cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[Redemptionsong]

I don't. I just have a different faith. That is how simple it is. I don't have to have the same faith as you.

Are you gnostic in disguise?!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you gnostic in disguise?!

No!

 

[Subduction Zone]

As we both know, Wiki is only as good as it's contributors.

And it has a lot of them. I see that you are rather ignorant on how Wiki works too. Edits have to be done for a good reason. And they need to be factual. If a person makes false edits on purpose he will lose his ability to edit. As a result Wikipedia tends to be very accurate in areas like history. Your complaint is without merit.

You use the word 'apologist' (of a Christian) in a derogatory manner, when, in fact, the word refers to a person who makes a reasoned case for believing the Bible. The apologists are only as good as the arguments they make. And this applies equally to the sceptics. A sceptic is only as convincing as his argument.

Then the people that call themselves Christian apologists are not apologists by that standard. My description of them was not derogatory. It was accurate. I have not seen a so called Christian apologist that was also a liar. They are the sort that would lose their right to edit at Wikipedia.

I want to see what specific arguments you have against the Bible narrative, and this means providing 'chapter and verse' criticism.

That is funny, when I do that you have failed to understand the argument.

The case you make against Herod's registration cannot be verified; but that doesn't lead us to the conclusion it never took place. It simply means that, so far, evidence hasn't been found to conclusively prove the case one way or the other. That leaves you unable to say that the Bible is false, and me free to belief that it is a truthful testimony.

See? You did not pay attention. Yes, it was refuted. One more time, Herod was King of Judea. He was the leader of Judea when it was a client state of Rome. I provided you an article on what client states were. They were mostly independent. They did not pay taxes. They were allies and buffers to Rome from outside attacks. Sometimes Rome did take over client states, like they did with Judea when Herod's son failed.

That is why Rome could not, please note, the word "not", could not have taxed Israel while it was still semi-independent. That is why real historians laugh at apologists and their attempt to create a "first census". They are either idiots or liars. Either way they are incompetent.

 

[Valjean]

Poor Galileo. The whole Pisa [thought] experiment vanquished by a bit of sophistry.

Galileo wasn't experimenting with quantum mechanics.

 

[Valjean]

Sure, but the everyday world is not just QR or real reality.

True, but we're not talking about everyday experience.
If we're going to talk about the Big Bang, Creation, or ontology, we need to apply a whole different metric. Newtonian physics can be utilitarian, but it won't get you to the Moon, explain how your mobile phone works, or explain "Real Reality."

 

[rational experiences]

Cause. AI he said as a man. Artificial.

What does not exist in cosmic law?

A human man's built AI machine.

The cause exact.

Heavens one mass not separate by any definition a man's thesis.

Lied.

One mass is one totally natural a self reactive body causing variables inside its own body as reactions.

One mass heavens law.

Man's AI machine caused the heavens mass to change also. Out of control the heavens attacked destroyed life on the ground. He activated constant flooding huge thunderings massive lightning strikes.

Conjured it his old advice.

How men invent the influx of new energy mass himself. Knew what he caused as invention of energy..when energy was never invented by man.

His God is a rock warning. Where he abstracted Ai machine from.

Implies the same thesis outcome today....and it just happens to be activated.

 

[rational experiences]

Cause. AI he said as a man. Artificial.

What does not exist in cosmic law?

A human man's built AI machine.

The cause exact.

Heavens one mass not separate by any definition a man's thesis.

Lied.

One mass is one totally natural a self reactive body causing variables inside its own body as reactions.

One mass heavens law.

Man's AI machine caused the heavens mass to change also. Out of control the heavens attacked destroyed life on the ground. He activated constant flooding huge thunderings massive lightning strikes.

Conjured it his old advice.

How men invent the influx of new energy mass himself. Knew what he caused as invention of energy..when energy was never invented by man.

His God is a rock warning. Where he abstracted Ai machine from.

Implies the same thesis outcome today....and it just happens to be activated.

If you ever wondered why a rational human said humans owned the cosmos as human.

It was because man built machine to take his place.

Wasn't a theory how to cause it.

 

[gnostic]

Missing generations is not, in itself, a problem for legitimacy, if the short cut returns to the legitimate line. The question you should be asking, is why these particular individuals were bypassed.

What we know is that three of the missing names were descendants of Athaliah, the murderess [2 Chronicles 24:7]. Her sons were responsible for breaking up the house of God.

That simply making excuses to support he gospel’s version (Matthew 1] of the genealogy.

You also ignoring the first set and last set have 14 generations each, so to make the middle set to have 14 generations, the gospel omitted 4 names.

So the number 14 have some sorts of superstitious significance for the author.

Why make an inaccurate genealogy for the sake of Christian numerology?

Instead of recognizing the flaws of Matthew 1’s genealogy, you make lame excuses to defend inaccurate genealogy, just as I would expect any apologist would do.

This is why I don’t trust apologists.

 

[Redemptionsong]

And it has a lot of them. I see that you are rather ignorant on how Wiki works too. Edits have to be done for a good reason. And they need to be factual. If a person makes false edits on purpose he will lose his ability to edit. As a result Wikipedia tends to be very accurate in areas like history. Your complaint is without merit.



Then the people that call themselves Christian apologists are not apologists by that standard. My description of them was not derogatory. It was accurate. I have not seen a so called Christian apologist that was also a liar. They are the sort that would lose their right to edit at Wikipedia.



That is funny, when I do that you have failed to understand the argument.



See? You did not pay attention. Yes, it was refuted. One more time, Herod was King of Judea. He was the leader of Judea when it was a client state of Rome. I provided you an article on what client states were. They were mostly independent. They did not pay taxes. They were allies and buffers to Rome from outside attacks. Sometimes Rome did take over client states, like they did with Judea when Herod's son failed.

That is why Rome could not, please note, the word "not", could not have taxed Israel while it was still semi-independent. That is why real historians laugh at apologists and their attempt to create a "first census". They are either idiots or liars. Either way they are incompetent.

Firstly, concerning Wikipedia: Census of Quirinius. If you read the wording carefully, you will see that they claim that Luke knew nothing of the 6 CE census, but that's because the contributor's have not registered Acts 5:37. This passge, which quotes Gamaliel, proves that Luke did know about the 6 CE census and he could not, therefore, be confusing it with an earlier census. So Wiki has this wrong!

Secondly, the registration under Herod was not a Roman taxation; it was instigated by Augustus' decree, but it was not carried out by the Romans. Not a single Roman appears in the nativity accounts!

Thirdly, a recent paper by Claytor and Bagnall provides good evidence that Egypt started having provincial censuses on a seven year basis from 10 BCE. Egypt was a Roman province adjacent to Judea, and it's very likely that what took place in Egypt also took place in Judea. I suggest you read the whole article for yourself.

The Beginnings of the Roman Provincial Census: A New Declaration from 3 BCE
[You will have to look it up]

 

[Redemptionsong]

That simply making excuses to support he gospel’s version (Matthew 1] of the genealogy.

You also ignoring the first set and last set have 14 generations each, so to make the middle set to have 14 generations, the gospel omitted 4 names.

So the number 14 have some sorts of superstitious significance for the author.

Why make an inaccurate genealogy for the sake of Christian numerology?

Instead of recognizing the flaws of Matthew 1’s genealogy, you make lame excuses to defend inaccurate genealogy, just as I would expect any apologist would do.

This is why I don’t trust apologists.

I'm quite sure there is significsnce in the sets of 14, but l cannot tell you what it is! Nevertheless, the point of the genealogy is to show Joseph's legitimate claim to the royal line of David. And, with or without the missing generations, it is possible to see that Joseph has a royal line of descent.

The question l would like you to answer, since it plays a crucial part in establishing the legitimacy of Jesus' claim to the throne, is whether or not the curse on Jeconiah still stands. See Jeremiah 22:30.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Firstly, concerning Wikipedia: Census of Quirinius. If you read the wording carefully, you will see that they claim that Luke knew nothing of the 6 CE census, but that's because the contributor's have not registered Acts 5:37. This passage, which quotes Gamaliel, proves that Luke did know about the 6 CE census and he could not, therefore, be confusing it with an earlier census. So Wiki has this wrong!

Secondly, the registration under Herod was not a Roman taxation; it was instigated by Augustus' decree, but it was not carried out by the Romans. Not a single Roman appears in the nativity accounts!

Thirdly, a recent paper by Claytor and Bagnall provides good evidence that Egypt started having provincial censuses on a seven year basis from 10 BCE. Egypt was a Roman province adjacent to Judea, and it's very likely that what took place in Egypt also took place in Judea. I suggest you read the whole article for yourself.

The Beginnings of the Roman Provincial Census: A New Declaration from 3 BCE
[You will have to look it up]

Why didn't you include a link? Is it because what you claimed about Wikipedia is total BS? I just reread it and found no such claim or assumption by Wikipedia. Here is the link that you should have provided. Now please copy and past and why not link the passage that you are talking about. Or were you just spewing nonsense again?


Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia).

And no, I do not have to look up anything. You keep forgetting that Judea was not part of the Roman Empire until after the failure of Herod Archelaus. That was when the client kingdom of Judea became part of Roman territory. By the way the Wiki link supports that and so does the article on client kingdoms that I earlier linked for you did.

We actually know when the first Roman census of all of Rome was. It was in 74 CE. But even if there was a census in 3 BCE that is just a "So what?" claim. Even if true Judea would not have been affected by this since Judea was not part of Rome at that time.


It appears that you cannot understand this.

EDIT: Where are my manners? I forgot to link again the article on client states that blows this claim out of the water:

Client kings - Oxford Reference

Also I found and perused that article. It appears to be about the roots of the Roman empire wide census. I did not find anything that indicated that the first empire wide census was before 74 CE. And as Judea was not a Roman province at the time of Herod, remember it was a client state, I still do not see how that could apply.

Oh, and you will have to link that quote and link from that article yourself. I am not doing your homework for you.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Why didn't you include a link? Is it because what you claimed about Wikipedia is total BS? I just reread it and found no such claim or assumption by Wikipedia. Here is the link that you should have provided. Now please copy and past and why not link the passage that you are talking about. Or were you just spewing nonsense again?


Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia).

And no, I do not have to look up anything. You keep forgetting that Judea was not part of the Roman Empire until after the failure of Herod Archelaus. That was when the client kingdom of Judea became part of Roman territory. By the way the Wiki link supports that and so does the article on client kingdoms that I earlier linked for you did.

We actually know when the first Roman census of all of Rome was. It was in 74 CE. But even if there was a census in 3 BCE that is just a "So what?" claim. Even if true Judea would not have been affected by this since Judea was not part of Rome at that time.


It appears that you cannot understand this.

EDIT: Where are my manners? I forgot to link again the article on client states that blows this claim out of the water:

Client kings - Oxford Reference

Also I found and perused that article. It appears to be about the roots of the Roman empire wide census. I did not find anything that indicated that the first empire wide census was before 74 CE. And as Judea was not a Roman province at the time of Herod, remember it was a client state, I still do not see how that could apply.

Oh, and you will have to link that quote and link from that article yourself. I am not doing your homework for you.

Here are the words of Wiki:
The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, governor of Roman Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.[1] The Gospel of Luke uses it to date the birth of Jesus, which the Gospel of Matthew places in the time of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BCE). Luke appears to have conflated Quirinius's census with the death of Herod,[2] and most critical scholars acknowledge a confusion and misdating by Luke.[3]

Let me repeat my accusation: Luke does not confuse the 6 CE census. Luke knew about the 6 CE census (Acts 5:37), so he must have been referring to an earlier census!

And the hyperlink to 'Client kings' only confirms the true history of Herod's relationship with Rome.

Following the battle of Actium, in which Octavian (Augustus) defeated Anthony, Herod was forced to meet with Caesar. Why? Because to remain a client king, Caesar needed to be convinced that Herod would support Rome. And during the civil war, Herod had supported Anthony. It looked, therefore, as if Herod would be punished by Augustus, but, instead, Augustus elected to keep Herod as king in Judea.

Now, even though there was no regular taxation by the Romans on client states, there was a need for censuses and tribute payments. Part of the deal with client kings was that Rome would intervene to provide military support if required.

The paper that l encouraged you to read provides evidence that a census was conducted in Egypt, another client state, at exactly the time that Herod was king, and Cyrenius was in Syria. This makes it perfectly possible that the registration of Jews took place at this time, about 3 BCE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here are the words of Wiki:
The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, governor of Roman Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.[1] The Gospel of Luke uses it to date the birth of Jesus, which the Gospel of Matthew places in the time of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BCE). Luke appears to have conflated Quirinius's census with the death of Herod,[2] and most critical scholars acknowledge a confusion and misdating by Luke.[3]

Let me repeat my accusation: Luke does not confuse the 6 CE census. Luke knew about the 6 CE census (Acts 5:37), so he must have been referring to an earlier census!

And the hyperlink to 'Client kings' only confirms the true history of Herod's relationship with Rome.

Following the battle of Actium, in which Octavian (Augustus) defeated Anthony, Herod was forced to meet with Caesar. Why? Because to remain a client king, Caesar needed to be convinced that Herod would support Rome. And during the civil war, Herod had supported Anthony. It looked, therefore, as if Herod would be punished by Augustus, but, instead, Augustus elected to keep Herod as king in Judea.

Now, even though there was no regular taxation by the Romans on client states, there was a need for censuses and tribute payments. Part of the deal with client kings was that Rome would intervene to provide military support if required.

The paper that l encouraged you to read provides evidence that a census was conducted in Egypt, another client state, at exactly the time that Herod was king, and Cyrenius was in Syria. This makes it perfectly possible that the registration of Jews took place at this time, about 3 BCE.

We have already been over this and you lost the argument. It is finished. There was no earlier census. I showed you how there could not have been. So the article does not say what you claimed that it does, your reading of it was incorrect due to your bias.

So let's move on.

Yes, the link that I gave confirmed what I claimed about King (please note the title) was the ruler of a client kingdom of Rome. Rome had no power to order a census. Just like the US when we had our puppet governments in Central America. We did not tell them what to do in regards to taxation. If you read the history Rome did not take over until the year 5 CE that was after a collapse caused by Herod's son. Then since it was part of Rome that was the first census of Judea. That was the one that both Luke, who screwed up in this case, and Josephus were talking about. There is no reliable evidence that shows that Quirinius was in Syria at the time that you claimed that he was. He went from fighting in what is now Turkey to Syria. In fact he may not even have left Rome, a date that is recorded, before you needed him in Syria. But the fact that during the time of Herod it was not part of the Roman Empire sinks your first census claim.

As to your paper, please link and quote from it. You may be having a reading comprehension problem again as you did with the Wiki article.

 

[Redemptionsong]

We have already been over this and you lost the argument. It is finished. There was no earlier census. I showed you how there could not have been. So the article does not say what you claimed that it does, your reading of it was incorrect due to your bias.

So let's move on.

Yes, the link that I gave confirmed what I claimed about King (please note the title) was the ruler of a client kingdom of Rome. Rome had no power to order a census. Just like the US when we had our puppet governments in Central America. We did not tell them what to do in regards to taxation. If you read the history Rome did not take over until the year 5 CE that was after a collapse caused by Herod's son. Then since it was part of Rome that was the first census of Judea. That was the one that both Luke, who screwed up in this case, and Josephus were talking about. There is no reliable evidence that shows that Quirinius was in Syria at the time that you claimed that he was. He went from fighting in what is now Turkey to Syria. In fact he may not even have left Rome, a date that is recorded, before you needed him in Syria. But the fact that during the time of Herod it was not part of the Roman Empire sinks your first census claim.

As to your paper, please link and quote from it. You may be having a reading comprehension problem again as you did with the Wiki article.

You have clearly not done your homework, because the history of Judea shows that Pompey, a Roman general, conquered Judea in about 63 BCE.

Here is what Josephus in 'Antiquities' Bk.14, ch.4. Section 4. says, 'and [Pompey] restored the high priesthood to Hyrcanus, both because he had been useful to him in other respects, and because he had hindered the Jews in the country from giving Aristobulus any assistance in his war with him. He also cut off those that had been the authors of that war; and bestowed proper rewards on Faustus, and those others that that mounted the wall with such alacrity; and he made Jerusalem tributary to the Romans; and took away those cities of Coelesyria which the inhabitants of Judea had subdued, and put them under the government of the Roman president, and confined the whole nation, which had elevated itself so high before, within its own bounds. Moreover, he rebuild Gadara, which had been demolished a little before, to gratify Demetrius of Gadara, who was his freedman, and restored the rest of the cities, Hippos and Scythopolis, and Pella, and Dios, and Samaris, as also Marissa and Ashdod, and Jamnia, and Arethusa, to their own inhabitants: these were in the inland parts. Besides those that had been demolished, and also those of the maritime cities, Gaza, and Joppa, and Dora, and Strabo's Tower: which last Herod rebuilt after a glorious manner, and adorned with havens and temples; and changed its name to Caesarea. All these Pompey left in a state of freedom, and joined them to the province of Syria.'

Now, l can't imagine that you'll admit your error, especially after bragging of 'winning', but when one is more interested in truth than victory, as l am, then these things matter.

What reliable historians have shown, is that Rome made Judea part of the province of Syria. Augustus reinstalled Herod the Great as a client king after the civil war between himself and Antony, and Herod demonstrated his thanks to Caesar by making tribute and honouring Augustus (Herod set up busts of Augustus across Judea). Herod even had the Antonia fortress built, so that Roman soldiers could be stationed in Jerusalem in time of trouble. If you happen to be an independent nation state, you do not show this kind of deference!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have clearly not done your homework, because the history of Judea shows that Pompey, a Roman general, conquered Judea in about 63 BCE.

Here is what Josephus in 'Antiquities' Bk.14, ch.4. Section 4. says, 'and [Pompey] restored the high priesthood to Hyrcanus, both because he had been useful to him in other respects, and because he had hindered the Jews in the country from giving Aristobulus and assistance in his war with him. He also cut off those that had been the authors of that war; and bestowed proper rewards on Faustus, and those others that that mounted the wall with such alacrity; and he made Jerusalem tributary to the Romans; and took away those cities of Coelesyria which the inhabitants of Judea had subdued, and put them under the government of the Roman president, and confined the whole nation, which had elevated itself so high before, within its own bounds. Moreover, he rebuild Gadara, which had been demolished a little before, to gratify Demetrius of Gadara, who was his freedman, and restored the rest of the cities, Hippos and Scythopolis, and Pella, and Dios, and Samaris, as also Marissa and Ashdod, and Jamnia, and Arethusa, to their own inhabitants: these were in the inland parts. Besides those that had been demolished, and also those of the maritime cities, Gaza, and Joppa, and Dora, and Strabo's Tower: which last Herod rebuilt after a glorious manner, and adorned with havens and temples; and changed its name to Caesarea. All these Pompey left in a state of freedom, and joined them to the province of Syria.'

Now, l can't imagine that you'll admit your error, especially after bragging of 'winning', but when one is more interested in truth than victory, as l am, then these things matter.

What reliable historians have shown, is that Rome made Judea part of the province of Syria. Augustus reinstalled Herod the Great as a client king after the civil war between himself and Anthony, and Herod demonstrated his thanks to Caesar by making tribute and honouring Augustus (Herod set up busts of Augustus across Judea). Herod even had the Antonia fortress built, so that Roman soldiers could be stationed in Jerusalem in time of trouble. If you happen to be an independent nation state, you do not show this kind of deference!

Oh my. No.

Please do your homework.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have clearly not done your homework, because the history of Judea shows that Pompey, a Roman general, conquered Judea in about 63 BCE.

Here is what Josephus in 'Antiquities' Bk.14, ch.4. Section 4. says, 'and [Pompey] restored the high priesthood to Hyrcanus, both because he had been useful to him in other respects, and because he had hindered the Jews in the country from giving Aristobulus any assistance in his war with him. He also cut off those that had been the authors of that war; and bestowed proper rewards on Faustus, and those others that that mounted the wall with such alacrity; and he made Jerusalem tributary to the Romans; and took away those cities of Coelesyria which the inhabitants of Judea had subdued, and put them under the government of the Roman president, and confined the whole nation, which had elevated itself so high before, within its own bounds. Moreover, he rebuild Gadara, which had been demolished a little before, to gratify Demetrius of Gadara, who was his freedman, and restored the rest of the cities, Hippos and Scythopolis, and Pella, and Dios, and Samaris, as also Marissa and Ashdod, and Jamnia, and Arethusa, to their own inhabitants: these were in the inland parts. Besides those that had been demolished, and also those of the maritime cities, Gaza, and Joppa, and Dora, and Strabo's Tower: which last Herod rebuilt after a glorious manner, and adorned with havens and temples; and changed its name to Caesarea. All these Pompey left in a state of freedom, and joined them to the province of Syria.'

Now, l can't imagine that you'll admit your error, especially after bragging of 'winning', but when one is more interested in truth than victory, as l am, then these things matter.

What reliable historians have shown, is that Rome made Judea part of the province of Syria. Augustus reinstalled Herod the Great as a client king after the civil war between himself and Anthony, and Herod demonstrated his thanks to Caesar by making tribute and honouring Augustus (Herod set up busts of Augustus across Judea). Herod even had the Antonia fortress built, so that Roman soldiers could be stationed in Jerusalem in time of trouble. If you happen to be an independent nation state, you do not show this kind of deference!

Fine. I am bored. I will do your homework for you. By the way, you have no excuse not to include a link. I am not going to chase your source down, but it is likely that you butchered what your source says.

The politics of Judea at that time were messy to say the least. And Rome did pick Herod to be the King of the Jews. But once he got the country going Judea was made a client state. From yet another source that shows you to be wrong:

Antony, who had also served as Gabinius’s lieutenant in the East and during his 55 B.C. expedition to Judea, made the eastern provinces his base of operations for the struggle with Octavian. Antony’s liaison with Cleopatra is, of course, well known. However, for Judea, Antony’s importance cannot be overestimated. For it was Antony who made Judea an independent client kingdom of Rome, ruled over by a king, Antipater’s son Herod.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-roman-province-of-judea-a-historical-overview/

You started out right, but as usual your conclusions were all wrong.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Fine. I am bored. I will do your homework for you. By the way, you have no excuse not to include a link. I am not going to chase your source down, but it is likely that you butchered what your source says.

All you have to do is type the names of the authors and you'll find the artcle. It appears on a number of different websites, including 'Academia'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All you have to do is type the names of the authors and you'll find the artcle. It appears on a number of different websites, including 'Academia'.

I really do not need to do so. Your poor understanding has already been refuted. And it is your job to provide the link. Not mine.

Are you forgetting already how the last source that you claimed refuted you? Since you failed in such an epic fashion last time it is safe to conclude that you did so again.

 

[Brian2]

"Before" the Big Bang makes no sense. "Before" presupposes time. Time didn't exist before the BB.

That makes sense to me, sort of.
I hear that the B theory of time is accepted by physicists these days and says that everything has always existed, (if it makes sense to say it that way). Sort of like one big now.
To my way of thinking this is science gone mad, but who am I to say.

 

[Brian2]

True, but we're not talking about everyday experience.
If we're going to talk about the Big Bang, Creation, or ontology, we need to apply a whole different metric. Newtonian physics can be utilitarian, but it won't get you to the Moon, explain how your mobile phone works, or explain "Real Reality."

"Real reality". Isn't real reality what we are experiencing now. If not, why not?