Dear Fractelle... I warmly accept your right to present your point of view. I hope I'm allowed to 'make my voice heard' on this thread at least :) seeing as I began it. (no saliva:)

Oly.. regarding sources outside the Bible.. that's kinda cart b4 the horse on the issue of doctrines like the Trinity, because the information is firmly fixed in texts that only the wildest most rabid liberal higher critic would dare deny it...

The 'doctrine' is there in the early first century, (most comes from Johns gospel)only 'formalized' in the 4th due to heresy.

The reason I provided both critical and conservative opinions about the authorship of Philippians is so you can see that it is valid evidence for the qualifications of Paul by his own confession.

If scholars accept a document as 'authentic' then why would you then not admit it as evidence? I am tempted to think of the word 'bias':)

The best way to evaluate Biblical documents is to look at their history. Not all have the same level of support, but those which DO.. are emminently worthy of serious consideration even for the secularist.

Joseph.. the Christian Gospel is this "Repent from sin, and embrace Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord"..it is an invitation, not a compulsion. If you elect NOT to believe, no one is going to tax you for that. Do you understand this basic difference between Islam and Christianity? Seriously.. do you?

The very fact that a religion 'taxes' unbelievers for that unbelief should tell you VOLUMES about the 'nature' of that faith. (i.e..it is a STATE)
So, looking for similarities between Christianity and Islam is impossible. West is west and East is east. We offer choice, they offer choice plus tax if you make the wrong one.

You ask "would you call it love if another religion did this to you"

Genesis 12:3 is very clear for YOUR religion "I (God) will curse those who curse you(Jews)"

Is that love? :) its not the right question I'm afraid.

"Joseph.. the Christian Gospel is this "Repent from sin, and embrace Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord"..it is an invitation, not a compulsion.'

Yes, I accept this is the situation 'TODAY' - which is very recent, and appears the result of America emerging as the first decent christian country - a true beacon for humanity. However, Islam is emulating European christianity - and Europe is silent and fostering it - via stealth. It should be telling muslims not to do the same. How can the Vatican, for example, remain silent of teachings such as the blood libel, the Protocols, prophet killers, etc - parading in islamic countries - when these false stories came from the vatican's backyard? If the Pope pointed out how muslims are disrespecting other beliefs - he would have answered well to those muslims enraged and murdering nuns over a cartoon - but he never did! If one looks at the racism of muslim teachings against others - they would have no claim on others doing the same to them. And pointing this out is the foremost job of the vatican.

Here, the OT command kicks in: 'YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS'; 'YOU SHALL SEE YOUR FELLOWMAN'S INNOCENT BLOOD AND REMAIN IDLE'. There is an onus on christians to cleanse their own false charges. The church is an historical witness of Israel's rights, and this is inescapable - a sure retort of Heaven to falsehoods.
Here's an example of what is going on in US, and what has already swept throught Europe, all resultant from focusing on the ozone layer, unstead of issue # 1, and eeriliy familiar with medevial Europe:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67063Among Quote: the commission's most disturbing finds was the teaching that it was the Jews who conspired to create the schism between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

A textbook on social science that the commission reviewed reads, "The cause of the discord: The Jews conspired against Islam and its people. A sly, wicked person who sinfully and deceitfully professed Islam infiltrated" the Muslim faith.

Boazy,

[1] Was Herod alive when Jesus was born?

[2] "Oly.. regarding sources outside the Bible.. that's kinda cart b4 the horse on the issue of doctrines like the Trinity, because the information is firmly fixed in texts that only the wildest most rabid liberal higher critic would dare deny it...

The 'doctrine' is there in the early first century, (most comes from Johns gospel)only 'formalized' in the 4th due to heresy." - Boaz

Boazy, please develop. The above read as if you given the matter a minute's consideration. What parts of John mention the NT godhead? How are these propisitions supported OUTSIDE of the Bible. Try not to interpret via the Bible. Herein, one should not build a universe in a cubical; The Bible, does not stand alone.

Biologists use physics. Historians use Science. What does the Bible use? Please don't say The Word of God; else, you put the Bible in the same sted, as Mohammed, a conduit from the the divine to humanity.

[3] You have started a new thread but haven't provided a one word answer to [1] above. Why race ahead with matters, when so much is unresolved here?

Pericles,

If the Bible is a wall, it is a wall made of loose bricks. Yet, Boazy and his Christian colleagues wont venture to answer a simple question like;

- Was Herod alive, when Jesus was born?

We both have presented questions, but, like Gallileo, frustrated.

[Galilleo, beckened the Vatican astronomers to look through his telescope, to see for themselevs, but the Vatican astronomers refused his invitation. Source: Bronowski.

Hello Bozy,

- Was Herod alive, when Jesus was born?

It is a straightforward question?

Oly.

No connection between Herod and the Gospel:

Wikipedia

Herod Death

Coin of Herod the Great, bearing a temple and star of davidThe scholarly consensus, based on Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews is that Herod died at the end of March or early April in 4 BC. Josephus wrote that Herod died 37 years after being named as King by the Romans, and 34 years after the death of Antigonus.[10] This would imply that he died in 4 BC. This is confirmed by the fact that his three sons, between whom his kingdom was divided, dated their rule from 4 BC. For instance, he states that Herod Philip II's death took place after a 37-year reign in the 20th year of Tiberius, which would imply that he took over on Herod's death in 4 BC.[11] In addition, Josephus wrote that Herod died after a lunar eclipse,[12] and a partial eclipse[13] took place in 4 BC. It has been suggested that 5 BC might be a more likely date[14] — there were two total eclipses in that year.[15][16] However, the 4 B.C. date is almost universally accepted.[17]

Josephus wrote that Herod's final illness was excruciating (Ant. 17.6.5). From Josephus' descriptions, some medical experts propose that Herod had chronic kidney disease complicated by Fournier's gangrene.[18] Modern scholars agree he suffered throughout his lifetime from depression and paranoia.[19]

After Herod's death, his kingdom was divided among three of his sons, namely Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Herod Philip II, who ruled as tetrarchs rather than kings.

IamJoseph,

Contrary to the NT, multiple sources 4 BCE. Christians believe, 1 CE.

Christians seem to believe the NT is right and history is wrong. This an excellent example of variance been the secular posits and the [Christian] religious posits. Something we can investigate in terms of this thread. If only Boazy will contribute, please.

All,

A brief outline of the period, as presented by PBS and the WGBH education foundation:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/scrollmeaning.html

Please note, the direct reference to Herod and the absence of direct reference to Jesus.

Also, notice the reference Judaism"s". It seems Judaism may been going through some sort of crisis, with factionalism evident.

Herein, Jesus was a Je. After Jesus,there seems to have been a few centuries of proto-Christian branded Judaism. Thence, historical evidents caused the Christian-Jews to morph into what has become Christianty. Constaintine stole the Jewish ball and ran away with it, after overhauling dogma.

Sells,

If you are reading, when did Herod die? Is Matthew 2.16 true?