Archeologly proves the Bible?

[pakeha]

That's what you assume happened regarding taxes but what if the Roman's who were responsible for putting Herod Aptipas's father back on the throne said we want some of that money for protection. Do you really think he has the power and forces to say no. Some people think everything is black and white and there is nothing going on behind the scenes. The Romans had the power to basically do anything they wanted in that area. If they wanted a census -- after reading how they had Herod the Great in their pocket -- there is no doubt in my mind they could have got a census whether it was Galilee, Judea, or wherever.

Thanks, Lord Emsworth, for clearing up 'the Quirinius as the governor of Syria around 7 BC' question. And the link was most interesting.

"but what if"I am astonished DOC would construct an argument concerning the historic value of Luke around a "but what if". And use it here.
This takes nobody nowhere.
From my searching on the Web, I see sir William and his discovery made a tremendous impact on Bible study, possibly the most cited source across the board in the Christian sites when discussing Luke.
The interesting part is that almost all the citatins I've seen on those sites use that peculiarly mutilated quotation DOC has given us here, with the same "...." in the same place.
In any case, a misquoted English academic from the beginnings of the 20th century, plus a misunderstanding of the "Quirinius governship" seems to form the basis for these claims about the amazing historic accuracy of Luke in the matter of the Census.
And that's about it, as far as I can see.
That and this latest "but what if".

 

[DOC]

But what is your evidence that they did?

Well, here is the evidence that Herod the Great was basically a puppet of Rome:

From Wiki on Herod

"Herod fled to Rome to plead with the Romans to restore him to power. There he was elected "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate.[10"]...

"Three years later, Herod and the Romans finally captured Jerusalem and executed Antigonus. Herod took the role as sole ruler of Israel and the title of basileus (Gr. Βασιλευς, king) for himself, ushering in the Herodian Dynasty and ending the Hasmonean Dynasty. Josephus reports this as being in the year of the consulship of Agrippa and Gallus (37 BC), but also says that it was exactly 27 years after Jerusalem fell to Pompey, which would indicate 36 BC. (Cassius Dio also reports that in 37 "the Romans accomplished nothing worthy of note" in the area.[11]) According to Josephus, he ruled for 37 years, 34 years of them after capturing Jerusalem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

And here is something I recently noticed:

Luke 2:1 (King James Version)

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Notice how Luke says Rome sent out a decree that "all the world" should be taxed and not all our official provinces should be taxed. That implies to me if our soldiers are there it's going to get taxed. Given the Romans aggressiveness that decree certainly could have happened.

 

[eccles]

Luke 2:1 (King James Version)

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Notice how Luke says Rome sent out a decree that "all the world" should be taxed and not all our official provinces should be taxed. That implies to me if our soldiers are there it's going to get taxed. Given the Romans aggressiveness that decree certainly could have happened.

DOC,
Why are you quoting the most unreliable book for historic fact. Who was "Luke"? The only "information" you will find about "Luke" is in Christian sites; not known for being unbiased. I know because every time I try to find the information I want about the subject in hand I get information only from the biblical spin doctors

As for the "Holey Babble" forget it. There are no original authored manuscripts for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the translations and the copying, not to mention the work-over it got by the Roman Catholic Church from the time of the Council of Nicea on.

 

[zooterkin]

And here is something I recently noticed:

Luke 2:1 (King James Version)

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Notice how Luke says Rome sent out a decree that "all the world" should be taxed and not all our official provinces should be taxed. That implies to me if our soldiers are there it's going to get taxed. Given the Romans aggressiveness that decree certainly could have happened.

And yet, there is not a shred of evidence apart from Luke that this world affecting census happened when he claims it did. Nor yet for the idea that when a census was done, it entailed people returning to some ancestral home, not where they actually lived. You'd think something causing such upheaval would be mentioned somewhere.

 

[boloboffin]

Well, here is the evidence that Herod the Great was basically a puppet of Rome:

This is not evidence of the census.

And here is something I recently noticed:

Luke 2:1 (King James Version)

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Notice how Luke says Rome sent out a decree that "all the world" should be taxed and not all our official provinces should be taxed. That implies to me if our soldiers are there it's going to get taxed. Given the Romans aggressiveness that decree certainly could have happened.

What is your evidence that it did happen?

 

[DOC]

"but what if"I am astonished DOC would construct an argument concerning the historic value of Luke around a "but what if". And use it here.

Why, historical authors often do it in their books. Known facts do not always tell the complete story so in those unknown or grey areas of history historical authors sometimes take the facts they do know and speculate what might have happened using a rational analysis of the known facts.

 

[joobz]

Why, historical authors often do it in their books. Known facts do not always tell the complete story so in those unknown or grey areas of history historical authors sometimes take the facts they do know and speculate what might have happened using a rational analysis of the known facts.

So, like Luke, you feel it is acceptable to make up stories to justify your faith.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Then why would you say several sources says it does?

You have seen the inscription itself (if not Carrier shows it, just follow the link that I provided). You have read what the inscription says (if not, scroll up).

Does it say what your "several sources says it does"? Does it?

And what indeed causes such a mismatch?

Welcome to the wonderful world of apologetics, I'd say.

And when would you say the inscription implies or states Quiriinius was governor?

I'll simply repeat the text that you quoted and are responding to and add some emphasis to it:

Needless to say, the inscription does not really ascribe "to Quirinius the governorship of Syria around 7 BC."​

ETA: Strictly speaking it should be inscriptions, as there are two.

 

[eccles]

Why, historical authors often do it in their books

But, Mate. LUKE is not a historical author. I keep on pointing out that "Luke" is just a name given much later in Church history.

 

[pakeha]

Why, historical authors often do it in their books. Known facts do not always tell the complete story so in those unknown or grey areas of history historical authors sometimes take the facts they do know and speculate what might have happened using a rational analysis of the known facts.

Perhaps we read different historical authors.
The one I read let the reader know when they are entering the realm of speculation.
In any case, we're talking the Luke's invention of a Census to back up a claim Jesus fulfulls the Isaiah 'prophecies', as far as I an see.
One thing is speculating about a grey area.
Quite another is making a mistake.
And quite another is misquoting the hapless sir William to bolster some nonsense about Luke being a great historian.
And another yet is to drag the same arguments, which have been fully rebutted, that you used in the 25 Prophesies thread, over here and try them out to see if they'll pass the grade here.
In all sincerity, I cannot believe Christ is glorified by such dishonesty.

 

[Akhenaten]

Why, historical authors often do it in their books. Known facts do not always tell the complete story so in those unknown or grey areas of history historical authors sometimes take the facts they do know and speculate what might have happened using a rational analysis of the known facts.

This has nothing to do with what you are doing. The rational analysis part is missing.

Where's the archeologly Doc?


PS Please take me off ignore. You're missing some of my best stuff.

 

[eccles]

Where's the archeologly Doc?


PS Please take me off ignore. You're missing some of my best stuff.

So that's why DOC does not reply to me.. The Wanker. He refuses to accept reason.

I won't put him on my ignore list. I love watching him shoot off his mouth.

 

[tsig]

Where's the archeologly Doc?


PS Please take me off ignore. You're missing some of my best stuff.

So that's why DOC does not reply to me.. The Wanker. He refuses to accept reason.

I won't put him on my ignore list. I love watching him shoot off his mouth.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg]

Believe it was his foot.

 

[Elizabeth I]

So I spell throne wrong once out of the many times I spelled it right. Give me a B+ then instead of an A. You would get an A+ in Ad Homology.

Nope. Your consistent indifference to getting details and small facts correct indicates a carelessness about accuracy. If it were just spelling, that would be one thing - spelling is a specialized knack and many people don't spell well. But your posts are full of such small carelessnesses.

Posted by DOC
I was talking about the Catholic Church whereas Spong is Episcopalian.

Wow, those goalposts didn't just move - they set a new record for the long jump!

 

[I Ratant]

DOC wrote:"there is no doubt in my mind they could have got a census whether it was Galilee, Judea, or wherever."
.

But what is your evidence that they did?

.
There will never be any doubt in his mind.

 

[joobz]

Nope. Your consistent indifference to getting details and small facts correct indicates a carelessness about accuracy. If it were just spelling, that would be one thing - spelling is a specialized knack and many people don't spell well. But your posts are full of such small carelessnesses.

The thing is I would be more than willing to overlook such errors. However, DOC uses (quite frequently) semantics as dodges.

In the past, DOC, you have used tangential errors in a person's argument as a reason to reject the whole argument. Elizabeth is holding you to the same standard you selectively hold others to.

 

[pakeha]

Posted by DOC
Show me evidence that there is a priest on this planet who publicly says Christ is not divine and is still a priest in the Church.




I was talking about the Catholic Church whereas Spong is Episcopalian.

I don't understand DOC's objection to Song being a priest.

 

[joobz]

I don't understand DOC's objection to Song being a priest.

Perhaps it is becuase he suggests that jesus may not be divine?


This is strange, however, given DOC's willingness to call Thomas Jefferson a christian, even though he called the bible a dung heap.

 

[pakeha]

...Here is the link to the full article (although the URL skips automatically to the section on the Antioch Stones):
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Antioch

Needless to say, the inscription does not really ascribe "to Quirinius the governorship of Syria around 7 BC."

Whilst reading the notes to the article to which Lord Emsworth posted the link, I found this:

[7.3] My suspicion is based on an anonymous apologetic tirade in Comp-Software-International Digest 23:3 (Tuesday, 16 March 1999). This is hardly a source worth citing, but it exemplifies some of the trends I have been exhibiting. The author says some ridiculous things (like that Herod's son Archelaus was "governor of Syria in 1 B.C."), but he cites Sir William Ramsay specifically, reporting that "he discovered an inscription at Antioch of Pisidia establishing Quirinius in Syria 10-7 BC, while leading a campaign against the Homanadenses (in the Taurus Mountains), a fact confirmed by Tacitus." In actual fact, though Ramsay did discover both stones, his colleague G. L. Cheesman wrote the relevant article on them (see 7.91 below), and these details match somewhat the (entirely speculated) claims of Cheesman. Thus there is likely some intermediary source involved. But again, the speculations of Cheesman are here presented as if "proven" by the stone, and it is even suggested that Tacitus "confirms" all this, but he only confirms that Quirinius conducted a war on the Homanadenses, not when or in what command, nor where the Homanadenses were--the Taurus mountains is actually not the likely location (see box above).

 

[Lucian]

And here is something I recently noticed:

Luke 2:1 (King James Version)

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Notice how Luke says Rome sent out a decree that "all the world" should be taxed and not all our official provinces should be taxed. That implies to me if our soldiers are there it's going to get taxed. Given the Romans aggressiveness that decree certainly could have happened.

So....you're defending the historical accuracy of Luke's account of the census by quoting the beginning of Luke's account of the census? Please take ten minutes, sit quietly and think about why this may be a problem.