Evolution? How?

In other words, "real life," the answer is "No, you cannot support your assertion."

You have made an extraordinary claim in asserting that the passage in Luke is to be considered historically accurate. You have:

. . . failed to demonstrate that a census was held in 4 BCE;

. . . failed to demonstrate that any census was personally ordered by the Princeps;

. . . failed to demonstrate that any census was held in the Augustan age which intended count anyone other than Roman citizens--which neither the putative Joseph nor the putative Mary could be considered to have been;

. . . failed to demonstrate that any imperial census at the end of the first century BCE or the beginning of the first century CE ever required people to return to the place of their birth;

. . . failed to demonstrate that your one feeble example from the beginning of the second century CE is exemplary of imperial policy;

. . . failed to addressed the undoubtedly catastrophic dislocation of imperial administration which would have resulted from such a migration;

. . . failed to address the incapacity of the transportation systems of that day to accomodate such a migration.

******************

Of course, you assiduosly avoid the origin of this discussion--the contention of fanatical christians that canonical scripture is inerrant and an entirely truthful account of historical events. And we've only looked at the single passage in Luke. We've got a very long way to go.

0 Replies

No less the means to communicate such an edict.

0 Replies

Real life~Spenddius.
I thought I was dumb.. in fact I know I am dumb, after reading all 621 pages of the above containing your questions and answers I would ascertain that 95 percent of it was drivel and 5 percent bull shyt... when someone as dumb as me can knowingly say that, I suppose it's ok for you and your elk to do the same to cicerone imposer~santa~farmerman~timber landko and their elk.

0 Replies

lightfoot wrote:

I suppose it's ok for you and your elk to do the same to cicerone imposer~santa~farmerman~timber landko and their elk.

Timber's Elk

http://www.us-national-parks.net/images/elk.jpg

0 Replies

http://sandhill.typepad.com/sandhill_trek/images/dumb.jpg

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Got a link for the "Acts of Augustus?" When you provide a source other than Luke--the gospels are too notoriously unreliable to be considered historical sources--and, although it seems incredible to have to point this out to you, the issue is the passage in Luke--so referring to it as you do is one of the most blatantly laughable examples of begging the question which i have ever seen. Do you contend that we are to accept the passage in Luke on the evidenc of the passage in Luke ? ! ? ! ?.............

No link that I know of that gives the text of the Acts of Augustus. Could be one, but I've not seen it.

Bucher's reference was footnoted as you recall, but the volume is so old it probably is not online.

In other words, "real life," the answer is "No, you cannot support your assertion."

You have made an extraordinary claim in asserting that the passage in Luke is to be considered historically accurate. You have:

. . . failed to demonstrate that a census was held in 4 BCE;

. . . failed to demonstrate that any census was personally ordered by the Princeps;

. . . failed to demonstrate that any census was held in the Augustan age which intended count anyone other than Roman citizens--which neither the putative Joseph nor the putative Mary could be considered to have been;

. . . failed to demonstrate that any imperial census at the end of the first century BCE or the beginning of the first century CE ever required people to return to the place of their birth;

. . . failed to demonstrate that your one feeble example from the beginning of the second century CE is exemplary of imperial policy;

. . . failed to addressed the undoubtedly catastrophic dislocation of imperial administration which would have resulted from such a migration;

. . . failed to address the incapacity of the transportation systems of that day to accomodate such a migration.

Bucher's footnote is of AHM Jones' History of the Roman Empire.

This source seems to be well used and is listed as one of the source books in the bibliography of university level history courses.

http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~lneuru/courses/cl373bib.html

and is prominently mentioned as a primary source of translated documents.

http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/grd/resguides/classics/primary.html

http://www.library.adelaide.edu.au/guide/hum/classics/subject/hist.html

Jones' other works on Roman history, including a biography of Augustus, seem to be widely cited as well. He is not one I would dismiss lightly just because it's not online.

0 Replies

None of which provides any support for your thesis that Luke's passage represents the literal, inerrant historical facts of the case. Bucher cites Mr. Jones as a source for what appear to be nothing more than local practices in Egypt at the beginning of the second century CE. That is not evidene of anything which was pan-imperial at the end of the first century BCE.

You have failed to support your claim.

0 Replies

You're crackin' me up Ros . . . you're havin' too much fun . . .

0 Replies

It's early in the morning, so i forgot to add to my reply to "real life":

If Jones is such an unimpeachable source for primary source documents (which i do not dispute) and you are so certain that the passage in Luke is inerrant historical truth--why has Jones not been cited as evidence for the specific census to which you allude, conducted in the manner you contend, on the personal order of the Princeps?

0 Replies

You put a lot of time into this stuff, don't you, set?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You're crackin' me up Ros . . . you're havin' too much fun . . .

This thread has wandered onto the Bible, something which doesn't interest me very much, so I'm reduced to finding typo's in posts and googling funny pictures (which relate surprisingly well to this thread).

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

he may well have been conducting an ilicit affair with the emperor's unfortunate daughter.

Gee.That's neat."may well" eh?One can base any number of self-serving specualtions on a judiciously chosen "may well."As far as I'm aware Ovidian scholars have come to no conclusion on his banishment.It remains a mystery.

But the interesting thing is the use of the word "illicit".That has a singularly patriarchal tone much approved of in certain areas of the world and strongly associated with religion.

But I take it as a compliment that Setanta has devoted so much time and effort to attempting to refute my post.I fully agree that Christianity has a barbaric history but what any of that has to do with the here and now or with Augustus eludes my comprehension.

I'll await an answer to my suggestion that to take one's beliefs from a reading of history and then to use that history to support one's beliefs is circularity and the more suspect if the history is suspect which it definitely is.Spengler is often to be found emphasising that we have no understanding of previous societies except what can be derived from unearthed artefacts.The written record is a record of what the winners thought which is why poets and other artists are so much more important than propaganda sources.

But that "illicit".Wow.SCUM will be on your trail mate.

0 Replies

real life

Quote:

Let's look at a specific reference in each gospel, both referring to the same detail or aspect of the event -- and tell me why you think they contradict.

I already did, and my "later" attempts at portraying Jesus by the differences in Mark and Luke are the subject of a few scholarly inquiries so, for someone who is knowleadgeable in scripture, I feel that youre just "dodging" anything about this point . Youre own inability to articulate a specific positional area clearly revealed in the gospels (I repeatedly said the Passion from Mark and Luke), makes me wonder whether you dont have some of the same concerns about
1 Divinity of the individual
2The "context" of the entire message in the gospels as demonstrated by conflicts in presentation in just one area

By claiming that Im being obscure or lacking in specificity makes me a bit concerned about to how much of your own beliefs have you merely stipulated without question

0 Replies

ros, We were out in the pagan rituals of throwing money at chochkie peddlars yesterday so I missed the primary context. I too get a severe case of the yawns at doctrinal stuff, but, applying the same methodology of "peer review" on some of the "Unquestioned doctrine" of the gospels, can leave one with the conclusion that church traditions "count" on the laity to not do any critical reading.

Did you hear that theyve found a whole bunch of those "hobbit" human fossils H florensis all along the archipelago, so they must have had some Boating skills or else the seas were at a low enough stand that they could walk.

0 Replies

On the whole post of Setanta's I will say it is mostly irrelevant blather.But this is worthy of note-

Quote:

-do you (god you crack me up!) suggest that prudery is evidenc of barbarism?

Not to put too fine a point on it-Yes.

You seem Setanta to have read quite a bit but I can tell that you have missed out the Malleus Malificarum.Hence you fail to understand the basic principle of Christianity and I feel quite confident in saying that the result of this has somehow got you on the wrong side of this debate assuming that you would prefer to be on the side where your best interests lie.

I feel emboldened to quote a 25 year old song from the master-

"I stumbled to my feet,
I rode past destruction in the ditches
With the stitches still mending 'neath a heart-shaped tattoo.
Renegade priests and treacherous young witches
Were handing out the flowers that I'd given to you."

Yeah,well-there you go.I stumbled to my feet too.
Reeling.Ever try it?

0 Replies

Im thnking that spendius likes to put his shredded wheat in a bowl, then with milk and sugar applied so that the little raft gradually sinks, he goes away until his product is entirely mush.

0 Replies

Stick it to 'em fm.There's nothing like a good old fashioned assertion to win over tabloid readers.

0 Replies

lightfoot wrote:

Real life~Spenddius.
I thought I was dumb.. in fact I know I am dumb, after reading all 621 pages of the above containing your questions and answers I would ascertain that 95 percent of it was drivel and 5 percent bull shyt... when someone as dumb as me can knowingly say that, I suppose it's ok for you and your elk to do the same to cicerone imposer~santa~farmerman~timber landko and their elk.

I submit that anyone reading all 621 (now 622) pages of this thread has issues which far transcend any which have yet been advances on this board.

0 Replies

neo-

One would tremble with trepidation were one to even hint at what you might mean.

It's a great thread though.

0 Replies

Scares me, too. Laughing

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know