Am I Right To Be Feeling This Way?
Family Life0 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by red7. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Contd.
The old saw about Quirinius and the misplaced census has been addressed ad nauseum, such as stated by Josephus , "Quirinius, the governor of Syria whom Luke's Gospel mentions, is known from a careful history of affairs in Judea which was compiled by Josephus, an educated Jew, writing in Greek at Rome between c. 75 and c. 80. "... Oh, I forgot, we can't use Josephus can we? Of course, Flavius Josephus the Jewish priest *** Roman captive writings confirms a number of well established historical facts. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus. Justin Martyr's Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea. it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census. Further, Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch. Re: which, your supposed roadblock disappears.
Contd.
The old saw about Quirinius and the misplaced census has been addressed ad nauseum, such as stated by Josephus , "Quirinius, the governor of Syria whom Luke's Gospel mentions, is known from a careful history of affairs in Judea which was compiled by Josephus, an educated Jew, writing in Greek at Rome between c. 75 and c. 80. "... Oh, I forgot, we can't use Josephus can we? Of course, Flavius Josephus the Jewish priest *** Roman captive writings confirms a number of well established historical facts. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus. Justin Martyr's Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea. it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census. Further, Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch. Re: which, your supposed roadblock disappears.
Contd.
Contd.
Problem is, all of the suggestions, unfounded and unsupported musings you raise have been dealt with repeatedly. Additionally, no Biblical historian I can find, liberal or conservative, pro-Jesus or atheist doubt His historical existence at the stated time and place as described in the New Covenant. Time was that yours was the prevaling theory but historical realities of archaeology and other endeavors have pretty much disabled that chariot so to speak. You are, however, welcome to believe as you will... I'll match my list of experts and scholars with yours any day...
Problem is, all of the suggestions, unfounded and unsupported musings you raise have been dealt with repeatedly. Additionally, no Biblical historian I can find, liberal or conservative, pro-Jesus or atheist doubt His historical existence at the stated time and place as described in the New Covenant. Time was that yours was the prevaling theory but historical realities of archaeology and other endeavors have pretty much disabled that chariot so to speak. You are, however, welcome to believe as you will... I'll match my list of experts and scholars with yours any day...
Jesus is God's son, not God himself. Jesus did nothing of his own initiative and always prayed to his Father in heaven. there are just too many scripture separating Jesus from his Father. Jesus' main job was to preach. To talk to people. He knew that his apostles would organise what he said for the benefit of future generations. The moment that Jesus was baptised, he was made aware of his pre-human existence as Almighty god's co-worker, as described at Proverbs 8; 22-31. This is confirmed at John 1;2. "The Word", Jesus, was WITH God". As such he would have a total knowledge of the whole world, including all its languages, written as well as spoken. Jesus was a perfect person,. with no faults and no sin.
-- answer removed --
Sarcasm does not become you, Clanad, and reveals a lack of argument. Back to basics:
It is not the job of a rational person to disprove the weird things people believe in. As I have said before, believing the Jesus story is a matter of pure faith and I have no interest at all in attacking anyone's faith. When it comes to history, the Jesus story has the same status as those of Cinderella and Snow White: tales of magic told by unknown people many years ago.
Start from the stark fact that no-one wrote about Jesus, particularly the historians of his supposed day, until Paul in AD55: the first storyteller, with no evidence to offer us. The other four storytellers could be truthtellers or liars, historians or fantasists for all we know. We have no means of checking. Frankly, on 'evidence' as feeble as this I wouldn't believe in an ordinary person, let alone a miracle-worker. So either stick to your faith, Clanad, or bring us some real evidence - such as your claims about Matthew and John. I'll shut up until you do.
It is not the job of a rational person to disprove the weird things people believe in. As I have said before, believing the Jesus story is a matter of pure faith and I have no interest at all in attacking anyone's faith. When it comes to history, the Jesus story has the same status as those of Cinderella and Snow White: tales of magic told by unknown people many years ago.
Start from the stark fact that no-one wrote about Jesus, particularly the historians of his supposed day, until Paul in AD55: the first storyteller, with no evidence to offer us. The other four storytellers could be truthtellers or liars, historians or fantasists for all we know. We have no means of checking. Frankly, on 'evidence' as feeble as this I wouldn't believe in an ordinary person, let alone a miracle-worker. So either stick to your faith, Clanad, or bring us some real evidence - such as your claims about Matthew and John. I'll shut up until you do.
Rather, chakka, let's do this. After reviewing your posts I find that you, without foundation or factual information, accuse the writers of Matthew (actually Levi) and John of not being able, are incapable of, writing the Gospels to which they are attributed. How about some factual information to back that up? You may already know that ca. 1920 or so, Rudolf Bultmann, et al promulgated this same general theory in his Form Crtiticism writings. So, forgive me, I meant no overt sarcasm, it's just tht this has all been covered many times before.
The problem, as I see it, is that you and those in your circle would like to believe that all dedicated Christians are of the knuckle-dragging, drool-at-the-chin, easily led variety. Many, many dedicated scholars of the highest degree have devoted lives to study of Scripture. They are well respected and easily and repeatedly refute the Bultmann's and Edelman's that show up regularly.
Christians are the first to readily point out that there are matters that are disputable in Scripture, boh Old Covenant and new. However, even ultra-Liberal provacateurs such a Bishop John Spong et al (he of the Jesus Seminar) freely discuss and conclude the historocity of The Christ. The writings contain absolutely no evoloution (no pun intended) of thought or form. They are today as they have always been. There are no demonstrated attempts at correcting obvious faults or errors such as found in the original Book of Mormon of the earlier writing of the founders of Jehovah's Witness, or even the Koran, as originally written. They also concur with the general, early dates of the autographs.
Contd.
The problem, as I see it, is that you and those in your circle would like to believe that all dedicated Christians are of the knuckle-dragging, drool-at-the-chin, easily led variety. Many, many dedicated scholars of the highest degree have devoted lives to study of Scripture. They are well respected and easily and repeatedly refute the Bultmann's and Edelman's that show up regularly.
Christians are the first to readily point out that there are matters that are disputable in Scripture, boh Old Covenant and new. However, even ultra-Liberal provacateurs such a Bishop John Spong et al (he of the Jesus Seminar) freely discuss and conclude the historocity of The Christ. The writings contain absolutely no evoloution (no pun intended) of thought or form. They are today as they have always been. There are no demonstrated attempts at correcting obvious faults or errors such as found in the original Book of Mormon of the earlier writing of the founders of Jehovah's Witness, or even the Koran, as originally written. They also concur with the general, early dates of the autographs.
Contd.
Contd.
Secular historians and archaeologists have found, time after time, the writings to be accurate when referring to times and places. The fair thing is, once understanding the accuracy and dependability of the text's in multitudes of demonstrated areas, to accord them the benefit of the doubt in disputed areas. Luke, especially has been described by many various author's (as I've probably already pointed out) as being an historian of the first caliber. At each turn, my points have either been ignored or challenged as not factual when the scholars work on whom I base my references is at least as good as any you can muster.
So, we reach a point of diminishing returns, since we both approach the subject(s) from a biased viewpoint. The difference, in my opinion, is that I readily recognize my bias, having achieved it for over 40 years of doubt, study and open-mindeness. No matter how soundly the facts are supported, the ultimate decision is "What do I do with those facts"... I've made the concious, informed choice to declare that Yeshua Ha' Massiach is the Son of God, being God Himself and has alone the worthiness to stand in my stead when the accuser points his bony finger at me on that Day and says "Aha!"... and all that's visible is the Scarlet of the Thread Blood of the Christ... But you have every right to choose as you wish...
Secular historians and archaeologists have found, time after time, the writings to be accurate when referring to times and places. The fair thing is, once understanding the accuracy and dependability of the text's in multitudes of demonstrated areas, to accord them the benefit of the doubt in disputed areas. Luke, especially has been described by many various author's (as I've probably already pointed out) as being an historian of the first caliber. At each turn, my points have either been ignored or challenged as not factual when the scholars work on whom I base my references is at least as good as any you can muster.
So, we reach a point of diminishing returns, since we both approach the subject(s) from a biased viewpoint. The difference, in my opinion, is that I readily recognize my bias, having achieved it for over 40 years of doubt, study and open-mindeness. No matter how soundly the facts are supported, the ultimate decision is "What do I do with those facts"... I've made the concious, informed choice to declare that Yeshua Ha' Massiach is the Son of God, being God Himself and has alone the worthiness to stand in my stead when the accuser points his bony finger at me on that Day and says "Aha!"... and all that's visible is the Scarlet of the Thread Blood of the Christ... But you have every right to choose as you wish...
OK Clanad, you don�t accept my challenge re �John� and �Matthew�. It was unfair of me anyway because you had no hope of establishing connections: no-one has ever done. If you want to claim the Jesus story as fact rather than a matter of faith (with which I have no quarrel) then you must get back to basics. Quoting authors who have written in the last 1900 years or so gives us no new information, just opinion. So put your faith to one side for a moment (you can go back to it later) and try to be rational and objective about the supposed primary sources. Comment on the following seven people:
Philo and Justus, historians writing during Jesus� supposed time, do not mention him. Neither does anyone during this period. Explain.
Paul, Saul of Tarsus, introduces Jesus to the world in AD 55, telling us that there was once a man called Jesus (he doesn�t say when) who was the son of God, who came to earth as a redeemer, was crucified and rose from the dead; and anyone who believes this story will also have everlasting life. Explain where Paul got all this from.
The first gospel, called �Mark�, says nothing about Jesus� birth or childhood or about his resurrection (the original �Mark� finishes at 16:8). Who was �Mark�? Justify any answer with evidence. Where did �Mark� get all his information from with no previous accounts of Jesus� life in existence?
�Luke� copies �Mark�, adds a genealogy of Joseph and an account of Jesus� birth. Who was �Luke� and where did he get this information from, including the state of Mary�s hymen?
�Matthew� also copies �Mark� and adds a genealogy that contradicts �Luke�s� and a nativity account which also contradicts �Luke�s� . Who was �Matthew�? Justify any answer with evidence. Why does he disagree with �Luke�?
Who was �John�? Justify any answer with evidence. Why does he so often disagree with the three synoptic gospels?
These are the basics, Clanad. Ponder them honestly if
Philo and Justus, historians writing during Jesus� supposed time, do not mention him. Neither does anyone during this period. Explain.
Paul, Saul of Tarsus, introduces Jesus to the world in AD 55, telling us that there was once a man called Jesus (he doesn�t say when) who was the son of God, who came to earth as a redeemer, was crucified and rose from the dead; and anyone who believes this story will also have everlasting life. Explain where Paul got all this from.
The first gospel, called �Mark�, says nothing about Jesus� birth or childhood or about his resurrection (the original �Mark� finishes at 16:8). Who was �Mark�? Justify any answer with evidence. Where did �Mark� get all his information from with no previous accounts of Jesus� life in existence?
�Luke� copies �Mark�, adds a genealogy of Joseph and an account of Jesus� birth. Who was �Luke� and where did he get this information from, including the state of Mary�s hymen?
�Matthew� also copies �Mark� and adds a genealogy that contradicts �Luke�s� and a nativity account which also contradicts �Luke�s� . Who was �Matthew�? Justify any answer with evidence. Why does he disagree with �Luke�?
Who was �John�? Justify any answer with evidence. Why does he so often disagree with the three synoptic gospels?
These are the basics, Clanad. Ponder them honestly if
Latest Posts
Azes 2740: Can’t Work Out The Code...
Crosswords31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles53 mins ago
Road rules64 mins ago
Is What I Experienced Called...
Body & Soul65 mins ago
Shopping & Style80 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.