The Historical Jesus

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@h311inac311

 "Whereas many have undertaken to write a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed goot to me also, having accurately investigated all things from the very beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the certainty of the things which you have been told."

In legalese, this is called 'hearsay'. It's like the difference between police taking down information about a car crash from a person who watched it happen, and police taking down information about the same car crash from a person who heard about it from the eyewitness's cousin's barber's best friend.

Boru

[h311inac311]

As I said the Gosples were written by people who recorded the stories that eye-witnesses told them.

That's not true because gospels are full of stories that could not have happened. For example, one of the first stories is that Mary and Joseph had to travel many miles to participate in census because Joseph's 35 grandfather was from Bethlehem. The reality is that people did not have to travel because of census, so this event never happened, meaning there were no eyewitnesses so the Gospel writer invented stories. And there are many impossible stories like that all the way till the end to invented Roman custom to free Jewish criminals on the Passover.

And some stories did not have witnesses like when Jesus is alone talking to himself.

Especially if we are talking about the so-called historical Jesus because historians don't take gospel stories at face value but as myths about some historical person.

How do you know that Mary and Joseph wouldn't have to travel to Bethlehem to participate in the census?

Would if, after receiving a revelation from God during a private prayer, Jesus chose to reveal what he learned to his disciples?

[Fake Messiah]

How do you know that Mary and Joseph wouldn't have to travel to Bethlehem to participate in the census?

The same way I know that people are not living inside my TV.

[Pat Mustard]

Nice strawman there idiot.

I was asking a clarifying question because they straw-manned my position first.

That's why I also went on to clarify what I believe with the last 4 sentences.

You strawmanned another poster because you couldn't argue against their position, plain and simple.

But then I expect no better from a tryhard christian apologist who doesn't understand his own religion.

PS Fake Messiah didn't strawman you, unless you think accurately describing your opponents positions to be a form of strawmanning.

[Pat Mustard]

How do you know that Mary and Joseph wouldn't have to travel to Bethlehem to participate in the census?

Because that's not how censuses worked in Roman times, no more than they do today. The whole point of carrying out a census for the Romans was to find out how many people lived in an area and who they were, so they could more efficiently collect taxes and apportion levy duties for the legions.

Plus, Mary and Joseph were living in a client state of Rome at the time, where censuses didn't happen, rather than in Rome proper. Even with the nonsense justification of the bible, they were not obligated to take part in a census.

[h311inac311]

You're right Fake Messiah because I'm not telling women what to wear or what job to choose. I'm in favor of freedom and letting women choose whichever career they want.

You are just running in circles or, in internet slang, trolling. At one point you are saying that you want equality for women and men and that biology plays no part, but then you claim how there is big difference between men and women in biology - but if you say that it doesn't matter you are again saying nothing. You are just luring people into pointless conversations where they don't know what they are talking about.

Needless to say that any conversation with you is pointless, so I don't plan to waste my time on you.

I was asking a clarifying question because they straw-manned my position first.

That's why I also went on to clarify what I believe with the last 4 sentences.

You strawmanned another poster because you couldn't argue against their position, plain and simple.

But then I expect no better from a tryhard christian apologist who doesn't understand his own religion.

PS Fake Messiah didn't strawman you, unless you think accurately describing your opponents positions to be a form of strawmanning.

So what I have is what I would like to refer to as a balanced position. 

1. Simply put I believe that differences exist between men and women. 
Do you disagree with this first statement?

2. The differences between men and women are often over-estimated by men.
Just because the differences are there that doesn't mean that they have to be fundamental or great. We are far more similar than we are different. 

3. These differences shouldn't be used as a basis for un-fair treatment. 
To re-iterate; I believe that men and women should be treated fairly before the law and should have the freedom to choose any career path which they see fit. It's not for me to decide what a woman should or shouldn't do. But I do have an idea for what I think will make her happiest which is why I shared Proverbs 31. 

Never did I insist that this Proverbs 31 should be codified as law, nor did I say that the only way for a woman to earn respect is to do all of the things which were listed. 

I think that this whole issue is just a problem of magnitude, and because I'm not fitting neatly into a box; Boru has described my views as "hypocritical" and Fake Messiah thinks I'm just trolling. 

I will admit however that my first response to this went a bit too far onto the straw-man side. I wasn't being totally fair to what they were saying, but it was getting to a point where I almost felt like they weren't even listening to me anymore so I got pretty aggressive with how far I went; over-simplifying what I thought their arguments were.

So to some extent you were right to call me out for straw-manning them, but I still fell as though I went second in that regard.

[h311inac311]

How do you know that Mary and Joseph wouldn't have to travel to Bethlehem to participate in the census?

Because that's not how censuses worked in Roman times, no more than they do today.  The whole point of carrying out a census for the Romans was to find out how many people lived in an area and who they were, so they could more efficiently collect taxes and apportion levy duties for the legions.

Plus, Mary and Joseph were living in a client state of Rome at the time, where censuses didn't happen, rather than in Rome proper.  Even with the nonsense justification of the bible, they were not obligated to take part in a census.

"In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the entire empire should be taxed." Okay so could this be a new decree? Because it sounds new to me. 

Now I can imagine just how upsetting this would be at the time, imagine if Trump (after taking office in 2024) decided that in order to file your taxes this March you must first return to your home-state. People would obviously be in an up-roar. But sometimes Tyrants do tyrannical things which only serve to increase the tension between themselves and the people whom they govern.

So it is not entirely un-reasonable to assume that Caesar may do something like this, especially if he is confident in his ability to conquer any rebel citizens which wish not to pay such a tax or report to their home city.

So first of all, even though this census would obviously be very demanding of people who travel by foot and donkey it is still not at all outside the realm of possibility, especially when we consider all of the many demands that even more tyrannical leaders have made in the past.

So now the question becomes a question of evidence, when I ask how do you know that Caesar Augustus never made such a decree I want to know what evidence you base this claim off of. 

Merely establishing a norm for how a Roman census usually works won't necessarily rule out a new decree which changes things for a time. Also, I think it is implied (but not stated) that this was a one-time deal. Meaning that once a man has complied with Caesar's new decree one time, then I believe that they were free to travel and do business elsewhere, as making people report to their home city every single year would just be too far outside what citizens, Jew or Roman, could have accepted at that time.

"And everyone went to his own city to be taxed."

[Fake Messiah]

even though this census would obviously be very demanding of people who travel by foot and donkey it is still not at all outside the realm of possibility,

It is very much outside the realm of possibility that everyone in the empire is returning to the home of their ancestors from a thousand years earlier. Joseph had to return to the town of Bethlehem because he’s from the lineage of David, but King David "lived" a thousand years earlier.

How is that possible? How would people know where to go? If you had to go register to vote in the town your ancestors came from a thousand years ago, where would you go? And are we to imagine that this massive migration of millions of people, all over the empire, took place without any other author from the period so much as mentioning it? We know a lot about the reign of Caesar Augustus from the writings of historians, philosophers, essayists, poets, and others living about that time. In none of these writings, including an account written by Caesar Augustus himself about his own reign, is there a solitary word about any empire-wide census.

But yeah, the entire Roman Empire went uprooting for a weekend in order to register for a census. Give me a fucking break.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC...that's all christ myth stuff, not historical jesus. "Born in bethlehem" is not part of the consensus.

The author or originator(s) appear to be concerned with christs jewishness, his lineage - though they appear confused as to whether it ought to be through mom or dad so both get the treatment - and ofc we see they invent some anachronistic donkey tour involving a desperately pregnant couple to bethlehem as part of consolidating that effort. Is this part of the myth representative of the religious sensibilities of the proto-christians it came from, or was jesus the man, the historical jesus..a charismatic whose life had been revised in his own time to more properly fit the structure of his cult?