Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
JJM 777 said:
Is this thread a perpetual motion machine or what?
Click to expand...

No, it stops for important new information every so often like the new information below posted 2 pages ago that shows how Judea was not so independant after all, and thus a Rome ordered or requested census was certainlly possible.

DOC said:
...As stated it doesn't make sense for the alleged great historian Luke to make up something like this when there are so many other easier ways he could have made up a story that could not be contested. And the whole political climate of that time was very complex as shown by the fact that Herod the Great had to go to Rome to get elected king of Judea (he was elected king of Judea in Rome) and the Roman army put him in power.

Here are other facts that show the influence of Rome on Judea. A census is certainly possible given the climate of that time:

From the article "Luke the HIstorian" Catholic Encyclopedia

"King Herod was not as independent as he is described for controversial purposes.

A few years before Herod's death Augustus wrote to him. Josephus, "Ant.", XVI, ix., 3, has: "Cæsar [Augustus] . . . grew very angry, and wrote to Herod sharply. The sum of his epistle was this, that whereas of old he used him as a friend, he should now use him as his subject." It was after this that Herod was asked to number his people. That some such enrolling took place we gather from a passing remark of Josephus, "Ant.", XVII, ii, 4, "Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good will to Cæsar [Augustus], and to the king's [Herod's] government, these very men [the Pharisees] did not swear, being above six thousand." The best scholars think they were asked to swear allegiance to Augustus. (4) It is said there was no room for Quirinius, in Syria, before the death of Herod in 4 B.C. C. Sentius Saturninus was governor there from 9-6 B.C.; and Quintilius Varus, from 6 B.C. till after the death of Herod. But in turbulent provinces there were sometimes times two Roman officials of equal standing. In the time of Caligula the administration of Africa was divided in such a way that the military power, with the foreign policy, was under the control of the lieutenant of the emperor, who could be called a hegemon (as in St. Luke), while the internal affairs were under the ordinary proconsul."


http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Luke.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
No, it stops for important new information every so often like the new information below posted 2 pages ago that shows how Judea was not so independant after all, and thus a Rome ordered or requested census was certainlly possible.
Click to expand...
So you just repeat that post and disregard the reactions to it? :rolleyes:
 
DOC said:
No, it stops for important new information every so often like the new information below posted 2 pages ago that shows how Judea was not so independant after all, and thus a Rome ordered or requested census was certainlly possible.
Click to expand...
Your unfounded speculation is not the same as new information. I do, however, find amusing the description of Sir William Ramsay, on the page linked to, as an "archeaologit". ;)
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
No, it stops for important new information every so often like the new information below posted 2 pages ago that shows how Judea was not so independant after all, and thus a Rome ordered or requested census was certainlly possible.
Click to expand...

You negelcted to mention the overwhelming preponderance of evidence which says that the NT writers did NOT tell the truth. You couldn't have missed it, it's in the posts which don't use logical fallacies.

Why won't you be honest about that, DOC?
 
DOC said:
No, it stops for important new information every so often like the new information below posted 2 pages ago that shows how Judea was not so independant after all, and thus a Rome ordered or requested census was certainlly possible.
Click to expand...


Busy old fool, unruly Sun,
Why dost thou thus,
Through windows, and through curtains, call on us ?
Must to thy motions lovers' seasons run ?

Saucy pedantic wretch, go chide
Late school-boys and sour prentices,
Go tell court-huntsmen that the king will ride,
Call country ants to harvest offices ;

Love, all alike, no season knows nor clime,
Nor hours, days, months, which are the rags of time.
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
Busy old fool, unruly Sun,
Why dost thou thus,
Through windows, and through curtains, call on us ?
Must to thy motions lovers' seasons run ?

Saucy pedantic wretch, go chide
Late school-boys and sour prentices,
Go tell court-huntsmen that the king will ride,
Call country ants to harvest offices ;

Love, all alike, no season knows nor clime,
Nor hours, days, months, which are the rags of time.
Click to expand...


IOW

Thy match is met
foul curmudedge iy're sweet,

And long thee lust
Thy foultice thoughts prevail;

A greater good doth yet o'erween
and facing this, ye fail.​
 
DOC, I realise criticising spelling or grammar isn't really the most important criticisms one can make of your posts; the logical fallacies, downright absurdities and opinions dressed up as facts are much fairer game.

But for the love of the English language, or anything you hold dear, please install a spell checker and use it. Easier still, use the built in one in Firefox. It's "independent", not independant.

We've been through this census nonsense several times. There is no evidence of a census at or around the time stated by Luke. However, we do have evidences of censuses at other times.
 
Last edited:
This census B/S has gone on long enough. It was brought in to account for the baby Jeezus to be born in Bethlehem, the city of David. But in another contradiction the actual father of the baby Jeebus is the holy spook, nothing to do at all with any descendent of Joseph.
And the descendent was always with the male, never the female in ancient times.
So Jeebus's father has nothing to do with any earthly father. Get it DOC ? No need for a census.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
No, it stops for important new information every so often like the new information below posted 2 pages ago that shows how Judea was not so independant after all, and thus a Rome ordered or requested census was certainlly possible.
Click to expand...
Except your source quoting Josephus doesn't actually say what you think it says. It doesn't say there was a census. It makes the inference of one, where no modern scholar agrees with.
1.) herod did no conduct a census.
2.) Josephus never says herod conducted a census.
a statement of allegiance is NOT a census NOR was it the Census of the Entirety of Rome which Luke refers to.

Luke made it up. Like one typically does when one writes a work of fiction.
 
DOC said:
No, it stops for important new information every so often like the new information below posted 2 pages ago that shows how Judea was not so independant after all, and thus a Rome ordered or requested census was certainlly possible.
Click to expand...

Here is some more new information regarding the census (or as described in Luke (KJV) the taxing).

From the article "Luke and the Census".

The solution to the apparent chronological problem was proposed in 1938 by historian F. M. Heichelheim, in his work on the history of Roman Syria. Examining the Greek grammatical structure of Luke 2:2, he argued that the original meaning was properly rendered as: “This census was the first before (=πρώτη) that under the prefectureship of Quirinius in Syria.”[2] He observed that the Greek word “protos”, usually translated as “first”, may also mean “before” or “former” when followed by the genitive case. Thus, St. Luke was saying that the census which prompted the Holy Family to go to Bethlehem was before the census conducted by Quirinius. The more famous census of Quirinius in A.D. 6 was simply serving as a marker for the reader of Luke’s Gospel, allowing Luke to point to a census that had occurred previously. Luke intended to place the events around the birth of Jesus before Quirinius's governorship and census in A.D. 6.[3] Heichelheim rightly observed that this translation would resolve “all difficulties”. This proposal has found acceptance as a legitimate resolution to the problem from several other scholars, including Nigel Turner,[4] F. F. Bruce,[5] Brook W. R. Pearson,[6] Ben Witherington III,[7] H. W. Hoehner, [8] and many more.[9]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Luke_and_the_Census

And we've already talked about Sir William M. Ramsay's findings regarding Quirinius.

http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR004/04census.htm
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom