Islam is a peaceful religion is it..

[Ben Kenobi]

"Concerning the issue of the alleged historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts, Robert Ingersoll wondered why it was that the first century Jewish historian Josephus, "the best historian the Hebrews produced, said nothing about the life or death of Christ;

A lie.

Antiquities 18.3.3

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

The rest is just an argument from silence unworthy of historians.

'For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, that unless I believed, I should not understand.'

St Anselm of Canterbury


Many things in Christianity cannot be understood unless one is already a Christian.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Luke 2:1-4

"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world."

"(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)"

"And everyone went to his own town to register"

First, that the Romans did not conduct no 'such' census.

Your source does not answer this question Molly.


First of all, the Romans had the capacity to conduct a census over their entire empire.

Secondly, how far is it from Nazareth to Bethlehem? About 70 miles and would have taken them about 4 or 5 days to travel.

Historical confirmation exists for a census conducted by Caesar Augustus at the time of Christ's birth. I believe that is sufficient evidence to establish the reliability of this statement by Luke, that Joseph did travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem.

As for your second source, from my source:

"The three empire-wide censuses were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. In all probability the one in 8 B.C. is the one the Luke mentions in the Christmas story. Even though scholarship normally dates Christ's birth between 4 and 7 B.C., the 8 B.C. census fits because in all likelihood it would have taken several years for the bureaucracy of the census to reach Palestine."

So this would explain the census, which ibri insists,

"It is doubted that there was any decree made by Augustus to "enroll the inhabited earth." No evidence for such an order is known."

"This Judaean census, mistakenly identified by Luke as universal, was merely a provincial enumeration of taxable communities necessitated by an administrative re-organization initiating direct rule by the Romans. For the non-specialist observer of Rome, it demonstrates that Roman administration was an efficient record-keeping bureaucracy. "


"Previous estimators of Rome's (just the city) population have fallen into two opposite camps: the ones we can call the 'Great Rome' theorists argue for a million or more inhabitants, while 'Little Rome' theorists (so characterized by Carcopino 1940: 10) estimate at or below half a million; the history of demographic estimates reveals a pendulum swing between the extremes (G. Storey 1992: 1762; Maier 1954). Many estimates in the favoured range of 750,0001,000,000 inhabitants start with the founder of the principate, Augustus, whose posthumous testament to the Roman people, the Res Gestae divi Augusti ('Achievements of the Divine Augustus') says (section 15):

Never did my largesse reach less than 250,000 people. In . . . [5 BC], I gave 240 sesterces to each one of 320,000 of the Roman people . . . In . . . [11], I gave to Romans then on the grain dole 240 sesterces each. Their number stood at a little more than 200,000. "


If these numbers are accurate, and if the 200,000 or 320,000 refer to a subset of the total population (probably male household heads), and if the remaining elements of the population women and children, slaves, resident aliens, police forces, transients etc. are added, then the population is at least 750,000, possibly one million people or more (the earliest version of this argument is in Lipsius 1605: 11320).

The citing of the figures 200,000300,000 may have been chiefly political in intent, to glorify the accomplishments of Augustus (Finley 1985: 11, 32). The two relevant enumerations of the Roman census, 900,000 in 69 BC and 4 million in 28 BC are so disparate that some scholars believe that the Augustan census of 28 BC must have included women and children, not just the usual male citizen family heads (Beloch 1968 [1886]: 37078; Brunt 1971: 120; Nicolet 1991: 131); the counter-opinion in Frank 1924; Wiseman 1969; Lo Cascio 1994. "

"....nor did ancient Rome, at the time of Christ, have a bureaucracy, collecting statistics for administrative purposes (Garnsey & Saller 1987: 2040). "

http://intarch.ac.uk/antiquity/storey.html

I am well aware of who Octavian, later Caesar Augustus, is, by the way.

[Ben Kenobi]

it demonstrates that Roman administration was an efficient record-keeping bureaucracy.

nor did ancient Rome, at the time of Christ, have a bureaucracy, collecting statistics for administrative purposes.

So which is it molly?

The problems with cities can be seen today, in the definition of metropolitan areas, so it is not unique to ancient Rome.

Some people don't make that connection between Octavian, and Caesar Augustus, which is why I put it there.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So which is it molly?

The problems with cities can be seen today, in the definition of metropolitan areas, so it is not unique to ancient Rome.

Some people don't make that connection between Octavian, and Caesar Augustus, which is why I put it there.

It can be both, given that Roman= Rome the city and Rome the empire, and that the two statements are not mutually contradictory.

By the way, citing that part of the 'Antiquities' (Testimonium Flavianum) of Josephus for absolute proof of an historical Christ is rather like the Catholic Church depending upon 'The Donation of Constantine'.

If you're somehow under the impression that it offers objective absolute proof from a non-Christian of the supposed historic figure of Christ you are sadly mistaken.

And again if you have proof that Herod ordered the massacre of the Innocents, I suggest you cite it.

If you are hoping that because he was unpleasant then somehow that makes it likely that the Bible version of history is correct, then we may just be awaiting confirmation that Stalin was a cannibal rapist, and Richard Nixon an axe murdering paedophile, because of their unpleasant characters.

By the way, weren't the magi (astrologers) a class of people described elsewhere in the Bible as abominations in God's sight?

Now I don't what your familiarity with ancient history is like, but solar eclipses, earthquakes, the dead coming to life and perambulating about the streets of a city in a newly occupied Roman province, would seem to me the kind of thing that might just occur to Roman, Jewish and Egyptian and Greek historians to write about, given the weight they are normally given when they occur elsewhere in the Roman Empire or the ancient world.

Not everyday occurrences even in Los Angeles, today.

[Elok]

Tch, Sava. I thought you were raised Orthodox, where we don't have the Catholic understanding of original sin. We didn't inherit Adam's guilt for sin, only his predilection towards it. Like the child of a crackhead can be born addicted. We're born innocent, but surrounded by disease.

"Humanity as a whole" is made up of humanity as individuals. Nobody has the right to say who is absolutely good or absolutely bad, but there is some seed of evil within all of us. We can choose to fight it or not, and to fight it with varying degrees of strength. But our strength is not sufficient by itself, which is why faith is needed. Not to defy reason. A lot of what people call logic or reason is just a codeword for "what I want to think."

Look at the argument about free-will and omniscience. If God created people, and he knows all from the beginning, there is no free will. Why? Because he created people a certain way, and so they will act a certain way based on their initial nature. Why? Well, just because. For some reason I don't understand, some people refuse to think of humans as non-determinist, and say, in effect, "assuming we are all running like clockwork based on preset conditions, and God set those conditions and knows how they'll turn out, there is no free will." If we assume there is no free will, then there is no free will. That's a damnable tautology, but it's embraced as truth. Just to use the first example to come to mind...

Also, "there's no scientific proof of God." Which is to say, assuming a naturalistic cause for all things, there can be nothing supernatural. All the "proof" against God is based on the effective assumption that he doesn't exist in the first place. It's the worship of a self-made God labelled Science.

Which is not to say I bash the scientific method-it would be impossible to determine anything if we always had to factor in the possibility of divine intervention. But if you turn that necessary assumption into a God itself, there's only one conclusion you can reach.

You want scientific proof of the divine? As in repeatable, reliable response to a specific stimulus? What's so godlike about anything that happens constantly as the tides? If it happened reliably, it would only be another pretty part of nature like flame or thunder, and "proof" that there is no God.

End of threadjack, for now.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you're somehow under the impression that it offers objective absolute proof from a non-Christian of the supposed historic figure of Christ you are sadly mistaken.

No, but it directly refutes the argument that you quoted that Josephus made no mention of the life or death of Christ.

And if you say that this citation, was not written by Josephus, then the burden is on you to explain why.

And again if you have proof that Herod ordered the massacre of the Innocents, I suggest you cite it.

It's in keeping with his character. If I had the evidence, I would have cited it earlier.

If one found a source saying that such massacre did not occur, that would be proof against the historicity of Matthew, but in lacking such evidence, we can come to no such assessment. If there is no other contradictory evidence, then we have to accept the account of Matthew, as we would for any other historical source.

then we may just be awaiting confirmation that Stalin was a cannibal rapist, and Richard Nixon an axe murdering paedophile, because of their unpleasant characters.

Herod showed no compunction in murdering members of his own family. The same can hardly be said for Nixon.

By the way, weren't the magi (astrologers) a class of people described elsewhere in the Bible as abominations in God's sight?

Cut.

Now I don't what your familiarity with ancient history is like, but solar eclipses, earthquakes, the dead coming to life and perambulating about the streets of a city in a newly occupied Roman province, would seem to me the kind of thing that might just occur to Roman, Jewish and Egyptian and Greek historians to write about, given the weight they are normally given when they occur elsewhere in the Roman Empire or the ancient world.

That assumes that such occurances were not local occurances. And in recording such instances, they are generally only recorded when they fit in with the rest of the historical narrative. A Jewish historian not concerned with the life of Christ is not going to record an event like this unless it can be attributed to the death of a great man.

Why would it come to his head to associate such an event with the death of Jesus of Nazareth?

Absence of evidence cannot be construed as evidence of absence.

"Magi are not astrologers, but Kings of the East."

Edit.

Hasty speech costs points.

I concede the point, Molly that this statement is not justified in light of the evidence.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, but it directly refutes the argument that you quoted that Josephus made no mention of the life or death of Christ.

And if you say that this citation, was not written by Josephus, then the burden is on you to explain why.

It's in keeping with his character. If I had the evidence, I would have cited it earlier.

If one found a source saying that such massacre did not occur, that would be proof against the historicity of Matthew, but in lacking such evidence, we can come to no such assessment. If there is no other contradictory evidence, then we have to accept the account of Matthew, as we would for any other historical source.

Herod showed no compunction in murdering members of his own family. The same can hardly be said for Nixon.


Magi are not astrologers, but Kings of the East. Just because they followed a star, does not make them astrologers, any more than cosmological observations does for Ptolemy.

That assumes that such occurances were not local occurances. And in recording such instances, they are generally only recorded when they fit in with the rest of the historical narrative. A Jewish historian not concerned with the life of Christ is not going to record an event like this unless it can be attributed to the death of a great man.

Why would it come to his head to associate such an event with the death of Jesus of Nazareth?

Absence of evidence cannot be construed as evidence of absence.

The amount of special pleading you're willing to go to in defence of your belief in the supernatural ceases to surprise me.

However, when you stray into the realm of fact and history and away from assumption, speculation, may be, could be, then it becomes somewhat of an irritation.

Do you want to stick with your assumption about magi, or are you willing to change it?

"Magi were Zoroastrian astrologer-priests from ancient Persia. The word magi is plural; the singular is magus. It is derived from the Old Persian word, Magupati, in Modern Persian Mobed. Magus is also a word for a Shaman (magician, wizard, or sorcerer), especially one of experience and accomplishment. "

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Magi

'The word magoi often has the meaning of "magician", in both Old and New Testaments (see Acts 8:9; 13:6, 8; also the Septuagint of Daniel 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:4; 5:7, 11, 15). St. Justin (Tryph., lxxviii), Origen (Cels., I, lx), St. Augustine (Serm. xx, De epiphania) and St. Jerome (In Isa., xix, 1) find the same meaning in the second chapter of Matthew, though this is not the common interpretation.


No Father of the Church holds the Magi to have been kings. '

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09527a.htm

What does the Bible say about astrologers?

Astrologer - (Dan. 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27, etc.) Heb. 'ashshaph', an enchanter, one who professes to divine future events by the appearance of the stars. This science flourished among the Chaldeans. It was positively forbidden to the Jews (Deut. 4:19; 18:10; Isa. 47:13).

http://christianity.about.com/library/weekly/blT0000300.htm#T0000354

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB8.htm

"A man or woman who calls upon spirits or fortune-tellers or magicians shall be put to death by stoning; their blood is upon them... anyone who turns to mediums and fortune-tellers or magicians, prostitutes himself by following them, I will set my face against him, and will cut him off from the people"...

(Leviticus:20: 6,27)...

... "There must never be anyone among you who makes his son or daughter pass through the fire of sacrifice, who is a soothsayer, augur or sorcerer, weaver of spells, consulter of ghosts or mediums, or necromancer (who seeks oracles from the dead). Anyone who does such things is an abomination to God, and because of such abominations the Lord, your God, is driving out these nations before you"

(Deuteronomy 18:10-12).

I'd say that was fairly clear, wouldn't you?

Now with regards to the alleged massacre of the innocents, I'm afraid you really are going to have to do better than say, 'well the bible says it happened therefore it did.'

Show that some Jewish Scribe noticed it, that the Romans took notice that a client king of theirs was busily murdering children, and don't imply that Herod most likely did it because he had a bad moral character.

That's not evidence, that's wishful thinking.

Let's compare it with say, those people who imagine they have seen the Loch Ness monster, and ask us to believe it occurred because they say so.

How do we 'prove' that something which by any stretch of the imagination is unlikely to exist, in fact does not?

How does anyone prove, 2000 years plus down the road
that Herod's massacre didn't take place?

But more to the point, why can't you, or the Christian Churches show that it did? Sfter all, there would have been a large number of aggrieved Jewish citizens.

A man, however degenerate, may baulk at the mass slaughter of children, yet feel free to kill one or more of his relatives- as was the case with the Macedonian dynasty in Egypt, and the Ottoman Turks.

Proof of poor moral character isn't proof of mass slaughter.

"Why would it come to his head to associate such an event with the death of Jesus of Nazareth?"

With respect you don't seem to understand how ancient (or mediaeval) chroniclers worked- they take the natural event, and if it was felt to presage disaster, or calamity, they pin it on someone they didn't like, or they make the natural occurrence 'predict' the later calamity- Halley's Comet, Harold Godwinson's death, for instance.

'That is plainly the case from what he writes of the earthquake at Antioch, and the death of Simeon Stylites, who he affirms was taken to heaven in the year 771 of the Greeks, on the second of September, and on the fourth day of the week, which answers to the vulgar era A.D. 460, not 462. He relates that the earthquake at Antioch happened in the year 837 of the Greeks, on the 29th of May, and on the sixth day of the week, which will be A.D. 526, when May 29th fell on the Friday, not A.D. 528, when it could not happen on a Friday. To the year of the Greeks 850 he also adds the "second indiction," which nevertheless answers to 539 A.D., and not to 541. Therefore the vulgar Christian epoch, according to his view, must be later than the era of the Greeks 311 years, and not 309. '

'An. 810, many locusts appeared, but did no great damage that year: but the herbage grew again. And there was a great earthquake. And the warm bath of the Iberians failed three days. '

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/chronicle_of_edessa.htm

Well some chroniclers note warm baths failing, but others don't seem to notice eclipses and earthquakes.

Strange that.

We're also meant to believe that sympathetic to Jesus or not, the Jews and Romans, and Greeks in Jerusalem didn't notice the dead going for a stroll.

Right. Because that must have been a regular event.


The alleged authenticity of the 'Testimonium Flavianum':

'....the motivation of the interpolator. My answer is that there is more than one possibility.

One possibility: the scribe believed that Josephus had to have mentioned Jesus, that therefore a pagan had eliminated the reference, and that inserting the Testimonium would be an act of restoration.

Another possibility: the interpolator loved Josephus, knew that Josephus was himself a Jew who did not write about Jesus, but inserted the Testimonium because it is the kind of thing that Josephus should have said and that would improve the reputation of Josephus among Christians. This is somewhat similar to the forger mentioned by Tertullian who did it for "love of Paul."

A different possibility: the forger lamented the fact that Josephus the Jew did not believe in Jesus Christ, was embarrassed that a first century historian of Palestine would have omitted a discussion of Jesus, and inserted the Testimonium in order to make the Antiquities a work fit for Christian edification.

Yet another possibility: the interpolator thought that by inserting the Testimonium that he and subsequent Christians would have been able to win people over to the cause of Christ by pointing out that Josephus testified that Jesus was more than a man and appeared to his followers on the third day.

One more possibility: Eusebius, who respected the value of Josephus as a historian, thought it useful to have a passage in Josephus in which Josephus attests that Jesus performed true miracles and that the tribe of Christians survived his death, which facts proved that Jesus was not a fraud over against the Greeks.

I am sure that there are more possibilities, but it should be clear that we do not suffer for a lack of plausible motivations for Christian interpolation of this testimony to Jesus Christ."

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-33800

Given that we don't have the original manuscript, how does one go about 'proving' or 'disproving' ?

Especially given that Christian scribes would have been the copyists and disseminators, and would have had ample cause and opportunity to, ah, 'clarify' or aid Josephus.

[Ben Kenobi]

The amount of special pleading you're willing to go to in defence of your belief in the supernatural ceases to surprise me.

What special pleading?

However, when you stray into the realm of fact and history and away from assumption, speculation, may be, could be, then it becomes somewhat of an irritation.

It's a reasonable defense, that unless we have evidence to the contrary, we ought to accept the account given in Matthew.

Now, for the Magi.

You are right, in that one of the definitions of the Magi are priest/astrologers, but that is simplistic.

https://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0191.html

"Oftentimes, the English translations of the Bible use the word “astrologers” for “magi.” In Greek, the original language of the Gospel, the word magos (magoi, plural) has four meanings: (1) a member of the priestly class of ancient Persia, where astrology and astronomy were prominent in Biblical times;

(2) one who had occult knowledge and power, and was adept at dream interpretation, astrology, fortune-telling, divination and spiritual mediation;

(3) a magician; or

(4) a charlatan, who preyed upon people using the before-mentioned practices. From these possible definitions and the description provided in the gospel, the Magi were probably Persian priest-astrologers who could interpret the stars, particularly the significance of the star that proclaimed the birth of the Messiah.

(Even the ancient historian Herodotus (d. 5th century B.C.) would attest to the astrological prowess of the priestly class of Persia.)

Do you want to stick with your assumption about magi, or are you willing to change it?

I am willing to clarify my assumption.

The thought of these Magi as Kings, comes from their status in Persia, and as a result from this latter statement:

The kings of Tarshish and the Isles shall offer gifts, the kings of Arabia and Seba shall bring tribute. All kings shall pay Him homage, all nations shall serve Him” (Ps 72:10-11).

Isaiah also prophesied the gifts: “Caravans of camels shall fill you, dromedaries from Midian and Ephah; all from Sheba shall come bearing gold and frankincense, and proclaiming the praises of the Lord” (Is 60:6).

Both of which were said to be fulfilled in the Magi. Hence the need for clarification.
No Father of the Church holds the Magi to have been kings. '

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09527a.htm

Which is true, but you ignore many other parts of this article.

The religion of the Magi was fundamentally that of Zoroaster and forbade sorcery; their astrology and skill in interpreting dreams were occasions of their finding Christ.

So this needs to be clarified.

... "There must never be anyone among you who makes his son or daughter pass through the fire of sacrifice, who is a soothsayer, augur or sorcerer, weaver of spells, consulter of ghosts or mediums, or necromancer (who seeks oracles from the dead). Anyone who does such things is an abomination to God, and because of such abominations the Lord, your God, is driving out these nations before you"

(Deuteronomy 18:10-12).

I'd say that was fairly clear, wouldn't you?

Yes, very clear. But it is also in fulfillment of prophecy, which states that the Gentiles will come to worship Christ. As astrologers, they would be of the same sort as Gentiles, in being unclean in the presence of God.

What better way to illustrate the new Law, by showing salvation to be open to all?

Thank you Molly, for drawing light onto something I had not previously considered.

Now with regards to the alleged massacre of the innocents, I'm afraid you really are going to have to do better than say, 'well the bible says it happened therefore it did.'

Given that this is the only evidence, and given the presupposition that we ought to treat the bible like any other historical source, then logic dictates that we must come to this conclusion.

If you attack my argument, attack the second presupposition, as to why the bible should not be considered a historical source, on par with other accounts of the time.

That's not evidence, that's wishful thinking.

Shows that the evidence available from other sources does not contradict the evidence found in Matthew, and that Matthew corroborates with these other sources, in the character of Herod.

Let's compare it with say, those people who imagine they have seen the Loch Ness monster, and ask us to believe it occurred because they say so.

How do we 'prove' that something which by any stretch of the imagination is unlikely to exist, in fact does not?

Now, why would we say that a loch ness monster is by any stretch of the imagination, unlikely to exist?

Just because something is unlikely to have happened, does not rule out the possibility that it did.

We don't start by saying that obviously it didn't happen because we know there are no Loch ness monsters.

But more to the point, why can't you, or the Christian Churches show that it did? Sfter all, there would have been a large number of aggrieved Jewish citizens.

Sure, but we don't have records of everything that happened in that period of time. We do have a record of this event, which you reject on other grounds.

So who's fault is that? The fault of the account, or the fault of you, that you will not accept the evidence presented, which corroborates with what we know of Herod?

A man, however degenerate, may baulk at the mass slaughter of children, yet feel free to kill one or more of his relatives- as was the case with the Macedonian dynasty in Egypt, and the Ottoman Turks.

Proof of poor moral character isn't proof of mass slaughter.

No, it is not. However, an account of the slaughter does corroborate with what we know of Herod.

With respect you don't seem to understand how ancient (or mediaeval) chroniclers worked- they take the natural event, and if it was felt to presage disaster, or calamity, they pin it on someone they didn't like, or they make the natural occurrence 'predict' the later calamity- Halley's Comet, Harold Godwinson's death, for instance.

Yes, so why would they associate these events with Jesus of Nazareth?

Well some chroniclers note warm baths failing, but others don't seem to notice eclipses and earthquakes.

Argument from silence Molly. Won't get you anywhere. You still have not answered my question as to why a pagan chronicler would associate the natural events occuring around the time of the death of Christ, with the death of Christ.

It would not be obvious to them that this is so.

We're also meant to believe that sympathetic to Jesus or not, the Jews and Romans, and Greeks in Jerusalem didn't notice the dead going for a stroll.

They may have, and we don't have the record. Arguments from silence prove nothing.

I am sure that there are more possibilities, but it should be clear that we do not suffer for a lack of plausible motivations for Christian interpolation of this testimony to Jesus Christ."

Yet we blindly accept Josephus on other matters. This explanation does not wash. If Josephus is to be trusted on many other matters, why not here? Any questions as to the authenticity of the record apply not just to this one passage, but to the whole of the writings of Josephus preserved.

You don't see this in your haste to explain away the testimony casts doubts as to the authenticity of Josephus in other matters, and causes many other problems for historians.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Josephus and all of his writings are unreliable, or they are reliable, including this supposed 'interpolation'.

I've seen the arguments on both sides, and I don't see Josephus' testimony affirming any of the Christian doctrines of Christ explicitly.

Even the 'if indeed he was a man'. Seems more of a jibe and a scoff than an affirmation of the deity of Christ.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

the problem with the book is that from the very beginning it has contradictions. those contradicitions obviously mean that the book wasnt written by God but by humans, since God is percieved to be all knowing and perfect, while humans not. i dont know how this fits in, but im looking for an argument so someone say im wrong

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

No, it is not. However, an account of the slaughter does corroborate with what we know of Herod.


Yes, so why would they associate these events with Jesus of Nazareth?


Argument from silence Molly. Won't get you anywhere. You still have not answered my question as to why a pagan chronicler would associate the natural events occuring around the time of the death of Christ, with the death of Christ.

Either I'm writing in a Babylonish dialect or you're having difficulties with English.

That Herod was complicit in the murder of his relatives is true.

That this complicity is therefore proof that he was 'likely' to order the massacre of the innocents or that he did in fact do so, is called 'conjecture' or 'speculation'.

Marc Dutroux is a recently convicted Belgian paedophile, responsible for the deaths of several children.

Should we infer from this he is also responsible for unsolved murders in Luxembourg, or shoplifting?

In the absence of any other supporting evidence?


What you seem to be missing is that other than the account in the Bible there exists no other supporting evidence for this Judaean wide slaughter.

It is simply beyond the bounds of credibility that in a province where a local census had caused considerable unrest, where a Roman emperor pesonally intervened to depose an ethnarch, Roman writers, chroniclers, scribes, historians failed to notice the slaughter of a generation of THEIR subjects.

Future taxpayers.

The Bible isn't an historical account- its a work of religious propaganda, written by people who had earlier texts to hand, texts which they could look back to, and then use to make prophecies 'come true' or be fulfilled.


And again, it's not an argument from silence- I'm simply asking you why any chronicler (not just pagan, but Jew either) fails to notice an eclipse and an earthquake and the dead getting up and walking about.

They don't have to have attributed it to the death of anyone, they just have to have noticed it, in the same way they did in Iran, or in provinces of the Roman Empire, or in the same way that in a.d. 62, an earthquake was noticed in Pompeii.

Earthquakes damage buildings and unnerve people. They leave evidence behind. People tend to notice them.


Even latterday Christian chroniclers who remark how the warm baths of the Iberians fail.

And nobody 'blindly' accepts Josephus or any other ancient chroniclers. They look for the kind of supporting evidence that so far you have signally failed to find to back up your claims that the Bible is an historical account.

No Empire wide census- the Zoroastrian astrologers (those abominations) recast as kings in order to 'harmonize' with an earlier prophetic statement.

Non non-Christian account of a Judaean wide pogrom.

Despite the presence of three/four famously literate cultures in the area.

A small doubtful passage from a non-original manuscript of Josephus.

No accounts of an earthquake, an eclipse or dead men walking, that come from Jewish, Greek or Roman observers.


I'll say it again- the dead coming to life and perambulating about the highways of a recently pacified Roman client state was not an everyday occurrence.

Even before video cameras and C.N.N. .

[Ben Kenobi]

the problem with the book is that from the very beginning it has contradictions. those contradicitions obviously mean that the book wasnt written by God but by humans, since God is percieved to be all knowing and perfect, while humans not. i dont know how this fits in, but im looking for an argument so someone say im wrong

My argument here is just based on the Gospels, and not on the rest.

So if you can find a contradiction in the Gospels, then I will address the contradiction.

I also suggest that you look through the OT archive, because we've gone down this line before.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

nah, not really interested in the gospels since it is only relevant to one religion.

[Ben Kenobi]

In the absence of any other supporting evidence?

Which is why my argument is based on Matthew being treated as a historical source.

Therfore, there exists supporting evidence for the massacre of Herod, although no direct corroborating evidence.

There is indirect evidence, in that what Matthew writes does not violate anything that we already know about Herod.

The Bible isn't an historical account- its a work of religious propaganda, written by people who had earlier texts to hand, texts which they could look back to, and then use to make prophecies 'come true' or be fulfilled.

As opposed to historians who cite evidence in favour of their thesis, and construct a historical account?

There are many areas of historical thought, but just because an account was used for one purpose, does not render that source ahistorical. Propaganda can be useful, for certain matters.

Secondly, is it the nature of propaganda to provide historical references which may be verified through other sources? No. The gospels provide this (particularly the synoptics), in many places.

Christianity is rather different than many other religions, it rests or falls, not on the teachings of Christ, but rather, the testimony of Christ. Their evidence is not based on the argument, that Jesus says this, but rather, that Jesus died, and rose from the dead.

Therefore, it is imperative for Christians to provide the historical evidence for their claim, unlike other religions that have no such requirement. The label 'religious propaganda' does not apply to the Gospels, as this is not their intent.

I'm simply asking you why any chronicler (not just pagan, but Jew either) fails to notice an eclipse and an earthquake and the dead getting up and walking about.

Do we know that they did? The records could be lost. That is the problem with an argument from silence, as it cannot rule out this possibility.

No Empire wide census-

C'mon Molly!

You read my earlier case. I provided evidence for the census under Caesar Augustus in 8 BC. Can you concede me that point?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



You read my earlier case. I provided evidence for the census under Caesar Augustus in 8 BC. Can you concede me that point?

You did nothing of the sort. A census of ROMAN citizens, not a local, provincial census of Judaean citizens of a client state of Rome.

'Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, (1) of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, (2) a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; '

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

Assert their liberty? Err, wouldn't they have lost that, by the same reasoning, in the first census?

You don't seem to be aware of the difference.

Christians quoting Christians is not an objective standard of proof, by the way, as I think we can see they might have a common purpose.
You might as well rely on a 1949 edition of Pravda for an objective view of the truth about Stalin.

You are confusing myth making with history- as if to say we should regard the account of George Washington and the cherry tree as truthful because Americans wish it to be so.

You have no supporting evidence from a non-Christian viewpoint of a massacre in Judaea carried out by a client king of Rome's- we have evidence aplenty that there was civil unrest in Judaea with regard to taxation, conflicting cultural practices, politics, but strangely no wholesale slaughter of children under the age of two.

Ypu have no supporting evidence for an eclipse, an earthquake, the walking dead, et cetera.

It couldn't be to do with the manufacturing of a myth and fulfillment of prophecies from earlier narratives could it?

There is a difference (and I'll say this again, just in case it's having difficulty sinking in) between a reliable historical account (eyewitness, reportage, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) and a religious or mythical narrative.

You do not seem to understand this.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
A lie.

Antiquities 18.3.3

We have gone through this, Ben. Evidence strongly suggests that said passage in Josephus's work is a later insertion. It was not found in copies earlier than 4th Century BCE.

So The Great Agnostic is right and you are not.