Act of God.
-
‘Alan F’, you probably know just as in A.D. 6 the emperor dispached Quirinius to Syria, and, at the same time, Coponius was named guvernor of Judea, and the two did conduct a Census.
According to some historians, this is the second time Quirinius was governor in Syria, and because of that, in the Bible, we have such a mention, at Luke 2:1-2:
“[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 their own town to register.]”So Luke knew about at least 2 Quirinius Census...!
-
An interesting documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E4bI6YUXEg&feature=player_embedded -
@unknownuser said:
According to some historians, this is the second time Quirinius was governor in Syria
Yes, some 'historians' like yourself, eager to rewrite history to fit with the Gospels. There is not an iota of evidence to support that claim, either from Roman or Jewish sources. Nor was there any such need for a governor with a Tetrarch still in place.
In fact, there's no real evidence for a census at this time at all...and it's unheard of to demand that everyone travel to their city of origin just to participate in one...a totally unnecessary logistical and administrative nightmare.
Most ordinary christians wouldn't have a problem with this. The author of Luke made a mistake. Big deal. It's only a problem if you take the Bible to be the infallible word of God.
-
Alan F., if you can not check someone, does not mean that the respective is wrong!
You have no a complete list about all Census... -
@unknownuser said:
Alan F., if you can not check someone, does not mean that the respective is wrong!
You have no a complete list about all Census...I don't need a complete list of all censuses; I only need the one mentioned in the Bible.
It could well be that the census of biblical fame was an earlier, pre-Quirinian census that was actually carried out during the reign of Herod the Great...but that's not what Luke tells us. There is, in fact, no record of any census carried out by Quirinius...but Luke says there was...and that is clearly at odds with it being during Herod's reign, because they are a decade apart.In any case, you creationist types are far too handy at reversing the argument and putting the burden of negative proof on the other party...like demanding people prove there is no god, instead of you proving that there is. Your own position is marked by a total lack of evidence of any kind.
It's a matter of historical record that Quirinius was made governor of Syria in 6 AD. If you claim that he was made governor at least 10 years earlier than that, prove it. If you can't then it's simply a case of you making stuff up to defend an indefensible position.
-
‘Alan', if re. Quirinius you have no sufficient historical data, do not despair!
You said there are many contradictions in the Bible, so, come with a new well founded one!
Eventually ‘Marian’ can help you ... -
Cornelius is running out of bible quotes.
-
So you are not going to explain the contradiction, then...other than by making up some nonsense?
Or any of the others on the lists posted by Marian?
Thought not.
It's you that's working with no data; you have nothing to counter the historical record other than a vivid imagination. We'll call it 1-0 to the rationalists then. -
@unknownuser said:
Alan', if re. Quirinius you have no sufficient historical data, do not despair!
You said there are many contradictions in the Bible, so, come with a new well founded one!
Eventually ‘Marian’ can help you ...Sure he (Marian) can help. Isn't it time for you to open your eyes and to see what is really going on around you in this world? With you it's more or less like putting in a coin into a machine and another quote pops out of the boxes. It's like you never question anything. I can see that the bible is the only thing for you. That would be okay if you didn't try to force it through our throats. Unlike you I like to think for myself, question things, read what others think and evaluate. By now I do know where you stand. Just for once, watch that documentary that Marian linked to. Pay extra attention to (time) 1:22:58 through 1:23:12. *“…and perhaps the reason why so many of these writings have been lost to us altogether is because it is inevitably the winners who write history, The losers of that process drift from our memory into obscurity."*It summarizes what's always going throughout history, people fighting for/holding on to influence and power where the winner, in this case a/your version of the bible is the result, to ensure that influence and power.
Thank’s Marian, I enjoyed watching “The lost gospels”.
-
@wo3dan said:
Thank’s Marian, I enjoyed watching “The lost gospels”.
You're most welcome.
I also found it enjoyable and interesting.To people who might have some qualms and are not sure what that documantary is, the presenter is a Christian, an Anglican priest, also the rest of the scholars seem to be christians also, so it's not "atheistic propaganda".
-
it wouldn't need to be considered as atheistic propaganda.
some people, in this case "muslim" may already know about those things before they've made such video or any other presentation.
for me, when i see the video, i think there's nothing really new on their presentation.
for others, i.e. atheist, that video might still have a crossroads ahead.
for me and any other unitarian people, that video is just another confirmation for what they've known. -
@irwanwr said:
for me and any other unitarian people, that video is just another confirmation for what they've known.
True, but don't feel safe in your faith that that means the quran or other "holy" books are right.
The quran also borrows heavily from christian writings, ones that have not been included in the bible. That only goes to show, that one religion's junk is another's treasure.
The quran is as tainted with blood and atrocities in the same measure as the bible. -
@marian said:
The quran also borrows heavily from christian writings,..
first of all Marian, it might be good if you have adequate knowledge on the matter and your statement. might be even better if you can prove it. since muslim believe that the quran was sent mostly because the rest of earlier scriptures were either vanished or corrupted.who do you think wrote it? and how do you know he/she borrowed anything from earlier scriptures?
@unknownuser said:
The quran is as tainted with blood and atrocities in the same measure as the bible.
so the atheist don't have any kind of issue regarding blood and atrocities?
-
@irwanwr said:
muslim believe that the quran was sent mostly because the rest of earlier scriptures were either vanished or corrupted.
Exactly, it preserves some writings which in the beginning were popular with christians. For example it has a more elaborate and detailed story about the lives of Adam and Eve which most likely was one of the texts abandoned by the christian church.
@irwanwr said:
who do you think wrote it? and how do you know he/she borrowed anything from earlier scriptures?
Probably it is true that it was compiled and edited mostly my Mohammed. I know he barrowed and adapted because Islam is considered one of the 3 Abrahamic religions. It wouldn't have had any relation with Judaism and Christianity if it didn't barrow anything. I seriously doubt Mohammed could have invented all of it and please don't tell me it was dictated by allah.
Also this religion sprung up in the same general geographical area as the previous 2, highly likely and possible that Mohammed made contact with Jews and Christians. It would have been amazing if it had been created in China or Japan in the 6th century. You would have had a serious argument if that were the case.@irwanwr said:
so the atheist don't have any kind of issue regarding blood and atrocities?
What is that suppose to mean? I have an issue with them and that's one of the major reasons why I also have an issue with the "holy" books that contain and prescribe them.
-
@irwanwr said:
it wouldn't need to be considered as atheistic propaganda.
some people, .......I wasn't considering it (the documentary) anything else than interesting plausible historical information. Pieces of the puzzles in life. Information that might even help Cornel to reconsider his view on what is true. I'm not trying to prove anything to him. To quote Cornel (to him): "it's your choice".
I'm not sure what to believe. Going to church or the like, once a week or at christmas (for christians) doesn't mean much to me other than maybe meeting friends and family. To believe in god is so personal and much better expresses itself in how you stand in life. I'm more inclined towards what (for instance) Solo and Rich said earlier, (maybe in the other/parallel thread): Don't do to others what you wouldn't like others to do to you. Live and let live.
To enjoy, see:
Some interesting images of god's work? recorded by Yann Arthus-Bertrand:
http://www.yannarthusbertrand.org/ -
@marian said:
What is that suppose to mean? I have an issue with them and that's one of the major reasons why I also have an issue with the "holy" books that contain and prescribe them.
Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism". -
@starling75 said:
@marian said:
What is that suppose to mean? I have an issue with them and that's one of the major reasons why I also have an issue with the "holy" books that contain and prescribe them.
Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism".What?! really?
That's a really silly thing to say, if you had an idea what atheism is you would never say that.
Let's start with a definition:
a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun:
The theory or belief that God does not exist.Which part of that is religion?
Lets new define religion:
re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Details of belief as taught or discussed, traditionsI cannot see how you can possibly call atheism a religion, that's just silly.
-
@starling75 said:
Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism".
No it's not, in the same measure non-Romanians are not a separate ethnic group.
Though I do grant you that some atheists are as obtuse and hardheaded as the bible thumpers. That only shows humans are humans irrespective of ideology, doctrine or philosophy.
-
@marian said:
@starling75 said:
Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism".
No it's not, in the same measure non-Romanians are not a separate ethnic group.
Though I do grant you that some atheists are as obtuse and hardheaded as the bible thumpers. That only shows humans are humans irrespective of ideology, doctrine or philosophy.
non-theist is agnostic = someone who claims: Gd's existence is uknown and probably unknowable ( ...certainly uncertaint
)
a-theist is someone who claims - Gd doesn't exist, because ... Lenin said that, because there is no scientific proof of Gd etcetc -
It's not that simple. Here's a better thought out explanation.http://youtu.be/S-BQVmvulmQ
Advertisement