Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 06-23-2006, 08:12 AM

Jon Stewart decides to run for President and because the Bush Administration has a standing Order for all Republicans not to talk to him, Stewart wins the Presidency unopposed. His first Act is to appoint Bart Ehrman Attorney General. Ehrman's first Act is to make Religion subject to the same Constitution that everything else is subject to and as a result, JP Holding is Convicted of Lying for Jesus.

The first day in Prison Holding meets Josh McDowell who likewise had previously been Convicted by evidence that demanded a guilty verdict. They're having lunch together when suddenly a Con at the end of the table stands up and says "53!". Everyone starts laughing. 3 days later a Con rises at lunch (Holding doesn't see him, he just hears him) and shouts, "22:17!". Again, everyone starts laughing.

Holding asks McDowell what's going on and McDowell explains that most of the Cons have been in Prison for so long and heard the same jokes so many times that they decided to assign numbers to well known jokes. That way, when the timing was right, someone could just refer to a joke by number, everyone would know what it referred to and no one would have to sit through a joke they already knew the punchline to.

Holding thinks this is a great idea. So the next day at the start of lunch he can't wait any longer and blurts out, "1 and 3!". Silence. Hardened Cons give Holding the stare down while shuffling bars of soap between hands. A frightened Holding says to McDowell, "I don't get it. What did I do wrong?" McDowell says (as he tries to get away from Holding and without looking at him) "Man, you just don't know how to tell em."

JW:
To the Unfaithful:

Richard Carrier's Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth (2006) is now up at ErrancyWiki:

Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth

This Type of Article is representative of the Primary purpose of ErrancyWiki. To present Arguments For and Against Errancy that are:

1) Detailed.

2) Organized.

3) Referenced.

4) Editable.

ErrancyWiki is intended to be a Reference guide for Skeptical Forums like II, where Skeptics can simply refer to Errancy arguments that are already researched and summarized just like the Cons in Prison with JP Holding above.

Some of the Veterans here may have noticed a tendency for the Same Issues to be repeated Periodically Ad Nazorean. Newer correspondents are often directed to the Archives. The problem of course is that typically such an archived Thread will have a lot of useful information in total but most of it will just be in parts of a few unrelated Posts.

When the Unfaithful or Faithful have some Relevant research to offer that they think would benefit future Geneas, please feel free to post it at ErrancyWiki. That's what it's there for.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 07-05-2006, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

JW:
The information Josephus gives us which is relevant to the Dating of Jesus' supposed birth is Internally Consistent as I've indicated in previous posts on the Subject. The External evidence also supports Josephus on this subject:

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

CASSIUS DIO

Roman History

55.27.6

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/.../55*.html#27.6

"6 These were the events in the city that year. In Achaia the governor died in the middle of his term and instructions were given to his quaestor and to his assessor (whom, as I have stated, we call envoy) for the former to administer the province as far as the Isthmus and the other the remainder. Herod of Palestine, who was accused by his brothers of some wrongdoing or other, was banished beyond the Alps and a portion of the domain was confiscated to the state."

JW:
Here we have some independent confirmation of Josephus. Archelaus (Herod) is removed and his territory goes to Rome. Following is related commentary by Historian Richard Carrier:

"[3.5] Roman History 55.27 (begun in 202 and completed around 235 A.D.). Dio's history is annalistic (it covers events year by year), and for the year 6 he reports that Archelaus' brothers accused him before Augustus who then deposed him and annexed his territory to Syria. He clearly does not have his account from Josephus because Dio says he does not know why Archelaus was deposed (though he should if he had read Josephus), does not call him Archelaus but Herod the Palestinian (his political name; Josephus uses only his real name), and implicates his brothers as his accusers even though Josephus only mentions "leading men in Judaea and Samaria."

APPIAN

The Civil Wars

5.75

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...l_Wars/5*.html

"75 After these events Octavian set forth on an expedition to Gaul, which was in a disturbed state, and Antony started for the war against the Parthians. The Senate having voted to ratify all that he had done or should do, Antony again despatched his lieutenants in all directions and arranged everything else as he wished. He set up kings here and there as he pleased, on condition of their paying a p507prescribed tribute: in Pontus, Darius, the son of Pharnaces and grandson of Mithridates: in Idumea and Samaria, Herod:"

JW:
Appian confirms that Antony placed Herod as King and provides time Markers which confirm Josephus' account.

COINS

From Historian Richard Carrier (supporting Josephus' account of Archelaus):

"For corroboration, coins minted in Judaea by Roman officials begin in A.D. 6 (Burnett, Roman Provincial Coinage, 1992, no. 4954: note that his supplemental volume corrects a typographical error: the coin in fact reads "Year 36 of Caesar," i.e. the 36th year after Actium or A.D. 5/6)."

JW:
And so Josephus is Internally and Externally supported as to when "Luke's" census should be dated.

On the other hand, as far as Josephus identifying Jesus as "The Christ", Whiston, who isn't one of my favorites anyway, Confesses to us that most scholars think Josephus has been "worked over here by Christian hands" and admits that even he thinks the passage has been Edited. As Josephus is otherwise a Religious Jew in all of his writings, confessing Jesus here is Internally Inconsistent with his work. Externally, Origen, who I rate as the most honest Church Father of all time, Explicitly writes that Josephus did not think Jesus was The Christ. So this passage is also Externally Inconsistent.

We thus have good reason to weight Josephus heavily regarding Dating of the supposed birth of Jesus and weigh Josephus lightly regarding what he thought, if anything, of Jesus.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 07-09-2006, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge

When was the earliest noting of the Quirinius dating problem?

JW:
I haven't seen any identification of the problem by the Church Fathers. I would assume that Porphyry mentioned it in Against the Christians. The Early Church defense was probably which Herod was being referred to. Ramsey has written the classic Defense which may have the standard Apologetic defense that it was never a problem until recently. I'll ask Richard Carrier who as near as I can tell is the prôtê authority on the Dating problem All the World has ever known.

Joseph

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

judge · 07-09-2006, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

I'll ask Richard Carrier who as near as I can tell is the prôtê authority on the Dating problem All the World has ever known.

Thanks Joe.

JoeWallack · 07-15-2006, 04:42 PM

From Was Joseph of Arimathea a Sanhedrin member?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The obvious problem of this, yalla, is Philo and Josephus had their own axes to grind. In Josephus' case a really big axe.

So you've essentially accepted the historicity of Philo's and Josephus's accounts and then compared it with the gospel account and found the latter wanting. Let me suggest this is tendentious to the extreme.

I can just as easily assume the gospel account is historical and discount Josephus's narrative, because after all the guy was in the hire of the Emperor and subject to all kinds of political pressure, not to mention his own ambiguous personal agenda, being a Jew in the court of the Roman power that destroyed his country.

As between the gospel authors and Josephus, I could easily conclude that Josephus is much less reliable, and thus your entire analysis is reversed.

JW:
I previously listed some reasons to give Josephus's Testimony more Weight than the Gospels regarding the Dating of Jesus' supposed birth:

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.

JW:
Most of these would also be reasons to give Josephus more Weight in General.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 08-09-2006, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge

When was the earliest noting of the Quirinius dating problem?

JW:
Richard Carrier said he didn't notice any claim that it was either an error or a "difficulty" by Early authors. The earliest such reference I've seen is contained in Daniel Wallace's related article:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1146#P14_2087

"Second, it has sometimes been suggested that the text should be translated, “this census was before the census which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made.”2"

...

"2 See Turner, Insights, 23-24, for a defense of this view. The view was found as early as the seventeenth century by Herwartus, and maintained by Huschke, Tholuck, Lagrange, Heichelheim, Bruce, Turner, et al."

JW:
"seventeenth century by Herwartus".

Note that in the article Wallace, who's Greek I think it's safe to say, is superior to anyone here (right Jeff?), Confirms Carrier's position that prwvth is not only Unlikely to mean "before" here, it can not mean "before" under the applicable Greek grammar rules.

It would appear that the Last Saving Hope of Christianity here is our own resident and favorite Christian Son, Mr. Carlson, who offers the gift every Christmas of a possible translation which he thinks avoids error and avoids translations possibly in error:

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...nd-census.html

So Mr. Carlson, after several years are you finally ready to discuss this theory with those who think you are wrong or do you need a few more years to Survey opinion?

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 08-12-2006, 10:03 AM

JW:
At ErrancyWiki I Am creating separate pages to deal with articles claiming Defense against the Birth Dating error. The first page I've done is for Holding Luke 2:2 Holding .

If anyone sees any other related Defense articles worth responding to, please send them to me. Thanks.

Joseph

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

Loomis · 08-12-2006, 01:23 PM

So your point is that since Luke contradicts Matthew, Yahweh must be a real god who blows smoke out his nostrils.

Right?

JoeWallack · 08-15-2006, 06:47 AM

JW:
Just have to share here that at Luke 2:2 I Am addressing all the significant Internet articles I can find claiming no error in Luke 2:2 and placing them in order of quality (really, lack of quality).

My favorite so far has been this offering from Stephen Jones:

Where does Cyrenius fit into your harmonization of the Matthew & Luke nativity stories?

where he concludes:

""As I pointed out in my Harmony: "This harmony of the nativity accounts in the gospels of Matthew and Luke has that `truth is stranger than fiction' complex quality of real life that would be unlikely to have been concocted" and "far from being a problem, the two nativity accounts of Matthew 2 and Luke 2 present a composite picture that has a `three-dimensional' quality of real, historical truth"!"

So he thinks 2:2 is Believable because it's so Unbelievable!

Next on my list is Christ Price's (Layman) proto offering on the subject where I evaluate if 2:2 is the mark of an excellent Historian. Stay tuned Stephen, your place could be in jeopardy!

Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

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

JoeWallack · 08-23-2006, 07:21 AM

JW:
For anyone interested I've posted a link to Ramsey's related defense (which I think is the best one freely available on the Internet) as well as critique of his argument at:

Luke 2:2 Ramsey

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish. Enjoy!

Joseph

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

06-23-2006, 08:12 AM	#1
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Carrier's Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth Now Up At ErrancyWiki Jon Stewart decides to run for President and because the Bush Administration has a standing Order for all Republicans not to talk to him, Stewart wins the Presidency unopposed. His first Act is to appoint Bart Ehrman Attorney General. Ehrman's first Act is to make Religion subject to the same Constitution that everything else is subject to and as a result, JP Holding is Convicted of Lying for Jesus. The first day in Prison Holding meets Josh McDowell who likewise had previously been Convicted by evidence that demanded a guilty verdict. They're having lunch together when suddenly a Con at the end of the table stands up and says "53!". Everyone starts laughing. 3 days later a Con rises at lunch (Holding doesn't see him, he just hears him) and shouts, "22:17!". Again, everyone starts laughing. Holding asks McDowell what's going on and McDowell explains that most of the Cons have been in Prison for so long and heard the same jokes so many times that they decided to assign numbers to well known jokes. That way, when the timing was right, someone could just refer to a joke by number, everyone would know what it referred to and no one would have to sit through a joke they already knew the punchline to. Holding thinks this is a great idea. So the next day at the start of lunch he can't wait any longer and blurts out, "1 and 3!". Silence. Hardened Cons give Holding the stare down while shuffling bars of soap between hands. A frightened Holding says to McDowell, "I don't get it. What did I do wrong?" McDowell says (as he tries to get away from Holding and without looking at him) "Man, you just don't know how to tell em." JW: To the Unfaithful: Richard Carrier's Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth (2006) is now up at ErrancyWiki: Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth This Type of Article is representative of the Primary purpose of ErrancyWiki. To present Arguments For and Against Errancy that are: 1) Detailed. 2) Organized. 3) Referenced. 4) Editable. ErrancyWiki is intended to be a Reference guide for Skeptical Forums like II, where Skeptics can simply refer to Errancy arguments that are already researched and summarized just like the Cons in Prison with JP Holding above. Some of the Veterans here may have noticed a tendency for the Same Issues to be repeated Periodically Ad Nazorean. Newer correspondents are often directed to the Archives. The problem of course is that typically such an archived Thread will have a lot of useful information in total but most of it will just be in parts of a few unrelated Posts. When the Unfaithful or Faithful have some Relevant research to offer that they think would benefit future Geneas, please feel free to post it at ErrancyWiki. That's what it's there for. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

08-15-2006, 06:47 AM	#9
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	King Dave's Stupid Apologist Tricks JW: Just have to share here that at Luke 2:2 I Am addressing all the significant Internet articles I can find claiming no error in Luke 2:2 and placing them in order of quality (really, lack of quality). My favorite so far has been this offering from Stephen Jones: Where does Cyrenius fit into your harmonization of the Matthew & Luke nativity stories? where he concludes: ""As I pointed out in my Harmony: "This harmony of the nativity accounts in the gospels of Matthew and Luke has that `truth is stranger than fiction' complex quality of real life that would be unlikely to have been concocted" and "far from being a problem, the two nativity accounts of Matthew 2 and Luke 2 present a composite picture that has a `three-dimensional' quality of real, historical truth"!" So he thinks 2:2 is Believable because it's so Unbelievable! Next on my list is Christ Price's (Layman) proto offering on the subject where I evaluate if 2:2 is the mark of an excellent Historian. Stay tuned Stephen, your place could be in jeopardy! Joseph FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-12-2006, 10:03 AM	#7
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: At ErrancyWiki I Am creating separate pages to deal with articles claiming Defense against the Birth Dating error. The first page I've done is for Holding Luke 2:2 Holding . If anyone sees any other related Defense articles worth responding to, please send them to me. Thanks. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

08-12-2006, 01:23 PM	#8
Loomis Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The recesses of Zaphon Posts: 969	So your point is that since Luke contradicts Matthew, Yahweh must be a real god who blows smoke out his nostrils. Right?

08-23-2006, 07:21 AM	#10
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: For anyone interested I've posted a link to Ramsey's related defense (which I think is the best one freely available on the Internet) as well as critique of his argument at: Luke 2:2 Ramsey Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish. Enjoy! Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.