The Bible is right! Part 2

Thank you again, Con. My opponent skips contradiction #2 altogether last round and that leaves me defenceless in his final post if he chooses to bring it back up. I have responded to all three contradictions every round so I must ask that my opponent not bring contradiction #2 back up in the last round for fairness. 1. WHAT YEAR WAS JESUS BORN?A census before 6 CE? Con said, :"There are so many factual errors in my opponent's argument that it is virtually impossible to know where to even begin.": There is no factual evidence period, evidence he has provided is on or after 6AD. It is equally tenable to suggest that a global census took place as ordered by Augustus during Quirinius' governorship and the reign of Herod before the birth of Christ. The only evidence for or against the census I'm suggesting rests only in the Bible not historical records(because there is no record from 4BC TO 1BC as I have stated before). My opponent says."My opponent's evidence for a census prior to 6 CE does not compute." Really, it does not compute? I gave instances of census's in Egypt and many in the Roman empire prior to 6AD. My opponent does not deny this he just doesn't compute it. He claims that the Romans only tax themselves. Well if this was correct then why was Egypt being taxed? There is evidence for the taking of a census every fourteen years in Egypt, the series possibly going back to A.D. 6. Decree's and taxation was enforced in Egypt from Rome in atleast 9BC. A papyrus from Egypt dated to 104AD requiring people to return to their homes for a census has sometimes been cited as evidence of a requirement to travel back to homelands. We see that census's were around long before 6AD and were adopted by Rome. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Roman empire and Cesar Augustus conducted many census's before 6AD and the one in 6AD was not the first census as my opponent and circular historians suggest. I mean it is pretty ridiculous to claim this when there is evidence of prior census's and decree's. What else is nonsense here is to claim that Judea was the only vessel state not to have census's and to be taxed. Or that king Herod was not a Roman himself and was not paying taxes back to Rome (I note my opponent did not deny this at all). My opponent states,"The final nail in the coffin for my opponent's ad hoc attempt is the fact that he admits that it was in 2 B.C.E. We know that Herod was dead in 2 BCE and hence the contradiction stands.": This was only validating my stance that many census's went out way before 6AD. My opponents stance was that 6AD was the first decree and census and that therefore contradicts the Bible but he fails to deny the census in 2BC which contradicts his whole claim. Lets go over exactly what I discussed earlier. :"My opponent brings up zero evidence for the idea that he was governor twice. Although we can't know for certain, the best guess is not Qurinius": We both have stated there is no record of who was governor in 4BC-1BC. So how does my opponent know? Really is this not the same thing I am doing suggesting he was governor from the evidence I have provided? My claim is not that far-fetched at all. If it is possible (which it most certainly is) then this whole argument is not a contradiction at all. The Roman Empire was one of the ancient world's most literate cultures, but many works by its most widely read historians are lost. This is all in Wikipedia and I will leave the links: "One cannot rule out the possibility that, since Romans often adapted their administration to local circumstances, a census conducted in Judea would respect the strong attachment of Jewish tribal and ancestral relationships." Quirinius was very powerful military and governmental leader for Rome. In 12 BC he was named consul, a sign that he enjoyed the favour of Augustus. (Consul was the highest elected office of the Roman Republic and an appointive office under the Empire). He led a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, around 5 - 3 BC, probably as legate of Galatia. For this victory, he was awarded a triumph. Being of senatorial rank he outranked all military tribunes. This means he held a rank large enough to be placed governor of Syria during 4BC. Lets remember that Syria's large and prosperous population made Syria one of the most important of the Roman provinces. It would have been under great importance for someone experienced and qualified to govern Syria. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent claims Lucius Calpurnius Piso was governor which is based upon an inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus. He may have also been proconsul of Asia and legate of Syria, but all of this is disputed and my opponent admits as such. To establish this as a contradiction my opponent must show us who was governor of Syria in 4BC. Also he must provide us with proof that Rome had no census's prior to 6AD. If he can not establish these foundations of his contradiction then he fails. Resolved: Goes to Pro! 3. HOW DID JUDAS DIE? Hanging = Matthew 27:5, "And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself(no death mentioned)." Falling head long = Acts 1:18, "Now this man [Judas] bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowles gushed out." Obviously these two statements can not be put together at all. It is possible for one to hang themselves and fail then later on fall headlong (which means to fall head first). Doesn't this happen alot today? People commit suicide and fail then later succeed? Is my opponent saying it is impossible? My opponent goes on to say: :"1. Judas never dropped from a high place, the passage does not record any mountain cliffs. In order to make this harmonization attempt work, you will have to add to the Bible.:" My sir, I do not have to add to the Bible what is strange is you are. My opponent is adding to the Bible that both stories are the same incident. As I have explained before they are not. I will give you a example: Lets say that my friend and I witnessed a man commit a terrible act and did so 'for hire' and was paid. We both saw him do the act and get paid for it. Right after I witnessed him go give the money back and hang himself because he felt guilty but he did not die from it. That is what I would record about that man, He gave the money back and tried to commit suicide. (Lets note that I have already shown another instance in the Bible that had a hanging and also that gave death as the result. In Matthew it does not). My friend on the other hand later on witnessed the same man come back and get his money from the people because he did not die. The pharisees had already bought the field for the man and now it was his. He went to his purchsed field and went and jumped off a cliff and kill himself causing his guts to spew out and him falling headlong. My friend would record that he bought a field and suceeded in killing himself and the detail why. It is just dishonest to say that these stories have to be the same incident. My opponent has failed either way to prove that Matthew and Mark are in fact talking about the same incident here. Resolved: Goes to Pro Conclusion is my opponent can not win for the fact is he must have proven that it is impossible for his contradictions in the Bible to have took place. All I had to do was provide a plausible theory that could have took place and I have for each. I thank my opponent!~Vote Pro!