Were there any disciples at Ishua's trial?

[1dell]

Hey derek, you say that Lukas didn't mention herod because he was dead already? You said he would have no need to mention Herod? Dayum bro, Reading is fundamental.

You are wrong AGAIN, but at least you are consistently wrong. There is error in EACH and EVER LAST one of your posts hey bro if Herod was dead by then why does Lukas mention him here:

Luk 1:5 ]There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth.

Well what do you need. Dude it would behoove you to READ. Stop making claims on the book when you obviously haven't bothered to read it! How much shame can one person stand?

Just as wrong as wrong can be!

KnaxemDead said:

Kah please re-read Gospel According to Luke, chapter 2 in it's entirety. It's short. When you get to Luke 2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

The verses prior inform you the reader which performances they carried out according to the law (T'nakh).

Kah writes: Luke picks up the account of the journey of the son of God from the point of his return to Galilee from Egipt.

That could not be further from the truth, Luke actually gives an account of Jesus's birth with two's weeks after then their immediate departure back to Nazareth, hence the reason of looking for an INN to Lodge in the first place most of them being crowded already. Luke would not have mentioned Herod or Archelaus, because 'in those days' as mention in verse 1 was the year 6-7AD, Herod was already dead (4BC) and Archelaus dethroned (6 AD).
That was a layman response you gave. I didn't say that these gospels are contradictary. First off, Luke's account could be mentioning a different Y'shua's birth which is not uncommon. There are many doublets throughout the T'nakh. Especially 'two creation' stories right in the first few chapters of Genesis. That goes into writers copying from two distinct sources as they try to recouncil them. Especially since there are those reported to be doing similar acts of Y'shua even the same name. I am not going to give you a way out of this. Your wrong. Just be graceful and admit it.

[KnaxemDead]

Enough with the bashing on either your or my part of this agrument. There are crucial points I am presenting that is getting buried beneath massive amount of rhetoric. Having read these post throughly, especially the cut and paste, which doesn't differ at all from what I said. Actually it agreed with what I posted earlier, until the writter states.

'we must realize that our convictions about the authority of the Bible do not and cannot rest solely on historical or archeological research.'

Inotherwords, since this writer could not refute it with any factual evidence, he just tells his readers to rely on their convictions(faith and beliefs), as oppose to those historical or archeological findings that say otherwise.
As despairing as it gets he surmounts that by implying that the Bible is stand-alone for it's own validity. He admits to his readers this is the premise to their faith. Inspite of the inconsistency you have your convictions, that is what is most important. Now that is laughable. Hey 1dell you cut and paste as though in agreement with this writer. So should I take this as your stance?

We must base our belief in the complete truthfulness of Scripture on its own statements and claims about itself, and such evidence as the Bible supplies that it is what it claims to be

This is to just summarize it and put it into MY WORDS, not responding with a lengthy cut and paste. As I have studied bible indepth to have obtained my own analytical analogy. My personal standpoint isn't based on mere faith or belief, to support my preconceptualize ideal of truth. Truth is Realized not Rationalized. Since you have not noticed 1dell I have stayed on point, no matter how this conversation has shifted, just re-read my post. My concern was with your antics driven by irrational emotions making this discussion most disparaging. I tried to tolerate it and labor on, however I had to rest the issue with Jesus not claiming he was Christ, because it became futile not having those as proficient in the scripture and circumstances surrounding reason for NT writers to insinuate it.

[KnaxemDead]

Uh 1dell, I gave the reason why in Luke 2:1 when it says 'in those days' being the year 6-7AD, why Herod was not mention, due to his death in 4BC. So please stop imposing I wrote something I didn't. I was aware of Herod being mention in the first chapter, however, the writer put emphasis on 'in those days' in 2nd Chapter of Luke as to seperate time periods from Chapter 1.

My Exact Quote.
" Luke would not have mentioned Herod or Archelaus, because 'in those days' as mention in verse 1 was the year 6-7AD, Herod was already dead (4BC) and Archelaus dethroned (6 AD). "

[1dell]

Dude you and I must have read 2 different reports. That dude does a dayum good job of refutting that bull crap you are talking about. And nah bro, you don't tell me when stop bashing when thats all you have done from the beginning when I was trying to be friendly and civilized.

This man brings up some excellent points about The greek word for ruler which was translated as governor, not to mention how Quirinius served 2 terms, and all sorts of information you conveniently skipped.

But thats just what you do you "skim" as you put it in your own words. Thats why you miss much of the obvious! Like for example you said that Ishua never admitted to being the Christ well dayum:

Jhn 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

Jhn 4:26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am [he].

You said he never said "I am the Christ" nor did he ever admit to being the christ, but scripture upon scripture has been given to show that he was the christ.

Then you said Lukas didn't mention herod and I be daggone if Chillin in Lukas chapter 1 we don't find Herod the King of Judea.

sigh! There are no points for you to show us, there is nothing we can learn from you. At least I can't

KnaxemDead said:

Enough with the bashing on either your or my part of this agrument. There are crucial points I am presenting that is getting buried beneath massive amount of rhetoric. Having read these post throughly, especially the cut and paste, which doesn't differ at all from what I said. Actually it agreed with what I posted earlier, until the writter states.

'we must realize that our convictions about the authority of the Bible do not and cannot rest solely on historical or archeological research.'

Inotherwords, since this writer could not refute it with any factual evidence, he just tells his readers to rely on their convictions(faith and beliefs), as oppose to those historical or archeological findings that say otherwise.
As despairing as it gets he surmounts that by implying that the Bible is stand-alone for it's own validity. He admits to his readers this is the premise to their faith. Inspite of the inconsistency you have your convictions, that is what is most important. Now that is laughable. Hey 1dell you cut and paste as though in agreement with this writer. So should I take this as your stance?

We must base our belief in the complete truthfulness of Scripture on its own statements and claims about itself, and such evidence as the Bible supplies that it is what it claims to be

This is to just summarize it and put it into MY WORDS, not responding with a lengthy cut and paste. As I have studied bible indepth to have obtained my own analytical analogy. My personal standpoint isn't based on mere faith or belief, to support my preconceptualize ideal of truth. Truth is Realized not Rationalized. Since you have not noticed 1dell I have stayed on point, no matter how this conversation has shifted, just re-read my post. My concern was with your antics driven by irrational emotions making this discussion most disparaging. I tried to tolerate it and labor on, however I had to rest the issue with Jesus not claiming he was Christ, because it became futile not having those as proficient in the scripture and circumstances surrounding reason for NT writers to insinuate it.

[1dell]

Dude, do you NOT innerstand that Lukas was speaking of Z'kharihawa and the events leading up to the birth of Ihawakhanan the Immerser? lol dude, Ihawakhanan aint nothing but 6 months older than Ishua. Not to mention the account of Ishua's birth are only covering his first 8 days. So doing the math that wouldn't even be a year and a half later. lol So "in those days" starts the doggone book. Letting us know that LUkas is talking about THE ENTIRE account of his book being IN THOSE DAYS. Not just refering to herod. If you look after the preable of the gospel where he is speaking to theophilus this is how he starts his account, "in those days...." As in back in the day when these events occured.

It aint that hard shawdy. reading is fundamental

KnaxemDead said:

Uh 1dell, I gave the reason why in Luke 2:1 when it says 'in those days' being the year 6-7AD, why Herod was not mention, due to his death in 4BC. So please stop imposing I wrote something I didn't. I was aware of Herod being mention in the first chapter, however, the writer put emphasis on 'in those days' in 2nd Chapter of Luke as to seperate time periods from Chapter 1.

My Exact Quote.
" Luke would not have mentioned Herod or Archelaus, because 'in those days' as mention in verse 1 was the year 6-7AD, Herod was already dead (4BC) and Archelaus dethroned (6 AD). "

[1dell]

Well dayum bro, The Next thing I bet you are gonna tell me is that Herod in verse 3:1 is the same person right? Herod the Killed Ihawakhanan the Immerser is the same as the herod that died in 4 B.C.

KnaxemDead said:

Uh 1dell, I gave the reason why in Luke 2:1 when it says 'in those days' being the year 6-7AD, why Herod was not mention, due to his death in 4BC. So please stop imposing I wrote something I didn't. I was aware of Herod being mention in the first chapter, however, the writer put emphasis on 'in those days' in 2nd Chapter of Luke as to seperate time periods from Chapter 1.

My Exact Quote.
" Luke would not have mentioned Herod or Archelaus, because 'in those days' as mention in verse 1 was the year 6-7AD, Herod was already dead (4BC) and Archelaus dethroned (6 AD). "

[KnaxemDead]

Most of the other issuses surrounding Luke Chapter 2 were just not relevant to include, especially to prove my point. After all his rhetoric the writer you seem to support. Nonetheless implies, one to forget the lack of historic or archelogocial evidence to reprove his disposition, because after all the Bible verifies itself, all you have to do is accept whatever claims are made for face value as truth. That is how the writer recounciled these two apparently inconsistent births attributed to Jesus in two different distinct time periods. NEXT, what else you got to come with.

[KnaxemDead]

Not at all, Herod The Great isn't the same as in Herod mention in LUKE 3. Herod surnamed "Antipas", was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan woman. After the death of his father he was appointed by the Romans tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea.
www.blueletterbible.org
www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1079061600-1865.html

Were you inferring that Herod Tetrarach in Chapter 3 of Luke is the same as King Herod of Judea?

[KnaxemDead]

I cut and paste that from Blueletterbible.org since you don't seem to take me as a reliable source for explaining The Holy Bible. Surely you knew that was not Herod the great, I mean you studied this book for 12 years.

[1dell]

What else? dayum man, you just overlooked dozens of my dayum questions!!! I have asked you Plenty of questions in each and every post that you just have a habit of overlooking.

What else have I got? Nigga spend some time answering that stuff I asked you. you have a habit of skippin from subject to subject at your leisure but never addressing a dayum thang.

I'm truly disappointed, I really though you could come stronger than this. sigh.

KnaxemDead said:

Most of the other issuses surrounding Luke Chapter 2 were just not relevant to include, especially to prove my point. After all his rhetoric the writer you seem to support. Nonetheless implies, one to forget the lack of historic or archelogocial evidence to reprove his disposition, because after all the Bible verifies itself, all you have to do is accept whatever claims are made for face value as truth. That is how the writer recounciled these two apparently inconsistent births attributed to Jesus in two different distinct time periods. NEXT, what else you got to come with.

[1dell]

Good, you been wrong on everything else I figured you were gonna reach for that one. That saved me another 5 posts worth of info

KnaxemDead said:

Not at all, Herod The Great isn't the same as in Herod mention in LUKE 3. Herod surnamed "Antipas", was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan woman. After the death of his father he was appointed by the Romans tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea.
www.blueletterbible.org
www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1079061600-1865.html

Were you inferring that Herod Tetrarach in Chapter 3 of Luke is the same as King Herod of Judea?

[1dell]

Dude I studied the book ever since I could read. But for the last 12 years I have been focusing on answering the heretics and apostates of the faith.

Of course I know that already.

KnaxemDead said:

I cut and paste that from Blueletterbible.org since you don't seem to take me as a reliable source for explaining The Holy Bible. Surely you knew that was not Herod the great, I mean you studied this book for 12 years.

[KnaxemDead]

What was the neccesity of you even mentioning Herod tetrarch, when that wasn't even presented in previous argumentation. Then your comment that, 'Herod the Killed Ihawakhanan the Immerser is the same as the herod that died in 4 B.C.' Also, I see a subtle rectification of your post that Herod died in 4BC, earlier you mention it as 4AD, then Christ being born after that in 6 or 7AD, based on some unknown source.

[1dell]

Dayum bro, you don't read jack do you? the SAME DAY you came at me with "do you want to correct your post....I'll give you 24 hours before I respond" that 24 hours actually turned into 96 but it's all good. I told you that yeah I made a typo, on the A.D thang. Then I went into this long ass discourse that you obviously haven't read. But don't worry about it I am wasting my breath anyway. It's obvous I was talking about Ishua being born 6-7 A.D. lol. that preposterous. But whatever gives you leverage I guess. I would expect such in a debate or shall I say a contest of testosterone.

KnaxemDead said:

What was the neccesity of you even mentioning Herod tetrarch, when that wasn't even presented in previous argumentation. Then your comment that, 'Herod the Killed Ihawakhanan the Immerser is the same as the herod that died in 4 B.C.' Also, I see a subtle rectification of your post that Herod died in 4BC, earlier you mention it as 4AD, then Christ being born after that in 6 or 7AD, based on some unknown source.

[KnaxemDead]

You haven't yet clarified for the record if Jesus was born two years before Herod died in 6 or 7BC, or during time first taxtation occured in 6-7AD?