The Nativity (Egyptian, Jerusalem, bible, quotes)

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

No, it isn't. Are you accepting Luke's Nativity as being the one of 6AD - that is the one noted by Josephus as when the Romans deposed Archelaus and took over Judea as a province?

In which case, are you claiming, on the basis of your other posts, that Acts (Gamaliel's speech) refers to a registration held while Herod was alive?

Or the other way around? Luke's 'Acts of the apostles, (Gamaliel's speech) as being the 6 AD census? With Lukes Quirinus censis being in Herod's time? Or what? You are being very unclear, never mind looking evasive here.
Please clarify this as it is really the only thing that the debate is about.

EEk gad trans let me break it down for you.

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

How can I make that any clearer.

This remainder is you at your worst, trying to fiddle the evidence and play the personal offence card.

I'm not even going to be distracted by going over all the insolence you have trotted out as it is irrelevant. And Whether you dismiss my arguments or not doesn't mean that they are no better than yours.

I have no idea what you are talking about trans. I was only pointing out that I find your evidence lacking just as you find mine to be lacking. How does any personal offence work into that? unless you take personal offence with me not agreeing with you.

We old hands know very well that the believers work on denial, so they are never going to admit being wrong about anything serious. They ignore or evade - as you tried to evade clearing up just what dates (or events, if you prefer) you assign to the census in Luke and Acts as without that i don't know what they heck you are arguing. Which I suspect was your intention.

I thought we agreed to stay away from the ad hominem attacks and treat each other with a little respect.

The eclipse is also an evasion. You may be able to make a case for redating Herod's death - though as i say, i don't know what good that does the gospel discrepancy. but you can't do it with the eclipse. If there was one in 4 BC, that was the one - if herod died in 4 BC. You can't shift Herod's death to another year because there was a better eclipse.

How is trying to get to the death date of Herod an ecvasion? I don't believe the 4BCE eclipse works because the math does not work. And if the math does not work then we need to look for another eclipse and the one in 1BCE does fit with the math. Even Harry seemed to agreed that the math does not fit when he said in reference to me stating the math does not work for 4BCE

The one in September, 5 BC does, especially if Herod died at the end of year as Jewish tradition says he did.

If you have another argument, let's hear it, but no more evasions, please, and no more trying to play the 'ad hom' card. You point the finger as much as i do and with less justification, so stop trying it on.

You get probably More respect from me than you merit, because you at least try to argue soundly. so don't pretend that i don't give you enough Respect. You don't give either myself or Harry much, but we couldn't care less. Your case is what matters, not your insolence

yes and I said WE, which included myself, need to treat each other with more respect and stay away from the ad hominem attacks. Are you not willing to do that?
Harry seemed to agree with sticking with only what we can each find and staying away from the ad hominem attacks, so lets at least try it because the personal attacks just take away from the issues.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by pneuma

does he? any proof of that? and if so does he do it all the time?

That's what i read, and the tendency to do that would affect dating depending on what time of year the event happened.

How many time do I have to say Lukes account in luke is NOT the 6CE account. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

But you said above that you said that Luke (and Acts) was the 6 CE account. Now you say it wasn't. Either you are utterly confused yourself or you are trying of confuse us.

Instead of posting contradictory and confused responses and demanding Now is it all clear?' please make yourself clear once and for all

Luke - Census (or registration, if you prefer) of Quirinius (or Cyrenius, if you like) After herod's death and the reign or Archelaus or during Herod's last years?

Acts 5, Gamaliel's reference to the revolt of Judas in the days of the census, taxing or registration. After herod's death and the reign or Archelaus or during Herod's last years?


Underline that which applies, and make it clear. And no more confusion or evasion of we'll all know that you are just wriggling.

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.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Harry. I'll leave it to you to deal with the wrangle about dating Herod's death. I actually fail to see what it matters. Either it is used as an excuse to dismiss Josephus as unreliable so that the Gospels remain the only possible reliable account (which of course is nonsense as they are demonstrably unreliable) or it's intended to try to make Herod's death later and the census of Quirinus earlier so that they can be made to coincide, and Pneuma is a bit confused about what he's actually trying to prove.

In fact confusion is what i suspect it is. I think Pneuma is cutting and pasting his arguments (I saw several of them on some apologetics sources) and isn't clear about what his argument actually is.

This confusion is deliberate obfuscation here:

" I was referring to lukes act registration being the one if 6CE as can be seen by all my other posts."

So apparently the Luke and Acts census (1) is 6 AD, and is the one in Josephus. So why the 'cleared that up? Great let's move on..' tone of his post? Move on to What? That admission totally screws his argument.

Order of events and never mind dating.
Hedod's rule
Matthew's nativity
herod's death
Rule of Archelaus
Archelaus Deposed
Romans take over.
Luke's nativity Roman Tax census as agreed by Josephus, Luke and Acts - according to Pneuma.
I was referring to lukes act registration being the one if 6CE as can be seen by all my other posts.
So that utterly refutes Matthew's nativity. If Pneuma accepts that - debate over.

No wonder it was so unclear and attempting to brush it off and Move On.

Now he may hope I'd forgotten, but i haven't, that he was arguing for a 'second census'. What the whole debate is about. I do recall that he suggested 'forget about matthew'. So if that means that he accepts that Jesus was born when the 6 AD census was held, Herod was long dead, and Registration' held in his last years is irrelevant and all this effort to redate his death is pointless.

(1)
Luke 2
And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. 3 So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.
4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed [a]wife, who was with child.

So Archelaus’s countrey was laid to the province of Syria: and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Cesar to take account of people’s effects in Syria; (16) and to sell the house of Archelaus.1. [A.D. 7.] Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul; and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others; being sent by Cesar to he a judge of that nation; and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him: to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus’s money. But the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously; yet did they leave off any farther opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Boethus, and High Priest. So they being over persuaded by Joazar’s words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite; (1) of a city whose name was Gamala; who, taking with him Saddouk, a Pharisee, (2) became zealous to draw them to a revolt: who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery: and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty.
(Josephus, Antiquities)

Acts 5 4 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; 35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

is the confusion mine or yours about what I am saying, heck trans I even spelled it out to you and you still make this post.

And no I am not cutting and pasting, so what if other have made the same or similar arguments, this issue has been debated for the last 100 years, so I imagine much of what you are saying can be found in this arguments also.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

That's what i read, and the tendency to do that would affect dating depending on what time of year the event happened.

Reading something is not evidence trans, and it might effect the dating but not in the way you think, I am still looking at that aspect.

But you said above that you said that Luke (and Acts) was the 6 CE account. Now you say it wasn't. Either you are utterly confused yourself or you are trying of confuse us.

Instead of posting contradictory and confused responses and demanding Now is it all clear?' please make yourself clear once and for all

I get in one post that it looked like I was saying what you think I said, I explained that, but if you look at all my other posts it is clear what I have been saying.

Luke - Census (or registration, if you prefer) of Quirinius (or Cyrenius, if you like) After herod's death and the reign or Archelaus or during Herod's last years?

Acts 5, Gamaliel's reference to the revolt of Judas in the days of the census, taxing or registration. After herod's death and the reign or Archelaus or during Herod's last years?


Underline that which applies, and make it clear. And no more confusion or evasion of we'll all know that you are just wriggling

I already made it clear when I said

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

and every post of mine but that one also makes it clear.

What these last few post look like to me trans is you trying to create confusion and are nothing more then personal attacks, please stop.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Reading something is not evidence trans, and it might effect the dating but not in the way you think, I am still looking at that aspect.



I get in one post that it looked like I was saying what you think I said, I explained that, but if you look at all my other posts it is clear what I have been saying.



I already made it clear when I said



and every post of mine but that one also makes it clear.

What these last few post look like to me trans is you trying to create confusion and are nothing more then personal attacks, please stop.

Nope. I asked you to do something very clear and easy and you keep evading and wriggling and pretending that you already answered. I posted one post that said the opposite (Luke was 6 CE), and And the post of yours that led to this was as ambiguous as hell.

Originally Posted by pneuma

...

I have no idea what you are talking about trans. I was only pointing out that I find your evidence lacking just as you find mine to be lacking. How does any personal offence work into that? unless you take personal offence with me not agreeing with you.



I thought we agreed to stay away from the ad hominem attacks and treat each other with a little respect.




How is trying to get to the death date of Herod an ecvasion? I don't believe the 4BCE eclipse works because the math does not work. And if the math does not work then we need to look for another eclipse and the one in 1BCE does fit with the math. Even Harry seemed to agreed that the math does not fit when he said in reference to me stating the math does not work for 4BCE







yes and I said WE, which included myself, need to treat each other with more respect and stay away from the ad hominem attacks. Are you not willing to do that?
Harry seemed to agree with sticking with only what we can each find and staying away from the ad hominem attacks, so lets at least try it because the personal attacks just take away from the issues.

You thought we agreed did you? Well you think a lot of things that are wrong.

If i say that you are being evasive, or obsurantist or denialist or illogical or self -contradictory, i shall say so, and it's not an ad -hom but pointing out where your arguments are wrong, and if what is wrong is that you are contradicting yourself or being obscure or evasive I shall say so, and your attempt to force some 'agreement' on me won't work any more than your attempt to scrape a draw by 'agreeing to differ'.

You have little or no case, and that is what is being shown here, not shake hands and call it quits.

Originally Posted by pneuma

is the confusion mine or yours about what I am saying, heck trans I even spelled it out to you and you still make this post.

And no I am not cutting and pasting, so what if other have made the same or similar arguments, this issue has been debated for the last 100 years, so I imagine much of what you are saying can be found in this arguments also.

Ok. You appear at least (Though you are resisting underlining the exact arguments you were making) to have opted to drop Luke's nativity as 6 CE. So we can forget entirely about that. All you need to do is make a case for a Roman -style census in Herod's time and find a place for Quirinius to have organised it. Herod's death - date is now irrelevant.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Statement 1 - Except Quirinius had been a consul in 12 BC, so the only position he could have taken was that of a legate. -

There are several relevant consul lists carved in stone, and also Dio Cassius 54.28.2 (explained in the Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaft). Tacitus Annals 3.48 and Josephus explain how Quirinius rose from a low rank, so it is unlikely Quirinius was a consul before then.

And Rome had a rigid class system, where no high ranking person such as Quirinius would take the low ranking position of a prefect. That is why such a thing was never mentioned in all the Roman literature. And all the Legates during the time of Augustus were of consular class, that is they had been consuls once.

Thank you. So are you saying if Q was a legates once he could not be anything less then a legates ever again?

Statement 2 - Procurators of the equestrian class or lower would govern part of a province, but they could not be a Legate. -

All of the Roman literature state the prefects were of the equestrian rank or lower. And those of the equestrian rank could not be a legate for the same reason a captain could never be a colonel at the same time.

ok sound reasonable

While it is an error, I am not sure this is a scribal mistake by someone copying Josephus, because he also states Herod was "very young, just 15 years old", something Josephus would not do for someone who is 25. It may have been a scribal error by Josephus, but we do not know this.

Also Arabic numerals were not in use at that time. Josephus used words for numbers, here he used pendekaideka (literally five and ten - pende = 5, kai = and, deka = 10).

And though the age might have been 25, we do not actually know what the original was.

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.

Another problem is we have no fixed date for this. All we know is that Caesar sailed away, Antipater returned to Judea, rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, and after seeing how slow Hyrcanus was, he made Phasael the ruler of Jerusalem, and Herod the ruler of Galilee.



Except we have no clear dates only speculation, so it is of no use using an obvious error and a vague probability to determine the date of death of Herod.

But does that not also work both ways?

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.

LOL, I get that.

Except the first recorded instance of an empire wide census was under Vespasian in 74 AD. So we have no independent corroboration of Luke. So once again you are relying on speculation.

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"*

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.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Nope. I asked you to do something very clear and easy and you keep evading and wriggling and pretending that you already answered. I posted one post that said the opposite (Luke was 6 CE), and And the post of yours that led to this was as ambiguous as hell.

You thought we agreed did you? Well you think a lot of things that are wrong.

If i say that you are being evasive, or obsurantist or denialist or illogical or self -contradictory, i shall say so, and it's not an ad -hom but pointing out where your arguments are wrong, and if what is wrong is that you are contradicting yourself or being obscure or evasive I shall say so, and your attempt to force some 'agreement' on me won't work any more than your attempt to scrape a draw by 'agreeing to differ'.

You have little or no case, and that is what is being shown here, not shake hands and call it quits.

Hmmm I hope other atheist read your last few post trans, because I have endeavored to put this topic back on the right tract and treat each other with some respect and you are simply refusing to do that.

It sure makes one wonder whether you are really after the truth here or to make Christians look bad, the latter seems to be the case.

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Hmmm I hope other atheist read your last few post trans,...

Oh yes. We are reading them and we clearly see who's doing the wriggling - and it's not Trans or Harry. You are wriggling more now than when I called you on your wriggling and you put me on your ignore list so that you could escape.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by pneuma

does he? any proof of that? and if so does he do it all the time?

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.