Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[Contarini]

No. The pagan sources say that the census took place somewhere in between 8 and 6 BC. Herod was the ruler of Judea until his death in 4 BC.

Which sources? Are you talking about the Acts of Augustus?

Trusting Josephus that the census took place in 6 BC, then Jesus was born then, and was two years old when Herod died.

Where does Josephus say that? In this passage (Ant. 18.1-10) Josephus is clearly talking about Quirinius’ census after the death of Herod. What passage do you have in mind? John Rhoads has argued that Josephus is the one who made a mistake and that Judas’ revolt actually took place ten years later. But that’s certainly not “trusting Josephus.”

Where the difficulty comes into play is that Quirinius wasn’t governor of Syria until about 7 AD, 11 years after the birth of Christ. That is why many scholars believe that Luke is actually saying the census took place “before” Quirinius was governor of Syria, rather than “while” Quirinius was governor of Syria.

This article argues on grammatical grounds against that interpretation. I am not sufficiently learned in the fine points of Greek grammar to have an informed opinion, but certainly the author’s bias would incline him rather to agree with the thesis.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If the definition of BC is ‘Before Christ’

Not really. The definition of “B.C.” is rather “before an arbitrary point used for convenience, which coincides with the date an early medieval scholar mistakenly assigned to the birth of Christ.”

You’re too hung up on the phrase “before Christ.” There’s no moving goalposts, and no difficulty. The difficulty we’re discussing is completely different.

Christ can’t be born ‘Before Christ’.

He can quite easily be born before the beginning of a conventional chronological landmark chosen by an ancient scholar.

Edwin

 

[LiberalPrincess]

I wound imagine the Catholic hierarchy is a significant stumbling block for Protestants…I know even I am skeptical of it at times.

 

[zz912]

Dionysius Exiguus, the sixth-century scholar who came up with the “BC” and “AD” dating, made a mistake of at least 4 years, since Herod died in 4 B.C.

Edwin

There is some doubt about that. jimmyakin.com/2013/04/what-year-was-jesus-born-the-answer-may-surprise-you-2.html

*For a little more than a century, the idea has been popular that Jesus was born in 6-7 B.C.

The reasoning goes like this: Jesus was born late in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C.

Furthermore, the wise men saw the star rise in the east two years before they came to visit Jerusalem, where they met Herod.

Back up two years from 4 B.C. and you get 6 B.C.

Back up another year in case Herod didn’t die immediately after they visited, and you get 7 B.C.

So: 6 or 7 B.C.

The problem, as we saw in a previous post, is that the arguments that Herod died in 4 B.C. are exceptionally weak.*

 

[Brandall]

I wound imagine the Catholic hierarchy is a significant stumbling block for Protestants…I know even I am skeptical of it at times.

As mentioned before, it’s not a problem for me. Each Baptist Church is an autonomous body. Having everything come up for a vote is insanity. The hierarchy of the church is a huge plus for this former Baptist.

 

[ffg]

Not really. The definition of “B.C.” is rather “before an arbitrary point used for convenience, which coincides with the date an early medieval scholar mistakenly assigned to the birth of Christ.”

You’re too hung up on the phrase “before Christ.” There’s no moving goalposts, and no difficulty. The difficulty we’re discussing is completely different.

He can quite easily be born before the beginning of a conventional chronological landmark chosen by an ancient scholar.

Edwin

A 33 year old man in year 33, is still a 33 year old man in year 29, considering an error in dating.

Why is this 4 years important and how does it affect time after Christ’s birth?

As a sidenote: I find irony in your ‘hang up’ comment considering the context of this 4 year error discussion.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Which sources? Are you talking about the Acts of Augustus?

Yes. I believe the Acts lists one of the three census’ taking place in 8 BCE.

Where does Josephus say that? In this passage (Ant. 18.1-10) Josephus is clearly talking about Quirinius’ census after the death of Herod. What passage do you have in mind? John Rhoads has argued that Josephus is the one who made a mistake and that Judas’ revolt actually took place ten years later. But that’s certainly not “trusting Josephus.”

You’re right. Mea culpa. I had the dates given by Josephus off (I read CE as BCE).

This article argues on grammatical grounds against that interpretation. I am not sufficiently learned in the fine points of Greek grammar to have an informed opinion, but certainly the author’s bias would incline him rather to agree with the thesis.

Edwin

Some of his argumentation is plausible grammatically. He questions why Luke would mention Quirinius at all if he is referring to a census which took place before Quirinius was governor. Well, one of the obvious answers to that is so that Luke’s readers don’t mistake it for the census that took place under Quirinius. The author goes on to question why Luke would not point to a more obvious historical event. Well, why bother trying to get into Luke’s head and figure out why he wouldn’t reference something else? If the “before” rendering is accurate, he referenced what he chose to reference!

His conclusions to resolve the issue, such as Quirinius not technically being the governor at the time (since Luke’s grammar could be translated as an office other than governor), is another distinct possibility. Since Quirinius was in charge of the Syrian army at the time of the census in 8 BC, repulsing local uprisings, this could also be what Luke is referring to.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

For protestants of the pietistic bent the whole sacramental nature of traditional christianity is a stumbling block. Its a fundamental dichotomy which refuses the idea that things on this earth can be filled with the spirit of God for the purpose of perfecting God’s creation here and now.

I think for other protestants however whom do have a sacramental outlook on the world, lutheranism and anglicanism, the idea of the church being an equal authority is the main stumbling block for these protestants who have to (and rightfully so for their theology) consider scripture above any person and or church consensus.

 

[Contarini]

There is some doubt about that. jimmyakin.com/2013/04/what-year-was-jesus-born-the-answer-may-surprise-you-2.html

That’s interesting–thanks. It’s one of those things that everyone repeats without actually giving the basis for–shouldn’t be surprised that the evidence turns out to be more complicated!

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by ufamtobie View Post
The definition of Consubstantiation per Martin Luther: “The doctrine, proposed by Martin Luther, that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist”.

First of all I would argue that the quote from John is not referring to Eucharist, communion, Lords Supper, or whatever else you want to call it.

Honorius,
While I disagree with your conclusion about John 6, it would have been very difficult to give a good answer, since the question is dramatically flawed, in that Martin Luther did not ever teach or define consubstantiation.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

A 33 year old man in year 33, is still a 33 year old man in year 29, considering an error in dating.

Why is this 4 years important

No one but you thinks it is, as far as I can tell

Well, Akin thinks it important enough to discuss at some length, and it is an interesting historical question with some relevance for other issues in the chronology of Jesus’ life and the beginning of Christianity.

But you’re the only person who seems bothered by it.

As a sidenote: I find irony in your ‘hang up’ comment considering the context of this 4 year error discussion.

I’m not “hung up” on any of this. I don’t have a problem saying that Luke got some of the historical details wrong.

If Luke simply made up the infancy narrative, that would be a significant issue.

But folks who have a strict understanding of inerrancy cannot admit any historical error, not matter how small.

None of this has anything to do with the four-year issue, which as I said only you are concerned with.

Edwin

 

[ffg]

It’s nice to meet people who know me better than me.

The ability to parse a short sentence and ignore the rest is quite a talent!

For it to not be your concern, you have a lot to say.

I’ll conclude it’s just another distraction as I did in the first place.

When you get a chance to explain something you find real, it shouldn’t be that difficult.

 

[GKC]

Public or corporal confession in the Lutheran liturgy is sacramental since the pastor absolves all present. I believe in both Catholic and Anglican use, the confession at the start of Mass is an assurance of forgiveness rather than an actual absolution. You are correct that Lutherans, especially in North America, have fallen away from private confession. When my dad was growing up, anyone who intended to take holy Communion on Sunday, had to attend a confessional service on Saturday that involved corporate confession but individual absolution at the altar rail. I went to private confession before I was confirmed, as practiced in my childhood parish [LCMS] but came to greatly appreciation Holy Absolution [that the Lutheran confessions refer to as a sacrament] later in my life as a seminarian.

What follows Anglican corporate confession is absolution.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

As someone who programs for a living, and has to deal with time zones, leap days, daylight savings time, leap seconds and the international date line… I can certainly testify that even today someone’s recorded birth date could be earlier than they actually exists. And we have atomic clocks.

Give thanks that the error wasn’t more than four years!

You post was made on 1380740220

 

[PRmerger]

The only mediators to intercede for my sins is Jesus Christ. While a Pastor or Priest can help guide me spiritually they cannot act as my intermediate between heaven and earth.

It is very Catholic to say that the only mediator for our sins is Jesus Christ. Just like the only Father is God in heaven.

And just as all earthly fathers are icons or reflections of the One True Father, so, too, is all human mediation only an icon or reflection of the One True Mediator.

The intercession of the saints is only done through their union with the One Mediator, Jesus Christ.

Now before everyone starts attacking me please show me scriptural references indicating otherwise.

No one ought attack you here, Mlon, but do expect refutations and rebuttals to what you present.

But please do not interpret charitable dialogue, questions to you and challenges with an attack on you.

Please another thing please do not tell me like another RC said to me Christianity is not a religion of the book. My response is Christianity is a religion of Gods word.

Amen!

Except that you have followed a man-made tradition that says that God’s Word is contained only in the written word.

Catholicism professes to be a people of the Word–the Word of God, Jesus Christ. And His Word comes to us through 2 channels: Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.

And to believe that it is limited to only Sacred Scripture is to be duped into believing a man-made tradition.

Scripture never claims to be the ONLY channel of God’s Word.

 

[ufamtobie]

First of all, I do not get how I= pride. (Oh, wait, did it again. ) Simply stating why I (dang it!!!) believe something does not equate to pride. I quote the character Inigo, from the movie The Princess Bride when I say “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

The first I refers to a previous post made by Honorius. The second also refers to said post. The third I refers to the stumbling blocks that keep Honorius from joining the Roman Catholic Church. In the fourth I, Honorius refers to his approval for the sixth Anglican article of faith.

There you have it.

Honorius,

Tell me why do people like yourself refer themselves in the third person?

Ufam Tobie

 

[ufamtobie]

As a former Catholic now Protestant i don’t think it’s a fear of confessing sins to a priest is the problem with the Catholic Church. To say so come across a little arrogant. Just to be clear about my feeling regarding the Catholic Church please see my post in the new member post. You will see I am not anti Roman Catholic.

With that said why would I confess my sins to a person who for all intents and purpose cannot save their own soul? The only mediators to intercede for my sins is Jesus Christ. While a Pastor or Priest can help guide me spiritually they cannot act as my intermediate between heaven and earth. Now before everyone starts attacking me please show me scriptural references indicating otherwise. Please another thing please do not tell me like another RC said to me Christianity is not a religion of the book. My response is Christianity is a religion of Gods word.

Mlon, don’t lie to yourself, this lie that you believe is from satan.

Ufam Tobie

 

[Mlon]

Is he so? Why so?

The appeal Paul was making is for the people of Corinthian to follow Christ. He came as an a ambassador to the King pleading the case for salvation through Jesus Christ. Paul wasn’t saying you need to confess your sins to me. With all due respect when interrupting scripture you cannot take verses independently to make a point. In fact, that is what the early Roman Church was fearful of when the bible was being printed for all to read. They were afraid people would stray from sound doctrine. Proper hermeneutics call for studying the entire bible and look for the overall message. The overall message is the confessing to God you are a sinner in need of a savior and accepting His son Jesus.

 

[Honorius]

Honorius,
While I disagree with your conclusion about John 6, it would have been very difficult to give a good answer, since the question is dramatically flawed, in that Martin Luther did not ever teach or define consubstantiation.

Jon

I was going to ask for a source on the information, but decided against it. I guess I should have asked for it after all.:tiphat:

 

[Honorius]

Honorius,

Tell me why do people like yourself refer themselves in the third person?

Ufam Tobie

I was rather annoyed and wanted to be sarcastic.