<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText55920 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">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.</SPAN><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
color=#000000><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><U><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: purple; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><A
href="http://www.ibri.org/04census.htm">http://www.ibri.org/04census.htm</A></SPAN></U><A
href="http://www.ibri.org/04census.htm"></A><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
color=#000000><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">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.</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
color=#000000><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Ron
"who is happy to be placed in league with Doug Wilson" Smith</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT
color=#000000> </FONT></SPAN></SPAN><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> vision2020-bounces@moscow.com on behalf of
Nick Gier<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sun 1/2/2005 3:44 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
vision2020@moscow.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] My final word on Luke's
Census<BR></FONT><BR></P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times">Dear Visionaries,<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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!<BR> <BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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!”<BR><BR>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 </FONT><A
href="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/307/archetype.htm"><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times"
color=#0000ff><U>www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/307/archetype.htm</A>.</U></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times"> Myths are great tales that tell
truths. They sometimes do more good than lesser forms of truth.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Nick
Gier<BR></FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>