aa5874

But the events in Acts are post crucifixion not pre-conception.The census by Quirinius in Luke is pre-conception. The events in chapter 5 of Acts are all post-crucifixion events.

This would mean that the census in Luke and the census in Acts 5 are at least 30 years apart if Luke3:23 is correct that Jesus was about thirty years of age before he was crucufied.

lee_merrill

Certainly, only not in matters of plausible, possible historical events. Maybe Julius Caesar said "pass the salt" of a Wednesday morning before his birthday. Just because we have no record of such, I'm not going to conclude it didn't happen.

Sure. However, here, you are making a claim, an unjustified claim at that, saying a census did not happen.

Ben C Smith

I am sorry, aa____, but your arguments (?) are not worth the time to read, let alone dissect. Read the verse again.

Unbelievable.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Indeed it does.

Ben.

Amaleq13

No, I'm simply refusing to accept your claim because it lacks credible support.

aa5874

The passages in Acts 5:34-37 appear to have been lifted from the writings of Josephus 'Antiquities of the Jews' book 20 ch 5.1.

Chapter 5 is subtitled as follows: Concerning Theudas and the sons of Judas the Galilean......'

Theudas and his followers was slain during the time of Cuspius Fadus, around 44 CE and the sons of Judas the Galilean were also slain around that time, not at the time of the census of Quirinius.

And Judas the Galilean was not executed after Theudas was slain, according to Josephus.

The author of Acts appears to have been a bit chronologically clumsy.

See Antiquities of the Jews book XX ch5.1-2 at http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...hus/ant-20.htm

mountainman

Arius, Julian; 4th century showtime.

325 CE
ARIUS was laying down HJ CARDS at the council of Nicaea:
What were the words of Arius?

There was time when He was not.
[Ed: He did not exist before Constantine.]

Before He was born He was not.
[Ed: He is a fabrication.]

He was made out of nothing existing.
[Ed: He is a fiction.]

He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
[Ed: He is fictitious.]

He is subject to alteration or change.
[Ed: He is fictitious, as are his gospels.]

362 CE
The Emperor Julian was laying down HJ CARDS in his
own personal and very timely political treatise:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

GakuseiDon

Easily, if Paul had in mind a divine figure along the same lines as Philo's Moses -- pre-existing, intermediary to God, ushers in a new covenant and gets taken to heaven.

But things like "Interpolation" and "Marcion's version was likely the original" are the very things that need to be declared, so that the cards are indeed on the table. Besides, the debate also looks at when Paul thought that Jesus was crucified and where. Earlier in this thread you said that the MJ should be regarded as the default. But if the mythicist case relies on claims of interpolation, misappropriation of gospel authorship or the non-face reading at every turn (we won't know this until the debate, of course) then it can hardly be the default position.

So what do you say? We're both amateurs well-and-truly in this field, but I'm in no hurry to complete the debate, so we can both take whatever time we need to research. (As I said, I'll be away for most of July anyway). You want the cards on the table -- well, I'm calling. From those letters generally attributed to Paul, the evidence suggests that Paul believed that Jesus Christ: (1) lived on earth, (2) died in the near past, (3) was crucified in Jerusalem

dog-on

Don,
you seem to be confusing me with Mr. Doherty...

I believe the mythicist case relies, simply, on the fact that the gospels read like (legendary) myth (even a drama/play) and that the epistles seem to describe a mythical (supernatural/god/etc) type of being.

I think that the historicist position is simply made-up, since the Jesus they describe is not mentioned in either the Gospels (both canonical and non-canonical)or the Epistles. Any other (secular historical or religious) writings about Jesus are pretty much made irrelevant since they seem to be based, at best, on the here-say of Christians or off the (biased) observations of Apologists. Best case being, as well, that we disregard the real possibility of substantial changes (glosses/interpolations/forgeries/ etc.) having been made to these works.

So, being that there seems to be no "Historical" evidence that can pass the "smell" test, I simply believe that the logical position is likely to be a presupposition of myth, or at best (and in my mind an unnecessary position in this case), Agnosticism.

dog-on

...and, in your mind, does this "figure" seem more like a historical person or a myth?

Must we graft a historical person onto the myth to make the myth viable?

Does Paul need to have been familiar with the gospel story, (not the actual gospels, but the story itself), to have written what's in the epistles?