoever takes a look at the Tractate “Bava Batra” in the Talmud will notice that the sages had the same habit of labeling books.

source?

> In other words, you're wrong about ALL these accusations. Some more research would help you in your pursuit of truth, much more than these casual toss-offs without having done the homework.

On the contrary, the issue is you are working backwards from your conclusion and adjusting and reinterpreting the evidence whenever it doesn't add up. Most of your responses are hand waving and simple conjecture, especially in regards to Biblical contradiction and error

[jimwalton]

> "hard evidence for Moses" source

Douglas Petrovich, in "The World’s Oldest Alphabet: Hebrew as the Language of the
Proto-Consonantal Script," mentions that the name “Moses” appears among the proto-consonantal inscriptions of Sinai 361. It dates to 1200-1150 BC.

"Inscription 360, written on a small standing stone (stele) that was perched on a ridge between two dry riverbeds a short distance from Mine K, reads “This is the site of (where took place) the sign that Mashe Mahub-Baalt performed with the snake” (Z ŠḤ ʔT ZT BŠN MŠ [MHBʕLT] BBŠN). The reference is unmistakable. In Exodus 4:1-5, 17, 29-31 is the following story: “Moshe (Moses) threw his staff on the ground, and it became a snake. He reached out and grabbed it, and it turned back into a staff in his hand. <Yahweh said to Moshe, ‘Perform this sign for the Israelites to see> so that they believe that Yahweh, the god of their ancestors, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, appeared to you. And take with you this staff, with which you shall perform the signs.’ Moshe and Aharon (Aaron) went and convened the entire senate of the Israelites. He performed the signs for the people to see, and the people believed.”

The second inscription, Sinai 361, written on a rock embedded in the ground at the entrance to Mine N, reads “This is the site of (where stood) the snake of bronze that Mashe Mahub-Baalt made” (Z ŠḤ ʔBŠN Z-NḤ[ŠT] ZT BŠN MŠ MHBʕLT). This incident quite clearly is that related in Numbers 21: 6-9; 2 Kings 18: 4: “Yahweh unleashed snakes, vipers, among the people. They bit the people. Many among the Israelites died. So Moshe (Moses) made a snake of bronze and placed it on a pole. If a man was bitten by a snake but looked at the snake of bronze, he survived. <Many centuries later, King Hezekiah> smashed to pieces the snake of bronze that Moshe made, because down to his time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. It was called Nehushtan.”

There is yet a third historical site-marker belonging to the same series as Sinai 360 and 361. It is Sinai 377, written on a ridge about 800 meters NE of Bir Nasb, on the ancient path from the oasis to Mt Serabit el-Khadem. The oasis of Bir Nasb was the source of fresh water for the miners and the staging ground for caravans bringing turquoise and copper to the port on the Gulf of Suez and, back from there, food and supplies for the community. Sinai 377 identifies the significance of the oasis of Bir Nasb in the following manner: “This is the site of (where appeared) the manna.” (Z ŠḤ ʔMN). The historical context of the incident reported in the site- marker is found in Numbers 16: 13-14, 21, 31: “In the morning, there was a layer of dew around the encampment <of the Israelites in the desert of Sin>. When the layer of dew lifted, upon the surface of the desert was a finely pounded powder <that looked> as if It had been smeared on the ground ... They (the Israelites) would collect it every morning, each man as much as he could eat, because when the sun grew hot, it would melt . . . the house of Israel named it ‘manna’.”

Sinai 360, 361 and 377 are the rarest kind of historical sources: they contain primary historical evidence that speaks immediately and directly to outstanding, unresolved major problems of history and resolves them dramatically, in a definitive manner. This kind of evidence is prima facie or, in the colloquial, “slam dunk,” because it links Mashe to Moshe (Moses) and to Moshe alone. After all, how many men named Mashe/Moshe can there have been in antiquity who were leaders of an Israelite community on a holy mountain in Sinai and who performed an act so specific as a sign with a snake and made an object so specific as a snake of bronze? But you would never know of this information from earlier translations of the inscriptions. Compare the translations of 361 earlier given: "This is the dwelling in the camp of M-Sh <occupied by> ATZT, cherished of Ba’alat; behold! (the whole) camp is cherished [of Ba’alat]” or “The one who built the camp is cherished [of Ba’alat].” (Butin 1932); "O, Merciful One, O Serpent Lady, (his) two lords, bring a sacrif[ice]." (Albright 1966);"This is the pit of the melt-furnace which is beloved [of Ba'alat]. Furnace of metal-making.” (Colless 1990); “This is Shabb. Stele of an offering of olive oil of the beloved of Ba’alt. This one measured it for the lady, for Ba’alat.” (Van den Branden 1979); “Our bound servitude had lingered. Moses then provoked astonishment, because of the Lady.” (Petrovich 2016) With translations like these, the precious historical information in the inscription remains locked in it; and one can understand why historians believe that there is no evidence of a man in ancient times who resembles the Moses of the Bible. Information so completely concealed can truthfully be said not to exist."(https://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Charles4.pdf)

As I said, it's refuted, but it's of interest.

> "Quirinius." source?

First, the Greek language itself.

Second, the source of the Egyptian census in AD 20 is R.K. Harrison, Archaeology of the New Testament New York: Association Press, 1964, 23. "“That the machinery for such an administrative procedure was in fact operative seems clearly indicated in the writings of Clement of Alexandria (AD 155-202), who recorded that it commenced with the census that was in progress at the time when Christ was born. Documentary evidence from Egypt consisting of actual census reports for enrollments in AD 90, 104, 118, 132, and succeeding years is now at hand, and it is an accredited fact that in the latter empire there was a 14-year interval between enrollments."

Also noted in a work by Ramsey.

Third, source for Augustus's census in 8 BC I told you: The Deeds of the Divine Augustus (paragraph 8, lines 2-4).

> Also, the Romans never once issued a decree that required people to go back to the place lf their birth.

A public notice dated AD 104 provides a starting point. It says: “Gaius Vibius, chief prefect of Egypt. Because of the approaching census, it is necessary for all those residing for any cause away from their own districts to prepare to return at once to their own governments, in order that they may complete the family administration of the enrollment, and that the tilled lands may retain those belonging to them. Knowing that your city had need of provisions, I desire…”

Also a number of papyri in Egypt have the heading enrollment by household (*apographe kat’ oikian*). Each man went to the town where his family register was kept.

> The reason Matthew (he made the mistake, not Mark, my apologies on the error) erroneously includes both a horse colt and donkey foal is because he misreads a prophesy from the OT (Zechariah 9:9). The original prophecy has the Messiah riding into Jerusalem "on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey). Clearly the author means one animal. Matthew mistakenly inteprets it as meaning two, so he is forced to write two in for Jesus to satisfy OT Messianic prophecy.

This is quite a bit of guesswork with no substantiation.

> Matthew 16:28, Matthew 24:34 are both predictions of imminent parousia.

Mt. 16.28. You probably know there are various ways to interpret what Jesus says. Some say it refers to the Transfiguration, which immediately follows this text. Some say it refers to Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit. Some say it's his resurrection. Elsewhere Jesus says he doesn't know when the second coming will take place (Mt. 24.36), so it would sure be odd to pin him down here. There are seven main interpretations of this verse. It much more likely refers to some signal manifestation of the kingdom in power, such as the Transfiguration or Pentecost. What I know for certain is that you don't know for certain that he's making a mistaken claim about his second coming.

Mt. 24.34. There are nine interpretations of this passage. The most accepted one is that most of the chapter is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and this saying (v. 34) applies to that event. So it's not "safe to say [I am] very very wrong here." It's probably not about the parousia at all, but instead about an event that happened while "this generation" was still alive.

> However, Luke ALSO has Quirinius as governor of Cyria at the time of Jesus birth, which is impossible because he wasn't in power until 9 years after Herod's death.

Already explained. I hoped you had read, but I guess not. Luke uses the Greek title *hegemon,* which is not the word for "governor." And the Greek word “first” (πρώτη, Lk. 2.2) is not certain. There are various possibilities of translation, meaning that very possibly Luke is not mistaken. Quirinius was a "ruler" while Herod was still alive (Tacitus, Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31).

> The genealogies are completely different as well. I've seen apologists claim that one is a maternal line and one paternal, but this makes no sense because ancestry was traced patrilineally.

There are a variety of possibilities here. A "contradiction" is only one of them.

1. Matthew gives Joseph’s line and Luke Mary’s. – Martin Luther

2. Matthew gives Mary’s line and Luke Joseph’s. – Tertullian

3. Matthew follows Jesus’s natural descent and Luke his legal descent. – Julius Africanus

4. One is the royal line and one the “common man’s” line, both leading to Joseph. (Blomberg, France)

5. Jacob died, and so his brother Heli married Joseph’s mother (levirate marriage)

6. Matthew’s genealogy is through Joseph’s mother, and Luke’s is through Joseph’s father (Nettelhorst)

7. Matthew’s genealogy traces through the royal line of Solomon; Luke’s bypasses the technical royal line (because of Jeremiah’s curse, Jer. 22.24-30; 36.30), traces the line through another heir of David (Nathan), and still ends up at Joseph.

In other words, your conclusion may be premature.

> You aren't addressing my question at all.

What I address was that Luke in Acts is not describing the means of Judas's death in any way or form, but only using literary motifs to describe him as accursed. Matthew is giving the actual historical account.

> However, this is actually a misquote from Zechariah 11-12-13 ... names the wrong book of the OT in quoting prophecy, and completely bungles the original prophecy from Zechariah

Didn't you read what I wrote? Yow. Apparently not. It's tough to have a conversation this way.

> Matthew disagrees with Paul on what happened

What does Paul have to do with it?

> "2000 years ago the division of the OT ..." source?

Jewish rabbis, and the Tractate “Bava Batra” in the Talmud

> the issue is you are working backwards from your conclusion and adjusting and reinterpreting the evidence whenever it doesn't add up.

It is interesting to me that you are judging me on something you have no way of knowing. You have no idea what path I took to get to these conclusions, nor do you have any basis for claiming that I have adjusted and reinterpreted evidence to suit myself.

[I'm Hiding]

> There's nothing about it that is similar to a hallucination. I've never seen a vision or dreamed dreams. It's a presence and a power inside that brings about an authentic life change. Values and perspectives change, sometimes overnight. Habits and personality even change. It's not a religious experience, but instead a spiritual one.

What was the circumstances around this happening and what happened exactly?

[jimwalton]

The experiences I have had aren't particularly related to a notable event (like when I was going through a crisis) or even a personality disposition (like, when I was depressed). There are times when God is very real and His presence is almost palpable. I don't see a vision or hear voices.

I also know people whose lives have ben radically changed, overnight, when they came to Christ. A man who was all about self, mean to his wife, ornery at work, came to Christ and became a nice guy who was thoughtful of others. I've had opportunity to get to know people who were criminals, and they became different people—different personalities—with Jesus inside. Addicts and alcoholics whose desire for the substance disappeared overnight.

[Paladin]

> It's obvious to me that even a direct experience with God doesn't make it certain that one will follow him.

So, I get this response a lot. But here's the thing: just because it is not effective 100% of the time doesn't mean it's not more effective than not appearing at all.

Just imagine the two extremes:

-> God appears to everyone who ever lives throughout history in a direct, personal way.
VS
-> God never appears to anyone, ever.

Think about this. Which is more likely to produce people who know God and have a relationship with him?? Clearly the former.
​
> God speaking to people is no guarantee of the relationship. Often times, it's actually detrimental. God speaking to people seems only to be effective when the person is already in relationship with God.

I don't think this is accurate. Think of the apostle Paul, just to take one example. That was pretty effective!

[jimwalton]

> But here's the thing: just because it is not effective 100% of the time doesn't mean it's not more effective than not appearing at all.

I agree. And he has appeared to many people. He appeared, obviously (if we believe the biblical account) to Moses and Paul, and we have the benefit of their writings to guide our lives even 2000-3300 years later.

There is also, if you have access to a certain segment of the news, a GREAT trend (or even a movement) happening now. It seems, according to the reports, that hundreds, if not thousands, of Muslims are having visions of Jesus. (I'm sure you can Google it.) We're watching it happen and wondering what's going on, at the same time pleased at what God is doing. He is making inroads where people have failed for centuries.

> Which is more likely to produce people who know God and have a relationship with him?? Clearly the former.

Then you have missed my point. According to the Bible, it's NOT clearly the former. God appearing to people and giving them a direct experience with Him is only effective some of the time, and not even most of the time. Think about the stories we read in Exodus and Numbers about God appearing to the Israelites in Egypt and the wilderness. And yet not one of them entered the Promised Land except Joshua and Caleb. Think of how many thousands of people saw Jesus, heard Him speak, and witnessed His miracles. And yet at His death He had only a small cadre of followers. I would contend it's NOT clearly the former.

> I don't think this is accurate. Think of the apostle Paul, just to take one example. That was pretty effective!

Sure, the Apostle Paul is one where it worked. There are many, but the record of the Bible is that there are many more where it didn't. Even in Revelation when God appears, instead of people coming to Him they will scream for the rocks and mountains to cover them and hide them from Him. Go figure.

[Paladin]

> Then you have missed my point. According to the Bible, it's NOT clearly the former. God appearing to people and giving them a direct experience with Him is only effective some of the time, and not even most of the time.

No, I don't think I have. Actually, it seems you missed my point! What you should be looking at is not the percentage of people who responded positively to God's appearances. It is to what would have happened had God done nothing at all.

Consider this analogy. A medicine is being tested in the lab. 100 rats have a disease, and the test drug cures 30 of them. You could argue that the drug is not very effective because less than half were cured. But it's a lot better than nothing, because without the drug 0 rats would be cured!

That's what I'm saying here. Sure, God's appearances and miracles may not get everyone saved. But it's a lot better than nothing at all, and will result in SOME being saved.

[jimwalton]

> Consider this analogy. A medicine is being tested in the lab. 100 rats have a disease, and the test drug cures 30 of them. You could argue that the drug is not very effective because less than half were cured. But it's a lot better than nothing, because without the drug 0 rats would be cured!

OK, I'm trying to make sure I don't misunderstand you, or miss your point, or misconstrue your analogy. My assertion was that God's direct appearing to people is most of the time detrimental. What works better is God acting inside of lives. But then it seems you give me an analogy of something that would be good for everyone but is only given to 30%. What I'm saying is that's not a fair analogy because you don't have a deleterious effect as part of your sample.

Suppose a medicine is being tested i the lab. 100 rats have a disease, and the test drug cures 30 of them, but kills the other 70. I may not be ready to conclude that the drug is a lot better than nothing. That's the point I'm making.

God's appearances and miracles most certainly don't get everyone saved, and seem that a lot of the time have a deleterious effect rather than a beneficial one. Instead, He reveals Himself when it would be helpful, and otherwise works from the inside.

[Paladin]

> In my analogy, the medicine is given to all 100 rats, but is only effective in 30.

I suppose the big difference between our thinking is that I don't think that God appearing to someone is actually detrimental to them. Assuming a person starts out not believing in God, they will be either converted be an appearance of God, or not. But in the latter case they are no different than if he had never appeared.

[jimwalton]

Yeah, and many people don't seem to think that God appearing would be detrimental. Actually this question comes up often on the forum, that if God would just show Himself this would all be a whole lot easier and a whole lot more straight forward.

I've never seen God. God never showed Himself to me, or to anyone I know. So I am only going by what the Bible is showing, that most people who see God that way aren't won over. In ways it doesn't make sense to me (as it doesn't to you), but that's what the Bible shows. The more obvious God is, the less people follow. To me it's counterintuitive, but that's the picture it shows. We see it especially in the Exodus story and in the Jesus narrative.