[Vision2020] Plane Fare to Wisconsin, Ron?

[Ron Smith]

Mr. Grier,

 

You said, "If you think Luke's method of taxation is so great, will you pay my plane fare to Madison, Wisconsin, so that I might visit the county tax office so that I might offer to pay property taxes on a farm that the Gier family no longer owns??"

 

I am not sure if that is supposed to be an argument against the historicity of the Roman census or an argument in favor of socialism! Either way, it puts words in my mouth (I never said "Luke's system" was great) and is nonsensical as an argument. No one ever claimed that Joseph went to Bethlehem to pay taxes on property in Bethlehem.
 

"Come on, Ron, fess up.  There is no historical evidence for such a fantastic system of taxation.   And back to my very first point: Mary did not have to go even if it were the case... She surely would have miscarried on that donkey!"

 

Are you referring to the system I described or the system you described? Your system of paying taxes on land that is owned by someone else is surely fantastic and I would agree that it probably never occurred. As for Mary "not having to go", and "surely miscarrying on the donkey if she would have gone", again that is simply speculation. Just because you can't think of a reason for a man to take his pregnant bride-to-be on a long journey, doesn't mean therefore, that there was no reason. And just because you have never seen a child survive the womb after his pregnant mother takes a donkey ride, doesn't make it impossible. Again, absence of proof is not proof to the contrary.

 

"Jesus never mentions his alleged birth in Bethlehem."

 

Yet another logical fallacy. I think you meant to say that Jesus was never recorded mentioning His alleged birth in Bethlehem. This is true. But again, just because we have no record of Him saying it, that does not mean that he, in fact, did not. Further, even if He in fact did not mention his birthplace, this does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that He was not born in Bethlehem. Once again, absence of proof is not proof to the contrary. 

 

"The Jews had very good reasons to reject Jesus as Messiah" 

 

Whoa, wait a minute! I thought Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. If He never made that claim, then who was rejecting what?

 

"The Suffering Servant of Isaiah was never identified as the Messiah except in one very late commentary."

 

That does not make the Isaiah passage non-Messianic any more than my commentary on the scriptures makes them inerrant. I would agree with you that the Jews, for the most part, missed it. They were taking spiritual truths and temporally interpreting them. Jesus indeed came to set them free, but not from Rome.

 

"Thanks also to Ron for reminding us that his religion, agreeing with Roman patriarchy, would completely disenfranchise all women of their rights."

 

Again, putting words into my mouth. I never said that. My wife stays at home with our kids and home schools them, but if she heard you say that, and if she were rude, she would laugh in your face. As it is, she is very polite and would probably just wait for you to leave the room before laughing at you.

 

"I leave you with a quotation from French Bible Scholar Charles Guignebert: "It is all outside the plane of reality....It is incredible that such an unusual and disturbing proceeding, as the census spoken of by Luke must necessarily have been, should have escaped all notice in Josephus..."

 

I don't know and I don't care who the French "Bible Scholar" Charles Guinbert is, but he should check his sources as well as his reasoning. First, he, like you, seeks proof of absence via absence of proof. This is illogical, as I am sure you recall me mentioning like five times in this and previous emails. Secondly, Josephus does describe the Roman census. 

 

from Antiquities 18.1.1 1 
    "Quirinius, a Roman senator who had passed through all the other magistracies until he became consul, and one who in other respects was very distinguished, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, having been sent by Caesar to be governor of that nation and to make an assessment of their property."

 

I will leave you with the words of Luke 2:1-2 "Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria."
 
Ron Smith
________________________________

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of Nick Gier
Sent: Sat 1/1/2005 12:27 PM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Plane Fare to Wisconsin, Ron?


Hi Ron,

If you think Luke's method of taxation is so great, will you pay my plane fare to Madison, Wisconsin, so that I might visit the county tax office so that I might offer to pay property taxes on a farm that the Gier family no longer owns??

Come on, Ron, fess up.  There is no historical evidence for such a fantastic system of taxation.   And back to my very first point: Mary did not have to go even if it were the case.  I'm very happy that she stayed home in Nazareth and gave birth to a son who gave us such a profound message of love, compassion, and peace.  She surely would have miscarried on that donkey!

Luke states that one must return to his own city (idios) and whenever Jesus refers to the "idios of his father" it is always Nazareth in Galilee.  (See Jn. 4:44; Matt. 13:57; Mk. 6:4)  Jesus never mentions his alleged birth in Bethlehem.  That would have been a very important fact if he really claimed to be the Messiah.  

The Jews had very good reasons to reject Jesus as Messiah, the primarily one being that he did not coming as conquering king defeating the enemies of Israel.  The Suffering Servant of Isaiah was never identified as the Messiah except in one very late commentary.  See the section on "Jesus as Suffering Servant" at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre8.htm. The opening passage from Isaiah in Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is therefore not a messanic prophecy.

Thanks also to Ron for reminding us that his religion, agreeing with Roman patriarchy, would completely disenfranchise all women of their  rights.

I leave you with a quotation from French Bible Scholar Charles Guignebert: "It is all outside the plane of reality....It is incredible that such an unusual and disturbing proceeding, as the census spoken of by Luke must necessarily have been, should have escaped all notice in Josephus. We will not unduly stress the peculiarity of the mode of census taking implied in our text, but it is to be noted that it is a very strange proceeding. The moving about of men and families which this reckless decree must have caused throughout the whole of the Empire is almost beyond imagination, and one cannot help wondering what advantage there could be for the Roman state in this return, for a single day, of so many scattered individuals, not to the places of their birth, but to the original homes of their ancestors. For it is to be remembered that those of royal descent were not the only ones affected by this fantastic ordinance, and many a poor man must have been hard put to it to discover the cradle of his race. The suspicion, or rather, the conviction, is borne in upon us at first sight that the editor of Luke has simply been looking for some means of bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, in order to have Jesus born there. A hagiographer of his type never bothers much about common sense in inventing the circumstances he requires."

Nick Gier 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050101/82b89b7f/attachment.htm