Is Flintoff better than Jesus Part 2

Given that the nativity story is provably historically impossible, allegedly is the right word for absolutely everything in the gospels.

Indeed SS. A load of tosh made up by a bunch of medieval hippies.

Sh!t - I'm going straight to hell, aren't I?

Nativity?

Erm, yes. The birth of Jebus. What's your problem, qmy?

Well it doesn't have a lot to do with his death, and the size of the nails.

Bit late, But For a Few Dollars More is infinitely better than it's A Fistful of Dollars.

The original Dirty Harry is better than both?

Empire > New Hope > Jedi >>>>>>>>>> Clones > Menace > Sith

Bradman wrote:The original Dirty Harry is better than both?

Completely different films so I find it difficult to say one is better than the other as I like both genres. Definately prefer Dirty Harry to Fistful of Dollars though but can't pick between DH and FAFDM.

Bradman wrote:Well it doesn't have a lot to do with his death, and the size of the nails.

The nativity story is a pretty major part of Christianity. If you really want to know - this is why you can't trust a single thing the Gospels say:

Firstly, one Gospel doesn't mention the nativity story at all, whilst the other is just a copy of Matthew, so we're left with just Matthew and Luke to tell the story.

Matthew connects the birth of Christ with the reign of King Herod and puts it in Bethlehem, whilst Luke (and this is largely the version that the story of the nativity rests upon) goes further, mentioning a decree from Augustus that world should be taxed and connecting it with when first Quirinius was made governor of Syria. And herein lies the problem. Whilst you can debate the events of Genesis with no supporting or contradictory material to measure it against, in the time of Rome we do have huge amounts of source material to compare such writings with. Quirinius is a well known historical character, not least to Josephus, from whom many supporters of Gospel work offer citations. But Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until AD6. Herod is known to have died in either 4BC or (in some arguments) 5BC. They were not contemporaries, it is impossible for events to have taken place in both lifetimes. Matthew ignores Quirinius completely, and states that the nativity took place during the period of Herod's reign. The two gospellers are therefore dating the nativity at least ten years apart.

Then we come to Luke's use of the worldwide census for tax purposes. His entire story hinges on this point, and it has some serious problems. For one thing, if the nativity occurred during the reign of Herod, then the Jews were still Herod's subjects, not Rome's. Rome could not possibly have issued such an edict to the Jews, because Rome didn't rule the region at the time directly. Taxation was the responsibility of the client-Kings, not Rome. As one writer puts it "It is not just that Herod never coincided with Quirinius as governor, he never coincided with Roman taxing of Judea".

Equally, it is extremely unlikely that Augustus even ever issued a decree for a worldwide tax. Not entirely impossible, but one would expect to find plenty of supporting documentation from Rome for such a major (and massively labour intensive) event. There is none. The Romans certainly did take local censuses, but global ones? No. In AD6, Augustus did institute a tax on inheritance, to pay for his armies, but it only affected Roman citizens, certainly not Jews.

Now, in AD6, there was a local census instituted by Quirinius (Herod long dead, remember), and this is backed up by several historians of the time.

And here is the real contradiction: In Luke, if Quirinius was governor, then a census is possible, but Herod was dead, with Matthew it goes further, if the first two elements are true, then not only was Herod dead, but his lengthy tale of the massacre of the innocents, the flight into Egypt and the three Wise Men are chronologically impossible.

Even the question of the census itself has real difficulties. Any census would have been for the purposes of tax alone (Jews were exempt from military service). It is entirely true that Joseph would have had to go to his "own city", but the idea that this was on the basis of ancestry is preposterous. Tax was managed on the basis of property. Joseph of Nazareth would have been taxed in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. The Romans cared not a jot for real ancestry, let alone a mythical one. No Roman census would have taken Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, and they certainly would not have needed to stay at an inn (what would be the point, it wasn't theirs to be taxed?). Indeed, Mary would not even have needed to go at all, as we know from Egyptian records that only one householder was required. Given that she was (in the story) extremely heavily pregnant, it stretches credulity to suggest that she would have chosen to make such a journey anyway.

Luke's story was thus "historically impossible and internally incoherent". The reason for the problem is fairly clear, that the prophecies all mention certain parameters that the Messiah would fulfill, and so he had to shoehorn the story to fit the prophecy. It is his bad luck that we have so much information about the history of the period that we can tell, without a shadow of a doubt that it could not possibly have happened.

Now, if you take the view that the specific history is not necessarily critical, and that the essence of the story is the thing, that is entirely your prerogative. But few would argue anything other than that the nativity could not possibly have happened according to the gospels.

Now, given all that, do you think anything else should be taken on trust?

To find ouot if Fred is better than Jesus, it would be necessary to nail Fred up to a cross first. Until then, it's a moot point.

Zat wrote:To find ouot if Fred is better than Jesus, it would be necessary to nail Fred up to a cross first. Until then, it's a moot point.

Couldn't you argue that he was nailed to the cross in the first place because Jesus is bad m'kay. Then all Fred has to be is mediocre.

G.Wood wrote:

Zat wrote:To find ouot if Fred is better than Jesus, it would be necessary to nail Fred up to a cross first. Until then, it's a moot point.

Couldn't you argue that he was nailed to the cross in the first place because Jesus is bad m'kay. Then all Fred has to be is mediocre.

Or, the next time Fred does the Jesus pose, we could march out to the middle with a cross and some six-inch nails to find out for sure...

Zat wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

Zat wrote:To find ouot if Fred is better than Jesus, it would be necessary to nail Fred up to a cross first. Until then, it's a moot point.

Couldn't you argue that he was nailed to the cross in the first place because Jesus is bad m'kay. Then all Fred has to be is mediocre.

Or, the next time Fred does the Jesus pose, we could march out to the middle with a cross and some six-inch nails to find out for sure...

I bet JKL will volunteer with "oohhh I've got a 6 inch nail to sink into fred"

G.Wood wrote:

Zat wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

Zat wrote:To find ouot if Fred is better than Jesus, it would be necessary to nail Fred up to a cross first. Until then, it's a moot point.

Couldn't you argue that he was nailed to the cross in the first place because Jesus is bad m'kay. Then all Fred has to be is mediocre.

Or, the next time Fred does the Jesus pose, we could march out to the middle with a cross and some six-inch nails to find out for sure...

I bet JKL will volunteer with "oohhh I've got a 6 inch nail to sink into fred"

JKL or Mudge?

Mudge would embiggen himself by a factor of 4 and say his nail was 12 inches

and he would need to be paid

Wow and here was me talking about his death, and being a lifelong athiest.

You want to take it further SS and talk about dodgy geneaologies and levirite marriages.

In short I was reffering to how the nativity (true or false) related to a post about his death.

1st IFBTJ thread >>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd IFBTJ thread.

Bradman wrote:Wow and here was me talking about his death, and being a lifelong athiest.

You want to take it further SS and talk about dodgy geneaologies and levirite marriages.

In short I was reffering to how the nativity (true or false) related to a post about his death.

and he could have just said The Bible < a horace post

If Flintoff was better than Jesus, what comparison should now be made as regards Moeen (20+ wickets and 200+ runs) Ali?

Nice find lardy.

Hehe....Ali>Mo the runner?

lardbucket wrote:If Flintoff was better than Jesus, what comparison should now be made as regards Moeen (20+ wickets and 200+ runs) Ali?

No longer interested in keeping us company in the land of the living, eh lardy?

When the whole forum is dead there's no land of the living!

Anyway, as you have rightly pointed out, I should probably be more careful with my allusions.