Heh heh. I've already demonstrated that all these are in the category of typology, which would also include the new coincidence trail, and that should only be used as a secondary reference to confirm what is accurately witnessed by primary references, because typology can be twisted to produce any number of coincidences.
God allowed Josephus to record just enough data about the period to give us the general picture and to find more details by analysis. In particular, putting the birth of Jesus on that early date does not agree with the timing of Josephus, nor of the timing of Matthew in how long the kings would take to come from the east. I probably have some additional notes lying around here about why it's reasonable for the Chinese-observed comet to mark the beginning of the kings' journey. Further, Hyakutake can be calculated to have entered the solar system with a period of approximately 17,000 years, not exactly 2,000 years. So to hit a couple secondary matches doesn't help if there are several primary fails.
That's why I don't argue about it, but I also blithely say Jesus was born 6 Oct 4 BC at 3 a.m. on primary and secondary evidence.
a) A reference refers to something that came before aka a secondary referring to a primary.
b) Nature implies primary; being implies secondary...any references are made by secondary beings to one another.
c) Ignoring natural for artificial references makes ones a partaker...not a witness.
typology can be twisted to produce
a) Few suggest type (symbolism) to twist the minds of many into circular logic.
b) Only nature pro (forwards) duces (to lead)...a being needs to resist the wanted temptation of being lead forwards. Few puppeteer leaders to tempt many to willingly follow.
to record just enough
Aka using memory for adaption to perceivable inspiration...not to store suggested information.
to give us the general picture
General implies all (al) generating (gener) each one within...others suggest pluralism (us) and the capturing of momentum (pictures) to distract ones perception from discerning that.
Nature doesn't give pictures...it gives each being sight during a process of differentiation (analysis). Looking/locking at a picture implies an artificial synthesis.
In particular...Jesus
Jesus aka je suis aka I AM contradicts particularity by taking possession over self, while branding others as YOU ARE (judah).
to mark the beginning
a) BE (being) cannot mark GIN (generation) without ignoring...being (life) generated (inception towards death).
b) A being cannot perceive ones beginning (inception) or end (death), because sight can only work in-between aka as above/so below.
I love how you mention two candidates and immediately jump to your undeniable certainty without evidence. Bethlehem is a suburb of Jerusalem and a perfectly fitting stayover for those who intend to commute to fulfill the festival requirements, there is no halakhah that says you must live within the Jerusalem boundaries for a week. The command, Ex. 23:14-17, doesn't even mention Jerusalem because it wasn't the location immediately intended anyway (its status had not been revealed); the intent was to appear before the LORD meaning wherever the ark was stored signaling his presence (which has an interesting history of movement). You express ignorance both of the taurat and of the injil.
Heh heh. I've already demonstrated that all these are in the category of typology, which would also include the new coincidence trail, and that should only be used as a secondary reference to confirm what is accurately witnessed by primary references, because typology can be twisted to produce any number of coincidences.
God allowed Josephus to record just enough data about the period to give us the general picture and to find more details by analysis. In particular, putting the birth of Jesus on that early date does not agree with the timing of Josephus, nor of the timing of Matthew in how long the kings would take to come from the east. I probably have some additional notes lying around here about why it's reasonable for the Chinese-observed comet to mark the beginning of the kings' journey. Further, Hyakutake can be calculated to have entered the solar system with a period of approximately 17,000 years, not exactly 2,000 years. So to hit a couple secondary matches doesn't help if there are several primary fails.
That's why I don't argue about it, but I also blithely say Jesus was born 6 Oct 4 BC at 3 a.m. on primary and secondary evidence.
a) A reference refers to something that came before aka a secondary referring to a primary.
b) Nature implies primary; being implies secondary...any references are made by secondary beings to one another.
c) Ignoring natural for artificial references makes ones a partaker...not a witness.
a) Few suggest type (symbolism) to twist the minds of many into circular logic.
b) Only nature pro (forwards) duces (to lead)...a being needs to resist the wanted temptation of being lead forwards. Few puppeteer leaders to tempt many to willingly follow.
Aka using memory for adaption to perceivable inspiration...not to store suggested information.
General implies all (al) generating (gener) each one within...others suggest pluralism (us) and the capturing of momentum (pictures) to distract ones perception from discerning that.
Nature doesn't give pictures...it gives each being sight during a process of differentiation (analysis). Looking/locking at a picture implies an artificial synthesis.
Jesus aka je suis aka I AM contradicts particularity by taking possession over self, while branding others as YOU ARE (judah).
a) BE (being) cannot mark GIN (generation) without ignoring...being (life) generated (inception towards death).
b) A being cannot perceive ones beginning (inception) or end (death), because sight can only work in-between aka as above/so below.
I vs you + don't vs do imply argumentation.
I love how you mention two candidates and immediately jump to your undeniable certainty without evidence. Bethlehem is a suburb of Jerusalem and a perfectly fitting stayover for those who intend to commute to fulfill the festival requirements, there is no halakhah that says you must live within the Jerusalem boundaries for a week. The command, Ex. 23:14-17, doesn't even mention Jerusalem because it wasn't the location immediately intended anyway (its status had not been revealed); the intent was to appear before the LORD meaning wherever the ark was stored signaling his presence (which has an interesting history of movement). You express ignorance both of the taurat and of the injil.