(September 14, 2013 at 7:43 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote: Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC.

How do you know this?

Quote: Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, who's administration began in 6 AD.

How do you know this?

Quote:Herod the great was not the only Herod to rule over judea. His son was referred to as 'King Herod.'

Herod the Great - the title Magnus seems to derive from his building activities - was known as Basileus - king in Greek.

His sons were given the title of tetrarch by the Romans who were the only ones with the authority to hand out such titles.

He could have been miraculously left in suspension until the time was right?

(September 18, 2013 at 4:31 pm)Drich Wrote: Why do you need 'scholarly opinion?' As luke points out in chapter 3 he divides the herodian line into regions.

But we're not discussing chapter 3, which was the time in which JtB began his ministry followed by the baptism of Jesus. We're discussing chapter 1.

The reason I asked for scholarly opinion is I don't speak Koine Greek and haven't seen the manuscripts with my own eyes. With such limitations, I must assume if all the scholarly translations, working independently come to the same conclusion, there's a reason.

Agreed, I could get a doctorate in theology, learn to read and write Koine Greek and translate them for myself but that's simply not practical. At some point, we reach the limitations of what we can personally research and must have confidence in the system of peer review.

Oxford seems convinced that Luke 1:5 is a reference to Herod the Great. Do you know any other scholars that cite a controversy here? If not, why do you think that is?

(September 18, 2013 at 4:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How do you know this?

My Bible tells me so. It's in the footnotes.

You'll have to give me some time on the other thread. You've demanded that I repost a lot of information I already gave you in my YouTube video series that I referenced in my post.

Quote:Agreed, I could get a doctorate in theology

Get a degree in ancient languages rather than theology. Theology is fucking worthless.

(September 18, 2013 at 6:43 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: With such limitations, I must assume if all the scholarly translations, working independently come to the same conclusion, there's a reason.

*Takes note that DP values scholarly consensus when it is convenient to his position but not concerning the inconvenient reality of Christ’s existence.

Quote:Oxford seems convinced that Luke 1:5 is a reference to Herod the Great. Do you know any other scholars that cite a controversy here? If not, why do you think that is?

Oxford scholars agree that Jesus existed.

(September 18, 2013 at 6:48 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: You'll have to give me some time on the other thread. You've demanded that I repost a lot of information I already gave you in my YouTube video series that I referenced in my post.

I was not asking you. Secondly, I need primary sources, not homemade YouTube videos.

(September 18, 2013 at 7:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: *Takes note that DP values scholarly consensus when it is convenient to his position but not concerning the inconvenient reality of Christ’s existence.

Can I assume you do the same with evolution? Or do you accept evolution?

In my case, I have faith in peer review unless I have reason to doubt it. Even scholars must present reasons why they have concluded what they have. Having looked into "historists" arguments, all they come up with is (paraphrased for brevity) "there must be some historical core here but we're not sure what". Ehrman in particular staunchly believes there is a "historical Jesus" but I've never heard him either justify it without citing scripture nor have I heard him offer what exactly that historical Jesus is beyond a vague "some kind of religious teacher".

I intend to read his latest book on the topic. Who knows, maybe he'll present evidence that will convince me. I'm always open-minded. All I'm asking is "show me the money".

On the other hand, translating languages is more cut-and-dried than searching for a historical figure behind a legend/myth and a lot easier to justify a conclusion.

Quote:Oxford scholars agree that Jesus existed.

Great. What evidence convinces them?

That's all I'm asking.

Quote:I was not asking you. Secondly, I need primary sources, not homemade YouTube videos.

You don't consider the Bible a primary source?

If you'd watched the videos, you'd see I do more than make assertions. In fact, I spend a lot of time taking Christian claims at face value and showing how the story still doesn't add up.

(September 18, 2013 at 7:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: *Takes note that DP values scholarly consensus when it is convenient to his position but not concerning the inconvenient reality of Christ’s existence.

This needs to be its own topic:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-20900.html

(September 18, 2013 at 8:28 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Can I assume you do the same with evolution? Or do you accept evolution?

We’re not talking about Evolution. We’re talking about historical facts and your rejection of them in the face of overwhelming scholarly consensus to the contrary on the matter.

Quote: In my case, I have faith in peer review unless I have reason to doubt it. Even scholars must present reasons why they have concluded what they have. Having looked into "historists" arguments, all they come up with is (paraphrased for brevity) "there must be some historical core here but we're not sure what". Ehrman in particular staunchly believes there is a "historical Jesus" but I've never heard him either justify it without citing scripture nor have I heard him offer what exactly that historical Jesus is beyond a vague "some kind of religious teacher".

Do you know why even Bart Ehrman cites scriptures in order to justify Jesus’ existence? Because he knows that the New Testament is the best attested works we have from antiquity and it is absurd to rule out using it in reference to Jesus. To say that a historian is not allowed to reference Christian writings to establish the existence of Jesus is like saying we cannot reference Tacitus and Suetonius in order to establish facts about ancient Rome simply because they were Roman. Ehrman has no motive whatsoever to believe Jesus existed and yet he laughs at people like you, why is that?

Quote: I intend to read his latest book on the topic. Who knows, maybe he'll present evidence that will convince me. I'm always open-minded. All I'm asking is "show me the money".

I used to believe you were fairly open-minded, but after learning that you ascribe to the Jesus Myth, I now know you’re not. Even someone as biased as Richard Dawkins admits that Jesus existed.

Quote: On the other hand, translating languages is more cut-and-dried than searching for a historical figure behind a legend/myth and a lot easier to justify a conclusion.

It doesn’t matter; you’re appealing to the testimony on experts with one but rejecting the testimony of experts on the other. It’s inconsistent.

Quote:Great. What evidence convinces them?

The same evidence that convinces them that other historical figures existed- just more of it, ancient manuscripts.

Quote: You don't consider the Bible a primary source?

It is, but you linked me to a YouTube video, which is not a primary source. I’ve watched your videos before, they are so condescending that they are unbearable- so I would prefer you just reference scripture directly in your posts. Thank you.

Quote: If you'd watched the videos, you'd see I do more than make assertions. In fact, I spend a lot of time taking Christian claims at face value and showing how the story still doesn't add up.

I am not sure that is the case, I watched your video on Josephus and Jesus, and all I heard was a lot of condescension, ridicule, and assertions. I’d prefer to address your posts, not your videos.