DoubtingDave

Hey all,
I am in a formal debate here on whether or not the Bible has any contradictions. May I have your thoughts on my most recent rebuttals and the contradictions I brought up?

Thanks,
ShockOfAtheism

DoubtingDave

His rebuttals are up. Forgive me, but I totally fail to miss what he is trying to argue.

Diogenes the Cynic

He's wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start.

Quirinius was not Governor twice, that's just completely made up and factually false, but even if he had been, it still wouldn't matter because Judea was not annexed as part of the Syrian province until 6 CE. There were no Roman censuses or polls whatsoever before then.

We actually know who the Governor of Syria was in 4 BCE, by the way. His name was Varus.

Your opponent also seems to be under the impression that provincial peasants were Roman citizens or "Roman people." They were not.

spin

Some more facts:

Augustus declares he carried out only three full censuses (28BCE, 8BCE & 14CE).Res Gestae 8 These censuses were of Roman citizens. I think we can trust Augustus here: there was no other empire wide census during the reign.

Unlike Judea before 6CE, Egypt was under direct Roman administration. Egypt was ruled by a Roman prefect. The purpose of the Quirinius census, 6CE, was for similar administrative purposes when Rome took over direct control of Judea after the removal of Archelaus. Prior to 6CE the responsibility of taking censuses in Judea was in the hands of Herod who was responsible for the administration of Judea at the time. When local rulers were in control Rome used them for administration.

Roman scholars work on the notion that Calpurnius Piso was the Syrian legate from 4-1BCE (here). Quirinius on the other hand was govenor of Galatia in central Turkey at least between 5 and 3BCE, fighting a war against Homonadensian brigands.

stephan huller

I think egypt was even understood to be the property of the emperor himself. Roman knights needed permission to even set foot there

spin

Your opponent is not taking any notice of the Matthean text in his interleaving of the two birth narratives.

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Mt 2:1) and the wise men visited (2:1b-12), an angel told the family to go to Egypt, which they did (2:13-15). There is no opportunity for the family to have taken the new born Jesus up to Jerusalem. More significantly, Mt 2:23 explains that the family went to live in Nazareth after returning from Egypt. Joseph "came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth". (The verb for "dwell" is the same one in LXX Gen 13:12 when Abraham settled in Canaan and Lot settled on the plain.) This indicates Joseph had never lived in Nazareth before according to Matthew.

sotto voce

In Nazareth.

spin

Despite the claim "First, Judas tried to kill himself by hanging himself" Mt 27:5 actually says that he "hanged himself". There is no indication of merely trying at all. There is just the complete act, indicated by the verb aspect (aorist), sometimes referred to as punctiliar (the complete act condensed into a point). 2 Sam 17:23 uses the same verb tense and adds the fact of the death because it is a translation from the Hebrew. It is unnecessary.

sotto voce

Not found in the Bible.

spin

:tomato:

Did anyone say it was in the bible? If you don't understand the discussion, find out before blundering forward. Read the o.p. and see what it points to.

You're another one for the ignore button. There is no hope for anything meaningful from you. Ah, another one reduced to a ribbon.