Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Still Waters

Jesus was born years earlier than thought

126 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

From your links:

The four gospels in the New Testament indicate that Jesus was executed on a Friday afternoon on the 14th or 15th day of the Jewish month of Nisan, during the period from A.D.25 to A.D.36 when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea. So all that needs to be done is to find the Fridays that occurred in that interval. Such an investigation isolates 6 dates. From these, four can be eliminated from other chronological evidence, leaving the choice between two dates, April 7th in the year A.D.30 and April 3rd in A.D.33. Both correspond to the 14th day of Nisan in agreement with the gospel of John.

Many investigations including a recent one by Humphries and Waddington from Oxford University have chosen April 3rd, A.D.33, a major reason being that a partial lunar eclipse occurred on that evening. When Peter addressed a crowd seven weeks after the crucifixion, he reminded them of a prophecy by Joel, "that the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood" (Acts 2.20). A deep eclipse can indeed turn the moon blood-red, so the co-incidence of an eclipse for one of the dates has long been seen as a strong argument for April 3rd, A.D.33.

It is no simple matter to calculate these dates because of so many variables that must be taken into account. In modern times, this is done with the aid of computers using an algorithm that includes such factors as the brightness of the moon and sky and the physiology of the eye. The most recent effort by Bradley E. Schaeffer extends an algorithm by Bruin to include variations in the clarity of the air. These modern calculations rule out the role of the eclipse because it could not have been seen from Jerusalem during any phase when it could redden the moon, hence collapsing the main support for April 3rd, A.D.33.

The Urantia Papers, received long before computers became available for such calculations, tell us that Jesus was crucified on Friday, April 7, A.D.30.

REFERENCES: 6-0-6 Newsletter 1987, vol. 8(2); Cosmic Reflections 1989, vol. 2 (2); Humphries and Waddington, Science News, Vol. 125, January 1984; Schaeffer, B.E., Sky and Telescope, April 1989.

Your 1st link actually contradicts the 2nd, one gives a specific date the 2nd says: We simply will not be able to determine the exact date of the crucifixion from the historical evidence.

Either way, the exact date can and has been determined... and guess what, it wasn't on a Friday and it wasn't in 30A.D.

And you seem to forget that according to the date of birth the Urantia papers have provided, not even your date of crucifixion above, is possible.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Jewish historian Josephus recorded that in the year 6–7,[2] after the exile of Herod Archelaus (one of the sons and successors of Herod the Great), Quirinius (in Greek, Κυρήνιος, sometimes transliterated Cyrenius), a Roman senator, became governor (Legatus) of Syria, while an equestrian assistant named Coponius was assigned as the first governor (Prefect) of the newly-created Iudaea Province. These governors were assigned to conduct a tax census for the Emperor in Syria and Iudaea

http://en.wikipedia....us_of_Quirinius

Herod Archelaus (23 BC – c. 18 AD) was the ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea (biblical Edom) from 4 BC to 6 AD.

I think Jesus was born later under Herod Archelaus, not under Herod the great.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jewish historian Josephus recorded that in the year 6–7,[2] after the exile of Herod Archelaus (one of the sons and successors of Herod the Great), Quirinius (in Greek, Κυρήνιος, sometimes transliterated Cyrenius), a Roman senator, became governor (Legatus) of Syria, while an equestrian assistant named Coponius was assigned as the first governor (Prefect) of the newly-created Iudaea Province. These governors were assigned to conduct a tax census for the Emperor in Syria and Iudaea

http://en.wikipedia....us_of_Quirinius

Herod Archelaus (23 BC – c. 18 AD) was the ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea (biblical Edom) from 4 BC to 6 AD.

I think Jesus was born later under Herod Archelaus, not under Herod the great.

Why would you think that?

You are assuming two things here...

1. That the census referred to in Luke was the census under Quirinius of 6–7 A.D. It is not, since the census mentions the entire Roman world took part, not just Syria and Iudaea.

2. That the bible must have an error in its chronological narrative, it does not, Jesus was in fact born under Herod the Great, who contrary to popular perception died in 1 B.C. not 4 B.C., this is now admitted by a number of historians.

As I said earlier, the census of Luke was not a census at all and is actually referred to by Josephus himself...

For there was a certain sect of men that were Jews, who valued themselves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers, and made men believe they were highly favored by God, by whom this set of women were inveigled. These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings. A cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief. Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good-will to Caesar, and to the king's government, these very men did not swear, being above six thousand; and when the king imposed a fine upon them, Pheroras's wife paid their fine for them. In order to requite which kindness of hers, since they were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by Divine inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed that Herod's government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it; but that the kingdom should come to her and Pheroras, and to their children. These predictions were not concealed from Salome, but were told the king; as also how they had perverted some persons about the palace itself; so the king slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, who exceeded all men of that time in comeliness, and one that was his catamite. He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold; and for Bagoas, he had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that this king would have all things in his power, and would enable Bagoas to marry, and to have children of his own body begotten.

The reference is that all the people were required to offer an oath of allegiance to Augustus Caesar, this was done throughout the Roman world, and also in Israel, since Herod was known as friend and Ally to Caesar.

Documented archaeological evidence of this is also found in Paphlagonia (north central Asia Minor) that is clearly dated to 3 B.C. records an oath of obedience "taken by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the Roman businessmen dwelling among them." (Lewis and Reinhold, Roman Civilization, II.Pages 34–35).

In the third year from the twelfth consulship of the Emperor Caesar Augustus, son of a god, March 6, in the … at Gangra, the following Oath was taken by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the Roman businessmen dwelling among them:

“I swear by Jupiter, Earth, Sun, by all the gods and goddesses, and by Augustus himself, that I will be loyal to Caesar Augustus and to his children and descendants all my life in word, in deed, and in thought, regarding as friends whomever they so regard, and considering as enemies whomever they so adjudge; that in defense of their interests I will spare neither body, soul, life, not children, but will in every way undergo every danger in defense of their interests; that whenever I perceive or hear anything being said or planned or done against them I will lodge information about this and will be an enemy to whoever says or plans or does any such thing; and that whomever they adjudge to be enemies I will by land and sea, with weapons and sword, pursue and punish. But if I do anything contrary to this oath, or not in conformity with what I swore, I myself call down upon myself, my body, my soul, my life, my children, and all my family and property, utter ruin and utter destruction unto all my issue and all my descendants, and may neither earth nor sea receive the bodies of my family or my descendants, or yield fruits to them.”

The same Oath was sworn by all the people in the land at altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts. In this manner did the people of Phazimon, who inhabit the city now called Neapolis, all together swear the Oath in the temple of Augustus at the altar of Augustus.

This is the only "census" that included the entire Roman world. The reason for the misunderstanding is simple, the actual Greek says "enrollment" or "registered" but it is translated "census" or "taxed" into English.

Used in a common phrase, the meaning takes on a different idea... I enrolled for a course in history, for this semester.

The word is used also in Hebrews 12:23.

23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, (NIV)

23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, (ESV)

And yet it is the very same word, ἀπογραφή apographē.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you think that?

You are assuming two things here...

1. That the census referred to in Luke was the census under Quirinius of 6–7 A.D. It is not, since the census mentions the entire Roman world took part, not just Syria and Iudaea.

2. That the bible must have an error in its chronological narrative, it does not, Jesus was in fact born under Herod the Great, who contrary to popular perception died in 1 B.C. not 4 B.C., this is now admitted by a number of historians.

As I said earlier, the census of Luke was not a census at all and is actually referred to by Josephus himself...

For there was a certain sect of men that were Jews, who valued themselves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers, and made men believe they were highly favored by God, by whom this set of women were inveigled. These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings. A cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief. Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good-will to Caesar, and to the king's government, these very men did not swear, being above six thousand; and when the king imposed a fine upon them, Pheroras's wife paid their fine for them. In order to requite which kindness of hers, since they were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by Divine inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed that Herod's government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it; but that the kingdom should come to her and Pheroras, and to their children. These predictions were not concealed from Salome, but were told the king; as also how they had perverted some persons about the palace itself; so the king slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, who exceeded all men of that time in comeliness, and one that was his catamite. He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold; and for Bagoas, he had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that this king would have all things in his power, and would enable Bagoas to marry, and to have children of his own body begotten.

The reference is that all the people were required to offer an oath of allegiance to Augustus Caesar, this was done throughout the Roman world, and also in Israel, since Herod was known as friend and Ally to Caesar.

Documented archaeological evidence of this is also found in Paphlagonia (north central Asia Minor) that is clearly dated to 3 B.C. records an oath of obedience "taken by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the Roman businessmen dwelling among them." (Lewis and Reinhold, Roman Civilization, II.Pages 34–35).

In the third year from the twelfth consulship of the Emperor Caesar Augustus, son of a god, March 6, in the … at Gangra, the following Oath was taken by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the Roman businessmen dwelling among them:

“I swear by Jupiter, Earth, Sun, by all the gods and goddesses, and by Augustus himself, that I will be loyal to Caesar Augustus and to his children and descendants all my life in word, in deed, and in thought, regarding as friends whomever they so regard, and considering as enemies whomever they so adjudge; that in defense of their interests I will spare neither body, soul, life, not children, but will in every way undergo every danger in defense of their interests; that whenever I perceive or hear anything being said or planned or done against them I will lodge information about this and will be an enemy to whoever says or plans or does any such thing; and that whomever they adjudge to be enemies I will by land and sea, with weapons and sword, pursue and punish. But if I do anything contrary to this oath, or not in conformity with what I swore, I myself call down upon myself, my body, my soul, my life, my children, and all my family and property, utter ruin and utter destruction unto all my issue and all my descendants, and may neither earth nor sea receive the bodies of my family or my descendants, or yield fruits to them.”

The same Oath was sworn by all the people in the land at altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts. In this manner did the people of Phazimon, who inhabit the city now called Neapolis, all together swear the Oath in the temple of Augustus at the altar of Augustus.

This is the only "census" that included the entire Roman world. The reason for the misunderstanding is simple, the actual Greek says "enrollment" or "registered" but it is translated "census" or "taxed" into English.

Used in a common phrase, the meaning takes on a different idea... I enrolled for a course in history, for this semester.

The word is used also in Hebrews 12:23.

23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, (NIV)

23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, (ESV)

And yet it is the very same word, ἀπογραφή apographē.

Sorry did mean to say earlier :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herod Archelaus (23 BC – c. 18 AD) was the ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea (biblical Edom) from 4 BC to 6 AD. He was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace the Samaritan, the brother of Herod Antipas, and the half-brother of Herod Philip I.

Archelaus comes to power at the death of his father, Herod the Great, and the main development from the death of Herod through the important early reign of Archelaus is described by the Roman Historian Josephus in two passages, in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 17, Chapter 8, Section 4 and on into Chapter 9, and also in Wars of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 1.[1] A momentous event took place at the end of the mourning for Herod that ended with the cancellation of Passover and the death of perhaps thousands, the figure of 3000 being given by Josephus.Herod has killed all Male Lineal Successors of the Hasmoneans.

Pehaps Jesus was conceived when Archelaus was putting thousands to death after his father died and shorty after when a census was taken, he was only in power for two years,giving that order that children be killed under the age of two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry did mean to say earlier :)

The historical context does not allow for Jesus to have been born under Herod Archelaus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herod Archelaus (23 BC – c. 18 AD) was the ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea (biblical Edom) from 4 BC to 6 AD. He was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace the Samaritan, the brother of Herod Antipas, and the half-brother of Herod Philip I.

Archelaus comes to power at the death of his father, Herod the Great, and the main development from the death of Herod through the important early reign of Archelaus is described by the Roman Historian Josephus in two passages, in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 17, Chapter 8, Section 4 and on into Chapter 9, and also in Wars of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 1.[1] A momentous event took place at the end of the mourning for Herod that ended with the cancellation of Passover and the death of perhaps thousands, the figure of 3000 being given by Josephus.Herod has killed all Male Lineal Successors of the Hasmoneans.

Pehaps Jesus was conceived when Archelaus was putting thousands to death after his father died and shorty after when a census was taken, he was only in power for two years,giving that order that children be killed under the age of two.

http://en.wikipedia....Herod_Archelaus

And why do you believe that Jesus birth could have taken place under Herod Archelaus? Merely due to the census of 5-6 A.D.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Massacre of the Innocents, although Herod the great was guilty of many brutal acts including the killing of his wife and two of his sons, no other source from the period refers to the massacre.[31]

http://en.wikipedia....Herod_the_Great

There is no historical evidence of any kind anywhere relating to the massacre of the innocents, but there is precedent. It is not inconceivable that he could kill a few dozen children under the age of 2 in a small town called Bethlehem, and the reason does not limit itself to the Messiah being born there. Bethlehem was the home village of the family of the Davidic line. Jesse the father of David was from Bethlehem, the family line continued to live in that village and were probably the majority of the local population.

When Mary and Joseph were forced to give the oath of allegiance, they could have done so anywhere, they did not have to logically return to the home of their family to do so, so why did they have to travel to Bethlehem?

They were forced to do so because King Herod wanted to keep an eye on that family line, they were the legitimate heirs of the kingdom of Israel. Herod used the oath of allegiance, mentioned by Josephus and Luke 2 as a pretext to gather the family in one single area and get there names so he knew who they all were.

When the magi arrived and mentioned the birth of a new king, he was disturbed and when confirmation came that this supposed king was to be born in Bethlehem, he ordered the massacre of all the male children under two years of age.

I think only a few children were actually killed by Herods soldiers, and that is why it isn't even a footnote in history. Bethlehem was small, it can't even have been considered a town. As a matter of fact, archaeological digs can't find any evidence of a town or city in that area at the time of Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is no historical evidence of any kind anywhere relating to the massacre of the innocents, but there is precedent. It is not inconceivable that he could kill a few dozen children under the age of 2 in a small town called Bethlehem, and the reason does not limit itself to the Messiah being born there. Bethlehem was the home village of the family of the Davidic line. Jesse the father of David was from Bethlehem, the family line continued to live in that village and were probably the majority of the local population.

When Mary and Joseph were forced to give the oath of allegiance, they could have done so anywhere, they did not have to logically return to the home of their family to do so, so why did they have to travel to Bethlehem?

They were forced to do so because King Herod wanted to keep an eye on that family line, they were the legitimate heirs of the kingdom of Israel. Herod used the oath of allegiance, mentioned by Josephus and Luke 2 as a pretext to gather the family in one single area and get there names so he knew who they all were.

When the magi arrived and mentioned the birth of a new king, he was disturbed and when confirmation came that this supposed king was to be born in Bethlehem, he ordered the massacre of all the male children under two years of age.

I think only a few children were actually killed by Herods soldiers, and that is why it isn't even a footnote in history. Bethlehem was small, it can't even have been considered a town. As a matter of fact, archaeological digs can't find any evidence of a town or city in that area at the time of Jesus.

Right, there is no record of a massacre under King Herod The Great. But there is under his son Archelaus Herod, a massacre of children and 3000 people according to Josephus, that may have been what the writers were refering to in the story of Jesus.I

In the Bible, Archelaus is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew. According to Matthew 2:13-23, Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt to avoid the Massacre of the Innocents. When Herod the Great died, Joseph was told by an angel in a dream to return to Israel (presumably to Bethlehem). However, upon hearing that Archelaus had succeeded his father as ruler of Judaea he "was afraid to go thither" (Matthew 2:22), and was again notified in a dream to go to Galilee. This is Matthew's explanation of why Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea but grew up in Nazareth.

See Source

Edited by Paranoid Android
added source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, there is no record of a massacre under King Herod The Great. But there is under his son Archelaus Herod, a massacre of children and 3000 people according to Josephus, that may have been what the writers were refering to in the story of Jesus.I

In the Bible, Archelaus is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew. According to Matthew 2:13-23, Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt to avoid the Massacre of the Innocents. When Herod the Great died, Joseph was told by an angel in a dream to return to Israel (presumably to Bethlehem). However, upon hearing that Archelaus had succeeded his father as ruler of Judaea he "was afraid to go thither" (Matthew 2:22), and was again notified in a dream to go to Galilee. This is Matthew's explanation of why Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea but grew up in Nazareth.

Can you provide the relevant paragraph and location in Josephus works please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Can you provide the relevant paragraph and location in Josephus works please.

Archelaus comes to power at the death of his father, Herod the Great, and the main development from the death of Herod through the important early reign of Archelaus is described by the Roman Historian Josephus in two passages, in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 17, Chapter 8, Section 4 and on into Chapter 9, and also in Wars of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 1.[1] A momentous event took place at the end of the mourning for Herod that ended with the cancellation of Passover and the death of perhaps thousands, the figure of 3000 being given by Josephus.

Source

Edited by Paranoid Android
Added source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Archelaus comes to power at the death of his father, Herod the Great, and the main development from the death of Herod through the important early reign of Archelaus is described by the Roman Historian Josephus in two passages, in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 17, Chapter 8, Section 4 and on into Chapter 9, and also in Wars of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 1.[1] A momentous event took place at the end of the mourning for Herod that ended with the cancellation of Passover and the death of perhaps thousands, the figure of 3000 being given by Josephus.

The relevant passages say nothing about children, it just mentions that 3000 people were killed by soldiers after having rioted and killed a number of the kings soldiers. The killings were done in retaliation for this act. These would have been men, not children or women.

3. At these clamors Archelaus was provoked, but restrained himself from taking vengeance on the authors, on account of the haste he was in of going to Rome, as fearing lest, upon his making war on the multitude, such an action might detain him at home. Accordingly, he made trial to quiet the innovators by persuasion, rather than by force, and sent his general in a private way to them, and by him exhorted them to be quiet. But the seditious threw stones at him, and drove him away, as he came into the temple, and before he could say any thing to them. The like treatment they showed to others, who came to them after him, many of which were sent by Archelaus, in order to reduce them to sobriety, and these answered still on all occasions after a passionate manner; and it openly appeared that they would not be quiet, if their numbers were but considerable. And indeed, at the feast of unleavened bread, which was now at hand, and is by the Jews called the Passover, and used to he celebrated with a great number of sacrifices, an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship; some of these stood in the temple bewailing the Rabbins [that had been put to death], and procured their sustenance by begging, in order to support their sedition. At this Archclaus was aftrighted, and privately sent a tribune, with his cohort of soldiers, upon them, before the disease should spread over the whole multitude, and gave orders that they should constrain those that began the tumult, by force, to be quiet. At these the whole multitude were irritated, and threw stones at many of the soldiers, and killed them; but the tribune fled away wounded, and had much ado to escape so. After which they betook themselves to their sacrifices, as if they had done no mischief; nor did it appear to Archelaus that the multitude could be restrained without bloodshed; so he sent his whole army upon them, the footmen in great multitudes, by the way of the city, and the horsemen by the way of the plain, who, falling upon them on the sudden, as they were offering their sacrifices, destroyed about three thousand of them; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed upon the adjoining mountains: these were followed by Archelaus's heralds, who commanded every one to retire to their own homes, whither they all went, and left the festival.

http://ancienthistor...ks/JOSEPHUS.HTM

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The relevant passages say nothing about children, it just mentions that 3000 people were killed by soldiers after having rioted and killed a number of the kings soldiers. The killings were done in retaliation for this act. These would have been men, not children or women.

3. At these clamors Archelaus was provoked, but restrained himself from taking vengeance on the authors, on account of the haste he was in of going to Rome, as fearing lest, upon his making war on the multitude, such an action might detain him at home. Accordingly, he made trial to quiet the innovators by persuasion, rather than by force, and sent his general in a private way to them, and by him exhorted them to be quiet. But the seditious threw stones at him, and drove him away, as he came into the temple, and before he could say any thing to them. The like treatment they showed to others, who came to them after him, many of which were sent by Archelaus, in order to reduce them to sobriety, and these answered still on all occasions after a passionate manner; and it openly appeared that they would not be quiet, if their numbers were but considerable. And indeed, at the feast of unleavened bread, which was now at hand, and is by the Jews called the Passover, and used to he celebrated with a great number of sacrifices, an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship; some of these stood in the temple bewailing the Rabbins [that had been put to death], and procured their sustenance by begging, in order to support their sedition. At this Archclaus was aftrighted, and privately sent a tribune, with his cohort of soldiers, upon them, before the disease should spread over the whole multitude, and gave orders that they should constrain those that began the tumult, by force, to be quiet. At these the whole multitude were irritated, and threw stones at many of the soldiers, and killed them; but the tribune fled away wounded, and had much ado to escape so. After which they betook themselves to their sacrifices, as if they had done no mischief; nor did it appear to Archelaus that the multitude could be restrained without bloodshed; so he sent his whole army upon them, the footmen in great multitudes, by the way of the city, and the horsemen by the way of the plain, who, falling upon them on the sudden, as they were offering their sacrifices, destroyed about three thousand of them; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed upon the adjoining mountains: these were followed by Archelaus's heralds, who commanded every one to retire to their own homes, whither they all went, and left the festival.

http://ancienthistor...ks/JOSEPHUS.HTM

Archelaus Herod has killed all Male Lineal Successors of the Hasmoneans.

Would`nt that have included a lot of their male children being kill at the time to?

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In the Bible, Archelaus is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew. According to Matthew 2:13-23, Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt to avoid the Massacre of the Innocents. When Herod the Great died, Joseph was told by an angel in a dream to return to Israel (presumably to Bethlehem). However, upon hearing that Archelaus had succeeded his father as ruler of Judaea he "was afraid to go thither" (Matthew 2:22), and was again notified in a dream to go to Galilee. This is Matthew's explanation of why Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea but grew up in Nazareth.

Source

Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt to avoid the Massacre of the Innocents.

Edited by Paranoid Android
Added source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Doesn`t that mean when Herod the great died in 1 B.C Joseph, Mary fled to Egypt, from the Massacre of the Innocents, but return to Bethlehem where Jesus was born, Achhelaus Herod did not rule there.

300px-Palestine_after_Herod.png

The Division of Herod's Kingdom:

Tetrarchy (Judea) under Herod Archelaus,

Territory under Herod Antipas

Territory under Herod Philip II

Salome I (cities of Jabneh, Azotas, Phaesalis)

Roman province of Syria

Autonomous cities(Decapolis

Source

Edited by Paranoid Android
Added source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Archelaus Herod has killed all Male Lineal Successors of the Hasmoneans.

Would`nt that have included a lot of their male children being kill at the time to?

Just a moment here, you are confusing things a bit. Archelaus did not do that, his father, Herod the Great did. The link you gave me is quite clear on this. You misread the text.

Josephus is both direct in his descriptions and at times extremely opaque as to the participants in this event. Herod is in Jericho at his death.[2] Just prior to his final trip to Jericho, he was deeply involved in a religious conflagration. Herod had placed a golden eagle over the Temple entrance which was perceived as most blasphemous.[3] The eagle is chopped down with axes. Two teachers and approximately 40 other youths are arrested for this act and immolated. Herod defends his works and offers an attack on his predecessors, the dynastic Hasmoneans.[4] Herod has killed all Male Lineal Successors of the Hasmoneans. It should be noted also that the Pharisees have long attacked the Hasmoneans as well, as having parentage from Greeks while under bondage. This racial slur is repeated by the Pharisees through the rule of Alexander Jannaeus and Queen Salome.[5]

With this explicit background given, Josephus begins an exposition of the days of Archelaus' reign before Passover of 4 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus

While the text itself is written on the page belonging to Herod Archelaus, the paragraph in question is specifically about his father Herod the Great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Bible, Archelaus is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew. According to Matthew 2:13-23, Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt to avoid the Massacre of the Innocents. When Herod the Great died, Joseph was told by an angel in a dream to return to Israel (presumably to Bethlehem). However, upon hearing that Archelaus had succeeded his father as ruler of Judaea he "was afraid to go thither" (Matthew 2:22), and was again notified in a dream to go to Galilee. This is Matthew's explanation of why Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea but grew up in Nazareth.

Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled to Egypt to avoid the Massacre of the Innocents.

All true. but the text also is quite clear that Herod the Great was the one who ordered the killing of the children.

If you are unfamiliar with the story of the Hasmonean Dynasty, you might think that the two are one and the same events, but they are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean_dynasty

Herod and the end of the dynasty [edit]

Antigonus (killed shortly after the capture of Jerusalem by Herod) was not, however, the last Hasmonean. The fate of the remaining male members of the family under Herod was not a happy one. Aristobulus III, grandson of Aristobulus II through his elder son Alexander, was briefly made high priest, but was soon executed (36 BCE) due to Herod's jealousy. His sister Mariamne was married to Herod, but fell victim to his notorious jealousy. Her sons by Herod, Aristobulus IV and Alexander, were in their adulthood also executed by their father.

Hyrcanus II had been held by the Parthians since 40 BCE. For four years, until 36 BCE, he lived amid the Babylonian Jews, who paid him every mark of respect. In that year Herod, who feared that Hyrcanus might induce the Parthians to help him regain the throne, invited him to return to Jerusalem. The Babylonian Jews warned him in vain. Herod received him with every mark of respect, assigning him the first place at his table and the presidency of the state council, while awaiting an opportunity to get rid of him. As the last remaining Hasmonean, Hyrcanus was too dangerous a rival for Herod. In the year 30 BCE, charged with plotting with the King of Arabia, Hyrcanus was condemned and executed.

The later Herodian rulers Agrippa I and Agrippa II both had Hasmonean blood, as Agrippa I's father was Aristobulus IV, son of Herod by Mariamne I, but they were not direct male descendants, unless Herod was understood as a Hasmonean as per the following synthesis:

According to Josephus, Herod was also of Maccabean descent:

  • Eleazar Maccabeus called Auran brother of Judas Maccabeus {Josephus Antiquity of the Jews Book XII/Chapter 9/Section 4}
  • Jason son of Eleazar {Ditto: Book XII/Chapter 10/Section 6}
  • Antipater I son of Jason {Ditto: Book XIII/Chapter 5/Section 8}
  • Antipater II Antipas son of Antipater I {Ditto: Book XIV/Chapter 1/Section 3}
  • Herod

In my view there is no way that anyone can link the deaths of the Hasmonean Dynasties male heirs, to the reference of the Massacre of the Innocents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn`t that mean when Herod the great died in 1 B.C Joseph, Mary fled to Egypt, from the Massacre of the Innocents, but return to Bethlehem where Jesus was born, Achhelaus Herod did not rule there.

300px-Palestine_after_Herod.png

The Division of Herod's Kingdom:

Tetrarchy (Judea) under Herod Archelaus,

Territory under Herod Antipas

Territory under Herod Philip II

Salome I (cities of Jabneh, Azotas, Phaesalis)

Roman province of Syria

Autonomous cities(Decapolis

This post is a little confusing, can you clarify what you mean by it? I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just a moment here, you are confusing things a bit. Archelaus did not do that, his father, Herod the Great did. The link you gave me is quite clear on this. You misread the text.

Josephus is both direct in his descriptions and at times extremely opaque as to the participants in this event. Herod is in Jericho at his death.[2] Just prior to his final trip to Jericho, he was deeply involved in a religious conflagration. Herod had placed a golden eagle over the Temple entrance which was perceived as most blasphemous.[3] The eagle is chopped down with axes. Two teachers and approximately 40 other youths are arrested for this act and immolated. Herod defends his works and offers an attack on his predecessors, the dynastic Hasmoneans.[4] Herod has killed all Male Lineal Successors of the Hasmoneans. It should be noted also that the Pharisees have long attacked the Hasmoneans as well, as having parentage from Greeks while under bondage. This racial slur is repeated by the Pharisees through the rule of Alexander Jannaeus and Queen Salome.[5]

With this explicit background given, Josephus begins an exposition of the days of Archelaus' reign before Passover of 4 BC.

http://en.wikipedia....Herod_Archelaus

While the text itself is written on the page belonging to Herod Archelaus, the paragraph in question is specifically about his father Herod the Great.

If Herod the Great gave that order to kill all linage just before his death in 1bc, would`nt Archelaus Herod his son have carried out that order in the three thousands deaths? A momentous event took place at the end of the mourning for Herod that ended with the cancellation of Passover and the death of perhaps thousands, the figure of 3000 being given by Josephus.Joseph, Mary were afraid to go there to give birth to Jesus under the rule of Achhelaus.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the Council of Nicea, the bishops couldn't agree on a birth date for Jesus. To settle the issue, Constantine chose December 25th, Mythra's birthday. Jesus' birthplace is also Mythra's birthplace. Same story.

From Constantine's point of view, it didn't really matter when Jesus' birth was celebrated as long as Christians quit killing each other over the issue. The issues the bishops couldn't agree on, Constantine settled by decree. He used the power of the Roman state to force compliance, banishing two bishops who wouldn't concede. It worked: the council brought the warring factions together and restored peace. But, to do it, the Kingdom of God was converted to Plato's Republic. In return for unanimity and peace, Christianity sold its soul.

Doug

Are you certain it was Constantine who chose December 25? From my research the birthdate of Jesus was a non-issue for close to 500 years, whereas Constantine was active only 300 years after. It was only later when it began to matter that people threw around several options before the Winter Solstice was eventually chosen.

Additionally, I think you are painting a more severe picture of the process at Nicaea than is warranted. The bishops largely agreed on most doctrines. On the issue of Jesus' divinity, when the vote was taken it eventually read 298-2 in favour of divinity, confirming what the vast majority of Christian churches already believed. It is unfortunate that the two dissenting bishops were exiled for their vote, but this alone isn't proof that the State was forcing them to agree with a particular view. Did a bishop write a letter lamenting that Constantine was forcing him to vote a particular way? No (at least none that survive currently).

Incidentally, ten years after the two bishops were exiled, they were pardoned and allowed to return. To my knowledge neither officially recanted their belief in the non-divinity of Jesus.

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think only a few children were actually killed by Herods soldiers, and that is why it isn't even a footnote in history.

Considering the size, there were most likely less than 20 children in that age group. Still a horrible event, but the number of kids killed was far less than the kids killed at Sandy Hook, to use a modern example of child slaughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This post is a little confusing, can you clarify what you mean by it? I don't get it.

According to the map in the light green, Achhelaus did not rule in Bethlehem

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.