tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5608345066306940874..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: The Jesus in the Gospels Never Existed!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70664349619463585132010-08-26T16:49:24.745-04:002010-08-26T16:49:24.745-04:00Johnn P,
Forgive my absence my friend, I want to ...Johnn P,<br /><br />Forgive my absence my friend, I want to continue this convo and promised to do so last week. I will. I've got more than a few additional things I'm balancing here, but I'll get back in a minute...especially in regards to Finnegan and hsiassessment since he's the latest one that you referenced. <br /><br />Later.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77664725860235118072010-08-22T15:41:38.739-04:002010-08-22T15:41:38.739-04:00It is a curious irony debunking Christianity's...It is a curious irony debunking Christianity's supercilious silliness that if someone argues that a real person was foundational to the myths of the Christ of faith but that that person was not the Christ of faith exactly as depicted in the NTGs, then they argue Christianity is a false religion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83769273918494126322010-08-20T22:51:23.401-04:002010-08-20T22:51:23.401-04:00Good one Johnny P, I'll get atchya tomorrow, b...Good one Johnny P, I'll get atchya tomorrow, but I'll only stick to the topic (try to) as you throw so much nonsense (for a lackof a better word) on the wall that it would be impossble to thoroughly go through in this thread.<br /><br />Anyway, on the topic, I think we got something cookin'.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40633846617733958502010-08-20T18:57:00.774-04:002010-08-20T18:57:00.774-04:00Harvey
14) the magi followed a star going count...Harvey<br /><br /><br /><br />14) the magi followed a star going counter-directionally in the sky for what must have been months. in a highly astrolonomically literate period, there is no other written etc evidence for this very long incredible miracle. (STRETCH)<br /><br />15) the magi are only elswhere used as a word in daniel. matthew seems to copy daniel in many aspects. is this pulling on daniel as a literary technique? also, it seems, in conjunction with the shepherds, a technique to show jesus' appeal to the rich and influential as well as the poor and lowly. (smaller STRETCH)<br /><br />16) these rich and influential people, and the shepherds, despite knowing they have met god incarnate, are never heard from again. no cult, no movement, no writing, nothing. (STRETCH)<br /><br />17) there is no extra-biblical evidence of herod massacring baby, despite 2 historians noting his atrocities. (STRETCH)<br /><br />18) luke and matthew directly contradict where joseph goes after birth. one has egypt, chased by herod, for 2 years. the other has them going to see simeon in a temple and then returning to nazareth. (STRETCH)<br /><br />19) it seems like, by hook or by crook, there are devices afoot to get jesus to be born in bethlehem to gulfill prophecies. (smaller STRETCH) <br /><br />20) miraculous birth narrative fits perfectly in line with other mythological birth stories. (smaller STRETCH)<br /><br />21) despite all these miracles, jesus' family (including, most probably his mother) do not believe jesus is messiah in his life. (STRETCH)<br /><br />22) herod would have been incredibly unlikely, at the age of late 70s as he was, to have given 2 hoots about a baby boy who would have come of age clearly after he had died. no threat at all to go to all that rigmarole (good point made by r. stovold). (STRETCH)<br /><br />23) census takers more commonly travelled TO the land-owners, not the other way around (STRETCH)<br /><br />24) jesus is called everywhere 'Jesus of Nazareth' and not jesus of bethlehem, which would have been correct. (smaller STRETCH)<br /><br />25) the star was lifted from Numbers 24:17 as a refernce from authority of the OT (smaller STRETCH)<br /><br />26) vigin birth (STRETCH)<br /><br />27) problem of how the male genome is selected to allow him to be fully human (STRETCH)<br /><br />if your answers are continuously 'maybe' and 'this could have happened' and 'there is a possibility', then you are convincing yourself with weak arguments. which is fine on the odd occasion. but for over 20 points makes mockery of reason. i think the nativity narratives are hugely important and if they are false, shed so much doubt on eeverything else as to allow the NT to start crumbling<br /><br />cheers!Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9123048516587439992010-08-20T18:56:07.799-04:002010-08-20T18:56:07.799-04:00Harvey
these are the things that you have to str...Harvey<br /><br /><br />these are the things that you have to stretch to accept:<br /><br /><br />1) Mary and then Joseph are visited by god to anounce the birth of their son, the messiah (not much of a stretch if you believe in the supernatural)<br /><br />2) joseph has to go to bethlehem to attend a census. this requires him to go to his ancestral home. no census has ever required this. one in egypt required migrant workers to return home, which is understandable, but not to an ancestral home. (STRETCH)<br /><br />3) to get there, joseph will have to take 3 weeks off work (STRETCH)<br /><br />4) he will also have to feed and house himself, mary and most probably a donkey for that time with no income. holidays didn't exist. (STRETCH)<br /><br />5) bethlehem was not in the same tax area as nazareth, so requirement for himto travel there would be incoherent (STRETCH)<br /><br />6) at the time, judea was a client kingdom. no client kingdom was ever recoded as needing a roman census. this simply NEVER happened. why would it happen here? (BIG STRETCH)<br /><br />7) Quirinius, legate of judea took the reins in 6CE. Herod died in 4BCE. There is at least a 10 year difference in dates between luke and matthew, and no correlation of these two ruling simultaneously (MASSIVE STRETCH)<br /><br />8) Matthew had joseph as already living in bethlehem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem#Roman_and_Byzantine_periods) and this contradicts luke as having them living in nazareth and travelling to bethlehem (STRETCH)<br /><br />9) Joseph, a supposedly loving husband, makes his wife travel (on cart / donkey back) for 80 miles whilst heavily pregnant. this is both cruel, and would have almost certainly resulted in miscarriage. elizabeth, who had been visited too, lived a few miles away and would have been a much better place for mary to stay. (STRETCH)<br /><br />10) women were not required to attend censuses (STRETCH, given her pregnancy)<br /><br />11) it explicitly says that joseph attended bethlehem census because he was in the line of david, mentioned in luke as being 42 generations past. this is an arbitrary requiremeent (totally unevidenced) requiring a man to return to his home 42 generations past. why 42, not 34, 16 etc? “Under no circumstances could the reason for Joseph’s journey be, as Luke says, that he was ‘of the house and lineage of David,’ because that was of no interest to the Romans in this context.” [Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish Things, (p.10)]. (STRETCH)<br /><br />12) getting either the whole nation (or even less, if bizarrely argued) to return to a 42 generation past census contradicts all knowledge of censuses, and would have been logistically and economically impossible. (BIG STRETCH)<br /><br />13) the generations of matthew and luke do not cohere, and directly contradict jesus' grandfather (STRETCH)Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38866176450011438662010-08-20T17:45:09.156-04:002010-08-20T17:45:09.156-04:00Harvey
good to chat! What i can say to most of y...Harvey<br /><br />good to chat! What i can say to most of your points is better said by carrier: (1) Finegan's response to the first conundrum is that Quirinius was actually prefect or procurator of Syria in 2 B.C. (§ 522), not an actual governor. But that is definitely impossible: those were offices held only by knights (men of the equestrian class), never by senators, much less senators of the most prestigious consular rank, and Quirinius had been of consular rank since 12 B.C. This mistake is similar to that made by those who want Quirinius to have been a co-governor. It just isn't possible or logical, and of course has no evidence of any kind in support of it.<br /><br />(2) Finegan's response to the second conundrum is that Luke was referring to some sort of other 'counting' by Herod the Great. This could not be a census (see above). So Finegan argues it was when "the people of Rome" proclaimed Augustus Pater Patriae, "Father of his Country" (§ 525), but Finegan has badly erred here: this is a reference to a vote by Roman citizens, which would have nothing whatever to do with Judaeans. By confusing a vote with an oath-taking, Finegan conjures the false claim that Luke is referring to the registration of oaths of loyalty. Of course, this is already shot down by the fact that Herod was not alive in 2 B.C., as we've seen. And we have no record of such an oath in Judaea in that year or any year near it, despite the fact that Josephus usually records them: the last such oaths commanded by Herod were in 20 B.C.[17.4] and in 8 or 7 B.C.[17.5] Worse, this thesis is inherently implausible: Luke does not use the vocabulary of oath-swearing, nor does he describe such a process. For example, Joseph would not travel to Bethlehem if all he had to do was swear an oath of allegiance--that had to be done where he lived.[17.6]"<br /><br />The problem you STILL have with your oath of allegiance (we only KNOW that people in Paphligonia underwent the allegiance) is that it puts Jesus born in 3bce. This is still 3 years out with herod, and 3 years out THE OTHER WAY with Luke’s own dating of Jesus based on John the Baptist (works out some 2-3ce). It just gets you into more mess!<br /><br />incidentally, the historians i have used are Ok, I have used HISTORIANS such as Carrier, Tobin, Brown, Doig, Levick, Bickerman, Borg, Lendering, several of whom are Christians.<br /><br />Now, when I get a chance later, I will comment on some of the issues with Joseph going from Galilee to Bethlehem to do an oath, and taking his 9 month pregnant fiancee on a donkey etc etc. all of this is nonsense. going that distance to do an oath is even more incredulous than for a census/ as carrier says, the vocabulary used by luke is of a census, NOT of an oath (in the original language). more issues!<br /><br />Laters!Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44959364838732632722010-08-20T15:52:21.337-04:002010-08-20T15:52:21.337-04:002 (again)
Johnny P,
You simply say:"As for ...2 (again)<br /><br />Johnny P,<br /><br />You simply say:<i>"As for the suggestion that the census was for an oath – well, that’s nuts. Luke’s own words clearly indicate a census, as do all other extra-biblical info, esp. Josephus."</i><br /><br />The aricle said this:<br /><br /><b>"Luke tells us that the reason why both Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem was because he was reckoned as belonging to the house of David. While everyone else went “into his own city” (Luke 2:3) no doubt in their own local neighborhoods, those of royal Judaic lineage because of political implications had to register in Bethlehem. This requirement would allow Herod to know who all claimants were in Judaea to the royal throne of David. He was anxious to know who all these people were (in order to keep them subjected to thorough non-political functions) so that his own dynasty would survive. This was especially important at this time in history because there was then a great deal of messianic expectation among the Jews. <br /><br />Registering David’s descendants in Bethlehem, the city of David, would have been a ploy not only to get all the people to attend for prestige purposes but for Herod to find out who they were. Since Augustus had ordered that an oath of allegiance be given to him, Herod simply included himself and the legitimacy of his kingdom within the same oath. And since females among the Jews could give Davidic heirship to descendants, Herod included the women as well. This would have given him a complete record of all such claimants to the throne. This could well be why Mary was expected to accompany Joseph"</b><br /><br />What did Josephus say? <br /><br />This is what he stated:<b>“There was moreover a certain sect of Jews who valued themselves highly for their exact knowledge of the law; and talking much of their contact with God, were greatly in favor with the women of Herod’s court. They are called Pharisees. They are men who had it in their power to control kings; extremely subtle, and ready to attempt any thing against those whom they did not like. When therefore the whole Jewish nation took an OATH to be faithful to Caesar, and [to] the interests of the king, these men, to the number of above six thousand, refused to swear."~Josephus, Antiquities XVII.41–45</b><br /><br />Now where did that come from? Looks like the radicals left that out because it didn't suit their needs.<br /><br />Now, what? Is this literary evidence nonessential to our purpose too? I'm sure it is IF you wan to obfuscate truth further.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19206001023889277682010-08-20T15:51:52.278-04:002010-08-20T15:51:52.278-04:00Johnny P,
You stated:"The census as Luke des...Johnny P,<br /><br />You stated:<i>"The census as Luke describes it is completely logistically, economically and commonsensically unjustifiable."</i><br /><br />I think that's the information that has been confirmed. The type of census of taxation is your "assumption" and not based on the language of the the text, Further, stating that "This census first took place under Quirinius" NKJV, indicates that the type of census was done under Quirinius's (dua) rule because of Augustus's decree. <br /><br />What I give is not contradictory ccounts. What I give is layerd context. Quirnirus's order was in effect and he was a co-legit and this effected even the "client kingdom" of Judah. <br /><br />You said regading Luke:<i>"The other issues create an even greater case."</i><br /><br />Ya right, smoke screens are what they are...-LOL!<br /><br />I follow your time line and you end up stating that:<i>"So being the governor of an area of Turkey at the time gives a dampener to some of the theories. Then being at war. Then being free to be a tutor. And so on. The key to history is making sure ALL the facts add up."</i><br /><br />I got you and the historical and life time line is somehing that I'll look at. So your disageement isn't in vain (totally-LOL)<br /><br />So far a oath and wringing in the people, you have a hard time with that concept. Most Chrsitians don't because we already know that these people had a god comlex, they didn't want to be uprooted. So why wouldn't Herod want to know who was in his kingdom? Especially in light of prophcy and religious expectaion. <br /><br />see 2District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50292602625357216212010-08-20T15:17:46.545-04:002010-08-20T15:17:46.545-04:00Johnny P,
OK you said:"However, my approach ...Johnny P,<br /><br />OK you said:<i>"However, my approach is the consensus approach of mainstream historians."</i><br /><br />I don't thnk you can take Richard Carrier and Paul Tobin...the ONLY two that you've referenced (and n unnamed source that you quote) and say that they are "mainstream historians" or that their words represent a "consencus"...That's sheer and utter fantasy and really quite funny. <br /><br />You said:<i>"Yours, on the other hand, is a handful of different approaches from evangelicals who employ special pleading because they NEED their theories to be right."</i><br /><br />I think it's right because it is right and the possbilitiy that I've set forth is more plausable and historically accurate than your denial. <br /><br />In addtion, in fact, part of what you have said, has been proven to be flat wrong. Remind you of what you asserted? "<i>moreover, there could not have been a census in syria prior to 6 ce as judea was only a CLIENT KINGDOM, and they never had censuses. ever."</i><b>August 16, 2010 6:24 PM</b><br /><br />I have proven based on EVIDENCE that asserion is and was INCORRECT. I will restate this:<b>""The truth is, the “oath” mentioned by Josephus and the “census” of Luke are no doubt one and the same. All fits perfectly if the registration was ordered by Augustus in the summer of 3 B.C.E. to be completed by autumn of 2 B.C.E. during the year in which he was acclaimed the Pater Patriae. We will see that this was the first time that Augustus ever ordered all in the Empire to show such loyalty"</b><br /><br />What the literary evidence solves is the the common problem with language and your critical interpretation that a census means payment of taxes. NONE of the evidence, however supports your "it didn't happen" thesis. <br /><br />So far as Tertullin, you said:<i>"1)he was a christian theologian"</i><br /><br />So, what does that have to do with it? All you've presented is 2 radical atheist presentations, only one of which can claimed to be any type of expert ( I suppose)...Soare we to discount your sources by your criteia? If so, the debate has long been over. <br /><br />You said:<i>"2)he used luke and josephus as his sources"</i><br /><br />I'm sure he did, becaus he understood how to do historical resarch unlike your radical atheist and liberal sources.In addition those sources provide the best evidence to understand the narrative and they are close t the eents themselves and are otherwise rliable in the information they provide which is a treasretove for historical study...well, except when raical's are the one's doing the study and the evidence opposes their position. <br /><br />You said:<i>"3)he knows quirinius was not governor at the time of the census, and so is supposing his own apologetic"</i><br /><br />The evidence has been set forth that there were dual legit's at the time as affirmedby the language in the texts themselves. You deny this because you don't care and your radical soures are sloppy and this information does not suit their disagrement. <br /><br />You said:<i>"4)as one christian site states "The words of Tertullian do not confirm or establish a specific date for the census."</i><br /><br />But notice in that none of his writing disconfirm any proposed dates now do they? ie: If the writings don't establish a date, then they cerainly dont's say that the date I hold and that Christianity holds to in general is wrong now does it? So this is a moot point and your argument and disagreemen simply is what it is... a disagreement.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6345336608893671622010-08-20T12:57:40.260-04:002010-08-20T12:57:40.260-04:00"Or else in the year 2010 CE a deathless Laza..."Or else in the year 2010 CE a deathless Lazarus still wanders the earth like a character from Highlander."<br /><br />Maybe he's "Teh Wandering Jew" we've heard so much about?<br /><br />Matt 16:28GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15566820936122260192010-08-20T09:37:05.360-04:002010-08-20T09:37:05.360-04:00and as for using Tertullian as source:
1)he was a...and as for using Tertullian as source:<br /><br />1)he was a christian theologian<br /><br />2)he used luke and josephus as his sources<br /><br />3)he knows quirinius was not governor at the time of the census, and so is supposing his own apologetic<br /><br />4)as one christian site states "The words of Tertullian do not confirm or establish a specific date for the census."<br /><br />4)you have a huge problem with trying to make luke's referral to the census as an earlier one as per tertullian, because luke in acts further associates the census with the much later revolt of Theudas, which is DEFINITELY the census of 6 ce. again, your sources are not harmonising across the theories. by saying one theory is correct, you are throwing out another, or disconfirming accuracy in other biblical texts!!! you are trying to have your cake and eat it!!!<br /><br />laters!Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61393020532966248572010-08-20T08:48:24.953-04:002010-08-20T08:48:24.953-04:00Part 2
Let’s see another entry in a biography of...Part 2<br /><br /><br />Let’s see another entry in a biography of Quirinius: “Legate of Syria in AD 6, he supervised the assessment of Judaea when that territory was annexed after the deposition of Archelaus (Joseph. AJ 17. 1 ff., cf. ILS 2683=EJ 231 (tr. D. Braund, From Augustus to Nero, no. 446); also Acts 5: 37, which mentions the insurrection of Judas the Galilaean ‘in the days of the taxing’). In order to reconcile and explain Luke 2: 1 and establish a date for the Nativity before the death of Herod the Great (i.e. before 4 BC), various attempts have been made to discover an earlier governorship of Syria by Quirinius, and, by implication, an earlier census in Judaea. The acephalous (= top missing) elogium from Tibur (ILS 918=EJ 199; tr. D. Braund, no. 362) sometimes attributed to Quirinius more probably honours Piso (above), and in any case could not prove two governorships of Syria.”<br /><br />Your suggestions about the alternate history of Quirinius are nothing more than speculations that actually have no historical value of agreement outside of evangelical circles. Your belief that my theory is speculation is clearly untrue, and is backed up by the specualive language shown by all your theories, and the fact that you will find NONE of them in history books, outside of evangelical circles.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />JohnnyJonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67102222218376531302010-08-20T08:47:19.777-04:002010-08-20T08:47:19.777-04:00Harvey
Ok, so you cannot fathom my approach. How...Harvey<br /><br />Ok, so you cannot fathom my approach. However, my approach is the consensus approach of mainstream historians. Yours, on the other hand, is a handful of different approaches from evangelicals who employ special pleading because they NEED their theories to be right. So, if any is difficult to fathom, it is your approach, not least because you have given a number of different theories, all of which are mutually exclusive! Which means, by anyone’s reckoning (including yours), most of your theories must be wrong, for one of them to be right.<br /><br />Furthermore, let us look at context. You see, it is not just the date that Luke has wrong, but the census itself and what type of census it was. The census as Luke describes it is completely logistically, economically and commonsensically unjustifiable. As well as being totally historically incoherent. Taken together with the dating issue, we can see that Luke is employing the census and changing it to suit his own ends. The date is actually the smallest issue of Luke’s census. The other issues create an even greater case.<br /><br />But before I get onto that, let us look at the date again.<br /><br />The main problem with your theories are that if Jesus was born in the reign of Herod and then fled to Egypt, then he would have been born around 2 years before Herod’s death, which pushes it further back to 6BCE.<br /><br />Now let’s look at the history of Quirinius. Most of your theories don’t take into account what we DO know that Quirinius was doing before he became Governor of Judea. “Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was a career military officer whom Augustus put in charge of a string of troubled provinces. His victories over pirates as governor of Crete & Cyrene (14 BCE) earned him appointment as consul of Rome (12 BCE). Then as governor of Galatia (6-2 BCE), he led a successful campaign against rebellious mountaineers, for which he was given a triumphal procession in Rome <br />(2 BCE). His trip to Syria (2 CE) as tutor of the emperor's grandson, Gaius [Caligula], led to his appointment as imperial legate for that region when Archelaus was deposed (6 CE).”<br /><br />So being the governor of an area of Turkey at the time gives a dampener to some of the theories. Then being at war. Then being free to be a tutor. And so on. The key to history is making sure ALL the facts add up.<br /><br />As for the suggestion that the census was for an oath – well, that’s nuts. Luke’s own words clearly indicate a census, as do all other extra-biblical info, esp. Josephus.Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-335312902614837762010-08-20T03:48:43.413-04:002010-08-20T03:48:43.413-04:00Harvery
thanks for all your w2ork there. i have t...Harvery<br />thanks for all your w2ork there. i have to go out in a few minutes, after which i will reply in full. two points in the meantime though:<br /><br />1)i cannot excuse the opinion that holding is an excellent scholar. not even many christians think that. he is exactly the opposite of that. his methodology is shocking, his conclusions spurious, and his knowledge of ancient civilisations wanting.<br /><br />2) everyone that you keep quoting is not a historical source. they are christian sources trying to shoehorn something in, or with little or no knowledge of ANE procedures, trying to spuriously harmonise 2 things desperately. Go read Raymond Brown, one of the best Christian scholars around (because his methodology was excellent). his conclusions? luke got it wrong. compare christian scholars who rate brown - loads, eg Craig. Does Craig EVER mention Holding? no way.<br /><br />as has been said:<br />"While Turkel writes articles that often drip with sarcasm and ad hominems, he nonetheless can compose material that to the uniformed sound logically solid and well researched. Turkel owns a Master’s degree in Library Science and a Bachelor’s in English Literature. He knows how to write and he knows how to pepper his articles with a lot of biased references and annotate his work with a long bibliography. To counter this illusion of scholarly work, the articles compiled here expose his otherwise weak apologetics and/or ill manners."<br /><br />more in a while.Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79909628916718170702010-08-20T00:14:12.654-04:002010-08-20T00:14:12.654-04:00Once again, please excuse my many spelling errors....Once again, please excuse my many spelling errors. My keyboard is not allowing certain leters consistently and that's a problem. <br /><br />Thanks.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64786531803717153202010-08-19T21:52:59.736-04:002010-08-19T21:52:59.736-04:002
Johnny P,
Finally thre's this:"The tr...2<br /><br />Johnny P,<br /><br />Finally thre's this:<b>"The truth is, the “oath” mentioned by Josephus and the “census” of Luke are no doubt one and the same. All fits perfectly if the registration was ordered by Augustus in the summer of 3 B.C.E. to be completed by autumn of 2 B.C.E. during the year in which he was acclaimed the Pater Patriae. We will see that this was the first time that Augustus ever ordered all in the Empire to show such loyalty.<br /><br />When the universal registration mentioned by Luke is dated to 3 B.C.E., a flood of light comes on the scene showing several Roman references to it. Since Luke said it was Augustus who gave the decree for an Empire-wide registration, perhaps we should let Augustus tell us with his personal statement about a political accounting of peoples that involved the whole Empire. It took place in 3 B.C.E. just when Luke said a registration occurred and when Josephus shows the Jews gave their oath to Augustus. This was the first time the emperor had the whole Roman Empire award him the title Pater Patriae (Father of the Country). We have a record from Augustus that an Empire-wide registration took place in 3 B.C.E."</b><br /><br />Now, I have provided scholarship on this issue and yet you say all my sources are outdated. How about the FACT that your soures are just simply WRONG. Carrier can be wrong on this issue like many others and Tobin certainly is nooe I wouldn't hang my hat on in any manner...<br /><br />Now, the smoke-screen about Holding is uncalled for. He's an excellent scholar and I'm sure get's tired of anti-Chist advocates just making stuff up when they are cornered or appeling to scholars sympathetic to their positions as if they are somehow more credible than anyone else who can read...I understand him and agree with him that the ignorance of denial is horribe and unfruitful. We may disagree but taking the word of 2 fringe sceptics and claiming that the sun rises in their theory is ridiculous. <br /><br />So I've offered both late and current sholarship in support of my position and a host of references accross the spectrum of time that goes right back to support Sir William Ramsay, who was an atheist like you, but cetainly one, unlike either of us, who was both able and capable of examining teh FACTS for himself and arriving at a conclusion that is suppotd by the MODERN evidence be it litrary or archaeological. <br /><br />So this chapter we may agree to disagree, but to say that any current evidence favors your position is a leap of FAITH rooted in unfounded specualation. <br /><br />Thee is NOTHIING to undermine my original statement and Ramsay's finding tha Luke was "first rate" in the job that he did. But to each his own my friend. <br /><br />Later!!!!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57609104283944391852010-08-19T21:37:48.278-04:002010-08-19T21:37:48.278-04:00Johnny P,
Thanks again for the respose but I simp...Johnny P,<br /><br />Thanks again for the respose but I simply can't fathom your position regarding the census.<br /><br />You quote 2 people, Richard Carrier and Paul Tobin. Yu calim that their resource is supeior to the over 10 to 15 I name. you offer o proof for your position other han saying, they said it and I believe it. That'snot really a good way to do it but what the heck...<br /><br />Look, I offer yet another, that even goes into further depth tht blows your hypothesis away...<a href="http://askelm.com/star/star014.htm" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> Once again, here is an excerpt,<br /><br /><b>"Perhaps Josephus provides a clue to help straighten out the mystery. The historian mentioned that actually there were “governors” (plural) in Syria during the rule of Saturninus. 1 While during the earlier governorships of Titius and Quintilius Varus, Josephus spoke of a “governor” (singular), 2 but during the administration of Saturninus why does he mention the plural “governors”?...How many governors were there at this time? Josephus mentions the names of Saturninus and Volumnius. Were these the only men to whom Josephus was referring? Or, could Quirinius be considered as well? This is the very time Luke in his Gospel places the administration of a census by Quirinius. Since it is clear that Saturninus was the regular governor, it must be held that the rule of Quirinius was of a different and special nature. Such special status could well accord with the other types of commands that Quirinius held as attested in the historical records."</b><br /><br />Here's another:<br /><br /><b>"This indication of Justin may have significance to our question concerning Quirinius. The Cambridge Ancient History, vol, X, p. 216, has an interesting comment on the role of a Roman procurator. “Each province had its equestrian procurator who in the eyes of the provincials was almost as important as the governor himself.” 8 These procurators were appointed by the Emperor quite independently of the legatus (governor), and the relations between the two were frequently none too friendly. The fact that Justin said that Quirinius was a procurator while conducting the “census” gives much weight to the belief that a resident governor also ruled Syria at the same time."</b><br /><br />And more o clarify what type of enrollment or census it was since your sources make no ype of distincion:<br /><br /><b>"It should be remembered that back in 27 B.C.E. Augustus was given complete and absolute allegiance by the Senate and people of Rome. Would there not have been a renewal of their loyalty to Augustus in the Jubilee year? If so, we could well have a reference to an Empire-wide registration of loyalty to the emperor. Josephus mentioned that Augustus demanded an oath of allegiance about twelve or fifteen months before the death of Herod. This event would fit nicely with a decree going out from Augustus in 3 B.C.E. that all were to give an oath of allegiance to him at some designated time during the year. Obviously, the recording of oaths (where people ascribed their names) was a type of registration. That is what Luke said the census was. It was an enrollment of people."</b><br /><br />See 2District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55778505468928315142010-08-18T06:21:07.517-04:002010-08-18T06:21:07.517-04:00@ eternian
that's the worst post i have ever ...@ eternian<br /><br />that's the worst post i have ever seen, anywhere. unintelligent ranting of an immature person that couldn't string a logical argument together if he / she tried.<br /><br />grow up and come back when you have something mature and structured to say.<br /><br />live by the mantra 'what would jesus do?', because he certainly wouldn't sit at his computer and shout that sort of sub-5-year-old drivel.Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48112290795574128562010-08-18T05:36:50.926-04:002010-08-18T05:36:50.926-04:00"The Jesus of the Gospels Never Existed!"..."The Jesus of the Gospels Never Existed!"<br /><br />Well because you shouted so with the force of your feelings magical spaz hyper infantile retard!!!!<br /><br />Look at that John Retard, I shouted louder and was more forceful and insulting, that must make me righter, dur. What a stupid idiot. Grow up insane flamer troll retard.<br /><br />Stop being a Satan-worshiping moron. The Bible, UNLIKE YOU, is backed by logic evidence within and outside of it: http://20questions.tk<br /><br />Stop being an ignorant moron and dwelling on your feelings all day like a self centered stubborn narcissist who can't stand to learn and think but only wants to babble away like a stupid six year old. Grow up idiot and learn self control. Obey God, who said:<br /><br />DO, NOT, LIE, not "Make infantile hypocritical comparisons between cartoon characters and noodle gods YOU INVENTED IDIOT and pretend that you aren't the absurd morons who believe in the absurd and that Christians are despite you being so massively absurd and deluded that you actually think you saw a giant explosion BILLIONS of years ago, and without having evidence for that or the explosion, let alone everything you claim happened after it, contrary to Genesis."<br /><br />Stupid fool, which is easier to believe: the evidence from 6,500 years ago, OR BILLIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE YOU IDIOT AND JUST YOUR FANCY "WELL I FEEL" "WELL SCIENTISTS SAID", WHAT SCIENTISTS YOU IDIOT? YOU MEAN THE ONES DELUDED LIKE YOU WHO CAN'T COME UP WITH EVIDENCE OTHER THAN ANTI-GOD PROPAGANDA HEADLINES THAT DON'T MATCH THE STORY, WHERE THE STORY SAYS, "MORE RESEARCH NEEDED" OR "LOOKS HOPEFUL" AS OPPOSED TO THE HEADLINE WHICH SAID, "MORE EVIDENCE DISCOVERED"? FOOLS: YOU BELIEVE IN POPEYE, YOU DWELL ON COMIC BOOK CHARACTERS AND SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO FANCY ON THEM IN SILLY VIOLENT BOOKS AND MOVIES, SHALLOW STUPIDITY, LIKE LITTLE KIDS TOO LAZY TO DO ANY USEFUL WORK. GROW, UP INFANTILE HYPOCRITES.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41539052647848134742010-08-17T12:10:07.131-04:002010-08-17T12:10:07.131-04:00mark plus
the problem with lazarus is that he con...mark plus<br /><br />the problem with lazarus is that he contradicts himself. or put better, luke has lazarus as a parabolic character - fictional - to illustrate that Jesus / God should not have to raise someone from the dead to prove his power. And yet John disagrees with this and turns him into a jesus miracle to prove the power of jesus. the christological theology in john means that he is at loggerheads with luke over the use of miracles.<br /><br />a parable becomes 'real' and the event is 'reverse' - ie lazarus actually gets raised, whereas he doesn't in luke.<br /><br />basically, another example of how the gospels do not agree, and how lazarus is a fictional character used to represent John's christology.<br /><br />he ain't wandering the streets of chipping norton, if that's what you were wondering.Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3568444432361202202010-08-17T11:43:56.067-04:002010-08-17T11:43:56.067-04:00Whatever happened to Lazarus, any way? We never he...Whatever happened to Lazarus, any way? We never hear from him again after his resurrection, even though he could have showed up later as a witness in Jesus' defense before Pontius Pilate, saying something like, "You better not mess with this guy. He raised me from the dead, so no telling what else he can do!"<br /><br />So, assuming that a historical Lazarus existed and that Jesus raised him from the dead, that leaves two possibilities: <br /><br />Either Lazarus died later, like everyone else, which makes his resurrection seem kind of pointless. <br /><br />Or else in the year 2010 CE a deathless Lazarus still wanders the earth like a character from <i>Highlander</i>.Mark Plushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03859046131830902921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26163626251858611352010-08-17T07:12:16.194-04:002010-08-17T07:12:16.194-04:00harvey
oh dear me, you are appealing to holding. ...harvey<br /><br />oh dear me, you are appealing to holding. he is possibly the worst apologist on earth. he is so bnad that most mainline christian apologists stay well clear of him. he is not only rude, but has no grasp of history, never checks any of his sources, misquotes his sources, claims consensus facts as not being true if they disagree with his conclusion with no evidence for disagreeing so on ans so forth. carrier's entire 'not the impossible faith' book is written to debunk everything holding has said. he DESTROYS him. it is embarassing.<br /><br />on holding's nonsense of the rubicon, see here *just on this holding is hilariously bad and inept, his assumptions and claims make me want to cry): http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/rubicon.html<br /><br /><br />eg "holding claims (to the horrified astonishment of all historians of Rome!) that it is "questionable" whether Cicero was Caesar's enemy. Doesn't Holding even think to check these things? Holding often does this: asserts what every historian knows is completely false, makes claims exactly the opposite of what we learn even in the most introductory courses on the subject, and then poor sods like me have to do the legwork to prove him wrong. It is as if he insists the grass on my lawn is not green, so that I actually have to take the absurd step of bringing in witnesses to testify that my grass is in fact green."<br /><br />even on theology web which i sometimes read which is affiliated with him, THEY slag him off!<br /><br />so please don't appeal to him, use some decent work by decent apologists.<br /><br />carrier is NOT a radical in this field. he is a highly trained roman and greek historian. this is his bag, he knows his onions. he has a phd in it. holding does not know his ar5e from his elbow. you'll see that from NTIF (and by reading holding critically) in which carrier exposes holding as a charlatan and a fraud.Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44107781951992133702010-08-17T06:51:35.299-04:002010-08-17T06:51:35.299-04:00for more accurate opinions on holding:
http://www...for more accurate opinions on holding:<br /><br />http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/024jph.html<br /> <br />http://www.discord.org/~lippard/turkeldishonesty.html<br /> <br />http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html#turkel<br /> <br />http://the-anointed-one.com/exposed.htmlJonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35305725602149340172010-08-17T06:48:10.111-04:002010-08-17T06:48:10.111-04:00harvey
oh dear me, you are appealing to holding. ...harvey<br /><br />oh dear me, you are appealing to holding. he is possibly the worst apologist on earth. he is so bnad that most mainline christian apologists stay well clear of him. he is not only rude, but has no grasp of history, never checks any of his sources, misquotes his sources, claims consensus facts as not being true if they disagree with his conclusion with no evidence for disagreeing so on ans so forth. carrier's entire 'not the impossible faith' book is written to debunk everything holding has said. he DESTROYS him. it is embarassing.<br /><br />on holding's nonsense of the rubicon, see here *just on this holding is hilariously bad and inept, his assumptions and claims make me want to cry): http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/rubicon.html<br /><br /><br />eg "holding claims (to the horrified astonishment of all historians of Rome!) that it is "questionable" whether Cicero was Caesar's enemy. Doesn't Holding even think to check these things? Holding often does this: asserts what every historian knows is completely false, makes claims exactly the opposite of what we learn even in the most introductory courses on the subject, and then poor sods like me have to do the legwork to prove him wrong. It is as if he insists the grass on my lawn is not green, so that I actually have to take the absurd step of bringing in witnesses to testify that my grass is in fact green."<br /><br />even on theology web which i sometimes read which is affiliated with him, THEY slag him off!<br /><br />so please don't appeal to him, use some decent work by decent apologists.<br /><br />carrier is NOT a radical in this field. he is a highly trained roman and greek historian. this is his bag, he knows his onions. he has a phd in it. holding does not know his arse from his elbow. you'll see that from NTIF (and by reading holding critically) in which carrier exposes holding as a charlatan and a fraud.Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32995623392365343352010-08-17T06:40:37.277-04:002010-08-17T06:40:37.277-04:00harvey
oh dear me, you are appealing to holding. ...harvey<br /><br />oh dear me, you are appealing to holding. he is possibly the worst apologist on earth. he is so bnad that most mainline christian apologists stay well clear of him. he is not only rude, but has no grasp of history, never checks any of his sources, misquotes his sources, claims consensus facts as not being true if they disagree with his conclusion with no evidence for disagreeing so on ans so forth. carrier's entire 'not the impossible faith' book is written to debunk everything holding has said. he DESTROYS him. it is embarassing.<br /><br />on holding's nonsense of the rubicon, see here *just on this holding is hilariously bad and inept, his assumptions and claims make me want to cry): http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/rubicon.html<br /><br /><br />eg "holding claims (to the horrified astonishment of all historians of Rome!) that it is "questionable" whether Cicero was Caesar's enemy. Doesn't Holding even think to check these things? Holding often does this: asserts what every historian knows is completely false, makes claims exactly the opposite of what we learn even in the most introductory courses on the subject, and then poor sods like me have to do the legwork to prove him wrong. It is as if he insists the grass on my lawn is not green, so that I actually have to take the absurd step of bringing in witnesses to testify that my grass is in fact green."<br /><br />even on theology web which i sometimes read which is affiliated with him, THEY slag him off!<br /><br />so please don't appeal to him, use some decent work by decent apologists.<br /><br />carrier is NOT a radical in this field. he is a highly trained roman and greek historian. this is his bag, he knows his onions. he has a phd in it. holding does not know his arse from his elbow. you'll see that from NTIF (and by reading holding critically) in which carrier exposes holding as a charlatan and a fraud.Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.com