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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just noticed something from ddt's Wiki link:

wiki said:
The proposed translation has been described by others as "implausible" (A. N. Sherwin-White)...
Click to expand...


This wouldn't be the Sherwin-White DOC was trumpeting as a paragon of biblical scholarship earlier in this thread, would it?

Hmm, I wonder which authority DOC will trust...




Not really. I am pretty sure DOC will trust the one that matches his beliefs, regardless of the truth of the matter.
 
I'd like to add my thanks to DDT for a thoroughly professional demolition job.

We seem to have an established procedure here:
1) DOC produces a badly thought-out post, often with an inappropriate quote that he regularly doesn't read properly.
2) Someone like DDT provides REAL facts and evidence.
3) DOC ignores such evidence.
4) Some time later DOC regurgitates 1) claiming it as new.
5) repeat....

DOC - surely you've been here long enough to realise that everything you write is going to be examined down to molecular level?

And there are more than enough experts posting here to comprehesively demolish such rubbish?

Have a nice day...

Oh - and is there a word like "antiproselytise"?

:)
 
Last edited:
Rincewind said:
I'd like to add my thanks to DDT for a thoroughly professional demolition job.

We seem to have an established procedure here:
1) DOC produces a badly thought-out post, often with an inappropriate quote that he regularly doesn't read properly.
2) Someone like DDT provides REAL facts and evidence.
3) DOC ignores such evidence.
4) Some time later DOC regurgitates 1) claiming it as new.
5) repeat....

DOC - surely you've been here long enough to realise that everything you write is going to be examined down to molecular level?

And there are more than enough experts posting here to comprehesively demolish such rubbish?

Have a nice day...

Oh - and is there a word like "antiproselytise"?

:)
Click to expand...
Antiselytise?
 
DOC said:
Here is some more new information regarding the census (or as described in Luke (KJV) the taxing).
Click to expand...


And here is some more:
Jesus was probably born in the last years before Herod's reign ended in 4 BCE,[23][24] in the Galilean village of Nazareth.[25][26][27][28]

...

[23] Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998.
[24] E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 10–11; Historians and Biblical scholars who place the birth of Jesus on April 17, within the range 7 - 2 BCE include Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Scribner's, 1977, p. 71; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Doubleday, 1991–, vol. 1:214; , and Ben Witherington III, "Primary Sources," Christian History 17 (1998) No. 3:12–20.
[25] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Vol. 1, Doubleday 1991, page 216.
[26] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, 1999, page 97.
[27] E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin 1993, page 85.
[28] "Our conclusion must be that Jesus came from Nazareth." Theissen, Gerd; and Merz, Annette. The historical Jesus: A comprehensive guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1998. Tr from German (1996 edition). p. 165. ISBN 978-0-8006-3123-9
Click to expand...
 
It seems to me that the kind of Christian apologetics that DOC is purveying in this thread follows the "any publicity is good publicity" mode of self-promotion. It doesn't matter at all that his arguments make no sense (in fact, it's pretty obvious that the Bible itself is simply an ancient paranoid fantasy), just so long as there's some blarney offered to anyone who might accept it hook, line, and sinker on an emotional level. That's how to snag those dim enough or vulnerable enough to buy into the irrational appeal of Christianity.

The two main features of this kind of apology are: (1) emotional appeals that amount to really poor logic, and (2) a stupidly persistent supply of (1).
 
Last edited:
No. This time he has gone to Rome. The vatican in fact, on a fact finding tour.
 
Well I've mentioned 2 or 3 explanations for the census (taxing) issue.

Here is another interesting point from Wiki on the Census.

"Augustus is known to have taken a census of Roman citizens at least three times, in 28 BC, 8 BC, and 14.[13] There is also evidence that censuses were taken at regular intervals during his reign in the provinces of Egypt and Sicily, important because of their wealthy estates and supply of grain.[14] In the provinces, the main goals of a census of non-citizens were taxation and military service.[15] The earliest such provincial census was taken in Gaul in 27 BC; during the reign of Augustus, the imposition of the census provoked disturbances and resistance.[16]

[edit] New TestamentSee also: Chronology of Jesus and Nativity of Jesus

...The first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke comprise a birth narrative that is unique to this gospel. Luke's birth narrative emphasizes Jesus' humble humanity, and it depicts Mary and Joseph as lone travellers far from home because of a census:

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered....

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

Notice how it says all the world and not all of our provinces. It makes sense that since Rome elected Herod king of Judea in Rome and Roman troops put Herod the Great in power that Judea owed Rome some compensation or at least conduct a census if asked.

This is similiar to the situation currently in Afghanistan where American troops put their current leader in power. Do you really think if the US asked for some kind of census to get some idea of the number of people in various areas of that country that the leader of Afghanistan wouldn't do it.

Given the several points I've made about the census, it is really not much of an issue for me. A person who has been called a great historinan as Luke has should be given the benefit of any doubt when there are a couple explanations for why he could have been right. If some other people sincerely have a problem with the issue so be it.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Well I've mentioned 2 or 3 explanations for the census (taxing) issue.

Here is another interesting point from Wiki on the Census.

"Augustus is known to have taken a census of Roman citizens at least three times, in 28 BC, 8 BC, and 14.[13] There is also evidence that censuses were taken at regular intervals during his reign in the provinces of Egypt and Sicily, important because of their wealthy estates and supply of grain.[14] In the provinces, the main goals of a census of non-citizens were taxation and military service.[15] The earliest such provincial census was taken in Gaul in 27 BC; during the reign of Augustus, the imposition of the census provoked disturbances and resistance.[16]
Click to expand...
Yup, that's good evidence. We have records of Roman censuses before and after the supposed one of the bible. The fact that we don't have one at the time suggested is EXTREMELY telling. It is an indication that a census was likely NOT taken at the time being discussed.

DOC said:
In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered....

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

Notice how it says all the world and not all of our provinces. It makes sense that since Rome elected Herod king of Judea in Rome and Roman troops put Herod the Great in power that Judea owed Rome some compensation or at least conduct a census if asked.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The Census of Quininius is the one being discussed. It happened too late to be the one of Jesus' birth.

DOC said:
Given the several points I've made about the census, it is really not much of an issue for me. A person who has been called a great historinan as Luke has should be given the benefit of any doubt when there are a couple explanations for why he could have been right. If some other people sincerely have a problem with the issue so be it.
Click to expand...
DOC, it isn't a problem for you because you don't care about truth.
 
You say the census is not important for you, but rather than admit you were wrong or have no point you stutbornely continue to dig yourself deep on the issue ?

*facepalm*
 
Aepervius said:
You say the census is not important for you, but rather than admit you were wrong or have no point you stutbornely continue to dig yourself deep on the issue ?

*facepalm*
Click to expand...

Simple. If he was able to logically refute the "Luke lied about the census" argument, he'd have claimed it to be super awesome evidence in favor of the bible.

Since he can't do that, it's not important issue.
 
DOC said:
...The first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke comprise a birth narrative that is unique to this gospel. Luke's birth narrative emphasizes Jesus' humble humanity, and it depicts Mary and Joseph as lone travellers far from home because of a census:

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered....

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

Notice how it says all the world and not all of our provinces. It makes sense that since Rome elected Herod king of Judea in Rome and Roman troops put Herod the Great in power that Judea owed Rome some compensation or at least conduct a census if asked.
Click to expand...


Notice the date given in your link:
The Jewish historian Josephus recorded that in the year 6-7,[7] after the exile of Herod Archelaus (one of the sons and successors of Herod the Great), Quirinius (in Greek, Κυρήνιος, sometimes transliterated Cyrenius), a Roman senator, became governor (Legatus) of Syria, while an equestrian assistant named Coponius was assigned as the first governor (Prefect) of the newly-created Iudaea Province. These governors were assigned to conduct a tax census for the Emperor in Syria and Iudaea.[8]

[7] Emil Schürer, Fergus Millar (editor), Geza Vermes (editor), The history of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ Vol I, (Continuum, 1973), page 424: "It was started ... in the earliest in the summer of C.E. 6." and completed "at the latest in the autumn of C.E. 7"
[8] Josephus, Antiquities 17.355 & 18.1-2; c.f. Matthew 2:22
Click to expand...
 
DOC said:
Given the several points I've made about the census, it is really not much of an issue for me. A person who has been called a great historinan as Luke has should be given the benefit of any doubt when there are a couple explanations for why he could have been right. If some other people sincerely have a problem with the issue so be it.
Click to expand...
Of course the person who claimed Luke 'great' spent his life searching for evidence for the bible and yet found no evidence for the census.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom