Census of Quirinius
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2013, 12:08 PM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(17-12-2013 11:53 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 11:42 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Exactly the reason I found it hilarious myself. "oh luke such and such..." like that makes ANYTHING valid. It is all secondhand, wishful thinking about a story based on heresay retold and posited as truth. Only the blind believe it at face value.

In Luke's case, it's likely at least thirdhand. Given the amount of errors in Mark's account, we have no reason to believe he was writing based on firsthand knowledge. If he did, he waited something like 40 years to put it on paper (and we know how good human memory is!). We know that Luke used Mark as one of his sources, so if Mark was already secondhand, Luke would be thirdhand.

good point, I agree it was at minimum third hand made up information Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 12:27 PM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(17-12-2013 11:36 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I hate that level of intellectual dishonesty. It'd be one thing if they had a reason to doubt Josephus other than "Nuh uh! Luke said so and we all know Luke is true!", but they don't.
Why must we accept Josephus over Luke unless we find reason to doubt?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(17-12-2013 12:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 11:36 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I hate that level of intellectual dishonesty. It'd be one thing if they had a reason to doubt Josephus other than "Nuh uh! Luke said so and we all know Luke is true!", but they don't.
Why must we accept Josephus over Luke unless we find reason to doubt?

Mostly because Luke is of no historical merit whatsoever. It is a 3rd or 4th hand retelling of events that happened some 100+ years before the author was alive. It would be about the same as you writing about your personal experiences in the american civil war. Josephus at least is somewhat accurate in his Histories (less so in his propaganda work for Vespasian) and as opposed to the unknown author of Luke we know who Josephus was and what his motivations and prejudices were. Luke, like almost all of the new testament is hearsay far removed from any actual sources and of little value in actual historical work. They couldn't even keep straight town names and who was in power at the correct time let alone important matters.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Revenant77x's post
17-12-2013, 01:27 PM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(17-12-2013 01:25 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 12:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Why must we accept Josephus over Luke unless we find reason to doubt?

Mostly because Luke is of no historical merit whatsoever. It is a 3rd or 4th hand retelling of events that happened some 100+ years before the author was alive. It would be about the same as you writing about your personal experiences in the american civil war. Josephus at least is somewhat accurate in his Histories (less so in his propaganda work for Vespasian) and as opposed to the unknown author of Luke we know who Josephus was and what his motivations and prejudices were. Luke, like almost all of the new testament is hearsay far removed from any actual sources and of little value in actual historical work. They couldn't even keep straight town names and who was in power at the correct time let alone important matters.

couldnt have said ti better. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 02:03 PM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(17-12-2013 01:25 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Mostly because Luke is of no historical merit whatsoever. It is a 3rd or 4th hand retelling of events that happened some 100+ years before the author was alive.
Can you support that? It seems pretty fringe. The range on the date of gLuke is the same as (or even earlier than) the writings of Josephus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 02:04 PM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(17-12-2013 01:25 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 12:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Why must we accept Josephus over Luke unless we find reason to doubt?

Mostly because Luke is of no historical merit whatsoever. It is a 3rd or 4th hand retelling of events that happened some 100+ years before the author was alive. It would be about the same as you writing about your personal experiences in the american civil war. Josephus at least is somewhat accurate in his Histories (less so in his propaganda work for Vespasian) and as opposed to the unknown author of Luke we know who Josephus was and what his motivations and prejudices were. Luke, like almost all of the new testament is hearsay far removed from any actual sources and of little value in actual historical work. They couldn't even keep straight town names and who was in power at the correct time let alone important matters.

Oh, yeah, smartypants?

Well what about the original autographs...

Rolleyes

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-12-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(17-12-2013 12:27 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Why must we accept Josephus over Luke unless we find reason to doubt?

Luke contains historical inaccuracies, which makes it of dubious quality, and he makes rather extraordinary claims that haven't been backed up elsewhere, except for the other gospels. Note that other sources which make other extraordinary claims are simply assumed to be mythology instead of history. The gospels are given unusually high credibility based on special pleading alone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(17-12-2013 02:14 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Luke contains historical inaccuracies, which makes it of dubious quality,
This is circular.

Why should we accept that Josephus is accurate and Luke is inaccurate?
Because Luke contains historical inaccuracies.

Also, does Josephus contain historical inaccuracies?
Quote:and he makes rather extraordinary claims that haven't been backed up elsewhere, except for the other gospels. Note that other sources which make other extraordinary claims are simply assumed to be mythology instead of history. The gospels are given unusually high credibility based on special pleading alone.
And this is the real reason: a priori materialist bias.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 03:14 PM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(17-12-2013 02:36 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 02:14 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Luke contains historical inaccuracies, which makes it of dubious quality,
This is circular.

Why should we accept that Josephus is accurate and Luke is inaccurate?
Because Luke contains historical inaccuracies.

How might one ever consider one source as more valid than another? In history, or in any other field?

Hint: it is in fact possible.

(17-12-2013 02:36 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Also, does Josephus contain historical inaccuracies?
Quote:and he makes rather extraordinary claims that haven't been backed up elsewhere, except for the other gospels. Note that other sources which make other extraordinary claims are simply assumed to be mythology instead of history. The gospels are given unusually high credibility based on special pleading alone.
And this is the real reason: a priori materialist bias.

I invite you to consider a thought experiment.

Since you - necessarily - do not "a priori" (notwithstanding that "a priori" is exactly the wrong characterisation; disbelieving claims after examining the lacking evidence being the precise opposite of "a priori") reject "non-material" (good luck defining that coherently!) explanations for purported exceptional claims...

How, then, do you distinguish between extraordinary claims which you do believe (a very specific subset of Christianity) and those - incomparably more numerous - which you do not believe?

The Quran is the sole contemporary record of the life of the prophet Muhammad. It makes some pretty exceptional claims! Since you cannot possibly be rejecting them due to "a priori materialist bias", on what grounds do you reject them?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(17-12-2013 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  How might one ever consider one source as more valid than another? In history, or in any other field?

Hint: it is in fact possible.
Yes, I know it's possible. That's why I asked for reasons. Unfortunately I got a circular response.

Quote:I invite you to consider a thought experiment.

Since you - necessarily - do not "a priori" (notwithstanding that "a priori" is exactly the wrong characterisation; disbelieving claims after examining the lacking evidence being the precise opposite of "a priori") reject "non-material" (good luck defining that coherently!) explanations for purported exceptional claims...

How, then, do you distinguish between extraordinary claims which you do believe (a very specific subset of Christianity) and those - incomparably more numerous - which you do not believe?

The Quran is the sole contemporary record of the life of the prophet Muhammad. It makes some pretty exceptional claims! Since you cannot possibly be rejecting them due to "a priori materialist bias", on what grounds do you reject them?
A number of ways that have nothing to do with this issue. Start another thread if you like.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: