beat me to it JT :)

Except that Herod died in 4CE and the census took place in 6CE. One of many problems with the gospels and bible in general.


Claiming it is true because it contains real events in real places is like claiming Dracula is true because it takes place in Whitby and London.


On a less serious note, thanks to the original poster, as I now follow Satan on FB, some of his posts are truly comedic, brightens my day :thumb:

Afternoon, Geezer. May I have the source, please?

you mean other than written 1000 years after it happened and handed down through 1000 different people?

King Arthur and his Round Table had similar beginnings. Supposedly based on some 5th Century warlord the myth has been endlessly propagated and embellished down the centuries until it is now firmly believed to be factual by many worldwide.

Oh come on, are you questioning the historicity of Herod, or the census? The census of quirinus took place in 6CE, that is not disputed. Herod died in 4CE, again, I don't believe that is disputed.


If you are saying that the census is not that one, then which one is it?


Christian apologists cite that there may have been many census taken, without any real evidence of this.


As for the population being asked to return to their place of birth, that is simply preposterous. If it was a an empire wide census demanded by Caesar, then imagine how long it would take everyone to get back to their place of birth, and what would be the point? If it's only in Judea, then it's likely to have been a local census for taxation purposes, which were not uncommon, but were recorded locally, like today's, in fact.


It would make no sense for the Romans to record you tax affairs at your place of birth.


Does this prove that Jesus did not exist? Of course not, but it does highlight some serious issues with the story, the lack of any contemporary information. If this was offered up in court as evidence, it would be dismissed out of hand.


Edited to add: Oh, and good afternoon to you to! :)

Marvellous, but what's the source?

Edited for accuracy ;)

I believe you have access to the internet, there are loads, fill yer boots

There are loads of contemporary sources? Just give me one, then.

:thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb:

indeed :thumb:

well I obviously take your point (I didn't claim any specific "thing" was true btw - other than there was evidence for the events being actual events)

The Dracula reference is interesting, because he was supposedly based on Vlad the Impaler, otherwise known as Vlad Dracula - who definitely did exist

Indeed, a good analogy, as it's probable that Jesus is based on one or more figures around that time, but it's unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth, as the bible describes him, walked the Earth.

Source?

Healthy scepticism or common sense, depends on how rude you are I guess?

Geezer stated this:

Now, if this exchange is to be equitable, I expect Geezer to apply the same rigorous conditions of validity to his assertions as he does to that of the writers of the Gospels. I just want the guy to share with us his source. He knows that I know why he refuses. ;)

I would ask Jesus just how cruel were the Romans, but I suspect his answer would be somewhat biased.

And this brings us to the crux of the matter: historical documents (primary sources) are not objective records; rather they are a product of a person/institution and are written with a specific purpose in mind. A good example is 6th-century Gildas, best known for his de Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (The Ruin of Britain), in which he castigates the British rulers, one of whom may well have been Arthur.

Moreover, historians (who produce secondary sources) are not objective, but are shaped by their society and culture and may have certain agendas to push, e.g. Marxist historians.

Trying to work out the historical truth of events that happened centuries ago, never mind millennia, is very difficult, if not nigh on impossible, especially when they are concerned with issues as emotive as the origins of Christianity.

Thanks TH :)


To any sensible grown up the original joke simply wasn't funny. But my main objection was that it would upset millions of people if they ever read it and that fact didn't seem to matter anything to the poster.


Coupled with the sheer arrogance of those who knock religion.


Just ignore JGlanzaV as his only retort is to childishly insult people. Hard to fathom why a top intellectual like him has the time to trawl through my posts and make inane comments. But he usually digs his own grave, much to my amusement with comments like this "Your grammar is apalling"


And TH I do believe we should aim for a decent standard on this board and I am not always prepared to let the uneducated morons take over. IMHO the mods should have vaped the OP as obscene gutter speak.


Onwards and upwards eh :thumb:


David

Disagree. Never censor anything, ever.

Good post.

It could be because the mods and the such posters would sing from the same hymn sheet on this subject, David? Just an educated guess.


Absolutely! :thumb: :cool: :)

I get your point. Censoring means vanishing someone's specific 'qualities' that they end up displaying on the board, for the whole world to see. They need to remain on the board. Forever and ever.

Don't delete foul posts but the posters of such can get a slap on their wrist, can't they. Infraction or something, I suppose.

Then again, 'same hymn sheet' business may not encourage that to happen? To my understanding, anti-religion is a very strong religion; not to be messed about with. :nono:

Don't blame the mods, they are probably getting entertained as are the rest of us reading all the DIFFRENT opinions and squabbling although it's not as HOT as the pothole thread yet...still entertaining though keeping SN going

Peace and happiness to all believers and non believers
I LOVE ALL OF YOU REGARDLESS OF COLOUR SEX RELIGION :luvlove:

You're so sweet, Zany bro! :luvlove:

How about archeaology dispelling the 7 day DIY SOS story?

I've never fully understood why the 7 day believers find the concept of this just being a story to introduce the actual Darwinian development of the universe and our world in particular. It's a bit like me saying "This will take me years to fix" - just an easy to understand expression to describe a minor problem that will actually take a few minutes to sort out.


Of much more interest to me is the true definition of when man evolved from his ape/other ancestry and especially when early man understood the concept of right and wrong which is possibly what sets us apart from all other living beings. In the 7 day story this might be the Adam and Eve bit?


Any thoughts?


David

I'm not refusing, but I do have other things to do than post on here all day ;)

I'm not sure what you really want though. The Romans appointed Herod as ruler of Judea, Qurinius was not governor of Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus, he couldn't have ordered a census. If you are asking me to show you the actual contremporary documents that would reference this, then of course, I cannot, as I do not have access to them.

But, the historicity of Herod and Quirinius is not actually useful to Christians anyway. If they are real, then they pose issues as already highlighted. If they are not real, they cannot prove that Jesus existed anymore than a bowl of popcorn can.

If you argue that there are errors in the accounts of Herod and Quirinius, then fair enough, that is your right, but I am not aware that anyone contests that Herod, whether real or not, died in 4CE. Same for Quirinius as governor of Judea (or rather Syria). Contrast that to the 4 Gospels, which disagree on plenty of things about the life of Jesus.

Also, there is noting to gain for them being made up. There is no cult of Herod, or cult of Quirinius. No one gains from their existence, they are just characters in history, no more. Like Socrates, we would only know of them through others, but that is not the point.

Christianity hinges on there being a real, historical Jesus, who walked the earth, died and was resurrected, but there is no evidence of that. Outside of the Gospels, what evidence is there of the slaughter of the innocents? His trial? His execution?

Any archaeological evidence?

Have to say,didn't think the satan chap's post was funny at all.Maybe just me.As long as he made himself smile

Funny how these threads get out of hand though.Always more passion from non-believers than believers.lol.Always,for some reason.....?

Source, please. This knowledge is simply not innate.