Is Yahweh A Liar? Yes, He Is. I Can Prove It.

[leroy]

Because Rome had neither the power nor reason to do so. I do believe that this was already explained to you. Client states paid tribute, not taxes.

And how do you know that? what’s so unlikely about Rome making a census in a client state for whatever reason?.........what if USA descides to make a census in Puerto Rico? what woudl be so unlikelly about that?

I mean if you can think of crazy conspiracy theories to explain away events that contradict your view, what’s so extraordinary about claiming that there was a census?

My point is that if you are going to accept history using normal and realistic standards you should accept both

1 Jesus was probably buried

2 Luke probably made a mistake with the dates

If you are going to use extreme skepticism then you can always find an excuse to deny any of those points

If you are extremely skeptical only when it comes to stuff that supports your view then you are just being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Claiming an arbitrary and irrelevant conspiracy theory with “filters” is not an explanation

LOL! It was no secret conspiracy. Don't you know the history of the Bible at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And how do you know that? what’s so unlikely about Rome making a census in a client state for whatever reason?.........what if USA descides to make a census in Puerto Rico? what woudl be so unlikelly about that?

History tells us this. Seriously you appear to be completely unarmed in this discussion. And Puerto Rico is legally part of the U.S.. It is included in the Census and has been since 1910

I mean if you can think of crazy conspiracy theories to explain away events that contradict your view, what’s so extraordinary about claiming that there was a census?

My point is that if you are going to accept history using normal and realistic standards you should accept both

1 Jesus was probably buried

2 Luke probably made a mistake with the dates

If you are going to use extreme skepticism then you can always find an excuse to deny any of those points

If you are extremely skeptical only when it comes to stuff that supports your view then you are just being intellectually dishonest.

But all you do have are crazy conspiracies. I am not using any. If you accept history then:

1. Jesus was probably not buried.

2. Luke not only probably made a mistake with the dates, he used that mistake to support his Nativity Myth.

I am not using extreme skepticism. I am using very mild skepticism. Since the Bible is the claim and it is not the evidence it takes very little skepticism to reject it. It takes massive gullibility to accept it once one looks at the evidence from that time.

 

[leroy]

LOL! It was no secret conspiracy. Don't you know the history of the Bible at all?

A bunch of Christian scholars in the 400s took the texts that they considered more relevant, put them together and created what we call “the new testament”………. Is there any other relevant historical event that you would like to add?

 

[leroy]

History tells us this. Seriously you appear to be completely unarmed in this discussion. And Puerto Rico is legally part of the U.S.. It is included in the Census and has been since 1910

But you didn’t answer the question, what’s so unlikely about Rome making a census I Judea during the first years of the 1st century?

But all you do have are crazy conspiracies. I am not using any. If you accept history then:

1. Jesus was probably not buried.

Only with crazy and unrealistic skepticism, and the very list we have 2 early and independent sources (Mark and Paul) for an event that was not “very unlikely” and that has zero theological significance (so why would the authors lie?) this is nearly the best you can ever have with ancient history.

To say (or imply) that Christians from the 400s destroyed all the documents that suggests that Jesus was not buried is a crazy and unsupported conspiracy theory,

 

[Subduction Zone]

A bunch of Christian scholars in the 400s took the texts that they considered more relevant, put them together and created what we call “the new testament”………. Is there any other relevant historical event that you would like to add?

None are so blind as those that do not see. That event is what makes your sources dependent. There was no conspiracy, they were very open in their acts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you didn’t answer the question, what’s so unlikely about Rome making a census I Judea during the first years of the 1st century?

I did too. Once again you ignore the facts that refute your claims. Judea was a client state. They were not under direct Roman rule until after Herod the Great died and his sons failed at managing the state properly. It was when Rome took over that a census was necessary.

Only with crazy and unrealistic skepticism, and the very list we have 2 early and independent sources (Mark and Paul) for an event that was not “very unlikely” and that has zero theological significance (so why would the authors lie?) this is nearly the best you can ever have with ancient history.

To say (or imply) that Christians from the 400s destroyed all the documents that suggests that Jesus was not buried is a crazy and unsupported conspiracy theory,

Mark is not early at all. He was at least a generation after the fact. Paul never saw Jesus. So how do you have reliable sources?

 

[leroy]

None are so blind as those that do not see. That event is what makes your sources dependent. There was no conspiracy, they were very open in their acts.

So before that event they were independent and now they are dependent………is that what you are saying?

 

[leroy]

I did too. Once again you ignore the facts that refute your claims. Judea was a client state. They were not under direct Roman rule until after Herod the Great died and his sons failed at managing the state properly. It was when Rome took over that a census was necessary.

And why can’t Rome make a census even if they didn’t have complete control over the territory?

Mark is not early at all. He was at least a generation after the fact. Paul never saw Jesus. So how do you have reliable sources?

So we have Paul who knew some of the apostoles and James, and we have Mark who worte 1 generation after the event (at a time when witnesses where still alive)

why isent this good enough?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So before that event they were independent and now they are dependent………is that what you are saying?

The had a limited independence, but even that was gone after the filtering event. The filter made them dependent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And why can’t Rome make a census even if they didn’t have complete control over the territory?[/quoite]

Because it was not how they ran business. They allowed client countries more freedom, as long as they sent in the funds. You cannot claim historical support and then reject the history that shows you to be wrong.


[quoite]


So we have Paul who knew some of the apostoles and James, and we have Mark who worte 1 generation after the event (at a time when witnesses where still alive)

why isent this good enough?

Do you know how fast myths grow? How old are you? I can give a very solid recent event and that is with a high literacy rate and modern news. Think how fast myths could grow back then?

 

[leroy]

The had a limited independence, but even that was gone after the filtering event. The filter made them dependent.

Limited independence? What is that supposed to mean? Talking about the texts related to the burial of Jesus would you say that Mark and Paul where independent before “the filter”

 

[leroy]

Do you know how fast myths grow? How old are you? I can give a very solid recent event and that is with a high literacy rate and modern news. Think how fast myths could grow back then?

well by that logic, you should reject all ancient history, not just the stuff that contradict your view

by your logic the Census of Quirinius is just a myth written by Josephus 200 years after the event, by your logic “myths grow very fast” so the census didn’t happed or perhaps it happened just like Luke said, but since “myths grow very fast” the dates and the governors where changed by folklore and legends……..(and therefore your whole objection on luke fails)

 

[leroy]

Because it was not how they ran business. They allowed client countries more freedom, as long as they sent in the funds. You cannot claim historical support and then reject the history that shows you to be wrong.

Freedom?.....Well then maybe the census was not imposed, maybe the Jewish authorities where ok with the census. Who knows? … I know we don’t have evidence for that census other than Luke, but the event doesn’t seem to be very unlikely.

Besides any evidence that you might have against the census would be evidence based on documents written centuries after the event, by biased peopel and by non-witnesses, so by your standards you shouldn’t accept that evidence.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

well by that logic, you should reject all ancient history, not just the stuff that contradict your view

by your logic the Census of Quirinius is just a myth written by Josephus 200 years after the event, by your logic “myths grow very fast” so the census didn’t happed or perhaps it happened just like Luke said, but since “myths grow very fast” the dates and the governors where changed by folklore and legends……..(and therefore your whole objection on luke fails)

Read and learn:

SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH LUKE'S CENSUS
excerpted from God, Reason, and the Evangelicals
(Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1987), pp. 145-49
Copyright held by N. F. Gier

Much has been said about Luke's excellence as an historian. Luke did indeed emulate the models of historical narrative which were current in his day. But to claim that Luke is a consummate historian by modern standards--as many evangelicals do--is a position which cannot be maintained.

There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled" (Lk. 2:1). The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events. Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history.

Bottom line: the evidence strongly demonstrates that Luke invented the whole census thing to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, nothing more.

SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH LUKE

 

[leroy]

Read and learn:

SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH LUKE'S CENSUS
excerpted from God, Reason, and the Evangelicals
(Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1987), pp. 145-49
Copyright held by N. F. Gier

Much has been said about Luke's excellence as an historian. Luke did indeed emulate the models of historical narrative which were current in his day. But to claim that Luke is a consummate historian by modern standards--as many evangelicals do--is a position which cannot be maintained.

There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled" (Lk. 2:1). The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events. Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history.

Bottom line: the evidence strongly demonstrates that Luke invented the whole census thing to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, nothing more.

SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH LUKE

it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history.

What is it what we know about economic history that contradicts Luke account? (Please include primary sources)

Just to let you know that I will use the same type of harsh standards of evidence that internet atheists have---- I will only accept contemporary sources written by known unbiased witness

 

[Subduction Zone]

Limited independence? What is that supposed to mean? Talking about the texts related to the burial of Jesus would you say that Mark and Paul where independent before “the filter”

Really? You have trouble understanding that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Freedom?.....Well then maybe the census was not imposed, maybe the Jewish authorities where ok with the census. Who knows? … I know we don’t have evidence for that census other than Luke, but the event doesn’t seem to be very unlikely.

Besides any evidence that you might have against the census would be evidence based on documents written centuries after the event, by biased peopel and by non-witnesses, so by your standards you shouldn’t accept that evidence.

Sorry, we are done with this. You lost and are grasping at straws. You have not and cannot support your beliefs. Until you do this is the response that you will get.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well by that logic, you should reject all ancient history, not just the stuff that contradict your view

by your logic the Census of Quirinius is just a myth written by Josephus 200 years after the event, by your logic “myths grow very fast” so the census didn’t happed or perhaps it happened just like Luke said, but since “myths grow very fast” the dates and the governors where changed by folklore and legends……..(and therefore your whole objection on luke fails)

I need to remind you that from your posts here logic is a skill that you appear to lack. You are forgetting the standards of history and why we trust past accounts. Christian beliefs lack those standards.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

What is it what we know about economic history that contradicts Luke account? (Please include primary sources)

Just to let you know that I will use the same type of harsh standards of evidence that internet atheists have---- I will only accept contemporary sources written by known unbiased witness

Evasion evasion evasion. Fine, ignore the experts. Isolate in that bubble of yours. Here's the CV of the guy who wrote that. Find someone comparable with a similar CV who supports your position. I'd like to see you try.

Nicholas F. Gier
University of Idaho | UID · Department of Philosophy

• 
  Experience
  • 
    Emeritus Professor of Philosophy
    University of Idaho
    Aug 1972 - May 200330 years 10 months
    
    Retired from University of Idaho in 2003
    
    
  • 
    President
    Coordinator of Religious Studies
    Jan 1980 - Jan 2003 23 years 1 month
    
    
  • 
    Senior Fellow
    Martin Institute of Peace Studies
    Jan 1990 - Jan 2000 10 years 1 month
  Education
  • The University of Queensland
    
    
    The University of Queensland
    Religious Studies; Philosophy
    
    
    
  • 
    Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi
    -
    
    
    
  • 
    Doshisha University
    -
    
    
    Visiting Scholar
    
    
  • 
    Dharmaram College
    -
    
    
    
  • Claremont Graduate University
    
    
    Claremont Graduate University
    M.A., Ph.D.Philosophy, Religion
    1968 - 1971
    
    Activities and Societies: Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of Idaho Senior Fellow, Martin Institute of Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, 1990-2000 Coordinator of Religious Studies, 1980-2003 [email protected] EDUCATION B. A. with honors, Oregon State University, 1966. M.A., 1969; Ph.D., Claremont Graduate University, 1973.
    
    BOOKS AUTHORED
    
    The Virtue of Non-Violence: from Gautama to Gandhi
    Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004.
    
    Spiritual Titanism: Indian, Chinese, and Western Perspectives.
    Albany, New York: State University of New Press, 2000., xxvi + 302 pgs..
    
    God, Reason and the Evangelicals: The Case Against Evangelical Rationalism. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1987, xxx + 371 pgs.
    
    Wittgenstein and Phenomenology: A Comparative Study of the Later…
• 
  
  
• 
  Claremont Graduate School
  M.A; M.A
  
  
  thesis: "Process Theology and the Death of
  God."
  
  
• Oregon State University
  
  
  Oregon State University
  B. A
  
  
  
• University of Idaho
  
  
  University of Idaho
  of Philosophy
  
  
  
• 
  Claremont Graduate School
  Ph.DReligion
  
  
  Doctoral Dissertation: "Heidegger and the
  Ontological Differenz."
  Graduate Studies; Utah Associated Press Journalism Awards,
  2011
  Read columns here
  EMPLOYMENT AND VISITING POSTS
  
  
• Senior Fellow, Martin Peace Institute, University of Idaho
  -
  
  
  
• 
  University of
  -
  
  
  
• 
  University of Copenhagen
  -
  
  
  
• 
  University of Copenhagen
  -
  
  University of Odense
  Visiting LecturerPhilosophy; ComparativeLiterature