FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-08-2006, 08:01 PM   #71
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yummyfur
As far as the "before" meaning, wouldn't we also have to believe that proficient Greek readers of the time "misread" this as well.
Yep. Justin called Martyr also mentions the Quirinius census with regard to Jesus three times in his (First) Apology 34, 46 and 78. I guess that it is only modern apologists who have noticed the correct reading.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 08:03 PM   #72
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Falls Church, Virginia
Posts: 264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack
By an Act of Providence, Peter Kirby, at this very moment, is in the process of posting to my site,
So what?

Quote:
Richard Carrier
Yawn.

Quote:
"It is widely acknowledged that Quirinius became "governor of Syria" in 6 C.E.,
Really? Are you certain of this date? Prove it?

Quote:
.....only then conducting a census of Judaea,[sic: Judea]
Fascinating, you have more proof of when the census began and was completed?

All Historians are eager for the news! Please let us know when you're ready to publish these facts!

Quote:
....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, [sic: Judea]
Are you sure about this "fact"?

Is this what Luke wrote, let alone claimed?

Quote:
...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).
You have demonstrated anything but a CLEAR appreciation of what facts are known and well established, Vs, those facts that remain in question. Pop Quiz: What year was Jesus born? When was Quirinius apponted Gov’ of Syria? How long was he the Gov’, and over what territories – please specify the geography and the years covered?

Quite possibly you need to go dig up the facts, quite literally and return when you have something substantive on this topic.

In conclusion, you were working on the following questions or reasonable questions and probable realities:

F.F. Bruce writes:

The reference in Luke 2:2 to Quirinius as governor of Syria at the time of the birth of Christ (before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC) has frequently been thought to be an error, because Quirinius is known to have become imperial legate of Syria in AD 6, and to have supervised in that year the enrollment mentioned in Acts 5:37, which provoked the insurrection led by Judas of Galilee. But it is now widely admitted that an earlier enrollment, as described in Luke 2:1 ff.,

(a) may have taken place in the reign of Herod the Great,

(b) may have involved the return of everyone to his family home,

(c) may have formed part of an Empire wide census, and ...

(d) may have been held during a previous governorship of Quirinius over Syria.

Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? By F.F. Bruce

So why do Skeptics get their underwear tied up in knots challenging the greatest ancient Historian Master Luke?

Do Skeptics have any real evidence to discredit Luke?
Richbee is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 08:05 PM   #73
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Falls Church, Virginia
Posts: 264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Yep. Justin called Martyr also mentions the Quirinius census with regard to Jesus three times in his (First) Apology 34, 46 and 78. I guess that it is only modern apologists who have noticed the correct reading.


spin
So, Justin Martyr quotes the Gospel of Luke? In what year!

Good show ole boyo, I knew that the ancient Church Fathers all had copies of the New International Version of the Gospels - no less!?
Richbee is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 08:07 PM   #74
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richbee
Why don't you come back after you figure out the Roman concerns of taxes and War(s).
You haven't indicated that you have figured them out. You seem to be confused about Rome's relationship with Judea prior to 6 CE, thinking that they would interfere with a friendly client kingdom, which collected its own taxes. The taxation census of Quirinius is strictly related to the change in status of Judea from a client kingdom to a Roman province and therefore directly taxable by Rome. HTH.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 08:10 PM   #75
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Falls Church, Virginia
Posts: 264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sven
The irony is (again!) strong in this one.
Take your nonsense elsewhere. May I suggest, a thead named: "Who was the real Captain Kanagroo?"

(Hint: He was a Dartmouth Grad')
Richbee is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 08:11 PM   #76
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richbee
So, Justin Martyr quotes the Gospel of Luke? In what year!

Good show ole boyo, I knew that the ancient Church Fathers all had copies of the New International Version of the Gospels - no less!?
Wrong conclusions, sonny. The text was transparent to Justin. It's just modern people who don't like the text who want to change it.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 08:12 PM   #77
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Falls Church, Virginia
Posts: 264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
Richbee - check your PM's. Thank you.
Toto,

Please try to keep away the droids, the dregs and the ankle bitters. (Please appreciate that I never used the word: "Troll" in this post.)
Richbee is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 08:15 PM   #78
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Falls Church, Virginia
Posts: 264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
You haven't indicated that you have figured them out. You seem to be confused about Rome's relationship with Judea prior to 6 CE, thinking that they would interfere with a friendly client kingdom, which collected its own taxes. The taxation census of Quirinius is strictly related to the change in status of Judea from a client kingdom to a Roman province and therefore directly taxable by Rome. HTH.


spin

Ahem.

Do you deny that Rome may have reason to count the people, inorder to calculate a fair sum of taxation? Do you underestimate their greed or their ability to count?
Richbee is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 08:22 PM   #79
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richbee
Ahem.

Do you deny that Rome may have reason to count the people, inorder to calculate a fair sum of taxation? Do you underestimate their greed or their ability to count?
You shouldn't plead ignorance of Roman administration in order to justify a comment on Rome's administrative practices.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 08:23 PM   #80
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

What part of "Judea wasn't a province" do you not understand?
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:29 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.