Evidence for God from Science

This is interesting.. This is what happens when there is a lunar eclipse.. As you can see, it turns into a red blood as prophesied in Acts 2:20, Joel 2:31... Coincidence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVkkCVh5t0E&feature=fvw

A Y323 wrote:Hello. Thanks for posting this information, I find it very interesting!

I notice most of the information posted so far pertains to the crucifixion of Christ, but if you don't mind I'd like to ask a couple questions about the birth of Christ that hopefully you can help me with. We know from the Gospels that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because of the census issued by Caesar Augustus and that this census took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria and King Herod was ruler of Israel. However, it seems that any time I see this mentioned in a secular/athiest source, they are quick to point out that Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria until 10 years after Herod died.

I haven't done a lot of research into this, but I have found one explanation that seems very plausible: the verse should actually be translated governing in Syria, not governor of Syria. I have found that Quirinius did indeed have quite a bit of political power as early as 12 B.C. What do you think of this?

We also know from Matthew 2 that Joseph took his family to Egypt to escape the massacre of male children age 2 and under. As King Herod was known to be a tyrant, I've never heard of anyone having any problem attributing this to him. Now, most sources I've found put King Herod's death in 4 B.C., so this would mean that Jesus was born about a year or two before that. Is this sound according to the other Gospels?

I have also learned that King Herod's son, Herod Antipas (although Matthew calls him Archelaus), became ruler of Galilee and Perea after his father's death. He was also known to be a tyrant like his father, which is supposedly why Joseph returned to Nazareth from Egypt instead of Jerusalem or Bethlehem. He was also most likely the one responsible for John the Baptist's execution. I guess I don't really have a question for this one, unless anyone would care to explain the two different names. Maybe one is Latin and the other is Greek?

Sorry for the delay.. I tend to lean toward E. L. Martin for the explanation..

"How many governors were there at this time? Josephus mentions the names of Saturninus and Volumnius. Were these the only men to whom Josephus was referring? Or, could Quirinius be considered as well? This is the very time Luke in his Gospel places the administration of a census by Quirinius. Since it is clear that Saturninus was the regular governor, it must be held that the rule of Quirinius was of a different and special nature. Such special status could well accord with the other types of commands that Quirinius held as attested in the historical records."

"Perhaps Josephus provides a clue to help straighten out the mystery. The historian mentioned that actually there were “governors” (plural) in Syria during the rule of Saturninus. 1 While during the earlier governorships of Titius and Quintilius Varus, Josephus spoke of a “governor” (singular), 2 but during the administration of Saturninus why does he mention the plural “governors”?"

This special status of Quirinius is also suggested when he later became governor of Syria in C.E. 6/7. Josephus said he was given the rank of dikaiodotes ― a governor, but in the sense of one having extraordinary judicial powers (the word dikaiodotes means “judge”). And Professor Feldman quoting J.A.O. Larson in the Loeb translation of Josephus states,

“that the word dikaiodotes is found only in Antiquities, XVIII. 1 and in inscriptions from Lycia in the sense of 'governor.' Larson plausibly suggests that the word was not so much a title for a governor as an honorary appellation, much like soter or euergetes. It would emphasize the high regard with which the governor was held as an honest judge, the duties of the governor (in Lydia, at least) being largely judicial.”

Quirinius, then, was even an unusual type of administrator in Syria during the period C.E. 6/7. It could be said that he had special (and probably extensive) powers directly from Augustus. He could have been called, in contemporary terms, a powerful “man-Friday” for Augustus or, officially, a Legatus Augusti. This certainly must be the case. When Quirinius conducted the census at the time of Saturninus, Justin Martyr said that Roman historical records showed Quirinius as being the procurator in Judaea."

Source: http://www.askelm.com/star/star014.htm

GMAN ... I'm sure like me you've been baffled by people who persist in questioning Jesus' historicity. This source made a valid point:

"More information has survived about Jesus Christ than most other ancient figures. Yet few historical persons have ever had their existence as questioned and as researched as Jesus Christ. One result of all that research is that information about Christ, from sources other than the Bible, is readily accessible by the common person for nearly the first time in history.

Unfortunately, this information and other material which refers to Christ seldom makes it into our learning cycle. Almost any material with significant reference to Christ or the Bible can be classified as religion and thus be summarily censored out of all events, displays, or institutions touched by government-allocated tax dollars. And the areas touched by tax dollars broaden every year."

Source also details some standard sources for Jesus.

The evidence for Jesus is pretty vast, yes?

http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0201.htm

DannyM wrote:The evidence for Jesus is pretty vast, yes?

Yes the evidence for Christ is vast.. But especially when...

Christ would make such a crazy remark like this.. Mark 12:31

That Christ would have the nerve to propose something like this.. Luke 6:35

And then there is this one.. Luke 10:27

Greatly offensive remark such as this... John 15:13

Of all the evils, he would have the audacity to say something like this.. John 15:17

And this? Would you really want your children to be around this teaching from Christ? Matthew 5:3-11

Well, you get the picture....

On top if this.. I'm really upset with God for doing this one.. John 3:16. It makes my blood boil.

Gman wrote:On top if this.. I'm really upset with God for doing this one.. John 3:16. It makes my blood boil.

Mind boggling, isn't it? The absolute ultimate expression of love: to have your eternally begotten son - a part of your indivisible essence, taste rejection, pain, suffering, and finiteness for the sake of humanity.

Scandalous .....

Brothers... I propose that we attack the one most high for this expression of love. Attack.. Attack at dawn we must. We can't let him get away with this evil...

Gman I demand to know where you got those awesome emoticons, I MUST KNOW!!!!!! LOL Please tell me!

Gabrielman wrote:Gman I demand to know where you got those awesome emoticons, I MUST KNOW!!!!!! LOL Please tell me!

Right here... http://www.mysmiley.net/free-fighting-smileys.php

Apparently the Jewish high priests Caiaphas and Annas mentioned in John 18:24, Luke 3:2, Acts 4:6 were also considered to be fictional characters as well..

But all one has to do is look at the recordings of Josephus to see that they are wrong.. Both these priests are clearly mentioned in his books.

Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews," XVIII, Chapter 2, verse 2.

"This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Jeazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest: which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and, when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor."

Latter we find that Pilate removes Caiaphas from the priesthood..

Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews," XVIII, Chapter 4, verse 3.

"Besides which he also deprived Joseph, who was called Caiphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan, the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which he took his journey back to Antioch."

Still not convinced?

Apparently there is good evidence that archeologists have also recovered Caiaphas' ossuary as well..

"In 1990, two miles south of present day Jerusalem, 12 ossuaries in the family tomb of a "Caiaphas" were discovered. One ossuary was inscribed with the full name, in Aramaic of "Joseph, son of Caiaphas", and a second with simply the family name of "Caiaphas". After examination the bones were reburied on the Mount of Olives."

Source: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caiaphas

Gman wrote:

A Y323 wrote:Hello. Thanks for posting this information, I find it very interesting!

I notice most of the information posted so far pertains to the crucifixion of Christ, but if you don't mind I'd like to ask a couple questions about the birth of Christ that hopefully you can help me with. We know from the Gospels that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because of the census issued by Caesar Augustus and that this census took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria and King Herod was ruler of Israel. However, it seems that any time I see this mentioned in a secular/athiest source, they are quick to point out that Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria until 10 years after Herod died.

I haven't done a lot of research into this, but I have found one explanation that seems very plausible: the verse should actually be translated governing in Syria, not governor of Syria. I have found that Quirinius did indeed have quite a bit of political power as early as 12 B.C. What do you think of this?

We also know from Matthew 2 that Joseph took his family to Egypt to escape the massacre of male children age 2 and under. As King Herod was known to be a tyrant, I've never heard of anyone having any problem attributing this to him. Now, most sources I've found put King Herod's death in 4 B.C., so this would mean that Jesus was born about a year or two before that. Is this sound according to the other Gospels?

I have also learned that King Herod's son, Herod Antipas (although Matthew calls him Archelaus), became ruler of Galilee and Perea after his father's death. He was also known to be a tyrant like his father, which is supposedly why Joseph returned to Nazareth from Egypt instead of Jerusalem or Bethlehem. He was also most likely the one responsible for John the Baptist's execution. I guess I don't really have a question for this one, unless anyone would care to explain the two different names. Maybe one is Latin and the other is Greek?

Sorry for the delay.. I tend to lean toward E. L. Martin for the explanation..

"How many governors were there at this time? Josephus mentions the names of Saturninus and Volumnius. Were these the only men to whom Josephus was referring? Or, could Quirinius be considered as well? This is the very time Luke in his Gospel places the administration of a census by Quirinius. Since it is clear that Saturninus was the regular governor, it must be held that the rule of Quirinius was of a different and special nature. Such special status could well accord with the other types of commands that Quirinius held as attested in the historical records."

"Perhaps Josephus provides a clue to help straighten out the mystery. The historian mentioned that actually there were “governors” (plural) in Syria during the rule of Saturninus. 1 While during the earlier governorships of Titius and Quintilius Varus, Josephus spoke of a “governor” (singular), 2 but during the administration of Saturninus why does he mention the plural “governors”?"

This special status of Quirinius is also suggested when he later became governor of Syria in C.E. 6/7. Josephus said he was given the rank of dikaiodotes ― a governor, but in the sense of one having extraordinary judicial powers (the word dikaiodotes means “judge”). And Professor Feldman quoting J.A.O. Larson in the Loeb translation of Josephus states,

“that the word dikaiodotes is found only in Antiquities, XVIII. 1 and in inscriptions from Lycia in the sense of 'governor.' Larson plausibly suggests that the word was not so much a title for a governor as an honorary appellation, much like soter or euergetes. It would emphasize the high regard with which the governor was held as an honest judge, the duties of the governor (in Lydia, at least) being largely judicial.”

Quirinius, then, was even an unusual type of administrator in Syria during the period C.E. 6/7. It could be said that he had special (and probably extensive) powers directly from Augustus. He could have been called, in contemporary terms, a powerful “man-Friday” for Augustus or, officially, a Legatus Augusti. This certainly must be the case. When Quirinius conducted the census at the time of Saturninus, Justin Martyr said that Roman historical records showed Quirinius as being the procurator in Judaea."

Source: http://www.askelm.com/star/star014.htm

Also wasn't there an archelogical discovery that found out that Quirinius was governer twice - the second time coinciding with the Gospel Accounts.

Silvertusk.

Silvertusk wrote:Also wasn't there an archelogical discovery that found out that Quirinius was governer twice - the second time coinciding with the Gospel Accounts.

No.

hatsoff wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:Also wasn't there an archelogical discovery that found out that Quirinius was governer twice - the second time coinciding with the Gospel Accounts.

No.

Actually - I think you will find that is a yes.

"It is known that Quirinius was made governor of Syria by Augustus in AD 6. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay discovered several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to this date...archaeology has provided some unexpected and supportive answers.

Source - http://www.carm.org

"Quirinius, proconsul of Syria
Related to this, for a long while scholars have questioned the accuracy of Luke's account of the census under the reign of Quirinius (Lk 2:2, cf. Ac 5:37). The reason for this skepticism is that the ancient evidence suggests that Quirinius was not governor of Syria until AD 6. The problem, of course, is that Jesus was born at least ten to twelve years before this time. Hence many scholars have concluded that Luke simply got his facts wrong.

There is a plausible way of resolving this apparent discrepancy even apart from archeology. Though Luke 2:2 is usually translated something like, “This was the first (protos) census that took place while Quirinius was governor,” it's possible to translate protos not as “first” but as “before.” So it's possible Luke is saying that the census that led Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem took place before the census taken under Quirinius in 6 BC — the better known one that caused an uprising. But archeology now offers a better way of squaring Luke with the historical evidence.. A coin has been discovered that mentions a Quirinius who was proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after 4 BC, thus reigning at the time of Jesus' birth, as Luke says. It may be, therefore, that the same man ruled twice, or that there were two rulers with this same name."

Source: http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/apologet ... e-gospels/

b) Evidence is available that shows that Quirinius was governor of Syria around 7 B.C. An inscription found in Antioch ascribes to Quirinius this position. This discovery supports the theory that he was governor twice.

Source: http://www.onlinethoughts.com/bible_evi ... le_evi.htm

You only have to google it and there is hundreds of pages saying the same thing.

Quirinius was governer twice it seems.

While I'm sure that this position is common among apologists (e.g. Matt Slick, Greg Boyd, etc.), it's not at all common among historians. Richard Carrier, for instance, writes:

Some have tried to appeal to a headless (and thus nameless) inscription as proving that Quirinius held the governorship of Syria twice, but the inscription neither says that, nor can it belong to Quirinius. The inscription in question is a fragment of a funeral stone discovered in Tivoli (near Rome) in 1764, and is now displayed (complete with an inventive reconstruction of the missing parts) in the Vatican Museum.[5.1] We know only that it was set up after the death of Augustus in 14 A.D., since it refers to him as "divine." The actual content of the inscription is as follows:

[Latin omitted]

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
...KING BROUGHT INTO THE POWER OF...
AUGUSTUS AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE AND SENATE...
FOR THIS HONORED WITH TWO VICTORY CELEBRATIONS...
FOR THE SAME THING THE TRIUMPHAL DECORATION...
OBTAINED THE PROCONSULATE OF THE PROVINCE OF ASIA...
AGAIN OF THE DEIFIED AUGUSTUS SYRIA AND PH[OENICIA]...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

The most obvious problem with this piece of "evidence" is that it doesn't even mention Quirinius! No one knows who this is. Numerous possible candidates have been proposed and debated, but the notion that it could be Quirinius was only supported by the wishful thinking of a few 18th and 19th century scholars (esp. Sanclemente, Mommsen, and Ramsay). But it is unlikely to be his.

(source)

Perhaps the most well-known such scholarship was published just after the 19th century, in 1913:

Cheesman, G.L. "The Family of the Caristanii at Antioch in Pisidia," The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 3, Part 2 (1913), pp. 253-266.

I have uploaded this article for anyone who cares to look. Get it here, and keep in mind that link expires in seven days. As anyone can see, it's a very tenuous argument, which is why it has failed to convince most modern historians.