Jeff Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Have things settled down? Is it time for the two week IH "disappear and regroup for my new random attack strategy"? Here are some helpful ideas as you prepare: 1. Even Ozzy reads his bible and mentions religion often. 2. You can't prove that God didn't make Martians first then kill them in a big drought and then start over here on earth. 3. Science can't prove...(no better not use this one). 4. Kim Davis is not really a Christian and does not follow the real Truth so god is still real. 5. You all love sin and are willfully ignoring the truth you feel inside or something. 6. I follow my heart and it says I'm right. Again IH I'm not attacking you personally. You just creatively fool yourself (if you aren't a troll after all) and I hate to see people suffer through that. I still hope you get free of your error riddled beliefs and enjoy freedom from your geographically selected brainwashing like so many here already have. I would not mock you if you saw it for what it is. I would merely say "good for you. Sorry you suffered through that. now go enjoy your freedom". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm excerpts: "The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events. Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history. Roman documents show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level. As we shall see later, the property tax was collected on site by travelling assessors, thus making unnecessary Joseph's journey away from what little property he must have owned. Gleason Archer quotes a census expert who claims, without documentation, that "every five years the Romans enumerated citizens and their property to determine their liabilities. This practice was extended to include the entire Roman Empire in 5 B.C.E."1 This goes against the fourteen-year cycle which Archer himself uses to argue that Quirinius was pulled from his busy duties in Asia Minor to do a Syrian census in 7 B.C.E., fourteen years earlier than the one recorded in Josephus and Acts 5:37." "In Josephus' account of the census in 6 C.E., he explicitly states that those people taxed were assessed of their possessions, including lands and livestock. In other words, the census takers were also the tax assessors. In Egypt these tax assessors went from house to house in order to perform their duties. With this in mind, let us look at a crucial error in Luke's account. Luke has Joseph and Mary making a three-day journey away from their home in Nazareth to register in their alleged ancestral home Bethlehem. But an Egyptian papyrus recording a census in 104 C.E. explicitly states that "since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration...."6 Unlike Matthew, who does not mention a census nor Nazareth as Mary and Joseph's home, Luke describes Nazareth as "their own city" (Lk. 2:39). If the rules of this Egyptian census applied to Palestine, then Joseph and Mary should have stayed in Nazareth to be enrolled." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Ironhorse, Did these facts escape your notice? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate Pilate was the Roman Prefect of Judea from AD 26 to 36. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucceius_Albinus Albinus was the Roman Procurator of Judea from AD 62 to 64. So, for your argument about Pilate releasing prisoners to be viable, you'd have to backdate what Josephus says about Albinus by twenty-eight (28) years..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 A few things.... Jeff: Thank you for your concerns and your six points. I do have a few Ozzy quotes I could use. I do think this constant accusation that I am a "troll" is getting a bit old. As I have stated before, I have been engaging online since the late 90s. I don't fit the definition of a troll. I prefer to think I am a member of this community, not a troll. And if you consider me "brainwashed", what can I say? I have not formed that opinion of you or any other member here. Concerning the Roman census account in the Gospels: I will reply later. Back to the question of Barabbas >>> There are examples, that political prisoners (like Barabbas) were released for various reasons. “Deismann, (Light from the Ancient East, p 269) notes a similar case, described in a Florentine papyrus of the year 85AD. This document contains a report of judicial proceedings by the governor of Egypt (G. Septimus Vegetus), in which the verdict is stated as "Thous hadst been worthy of scouraging... but I will give thee to the people". In the footnote there, he also another Roman case (from a later period) in which Phlegethius (AD 441) reminds the people of Smyrna that they deserve punishment but "by reason of the outcries of this illustrious metropolis of the Ephesians, and because their prayers ought not to be at all set aside, we release you..." “Raymond Browh (Death of the Messiah, p.816) documents that amnesty was sometimes associated with festivals. His first example was from Livy (History 5.13.7-8) that prisoners were unbound (and no reincarcerated) at the first celebration of the Roman Lectisternia in 399BC. He goes on to document the many uses of pardons by local officials, and others have noted that rulers often made 'ad hoc' processes up to 'work' there constituent populations. [Maintains, however, that there is no strong evidence for such a custom in Judea at the time--but the analogies are fairly widespread, IMO]” ~christianthinktank.com You cannot make an absolute statement that the release of Barabbas never happened as given in the Gospels. One could make the argument that Pilate did this in the heat of the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I do think this constant accusation that I am a "troll" is getting a bit old. As I have stated before, I have been engaging online since the late 90s. I don't fit the definition of a troll. That comes from the way you behave - the way you evade when you cannot defend your ideas. You watch your theology get shot full of holes. You fail at every attempt to explain yourself. Yet you go on believing and encouraging others to believe this silly cult. If you are tired of being called a troll why not stop acting like a troll? Stop trying to push your religion. When others demonstrate that your theology holds no water admit they are right. Talk about something else besides religion. In other words knock it off with your not-so-hidden agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 A few things.... Jeff: Thank you for your concerns and your six points. I do have a few Ozzy quotes I could use. I do think this constant accusation that I am a "troll" is getting a bit old. As I have stated before, I have been engaging online since the late 90s. I don't fit the definition of a troll. I prefer to think I am a member of this community, not a troll. And if you consider me "brainwashed", what can I say? I have not formed that opinion of you or any other member here. Concerning the Roman census account in the Gospels: I will reply later. Back to the question of Barabbas >>> There are examples, that political prisoners (like Barabbas) were released for various reasons. “Deismann, (Light from the Ancient East, p 269) notes a similar case, described in a Florentine papyrus of the year 85AD. This document contains a report of judicial proceedings by the governor of Egypt (G. Septimus Vegetus), in which the verdict is stated as "Thous hadst been worthy of scouraging... but I will give thee to the people". In the footnote there, he also another Roman case (from a later period) in which Phlegethius (AD 441) reminds the people of Smyrna that they deserve punishment but "by reason of the outcries of this illustrious metropolis of the Ephesians, and because their prayers ought not to be at all set aside, we release you..." “Raymond Browh (Death of the Messiah, p.816) documents that amnesty was sometimes associated with festivals. His first example was from Livy (History 5.13.7-8) that prisoners were unbound (and no reincarcerated) at the first celebration of the Roman Lectisternia in 399BC. He goes on to document the many uses of pardons by local officials, and others have noted that rulers often made 'ad hoc' processes up to 'work' there constituent populations. [Maintains, however, that there is no strong evidence for such a custom in Judea at the time--but the analogies are fairly widespread, IMO]” ~christianthinktank.com You cannot make an absolute statement that the release of Barabbas never happened as given in the Gospels. One could make the argument that Pilate did this in the heat of the moment. That Pilate took money from Barabbas the Sicarii, a notorious murderer, insurrectionist and political agitator and released him? Thus making himself complicit with a known organization dedicated to removing Roman rule from Judea? And giving his political enemies in Rome and Judea ammunition to bring him down with? Are you serious..!!? . . . And btw, I'm not making an absolute statement that the release of Barabbas never happened as given in the Gospels. I'm doing as you're doing. You're making an argument for the veracity of the Gospels and I'm making one against their veracity. The main difference is that my argument holds water and where yours doesn't, you plug the leaks with faith. Which, as we both know, is quite wrong. An argument made using historical sources should stand on it's own merits and not require the use of personal religious belief to fill in the gaps. If there are gaps, then the default position of the person making the argument is not to believe, but to remain skeptical. So you should not suppose that Pilate did what he did in the heat of the moment. That's your faith at work, pushing you to find ways of making the Gospel narratives work. But if something in the Gospels doesn't work, your faith should not try to make it do so. Honesty to the text requires you not to believe if there's a problem in the Gospels. So which came first with you, Ironhorse? Did you believe first and then find ways of reading the text to make it work, to support your faith? Or did you carefully and skeptically evaluate the text first, noting where it didn't work...before believing? . . . Fyi, I'm using what Robert Eisenman says about Mark 15 : 7 and Luke 23 : 9 (that Barabbas was a murder and insurrectionist) to argue that this indicates he was a Sicarii, making it highly unlikely that Pilate used the same mode of prisoner release as Albinus did, 28 years later. To release such a notorious prisoner (see Matthew 27 : 16) makes no political, military, judicial or administrative sense. That is my argument. I make it to refute your argument, that Pilate did as Albinus did and released Barabbas on those grounds. Thanks, BAA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I do think this constant accusation that I am a "troll" is getting a bit old. As I have stated before, I have been engaging online since the late 90s. I don't fit the definition of a troll. I prefer to think I am a member of this community, not a troll. Troll? No. Die hard? Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Never mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 "Troll? No. Die hard? Maybe." ~midniterider Thank you, for trying to put this troll accusation to rest. No problem with the "die hard" label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Mr. "Pay Attention Because I Believe" speaks. I'm not that important, and neither are the rest of us, including Ironhorse. Well, I'll take part of that back. Ironhorse's posts, although not important, are somewhat interesting because they are an example of what decades of unchallenged religious indoctrination (of the Christian variety) and decades of tribal peer pressure (also of the Christian variety) can do to a person's psychological prowess, emotional state and intellectual abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Back to the question of Barabbas >>> There are examples, that political prisoners (like Barabbas) were released for various reasons. “Deismann, (Light from the Ancient East, p 269) notes a similar case, described in a Florentine papyrus of the year 85AD. This document contains a report of judicial proceedings by the governor of Egypt (G. Septimus Vegetus), in which the verdict is stated as "Thous hadst been worthy of scouraging... but I will give thee to the people". In the footnote there, he also another Roman case (from a later period) in which Phlegethius (AD 441) reminds the people of Smyrna that they deserve punishment but "by reason of the outcries of this illustrious metropolis of the Ephesians, and because their prayers ought not to be at all set aside, we release you..." “Raymond Browh (Death of the Messiah, p.816) documents that amnesty was sometimes associated with festivals. His first example was from Livy (History 5.13.7-8) that prisoners were unbound (and no reincarcerated) at the first celebration of the Roman Lectisternia in 399BC. He goes on to document the many uses of pardons by local officials, and others have noted that rulers often made 'ad hoc' processes up to 'work' there constituent populations. [Maintains, however, that there is no strong evidence for such a custom in Judea at the time--but the analogies are fairly widespread, IMO]” ~christianthinktank.com You cannot make an absolute statement that the release of Barabbas never happened as given in the Gospels. One could make the argument that Pilate did this in the heat of the moment. One cannot make the argument that Pilate released Barabbas in the heat of the moment. Mark 15:6 says "Now on the occasion of a festival he would release for them one prisoner -- any man they asked for." The gospel claims that it was Pilate's customary procedure to release a prisoner and to allow "them" to identify the prisoner to be released. Not just this occasion - every year. To support the historicity of this story you have to make it plausible that a Roman governor in a volatile, incendiary province would enact such a custom. Evidence? Parallels? Nothing but the gospel stories themselves. But it's the historical accuracy of those gospels that is in question. So to appeal to them as your body of evidence is circular. I have not inspected the published text of the Florentine papyrus quoted by Deissmann, and I doubt that I shall do so. From what Deissmann says in his book (going on a century old now), the papyrus recounts quite another situation. https://archive.org/stream/lightfromancient00deis#page/n385/mode/2up The prisoner, Phibion, had imprisoned other people for debt. Deissmann cites the papyrus as a parallel to the parable in which Jesus talks about a debtor's being imprisoned by the creditor. Phibion thus had a big number of enemies, including the man who had brought suit against him. The Roman governor decides not to have Phibion whipped by the Romans but says "I shall give you as a gift to the crowds." As a gift to the crowds to rough up Phibion themselves is what it looks like. Phibion clearly had no crowds clamoring for his acquittal. The other accounts are either on-the-spot decisions, like this one, or do not concern releasing anyone from prison. Nothing about a governor of a province full of revolutionaries opening up chances for revolutionaries to be let out of jail. Don't forget, as BAA pointed out, that Barabbas was imprisoned "with the στασιαστῶν, revolutionaries/insurrectionists, who had committed murder during the insurrection." Everything you wrote about Barabbas amounts to a claim that the story just might after all not be false. For that to stand up, you've also got to show that it's plausible that Pilate released a prisoner every year. No historian makes a habit of issuing "absolute statements" that this or that never happened in antiquity. But the default approach is to question our sources. The gospels do not stand up as plausible on this point. On the other hand, if you start from a hypothesis that there is much fiction in the gospels, can you put together a strong explanation of Mark's narrative and rhetorical purposes? I think you can. It won't follow that everything in them is fiction, but you may find a fruitful avenue of interpreting what's going on at this part of the story. Bar-Abbas in Aramaic means "son of the father" or something like that. Is the gospel writer doing a riff on how the false son of the Father was a political revolutionary, but the true Son has a different kind of kingdom? And a kingdom that does not directly threaten Rome? Probably this idea has been suggested by others. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts