The Bible

It comes down to pure logic:

Romans conducted censuses for the same reason governments do today: taxation. Roman taxes were based on property. The Romans aren’t going to tell people “Hey, leave the place where all your property is and go to some random arbitrary place to be counted.”

 

Exactly. That's why the Jews were always up in arms. Not only did they have to pay Roman taxes, but in the days of Herod the Great, he taxed them to the hilt, and took money from the Temple funds for his building projects, and a lot of those projects were not even in Palestine. He was a great builder, but a vicious ruler, killing some of his sons, kicking a pregnant to death. But he never killed all the babies in the so-called 'massacre of the Innocents'. It never happened. Just another of 'Matthews' ideas pinched from the OT.

 

The Romans *loved* to write about how much they hated Herod and all the atrocities he committed. You’d think they’d at least mention that he mass murdered infants, but not one single peep about it in any source outside the Bible.

 

Vague charges, accusations, and innuendo.. this is pathetic. How many times do i have to say this?

Post
THE PASSAGE
THE CLAIM
THE EVIDENCE

Rambling on about unsourced 'errors!' is a tactic for propagandists. You do not desire a straight up debate and examination of the facts? You only want to spout innuendo, unbased accusations, and phony caricatures?

If I'm going to have to take on all of the forces of darkness, in this thread, the least you can do is present your arguments and evidence in a logical, systematic manner..

 

Another dodge. You claim to know the Bible. Either you do or don't.

Unsourced errors? The source of the errors is in the Bible. Unbased accusations. The basis is in the Bible. In the Nativity stories themselves. Don't you know where to find them? At the beginning of Matthew and Luke's Gospels. Of course it helps to know Jewish rituals because that helps us to understand the Bible. Oh, of course, you wouldn't accept that.

You cannot understand the Bible without understanding the background etc.

I've asked this question to many people over many years. It's always been dodged.

Stay with your philosophy, you get on better with that.

 

..what a bunch of pathetic debaters..

You won't quote and reference the passage in question.
You won't point out the alleged 'error!'
You won't provide evidence for your accusations.

I sure hope your tactics, or methodology for arriving at truth don't become the new juris prudence. You just accuse someone without evidence, and condemn them..

Ah well.. what should i expect from indoctrinees in the anti-christian propaganda system?

I guess you guys are so terrified of the bible that looking up passages, and quoting them, frightens you too much, that the power of the words will overcome your anti-bible bias..

Ok. I'll do your work for you.. for a while.

Luke 2:1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while a Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to their own town to register.
4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

Ok. Now, the main charge that i perceive here is,

'they didn't do the census like that!'

So that is the charge. Now, the evidence. None, as usual. Just claims of knowing how a census taken 2000 yesrs ago was done.. with nothing to substantiate it.

You expect me to rebut this? You consider this 'rational debate?'

All i can do is point out the absurdity of your accusations, and the complete lack of evidence.

You allegedly have thousands of books.. filled with damning evidence.. against the historicity and accuracy of the bible. Well? Where is it? No? Just innuendo, speculation, and false accusations? I haven't even gone outside the bible's internal evidence to refute these accusations . You have NOTHING, but bigoted lies and false accusations.

I thought waging battle with the forces of darkness was supposed to be hard.. you guys need to up your game.

 

From 'Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah', by Eidersheim, 1883.

To Bethlehem as the birthplace of Messiah, not only Old Testament prediction, but the testimony of Rabbinic teaching, unhesitatingly pointed. Yet nothing could be imagined more directly contrary to Jewish thoughts and feelings—and hence nothing less likely to suggest itself to Jewish invention —than the circumstances which, according to the Gospel-narrative, brought about the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem. A counting of the people, or Census ; and that Census taken at the bidding of a heathen Emperor, and executed by one so universally hated as Herod, would represent the tie plus ultra of all that was most repugnant to Jewish feeling.
If the account of the circumstances, which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, has no basis in fact, but is a legend invented to locate the birth of the Nazarene in the royal City of David, it must be pronounced most clumsily devised. There is absolutely nothing to account for its origination—either from parallel events in the past, or from contemporary expectancy. Why then connect the birth of their Messiah with what was most repugnant to Israel, especially if, as the advocates of the legendary hypothesis contend, it did not occur at a time when any Jewish Census was taken, but ten years previously?
But if it be impossible rationally to account for any legendary origin of the narrative of Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem, the historical grounds, on which its accuracy has been impugned, are equally insufficient. They resolve themselves into this : that (beyond the Gospel-narrative) we have no solid evidence that Cyrenius was at that time occupying the needful official position in the East, to order such a registration for Herod to carry out. But even this feeble contention is by no means historically unassailable.

The formatting is funky, and i fixed it a little... not sure why, since i don't expect anyone to read or consider it, anyway. But Eidersheim's work here is considered the classical, definitive work on the history and culture of the times, and has been an important reference for over 100 yrs, for biblical scholars.

You can download it free, as it is in the public domain, and it is an excellent reference for scholarly questions of those times.

 

I think I can solve this with a simple question: Did the Romans ever do anything which was a matter of public Empire wide concern inefficiently? Now telling people who might have been born in ,say, Gaul and who reside in for example Egypt as a merchant make sense to have them cross the Empire for a census is that efficient?

I mean traveling was still not safe, it was expensive in this example, if one had a wife and say four children you would need to take them correct and adding to the costs and risks then they would need to return home. Or is it more sensible the man and family stay in Egypt where his work is now and they live and handle their tally there?

I think this simple set of queries would rule out the stated event now it might have been done but does anyone consider it sensible especially lets consider the case the man is just a laborer and might not be even able to make the trip due to not being able to afford it.

Now this is not a critical issue I never say the Bible is flawless myself just on matters of faith and the will of God and His interaction with humans its perfect while historical accounts might be embellished for example the Exodus perhaps it wasn't a large group maybe 100,000 people total and the rest of the account is true

 

So what is it going to be? Cheap talk, innuendo, phony narratives, lies, and false accusations? Or facts and historical evidence?

Lies and smears abound, regarding the bible. Those can be quoted and repeated ad nauseum. You can base your opinion about the bible on those lies, or you can fairly and honestly examine the actual evidence.

I'm not saying you will come to the conclusion that the bible is the Inspired Word of God, but at least acknowledge the historicity, accuracy, and significance of these books in the annals of western civilization.

Basing your beliefs and opinions about the bible on distortions, false accusations, innuendo, and lies is NOT an honest intellectual pursuit. You become a dupe of indoctrination and propaganda.. either unwittingly parroting the lies, or knowingly promoting them for an anti-christian agenda.

 

The third and last part I am in agreement with.

As for historicity, I would say partial historicity. Most will accept King David, King Solomon and the Temple, the fall of Jerusalem and the Jewish exile and return, and finally Paul and the Apostles.

What we are deeply skeptical about are Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Abraham and his family, the Exodus, the period of the Judges and Daniel.

The jury is still out whether Jesus (Yeshua) existed or not.

As for accuracy, what exactly are you talking about? That we have in writing exactly what the original manuscripts had? Sure. Accuracy as in science? Many will dispute that. Accurate prophecy? I'm sorry but have you read the insanely cryptic book of Revelation?

 

There is evidence that the Romans accomodated local customs, when conducting a census. Here is a list of references for that:

Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, p. 15; W. M. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? A Study on the Credibility of St. Luke (London: Hodder and Stoughton, pp. 186–87; D. J. Hayles, “The Roman Census and Jesus’ Birth: Was Luke Correct? Part 1: The Roman Census System,” Buried History 9 (December 1973): 126. Brown permits this as a possibility (Birth of the Messiah, p. 549). Perhaps this is further supported by Rome’s other specific accommodations to Jewish customs, namely tax exemption every Sabbath year (Josephus, Antiquities 14.202–10) and freedom of special religious observances (e.g., “Sabbaths and…their other rites,” Antiquities 14.241–43; cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, p. 905, n. 9). Some suggest that an Egyptian papyrus (A.D. 104) provides a parallel, for it speaks of citizens returning to their home towns for census purposes (Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, p. 15; Marshall, Luke, p. 101). Schürer, however, points out that the reference to kat' oikian (kat, oikiavn) denoted one’s place of residence and work (History of the Jewish People, 1:412–13), not place of ancestry. And Brown adds that it undoubtedly involved property taxation (Birth of the Messiah, p. 549; see also p. 396). This leads Marshall to suggest that Joseph had property in Bethlehem for which he was liable (Luke, p. 101; cf. Matt 2:11; though cf. Luke 2:7 and Brown, Birth of the Messiah, p. 549). Source

There is NO EVIDENCE for 'error!' in this passage. There may be ambiguity as to the exact times and events, or uncertainty as to Lukes intended meaning, in the original Greek, but there is nothing to compel a conclusion of 'error!' That is a belief, only.

1. Luke wrote this after researching the times and events. He was closer to them than some hostile critic 2 millennia removed.
2. There were plenty of contemporaries who could and would have known of any discrepancies, and corrected them.
3. Critics and anti bible devotees have labored for centuries.. no, millennia, to discredit the bible with lame charges, false accusations, and lies. They die and are forgotten, while the bible lives on, conveying its power and wisdom to subsequent generations.
4. Christian scholars, translators, archaeologists, and apologists have studied, scrutinized, and critically examined any and all biblical accounts, claims, and ambiguities. No errors of substance have been found. Accuracy and historicity is essential to historical Christianity, not the revisionist lies of enemies.

 

There is literally no source for the supposed slaughter of infants by Herod outside of the Bible. It’s never mentioned by any historical source but the Gospels. You don’t think that’s strange?

 

1. The books in the bible have provided evidence FOR historical events. There are always conflicts, in any historical accounts. That does not mean, 'error!'
2. None of the books of the bible are intended as science texts or references.
3. The ambiguity of prophetic utterances is undisputed. It is the nature of most prophecies, from any supernatural perspective.
4. Many people consider the holocaust, 9/11, the moon landing, and other events and persons to be fictional. Study the facts, the sources, and decide for yourself. Better to have a knowledge base grounded in facts, than caricatures, lies, and distortions.
5. People will believe what they want, regarding the bible, God, and the nature of man and the universe. Facts and reason can support those beliefs, or assumptions, distortions, and lies.
6. Distinguishing Truth from lies is the most difficult task, for any seeker of truth and reality. Some give up, and submit to the deluge of lies and propaganda. Others battle on, determined to know and understand the universe we find ourselves in.

 

I don't accuse the Bible manuscripts of containing errors. I accuse the authors of lying. Error implies things like incorrect spelling, wrong conclusions from research or not understanding what is said or written. I'm not accusing the Bible of that. I'm accusing it of bearing false witness. There's a difference.

 

No.
1. Coverups and whitewashes of atrocities is still common, among the writers of history.. the victors.
2. The events and persons in the biblical manuscripts have very sparse corroborating evidence. Was Luke a real person? Joseph? Did Paul really convert on the road to Damascus? You can doubt many events and persons, if you insist on extant corroborating evidence. But most of ancient history will also evaporate before your eyes, as the same conditions apply.

 

Then perhaps a Jewish source for this supposed “local custom” of sending people to their father’s birthplace to be counted?

You’re not going to find one because that “local custom” never existed.

Same with the supposed custom of freeing a criminal as done with Barabus. No mention of that custom anywhere in Jewish literature outside of the Bible.

 

Evidence for that? Same standards apply.
1. Quote the passage
2. Make the charge
3. Provide evidence

Belief or opinion that the bible is full of lies, or errors, or deceptions is fine.. believe whatever you want. But accusing without evidence, and promoting those accusations, is the work of a propagandist.

 

So you have Tacitus writing about Herod and the little things he did that the Romans felt were abhorrent, but Tacitus deliberately deciding to leave out that there was this one time where Herod randomly slaughtered thousands of infants?

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Histories/5A*.html

Why would you not want corroborating evidence before believing in something that shapes your entire worldview?

 

I gave some references. Consider them or not. Believe what you want. Your dogmatic opinions here are not 'fact!' The sources i gave contradict your assertions.

 

Christian apologists are academic references to you?

 

You can also base your worldview on arguments of incredulity, straw men, and caricatures. I offered another perspective. Do what you want with it.

Why would you believe the UNCORROBORATED writings of Tacitus, but dismiss the same with Luke? Is preconceived bias directing your 'facts?'

 

1. Numbers 22: 28-30
2. Charge: Balaam's Donkey did not talk
3. Whoever wrote Numbers (believers believe it's Moses) was not a witness to a talking donkey. There were no witnesses other than Balaam. If Moses did write about it, all he had to go by was voices in his head.

 

Facts, reason, and scholarly research are the tools i prefer, not credentials or claims of authority. You dismiss Eidersheim's massive research, and accept some unknown skeptic site? Seems your preconceived beliefs dictate your knowledge base, not the other way around.

 

Because Tacitus is not the only historian from that time period and NONE of them corroborate what the Bible claims happened.

 

The University of Chicago is “some unknown skeptic site”?