Richbee

BTW, I was hoping you were going to do some homework and find out that the only date in history for Quirinius is 6 A.D.

Thus the many questions.

Richbee

<edit>

Are you going to join the debate or just babbling more nonsense?

Amaleq13

To all: Please avoid pointless personal comments and make an effort toward substantive participation in the discussion.

Thanks in advance,

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

TomboyMom

Please tell me which part of my post you did not understand, is incorrect, irrelevant, or in any other way nonsense.

As I have said to you before, if your purpose in butchering my name is to be offensive, you have succeeded. Congratulations.

darstec

Interestingly, last week on the History Channel in a series called Invasions, there was a program on the Goths. In that episode, one of the narrators mentioned that one of the advantages for the barbarians joining the Roman army was that they were taught the rudiments of reading so that they could act upon written instructions from the commanders.

The first question is how true was the statement? Then next question, presupposing the statement was true, what percentage of the general population were military veterans?

What was the impetus to learn to read for the general population and where did they learn?

I think all those questions must be answered before anyone can claim a fairly literate society in the early centuries when the Christian epic was being invented.

TomboyMom

Add:
When challenged, quote Christian apologist, preferably from more than 100 years ago, in support of original assertion that X is the mainstream historical view.

Or, when challenged succesfully, hurl insults and invective.

Think really hard, Richbee:
Evidence that contradicts the substance of the original assertion is not relevant to, does not disprove, and is not needed to disprove, the statement that the original assertion is the consensus of modern scholarship. It isn't, so please stop saying that it is. If you want to talk about what is in fact the case, instead of what most scholars believe, than start a thread about that.

As for what evidence is, it's the same stuff that you use in the rest of your life when evaluating other claims, such as that Allah is God and Muhammad his one true prophet.

spin

The ball has been in your court since the start of this thread to say something useful. So far you have shown nothing. The facts are simple. You know when the census started. You know why. And you know why there was not a previous tax related census. You have merely avoided the facts. Quite a sad performance. Perhaps god could send someone who is more up to the task.


spin

JoeWallack

God I love the sound of Psalms in the morning!

The Writ Of The ValQuiries

JW:
Peter Kirby is like your Eusebius, a learned man at an early age and Compiler of Church History. Except Peter's honest.

JW
Richard Carrier is Peter Kirby with a Degree.


JW:
I had previously written:

"My first question to you Richbee is are you arguing that it is Probable that there is no error or just Possible? (anyone is welcome to comment here except for Harvey Dubish). This question is often left unresolved in Polemics."

Using far less Apologymnastics than you would have to use to claim prwth means "before" I can claim that the above is now a fulfilled prophecy which gives me one more than John the Baptist, who "Mark's" Jesus described as the greatest Prophet of all time, had in his entire career.

Since you have Avoided a Direct answer to my two questions above, at this point I will Assume that you are only asserting that:

1) It's merely Possible that there is no Contradiction between "Matthew"/"Luke" Dating of Jesus' supposed birth.

2) It's merely Possible that prwth in the related "Luke" means "before".

Since we agree than that the "before" defense is not Probable I can eliminate it from consideration at this point. I Am pretty sure that you understand English (albeit less sure than I was at the start of your Tyre Prophecy Thread debacle) so if you want to change my Assumption above you can give me a direct answer.

In the classic Hitchhiker's Guide Bistromatics was a specialized branch of Mathematics, based on the observation that the normal rules of mathematics don't apply to numbers scribbled on scraps of paper in restaurants. So too is Cathematics a specialized branch of Logic, based on the observation that the normal rules of logic don't apply to Apologists who start with the Assumption that 1+1+1=1.

The nature of Apologetics is to Transfer Doubt from the Christian Bible to the Errantist's argument. In order to do this the Apologist Expands definitions used to make the Inerrantist argument and Contracts definitions used to make the Errantist argument. Case in point - when Richbee was searching the Internet for support that prwth meant "before" he found this:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/censuscheck.html

"[Holding]Carrier's next point is much more involved:
[Carrier]
But there is a deeper issue involved. The word prôtê can only be rendered as "before" in English when "first" would have the same meaning--in other words, the context must require such a meaning. For in reality the word never really means "before" in Greek. It always means "first," but sometimes in English (just as in Greek) the words "first" and "before" are interchangeable, when "before" means the same thing as "first." For example, "in the first books" can mean the same thing as "in the earlier books" (Aristotle, Physics 263.a.11). Likewise, "the earth came first in relation to the sea" can mean the same thing as "the earth came before the sea" (Heraclitus 31).
Nevertheless, what is usually offered in support of a "reinterpretation" of the word is the fact that when prôtos can be rendered "before" it is followed by a noun in the genitive (the genitive of comparison), and in this passage the entire clause hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou is in the genitive. But this does not work grammatically. The word hêgemoneuontos is not a noun, but a present participle (e.g. "jogging," "saying," "filing," hence "ruling") in the genitive case with a subject (Kyrêniou) also in the genitive. Whenever we see that we know that it is something called a "genitive absolute" construction, and thus it does not make sense to regard it as a genitive connected to the "census" clause. In fact, that is ruled out immediately by the fact that the verb (egeneto) stands between the census clause and the ruling clause--in order for the ruling clause to be in comparison with the census clause, it would have to immediately follow the adjective "first," but since it doesn't, but the entire clause is distinct from the rest of the sentence, it can only be an absolute construction. A genitive absolute does have many possible renderings, e.g. it can mean "while" or "athough" [sic] or "after" or "because" or "since," but none allow the desired reinterpretation here.
John 1:15 (and 1:30) is a case in point: the verb emprosthen is already used (the first "before" found in English translations of the verse) in order to establish the context, and then comes hoti prôton mou ên, "because he was first [in relation] to me." So here we have an example of when prôtos means "before," yet all the grammatical requirements are met for such a meaning, which are not met in Luke 2.2: the genitive here is not a participle with subject, but a lone pronoun (thus in the genitive of comparison); the genitive follows immediately after the adjective; and the previous use of emprosthen establishes the required context. Thus, this is clearly not the same construction as appears in Luke 2.2. Another example is the use of this construction in Acts 16:12, where again the sentence can be rendered "first in relation to" and only then can it be simplified in English to "before." No such license is allowable in Luke 2.2. As a genitive absolute the Quirinius clause cannot have any grammatical connection with prô:tê, and "first in relation to the reign of Quirinius" would not produce the meaning "before" anyway.
[Holding]
Porter also is aware of this argument [175] and responds. He agrees that it may have some merit, and that there are "not many, if any" examples of such a construction. However, Porter cites the work of Brook Pearson, whose work, interestingly, Carrier addresses substantially, but apparently not on this point in particular:
[Porter] ...Pearson has made a plausible case for how to understand the construction in Luke 2.2 as a genitive absolute that is dependent upon the preceding independent clause, marshalling examples from Luke-Acts that show the flexibility of the genitive absolute construction. Further, there are numerous examples of dependent participles being used in the genitive case in predicative constructions, both in the Greek of the New Testament and in extra-Biblical Greek. However, it may be that the analysis of the particular construction is not to be understood as a genitive absolute at all but with the noun, [kuernios], as the genitive of comparison, and with the participle [hêgemoneuontos] attributively modifying this noun. In this case, the construction, though often referred to as a genitive absolute, may more resemble a simple modifying participle, which is found frequently in both extra-biblical and New Testament usage, in all cases.
[Holding]
Porter notes that one grammar, by Jelf (1861), did take the passage this way. In the end he concludes that the argument appears to still have warrant, and while it is "not necessarily strong...it cannot be excluded." [176]"


JW :
So Holding is Commenting on someone named Porter Commenting on someone named Pearson whose Comment applicable to Carrier is:

"He agrees that it may have some merit, and that there are "not many, if any" examples of such a construction."

And so Porter agrees with Carrier that with the specific Greek grammatical
construction "prwth" here would never mean "before". Yet Carrier's conclusion is Weighted as "may" and "some merit". Porter than cites Pearson who Expands the Definitions of the specific Greek grammatical construction and doesn't give any Specific examples and concludes "In the end he concludes that the argument appears to still have warrant, and while it is "not necessarily strong...it cannot be excluded". So the Weight is similar to Carrier's conclusion.

As I mentioned Before Richbee, Stephen Carlson, a fellow Believer, is right here and he's already Confirmed that Carrier is correct on this point. If you have any related questions just ask him. Don't you think he's a real Christian? No, I think your Assertion that prwth means "before" here is as dead as Jesus.

JW:
As you wish.


Joseph


Apologist. Noun. Someone who has been Asserting so much with so little for so long that they are now qualified to defend anything with nothing.

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

JoeWallack

Tinky Winky

JW:
So far Richbee's logic in Asserting that "Luke" did not create a Contradiction with "Matthew" when she dated Jesus' supposed bith to "The Census" reminds me of Woody Allen's Greek Logic Circles:

A) The Greeks were men.

B) The Greeks were Homosexuals.

C) Richbee is a man.

D) Richbee is Homosexual?

Now for the Proof that "Luke"/"Matthew" have a Contradiction here:

According to SPIN:

A) Per "Matthew" Jesus was born during Herod the Great's reign.

B) Herod the Great collected tax for Judea.

C) Per "Luke" Jesus was born when Rome collected tax directly from Judea.

D) Rome collected tax directly from Judea after Herod the Great's reign. Therefore, "Matthew" places Jesus' birth during Herod the Great's reign and "Luke" places it after = Contradiction.

E) F.F. Bruce is Bi-Sectual?

Richbee, you argue mainly by Appealing to Authority, so why not Accept Spin's authority here as a starting point? Unlike F.F. Bruce, Spin is right here. If you dispute any part of his argument tell him and he'll answer you (it even seems to be something of a priority for him right now). Why would you expect others here to accept the Authority of those you appeal to when we can't even interact with them while you don't accept the Authority of someone here who's willing to answer any question you have?



Joseph

Apologist. Noun. Someone who has been Asserting so much with so little for so long that they are now qualified to defend anything with nothing.

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

JoeWallack

The Pink Panthera

JW:
Congratulations to Richbee for getting himself banned here. The Rules at II are relatively relaxed compared to most Forums, kind of like the HBO of Forums, so following them here is about as hard as teaching a Dogma how to Bark. So Richbee claimed to have the Power to prove that "Matthew" and "Luke" had no Contradiction as to when Jesus was born but regrettably lacked the Power to keep from getting banned here. No doubt Apologists 1,000 years from now will claim that Richbee was falsely accused by Totoberg and Amaleqstein and Martyred for his beliefs as evidence for the Historical Jesus.

And the Tradition is passed on to...

Gamera, Same questions:

1) Do you think it Probable that there is no Error here or just Possible?

2) Do you think it Probable that prwth here means "before" or just Possible?



Joseph

"That's not my Dogma." - ?

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