If we divide the Iranian years old history in to 8 sections. The most logical table will be such as this: Ancient Civilizations Pre Vedai Era: The First Imperial Era:
The only item here that allows any guess at the date the first statue was erected is the fact that it mentions that this was the first man to set up a statue by public decree in other words, the city legislature voted to pay for it. Since this presumably would not be long after the city was founded no more than five or ten yearsif we can figure out when Pisidian Antioch was established, we will have some idea of when it was set up, though nothing like an exact date.
This is not the most famous Antioch in Syriafounded in B. Only after this date would "decemvirs" be issuing public decrees, since these were the officials comprising the city council under a Roman colonial charter. But even with other dates, the inscription offers no proof of a second governorship of Syria.
First, there is no particular connection between being governor and being the Duumvir of a city. The one does not entail or even imply the other.
Second, this city is well outside of the Roman province of Syria, on the border between Lycia-Pamphylia and Galatia near modern day Egridir lake in Turkey.
Indeed, it is even Northwest of Cilicia, on the other side of the Taurus Mountains. This makes any connection between this office and a governorship of Syria impossible. No one would range so far from his province or have any major connection with a city so thoroughly separated from his area of control.
Even so, this has not stopped some Christians from telling tall tales about what these inscriptions prove. For example, one Christian periodical reports to its readers, as if it were a simple fact: An inscription was later found in Antioch which showed that Quirinius indeed was governor of Syria at the time.
But what it really gets wrong is the claim that the Antioch inscription proves Quirinius "was governor of Syria at the time. And they give hardly any reliable clues as to the date. Only pure speculation can set the date between 9 and 4 B.
Yet essentially the same claim regarding these stones, with the addition of a false appearance of precision "Quirinius was indeed governor of Syria in 7 BC as well"is made by Doug Raymer in his online essay " The Accuracy of the Bible. He reports that the Antioch stone he, too, only seems aware of one says that Quirinius was Prefect as well as Duumvir.
Obviously, Elder never actually read the stones, for they are about the Prefecture of Caristanius, not Quirinius. He also asserts as if it were a fact that the stone "records his election to the post of honorary duumvir Scholars only propose these as possible interpretations, yet Elder seems blithely unaware of the difference.
Furthermore, Elder thinks this inscription "proves that Quirinius was in the area as a commander" but he does not seem to understand that it places him well outside the province of Syria, where no governor of that province would have been.
Thus, when Elder asserts, again without any qualification, that the date of the inscription "can be fixed as somewhere between 10 and 7 B. He claims that the names on the inscription set that date, yet does not explain how. In fact, the names fix no date at all see box below. It is clear that Elder did not actually read or study the inscription himself--he must be relying on some other scholar, yet he cites no one.
The moral of this story is: This teaches us another lesson: For example, on Franke J. Arguing for the date of these inscriptions as between 6 and 2 B.
Others can skip it.
Cheesman, whose own work is already almost a century obsolete, cites the speculations of other scholars that this Antioch was established either when the province of Galatia was created in 25 B. The most reasonable circumstances in which Quirinius would hold a Duumvirate in Pisidian Antioch is as commander of the forces we know he led against the Homanadenses, bandits who plagued the large lake regions in south-central Galatia, very near Pisidian Antioch.
We know of no other occasion when Quirinius would be in such a remote area.
Certainly, no governor of Syria would have any cause to range so far from his province--especially with a massive mountain range in the way. Besides being illogical and impractical, such a move would also illegally violate the province of the governor of Galatia.
Instead, such a war would be the responsibility of the governor of Galatia, hence during the war Quirinius was most likely governing Galatia, not Syria. Either way, the Duumvirate at Antioch could have been awarded to Quirinius in an emergency--like during a war nearby--or as an honor--something likely to be awarded after a great favor, like leading the local veterans in a successful war against a nearby bandit king.
The most likely date for this war, however, is B. This fit argues for a date of B. In fact, since we know Quirinius was sent to Armenia to be the caretaker of the Imperial hopeful Gaius around the turn of the era, this would be an ideal circumstance in which he would need a deputy "prefect" conducting his office of Duumvir in Antioch if that is what the inscription meansin which case the post could date to 2 B.
Unfortunately, the other man named does not much help to establish the date.The Date of the Nativity in Luke (6th ed., ) Richard Carrier. It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C.
(or some year before 4 B.C.). The concept of race as a rough division of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) has a long and complicated caninariojana.com word race itself is modern and was used in the sense of "nation, ethnic group" during the 16th to 19th century, and only acquired its modern meaning in the field of physical anthropology from the mid 19th century.
The politicization of the field under the concept of. The Date of the Nativity in Luke (6th ed., ) Richard Carrier. It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C.
(or some year before 4 B.C.). Secularization (or secularisation) is the transformation of a society from close identification and affiliation with religious values and institutions toward nonreligious values and secular institutions.
The secularization thesis refers to the belief that as societies progress, particularly through modernization and rationalization, religion loses its authority in all aspects of social life.
Varieties of Moral Aestheticism. Was heute vollends als Philosophie des Nationalsozialismus herumgeboten wird, aber mit der inneren Wahrheit und Größe dieser Bewegung (nämlich mit der Begegnung der planetarisch bestimmten Technik und des neuzeitlichen Menschen) nicht das Geringste zu tun hat, das macht seine Fischzüge in .
When the Left complains about being "silenced," it is not because they are actually prevented from speaking, but only because they are caninariojana.com their Orwellian, or Marcusan, universe, "Free speech" is when the Right is silenced.