Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
37 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,774 Year: 16,810/19,786 Month: 935/2,598 Week: 181/251 Day: 10/59 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem?
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 36 of 156 (508341)
05-12-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Asteragros
05-12-2009 4:54 PM


If you self-declared (so avoiding the travel back to your town of origin), supposing, at the presence of an imperial representative, a reduced amount of properties, you can pay fewer taxes, surely, but the rest that you didn’t included in the declaration became an Imperial property.
Should do you so?

On the other hand, if you self-declared a bigger amount of estates, you can pay a greater amount of taxes and, furthermore, existed the risk that another Hebrew can lay claim his right to the properties you push up in the declaration.
Is this choice a paying proposition better than the previous?

It seems to me that the Imperial choice Luke cites was the best manner to avoid a mishmash of unverifiable self-declarations and riots of people enraged.

This makes no sense. How would forcing people to make a long journey, perhaps across a continent, to their family's home city make them less likely to lie on their tax forms? WOuldn't it make more sense to have them register at their city or town of residence, where people around might be able to say, "You know, Joe has a lot more land than he's claiming here, we might need to take a look at that."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Asteragros, posted 05-12-2009 4:54 PM Asteragros has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Asteragros, posted 05-16-2009 10:25 AM Perdition has not yet responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 63 of 156 (509424)
05-21-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by kbertsche
05-21-2009 1:01 PM


Where do you get "heavy" with child? Lk 2:5 only says that she was pregnant. Couldn't she have been only 3-4 months pregnant, in which case the journey would not be nearly so dangerous as you describe?

Doesn't it say she gave birth relatively soon after arrival? How long do you think it would take for Joseph to register with the officials for the census? Certainly not 6-5 months.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by kbertsche, posted 05-21-2009 1:01 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 132 of 156 (510184)
05-28-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Asteragros
05-28-2009 11:00 AM


Now, if:
- no-one other ancient writer (B+) cites the same event;
- no-one other ancient writer contradicts (B+) the A event description (on sound basis, obviously);
- the event is in itself plausible
we are bound to accept that event as a historical fact.

We are bound, only, to accept that the event is plausible. We have no reason to accept it as "TRUE" merely because it could have happened and no one said it didn't. I have many works of historical fiction that are very plausible, and I don't know of any other works that explicity contradict them. Am I, in the absence of the author telling me they're fiction, to regard them as true?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Asteragros, posted 05-28-2009 11:00 AM Asteragros has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Asteragros, posted 06-01-2009 3:24 PM Perdition has responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 137 of 156 (510588)
06-01-2009 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Asteragros
06-01-2009 3:24 PM


If the text isn’t presented like a fiction but as a chronicle of past events, we have no reason to accept it as true? Fine, doing so we have to delete the majority of ancient writers’ stories!

Which, when the stories contradict experience, evidence, or common sense, we do. Do you think the Iliad is true? Do you think the Oddyssey is true? Do you think any of the Greek/Roman gods stories are true? How about the creation stories of the Hindu faith? How about the creation stories of the Australian aborigines? How about the creation stories of the various American Indians?

{qsWe are discuss on Luke’s text. Luke presents his account as historical one, not fiction. His manner to cling his accounts to synchronistic data about men in power of his age shows that his story isn’t a fable or an allegory, but is a chronicle.[/qs]

There is no indefiniteness here as to time or place, but Luke names no less than seven public officials so that we can establish the time of the beginning of John’s ministry and that of Jesus.

He also had an agenda. We can't just accept, at face value, everything Luke says. He had a vested interest in convincing others of his story. It would have been incompetency in the utmost for him to make a story that misuses famous people that any aware person would have been aware of. If my aim is to prove the existence of a person, would it not behoove me to work in as much established fact as I could get my hands on?

As I stated before, when we have no corroboration, we are left with more tentativity than if we have some. One source, written with an obvious bias, does not convince me of it's TRUTH, regardless of when or where it was written.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Asteragros, posted 06-01-2009 3:24 PM Asteragros has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019