Someone being executed by crucifixion is not evidence for God loving us. If that is your best 'evidence' for a loving God, you have nothing.

Any perceived benefit of such an action requires a massive set of assumptions which are without foundation themselves. Even if he himself did come back, that proves nothing other than that he had mysterious powers, nothing about his ultimate motives.

Your persistent failure to understand the maths of geometric series means you have way insufficient understanding of the subject to make meaningful comments on 'infinite regress'.

TGBaker wrote:

I think you may miss my point on inerrancy. If one begins with such a presupposition. It will effect ones historical approach. If one has not suspended the idea that the text is without errors one will not in a historical reseach see errors if they are there. It is an important precursory issue to resolve prior to any research or at least the ability to suspend it as a subjective belief in ones process of analysis. The same goes for the presupposition of inspiration. It taints the objectivity of historical research with a limiting factor that forbids a possible conclusion that the text is NOT inspired. That is what I typically see going on with such discussions as ours about the infancy narratives. The consideration of less plausible conclusions are arrived at ( Ramsey for example or A. T. Robertson on "eis&quot because of a necessary property of the conclusion ( inspriation)....of Quirinius . It seems a simple This  first enrollment there came to be ( when [ genitive])   the governing of Syria is by Quirinius OR when Quirinius is governing Syria. The idea is that it is this enrollment that Mary and Joseph are traveling for by context. .  The corroboration  of those many people seem to fall in line with what I am saying about the presuppostion of inerrancy or inspiration again... the move to the straining of this gnat or strawman as you say to a swollowing of the camel of inspiration or infallibility. 

My point was that it is not a slam dunk argument as one would to think it is concerning historicity of Luke.

But to think that someone cannot be objective because of beliefs about inspiration, inerrancy etc. is a circumstantial ad hominem. What there to prevent a someone with such convictions accusing the infernal skeptic of being the polar opposite, saying they will only accept material that would show something. Insofar as I can tell, there isn't. I do not see it as a detractor from the validity of the case I was suggesting.

TGBaker wrote:

Again I have seen no historical evidence  that puts Quiriius or a census within 10 years of Jesus birth. Ramsey's attempt is a notice of the emperor's appreciation of Quirinus but he then speculates the reward of a govenorship. But there is not room in the attested list of governors.  Secondly the change from local ruler by designation of Rome to direct rule by Rome seems to be the reason for the census in the first place. Again is there any census prior to 6CE  after 125 BCE that would approximate the hypothetical harmonization of the text? That is my dilemma with seeing any plausibility of going with your translation. Not just the grammar and syntax itself but the context and the history and 2000 years of translating it rightly I think.

I'm not talking about an earlier date for Quirinius' reign, but an earlier census that "became first" also translatable to "became chief" while Quirinius was gov of Syria. The census during the days of Quirinius was perhaps the second attempt at an earlier census, as Dio Cassius made note of.

TGBaker wrote:

I think you have those who begin with the presupposition that the text is not history.  A case in point are those who think that Jesus was not a historical person.  In my case I began with the assumption that the text was inspired. So yes you can come to the opposite conclusions. But I am talking about the fact that these do cause lens before the exegete and in looking at the actual examples of interpreting this text I find that the presentation of the implausible is because of the presupposition of Luke being historical 0or the text infallible. That is why you have Ramsey straining for a hypothetical. It seems that the four or five competing apologies fall inline with the one your presenting. And that is all I meant by the straining of a gnat.  As I have asked before what earlier census was taken prior to 6 CE and after 125 BCE?  As far as is reflected inthis was the first from Rome since 12Also the indication that this was an enrollment because it was at this very time that Quirinius becomes governor that Rome assumes direct control of the province. It was governed and the taxes were taken by local governing authories prior to that. The whole intro is pointing to Roman action: Augustus, Quirinius etc.  I understand giving the position a benefit of a doubt but it is not as persuasive as the exegesis which causes the historical issue.

I don't feel that it is straining at gnats really...

I do not know of an exact day... I know of at one other census that predates the  census of Quirinius in 6 CE. I think it is the earlier one mentioned by Dio Cassius. I think this historical data fits the translation too...

To me, this debate is turning into the minimalist/maximalist debate in biblical archeology. The minimalist assumes the Bible is false until show otherwise, and the maximalist do just the opposite. I think either position is bad when one begins to addresses historicity as an academic.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Someone being executed by crucifixion is not evidence for God loving us. If that is your best 'evidence' for a loving God, you have nothing.

The fact of Jesus' execution alone say nothing.  But the teachings of Christianity are corroborated by the facts.

Any perceived benefit of such an action requires a massive set of assumptions which are without foundation themselves. Even if he himself did come back, that proves nothing other than that he had mysterious powers, nothing about his ultimate motives.