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

[DOC]

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.

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.

 

[zooterkin]

I see you're now skipping the step where your posts are discredited before posting them again.

 

[Hokulele]

Conservapedia?



Bwahahahahahahaha!


Read their article on Asia. No, seriously, go read it.

 

[joobz]

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.

DOC,
you don't get to pick the meaning of the word based upon what you WANT it to say. You pick the meaning that best fits the context/intent of the author. In this case, we have two sentences being described.
Luke 2:1 "But it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the habitable land should be enrolled."
luke 2:2: "This enrollment took place first when Cyrenius was governor of Syria."
http://www.codexsinaiticus.com/en/m...lioNo=6&lid=en&quireNo=77&side=v&zoomSlider=0
The first sentence describes the first whole empire census. The second sentence confirms that this was the Cyrenius census. It makes absolutely no sense to replace first with before. Especially considering there's no evidence of a Roman census in Judea prior to this one.



Now, I recommend not using conservapidia as a source for anything regarding the bible. They are (as I know you know, because I've covered this before) currently involved in a biblical revisionism creating the "conservative Bible"
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

 

[carlitos]

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

I found your problem.

Conservapedia?



Bwahahahahahahaha!


Read their article on Asia. No, seriously, go read it.

Hey, at least it's not Stormfront.

 

[blobru]

Conservapedia?



Bwahahahahahahaha!


Read their article on Asia. No, seriously, go read it.

In their defense, I will say that I don't find a whole lot there to disagree with.

 

[joobz]

In their defense, I will say that I don't find a whole lot there to disagree with.

I'm Surprised no one put "Mostly Harmless" on it yet.

 

[blobru]

Although HGttG seems positively verbose in comparison to conservapedia on the history of Asia:

.

 

[Hokulele]

And I have always wondered why they left Israel off the list of Asian countries. Heck, if they are such a splendid resource on biblical issues, why can't they get the most basic geography correct?

 

[zooterkin]

And I have always wondered why they left Israel off the list of Asian countries. Heck, if they are such a splendid resource on biblical issues, why can't they get the most basic geography correct?

Oh, but Israel can't be in Asia, otherwise it wouldn't be competing in the Eurovision Song Contest.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

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

I gather that responding to yourself like this is a tactic to avoid the embarrassment of your usual lame attempts to answer everybody else. I really don't think it's going to work.

Especially since it looks like you're just going to try and fool yourself with the same old nonsense that you always try to get away with.

I note that even your little preamble contains two rather glaring errors, wherein you describe this information as both 'more' and 'new' - completely disregarding that you haven't yet provided 'any' information to support the histriocity of Luke 2 and that 1938 apologetics are most definitely not new.

Not an auspicious start.

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.

The solution??? A little presumptuous, aren't we? A solution is that Luke was just making stuff up.

In any case this is just doulos all over again, isn't it? Your apologist of the week simply ignores what he even describes himself as the usual translation of protos and decides to use a meaning that, while lacking scholarship, has to those bereft of any interest in actual history the advantage of enhancing the alleged veracity of their favourite fairy tale.

I wonder if they do the same thing with the phrase post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Thus, St. Luke was saying that the census which prompted the Holy Family to go to Bethlehem was before the census conducted by Quirinius.

Just have a go at the language being used here, DOC:

"Thus" - no need for critical thinking here. No debate; no consideration of alternatives - just "here is the answer".

"St. Luke" - not "Luke the great historian"; not "Luke the eyewitness"; not even "Luke, the arbitrary name assigned to the author of one of the gospels" - it's Saint Luke and if his words make no sense historically then history is wrong.

"Holy Family" - More aggrandising titles assigned to people for whose very existence we lack reliable extra-biblical evidence.​

You have no idea why people reject Conservapedia as a credible source of information do you, DOC?

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.

What???

Is this the same as the way historians are always talking about "that world war that happened about 20 years before WWII"?

Luke intended to place the events around the birth of Jesus before Quirinius's governorship and census in A.D. 6.[3]

It's a bit of a shame, for your side at least, that he didn't instead decide to just write an accurate historical record. Making up events which then had to be somehow fitted together has really stuffed up his credibility. [1]

Heichelheim rightly observed that this translation would resolve “all difficulties”.

The only "difficulty" is that christian apologists insist on trying to "prove" that their fairytale has some basis in actual history. Resolving that probably helps them to avoid the feeling that they're trying to provide evidence where their faith has let them down badly, but it does exactly nothing towards adding to the sum of our knowledge of real historical events.

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]

Who? [2][3][4][5][6][7]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Luke_and_the_Census

lol

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

http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR004/04census.htm

Yes, we have, and it turned out that he was completely wrong about it, just like you are.

Your omission of the results of these past discussions is very telling DOC. It tells everyone who reads this this thread that you're incabable of honest debate and completely lacking anything like the evidence you claim to possess.

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] If you're going to leave the references to footnotes in the text that you quote, it would pay you to post the actual footnotes, otherwise people might think you're just copy/pasting stuff at random without caring whether anyone understands whatever point it is that you're attempting to make.​

 

[Akhenaten]

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

Just in passing, DOC, how do you explain this discrepancy?

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

Not quite a duplicate post, is it? This time you left out the link to Sir Ramsay's blather.

Wise move.

 

[stokes234]

The conservapedia article on liberals seems to add some weight to the idea that the whole website is run by Deep Cover Liberals.

ETA: I supply, as evidence, the line - "Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of fascism. "

 

[Akhenaten]

I see you're now skipping the step where your posts are discredited before posting them again.

He's heard about the Pizza Party we're having at 20,000 posts and is trying to move things along a bit.

 

[amb]

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.

Sorry to have to disappoint you DOC. But Luke was full of Sh..........t

 

[Worm]

Did DOC really just use Conservapedia as a reference?

Really?

Dude - you really need to reconsider that. Even most Christians consider CP to be a massive joke. A massive, stinking, bigoted, nutjob-encrusted joke.

 

[ddt]

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

Conservapedia? Really? BTW, why do all their pages show up at me with a "403 Forbidden" error?

As to the above explanation for the Greek text, I have a few questions. It's 20 years since I read ancient Greek, and that was Homer - and in school I never read anything more recent than the Attics, no Koine, so please bear with me. (but boy, does this Luke gospel read like a 4th grader - every third sentence begins with "and then it happened that..."). Anyway, here's the Greek text:

1 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθε δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην.
2 αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου.

1. Note the word αὕτη at the begin of verse 2. That means "the same", or in weakened form, "that". Wouldn't that mean it points back to the census mentioned in verse 1?

2. Your apologist du jour Heichelheim claims that πρωτος can have the meaning of "before". However, then it is a preposition and thus not inflected. Here, πρώτη is inflected to agree with the gender of ἀπογραφὴ (census).

3. Heichelheim also mentions "when followed by a genitive". However, the genitives in this sentence have no bearing on that: the clause ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου is a genitive absolute, a grammatical construction in Greek where a subordinate clause is rendered by putting its subject (here: Κυρηνίου, i.e., Quirinius) in the genitive and its predicate is rendered as a participle (here: ἡγεμονεύοντος, the genitive, masculine, singular, of the present participle of the verb ἡγεμονεύω, meaning to rule). So, that has no bearing at all on the meaning of the other words in the sentence.

So, I read nothing else here than "That first census happened while Quirinius ruled over Syria". It couldn't be that Heichelheim is lying for Jesus, is it?

 

[joobz]

Conservapedia? Really? BTW, why do all their pages show up at me with a "403 Forbidden" error?

As to the above explanation for the Greek text, I have a few questions. It's 20 years since I read ancient Greek, and that was Homer - and in school I never read anything more recent than the Attics, no Koine, so please bear with me. (but boy, does this Luke gospel read like a 4th grader - every third sentence begins with "and then it happened that..."). Anyway, here's the Greek text:


1. Note the word αὕτη at the begin of verse 2. That means "the same", or in weakened form, "that". Wouldn't that mean it points back to the census mentioned in verse 1?

2. Your apologist du jour Heichelheim claims that πρωτος can have the meaning of "before". However, then it is a preposition and thus not inflected. Here, πρώτη is inflected to agree with the gender of ἀπογραφὴ (census).

3. Heichelheim also mentions "when followed by a genitive". However, the genitives in this sentence have no bearing on that: the clause ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου is a genitive absolute, a grammatical construction in Greek where a subordinate clause is rendered by putting its subject (here: Κυρηνίου, i.e., Quirinius) in the genitive and its predicate is rendered as a participle (here: ἡγεμονεύοντος, the genitive, masculine, singular, of the present participle of the verb ἡγεμονεύω, meaning to rule). So, that has no bearing at all on the meaning of the other words in the sentence.

So, I read nothing else here than "That first census happened while Quirinius ruled over Syria". It couldn't be that Heichelheim is lying for Jesus, is it?

While DOC is likely to either ignore your analysis or simply use authority to claim Heichelheim is right, I applaud your work. It's posts like these that make the forum so much fun.

 

[Mojo]

Conservapedia? Really? BTW, why do all their pages show up at me with a "403 Forbidden" error?

Perhaps you are a liberal commie fascist?

As to the above explanation for the Greek text, I have a few questions. It's 20 years since I read ancient Greek, and that was Homer...

D'oh!




ETA: good work!

 

[Agatha]

Is Conservapaedia blocked for some reason? It's all Forbidden with an additional 404 error on this PC. Since my work doesn't even bother to block hardcore porn, it doesn't seem likely it's a work filter.

ETA MAny thanks, ddt. I wonder how DOC will spin that?