EricH Posted March 13, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted March 13, 2007 About Quirinius (quoted directly from 'The Case For Christ') "...This, however, did not entirely dispose of the issue. Luke said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted when Quirinius was governing Syria during the reign of Herod The Great. "That poses a significant problem," I pointed out, "because Herod died in 4 BC, and Quirinius didn't begin ruling Syria until 6 AD, conducting the census soon after that. There's a big gap there; how can you deal with such major discrepancy in the dates?" McRay knew I was raising an issue that archaeologists have wrestled with for years. He responded by saying, "An eminent archeologest named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing... this places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after the death of Herod." I was confused. "What does that mean?" I asked. "It means that there were apparently two Quiriniuses," he replied. "It's not uncommen to have lots of people with the same Roman names, so there's no reason to doubt that there were two people by the name of Quirinius. The census would have taken place under the reign of the earlier Quirinius. Given the cycle of a census every fourteen years, that would work out quite well." ...When I did some additional research, I found that Sir William Ramsay, the late archaeologist and professor at both oOxford and Cambridge Universities in England, had both come up with a similar theroy... other scholars had pointed out that Luke's text can be translated, "This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria," which would also resolve the problem. " Excuse the typos... I'm going to be late for class. (quoted from the chapter, "The Scientific Evidence") Akiko There are actually several possible solutions to the Quirinius issue: 1. Some have argued that Quirinius was governor in Syria twice (from 11 BC to 8 BC then again later). Some have argued that the inscription "Lapis Tiburtinus" refers to Quirinius. 2. Others argure that Quirinius was governor between Varus and Gaius Ceasar (4 BC - 1 BC). 3. Others argue that the census mentioned in Luke actually began under Varus, but that the results of the census (taxation) came later under Quirinius 4. Others argue that Quirinius was not a govenor in the true sense, but simply an administrator over the census. His term ran from the governorship of Saturninus to that of Varus. (Thus it was initiated in 6 BC ) 5. Some argue that protos does not mean "first" but actually means "earlier". Thus the census in question was "earlier" than the one initiated by Quirinius 6. Others argue that protos means "before". Thus the census took place before the governorship of Quirinius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akiko Posted March 13, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 211 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/14/2006 Share Posted March 13, 2007 About Quirinius (quoted directly from 'The Case For Christ') "...This, however, did not entirely dispose of the issue. Luke said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted when Quirinius was governing Syria during the reign of Herod The Great. "That poses a significant problem," I pointed out, "because Herod died in 4 BC, and Quirinius didn't begin ruling Syria until 6 AD, conducting the census soon after that. There's a big gap there; how can you deal with such major discrepancy in the dates?" McRay knew I was raising an issue that archaeologists have wrestled with for years. He responded by saying, "An eminent archeologest named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing... this places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after the death of Herod." I was confused. "What does that mean?" I asked. "It means that there were apparently two Quiriniuses," he replied. "It's not uncommen to have lots of people with the same Roman names, so there's no reason to doubt that there were two people by the name of Quirinius. The census would have taken place under the reign of the earlier Quirinius. Given the cycle of a census every fourteen years, that would work out quite well." ...When I did some additional research, I found that Sir William Ramsay, the late archaeologist and professor at both oOxford and Cambridge Universities in England, had both come up with a similar theroy... other scholars had pointed out that Luke's text can be translated, "This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria," which would also resolve the problem. " Excuse the typos... I'm going to be late for class. (quoted from the chapter, "The Scientific Evidence") Akiko There are actually several possible solutions to the Quirinius issue: 1. Some have argued that Quirinius was governor in Syria twice (from 11 BC to 8 BC then again later). Some have argued that the inscription "Lapis Tiburtinus" refers to Quirinius. 2. Others argure that Quirinius was governor between Varus and Gaius Ceasar (4 BC - 1 BC). 3. Others argue that the census mentioned in Luke actually began under Varus, but that the results of the census (taxation) came later under Quirinius 4. Others argue that Quirinius was not a govenor in the true sense, but simply an administrator over the census. His term ran from the governorship of Saturninus to that of Varus. (Thus it was initiated in 6 BC ) 5. Some argue that protos does not mean "first" but actually means "earlier". Thus the census in question was "earlier" than the one initiated by Quirinius 6. Others argue that protos means "before". Thus the census took place before the governorship of Quirinius Looks like you've got several explanations to choose from about Quirinius. It's all in the interpretation... the Bible and science don't disagree except when science is too young to understand. (Okay, please don't swarm me for saying that if you are a nonbeliever) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatsoff Posted March 13, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 107 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/09/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 (edited) Well, I'll try to give a summary of my views on the synoptic gospel (John). John is not a synoptic Gospel. To add-- specifically, the Gospel of Mark was written aprox. AD 60, or even the late 50's. Most scholars place it after 66 AD--the start of the Jewish War. Care to explain why you think it was written ca. 60? Jesus was put to death around AD 3 or 33. This is a very minute gap, considering that most biographies are written centirues after the person has died. Except that Jesus has no "biography". This helps the credibility and historical accuracy of the Gospels, as there was next to no time for Jesus' story to develop fanciful twists or hints of legend. The disciples would have had no motive to embellish the story-- if anything, they would have toned it down or never pubished it due to the persecuton of Chistians. That's just silly. Edited March 20, 2007 by hatsoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaritateDei Posted March 20, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 400 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 20, 2007 Well, I'll try to give a summary of my views on the synoptic gospel (John). John is not a synoptic Gospel. To add-- specifically, the Gospel of Mark was written aprox. AD 60, or even the late 50's. Most scholars place it after 66 AD--the start of the Jewish War. Care to explain why you think it was written ca. 60? Jesus was put to death around AD 3 or 33. This is a very minute gap, considering that most biographies are written centirues after the person has died. Except that Jesus has no "biography". This helps the credibility and historical accuracy of the Gospels, as there was next to no time for Jesus' story to develop fanciful twists or hints of legend. The disciples would have had no motive to embellish the story-- if anything, they would have toned it down or never pubished it due to the persecuton of Chistians. That's just silly. Akiko has a point here, hatsoff. Silly would it be for several men to preach to thousands of others if there had not been something that would compel them to do so...ie a resurrection. If some dead guy preached all sorts of things and society labeled him a moron...wouldn't that sort of stop anyone who followed him? Look at the Branch Davidians... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akiko Posted March 22, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 211 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/14/2006 Share Posted March 22, 2007 (edited) I've been in Washington DC and very busy-- sorry for the slow reply. John is not a synoptic Gospel. Sorry, typo. My mistake. Most scholars place it after 66 AD--the start of the Jewish War. Care to explain why you think it was written ca. 60? I'll give it a shot. The book of Acts was written by Luke BEFORE Paul's execution (we know this because the book ends abruptly right before Paul is put to death). Paul was beheaded under the reign of Emperor Nero, and killed at either 64 or 67 AD. Acts was also the second of a two-part work (the gospel of Luke) that had been written even earlier than that. Luke also has parts of Mark in it... which makes Mark even earlier than that! Giving a year to two years for about each of these, you could end up at AD 58-59 to 63-66 AD. So techincally, it could have been written in 66 AD, but the possiblity that it was written even earlier is not improbable. Except that Jesus has no "biography". Well, if if a biography is a story of someone's life, than Jesus had about four of them. The Gospels record Jesus' life and therefore, could be called loose biographies of Jesus. That's just silly. Why? I'm curious. Edited March 22, 2007 by Akiko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FLLegal Posted August 5, 2007 Share Posted August 5, 2007 Hello everyone.... I appreciate this thread when I found it. I have been posting on another Christian website and Heritic5 started posting the same type of "stuff" over there. He conveniently left out the Quran as the 3rd part of the "testimonies" of God and where they don't agree you must "discard it". It smelled to high heaven. It was convoluted nonsense , when I was reading it, but when I searched on Google and found this thread here with his mentioning the Quran it began to make real clear sense what he was up to. I'm glad to see the great responses by those here to his post. If interested, you can see his thread he started at the other Christian site. I responded to him and it will be interesting if he responds or just says a terse good bye and skidattles away like he did here. Here is the link: accuracy of your testimony By the way, HELLO TO EVERYONE! This is my first post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akiko Posted August 5, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 211 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/14/2006 Share Posted August 5, 2007 Welcome to Worthy! Glad this thread helped you out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akiko Posted August 9, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 211 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/14/2006 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Is it ever considered that the anonymous Gospel writers, like so many that came before them, simply MADE UP A RELIGION? Elaborate myths of Ancient Greek and Roman gods came about in such a way, why not Christianity? Sure, it's been considered... but I find the notion pretty outlandish. I've heard rumors, but never gotten into it much: why do we think that the gospels are "anonymous" now? They're titled for their authors... Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Jesus is not a made-up figure (non-Christians like Joesephus; excuse the horrible spelling; mentioned Jesus in his writings). Also, the motive for "making up" a religion would be pretty suspect. Why would you make something up, then voluntarily be killed for something you know is false? This seems stupid to me! The droves of people that SAW Jesus is amazing, also-- people that saw him preach, etc. Since the Gospels were written only around 60 or 70 AD, and Jesus died 30 AD, people who had seen Jesus would notice that these kooks were writing things that weren't true. Why would this be allowed, and more importantly, why would people begin following something that they KNOW is false from first-hand witnesses who saw Jesus? Sorry if I"m not making much sense. It's late and I'm tired. In any case, the difference between ancient Greek and Roman gods is that they are taught today as stories. You don't see people erecting temples to Artemis and Mars. They're stories, and everyone knows it. However, it's extremely different with Christianity-- few people would deny that Jesus ever existed like people deny that Artemis and Mars existed... people know that the Greeks and Romans made up stories. Not so with Christianity-- and we've got the evidence to prove that we have something worth following. That whole thing was pretty vauge and random. So please pick out points and ask for clarification... I am way too tired to try and sort it out now. Akiko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts