You have another problem with the alleged census in the year when the putative Jesus was alleged to have been born--several problems, in fact.
Caesar Augustus left a record of exactly how many times and when he conducted a census and a lustrum. A lustrum was performed five years after each census, and was a ritual purification which was a part of the Roman state religion from ancient times, in the Republican Empire, before the Principiate Empire even came into being. Octavian, who became Caesar Augustus, took the title of Princeps (and hence, the word Prince), which meant first citizen, and denoted that he combined in himself all of the highest offices of the Republic, which included the office of Pontifex of the state religion--and therefore, he was the supreme censor of the state. He was responsible for every census which was taken.
The Romans did not have a capitation (a head tax), nor did they have any form of income tax. All of their revenue derived from the sale of public land and property (accumulated either through conquest, the legal sequestration of estates, the forfeiture of estates for treason or proscription, and the lapse of male heirs to an estate), or from excise taxes, and from the hearth tax. Roman citizens were counted for political purposes, because the basic political unit was the tribe, which had one vote on all public matters. Roman citizens, therefore, had to be counted for political reasons. Some other residents of the Empire had "Latin status," which meant they had all the rights of a Roman citizen, but were not franchised--they could not vote. There was no reason to, and the Romans did not take a census of anyone who was not a Roman citizen. Local authorities had no right to tax a Roman citizen, and could only derive their income from excises applied after the Roman excise was applied, or from the sale of estates which fell into their hands based on local laws which did not conflict with Imperial law or policy, or capitation of their own populations. Romans citizens were only taxed based on the hearth, or household. (For that reason, Romans tended to pack as many people into huge apartment houses as possible, so that the most people could combine to pay the hearth tax. The same thing happened in Russia in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovitch and Petr Alexeevitch, so that Russians also have the habit of packing as many people into a house or apartment as possible--since it is the household which was taxed, and not the residents individually.)
So, you have the problem that Caesar Augustus has told us when he conducted each census and each lustrum, and none of those correspond with the alleged date of the birth of the putative Jesus. Furthermore, Luke (who was definitely not an eye-witness to any of the life of the putative Jesus) says: (in the King James Version)
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
There was never a Roman governor of Syria named Cyrenius, but there was a Roman governor named Quirinius. But he was the Imperial Legate in 6 and 7 CE. Christian scholars themselves acknowledge that the putative Jesus would have been born (if he ever existed) in 4 BCE--so at the earliest, any census ordered by Quirinius would have taken place when your boy was 10 years of age at the youngest. And that, of course, would not have been a census ordered by the Emperor.
Even had there been such a census, Joseph would not have been counted in an Empire-wide census, because he wasn't a Roman citizen. Furthermore, any requirement for everyone to return to the place of his birth would have turned the Empire upside down--you'd play Hell moving 30 or 40 million people (the estimated population of the Empire at that time, citizens and non-citizens included) to the places of their respective births even with modern transportation methods. It would have been an incredible upheaval, and totally uncharacteristic of Augustus, about the most level-headed emperor the Romans ever had. And it would have been a disaster on a scale which could not have escaped anyone's notice. But there is no record of any such absurdity in any source other than Luke--who was not even alive at the time he claims the census took place. Additionally, even when a local census was conducted so that local authorities could tax people or property, the census takers did the travelling--it does little good to tax a man if you take him away from the place where he earns the livelihood you intend to tax. Finally, Joseph supposedly travelled to his home in Galilee. Galilee was then a satrapy--a kingdom ruled by a local King on sufferance of the Imperial authority; so long as the satrap, the local "King" pays the excise, he can run things the way he likes. Quirinius never had any authority over Galilee while he was the Legate in Syria. In fact, the new province of Iudaeae (Judea) was created in 6 CE, while Quirinius was the Imperial Legate, which would have been the reason for a census--but only a local census, and, once again, Bethlehem is in Galilee, not Judea.
Obviously, Luke goofed up because he wanted to place the birth of the putative Jesus in Bethlehem to fulfill prophecies. Luke must have either been gullible himself, or thought his audience was gullible, and that they would never know that no such census took place. In short, Luke was lying, and probably knew it.
echi wrote:I'm ready to take that walk whenever you are, neo. I got the feeling that you wanted to continue it here. (That works for me. I love that "new thread" smell.)
What was your reason for seriously considering the idea that a god may really exist?
God's (reported) promise to Adam and Eve, that they and their offspring could live forever on earth was something worth investigating.
Are you saying the story was too tempting to not consider?
Set. We are in disagreement on the dates of Quirinius' service in Syria as well as the date of Jesus' birth (2 B.C.E.). We also disagree on the issue of head tax. And, apparently on the number of registrations mentioned under Quirinius.
So, this is about par for us.
echi wrote:Are you saying the story was too tempting to not consider?
Well compared to alternatives:
Rotting in hell
Rotting (plain variety)
Playing a harp
Raising my kids and grandkids and their grandkids seemed like it might be worth a look.
Did you consider investigating any other faiths?
Re: BIBLE CONSPIRACY
neologist wrote:Billions of copies have been distributed.
comedian bill hicks did a brief routine on how we celebrate easter and followed it up with this rant
Do you all have different books in the Bible than I do? Are you all Gideons? Who are the f**king Gideons? Ever met one, no! Ever seen one, no! But they're all over the f**king world, putting Bibles in hotel rooms! Every one of them: "This Bible was placed here by a Gideon." When? I've been here all day and I ain't seen ****! I saw the housekeeper come and go, I saw the minibar guy come and go, I've never laid eyes on a f**king Gideon! What are they, ninjas? Where are they? Where are they from? Gidea? Who the f**k are these people?!
I'm gonna capture a Gideon. Yeah, I'm gonna make that my hobby. I'll call up the front desk one day and say, "Uh, I don't seem to have a Bible in my room."
echi wrote:Did you consider investigating any other faiths?
The Eastern religions seemed too mystical to me. I attended a few meetings of the Ethical Culture group and one of my friends was an atheist Unitarian, or said he was. So, for a while, I called myself Unitarian, but never attended their church.
When I was in college, a few of us got together with a local bartender and formed a religion based on the worship of quantum. Services consisted of beer and pizza. I would say a few words from the Latin mass to consecrate the offering. We would show our reverence making the sign of the 'Q', complete with an appropriate flourish for the tail.
Those were good days, but meaningless. I still enjoy beer and pizza, though.
neologist wrote:The Eastern religions seemed too mystical to me.
Seemed?
Your quick answer to his question was "No", but I'm curious how you came to think the the eastern religions are more mystical than western religions.
If I remember correctly, you stated that only one Faith could be true. Seeing as how there are so many, do you think you just got lucky?
maporsche wrote:neologist wrote:The Eastern religions seemed too mystical to me.
Seemed?
Your quick answer to his question was "No", but I'm curious how you came to think the the eastern religions are more mystical than western religions.
One creation story:
http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/Y7/2-2Hinduism/hindu_creation_story.htm
Another:
http://www.univie.ac.at/Voelkerkunde/apsis/aufi/folk/folk-n01.htm
With all due respect - somewhat fanciful - and mystical
echi wrote:If I remember correctly, you stated that only one Faith could be true. Seeing as how there are so many, do you think you just got lucky?
It sure wasn't on my own merits. I had given up looking and was well settled in my disbelief and the permission I had given myself to set my own standards.
Hindus believe that there is One Supreme Spirit of the universe. This Spirit is God.
Christians believe the same thing.
Hindus also believe that God can be seen in many different ways, so for Hindus God can take on the shape of different gods and goddesses.
Christians think the same thing (father, son, holy spirit, virgin birth, devils, demons)
There are several creation stories in Hinduism. Here is one of the creation stories from Hindu mythology.
Christians think the same thing (young earth creation, intelligent design, universe in 7 days, 7 days = 15 billion years, Adam/Eve, etc)
Before this time began, there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of the night.A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent.
There were snakes in the garden of eden, a mystical place where man/beast lived happily ever after.
I could keep going, but my point is that the Christian myths only make sense to you because you've been raised with them. When viewed objectivaly, or by someone not of Judeo-Christian descent, they are just as mystical.
maporsche wrote:
Hindus believe that there is One Supreme Spirit of the universe. This Spirit is God.
Christians believe the same thing. OK
Hindus also believe that God can be seen in many different ways, so for Hindus God can take on the shape of different gods and goddesses.
Christians think the same thing (father, son, holy spirit, virgin birth, devils, demons)Trinity not supported by the bible.
There are several creation stories in Hinduism. Here is one of the creation stories from Hindu mythology.
Christians think the same thing (young earth creation, intelligent design, universe in 7 days, 7 days = 15 billion years, Adam/Eve, etc)
Minor point, but the universe not included in the seven days
Before this time began, there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of the night.A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu.
!! He was watched over by the mighty serpent.
Only one creation story in the bible and the serpent had nothing to do with it.
There were snakes in the garden of eden, a mystical place where man/beast lived happily ever after. Nothing mystical about a garden.
I could keep going, but my point is that the Christian myths only make sense to you because you've been raised with them. When viewed objectivaly, or by someone not of Judeo-Christian descent, they are just as mystical.
(Green stuff mine.) When viewed side by side they are quite different.
neologist wrote:echi wrote:If I remember correctly, you stated that only one Faith could be true. Seeing as how there are so many, do you think you just got lucky?
It sure wasn't on my own merits. I had given up looking and was well settled in my disbelief and the permission I had given myself to set my own standards.
If that's true then why did you start looking again?
echi wrote:neologist wrote:echi wrote:If I remember correctly, you stated that only one Faith could be true. Seeing as how there are so many, do you think you just got lucky?
It sure wasn't on my own merits. I had given up looking and was well settled in my disbelief and the permission I had given myself to set my own standards.
If that's true then why did you start looking again?
I was blind sided by one of those pesky JWs knockin' at my door and askin' me to think.
Neo - You don't think that man made from dust and woman made from his rib is mystical? I know you have already responded that you take it to be a metaphorte, but how come you believe the eastern relgions must be taken literally? How much of the eastern religions can be taken from a figurative standpoint?
It seems we have wondered from the topic.
Setanta wrote: . . .
This is the pat, and false answer. Luke's genealogy says: (in the King James Version) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
It does not say that Jesus was the step-son of Joseph, and if Joseph were the father, than he (Jesus) was not the son of God, begotten of the woman Mary. Furthermore, it does not say that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, it says that he was the son of Heli. Please note that the parenthetical portion which i have highlighted above does not appear in the Greek text, and has been added by a later translator. Whether or not, the genealogy clearly traces the descent of Jesus through Joseph--Mary is not mentioned.
. . .
I have searched a few Greek texts and have found the word enomizeto (supposed) in all of them. They are:
Textus Receptus 1550, 1894
Byzantine Majority
Alexandrian
Hort and Westcott
Help me out here. Which Greek manuscripts are you referring to?
And I stand by my assertion that is was customary for a man to refer to his son in law as his son.
I Stereo wrote:Neo - You don't think that man made from dust and woman made from his rib is mystical? I know you have already responded that you take it to be a metaphorte, but how come you believe the eastern relgions must be taken literally? How much of the eastern religions can be taken from a figurative standpoint?
It seems we have wondered from the topic.
Did you mean to say metaphor? For all we are, in essence is a combination of elements. We have no existence apart from the life God has breathed into us.
neologist wrote:Set. We are in disagreement on the dates of Quirinius' service in Syria as well as the date of Jesus' birth (2 B.C.E.). We also disagree on the issue of head tax. And, apparently on the number of registrations mentioned under Quirinius.
So, this is about par for us.
From this source on Publius Sulpicius Qurinius:
Quote:Unfortunately, the young man was wounded and died on his return to the west (3 CE). Augustus now selected his stepson Tiberius as successor.
Almost immediately, Quirinius was appointed as governor of Syria, one of the most important provinces of the empire, garrisoned with no less than four legions (III Gallica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis, XII Fulminata). The area to the south, Judaea, was unquiet. Its leader, Herod Archelaus, had made big mess of his realm, and in 6, Augustus sent him into exile in Gaul.
Judaea now became an autonomous part of the Roman province Syria, ruled by a prefect. Quirinius was ordered to organize the taxation of the new prefecture.
This places his governorship no earlier than 3 CE, and probably later. Nevertheless, it places the census he conducted precisely at 6 CE. Your boy Luke writes:
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (King James Version)
But more significantly:
In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (New International Version)
So no matter what goofy source your provide for the governorship of Syria by Quirinius (and you have provided no source, simply saying that you believe a thing is sufficient to establish a fact), you have the problem that Luke claims that the Emperor Augustus ordered a census of the "entire Roman world," and that is simply not supported by any documentation outside of Luke. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the documentary record of the censii which were ordered by Augustus.
I simply said that Roman citizens weren't subject to a head tax, i did not deny, and in fact pointed out, that local authorities might tax their people as they saw fit, so long as they didn't attempt to tax Roman citizens.
I also recommend to you
this discussion of the alleged census from Butler University.
Come up with a reliable source for your claim, Neo, or you have no argument.
No matter how you quibble about when P. Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria, and whether or not the intention of his census was to lay a head tax on
those who were not Roman citizens, it doesn't change the fact that no such census was ordered by the Emperor in any year which can reasonably be established as the year in which your putative Jesus was born; it does not change the fact that the Emperor only ever conducted a census to count Roman citizens; it doesn't change the fact that Luke's gospels contains a glaring historical lie. He may have been naive enough not to have known that he was making a false statement, but it throws the "divinely-inspired" crapola right out the window--
because it is patently wrong.
