Diogenes the Cynic

Carin, It doesn't MATTER when Quirinius BECAME Governor. I'm not going to bother arguing about it because it's irrelevant to your problem. The issue is not when Quirinius became the governor of Syria but when he acquired jurisdiction over JUDEA and when he issued the first census. There is no dispute that Archaeus was removed as ethnarch of Judea in 6 CE and THAT'S when Judea was annexed as part of the province of Syria. It was at that point (6 CE) and not BEFORE that point that Judea became subject to census and tax by the Romans.

Are you understanding this yet? NO Governor of Syria had any authority over JUDEA until 6 CE. Judea was not SUBJECT to any Roman census until it became part of the provincial empire in 6 CE.

Is this making any sense yet? Let me try it another way.

At NO time while Herod was king did any Syrian Governor have the authority to impose a census or a tax because JUDEA WAS NOT PART OF SYRIA YET. It was still a client kingdom. Client kingdoms did not get taxed and Herod did not share sovereignty.

Diogenes the Cynic

Koyaanisqatsi, Gregor, I get what you guys are saying but just remember how many atheists are deconverted True Believers. I have to think that some of what we say does sink in on some level because of the number of atheists/agnostics I've spoken to over the years who used to be like Carin. Bart Ehrman used to be a self-described "hardcore fundamentalist."

I don't expect that many will instantly deconvert but at least we can give them something to think about.

Also remember that there are a lot of lurkers out there. I tend to provide the proper corrections in threads like this as a way of talking "over the shoulder" of the apologist to those lurkers and making sure they get a full picture.

Carin Nel

"If I saw someone walk on water, I'd be telling my friends. Why isn't there anything besides a few articles in the bible?" - Katastrophikus

The desciples saw it, and no one else. They recorded it. You don't believe it. So, it makes you a sceptic.

The resurrection - many people saw it, the disciples recorded it. Some, including you did not believe it, some did. What does it make you? A sceptic and unbeliever. What does it make them? Believers.

Regards,
Carin Nel

Amaleq13

Someone wrote a story depicting it but we don't know who (though we have no good reason to think it was one of the people in the story) and we have no good reason to think it is a true story.

I realize it might be difficult for you but, in order to participate here, you really need to make an effort to differentiate between that which you believe on faith and that which you accept because the evidence supports it. Your statement above is clearly an example of the former and, as such, is of absolutely no interest to anyone here since we are exclusively focused on the latter.

According to your Bible, no one saw the resurrection and no one recorded it. You are confusing the resurrection with the appearances. Nobody here cares about claims based on your faith, Carin, and they really aren't relevant or appropriate to the forum.

JoeWallack

JW:
The main Source for the related Dating of "Luke" and "Matthew's" birth of Jesus both Fixed and especially Relative to each other is Josephus. Again, from:

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

"JW:
Ultimately Josephus will be the primary evidence that there is Contradiction here between "Luke" and "Matthew". So the relative Weight of Josephus will have to be compared to the Weight of "Luke".


Antiquities of the Jews

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...ut=&loc=17.191

"CONCERNING HEROD'S DEATH, AND TESTAMENT, AND BURIAL.

[188] AND now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and granted the kingdom to Archclaus. He also gave Gaulonitis, and Trachonitis, and Paneas to Philip, who was his son, but own brother to Archclaus 1 by the name of a tetrarchy; and bequeathed Jarnnia, and Ashdod, and Phasaelis to Salome his sister, with five hundred thousand [drachmae] of silver that was coined. He also made provision for all the rest of his kindred, by giving them sums of money and annual revenues, and so left them all in a wealthy condition. He bequeathed also to Caesar ten millions [of drachmae] of coined money, besides both vessels of gold and silver, and garments exceeding costly, to Julia, Caesar's wife; and to certain others, five millions. When he had done these things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he had procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven. 2"


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...ut=&loc=17.342

"[342] But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar, and that especially because they knew he had broken the commands of Caesar, which obliged him to behave himself with moderation among them. Whereupon Caesar, when he heard it, was very angry, and called for Archelaus's steward, who took care of his affairs at Rome, and whose name was Archelaus also; and thinking it beneath him to write to Archelaus, he bid him sail away as soon as possible, and bring him to us: so the man made haste in his voyage, and when he came into Judea, he found Archelaus feasting with his friends; so he told him what Caesar had sent him about, and hastened him away. And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him."


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...ut=&loc=17.354

"[354] Now I did not think these histories improper for the present discourse, both because my discourse now is concerning kings, and otherwise also on account of the advantage hence to be drawn, as well for the confirmation of the immortality of the soul, as of the providence of God over human affairs, I thought them fit to be set down; but if any one does not believe such relations, let him indeed enjoy his own opinion, but let him not hinder another that would thereby encourage himself in virtue. So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus."


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...yout=&loc=18.1

"HOW CYRENIUS WAS SENT BY CAESAR TO MAKE A TAXATION OF SYRIA AND JUDEA; AND HOW COPONIUS WAS SENT TO BE PROCURATOR OF JUDEA; CONCERNING JUDAS OF GALILEE AND CONCERNING THE SECTS THAT WERE AMONG THE JEWS.

NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money;"


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...out=&loc=18.26

"[26] WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest; while Herod and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof."


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...ut=&loc=20.102

"[100] Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book."


Wars Of The Jews

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...out=&loc=1.665

"[665] So Herod, having survived the slaughter of his son five days, died, having reigned thirty-four years since he had caused Antigonus to be slain, and obtained his kingdom; but thirty-seven years since he had been made king by the Romans. Now as for his fortune, it was prosperous in all other respects, if ever any other man could be so, since, from a private man, he obtained the kingdom, and kept it so long, and left it to his own sons; but still in his domestic affairs he was a most unfortunate man. Now, before the soldiers knew of his death, Salome and her husband came out and dismissed those that were in bonds, whom the king had commanded to be slain, and told them that he had altered his mind, and would have every one of them sent to their own homes. When these men were gone, Salome, told the soldiers [the king was dead], and got them and the rest of the multitude together to an assembly, in the amphitheater at Jericho, where Ptolemy, who was intrusted by the king with his signet ring, came before them, and spake of the happiness the king had attained, and comforted the multitude, and read the epistle which had been left for the soldiers, wherein he earnestly exhorted them to bear good-will to his successor; and after he had read the epistle, he opened and read his testament, wherein Philip was to inherit Trachonitis, and the neighboring countries, and Antipas was to be tetrarch, as we said before, and Archelaus was made king."


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...out=&loc=2.117

"ARCHELAUS'S ETHNARCHY IS REDUCED INTO A [ROMAN] PROVINCE. THE SEDITION OF JUDAS OF GALILEE. THE THREE SECTS.

[117] AND now Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar. Under his administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders."


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...out=&loc=2.433

"[433] In the mean time, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean, (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans,)"


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...out=&loc=7.252

"[252] WHEN Bassus was dead in Judea, Flavius Silva succeeded him as procurator there; who, when he saw that all the rest of the country was subdued in this war, and that there was but one only strong hold that was still in rebellion, he got all his army together that lay in different places, and made an expedition against it. This fortress was called Masada. It was one Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded abundance of the Jews, as we have formerly related, not to submit to the taxation when Cyrenius was sent into Judea to make one;"



Joseph

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

Diogenes the Cynic

You are making an unfounded assumption that anything in the NT was written by a disciple. In point of fact, we have no extant writings of any kind which can be demonstrated to have been written by anyone who ever met Jesus.
1. There is no credible evidence that any human being ever claimed to have witnessed a physically resurrected Jesus. The claims made in the Gospels were not written by witnesses. The earliest claim for a physical resurrection of Jesus does not appear in Christian literature until about 80 CE in the Gospel of Matthew, which was written a half-century after the alleged event by a non-witness who relied on sources that came from other non-witnesses and who made some of the more patently fantastic and ludicrous claims in the entire NT (Star of Bethlehem, slaughter of innocents, zombie assault on Jerusalem, Jesus riding two animals at once, etc.).

2. Belief is not a voluntary act. You can't just MAKE yourself believe something if the evidence is not personally persuasive. Can you make yourself believe in the Easter Bunny? Not just say it, but really, sincerely believe it? What if someone told you that your immortal sould depended on it?

That's exactly how we feel about Christianity.

EthnAlln

My goodness! I seem to have offended you! Sorry about that; I assure you, it was not my intention to do so. And all because I said it isn't amusing to refute your claims! Is this debate, in your view, intended for amusement? I actually had hoped to find a bit of an intellectual challenge. I assure you, I frequently find theists like Gamera and even Patriot7 sometimes causing me to rethink what I believe. But your posts have (I'm sorry to say) been a disappointment, being mainly a regurgitation of stale and very bad arguments by Josh MacDowell, John Ankerberg, and others. And even in the present argument, I regret to inform you that there was no such thing as a "private divorce" in Judaism. There never has been.

Except, apparently, those who don't find your posts amusing.

EthnAlln

Yup, her last post sounds like she's running off without really responding to the last posts each of us made. I'm guessing we scared her by not caving in to her naive, childish arguments. Let's wish her well, and hope she finds comfort in being defended by such mighty debaters as Josh MacDowell. There's no chance she is going to look seriously at the arguments presented to her. I don't expect to hear any more from her. I'm guessing she'll look at these last few posts, but not reply to them.

JoeWallack

JW:
The main Source for the related Dating of "Luke" and "Matthew's" birth of Jesus both Fixed and especially Relative to each other is Josephus. Let's consider the Qualifications of Josephus as a Historian compared to "Luke":

From:

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

1) Josephus has Provenance himself. He can be Placed in history.

2) Provides Detailed account of Herod's reign.

3) Provides Sources for his account:

---1) Nicolatis of Damascus

---2) Commentaries of King Herod

4) Provides potentially the Best possible Sources, Herod himself and his official biographer, Nicolatis.

5) Indicates ability to Critically evaluate sources.

6) Provides a Recurring Marker of time, the Olympiad.

7) Provides Comparative and Multiple Markers of time. Here are some of them:

---1) Caius Domitius Calvinus was consul the second time

---2) Caius Asinius Pollio (was consul)

---3) Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome

---4) the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium

8) Provides a Starting date for Herod's reign.

9) Provides the Length of Herod's reign in years.

10) Corroborating evidence in a separate Work.




Joseph

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

Carin Nel

Thank you very much. I have the Complete Works of Josephus in my own library at home. I have used Josephus as a source: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ.
And when Polate , at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinc at this day" (The Life and works of Flavious Josephus page 535 - Translated by William Whiston)
The second passage about Christ: "Ananus (Ananias) assembled the Jewish Sanhedrin, and brought before it James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ, with some others, whom he delivered over to be stoned as infractors of the law.(page 598)

I was seriously reminded by one of you,whom I won't expose, of the fact that the specific sections in Josephus referring to Christ is a forgery. So Joseph, you'll have to sort this out with your friend here on the forum.
Critics love to say that "all of the real scholars agree" when they mean certain scholars of a particular bias.

So, my point is - We can for ever quote "facts" from different "real" scholars and never agree on any of the issues we have debated in this and other threads, but one thing that we can agree on, is that Josephus is a very reliable historian (on the above grounds Joseph pointed out to us).
Therefore we should agree that, according to Josephus, there was a man called Jesus, the Christ, who was a wise teacher, had many followers, who did many miracles, who was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to His followers again after the resurrection. He's followers are called Christians.

Isn't this what the whole issue was all about? Trying to prove that there was no such person as Jesus Christ who did miracles etc. and that the disciples did not write the N.T. and the NT is a myth? Well, Josephus proves you wrong.
While I'm at it-So does The Talmud which speaks of Christ, and of several of the disciples by name, of His crucifiction,... that He performed many and great miracles, which He (allegedly) learned in Egypt. The Jewish Rabbi's and some of the religious leaders just did not acknowledged Him as their Messiah.
Then there is the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, who governed Asia as proconsul A.D 55-117 who tells us that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate..under Tiberius, as a malefactor; that the people called Christaians devoted derived their name from Him; that this superstition arose in Judea, and spread to Rome, when ..only about thirty years after the death of Christ, the Christians were very numerous..(and) that the Christians were subjected to contempt and the most dreadful sufferings...some were crucified; while others, being doubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night-time, and were thus burnt to death. This account is confirmed by Suetonius, and by Martial and Juvenal.
Pliny (The younger) was prograetor of Pontus and Bithynia (A.D. 112)..Many Christians were brought before him for their faith in Christ. If they remained steadfast, refusing to offer incense to the idols, he condemned them to death for their "inflexible obstinacy" (Some to escape death) said they had once been hristians but had abandoned that religion..some even twenty years before..that they were wont to meet together on a stated day before it was light, and sing among themselves .. hymns to Christ as God and bind themselves by an oath not to commit any wickedness, nor tobe guilty of theft, or robbery, or adultery, never to falsify their word..(and) to come together to a meal, which they ate in common..
I want to refer to Celsus, and Lucian, and Epictetus, and the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, and Porphyry - who all throw light on the early history of Christianity, and confirm, so far as they go, the accounts in the New Testament...as do coins, medals and inscriptions.

Regards,
Carin Nel