Jun 16, 2012 -- 12:29PM, Ken wrote:

Jun 16, 2012 -- 12:16PM, five_point_dad wrote:

Jun 15, 2012 -- 7:29PM, five_point_dad wrote:

   Legate was a rank that was equivelant to a military general.  Such people were always drawn from the senatorial class of citizens.  Once that rank was conferred upon a person, they were usually appointed as governors or ambassadors.  The work I cited earlier makes a compelling case that that earlier Governorship of Syria was most likely filled by Quirinius as he was one of the few legates available and in the vicinity at the time, though the book also made it clear that it wasn't certain as the person who filled the post was not named.  It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

Actually, he was: Erich S. Gruen, 'The Expansion of the Empire under Augustus' in The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume X: The Augustan Empire, 43 BC - AD 69, (Cambridge University Press, 1996) pages 157

Who was what? Gruen p 157 says that Quirinius was legate of Syria in 6 CE, the same year that Judea became a Roman province and the first Roman census was held there under Quirinius' direction. He does not say that Quirinius had been legate of Syria at any earlier date.

KEN: Who was what? Gruen p 157 says that Quirinius was legate of Syria in 6 CE, the same year that Judea became a Roman province and the first Roman census was held there under Quirinius' direction. He does not say that Quirinius had been legate of Syria at any earlier date.

JACK: My apologies I misread your last post thinking you were saying Quirinius hadn't been governor of Syria, which I thought was odd at the time, but you had a specific time period involved.  I should have been more careful and re-read your post before replying. 

     To be sure, this has been an apologetic issue for centuries.  At any rate, as I said there is the theory--and I recognize it is only a theory--that he held that position twice.  The Triburtine inscription can be understood to say that yet it doesn't mention where the previous post was held.  To me, that is the most viable theory regardless of the names on the list.  Rome aristocracy frequently used different names at different times.  

   There is a plethora of other theories floating around over this matter.  Tertullian, in "Against Marcion" believed that the census was actually taken by Gaius Saturninus and that is what Luke meant, which seems far fetched to me.  There is also the theory that the census was ordered by Herod but not completed until Quirinius became governor of Syria two years later.  Given the proficiency of the Roman government, that seems a bit of a stretch to me.  William Ramsey is of the opinion that Quirinius was co-ruler with Saturininus from 10 BC and actually administered it which I find highly unlikely. 

    You begin with the presupposition that the historical record that you quoted earlier is correct and, therefore, the Scripture must be wrong and inaccurate (Incidentally, you never referenced that list).  You place your faith in human records and human historians--whom, incidentally--are not all agreed.  I take the position that the Word of God is correct and whatever human records would indicate otherwise are the writings that are in error. 

Jun 16, 2012 -- 2:07PM, Ken wrote:

Jun 16, 2012 -- 1:51PM, five_point_dad wrote:

I take the position that the Word of God is correct and whatever human records would indicate otherwise are the writings that are in error. 

That is an unreasonable position. It prevents me from discussing the matter further with you. In a debate we present evidence. If you announce that you will not accept any evidence contrary to your position, what is the point of presenting it?

Unreasonable by your definition of the word.  Actually, you were equally not open accepting any evidence I had, so I don't blame you for ending the debate.

Submit Post ..."oneMBQuick.cancel('Reply')">Cancel Quote message in reply? html_removed

Jun 15, 2012 -- 7:36AM, five_point_dad wrote:

Tpaine: There is no evidence that Quirinius was the governor of Syria twice, but even if he had been it wouldn't change the fact that Rome didn't directly tax client states, which Judah was during the reign of Herod and his son Archelaus. Client states collected their own taxes and paid a percentage of the receipts to Rome. When Augustus banished Archelaus in 6 CE Judah became a Roman province and since it was now a client state the people were directly taxed so a census was necessary. This census is mentioned by Josephus in his Antiquities.

JACK: The discovery of the Latin Tiburtine inscriptions  in 1746 demonstrated that someone had served as Governor of Syria twice during the Roman occupation between 7 BC and 7 AD.  Oxford archaeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) makes a convincing argument that the only person who fits the description was Quirinius (p103 Ramsay, W. M. “Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?” 1898, Oxford Press).

    You make the argument that Rome didn’t directly tax its client states.  It is a common misconception that the Bible teaches this census was for the purpose of taxation, and even some English language Bibles perpetuate that idea, but the Greek word for “census” (Luke 2:3) gives no indication of that.  It is well documented that Rome did conduct periodic censuses of its people even in captured territory.  Even the famed Roman historian Dio Cassius mentions one those though he does not pin point the year.

We know who the Roman governors of Syria were. The list between 25 BCE & 32 CE is:

25 – 23 BCE Marcus Terentius Varro
23 – 13 BCE Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa
13/12 – 10/9 BCE Marcus Titius
10/9 – 7/6 BCE Gaius Sentius Saturninus
7/6 – 4 BCE Publius Quinctilius Varus
4 – 1 BCE Lucius Calpurnius Piso
1 BCE – 4CE Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus
4 – 5 CE    Lucius Volusius Saturninus
6 – 12 CE Publius Sulpicius Quirinius
12 – 17 CE Quintus Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus
17 – 19 CE Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso
19 – 21CE Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus
22 – 32 CE Lucius Aelius Lamia

No names are listed twice. Even if the census was not taken for tax purposes Luke explicitly states that it was during the governorship of Quirinius which was between 6-12 CE.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 7:36AM, five_point_dad wrote:

TPAINE: I have two questions. 1) Where is your proof that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with the writing of Matthew?

JACK:  2: Peter 1:21.

Quoting a book as proof that what that book states is true is not valid proof. On that basis I could claim that Homer's claim that Apollo guided Paris' arrow to Achilles' heel is true by quoting the Iliad.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 7:36AM, five_point_dad wrote:

TPAINE: 2) Where does it say in the Bible anything about "double fulfillment"?

JACK: To my knowledge, those precise words do not appear anywhere in the Scripture, but neither does “missionary” or “Sunday School.”  To my view, there are several occasions where double fulfillments are evident.

I suppose that your view means your interpretation. Others interpret it differently.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 7:36AM, five_point_dad wrote:

TPAINE: The alleged "Massacre of the Innocents" wasn't mentioned by any contemporaneous historians, Luke, or Josephus who often wrote about the atrocities committed by Herod to protect his power.

JACK: And you know as well as I do that Argumentum E Silentio is a fallacy and totally useless in a debate.

Whether or not an Argumentum E Silentio is a fallacy or not is disputed by scholars. Such an argument makes sense when mentioning a fact can be seen as so natural that its omission is a good reason to assume ignorance. In this case the question becomes did the contemporaneous historians, Luke, or Josephus not mention the event because it didn't happen or because they didn't consider it important enough to mention.  Further, the author of Matthew writing about 80 years after the alleged incident occurred was not an eyewitness to the event and also had an agenda to make the events he wrote about appear to fulfill Old Testament prophesy.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 7:36AM, five_point_dad wrote:

TPAINE: Because silver nuggets were used in Isaiah's day has no bearing on what happened about 700 years later. Coins do not have to be weighed out. The amount the coins were worth was struck on them when the coins were minted. This is an example of Matthew attempt to shown that prophesy had been fulfilled.

JACK:  You’re right.  “Unless” Matthew was trying to demonstrate this was a fulfillment of prophecy which it was (see Zech 11:12).

Or, the author of Matthew wrote the story so it would appear to fulfill the prophesy. It strains credulity to believe that the priests would unnecessarily weigh out coins the value of which were marked on them on this one occasion.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 7:36AM, five_point_dad wrote:

TPAINE: Had such a thing happened it would have been major news [slaughter of the innocent]. Even if contemporaneous historians didn't mention it the other gospel writers would have.

JACK:  Your assessment makes several assumptions that are unwarranted.  First, you assume that the historians of Bible days were as efficient at uncovering events and recording them as they are today, which is a highly questionable premise given the technology available in those days compared to our day.  As I mentioned earlier, the number of children massacred in the small village of Bethlehem being two years old or under may have been very small—a mere handful.   Second, you’re also making the assumption that the Holy Spirit would have led the other gospel writers to record such an event and obviously He didn’t.

Yet Josephus, who noted many of Herod's atrocities, wrote nothing about it. Neither did Luke who, unlike Matthew, didn't attempt to link the events in Jesus' life to Old Testament prophesy. I make no claims about the Holy Spirit leading the gospel writers to record anything. I don't believe God or any other supernatural entity has anything to do with the writing of any holy book for the simple reason that none, of them are inerrant as they would be if they had been inspired by an omnipotent, omniscient deity.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 7:36AM, five_point_dad wrote:

TPAINE: Why would God have authors of his Word quote pagan or apocryphal sources? If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God it wouldn't make sense for him to tell the authors to quote heretics.

JACK:  Why not?!  The doctrine of Inerrancy doesn’t mean that the Bible doesn’t record sinful things.  The Devil himself is quoted in the Bible (Mt. 4).  That doesn’t mean what he said was truthful.  It is recorded that Cain denied knowing what happened to his brother, which was a lie.  It records the fact that Abraham lied about his relationship to Sarah out of fear.  Inerrancy is the idea that what the Bible does record is without error in its accuracy.  The devil really said what is recorded in Matthew four.  Abraham really did deny his real relationship with Sarah, etc.

I find it interesting how the concept of Satan changed between the Old and New Testaments. In the Tanakh Satan is God's accuser or prosecutor who is totally subservient to God. His mission is to tempt humans and reports back to God those who allowed themselves to be tempted. In the Septuagint and the New Testament Satan is an independent evil supernatural entity who is rebelling against God.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Joe68 wrote:

Tpaine writes:

I've always found it interesting that apologists who insist I consider the first century historical, sociological sociological, and theological millieu, when I do just that to assert that John of Patmos wrote Revelation as pastorial encouragement for Christians who were suffering under persecutions by the Romans for their refusal to worship Domitian as a god at the time the manuscript was written and not for people 2000 years in the future they say that such considerations should not be used in that case. Hopefully, since your posts show intelligence, knowledge, and reasonableness, I hope you are not like that.

Almost everything in the NT (and OT for that matter) was written for the people “at that time” but that does not preclude it being relevant to people today. Nor does it preclude prophetic writings. In any case, hopefully I won’t disappoint in that regard.

I don't disagree that much of the Bible, especially the teachings of Jesus, are relevant today. However, I do question the belief that Revelation is prophetic in nature and predicts events that will take place in current or future times. I believe it directly related to the Roman Empire at the end of the first or beginning of the second century CE.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Joe68 wrote:

It does strain credibility though. It's highly unlikely that Judas hanged himself, the rope broke causing him to fall into the field, and a chariot came by just at that moment and ran over him.

Well I’m not arguing for the chariot. Just for the hanging part and a falling bit. Since it was Passover no Jew would touch a dead body during that time. Not to paint a gruesome picture but a body left for days hanging as it decomposes has a good chance of either the neck or rope giving way.

If Jesus was betrayed on Thursday night, Judas would not have owned the field until Friday morning at the earliest. The passover ended at sunset on Friday and the Sabbath at sunset on Saturday. That means the body wouldn't have been untouchable for over 48 hours at the most. That short a period of time would not allow much decomposition.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Joe68 wrote:

However, we have to take into consideration that it would be in the interest of both groups to draw conclusions that support their beliefs. There are differences between the Tanakh and the Old Testament. One that comes to mind is that Christians consider Daniel to be a prophet, yet the Jews do not.

That’s basically a technicality, isn’t it? He foretold future events which Jews believe to be true, but since his visions of the future were never intended to be proclaimed to the people of his day (they were designed to be written down for future generations) so they are considered “Writings”, not "Prophecies". So though he isn’t considered to be a prophet he did prophesize and those are considered to be true by the Jewish people.

There is serious

There is question among scholars about the date Daniel was written. Some say that the literary genre of chapters 1-6 are older that those of chapters 7-12. They claim that the visions of the latter half of the book are not prophesy of an eschatological future but are the critical focus is on the witness to the religiosity of the Maccabean time period. Others believe that Daniel is a compilation of folk tales collected to fortify the Jewish faith during the persecution by the Hellenized Seleucids at the end of the third century BCE. There are eight copies of Daniel among the Dead Sea Scrolls. All were copied between 125 BCE and 59 CE.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Joe68 wrote:

Since I am neither Christian nor Jewish I have no dog in the fight.

Well, if Jesus was who he says he was everyone has a dog in the fight.

That is true, but the same can be said if  Muhammed's, or Zoraster's, or Buddah's, or Lao Tzu's, or Confucius', or the Sikh Guru's, etc., were right. There is no universal belief.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Joe68 wrote:

When I read the arguments on both sides I tend to accept which position makes the most sense based on my research.

That’s all that one can ask.

True. religion is a matter of faith, not provable fact. If it was the belief would be universal.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Joe68 wrote:

On the rare occasions that I bother mentioning the discrepency between Matthew's and Luke's genealogy of Jesus, the most common apologist respons I get is Matthew's list is that of Joseph and Luke's is that of Mary. IMO, the points raised at this make sense to me. I'd be interested in your comments on it.

If I have the time I’ll look into this. But I’ve already addressed the genealogy of Jesus here

Thanks, I'll check the link.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Joe68 wrote:

I never said that any scholars are perfect. They are human and humans are subject to making mistakes. We do not have the original manuscript of the LXX, so we have no way of knowing what the original word the scholars used.

We do have the Dead Sea scrolls which pre-date the LXX. We can compare those with the LXX to see if they match and to what degree. If it is the contention that the LXX misrepresents the original Jewish writings then all one would have to do is compare those with the LXX to see if they are accurate.

Unfortunately, I don't read Hebrew, so I have to depend on translators.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Joe68 wrote:

Very interesting. I enjoy discussions with people who don't habitually post simplistic responses. Rather than use my nearly non-existent typing skills, I'll give you a link that explains my position far better than I can. You can find it 

I’ll read it when / if I get the chance as my time is very limited but if this is your position and you “accept which position makes the most sense based on my research” then you have obviously read this article, so you can certainly sum it can’t you? Or at least pull a few quotes that hit what you think are the main points. (Copy and paste, no typing involved)

Like you my time is limited, but I'll try to do that ASAP.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Joe68 wrote:

The points you're, missing are

1.) The day Jesus was crucified is known by Christians as Good Friday, not Good Thursday.

Yes.

2.) Mark explicitly writes that the disciples asked Jesus where to go to prepare to eat the Passover meal on the day the lambs were sacrificed which was Thursday, the Day of Preparation for the actual Passover, not the events leading up to it.

And in verse 17 it was evening (new day starts @ sundown in Judaism making it Friday), in verse 18 they were eating (1^st Seder), verse 26 they went out to the Mount of Olives which then leads to Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion on that same day, Friday. 

3.) John writes that the priests led Jesus to Pilate but did not enter the Praetorium because had the done so they would have been defiled and would have been unable to eat the Passover meal. Had those events taken place on Friday it would not have mattered if they entered the Praetorium because they would have already have eaten the Passover meal the night before.

Since there are many Passover meals (it is a SEVEN DAY event) as outlined in the links in my previous post. So the events you outline in #3 above could have taken place on Friday since there was still a Passover meal to be eaten (2^nd Seder?).

The Passover begins on on the fifteenth day of Nisan on the Jewish calendar. Most scholars believe that Jesus was crucified in 33 CE. If that is correct the Passover week would have begun on Saturday April 2, and ended on Friday April 9.

Jun 18, 2012 -- 5:18PM, Joe68 wrote:

Ken writes:

Antioch of Pisidia was not in Syria.

I didn’t say it was

The Homanadenses were not in Syria.

I didn’t say they were.

Please read what I write before objecting to it. I wrote that M. Ramsey in 1912 found a fragmentary inscription *AT* Antioch of Pisidia that arguably established Quirinius was *IN* Syria on a previous occasion.

I am familiar with the inscription. It records that Quirinius served as a duumvir - a municipal judicial magistrate - in the the city of Pisidian Antioch. As it says nothing about Syria, it can hardly be taken to put Quirinius in Syria on an occasion prior to his governorship in 6 CE. On the contrary, it firmly places Quirinius in Galatia.