Then maybe I'm a little slow. Are there skeptics arguing that the Romans didn't hold a census? As I understood it, the problem raised by skeptics is that there was no census during the reign of Herod WHILE Quirinius was governor. None of your post explains this problem. It just says, 'OK, so Quirinius wasn't really governor...'

The other (secondary, in my view - the actual contradiction is the first problem) problem is that a Roman census during the reign of Herod wouldn't have even affected Judea. Your post gives some speculative arguments for why it might have ("solutions which are possible"?), but doesn't actually establish anything.

So... what is settled? Luke was just wrong and Christians can offer speculative solutions for the rest?

Here here CLB!

I commented to Meta on this in the "redaction" thread, but he seems to have
just run away from that one.

What is really ironic is that he (Meta)
keeps up this attitude and calling us
stupid (that's a paraphrase Meta - don't
post claiming "I never said you were stupid")
with these posts where he can't even type
or spell! I was laughing my ass off when
this thread started with "please read all
the words" and there were at least a dozen
words that he mangled because of his
inability to type. And some of them were
misspelled the same way several times.

Meta - I've said it before, I'll say it again. You're coming across as a moronic,
arrogant little shit,
and noboby is going to listen to you if
you continue to do it. For Christs sake
(ooooh- I used the Lords name in vain!)
type your posts in MS Word and run the
damn spelling checker on it before posting.

(Oh yeah - go to timeout for 5 minutes for
your attitude)

Here is a statement from a definitely non-apologetic website: Biblical Archaeological Society.

Here is what the end of the article says:

" And so it would have remained if not for Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939), the great Scottish classicist, who pioneered the archaeological study of the Roman province of Asia Minor. In 1881, as a Fellow at Exeter College at Oxford, Ramsay?with the aid of a guide?trekked through the out-of-the-way, mostly unexplored region of west-central Phrygia. At the time, Ramsay was not familiar with the controversy surrounding Avercius. But he soon would be. Indeed, his discoveries in Phrygia would prove the historicity of at least some elements of Avercius's Life?including the funerary epitaph. And his discoveries would remind scholars that even when a text is late and contains unbelievable elements, it should not be immediately dismissed as entirely unhistorical."

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.

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. We all realize that history is one big game of probabilities. Meta is making statements based on his education and presenting other scholars that say the same thing to show that he's not just blowin' smoke.

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.

Ish

By the way, for help, try doing a search on Google like this:

"Sir William Mitchell Ramsay" and Asia

I think you'll find more than just apologetic sites.

Ish

Returning to the original topic. Archeological confirmation of some, even many historical elements of the Gospel story no more proves their religious or supernatual aspects than the excavation of Troy proved that the Olympian gods had run about the ramparts intervening on one side or the other as depicted in the Iliad.

I just wanted to point out that CLB left a rather important detail out of his story of Luke's supposed inaccuracy about the "rolling stone" of Jesus' tomb.

What CLB didn't read or chose to ignore is this:

" But in Jesus' time, round blocking stones were extremely rare and appeared only in the tombs of the wealthiest Jews. Nevertheless, the Gospels seem to indicate that Jesus' tomb was sealed with a rolling stone. As quoted in the sidebar, all four canonical Gospels refer to Jesus' tomb. Matthew, Mark and Luke all describe the stone being "rolled" (in John it is "taken away"), and thus it is only natural to assume that the stone was round. But we must remember that "rolled" is a translation of the Greek word kulio, which can also mean "dislodge," "move back" or simply "move." This ambiguity in the text, combined with the archaeological evidence, leads me to agree with the scholar Gustave Dalman, who, as early as 1935, suggested that Matthew 27 does not refer to a round blocking stone."

So, if this particular archaeologists theory is even correct, he obviously thinks that all four gospels got it right but we didn't get our english translation right... I'm not sure if I agree with him or not, but his idea sounds plausible and does not incriminate Luke.

Ish

Meta has trouble writing and spelling because he has dyslexia, not because he's ignorant.

I agree, to a point, but there is nothing about Dyslexia that prevents him from typing in a word processor and using the spellcheck.

Michael

Right, dislexia only explains some of it, and ultimately none of it. For one thing, most of his typos arise simply fromt the fact that he types too fast and not very well. And rather than review his work and run it through a spell checker, he just dumps it. You'll note he doesn't have nearly so much trouble with the stuff posted on his site.

And Christians are interested in destroying any and all who oppose them, just like a bunch of fucking Nazis, so what is the problem with me wanting to destroy their insane philosophy?
Bullshit, I have done no such thing in this discussion or any recent ones (I abandoned one a while back though because I made too many flawed claims).

I think I'll throw my trust in the utterly simple and easy to understand reasoning behind the opinion I have just invented, as opposed to your exageration. My opinion is this:
1.Of course you would have to return to the land of your tribe, since most people lived with the tribes they originated from, and registration whilst on a trip or temporary stay somewhere else would complicate matters (it would be more difficult to track down citizens if innacurate info about the place where they lived was given).
2.The "land" of their tribe is a far cry from everyone returning to the specific little town where they were born, obviously.
What you failed to read and understand the significance of was my statement:
"One could note that the angel sitting on the tomb on the Gospel of Matthew means it was probably square (again, see the article for further details), but we are talking about Luke here, who mentioned no such incident and was independent of Matthew. Its more likely that Jesus' tomb would be sealed with additional stones in front of the main blocking stone, since Joseph of Aramathea could afford such a thing and would probably want it (he was wealthy). But curiously, there is no mention of this in Luke, adding further weight to the idea that a round stone was what the author had in mind."
The article says that sometimes multiple stones were used to further blockade the main stone. Mark is earlier than Luke, yet says:
Mark 16:3-4
"They were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?"
Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large."
If it was so damn large, and was square or rectangular, it is probable that multiple stones would be used to reinforce the blockage instead of one big stone. If it was round, and thus not contemporary with the multiple stones practice, then one big stone would be expected. And that is what is described. Furthermore, Mark 15:46 says:
"Joseph bought a linen cloth, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb"
A square/rectangular stone would probably take more than one person to move it accurately and with such ease. A round stone would be easier for one person to move, as Joseph is described as doing.

Since Mark is earlier than Luke, and shows evidence pointing towards a round stone, it is reasonable to conclude that if it was written after the destruction of Jeruselem, then so was the later Luke.

From all this, IMHO it makes sense to assume that the stone being described by Luke was probably a round one.