Re: Did Jesus Exist? Debunking Atheist Conspiracy Theory
Free Lunch
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>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:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 1, 12:30 pm, Colanth <Cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> >> 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
>> >> >> <christophering...@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 -
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> 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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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
<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.
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.