Thread: Christmas poll

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Happy birthday, and Merry Christmas too you then! All in one!

Thanks! Or "Merry Birthday". I always get a few of those every year.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I don't quite follow what you're getting at? He didn't exist because he wasn't in the census? Or He did exist, because in actuality the census itself didn't exist?

He may have existed because there was no census, but a need to put forth this candidate for messiah status with the falsehood in details of the nativity.

Originally Posted by Kees

Jesus has been described by Roman non-Christian writers so why would they lie?

For many reasons I guess, but more importantly, why might they be mistaken?

Originally Posted by xman

He may have existed because there was no census, but a need to put forth this candidate for messiah status with the falsehood in details of the nativity.

Ah..OK, I see what you are getting at (I think).

However, let me put this to you: The Bible Gospel accounts were written at some time after Jesus' death, by people who were contemporaries of Jesus, right?

If they were trying to tell people about the circumstances around Jesus' life, I would imagine that there were plenty of other people around at that time who hadd also had to deal with the Roman census that had been ordered.

If the Evangelists had simply fabricated that whole aspect of the story, pretty much everybody would have dismissed it out of hand--"Hey, what the heck? There was no government census 50 years ago..." etc.

More likely, the documents that the census was taken on were lost/misplaced/destroyed in the intervening 2,000 years since (I mean, come on, I have a hard time finding last year's tax reciepts!). Jerusalem was where the governor was, and the head administrative office of that region, a likely place for where such records may have been kept. That city was pretty well destroyed in 70 A.D. The fact that we have no proof that there was a census taken vis-a-vis Roman ancient documents filed in triplicate, does not mean that it was never carried out.

Like Joseph Campbell says, trying to peg a religious figure to a factual existence tends to ruin the mythological purpose of the stories. Doesn't matter if he lived or not, what matters is if one interprets the stories and his life in a manner that improves one's outlook and quality of life, giving one a mythological ground of being to move from.
makes sense to me, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

The fact that we have no proof that there was a census taken vis-a-vis Roman ancient documents filed in triplicate, does not mean that it was never carried out.

It certainly does not mean that it was. It stands to reason that some details of the edict or the census would remain somewhere as hundreds or even thousands traveled to the town of their birth to be counted. And given the other number of spurious details of impossible magic tricks it is FAR more likely that the obvious liars are lying again.

Originally Posted by xman

It certainly does not mean that it was. It stands to reason that some details of the edict or the census would remain somewhere as hundreds or even thousands traveled to the town of their birth to be counted. And given the other number of spurious details of impossible magic tricks it is FAR more likely that the obvious liars are lying again.

Why does that stand to reason? A government census is taken. Why would such a simple beuracratic process be etched into stone for all ages and the sake of posterity? Censuses even today are taken periodically, as populations change over time. Let's see--the city of Jerusalem is being attacked and burnt to the ground "Save the census files!"......

So, the only remaining document, written in thattime period, that actually does record the census is the Bible. And the reasons I have for not doubting its proper representation of the fact that there was a census were outlined in my previous post.

As for the latter part of your post, I believe the correct terminology is "miracle".

Originally Posted by xman

He may have existed because there was no census, but a need to put forth this candidate for messiah status with the falsehood in details of the nativity.

Ok, so to expand upon my other post: According to your theory, the Evangelists needed to come up with a reason to have Jesus be born in the little town of Bethleham, to fulfil the prohesies.

Why wouldn't they simply have had Mary and Joseph needing to travel to Bethleham on some other private matter? Not a census that would require the travel of thousands of people, as you have said?

By including the census in their writings, they are establishing a historical fact with their readers, who would also have known that the census had actually taken place, as it had occured in their lifetimes, not in the mists of antiquity.

Don't you think that glaring fact would have been immediately seized upon by the Jews of that time? "What a silly document! There was never a census taken like that!". Seeing as no fuss was raised at the time in regards to the matter by contemporaries of the time, I say that it stands to reason that there must have been a census taken.

Obviously, no one outside of eyewitnesses could verify the water into wine, et al. But there certainly must have been thousands of witnesses to the fact that there was a census taken.

Jesus, Heavenly Son of God, Earthly Son of Mary, Step Son of Joseph. Read the Bible He is call the Son of Mary in a culture where family relationships is through the father. He is never called Joseph's son except by those who question who He is. I vote yes He is Exactly who He said He is. For those of us who believe if Jesus is not Lord and savior no matter how much we believe we could not change it. If He is Lord then no matter how much those who do not want to believe try they will never make Him anything less than what HE is and that is Emanuel translated "God with us"

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Why does that stand to reason?

Ok. Try to follow me through this.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

A government census is taken.

Or not.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Why would such a simple beuracratic process be etched into stone for all ages and the sake of posterity?

Because that's what the Romans did, extensively.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Censuses even today are taken periodically, as populations change over time. Let's see--the city of Jerusalem is being attacked and burnt to the ground "Save the census files!"......

This is an assumption first of all, but where are the corroborating files in Rome, in Bethlehem? Where are the personal accounts from people outside Jerusalem. Nothing? NOTHING!?! hm.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

So, the only remaining document, written in thattime period, that actually does record the census is the Bible.

A known work of inconsistencies at the very least. At the other end of the story they can't even get the date and time of Jesus crucifixion right. Don't get me started on all the junk in that book. Really, if that's the best you can hang your hat on you're skating on thin ice to say the least.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

As for the latter part of your post, I believe the correct terminology is "miracle".

You equivocate. Either way, it's magical thinking, a logical fallacy. FAIL

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Why wouldn't they simply have had Mary and Joseph needing to travel to Bethleham on some other private matter? Not a census that would require the travel of thousands of people, as you have said?

You gotta wonder, eh? Surely they could have come up with an unfalsifiable lie. Perhaps they considered that a heavily pregnant woman just about to give birth wouldn't be travelling except for an edict which to oppose was punishable by death

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Don't you think that glaring fact would have been immediately seized upon by the Jews of that time? "What a silly document! There was never a census taken like that!". Seeing as no fuss was raised at the time in regards to the matter by contemporaries of the time, I say that it stands to reason that there must have been a census taken.

No, not really. Not for a few reasons. The Jews did write it all off as silliness as evidenced by the fact that they're still all Jewish. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the gospels were written and preached, not for the people of Israel/Palestine, but for the Greeks. And written at least sixty years later. That's a lifetime. At that time maybe two. In actuality the stories could have been told by the original disciples' descendants. Not saying they were, just that there is a reason to doubt, yet again the veracity of their telling.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Obviously, no one outside of eyewitnesses could verify the water into wine, et al. But there certainly must have been thousands of witnesses to the fact that there was a census taken.

Yes there should have been. Why do we find no corroborating evidence for it whatsoever anywhere in the region or in Rome?

You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but your logic escapes me. I cannot accept it. It is too thin first of all and you are a believer. Your agenda to support your belief appears obvious to me. I'm not saying it is intentionally insidious, just that your personal bias is getting in your way of seeing this clearly. I am a sceptic. I have an agenda to question what I am told. If I were merely trying to uphold my atheism (which comes as a result of my scepticism and could just as easily perish to it were any evidence for the supernatural ever available) I would have said from the outset that Jesus never lived, a proposition I have considered strongly in the past, but was swayed from given the logic of the argument I present to you here. Outside this very argument there is no reason to consider that the gospels are based on any real person at all again because there is no corroborating evidence whatsoever. There's just this niggling little detail about the false nativity that nags at that reasoning.

At any rate, I'm not sure I can make my argument any clearer for you than I already have. I hope it is easier for you to understand why I hold them now.

Just got home from the local pub with the lady of my life, so maybe i shouldn't write this at all, but here we go. I'll propably delete this later.

Some facts. The archives of Roman census have been stored in several places. Most of them have remained 100% intact and not single one of them state that there ever was a census in certain time and certain place. Was there a conspiracy to take away these records? Why?

The earlist remaining copies of the evidence (NT) have been written hundreds of years later. They were propably modified, banned, twisted, and some of them got totally banned, and those who did it were the early Christians. Why? And even if they were modified we have no way to know for sure. The earliest copies of Josephus are from the year 1000 AD or so.

Some of people here told that there is a scripts from non-Christian, Roman wittnesses about this man doing his miracle deeds. I (and the world) would like to know some more.

So here we have the facts as far as i know. I might be wrong, and it sure wouldn't be the first time.

I have no bad feelings about those who are Christians. The message of the NT is important and human. I just don't want to put my own belief on something that is just a rumour or second or third hand testemonies. In such case there would be lot of bullshit in this world to worship.

Latsly this is not so important. If i hear someone walking on a water, the it must be waterskiing or then it was winter when the lake was on ice.