Richbee

Why post off topic? <edit>

Richbee

Do you mean J.D. Crossan of the infamous Jesus Seminar pompous fool, and apostate FROM the Christian Faith, refuted many times over? Jesus was no "peasant", and yet was identified as with the cares and concerns of the poor.

Crossan refuted:

Bede.org.uk: The Historical Jesus

Crossan's argument goes like this. He insists that as soon as Jesus was arrested all his disciples immediately fled back to Galilee so none of them knew what had happened to him. Therefore, transformed from being illiterate peasants to well read rabbis, they comb the scriptures for prophecies about Jesus and from these they reconstruct a passion narrative. This forms a 'Cross Gospel' that is then freely adapted by Mark. The other evangelists use both Mark and the Cross Gospel (now preserved in the Gospel of Peter) to give us the passion accounts we have today.

So Crossan not only needs to postulate a new document, the Cross Gospel, that he has no evidence for, he also completely ignores the historical record by claiming it was all a fiction. Furthermore, scholars are nearly unanimous in saying that the Gospel of Peter is late and based on all four intra-canonical Gospels, not the mythical Cross Gospel that Crossan needs for his thesis. As for Jesus' burial in a tomb, he claims that Mark made it up. But in dismissing the story Barabas, he quotes Philo of Alexandria saying how at a high festival crucifixion victims were given back to their families for a descent burial. Archaeologists have even managed to dig up a Jewish crucifixion victim from a tomb near Jerusalem! Crossan dismisses all of this for no better reason than he has already determined that the passion narrative is fiction.

The biggest question that hangs over this book and which is not adequately addressed even in the last chapter is why this unremarkable Jesus who suffered an obscure death ever became the most influential figure in Western history. It is hard to believe there were even Christians around for Paul to persecute, let alone join, if their founder was such a non entity as Crossan believes.

Bede.org.uk

Richbee

Research? Do mean to say, that people needed to research where they owned land, or where their family lived and owned Estates, or where they were born? Duh?

RUmike

Richbee...pray tell who your ancestor from 42 generations ago was. A first name will suffice. Thanks.

Richbee

So do you have any evidence on this matter?

Richbee

Please take your off topic nonsense to another thread.

Richbee

Bingo, you may be on to something here! Joseph may have returned to his Estate held with his family and taxes may have been calculated based on who lived there or shared in the property.

Richbee

And yet you have posted no facts contradicting Luke? Come back when you learn the Roman name for the province or land we know as Judea!

Richbee

Consider, and I quote:

Nigel Turner, a leading Greek scholar and author of one of the leading textbooks on New Testament Greek, notes that Luke 2:2 is more correctly translated,

"This census was before the census taken when Quirinius was governor."

Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, pages 23-24. Other respected New Testament scholars agree that this translation is a reasonable one. See Evans, Luke, page 43; Ben Witherington, New Testament History, page 65-66; William Temple, Readings in St. John's Gospel, page 16; Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, page 98 99; A. J. B. Higgins, "Sidelights on Christian Beginnings in the Graeco-Roman World," Ev. Q. 41, page 200; W. Brindle, "The Census and Quirnius: Luke 2:2," JETS 27, page 48-50; and I. Howard Marshall. Also: Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's Commentary; Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible; John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible; and, Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2...matter-of.html

Amaleq13

These questions are irrelevant to the nativity story attributed to Luke. The author tells us that Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem to be counted in this census not because he owned land there, not because that it was where his family lived and not because it was where he was born but "because he was of the house and lineage of David"(2:4, KJV).

In fact, the story appears to deny that Joseph owned land or had family in Bethlehem given that they had apparently intended to stay at an inn but it had no room so they ended up in a barn.