CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

Fanny Cradock

nipplenuts wrote: »

What's the CE and BCE? I presume BCE is a typo for BC, no?

No! It stands for Before Common Era - make of that what you will.

philologos

It's the politically correct version of AD and BC.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

Independence meaning? They still had to pay taxes to Rome, as well as imposing their own Temple tax which was somewhat of a burden. How large a degree of independence do you mean. Pilate was basically a puppet, as was Herod. I will agree with you that there seems to have been relative independence in the running of the Temple..

It would depend on the exact terms given at the time. Usually Foriegn policy was under Roman control, and internal matters of little odds to them as long as dues were received.

Jakkass wrote: »

He was a Pharisee, of the tribe of Benjamin. He was a part of the Jewish diaspora, that doesn't make one less Jewish...

Re-read what I said.

Jakkass wrote: »

In fairness, just because it is a series of personal perspectives doesn't mean that there is less onus to substantiate ones claims, particularly about the New Testament being anti-Semitic....

He obviously felt that he did.

Jakkass wrote: »

They still have an onus to substantiate it, otherwise they are spreading falsehoods about Christianity.....

Again, you're taking the strongest reading of the program. The fact is that there are parts of the Bible which can be read as anti-Jewish, and have been over the centuries, whether that was taking them out of context or otherwise.

Jakkass wrote: »

How could you not? He effectively called the author of the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Matthew to be anti-Semitic even though both were most likely Jewish. This is effectively saying that the New Testament texts are anti-Semitic, and that the Christian texts encourage anti-Semitism. This is surely an equation of Christianity with anti-Semitism.

Going on memory, I'd have to say that was adding undue strength to his emphasis.

Jakkass wrote: »

Nodin, before we get off track here. Does Christianity in it's Scriptures justify anti-Semitism? If the answer is no, you can attribute this to human corruption of religion than the essence of it itself. Personally anti-Semitic Christianity doesn't make sense given the Bible..

As far as I can see, Christianity overall and in context has nothing against the Jews per se.

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering that such a view was also considered in Jewish prophetic thought (see Isaiah 1), and that it is featured in Paul's letter to the Romans, so surely that is indicatory of the thought of the time period as well as today.

Indications of the thoughts of some christians. Alas christianity is and was different things to different people. Its true nature is not precisely agreed upon. Whilst jettisoning the old testament makes things markedly more peaceful, even then there are those who can use the New Testament to their own ends. Certainly the Jesus I was taught was 'peace flowers and love', but that is not the way everyone takes it.

(As an aside, I collect antiques when finances permit, and occassionally aqquire small pieces for gifts etc. I was looking for a suitable piece for a friend when I came across this....note the description of the engraving on the blade.
http://www.time-lines.co.uk/mw-010886-14329-0.html)

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

One of the ministers in the documentary took legal action against Channel 4 for editing the main cut to make it look sex obsessed.

For "make me a Christian"? I'd like to see how that went down. Do you have a link. S'Ok, I found it. Though I don't see anything about editing the main cut. Do you mean C4 edited what the producers submitted?

Miss Joanna Jepson.
No stranger to the courts either by the look of it. In 2004, she took her local police force to court for failing to prosecute doctors who carried out the abortion after 28 weeks. Anyway there's a Wiki article on her.

In August 2008, Jepson took part in a television series for Channel 4 entitled Make Me A Christian, in which a panel of four Christian leaders, including Jepson, attempted to mentor volunteers who were exploring conversion to Christianity.

After being shown the final cut, Jepson took unsuccessful legal action to have her scenes removed from the programme, on the grounds that the footage had been cut in a sensationalist manner to emphasize issues of sexuality and to present only a fundamentalist versions of Christianity.

Miss Joanna Jepson say's.

"There was clearly an agenda behind making the programme designed to make Christians look obsessed with people's sex lives and intent on imposing Christian behaviour on everyone else.

An Agenda? Sounds familiar.
The producers replied...

"We didn't set out to be negative about Christianity. It's unfair to say that the series is obsessed with sex because it also looks at other big issues such as abortion, respecting women and forgiveness. If there's conflict along the way, that's because some of these issues are difficult."

Miss Joanna Jepson is chaplin to the London College of Fashion. Here's a photo of her BTW.



My opinion on this is, as usual if anything is critical of Christianity it's a conspiracy. Be it by Channel 4 or whoever.

Oddly enough quite a lot of the Christian magazines actually enjoyed the program. One even complained there wasn't enough of her in the program.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

He obviously felt that he did.

Theres two options then surely?

1) He's being intellectually dishonest
or
2) He's being ignorant.

That's what it comes down to.

Nodin wrote: »

Again, you're taking the strongest reading of the program. The fact is that there are parts of the Bible which can be read as anti-Jewish, and have been over the centuries, whether that was taking them out of context or otherwise.

It's not a "reading". It was what was made clear. If the Christian texts themselves are anti-Semitic, then Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic as it is based on these texts. However how is a Jew being critical of Pharasaic Judaism anti-Semitic? Think about it this way, it's like a Catholic being critical of the Catholic Church.

Nodin wrote: »

Going on memory, I'd have to say that was adding undue strength to his emphasis.

It definitely wasn't. He said the following. That in the Gospel of John, Jesus called the Jewish people children of Satan. No, he called the leaders of the Pharisees children of Satan. That is rather different than declaring all Jews are of Satan. Rather he is criticising the message of the Pharisees, and how it is hypocritical. Likewise, the presenter also said the curse that the Jews put on themselves at the time when Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified, was anti-Semitic!

Well how could that curse be anti-Semitic, if they were recording an event that truly happened? Unless he is suggesting that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew put that curse in. In the first case if it truly happened it couldn't be perceived as anti-Semitic at all.

At the end of the documentary, the presenter tells us when we read the words of Jesus, remember that it is a Jewish message. Fair enough, but he criticised the same words and said that they were anti-Semitic. How is an anti-Semitic Jewish message plausible. Do you not see a logical fallacy?

Nodin wrote: »

As far as I can see, Christianity overall and in context has nothing against the Jews per se.

Christianity has nothing against the Jews, from the Biblical text that is definitely true. I think some people who would consider themselves Christians can be anti-Semitic and have been with disastrous results. I personally see the Jewish people as a blessing unto the Gentiles. Unfortunately many did not accept their Messiah.

Nodin wrote: »

Indications of the thoughts of some christians. Alas christianity is and was different things to different people. Its true nature is not precisely agreed upon. Whilst jettisoning the old testament makes things markedly more peaceful, even then there are those who can use the New Testament to their own ends. Certainly the Jesus I was taught was 'peace flowers and love', but that is not the way everyone takes it.

Jesus stood up for righteousness and justice. He wasn't here to be flowery, He was here to show us how to live our lives, and to show us what God expects from us. Jesus also speaks extensively about the Kingdom of Heaven, and the final Judgement. As for truly living like Christ, I'm working on it, but I reckon it will be a lifetime project.

As for who it is indicatory of, it's indicatory of the Apostles. The leaders of the Christian faith in the world. They are seen as an authority in Christian thinking and in Christian practice.

Nodin wrote: »

(As an aside, I collect antiques when finances permit, and occassionally aqquire small pieces for gifts etc. I was looking for a suitable piece for a friend when I came across this....note the description of the engraving on the blade.
http://www.time-lines.co.uk/mw-010886-14329-0.html)

Interesting stuff.

Mr. Presentable

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No! It stands for Before Common Era - make of that what you will.

LOL! :eek:

Are you serious? Where'd that come out of? Common era started in 1997, didn't it?

Thanks Fanny, but the worlds mental - or at least its users are.

Mr. Presentable

OK, so further to some research the usage Common Era is used for the Hebrew calendar. But interestingly it was in usage in the 15th century, properly called the Vulgar Era.

Kenneth G. Wilson remarks, "If we do end by casting aside the A.D./B.C. convention, almost certainly some will argue that we ought to cast aside as well the conventional numbering system itself, given its Christian basis"

http://www.answers.com/topic/common-era

studiorat

nipplenuts wrote: »

Kenneth G. Wilson remarks, "If we do end by casting aside the A.D./B.C. convention, almost certainly some will argue that we ought to cast aside as well the conventional numbering system itself, given its Christian basis"

The conventional numbering system is Indian and Arabic, it has no christian basis. I dunno where K.G.W. got his information. It was introduced into Europe in the middle ages through traders coming to Venice from North Africa and spread from there.

The first recorded use of the system in Europe was in AD/CE 976.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

Theres two options then surely?

1) He's being intellectually dishonest
or
2) He's being ignorant.

That's what it comes down to..

Or he could have come to a rather different conclusion to you.

Jakkass wrote: »

However how is a Jew being critical of Pharasaic Judaism anti-Semitic? Think about it this way, it's like a Catholic being critical of the Catholic Church. ..

The same way that 'Jesus wasn't jewish'. You seem to be missing the point. A christian sitting in some town in 14th century Europe generally believed the Bible a christian text, by christians. Therefore text criticising Jews in the Bible is not Jew vs Jew, but Christian vs Jew. Thus the trial of Jesus becomes rather more sinister.

This isn't a situation which greatly improved when the Bible became available in local languages. There is a famous instance in which Henrich Himmler was written a letter by a 14 year old boy, who was (quite genuinely) conflicted by the thought that Jesus was a Jew. Herr Himmler took time out from his duties to personally hand-write a reply, stating categorically that Jesus was not in any sense Jewish, with a long and detailed explanation of why.

Now you can say thats an entirely unreasonable line to take, but the fact is that its been used in this manner for centuries. Bigots are, after all, notoriously selective readers.

Jakkass wrote: »

It definitely wasn't. He said the following. That in the Gospel of John, Jesus called the Jewish people children of Satan. No, he called the leaders of the Pharisees children of Satan. That is rather different than declaring all Jews are of Satan. Rather he is criticising the message of the Pharisees, and how it is hypocritical. Likewise, the presenter also said the curse that the Jews put on themselves at the time when Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified, was anti-Semitic!

Well how could that curse be anti-Semitic, if they were recording an event that truly happened? Unless he is suggesting that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew put that curse in. In the first case if it truly happened it couldn't be perceived as anti-Semitic at all...

A number of points. Firstly, theres a great many that don't believe that version, myself amongst them. That view would be best summarised as Jesus being a popular figure amongst the people, and rather more radical than portrayed in the Gospels. Due to his challenge of both the Temple and secular authorities, the Romans had him put to death in the manner reserved for rebels. Trying to avoid extermination by the Romans, later writers changed the emphasis to blame the Jews for his death, without of course realising the consequences.

The rest is covered by my earlier remarks re 'Jesus wasn't Jewish' etc.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for who it is indicatory of, it's indicatory of the Apostles. The leaders of the Christian faith in the world. They are seen as an authority in Christian thinking and in Christian practice.

Yet theres more christian churches with different readings of that than you can shake a number of sticks at. People are quite often a la carte about their religon.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Or he could have come to a rather different conclusion to you.

How if he is giving a fair assessment of how the Bible regards the Jewish people? Infact over 70% of the Christian Bible is actually comprised of Jewish scriptures. The question is, the Bible is either anti-Semitic, or it is not. The presenter concluded that it was anti-Semitic even when there is nothing Biblical to support anti-Semitism within the Bible. I'd understand if it was the second option.

Nodin wrote: »

The same way that 'Jesus wasn't jewish'. You seem to be missing the point. A christian sitting in some town in 14th century Europe generally believed the Bible a christian text, by christians. Therefore text criticising Jews in the Bible is not Jew vs Jew, but Christian vs Jew. Thus the trial of Jesus becomes rather more sinister.

The Gospels make clear that Jesus was born of a Jewish mother, into the Jewish people, and had Jewish rites carried out namely circumcision, and Bar Mitzvah and had a strong knowledge of the Jewish scriptures to be able to question the Pharisees. How could Jesus not be Jewish, unless the Church who had the Bible only avaliable in Latin told the unknowing masses that the Jews were "Christ-killers" and the like. I personally think it was due to congregations being kept in the dark and not being able to understand the light that is the Biblical texts due to it not being in the common language, that anti-Semitism sprung up in Europe. However, to say that Christianity itself is anti-Semitic isn't quite accurate.

Nodin wrote: »

This isn't a situation which greatly improved when the Bible became available in local languages. There is a famous instance in which Henrich Himmler was written a letter by a 14 year old boy, who was (quite genuinely) conflicted by the thought that Jesus was a Jew. Herr Himmler took time out from his duties to personally hand-write a reply, stating categorically that Jesus was not in any sense Jewish, with a long and detailed explanation of why.

Herr Himmler, along with others in the Nazi party weren't interested in Christianity, Hitler clearly puts forward that religion was of no consequence to him in private memoirs. Documents have been released from the Nuremburg Trials in which Nazi plans to destroy Christianity were contained. Probably because they were about as aware of it's Jewish roots as a faith as we are today.

See more on Hitler and religion here, it's confusing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

Nodin wrote: »

Now you can say thats an entirely unreasonable line to take, but the fact is that its been used in this manner for centuries. Bigots are, after all, notoriously selective readers.

Bigots are bigots, this isn't the fault of Christianity, this is the fault of humanity.

Nodin wrote: »

A number of points. Firstly, theres a great many that don't believe that version, myself amongst them. That view would be best summarised as Jesus being a popular figure amongst the people, and rather more radical than portrayed in the Gospels. Due to his challenge of both the Temple and secular authorities, the Romans had him put to death in the manner reserved for rebels. Trying to avoid extermination by the Romans, later writers changed the emphasis to blame the Jews for his death, without of course realising the consequences.

How did they change it? Do you understand, the writers of the Gospels were themselves Jews? Why is the first suggestion to claim that the Gospels have been altered? If you are to make such an assertion it would have to be substantiated, and the presenter didn't do this at all. It is just as probable or even more so that the teachers of the Law found Jesus' teaching so controversial that they were enraged at his blasphemy as depicted in the Gospels. The only reason there would be such a coverup would be that Jesus actually did commit a crime, however the discussion of Pontious Pilate in the New Testament wouldn't suggest that in any of the Gospels.

Nodin wrote: »

Yet theres more christian churches with different readings of that than you can shake a number of sticks at. People are quite often a la carte about their religon.

No matter how much different readings they may have, nearly all if not all of the Bible was written by Jews.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

The question is, the Bible is either anti-Semitic, or it is not. The presenter concluded that it was anti-Semitic even when there is nothing Biblical to support anti-Semitism within the Bible. .

..if its read in context.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Gospels make clear that Jesus was born of a Jewish mother, into the Jewish people, and had Jewish rites carried out namely circumcision, and Bar Mitzvah and had a strong knowledge of the Jewish scriptures to be able to question the Pharisees. How could Jesus not be Jewish, unless the Church who had the Bible only avaliable in Latin told the unknowing masses that the Jews were "Christ-killers" and the like. I personally think it was due to congregations being kept in the dark and not being able to understand the light that is the Biblical texts due to it not being in the common language, that anti-Semitism sprung up in Europe.

Because of what you mentioned, and the fact that people are remarkably obtuse when it suits them. If culturally the Jews become killers of Christ then evidence of Christ killing and the assumed peridious nature that would cause it will be found. Certainly Luther and other church men (Catholic & Protestant) became/were rabid haters of Jews, despite being far more conversant with the texts than could be expected of the semi-literate peasantry.

Jakkass wrote: »

How did they change it? Do you understand, the writers of the Gospels were themselves Jews? Why is the first suggestion to claim that the Gospels have been altered?

Going on memory - the entry to the Temple, the whole washing of hands episode, the manner of death (crucifiction as oppossed to stoning). There is the suspicion that Jesus was far more of a firebrand Rabbi than shown in the Gospels, and that certain elements of this were trimmed to avoid appearing anti-Roman.

Jakkass wrote: »

No matter how much different readings they may have, nearly all if not all of the Bible was written by Jews.

Facts do not cancel belief, as you may have noted the odd time.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

..if its read in context.

If it's read in the context of it's original time, then it is impossible that the Bible is an anti-Semitic text. I can think of no quotation in the New Testament that could be considered to be promoting hatred of the Jewish people.

Nodin wrote: »

Because of what you mentioned, and the fact that people are remarkably obtuse when it suits them. If culturally the Jews become killers of Christ then evidence of Christ killing and the assumed peridious nature that would cause it will be found. Certainly Luther and other church men (Catholic & Protestant) became/were rabid haters of Jews, despite being far more conversant with the texts than could be expected of the semi-literate peasantry.

Obtuse, when it suits them, is the equivalent of twisting the Bible to suit ones own ends. Now this isn't Christianity, this is the manipulation of man on the Biblical teaching. There is a difference. However we have discussed Luther's anti-Semitism on another thread, and Protestants never claim that Luther was perfect.

Nodin wrote: »

Going on memory - the entry to the Temple, the whole washing of hands episode, the manner of death (crucifiction as oppossed to stoning). There is the suspicion that Jesus was far more of a firebrand Rabbi than shown in the Gospels, and that certain elements of this were trimmed to avoid appearing anti-Roman.

How can you show that things were trimmed? See, we can make up anything we want about Jesus that isn't in the Gospels, you can say that he was more critical of the Romans, and I could say that John the Baptist slipped out of captivity and that his death was a myth. Both aren't substantiated in reality.

Nodin wrote: »

Facts do not cancel belief, as you may have noted the odd time.

Yes, but it isn't Christian belief, it's essentially nothing more than folklore that people attach to it.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

How can you show that things were trimmed? See, we can make up anything we want about Jesus that isn't in the Gospels, you can say that he was more critical of the Romans, and I could say that John the Baptist slipped out of captivity and that his death was a myth. Both aren't substantiated in reality.
.

....can't be. Whether they are or not is unknown, as all we have to go on are the Gospels.

wolfsbane

Nodin said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
. Judea was not an independant state, but ruled by Herod as a local king owing all to Rome. It even had local governors like Pilate, and large Roman garrisons.
Rather missing the point. It was run as a Kingdom subervient to Rome, with a large degree of independence in local matters. That was the way Rome often did things.

Yes, the Jewish leaders had independence in religious practice. They did not in the matter of captital punishment, for example. Nor were they exempt from paying tax to Rome. Even the coinage had Caesar's portrait.

In addition, theres a record of what was carried out, and the dates don't match, nor was there this requirement to travel, as mentioned in the Bible.

The date of this census is debated, but it seems the most likely way to resolve the census of 8BC with the birth of Christ (probably 5BC) is the time it would take to implement such a contentious decree in Israel. The later census, in AD6, led to a great rebellion among the Jews. So some delay in implementing the 8BC decree, allowing the local authorities to negotiate its time but not its outcome, is possible.

As to the requirement to travel, that would vary from place to place: in Egypt in AD104, the governor, G. Vibius Maximus, made such an edict. So no reason a similiar one was not given in Israel a century before.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

The date of this census is debated, but it seems the most likely way to resolve the census of 8BC with the birth of Christ (probably 5BC) is the time it would take to implement such a contentious decree in Israel. The later census, in AD6, led to a great rebellion among the Jews. So some delay in implementing the 8BC decree, allowing the local authorities to negotiate its time but not its outcome, is possible.

As to the requirement to travel, that would vary from place to place: in Egypt in AD104, the governor, G. Vibius Maximus, made such an edict. So no reason a similiar one was not given in Israel a century before.

The majority view is that there was only one census and the author of the Gospel of Luke misidentified it with the reign of Herod the Great. If as you suggest that a census would take up to 3 years to organize it's hardly likely that another one would be arragned just 14 years later. Also considering there are no records of census in the preceding or following 14 years more than one census is unlikely.

Geza Vermes comments, "from whatever angle one looks at it, the census referred to by Luke conflicts with historical reality".
The Nativity, Penguin 2006,


The papyrus from Egypt dated AD 104 requiring people to return to their homes for a census is not evidence of a requirement to travel; this refers only to migrant workers returning to their family home, not their ancestral home.

James Dunn wrote: "the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit".

E. P. Sanders considered it unreasonable there was ever a decree that required people to travel to their ancestral homes to be registered for tax purposes, there are a number of arguments in support.

Nodin

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the Jewish leaders had independence in religious practice. They did not in the matter of captital punishment, for example..

That would depend on the period. Herod the Great was a notoriously paranoid and dangerous ruler who bumped off anyone who got in his way or who he thought might. He did not send for permission.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Nor were they exempt from paying tax to Rome. Even the coinage had Caesar's portrait...

I aluded to Rome getting their cut earlier.

wolfsbane wrote: »

.The date of this census is debated, but it seems the most likely way to resolve the census of 8BC with the birth of Christ (probably 5BC) is the time it would take to implement such a contentious decree in Israel. The later census, in AD6, led to a great rebellion among the Jews. So some delay in implementing the 8BC decree, allowing the local authorities to negotiate its time but not its outcome, is possible.

....bit like moving the goalposts there.....

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to the requirement to travel, that would vary from place to place: in Egypt in AD104, the governor, G. Vibius Maximus, made such an edict. So no reason a similiar one was not given in Israel a century before.

....but that would require a requirement to have been ordered, but not recorded, even though a record of the order for the census survives. Studiorats reply there raises a number of valid objections to the rest.

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The date of this census is debated, but it seems the most likely way to resolve the census of 8BC with the birth of Christ (probably 5BC) is the time it would take to implement such a contentious decree in Israel. The later census, in AD6, led to a great rebellion among the Jews. So some delay in implementing the 8BC decree, allowing the local authorities to negotiate its time but not its outcome, is possible.

As to the requirement to travel, that would vary from place to place: in Egypt in AD104, the governor, G. Vibius Maximus, made such an edict. So no reason a similiar one was not given in Israel a century before.
The majority view is that there was only one census and the author of the Gospel of Luke misidentified it with the reign of Herod the Great. If as you suggest that a census would take up to 3 years to organize it's hardly likely that another one would be arragned just 14 years later. Also considering there are no records of census in the preceding or following 14 years more than one census is unlikely.

Certainly many liberal scholars have poo-pooed Luke's reliability. But other fine scholars have not. It used to be asserted that he was mistaken about the date of Quirinius' rule in Syria - but subsequent evidence has shown Quirinius governed on two occasions.

14 years was the space between each census in Egypt, starting around 10-9 BC. No surprise if the same happened in Israel.

Are you saying there is no record of a census in AD 6?

Geza Vermes comments, "from whatever angle one looks at it, the census referred to by Luke conflicts with historical reality".
The Nativity, Penguin 2006,


The papyrus from Egypt dated AD 104 requiring people to return to their homes for a census is not evidence of a requirement to travel; this refers only to migrant workers returning to their family home, not their ancestral home.

James Dunn wrote: "the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit".

E. P. Sanders considered it unreasonable there was ever a decree that required people to travel to their ancestral homes to be registered for tax purposes, there are a number of arguments in support.

Despite the opinions of these modern 'experts', Luke wrote in the time when fathers/grandfathers would have been able to say for sure. What might be hard for Dunn to credit might not be so for an Imperial ruler.

wolfsbane

Nodin said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, the Jewish leaders had independence in religious practice. They did not in the matter of captital punishment, for example..

That would depend on the period. Herod the Great was a notoriously paranoid and dangerous ruler who bumped off anyone who got in his way or who he thought might. He did not send for permission.

Quite so. I meant the religious leaders - the Sanhedrin. But even Herod lived by Caesar's grace - toward the end of his reign he was very much the subject. Josephus tells us that all Judaea had to take an oath of loyalty to Augustus as well as Herod at that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
.The date of this census is debated, but it seems the most likely way to resolve the census of 8BC with the birth of Christ (probably 5BC) is the time it would take to implement such a contentious decree in Israel. The later census, in AD6, led to a great rebellion among the Jews. So some delay in implementing the 8BC decree, allowing the local authorities to negotiate its time but not its outcome, is possible.
....bit like moving the goalposts there.....

Not at all - the goalposts are the fact of the census in the time of Herod plus the birth of Christ at that time. The only thing moving is the possible date of the initial command for a census.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As to the requirement to travel, that would vary from place to place: in Egypt in AD104, the governor, G. Vibius Maximus, made such an edict. So no reason a similiar one was not given in Israel a century before.
....but that would require a requirement to have been ordered, but not recorded, even though a record of the order for the census survives.

I thought you said there was no record of Luke's census?

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

said:

Certainly many liberal scholars have poo-pooed Luke's reliability. But other fine scholars have not. It used to be asserted that he was mistaken about the date of Quirinius' rule in Syria - but subsequent evidence has shown Quirinius governed on two occasions.

If Census was in 6 AD Herod the Great still died in 4 BC.
Matthew alone poo-poo's Luke's reliability, that's before you even look outside the bible.

So what fantastic evidence are you talking about regarding Qurinius' twice governship? The only evidence I know of regarding that claim is extremely outdated. I hope you aren't going to keep these "fine scholars" to yourself.

Are any of these in your evidence?
The Lapis Tiburtinus? That doesn't even have anybody's name on it...
I'll type out the translation if you'd like to read it.

There's no date to the can be effectively found for the Aemilius Secundus.

Or the Antihoch Stones? That mention the governship of Caristanius and not of Quirinius.

Would you care to mention where this fantastic claim comes from.
There are 3 tablets and a coin which have been used to imply Quirinus was governer twice. I've mentioned the stones above, the claim of the coin (with it's "micro etchings") is so laughable I'm not even going to bother.

That's before we look at confusing Quintilius Varus with Quirinus and the rest of the Christian apologetica.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

said:

Despite the opinions of these modern 'experts', Luke wrote in the time when fathers/grandfathers would have been able to say for sure. What might be hard for Dunn to credit might not be so for an Imperial ruler.

Fathers and Grandfathers of the time would not have known or had very much interest in where or when Jesus was born apart from Nazareth maybe. The details of the Nativity would certainly not have been common knowledge as they are today. Not to mention the problems encountered with translation of the Oral stories to Greek in which the Gospels were written.*

Luke was written for a non-Jewish audience and thus the autograph copy was most likely written in Greek.

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

If Census was in 6 AD Herod the Great still died in 4 BC.
Matthew alone poo-poo's Luke's reliability, that's before you even look outside the bible.

So what fantastic evidence are you talking about regarding Qurinius' twice governship? The only evidence I know of regarding that claim is extremely outdated. I hope you aren't going to keep these "fine scholars" to yourself.

Are any of these in your evidence?
The Lapis Tiburtinus? That doesn't even have anybody's name on it...
I'll type out the translation if you'd like to read it.

There's no date to the can be effectively found for the Aemilius Secundus.

Or the Antihoch Stones? That mention the governship of Caristanius and not of Quirinius.

Would you care to mention where this fantastic claim comes from.
There are 3 tablets and a coin which have been used to imply Quirinus was governer twice. I've mentioned the stones above, the claim of the coin (with it's "micro etchings") is so laughable I'm not even going to bother.

That's before we look at confusing Quintilius Varus with Quirinus and the rest of the Christian apologetica.

The whole Luke census thing has been debated by scholars for a long time - and still is. The issue comes down to this, in my opinion: can we prove Luke was in error when he linked Qurinius with the census at Christ's birth? The opponents of the gospel raise objections that tend to suggest Luke's account is unlikely. But none of them are conclusive. There remains then the possibility that Luke is correct. Scholars supporting Luke suggest several alternate explanations for the objections, and there doubtless some we haven't thought of.

Some scholars who point this out:
I. Howard Marshall, Professor emeritus of New Testament exegesis at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, in his commentary on Luke in:
http://www.logos.com/products/details/2109

John Nolland, academic dean and lecturer in New Testament studies at Trinity College, Bristol, England, in his commentary on Luke in:
http://www.logos.com/products/details/1991

Darrell L. Bock, professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, in his commentary on Luke in:
http://www.logos.com/products/details/2603

H. W. Hoehner, “Chronology,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. J. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 118–22.

http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/hhoehner/

Hayles, D. J. “The Roman Census and Jesus‘ Birth: Was Luke Correct?, Part 1: The Roman Census System.” Buried History 9 (1973): 113-32.

Hayles, D. J. “The Roman Census and Jesus‘ Birth: Was Luke Correct?, Part 2: Quirinius’ Career and a Census in Herod‘s Day.” Buried History 10 (1974): 16-31.

I'll stick with the Spirit's witness to His truth, though it is good to have it pointed out that scholarship lined up against it.

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

Fathers and Grandfathers of the time would not have known or had very much interest in where or when Jesus was born apart from Nazareth maybe. The details of the Nativity would certainly not have been common knowledge as they are today. Not to mention the problems encountered with translation of the Oral stories to Greek in which the Gospels were written.*

Luke was written for a non-Jewish audience and thus the autograph copy was most likely written in Greek.

The gospel story was heard and believed by tens of thousands in Israel in that generation.

What translation problem exists in telling the account of the birth of Christ?

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

If Census was in 6 AD Herod the Great still died in 4 BC.
Matthew alone poo-poo's Luke's reliability, that's before you even look outside the bible.

Luke's census was not the later one in AD 6, so Matthew does not contradict Luke.

Húrin

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not what Jesus intended to happen, it goes against everything every religion teaches but it always seems to be the end result. The problem with churches is they get corrupt at the top and it just works it's way down thanks to peoples blind faith.

If you want to make claims about what Jesus said, then back it up with quotes.

sorella

See my posting of the didache... Blessings

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

The gospel story was heard and believed by tens of thousands in Israel in that generation.

What translation problem exists in telling the account of the birth of Christ?

From the language of those thousands of Hewbrews to Greek...

Gregory J. Riley

Even in the same geographical area and sometimes in the same cities, different Christian teachers taught quite different gospels and had quite different views of who Jesus was and what he did.

W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders:

on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could

Karen Armstrong.

So through was the Christians' persher exegesis that there is scarcely a verse in the New Testament that did not refer to the older scriptures. The four evangelists seemed to use the Septuagint as another source for the biography of Jesus. As a result it is difficult to dis-entangle fact from exegesis.

philologos

To keep this thread on topic somewhat did anyone see the episodes of this on Constantine's impact on Christianity, The Dark Ages and Christianity being the founding ideology of England uniting formerly warring tribes, and the episode of the Crusades and the ideology of Pope Urban II to holy war. These three have been brilliant. Portillo, Beckford and Rageh Omaar left their conclusions to the end. Rageh Omaar suggested that it is the Crusader ideology that has spurred on Al Quedas acts against the West, very interesting stuff.

studiorat

I believe he said it was a reaction to the Crusader idelolgy. After all, George W. actually called the War on Terror a Crusade against Evil. I'm sure there are plenty of Evenglists out there who see their work as a Crusade and not a million miles away from the idelogy of the historical Crusades, ie. to spread christianity through out the world...

philologos

Indeed, but I don't think many have Pope Urban II's ideology on holy war.

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

From the language of those thousands of Hewbrews to Greek...

Gregory J. Riley


W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders:


Karen Armstrong.

My, it is wonderful how these commentators know so much of what happened nearly 2000 years before they lived. Did God reveal it to them? Surely not, since they seem to discount that as a source for the authors of the Bible. Have they written records that tell them of the ignorance of the authors? No, all they have are their imaginations.

As to Hebrew into Greek, Luke would have been writing in Greek and getting his information from the eye-witnesses.

The other evangelists would have access to those fluent in both. And of course the Holy Spirit to infallibly direct their work.

ckristo2

We'll have to take a good look at the world of Jesus and his immediate successors i.e. Cephas or Peter, Yahob or his kid brother James and Yohanan or John the big three who took over the "Jerusalem Church" after the crucifixion and then comes along the "Greek Jew" from Tarsus who gave them all a headache...and the hissy spat between Peter and Paul over territory in Antioch.
I tell you the Sopranos had nothing on those tough men who "invented" early Christianity.

hivizman

Jakkass wrote: »

To keep this thread on topic somewhat did anyone see the episodes of this on Constantine's impact on Christianity, The Dark Ages and Christianity being the founding ideology of England uniting formerly warring tribes, and the episode of the Crusades and the ideology of Pope Urban II to holy war. These three have been brilliant. Portillo, Beckford and Rageh Omaar left their conclusions to the end. Rageh Omaar suggested that it is the Crusader ideology that has spurred on Al Quedas acts against the West, very interesting stuff.

Unfortunately, having seen the first part, with Howard Jacobson, and the second part, with Michael Portillo, I missed the next two parts - I need to catch up on the internet. However, I saw Anne Widdecombe on the Reformation tonight. A bit simplistic, with an overconcentration on Martin Luther and no mention of precursors such as Hus or contemporaries such as Calvin. Widdecombe conceded that the medieval catholic church needed reforming, but put a lot of stress on the wars of religion and managed to tie Northern Ireland into her story, with an interview with Ian Paisley at the end. I thought that this was less convincing than the Portillo episode. As always, some nice travel pictures, but I see that next week the actor and playwright Kwame Kwei-Armah will be going to Mexico and Africa, so I'm expecting a lot of colourful film in that episode.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

The other evangelists would have access to those fluent in both. And of course the Holy Spirit to infallibly direct their work.

fixed!

ckristo2

With regard to the Crusades it has been suggested that they were originally so popular in Europe because they gave some of the warlike landless knights and barons someone else to fight (apart from their fellow European knights and barons) it must have been so peaceful and quiet in Europe with all those fighters making war in someone else's land. Didn't the Saudis send their ultra jihadist young men to fight the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980's to get them out of their hair....One of them was called Osama Bin Laden.

wolfsbane

ckristo2 wrote: »

We'll have to take a good look at the world of Jesus and his immediate successors i.e. Cephas or Peter, Yahob or his kid brother James and Yohanan or John the big three who took over the "Jerusalem Church" after the crucifixion and then comes along the "Greek Jew" from Tarsus who gave them all a headache...and the hissy spat between Peter and Paul over territory in Antioch.
I tell you the Sopranos had nothing on those tough men who "invented" early Christianity.

I'm afraid you have been mis-reading the script if you think Peter and Paul had a territorial dispute in Antioch.

Peter had a courage-wobble, and Paul rebuked him for it. Peter recovered and both went on to serve the Lord faithfully.

Galatians 2:11-21
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians%202:11-21%20;&version=50;

philologos

hivizman wrote: »

Unfortunately, having seen the first part, with Howard Jacobson, and the second part, with Michael Portillo, I missed the next two parts - I need to catch up on the internet. However, I saw Anne Widdecombe on the Reformation tonight. A bit simplistic, with an overconcentration on Martin Luther and no mention of precursors such as Hus or contemporaries such as Calvin. Widdecombe conceded that the medieval catholic church needed reforming, but put a lot of stress on the wars of religion and managed to tie Northern Ireland into her story, with an interview with Ian Paisley at the end. I thought that this was less convincing than the Portillo episode. As always, some nice travel pictures, but I see that next week the actor and playwright Kwame Kwei-Armah will be going to Mexico and Africa, so I'm expecting a lot of colourful film in that episode.

In full agreement with you on this. She was interesting all the same, and I found what she did say about secret Catholic churches in Britain and Holland to be interesting, however the English Reformers such as Cranmer, Tyndale and so on were shoved to the side in favour of discussing purely about the Tudors.

The lowest point of her take was when she started reading out hate mail concerning her conversion to Catholicism, I fail to see what this has to do with the Reformation other than that the people who wrote said hatemail were belonging to Reformed churches.

As for Paisley I did find that kind of interesting. However although Paisleys views are rather extreme he did conduct himself in a reasonable manner with Widdecombe.

ckristo2

Hi,
I suppose some of the fun of scripture is interpreting it. From my reading of Acts 15:20-22 and Galatians 2:7-9 is that The "Jerusalem Church" (James, Peter and John) agreed with Paul that gentiles wishing to follow the Gospel need not undergoe circumcision but must observe the Jewish dietary laws. And that Paul is to be the Apostle of the gentiles and Peter the Apostle of the Jews. Paul is very hostile toward circumcision and ambivalent about the dietary laws Collosians 2:11-15, but adamant about which Apostle should preach to the gentiles and which to the Jews so that's why he was angry that Peter had strayed into "His territory" of Antioch to "poach" some non Jews himself. I am very interested in the period when the new faith of Christianity sheered off from Judaism. Saint Paul was one of the major figures who played a part in this event. All the best John

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Paisley I did find that kind of interesting. However although Paisleys views are rather extreme he did conduct himself in a reasonable manner with Widdecombe.

The mystery of the 5 Ian Paisleys. Two are very very nice, two are very, very bad and and the fifth can go either way.

wolfsbane

Nodin wrote: »

The mystery of the 5 Ian Paisleys. Two are very very nice, two are very, very bad and and the fifth can go either way.

Yes, a real puzzle to me too. I'm glad to see his Christian attitude of late, but still bothered by grave lapses in it earlier.

wolfsbane

ckristo2 said:

Paul is very hostile toward circumcision and ambivalent about the dietary laws Collosians 2:11-15, but adamant about which Apostle should preach to the gentiles and which to the Jews so that's why he was angry that Peter had strayed into "His territory" of Antioch to "poach" some non Jews himself. I am very interested in the period when the new faith of Christianity sheered off from Judaism. Saint Paul was one of the major figures who played a part in this event. All the best John

Hi, John.

It is wrong to say Paul is very hostile toward circumcision and ambivalent about the dietary laws. He is only so in regard to Gentiles being induced into them. Jews are free to maintain their practice if they wish.

As to the incident at Antioch: it was not a territorial dispute, but a failure of Peter's courage in the face of those who wished to rebuild the wall of separation between Gentile and Jew that the gospel had broken down. Peter did not teach such a wicked error, but his action in not eating with the Gentiles (when the Judaizers arrived) sent out that message and made him a hypocrite. Thus the public rebuke by Paul.

hivizman

Coming up tonight (Sunday 22 February), Professor Colin Blakemore will be discussing the relationship between Christianity and science. He suggests that science is "one gene away" from finding out why people are religious. Highlights of the programme include an interview with Richard Dawkins.

Fanny Cradock

hivizman wrote: »

Coming up tonight (Sunday 22 February), Professor Colin Blakemore will be discussing the relationship between Christianity and science. He suggests that science is "one gene away" from finding out why people are religious. Highlights of the programme include an interview with Richard Dawkins.

Sounds interesting. Though reading the episode blurb it sounds as if the death of religion is a forgone conclusion and he has the sympathetic interviewees to back him up.

Mickeroo

hivizman wrote: »

Coming up tonight (Sunday 22 February), Professor Colin Blakemore will be discussing the relationship between Christianity and science. He suggests that science is "one gene away" from finding out why people are religious. Highlights of the programme include an interview with Richard Dawkins.

where and when is this on?

hivizman

Channel 4, 7PM tonight (Sunday 22 Feb). The previous episodes are available at:

http://www.channel4.com/video/brandless-catchup.jsp?vodBrand=christianity-a-history

The current episode will be there as well, probably later this evening.

ckristo2

Hi Wolfsbane,
thanks for your reply. I'm a bit puzzled though. Paul was a Jew, he worshipped in the temple in Jerusalem Acts 21:27. And he was indeed trying to preach a religion that did not place much importance on the two "Twin Pillars" of Jewish identity: Circumcision and the dietary laws. He says that there was effectively no difference between Jew and Gentile Romans 10:12 so shouldn't he have been delighted that Peter was eating with Gentiles and so taking on board Paul's teaching. However one of the agreements that Paul and his fellow missionary Barnabas had with James the leader of the so called Jerusalem church was that Paul would preach among the Gentiles and that the Jerusalem church members (One of whom was Peter) should preach among the Jews. So you can imagine Paul's surprise (to put it mildly) when he sees Peter sitting among Antioch's Gentile community eating non-Kosher food. And he seemed to be doing so without the knowledge (let alone permission) of the other members of the Jerusalem Church, James and John. All Hell broke loose so Paul says in Galatians 2:12. At least that is my understanding of the events. All the best.

JimiTime

Very lightweight episode. Alot of rhetoric, not much substance IMO.

hivizman

JimiTime wrote: »

Very lightweight episode. Alot of rhetoric, not much substance IMO.

I agree. I liked the scientist-priest in the Vatican who stressed that the Bible is not the direct word of God ("we're not Muslims!" ) but rather how humans inspired by God have recorded things. But a lot of the programme was fairly predictable. Still, the producers of the series didn't, despite my fears, blow their travel budget on Kwame Kwei-Armah last week - Blakemore managed to get to Poland, Italy, Switzerland and the USA this week, as well as various parts of Oxford.

I caught up with the Rageh Omaar programme on the Crusades, which was number four in the series, earlier today. A much more satisfying programme, although it had some echoes of the recent BBC documentary After Rome by Boris Johnson, which also had a segment on the Crusades. Perhaps this should not be surprising, because both programmes had as an advisor Professor Jonathan Phillips, who is Professor of Crusading History (great title ) at Royal Holloway, University of London.

Let's hope that Cherie Blair next week is at least provocative.

Nodin

hivizman wrote: »

Let's hope that Cherie Blair next week is at least provocative.

I was going to attempt that one, but an hour of her sanctimony (that would appear to include a wee chat with Mrs Bush) would be too much for me to take.

darjeeling

hivizman wrote: »

I agree. I liked the scientist-priest in the Vatican who stressed that the Bible is not the direct word of God ("we're not Muslims!" ) but rather how humans inspired by God have recorded things. But a lot of the programme was fairly predictable.

I thought it wasn't bad in as far as it went, but it was a fairly textbook run through the science vs religion battles, pointing up all the familiar names and dates.

What I thought interesting was the contrast between the American creation scientist from Kentucky and the Church of England priest who pretty much discounted all the supernatural elements of Christianity. Both ostensibly shared the same religion, but they took such different messages from it - one seeing the Bible as a sort of Haynes manual for the world, and the other as a guide to leading a good life; fertile ground for another program, perhaps.

I kept missing the voice of ordinary worshippers down the centuries too - how much importance they placed on their Churches' teaching on the natural world, and how scientific developments affected their faith.

The series over all hasn't been bad, though each episode really has been too short to allow much detail, and I think a couple of the presenters have gone a little far in trying to force their own agenda onto the history. Still, it's been a good overview of how institutional Christianity adapted as it gained and wielded power, and how it's reacting in the West to its present declining authority.
.

wolfsbane

ckristo2 said:

Hi Wolfsbane,
thanks for your reply. I'm a bit puzzled though. Paul was a Jew, he worshipped in the temple in Jerusalem Acts 21:27. And he was indeed trying to preach a religion that did not place much importance on the two "Twin Pillars" of Jewish identity: Circumcision and the dietary laws. He says that there was effectively no difference between Jew and Gentile Romans 10:12 so shouldn't he have been delighted that Peter was eating with Gentiles and so taking on board Paul's teaching.

Indeed he should - and he was.

However one of the agreements that Paul and his fellow missionary Barnabas had with James the leader of the so called Jerusalem church was that Paul would preach among the Gentiles and that the Jerusalem church members (One of whom was Peter) should preach among the Jews.

Yes.

So you can imagine Paul's surprise (to put it mildly) when he sees Peter sitting among Antioch's Gentile community eating non-Kosher food. And he seemed to be doing so without the knowledge (let alone permission) of the other members of the Jerusalem Church, James and John. All Hell broke loose so Paul says in Galatians 2:12. At least that is my understanding of the events.

This is where you misunderstood. The mighty row was not about Peter eating with the Gentiles, but stopping eating with them in fear of what the visiting Jerusalem brethren might say. Peter's action implied he believed there was a difference between the Gentile and Jewish Christians. Peter did not believe this, so Paul rightly accused him of playing the hypocrite.

As to the division of labour between Paul and the other apostles, it was a general but not exclusive thing. Peter was mainly to go to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles - but Peter was the first to evangelize Gentiles, and Paul always preached to the Jews first in every place he went.

All the best.

And you too, my friend.