Evolution of what?

[McBell]

OK, I see you do not understand the contradiction between the two. And that's ok because we are all allowed beliefs of sort. It's not a false dilemma to "protect my beliefs" as you assert. I have presented the fact that many pages of the Bible show ancestors of Jesus from Adam on to Jesus, also miracles throughout. It is not a false dilemma but a true one. Unfortunately I guess we'll have to table the conversation now about the dates you bring up about Jesus' birth. Wouldn't matter much anyway because most likely you'll argue Mary wasn't a virgin and that the story is basically mythical. Unless you want to tell me something different. So -- while I was looking forward to a reasonable discussion with you about the birth and dates I will suspend for the time being. Bye for now, take care.

Seeing as I have not brought up dates of Jesus' birth, it appears you have gotten lost in your conversation.
But hey, can't be a you problem, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It gets a bit detailed as I am examining it. So, because I am not a genius, I must go over details slowly and carefully as possible. So who was Quirinius? He was the Roman governor of Syria at the time of the census ordered by Caesar Augustus.

Sorry, I hate to interrupt mid-paragraph, but no. He was the Governor of Syria at the time the Caesar Augustus was emperor. There is no record that Auggie ordered a census of all of Rome. That did not happen until the 8th decade of the first century.

That was why Jesus was born in Bethlehem. (Luke 2) I go slowly and don't like to argue, so if you have questions or a difference from what I am slowly writing, please let me know. But I am trying to go through the reasoning slowly.
So Luke chapter 2:1-7 says (English Standard Version) --
"In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3And all went to be registered, each to his own town. 4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. 7And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn."
It isn't so easy for me to coordinate the scriptures so I have to go slowly, if possible. So Luke's account says that Jesus was born during the time Quirinius took a census.

Yes, Luke got the decree of Augustus wrong too. Rome kept good records of their censuses. There is no record of an empire wide Census at that time. But there are very good records of the Census of Quirinius at 6 CE. And how do we know that there were no censuses before that? Well number one because before that time Judea was not part of Rome. It was what was called a "client state". That meant that it had close ties to Rome, but was still run by its own government. They did not pay taxes.

In about 5 CE Judea's king, the son of Herod Archelaus, could not run the country. He ran it down to the point where people were revolting. Rome could not have that in a client state so they deposed Archelaus and took over, putting Quirinius in his place. (By the way if you use a KJV version they have an archaic version of his name, it calls him Cyrenius. Same person, just a different spelling.) One of the first things the he did was to order a census since people had to be taxed. The author of Luke got that part right. But Judea had a law against censuses going back to the time of King David. Do you remember his census? It did not go well with him and God. So there was a revolt. The name of the leader of the revolt? Judas. but not the Judas that was a disciple of Jesus. Still sort of interesting.

All of these events are well recorded. There are no historic records, nor can anyone come up with a valid excuse for an earlier census. They try but serious scholars laugh at apologists when they do this.

 

[YoursTrue]

Seeing as I have not brought up dates of Jesus' birth, it appears you have gotten lost in your conversation.
But hey, can't be a you problem, right?

Yup, it's a me problem here, you have that right. I got that wrong about you, sorry.

 

[McBell]

Why? Is it reasonable, in your mind, to believe in Jesus as written in the Bible?

You have already thoroughly demonstrated your complete immunity to cogent explanations, it seems a complete waste of time to even bother.

You have completely ignored what I have presented thus far, instead giving out in left field replies to the posts of mine you have quoted.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, I hate to interrupt mid-paragraph, but no. He was the Governor of Syria at the time the Caesar Augustus was emperor. There is no record that Auggie ordered a census of all of Rome. That did not happen until the 8th decade of the first century.

Yes, Luke got the decree of Augustus wrong too. Rome kept good records of their censuses. There is no record of an empire wide Census at that time. But there are very good records of the Census of Quirinius at 6 CE. And how do we know that there were no censuses before that? Well number one because before that time Judea was not part of Rome. It was what was called a "client state". That meant that it had close ties to Rome, but was still run by its own government. They did not pay taxes.

In about 5 CE Judea's king, the son of Herod Archelaus, could not run the country. He ran it down to the point where people were revolting. Rome could not have that in a client state so they deposed Archelaus and took over, putting Quirinius in his place. (By the way if you use a KJV version they have an archaic version of his name, it calls him Cyrenius. Same person, just a different spelling.) One of the first things the he did was to order a census since people had to be taxed. The author of Luke got that part right. But Judea had a law against censuses going back to the time of King David. Do you remember his census? It did not go well with him and God. So there was a revolt. The name of the leader of the revolt? Judas. but not the Judas that was a disciple of Jesus. Still sort of interesting.

All of these events are well recorded. There are no historic records, nor can anyone come up with a valid excuse for an earlier census. They try but serious scholars laugh at apologists when they do this.

Can't say I understand it all at first or second glance, but let me try. If possible. The Bible says at Luke 2 that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the empire should be registered, and it was the first registration (census) when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Just to make sure, you are saying that is not true, right?
"Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the whole empire.a 2This was the first census to take place while Quirinius was governor of Syria."

 

[YoursTrue]

You have already thoroughly demonstrated your complete immunity to cogent explanations, it seems a complete waste of time to even bother.

You have completely ignored what I have presented thus far, instead giving out in left field replies to the posts of mine you have quoted.

ok...if you don't want to say why you might or might not believe the account about Jesus as that as written in the Bible is true or not true. Or don't think I will comprehend your answer. It's ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone OK, so I'm learning a few things.
Encyclopedia Britannica says about Caesar Augustus that he was the first emperor of ancient Rome. And came into power after the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE. And in 27 BCE he "restored" (quotes from Encyclopedia Britannica) the republic of Rome. I'm not a history buff, but this is kind of interesting. It also says he retained all the real power as the princeps, or "first citizen of Rome." Augustus | Biography, Accomplishments, Statue, Death, Definition, & Facts

 

[Bear Wild]

I

I believe the Bible. You really need to ask others who say they are Christian but believe the account about Adam is mythical and see if they also believe Jesus was in the genealogical descent from what they claim is a mythical figure. Ask them because I do not believe the account of creation and Adam and Eve are myths. Then ask if they believe Jesus existed as written. Or if that was mythical too.

There is no reason for you not to believe your bible. And yes, the creation story in the bible is a myth. Myths are the truths of a religion. They are never meant to be taken as literal fact because when you interpret them as literal fact you lose the important spiritual meaning of the myth. The myth of creation is a truth of relationship between humans, the world and your god. This is the important message to those who follow that religion. The moment you turn it into a description of literal evidence of the development of the earth then you have lost its important message. You are degrading an important truth just to apply it to physical events. Adam and eve as mythical beings has important meaning but if you make them literal human beings then you have lost their spiritual meaning to the religion. The Norse myth of creation has meaning to me about relationship to the deities, numinous beings and the land. To make it literal loses all of its importance of relationship and wisdom. Following the physical evidence of life on the earth does not in any way detract from the spiritual meaning of any creation myth. Do not lose the spiritual meaning of the creation myth in the bible by forcing it to a physical explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can't say I understand it all at first or second glance, but let me try. If possible. The Bible says at Luke 2 that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the empire should be registered, and it was the first registration (census) when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Just to make sure, you are saying that is not true, right?
"Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the whole empire.a 2This was the first census to take place while Quirinius was governor of Syria."

The author of Luke got the reason for the census wrong. There is no record of Augustus Caesar making such a decree, It w as when Jude failed under Archelaus that the Romans had to step in. It was not the entire Empire, it was just Judea.

By the way, another thing that Luke got terribly wrong was that there would be no need to go to one's ancestral home. In fact that makes no sense at all. It was for taxation purposes. One would be counted where one lived and worked for that. Say that there was a man from Africa. Would he have to go to his home in Africa that had no Roman counters unless one is talking about the very northern part of African? No, he would be counted where he lived and worked, just as Joseph and Mary would be.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no reason for you not to believe your bible. And yes, the creation story in the bible is a myth. Myths are the truths of a religion. They are never meant to be taken as literal fact because when you interpret them as literal fact you lose the important spiritual meaning of the myth. The myth of creation is a truth of relationship between humans, the world and your god. This is the important message to those who follow that religion. The moment you turn it into a description of literal evidence of the development of the earth then you have lost its important message. You are degrading an important truth just to apply it to physical events. Adam and eve as mythical beings has important meaning but if you make them literal human beings then you have lost their spiritual meaning to the religion. The Norse myth of creation has meaning to me about relationship to the deities, numinous beings and the land. To make it literal loses all of its importance of relationship and wisdom. Following the physical evidence of life on the earth does not in any way detract from the spiritual meaning of any creation myth. Do not lose the spiritual meaning of the creation myth in the bible by forcing it to a physical explanation.

As the saying goes, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I certainly do not think the creation account is a myth. And again -- if a person believes that the creation of Adam as expressed in the Bible is a myth, everything that happened after that cannot be true. Because the entire recognition of the importance of Jesus involved the sin of Adam.

 

[YoursTrue]

The author of Luke got the reason for the census wrong. There is no record of Augustus Caesar making such a decree, It w as when Jude failed under Archelaus that the Romans had to step in. It was not the entire Empire, it was just Judea.

By the way, another thing that Luke got terribly wrong was that there would be no need to go to one's ancestral home. In fact that makes no sense at all. It was for taxation purposes. One would be counted where one lived and worked for that. Say that there was a man from Africa. Would he have to go to his home in Africa that had no Roman counters unless one is talking about the very northern part of African? No, he would be counted where he lived and worked, just as Joseph and Mary would be.

There was, as I'm sure you know about, the great destruction of the huge library in Alexandria. We don't know what documents were destroyed. I think it was perfectly reasonable as far as I am concerned for the Roman powers to take a census of the people.

 

[Heyo]

It all just reinforces my original conclusion that it isn't about God or the Bible, but about a particular person or group's view that is being defended as if it exists as some divine revelation.

The question isn't about a defensive position, but rather what that position is really defending.

At first, I thought that @YoursTrue is arguing against his own interests. Trying to force people to make a choice between reality and belief is likely to produce more atheists than believers. But then I remembered that Christians like to be persecuted and that “few are following the narrow path”. That also fits into the prophecy of Christianity going down shortly before the “second coming”. It's the old “either you are with us or you are against us” gambit, but in this case he wins when everybody is against him.

I'm all for his proposition that you can't be a believer and accept reality at the same time but for completely different reasons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was, as I'm sure you know about, the great destruction of the huge library in Alexandria. We don't know what documents were destroyed. I think it was perfectly reasonable as far as I am concerned for the Roman powers to take a census of the people.

What are you talking about now? You took a huge jump. Rome would not have been able to take a census of an independent country, and that was what Judea was until they took it over in 6 CE.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How do you view Jesus?

As an outstanding moral philosopher and inspirational role model, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

The author of Luke got the reason for the census wrong. There is no record of Augustus Caesar making such a decree, It w as when Jude failed under Archelaus that the Romans had to step in. It was not the entire Empire, it was just Judea.

That there is no record in secular history of the census ordered by Caesar Augustus as written in the gospel of Luke does not mean that it did not happen. In fact it makes sense that a ruler such as he would want a census taken. So now, thanks to you, I am looking more closely at the history. And I am looking at Wikipedia for some information about Caesar Augustus. How about you? Where are you getting your information from?
So it's interesting about Caesar Augustus. (From Wikipedia) He lived from 63 BCE to 14 CE and was also known as Octavian. He was the founder of the Roman Empire and reigned as the first Roman emperor from 27 BCE until his death in 14 CE.

 

[YoursTrue]

What are you talking about now? You took a huge jump. Rome would not have been able to take a census of an independent country, and that was what Judea was until they took it over in 6 CE.

I am speaking about the record of the census. That there is nothing found to have been written about that outside of the Biblical account does not mean it did not happen. That was my point.

 

[YoursTrue]

As an outstanding moral philosopher and inspirational role model, of course.

OK.

 

[YoursTrue]

What are you talking about now? You took a huge jump. Rome would not have been able to take a census of an independent country, and that was what Judea was until they took it over in 6 CE.

OK, so now, if I understand you correctly (let's see...) you are saying that Judea was independent from Rome until 6 CE. It seems that the Roman Republic conquered Judea in 63 BCE and maintained a system of semi-autonomous vassalage, which, in my view, makes the Biblical history even more interesting. It appears that Judea was a Roman province from 6 to 132 CE but, according to what I am reading, a vassalage before that. In other words, in a position of subordination to Rome beginning in 63 BCE.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

At first, I thought that @YoursTrue is arguing against his own interests. Trying to force people to make a choice between reality and belief is likely to produce more atheists than believers. But then I remembered that Christians like to be persecuted and that “few are following the narrow path”. That also fits into the prophecy of Christianity going down shortly before the “second coming”. It's the old “either you are with us or you are against us” gambit, but in this case he wins when everybody is against him.

I'm all for his proposition that you can't be a believer and accept reality at the same time but for completely different reasons.

It is difficult to tell sometimes. I still find many or most of those posts to be confusing and indecipherable. In the past, when Christianity was new and small, Christians were persecuted. But now, there are groups that have swapped jobs and taken on the mantle of persecutor with enthusiasm. If you aren't on their personal path, then you are not a true Christian is the message I see. Interesting that those commands of earthly origin are the same basis that other commands of earthly origin are rejected. That schism is often missed or buried.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've seen nothing anywhere that doesn't say that Bigfoot didn't lead a group of superheroes into battle against Rome. Just because that isn't written somewhere, doesn't mean it didn't happen. There's always room for doubt right? That's a sound basis to consider something must be true isn't it?