[Vision2020] My final word on Luke's Census

[Ron Smith]

OK, I have no problem ending this thread. I feel the same as you, Mr. Grier. If there is anyone who is still open-minded on the subject, they may find this article interesting. Its thesis is that while much of the data is confusing (any honest ancient historian would admit we still know relatively little and much of the holes have been filled with speculation), history supports the gospel accounts.

 

http://www.ibri.org/04census.htm <http://www.ibri.org/04census.htm> 

 

Those of you whose minds are already bent, as Ms. Huskey stated, will likely just see this as silly facts getting in the way of your pre-conceived ideas. To all else, have an enlightening read.

 

Ron "who is happy to be placed in league with Doug Wilson" Smith 

________________________________

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of Nick Gier
Sent: Sun 1/2/2005 3:44 PM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] My final word on Luke's Census



Dear Visionaries,

Ron Smith just won't give up.  I feel like I'm arguing with a flat-earther or a creationist, who say "damn all positive evidence to the contrary!" Stubbornness in the face of constant academic challenge becomes intellectual dishonesty big time.  He is now in the same league as Doug Wilson, who continues to reaffirm his thesis about Southern slavery even against the expertise of his own evangelical congregant in Seattle and other knowledgeable conservative Presbyterians.

Smith wins no points by simply repeating the passage that is in dispute and is contrary to everything we know about Roman taxation.  If we knew nothing about Roman taxation, then Smith's clever maneuver of "Lack of evidence does foreclose the possibility of confirming my facts" would have more force.  

The supreme irony is that Smith's own google search produced positive evidence that 1) there were no imperial decrees about taxation; 2) that is was done at a provincial level; 3) and that residents were required to STAY AT HOME in order to be assessed.  

Only for the sake of argument did I suggest that an impoverished carpenter would have owned land in Bethlehem, land that, by the way, would have presumably had a few shacks on it.  (I was also conceding for the sake of argument that either Joseph or Mary were somehow descendants of David.) Incredibly enough, however, Smith denies that "Joseph went to Bethlehem to pay taxes on property in Bethlehem."  Smith essentially undermines the presumed reason for Joseph to travel there in the first place!
 
Yes, Josephus, without any reference to Jesus, does report that Quirinius held a Judean census in 6 CE.  This was the census that Luke incorrectly makes into an imperial decree and unhistorically applies to Jesus.  Herod died in 4 BCE, so one would have to remove Herod from the story and move Jesus' birth far ahead to be part of Quirinius' census.  Therefore, the dates are all wrong.  With a birthdate as early as 7 BCE, Jesus may have already been wowing the priests in the temple by 6 CE.

By the way, attempts to give Quirinius an earlier governorship in Judea fail in the face of the fact that Saturninus ruled from 9_6 B.C.E. and P. Quintilius Varus was there from 6_4 B.C. Besides Quirinius was fully occupied in a Cilician campaign in Asia Minor from ca. 11_3 B.C.E.  Luke's alleged "excellence as a historian" has been dramatically marred.

Conservative Christians who boast about fulfilling OT prophecies show the greatest disrespect for Hebrew scripture by rejecting, as Smith does, plain, straight forward readings of these wonderful texts.  At least Luther was honest enough to admit that Is. 9:6 does not refer to a divine Messiah, an idea contrary to Jewish expectation.  (The Messiah will be mighty as God, not God himself.) Smith should throw the OT away if he wants to manipulate it so dishonestly to his own ends.

Thank goodness for Melynda's post where she implies that there is a higher truth than historical or scientific truth.  It is the truth of grand stories such as a virgin who conceives and gives birth to a savior who is greeted by celestial displays, angels and the adoration of wise men.  

At our church on the Sunday before Christmas our children reenacted the miraculous births of Buddha, Confucius, and Jesus.  One elderly visitor, who thought that she was somehow witnessing the story of Jesus three times, finally yelled out: "There were no dragons!"  But a Confucian Ron Smith would have responded: "How do you know that? Just because it was not recorded, does not make it false!"

Josephus hated Herod and chronicled his life in great detail, but mysteriously failed to mention his notorious slaughter of the infants.  Several other great prophets were born of virgins, threatened in infancy, and visited by wise men.  Check out the amazing parallels at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/307/archetype.htm <http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/307/archetype.htm> .  Myths are great tales that tell truths.  They sometimes do more good than lesser forms of truth.

P. S. Joan, how could you forget Myron Floren, Welk's accordian player?  Once again I feel terribly slighted.  In graduate school I once took at date into Hollywood and danced the night away with Welk's orchestra.

Nick Gier


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050103/2446a7d2/attachment-0001.htm