U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-14-2019, 11:19 AM
Status: "Pr 6:16-19, JeffBase, Pneuma!" (set 13 days ago)
 
Location: Germany
4,182 posts, read 767,410 times
Reputation: 654

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Where is your evidence that Luke is not talking about 2 different events? You have said based on all evidence yet have failed to supply any evidence that they are one and the same event.
Where is the evidence he is talking about 2? We have provided the evidence, the early historians who show the frame work of Josephus is accurate. You even agree Josephus does not mention a second census.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
All you are doing is reiterating your belief that they are talking about the same thing.
No, we are reiterating our evidence, it is you who is reiterating your beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
You don't actually deal with what Luke actually said which is that the registration in Luke was throughout the WHOLE Roman empire and Josephus makes it plain that the taxing was ONLY in Syria.
You do not deal with the fact that Luke rewrites history because he is not writing a history, but a theological text. So he is simply taking the census of Judea (not Syria) and claiming it is a empire wide census.

You also do not deal with the fact that the Romans would not take a census of Judea before 6 AD, or Galilee before 42 AD as they were not part of the Roman empire. something you ignore over and over and over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Since when is Syria = to the whole Roman empire? because that is exactly what you are saying when you lump what Luke says together with what Josephus says about a tax in 6 C.E.
So Luke got the whole Roman empire part wrong. That is one argument against us that is explained by the fact that Luke was not writing a history, but inventing one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Another way of saying "Have mercy on that poor old horse and bury it" is sweep the evidence you do not want to deal with under the rug.
Who have dealt with the evidence again and again and again. You have not dealt with ours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
also in post 4 of my OP I gave evidence of the registration Luke was talking about in Luke.
Yes, the claim for a registration for a oath while :
1) ignoring the need to register people for a tax, and
2) ignoring Judea was NOT part of the Roman empire.

And then the claim Quirinius would be a procurator simply because Justin Martyr said so. Except Quirinius was of consular rank (since 12 BC) AND the ruler of Syria (Luke), which both mean he can only have been a Legate, NEVER a procurator. You even admitted this when you pointed out procurators were of the equestrian class! But the equestrian class could NEVER be governors of a major province such as Syria. They could only rule over parts of a province, such as Judea, but were under the command of the Legate.

Through your total ignorance of Roman ranks and what the Greek means you actually refuted your own position!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-14-2019, 12:13 PM
 
37,681 posts, read 10,228,524 times
Reputation: 4991
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Where is your evidence that Luke is not talking about 2 different events? You have said based on all evidence yet have failed to supply any evidence that they are one and the same event.

All you are doing is reiterating your belief that they are talking about the same thing.

You don't actually deal with what Luke actually said which is that the registration in Luke was throughout the WHOLE Roman empire and Josephus makes it plain that the taxing was ONLY in Syria.

Since when is Syria = to the whole Roman empire? because that is exactly what you are saying when you lump what Luke says together with what Josephus says about a tax in 6 C.E.

Another way of saying "Have mercy on that poor old horse and bury it" is sweep the evidence you do not want to deal with under the rug.

also in post 4 of my OP I gave evidence of the registration Luke was talking about in Luke.
You are starting to shift from denial to sauce. I have explained that the Judas rebellion plus Luke/Acts talking about only One census, links then to the 6 AD 'first' census of Judea with the revolt of Judas. There is NO reason to suggest a Herodian census of Qurinus as syrian governor when there was no room for him, and also have a Judas' rebellion, and nobody has heard of any of this, never mid your attempts to make any Roman roundup the Herodian registration' even when Rome did not run Judea.

You are being perfectly silly with Syria. You and I both know that 'the whole world -tax' has to be interpreted. It was the whole Roman world, and not always at the same time, I gather. Each governor of a province would tax their province. Syria would be one of these, but it didn't apply to Herod's kingdom or any other client -kingdom. Note, the Boudiccan revolt was really started because Nero's taxmen tried to tax the Iceni, who had always been a client kingdom of Rome.

Harry also notes that Luke is talking very generally and probably doesn't realise that Judea only became subject to the Roman tax a lot later on. No more than he realises that the census of Qurinus would not apply to Galilee, which was still a Client state under Antipas.

This and quite a bit more is evidence that you Herodian census of Quirinus cannot work and has No evidence for it. I think you are also being evasive, crafty or cheeky in trying to go back to the OP and starting the argument all over again. The points made there have been shown at least to have good alternative explanations, better supportive evidence, and the story it is supposed to support fails on three levels - the way the history looks,
The links -Acts - to Luke's census and Luke's census to Qurinus, syrian governor 6 AD
mutual destruction of Luke compared to Matthew.

Nothing is swept under the rug. Instead it is swept up and decently buried, as it it starting to smell.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-14-2019 at 12:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2019, 10:22 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,747 posts, read 4,146,609 times
Reputation: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
You are starting to shift from denial to sauce. I have explained that the Judas rebellion plus Luke/Acts talking about only One census, links then to the 6 AD 'first' census of Judea with the revolt of Judas. There is NO reason to suggest a Herodian census of Qurinus as syrian governor when there was no room for him, and also have a Judas' rebellion, and nobody has heard of any of this, never mid your attempts to make any Roman roundup the Herodian registration' even when Rome did not run Judea.

.
That is NOT evidence, that is your opinion that Luke/acts is talking about only ONE census.

All you have to do is read what Luke actually wrote and pay attention to it.

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

Now if this was the FIRST registration while Cyrenius was governor of Syria it should be obvious that there is at least a second, otherwise saying it was the FIRST would make no sense and that second one was what Luke pointed out in acts.




Quote:
You are being perfectly silly with Syria. You and I both know that 'the whole world -tax' has to be interpreted. It was the whole Roman world, and not always at the same time, I gather. Each governor of a province would tax their province. Syria would be one of these, but it didn't apply to Herod's kingdom or any other client -kingdom. Note, the Boudiccan revolt was really started because Nero's taxmen tried to tax the Iceni, who had always been a client kingdom of Rome.

Harry also notes that Luke is talking very generally and probably doesn't realise that Judea only became subject to the Roman tax a lot later on. No more than he realises that the census of Qurinus would not apply to Galilee, which was still a Client state under Antipas.


This and quite a bit more is evidence that you Herodian census of Quirinus cannot work and has No evidence for it. I think you are also being evasive, crafty or cheeky in trying to go back to the OP and starting the argument all over again. The points made there have been shown at least to have good alternative explanations, better supportive evidence, and the story it is supposed to support fails on three levels - the way the history looks,
The links -Acts - to Luke's census and Luke's census to Qurinus, syrian governor 6 AD
mutual destruction of Luke compared to Matthew.

Nothing is swept under the rug. Instead it is swept up and decently buried, as it it starting to smell
again nothing but your opinion, where is your evidence? Show me where it says the client kingdoms were not taxed, you keep saying this yet have supplied NO evidence showing this.


What better explanation concerning my OP are you talking about? I have looked through the thread and you have mentioned nothing about much of anything I have written in the OP.

Why don't you take it point by point and show us all this better explanation you are talking about.

I already showed you Josephus dating problems, gave you the places in his writing so you can verify it (evidence), and still you insist that there is no problem with his dating. You insist the dating around the time of Herod is accurate, but where is the evidence for this? He is so accurate in his dating around Herod that he said Herod was 15 years old when he started his reign, are you going to insist that his dating here is also accurate?

You have said there is no record of a registration in around the time Luke spoke about, I gave you one and all you can say about it is you just don't buy that the registration is the same one Luke spoke about.

Well Trans, that is also just your opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2019, 11:34 PM
 
37,681 posts, read 10,228,524 times
Reputation: 4991
if you're just going ignore everything and dismiss everything, that's your problem. We all know that yore operating on faith, not evidence, anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 01:24 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
14,916 posts, read 10,122,990 times
Reputation: 2537
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
if you're just going ignore everything and dismiss everything, that's your problem. We all know that yore operating on faith, not evidence, anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 03:33 AM
Status: "Pr 6:16-19, JeffBase, Pneuma!" (set 13 days ago)
 
Location: Germany
4,182 posts, read 767,410 times
Reputation: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
That is NOT evidence, that is your opinion that Luke/acts is talking about only ONE census.
No, it is based on the evidence you have swept under the rug. Whereas your opinion hat it refers to more than one census ignores the evidence you have swept under the rug.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
All you have to do is read what Luke actually wrote and pay attention to it.
It also helps if you read YOUR evidence that YOU provided, the Lapis Venetus. But please continue to refute yourself, I find it most amusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

Now if this was the FIRST registration while Cyrenius was governor of Syria it should be obvious that there is at least a second, otherwise saying it was the FIRST would make no sense and that second one was what Luke pointed out in acts.
Well done. And when was Quirinius the legate of Syria? According to all the evidence under your rug that you ignore, that was in 6 AD to 12 AD. So this would be the standard census for a new land taken into the empire, which would mean the first census would take place around 6 / 7 AD. And the second census? Could that be the census of Apamea you mentioned in YOUR evidence that YOU provided, the Lapis Venetus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
again nothing but your opinion, where is your evidence? Show me where it says the client kingdoms were not taxed, you keep saying this yet have supplied NO evidence showing this.
You have shown no evidence such a stupid practice DID occur. To what foreign power do you pay tax to? When did this EVER happen? And the evidence is that client kingdoms paid an annual tribute but remained independent. So any tax collected was done by the client kingdom, not by Rome. Because this is how the Romans worked. Efficiently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
What better explanation concerning my OP are you talking about? I have looked through the thread and you have mentioned nothing about much of anything I have written in the OP.

Why don't you take it point by point and show us all this better explanation you are talking about.
Again? I have already done this. It took me 5 hours to refute your 3 weeks worth of ignorant opinion. We do not need to do that again. Here is my first point by point post.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/52408408-post30.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
I already showed you Josephus dating problems, gave you the places in his writing so you can verify it (evidence), and still you insist that there is no problem with his dating.
And we have already refuted your opinion by showing you that Josephus is confirmed by not only other historians (Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Seutonius, etc), but the emperor himself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
You insist the dating around the time of Herod is accurate, but where is the evidence for this?
Under your rug.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
He is so accurate in his dating around Herod that he said Herod was 15 years old when he started his reign, are you going to insist that his dating here is also accurate?
One error does not mean that all his dates were in error. And the independent confirmation (which you will find under your rug) refutes your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
You have said there is no record of a registration in around the time Luke spoke about, I gave you one ...
No, you mentioned an oath, but not once did you provide any evidence for your opinion that 1) a census was required, and 2) that Quirinius had anything to do with it. In fact you ignored the evidence (that is under your rug) that Quirinius could not have been governor, as you could only be a governor of a province once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
...and all you can say about it is you just don't buy that the registration is the same one Luke spoke about.
Yes, because of all the evidence under your rug that your opinion ignores.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Well Trans, that is also just your opinion.
Yes, the usual argument that our evidence is just opinion, but your opinion is evidence, even when you refute yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 03:57 AM
Status: "Pr 6:16-19, JeffBase, Pneuma!" (set 13 days ago)
 
Location: Germany
4,182 posts, read 767,410 times
Reputation: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Harry also notes that Luke is talking very generally and probably doesn't realise that Judea only became subject to the Roman tax a lot later on. No more than he realises that the census of Qurinus would not apply to Galilee, which was still a Client state under Antipas.
I do not know if Luke was ignorant of this, it may have just been irrelevant to him. Luke is rewriting and inventing history for his story, and he may not have cared.

Luke was not a historian, he was someone who wrote a religious text for theological and political reasons, but as a nice story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 10:27 AM
 
37,681 posts, read 10,228,524 times
Reputation: 4991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
I do not know if Luke was ignorant of this, it may have just been irrelevant to him. Luke is rewriting and inventing history for his story, and he may not have cared.

Luke was not a historian, he was someone who wrote a religious text for theological and political reasons, but as a nice story.
Thanks for the above post. Pneuma ignores that not only is there evidence of how client kingdoms like the Iceni were treated (or ought to have been) but Josephus does not refer to any Roman tax in Herod's kingdom. That's aside from 'sweeping under the rug' that any of these Roman directives (such as the loyalty declaration of 3 BC that he made a big deal about when we had this discussion on a previous occasion) would hardly require Galileans to travel to some supposed ancestral city to sign up for some loyalty registration. (1)

"I Joseph bar Heli, resident of Nazareth in Galilee, do solemnly declare that I am utterly loyal to Augustus and so is my wife..."

Well, couldn't he have done that at Sepphoris? And that is also denying the links (explained several times) That Luke/Acts identifies the census as the one where Judas revolted, and that is the one that Josephus agrees with Luke is the census of Qurinus, 6 AD.

As against this, an unknown Herodian registration under Quirinus as Syrian governor when we know who the governors (or 'acting' governors) were, and Josephus going over the history says nothing of it. Pneuma is in fact doing what he accuses me of - ignoring the evidence.

It's a crafty little trick to focus on one little bit of History (say, Herod's last years) and demand that we prove that Judas couldn't have had a previous revolt against some head -count registration that was nothing to do do with taxation - though Pneuma is quite ready to have the Romans tax Herod's kingdom like they owned it or count up able - bodied Jews for military service even though the Army would only let them join themselves as auxiliaries (2). In other words, ignoring most of the evidence in order to try to create a gap for God, really.'You can't prove that this didn't happen, so it must have' (the Bibleclaim stands on the 'true until 100% disproven' ploy).

That without Qurininus not even being governor. There's just so much that our mate ignores that to call it 'Denial' is inescapable. Btw, I suspect that Luke doesn't know that Galilee isn't subject to the tax, because he doesn't understand the history, because:

He shows little understanding of Judea/Galilee geographically, so why should he historically?
He doesn't seem to see the conflict between what looks like the 6.AD census and an annunciation 'in the days of Herod'.
He shows signs (in the Gospel and Acts), of using Josephus, (as well as Paul's letters as the basic Synoptic text, as well as the 'sermon' material) so using material that he doesn't well understand is more probable than his having some explanation in mind that he doesn't give us.

'Oh, let's go back to the OP and start the discussion all over again'. Why, when each and every point has been not only shown improbable, but against all the evidence?

Raff's post underlines why people with 'courage of convictions' - a behaviour that I for one have never found very admirable - brush away the evidence, reiterate one 'sticking point' that they feel can't be refuted and pin a 'one -shot win' on that and will end up with the 'well I don't care what you say' denial and pretend that's somehow a win for them.

Not that Pneuma had done that, but is still trying to force through argument - points that he has been shown to have no weight if not being shown untenable, on balance.

The debate, I always said, was over long ago, in the days when the morality argument finally sank with all hands in denial on the grounds that there was a ship that was still afloat in China. There are still new arguments popping up, but few of them are actually much good: they rely on Faith and can be refuted pretty quickly.

Take Lee Strobel's film about an atheist's "objective following of the evidence to a conclusion that the Resurrection must have happened". That was shown straight away to show a total disregard of the unbeliever side, and just presented one Bible -believer apologetic after another uncritically. Perhaps - since this one is done and dusted, Pneuma's denial aside - we might (using the fabrication of the Nativities as a precedent), do the resurrection, since we have not just two mutually destructive stories, but three. And while the nativity really only tosses the virgin birth in the trash where it belongs, showing the resurrection to be demonstrably discrepant fabrications, is an AP shell to the heart of the Bunker of Christianity.

Yes, the debate is Over, bar the reiteration of tattered old apologetics and denial and, of course, letting the browsers, lurkers and peanut gallery know that it is over, because the Biblesuckers have been telling them that History, Bible - scholarship and even archaeology has confirmed Bibletruth and reliability, because there is nobody to tell them differently. And the understanding of the tactics used by the Bible -apologists to try to scrape points is pretty much receipted and filed, and what fascinates me now is the mindset that has their reasoning work in this back to front fashion. And I reckon I understand that pretty well, too.

(1) I have to mention the 'well perhaps...' explain - away gambit. One poster argued that 'perhaps' Joseph was going to Judea for a festival. But aside that this is 'rewriting the Bible', because it says that Joseph was going to Judea to register (another poster tried a nitpick of there being other 'Bethlehems' and it doesn't say that it was Bethlehem in Judea, and I simply directed him to where Luke says that it was in Judea - they so often don't know what's in their own Bible), and doesn't mention a festival, he didn't go to Jerusalem, but to Bethlehem. This clumsiness comes from ad hoc batting down of each point in isolation and seeing the whole Big Picture (one apologist spoke of seeing the 'big picture, but what he meant was seeing it through Faith -based acceptance that it was true, no matter what it looked like) is what they cannot do, as it would cause doubts and questions. And Arq Atheist Axiom no 9 saith that the only really unforgivable sin is doubt.

(2) I have to mention a neat little ploy I'd use if I were a Bible apologist - misdirection. "Trans; you are overlooking the fact that no recruit into the Roman army was allowed to serve in their own country". Unless I was awake enough to say "So what?" I could find myself losing an argument against a point I didn't disagree with, anyway.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-15-2019 at 11:18 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,747 posts, read 4,146,609 times
Reputation: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
if you're just going ignore everything and dismiss everything, that's your problem. We all know that yore operating on faith, not evidence, anyway.
I am not the one ignoring the evidence, you are, then turn around and give your opinion and seem to insist your opinion is evidence.

Is Josephus all over the map in dating? YES and I have given evidence showing it.
Was there a registration in 2 B.C.E.? Yes and I have given evidence showing it.

I have asked you to give evidence of client kingdoms not being taxed, you have supplied NO evidence. Talking only about how the Iceni got angry a Neros taxing. How does that prove that client kingdoms where not taxed?

That Nero taxed them actually shows your error.

Sure the Iceni got angry over the tax, but that proves nothing. The more we are taxed the angrier we get about that taxing.

And we have all seen how the have not's have time and again risen up against the have's throughout history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:28 PM
Status: "Pr 6:16-19, JeffBase, Pneuma!" (set 13 days ago)
 
Location: Germany
4,182 posts, read 767,410 times
Reputation: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
I am not the one ignoring the evidence, you are, then turn around and give your opinion and seem to insist your opinion is evidence.
You are ignoring me because of ALL the evidence I have shown that refutes your position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Is Josephus all over the map in dating? YES and I have given evidence showing it.
Wrong again, you presented a few errors and then claimed the rest must be all over the map. You also ignore all the relevant historians of that time confirm Josephus is accurate when talking about Herod and the 6 / 7 AD census by Quirinius.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Was there a registration in 2 B.C.E.? Yes and I have given evidence showing it.
No you did not. You asserted there may have been a registration. But there is no evidence the oath was for none Roman citizens other than the elite such as Herod. And there is no evidence for a census. Even you admitted Josephus never mentioned a census in 2 BC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
I have asked you to give evidence of client kingdoms not being taxed, you have supplied NO evidence.
Because we have no evidence a client kingdom was ever taxed, they always payed a set tribute. We have evidence for this, never for a tax. And I have demonstrated why it makes no sense taxing a foreign power

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Talking only about how the Iceni got angry a Neros taxing. How does that prove that client kingdoms where not taxed?
Because Boudica's husband ruled a client kingdom that was not taxed. But when he died, the Romans tried to take the Iceni land as part of the Roman empire. That is why Boudica revolted, because being part of the Roman empire meant being taxed. And for that you would need a census.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
That Nero taxed them actually shows your error.
No, it shows yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Sure the Iceni got angry over the tax, but that proves nothing.
It proves you are once again ignorant of the facts that refute your position. Did it not occur to you to check Wikipedia about Boudica?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top