re: Texas getting it's own Sharia Law

quote:

---

Skeptics used to complain that there was no one named Quirinius until an inscription was found that mentioned him.

---

Citation needed.

quote:

---

Citation needed

---

"The introduction of the name of Quirinius is an explicit chronological error... The author [of Luke] has taken a well-known historical event—the census of Judea, which took place ten years later under Quirinius and caused great public agitation—and back-dated it into the reign of Herod to serve as a scenic framework for the birth narrative."
FC Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien (1847)

Baur also criticized Pilate in this work

"Strauss... and Renan dismiss it [the Luke 2 account] in a short footnote as unworthy even of mention in the text... [They believed] that Luke sinks, in the accessories of his narrative, below the standard exacted from ordinary historians."
-William Ramsay, Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? (1898)

"This Pilate is a pure fiction of the later Christian consciousness... He is not a Roman procurator ruling with the iron necessity of imperial law, but a theatrical mask. The dialogue between Pilate and the multitude is a literary impossibility; it betrays a complete ignorance of the strict and defined limits of Roman provincial administration under Tiberius, replacing the historical reality with a generalized, legendary tradition."
Bruno Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker (1842)

The Pilate Stone

The Pilate Stone 2

Quirinius

That, my friend, is bringing the receipts

quote:

---

I'm not going to dig up proof for you. Google Herod the Great's death, and Quirinius' census. You might as well be asking me for proof 9/11 happened on 9/11. You either trust Josephus and the various contemporary historians or you dont.

---

These guys will simultaneously reject Josephus’ records when it comes to real historical relevant events such as these, and they’ll accept Christian forgeries inserted into his work in an attempt to “find evidences” of a historical Jesus.

quote:

---

They'd need a headcount, so a census. Judea wasn't paying taxes to Rome, they were paying a tribute to Rome to remain independent (quasi-vassal with Herod the Great acting as a Roman puppet).

---

Your buddy you were arguing with won’t even bother to verify that. It will change nothing, and he’ll continue to spout falsehoods and baseless assertions.

quote:

---

My dates are historically accepted dates, sorry. Because at least Foo understands the history of Judea/Rome during this time period enough to have a conversation about it. You, from the start, came in swinging and didn't know what you were talking about.

---

The fellow is just as deluded as Foo, but with half the IQ and with the maturity of about a 15 year old. He’s not even worth responding to.

quote:

---

Squirrelmeister

---

You're back?

quote:

---

These guys will simultaneously reject Josephus’ records when it comes to real historical relevant events such as these, and they’ll accept Christian forgeries inserted into his work in an attempt to “find evidences” of a historical Jesus

---

That is a textbook strawman. Primarily because the TF is not the only extrabiblical mention of Jesus so there's no reason to not accept the elements of it that are likely interpolations

quote:

---

won’t even bother to verify that.

---

You mean other than the thorough response I've already given that knucklehead is ignoring and just keeps repeating the same already refuted points?

quote:

---

he’ll continue to spout falsehoods and baseless assertions

---

Tell me what I said that's false. Get an adult to help you if you need to. And BTW, does God exist or no? That's like the 5th time I've asked. No response. Because you're emotionally a child

quote:

---

half the IQ and with the maturity of about a 15 year old. He’s not even worth responding to

---

ad hominem is all you have. You've got nothing academic.

I get it. You've put more time into this than the average person. What you don't know is that your sources are bad so you don't know that they lied to you and told you things they can't prove because they are biased and if they told the truth it wouldn't sell books to emotionally troubled people who need Christianity to be false.

Saying the Jews were originally polytheistic is lunacy. It can't be proven and doesn't match what we know from antiquity. Here's a test for you - name the people who were able to convince the Jews that they were actually monotheistic even though they had allegedly been polytheistic. Like actual names.

And this is the problem with the documentary hypothesis. It rests on nothing real. There are no JEDP documents and no one can name any real people who were in these groups. You claim the "priestly group" rewrote Jewish religious history. Fine. Who were these people? Name names. What land did they occupy (houses, land records)? When did they live? If someone could produce this type of scholarship, then the DH might have legs. But after 150 years of trying, not a shred of evidence has been produced. None. Nothing. Not a scrap of anything. No inscription. No potsherd. Nothing. Not to mention the fact that it contradicts everything we've known about Judaism from antiquity for the last 2 or 3 thousand years.

So when you pop up in these threads talking about the "priestly class," it's total, complete, absolute hogwash. It's a flare going up into the night sky proclaiming "I'm a gullible rube who just bought oceanfront property in Nebraska."

quote:

---

I don’t see why religion being taught in schools is so taboo. I think all religions, especially Christianity and Islam, should be discussed and debated. Education at least gives the students an idea of what each religion says, allowing them to make their own decisions. Go ahead and ask any kid what Islam teaches and they likely have no clue. It is important that people know these things.

---

Not a horrible idea.

The issue would be finding teachers across the nation that can approach this topic from a neutral standpoint.

Also, how far down the totem pole do we go. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity... Okay. What about Hinduism? Buddhism? Mormonism?

While its not necessarily a bad idea that our population know what these religions believe, our many schools already have children falling behind as is. They're not even scoring, on average, where they need to be scoring in science, math, and reading. Not sure if adding in religious studies (or any other field that's not STEM) is such a good idea. Hell, even parts of STEM might not be a great idea with the advancements in AI.

quote:

---

Also, how far down the totem pole do we go. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity... Okay. What about Hinduism? Buddhism? Mormonism?

---

There are more practicing Jehovah’s Witnesses than there are those or acting the Jewish religion. Might as well add them too.

quote:

---

While its not necessarily a bad idea that our population know what these religions believe, our many schools already have children falling behind as is. They're not even scoring, on average, where they need to be scoring in science, math, and reading. Not sure if adding in religious studies (or any other field that's not STEM) is such a good idea

---

True, but that’s an indictment of the public school systems. The government makes them suck. All my kids score at the top percentiles and they still have time to learn Catholic doctrines every day and go to church and still have time to frick off. I think they only get maybe 2-3 hours of real STEM school work/practice a day and that’s still enough to smoke the public schools.

quote:

---

What I am asking for specifically is you to back up your claim that prior to finding "an inscription" (which I am assuming is the Lapis Tiburtinus) skeptics complained that there was no one named Quirinius.

---

Did you not read my posts at all? I went above and beyond explaining higher criticism to you. Do you not know what that is? Go google that and do a little reading.

quote:

---

I've suspected you're just making shite up this entire time

---

I provided direct quotes. I explained higher criticism. When your shift is over at the movie theater, crack open a book.

quote:

---

I can see you're almost assuredly retreating to AI for help

---

Sigh. I studied studied these topics at the graduate level before AI was a twinkle in it's programmer's eye. And "retreating" to AI is not a crime. If you disagree, then just point out what I said that's false. Otherwise, you're just committing the genetic fallacy like every other mental midget in the world

quote:

---

TF does this have to do with skeptics "complaining that there was no one named Quirinius"?

---

Once again, higher criticism. Go look it up.

quote:

---

Don't sneak in Pilate, your assertion was purely focused on Quirinius

---

No it wasn't. I'm trying to refer you to the broader movement that questions ALMOST EVERYTHING historical in the Bible, including Quirinius.

This is so stupid. What is even your point? You acknowledge there are biblical skeptics. What are you even objecting to? Is it surprising that biblical skeptics question things in the Bible? You are ridiculous. This is SFP level buffoonery

quote:

---

This is saying listing Quirinus is a *CHRONOLOGICAL ERROR*, not that he never existed

---

If you were educated, you would know the broader context. These authors are using these data points to question whether that person even existed. If you will research the topic instead of being an internet retard, you will start to understand.

quote:

---

How can be be calling into question the existence of Quirinius when he explicitly said he led a "well-known historical event"?

---

Just because there was a census doesn't mean the biblical person mentioned actually existed. Again, you are questioning something that is easy to verify if you would just shut up and do some research.

quote:

---

This is calling into question the personality/behavior of Pilate, not whether or not Pilate existed

---

Factually wrong. The overarching sentiment was that the biblical figures were literary constructions that, in some cases were completely fabricated or at least had varying levels of truthfulness. Again, you can easily verify this if you decide to actually become educated on the subject.

quote:

---

have been making up shite from the start

---

Says the person who insists there was only 1 census despite no proof and no evidence whatsoever. NONE. I, OTOH, have provided numerous quotes from primary sources and explanations to the contrary.

quote:

---

You no give proof

---

Just because you are ignorant and don't understand doesn't mean there's no substantiation. You clearly don't know the first thing about higher criticism, 19th century continental philosophy or textual criticism

quote:

---

Don't try and pretend I'm suggesting that skeptics never were skeptical of the Bible

---

You're doing just that genius. You're saying biblical skeptics NEVER questioned whether Quirinius existed, which is totally stupid.

Here's project for you, why don't you catalog all of the biblical skeptics from the last 150 years and delineate for us what exactly they doubted about the Bible and what they found acceptable. Go through the 1st quest for the historical Jesus, differentiate the 2nd quest, explain the value of the 3rd quest, break down the various modernity/postmodernity projects of the skeptics, cover the history of textual criticism/transmission, all that stuff. That way we have a base to work from. Go to work champ

quote:

---

Azkiger

---

You gave him an easy opportunity for the W. Just cite a skeptic who doubted the historicity of Quirinius. You didn’t even say it had to be a legitimate scholar.

quote:

---

Squirrelmeister

---

Does God exist? Yes or no

quote:

---

legitimate scholar

---

You know this is genetic fallacy yet you keep doing it. Does it not bother you that you can't learn?