Evolution of what?

[YoursTrue]

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.

@Subduction Zone Hi. Looking forward to your response. As I read, Judea was a vassalage for several decades prior to 6CE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone Hi. Looking forward to your response. As I read, Judea was a vassalage for several decades prior to 6CE.

It wasn't a province. It was what was called a "client state". They still had their own government. For example as I mentioned censuses were banned in Israel/Judea since the time of King David. A client state might have to pay tribute, but the people were not directly taxed:

Client state - Wikipedia

When the Romans deposed Archelaus because of his terrible inefficiency they took over Judea and made it part of Rome. At that point they did have to do a census of Judea:

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you read that it also started a rebellion (also well recorded) because censuses had been illegal in Judea. You really should read that second article in its entirety.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Let's try to think rationally. We have many records of smaller censuses of single countries from the Roman Empire. How could we possibly not have records of an empire wide census? That just does not make any sense at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

We know where Quirinius was and when. It is also known that in the Roman empire that the career path was stable, upwards, or retirement. There was no down and then back up which is what apologists have to suggest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Yes, as I already answered a client state. It still had its own laws. Censuses were still illegal until Rome took over.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

I have to agree with you here. Christianity is founded in the idea of original sin and the need for redemption and salvation by a good god only possible through faith that Jesus died to make that possible, without which man deserves perdition. These require the existence of an afterlife, a tri-omni deity that judges one's fitness for paradise according to conformity to specified rules of behavior described in a reliable revelation, free will, and original sin. Remove any of these and what remains isn't your version of Christianity.

Others who also consider themselves Christian find some of that to be problematic given what science has revealed. They understand that the evidence supports the scientific narrative regarding the origin and history of humanity, for example, but unlike the person able to remain a literalist in the face of that evidence, who modifies the science to conform with a literal interpretation of scripture, he modifies the meaning of scripture to comport with the science, and doesn't worry about what that implies the doctrine described above. He calls the myths allegories and doesn't worry about it the implications of that. That's how faith works.

But the problem for both groups is that they have to depart from reason somewhere. You do so by rejecting the science and accepting the myths as historical fact. Others are content to believe in some version of God and Jesus and sin and salvation without a literal Adam and Eve or original sin, which belief doesn't need to be reasonable or evidenced. In the end, one can always say that that is the mystery of creation and that God is inscrutable and beyond human understanding - that somehow it all makes sense at a higher plane and therefore doesn't need to make sense to the believer. There would be little or no cognitive dissonance there - no more than you feel. One just decides on a set of beliefs that he or she can live with and stops scrutinizing them for consistency just like the literalist does.

As for the atheistic humanist, none of this is a problem. There is no need to accept any insufficiently evidenced idea. Remove the religious dicta and the worldview that remains requires no faith to accept. It's fine with him that man evolved from prehuman forms, that consciousness might end with death, and that free will might be an illusion.

 

[McBell]

I have to agree with you here. Christianity is founded in the idea of original sin and the need for redemption and salvation by a good god only possible through faith that Jesus died to make that possible, without which man deserves perdition. These require the existence of an afterlife, a tri-omni deity that judges one's fitness for paradise according to conformity to specified rules of behavior described in a reliable revelation, free will, and original sin. Remove any of these and what remains isn't your version of Christianity.

Others who also consider themselves Christian find some of that to be problematic given what science has revealed. They understand that the evidence supports the scientific narrative regarding the origin and history of humanity, for example, but unlike the person able to remain a literalist in the face of that evidence, who modifies the science to conform with a literal interpretation of scripture, he modifies the meaning of scripture to comport with the science, and doesn't worry about what that implies the doctrine described above. He calls the myths allegories and doesn't worry about it the implications of that. That's how faith works.

But the problem for both groups is that they have to depart from reason somewhere. You do so by rejecting the science and accepting the myths as historical fact. Others are content to believe in some version of God and Jesus and sin and salvation without a literal Adam and Eve or original sin, which belief doesn't need to be reasonable or evidenced. In the end, one can always say that that is the mystery of creation and that God is inscrutable and beyond human understanding - that somehow it all makes sense at a higher plane and therefore doesn't need to make sense to the believer. There would be little or no cognitive dissonance there - no more than you feel. One just decides on a set of beliefs that he or she can live with and stops scrutinizing them for consistency just like the literalist does.

As for the atheistic humanist, none of this is a problem. There is no need to accept any insufficiently evidenced idea. Remove the religious dicta and the worldview that remains requires no faith to accept. It's fine with him that man evolved from prehuman forms, that consciousness might end with death, and that free will might be an illusion.

Seems to me that Christianity is founded on the death penalty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seems to me that Christianity is founded on the death penalty.

And the threat of torture.

 

[Bthoth]

Ok...but then there is prophecy and I'm not sure how that will work out but I am sure it will work out according to God's will.

What's the specific scripture?

Let's walk thru it or any of them.

Thankfully we (you and I and other humans) are not God.

The prophecy is for mankind. God has no need of keeping any to himself. So let's discuss any prophecy that you have not figured out or have questions on?

 

[Bthoth]

So,every legal system is anti god.

Who said that?

Explain?

 

[YoursTrue]

It wasn't a province. It was what was called a "client state". They still had their own government. For example as I mentioned censuses were banned in Israel/Judea since the time of King David. A client state might have to pay tribute, but the people were not directly taxed:

Client state - Wikipedia

When the Romans deposed Archelaus because of his terrible inefficiency they took over Judea and made it part of Rome. At that point they did have to do a census of Judea:

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you read that it also started a rebellion (also well recorded) because censuses had been illegal in Judea. You really should read that second article in its entirety.

Are you saying, before we go on, that Judea was not a Roman vassalage prior to 6ce?

 

[YoursTrue]

Let's try to think rationally. We have many records of smaller censuses of single countries from the Roman Empire. How could we possibly not have records of an empire wide census? That just does not make any sense at all.

I am starting with the condition that Judea was a vassalage decades before 6ce.

 

[YoursTrue]

And the threat of torture.

To understand the eternal torment, one needs to recognize the scope of both his mercy and the judgment. That in full is yet to be seen. But from my understanding of the Bible, dead people feel and experience nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying, before we go on, that Judea was not a Roman vassalage prior to 6ce?

You could say that, but "client state" is a more accurate description. The point is that they still had their own laws until Rome took over.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am starting with the condition that Judea was a vassalage decades before 6ce.

Yes, it was. But they were still not subject to a census.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To understand the eternal torment, one needs to recognize the scope of both his mercy and the judgment. That in full is yet to be seen. But from my understanding of the Bible, dead people feel and experience nothing.

Different sects have different versions of what happens to a person after death. Many of them do rely on the threat of hell. Even though that would mean that God was unjust.

 

[YoursTrue]

Different sects have different versions of what happens to a person after death. Many of them do rely on the threat of hell. Even though that would mean that God was unjust.

Certainly I would agree that to keep someone in horrible circumstances (torment or torture) for eternity would not be in harmony with love.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, it was. But they were still not subject to a census.

Subject or not, I'll look into that more but thank you for your answer. (Then we gotta talk about what were the responsibilities of a vassalage. Oh boy, I really need to study up on this. Maybe.)

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone On the other hand I would think it reasonable that a ruling power (Rome) would want to know what constitutes the underlings certainly by population insofar as rendering payment. Since I am not a historian I'm probably not using the proper terminology but I will look into it more.

 

[YoursTrue]

We know where Quirinius was and when. It is also known that in the Roman empire that the career path was stable, upwards, or retirement. There was no down and then back up which is what apologists have to suggest.

I'm not going into all of this until I understand more fully where we're at. So there was the Maccabean revolt more than 100 years before the birth of Christ, which is said to have established the independence of Judea from the Seleucids. The leaders of this revolt are said to be the Hasmonean family which is also named Maccabee. The history is becoming to me very interesting and so before I comment more I am going to rest here, and hopefully I will continue reading about the history.