Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 08-25-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

In my blog post, "Luke 2:2 and the Census" (Dec. 22, 2004) and related postings, I argue that the parenthetical comment about Quirinius in Luke 2:2 is not intended to date the birth of Jesus but actually to distinguish the occasion of Jesus's parents returning to Bethlehem from that important census Josephus highlighted in his works.

I didn't mention this in the blog posts, but Luke's own dating of Jesus's birth is better understood from Luke 1:5, which locates the birth of John the Baptist (and necessary that of Jesus) in the reign of "King Herod of Judea"--a dating that happens to agree with Matthew (Luke's source in the Farrer theory, but that's neither here nor there). The traditional interpretation of Luke 2:2 therefore not only creates a contradiction between Luke and Matthew but also a tension within Luke itself.

JW:
You have [understatement]"Difficulties"[/understatement] with taking this to Probably be what "Luke" meant based on the words. But are you basing your opinion here primarily on the words or on what you think "Luke" meant?

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

S.C.Carlson · 08-25-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

You have [understatement]"Difficulties"[/understatement] with taking this to Probably be what "Luke" meant based on the words. But are you basing your opinion here primarily on the words or on what you think "Luke" meant?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The goal of historical-critical interpretation is authorial intent, and the prime evidence for authorial intent is the words of the author.

Stephen

JoeWallack · 08-25-2006, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

You have [understatement]"Difficulties"[/understatement] with taking this to Probably be what "Luke" meant based on the words. But are you basing your opinion here primarily on the words or on what you think "Luke" meant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The goal of historical-critical interpretation is authorial intent, and the prime evidence for authorial intent is the words of the author.
Stephen

JW:
As near as I can tell no one else, including you, in the last 2,000 years has taken 2:2 to mean what you now think it means. Since at least the 17th century Christianity has been somewhat desparate for alternative meanings. Does this help you understand what I Am getting at?

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

S.C.Carlson · 08-25-2006, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

As near as I can tell no one else, including you, in the last 2,000 years has taken 2:2 to mean what you now think it means. Since at least the 17th century Christianity has been somewhat desparate for alternative meanings. Does this help you understand what I Am getting at?

A little. Throughout most of the past 2000 years, however, most interpreters were reading a scribally corrupted form of Luke 2:2 (i.e., the Byzantine text) that means something different than what I am arguing for. Of course, people expounding a corrupted text are going to get things wrong.

Stephen Carlson

Faithful · 08-25-2006, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Apart from the fact that this is based on a strawman, I could equally well say: "If the bible is to be taken literally, Noah was several hundreds years old when his sons were born." Why this isn't a problem for you?

I already cleared up the Joseph/Jacob matter in a previous post.

Quote:

You mean, like: It is in the Book of Mormon in black and white, so that is good enough for me.
It is in Koran in black and white, so that is good enough for me.
It is in the Vedas in black and white, so that is good enough for me.
It is in the Silmarillion in black and white, so that is good enough for me.

You have a free will choose - the Bible is my choice.

Quote:

I already asked you this above (IIRC, in the post you entirely ignored, although you're answering others): If this is true, why wasn't Jesus sent directly to Adam & Eve after they've sinned? This would have saved billions upon billions of people from hell.

This world is being directed according to God's plan to eventually defeat evil. My ways aren't His ways.

Faithful · 08-25-2006, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

All Significant Apologetic attempts accept that Herod the Great died around 4 BCE and that Josephus reported a census of Judea by Quirinius, governor of Syria, around 6 CE. All of these Apologies try to argue that when "Luke" writes:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_2

2:1 "Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled.

2:2 This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

"Luke" is referring to a Different census than Josephus was.

Here is an Inventory of the best freely available Defenses I've found on the Internet:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_2:2#Neutral

which will help bring you up to speed. Even as an Unbeliever I can testify as to the power of Scripture as I myself saw it transform Ramsey from a Historian into an Apologist. Hallelulah!

Once again I request that you respond in the:

Carrier's Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth Now Up At ErrancyWiki

Thread which is Devotional to the Subject so we don't get distracted by other Topics.

Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

"Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006)
INTRODUCTION
It is widely acknowledged that Quirinius became "governor of Syria" in 6 C.E., only then conducting a census of Judaea, and that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.E., ten years before. Since Matthew indisputably claims Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive, while Luke indisputably claims Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria during a census of Judaea, Luke and Matthew are clearly in contradiction regarding when Jesus was born. They disagree by at least ten years, which entails one of them has made a historical error (or both have."

~ I don't understand why Quirinius and Herod couldn't be alive at the same time and being in power at the same time, one being the king and the other being a governor.. I am finished arguing this Herod thing, because from what I read in the Bible he was alive when Jesus was born, and I don't really care about when the census was done, how or by whom.

Faithful · 08-25-2006, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Here are a few more discrepancies:

1) Why was Moses not allowed into the promised land? Was it because of his own disobedience (Numbers 20:10-12; 27:12-13; Deut. 32:48-52), or was he punished vicariously because of the Israelites' transgressions (Deut.1:34-37; 3:21-27;4:20-22)?
The passages which indicate that Moses suffered vicariously not only don't mention any culpability on Moses' part, they explicitly say that Moses paid the price for the sins of others:

Caleb and Joshua were the only two who survived to enter the promised land because the Israelites were often disobedient and whined and complained the whole 40 years..
Moses and Arraon weren't allowed to go into the promised land because they didn't show good leadership when everyone complained.

Deut 32:50 Then you must die there on the mountain and join your ancestors, just as Aaron, your brother, died on Mount Hor and joined his ancestors. 51 For both of you broke faith with me among the Israelites at the waters of Meribah at Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin. You failed to demonstrate my holiness to the people of Israel there. 52So you will see the land from a distance, but you may not enter the land I am giving to the people of Israel."

Quote:

2) Did God allow Judah to go into Babylonian captivity because they did not heed God's prophets (2 Chronicles 36:15-17) or because of Manasseh's wickedness (2 Kings 21:11-14; 2 Kings 24:1-4)?

Keep in mind that the Chronicler claims that Manasseh repented (2 Chronicles 33:10-17), a fact not found in the Kings narrative.

It didn't fit the Chronicler's theology to have the exile occur because of the sins of Manasseh, since not only did Manasseh repent (according to the Chronicler), but according to Kings, the exile was predicted after Josiah effected a return to worshiping Yahweh (2 Kings 23:21-27). Notice that the Chronicler moves the pronouncement of exile until after the reign of the wicked Zedekiah--see 2 Chronicles 36:11-21).

The events in 2 Chron. 36 had nothing to do with Manasseh because he had repented -
2 Chron. 33:12,13 But while in deep distress, Manasseh sought the LORD his God and cried out humbly to the God of his ancestors. And when he prayed, the LORD listened to him and was moved by his request for help. So the LORD let Manasseh return to Jerusalem and to his kingdom. Manasseh had finally realized that the LORD alone is God!

Let's look at 2 Chron. 36: 11-21. King Zedekiah was reigning at the time. God allowed the Babylonians to come against them because they were rebelling against God.

2 Chron. 36 :14 All the leaders of the priests and the people became more and more unfaithful. They followed the pagan practices of the surrounding nations, desecrating the Temple of the LORD in Jerusalem.
15The LORD, the God of their ancestors, repeatedly sent his prophets to warn them, for he had compassion on his people and his Temple. 16But the people mocked these messengers of God and despised their words. They scoffed at the prophets until the LORD's anger could no longer be restrained and there was no remedy.

God eventually handed them all over to king Nebuchadnezzar. Verse 20 The few who survived were taken away to Babylon, and they became servants to the king and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power. 21 So the message of the LORD spoken through Jeremiah was fulfilled. The land finally enjoyed its Sabbath rest, lying desolate for seventy years, just as the prophet had said.

Quote:

3) Did Aaron die at Moserah (Deut. 10:6) or on top of Mt. Hor (Numbers 33:38; Deut 32:50)? NOTE: Moserah (with alternate spellings "Moseroth" and "Mosera," is *between* Sinai and Mt. Hor according to Numbers 33:15-37).

The Bible only mentions Mosera,etc once or twice in the Bible. The Bible says that Aaron died on top of Mt. Hor. I would gather that it would be Moserah.

John Kesler · 08-25-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote: