Posts by hmike

28

King Herod, and his "slaughter of the innocents"

by stevenyc in

matt 2:16 "then herod, seeing he had been outwitted by the astrologers, fell into a great rage, and he sent out and had all the boys in beth lehem and in all its districts done away with, from two years of age and under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the astrologers".

does anyone know if there is any historical evidence to support king herod's mass killing of children under the age of two, when christ was born.. i can't find any.

that whole chapter seams to me not to be so much a historical report, but more a justification.. .

hmike

Narkissos.

Let me make some suggestions about the birth narratives.

Part of your argument hinges on the two-year delay for Herod to take action. You're assuming that Joseph and Mary would have remained in Bethlehem with Jesus until Herod decided to issue the decree. It certainly wouldn’t take two years for the Magi to travel from Bethlehem to Herod’s palace, so maybe your assumption is that the family had remained in Bethlehem some 18-22 months after the birth. I submit that need not be the case. Matthew does not indicate how long the family remained in Bethlehem, but I suggest it was only a short time. God would have known what Herod was going to do and warned Joseph early. Perhaps Herod forgot about the Magi for a while and something reminded him after a couple of years. This period MAY have included a delay between the time Herod decided to issue the decree and the time it would actually be implemented. In any case, I suggest the family was long gone by the time the soldiers arrived to carry out the order.

The other problem may lie with Luke writing that the family returned to Nazareth after the purification. On the surface, it seems to imply it was immediate, but again, no time period is specified. They simply ended up in , but did they go there directly, or by way of Egypt?

You suggest that the accounts of Matthew and Luke were written independently. I agree. I say it’s possible that the author of Matthew (the tax collector himself?) did not know that Joseph and Mary came from Galilee, or chose to ignore that, making it look as though they just haphazardly ended up there after coming back from Egypt.

Here’s another point: we aren’t told how long the stay in Egypt was.

The author of Luke, on the other hand, for all the research he did, may not have known about Egypt, or did not consider it relevant.

So a possible scenario: Joseph and Mary take the infant Jesus from Bethlehem after the visit by the Magi, stop in Jerusalem for the circumcision as good Jews would, continue on to Egypt, then return to Nazareth.

5

Do Mormons have "History Studies" with new potential converts?

by hubert in

the history study subject has come up lately concerning j.w.

's, which got me to thinking, is there a history study for mormons?

if so, do they have a "history" book that they use?

hmike

Where's Qcmbr for this topic?

28

King Herod, and his "slaughter of the innocents"

by stevenyc in

matt 2:16 "then herod, seeing he had been outwitted by the astrologers, fell into a great rage, and he sent out and had all the boys in beth lehem and in all its districts done away with, from two years of age and under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the astrologers".

does anyone know if there is any historical evidence to support king herod's mass killing of children under the age of two, when christ was born.. i can't find any.

that whole chapter seams to me not to be so much a historical report, but more a justification.. .

hmike

hmike, here's something I have found increasingly difficult to understand: how come believers cringe from the idea of God having people write up a fictional story, while they seem to be comfortable with the idea of God "engineering" a real slaughter for the sake of having the story written?

Narkissos,

I understand your point, really. Personally, I don't subscribe to the theology that has God as some cosmic puppeteer controlling every tiny detail of every event--I don't think the overall picture supplied by the Bible texts indicates that. What I see is that there is a certain natural order to things that sometimes God intervenes into, but sometimes not, for whatever reason. Paul and others also indicate that there are forces at work to intended to undermine the work of God. So, I don't see that God would have brought about these murders. I can't give any answer as to why God wouldn't have stopped Herod, and anything I could suggest would be pure speculation on my part. One thing I always come back to is, "If the men who wrote the Bible didn't have a problem with it, how can I?"

I really don't have a problem with anyone suggesting that accounts in Bible texts may be invented--the information available certainly can be interpreted that way. What I have a problem with is a confident claim that it is the ONLY explanation. There are members of this forum who are unsure of what position to take. I just want to make sure this other position is represented as a reasonable alternative--which I see that it is.

The problem, from my experience, is that often what starts as honest belief becomes pretense of belief, and this proves to be a heavy burden in the long run. Still we may waste many years pretending, without even admitting it to ourselves.

That's interesting. Would you elaborate on that for me?

28

King Herod, and his "slaughter of the innocents"

by stevenyc in

matt 2:16 "then herod, seeing he had been outwitted by the astrologers, fell into a great rage, and he sent out and had all the boys in beth lehem and in all its districts done away with, from two years of age and under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the astrologers".

does anyone know if there is any historical evidence to support king herod's mass killing of children under the age of two, when christ was born.. i can't find any.

that whole chapter seams to me not to be so much a historical report, but more a justification.. .

hmike

Narkissos,

I have to say that I don't see any indication of where Joseph and Mary originally came from.

You wrote:

And after being warned in a dream, he went away (not "back") to the district of Galilee.

"Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel

Then why not "return to the land of Israel."

28

King Herod, and his "slaughter of the innocents"

by stevenyc in

matt 2:16 "then herod, seeing he had been outwitted by the astrologers, fell into a great rage, and he sent out and had all the boys in beth lehem and in all its districts done away with, from two years of age and under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the astrologers".

does anyone know if there is any historical evidence to support king herod's mass killing of children under the age of two, when christ was born.. i can't find any.

that whole chapter seams to me not to be so much a historical report, but more a justification.. .

hmike

It always seems to come down to two possibilities: (A) men manufactured stories to support some assertion about some characteristic of God or the existence of God, or (B) God engineered the events, the events support the existence of God or something about God, and men just wrote them down. Same details, two different perspectives. As I said: either side requires presumptions and assumptions. If LouBelle or anyone else wants to accept these events as historical, that’s just as legit as any other perspective

28

King Herod, and his "slaughter of the innocents"

by stevenyc in

matt 2:16 "then herod, seeing he had been outwitted by the astrologers, fell into a great rage, and he sent out and had all the boys in beth lehem and in all its districts done away with, from two years of age and under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the astrologers".

does anyone know if there is any historical evidence to support king herod's mass killing of children under the age of two, when christ was born.. i can't find any.

that whole chapter seams to me not to be so much a historical report, but more a justification.. .

hmike

You guys are starting to make me wobble.

LouBelle,

Rulers in ancient times had a lot of latitude to do what they wanted without any repercussions from the government or public opinion. After all, they WERE the law. If Herod wanted to put a few children to death in a remote town, who was going to stop him or hold him accountable? The Romans wouldn't care since it didn't involve Roman citizens. As long as order was maintained, anything was fine with them. The Jews were certainly too scared of Herod to protest.

As Neomadman wrote, this would have confined to a small town. This wasn't Jerusalem. And we may overestimate the scale on which it occurred--there is no count given. It's entirely possible that something like this could escape notice by the few historians there were, or that any documentation has been lost.

We have no extra-Biblical historical record either way--in support or denial of this event. If we choose not to accept Matthew's account, the only truly legitimate conclusion we can come to is, "We don't know." Any opinion either way involves presuppositions and assumptions. At this point, any evidence proposed to deny that this event actually occured is circumstantial, and not even strong at that.

Also, Matthew only states that the Magi found Mary and Jesus in Bethlehem. It doesn't say how long the family had been there, or what brought them there.

In short, there is no solid evidence to deny this could have been an historical event as recorded.

257

Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend in

i need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.

hmike

So I agree with you to a point, but, these aren't even close to most of the atheists out there. Most of em just don't care.

Yes, over all, I think you're right. I covered that is this statement:

Some take the default position because they found they can live their lives without God, so they do.

Yes, life without acknowledging God is possible, even a successful life (by society's standards), so why bother?

257

Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend in

i need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.

hmike

Believe me, Daunt, I don't categorize people as atheist, agnostic, or anything else in my relationships with them. Personally, I don't like labels--I don't like the way they divide people. I only used those terms in this thread for convenience. I notice most non-believers here use the term atheist for themselves.

I don't judge people (that's not my place) and I don't try to save them (I don't have the power to do that). Everybody has a right to their own opinion and I respect that. Everybody believes something. Ususally, I find that most people adopt a position that is not well-researched or thought-out, and this applies to professing Christians and non-Christians alike. I encourage everyone to investigate their position further. I'm always open to learning new things. (I will admit that my nearly lifelong experiences as a believer provide me with enough evidence for my own satisfaction, but I also realize it is subjective and thus not valid as proof.) It's been my experience that most objections to accepting God are not grounded in a proper understanding of what the Bible claims, and I attempt to answer those objections as best I can to individuals.

I think I need to clarify something I said earlier about "No God--no standards." What I actually meant is NOT that people have NO standards, it's just that they are free to set their own. It's comes from the survival mechanism we all have in our brains. The person's mind blocks any consideration of the existence of God because if it accepted that a God with standards existed, it would openly have to accept or reject those standards, but the person wants to be free to make choices that are outside of the standards. Therefore, in order to be free to do whatever one wants and be right about it, the existence of God is denied. It's like, "If there's nothing wrong with me, then I don't need treatment. I don't want the treatment. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with me."

I'm not saying all non-believers use this approach.

31

Question About The Religion

by ImACatholic in

jehovah's witnesses do not believe or teach some of the very basic tenets of christian doctrine.

1. the trinity.

2. the omnipresence of god.

hmike

Welcome (if you're still checking in).

Are you planning to stick around? We've had a lot of hit-and-run evangelists lately.

257

Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend in

i need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.

hmike

Daunt and Tetrapod suggest I spend more time with atheists.

In 40+ years of being a Christian, I have talked to more than a few non-believers. Unlike some believers, I don't surround (insulate) myself with like-minded people--I've always had more non-Christian friends than Christian. Nor do I shy away from hostile environments, which is why I remain around here.

I could include other reasons why people don't believe. Some take the default position because they found they can live their lives without God, so they do. Others base their reasons on what they think the Bible says, or how they think God is--which, if they took the time to investigate it, would not hold up.

I guess I just haven't been around the right kind of atheists?