jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
Caesar Augustus was consider by many to be the most brilliant tax strategist of the Roman Empire. During his reign as "First Citizen" the publicani were virtually eliminated as tax collectors for the central government. During this period cities were given the responsibility for collecting taxes. Caesar Augustus instituted an inheritance tax to provide retirement funds for the military. The tax was 5 percent on all inheritances except gifts to children and spouses.
http://www.taxworld.org/History/TaxHistory.htm
Now since Augustus became the first emperor of the Roman Empire, which he ruled alone from 27 BC until his death in AD 14.
Thus we do know that Augustus made such a decree
That Caesar Augustus levied taxes is not in dispute. The tax and census as described in the NT is. There is no independent record of such an event and the details are obviously ludicrous upon examination.
quote:
, and as for King Herod the Great, there is archeological evidence for his reign, so there is no amalgamation of Herods.
Let me enlighten you:
Herod the great, Herod I, and King Herod are ALL THE SAME MAN.
He was appointed king of Judea by the Roman Emperor since he was half Hebrew in order to keep the Hebrew population happy about a Hebrew being on the throne. It did not work since Augustus took the throne away of the blood line of David.
He had the second Temple built in Jerusalem, trying to appease the Jews, he built the palace fortress of Masada, and Herodium, and the harbor city of Caesarea Maritima.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
Herod the great or Herod I ruled Judea and lived from 73BC to 4 BC. He built teh second temple. This Herod would be the one refered to during the "murder of the innocents" story.
However Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea and lived from around 20 BC to about 40 AD and is most likely the Herod refered to in regards to the executions of John the Baptist and Jesus.
The Herod mentioned in Acts is probably Herod Agrippa, king of Judea and grandson of Herod I. The Agrippa mentioned in acts is likely his son Herod Agrippa II.
So as I said the Herod described in the NT is an amalgam of two or 3 Herods.
Look, there is no amalgamation of Herods, since clearly you are trying to save a lost argument.
Let me once more enlighten you, and hopefully for the last time.
The acts of the Apostles, covered a period around 60 AD, the conversion of Paul of Tarsus did not happen until well after his death.
Now, to put your amalgamation theory to rest, once and for all, and I will be happy to use the book you are are so claiming is the cause of the problem.
First, the death of King Herod the Great.
quote:
1: Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2: Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
3: When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4: And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
5: And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
6: And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
7: Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
8: And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
9: When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
10: When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
11: And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
12: And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
13: And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14: When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
15: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. King James bible, Mathew,2:1-15
Thus, the very first book of the bible removes one king Herod from you AMALGAMATION argument.
Now, lets look at your other King Herod, the second of your wished for mix.
quote:
1: At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus,
2: And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
3: For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.
4: For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.
5: And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet.
6: But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod.
7: Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask.
8: And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger.
9: And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. Mathew, 14:1-9
Thus, we have one Herod dead, so he cannot be some amalgamation, in point of fact, Mathew clearly differentiates the two, and places one in Jerusalem, the other in Galilee.
To further make it clear:
quote:
53: And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
54: And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55: Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56: And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57: And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
58: And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. Mathew, 13:56-58
Finally, your last Herod, again, clearly stated to be yet another King:
quote:
1: Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
2: And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
3: And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4: And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
5: Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.
6: And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison.
7: And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands.
8: And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me.
9: And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision.
10: When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him.
11: And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.
12: And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
13: And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda.
14: And when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate.
15: And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel.
16: But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished.
17: But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place.
18: Now as soon as it was day, there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter.
19: And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he examined the keepers, and commanded that they should be put to death. And he went down from Judaea to Caesarea, and there abode.
20: And Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they came with one accord to him, and, having made Blastus the king's chamberlain their friend, desired peace; because their country was nourished by the king's country.
21: And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.
22: And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.
23: And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. Acts, 12:1-23
The new testament makes it clear there were three Herods, not one, three. It is clear, concise and to the point on who is who, and who did what.
HOWEVER, should you still insist on continuing your unsubstantiated argument, don't let me dissuade you, I put forth the direct evidence from the book you keep saying made King Herod an amalgamation of three individuals.
quote:
quote:
Actually the date you are using comes from the Talmud not the Torah. Since absolutely no written or archaeological evidence exists for Moses or for any other part of exodus, outside of the Torah, it is simply impossible to apply a date to any of those stories.
quote:
Dr. Manfred Bietak, Egyptologist and the head of the Austrian Institute of Archeology, an article 'Egypt and the Palestinian Connection of the Second Millennium BCE, which gives the following account of interactions between Egypt and the inhabatants of Canaan:
quote:
After the interlude of the First Intermediate Period (2200-1970 BC) Egypt started its contacts with Palestine. Mercantile relations were only interrupted from the Second Part of the 12th dynasty onwards (ca. 1900-1800 BC). This can be assessed by imports within the stratigraphy of Ezbet Rushdi and Egyptian exports to Tel Ifshar. It seems that during the late 12th dynasty the Egyptian crown granted liberal access to the town of Tell el-Dab'a (Eastern Nile Delta) which seems to have become something like a free trading town, otherwise the marked increase of settlers of Syro-Palestinian origin in the size of approx. 25,000 inhabitants cannot be explained. Whilst trading links with the Northern Levant (Byblos) dominated, during the Second Intermediate Period the main Egyptian trading partners were situated in Palestine. Finally a local dynasty appeared at Avaris/Tell el-Dab'a which took from ca. 1640-1530 BC control over all of Egypt. They are known as Hyksos. They also controlled a part of Palestine. Relations with Palestine flourished at this time. After the expulsion of the Hyksos by the Egyptian 18th dynasty, the major part of Palestine remained independent till Thutmosis III and the battle of Megiddo (ca. 1459 BC)."
Most of Bietak's work is good reading for the biblical archeology amatuer.
What of that was evidence for any part of Exodus?
quote:
There is a considerable amount of such evidence pilling up with each passing dig season. The history channal did a wonderful 2 hour program discussing Exodus, which had I not paid for my copy, I would gladly loan to you. The archeological evidence is rather overwhelming, although, they found out that Moses did not part the red sea, but led the Israelites across a salt marsh known as the sea of reeds.
Thus, since the Egyptians used chariots, the mud would have proven impassable. The actual removal of water in this area is generally thought to have been caused by one of the famous Sahara wind storms.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
To imagine that the Egyptian military was unware [unaware] of the Sea of Reeds, which sat on their only land flank, and unable to go around it in chariots and catch a large group of civilians fleeing on foot is simply too ludicrous to even consider.
I never said the Egyptian army was unaware of the sea of reeds.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
To further speculate that an Egyptian commander would pursue those same civilians into a muddy marsh in chariots is beyond ludicrous.
Even modern commanders have done dumber things, like Rommel trying to cross part of the Sahara that was impassable for tanks, or, the planners of the Normandy invasion not listening to the french resistance about the hedge rows, you see, Ike and everyone thought the Hedge rows were like the fence lines in England, not ages old piles of dirt with interlocking root systems that took a modified tank to push through.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
Further speculating that the scribes of the era wrote Red Sea when they meant Sea of Reeds, two very different proper names both very important in local affairs, is bizarre and seems to be based on the similarities of the names in English.
Nope, the scribes did not make the mistake, but the first translators of the old testament to the Greek, did. And, if you ACTUALLY read the book of Exodus in the original form, which is available, you will see clearly the sea of reeds named, not the red sea.
Translation errors are very common especially in the bible, and Arabic to Greek to English translations of the Qur'an, properly spelled, or if you insist Quran.
At present, there is generally accepted to be over a thousand known translation errors in the King James version, and there are even copy errors in some of the old hand written copies of the king James version of the bible.
In other words, that argument is flawed from the get go, IF you actually have studied the various texts. I cannot read classical Greek, my Latin is very rusty, but one of the courses offered in many History Departments goes into great detail about the translation errors.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
As to the claim of the minoan eruption being related to Exodus, the minoan eruption happned around 1600 BC and certainly occured before the beginning of the New Kingdom and some 300 years before the claimed 1392 BC birthdate of Moses. So that one claim or the other is simply wrong.
The eruption of Thera occured around 1450-1500 B.C.E. according to archaeological dating which is during the same time frame as the scriptural dating for the Exodus of Moses (1447 B.C.E.)
Moses was born about 1391, now, considering that the eruption is dated based on the ruins of the Minoan colony on Thera, your argument is again over turned.
And considering that the 'Sea of Reeds' was a salt marsh of considerable size, thus the name SEA was used.
Now, let us look at the archeological evidence of the sea in the first place, it stretched from the Nile delta south to near the head of the red sea, and according to geologic evidence, could have been anywhere from 75 to two hundred miles wide.
Now, you say the Egyptian army could have gone around the sea of reads and caught the Hebrews on the other side?
I have to figure that you know absolutely nothing about horses, cavalry, or even chariot warfare.
Lets give the sea of reeds triangle shape, wider at the Nile delta, and give it a length of 90 miles, and 75 miles at the middle.
Now, look at sat image of the Isthmus of Suez. You can actually see the old outlines of the marshlands in question, along with some fossil rivers.
Now, first of all you have ninety miles to travel to get to the other side. Secondly, you have to decide what percentage of those chariots you are willing to lose to dead or dieing horses.
DomKen, did you forget you could not keep a chariot at full gallop for any prolonged length of time?
I will give you an example of what I mean.
First the cavalry.
For every 10 miles of a normal march, you walked the mounts one hour, unless you wanted to kill the mounts. Thus the US Cavalry during the Civil War and Indian wars had maximum pushed marching distance of 80 miles a day.
These were horses with one rider, his gear consisting of a bedroll, carbine, pistol, saber, two (if lucky) changes of clothes in a pair of saddle bags, his rations for at least a week, (hard tack and pemican) and the rider weighed on average, 160, total load on the horse, 200 pounds, plus or minus 15.
Does anyone see the problem with modern mounted Cavalry catching a column on foot with a 90 mile ride, in the desert, with temps in the high 80s. Going to make for some really thirsty men and horses, since they left the river behind them and they cant drink the water in the marsh.
Now, look at a chariot force.
The chariot weighed in at 300 pounds, with two men, a driver and an archer, so two horses are pulling six hundred pounds.
DomKen, how many chariots would YOU be willing to lose to catch a bunch of slaves?
DomKen, would you, Pharoh of Egypt, be willing to sacrifice 60% of your force to a mad forced combat speed march around a marsh?
Say you have an army of 100,000. You kill off the horses to sixty percent of your force, leaving you with 40,000 effective troops.
You beat the Hebrews around the marsh and are waiting for them.
It is estimated that over 600,000 Israelites left Egypt. If even 25% of them were of age to fight, even with crude weapons, your 40,000 men on Chariots havent got a chance.
Chariots faught with Bows, meaning a limited number of arrows. Once your 40,000 men have used the arrows, its gonna be hand to hand. Even if you incapacatate 50% of the Hebrew warriors, you are still looking at 75,000 fighters against what is left of your 40,000.
I forgot to mention your men and horses have just endured a forced march in dry heat with rationed water and are now exhausted. There is no way they are going to be ready for a fight. You try to pour water into the horses and you gonna kill them, that is the problem with horses, they keep drinking when thirsty to the point they actually contract water poisoning, and die.
Now, another point to consider, if part of the way through this sea of reeds, some really bright young former slave remembers, "DOH, I used to build reed boats, and we used these reeds!"
Now, you have to worry about a 90 mile wide front to cover, and you are going have to split your force.
Well, I would personally believe they would take the shortest route, right up the coast of the Medaterean sea, so my strongest force would be there.
But I would leave pickets stretched out to catch them and harass them while a messenger came and told me where they came out.
So, lets say you take a slow march around the sea of reeds, keep your entire force intact, drop off picket units along the eastern edge.
I gave the Israelites 25% of their number in fighting condition, you have to drop troops on your march to the Medetaranin sea.
So, if you drop an effective harrassing force, you are looking at say between 5 and ten thousand men for each picket unit.
That 25% in fighting trim can make better time than the rest of the Israelites.
So, here are 10000 charioters parked somewhere and suddenly the 125 THOUSAND Hebrew warriors storm out of the Sea of Reeds.
One guy gets the job of going to tell Pharoh were they came out, telling every camp he meets to haul ass to where they showed up.
And at this point, there I refuse to believe you may make the claim that ten thousand charioteers are going to beat 125,000 armed men, who have been forced to be masons, stone carvers etc.
Archeological AND historic evidence does prove that there was slaves being held in Egypt, and there was a mass exodus at the time.
One more point to add, historic documentation on this account has been found in hyroglyphs in temples built after Ramasses II. All of which come well after the pyramids....
I dont know what history books you have been reading, but sorry, you really need to get some updated ones.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
To sum it up the known historical record contradicts Exodus, No large group of foreign slave laborers was used in the construction of any cities or temples, no such group left with the treasures of the pharoah, no such group wandered for 40 years in the very small Sinai and finally no such group hostile to Egyptians settled and conquered the fertile crescent.
Read a bloody map, since when is Canaan, Palistine, Israel or what ever you wish to call it is the entire fertile crescent???????
The Fertile Crescent is a crescent-shaped region in the Near East, incorporating the Levant and Mesopotamia, and often extended to Egypt. Mesopotamia is considered the Cradle of civilization and saw the development of the earliest human civilizations and is the birthplace of writing and the wheel.
Now, you are sitting there saying that no tribe came out of egypt, part of the fertile crescent and conquered it, which is true.
BUT Canaan, Palastine, the promised land lies from the dead sea to the head of the sea of Galalee, west of the River Jordan.
The fertile cresent extends from the Persian gulf, through the Tigris Euphrates River valley, west to the coast of the Mediteranean Sea, and South to the Nile. Click the link if you need visual aids.
http://k53.pbase.com/u17/daveb/upload/42673320.FertileCrescent.jpg
And it is true no group from Egypt ever conquered the entire fertile crescent, if they could do that, take Egypt first, why leave?
Now, have I satisfactorly blown your arguements out of the water?
If not, answer the following:
You have 600000+ people trying to get away from an army, why take a straight line?
Moses took the Israelites first to the land of Medean, where he had met and married his wife, which according to the bible lay at the foot of mount Sinai.
Now, Mount Sinai was considered a holy place even before Moses, and was discribed as having a spring on the top of the mountain.
Mount Sinai, also known as Mount Horeb, Mount Musa, Gebel Musa or Jabal Musa ("Moses' Mountain") by the Bedouin, is the name of a mountain in the Sinai Peninsula.
As for your arguement against the 40 year trip, maybe it happened, maybe it didnt. Some historians have claimed to have found proof, while still others feel that it may have been as little as one year.
The reason the bible gives for the 40 years is because the children of Israel sinned and built an Idol at the foot of the holy mountain, and the forty years was to ensure that all those who had been part of it had died.
Now, personally, I chose to believe the forty year thing, for no more than the fact I have found no proof it did not happen, which you claim to have happened leading to the conquest of the Fertile Crescent.
Now, since the story of the exodus is discussed in MAINSTREAM history classes at both the undergrad and graduate level, at both Religious affliated schools and Non Relgious schools as a point of fact.
Clearly either the majority of history professors and Archeologists are wrong, or you are. Personally, I will agree with the majority.
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
RE: Speaking of Sharian law=Women's rights ? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread