The was no census of the whole Roman Empire at that time. It's not a credible claim. In fact there was no census where you were required to go back to your ancestral home. It defeats the purpose of a census. Luke was just flat wrong.
Agreed there was no census of the entire Roman Empire all at once. There were regional census taken, there were regional oaths of loyalty that were sworn. No one disputes this. Luke does not say census but decree (leaves more options open).Aggrad08 said:
The was no census of the whole Roman Empire at that time. It's not a credible claim. In fact there was no census where you were required to go back to your ancestral home. It defeats the purpose of a census. Luke was just flat wrong.
1)As noted before worldwide decree helps Luke show the power of Caesar in contrast to Jesus- symbolism. As I see it the Christians do not have to show a worldwide oath that occurs all at once. We only have to show it plausible that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem in roughly 2-3 BC- RegionalAggrad08 said:
No. The issues are far more. Yes the timing is wrong. But so is the specific scale. The decree in Luke called for a census of the Empire. This didn't happen. Breaking it down into a regional census only makes sense if every other region also conducted one. That didn't happen.
Further, the entire census was a contrivance by Luke to get Joseph into Bethlehem. This would not have happened for any Roman census at any time. To go to your ancestral home defeats the purpose of a census and was never required for obvious reasons.
And as I demonstrated above it isn't plausible. You simply ignore counterarguments booboo. It's tiresome. Try, at least try to directly address all the points. You are merely repeating the same vapid thing. It is not plausible that Mary and Joseph would have to go to bethelehem because in NO census are you required to go to your ancestral home. It's self defeating. I've Now stated this several times and you continually ignore it. At least be honest and address the most glaring issue- Even if there was a census (there wasn't), mary and joseph would have no reason to leave Nazareth.booboo91 said:
1)As noted before worldwide decree helps Luke show the power of Caesar in contrast to Jesus- symbolism. As I see it the Christians do not have to show a worldwide oath that occurs all at once. We only have to show it plausible that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem in roughly 2-3 BC- Regional
Your exaggeration is a very obvious attempt to obfuscate the obvious issue. NO ONE, is claiming the verse intended the "Whole World", but anyone honestly reading that passage can understand that it was intended to convey the entire roman empire. It's simply dishonest to claim otherwise. There is no reason to suspect that such a decree would apply only to Judea. There is no evidence of such a census t the time required even though we have evidence at other times of similar ones done.Quote:
We agree- literally there was no worldwide decree, no one was in the South Pole. Thus Luke is a liar and you are correct- sarcasim. We both agree Luke's goal was to show them in Bethlehem.
I would say this does nothing, absolutely nothing to strengthen your argument. Of course oaths of loyalty would be required throughout the entire empire. That's not lukes claim. Taken of census information would also be used throughout the empire for tax purposes. This still does nothing to support your claim. The census described in luke did not occur, in fact no roman census in history was of such a type as to require mary and joseph to return to an ancestral home.Quote:
2) What say you about Oath that Josephus speaks of? " Jewish Historian Josephus recounts that during the last years of Herod's rule, Judea was required to swear an oath of loyality to Caesar. Archeological evidence confirms that this same type of oath was sworn elsewhere in the empire around 3 BC".
Quote:
And as I demonstrated above it isn't plausible. You simply ignore counterarguments booboo. It's tiresome. Try, at least try to directly address all the points. You are merely repeating the same vapid thing. It is not plausible that Mary and Joseph would have to go to bethelehem because in NO census are you required to go to your ancestral home. It's self defeating. I've Now stated this several times and you continually ignore it. At least be honest and address the most glaring issue- Even if there was a census (there wasn't), mary and joseph would have no reason to leave Nazareth.
Quote:
Your exaggeration is a very obvious attempt to obfuscate the obvious issue. NO ONE, is claiming the verse intended the "Whole World", but anyone honestly reading that passage can understand that it was intended to convey the entire roman empire. It's simply dishonest to claim otherwise. There is no reason to suspect that such a decree would apply only to Judea. There is no evidence of such a census t the time required even though we have evidence at other times of similar ones done.
Funny I posted this several times, so you can't blame me for reposting over and over. You might be as bad a listener or ignoring things as I do!Aggrad08 said:Quote:
I would say this does nothing, absolutely nothing to strengthen your argument. Of course oaths of loyalty would be required throughout the entire empire. That's not lukes claim. Taken of census information would also be used throughout the empire for tax purposes. This still does nothing to support your claim. The census described in luke did not occur, in fact no roman census in history was of such a type as to require mary and joseph to return to an ancestral home.
You seem to not know the difference between plausible and possible. That's not what plausible means and hence not what I said. Either way I already explain a census where you have to return to you ancestral home has no evidence and is literally self defeating. I can't show you non-existent evidence, that's not how negatives work. I can show you normal census procedure. Quit quibbling for one whole minute and think it through-what possible reason would you have for taking a census of people by their ancestral home?booboo91 said:
Sorry I missed that concrete evidence you provided that it absoluately did not happen (plausible). Please provide it again.
Quote:
1) Please tell me the details about the tribe and family of Mary and Joseph, where did they live?
This does nothing to strengthen your point or defend paul's assertion.Quote:
My point is we see Holy Family traveling in the region. Joke- maybe Joseph cosigned on a home loan and had to go help pay the propery taxes.
We actually have quite a lot. It's how we can know luke missed the timing and the scope of the census. Basic logic can tell you about travelling to be counted in a different place, but we have no record of that.Quote:
2) Please show us all the details of the logistics of the local census in the region and also the Oath that Josephus speaks up. Who showed up, where did they travel from? My point- you/we don't have any the details, we have vague general statements with no details.
I ignored it out of charity because it's not even a legitimate point.Quote:
Funny I posted this several times, so you can't blame me for reposting over and over. You might be as bad a listener or ignoring things as I do!
That's literally what a census is. Call it an enrollment of you like. We know of roman enrollments, in fact we know of the very one that happened while Quirinius was governor of syria. There is no distinction that you are trying to make.Quote:
Where does it say census? It says decree and enrolled. It may be a census or it could be an oath. It is vague- which gives us more possible options.
Again, it literally defeats the purpose of a census booboo.Quote:
That maybe true, that in other areas of Rome the census/oath did not require great travel for census. But I think it is important to know how things were done in that specific region of the world (Israel). Other nations did not have their 12 tribes and that culture. Speculation- Maybe Rome was able to use order/ temple to their advantage?
Please show me normal census/oath procedure for the times, especially if you have something for israel. would like to read it.Quote:
You seem to not know the difference between plausible and possible. That's not what plausible means and hence not what I said. Either way I already explain a census where you have to return to you ancestral home has no evidence and is literally self defeating. I can't show you non-existent evidence, that's not how negatives work. I can show you normal census procedure. Quit quibbling for one whole minute and think it through-what possible reason would you have for taking a census of people by their ancestral home?
Quote:This does nothing to strengthen your point or defend paul's assertion.Quote:
My point is we see Holy Family traveling in the region. Joke- maybe Joseph cosigned on a home loan and had to go help pay the propery taxes.
Yep intent of author, use of symbolism not important, when we are looking at what he wrote and analyzing every little word written.Quote:
I ignored it out of charity because it's not even a legitimate point.
$$$ was the purpose. how hard is it to collect taxes or take oath and then write down where folks are from. Again, let the tribes/families do the work (speculation). Did a high percentage of Jewish people move away from home town? Or was it like rural America several decades ago where the families stayed together and farmed?Quote:
Again, it literally defeats the purpose of a census booboo.
I already did. It's included in the wiki links I provided that you didn't read.booboo91 said:
Please show me normal census/oath procedure for the times, especially if you have something for israel. would like to read it.
Gathering by tribe is fine (within each city) this makes sense. To your ancestral home it does nothing for you, and in fact undermines you.Quote:
Speculation Reasons for traveling home: Records of families were per tribe. Family Tree. Example- Catholic church records (Baptism, Confirmation) are kept in your home church. So short answer it is a good place to start. You have the tribes responsible for gathering up the people. So Romans perform less work,
Willingness to travel is not the issue. The issue is it ruins the census. Seriously do you not see that?Quote:
It actually does, it shows the holy family in the region and also their willingness to travel. It is baby steps:
1) We see Census and Oaths did happen
2) we see Mary and Joseph traveling in the region. Traveling 5 or 65 miles is not an issue.
That's not what I said. You are being dishonest here. You tried to make a distinction where none exists. Enrollement and census speak of the same thing.booboo91 said:
Yep intent of author, use of symbolism not important, when we are looking at what he wrote and analyzing every little word written.
You are putting words in my mouth, jumping to conclusions, ignoring argument, evidence and history. The opposite is happening. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility that luke could be wrong so you are dancing through hoola hoops desperately looking for something to cling to. I'm not giving luke any more or less leeway than any other figure. He's just flat wrong on multiple counts. To give luke the "wriggle" room you are asking for is to make his statements devoid of meaning.Quote:
You don't think God is plausible, you don't think a man rose 2000 years ago. My 2 cents you narrowly look at things, legalistally. You don't want to give author Luke an wiggle room.
We have fairly precise quotes and good evidence in this matter. Also basic common sense, which you've yet to address.Quote:
I on the other hand am a firm believer and will give great leeway. Especially with vague quotes and lack of physical evidence.
Pretty damn hard if you make them travel to their ancestral home who knows how far away and hope they don't lie. You tally people where they are. Each local tax collector would be expected to collect a certain amount based on the number of people within his area.Quote:
$$$ was the purpose. how hard is it to collect taxes or take oath and then write down where folks are from.
It literally wouldn't matter. As it makes no sense to use an ancestral home. You can use tribes all you want. In fact I'm sure they did. Just like we use last names and families. But traveling to ancestral homes is not required or rational for that. Nor do we have any evidence of it.Quote:
Again, let the tribes/families do the work (speculation). Did a high percentage of Jewish people move away from home town? Or was it like rural America several decades ago where the families stayed together and farmed?
Aggrad08 said:
I already did. It's included in the wiki links I provided that you didn't read.
Gathering by tribe is fine (within each city) this makes sense. To your ancestral home it does nothing for you, and in fact undermines you.Willingness to travel is not the issue. The issue is it ruins the census. Seriously do you not see that?Quote:
.
1) Gotta check your facts- That wasn't me who said meticulous historian. In fact I went out of way to explain have to give authors leeway, they are trying to tell a story with purpose- use lots of dual meaning, symbolism and do not always follow chronological author.schmendeler said:
This whole line of argumentation by booboo is funny given it's in response to a post that objected to calling Luke a "meticulous historian". Census? It wasn't a census, it was an oath... And Joseph was really there because he was running an estate for his family. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Quote:
$$$ was the purpose. how hard is it to collect taxes or take oath and then write down where folks are from. Again, let the tribes/families do the work (speculation). Did a high percentage of Jewish people move away from home town? Or was it like rural America several decades ago where the families stayed together and farmed?
Marco Esquandolas said:
The larger point here is that even if the writer of Luke did fudge some things, none of the historical inaccuracies are serious enough to be fatal to Christianity as a religion or the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. So we know Lukes census never happened. Thats fine. Conceed the point, Christians, and go about your business as usual. It is really ok.
.Dr. Watson said:Marco Esquandolas said:
The larger point here is that even if the writer of Luke did fudge some things, none of the historical inaccuracies are serious enough to be fatal to Christianity as a religion or the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. So we know Lukes census never happened. Thats fine. Conceed the point, Christians, and go about your business as usual. It is really ok.
The point relevant to the debate is that Luke cannot be automatically trusted as a meticulous historian writing within a few years of the crucifixion.
i see you've skipped the last 2 pages of thread.DryFly said:.Dr. Watson said:Marco Esquandolas said:
The larger point here is that even if the writer of Luke did fudge some things, none of the historical inaccuracies are serious enough to be fatal to Christianity as a religion or the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. So we know Lukes census never happened. Thats fine. Conceed the point, Christians, and go about your business as usual. It is really ok.
The point relevant to the debate is that Luke cannot be automatically trusted as a meticulous historian writing within a few years of the crucifixion.
Ok, so why not?
.schmendeler said:i see you've skipped the last 2 pages of thread.DryFly said:.Dr. Watson said:Marco Esquandolas said:
The larger point here is that even if the writer of Luke did fudge some things, none of the historical inaccuracies are serious enough to be fatal to Christianity as a religion or the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. So we know Lukes census never happened. Thats fine. Conceed the point, Christians, and go about your business as usual. It is really ok.
The point relevant to the debate is that Luke cannot be automatically trusted as a meticulous historian writing within a few years of the crucifixion.
Ok, so why not?
DryFly said:.schmendeler said:i see you've skipped the last 2 pages of thread.DryFly said:.Dr. Watson said:Marco Esquandolas said:
The larger point here is that even if the writer of Luke did fudge some things, none of the historical inaccuracies are serious enough to be fatal to Christianity as a religion or the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. So we know Lukes census never happened. Thats fine. Conceed the point, Christians, and go about your business as usual. It is really ok.
The point relevant to the debate is that Luke cannot be automatically trusted as a meticulous historian writing within a few years of the crucifixion.
Ok, so why not?
Well, yeah.
To sum it all up, people are going to believe what they want to believe.lespaul said:
I was reading this atheist website today and it has several articles about the contradictions in the Easter story:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/
In about 10 minutes of reading I read three times that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. This is casually stated as fact which is common in atheist circles.
This doesn't mean it is true (or not). That is why I started this thread to see if we could come to an agreement. From the back and forth, my guess is consensus isn't going to be reached.
Personally, I don't care either way. I just like to follow the facts/logic to the best probability of the truth (as opposed to starting with a position and then cherry picking facts to support that position).
DryFly said:To sum it all up, people are going to believe what they want to believe.lespaul said:
I was reading this atheist website today and it has several articles about the contradictions in the Easter story:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/
In about 10 minutes of reading I read three times that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. This is casually stated as fact which is common in atheist circles.
This doesn't mean it is true (or not). That is why I started this thread to see if we could come to an agreement. From the back and forth, my guess is consensus isn't going to be reached.
Personally, I don't care either way. I just like to follow the facts/logic to the best probability of the truth (as opposed to starting with a position and then cherry picking facts to support that position).