Vivisector

"Probably" is inadequate to support your position. What you need is "definitely," and you don't have it. An explanation of the circumstances under which a proconsul would be named the emperor's legate to the same province twice would be helpful as well, considering how infrequently this occurred.

Exactly what does the Lapis Tiburtinus say? Does it mention Quirinius by name? And if not, then how can you eliminate other candidates in favor of Quirinius alone?

What do you think of the patristic traditions as concerning Papias? And what of those concerning Irenaeus, who stated that Jesus lived into his 50's?

Vivisector

This would be the Merrill F. Unger who specializes in demons? The one who wrote these?

Demons in the World Today: A Study of Occultism in the Light of God's Word

Biblical Demonology: A Study of Spiritual Forces at Work Today

The Haunting of Bishop Pike: A Christian View of the Other Side

What Demons Can Do to Saints

Diogenes the Cynic

Quirinius was not even "probably" a governor twice in Syria. The Lapis Tiburtinus has the name is missing from the inscription, no one ever governed the same province twice and we know who the governor of Syria was in 4 BCE. His name was Quintilius Varus.

More importantly, Judea did not become a Roman province until 6 CE. Under Herod it was still a client kingdom and was not subject to census. The governor of Syria had no authority to conduct such a census under Herod.

There are multiple other problems with Luke's census as well. This article by Richard Carrier deals with the subject about as well as any I've ever seen. AChristian, I highly recommend you give it a look.

Please be aware that there are some pretty well-informed people on this board. Many of us have formal educations in Biblical criticism, history, Classical languages and other disciplines. Nothing personal, but a lot of naive Christians- especially Biblical literalists- come into these forums and get eaten alive. You may want to lurk some, read some old threads (everything we've talked about here has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. Read some articles in the II library. Check out the ECW site that I linked to earlier. It is possible to argue from a position of faith and still be taken seriously but you're really going to have to catch up on the scholarship first.

aChristian

These guys are not conservative. Try some of the scholars from Moody Bible Institute, Dallas Theological Seminary, Wheaton College, etc. Not everyone at these institutions may be conservative, but I am sure that you will find many (and maybe all) who are.

Just because they know the future does not mean they lived at a later time. Are you assuming that prophecy is impossible and then from this asserting that these men had to live later because they know the future? That is arguing in a circle. After you have established the resurrection and the truth of Christianity, prophecy is no problem and no reason for a later date.

I'll have to research that.

No, I don't believe they copied each other. After you have established the resurrection and Jesus' claims, there is no problem with God giving them the same words. Your problem is you are working from the point of view that Christianity is false. I think you have to focus on the evidence for the resurrection. Until that is decided, you will not believe any supernatural events and and you will take any claim for one to be evidence against the NT.
They are not stories based on the OT, they are eyewitness accounts of historical fact.

They are not stories based on the OT, they are eyewitness accounts of historical fact.

Just because I say something that someone else has said, doesn't mean I am copying them. I also doubt that Cynicism adherants claimed to be the God of the OT, the Jewish Messiah. Of course the ideas about Jesus will have been thought of before, He fulfilled many OT prophecies about the Messiah.

Mark was honest. He wasn't trying to give a flattering view of anyone, he just reported what happened.
As I said before, just because two people give different details of the same story doesn't mean that they aren't both aware of all the details and see no contradiction in reporting only part of what someone else reports.

I think that after you establish the main point of the resurrection, you will be able to come up with reasonable explanations for the supposed problems. You may not always guess exactly what happened, and some problems will have more satisfactory answers than others, but on the whole I don't think they prevent one from logically concluding that the only reasonable explanation for the events of that time period is that the resurrection is a historical fact. After this has been established, the fact that you cannot figure out exactly what happened in some cases because the eyewitnesses do not give you enough detail to do so, will not be a big problem. They do give us enough detail on matters of importance.

aChristian

Yes.

Amaleq13

That is what I have done for the past decade-and-a-half but I have come to the conclusion that there is no reliable way of identifying historically reliable information in the Gospels and the historicity of Jesus cannot be conclusively established.

I started out a Christian and ended up an atheist who is agnostic about the historical existence of Jesus. Contrary to your assertion, there was nothing dishonest about my consideration of the evidence. I was actually quite reluctant to give up my comforting beliefs but felt compelled to do so because of what I learned.

aChristian

Everett Harrison in the Intro to the NT gives the reasons for Quirinius being legate in Syria twice, not governor twice. There are more reasons given there. There is probably more recent conservative scholarly opinion on this as well.
When you say that I am arguing from a position of faith, I believe that you misunderstand faith. Everyone uses faith for everything. You have faith the sun will come up tomorrow. You cannot prove it will, it may be struck and destroyed by an object unable to be detected by our instruments. However, you can have a reasonable faith that it will come up tomorrow and probably be correct. I believe that there are good reasons to support my position and that it I have a reasonable faith. I believe that your position does not have good evidence behind it and therefore requires blind faith. I do appreciate your taking the time to present your reasons to me. Thank you.

aChristian

I don't want to sound arrogant, and I am sure I do at times; Jesus is still working on me. I do believe that there is good evidence however. Why you came to your conclusion, I do not know all the reasons nor do I believe that it is because I am so wise or intelligent or honest that I have arrived at the truth. God has just mercifully revealed himself to me. Although I do believe that an honest search will lead to the true God (He said that we will find Him if we seek him with all of our hearts and that he is not far from any of us (Acts 17:26-28, Romans 10:8-10, Deut 4:29)), we need God's help to be honest.

aChristian

Good night everyone.

Vorkosigan

AChristian, the idea that Matt and Luke copied Mark is a product of Christian scholarship, not atheist or anti-Christian. For example, you can read a good summary of the idea in this 1899 Encyclopedia entry by the good Rev. Abbot, who was also a first-rate Bible scholar. It's been known, after all, for two centuries. I suggest also you try this Synoptic Problem Home Page for an overview of the issues. Nobody is going to grant you the time of day in a serious conversation if you continue to maintain that the Gospels did not know each other. How they are related is a fascinating topic for discussion -- we have Mark-firsters, Matt-firsters, and even a Luke-firster here -- but that they are related, no one seriously disputes.

[quote]Just because they know the future does not mean they lived at a later time. Are you assuming that prophecy is impossible and then from this asserting that these men had to live later because they know the future? That is arguing in a circle.

Let's note two things. First, "knowing the future" is not the only reason I gave, nor the only possible reason. The gospels seem to be aware of the writings of Josephus, whose works didn't come out until after 70. Second, good scholarly methodology does not assume that prophecy is a possible explanation.

The problem is that you can't "establish" this without first establishing a number of other things, such as the reliability of the Gospels. Otherwise you are simply making faith statements, which have no place in serious discussion.

This is an old position, long ago refuted by serious scholars. Paul Tobin's wonderful website writes: "This means that census under Quirinius took place in the year AD6. [2] We also know, from Roman sources, that Quirinius was legate (or governor) of Syria between Volusius Saturninus and Caecilius Creticus Silonus, which makes his tenure last for six years, from 6 to 12 CE." I should add that in 12 Quintus Caecilius Creticus Silanus took over, and ran the shop until 17. There is a list of legates here (scroll down or search LEGATE).

aChristian, I will be happy to consider any evidence you put forward for the Resurrection of Jesus.

Alas, no. For example here is how the writer of Mark created the story of the magic feeding using Elijah. Note the many parallels:

• Mark 6:30-44 2
  Kings 4:38-44
  
  a desert with no food available
  a place with a famine
  
  people who recognize Jesus come from all over
  Elisha is meeting the prophets
  
  two kinds of food inadequate (loaves and fish)
  two kinds of food inadequate (loaves and grain)
  
  disciples protest food is not enough
  protests food is not enough
  
  Jesus insists over objections of disciples
  Elisha insists over objections of his servant
  
  Jesus blesses the food
  Elisha relates the word of the lord
  
  And they all ate and had 12 baskets of leftovers
  they ate and had some left over,
  
  feeds 100
  feeds 5000

Here's more on the structure of the Temple Cleansing:

• The story of Jesus closely parallels the Elijah-Elisha cycle in Kings. Thomas Brodie (1998, p92) explains. At the climax of the two legend cycles, the Temple is cleansed (Jesus drives out the moneychangers, Jehu kills the priests of Ba'al). Both are annointed (2 Kings 9), undergo accession with cloaks on the ground (2 Kings 9), wait before taking over (2 Kings 9:12-13, Mark 11:11), challenge the authorities (2 Kings 9:22-10:27), Mark 11:11 - 12:12), and money given to the Temple (2 Kings 12:5-17, Mark 12:41-44). As Brodie puts it (p93):
  
  
  ..."the basic point is clear: Mark's long passion narrative, while using distinctive Christian sources, coincides significantly both in form and content with the long Temple-centered sequence at the end of the Elijah-Elisha narrative."

You can, if you like, maintain that these are historical facts. But given the obvious correspondences between the stories in Kings and the stories in Mark, few are going to take you seriously.

Vorkosigan