Re: Did Jesus Exist? Debunking Atheist Conspiracy Theory
Weland
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:49:53 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham
> <christop...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> In reconstructing history, its preferable to have direct evidence
>
> We do - direct evidence that Nazareth was founded in 135 CE, so no one
> could be "of Nazareth" in the first century.
Actually, a couple years back they found first century evidence. Still
being debated, but the discovery opened the door to an earlier dating.
>
> We do - the Romans required that one return to his place of
> *residence*, not his place of birth, for the census.
Which would mean that one detail in one gospel was wrong, not the whole.
If we counted mistakes we would have to reject Livy, Tacitus,
Thucydides, etc. That's why each detail is weighed on its own merits
rather than sweeping generalizations.
panam...@hotmail.com
> On 4/24/2011 4:41 PM, Colanth wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:49:53 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham
>
> >> In reconstructing history, its preferable to have direct evidence
>
> > We do - direct evidence that Nazareth was founded in 135 CE, so no one
> > could be "of Nazareth" in the first century.
>
> Actually, a couple years back they found first century evidence.
Citation, please.
>Still
> being debated, but the discovery opened the door to an earlier dating.
And citation describing the technique that dated it as such as well,
please.
> > We do - the Romans required that one return to his place of
> > *residence*, not his place of birth, for the census.
>
> Which would mean that one detail in one gospel was wrong, not the whole.
You *do* realize that "the whole" contends that a human being survived
death (regardless of which little "bible" version of the story one
reads), through some sort of "supernatural" means. I hope you realize
just how absurd that sounds to someone who does not already consider
Christian mythology as "true".. Please recall that to those of us who
are not Christians, that single claim is enough to disregard the
entire story as mythology in the first place, regardless of all the
dithering over the contradictions in "the gospels".
> If we counted mistakes we would have to reject Livy, Tacitus,
> Thucydides, etc.
It is well known that Tacitus only described what Christians believed,
and was not describing the reality of the man's life. That can be
rejected whether it contains "mistakes" or not.
What little I can recall of Thucydides leads me to believe that he
lived & died *long* before the events in question, and I'm unclear
about why you mentioned him.
Also, I went looking for Livy's writings for a moment, but did not
find a direct comment the man made about your "Jesus", much less about
your "Christ". His history of Rome is quite long, but if you can share
the passage/s where he speaks of such a person, I will certainly read
them.
> That's why each detail is weighed on its own merits
> rather than sweeping generalizations.
Heh. The only "sweeping generalization" I see here is the claim that
Christian mythology is *not* mythology simply because someone can
rationalize away the contradictions contained within the Christian
"gospels". If there *was* an historical "Jesus", so be it. That's
still not evidence that if such a man really existed that he was the
son of a "god", and that the myths that surrounded his martyrdom are
an indication that god/s exist.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
John Briggs
> On 4/24/2011 4:41 PM, Colanth wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:49:53 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham
>> <christop...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In reconstructing history, its preferable to have direct evidence
>>
>> We do - direct evidence that Nazareth was founded in 135 CE, so no one
>> could be "of Nazareth" in the first century.
>
> Actually, a couple years back they found first century evidence. Still
> being debated, but the discovery opened the door to an earlier dating.
It is the *name* which is only found in about 200 AD.
--
John Briggs
Christopher Ingham
A first-century house was uncovered by Israeli archaeologists in
Nazareth in 2009:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/in-pictures-israel-uncovers-first-jesus-e...
Farm structures of similar date on the outskirts of the ancient
hamlet
were discovered twenty years earlier.
The name occurs in the four first-century Gospels.
Christopher Ingham.
ADR
wrote:
> > That's why each detail is weighed on its own merits
> > rather than sweeping generalizations.
>
> Heh. The only "sweeping generalization" I see here is the claim that
> Christian mythology is *not* mythology simply because someone can
> rationalize away the contradictions contained within the Christian
> "gospels". If there *was* an historical "Jesus", so be it. That's
> still not evidence that if such a man really existed that he was the
> son of a "god", and that the myths that surrounded his martyrdom are
> an indication that god/s exist.
Absolutely. I wonder why this is an object of discussion. Even the
"Fathers of the Church" agreed that logical inquiry cannot prove the
existence of a God or that Jesus was God. If it did, the whole thing
would have been called Science, not Religion.
Colanth
>On 4/24/2011 4:41 PM, Colanth wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:49:53 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham
>> <christop...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In reconstructing history, its preferable to have direct evidence
>>
>> We do - the Romans required that one return to his place of
>> *residence*, not his place of birth, for the census.
>
>Which would mean that one detail in one gospel was wrong
Well - the place of birth, the whole "no room in the inn" thing, the
Magi, etc., etc.
> If we counted mistakes we would have to reject Livy, Tacitus,
>Thucydides, etc. That's why each detail is weighed on its own merits
>rather than sweeping generalizations.
If we count a "God-inspired" story that gets a major portion (the
beginning) TOTALLY wrong - BECAUSE the person writing it was TOTALLY
unfamiliar with the time and place - it casts doubt on anything we
can't verify. It's called impugning the character of the witness, and
in this case, the witness is proved to be a bald-faced liar who made
the whole thing up, so anything he claims that can't be proved with
physical evidence is, at the very least, not to be accepted.
If you accept the story of Jesus, just based on the story, you have to
accept the story of Zeus - there's just as much evidence.
--
"My feeling is, quite simply, that if there is a God, He has done such
a bad job that he isn't worth discussing." - Isaac Asimov
Terry Cross
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:20:21 -0500, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> >On 4/24/2011 4:41 PM, Colanth wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:49:53 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Ingham
>
> >>> In reconstructing history, its preferable to have direct evidence
>
> >> We do - the Romans required that one return to his place of
> >> *residence*, not his place of birth, for the census.
>
> >Which would mean that one detail in one gospel was wrong
>
> Well - the place of birth, the whole "no room in the inn" thing, the
> Magi, etc., etc.
>
> > If we counted mistakes we would have to reject Livy, Tacitus,
> >Thucydides, etc. That's why each detail is weighed on its own merits
> >rather than sweeping generalizations.
>
> If we count a "God-inspired" story that gets a major portion (the
> beginning) TOTALLY wrong - BECAUSE the person writing it was TOTALLY
> unfamiliar with the time and place -
The gospels state the place of ancestry, not the place of birth. So
you have that part wrong already, and we should dustbin YOUR
arguments.
TCross
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Absolutely. I wonder why this is an object of discussion. Even the
>"Fathers of the Church" agreed that logical inquiry cannot prove the
>existence of a God or that Jesus was God. If it did, the whole thing
>would have been called Science, not Religion.
They used to, until it became obvious that that strategy didn't work.
Separating the natural from the supernatural occurred once science was
accepted and demonstratable.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>Which would mean that one detail in one gospel was wrong
>
>Well - the place of birth, the whole "no room in the inn" thing, the
>Magi, etc., etc.
If you're talking about whether there's a Historical Jesus, that's the
place where it looks as though the story was back-filled to show that
he met some prophecies.
David Johnston
No, the gospels say the place of ancestry WAS the place of birth.
John Briggs
Two of them.
--
John Briggs
Terry Cross
In such case, you are working with a confusion of definitions between
cultures, and your misunderstanding of the Gospels is of no moment.
Much more interesting is the Mosaic Law that requires the Jews to make
slaves of the Gentiles. If you want to attack the Bible, go for it.
And how about the part that requires Jews to exterminate Gentiles,
leaving "nothing alive that breatheth." Now, there is an easy target.
TCross
Colanth
Matt 2:1 isn't part of the Bible? "Now after Jesus was born in
Bethlehem of Judea" seems pretty clear - and a refutation of your
assertion.
>So you have that part wrong already, and we should dustbin YOUR
>arguments.
I think you got that aimed backwards.
--
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
Colanth
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Much more interesting is the Mosaic Law
Nothing to do with the fairy tale that, in first century Judea, people
had to return to their place of birth for a census. Just proof that
whoever made it up was never in Judea during a census in the first
century - so the story was made up fiction.
It takes a LOT less than that to have testimony totally stricken in
any court today.
--
"I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes
evil." - Albert Einstein
Colanth
wrote:
>On Sun, 01 May 2011 15:30:28 -0400, Colanth <Col...@pern.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>>Which would mean that one detail in one gospel was wrong
>>
>>Well - the place of birth, the whole "no room in the inn" thing, the
>>Magi, etc., etc.
>
>If you're talking about whether there's a Historical Jesus, that's the
>place where it looks as though the story was back-filled to show that
>he met some prophecies.
It completely impugns the integrity of whoever wrote the books the
story is in. In a court of law, that much lying would be grounds to
lock the witness up for perjury and strike ALL the witness' testimony.
--
"Vehemence is no guarantee of truth." - Isaac Asimov
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>If you're talking about whether there's a Historical Jesus, that's the
>>place where it looks as though the story was back-filled to show that
>>he met some prophecies.
>
>It completely impugns the integrity of whoever wrote the books the
>story is in. In a court of law, that much lying would be grounds to
>lock the witness up for perjury and strike ALL the witness' testimony.
Another example of back-filling a story for a purpose is the story of
George Washington and the cherry tree.
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Show us where they say that.
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On May 1, 2:20 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So you make up excuses for the absurd story about the travel to
Bethlehem that you reject.
>Much more interesting is the Mosaic Law that requires the Jews to make
>slaves of the Gentiles. If you want to attack the Bible, go for it.
>And how about the part that requires Jews to exterminate Gentiles,
>leaving "nothing alive that breatheth." Now, there is an easy target.
Show us where that was a general law for all and not a law specific to
other tribes.
Danny Clark
"Colanth" <Col...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:i0qrr6tcd5t7fsvsc...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 May 2011 15:08:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Much more interesting is the Mosaic Law
>
> Nothing to do with the fairy tale that, in first century Judea, people
> had to return to their place of birth for a census. Just proof that
> whoever made it up was never in Judea during a census in the first
> century - so the story was made up fiction.
>
> It takes a LOT less than that to have testimony totally stricken in
> any court today.
> --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes
> evil." - Albert Einstein
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Einstein had said that because God was never an any/all God and/or
God(s) and/or god and/or god(s) FROM (of) an any/all
theology/theologies.....
Therefore, simply stated: God's own original had never been theology which
was and is and will be what I believe Albert Einstein had always meant!
Christopher A. Lee
Idiot.
Colanth
<danny...@primus.ca> wrote:
>Albert Einstein had said that because God was never an any/all God and/or
>God(s) and/or god and/or god(s) FROM (of) an any/all
>theology/theologies.....
>Therefore, simply stated: God's own original had never been theology which
>was and is and will be what I believe Albert Einstein had always meant!
He should have said that the times I heard him asked about it, instead
of what he did say - which was basically that he didn't believe in the
idea of a god that ANY religion had ever put forth. He just refused
to be labeled. If he hadn't minded the label, he would have called
himself an atheist. (He virtually said as much a few times.)
--
"Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." - GBS
Terry Cross
> On Sun, 1 May 2011 15:08:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >Much more interesting is the Mosaic Law
>
> Nothing to do with the fairy tale that, in first century Judea, people
> had to return to their place of birth for a census. Just proof that
> whoever made it up was never in Judea during a census in the first
> century - so the story was made up fiction.
Have you ever read the text? I think not, because you have so little
idea what it says:
Luke 2
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree
from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of
Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth,
into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem;
(because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
It was not census, it was taxes. And it was not birthplace, it was
lineage.
> It takes a LOT less than that to have testimony totally stricken in
> any court today.
Basic in court, too: You must be somewhat right to make others wrong.
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Sun, 1 May 2011 15:08:46 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
If you can't get it right, you can't make it wrong. Learn the facts
before you throw stones.
> >Much more interesting is the Mosaic Law that requires the Jews to make
> >slaves of the Gentiles. If you want to attack the Bible, go for it.
> >And how about the part that requires Jews to exterminate Gentiles,
> >leaving "nothing alive that breatheth." Now, there is an easy target.
>
> Show us where that was a general law for all and not a law specific to
> other tribes.
I have quoted the Torah Law multiple times. What is your problem?
Leviticus 25
44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall
be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy
bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among
you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you,
which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after
you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for
ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule
one over another with rigour.
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Sun, 1 May 2011 12:32:58 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
Luke 2
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree
from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of
Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth,
into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem;
(because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
The issue was taxes, not census. But what is a fact when you already
have an opinion?
TCross
Christopher Ingham
Revised English Bible: “a census to be taken throughout the Roman
world”
New American Bible: “that the whole world should be enrolled”
New Jerusalem Bible: “a census should be made of the whole inhabited
world”
>
> 2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of
> Syria.)
>
>
> 3 And all went to be taxed,
>
Revised English Bible: “to be registered”
New American Bible: “to be be enrolled”
New Jerusalem Bible: “to be registered”
From historical sources general censuses are known from 28 BCE, 8
BCE, and 14 CE., and a provincial census in Syria in 6 CE, when P.
Sulpicius Quirinius was_legatus_(military governor), this being
shortly after Judaea had been absorbed into Syria. A census cannot
have taken place in Judaea when it was a client kingdom, i.e., while
Herod was king.
>
every one into his own city.
> 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth,
> into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem;
> (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
> 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
>
> The issue was taxes, not census. But what is a fact when you already
> have an opinion?
>
> TCross- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Terry Cross
wrote:
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a
decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.
It seems not to be consistent.
> > 2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of
> > Syria.)
>
> All four versions call him Quirinius.
Given as how the Gospels were written in Greek, is the transliteration
at all significant?
> > 3 And all went to be taxed,
>
> New Revised Standard Version: “to be registered”
> Revised English Bible: “to be registered”
> New American Bible: “to be be enrolled”
> New Jerusalem Bible: “to be registered”
Whereof do you account the difference.?
> From historical sources general censuses are known from 28 BCE, 8
> BCE, and 14 CE., and a provincial census in Syria in 6 CE, when P.
> Sulpicius Quirinius was_legatus_(military governor), this being
> shortly after Judaea had been absorbed into Syria. A census cannot
> have taken place in Judaea when it was a client kingdom, i.e., while
> Herod was king.
Then you have answered the question. It was not a census. Why do you
insist?
Colanth
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
>Luke 2:1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a
>decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.
>It seems not to be consistent.
Consistent with what?
>> From historical sources general censuses are known from 28 BCE, 8
>> BCE, and 14 CE., and a provincial census in Syria in 6 CE, when P.
>> Sulpicius Quirinius was_legatus_(military governor), this being
>> shortly after Judaea had been absorbed into Syria. A census cannot
>> have taken place in Judaea when it was a client kingdom, i.e., while
>> Herod was king.
>Then you have answered the question. It was not a census.
Or Jesus wasn't born when the story claims he was.
> Why do you insist?
Why do you? Oh, because you need the myth to be true. We insist on
consistency and evidence because we don't care if it's true or not.
--
"Nothing so immunizes the brain to evidence as ideology." - O.W.Holmes
Christopher Ingham
> On May 2, 11:51 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 1:50 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 5:26 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sun, 1 May 2011 12:32:58 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> > > > <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> > > > >you have that part wrong already, and we should dustbin YOUR
> > > > >arguments.
>
> > > > Show us where they say that.
>
> > > Luke 2
> > > 1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree
> > > from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
> > >
have an opinion?
>
> > Revised English Bible: “a census to be taken throughout the Roman
> > world”
> > New American Bible: “that the whole world should be enrolled”
> > New Jerusalem Bible: “a census should be made of the whole inhabited
> > world”
>
>
“The issue was taxes, not census. But what is a fact when you already
have an opinion?”
It’s odd that in attempting to establish a fact you would choose an
early 17th-century translation over any of the modern scholarly
translations accepted by the Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic,
and Orthodox denominations.
>
> > > 2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of
> > > Syria.)
>
> > All four versions call him Quirinius.
>
> Given as how the Gospels were written in Greek, is the transliteration
> at all significant?
>
Given that you ostensibly were trying to establish a historical fact
with your quotation of a translation into English rather than Greek,
it might have been helpful to have provided the genuinely historical
person’s actual name. But, as you said, "What is a fact when you
already have an opinion?”
>
> > > 3 And all went to be taxed,
>
It’s odd that in attempting to establish a fact you would choose an
early 17th-century translation over any of the modern scholarly
translations accepted by the Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic,
and Orthodox denominations.
>
> > New Revised Standard Version: “to be registered”
> > Revised English Bible: “to be registered”
> > New American Bible: “to be be enrolled”
> > New Jerusalem Bible: “to be registered”
>
> Whereof do you account the difference.?
>
Um, you said that “the issue was taxes, not census.” But, as you also
said, "What is a fact when you already have an opinion?”
>
> > From historical sources general censuses are known from 28 BCE, 8
> > BCE, and 14 CE., and a provincial census in Syria in 6 CE, when P.
> > Sulpicius Quirinius was_legatus_(military governor), this being
> > shortly after Judaea had been absorbed into Syria. A census cannot
> > have taken place in Judaea when it was a client kingdom, i.e., while
> > Herod was king.
>
> Then you have answered the question. It was not a census. Why do you
> insist?
>
You’re a slippery and dissembling person.
>
>
> > every one into his own city.
>
> > > 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth,
> > > into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem;
> > > (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
> > > 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
>
> > > The issue was taxes, not census. But what is a fact when you already
> > > have an opinion?
>
> > > TCross- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Johnston
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 00:57:31 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
> >Luke 2:1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a
> >decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.
> >It seems not to be consistent.
>
> Consistent with what?
>
> >> From historical sources general censuses are known from 28 BCE, 8
> >> BCE, and 14 CE., and a provincial census in Syria in 6 CE, when P.
> >> Sulpicius Quirinius was_legatus_(military governor), this being
> >> shortly after Judaea had been absorbed into Syria. A census cannot
> >> have taken place in Judaea when it was a client kingdom, i.e., while
> >> Herod was king.
> >Then you have answered the question. It was not a census.
>
> Or Jesus wasn't born when the story claims he was.
>
Or, and this is most likely, the story of his birth was modified to
sound cooler. It is obviously true that you can't have a true story
which includes both Herod and the Romans counting everyone because
that never happened when a Herod was in power. So, people made shit
up. It happens.
Christopher Ingham
>
Allowing that the story has any historical basis, there are a number
of conjectures that have been put forth, such as that Augustus ordered
Herod to take an inventory of his kingdom because Herod was in ill-
health and had just designated a new successor after murdering an
elder son; or that Judaea had been included in a provincial census
conducted by the procurator of Egypt; or that a purported census
carried out by a predecessor of Quirinius was mistakenly attributed to
the latter because the widespread riots that occurred in reaction to
his census in 6 or 7 CE were well-remembered; or that the sense of a
grammatical element of the original Greek passage has been
misunderstood; etc., etc. Luke is usually careful when incorporating
historical information in his Gospel, which is why this detail
receives so much attention from objectve commentators.
Christopher Ingham
Terry Cross
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 00:57:31 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
> >Luke 2:1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a
> >decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.
> >It seems not to be consistent.
>
> Consistent with what?
>
> >> From historical sources general censuses are known from 28 BCE, 8
> >> BCE, and 14 CE., and a provincial census in Syria in 6 CE, when P.
> >> Sulpicius Quirinius was_legatus_(military governor), this being
> >> shortly after Judaea had been absorbed into Syria. A census cannot
> >> have taken place in Judaea when it was a client kingdom, i.e., while
> >> Herod was king.
> >Then you have answered the question. It was not a census.
>
> Or Jesus wasn't born when the story claims he was.
>
> > Why do you insist?
>
> Why do you? Oh, because you need the myth to be true.
I am not so quick to jump on a conspiracy theory as you are. These
people wrote of knowing a man and the events of his life. There is a
certain consistency in the stories they tell and in the character of
the personality and his doctrines. The doctrines are unique to his
culture and his time. They were utterly revolutionary, and the
consequences of his speech fall out as one would expect in his violent
culture and surrounds.
> We insist on
> consistency and evidence because we don't care if it's true or not.
There is no way that statement makes sense. Is that more conspiracy
theory talk?
TCross
John Briggs
No, Mark's Gospel - which is the source for the other two Synoptic
Gospels - doesn't contain the Nativity narrative at all. So it was made
up later.
--
John Briggs
Terry Cross
Or maybe it was not "the source."
TCross
Christopher Ingham
Even if Luke had no information at all about the circumstances of
Jesus’ birth, he at least apparently attempted to place it within a
definite historical context.
Luke doesn’t rely exclusively on Mark, btw, much of which he has
redacted. He also uses the hypothetical Q, and a unique source called
L.
Christopher Ingham
Colanth
Well, that's the whole point that Terry can't seem to understand. The
Bible is made-up stuff.
--
A hundred thousand lemmings can't all be wrong - or can they?
Colanth
And of course you know MUCH more about the Bible than a few centuries
of Bible scholars.
--
At first there was nothing. Then God said "Let there be light!" Then
there was still nothing. But you could see it.
Colanth
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 3, 5:33 am, Colanth <Cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2011 00:57:31 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
>> >Luke 2:1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a
>> >decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.
>> >It seems not to be consistent.
>>
>> Consistent with what?
>>
>> >> From historical sources general censuses are known from 28 BCE, 8
>> >> BCE, and 14 CE., and a provincial census in Syria in 6 CE, when P.
>> >> Sulpicius Quirinius was_legatus_(military governor), this being
>> >> shortly after Judaea had been absorbed into Syria. A census cannot
>> >> have taken place in Judaea when it was a client kingdom, i.e., while
>> >> Herod was king.
>> >Then you have answered the question. It was not a census.
>>
>> Or Jesus wasn't born when the story claims he was.
>>
>> > Why do you insist?
>>
>> Why do you? Oh, because you need the myth to be true.
>
>
>I am not so quick to jump on a conspiracy theory as you are.
Sure you are. I'm not accepting the assertions in the Bible as being
true without evidence. YOU'RE accepting the woo-woo.
>These people wrote of knowing a man and the events of his life.
MANY people wrote fiction, before, during and after the time of the
Bible.
>There is a certain consistency in the stories they tell and in the character of
>the personality and his doctrines.
If you're talking about the gospels, one copies most of its content
from the last, so OF COURSE there's a certain amount of consistency.
but there's too much total lack of consistency for them to be
completely real. It's IMPOSSIBLE to develop a timeline of the morning
of the resurrection if you use all 4 gospels and don't make any
conjecture. And without the resurrection, the entire basis of
Christianity collapses.
>The doctrines are unique to his culture and his time.
The 'doctrines' in Superman are unique to the culture and time too.
"unique to the culture and time" don't mark the difference between
fact and fiction.
>They were utterly revolutionary, and the
>consequences of his speech fall out as one would expect in his violent
>culture and surrounds.
The same things can be said about Lord of the Rings.
>> We insist on
>> consistency and evidence because we don't care if it's true or not.
>There is no way that statement makes sense.
That's because you DO care if it's true. You CAN'T accept that the
Bible is just a book, and it may be total fiction, because you NEED it
to be true. We don't - so if it's fiction, it is, and it doesn't make
any difference - to us.
> Is that more conspiracy theory talk?
No, conspiracy theory is to call a totally inconsistent set of books
'consistent' merely because you need them to be so.
--
Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support.
David Johnston
Well...except for the parts that aren't. It's a mistake to conclude
that it's all false because parts of it can't be true just as it's a
mistake to decide that it's all true because parts of it can be
confirmed to some degree by things like archaeology.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
The NT certainly is.
The OT is oral tradition from multiple sources that mutated as it was
re-told so whatever history it contained became indistinguishable from
the myths and legends.
Colanth
<davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 3, 12:23 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2011 09:11:54 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>> >Or, and this is most likely, the story of his birth was modified to
>> >sound cooler. It is obviously true that you can't have a true story
>> >which includes both Herod and the Romans counting everyone because
>> >that never happened when a Herod was in power. So, people made shit
>> >up.
>>
>> Well, that's the whole point that Terry can't seem to understand. The
>> Bible is made-up stuff.
>Well...except for the parts that aren't. It's a mistake to conclude
>that it's all false because parts of it can't be true
Of course, but the fact that some parts that can be checked *are*
false is sufficient reason to dismiss ALL the uncheckable but
unbelievable parts until we can check them.
--
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by rulers as useful."- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
I know the facts. You know fantasy.
>
>> >Much more interesting is the Mosaic Law that requires the Jews to make
>> >slaves of the Gentiles. If you want to attack the Bible, go for it.
>> >And how about the part that requires Jews to exterminate Gentiles,
>> >leaving "nothing alive that breatheth." Now, there is an easy target.
>>
>> Show us where that was a general law for all and not a law specific to
>> other tribes.
>
>I have quoted the Torah Law multiple times. What is your problem?
>
>Leviticus 25
> 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall
>be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy
>bondmen and bondmaids.
Which means only that you cannot enslave Hebrews.
> 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among
>you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you,
>which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
> 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after
>you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for
>ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule
>one over another with rigour.
I am amazed at how often you have no idea what you are talking about.
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
It's an invention of no value. Your ignorance is your problem. The fact
that the KJV translation was misleading to you does not mean that I
should be fool enough to be misled as well.
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
The synoptic gospels were not independently written.
David Johnston
>
> >The issue was taxes, not census. But what is a fact when you already
> >have an opinion?
>
Taxes and census are the _same thing_. Prior to democracy the whole
point of census was taxation.
Free Lunch
<davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
So you say.
Terry Cross
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 10:33:05 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
Nothing is "independently" written. But we know your Jewish heritage
compels you to impugn the Gospels, Jesus, and Christianity, and you
will not be satisfied until it all reposes in Hell, buried to the neck
in boiling excrement as the ancient Talmud sages portrayed Jesus.
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 11:36:30 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>
> >On May 3, 12:23 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 3 May 2011 09:11:54 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
> >> >Or, and this is most likely, the story of his birth was modified to
> >> >sound cooler. It is obviously true that you can't have a true story
> >> >which includes both Herod and the Romans counting everyone because
> >> >that never happened when a Herod was in power. So, people made shit
> >> >up.
>
> >> Well, that's the whole point that Terry can't seem to understand. The
> >> Bible is made-up stuff.
> >Well...except for the parts that aren't. It's a mistake to conclude
> >that it's all false because parts of it can't be true
>
> Of course, but the fact that some parts that can be checked *are*
> false is sufficient reason to dismiss ALL the uncheckable but
> unbelievable parts until we can check them.
And so was the story of Troy dismissed before the ruins were found.
And so was the ancient Amerindian warning dismissed about Crescent
City, CA dismissed until this year's tsunami.
But you know best. If you can't measure it with an oven thermometer,
it doesn't exist, particularly if it is Christian.
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 10:03:27 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
>
>
> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 3, 5:33 am, Colanth <Cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 3 May 2011 00:57:31 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
> >> >Luke 2:1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a
> >> >decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.
> >> >It seems not to be consistent.
>
> >> Consistent with what?
>
> >> >> From historical sources general censuses are known from 28 BCE, 8
> >> >> BCE, and 14 CE., and a provincial census in Syria in 6 CE, when P.
> >> >> Sulpicius Quirinius was_legatus_(military governor), this being
> >> >> shortly after Judaea had been absorbed into Syria. A census cannot
> >> >> have taken place in Judaea when it was a client kingdom, i.e., while
> >> >> Herod was king.
> >> >Then you have answered the question. It was not a census.
>
> >> Or Jesus wasn't born when the story claims he was.
>
> >> > Why do you insist?
>
> >> Why do you? Oh, because you need the myth to be true.
>
> >I am not so quick to jump on a conspiracy theory as you are.
>
> Sure you are. I'm not accepting the assertions in the Bible as being
> true without evidence. YOU'RE accepting the woo-woo.
The Bible is a collection of many documents compiled over hundreds of
years. No single statement about the origin of all the documents
together has any validity.
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Mon, 2 May 2011 22:47:53 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
It says nothing about Hebrews. It says thou SHALT have slaves, and
thou SHALT buy them of the heathen.
THOU SHALT is a command.
> > 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among
> >you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you,
> >which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
> > 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after
> >you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for
> >ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule
> >one over another with rigour.
>
> I am amazed at how often you have no idea what you are talking about.
Mutual, I'm sure.
TCross
Colanth
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Nothing is "independently" written. But we know your Jewish heritage
>compels you to impugn the Gospels, Jesus, and Christianity
Anyone who doesn't buy your bullshit is automatically of Jewish
heritage? The majority of the world, Hindus, Muslims, atheists,
Shintos, don't buy it. And none of them have any Jewish heritage.
--
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not
based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe." -
Carl Sagan
Colanth
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 3, 1:08 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> Of course, but the fact that some parts that can be checked *are*
>> false is sufficient reason to dismiss ALL the uncheckable but
>> unbelievable parts until we can check them.
>And so was the story of Troy dismissed before the ruins were found.
Cities mentioned in the Bible HAVE been found - and they've been found
to contradict the Bible stories.
But your argument is much like, "I'm not a kook - everyone who comes
up with an idea that eventually proves to be true is laughed at
initially". That's not proof that being laughed at makes your idea
correct. And the fact that Troy was considered made up until it was
found doesn't make religious myth fact. If it did, you'd better start
looking for Zeus, because there's at least as much "evidence" for Zeus
as there is for God and Jesus. In fact, there's as much evidence for
ANY god as there is for yours. Your "Troy" remark actually works
against believing solely in your god.
>And so was the ancient Amerindian warning dismissed about Crescent
>City, CA dismissed until this year's tsunami.
Really? Science has known FOR DECADES that the shape of the ocean
bottom there focuses waves. It's been hit with 32 tsunamis since
1933.
--
AIBOHPHOBIA - the fear of palindromes.
Colanth
Adding a lot of false statements together doesn't make any of them
more true. Ten million lies are still lies.
--
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
David Johnston
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 15:27:47 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>
>
>
> >> >The issue was taxes, not census. But what is a fact when you already
> >> >have an opinion?
>
> >Taxes and census are the _same thing_. Prior to democracy the whole
> >point of census was taxation.
>
> So you say.
Do you have any reason to say otherwise? Are you perhaps aware of
some other purpose of taking a census in those days?
Andre Lieven
> On May 3, 4:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 3 May 2011 15:27:47 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
> > <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> > >> >The issue was taxes, not census. But what is a fact when you already
> > >> >have an opinion?
>
> > >Taxes and census are the _same thing_. Prior to democracy the whole
> > >point of census was taxation.
>
> > So you say.
>
> Do you have any reason to say otherwise?
He's rightly pointing out that you are asserting a claim,
yet offering nothing in terms of supporting evidence.
> Are you perhaps aware of
> some other purpose of taking a census in those days?
Evasion from providing evidence in support of your assertion
noted, and rejected.
Andre
walksalone
41d2-85ec-e...@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
Without getting carried away and exceeding the practical limitations of
Usenet and text formatting, I'm aware of several.
Rome needed replacements for their legions, who has the young men and
where are they. Information provided by a census.
Rome is expanding into a new region of trade, where do they need roads.
Again, information provided by a census.
A vassal state seems to be prospering more than necessary. Why?
Information they can be provided by a census.
And that is not getting carried away or even considering all of the
information that a census can be used for.
Anyone who suspects that a census is strictly for the purpose of
taxation, is likely to be in for a shock if they study what a census is
used for. Granted, it wouldn't be paralleled in identical to today's
usage of a census, but the basics would still be there. It lets you know
where your population is located at, the percentage of military age males
versus, veterans, the percentage of business people in relation to the
general population. A census can be utilized for many thanks, and as
always had that ability. To pretend otherwise is to ignore basic
governmental information techniques.
Walksalone who has to wonder why so many cross postings to this
particular thread.
He also has to wonder, why the question came up at all. The header
indicates, the Jesus the Christ according to xianity, who is known not to
have existed as claimed by the xian mythology. Now did Jesus exist, given
it was the second most popular name. First century Palestine's existence,
absolutely. In fact, at least one was crucified. But not known as Jesus
ben Joseph or Jesus of Nazareth.
But of course, xianity does not require a real Messiah to have existed,
pretending is good enough. Any fine job they do of that.
For truly it is to be noted, that children's plays are not sports, and
should be deemed as their most serious actions. -Michel de Montaigne,
essayist (1533-1592)
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Your claims are the claims of the unlearned.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Heck, you can't have a census where everybody was required to travel
for several days each way to get counted.
Everything would have ground to a halt.
>>> >> > Allowing that the story has any historical basis, there are a number
>>> >> > of conjectures that have been put forth, such as that Augustus ordered
>>> >> > Herod to take an inventory of his kingdom because Herod was in ill-
>>> >> > health and had just designated a new successor after murdering an
>>> >> > elder son; or that Judaea had been included in a provincial census
>>> >> > conducted by the procurator of Egypt; or that a purported census
>>> >> > carried out by a predecessor of Quirinius was mistakenly attributed to
>>> >> > the latter because the widespread riots that occurred in reaction to
>>> >> > his census in 6 or 7 CE were well-remembered; or that the sense of a
>>> >> > grammatical element of the original Greek passage has been
>>> >> > misunderstood; etc., etc. Luke is usually careful when incorporating
>>> >> > historical information in his Gospel, which is why this detail
>>> >> > receives so much attention from objectve commentators.
>>>
>>> >> No, Mark's Gospel - which is the source for the other two Synoptic
>>> >> Gospels - doesn't contain the Nativity narrative at all. So it was made
>>> >> up later.
>>>
>>> >Or maybe it was not "the source."
>>>
>>> The synoptic gospels were not independently written.
>>
>>Nothing is "independently" written. But we know your Jewish heritage
>>compels you to impugn the Gospels, Jesus, and Christianity, and you
>>will not be satisfied until it all reposes in Hell, buried to the neck
>>in boiling excrement as the ancient Talmud sages portrayed Jesus.
A liar as well as an idiot.
If these idiots didn't insist that obvious fiction was a true and
accurate history, there would be nothing to "impugn".
They don't seem to understand that however seriously they take it
themselves, it's just somebody else's religious belief, to
non-Christians.
In exactly the same way the Hindu gods and heroes are just somebody
else's religious beliefs to Christians and other non-Hindus.
Even the early church fathers knew that the Gospels re-told earlier
Mediterranean hero themes - Justin Martyr came up with the
"explanation" that the devil knew Jesus was coming and planted the
earlier stories in advance to discredit him.
Did anybody fall for that bullshit even then?
>Your claims are the claims of the unlearned.
It's any lie rather than address the obvious problems in the Bible
stories.
Which wouldn't even be pointed out if they had the sense to keep it to
themselves.
And when the lies get personal, eg as "reasons" "why" people say what
they do as ad hominem excuses to ignore points, they have no right to
whine when they are treated like the dishonest, nasty liars this tells
us they are.
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On May 3, 1:08 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2011 11:36:30 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>>
>> <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On May 3, 12:23 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 3 May 2011 09:11:54 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>> >> >Or, and this is most likely, the story of his birth was modified to
>> >> >sound cooler. It is obviously true that you can't have a true story
>> >> >which includes both Herod and the Romans counting everyone because
>> >> >that never happened when a Herod was in power. So, people made shit
>> >> >up.
>>
>> >> Well, that's the whole point that Terry can't seem to understand. The
>> >> Bible is made-up stuff.
>> >Well...except for the parts that aren't. It's a mistake to conclude
>> >that it's all false because parts of it can't be true
>>
>> Of course, but the fact that some parts that can be checked *are*
>> false is sufficient reason to dismiss ALL the uncheckable but
>> unbelievable parts until we can check them.
>
>And so was the story of Troy dismissed before the ruins were found.
Are you really delusional enough to think that the stories of the Trojan
War are true because Troy was found?
>And so was the ancient Amerindian warning dismissed about Crescent
>City, CA dismissed until this year's tsunami.
>
>But you know best. If you can't measure it with an oven thermometer,
>it doesn't exist, particularly if it is Christian.
You preach nonsense and back it up with nothing at all.
Free Lunch
<davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On May 3, 4:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
I have no reason to accept your unsubstantiated claim. The story as
presented is silly.
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
And the different collected stories are not true just because they
happened to have been collected in the Bible. After all, the Bible
starts with a number of myths that are known to be completely contrary
to reality.
Terry Cross
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 22:39:29 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >On May 3, 1:08 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 3 May 2011 11:36:30 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
>
> >> <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 3, 12:23 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 3 May 2011 09:11:54 -0700 (PDT), David Johnston
> >> >> >Or, and this is most likely, the story of his birth was modified to
> >> >> >sound cooler. It is obviously true that you can't have a true story
> >> >> >which includes both Herod and the Romans counting everyone because
> >> >> >that never happened when a Herod was in power. So, people made shit
> >> >> >up.
>
> >> >> Well, that's the whole point that Terry can't seem to understand. The
> >> >> Bible is made-up stuff.
> >> >Well...except for the parts that aren't. It's a mistake to conclude
> >> >that it's all false because parts of it can't be true
>
> >> Of course, but the fact that some parts that can be checked *are*
> >> false is sufficient reason to dismiss ALL the uncheckable but
> >> unbelievable parts until we can check them.
>
> >And so was the story of Troy dismissed before the ruins were found.
>
> Are you really delusional enough to think that the stories of the Trojan
> War are true because Troy was found?
Do you believe the bin Laden killing, even when the original teller of
the tale is a proven fibber?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-05-04-editorial-spinning-bin-Laden_n.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Counterterrorism adviser John Brennan initially told reporters that
bin Laden was armed— "engaged in a firefight" — and using a woman as a
shield.
Then the facts got in the way. White House spokesman Jay Carney
acknowledged Tuesday that bin Laden wasn't armed. And there was no
human shield. In this latest account, one of bin Laden's wives ran at
the Americans and was shot and wounded.
The kindest gloss to put on this is that the initial information was
fragmentary and confusing. Less charitably, Brennan couldn't resist
going beyond the facts to spin bin Laden as a coward — tarnishing a
success story that needed no embellishment.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since you know he's a liar, why do you believe him in anything?
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Wed, 04 May 2011 17:29:14 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 3 May 2011 22:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
They didn't. The Gospels say "taxes," not census. If you could
read ...
> where everybody was required to travel
> for several days each way to get counted.
From Nazareth to Bethlehem is about 80 miles. That's less than a 2
hour drive, though we don't know the traffic conditions.
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 22:43:31 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
That's powerful reasoning, Mister. If you're going to use that thing
in public, you'll need a license.
TCross
thomas p.
>> <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >The issue was taxes, not census. But what is a fact when you already
>> >> >have an opinion?
>>
>> >Taxes and census are the _same thing_. Prior to democracy the whole
>> >point of census was taxation.
>>
>> So you say.
>
>Do you have any reason to say otherwise? Are you perhaps aware of
>some other purpose of taking a census in those days?
>
>
It was, in any event, probably the principal purpose, but that does not make
it the same thing as taxation.
thomas p.
news:eap3s614vmi38lgbv...@4ax.com...
Not to mention impossible.
Colanth
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The kindest gloss to put on this is that the initial information was
>fragmentary and confusing. Less charitably, Brennan couldn't resist
>going beyond the facts to spin bin Laden as a coward — tarnishing a
>success story that needed no embellishment.
That sounds so ... Christian.
>Since you know he's a liar, why do you believe him in anything?
Since you know the Bible lies, why do you believe it in anything?
--
Choose heaven for climate, hell for society. - Mark Twain
Colanth
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>From Nazareth to Bethlehem is about 80 miles. That's less than a 2
>hour drive, though we don't know the traffic conditions.
Figuring about 2mph (how fast can a 9 months-pregnant woman walk
without stopping), that's a 40 hour trip. Even at 10 hours per day
(and I doubt she could have done half that), it's 4 days. Then back a
few days after giving birth - with a newborn. That's a minimum of
more than a week away from home and work, and more like a few weeks.
Do you have any idea what havoc that would wreak on the territory, to
have people away from productivity for even days, let alone a week or
more? And think of the logistics. You get to your town of birth,
only to find that the innkeeper closed up the inn because he's
traveling to HIS place of birth? Then what? Everyone camps out in
the street? And starves?
That's just one of those parts of the Bible that doesn't work if you
spend more than 2 minutes thinking about the side effects.
--
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you
dreamt up after being drunk all night." - Isaac Asimov
Colanth
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On May 4, 4:49 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2011 22:43:31 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>> >The Bible is a collection of many documents compiled over hundreds of
>> >years. No single statement about the origin of all the documents
>> >together has any validity.
>>
>> And the different collected stories are not true just because they
>> happened to have been collected in the Bible.
>That's powerful reasoning, Mister. If you're going to use that thing
>in public, you'll need a license.
It's not "powerful reasoning", it's pointing out how ridiculous your
stance is.
--
'' ' ''' ' '' ' ''' <-- random quotes
thomas p.
news:9pj5s6lmi5nfvmsgj...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 May 2011 22:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>From Nazareth to Bethlehem is about 80 miles. That's less than a 2
>>hour drive, though we don't know the traffic conditions.
>
> Figuring about 2mph (how fast can a 9 months-pregnant woman walk
> without stopping), that's a 40 hour trip. Even at 10 hours per day
> (and I doubt she could have done half that), it's 4 days. Then back a
> few days after giving birth - with a newborn. That's a minimum of
> more than a week away from home and work, and more like a few weeks.
>
> Do you have any idea what havoc that would wreak on the territory, to
> have people away from productivity for even days, let alone a week or
> more? And think of the logistics. You get to your town of birth,
> only to find that the innkeeper closed up the inn because he's
> traveling to HIS place of birth? Then what? Everyone camps out in
> the street? And starves?
>
> That's just one of those parts of the Bible that doesn't work if you
> spend more than 2 minutes thinking about the side effects.
Let's not forget that the story has the entire empire travelling all over
the empire, and it was a big empire. Casesar would have been murdered by
his own guard if he tried to push through anything as insane as that.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Let's not forget that the story has the entire empire travelling all over
>the empire, and it was a big empire. Casesar would have been murdered by
>his own guard if he tried to push through anything as insane as that.
Sort of like when Alexander's soldiers got tired of eternal
conquering.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
That's a funny one.
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Whines the man who deletes part of what I said and complains.
You are a fool. You are ignorant. You are dishonest. Have you ever
posted anything worthy of consideration? Your religious pabulum is
useless wish fulfillment for a toddler.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
If you could think....
Even most Christians call it a census.
But either way, they would not have had to travel for it.
Of course you had to pretend not to get the point because you daren't
admit it - the foundations of your religious belief would come
tumbling down.
>>> where everybody was required to travel
>>> for several days each way to get counted.
>>
>>
>>From Nazareth to Bethlehem is about 80 miles. That's less than a 2
>>hour drive, though we don't know the traffic conditions.
>>
>>TCross
>
>That's a funny one.
Somebody ask the moron how long it would take a man walking, leading a
donkey carrying his pregnant wife to travel 80 miles each way at
walking pace, with the frequent stops she would have needed?
Sheesh, Cross is stupid.
Yap
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Counterterrorism adviser John Brennan initially told reporters that
> bin Laden was armed— "engaged in a firefight" — and using a woman as a
> shield.
>
> Then the facts got in the way. White House spokesman Jay Carney
> acknowledged Tuesday that bin Laden wasn't armed. And there was no
> human shield. In this latest account, one of bin Laden's wives ran at
> the Americans and was shot and wounded.
>
> The kindest gloss to put on this is that the initial information was
> fragmentary and confusing. Less charitably, Brennan couldn't resist
> going beyond the facts to spin bin Laden as a coward — tarnishing a
> success story that needed no embellishment.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Since you know he's a liar, why do you believe him in anything?
Spinning tactics are the technical skills of some/all American
officials in every administration.
Bush administration even fabricated the WMD as an excuse to invade
Iraq.
There is no surprise at all.
The American and European media also spin their headline news often
enough to win readership. They doctored pictures of Tibetan riot years
back, to just show part of Chinese police in action.
What is your reaction to these examples?
>
> TCross
Yap
It is not just a powerful reasoning, it is a fact that most
religionistnuts ignore.
>
> TCross
Howard Brazee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>They didn't. The Gospels say "taxes," not census. If you could
>>>read ...
>
>If you could think....
>
>Even most Christians call it a census.
>
>But either way, they would not have had to travel for it.
It seems that forcing everybody to go to their ancestral home wouldn't
be an optimal way of either taxing people nor counting people. Did
the Romans do that any other time?
Colanth
9 months pregnant riding on a donkey? About every 2 minutes. For
about half an hour. So they must have started in her 8th month.
>
>Sheesh, Cross is stupid.
You give him far too much credit.
--
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" - Stephen
Roberts
Christopher Ingham
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 18:02:03 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>They didn't. The Gospels say "taxes," not census. If you could
> >>>read ...
>
> >If you could think....
>
> >Even most Christians call it a census.
>
> >But either way, they would not have had to travel for it.
>
> It seems that forcing everybody to go to their ancestral home wouldn't
> be an optimal way of either taxing people nor counting people. Did
> the Romans do that any other time?
>
“Heads of household were required to enumerate all residents in the
house and all property that belonged to them. In order to do so they
were required to make the declarations in their hometown, as the edict
of Vibius Maximus in 104 AD makes clear: ‘The house-to-house census
having started, it is compulsory for all people who are, for whatever
reason, absent from their nomes (districts), to be summoned to return
to their own hearths so that they may complete the customary business
of registration’ [_Sel. Pap._2.220].” – D. S. Potter,_The Roman Empire
at bay_(Routledge, 2004), 51.
“Unfortunately Luke’s birth narrative is a historically impossible
construct, which makes use of the long-remembered and traumatic moment
when in A.D. 6, ten years after Herod’s death, and following the
deposition of Archelaus, Judaea became a Roman provincial territory,
and the Roman census, a complete novelty, was imposed. A resistance
movement flared up, and was repressed with difficulty. Luke is quite
unaware of this precise context. But he has also forgotten something
much more significant. Neither in A.D. 6 nor at any other time in the
life-time of Jesus was Galilee under Roman rule, or subject to the
census. Furthermore, as we know from a much-quoted papyrus of A.D.
104, the Roman census in fact required people to return, not to their
ancestral home, but to their normal place of work and residence, which
in the case of Joseph would have been Nazareth.” – F. Millar,_Rome,
The Greek world, and the EasT_, vol. 3 (Univ. of North Carolina Press,
2006), 143.
Christopher Ingham
>
“Heads of household were required to enumerate all residents in the
house and all property that belonged to them. In order to do so they
were required to make the declarations in their hometown, as the edict
of Vibius Maximus in 104 AD makes clear: ‘The house-to-house census
having started, it is compulsory for all people who are, for whatever
reason, absent from their nomes (districts), to be summoned to return
to their own hearths so that they may complete the customary business
of registration’ [_Sel. Pap._2.220].” – D. S. Potter,_The Roman Empire
at bay_(Routledge, 2004), 51.
“Unfortunately Luke’s birth narrative is a historically impossible
construct, which makes use of the long-remembered and traumatic moment
when in A.D. 6, ten years after Herod’s death, and following the
deposition of Archelaus, Judaea became a Roman provincial territory,
and the Roman census, a complete novelty, was imposed. A resistance
movement flared up, and was repressed with difficulty. Luke is quite
unaware of this precise context. But he has also forgotten something
much more significant. Neither in A.D. 6 nor at any other time in the
life-time of Jesus was Galilee under Roman rule, or subject to the
census. Furthermore, as we know from a much-quoted papyrus of A.D.
104, the Roman census in fact required people to return, not to their
ancestral home, but to their normal place of work and residence, which
in the case of Joseph would have been Nazareth.” – F. Millar,_Rome,
The Greek world, and the EasT_, vol. 3 (Univ. of North Carolina Press,
2006), 143.
Christopher Ingham
Walter Bushell
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Makes me think "Master Cross" is a troll.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Or hopelessly clueless about culture in the eastern Mediterranean 2000
years ago.
Terry Cross
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 18:02:03 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >Somebody ask the moron how long it would take a man walking, leading a
> >donkey carrying his pregnant wife to travel 80 miles each way at
> >walking pace, with the frequent stops she would have needed?
>
> 9 months pregnant riding on a donkey? About every 2 minutes. For
> about half an hour. So they must have started in her 8th month.
You are not familiar with primitive cultures. Chinese farm women are
known to work until the moment of partition, then deliver, rest a
while, tie the children to their breasts or backs, and finish the
day's work. You must not judge all the world's women on the standards
set by the Jewish American princesses of New York.
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 18:02:03 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>They didn't. The Gospels say "taxes," not census. If you could
> >>>read ...
>
> >If you could think....
>
> >Even most Christians call it a census.
>
> >But either way, they would not have had to travel for it.
>
> It seems that forcing everybody to go to their ancestral home wouldn't
> be an optimal way of either taxing people nor counting people. Did
> the Romans do that any other time?
Nobody said the Romans required it. Only that (Luke 2:3) And all
went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
To most people in a primitive country like Judea, the ancestral city
would be the present time city. Being tribal agrarian, they did not
move around much. It would take a war or invasion to displace them.
TCross
Christopher Ingham
> On May 5, 6:42 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 05 May 2011 18:02:03 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>
> > <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > >>>They didn't. The Gospels say "taxes," not census. If you could
> > >>>read ...
>
> > >If you could think....
>
> > >Even most Christians call it a census.
>
> > >But either way, they would not have had to travel for it.
>
> > It seems that forcing everybody to go to their ancestral home wouldn't
> > be an optimal way of either taxing people nor counting people. Did
> > the Romans do that any other time?
>
> Nobody said the Romans required it. Only that (Luke 2:3) And all
> went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
>
explain this again. The purpose of the census was to determine a
number of things, including the assets of an individual for the
purpose of assessing any future tax levies, but taxes were not paid
during the census-taking itself. Taxes were collected in an entirely
separate process.
>
> To most people in a primitive country like Judea, the ancestral city
> would be the present time city.
>
for census purposes, nor did Galilee even have a census during Jesus'
lifetime (neither Bethlehem nor Nazareth were in Judaea). Luke’s
interest is to invent a descent from David, and consequently
historical accuracy about events surrounding Jesus’ birth is only of
secondary concern to him.
“Unfortunately Luke’s birth narrative is a historically impossible
construct, which makes use of the long-remembered and traumatic moment
when in A.D. 6, ten years after Herod’s death, and following the
deposition of Archelaus, Judaea became a Roman provincial territory,
and the Roman census, a complete novelty, was imposed. A resistance
movement flared up, and was repressed with difficulty. Luke is quite
unaware of this precise context. But he has also forgotten something
much more significant. Neither in A.D. 6 nor at any other time in the
life-time of Jesus was Galilee under Roman rule, or subject to the
census. Furthermore, as we know from a much-quoted papyrus of A.D.
104, the Roman census in fact required people to return, not to their
ancestral home, but to their normal place of work and residence, which
in the case of Joseph would have been Nazareth.” – Fergus
Millar,_Rome, The Greek world, and the East_, vol. 3 (Univ. of North
Carolina Press, 2006), 143.
Incidentally, the widely differing and irreconcilable genealogies in
Luke and Matthew indicate that a unified tradition about Jesus'
ancestors did not exist, and therefore both texts have to be
eliminated as historical sources.
Christopher Ingham
Yusuf B Gursey
wrote:
and to have Jesus born in Bethlehem to harmonize with Micah 5:1
Terry Cross
wrote:
> On May 6, 10:11 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 6:42 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 05 May 2011 18:02:03 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>
> > > <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > >>>They didn't. The Gospels say "taxes," not census. If you could
> > > >>>read ...
>
> > > >If you could think....
>
> > > >Even most Christians call it a census.
>
> > > >But either way, they would not have had to travel for it.
>
> > > It seems that forcing everybody to go to their ancestral home wouldn't
> > > be an optimal way of either taxing people nor counting people. Did
> > > the Romans do that any other time?
>
> > Nobody said the Romans required it. Only that (Luke 2:3) And all
> > went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
>
> I know that you’re an exceedingly ignorant person,
And we all know you are exceedingly wise.
> but I’ll try to
> explain this again.
For one so wise, it should not be a problem.
> The purpose of the census was to determine a
> number of things, including the assets of an individual for the
> purpose of assessing any future tax levies, but taxes were not paid
> during the census-taking itself. Taxes were collected in an entirely
> separate process.
Do you have a source for all this wisdom, or have you been time
traveling after mommy turned the lights out?
> > To most people in a primitive country like Judea, the ancestral city
> > would be the present time city.
>
> As I pointed out last night, one did not return to an ancestral city
> for census purposes, nor did Galilee even have a census during Jesus'
> lifetime (neither Bethlehem nor Nazareth were in Judaea).
Good. Then you should have no problem understanding that the purpose
of the journey was to pay taxes, like it says in the Gospels.
Luke 2 (King James Version)
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree
from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of
Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
TCross
Terry Cross
The purpose of the journey was to pay taxes, as it says in the
Gospels.
Luke 2 (King James Version)
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree
from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of
Syria.)
3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
If Jesus were a fictional character, having him born in Bethlehem
would not be a problem. You see, there were these young people who
lived in Bethlehem and they had a baby ...
TCross
Terry Cross
> On Wed, 4 May 2011 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >On May 4, 4:49 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 3 May 2011 22:43:31 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
> >> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
> >> >The Bible is a collection of many documents compiled over hundreds of
> >> >years. No single statement about the origin of all the documents
> >> >together has any validity.
>
> >> And the different collected stories are not true just because they
> >> happened to have been collected in the Bible.
> >
> >That's powerful reasoning, Mister. If you're going to use that thing
> >in public, you'll need a license.
>
> It's not "powerful reasoning",
Most readers understood the sarcasm.
TCross
Christopher Ingham
>
>
>
> > “Unfortunately Luke’s birth narrative is a historically impossible
> > construct, which makes use of the long-remembered and traumatic moment
> > when in A.D. 6, ten years after Herod’s death, and following the
> > deposition of Archelaus, Judaea became a Roman provincial territory,
> > and the Roman census, a complete novelty, was imposed. A resistance
> > movement flared up, and was repressed with difficulty. Luke is quite
> > unaware of this precise context. But he has also forgotten something
> > much more significant. Neither in A.D. 6 nor at any other time in the
> > life-time of Jesus was Galilee under Roman rule, or subject to the
> > census. Furthermore, as we know from a much-quoted papyrus of A.D.
> > 104, the Roman census in fact required people to return, not to their
> > ancestral home, but to their normal place of work and residence, which
> > in the case of Joseph would have been Nazareth.” – Fergus
> > Millar,_Rome, The Greek world, and the East_, vol. 3 (Univ. of North
> > Carolina Press, 2006), 143.
>
> > Incidentally, the widely differing and irreconcilable genealogies in
> > Luke and Matthew indicate that a unified tradition about Jesus'
> > ancestors did not exist, and therefore both texts have to be
> > eliminated as historical sources.
>
> > Christopher Ingham
>
> > Being tribal agrarian, they did not
>
> > > move around much. It would take a war or invasion to displace them.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Christopher Ingham
again what are given in the modern English translations of Bibles used
by the Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox churches:
NRSV: “all the world should be registered”
REB: “a census to be taken throughout the Roman world”
NAB: “that the whole world should be enrolled”
NJB: “a census should be made of the whole inhabited world”
Luke says, “to get oneself registered (or recorded),” the infinitive
form of the verb he employs being ἀπογρἀφομαι. The verb used for the
actual payment of taxes was ὰποτιμάω.
Terry Cross
Do you know the difference between voter registration and a census?
How about between tax registration and census? Do you understand
there may be a difference among many kinds of registration, some that
may not have a perfect parallel in modern life?
TCross
Yusuf B Gursey
of the purported journey. Christopher explained the problems with
that.
>
> Luke 2 (King James Version)
> 1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree
> from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
> 2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of
> Syria.)
> 3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
>
> If Jesus were a fictional character, having him born in Bethlehem
> would not be a problem. You see, there were these young people who
> lived in Bethlehem and they had a baby ...
OK. there could have been a rabi named Jesus who started some sort of
movemenet. but the rest is still very murky and not all that probable.
>
> TCross
Walter Bushell
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Or up to less than a hundred years ago. You were giving him far too much
credit.
--
Jimbo
There is no record of Rome forcing the inhabitants of any other
occupied country to travel to their birth town/city/village, nor any
record outside the biblical account of Rome forcing the citizens of
Judea to travel to their town/city/village. Number 1, the vast
majority of people in that day and age would have been born, lived,
and died without having traveled more than 10 miles in any
direction. Number 2, travel was dangerous, roadside bandits and
cuthroats were pretty common. For Rome to order people to travel
would be to risk people showing up without the money to pay the taxes,
and in turn would be less money for their tribute. (Rome didn't
actually collect taxes directly, but demanded a certain percentage of
the taxes and other wealth as tribute)., and number 3, Rome never set
policy for the occupied country's/Nation's tax collection in any other
country/nation. There is no extra-biblical record of Rome enacting
law, or forcing by edicts the tax policies in Judea. There exist
numerous records in area of law where Rome did make such demands, such
as the Roman Tribute, but not for the countries internal taxation
policies or law. Forcing people to travel to their place of birth
makes no sense from either a historical, or a plain old common sense
perspective.
Terry Cross
The Magna Carta was "not all that probable." You will have an unusual
history book if that is you standard.
TCross
Howard Brazee
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If Jesus were a fictional character, having him born in Bethlehem
>would not be a problem. You see, there were these young people who
>lived in Bethlehem and they had a baby ...
Absolutely. But if people knew of that Nazarene when the gospels
were being written, then coming up with that back-story makes sense.
Howard Brazee
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Good. Then you should have no problem understanding that the purpose
>of the journey was to pay taxes, like it says in the Gospels.
>
>Luke 2 (King James Version)
> 1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree
>from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
> 2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of
>Syria.)
> 3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
What an odd way to collect taxes - sending them away from their
property into another city. Now they can claim poverty and the tax
collectors have no way to take what they don't have with them.
Christopher Ingham
> On May 5, 9:42 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 05 May 2011 18:02:03 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>
> > <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > >>>They didn't. The Gospels say "taxes," not census. If you could
> > >>>read ...
>
> > >If you could think....
>
> > >Even most Christians call it a census.
>
> > >But either way, they would not have had to travel for it.
>
> > It seems that forcing everybody to go to their ancestral home wouldn't
> > be an optimal way of either taxing people nor counting people. Did
> > the Romans do that any other time?
>
> occupied country to travel to their birth town/city/village, nor any
> record outside the biblical account of Rome forcing the citizens of
> Judea to travel to their town/city/village. Number 1, the vast
> majority of people in that day and age would have been born, lived,
> and died without having traveled more than 10 miles in any
> direction. Number 2, travel was dangerous, roadside bandits and
> cuthroats were pretty common. For Rome to order people to travel
> would be to risk people showing up without the money to pay the taxes,
> and in turn would be less money for their tribute. (Rome didn't
> actually collect taxes directly, but demanded a certain percentage of
> the taxes and other wealth as tribute)., and number 3, Rome never set
> policy for the occupied country's/Nation's tax collection in any other
> country/nation. There is no extra-biblical record of Rome enacting
> law, or forcing by edicts the tax policies in Judea.
>
beginning in 4 BCE. Herod Antipas was king/tetrarch of Galilee from 4
BCE to 39 CE.
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On May 6, 10:47 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why do you keep using the defective Authorized Version translation?
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On May 5, 8:16 pm, Colanth <Cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
The story is not supported by any evidence. Deal with the fact that the
gospels are mostly unsubstantiated myth.
Terry Cross
> On Fri, 6 May 2011 22:54:28 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
> >If Jesus were a fictional character, having him born in Bethlehem
> >would not be a problem. You see, there were these young people who
> >lived in Bethlehem and they had a baby ...
>
> Absolutely. But if people knew of that Nazarene when the gospels
> were being written, then coming up with that back-story makes sense.
A half dozen people here assert that an order for all people to return
to the their birthplaces would have the population of the Roman Empire
hopping around like fleas. Supposedly, the everyone was an
immigrant. If the whole story of Jesus were an invention, what would
be the problem with claiming Jesus was born in Bethlehem and
immigrated to Nazareth?
TCross