The Story That Tax Collectors Fear Most

[mwc]

     What people ignore about this decree is the actual decree.  They simply imagine a few Jews running down from Galilee to Jerusalem and back again and that's that.  But that wouldn't be that.  If *all* Jews were required to go to Jerusalem we're talking everyone in Egypt, Rome, Spain, Babylon (if they want to maintain their ties to this Roman land) and simply every Jew everywhere going to Jerusalem for this seemingly simple decree.  Now, this might just be adult male Jews but this would be devastating to anyone that relied on these people for their livelihood especially if they were any distance away.

 

     So it wasn't just hop on a donkey for a week long turn-around trip but a major endeavor that would inconvenience every single Jewish person in the known world.  Nothing like this would ever happen.

 

     People ignore the decree and instead turn the "whole world" into "pretty much all of Palestine -- give or take -- as long as that includes Galilee and Israel."  It doesn't even have to include Philip's tetrarchy.  Those people all get a pass.  The Jews in Alexandria?  All get a pass.  We could ignore all of Galilee as long as just Nazareth was included somehow.  Augustus ruled that only Nazareth had to go get counted down in Israel somewhere (lets say around Bethlehem).  That would be fine.

 

          mwc

[moanareina]

Roz,

 

You press your points well. It's been a civil discussion with you.

Thanks

 

Given you were right on this and I am wrong... I guess you

believe I have been proven wrong.... it would not shatter my faith.

 

I have said before, I can take difficult passages, things I don't fully understand.

 

I still believe the main message presented in scripture.

 

Oh like: I don't care what the truth is. I believe what I think is truth weather it is or not. No logic and no evidence can shatter my faith. BUT. I am here to tell you how you are wrong about God and to go back to the faith I hold on to because I know it is the truth...haha. Nice one.

 

And that is where the discussion ends...or goes in circles. Cheers!

[♦ ficino ♦]

This is why people like the Southern Baptist leadership freak out when, say, Mike Licona suggests that the dead people rising from graves in Matthew is a literary/rhetorical/theological device and not fact. They realize that if the Bible isn't accurate about assertions that are in principle verifiable, why should anyone think it's accurate about unverifiable stuff like theology and divine commands?

 

IH, you may be OK eventually with the idea that the Infancy Narratives are not historical fact but, instead, theological meditations. But then, why should anyone care about some dude's theological meditations, which are in principle not testable? The Bible can't be peddled as normative truth for the whole world very easily if its apparently testable assertions turn out, when falsified, to be reclassified as "meditations." You have your meditations, I have mine.

[ironhorse]

This is why people like the Southern Baptist leadership freak out when, say, Mike Licona suggests that the dead people rising from graves in Matthew is a literary/rhetorical/theological device and not fact. They realize that if the Bible isn't accurate about assertions that are in principle verifiable, why should anyone think it's accurate about unverifiable stuff like theology and divine commands?

 

IH, you may be OK eventually with the idea that the Infancy Narratives are not historical fact but, instead, theological meditations. But then, why should anyone care about some dude's theological meditations, which are in principle not testable? The Bible can't be peddled as normative truth for the whole world very easily if its apparently testable assertions turn out, when falsified, to be reclassified as "meditations." You have your meditations, I have mine.

 

 

Suppose you wrote your autobiography. You got most of the facts right but

in reading it you find some minor details that you got wrong. 

 

Do these errors invalidate your life story? Do you throw the entire book away?

 

As I have said before, I agree the Bible has some very difficult passages

to explain and it contains some contradictory passages. We can call them errors if

you wish, but that does not invalidate the entire Bible to me.

 

I don't worship the Bible. 

 

I worship the God who inspired it.

 

"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life."

~John 5:39-40

[♦ ficino ♦]

Not a valid comparison, Ironhorse. Of course my autobiography would not be free of error. Some people's autobiographies are major snow jobs. The Bible, however, is promoted as free of error.

 

"Throwing the entire book away" is also not a valid comparison to what I, at least, do with the Bible. I accept that there are many historically accurate statements made in it, and a good deal of wisdom.

 

So far you have presented no reason why anyone should take the Bible as a source of a message that's normative for all people at all times. What you have said, as I've pointed out before, boils down to facts about your psychological states and quotations from the Bible.

[waitingongod]

IH: I still believe the main message presented in scripture.

 

ME: What exactly is the main message?  Please choose from the following:

1)  My god needs to slaughter people who don't do what god wants.  In god's infinite wisdom, this was the best possible solution.

2)  My god loves you, but will condemn to eternal torment if you don't pray the right prayer.

3)  My god will save you, assuming you can figure out exactly which method of salvation is the right one, but my god won't tell you.

4)  Other - whatever makes me feel good at the moment, it doesn't have to be accurate, I can justify it away.

[Roz]

IH calls the prime reason why Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem a "minor detail."

 

The author of Luke claims in Luke 1:  ³ It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

⁴ That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

---He has a perfect understanding of all things from the very first, so you may know the certainty of those things.

 

Then he gets the fundamental reason of why Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem wrong.  Dead wrong.

 

The christians all claim they know (see IH's previous remarks) that what happened in Luke 2 really did happen.  

 

This is why christianity is harmful to people.  The dishonesty in their presentations are all classified as "minor details."  

[♦ ficino ♦]

Some apologists claim that Joseph must have owned property in or near Bethlehem, which is why it was 'his own city.' They refer to the 'house' in which the Magi find the babe in Matthew 2:11. But then, why did Mary and Joseph have to seek lodging in an inn, and why was Mary forced to give birth in the stable? No reason to bring in the hypothesis of Joseph's property in Bethlehem except to try to save Luke.

 

Roz' point is well taken: we're supposed to imagine lots of Jews scurrying all over Palestine to get to their ancestors' cities to be enrolled and taxed?

[Roz]

Good point of view about Joseph and Mary owning any kind of property in Bethlehem.  If they had it there, why on earth would they even seek out lodgings at the inns?  

[miekko]

Some apologists claim that Joseph must have owned property in or near Bethlehem, which is why it was 'his own city.' They refer to the 'house' in which the Magi find the babe in Matthew 2:11. But then, why did Mary and Joseph have to seek lodging in an inn, and why was Mary forced to give birth in the stable? No reason to bring in the hypothesis of Joseph's property in Bethlehem except to try to save Luke.

 

Roz' point is well taken: we're supposed to imagine lots of Jews scurrying all over Palestine to get to their ancestors' cities to be enrolled and taxed?

Solution: he owned a stable. (Not a serious suggestion.)