Wooooaahhh there! You can't conclude that
the stone was square simply because someone
was sitting on it! Get real! Back in my
rock climbing days, I got plenty of pictures
of me sitting on big round rocks. Sure,
the square ones are easier to climb up
on, but hey, if a thousand angels can dance
on the head of a pin.... :-)



[This message has been edited by Kosh (edited June 01, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Here is a statement from a definitely non-apologetic website: Biblical Archaeological Society.

[Snip quote]

That glowing element from an Archaeological journal. Do you believe us yet? What kind of proof do you demand? This gets tiresome. I understand skepticism, but there is a point where it becomes detrimental.

Thanks for finding a mention of this great historian of the 19th century in other than an apologetic site.

Do I believe what? That Ramsay existed? Never doubted it. That he was a "great" archeologist? Still not sure about that one, but I wasn't overly concerned about it either. That his opinions are actually correct? Haven't even gotten close to being able to determine that yet.

Now if you could please provide any corroboration for his views this would be helpful as well. Any peer reviews? Or do you just accept his findings because he said so? I understand Christian faith, but there often comes a point where its detrimental in the search for truth.

Oh, I agree this is tiring, but then I didn't make the claim, Meta did. Finding out the probabilities of things in history is tiring work.

As far as the "appeal to authority" goes, I understand that this can be a falacy. However, it is a falacy if you claim something is "true" simply because someone else said it is "true". This is not what is being done.

Unless I can actually see "why" it should be considered true this is exactly what's being done. Corroboration would help to some degree.

What do you want? You sure wouldn't accept a claim he just stuck out there... I don't think you would just make a statement and expect us to take it without extra corroboration. You require proof, yet you seem to say that in this field there is no solid proof. If, then, there are only possibilities, then Meta is perfectly within his right to present the scholars who have spent decades studying the issues in order to bolster the probability of what he says. Again, it is the scholarly way of doing things and even atheist scholars use agreements in others' works to bolster their own conclusions...look at the works on this website. So, let's drop the "appeal to authority" thing. It's a misrepresentation of what is happening here.

Suffice it to say you place much more value in appeals to authority than I do. Oh well.

so I'll give some more. Both Justin Martyr and Tatian mention the necessity of returning to the land of your tribe for the census. Now, are you going to tell me that you, 2000 years later, know exactly how the Roman government operated a census back then? I think I'll throw my trust on those who lived under the Roman government.

I agree. Unfortunately, the requirement for "returning to the land" was only for Roman citizens. All who became citizens were required to join a tribe, which were used for assessing and censing purposes. Joseph and Mary were not Roman citizens, as far as anyone knows. The story, whether or not the census occurred, is obviously an invented device used to get J&M back to Bethlehem.


Michael

In my interpretation of dreams (pesher) there are two
Jerusalems, two Galilees, and two Bethlehem's. I have
often given my sources for multiple locations so I feel
it is redundant to repeat.

Here is what Robert Eisenman writes James the Brother
of Jesus, page 105, " ... This is perhaps the
original for the intervening interview in the Gospels
between Jesus and Herod the Tetrarch (Luke 23:7-12), who
really would have had no business in Jerusalem, his
Tetrarchy - literally his 'fourth' of the kingdom -
being in Galilee across the Jordan in Perea where John
the Baptist was executed."

The above is what Eisenman writes and this man has
possibilities if he ever cleans his glasses (he reads
in ideal language instead of pesher).
The point is, Jesus did not get crucified in the
ideal Jerusalem, he was crucified at the pesher
Jerusalem known today as Qumran. This was in the jurisdiction
of the pesher Galilee (where Josephus served as general
of an army and hid in a cave) and also known as the pesher
area called the land of Damascus.

thanks, offa

1)I've been posting on boards like this for a couple of years now, and I know from experince, when they stat attacking the spelling, that's as good as saying "I cannot answer the arguments, I've been totally out gunned and have nothing left to say."

2) I do occasionally try to spell check my posts. When I do I find one of two things; either they go on talking about it as though I have not spell checkeced, which confirms my suspician that many atheists don't even read the posts. Or they just shift to cursing.

3) It takes all night when I spell check. I don't have all night.

Expert testimony is never an appeal to authority. He made the disoveries and the evidence exist. Talking about his work is documenation of that fact. We can't go look at the finds so we have to use documentation.

If I misunderstood your point I apologize. It did sound like you doubted that he existed. But I guess that was my own misunderstanding.

So what accounts for the fac that you are not disucssing the issues, but my personality? That you cannot answer the arguments and you know you can't.


What makes you think your writting is anything but drivel? You dont' say anything and you say it badly. Your sentences are run on and you have no topic sentences. It's the mark of a poor intellect to have to resort to BS like the opponent's spellling!

I bet you don't have a good sense of color and your living room is probably decorated badly.

None of that proves anything. None of the Gospels say point blank what shape the stone was and all the referecnes to "rolling" could be read as 'moving.'

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by madmax2976:

Quote:

Originally posted by Ish: Here is a statement from a definitely non-apologetic website: Biblical Archaeological Society. [Snip quote] That glowing element from an Archaeological journal. Do you believe us yet? What kind of proof do you demand? This gets tiresome. I understand skepticism, but there is a point where it becomes detrimental. Thanks for finding a mention of this great historian of the 19th century in other than an apologetic site. Do I believe what? That Ramsay existed? Never doubted it. That he was a "great" archeologist? Still not sure about that one, but I wasn't overly concerned about it either. That his opinions are actually correct? Haven't even gotten close to being able to determine that yet. Now if you could please provide any corroboration for his views this would be helpful as well. Any peer reviews? Or do you just accept his findings because he said so? I understand Christian faith, but there often comes a point where its detrimental in the search for truth. Oh, I agree this is tiring, but then I didn't make the claim, Meta did. Finding out the probabilities of things in history is tiring work. As far as the "appeal to authority" goes, I understand that this can be a falacy. However, it is a falacy if you claim something is "true" simply because someone else said it is "true". This is not what is being done. Unless I can actually see "why" it should be considered true this is exactly what's being done. Corroboration would help to some degree. What do you want? You sure wouldn't accept a claim he just stuck out there... I don't think you would just make a statement and expect us to take it without extra corroboration. You require proof, yet you seem to say that in this field there is no solid proof. If, then, there are only possibilities, then Meta is perfectly within his right to present the scholars who have spent decades studying the issues in order to bolster the probability of what he says. Again, it is the scholarly way of doing things and even atheist scholars use agreements in others' works to bolster their own conclusions...look at the works on this website. So, let's drop the "appeal to authority" thing. It's a misrepresentation of what is happening here. Suffice it to say you place much more value in appeals to authority than I do. Oh well.

Will you please get a logic text book and look up the defition of the infomral fallacy "appeal to authroity?" It is not a fallacy to quote an expert who is speaking of his work. Appeal to authority is when you appeal to someone who is not a proper authority and you expect whatever authority that person has to maean something in an area where he/she has no expertise. So if I quoted the local police cheif on this it would be an appeal to authority. But to quote a major archaeologist who made the discoveries that prove the point it is in no way an appeal to authority in the fallacious sense!!! No! it is not!

2) The evidence is clear and if you read the original post it would be clear. Ramsay found the evidence through his digs which proved that there was an ongoing census in 6BC. YOu also ignore the other evidence, Harrison shows other finds that also prove it, and the NEw Advent article also gives still more evidence, and it says that Luke has been confimred in every point!

3) Ramsay excavated all the cities where Luke/Acts action happned. There he found physical evidence corroborating the whole of Luke/Acts.For example when Pual mentions an acscure adminstrater in some town, Ramsay found the guys name on a colum which connected him to that office. It dated to the same time period of which Luke speaks in ACTS.

And he made a buch of other finds of a similar nature. Hard physical atrifacts that prove the point; histoiral accuracy for Luke/Acts. IT's physical artifacts, they exist! It's not opinon, its documentation for the evidence. REad the original post agian.

Meta=&gt;Nowhere above does the evidence say that it was only for Roman citizens. The Jospehus quote in the New Advent article says that Cesar ordered Herod to include his own people, presumably the Jews, so why can't we assume that they would be in the same machinery and follow the same rules. Moreover, the Egiptian who shows up in the records Ramsay found was not a Roman, but he followed the same rules. So there is no reason to think that was limited just to Roman citizens.