TexasScientist said:

---

Possibly, but not likely. It's clear that Luke has a completely different account from Matthew of how it happened. In Matthew it is apparent that they already live in Bethlehem and try to return home later. In Luke Bethlehem is not their hometown, and a main point of Luke's story is that they are from Nazareth. There are numerous glaring historical errors and problems with their accounts, that either are irreconcilable, or simply implausible. Why is this? The answer is Matthew and Luke want Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though they both know he came from Nazareth, which agrees with the other Gospels. Both have an agenda and objective to explain how Jesus can be the Messiah, since it was well known he was from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. They want to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Micah 5:2, as clearly stated in Matthew. Either Luke and Matthew, or the sources they relied upon, created the stories in order to have him born in Bethlehem. It's apparent neither story is historical, but each have similar agendas. Most likely, Jesus was not really born in Bethlehem, but was instead from Nazareth, and most likely born there.

---

To this point, the only person that is proven to have an agenda is you. This question has been answered numerous times yet you don't like the answer. Show some humility, please!

You are working so hard to confirm your beliefs (yes, that's the right word). You can't stand the fact that you may be wrong on this point. Then, if your wrong on this point, on what other points might you be wrong? Before you know it, doubt would be introduced to your atheistic beliefs. The thought of where that might lead is too much for you to bare.

BARE IT. You a smart man SciGuy. If your current thoughts are true, then they will work themselves out and eventually be proven to be true. They don't need your help. So, investigate properly rather than with this agenda-driven stuff you continue to throw out.

Truth doesn't change. If there is a true God, He will eventually be proven. For Christ sake, or Pete's or just for your own sake, drop the agenda and investigate properly!!!

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Isaiah passage is Eisegesis (/Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Wiki

We have no idea that Isaiah was referring to Jesus. It's baptizing the OT. We've been taught it so long that it's believed to be the truth. Isiah was speaking his listeners not the future. Christians have projected back into the ot for centuries but it's a stand alone testament. A Testatment to Jews with excellent insights into God.

---

Im guessing eisegesis would also include cherry picking the Bible for the parts that a person believes vs doesn't believe. Propitiation would be a great example for some.

---

Cherry picking is picking out one verse from Isaiah nd saying it references Jesus. For conservatives it is an Eisegesisal tool to read back into the OT the NT. For instance in the Genesis clauses that read "We" as Jesus and God talking but it really an ancient notion of a council of God's (angels) gathering together to talk over ideas.

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Gospels are exceptionally reliable history for their time. The so-called problems with their accuracy wouldn't be problems by any normal standard. For example, the first four accounts of Alexander the Great's life were written three to five centuries after his death. To have four accounts of Jesus' life within 30-50 years is extraordinary. Of course there are minor discrepancies, as in all such cases. It would be surprising if there weren't.

---

I wouldn't consider no record of a Census that requires registration of the whole world for taxes requiring them to uproot and return to their ancestral homes 1,000 years in the past a minor discrepancy. I wouldn't consider no record of Herod ordering the slaughter of all male toddlers two and under a minor discrepancy. Josephus makes no mention of either. Surely he would have said something about Herod ordering such a thing. I wouldn't consider the claim Quirinius was governor of Syria when Herod was king a minor discrepancy. We know that Quirinius did not become governor until ten years after Herod died. - Just to name a few....

I do think/agree the four accounts are extraordinary, in that they each differ, and they each advance the particular writer's theological understanding of who Jesus was and the message they want him to convey.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Possibly, but not likely. It's clear that Luke has a completely different account from Matthew of how it happened. In Matthew it is apparent that they already live in Bethlehem and try to return home later. In Luke Bethlehem is not their hometown, and a main point of Luke's story is that they are from Nazareth. There are numerous glaring historical errors and problems with their accounts, that either are irreconcilable, or simply implausible. Why is this? The answer is Matthew and Luke want Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though they both know he came from Nazareth, which agrees with the other Gospels. Both have an agenda and objective to explain how Jesus can be the Messiah, since it was well known he was from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. They want to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Micah 5:2, as clearly stated in Matthew. Either Luke and Matthew, or the sources they relied upon, created the stories in order to have him born in Bethlehem. It's apparent neither story is historical, but each have similar agendas. Most likely, Jesus was not really born in Bethlehem, but was instead from Nazareth, and most likely born there.

---

To this point, the only person that is proven to have an agenda is you. This question has been answered numerous times yet you don't like the answer. Show some humility, please!

You are working so hard to confirm your beliefs (yes, that's the right word). You can't stand the fact that you may be wrong on this point. Then, if your wrong on this point, on what other points might you be wrong? Before you know it, doubt would be introduced to your atheistic beliefs. The thought of where that might lead is too much for you to bare.

BARE IT. You a smart man SciGuy. If your current thoughts are true, then they will work themselves out and eventually be proven to be true. They don't need your help. So, investigate properly rather than with this agenda-driven stuff you continue to throw out.

Truth doesn't change. If there is a true God, He will eventually be proven. For Christ sake, or Pete's or just for your own sake, drop the agenda and investigate properly!!!

---

Respectful of your opinion - I could easily take your moniker and substitute it for mine, in your above text, and re-post your comments here below.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Gospels are exceptionally reliable history for their time. The so-called problems with their accuracy wouldn't be problems by any normal standard. For example, the first four accounts of Alexander the Great's life were written three to five centuries after his death. To have four accounts of Jesus' life within 30-50 years is extraordinary. Of course there are minor discrepancies, as in all such cases. It would be surprising if there weren't.

---

I wouldn't consider no record of a Census that requires registration of the whole world for taxes requiring them to uproot and return to their ancestral homes 1,000 years in the past a minor discrepancy. I wouldn't consider no record of Herod ordering the slaughter of all male toddlers two and under a minor discrepancy. Josephus makes no mention of either. Surely he would have said something about Herod ordering such a thing. I wouldn't consider the claim Quirinius was governor of Syria when Herod was king a minor discrepancy. We know that Quirinius did not become governor until ten years after Herod died. - Just to name a few....

I do think/agree the four accounts are extraordinary, in that they each differ, and they each advance the particular writer's theological understanding of who Jesus was and the message they want him to convey.

---

According to his own record, Augustus ordered a census including 4 million citizens in 8 BC, a year or two before Jesus was born. Because most people in the empire were not citizens, and there were only 1 million people in Rome itself, it's likely that this census was empire-wide. Very few people lived elsewhere than the town of their birth, so there's no reason to believe mass uprooting occurred.

Bethlehem, with a population of 500 to 1,000 at the time, might have had as few as twenty males under the age of two. Josephus reports Herod slaughtering larger numbers of people on many occasions, nor was it especially remarkable that the victims in this case were children. If anything, children were less valued in the ancient world than adults. So it's not that surprising that Josephus doesn't mention it. At least one other non-Christian writer does, though. According to Macrobius, "When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, [Augustus] remarked 'It is better to be Herod's pig than his son.'" A possible reference also exists in the Jewish Testament of Moses, which states that Herod "will kill both old and young, showing mercy to none."

These alleged discrepancies are arguments from silence at best (and not really even that, since other sources do address them). The reference to Quirinius is the only one that might qualify as a real discrepancy. The Greek passage is ambiguous for its lack of definite articles. One possible translation is "this census was before the one when Quirinius governed Syria." Why refer to it in this way? Perhaps because the census in 6 AD was notorious for provoking a rebellion by Judas the Galilean, and Luke wanted to distinguish his census from the more famous one. Furthermore, we know that Luke was aware of the later census because he mentions it in Acts 5:37. It's also possible that Quirinius was running the census without holding the title of governor. The term used for "governing" is a fairly general one, and he is known to have been active in Syria at the time.

Other explanations have been suggested, but there's no need to cover them all. Maybe it is simply a mistake. Such things happen. They don't change the fact that Luke was a careful and reliable historian.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Gospels are exceptionally reliable history for their time. The so-called problems with their accuracy wouldn't be problems by any normal standard. For example, the first four accounts of Alexander the Great's life were written three to five centuries after his death. To have four accounts of Jesus' life within 30-50 years is extraordinary. Of course there are minor discrepancies, as in all such cases. It would be surprising if there weren't.

---

I wouldn't consider no record of a Census that requires registration of the whole world for taxes requiring them to uproot and return to their ancestral homes 1,000 years in the past a minor discrepancy. I wouldn't consider no record of Herod ordering the slaughter of all male toddlers two and under a minor discrepancy. Josephus makes no mention of either. Surely he would have said something about Herod ordering such a thing. I wouldn't consider the claim Quirinius was governor of Syria when Herod was king a minor discrepancy. We know that Quirinius did not become governor until ten years after Herod died. - Just to name a few....

I do think/agree the four accounts are extraordinary, in that they each differ, and they each advance the particular writer's theological understanding of who Jesus was and the message they want him to convey.

---

According to his own record, Augustus ordered a census including 4 million citizens in 8 BC, a year or two before Jesus was born. Because most people in the empire were not citizens, and there were only 1 million people in Rome itself, it's likely that this census was empire-wide. Very few people lived elsewhere than the town of their birth, so there's no reason to believe mass uprooting occurred.

Bethlehem, with a population of 500 to 1,000 at the time, might have had as few as twenty males under the age of two. Josephus reports Herod slaughtering larger numbers of people on many occasions, nor was it especially remarkable that the victims in this case were children. If anything, children were less valued in the ancient world than adults. So it's not that surprising that Josephus doesn't mention it. At least one other non-Christian writer does, though. According to Macrobius, "When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, [Augustus] remarked 'It is better to be Herod's pig than his son.'" A possible reference also exists in the Jewish Testament of Moses, which states that Herod "will kill both old and young, showing mercy to none."

These alleged discrepancies are arguments from silence at best (and not really even that, since other sources do address them). The reference to Quirinius is the only one that might qualify as a real discrepancy. The Greek passage is ambiguous for its lack of definite articles. One possible translation is "this census was before the one when Quirinius governed Syria." Why refer to it in this way? Perhaps because the census in 6 AD was notorious for provoking a rebellion by Judas the Galilean, and Luke wanted to distinguish his census from the more famous one. Furthermore, we know that Luke was aware of the later census because he mentions it in Acts 5:37. It's also possible that Quirinius was running the census without holding the title of governor. The term used for "governing" is a fairly general one, and he is known to have been active in Syria at the time.

Other explanations have been suggested, but there's no need to cover them all. Maybe it is simply a mistake. Such things happen. They don't change the fact that Luke was a careful and reliable historian.

---

The census you are describing is not the same as described in Luke. Luke's census required everyone throughout the world (maybe empire) to return to the home of the ancestors of 1,000 years prior. This would have caused mass movement to go that far back, assuming they even knew their genealogies that far back. The common practice at the time was for census and assessments to be taken where people lived and owned property. In Josephus' account in 6 CE when the census was taken people were assessed of their possessions, lands and livestock. These events typically took place where they lived - in their own city. Nazareth is described as "their own city" - Luke 2:39. Joseph and Mary would have remained there to be enrolled in Nazareth.

There is no record of this magnitude and type of census being undertaken in this time frame or even at all. Here is what Wikipedia has to say on this subject: "There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the gospel links the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5: "In the days of King Herod of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah..."), but the census took place in 6 CE, ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.Some conservative scholars have argued that Quirinius may have had an earlier and historically unattested term as governor of Syria, or that he previously held other senior positions which may have led him to be involved in the affairs of Judea during Herod's reign, or that the passage should be interpreted in some other fashion.These arguments have been rejected by mainline scholarship as "exegetical acrobatics"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius#cite_note-FOOTNOTENovak2001293-298-11][[/url]and most have concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error."

It would be hard to contemplate a system in place that would tax people upon returning to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years prior, as in Joseph's situation. There were Jews residing throughout the empire by that time. Since they were also to be taxed on their possessions and livestock, it is ludicrous to believe the Romans would require them to return to Palestine with all of their belongings. And, under that scenario there would not be any way to assess their land. The Romans were very adept at governance and were very structured and organized for civilizations of that time. It's simply not believable they would attempt taking a census according to such an unimaginable and unmanageable system. This was a supposedly worldwide event.It is very doubtful that such an unusual and incredible census as described by Luke would escape the attention and recording of Roman historians, and Josephus.

.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Gospels are exceptionally reliable history for their time. The so-called problems with their accuracy wouldn't be problems by any normal standard. For example, the first four accounts of Alexander the Great's life were written three to five centuries after his death. To have four accounts of Jesus' life within 30-50 years is extraordinary. Of course there are minor discrepancies, as in all such cases. It would be surprising if there weren't.

---

I wouldn't consider no record of a Census that requires registration of the whole world for taxes requiring them to uproot and return to their ancestral homes 1,000 years in the past a minor discrepancy. I wouldn't consider no record of Herod ordering the slaughter of all male toddlers two and under a minor discrepancy. Josephus makes no mention of either. Surely he would have said something about Herod ordering such a thing. I wouldn't consider the claim Quirinius was governor of Syria when Herod was king a minor discrepancy. We know that Quirinius did not become governor until ten years after Herod died. - Just to name a few....

I do think/agree the four accounts are extraordinary, in that they each differ, and they each advance the particular writer's theological understanding of who Jesus was and the message they want him to convey.

---

According to his own record, Augustus ordered a census including 4 million citizens in 8 BC, a year or two before Jesus was born. Because most people in the empire were not citizens, and there were only 1 million people in Rome itself, it's likely that this census was empire-wide. Very few people lived elsewhere than the town of their birth, so there's no reason to believe mass uprooting occurred.

Bethlehem, with a population of 500 to 1,000 at the time, might have had as few as twenty males under the age of two. Josephus reports Herod slaughtering larger numbers of people on many occasions, nor was it especially remarkable that the victims in this case were children. If anything, children were less valued in the ancient world than adults. So it's not that surprising that Josephus doesn't mention it. At least one other non-Christian writer does, though. According to Macrobius, "When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, [Augustus] remarked 'It is better to be Herod's pig than his son.'" A possible reference also exists in the Jewish Testament of Moses, which states that Herod "will kill both old and young, showing mercy to none."

These alleged discrepancies are arguments from silence at best (and not really even that, since other sources do address them). The reference to Quirinius is the only one that might qualify as a real discrepancy. The Greek passage is ambiguous for its lack of definite articles. One possible translation is "this census was before the one when Quirinius governed Syria." Why refer to it in this way? Perhaps because the census in 6 AD was notorious for provoking a rebellion by Judas the Galilean, and Luke wanted to distinguish his census from the more famous one. Furthermore, we know that Luke was aware of the later census because he mentions it in Acts 5:37. It's also possible that Quirinius was running the census without holding the title of governor. The term used for "governing" is a fairly general one, and he is known to have been active in Syria at the time.

Other explanations have been suggested, but there's no need to cover them all. Maybe it is simply a mistake. Such things happen. They don't change the fact that Luke was a careful and reliable historian.

---

The census you are describing is not the same as described in Luke. Luke's census required everyone throughout the world (maybe empire) to return to the home of the ancestors of 1,000 years prior. This would have caused mass movement to go that far back, assuming they even knew their genealogies that far back. The common practice at the time was for census and assessments to be taken where people lived and owned property. In Josephus' account in 6 CE when the census was taken people were assessed of their possessions, lands and livestock. These events typically took place where they lived - in their own city. Nazareth is described as "their own city" - Luke 2:39. Joseph and Mary would have remained there to be enrolled in Nazareth.

There is no record of this magnitude and type of census being undertaken in this time frame or even at all. Here is what Wikipedia has to say on this subject: "There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the gospel links the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5: "In the days of King Herod of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah..."), but the census took place in 6 CE, ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.Some conservative scholars have argued that Quirinius may have had an earlier and historically unattested term as governor of Syria, or that he previously held other senior positions which may have led him to be involved in the affairs of Judea during Herod's reign, or that the passage should be interpreted in some other fashion.These arguments have been rejected by mainline scholarship as "exegetical acrobatics"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius#cite_note-FOOTNOTENovak2001293-298-11][[/url]and most have concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error."

It would be hard to contemplate a system in place that would tax people upon returning to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years prior, as in Joseph's situation. There were Jews residing throughout the empire by that time. Since they were also to be taxed on their possessions and livestock, it is ludicrous to believe the Romans would require them to return to Palestine with all of their belongings. And, under that scenario there would not be any way to assess their land. The Romans were very adept at governance and were very structured and organized for civilizations of that time. It's simply not believable they would attempt taking a census according to such an unimaginable and unmanageable system. This was a supposedly worldwide event.It is very doubtful that such an unusual and incredible census as described by Luke would escape the attention and recording of Roman historians, and Josephus.

.

---

You're making all kinds of assumptions that have nothing to do with the text. Luke simply says that each went to his own city, a phrase used throughout the Old Testament and the Gospels to mean the place of one's birth or past or current residence. In addition to the record of Augustus' census in 8 BC, we have the statement from Tertullian that an enrollment was conducted in Syria during the governorship of Saturninus between 9-7 BC. We know that enrollments were taken in Egypt on a 14-year cycle, and the second census mentioned by Luke was in 6 AD, so once again the facts seem to converge on 8 BC as a likely date for Luke's census. It's by no means implausible that the Syrian census was similar to those in Egypt, such as the one ordered by Gaius Vibius Maximus in 104 AD: "As a house-to-house registration has been authorized, it is necessary to order all persons absent from their homes for any reason whatsoever to return to their homes that they may perform the customary business of registration and may apply themselves to the cultivation of land, as is their proper duty."

Historicity is nonsense. It's a story to create an image of God Emmanuel as one of us.

Historicity don't win disciples

Waco1947 said:

---

Historicity don't win disciples

---

nor does a god we create ourselves

Waco1947 said:

---

Historicity don't win disciples

---

"Nothing in the Bible is true but I'm a Christian anyway" doesn't seem very appealing either.

You're exactly right but I didn't say that.

Waco1947 said:

---

You're exactly right but I didn't say that.

---

Not in those words, but you've made clear that you reject many critical points of the Bible, including the physical resurrection (1 John 4:2-3), God's omnipotence (Mark 4:38-41), and salvation by faith rather than works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You're exactly right but I didn't say that.

---

Not in those words, but you've made clear that you reject many critical points of the Bible, including the physical resurrection (1 John 4:2-3), God's omnipotence (Mark 4:38-41), and salvation by faith rather than works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

---

Poetic License from the pulpit.

He should take up wood carving to complete the process of creating his on god.

Historicity and the" Truth of the Bible" are two separate things.
The birth story says "God is with us. He shall be called Emmanuel."
That message wins disciples. .

JXL said "Nothing in the Bible is true but I'm a Christian anyway" doesn't seem very appealing either.."AND that's not what I said nor the conclusion one should reach. It's just sophistry. Look at the real miracle of the birth - Emmanuel! Not 'Birth Certificate'
You guys could produce a birth certificate that says "Jesus of Nazareth was born at 12;05 am on Dec 25th."
The evidence does nothing to bring people Christ..
the d Christmas Carol saysvit best
"O holy Child of Bethlehem
Descend to us, we pray
Cast out our sin and enter in
Be born to us today
We hear the Christmas angels
The great glad tidings tell
O come to us, abide with us
Our Lord Emmanuel'
1) Be born in us - not a stupid birth certificate
2). "Our Lord Emmanuel " God is with us, walking with us, loving us - that's the good news that converts not the some stupid historicity argument.
It's fun to talk about but ultimately the facts don't line up - Augustus, Quirinus , Herod and Census.
But my faith is based on the the God with us circ 4 BC to 4AD. But does it matter? He lived.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said "Nothing in the Bible is true but I'm a Christian anyway" doesn't seem very appealing either.."AND that's not what I said nor the conclusion one should reach. It's just sophistry. Look at the real miracle of the birth - Emmanuel! Not 'Birth Certificate'
You guys could produce a birth certificate that says "Jesus of Nazareth was born at 12;05 am on Dec 25th."
The evidence does nothing to bring people Christ..
the d Christmas Carol saysvit best
"O holy Child of Bethlehem
Descend to us, we pray
Cast out our sin and enter in
Be born to us today
We hear the Christmas angels
The great glad tidings tell
O come to us, abide with us
Our Lord Emmanuel'
1) Be born in us - not a stupid birth certificate
2). "Our Lord Emmanuel " God is with us, walking with us, loving us - that's the good news that converts not the some stupid historicity argument.
It's fun to talk about but ultimately the facts don't line up - Augustus, Quirinus , Herod and Census.
But my faith is based on the the God with us circ 4 BC to 4AD. But does it matter? He lived.

---

Demoting Christ to political activist saves no souls, and insults Christ.

Scripture is true and trustworthy, Waco sadly is neither.

You're right demoting Jedis to a political figure is wrong. Now where o did say that?

Waco1947 said:

---

Stories especially Luke to match up with Cesar Augustus as the son of god. Like is pointing to the "True Son of God" with all kinds of parallels to Augustus. Luke's timetable is scrrwed up. No census in his reign. The Governor does not match his reign. BUT Luke's intent is to say Jesus is human born of a woman. Augustus's biographer is to Sugustis is God Two quite fifferentbintenys.

---

Drunk posting again?

Waco1947 said:

---

You're right demoting Jedis to a political figure is wrong. Now where o did say that?

---

You never demoted the Jedis. But you demote Jesus every time you spew your politics and pretend that is the Gospel.

And you do that every single day.

Another typing mistake. Jesus. I never demoted Jesus to a political hack.
My sincere apologies

Waco1947 said:

---

Another typing mistake. Jesus. I never demoted Jesus to a political hack.
My sincere apologies

---

Jesus was (and is) about rebirth into the greater life of communion with God. You spew political harangues to use Jesus as a weapon against your political opponents,.

Yes, you have constantly "demoted Jesus to a political hack".

Waco1947 said:

---

Historicity and the" Truth of the Bible" are two separate things.
The birth story says "God is with us. He shall be called Emmanuel."
That message wins disciples. .

---

Well, no. One of the many things that makes Christianity unique among world religions is that it is specifically and inextricably tied to actual historical events. Without these historical events, the basis of the faith falls away. (1 Cor. 15-17).

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Gospels are exceptionally reliable history for their time. The so-called problems with their accuracy wouldn't be problems by any normal standard. For example, the first four accounts of Alexander the Great's life were written three to five centuries after his death. To have four accounts of Jesus' life within 30-50 years is extraordinary. Of course there are minor discrepancies, as in all such cases. It would be surprising if there weren't.

---

I wouldn't consider no record of a Census that requires registration of the whole world for taxes requiring them to uproot and return to their ancestral homes 1,000 years in the past a minor discrepancy. I wouldn't consider no record of Herod ordering the slaughter of all male toddlers two and under a minor discrepancy. Josephus makes no mention of either. Surely he would have said something about Herod ordering such a thing. I wouldn't consider the claim Quirinius was governor of Syria when Herod was king a minor discrepancy. We know that Quirinius did not become governor until ten years after Herod died. - Just to name a few....

I do think/agree the four accounts are extraordinary, in that they each differ, and they each advance the particular writer's theological understanding of who Jesus was and the message they want him to convey.

---

According to his own record, Augustus ordered a census including 4 million citizens in 8 BC, a year or two before Jesus was born. Because most people in the empire were not citizens, and there were only 1 million people in Rome itself, it's likely that this census was empire-wide. Very few people lived elsewhere than the town of their birth, so there's no reason to believe mass uprooting occurred.

Bethlehem, with a population of 500 to 1,000 at the time, might have had as few as twenty males under the age of two. Josephus reports Herod slaughtering larger numbers of people on many occasions, nor was it especially remarkable that the victims in this case were children. If anything, children were less valued in the ancient world than adults. So it's not that surprising that Josephus doesn't mention it. At least one other non-Christian writer does, though. According to Macrobius, "When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, [Augustus] remarked 'It is better to be Herod's pig than his son.'" A possible reference also exists in the Jewish Testament of Moses, which states that Herod "will kill both old and young, showing mercy to none."

These alleged discrepancies are arguments from silence at best (and not really even that, since other sources do address them). The reference to Quirinius is the only one that might qualify as a real discrepancy. The Greek passage is ambiguous for its lack of definite articles. One possible translation is "this census was before the one when Quirinius governed Syria." Why refer to it in this way? Perhaps because the census in 6 AD was notorious for provoking a rebellion by Judas the Galilean, and Luke wanted to distinguish his census from the more famous one. Furthermore, we know that Luke was aware of the later census because he mentions it in Acts 5:37. It's also possible that Quirinius was running the census without holding the title of governor. The term used for "governing" is a fairly general one, and he is known to have been active in Syria at the time.

Other explanations have been suggested, but there's no need to cover them all. Maybe it is simply a mistake. Such things happen. They don't change the fact that Luke was a careful and reliable historian.

---

The census you are describing is not the same as described in Luke. Luke's census required everyone throughout the world (maybe empire) to return to the home of the ancestors of 1,000 years prior. This would have caused mass movement to go that far back, assuming they even knew their genealogies that far back. The common practice at the time was for census and assessments to be taken where people lived and owned property. In Josephus' account in 6 CE when the census was taken people were assessed of their possessions, lands and livestock. These events typically took place where they lived - in their own city. Nazareth is described as "their own city" - Luke 2:39. Joseph and Mary would have remained there to be enrolled in Nazareth.

There is no record of this magnitude and type of census being undertaken in this time frame or even at all. Here is what Wikipedia has to say on this subject: "There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the gospel links the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5: "In the days of King Herod of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah..."), but the census took place in 6 CE, ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.Some conservative scholars have argued that Quirinius may have had an earlier and historically unattested term as governor of Syria, or that he previously held other senior positions which may have led him to be involved in the affairs of Judea during Herod's reign, or that the passage should be interpreted in some other fashion.These arguments have been rejected by mainline scholarship as "exegetical acrobatics"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius#cite_note-FOOTNOTENovak2001293-298-11][[/url]and most have concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error."

It would be hard to contemplate a system in place that would tax people upon returning to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years prior, as in Joseph's situation. There were Jews residing throughout the empire by that time. Since they were also to be taxed on their possessions and livestock, it is ludicrous to believe the Romans would require them to return to Palestine with all of their belongings. And, under that scenario there would not be any way to assess their land. The Romans were very adept at governance and were very structured and organized for civilizations of that time. It's simply not believable they would attempt taking a census according to such an unimaginable and unmanageable system. This was a supposedly worldwide event.It is very doubtful that such an unusual and incredible census as described by Luke would escape the attention and recording of Roman historians, and Josephus.

.

---

You're making all kinds of assumptions that have nothing to do with the text. Luke simply says that each went to his own city, a phrase used throughout the Old Testament and the Gospels to mean the place of one's birth or past or current residence. In addition to the record of Augustus' census in 8 BC, we have the statement from Tertullian that an enrollment was conducted in Syria during the governorship of Saturninus between 9-7 BC. We know that enrollments were taken in Egypt on a 14-year cycle, and the second census mentioned by Luke was in 6 AD, so once again the facts seem to converge on 8 BC as a likely date for Luke's census. It's by no means implausible that the Syrian census was similar to those in Egypt, such as the one ordered by Gaius Vibius Maximus in 104 AD: "As a house-to-house registration has been authorized, it is necessary to order all persons absent from their homes for any reason whatsoever to return to their homes that they may perform the customary business of registration and may apply themselves to the cultivation of land, as is their proper duty."

---

I'm simply following the text. Josephus' account of the census in 6 C.E. explicitly states that those taxed were assessed of their possessions, which would include land and livestock. This would mean that the census takers also were the tax assessors. The practice in Egypt was that tax assessors traveled house to house to levy their assessments. Luke depicts Joseph and Mary traveling 60 - 90 miles on a lengthy journey leaving their home in Nazareth in order to register in Bethlehem, Joseph's ancestral home. Your source above is from an Egyptian papyrus recording the census in 104 C.E., which explicitly states that "since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration..."(1.) Luke explicitly states Nazareth is "their own city" (Luke 2:39). So as you state above, if the same rules of the Egyptian census were applicable, Joseph and Mary would necessarily have stayed in Nazareth for enrollment and taxation. This indicates that the supposed required trip to Bethlehem does not conform with to the known historical practices, and was likely contrived to show Jesus was from Bethlehem for theological reasons.

1. Joseph A. Fitzmyer The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to Luke. Two Volumes. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1981, 1985), p. 405.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Gospels are exceptionally reliable history for their time. The so-called problems with their accuracy wouldn't be problems by any normal standard. For example, the first four accounts of Alexander the Great's life were written three to five centuries after his death. To have four accounts of Jesus' life within 30-50 years is extraordinary. Of course there are minor discrepancies, as in all such cases. It would be surprising if there weren't.

---

I wouldn't consider no record of a Census that requires registration of the whole world for taxes requiring them to uproot and return to their ancestral homes 1,000 years in the past a minor discrepancy. I wouldn't consider no record of Herod ordering the slaughter of all male toddlers two and under a minor discrepancy. Josephus makes no mention of either. Surely he would have said something about Herod ordering such a thing. I wouldn't consider the claim Quirinius was governor of Syria when Herod was king a minor discrepancy. We know that Quirinius did not become governor until ten years after Herod died. - Just to name a few....

I do think/agree the four accounts are extraordinary, in that they each differ, and they each advance the particular writer's theological understanding of who Jesus was and the message they want him to convey.

---

According to his own record, Augustus ordered a census including 4 million citizens in 8 BC, a year or two before Jesus was born. Because most people in the empire were not citizens, and there were only 1 million people in Rome itself, it's likely that this census was empire-wide. Very few people lived elsewhere than the town of their birth, so there's no reason to believe mass uprooting occurred.

Bethlehem, with a population of 500 to 1,000 at the time, might have had as few as twenty males under the age of two. Josephus reports Herod slaughtering larger numbers of people on many occasions, nor was it especially remarkable that the victims in this case were children. If anything, children were less valued in the ancient world than adults. So it's not that surprising that Josephus doesn't mention it. At least one other non-Christian writer does, though. According to Macrobius, "When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, [Augustus] remarked 'It is better to be Herod's pig than his son.'" A possible reference also exists in the Jewish Testament of Moses, which states that Herod "will kill both old and young, showing mercy to none."

These alleged discrepancies are arguments from silence at best (and not really even that, since other sources do address them). The reference to Quirinius is the only one that might qualify as a real discrepancy. The Greek passage is ambiguous for its lack of definite articles. One possible translation is "this census was before the one when Quirinius governed Syria." Why refer to it in this way? Perhaps because the census in 6 AD was notorious for provoking a rebellion by Judas the Galilean, and Luke wanted to distinguish his census from the more famous one. Furthermore, we know that Luke was aware of the later census because he mentions it in Acts 5:37. It's also possible that Quirinius was running the census without holding the title of governor. The term used for "governing" is a fairly general one, and he is known to have been active in Syria at the time.

Other explanations have been suggested, but there's no need to cover them all. Maybe it is simply a mistake. Such things happen. They don't change the fact that Luke was a careful and reliable historian.

---

The census you are describing is not the same as described in Luke. Luke's census required everyone throughout the world (maybe empire) to return to the home of the ancestors of 1,000 years prior. This would have caused mass movement to go that far back, assuming they even knew their genealogies that far back. The common practice at the time was for census and assessments to be taken where people lived and owned property. In Josephus' account in 6 CE when the census was taken people were assessed of their possessions, lands and livestock. These events typically took place where they lived - in their own city. Nazareth is described as "their own city" - Luke 2:39. Joseph and Mary would have remained there to be enrolled in Nazareth.

There is no record of this magnitude and type of census being undertaken in this time frame or even at all. Here is what Wikipedia has to say on this subject: "There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the gospel links the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5: "In the days of King Herod of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah..."), but the census took place in 6 CE, ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.Some conservative scholars have argued that Quirinius may have had an earlier and historically unattested term as governor of Syria, or that he previously held other senior positions which may have led him to be involved in the affairs of Judea during Herod's reign, or that the passage should be interpreted in some other fashion.These arguments have been rejected by mainline scholarship as "exegetical acrobatics"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius#cite_note-FOOTNOTENovak2001293-298-11][[/url]and most have concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error."

It would be hard to contemplate a system in place that would tax people upon returning to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years prior, as in Joseph's situation. There were Jews residing throughout the empire by that time. Since they were also to be taxed on their possessions and livestock, it is ludicrous to believe the Romans would require them to return to Palestine with all of their belongings. And, under that scenario there would not be any way to assess their land. The Romans were very adept at governance and were very structured and organized for civilizations of that time. It's simply not believable they would attempt taking a census according to such an unimaginable and unmanageable system. This was a supposedly worldwide event.It is very doubtful that such an unusual and incredible census as described by Luke would escape the attention and recording of Roman historians, and Josephus.

.

---

You're making all kinds of assumptions that have nothing to do with the text. Luke simply says that each went to his own city, a phrase used throughout the Old Testament and the Gospels to mean the place of one's birth or past or current residence. In addition to the record of Augustus' census in 8 BC, we have the statement from Tertullian that an enrollment was conducted in Syria during the governorship of Saturninus between 9-7 BC. We know that enrollments were taken in Egypt on a 14-year cycle, and the second census mentioned by Luke was in 6 AD, so once again the facts seem to converge on 8 BC as a likely date for Luke's census. It's by no means implausible that the Syrian census was similar to those in Egypt, such as the one ordered by Gaius Vibius Maximus in 104 AD: "As a house-to-house registration has been authorized, it is necessary to order all persons absent from their homes for any reason whatsoever to return to their homes that they may perform the customary business of registration and may apply themselves to the cultivation of land, as is their proper duty."

---

I'm simply following the text. Josephus' account of the census in 6 C.E. explicitly states that those taxed were assessed of their possessions, which would include land and livestock. This would mean that the census takers also were the tax assessors. The practice in Egypt was that tax assessors traveled house to house to levy their assessments. Luke depicts Joseph and Mary traveling 60 - 90 miles on a lengthy journey leaving their home in Nazareth in order to register in Bethlehem, Joseph's ancestral home. Your source above is from an Egyptian papyrus recording the census in 104 C.E., which explicitly states that "since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration..."(1.) Luke explicitly states Nazareth is "their own city" (Luke 2:39). So as you state above, if the same rules of the Egyptian census were applicable, Joseph and Mary would necessarily have stayed in Nazareth for enrollment and taxation. This indicates that the supposed required trip to Bethlehem does not conform with to the known historical practices, and was likely contrived to show Jesus was from Bethlehem for theological reasons.

1. Joseph A. Fitzmyer The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to Luke. Two Volumes. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1981, 1985), p. 405.

---

And again, being from Bethlehem and being from Nazareth are not mutually exclusive. Today as always, you can be from where you were born and also from where you live. If Joseph was originally based in Bethlehem, it makes all the more sense that he planned to stay there until he learned of the threat from Herod.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Historicity and the" Truth of the Bible" are two separate things.
The birth story says "God is with us. He shall be called Emmanuel."
That message wins disciples. .

---

Well, no. One of the many things that makes Christianity unique among world religions is that it is specifically and inextricably tied to actual historical events. Without these historical events, the basis of the faith falls away. (1 Cor. 15-17).

---

. I did not say Jesus birth did not happen. It did. The historicity of the Luke or Matthew stories is immaterial. Jesus was indeed born.
As I said the birth stories say God is with us. He shall be called Emmanuel.
The exact date does not matter except that it happened. That historicity is what I am arguing but in yourbrush to prove me wrong you don't listen.
Jesus was born and he lives.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Gospels are exceptionally reliable history for their time. The so-called problems with their accuracy wouldn't be problems by any normal standard. For example, the first four accounts of Alexander the Great's life were written three to five centuries after his death. To have four accounts of Jesus' life within 30-50 years is extraordinary. Of course there are minor discrepancies, as in all such cases. It would be surprising if there weren't.

---

I wouldn't consider no record of a Census that requires registration of the whole world for taxes requiring them to uproot and return to their ancestral homes 1,000 years in the past a minor discrepancy. I wouldn't consider no record of Herod ordering the slaughter of all male toddlers two and under a minor discrepancy. Josephus makes no mention of either. Surely he would have said something about Herod ordering such a thing. I wouldn't consider the claim Quirinius was governor of Syria when Herod was king a minor discrepancy. We know that Quirinius did not become governor until ten years after Herod died. - Just to name a few....

I do think/agree the four accounts are extraordinary, in that they each differ, and they each advance the particular writer's theological understanding of who Jesus was and the message they want him to convey.

---

According to his own record, Augustus ordered a census including 4 million citizens in 8 BC, a year or two before Jesus was born. Because most people in the empire were not citizens, and there were only 1 million people in Rome itself, it's likely that this census was empire-wide. Very few people lived elsewhere than the town of their birth, so there's no reason to believe mass uprooting occurred.

Bethlehem, with a population of 500 to 1,000 at the time, might have had as few as twenty males under the age of two. Josephus reports Herod slaughtering larger numbers of people on many occasions, nor was it especially remarkable that the victims in this case were children. If anything, children were less valued in the ancient world than adults. So it's not that surprising that Josephus doesn't mention it. At least one other non-Christian writer does, though. According to Macrobius, "When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, [Augustus] remarked 'It is better to be Herod's pig than his son.'" A possible reference also exists in the Jewish Testament of Moses, which states that Herod "will kill both old and young, showing mercy to none."

These alleged discrepancies are arguments from silence at best (and not really even that, since other sources do address them). The reference to Quirinius is the only one that might qualify as a real discrepancy. The Greek passage is ambiguous for its lack of definite articles. One possible translation is "this census was before the one when Quirinius governed Syria." Why refer to it in this way? Perhaps because the census in 6 AD was notorious for provoking a rebellion by Judas the Galilean, and Luke wanted to distinguish his census from the more famous one. Furthermore, we know that Luke was aware of the later census because he mentions it in Acts 5:37. It's also possible that Quirinius was running the census without holding the title of governor. The term used for "governing" is a fairly general one, and he is known to have been active in Syria at the time.

Other explanations have been suggested, but there's no need to cover them all. Maybe it is simply a mistake. Such things happen. They don't change the fact that Luke was a careful and reliable historian.

---

The census you are describing is not the same as described in Luke. Luke's census required everyone throughout the world (maybe empire) to return to the home of the ancestors of 1,000 years prior. This would have caused mass movement to go that far back, assuming they even knew their genealogies that far back. The common practice at the time was for census and assessments to be taken where people lived and owned property. In Josephus' account in 6 CE when the census was taken people were assessed of their possessions, lands and livestock. These events typically took place where they lived - in their own city. Nazareth is described as "their own city" - Luke 2:39. Joseph and Mary would have remained there to be enrolled in Nazareth.

There is no record of this magnitude and type of census being undertaken in this time frame or even at all. Here is what Wikipedia has to say on this subject: "There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the gospel links the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5: "In the days of King Herod of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah..."), but the census took place in 6 CE, ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.Some conservative scholars have argued that Quirinius may have had an earlier and historically unattested term as governor of Syria, or that he previously held other senior positions which may have led him to be involved in the affairs of Judea during Herod's reign, or that the passage should be interpreted in some other fashion.These arguments have been rejected by mainline scholarship as "exegetical acrobatics"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius#cite_note-FOOTNOTENovak2001293-298-11][[/url]and most have concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error."

It would be hard to contemplate a system in place that would tax people upon returning to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years prior, as in Joseph's situation. There were Jews residing throughout the empire by that time. Since they were also to be taxed on their possessions and livestock, it is ludicrous to believe the Romans would require them to return to Palestine with all of their belongings. And, under that scenario there would not be any way to assess their land. The Romans were very adept at governance and were very structured and organized for civilizations of that time. It's simply not believable they would attempt taking a census according to such an unimaginable and unmanageable system. This was a supposedly worldwide event.It is very doubtful that such an unusual and incredible census as described by Luke would escape the attention and recording of Roman historians, and Josephus.

.

---

You're making all kinds of assumptions that have nothing to do with the text. Luke simply says that each went to his own city, a phrase used throughout the Old Testament and the Gospels to mean the place of one's birth or past or current residence. In addition to the record of Augustus' census in 8 BC, we have the statement from Tertullian that an enrollment was conducted in Syria during the governorship of Saturninus between 9-7 BC. We know that enrollments were taken in Egypt on a 14-year cycle, and the second census mentioned by Luke was in 6 AD, so once again the facts seem to converge on 8 BC as a likely date for Luke's census. It's by no means implausible that the Syrian census was similar to those in Egypt, such as the one ordered by Gaius Vibius Maximus in 104 AD: "As a house-to-house registration has been authorized, it is necessary to order all persons absent from their homes for any reason whatsoever to return to their homes that they may perform the customary business of registration and may apply themselves to the cultivation of land, as is their proper duty."

---

I'm simply following the text. Josephus' account of the census in 6 C.E. explicitly states that those taxed were assessed of their possessions, which would include land and livestock. This would mean that the census takers also were the tax assessors. The practice in Egypt was that tax assessors traveled house to house to levy their assessments. Luke depicts Joseph and Mary traveling 60 - 90 miles on a lengthy journey leaving their home in Nazareth in order to register in Bethlehem, Joseph's ancestral home. Your source above is from an Egyptian papyrus recording the census in 104 C.E., which explicitly states that "since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration..."(1.) Luke explicitly states Nazareth is "their own city" (Luke 2:39). So as you state above, if the same rules of the Egyptian census were applicable, Joseph and Mary would necessarily have stayed in Nazareth for enrollment and taxation. This indicates that the supposed required trip to Bethlehem does not conform with to the known historical practices, and was likely contrived to show Jesus was from Bethlehem for theological reasons.

1. Joseph A. Fitzmyer The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to Luke. Two Volumes. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1981, 1985), p. 405.

---

And again, being from Bethlehem and being from Nazareth are not mutually exclusive. Today as always, you can be from where you were born and also from where you live. If Joseph was originally based in Bethlehem, it makes all the more sense that he planned to stay there until he learned of the threat from Herod.

---

And again, you're ignoring that the two accounts conflict in many ways. In one Joseph was originally from Bethlehem and the other from Nazareth. It's clear that legend places Jesus as being from Nazareth. All accounts acknowledge the same. A critical analysis of the writings demonstrates that Matthew and Luke each knew, or their sources knew that according to tradition, the Messiah had to come from Bethlehem. This posed a huge hurdle to be overcome, if they were to get acceptance of their claim that Jesus was the Messaiah. Because of the textual and historical problems enumerated above throughout this thread, it is obvious that these birth narratives were created in an attempt to resolve the problem. These are commonly acknowledged errors and conclusions by critical scholars.

TS is trying really, really hard to pretend the experts on Scripture agree with his Scripture-hating assumptions.

Sad, really.

TS, I view you as being one of the smartest guys on this site. I'm asking for your help. I think a "friend" of mine is telling me a lie.

He says he was born in the old Hillcrest Hospital, right in the middle of Waco. However, a rear ago, he told me he's from Bremond.

Before I accuse him of being deceitful, can you come up with a scenario where both things are true? I've tried but, am just not that smart.

ps... I need to know today and the court house closes early so I can't get a birth certificate.

You're a smart man. PLEASE help!!!

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Gospels are exceptionally reliable history for their time. The so-called problems with their accuracy wouldn't be problems by any normal standard. For example, the first four accounts of Alexander the Great's life were written three to five centuries after his death. To have four accounts of Jesus' life within 30-50 years is extraordinary. Of course there are minor discrepancies, as in all such cases. It would be surprising if there weren't.

---

I wouldn't consider no record of a Census that requires registration of the whole world for taxes requiring them to uproot and return to their ancestral homes 1,000 years in the past a minor discrepancy. I wouldn't consider no record of Herod ordering the slaughter of all male toddlers two and under a minor discrepancy. Josephus makes no mention of either. Surely he would have said something about Herod ordering such a thing. I wouldn't consider the claim Quirinius was governor of Syria when Herod was king a minor discrepancy. We know that Quirinius did not become governor until ten years after Herod died. - Just to name a few....

I do think/agree the four accounts are extraordinary, in that they each differ, and they each advance the particular writer's theological understanding of who Jesus was and the message they want him to convey.

---

According to his own record, Augustus ordered a census including 4 million citizens in 8 BC, a year or two before Jesus was born. Because most people in the empire were not citizens, and there were only 1 million people in Rome itself, it's likely that this census was empire-wide. Very few people lived elsewhere than the town of their birth, so there's no reason to believe mass uprooting occurred.

Bethlehem, with a population of 500 to 1,000 at the time, might have had as few as twenty males under the age of two. Josephus reports Herod slaughtering larger numbers of people on many occasions, nor was it especially remarkable that the victims in this case were children. If anything, children were less valued in the ancient world than adults. So it's not that surprising that Josephus doesn't mention it. At least one other non-Christian writer does, though. According to Macrobius, "When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, [Augustus] remarked 'It is better to be Herod's pig than his son.'" A possible reference also exists in the Jewish Testament of Moses, which states that Herod "will kill both old and young, showing mercy to none."

These alleged discrepancies are arguments from silence at best (and not really even that, since other sources do address them). The reference to Quirinius is the only one that might qualify as a real discrepancy. The Greek passage is ambiguous for its lack of definite articles. One possible translation is "this census was before the one when Quirinius governed Syria." Why refer to it in this way? Perhaps because the census in 6 AD was notorious for provoking a rebellion by Judas the Galilean, and Luke wanted to distinguish his census from the more famous one. Furthermore, we know that Luke was aware of the later census because he mentions it in Acts 5:37. It's also possible that Quirinius was running the census without holding the title of governor. The term used for "governing" is a fairly general one, and he is known to have been active in Syria at the time.

Other explanations have been suggested, but there's no need to cover them all. Maybe it is simply a mistake. Such things happen. They don't change the fact that Luke was a careful and reliable historian.

---

The census you are describing is not the same as described in Luke. Luke's census required everyone throughout the world (maybe empire) to return to the home of the ancestors of 1,000 years prior. This would have caused mass movement to go that far back, assuming they even knew their genealogies that far back. The common practice at the time was for census and assessments to be taken where people lived and owned property. In Josephus' account in 6 CE when the census was taken people were assessed of their possessions, lands and livestock. These events typically took place where they lived - in their own city. Nazareth is described as "their own city" - Luke 2:39. Joseph and Mary would have remained there to be enrolled in Nazareth.

There is no record of this magnitude and type of census being undertaken in this time frame or even at all. Here is what Wikipedia has to say on this subject: "There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the gospel links the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5: "In the days of King Herod of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah..."), but the census took place in 6 CE, ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.Some conservative scholars have argued that Quirinius may have had an earlier and historically unattested term as governor of Syria, or that he previously held other senior positions which may have led him to be involved in the affairs of Judea during Herod's reign, or that the passage should be interpreted in some other fashion.These arguments have been rejected by mainline scholarship as "exegetical acrobatics"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius#cite_note-FOOTNOTENovak2001293-298-11][[/url]and most have concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error."

It would be hard to contemplate a system in place that would tax people upon returning to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years prior, as in Joseph's situation. There were Jews residing throughout the empire by that time. Since they were also to be taxed on their possessions and livestock, it is ludicrous to believe the Romans would require them to return to Palestine with all of their belongings. And, under that scenario there would not be any way to assess their land. The Romans were very adept at governance and were very structured and organized for civilizations of that time. It's simply not believable they would attempt taking a census according to such an unimaginable and unmanageable system. This was a supposedly worldwide event.It is very doubtful that such an unusual and incredible census as described by Luke would escape the attention and recording of Roman historians, and Josephus.

.

---

You're making all kinds of assumptions that have nothing to do with the text. Luke simply says that each went to his own city, a phrase used throughout the Old Testament and the Gospels to mean the place of one's birth or past or current residence. In addition to the record of Augustus' census in 8 BC, we have the statement from Tertullian that an enrollment was conducted in Syria during the governorship of Saturninus between 9-7 BC. We know that enrollments were taken in Egypt on a 14-year cycle, and the second census mentioned by Luke was in 6 AD, so once again the facts seem to converge on 8 BC as a likely date for Luke's census. It's by no means implausible that the Syrian census was similar to those in Egypt, such as the one ordered by Gaius Vibius Maximus in 104 AD: "As a house-to-house registration has been authorized, it is necessary to order all persons absent from their homes for any reason whatsoever to return to their homes that they may perform the customary business of registration and may apply themselves to the cultivation of land, as is their proper duty."

---

I'm simply following the text. Josephus' account of the census in 6 C.E. explicitly states that those taxed were assessed of their possessions, which would include land and livestock. This would mean that the census takers also were the tax assessors. The practice in Egypt was that tax assessors traveled house to house to levy their assessments. Luke depicts Joseph and Mary traveling 60 - 90 miles on a lengthy journey leaving their home in Nazareth in order to register in Bethlehem, Joseph's ancestral home. Your source above is from an Egyptian papyrus recording the census in 104 C.E., which explicitly states that "since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration..."(1.) Luke explicitly states Nazareth is "their own city" (Luke 2:39). So as you state above, if the same rules of the Egyptian census were applicable, Joseph and Mary would necessarily have stayed in Nazareth for enrollment and taxation. This indicates that the supposed required trip to Bethlehem does not conform with to the known historical practices, and was likely contrived to show Jesus was from Bethlehem for theological reasons.

1. Joseph A. Fitzmyer The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to Luke. Two Volumes. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1981, 1985), p. 405.

---

And again, being from Bethlehem and being from Nazareth are not mutually exclusive. Today as always, you can be from where you were born and also from where you live. If Joseph was originally based in Bethlehem, it makes all the more sense that he planned to stay there until he learned of the threat from Herod.

---

And again, you're ignoring that the two accounts conflict in many ways. In one Joseph was originally from Bethlehem and the other from Nazareth. It's clear that legend places Jesus as being from Nazareth. All accounts acknowledge the same. A critical analysis of the writings demonstrates that Matthew and Luke each knew, or their sources knew that according to tradition, the Messiah had to come from Bethlehem. This posed a huge hurdle to be overcome, if they were to get acceptance of their claim that Jesus was the Messaiah. Because of the textual and historical problems enumerated above throughout this thread, it is obvious that these birth narratives were created in an attempt to resolve the problem. These are commonly acknowledged errors and conclusions by critical scholars.

---

I've addressed those other problems, too. There's the fact that Augustus didn't order any census around that time...except that he did. Or that there's no corroboration of Herod's slaughter of the innocents...except that there is. Or that no astronomical event could have corresponded with the star over Bethlehem...except that it could. It's also noteworthy that Tertullian mentions the census in two passages, stating that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that the record was kept in the Roman archives. This could easily have been checked by anyone interested in refuting the story. There are times when a text is problematic enough to justify a hermeneutic of suspicion. This really isn't one of those times.

Anyway, I've got Christmas shopping to do, so I'm off for now. Have a safe and happy holiday, TS.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Gospels are exceptionally reliable history for their time. The so-called problems with their accuracy wouldn't be problems by any normal standard. For example, the first four accounts of Alexander the Great's life were written three to five centuries after his death. To have four accounts of Jesus' life within 30-50 years is extraordinary. Of course there are minor discrepancies, as in all such cases. It would be surprising if there weren't.

---

I wouldn't consider no record of a Census that requires registration of the whole world for taxes requiring them to uproot and return to their ancestral homes 1,000 years in the past a minor discrepancy. I wouldn't consider no record of Herod ordering the slaughter of all male toddlers two and under a minor discrepancy. Josephus makes no mention of either. Surely he would have said something about Herod ordering such a thing. I wouldn't consider the claim Quirinius was governor of Syria when Herod was king a minor discrepancy. We know that Quirinius did not become governor until ten years after Herod died. - Just to name a few....

I do think/agree the four accounts are extraordinary, in that they each differ, and they each advance the particular writer's theological understanding of who Jesus was and the message they want him to convey.

---

According to his own record, Augustus ordered a census including 4 million citizens in 8 BC, a year or two before Jesus was born. Because most people in the empire were not citizens, and there were only 1 million people in Rome itself, it's likely that this census was empire-wide. Very few people lived elsewhere than the town of their birth, so there's no reason to believe mass uprooting occurred.

Bethlehem, with a population of 500 to 1,000 at the time, might have had as few as twenty males under the age of two. Josephus reports Herod slaughtering larger numbers of people on many occasions, nor was it especially remarkable that the victims in this case were children. If anything, children were less valued in the ancient world than adults. So it's not that surprising that Josephus doesn't mention it. At least one other non-Christian writer does, though. According to Macrobius, "When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, [Augustus] remarked 'It is better to be Herod's pig than his son.'" A possible reference also exists in the Jewish Testament of Moses, which states that Herod "will kill both old and young, showing mercy to none."

These alleged discrepancies are arguments from silence at best (and not really even that, since other sources do address them). The reference to Quirinius is the only one that might qualify as a real discrepancy. The Greek passage is ambiguous for its lack of definite articles. One possible translation is "this census was before the one when Quirinius governed Syria." Why refer to it in this way? Perhaps because the census in 6 AD was notorious for provoking a rebellion by Judas the Galilean, and Luke wanted to distinguish his census from the more famous one. Furthermore, we know that Luke was aware of the later census because he mentions it in Acts 5:37. It's also possible that Quirinius was running the census without holding the title of governor. The term used for "governing" is a fairly general one, and he is known to have been active in Syria at the time.

Other explanations have been suggested, but there's no need to cover them all. Maybe it is simply a mistake. Such things happen. They don't change the fact that Luke was a careful and reliable historian.

---

The census you are describing is not the same as described in Luke. Luke's census required everyone throughout the world (maybe empire) to return to the home of the ancestors of 1,000 years prior. This would have caused mass movement to go that far back, assuming they even knew their genealogies that far back. The common practice at the time was for census and assessments to be taken where people lived and owned property. In Josephus' account in 6 CE when the census was taken people were assessed of their possessions, lands and livestock. These events typically took place where they lived - in their own city. Nazareth is described as "their own city" - Luke 2:39. Joseph and Mary would have remained there to be enrolled in Nazareth.

There is no record of this magnitude and type of census being undertaken in this time frame or even at all. Here is what Wikipedia has to say on this subject: "There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the gospel links the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5: "In the days of King Herod of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah..."), but the census took place in 6 CE, ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.Some conservative scholars have argued that Quirinius may have had an earlier and historically unattested term as governor of Syria, or that he previously held other senior positions which may have led him to be involved in the affairs of Judea during Herod's reign, or that the passage should be interpreted in some other fashion.These arguments have been rejected by mainline scholarship as "exegetical acrobatics"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius#cite_note-FOOTNOTENovak2001293-298-11][[/url]and most have concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error."

It would be hard to contemplate a system in place that would tax people upon returning to their ancestral homes of 1,000 years prior, as in Joseph's situation. There were Jews residing throughout the empire by that time. Since they were also to be taxed on their possessions and livestock, it is ludicrous to believe the Romans would require them to return to Palestine with all of their belongings. And, under that scenario there would not be any way to assess their land. The Romans were very adept at governance and were very structured and organized for civilizations of that time. It's simply not believable they would attempt taking a census according to such an unimaginable and unmanageable system. This was a supposedly worldwide event.It is very doubtful that such an unusual and incredible census as described by Luke would escape the attention and recording of Roman historians, and Josephus.

.

---

You're making all kinds of assumptions that have nothing to do with the text. Luke simply says that each went to his own city, a phrase used throughout the Old Testament and the Gospels to mean the place of one's birth or past or current residence. In addition to the record of Augustus' census in 8 BC, we have the statement from Tertullian that an enrollment was conducted in Syria during the governorship of Saturninus between 9-7 BC. We know that enrollments were taken in Egypt on a 14-year cycle, and the second census mentioned by Luke was in 6 AD, so once again the facts seem to converge on 8 BC as a likely date for Luke's census. It's by no means implausible that the Syrian census was similar to those in Egypt, such as the one ordered by Gaius Vibius Maximus in 104 AD: "As a house-to-house registration has been authorized, it is necessary to order all persons absent from their homes for any reason whatsoever to return to their homes that they may perform the customary business of registration and may apply themselves to the cultivation of land, as is their proper duty."

---

I'm simply following the text. Josephus' account of the census in 6 C.E. explicitly states that those taxed were assessed of their possessions, which would include land and livestock. This would mean that the census takers also were the tax assessors. The practice in Egypt was that tax assessors traveled house to house to levy their assessments. Luke depicts Joseph and Mary traveling 60 - 90 miles on a lengthy journey leaving their home in Nazareth in order to register in Bethlehem, Joseph's ancestral home. Your source above is from an Egyptian papyrus recording the census in 104 C.E., which explicitly states that "since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration..."(1.) Luke explicitly states Nazareth is "their own city" (Luke 2:39). So as you state above, if the same rules of the Egyptian census were applicable, Joseph and Mary would necessarily have stayed in Nazareth for enrollment and taxation. This indicates that the supposed required trip to Bethlehem does not conform with to the known historical practices, and was likely contrived to show Jesus was from Bethlehem for theological reasons.

1. Joseph A. Fitzmyer The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to Luke. Two Volumes. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1981, 1985), p. 405.

---

And again, being from Bethlehem and being from Nazareth are not mutually exclusive. Today as always, you can be from where you were born and also from where you live. If Joseph was originally based in Bethlehem, it makes all the more sense that he planned to stay there until he learned of the threat from Herod.

---

And again, you're ignoring that the two accounts conflict in many ways. In one Joseph was originally from Bethlehem and the other from Nazareth. It's clear that legend places Jesus as being from Nazareth. All accounts acknowledge the same. A critical analysis of the writings demonstrates that Matthew and Luke each knew, or their sources knew that according to tradition, the Messiah had to come from Bethlehem. This posed a huge hurdle to be overcome, if they were to get acceptance of their claim that Jesus was the Messaiah. Because of the textual and historical problems enumerated above throughout this thread, it is obvious that these birth narratives were created in an attempt to resolve the problem. These are commonly acknowledged errors and conclusions by critical scholars.

---

I've addressed those other problems, too. There's the fact that Augustus didn't order any census around that time...except that he did. Or that there's no corroboration of Herod's slaughter of the innocents...except that there is. Or that no astronomical event could have corresponded with the star over Bethlehem...except that it could. It's also noteworthy that Tertullian mentions the census in two passages, stating that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that the record was kept in the Roman archives. This could easily have been checked by anyone interested in refuting the story. There are times when a text is problematic enough to justify a hermeneutic of suspicion. This really isn't one of those times.

Anyway, I've got Christmas shopping to do, so I'm off for now. Have a safe and happy holiday, TS.

---

Think what you want. Have a happy holiday to you also.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TS, I view you as being one of the smartest guys on this site. I'm asking for your help. I think a "friend" of mine is telling me a lie.

He says he was born in the old Hillcrest Hospital, right in the middle of Waco. However, a rear ago, he told me he's from Bremond.

Before I accuse him of being deceitful, can you come up with a scenario where both things are true? I've tried but, am just not that smart.

ps... I need to know today and the court house closes early so I can't get a birth certificate.

You're a smart man. PLEASE help!!!

---

In your case, you have one person telling you something about himself. What we are discussing is two different writers advancing their views based upon what they have heard, or what they want others to believe. I think it is clear from an objective an critical review of the text, context and historocity that the writers of Matthew and Luke are trying to reconcile, each in their own way, the fact that Jesus claimed to be and was know to be from Nazareth, yet the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem.

Merry Christmas!! God loves you so much that He gave His Son for you. It's pretty amazing.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is trying really, really hard to pretend the experts on Scripture agree with his Scripture-hating assumptions.

Sad, really.

---

I don't hate "scripture." Actually, I find it rather interesting and intriguing. When I first heard some of these issues raised and pointed out by the religion department when I was at Baylor, I reacted the same way that you react to my views. I took umbrage because it went against everything I was taught to believe. Yet it was that dissonance that pushed me to critically examine what was truth and what was not truth. It wasn't until I began to consider all aspects of life, science, and critical analyisis of scripture or biblical criticism, and all religion in general, that I change my views. I realized that my beliefs should conform to the evidence of reality, instead forcing reality to conform to a tradition of religious beliefs. When you step back and view religion objectively (from the 40,000 feet analogy), it just doesn't hold up to critical analysis.

TexasScientist said:

---

When you step back and view religion objectively (from the 40,000 feet analogy), it just doesn't hold up to critical analysis.

---

Scripture does, actually. It only fails when you replace trust in God with cynical malice.