The Problem of Evil

If you have nothing but personal invective to post it would be better to keep your silence. You have contributed nothing to the topic and I wonder why you seem to want to cause problems. Please be constructive or remain a spectator.
As I am so poorly briefed on this area it should be very easy for the greatand the good to best me yet again.

 

I think the pot's calling the kettle black now

 

I-i-i-i-im s-s-s-s-scard n-n-now

If you see this in a dark alley somewhere--avoid at all chances because its really mkenny

www.moderntimes.com/palace/20_image/phantom.jpg

Hopefully this un will work.

[ 01. April 2004, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

 

For Gordon:

Hopefully these will work--you will like them

www.moderntimes.com/palace/30_image/scar.jpg

and this one too

www.moderntimes.com/palace/b/30_image/book.jpg

and finally:

www.moderntimes.com/palace/b40_image/tracy.jpg

 

Carl,
Only the first one worked, but it's brilliant!
Might adopt it as my new avatar.

Regards,
Gordon

 

I'm not quoting any link because my research has been done in labraries and with books. And I've seen more than one source which stipulates the aproximate date of his birth on 7 b. C. Even I've researched a little about astrology and tried to find out something about the star the Wise Men from the East saw, according to Saint Matthew. There are barely records of astrological activities of the time, but calculus made by modern scientists have concluded that the Halley Comet might have been seen around 10 b. C. or that Saturn and Jupiter got so close in year 7 b. C. that they might have looked like a single, very big and very brilliant star.

Because even if Herod was the King of Palestine and he held much of the political power and taxes were gathered by Herod's people, Herod depended on the governor of Syria and the Roman Emperor. So, the census was a Roman demographical and financial study made most probably by the governor or Syria to expand his tributary base and finance the province's expenditures —which included Herod's budget, of course. Making a record of the population back then allowed the Romans to keep a strict controll over the tax-payers, who in this case were almost one million Jews. These taxes, as I previously said were a matter of Herod's hanchmen, but the Romans did have an eye on them; because Herod had to pay tribute to the governor of Syria who had to pay for the manteinance of Roman Legions stationed there. Most of the taxes which existed back then were very similar to the Roman taxes paid in all the provinces, but in Palestine there was Herod's and the Priest's ambitions. That's why taxes were much higher in Palestine than in other parts of the Empire and that's why the administrations there —Herod or the Syrian governor— wanted to expand their tributary basis and obtain more money and share it less.

There was the money paid to the Temple, which is a different matter here and which has nothing to do with census.

But there was the main state budget who was to be shared by Herod and the Romans. Both of them would have obviously seeked to gather more money so their proficiencies could have been greater, keeping the same sharing proportion between Palestine's King and the Roman Empire. Legions in Palestine had to be fed, paid and proportioned with lodgings, the Syrian governor had to pay for bureaucracy and public works.

Herod also had to pay his own bureaucracy, his secret police, his parties and his gigantic and very ambitious public works —it must be remembered that the Great Temple in Jerusalem was biggest and most beautiful after Herod's reconstruction, that he built many palaces and public building, fortresses, drewers and ports.

So, another reasons why such a census was not recorded might have been because there were frequent census, considering that Palestine was not an incredibly rich province and had too many things to finance and many greedy people to satisfy. It is not unlikely that both, Herod and the Romans would have been fighting and competing fiercely for every piece of silver in Palestine.

 

By the way, would you mind behaving a little, kids? Or will Professor Friedrich will have to spank your little arses, eh?

Gentlemen, just ignore personal attacks. In the first place, there mustn't be personal attacks at all. And if there are, don't respond to them. All you'll get is having this thread closed or even worse, delated, along all my typing!

 

Freddie,
Try this for size when you're researching the star seen over Bethlehem- www.skymap.com/
You can set the night sky to any date between 4107 BC and 8000 AD.
I hear what you're saying about not replying to morons. My lip is bleeding, I'm biting it so hard, so I can't honestly blame others who are probably equally as sick of their opinions being denigrated by someone who never offers any evidence for their own.
To get the thread back on topic-again-I think evil can be a physical entity as well as a concept. I know people in the Scottish Society for Psychical Research-one of whom is a Professor in Astronomy at Glasgow University-who would accept that as valid because of their own research and experiences.

Regards,

Gordon

 

Hi Gordon, sorry about that but, I can find more good ones.

How about this one? www.moderntimes.com/palace/non_image/cagney.jpg

 

He's the ultimate tough guy.

 

When you finish the mutal back-slapping please Mr Historian provide the evidence you say shows the same Govenor served twice in a province. You said:

"If you follow the Loyola link, Marullus is quite clearly listed as having served as governor in Judea TWICE in the first century AD. Wonder how you conveniently managed to miss that?"


Now I have read everything in that link and it absolutely does not say Marullus served twice. You have ignored this in your haste to post juvenile insults. Please get back to your initial claim and show us where this double service occured.
Now I know by now you will have re-read the link and realised you confused two similar names but let us see if you are man enough to admit it. Perhaps you prefer not to revisit this gaffe of yours and hope we forget all about it.
It seems The General is the only one with any real understanding of the problems and I thank him for his fact laden replies. I might not agree with his conclusions but he is, as he states, well read on the subject-unlike our resident comedic double act!

 

Carl,

Top of the world, ma! Top of the world!

Regards,

Gordon

 

General can we agree that The Gospels then are not error free or the unshakeable voice of God. If (as I think you accept) they were written up to 100 years after the events they describe then yes they will have error and inconsistency.
Where we differ is you think they are minor and incidently 'typos' and of no great importance to the story they tell. I see them as glaring faults in a story so important to the faith. And indicitive of how little even those on the inside knew about their lord.
The date of Herod's death on its own is not fatal. However the closer you get to Herods reign then the further away you get from Q. and Syria. Fix one problem and another pops up!
The census is clearly said to be Empire wide and we can be sure something that big was recorded but where is this evidence for a census? (Roman remember not Herods)The family tree given for Jesus is different in the 2 Gospels as well and we havent even touched on it-yet!

 

Of course I accept they are full of mistakes and are not irrefutable. The Bible is not only a theological book which shows us a philosophy for life. It is also one of the greatest works of Literature in History and the most important record of ancient Jewish History and of the early Christian era. As an historical document, we must study it very, very carefully, so literary resources and theological symbolisms don't fool us. You have to bring modern investigations, archæology, astrology, etc. to reach partial conclusions. But as the only source available to many things, there can barely be discussions.

The four Gospels —and the Aphocryph ones too— were mostly written many years after the facts and most of the research was testimonial. This by itself adds different versions and inaccuracies.

So, let’s suposse that Saint Matthew and Saint Luke must have received information not accurate enough because of 70-100 years of oral-transmission. Then, there’s a posibility that they fixed some of that inaccurate and confusing information to make it coherent. If we add to this the lack of Roman chronicles of those times, we get quite ambiguous —not false— historical sources. But let’s accept too that all historical investigations of the time were made this way. Herodotus, Tacitus, Josephus, Titus Livius, Seutonius and all of them wrote historical works very similar to the Bible. Concise and carefully researched historical works started appearing in the XVIII century…
What is important for the History of Jesus is not when was he born, but where. And all sources agree that it was Bethlehem and it matchs the prophecy of King David’s clan in Micheas V, 2 about the "messiah" or the "Krystos". All Gospels which talk about Jesus’ origins agree in most important things: the announcements made to Joseph, the very humble origin of Jesus and how his parents "were chosen" for their qualities as humans. That’s more important for the Christian religions than exactly when was he born.

I've just found more mentions of the census:

Kéleusis dè egéneto apò Augoústou Basiléoos apográfesthai pántas toùs en Beethleèm tees Ioudaías.

"And an order came by emperor Augustus to make a census of all the inhabitants of Bethlehem of Judea". Quoted in "Jacob's Proto-Gospel, XVII, 1.

Factum est autem post aliquantum tempus ut fieret profesio ex edicto Cæsaris Augusti, ut profiteretur unusquisque in patria sua. Hæc professio facta est a præside Syriæ Cyrino.

"After some time had passed, there came an edict of Cæsar Augustus ordering everyone to register in their own land. This census was performed by Cyrinus, governor of Syria". Quoted in "Pseudo-Matthew Gospel"; XIII, 1.

"In year 309* of Alexander's time, August decreed that every one had to register in their homeland". Quoted from "Arab Gospel of Infancy"; II, 1.

*This year is different in some translations, one says it was in 304, Alexander's Time, which are the time after Alexander the Great's death, which tells us that this date is around 14 and 7 b. C.

"And then an edict came of Emperor Augustus for everyone to register, each one according their respective homseland". Quoted on "History of Joseph the Carpenter"; VIII, 1.

All these sources mention specifically Emperor Augustus. But it’s just the normal tendency of the day to blame it all in the all-powerful and living demi-God of the time. And of course everything Roman had to do with Cæsar to the eyes of the common people of conquered lands.

However, according to Asimov’s "History of the Roman Empire" and R. D. "Jesus and his times", the Cæsar only gave the faculties to every governor to perform census and whatever necessary to increase the fiscal base themselves, individually. There is no record of general census all throughout the Empire at the same time, ordered specifically by any emperor. But in all History books we find that every law, every tax and every thing Roman was because of Cæsar. It’s not true. In a time were communications were undeveloped —at the time incredibly modern and quick— it’s not likely that a man had to take the decisions to build a bridge, a road, make a census or improve local laws in all of the thirty three provinces… The simple idea of that is awkward and improbable. Provinces made it all individually and independently and then they paid their part to Rome. And a second-rate province like Palestine is very unlikely to have had recorded one of the many census that might have taken place.

Do you actually think you could trace an accurate genealogy of five centuries at the time? All the way down to a carpenter?

 

Gentlemen, gentlemen! I went out for a few days and when I return I see flames burning high!

Please! There is room for Believers, Non-Believers, Maybe-Believers as well. I see a lot of scholarship raised, but wisdom is absent! Tempers are flying!

I'm not used to see this phenomenon in the ww2forum. Harmony taken over by Stasis! I know this is the Free Fire zone, but can we have more "Free" and less "Fire"?

Requiescat in pace ,

 

A tip-o-the-hat to you Gordon and a top-o-the-mornin greetings to you as well.

Za, at the word Gentlemen, just imagine you are saying that to the Three Stooges and they all in unison say: "Where?" as they look behind them )

 

How many Stooges, did you say?

 

All 6 actually

We can't forget Shemp, Joe and Curly Joe.

 

I've also been busy these past few days but am glad to see all the posting (who would have thought that my topic would hit 4 pages so fast!). Anyways, back to the topic.

I find it rather interesting that it was stated that Evil can (or was it 'might'?) exist as a physical entity. This brings us back to: If God is the Creator, then why did he allow Evil to exist? We know that God can create a place where Evil does not exist (Heaven) so then why did he create a physical form of evil?

(Crap, gotta go to class)

 

Yo Muss,

I was the one who thought evil can be a physical entity. I based that on acounts from psychics who can walk into a location and "scent" something nasty-my wife's one of them.
But- did God create evil? Didn't we already establish that free will exists?
As for tolerating it, I suppose there's always the chance of evil recanting-a sinner needs to repent before he can be forgiven.

Regards,
Gordon