Akiko Posted March 10, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 211 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/14/2006 Share Posted March 10, 2007 I'd advise you to pick up the book, "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel at your Barns and Noble and turn to Chapter One, "The Eyewitness Evidence". It has a section dealing with this exact issue and deals very thoroughly with it. I'm not an authority on the subject (unlike these people) so I can't give you as good of an answer. However, half an hour of reading may help. Akiko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatsoff Posted March 11, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 107 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/09/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 11, 2007 Well, I must say I am disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akiko Posted March 11, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 211 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/14/2006 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Well, I must say I am disappointed. Have you looked into everything that was said on this board? You don't seem to have thoroughly looked at the evidence, if you are disappointed-- the Case For Christ makes a very good case. As do the others on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatsoff Posted March 12, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 107 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/09/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 Have you looked into everything that was said on this board? You don't seem to have thoroughly looked at the evidence, if you are disappointed-- the Case For Christ makes a very good case. As do the others on this board. I'm saying I'm disappointed that nobody seems to have any thoughts on the synoptic problem. I'm not sure what would make you think I haven't "thoroughly looked at the evidence," but I can assure you I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Timer Posted March 12, 2007 Group: Soapbox - Members Followers: 2 Topic Count: 68 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 962 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 52 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/18/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/11/1932 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Mat and Luke may have sampled this thing called Q but they sure missed the mark of when jesus was born. Please explain, this is news to me. Matthew said Jesus was born when Herod was King of Judea (slaughter of the children). Luke said Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Herod was king from 37 until his death around 4 BC. Quirinius was not governor of Syria at any time during this period. He came to power in 6 AD, a decade after Herod died. justaguy has a point here and it deserves a considered answer. This is from Robertson's Word Pictures. I would be interested in hearing other posssibilities. Luke 2:2 - The first enrolment (apographē prōtē). A definite allusion by Luke to a series of censuses instituted by Augustus, the second of which is mentioned by him in Acts 5:37. This second one is described by Josephus and it was supposed by some that Luke confused the two. But Ramsay has shown that a periodical fourteen-year census in Egypt is given in dated papyri back to a.d. 20. The one in Acts 5:37 would then be a.d. 6. This is in the time of Augustus. The first would then be b.c. 8 in Egypt. If it was delayed a couple of years in Palestine by Herod the Great for obvious reasons, that would make the birth of Christ about b.c. 6 which agrees with the other known data When Quirinius (Kurēniou). Genitive absolute. Here again Luke has been attacked on the ground that Quirinius was only governor of Syria once and that was a.d. 6 as shown by Josephus (Ant. XVIII. I.I). But Ramsay has proven by inscriptions that Quirinius was twice in Syria and that Luke is correct here also. See summary of the facts in my Luke the Historian in the Light of Research, pp. 118-29. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatsoff Posted March 12, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 107 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/09/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 (edited) justaguy has a point here and it deserves a considered answer. This is from Robertson's Word Pictures. I would be interested in hearing other posssibilities. Luke 2:2 - The first enrolment (apographē prōtē). A definite allusion by Luke to a series of censuses instituted by Augustus, the second of which is mentioned by him in Acts 5:37. This second one is described by Josephus and it was supposed by some that Luke confused the two. But Ramsay has shown that a periodical fourteen-year census in Egypt is given in dated papyri back to a.d. 20. The one in Acts 5:37 would then be a.d. 6. This is in the time of Augustus. The first would then be b.c. 8 in Egypt. If it was delayed a couple of years in Palestine by Herod the Great for obvious reasons, that would make the birth of Christ about b.c. 6 which agrees with the other known data When Quirinius (Kurēniou). Genitive absolute. Here again Luke has been attacked on the ground that Quirinius was only governor of Syria once and that was a.d. 6 as shown by Josephus (Ant. XVIII. I.I). But Ramsay has proven by inscriptions that Quirinius was twice in Syria and that Luke is correct here also. See summary of the facts in my Luke the Historian in the Light of Research, pp. 118-29. I don't want to get on a tangent about contradictions, except to point out that this tract from Robertson's Word Studies (godrules.net) is plagued with errors. I think what does deserve comment though is that, if Q was real, then it probably did not include a nativity story. For clearly Matthew and Luke did not draw from a common nativity source, nor does it seem plausible that either would rely so much on Q for other material but reject it for the nativity. So, were the stories written by Matthew and Luke, or drawn from yet a third and possibly fourth source? This, of course, is impossible to determine, but judging from Luke's preface, and his reliance on at least two other sources, and also considering nativity narratives did exist in early Christianity, I would guess that his account draws from another, earlier written tale. But this is just a guess--something which I may investigate but as yet have not. For Matthew, it seems slightly more likely that he penned his own narrative based on oral tradition or simple rumor, or perhaps invented it altogether to support his Jewish birthright claims. Edited March 12, 2007 by hatsoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubal-Cain Posted March 13, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 448 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1981 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I'm saying I'm disappointed that nobody seems to have any thoughts on the synoptic problem. I'm not sure what would make you think I haven't "thoroughly looked at the evidence," but I can assure you I have. I gave my thoughts. Were you looking for more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatsoff Posted March 13, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 107 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/09/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 I gave my thoughts. Were you looking for more? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akiko Posted March 13, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 211 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/14/2006 Share Posted March 13, 2007 (edited) About Quirinius (quoted directly from 'The Case For Christ') "...This, however, did not entirely dispose of the issue. Luke said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted when Quirinius was governing Syria during the reign of Herod The Great. "That poses a significant problem," I pointed out, "because Herod died in 4 BC, and Quirinius didn't begin ruling Syria until 6 AD, conducting the census soon after that. There's a big gap there; how can you deal with such major discrepancy in the dates?" McRay knew I was raising an issue that archaeologists have wrestled with for years. He responded by saying, "An eminent archeologest named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing... this places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after the death of Herod." I was confused. "What does that mean?" I asked. "It means that there were apparently two Quiriniuses," he replied. "It's not uncommen to have lots of people with the same Roman names, so there's no reason to doubt that there were two people by the name of Quirinius. The census would have taken place under the reign of the earlier Quirinius. Given the cycle of a census every fourteen years, that would work out quite well." ...When I did some additional research, I found that Sir William Ramsay, the late archaeologist and professor at both oOxford and Cambridge Universities in England, had both come up with a similar theroy... other scholars had pointed out that Luke's text can be translated, "This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria," which would also resolve the problem. " Excuse the typos... I'm going to be late for class. (quoted from the chapter, "The Scientific Evidence") Akiko Edited March 13, 2007 by Akiko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akiko Posted March 13, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 211 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/14/2006 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Well, I'll try to give a summary of my views on the synoptic gospel (John). John is quite different than the other three gospels-- in content, writing style, and there's more direct claims that Christ is God. There's two different ideas: one is that John knew everything that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote and therefore did not see the need to repeat it. Another is that John was independent from the other three, which would also justify the differences in style. John goes into much more detail about Jesus' last week on earth (then following the other three more closely). However, there are definite similarites of John and M, M, and L. For example, John makes very explicit claims that He is God; the other gospels do also but not as 'loud'. In Matthew 14:22-33 and Mark 6:45-52, Jesus says, "Fear not, it is I." This differs slightly from the Greek version, which can be translated, "Fear not, I AM." (What God calls himself in the New Testament, most noteably when He revealed himself to Moses). As for the theological bent of John, it depends on your viewpoint. You can also say that the Gospels simply painted different portraits of Jesus: Matthew, trying to understand the relationship between Christianity and Judaism; Mark, showing Jesus as the suffering servant... John simply has a different cluster of theological ideas. To add-- specifically, the Gospel of Mark was written aprox. AD 60, or even the late 50's. Jesus was put to death around AD 3 or 33. This is a very minute gap, considering that most biographies are written centirues after the person has died. This helps the credibility and historical accuracy of the Gospels, as there was next to no time for Jesus' story to develop fanciful twists or hints of legend. The disciples would have had no motive to embellish the story-- if anything, they would have toned it down or never pubished it due to the persecuton of Chistians. Thoughts on Q-- The document hasn't been found, and its existence has never been verified. It's popularly known as 'The Best' of Jesus. Whether it was a single document or several is more or less irrelevent. *shrug* Once again, many ideas taken from TCFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts