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.
According to GrandStander, the Jewish historian Josephus who was once a pharisee in Jerusalem would not be able to post on this board anything he had written because of his belief in God. And although he was born just of few years after Jesus death, and would have talked to eyewitnesses of the events in Jerusalem at the time of Christ inorder to write his history, Grandstander would question his academic rules of investigation. In the same way both Grandstander and NJgoat questions the historian Luke's account to Theophilis recorded in the Bible although Luke states he wrote an orderly account of Christ delivered to him by the eye witnesses of these events. That's really sad reasoning on their part.
Having read Josephus, there is very little contained in his writings that support the stories told in the Bible. Jospehus records no such census.
What were Luke's sources? We know Mark was his primary source along with two unknown sources the "Q" and "L" (aka Lukan). Going further we know that Mark was the primary source for Mathew and Luke, but they both tell different stories, only agreeing where Mark was the obvious influence. That used to be considered the "history" but modern research has proven that Mark is not a historical account, but actually a theological construct different from Jesus' actual ministry.
Quote:
Evidently both Grandstander and NJgoat would rather accept the opinions of modern scholars living 2,000 years after the events. It seems they would rather listen to scholars trained amoungst our liberal universities then they would historians who investigated the events themselves near the time of Christ. And by looking at their statements both Grandstander and NJgoat seem to be saying that they have a neutral attitude towards the historical evidence regarding the Bible, which is far from the truth. Maybe you guys should join an atheist board because of your bias instead of posting on the history board.
I do have a neutral attitude towards it. I just find that preponderance of evidence leads one to the conclusion that what read in the Bible is a construct of stories to "prove" the Messianic lineage and divinity of Jesus. They are not an actual historical account of events, though I do believe that there was in fact a historical Jesus. Whether or not they prove divinity is a matter of faith.
The faith issue is where your bias lies. For you, the evidence cannot possibly prove anything but an affirmation of what is in the Bible. For you to believe that it is possible that the Biblical is wrong would be to question your faith. So, all of your interprations and of the evidence are based solely on your desire to affirm the Bible. I can be open to the idea that the Bible is right. You however, cannot be open to the idea that it is wrong.
Quote:
Now come on NJGOAT, why would you quote Professor Nicholas F. Gier who was a Professor of Philosophy and a liberal religious coordinator. He was not an ancient history professor. So you seem to have a double standard as to who may or may not be quoted as a source on this blog.
Your source was you. I posted a link to a different source that countered your assertions. Here are Professor Gier's credentials, what are yours?
As to the census account, since there are various English translations of that artifact I will quote another fuller version which also list the Greek text side by side.
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 . . .
By just looking at the inscription is states:
1) It was a census of every household.
2) Since this particular census was held in Egypt, they were required to go back to their Nomes. Ancient Egypt was divided into many different nomes which were administrative districts. Israel was not divided into nomes but was divided by Tribes. So Joseph was required to return to his ancestral Tribe which was the land of Judah.
3) They all had to return to their own homes (hearths) for a registration.
4) Evidently they weren't the places they were currently residing at because it says those residing in the countryside, if having a good reason, would not have to return to their city. So it was not only a district they had to return to, but to their city.
In the same way Joseph and Mary who were currently residing at Nazareth had to return to their tribal land of Judah to the specific town of Bethlehem.
Don't forget to check out my website at Biblehistory.net for the other articles on Quirinius that I linked to on my past post.
Your truly, A Bible College wannabe
The fact that your interpretation is what it is, is proof of your inability to doubt what is in the Bible, hence direct evidence of your bias on this subject matter.
I do not have the same interpretation of this text. I read the salient points as follows:
1. There is a census being conducted.
2. If people who live in your household are currently away it is essential that they return home so that they may be counted.
3. The census takers realize that there are some people whose homes are in the countryside, but that their services are required by the city. If you feel you have a satisfactory reason to remain in the city are required to register...(rest is cut off).
Basically, there is a census being taken and people need to be at what is their home. Given the information known about a hundred other Roman census', this is inline with their general process. People had to be at what was their actual home so that their assets could be counted. In the interests of being practical, those whose official homes are in the country, but are currently performing critical service in the city may stay in the city and are not required to return home, but they must reigster as such.
Of course none of this is even touching on the wildly differing accounts between Luke and Mathew. The latter of which is an obvious attempt to create parallels between Jesus and Moses to reinforce Jesus' Messianic credentials.
History for as long as can be remembered was measured by 1 B.C. or A.D. 70/70 A.D.
Who and where did the B.C. and A.D. come from if Jesus Christ did NOT exist.
Why do people from All over the World recognize "Christmas" as a day of Peace, Celebration,
and (though unofficial) the Time/Day when Jesus Christ was born? Which other known person of
History is "globally" recognized on such a day and during such a seasonal observance?
Why is Jesus Christ recognized during a time of war globally as a "cease-fire" during Christmas Season.
Why is his name or existence SUCH a nuisance to many of you if he "simply" does NOT exist? Why the
bother, why the debate, why the anger, why the vehement dislike or ridicule or "decapitation" by
Muslim rebels, if he did not or does not exist?
History for as long as can be remembered was measured by 1 B.C. or A.D. 70/70 A.D.
Who and where did the B.C. and A.D. come from if Jesus Christ did NOT exist.
The system itself was created by Dionysius Exiguus in 525. It did not catch on until around 800 when the system was accepted by Charlemagne and made the standard system of the Carolingian Empire. Of course, old Dionysius pretty much just made the whole thing up because he didn't want to use Diocletian's system. Even then there were holdouts and Portugal and Spain (bastions of Catholicism) did not adapt the Anno Domini system until the 1400's. As for why it spread worldwide, well that has more to do with the influence of western Europe on shaping our modern world. Even then, the use of the common era, though using the same dating as the Gregorian calendar, eliminates any religious aspect of it.
Quote:
Why do people from All over the World recognize "Christmas" as a day of Peace, Celebration,
and (though unofficial) the Time/Day when Jesus Christ was born? Which other known person of
History is "globally" recognized on such a day and during such a seasonal observance?
Christmas is neither celebrated nor recognized globally. In fact, not all Christians even agree on when Christmas is. The vast majority of the globes population do not recognize or celebrate Christmas in any form.
Quote:
Why is Jesus Christ recognized during a time of war globally as a "cease-fire" during Christmas Season.
While a popular myth, there is no such thing as a universally recognized "Christmas cease-fire". Most armies in the past encamped for the winter and during WW1, there was a Christmas truce in 1914. These facts gave rise to the myth. Numerous battles and military campaigns have taken place on Christmas Day and throughout the Christmas season.
Washington crossed the Delaware and ambushed the Hessians at Trenton on Christmas Day. The truce in WW1 was only during 1914 and not recognized in the other years. There were numerous offensive launched during Christmas in both WW1 and WW2 including the Battle of the Bulge, fighting at Stalingrad, etc. During the Civil War the Battle at Fort Fisher was fought on Christmas Day. During Vietnam, Nixon order the "11 Days of Christmas" bombing of North Vietnam that consisted of B-52's blasting northern Vietnamese cities on 11 consecutive days beginning December 18th.
Quote:
Why is his name or existence SUCH a nuisance to many of you if he "simply" does NOT exist? Why the
bother, why the debate, why the anger, why the vehement dislike or ridicule or "decapitation" by
Muslim rebels, if he did not or does not exist?
I'm just Sayn!
The annoyance comes more from the people who believe without a doubt that he existed and that he was God incarnate and will save their souls from eternal damnation if only they believe hard enough.
I am always amused by the argument that since there is no historical record of Biblical events outside the Bible, it cannot be true,because the Romans would have recorded it. This argument has been around for more than a century. It used to be much stronger. There was no record of Pontius Pilot in the records, no administrative documents, no proof outside references to him primarily in the bible that he ever existed. Now Jesus may have been a nobody to he Romans and missed mention, but Pilot was far too important to not be all over the historical record. Since there is no record of his administration, he clearly never existed and the new testament is clearly false. It was one of their strongest arguments. They felt it was so overwhelmingly clear there would be a records of him and from his administration if he existed. There wasn't, so he could not have existed. This purportedly discredited Josephus and Philo as credible sources because they discussed the obviously non-existent Pilot
Then in 1961 they found a cornerstone with Pilots name inscribed on it.
Pilot did exist, he was an important Roman governor (at least important enough to have his name on a cornerstone), but he was left out of the Roman records. Clearly we either do not have all the records, or the Romans did not keep as meticulous records as we believe they did.
Every time someone makes the No Roman record argument, I am reminded of how confident scholars were in this argument with regard to Pilot.
I am always amused by the argument that since there is no historical record of Biblical events outside the Bible, it cannot be true,because the Romans would have recorded it. This argument has been around for more than a century. It used to be much stronger. There was no record of Pontius Pilot in the records, no administrative documents, no proof outside references to him primarily in the bible that he ever existed. Now Jesus may have been a nobody to he Romans and missed mention, but Pilot was far too important to not be all over the historical record. Since there is no record of his administration, he clearly never existed and the new testament is clearly false. It was one of their strongest arguments. They felt it was so overwhelmingly clear there would be a records of him and from his administration if he existed. There wasn't, so he could not have existed. This purportedly discredited Josephus and Philo as credible sources because they discussed the obviously non-existent Pilot
Then in 1961 they found a cornerstone with Pilots name inscribed on it.
Pilot did exist, he was an important Roman governor (at least important enough to have his name on a cornerstone), but he was left out of the Roman records. Clearly we either do not have all the records, or the Romans did not keep as meticulous records as we believe they did.
Every time someone makes the No Roman record argument, I am reminded of how confident scholars were in this argument with regard to Pilot.
Without rehashing the entire thread, I believe the general consensus that GS and I were arguing for is that there most likely was a historical Jesus. Such a person did exist and there are some actual historical events that are described in the Bible to a varying degree of accuracy.
At the same time, one cannot treat the Bible itself as a true historical record and take all of the information in the New (or Old) Testament at face value. There were very obvious attempts by later writers to create the messianic credentials of Jesus and paint parallels between him and Moses' story in the Old Testament. There are also multiple issues related to who wrote each of the books of the Bible, contradictions between them and where they drew their source material.
I have no issue believing that there was a historical man called Jesus. Whether or not you believe such a man was the Son of God is a matter of faith and not really open to debate. What I do have an issue with is taking all of the stories and events of the Bible and believing that they state a true historical record.
This link doesn't really pertain to the topic. Here's a better one. Males living within the Roman State who weren't slaves had full citizenship. Palestine was part of the Roman State, so Jesus was a citizen. People could, however, be stripped of their citizenship, so Jesus may have lost the privileges of citizenship after he got in trouble with Roman authorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship
This link doesn't really pertain to the topic. Here's a better one. Males living within the Roman State who weren't slaves had full citizenship. Palestine was part of the Roman State, so Jesus was a citizen. People could, however, be stripped of their citizenship, so Jesus may have lost the privileges of citizenship after he got in trouble with Roman authorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship
That is only true after Emperor Caracalla's edict in 212 CE.
Before 212, for the most part only inhabitants of Italia held full Roman citizenship. Colonies of Romans established in other provinces, Romans (or their descendants) living in provinces, the inhabitants of various cities throughout the Empire, and a few local nobles (such as kings of client countries) also held full citizenship.
Not until 212. Edict of Caracalla (famous for his terms or public baths still afoot).
I guess it was the most advanced empire there ever was.
Now, Jesus..he was born in Bethlen because Rmans were preparing the census, but I'm unvertain if it entailed Roman citizenship.
Judea was a favoured province, but at that time only a hanful of cities outside Italica had this privilege (Saguntum, etc).
History for as long as can be remembered was measured by 1 B.C. or A.D. 70/70 A.D.
Who and where did the B.C. and A.D. come from if Jesus Christ did NOT exist.
Why do people from All over the World recognize "Christmas" as a day of Peace, Celebration,
and (though unofficial) the Time/Day when Jesus Christ was born? Which other known person of
History is "globally" recognized on such a day and during such a seasonal observance?
Why is Jesus Christ recognized during a time of war globally as a "cease-fire" during Christmas Season.
Why is his name or existence SUCH a nuisance to many of you if he "simply" does NOT exist? Why the
bother, why the debate, why the anger, why the vehement dislike or ridicule or "decapitation" by
Muslim rebels, if he did not or does not exist?
I'm just Sayn!
Many cultures have never measured dates AD/BC. That has become the dominant one but so what.
Christmas was co-opted by Christianity - it was already the time of a winter celebration in virtually all European cultures.
He may or may not have existed. Most experts nowadays are leaning heavily to the side that he existed. Of course, they mean Jesus - a guy (charismatic and gifted for sure). They are not saying "the son of the Christian God" existed. Joseph Smith also existed. So what.
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.
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.
In Regards to the Existence of Jesus Christ
