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)
 
Old 05-14-2019, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Canada
6,867 posts, read 4,185,366 times
Reputation: 401

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
You crafty hypocrite. I put you on the spot, and so you ignore the whole thing and pretend it's me being unfair.

Did i not make every effort to get it clear what parts of Acts and Luke were the Nativity in your view? Despite you trying to wriggle?

Now you have to explain a few things abot putting Luke's nativity in Herod's time, and you prefer to do ad hom on me. Whom do you think you are fooling?
No trans I explained it and my op goes into it, you are simply refusing to treat me or any christian with respect and even after I cleared it up you insist on creating confusion.

What the heck got into you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-14-2019, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Canada
6,867 posts, read 4,185,366 times
Reputation: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
Because Josephus uses three different calendars, sometimes for the same event, if he did not count partial years as full years the dates would not match. So all the evidence is that Josephus rounds up his years.
The thing is H that is all just conjecture in order to make his dating work out, maybe he was just off a year.

However like I said I am looking into this part, so far what I see is interesting, and I will get back to you on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2019, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Germany
4,628 posts, read 846,745 times
Reputation: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Thank you. So are you saying if Q was a legates once he could not be anything less then a legates ever again?
No, I am saying someone of consular rank would not take a position of low rank. He could take other positions open to someone of senatorial rank.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Yet if it is not a scribble error then that would mean in 47BCE Herod was 15 which makes his birth date 62BCE and if he lived to 70 then he would have died in 8CE.
No, it could have been a different kind of error. but as it is an error, we can not use it to date Herod's death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
But does that not also work both ways?
No, we have dates we can verify, such as Herod's 18th year of rule happened in 20 BC. This is verified by Augustus (Res Gestae) and Dio Cassius (54.7.4-6, 54.9.3).

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
historian Orosius, VI.22 and VII.2. states this about the registration and oath.

"[Augustus] ordered that*a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled...This is the*earliest*and*most famous public acknowledgmentwhich marked Caesar as the first of all men*and the Romans as lords of the world, a published list of all men entered individually...

This first*and*greatest census*was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made a part of one society"*
Here there are two problems.
1) Orosius gives the date of the census as 1 BC.
2) Orosius quotes Luke, so is getting part of his information from Luke. So this is not independent of Luke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
When added to the inscription from Paphlagonia that date to 3BCE tells us that when Augustus became the first of all men there was a registration or census.
Again we have 2 problems.
1) There is no mention of a census in the inscription.
2) Paphlagonia became part of the Roman empire in 2 or 3 BC, so a census would already have been taken about that time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2019, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,867 posts, read 4,185,366 times
Reputation: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
No, I am saying someone of consular rank would not take a position of low rank. He could take other positions open to someone of senatorial rank.
Such as a hegemoneuontos.


Quote:
No, it could have been a different kind of error. but as it is an error, we can not use it to date Herod's death.
But we could say that about a lot of Josephus way of dating, but I am starting to see most of them at least can be reconciled.



Quote:
No, we have dates we can verify, such as Herod's 18th year of rule happened in 20 BC. This is verified by Augustus (Res Gestae) and Dio Cassius (54.7.4-6, 54.9.3).
Ok I will look that up.

From your other post

Quote:
I will try and list events that can be dated, but it may take some time as I need to keep the tax man happy.
Can you give the place where you find these dates as you did with the above or a link to the works, thanks.

Quote:
Here there are two problems.
1) Orosius gives the date of the census as 1 BC.
Actually he places it in 2BCE as that was when Augustus was made the first of all men.

Quote:
2) Orosius quotes Luke, so is getting part of his information from Luke. So this is not independent of Luke.
I don't see where Orosius quotes Luke but even if he did does not make him wrong.

What is shown is that there was a registration when Augustus became the first of all men and that registration did take place in 2BCE.

Or do you disagree that a registration took place when Augustus became the first of all men?



Quote:
Again we have 2 problems.
1) There is no mention of a census in the inscription.
2) Paphlagonia became part of the Roman empire in 2 or 3 BC, so a census would already have been taken about that time
Which still fits the time Augustus became the first of all men.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 12:28 AM
 
38,343 posts, read 10,476,171 times
Reputation: 5033
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
No trans I explained it and my op goes into it, you are simply refusing to treat me or any christian with respect and even after I cleared it up you insist on creating confusion.

What the heck got into you?
Why don't you stop trying to manipulate me and the debate by playing the ad hom card? I have had to ask 'is this what what you are saying?' because it wasn't clear and rather than answer you claimed that you had.

Now I set it out 'Is this what you are saying?..and if so..' you are ignoring where it leaves the debate and three objections to it. Why don't you address the points instead of pointing the finger at me?

To restate the place where you are:

Ah Ok. That'll do

Lukes account in Luke has nothing to do with the 6CE census.
Lukes account in acts is the same as the 6CE census.

Which you had to do, as the census in Acts is not associated with a Nativity but the one in Luke is and so you cannot now leave it as 6 CE or it conflicts with Matthew's nativity in the time of Herod.

So you have abandoned the idea of the 6 AD census as the nativity time and 'forget' Matthew.

Matthew and Luke are the same time (Herod's last years) and Acts is referring to the 6 AD census. This does overcome a lot of problems for you. Any Herodian tax would cover Galilee, too, Luke's reference to Herod will fit and there are only three problems for you:

(1) the contradiction of the stories. Did Joseph live in Judea or Nazareth, and did they go to Egypt or back to Nazareth?

(2) how could Quirinius be governor of Syria when Varus was in Herod's last years?

(3) why, if Luke and Acts describe two different events, do they both sound as though they are describing the Census in Josephus, with both Quirinius and the revolt of Judas?

You will see that dating Herod's death is no longer an issue of any importance as you have plumped for Luke's census in Herod's time, and the Acts census Not. So it's very simple. Herod's death -date is Irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 04:06 AM
 
Location: Germany
4,628 posts, read 846,745 times
Reputation: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Such as a hegemoneuontos.
Hegemoneuontos is a Verb, it means 'he was governing'. The Noun hegemon just means to be a ruler or governor, so Quirinius could be a ruler of a different senatorial province as a legate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Can you give the place where you find these dates as you did with the above or a link to the works, thanks.
Years ago I used Josephus and Roman historians to calculate some of these, so I need to do that work again.

Any other sources will be of no use to you unless you can read German. If you wish, I can try and find them again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Actually he places it in 2BCE as that was when Augustus was made the first of all men.
Correct for the wrong reason.

22. In the year of the City seven hundred and fifty-two, when all nations, from the East to the West, from the North to the South, and throughout the entire circuit of the Ocean, were united in the bonds of peace, Caesar Augustus had the gates of Janus closed for the third time. ... At that time, that is, in the year when Caesar, by God's ordination, established the firmest and truest peace, Christ was born, Whose coming that peace waited upon and at Whose birth the angels joyfully sang in the hearing of men, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will."

Rome was said to have been built in 753 BC, so 753 BC would be the first year, 752 BC would be the second, and the year seven hundred and fifty-two would be 2 BC. I miscalculated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
I don't see where Orosius quotes Luke but even if he did does not make him wrong.

What is shown is that there was a registration when Augustus became the first of all men and that registration did take place in 2BCE.
The above text in purple is Luke 2:14. So Orosius is getting his information from Luke, and using Luke to prove Luke is circular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Or do you disagree that a registration took place when Augustus became the first of all men?
As I said, we have no independent evidence an empire wide census took place at that time other than what Luke says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Which still fits the time Augustus became the first of all men.
But still no mention of a census.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Germany
4,628 posts, read 846,745 times
Reputation: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
The thing is H that is all just conjecture in order to make his dating work out, maybe he was just off a year.

However like I said I am looking into this part, so far what I see is interesting, and I will get back to you on it.
In Jewish Antiquities 14.487, Josephus tells us when Herod took Jerusalem, while Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls. This was in 37 BC.

Josephus also tells us this was 27 years after Pompey took Jerusalem in 63 BC. This would give us 36 BC.

Maybe Josephus was out one year with Pompey taking Jerusalem (unlikely as he tells us who the consuls were that year), maybe a scribe confused eikosiex for eikosiepta (possible). Or Josephus counted partial Roman years as complete. I will see if I can find another example to clarify which is more likely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 11:34 AM
 
38,343 posts, read 10,476,171 times
Reputation: 5033
Deep stuff - but interesting. I just hope it isn't judged to be getting off - topic. For me, I'll take Pneuna's opting for the Roman take -over ( 6 AD) as not being the date of the nativity.

Nice and neat. No problem with Galilee not being in the tax area of Coponius, no problem with the conception in the time of Herod but a birth after the reign of Archelaus ,and no problem with Matthew - their nativities are not conflicting chronologically.

The problem is that the stories are (as the 'Anointed one' found when he tried to wangle them together) fatally contradictory.

Qurinius couldn't have been 'governor' of Syria in the last years of Herod - or indeed, any other time other than when he actually was - 6 -12 AD. This 'Hegemoneuontos' obsession is a red herring. It has to be used to mean that Quirinus could have some position of authority to organise a registration in Herod's kingdom. And Varus could be the actual Syrian 'governor'. That's the apologetic here.

The problem there is that Pneuma has to find a suitable 'Registration' in Herod's time, and he tried very hard to find one in the 'Loyalty oath' that he puts in 3 BC (though I can't recall why) in the previous debate where we did much of this already . I recall (since I can see it coming up again) that he tried to prove that Josephus mentioning 6,000 Pharisees being arrested proved that a census must have been taken. I argued that it was estimated that there were around 6,000 Pharisees living in Judea t the time (with perhaps 500 Sadducees) and that was simply the figure given as they were all 'arrested' and a sympathetic princess had to pay their fine for refusing the loyalty -oath, as i recall.

So I'm just clearing away some of the apologetics before we get bogged down in them.

Hegemoneuontos is really no point. What is a point is that no mention of Quirinius doing anything in Judea in Herod's time much less taking a census, is a serious point. The question of any Roman -conducted registration - especially one that would require a Galilean to travel to Judea dragging his wife along to sign a 'loyalty oath' - being hard to find is another problem. Because of course, Luke's nativity is now "nothing to do" as Pneuma says - with the Roman assessment of Archelaus' wealth, house and kingdom.
It has to be something else that would require Herod's populace to be displaced from wherever they worked and lived to go back to some ancestral city to sign on. Which not even that census paper found in Egypt requires people to do (1).

What I'm getting at is, Luke's silly trek to Bethlehem makes no sense even as a Roman tax -census. it makes no more or even less as some kind of registration under Herod.

And of course, i would say that Pneuma now opting for Luke and Matthew (not Acts) referring to an event in Herod's last years, whether it was 5, 4, 3 2 or 1 BC means that the exact date of Herod's death is now immaterial - unless of course Pneuma has found a 'registration' than may be dateable to a particular date.

(1) Gaius Vibius Maximus, the Prefect of Egypt, declares:
The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. Knowing, however, that some of the people from the countryside are required by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before . . . Festus, the Cavalry Commander, whom I have appointed for this purpose, from whom those who have shown their presence to be necessary shall receive signed permits in accordance with this edict up to the 30th of the present month E . . .

worth reading again as this bloody census -paper is so often triumphantly waved about as 'Proof of The Bible' when in fact it isn't. Of course Luke knows of the tax census and what it required people to do. What he didn't seem to realise is that it required people to go back to where they lived or worked to sign on, as that is where tax would be collected. Thus Joseph would have signed on in Nazareth, or Maybe Zipphorah or Kepher-nahum. It is absurd to have Joseph trek back to the town of his ancestor. Let alone drag Mary along.

Of course we know exactly why Luke had Joseph do this - because Mary had to be got from Nazareth by hook or by crook (the Christian apologist uses both) into Bethlehem because (as John 7.42 confirms) it was seen a scripturally necessary that Jesus should be born there.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-15-2019 at 12:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2019, 03:27 AM
 
Location: Germany
4,628 posts, read 846,745 times
Reputation: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Deep stuff - but interesting. I just hope it isn't judged to be getting off - topic.
It is relevant to the two nativity stories as it dates the death of Herod the Great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
The problem there is that Pneuma has to find a suitable 'Registration' in Herod's time, and he tried very hard to find one in the 'Loyalty oath' that he puts in 3 BC (though I can't recall why) in the previous debate where we did much of this already .
Pneuma is trying to claim a census was required for the oath. So a later, post 3 BC death of Herod allows Luke to allegedly be talking about this alleged census.

The problem is that Matthew has Herod alive when Mary and Joseph travel to Egypt. when Herod dies, they then goes to Nazareth because Archelaus was ruling Judea. Yet Luke has Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to Jerusalem once a year until Jesus was 12. Which means an ad hoc explanation is required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
It has to be something else that would require Herod's populace to be displaced from wherever they worked and lived to go back to some ancestral city to sign on. Which not even that census paper found in Egypt requires people to do (1).
Not their ancestral city (which makes no sense), just their homes. But this was an Egyptian custom that the Romans continued. It was not the normal Roman method.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2019, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Canada
6,867 posts, read 4,185,366 times
Reputation: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Why don't you stop trying to manipulate me and the debate by playing the ad hom card? I have had to ask 'is this what what you are saying?' because it wasn't clear and rather than answer you claimed that you had.

Now I set it out 'Is this what you are saying?..and if so..' you are ignoring where it leaves the debate and three objections to it. Why don't you address the points instead of pointing the finger at me?

To restate the place where you are:

Ah Ok. That'll do

Lukes account in Luke has nothing to do with the 6CE census.
Lukes account in acts is the same as the 6CE census.

Which you had to do, as the census in Acts is not associated with a Nativity but the one in Luke is and so you cannot now leave it as 6 CE or it conflicts with Matthew's nativity in the time of Herod.

So you have abandoned the idea of the 6 AD census as the nativity time and 'forget' Matthew.

Matthew and Luke are the same time (Herod's last years) and Acts is referring to the 6 AD census. This does overcome a lot of problems for you. Any Herodian tax would cover Galilee, too, Luke's reference to Herod will fit and there are only three problems for you:

(1) the contradiction of the stories. Did Joseph live in Judea or Nazareth, and did they go to Egypt or back to Nazareth?

(2) how could Quirinius be governor of Syria when Varus was in Herod's last years?

(3) why, if Luke and Acts describe two different events, do they both sound as though they are describing the Census in Josephus, with both Quirinius and the revolt of Judas?

You will see that dating Herod's death is no longer an issue of any importance as you have plumped for Luke's census in Herod's time, and the Acts census Not. So it's very simple. Herod's death -date is Irrelevant.
Yes that is more or less what I have been saying.
I will get to your 3 points in time, however I do things in a more systematic style then you do as I try to exhaust on or two point at a time, whereas when you post you go for the whole ball of wax. We just have different styles of doing things. Harry seems to use the same systematic style as I do, or does not mind doing it that way, so I actually find him easier to follow.

As to Herod's death I do think it is relevant but even if it was not I still want to know when he actually died or as close as we can get because it is history.
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