@bretzagar Quirinius was co-procurator with Quintilius in Syria in 4 bc., for the purpose of taking the census in Israel. So the first census of Q was in 4-5bc and Luke got it right.
For me the whole idea of such census seems implausible. Census when everybody have to do to their ancestor's cities??? Imagine the mass migration. But no historical record mentions it. Looks like an attempt to explain why Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And it is the strongest argument for existence of Jesus. Why invent a story that he came from Bethlehem? Because everybody knew he was from Nazareth! He was an actual quite famous person known as Jesus of Nazareth.
"People living within a Roman controlled province.. would NOT be required to go to the Hebrew controlled province.. I already pointed this out, but you choose to be willfulling ignorant"
The link I posted w the research addressed this point before you even brought it up genius. See? It is YOU who are willfully ignorant and this message board documents it. So like a true charlatan troll, assert more trash, lol, change subjects, obfuscate, or flat out deny the plain facts & logic. I'm done here.
Tertullian mentioned Roman records of censuses during the time of Christ's birth when Saturninus was governor of Syria. Does this conflict with Luke's record? No. Josephus mentioned that there were governors (plural) in Syria during the rule of Saturninus, naming at least 2. It would seem from his background that Quirinius was a special type of governor at this time, or as Justin Martyr referred to him, a procurator, a special delegate for census taking.
Sadly you ingore an extremely important aspect, which most fundamenalist also do. To match Matthew, the census *must* be during the reign of king Herod. While Bethlehem is in Judea and under Herod's control, Galilee is not. It is completely implausible to assume people went from one jurisdiction to another to be taxed. It is no less than ludicrous to beleive people would be expected to leave the place where their possessions are to go to a different jurisdiction to be taxed.
@jimmo42 Yes, like fundamentalists do, secular or other, you rush to slap down what doesn't fit your belief system without even knowing what it's about. In this case, you completely ignored the research I posted which shows that this was NOT about taxes as is typically assumed. Why even make a pretense of a discussion with such mentality? Such behavior clearly shows no interest in learning but rather pushing an ideology. Such fundamentalists charlatans are have no credibility and waste my time.
@AllOtherNamesUsed Sald, like a fundamentalist YOU ingore the arguments of your own side whenever it suits your purpose. Fundies frequently use the records of a tax census in Egypt as "proof" Romans told people to return to their homes for tax purposes. Further, the only reason for such censuses was for tax purposes. There are no record of any kind of "registration" other than for taxes. Do YOU have any legitimate references showing "registration" for any othe purpose"?
@jimmo42 All you do is make sweeping assertions & respond to tired old ignorant strawman arguments while foisting it on me because it's all YOU know and YOU won't let new research and findings get in the way of your biases like a good hardheaded fundy cult member. And as a charlatan you feign extensive research while slapping down the solid research that silences the ignorant objections? What a JOKE! Just stay ignorant & talk more trash, it's al you're worth. You've wasted enough of my time.
@AllOtherNamesUsed 1) They are are "sweeping assertions" because they address very specific issues. 2) It is not strawman argument, because I am not mispresenting it as arguments from others and then countering that arguement. You can easy confirm yourself that Galilee was under Roman control and Bethlehem was not. You will also find that one of the reasons for the census in 6CE mentioned by Josephues was that Judea had become a Roman province, no longer under a client king.
...facepalm... If you actually bothered to read that web site, you can clearly see that the explanation of how Quirinus would become involved in such a census are purely speculation. There is no real evidence for it! Further, there claims are neither "new" nor "findings", they have been addressed since at least the end of the 18th century what the inscription was found.
@AllOtherNamesUsed "What a JOKE!" Your're right! Your posts ARE a joke. All you have done is read a single web site, obviously with confirmation bias and not bothered to look up the facts yourself. As I already pointed out, even Raymon Brown, a catholic priest and New Testament scholar, in his book "The Birth of the Messiah" says you and Luke got it wrong.
@jimmo42 Again the question, Do YOU Have any legitmate references? No. The claim on that fundie website "The Oath Was a Census", for example, is simply a desperate attempt to force something into the text that is not there. In the original Greek, Luke did not use "oath", but απογραπηο, which means "to enter in public records the names of men, their property and income". It was a tax census. That's why there is a major problem with Luke!
@AllOtherNamesUsed Even if we assume your ludicrous claim that it was not about taxes, the basic principles still stands. Quirinius was NOT in a position during the time specified in Matthew to organize, order or anything else concerning any type of census. If you look as sources like Father Raymond Brown, you have them all in one place, not some non-scholarly sites like askelm*com. ....facepalm...
@AllOtherNamesUsed Further, even IF you assume your ludicrous claims, you are willfulling ignoring one of the key factors. Nazareth was in a difference province from Bethlehem. People living within a Roman controlled province (i.e. Galilee) would NOT be required to go to the Hebrew controlled province (Bethlehem). I already pointed this out, but you choose to be willfulling ignorant about it. The facts show no such registration (for taxes or otherwise) took place.
@AllOtherNamesUsed I suggest you read "The Birth of the Messiah", by the late Raymond Brown. He was a catholic priest and spent a good 10 pages on just the census. The bottom line is that all of the vain attempts to reconcile this problem fail completely. Granted Fr. Brown did not address the really lame explanation in Norman Geisler's "When Critics Ask". Even without knowing the historical errors Geisler makes, the logic is obviously nonsense.
I am curious as to how people would "likely" have known that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem if Luke had simply made it up. Are there any facts to support this? Any at all? Would they have simply gone to the Bethlehem hall of records and read it for themselves? Not very logical with only 10% literacy, plus there were no such records. Does the term "grasping at straws" ring a bell?
Thank you. Your point differs from the findings in my book. King Monobaz (Joseph) and Queen Helena (Mary) of Adiabene wouldn't have been in this census. Queen Helena (Mary) did not convert to Judaism until after two decades had passed in the year of our Lord . She and King Izaates II, her son, did not convert until 27 or 30 AD which would coincide with Jesus' mission beginning once he (King Izaates II) became Jewish..
Steefen, author of "Insights on the Exodus, King David, and Jesus."
It takes ten years to do a census? That doesn't seem like a very useful set of data...
kcdad2806 1 month ago
@kcdad2806 People always impose on the ancients standards of their day that those in antiquity weren't even under.
bretzagar 1 month ago
@bretzagar Quirinius was co-procurator with Quintilius in Syria in 4 bc., for the purpose of taking the census in Israel. So the first census of Q was in 4-5bc and Luke got it right.
j919or 3 days ago
Comment removed
myintellectualjourny 1 month ago
For me the whole idea of such census seems implausible. Census when everybody have to do to their ancestor's cities??? Imagine the mass migration. But no historical record mentions it. Looks like an attempt to explain why Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And it is the strongest argument for existence of Jesus. Why invent a story that he came from Bethlehem? Because everybody knew he was from Nazareth! He was an actual quite famous person known as Jesus of Nazareth.
MegaVldmr 7 months ago
"People living within a Roman controlled province.. would NOT be required to go to the Hebrew controlled province.. I already pointed this out, but you choose to be willfulling ignorant"
The link I posted w the research addressed this point before you even brought it up genius. See? It is YOU who are willfully ignorant and this message board documents it. So like a true charlatan troll, assert more trash, lol, change subjects, obfuscate, or flat out deny the plain facts & logic. I'm done here.
AllOtherNamesUsed 7 months ago
You can't say "before" he was governor, the grammar doesn't work. Never mind the syntax and odd phrasing.
imperator332 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imperator332 "You can't say "before" he was governor, the grammar doesn't work. Never mind the syntax and odd phrasing."
Very well said. Isn't it odd people get into this kind of nonsensical apologia without a proper understanding of the language involved?
EruditeScythian 5 months ago
Tertullian mentioned Roman records of censuses during the time of Christ's birth when Saturninus was governor of Syria. Does this conflict with Luke's record? No. Josephus mentioned that there were governors (plural) in Syria during the rule of Saturninus, naming at least 2. It would seem from his background that Quirinius was a special type of governor at this time, or as Justin Martyr referred to him, a procurator, a special delegate for census taking.
More info: askelm*com/star/star014.htm
AllOtherNamesUsed 8 months ago 5
@AllOtherNamesUsed
Sadly you ingore an extremely important aspect, which most fundamenalist also do. To match Matthew, the census *must* be during the reign of king Herod. While Bethlehem is in Judea and under Herod's control, Galilee is not. It is completely implausible to assume people went from one jurisdiction to another to be taxed. It is no less than ludicrous to beleive people would be expected to leave the place where their possessions are to go to a different jurisdiction to be taxed.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@jimmo42 Yes, like fundamentalists do, secular or other, you rush to slap down what doesn't fit your belief system without even knowing what it's about. In this case, you completely ignored the research I posted which shows that this was NOT about taxes as is typically assumed. Why even make a pretense of a discussion with such mentality? Such behavior clearly shows no interest in learning but rather pushing an ideology. Such fundamentalists charlatans are have no credibility and waste my time.
AllOtherNamesUsed 7 months ago
@AllOtherNamesUsed Sald, like a fundamentalist YOU ingore the arguments of your own side whenever it suits your purpose. Fundies frequently use the records of a tax census in Egypt as "proof" Romans told people to return to their homes for tax purposes. Further, the only reason for such censuses was for tax purposes. There are no record of any kind of "registration" other than for taxes. Do YOU have any legitimate references showing "registration" for any othe purpose"?
jimmo42 7 months ago
@jimmo42 All you do is make sweeping assertions & respond to tired old ignorant strawman arguments while foisting it on me because it's all YOU know and YOU won't let new research and findings get in the way of your biases like a good hardheaded fundy cult member. And as a charlatan you feign extensive research while slapping down the solid research that silences the ignorant objections? What a JOKE! Just stay ignorant & talk more trash, it's al you're worth. You've wasted enough of my time.
AllOtherNamesUsed 7 months ago
@AllOtherNamesUsed 1) They are are "sweeping assertions" because they address very specific issues. 2) It is not strawman argument, because I am not mispresenting it as arguments from others and then countering that arguement. You can easy confirm yourself that Galilee was under Roman control and Bethlehem was not. You will also find that one of the reasons for the census in 6CE mentioned by Josephues was that Judea had become a Roman province, no longer under a client king.
jimmo42 7 months ago
@AllOtherNamesUsed "won't let new research and findings get in the way"
...facepalm... If you actually bothered to read that web site, you can clearly see that the explanation of how Quirinus would become involved in such a census are purely speculation. There is no real evidence for it! Further, there claims are neither "new" nor "findings", they have been addressed since at least the end of the 18th century what the inscription was found.
jimmo42 7 months ago
@AllOtherNamesUsed "What a JOKE!" Your're right! Your posts ARE a joke. All you have done is read a single web site, obviously with confirmation bias and not bothered to look up the facts yourself. As I already pointed out, even Raymon Brown, a catholic priest and New Testament scholar, in his book "The Birth of the Messiah" says you and Luke got it wrong.
jimmo42 7 months ago
@jimmo42 Again the question, Do YOU Have any legitmate references? No. The claim on that fundie website "The Oath Was a Census", for example, is simply a desperate attempt to force something into the text that is not there. In the original Greek, Luke did not use "oath", but απογραπηο, which means "to enter in public records the names of men, their property and income". It was a tax census. That's why there is a major problem with Luke!
jimmo42 7 months ago
@AllOtherNamesUsed Even if we assume your ludicrous claim that it was not about taxes, the basic principles still stands. Quirinius was NOT in a position during the time specified in Matthew to organize, order or anything else concerning any type of census. If you look as sources like Father Raymond Brown, you have them all in one place, not some non-scholarly sites like askelm*com. ....facepalm...
jimmo42 7 months ago
@AllOtherNamesUsed Further, even IF you assume your ludicrous claims, you are willfulling ignoring one of the key factors. Nazareth was in a difference province from Bethlehem. People living within a Roman controlled province (i.e. Galilee) would NOT be required to go to the Hebrew controlled province (Bethlehem). I already pointed this out, but you choose to be willfulling ignorant about it. The facts show no such registration (for taxes or otherwise) took place.
jimmo42 7 months ago
@AllOtherNamesUsed I suggest you read "The Birth of the Messiah", by the late Raymond Brown. He was a catholic priest and spent a good 10 pages on just the census. The bottom line is that all of the vain attempts to reconcile this problem fail completely. Granted Fr. Brown did not address the really lame explanation in Norman Geisler's "When Critics Ask". Even without knowing the historical errors Geisler makes, the logic is obviously nonsense.
jimmo42 8 months ago
Do we have any Roman texts that verify or allude to these censuses/
DonJulioBlanco2002 11 months ago
I am curious as to how people would "likely" have known that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem if Luke had simply made it up. Are there any facts to support this? Any at all? Would they have simply gone to the Bethlehem hall of records and read it for themselves? Not very logical with only 10% literacy, plus there were no such records. Does the term "grasping at straws" ring a bell?
jimmo42 11 months ago
Thank you. Your point differs from the findings in my book. King Monobaz (Joseph) and Queen Helena (Mary) of Adiabene wouldn't have been in this census. Queen Helena (Mary) did not convert to Judaism until after two decades had passed in the year of our Lord . She and King Izaates II, her son, did not convert until 27 or 30 AD which would coincide with Jesus' mission beginning once he (King Izaates II) became Jewish..
Steefen, author of "Insights on the Exodus, King David, and Jesus."
WBFbySteefen 1 year ago