volgadon

Baptism is the outward token of our covenant. Covenants have to be accompanied by a token. This token can only be administered by an appointed representative. This is a scriptural as it comes.

It certainly does say travelling in. And he was already in Archelaus's realm when that verse appears. The warning is not a warning but a command, it is the dfream he had in Egypt. Then it can't be very obvious to you. I just gave you an example of different wordings. That is from the Talmud. Try m. Taanit 2 and and Berachot 2 in the Yerushalmi (the Yerushalmi also known as the Palestinian Talmud is the older of the two talmuds), as well as midrash Bereshit Raba, chp 20. One is context and scholarly works, the other is Matthew, backed up by elder Holland. So if Nephi was right about the virgin birth, how is Matthew wrong about it? Not necessarily over time. You have not. First of all, it would not be 33 days, but 66. You are the one with wildly inacurate information. Ad what is more, Luke leaves open the possibility that there were other things, such as festivals. Luke isn't a favourite primary source, but c'est la vie. I had a feeling you would use that one. They are speaking of themselves. That generation had never been in the Babylonian captivity. At any rate, John is showing their supreme arrogance. Read Josephus.

And another thing, where in John are the pharisees ignorant of the captivity?

What a pathetic attempt to set a snare. Your question was 1. Why was Joseph afraid when he found out Herod's son ruled in Judea? 2. How was going to Galilee a solution to this problem? You did not ask was Joseph going to live in Judaea. I don't see how my answers contradict my position that Joseph was passing through. If Archelaus was a murderus nutcase, then passing through land under his control was scary to Joseph, who had a wife and kid. Archelaus has no control over the Galilee, so there is no problem with living there. The text does not say that Joseph went to the Galilee because Archelaus ruled over Judaea. The text says that he was afraid to go through Judaea, because Archelaus ruled there. What we have is a case of Joseph being given a command from God to go to a certain place, yet is scared to do so, because he has to pass through a dangerous area. He overcomes those fears because he was commanded in a dream to do so and if God commands, then he will provide a way. The warned in verse 22 is rendered commanded in every other translation I have. So no, it isn't obvious. It precludes nothing. If I were to say in the summer of 2007 I went by train through the city of Krasnodar, yet my friend says he went through the city of Krasnodar, where he had previously been, which is the contradictory statement? Or if I said that in the summer of 2008 whilst living in the village of Livnim I found a job in a towen called Hatzor, does that preclude my having lived there in the past? You are trying some put-downs. I haven't painfuly twisted anything, but I've challenged some of your assumptions. And guess what, I was raised in an environment which doesn't believe in Christ, so I've heard all these arguments way before you brought them up. What spin? I took your statement at face value. "There is definately no tradition of the Messiah coming out of Galilee and especially none of him coming from Mt. Arbel." Most Jewish traditions were written down years later, because before the destruction of the temple, they considered it a sin to write down the oral teachings. Here is another wild goose chase for you. Learn a bit about the Mishan, Talmud and other ancient Jewish writings. Will do. Here's one off the top of my head. Isaiah 9:1-2. The first time the prophecy was fulfilled was when the Assyrians suffered defeat. The second was when Christ began his ministry and dwelt in Capernaum, and before you go saying that Matthew twisted the verse out of context you should realise that tzalmaveth, the word translated as the shadow of death, was another term for hell. The third fulfilment was in 2007, when the Galilee Branch meeting house was dedicated. Elder Holland explicitely stated so, so that isn't my interpretation. Must have been reading a different Nephi. He states that Mary is a virgin. When formulating a theory, you really do need to consider all the other possibilities, if just to rule them out. Here is one no less likely than your own. Scribal error and corrupted texts. What you term a wild goose chase I term learning. I really don't care if you won't learn more about it, your loss. But did it appear when Jesus was born, or before. Luke is still a primary source, even the majority of Israeli scholars consider it as such. Not all primary sources share the same degree of accuracy though.

Johhny, that is a wonderful theory, except for one problem. Matthew is very adamant about Bethlehem.

because he had to travel through. In the Hebrew and Slavonic it reads he arrived in the city Nazareth and lived there. That is an entirely neutral statement, which does not exclude the possibility of them knowing it earlier. Not any more than you. I'm speculating based on the text. Really? None at all? Try Menachem ben Amiel. Were I to look outside my window, I would see Mt Arbel, so I think it is rich to claim that there are no traditions. Meaning that I don't take notes as well as I ought to when I come across things. As I have indicated, John's gospel does not make that out to be the case. There most certainly are and the author does not always reveal them. This is especially true of Isaiah. Here's a question for you, what does it mean if Nephi supports Matthew's interpretations? That Matthew lied is neither the only nor the likeliest of possibilites. Yes we know what each account omits. I'll recommend this again. Read up on historiography of the late classical period, that might lay to rest some of your presentist assumptions. These are two different accounts written for two very different target audiences and bearing two different agendas. All that verse means is that Herod was taking no chances. Then according to your strict criteria, one would have to throw out 90% if not all primary sources ever written.

NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library Eusebius says that

You are parroting. I addressed the issue, why don't you refute it. You are focusing on it being Herod's son, when the problem is not that, but the cruel and bloody Archelaus. Going to the Galilee solves that problem because Archelaus had no control in Galilee. The journey is not excplicitely mentioned in Matthew, no, but what precludes it? Anyway, if Joseph wasn't from Nazareth he could have been from Bethlehem, or at least from there originaly. Another possibility is that Matthew didn't care where Mary and Joseph were from, the important thing to his audience was how the birth fit into Jesus's role as Messiah. Also, mentioning Nazareth explicitly might have weakened the account or at the very least, distracted from it. I've addressed Nathaniel. The arugment among the crown in 7:41-42 has nothing to do with what Matthew said, that he should be called a Nazarene. I suspect that Christ being born in Bethlehem was not known to everyone. Nowhere does it say that this should be a way for him to prove that he is the Messiah. Those talking to Nicodemus are obviously ignoring the good amount of OT prophets who HAVE arisen out of Galilee. There are though several traditions about the Messiah appearing out of Galilee, look up Arbel. A prophet however is not a messiah necesarily. What do you mean? Yes, but I didn't jot down notes, so I'll have to search again. Or they have multiple applications, an aspect of OT prophecy which is accepted by academics. Yes, Hosea is talking about the Exodus, but why isn't he talking about Christ as well, seeing as the Exodus is a type and shadow of Christ. And why should we accept that premise if it can be refuted? How long does it take to find a house? It is about a year or two from the point the star appeared to the magi, not neccessarily from Jesus's birth. But you at least accept that neglecting parts of the story is a reasonable and likely possibility, just as likely as yours. It says he was under two. And he is right (about stumbling blocks, not your opinion that John believed Jesus was born in Nazareth), but that is neither here nor there. On what grounds do you throw out everything in Luke?

The wording indicates that Joseph is still moving towards his destination, hence hasn't reached it yet. If any Greek experts would care to correct me, I will take their word over my understand of Delitscher's Hebrew translation. Until then, however... I checked my Hebrew translation, as well as my Slavonic one, which is a very literal rendering from the Greek. I can't find the phrase turned aside, all I see is went to. I read it again in both the aforementioned translations. It simply says he resided in a city called Nazareth. There is utterly nothing that precludes it from having been a former home. Ancient texts very often don't include that kind of information. Study the problems of historiography of the late classical era. Those problems do not warrant the kind of conclusions you make. Why is it not likely? Anyway, considering his former profession, that may not have been the kind of thing he wished to write about. Being aware of something does not mean accepting it or crediting it. There are instances of them ignoring other traditions attributed to the prophets, or suppressing them. Then, there is also the material unique to non-rabbinical sources or targumim, which are never mentioned in the Mishna and Talmud. All of them? Says who, you? Pretty strong words. Anyway, I'm ammending your statement to some professional historians. Again, study then-contemporary Jewish exegesis. That is why they are complementary. The older generation of Yemenite, Eastern and North African Jews, as well as Arabs, reffer to any kid under a year old as being a year old. Don't project your modern understanding. Perhaps the massacre of the innocents was not widely known. The gospels do not record every single period of Christ's life, or shall we assume that Christ wasn't born because John doesn't mention it? Because Mary had them, or is Elisabeth chopped liver (that good old Jewish saying)? As to why I would assume that Joseph had them, it is his ancestral home. I will and it is what you assume Luke said.

For reasons I have mentioned above, the passage isn't really vague and the north is indicated. I fail to see how he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth shows that he never dwelt there prior. All we can understand from that is that his audience wouldn't all be expected to know about Nazareth. Here are some other possiblites. In Luke, it only states that Mary is from Nazareth. Joseph could have been from Sepphoris, Yifat, Cana, or even originally from Judah. That wording in other Jewish sources often indicates a prophecy or saying which wasn't written down. Before you suggest it implies an absence, read other close-contemporary sources. All the Jewish people he came across? Where do we find that? As for Nathaniel, he was am haaretz, one of the unlearned, who would not necesarily know all the traditions rigoruosly. That saying of his, what good comes out of Nazareth was the kind of lightly contemptuous thing said by inhabitants of one area about another. That sort of thing is still very common among Palestinian Arabs (and older, Eastern Jews), and Christ's response is a typical jocular one. In other words: Nazareth is a dinky little village in the boondocks in an area inferior to my own valley. What has it ever had to offer. Says you. I don't have the time now to go into an explanation of the Hebrew word alma and the context of Isaiah's prophecy. Not completely at odds, unless you mean traditional interpretations. And why can't we suppose that they, or the scribes circulating the accounts, got some details wrong? Perhaps Matthew didn't want to share the backstory. Had you held that belief, and met someone who knew better, you would be corrected. If some biographies of an historical figure skip events mentioned by others, are they contradictory? Mary at least had relatives in Judaea, there is no reason to assume that Joseph wouldn't in the town where he had strong family ties (assuming he isn't from there originally), so why couldn't they stay in a house. In a while I'll go into all the reasons why your assumption that according to Luke they stayed for a mere couple of months is rash.

I guess not, because that is not at all what I meant. I was saying that I don't believe that the planets are 14 great ones.

Or it is a metaphor for Christ

I voted other. An oversized steel shoe-horn.

Keeping an open mind doesn't mean I'm bound to accept things when there are major flaws in those arguments. If it is an ancient record, then we ought to consider things from the historical POV first, wouldn't you agree? One can go awfully wrong otherwise. Did Abraham set the type himself, or prepare the printer's manuscript? Of course not. Just because the phrase by Abraham's own hand appears it doesn't mean that the papyri Joseph translated were the originals. There is no possibility of that, seeing as they are Ptolemaic, centuries upon centuries after Abraham. They are copies. Again, the problem is using the hypocephalus as a modern star chart. I don't believe it can be used scientificaly at all as it is symbolic and highly stylised. We need the key, to understand what the symbols represented and how it fits into the theology, because that dictates the positioning of the characters.

The way I've read it the reason people wanted a king wasn't so that he'd enforce the covenant keeping, but would always be ready to lead an army and enofrce law and order. The lower ranks of society kept on functioning as usual, it still being a very community based thing.

By the time Israel was under Rome, people's understanding of the ancient covenant laws had changed somewhat, but I see what you are getting at. Ut us unteresting that even Bar Kochba, who sought to overthrow the idolatrous yoke of Rome didn't call himself king but prince, or ruler. The biggest change was switching their national allegiance from the Lord as their king to someone appointed by the Lord, a middleman, really. He ceased to rule directly, as it were, ruling instead by a vassal. It put greater distance between the people and the Lord. There was also more power wielded by the hand of a single person than during the judges.

Do you want to start with anything specific?

Also, re the lack of faith in the OT, perhaps the word isn't used as often as in other scriptures, but some of the most powerful examples of faith in action are in the OT. Elijah and the widow of Sarepta is one.

No. Neither are there grounds to assume the same for Samuel and even less for Aminadi.

I think I am the only native-born Israeli member of the church on this board. My back window overlooks Capernaum, and I'm in Nazareth quite frequently. I've been reading biblical history and archeology from my childhood. In the museum at the archaeological park of Sepphoris is a picture of the dig. The little kid with the bucket is me. Had you read Josephus you would have understood why Joseph decided to avoid Archelaus's kingdom. He was unstable, cruel and murderous. His brother, Herod Antipas, was far more reasonable. Let us look at the text again. The angel says to go to the land of Israel, not Judaea. The Galilee is in Israel and Matt 2:22 clarifies what is meant by Israel. In order to get to the Galilee one has to go through Judaea. Joseph thought it dangerous, but recalled the angel's instructions and went despite his fears. Something else worth keeping in mind is the geneology. Contemporaries would have known where Matthan resided, at least those in ancient Palestine. Can't speak for the diaspora, but the details wouldn't be as important to them. Matthew emphasises that they dwell in Nazareth (and not Sepphoris, Cana or Yifat) because he is interpreting scripture that prophesied that. There are a few possibilities, scriptures which we have lost is one of them. It is entirely possible that it was not considered scripture by the Pharisees. Try reading the Mishna and Talmud to see what I mean. Another possibility is that Matthew is interpreting a scripture such as the rod of Jesse. Study up on Jewish exegesis of the time. I think why they didn't go straight back to Nazareth is because the area was very unstable. In the latter years of Herod's reign the Nazareth region was very unstable. Judas of Galilee led a sizeable band against the Romans and Roman sympathisers. Around that time he took over Sepphoris, right next to Nazareth. Varus destroyed the city in retaliation. Luke has made some errors, but nothing fundamental. Most are conflations of events, some stem from him not having been familiar with the locations personally. It might even be because his account was copied incorrectly. As pointed out, Matthew does not state that Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem at the time of their betrothement.

Congratulations! I sereved in the Russia Rostov Mission a couple of years ago. One of my good friends, a native Russian, served in Moscow and my very best friend (another native) is serving there now. Feel free to PM me and may I just add LUCKY!!!

That would be Abinadi. Aminadi interpreted the writing on the temple. It says that Samuel was never seen again among the Nephites. As they tried to kill him, I'm not surprised.

What grounds are there to assume that Aminadi and Samuel were translated? I see nothing which suggests that.

Or Mormon didn't record Nephi's death chronologically.

And you assume correctly, but I was not talking about Joseph Smith. I was talking about whoever copied it from what Abraham originally wrote and illustrated. We don't know how to use the hypochephalus, if indeed it can be used in the way that the author wants to. A PHD by itself means little. There are plenty of very poor academics around. What counts is methodology. A simple evaluation that can be done is looking at the sources used. I may be wrong, but none of the scientific ones seem in depth, that is, more than just your college-level astronomy textbook. I would take with a grain or two of salt any conclusions someone with a PHD in child psychology reached on Syriac palaeography of the 3rd century AD. I don't dispute the rough estimate of 150 billion, indeed the figure is irelevant. If you are able to get that close to the figure, then it probably isn't the extent of God's dominion. Do you see what I mean?