cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

gnostic said:

I am quite with Roman history and Roman politics, foreign and domestic.

And btw, no one really know who wrote any of the four canonical gospels. The authors are unknown. Names were only applied to these gospels in the 2nd century CE, so the names were only attributed to these 4 evangelists, by church traditions.

Josephus as you already know have parents who belonged to aristocratic family and to the priesthood, so Josephus would have access to sources not available by Christian authors that we know nothing about. Plus, Josephus have tie to the emperor Vespasian, especially to the emperor’s son, Titus, so he would easily have access to Roman sources, especially to government records that wouldn’t be available to 1st century Christians.

Plus, whoever wrote gospels of Matthew and Luke during the 80s CE, I don’t see how the authors could receive dictations from Jesus’ parents or from Herod, or from the unnamed 3 sages from the East and the unnamed shepherds of Bethlehem who supposedly witnessed the performance of the angelic host. Clearly the stories of the 3 wise men (presumably to be astrologers) and the host of angels were invention of the author to Luke.

Joseph appeared to have died before Jesus began his ministry, while we have no texts that she lived beyond the 30s CE. So I don’t see how whoever wrote the gospel of Luke, what Mary remembered “in her heart”.

Click to expand...

You are jumping about, and adding new arguments.

Let's take one point at a time and examine it carefully.

Do you accept that the author of Acts knew about the 6 CE taxation?

Redemptionsong said:

Maybe you should take a little more time to research your topic properly. Try getting a copy of Flavius Josephus' works so that you can read a detailed and reliable history of these times.

Josephus gives us a very accurate account of the taxation in 6 CE. He also tells us about the uprising against this taxation by Judas of Galilee.

Now, funnily enough, Luke, who you choose to disparage, also writes about the 6 CE taxation, and about the uprising of Judas of Galilee. Read Acts 5:33-40.

Once you've read it, get back to me.

Click to expand...

He also wrote about it in the nativity myth of Luke. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

That story was a myth. It never happened. Just as Matthews's never happened. They were both false attempts to get Jesus born in Bethlehem, and like all false stories the details are what refute them.

Redemptionsong said:

You are jumping about, and adding new arguments.

Let's take one point at a time and examine it carefully.

Do you accept that the author of Acts knew about the 6 CE taxation?

Click to expand...

Yes. What makes you think that we do not?

You are the one that is trying to invent a false "first census". The first census was the 6 CE census. All of the evidence supports it. You need more than an argument from ignorance to refute that.

The burden of proof is now upon you. You need to copy and link valid sites that support your claims.

Valjean said:

I'm not talking about about personal perceptions, experiences, or interpretations. I'm talking about time flowing at different rates in different places, things being in two places at once, instant communication across a hundred thousand light years, objects changing shape as they accelerate, something moving from one place to another without crossing the intervening distance, without actually "moving," as it were; about something "existing" as a potential, &c. This is modern, tested, physics -- Real Reality.
Our senses and brains are not wired to directly perceive Reality.

Click to expand...

We have our reality even if we don't perceive everything that happens around us. That does not mean that our reality is not real.

Brian2 said:

We have our reality even if we don't perceive everything that happens around us. That does not mean that our reality is not real.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's not. I'm saying there's a hierarchy of realities, with a single, Objective Reality.

Subduction Zone said:

Yes. What makes you think that we do not?

You are the one that is trying to invent a false "first census". The first census was the 6 CE census. All of the evidence supports it. You need more than an argument from ignorance to refute that.

The burden of proof is now upon you. You need to copy and link valid sites that support your claims.

Click to expand...

If you accept that Luke knew about, and recorded, details of the 6 CE census, then he is not going to write about the 6 CE census in relation to the birth of Jesus, is he?

Furthermore, he begins the Gospel of Luke with details about Zacharias and Elizabeth, the parents of John. He tells us that this was 'in the days of Herod, the king of Judea'. Now, John was born only six months before Jesus. So, since John's birth occurred in Herod's days, Jesus cannot have been born some 8-10 years later.

An historian, who claimed to have 'a perfect understanding of all things from the very first' [Luke 1:3], is not going to make such basic errors.

This leaves only one option open, which is that Luke knows more than we do!

Redemptionsong said:

If you accept that Luke knew about, and recorded, details of the 6 CE census, then he is not going to write about the 6 CE census in relation to the birth of Jesus, is he?

Furthermore, he begins the Gospel of Luke with details about Zacharias and Elizabeth, the parents of John. He tells us that this was 'in the days of Herod, the king of Judea'. Now, John was born only six months before Jesus. So, since John's birth occurred in Herod's days, Jesus cannot have been born some 8-10 years later.

An historian, who claimed to have 'a perfect understanding of all things from the very first' [Luke 1:3], is not going to make such elemental errors.

This leaves only one option open, which is that Luke knows more than we do!

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't he? People get confused. People get confused especially when they are making things up.

And the author of Luke Acts does not appear to be a historian. So you second point is worthless.

And you forgot the obvious, the author could have just been repeating myths that he heard and forgot about the date of the Census. He need not even have lied.

Subduction Zone said:

Why wouldn't he? People get confused. People get confused especially when they are making things up.

And the author of Luke Acts does not appear to be a historian. So you second point is worthless.

Click to expand...

But Luke tells us that he has carefully documented all the testimonies and evidence!

How can you be so sure he's confused when he spent time with the disciples and listened to their words? It's far more likely that you, living two thousand years from the events he describes, are the one who is confused!

Let's not forget that John, one of Jesus' closest disciples, lived into old age, and had Mary, Jesus' mother, living under his roof. There can be little doubt that the early Church understood and shared all the details of Jesus' life, knowing that it would be important as evidence for future generations.

Valjean said:

I'm not saying it's not. I'm saying there's a hierarchy of realities, with a single, Objective Reality.

Click to expand...

Hierarchy of realities? Hmm
Only God knows it all however.
We just live in our own little worlds and imagine that we know quite a bit.

gnostic said:

Except that when there are cause (though some thing are uncause), it is always in term of HOW it work, hence they are looking into the functions or the mechanisms of the phenomena, and not worry about purposes, especially not intention-based purpose that required agent or entity to think or to decide.

Click to expand...

That's because the purpose is self-evident, as it is the result of the functionality. Every functional mechanism that science investigates has already fulfilled it's purpose. It is that fulfilled purpose that we observe as the "effect" of that mysterious mechanism, and that we seek to understand as the "cause".

Function is dysfunction when it does not fulfill it's purpose. We don't even recognize it as function, then, because it's not. It's dysfunction. It's chaos.

gnostic said:

The problem with YOUR USE of purpose, it is ladled with vague notion of intentions, which can be misleading.

Click to expand...

The "intent" of any functional mechanism or process is to fulfill it's purpose. And that is determined by the existential possibility of that purpose being fulfilled. There's nothing "vague" about it. It's completely self-evident. But that's philosophy, not science. So the 'scientism' crown can't (won't) recognize it. Even as obvious as it is. Philosophical materialism cannot "compute" at this level.

gnostic said:

Does a rock have intention of being use part of structure like a wall to a building or to a fence? Is that the purpose of the rock? Can a rock decide on its own purpose?

Click to expand...

The purpose of the functional mechanisms that created the rock was to create the rock. We know this because that was their result. The mechanisms have no mind. The rock has no mind, and so it has no "intent". There was the existential possibility that such functionality could result in the creation of a rock, and so it did. That's how we know of this particular mode of functionality, and the result is how we know of it's purpose. That result then enables more possibilities (humans building stone houses), so then more modes of functionality become apparent to us, and will be fulfilled, if they are possible. (We are also part of that existential functionality.)

Existence is being determined by possibility (and conversely, by impossibility), and the many modes and expressions of functionality that we recognize and study are fulfilling those possibilities, as they are able. That is their purpose. And what we call "the world", is the result, which is how we know it is their purpose.

The "intent" of existence is to fulfill all the possibilities open to it. And not to fulfill those that are not open to it. Whatever is determining those possibilities is a mystery to us all. It's the great mystery of existence.

Brian2 said:

Hierarchy of realities? Hmm
Only God knows it all however.
We just live in our own little worlds and imagine that we know quite a bit.

Click to expand...

What god say to Job, from Job 38 to 41, clearly show that god has no understanding of nature - the natural phenomena and its natural processes. Here God sounds like superstitious human...saying he “knows all”, based on what God say in Job, is a ludicrous claim.

Redemptionsong said:

But Luke tells us that he has carefully documented all the testimonies and evidence!

How can you be so sure he's confused when he spent time with the disciples and listened to their words? It's far more likely that you, living two thousand years from the events he describes, are the one who is confused!

Let's not forget that John, one of Jesus' closest disciples, lived into old age, and had Mary, Jesus' mother, living under his roof. There can be little doubt that the early Church understood and shared all the details of Jesus' life, knowing that it would be important as evidence for future generations.

Click to expand...

Yes, a book of fiction tells us that it was based upon documentation. The Gospel refutes that claim.

And what makes you think that John lived to an old age? Are you making the mistake of thinking that the Gospel of John was written by him? We really have no clue about what happened to the apostles after the crucificton.

Subduction Zone said:

Yes, a book of fiction tells us that it was based upon documentation. The Gospel refutes that claim.

And what makes you think that John lived to an old age? Are you making the mistake of thinking that the Gospel of John was written by him? We really have no clue about what happened to the apostles after the crucificton.

Click to expand...

Only those with personal witness to the life of Jesus could have given the details recorded in the Gospels, and in other books of the NT. Everything aligns and is consistent, which means that numerous witnesses must have been telling the truth.

What your arguments fail to account for is the impact that the Holy Spirit had upon the Church from the day of Pentecost onwards. Men and women, in their thousands, returned to their towns and villages after Pentecost to share their experiences of a supernatural God.

Acts 2:41-44:
'Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
And all that believed were together, and had all things in common;'

The Jewish and Gentile adherents to the Christian movement, that spread from Jerusalem, faced constant persecution. Even in the face of terrible tortures and death, there were men and women willing to die. How do you explain this? A liar doesn't hold to truth unto death.

The Church has a continuous history from the day of Pentecost. The source of that movement was one person, Jesus of Nazareth.

Do you deny that he existed?

Redemptionsong said:

Only those with personal witness to the life of Jesus could have given the details recorded in the Gospels, and in other books of the NT. Everything aligns and is consistent, which means that numerous witnesses must have been telling the truth.

What your arguments fail to account for is the impact that the Holy Spirit had upon the Church from the day of Pentecost onwards. Men and women, in their thousands, returned to their towns and villages after Pentecost to share their experiences of a supernatural God.

Acts 2:41-44:
'Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
And all that believed were together, and had all things in common;'

The Jewish and Gentile adherents to the Christian movement, that spread from Jerusalem, faced constant persecution. Even in the face of terrible tortures and death, there were men and women willing to die. How do you explain this? A liar doesn't hold to truth unto death.

The Church has a continuous history from the day of Pentecost. The source of that movement was one person, Jesus of Nazareth.

Do you deny that he existed?

Click to expand...

What "personal witnesses"? There seriously do not appear to be any. In fact in the beginning of Luke it does not claim that there were personal witnesses. The book claims that the stories go back to personal witnesses. That is not the same thing at all. At best Luke is just hearsay. The books may be written so that they seem to be accounts from personal witnesses, but that does not mean that is the case. Luke was written in the mid-80's CE at the earliest and probably later.

Redemptionsong said:

Only those with personal witness to the life of Jesus could have given the details recorded in the Gospels, and in other books of the NT. Everything aligns and is consistent, which means that numerous witnesses must have been telling the truth.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don’t buy into the witnesses crap.

The two Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke occurred 80 years or more after the supposed events, while Mary appeared to have died 50 years before the gospels were written, while Joseph died some times (unknown years) before Jesus’ ministry started. Neither of these two witnesses could have possibly shared their accounts with the unknown authors.

And Herod cannot be a witness, since he has been dead at least 85 years.

And the witnesses, like the 3 magi (3 Kings or 3 wise men) in Matthew 2, are unnamed. Likewise, unnamed are the shepherds who supposedly witnessed display of host of angels at Jesus’ birth in Luke 2.

How can you possibly have witnesses whose names that you don’t anything about, and people who have been dead for decades (eg Joseph, Mary & Herod).

And your needed to be reminded, that we don’t have the names of the real authors to these gospels.

Like @Subduction Zone said, they are personal witnesses, because if they were, they would still be around to “tell their stories”.

So unless the authors have time portal or time machine, there were no sharing of any witness’ account to the authors.

The other possibilities is that Mary, Joseph, Herod, the Magi and the shepherds have each left their written accounts that authors Matthew & Luke have access to, but the fact is, there are no evidence that sources exist.

The only recourse you have, is that these embellished and invented stories about visiting angel (eg Gabriel), angel host, the 3 Magi following a star, the massacre at Bethlehem, etc.

Subduction Zone said:

What "personal witnesses"? There seriously do not appear to be any. In fact in the beginning of Luke it does not claim that there were personal witnesses. The book claims that the stories go back to personal witnesses. That is not the same thing at all. At best Luke is just hearsay. The books may be written so that they seem to be accounts from personal witnesses, but that does not mean that is the case. Luke was written in the mid-80's CE at the earliest and probably later.

Click to expand...

Your late dating fails to explain the absence of the Jewish Wars from Acts. How do you explain this?

gnostic said:

Sorry, but I don’t buy into the witnesses crap.

The two Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke occurred 80 years or more after the supposed events, while Mary appeared to have died 50 years before the gospels were written, while Joseph died some times (unknown years) before Jesus’ ministry started. Neither of these two witnesses could have possibly shared their accounts with the unknown authors.

And Herod cannot be a witness, since he has been dead at least 85 years.

And the witnesses, like the 3 magi (3 Kings or 3 wise men) in Matthew 2, are unnamed. Likewise, unnamed are the shepherds who supposedly witnessed display of host of angels at Jesus’ birth in Luke 2.

How can you possibly have witnesses whose names that you don’t anything about, and people who have been dead for decades (eg Joseph, Mary & Herod).

And your needed to be reminded, that we don’t have the names of the real authors to these gospels.

Like @Subduction Zone said, they are personal witnesses, because if they were, they would still be around to “tell their stories”.

So unless the authors have time portal or time machine, there were no sharing of any witness’ account to the authors.

The other possibilities is that Mary, Joseph, Herod, the Magi and the shepherds have each left their written accounts that authors Matthew & Luke have access to, but the fact is, there are no evidence that sources exist.

The only recourse you have, is that these embellished and invented stories about visiting angel (eg Gabriel), angel host, the 3 Magi following a star, the massacre at Bethlehem, etc.

Click to expand...

John the Baptist foretold the coming of the Messiah.

If you believe that John the Baptist is fictional then you must believe that the writings of Josephus are fiction, too. Josephus wrote about John's ministry, providing confirmation that John was considered a prophet by the Jews of his day.

Where then is the Messiah he foretold?

And if Jesus did exist, who were his parents, and where did they live? How can a Messianic claim be made without the genealogies to support it?

So are you going to join Subduction Zone in dreamland, and claim Jesus never existed?

gnostic said:

The other possibilities is that Mary, Joseph, Herod, the Magi and the shepherds have each left their written accounts that authors Matthew & Luke have access to, but the fact is, there are no evidence that sources exist.

Click to expand...

The life of Herod the Great is actually well documented, and he left behind a host of archaeological reminders as evidence of his reign.

Mary, the mother of Jesus, was alive at the crucifixion, so she must have been providing evidence throughout the three and a half years that the disciples spent with the Lord. Do you think that none of the twelve disciples would ever have asked her about the birth of Jesus?

We also know that Mary had a vast clan of relatives, mentioned amongst the company that visited Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve years old. Would none of Mary's relatives have known about the very unusual circumstances of Jesus' birth? Would they, also, not have been involved in the census?

The great challenge to anyone who doubts the record of the Gospels, is to construct an alternative narrative. If the Gospels are fantasy, then provide an historical alternative! If you tried, even using only non-Christian sources, like Josephus, it would quickly become evident that to construct a plausible account of Jewish history, without evidence of the the followers of Jesus, would be impossible.

Redemptionsong said:

You are jumping about, and adding new arguments.

Let's take one point at a time and examine it carefully.

Do you accept that the author of Acts knew about the 6 CE taxation?

Click to expand...

But you are ignoring Luke 2 say Jesus was born at the time of the census and governorship of Quirinius, but at the same time, when Herod was alive.

The problem is Herod, Quirinius and the census. It didn't happen at the same time, that the gospel is fiction.

Herod died 10 years before Quirinius and the census.

Jesus couldn't be born when Herod was still alive and Jesus couldn't be during Quirinius' census at the same time. Not unless he was born, TWICE...ten years apart.

You don't seem capable of understanding this problem.

gnostic said:

But you are ignoring Luke 2 say Jesus was born at the time of the census and governorship of Quirinius, but at the same time, when Herod was alive.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is the issue. But once it can be agreed that Luke cannot be confusing the census of Quirinius (Cyrenius) in 6 CE with the census undertaken when Herod was king of Judea, then one has to search afresh.

What Josephus tells us is that Cyrenius had a long and distinguished career (he lived from 51 BCE - 21 CE) before becoming Legate in Syria at the time of the 6 CE census. Cyrenius would have been about 57 years old at the time of the taxing mentioned by Luke in Acts 5:37. This means that he would have been in his late forties during Herod's final years. So he was still of an age to be a Legate following the wars he conducted against the Homonadesians in Galatia (whilst based in Syria). This successful campaign was said to have been fought by Cyrenius between about 12 BCE and 3/2 BCE.

So we know that Cyrenius was in Syria at the time when Luke says the enrollment in Judea took place.