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

I really see no difference if the date was 4BCE or 1CE. Herod had nothing to do with the NT writings, same as Isaiah had no connection with Jesus. The only factual history here says, Herod was manouvering with Rome over Caligula's decree to worship a roman emperor, while the Judean jews were rebelling it - and those who eventually became christians had no qualms with image worship. The NT has no law against image worship or human divinity, though I doubt any Jew named Yehoshua would ever condone the NT; this is also why I cannot accept any sector of the Gospels being made by Jews - this includes also a secular, non-observant 4th generation hellenist jew. Even polytheist and atheist people will eventually see the light - which comes after darkness has reached its most opaque.

Although christians won't be taken to task only for the desecration of the first two Commands from Sinai - because they were not privy to this, and the ancestors were polytheist - it is nonetheless a good advocation for humanity, and eventually this factor will prevail - via religions and sciences. All other beliefs will become bridges only, leading to ONE God. But this is not enforceable or inducable - it must happen naturally. And this is happening.

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO CREATIONISM AND MONOTHEISM.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, Boaz...

>>There is no scholarly bashing going on P, and your saying that simply underlines your lack of knowledge of the issues<<

Judging only by the number of questions you seem unable to answer - except of course with the obligatory "look what it says in the Bible" - you are being gently roasted by some people who know what they are talking about.

But that's not particularly important.

>>To obtain the 'objective' meaning of a text, will inevitably involve the 'human linguistic dynamic' as I put it, in that we must examine the use of words, and all possible influences and circumstances surrounding a particlar text to find the closest thing to an 'objective' meaning. Language, being what it is, will always be subjective to a degree, depending on the type of text and ideas being communicated.<<

This seems to me to be the final capitulation from your original position that a text is capable of sustaining an objective meaning, irrespective of the individual's input. Because ultimately the interpretation has nothing to do with "the type of text and ideas being communicated", but on the individual performing the interpretation. That is what "being subjective to a degree" actually means.

What it means is that you are no longer able to derive your own personal meaning from an ancient text - the Qur'an, just to take an example at random - and successfully defend it as being somehow objective, self-evident or indeed at all valid.

Would it be too much to ask that you refrain in future from doing so?

Boazy,

Herod: When did he die?

Was Herod alive when Jesus was born?

We have the opportunity here to match secular and religious texts, perhaps, even against documents from the period. A valuable opportunity to address the topic of the thread.

Please consider:

"This eclipse of the moon (which is the only eclipse of either of the luminaries mentioned by our Josephus in any of his writings) is of the greatest consequence for the determination of the time for the death of Herod and Antipater, and for the birth and entire chronology of Jesus Christ. It happened March 13th, in the year of the Julian period 4710, and the 4th year before the Christian era. See its calculation by the rules of astronomy, at the end of the Astronomical Lectures, edit. Lat. p. 451, 452." - Astronomer's footnote to
Flavius Josephus, which follows from:

Antiquities of the Jews- Book XVII

by Flavius Josephus, "Containing the Interval of Foourteen Years: From the Death of Alexander and Aristobulus to the Banishment of Archaelause";

By Josephus,regarding a known event in the year of Herod's death:

"But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon."

Boazy, I am presenting scientiific [astronomy] and near-contemporary evidence [Josephus]. Will you please counter with evidence from science and Herod'd biographers that Jesus was born, 1 CE?

Boazy, What evidence supports the posit that both Science and History are wrong about the time of Herod's death and the Bible [Matthew 2.16] is correct?

Please contribute on this matter.

Oly.. "Herod was alive when Jesus was born" happy ? :)

There is no hard evidence for the contrary and there is strong evidence for the affirmative. That Matthew said it, and was a contemporary of that time, affirms it.

The archeological evidence is pretty much zero for when Herod died, and the rest seems speculative and inconclusive at best.

You see.. the problem is this. Information about Jesus birth comes only from ONE source..the Gospels.
It mentions the death of Herod, and I find Josephus, as the only other ancient authority on when Herod died, to be lacking in persuasiveness that he died before Christs birth, because he does not mention that event.

We are left with the Gospel accounts and then, modern scholars try to 'fit' Josephus around the Gospel. I suspect that there is an ulterior motive in 'finding' that Herod died before Jesus was born :)

PERICLES.. we humans define the word 'Objective' and.. we use it in every day life. It is not a word outside our life experience.

We also define the word 'subjective'. and surprise x 2 we know the difference.

The 'objective' meaning of a word, is that which we arrive at by consensus. "dog/Duck".. etc with appropriate descriptors.

"That which has fur, barks, is pack oriented, etc etc.. we call objectively 'a dog'..

In the same way, 'The beginning' is an objectively agreed concept.

"belief" is an objectively agreed idea. "Agreeing that a proposition or fact is.. true"

We can never escape the 'dynamic' of humans and language. But this said... we have sufficient grounds to operate on what we (by our own definitions) describe as 'objective' in relation to text.

"Fight them" is an objective concept. The 'manner' of the fighting, whether it be verbal, physical or both is revealed by context.
In the absense of clear contextual help. Any firm interpretation of 'fight' would be entirely subjective.
Turn thy brain on :)

-cont-

IamJoseph,

My repetitive mentioning Herod [The Great] relates the conflict between History and the Bible, in the context with this thread.

Carigila [and Nerod] lived after Hero the Great. The Herodian dynasty did survive until the Annas. Herod the Great had Arab lineage and was appointed by Julius Caesar. He fell out of favavour with Augustus.

Do we take our meaning from the Bible or History? Which is more reliable, more valid, in demostrating the time of Herod's death: History or the Bible?

Appreciate and understand your your general remarks about NT.

Please note:

http://www.roman-empire.net/emperors/caligula-index.html

Pericles,

Good post.

Boaz doesn't seem comfortable with sources outside the Bible. I wish he would enter into debate, to achieve its offshoot, knowledge discovery. Perhaps, he is like, I think it was Lucy to Linus, in a Peanuts cartoon, "I can't look. It might change the way I think".

Oly.. have a read of this

http://www.historyofthedaughters.com/61.pdf

As you can see, there is much conjecture. To me it doesn't really matter.
I suppose one wishing to show "The Bible is wronggg" :) might enjoy the possibilities.. But I prefer to go with the fact that so much which 'could not be' according to secular or atheist historians/scholars was found to 'be' as new discoveries were made of the middle east.

Joseph.. counselling time :)

"The NT has no law against image worship or human divinity"

The New relies on the Old, and fulfills it.
It was decided at the first council of Jerusalem (mentioned in Acts 15) that the only parts of "the Law" (in the sense that the Pharisees understood it) which required observance were those listed in the letter.

Paul said a lot about the 'true circumcision' which is based on the heart not the foreskin. Jeremiah predicted a NEW covenant which would be in peoples HEARTS..and that my friend is what came in Christ.

The early Church/Net Testament is not the story of 'human gods' but of the One True Gods ultimate self revelation IN Christ..."If you have seen me....you have seen ...the Father" not "If you have seen me you have seen one like or equal to or separate from the Father."

"Have you been with me this long, and yet you do not know me" said Jesus to Philip...and I address that question also to you Joseph.

The presense or absense of a foreskin makes zero difference to the condition of a mans heart. You can be a sinner with or without.
Just like Baptism is nothing of itself.. apart from the heart condition which it is mean't to signify.
Dry sinner,.. immerse.. wet sinner.. No.. no 'ritual' makes us acceptable to God.. only faith in Christ and renewed heart.