Census of Quirinius
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2013, 08:25 AM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(18-12-2013 07:26 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star 20 resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, 21 [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner 22 [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."
That's from Josephus. If recording supernatural events makes Luke unreliable regarding the mundane, then Josephus is likewise unreliable.

I think I am seeing the problem, you are conflating us saying that Josephus is a reliable source with us saying everything Josephus says is accurate. With ancient works like this you always have to take them with a grain of salt, accurate reporting of facts was not the goal of these works, or even really a thing. This is why we can say that 1 set of histories is more reliable because it agrees with more competing works. Everyone had their prejudices and biases in their work, what we do when trying to understand what really happened is compare and contrast the different works. If work A says that Rome destroyed Carthage and every other history agrees with that fact you can take it as most likely true, if However work A says Carthage was victorious and all other histories and archaeological evidence points to that being wrong it taints the rest of the information contained in the work.

The more Big Events that a work gets wrong the less trusted it is and the Bible gets nearly all of them wrong so as a historical document it is worthless. Josephus however tend to be confirmed more often than not so his descriptions are considered to be mostly accurate. The key word there being "Mostly" he does go off the rails from time to time, usually for political reasons (His job was to make the Emperor and the Empire look good not to be unbiased) but since we know his motivation we can usually tell when he has colored the truth to fit his purposes.

(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
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
18-12-2013, 08:35 AM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(18-12-2013 07:02 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Still circular.

Why should we accept that Josephus is accurate and Luke is inaccurate?
Because Josephus is considered reliable.

For which there are reasons.

This isn't complicated.

I mean, I know you're trying very hard to find a way to discount the modern consensus, but good luck with that.

(18-12-2013 07:02 AM)alpha male Wrote:  No, according to me, a census isn't an extraordinary claim.

The census is far from the most extraordinary claim to be found there. As well you know, and disingenuously ignore.

A census, by itself, is something Romans were wont to do from time to time. The censors took a census to divide the centuries. All well and good. A census which was, however:
conducted in a uniquely unusual manner,
held at a contradictory date,
and left no record of its results,
is indeed quite an extraordinary claim.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 08:40 AM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(18-12-2013 08:25 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  The more Big Events that a work gets wrong the less trusted it is and the Bible gets nearly all of them wrong so as a historical document it is worthless.
What Big Events does Luke get wrong which makes him unreliable regarding the census?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 08:44 AM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(18-12-2013 08:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 08:25 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  The more Big Events that a work gets wrong the less trusted it is and the Bible gets nearly all of them wrong so as a historical document it is worthless.
What Big Events does Luke get wrong which makes him unreliable regarding the census?

The timing. He places it in an impossible time period. It is the equivalent of saying that the event happened During the Presidency of Richard Nixon and the Rule of Kim Jong Un. Herod was dead for 10 years before any census took place and by putting that in the story it taints the rest of the work as unreliable.

(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
18-12-2013, 09:04 AM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(18-12-2013 08:44 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 08:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  What Big Events does Luke get wrong which makes him unreliable regarding the census?

The timing. He places it in an impossible time period. It is the equivalent of saying that the event happened During the Presidency of Richard Nixon and the Rule of Kim Jong Un. Herod was dead for 10 years before any census took place and by putting that in the story it taints the rest of the work as unreliable.

Indeed.

Clever readers might notice that this was in the OP.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 09:15 AM
RE: Census of Quirinius
Didn't think I needed to specify this, but what is needed is incorrect Big Events other than the census itself. You're being circular again. You can't say that Luke is unreliable concerning the timing of the census because the timing of the census is wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 09:48 AM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(18-12-2013 09:15 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Didn't think I needed to specify this, but what is needed is incorrect Big Events other than the census itself. You're being circular again. You can't say that Luke is unreliable concerning the timing of the census because the timing of the census is wrong.


You're just trolling now. No I am saying Luke as a whole is unreliable because it contains several major fuck ups the Census just being the biggest and easiest to explain. It is not circular to say something is unreliable and then explain why it is unreliable. Luke says there was a census (with no records and done in a manner that was completely different from every other census) because he needed an excuse to put Josef and Mary in a town that did not exist at that time because of a misinterpreted prophecy. That alone makes everything else in that work tainted, no circular reasoning necessary.

(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
18-12-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(18-12-2013 09:48 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You're just trolling now. No I am saying Luke as a whole is unreliable because it contains several major fuck ups the Census just being the biggest and easiest to explain.
It's not trolling to ask you what those other major errors are.
Quote:It is not circular to say something is unreliable and then explain why it is unreliable.
If your explanation references the event under consideration - and it does - then yes, it's circular.
Quote:Luke says there was a census (with no records and done in a manner that was completely different from every other census)
Luke doesn't say the census required people to travel, if that's what you're referring to.
Quote:because he needed an excuse to put Josef and Mary in a town that did not exist at that time because of a misinterpreted prophecy. That alone makes everything else in that work tainted, no circular reasoning necessary.
1. Are you claiming Bethlehem didn't exist then?

2. It would have been much easier to simply say they were visiting relatives in Bethlehem, or in Bethlehem due to a festival in Jerusalem, or some such.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 11:14 AM
RE: Census of Quirinius
(18-12-2013 10:08 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 09:48 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You're just trolling now. No I am saying Luke as a whole is unreliable because it contains several major fuck ups the Census just being the biggest and easiest to explain.
It's not trolling to ask you what those other major errors are.
Quote:It is not circular to say something is unreliable and then explain why it is unreliable.
If your explanation references the event under consideration - and it does - then yes, it's circular.
Quote:Luke says there was a census (with no records and done in a manner that was completely different from every other census)
Luke doesn't say the census required people to travel, if that's what you're referring to.
Quote:because he needed an excuse to put Josef and Mary in a town that did not exist at that time because of a misinterpreted prophecy. That alone makes everything else in that work tainted, no circular reasoning necessary.
1. Are you claiming Bethlehem didn't exist then?

2. It would have been much easier to simply say they were visiting relatives in Bethlehem, or in Bethlehem due to a festival in Jerusalem, or some such.

You know what, you're right. I messed something up there. It is nazareth that didn't exist in the first part of the 1st century CE. So disregard that part of my statement. The rest still stands the prophecy the unknown author of Luke was attempting to shoehorn in was a mistranslation or just not knowing the actual text.

Quote:Micah 5
New International Version (NIV)
A Promised Ruler From Bethlehem

5 [a]Marshal your troops now, city of troops,
for a siege is laid against us.
They will strike Israel’s ruler
on the cheek with a rod.
2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[b] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”
3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned
until the time when she who is in labor bears a son,
and the rest of his brothers return
to join the Israelites.
4 He will stand and shepherd his flock
in the strength of the Lord,
in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness
will reach to the ends of the earth.

When read in context it is clear that it is referring to something that was happening then not a future unknown time. Plus it was a clan not a city but then the author of Luke probably did not have a copy ot the text or such a mistake would not have been made.

(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
18-12-2013, 11:27 AM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2013 11:31 AM by RobbyPants.)
RE: Census of Quirinius
(18-12-2013 07:10 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 05:31 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Let's say you ask me how I got to work. If I told you I drove my car, you would probably trust me. If I told you I took my helicopter, you'd probably be skeptical. You might trust me if a mutual friend confirmed it and said they flew in it.

Now, what if I told you I flew my Pegasus? What would it take for you to believe it? Why did you give this answer?
A census is analogous to the car, not the Pegasus.

I said that one reason to not take the word of Luke is that it's full of a bunch of claims of extraordinary things. You said this is materialistic bias. That is the context of the quote.

Context:
(17-12-2013 02:36 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
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.

Answer the question. Is the belief that I flew a pegasus as credible as me driving a car? Why or why not? What would it take to get you to believe I flew a pegasus?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: