somethingdifferent

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?

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:

---

Thats not someone saying Quirinius never existed you nitwit

---

It's obvious you know nothing about 19th/20th century higher criticism. Now you are trying to parse quotes with childish semantics.

If you read any continental philosophy on the subject, particularly the Tübingen school, the Copenhagen School or the Radical Dutch School, you will know that they questioned almost everything biblical, not just Quirinius and Pilate.

Belshazzar was questioned

David has been questioned.

"It is out of the question that Saul, David, and Solomon, as described as kings in the Bible, could have existed. I think the biblical accounts are wonderful stories, invented at the time when Jerusalem was part of the Persian Empire in the fifth century B.C."
-Thomas L. Thompson, Independent (1992)

No “...mention of the empire of David and Solomon"
-Ze’ev Herzog, The Bible: No Evidence on the Ground, (1999)

Then the tel Dan stele and the 2022 RTI reconstruction of the Moabite Stone showed that critics like Israel Finkelstein were charlatans.

Read about Tendenzkritik, demythologization, structuralism, deconstruction, etc.

Yes, they questioned the existence of Quirinius and Pilate and even Jesus himself. I provided you quotes showing this. They doubted pretty much everything. Their position was that the Bible was a literary work that contained sociological legends and myths so they approached the text in that way which is what gave way to structuralism, deconstruction, etc. I can't quote the entire corpus of continental philosophy from the 1800s/early1900s. Much of it is behind academic paywalls. Much of it hasn't been translated into English. But if you do just a small amount of research, like an adult, you will see that this factual. I don't know of anyone in academia who says this isn't the case.

Help me understand your point. Are you trying to say that biblical skeptics did not question things in the Bible? If so, that makes no sense. They wouldn't be biblical skeptics. If not, then why would you object to them questioning something in the Bible?

quote:

---

The United States is on strong economic footing and it does seem like our industrial base is being revitalized

---

Good observation. It's vitally important that Trump continue to repatriate business and the tariffs are doing just that. But then we get weak stomach people who whine about "tax on the consumer" which is a lie

quote:

---

If we can manage to avoid more stupid foreign conflicts

---

I hate to say this but this will never end as long as Islamic terrorism is around and I fully endorse engaging them over there instead of over here. Unfortunately, it may already be too late for that given how many of them are over here now

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:

---

If I saw him actually descending from a clear blue sky, landing safely in front of me, and saying "Hi, I'm Jesus and I'm here to save you."

---

Why couldn't I say you're just having a hallucination?

quote:

---

Instead of calling it spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, just say nonexistent

---

Because the 2 things are mutually exclusive. You can't not exist and also be the other 3. Also, those aren't the only 3 qualities God has.

quote:

---

Just say “doesn’t exist.”

---

You can prove God doesn't exist? If you can't, why would he say that?

quote:

---

You're so tiring

---

Aww. Are you feelings hurt that dumb ole Foo won't just submit to your stupid ideas?

Perhaps, and hear me out, perhaps YOU are the one who is tiring because you're so thick headed.

quote:

---

That requires a whole lot more than just "written testimony" to satisfy me

---

But if that written testimony has been historically vindicated as reliable? Reliable as in way more well attested than basically anything else from antiquity that you accept as historically reliable?

quote:

---

They weren't paying taxes

---

You've been asked to provide proof and you've provided absolutely none. You've also been told multiple possibilities as to how they actually were. But feel free to keep repeated already refuted points. It's refreshing.

quote:

---

if they were they wouldn't need a census in 6 AD dummy

---

How do you think taxes were assessed?

quote:

---

They paid Rome a tribute that was not based on a citizen count

---

You say with absolutely zero proof and evidence to the contrary

quote:

---

The Bible is in question here you tard

---

The Bible has been repeatedly vindicated as historically reliable. Perhaps you don't know this.

quote:

---

You're the low IQ version of Foo

---

Because I asked you to prove your stupid, ahistorical assertions?

quote:

---

I really hate how you frickers feel like you have to quote respond to every sentence typed. It's very tiring and details the conversation quite quickly

---

And there it is. "I believe what I want to believe despite the evidence and I don't want you to question me about it." How scholarly

It's amazing how halfwits on the internet read a few popular level ideas from biased people and then start throwing around unproven assertions as if they're fact. And then when you get called out on it, do you step back and reassess what you think you know? No. You double and triple down on stupid