Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-25-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

First of all, you have simply demonstrated that there was a period of time that Herod was completely unfavorable to Augustus. By fast-forwarding to the second case-pleading attempt. Why you refuse to simply acknowledge this truth of severe animiosity for that period is a wonderment to behold.

One can of course wonder whether Herod would lie (shocked, shocked) and whether one likely main source, Nicolaus, would be so tainted and biased in his account that it would be hard to unravel truth and error.

However we both agree that there was a degree of restoration after a period where Rome was ready .. likely .. to fully move in on the subject Herod. And that fits well my understanding. A very angry time, a time where Herod was dirt .. followed by a degree of reconciliation.

Now notice that as soon as your vaunted reconciliation is given above Herod is noted as essentially a ruthless murderer ...

"guilty of so great a crime in his older age ... commotion of mind ..commits a wicked action.. a heavy crime.. the action of a murderous mind.. the barbarity of the man ... slaughter also"

Does this really sound like a man who was remaining in wonderful favor?

True to form, praxeus, you are trying very hard to find a chink in the problem without knowing enough about it or making any headway.

You are supposed to be trying to debate the fact that Herod took care of his own internal financial issues, such as collecting taxes, by talking about an issue which is strictly a foreign policy issue. Perhaps you might care to introduce some evidence which has a little relevance to what you would like to talk about.

spin

judge · 03-25-2007, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you want to consider the error involved in Augustus registering the whole world, then relating it to Joseph going to Bethlehem? After all Augustus's three universal censuses were only with regard to Roman citizens.

Augustus Res Gestae Divi Augusti 8:
"In my fifth consulship [29 B.C.], I increased the number of patricians by order of the People and the Senate. Three times I revised the Roll of Senators [29/28, 18, 13]. And in my sixth consulship [28 B.C.], with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague, I conducted a census of the People. I performed the lustrum after an interval of forty-two years; at this lustrum 4,063,000 Roman citizens were recorded. Then a second time, acting alone, by virtue of the consular power, I completed the taking of the census, in the consulship of C. Censorinus and C. Asinius [8 B.C.]; at this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were recorded. And a third time I completed the taking of the census, in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius [A.D. 14] by virtue of the consular power and with my son Tiberius as my colleague; at this lustrum 4,937,000 Roman citizens were recorded . . . . "

spin

Unfortunately you still have not responded to the inscription telling us of the registration in 3BCE.

an inscription found in Paphlagonia that is clearly dated to 3 B.C

This is way back in post #48

This inscription is evidence yet when presented to you , you made no comment about it.

spin · 03-25-2007, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

...the careful and accurate historicity of Luke...

Cutting through the hype, there is nothing particularly careful or accurate about Luke.

We've seen that the reference to Lysanias is simply unexplanable.
The placing of Quirinius's census makes an error inevitable.
The reference to Augustus's census in 2:1 is quite misplaced, as it had nothing to do with people who weren't Roman citizens.
One could further into it, we could deal with the birth narrative conflicts with Matthew, making at least one of them wrong.
Then there's the genealogy which is in conflict with Matthew and 1 Chr 3:9-17, which suggests, because Matt and Chr are so similar at least from David to Shealtiel, that Luke is in all probability in error once again.

(There isn't really too much more to check in Luke that can be related to external references, except for synoptic issues.)

spin

Steven Avery · 03-25-2007, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Cutting through the hype, there is nothing particularly careful or accurate about Luke.

1. We've seen that the reference to Lysanias is simply unexplanable.
2. The placing of Quirinius's census makes an error inevitable.
3. The reference to Augustus's census in 2:1 is quite misplaced, as it had nothing to do with people who weren't Roman citizens.

Please spin. These are the very issues at question and one's view of these 2-3 issues depends heavily on one's overall view of Lukan historicity in two wide-ranging books.

So let's not get circular. I already told you that if either one of these is wrong (like your idea of an oddball 50+ years error in Lysanias !

) then the other has no strength.

However I believe both (or 3 if you prefer) are fine and we can get into the details of each after we discuss the full general issue of Lukan historicity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

[*]One could further into it, we could deal with the birth narrative conflicts with Matthew, making at least one of them wrong.

This is still the same issue as above. We could compare overall views, but there is dependency. We are dealing with two issues generally :
a) Lysanias
b) enrollment/taxation --> Quirinius

Out of hundreds of historicity-related questions in the two books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

[*]Then there's the genealogy which is in conflict with Matthew and 1 Chr 3:9-17, which suggests, because Matt and Chr are so similar at least from David to Shealtiel, that Luke is in all probability in error once again.[/LIST](There isn't really too much more to check in Luke that can be related to external references, except for synoptic issues.)

This is rather nuanced and you obviously know it. You are stretching for something to add.

So first lets check the dozens of cities and islands and countries and titles and dates and see how Luke does. That would seem to be the proper starting point for looking at his HQ - his Historicity Quotient.

Apparently you either don't want to do that - or you will simply concede that Luke will be extremely high (loudly and clearly) - and then you will go back to Lysanias and the enrollment. That's ok.. if you want to first clearly concede that Luke is very accurate in many dozens of historical and geographical references.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery · 03-25-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You are supposed to be trying to debate the fact that Herod took care of his own internal financial issues, such as collecting taxes, by talking about an issue which is strictly a foreign policy issue.

Precept upon precept, line upon line.

We saw you built your "no-Roman-involvement" claim on the false idea that Herod was always highly favored and essentially independent. That is now junked and discarded.

We saw that this may have been true to some extent until about 9BC but then things changed radically. Going way downhill, Herod a despised subject under heavy Roman pressure that he sought to relieve - and then a respite, and then the most murderous last days.

Once we see that the original "favored" claim was wrong, then we turn and note that Luke is a consumate historian. So there really is little difficulty in seeing what happened. William Ramsey actually covered this part of the issue reasonably well (noted by JW) but missed elsewhere. Modern discussions on the whole issue have been distorted by diversions and mistranslations.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin · 03-25-2007, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Unfortunately you still have not responded to the inscription telling us of the registration in 3BCE.

an inscription found in Paphlagonia that is clearly dated to 3 B.C

This is way back in post #48

This inscription is evidence yet when presented to you , you made no comment about it.

You are incorrigible, judge. Never anything out of your own efforts. Only repetitions of others' miserable efforts. This time it's the bald claim that an oath is a census. Did you look at the Paphlagonia inscription?

Had you presented the material yourself, then you could be hauled over the coals for your errors.

An oath is not a property registration. Look at the oath in AJ 17.2.4 and show me whatever would make you think it was anything other than an oath. What about the kingdom-wide oath in AJ 15.10.4?

spin

spin · 03-25-2007, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Precept upon precept, line upon line.

We saw you built your "no-Roman-involvement" claim on the false idea that Herod was always highly favored and essentially independent. That is now junked and discarded.

And you still haven't shown any involvement in financial administrative affairs during Herod's reign.

spin

judge · 03-25-2007, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

An oath is not a property registration.

There is nothing in the word which means it must be a property registration. You have tried to argue this bit have failed.

it was refuted here post #138

It can mean that but does not have have to be defined so narrowly

End of story.

spin · 03-25-2007, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Please spin. These are the very issues at question and one's view of these 2-3 issues depends heavily on one's overall view of Lukan historicity in two wide-ranging books.

You are the one claiming some degree of accuracy etc., when you cannot demonstrate such accuracy. If you don't assume what you can't demonstrate, things would be better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

So let's not get circular. I already told you that if either one of these is wrong (like your idea of an oddball 50+ years error in Lysanias !

) then the other has no strength.

Try to deal with the issue rather than ritual moving of the lips. There's one Lysanias in history and then there's another Lysanias in the mind of the inerrantist. Otherwise Luke would be wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

However I believe both (or 3 if you prefer) are fine and we can get into the details of each after we discuss the full general issue of Lukan historicity.

They are about the "general issue of Lucan history".

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

This is still the same issue as above. We could compare overall views, but there is dependency. We are dealing with two issues generally :
a) Lysanias
b) enrollment/taxation --> Quirinius

Oh, come on, admit it. The reference to Augustus enrolling all the world has nothing to do with its context. It has been placed there as yet another error.

spin

spin · 03-25-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

There is nothing in the word which means it must be a property registration. You have tried to argue this bit have failed.

Language works because of the way works relate to each other, ie we work from context. It has been defined by Josephus, who specifies the term in AJ 18.1.1, as I pointed out when I showed your quibble as wrong in #139. :wave:

spin

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.