Evolution of what?

[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.

(Of course.)

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone I looked up client state and here's what I found in part on wikipedia: "client state, in international relations, is a state that is economically, politically, and/or militarily subordinate to another more powerful state (called the "controlling state")" Well, it's very interesting in reference to the relationship between Judea and Rome.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone This is a thread about evolution more or less, and our discussion is not particularly about evolution, although I believe Jesus' life was miraculously placed in Mary's womb as a human and not a humangodman or that he and other humans evolved from an ape Unknown Common Ancestor. So be that as it is, I'm going to hopefully start another thread on the dating of Jesus' birth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@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.

This is refuted by two observed facts. First the Romans tried to let their client states rule themselves as much as possible. Less strain on Rome that way. And the number one job of a client state was that if Rome was to be attacked it would be through them first. So again, they tried to keep them happy.

Second when the Census of Quirinius occurred there was a revolt by conservative Jews. If the 6 CE census was the second one, why would therre be a revolt? That would have happened with the first one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone This is a thread about evolution more or less, and our discussion is not particularly about evolution, although I believe Jesus' life was miraculously placed in Mary's womb as a human and not a humangodman or that he and other humans evolved from an ape Unknown Common Ancestor. So be that as it is, I'm going to hopefully start another thread on the dating of Jesus' birth.

No, the virgin birth is another myth. There was no prophecy of it. That was due to a misinterpretation. Plus perhaps emulating other mythical gods that had virgin births.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, the virgin birth is another myth. There was no prophecy of it. That was due to a misinterpretation. Plus perhaps emulating other mythical gods that had virgin births.

Right now I'm not getting into it. Perhaps others can discuss it with you. I'm concentrating on the history regarding Jesus' birth, when.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is refuted by two observed facts. First the Romans tried to let their client states rule themselves as much as possible. Less strain on Rome that way. And the number one job of a client state was that if Rome was to be attacked it would be through them first. So again, they tried to keep them happy.

Second when the Census of Quirinius occurred there was a revolt by conservative Jews. If the 6 CE census was the second one, why would therre be a revolt? That would have happened with the first one.

I will discuss this maybe -- because for me it entails a lot of research and double and triple checking what's happening -- on another thread I started. I only quoted one biblical source from Luke and I will continue with that. I was a good student in school, but frankly, there's a lot of research involved here. Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right now I'm not getting into it. Perhaps others can discuss it with you. I'm concentrating on the history regarding Jesus' birth, when.

It is settled that the author of Luke screwed the pooch royally. You will only find liars for Jesus trying to defend that today.

You cannot claim that the Bible is historic if you ignore the historians.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is settled that the author of Luke screwed the pooch royally. You will only find liars for Jesus trying to defend that today.

You cannot claim that the Bible is historic if you ignore the historians.

We have already discussed the difference between certain words referring to the governmental condition of Judea. Please you don't have to use pejorative words or descriptions in your statements. I was hoping for a decent conversation with you, even if we disagree, but if not -- so be it. In other words...no conversation. But! have a good evening.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Right now I'm not getting into it. Perhaps others can discuss it with you. I'm concentrating on the history regarding Jesus' birth, when.

Ok, let's concentrate on it.

According to Luke, we are to believe that the Roman custom was for every single citizen and subject of the Empire to travel all the way back to the town of their ancestors every time a census was called -- for what, remains an utter mystery -- or he needs a means to move the story along to get Mary and Joseph into Bethlehem in order to fulfill another prophecy.

Which one are we going with?

 

[gnostic]

although I believe Jesus' life was miraculously placed in Mary's womb as a human and not a humangodman

in another word, you believe in magic?

because there are no other word for what you believe in.

it certainly isn’t natural.

God, spirit, Holy Spirit, call it whatever you want, there are no evidence to support they exist anymore than angels, demons or fairies…let alone impregn a woman.

A deity and human having offspring - demigod or demigoddess - have been going on since the Sumerian myth, eg Bilgames (later Gilgamesh in Akkadian) being the son of Lugalbanda (king of Uruk) and the goddess Ninsun, was the most famous of demigods in Mesopotamian myths.

in Greek myths, I cannot the number of offspring that were of divine and human origins. Here are just handful of demigods: Dionysus, Perseus, Heracles (Hercules), some sources included (as Poseidon‘s son) Theseus, Achilles, Aeneas, Polydeuces (Pollux) & his Helen of Sparta/of Troy.

Jesus’ story isn’t

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok, let's concentrate on it.

According to Luke, we are to believe that the Roman custom was for every single citizen and subject of the Empire to travel all the way back to the town of their ancestors every time a census was called -- for what, remains an utter mystery -- or he needs a means to move the story along to get Mary and Joseph into Bethlehem in order to fulfill another prophecy.

Which one are we going with?

Luke speaks of a first census decreed by Caesar Augustus which took place while Quirinius was the governor of Syria. I don't see it as a custom. It might have been a custom, but I don't see that in Luke.
"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 whileb Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3And everyone went to his own town to register." (Luke 2:1-3)

 

[YoursTrue]

in another word, you believe in magic?

because there are no other word for what you believe in.

it certainly isn’t natural.

God, spirit, Holy Spirit, call it whatever you want, there are no evidence to support they exist anymore than angels, demons or fairies…let alone impregn a woman.

A deity and human having offspring - demigod or demigoddess - have been going on since the Sumerian myth, eg Bilgames (later Gilgamesh in Akkadian) being the son of Lugalbanda (king of Uruk) and the goddess Ninsun, was the most famous of demigods in Mesopotamian myths.

in Greek myths, I cannot the number of offspring that were of divine and human origins. Here are just handful of demigods: Dionysus, Perseus, Heracles (Hercules), some sources included (as Poseidon‘s son) Theseus, Achilles, Aeneas, Polydeuces (Pollux) & his Helen of Sparta/of Troy.

Jesus’ story isn’t

OK, you don't believe Jesus' life was transferred from heaven to be a human. I do.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Luke speaks of a first census decreed by Caesar Augustus which took place while Quirinius was the governor of Syria. I don't see it as a custom. It might have been a custom, but I don't see that in Luke.

Then either you or Luke has a serious problem, since the Romans were no strangers to a Census, having began the custom in the 5th century BCE.

And it wasn't even Augustus' first census; The Romans were supposed to do a census every 5 years, but apparently they slacked off by the time Agustus was emperor

His first recorded one was around 28 BCE; way before Jesus' time.
The one Luke is most likely referring to would be his next one in 6 BCE, which is close enough if you're willing to fudge some numbers.
The last one he called was shortly before his death in 14 CE.

Even so, we know enough about the census then - like now - that people were required to return to their current homes, not their ancestral homes... and even then, why would Joseph be the only man to be so observant?

"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 whileb Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3And everyone went to his own town to register." (Luke 2:1-3)

Read it again: the first census while Quirinius was governor of Syria - Not "the first census."
The fact that Quinirius became governor of Syria in 6 CE is another problem.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then either you or Luke has a serious problem, since the Romans were no strangers to a Census, having began the custom in the 5th century BCE.

And it wasn't even Augustus' first census; The Romans were supposed to do a census every 5 years, but apparently they slacked off by the time Agustus was emperor

His first recorded one was around 28 BCE; way before Jesus' time.
The one Luke is most likely referring to would be his next one in 6 BCE, which is close enough if you're willing to fudge some numbers.
The last one he called was shortly before his death in 14 CE.

Even so, we know enough about the census then - like now - that people were required to return to their current homes, not their ancestral homes... and even then, why would Joseph be the only man to be so observant?




Read it again: the first census while Quirinius was governor of Syria - Not "the first census."
The fact that Quinirius became governor of Syria in 6 CE is another problem.

There are various ideas about this. The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2 - CORE

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke speaks of a first census decreed by Caesar Augustus which took place while Quirinius was the governor of Syria. I don't see it as a custom. It might have been a custom, but I don't see that in Luke.
"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 whileb Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3And everyone went to his own town to register." (Luke 2:1-3)

First off we know that the first census of the entire empire was not until 74 CE. But yes, it was the first census of the area. And that was in the year 6 CE. That does not help you. Since it became Roman territory that year a census had to be held.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There are various ideas about this. The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2 - CORE

I'm assuming you meant to put a link in there?

 

[YoursTrue]

Then either you or Luke has a serious problem, since the Romans were no strangers to a Census, having began the custom in the 5th century BCE.

And it wasn't even Augustus' first census; The Romans were supposed to do a census every 5 years, but apparently they slacked off by the time Agustus was emperor

His first recorded one was around 28 BCE; way before Jesus' time.
The one Luke is most likely referring to would be his next one in 6 BCE, which is close enough if you're willing to fudge some numbers.
The last one he called was shortly before his death in 14 CE.

Even so, we know enough about the census then - like now - that people were required to return to their current homes, not their ancestral homes... and even then, why would Joseph be the only man to be so observant?I u




Read it again: the first census while Quirinius was governor of Syria - Not "the first census."
The fact that Quinirius became governor of Syria in 6 CE is another problem.

I understand that the term first census is concerning while Quirinius was governor, or in a capacity of responsibility to Rome from Syria. It's a most interesting association as I am finding out. And while many believe it means 6 C.E., that is not the final word on this because some recognition has come to light about when Quirinius was a legate governor or in the capacity of administration to an extent to Judea. Thank you for your comment.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm assuming you meant to put a link in there?

Yes, it's a pdf so if you google "The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2 - CORE" I believe you will find it.

 

[McBell]

Yes, it's a pdf so if you google "The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2 - CORE" I believe you will find it.

this one?

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58823406.pdf