Biblical history - contradictions?

[Nathan Poe]

That is not baseless. God is known to use many motivations to get man to do what he is supposed to

Except we're not talking about God's motivations -- we're talking about man's vain guesses (yours and the commentators') as to His motivations.

With, it should be added, no Biblical support whatsoever.

No. Love as a motivating factor has permeated all history. A dad wanting to be there at the birth of his son is also very normal, apparently even for God!! The star of Bethlehem was likely the Father's mobile throne, as I mentioned before, overseeing the birth of His son. As for the leading of the Holy Spirit, that is a known factor in all the bible. This is solid deductive work.

It's baseless blather -- It's sad (but not surprising) that you've returned to form.

And all this time I thought that God's ways were not our ways? Apparantly He acts exactly as a human would when it suits your purpose.

"Some elements of the sacred accounts, such as their remaining in the area after Jesus' birth, "indicate that when Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem, they were considering it a permanent move."

Such as...? Or is this baseless speculation?

On the contrary, haven't you ever moved? This is a possible suspect in the case.

baseless speculation.

The future tweak from God, that God knew was coming involved a move, so it makes sense that they would be in position and on the way already...they knew not how far...

...more baseless speculation.

It was so serious that God had to step in to tell Joe not to leave Mary. When the bible says He was despised and rejected among men, a lot of that likely was from the hometown folks! He even said a prophet has no honor in His own country. So the wagging tongues were a factor.

Jesus was referring to himself, not his family -- in fact, you deliberately omitted the rest of Jesus' line, that a prohphet has no honor even among his own family, or in his own house.

Not even Jesus had anything good to say about his family, so he's not about to preserve their reputation.

Mark 3:31-33 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?


It was Jesus, not the family, which was the subject of wagging tongues --coming from even his own friends:

Mark 3:21 And when his friends heard of it [Jesus' preaching], they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.

Your desperate attempts to wave away reason here seem to display an ulterior motive to try and make the whole account less than what God tells us.

Now, now, dad -- you've given us the blather; here comes the bluff and bluster right on schedule.

It's all there in the Bible -- all you have to do is read it.

If so we can omit one opinion. Details?

I quoted the exact verses from Matthew -- do you bother to read these posts before you start blathering?

Educated opinions from scholars of the scripture count as more than making stuff up.

Baseless opinions are not very educated -- "educated" implies some sort of support -- which is, unsurprisingly, lacking.

We don't know that. I do notice the Inn was FULL! So a lot of folks were there. But if only those with real motivation showed up, then not all need be there. If the others were just on their way to other places that night, with so much activity, fine! We don't know. But we do know that for some reason Joesph and Mary were inspired to be in Bethlehem, and there is a connection with their relation to David.

Ignorance is a double-edged sword, dad -- see how it cuts through your own baseless speculations?

Nope. If God arranges and inspires, it is God inspired.

Except, as you yourself said, God didn't arrange this -- Joseph did.

Joseph, believing his child to be the Messiah, set out to haul his pregnant wife to Bethlehem so that the child could be born in fulfillment of the prophecies -- self-fulfilling.

Nice try, though -- a shame you've gone back to your usual style.

 

[dad]

Except we're not talking about God's motivations -- we're talking about man's vain guesses (yours and the commentators') as to His motivations.

With, it should be added, no Biblical support whatsoever.

If I lean toward a position, you can be assured it has biblical support. Same with most commentators.

It's baseless blather -- It's sad (but not surprising) that you've returned to form.

Nonsense. Just because it is taken out of your range and ability to conform or deny, does not make it less biblical. No one expects man to be able to know what went on in the times that are not detailed much.

And all this time I thought that God's ways were not our ways? Apparantly He acts exactly as a human would when it suits your purpose.

No. He acted by having a virgin birth, to a decedent of David, that is not our way. If God wanted them to be ready to flee out of the country, and a convenient excuse arose such as some legal reasons etc, and the route was through Bethlehem, that is fine. God need not 'arrange' all things in prophesy need He? He simply needs to tell us how it will be happening in advance!

Such as...? Or is this baseless speculation?

I think the guy named one....that they remained in the area, no? The wise men took time to get there, perhaps just under 2 years. After all where God guides, God provides! That nice gold and treasures would really come in handy to pay for things in Egypt. Amazing how the demonic crazed killer king psycho could be somehow controlled for so long, before he went on his killing spree of infants!

baseless speculation.

No. It is a possible contributing factor, at least. Obviously there were on the move, and would be for a long time.

...more baseless speculation.

Not at all. As on link pointed out, they stayed in the area awhile. Not something a poor tourist would do! Diddle around for 2 years in a strange town for no reason with a baby??

Jesus was referring to himself, not his family -- in fact, you deliberately omitted the rest of Jesus' line, that a prohphet has no honor even among his own family, or in his own house.

No. I said that it was a PART of what was spoken of. There of course was also other parts.

Not even Jesus had anything good to say about his family, so he's not about to preserve their reputation.

That is biblical, and shows you do not debate in good faith. Jesus had John care for Mary at the cross.

Mark 3:31-33 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

Point being that those that believe are closer than mere relatives, but in this case Mary also was a believer obviously. You fail to see the forest for the trees.

It was Jesus, not the family, which was the subject of wagging tongues --coming from even his own friends:

Mark 3:21 And when his friends heard of it [Jesus' preaching], they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.

False. That verse deals with how they felt about Jesus in His time of ministry. When He was over 30. The scandal of being called a bastard by unbelievers and etc because His mom had not been with Joesph was likely not far from the town gossip's minds.

I quoted the exact verses from Matthew -- do you bother to read these posts before you start blathering?

What was the quote and how it applies?

Baseless opinions are not very educated -- "educated" implies some sort of support -- which is, unsurprisingly, lacking.

Not in my opinion or the bible scholars, though. There are biblical principles and common threads woven throughout the bible, that one can avail oneself of, if one knows what one is talking about.

Except, as you yourself said, God didn't arrange this -- Joseph did.

No. God was in charge of the show. If He inspired Joseph in a certain way we can't credit Joseph. We can say that Joseph knew that the child was to be the savior though. That means he also likely knew where it was going to be born. So, when the deck started to get stacked in a way that was looking like he had to move, and he had reason to go to Bethlehem, both he and Mary were likely trippin on a natural high. In other words if they knew about that one aspect, it in no way means that they were not still carried along by events and circumstances beyond their control.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If I lean toward a position, you can be assured it has biblical support. Same with most commentators.

If you say this sort of thing, I'm assured you're bluffing -- or did you not count the number of times you and your commentators used words such as "probably" or "possibly"?

Of course you didn't -- you're bluffing.

Nonsense. Just because it is taken out of your range and ability to conform or deny, does not make it less biblical. No one expects man to be able to know what went on in the times that are not detailed much.

No man including you and your precious commentators. So you are bluffing.

No. He acted by having a virgin birth, to a decedent of David, that is not our way. If God wanted them to be ready to flee out of the country, and a convenient excuse arose such as some legal reasons etc, and the route was through Bethlehem, that is fine. God need not 'arrange' all things in prophesy need He? He simply needs to tell us how it will be happening in advance!

Which is not the case here -- you're making stuff up again sans Biblical support.

I think the guy named one....that they remained in the area, no? The wise men took time to get there, perhaps just under 2 years. After all where God guides, God provides! That nice gold and treasures would really come in handy to pay for things in Egypt. Amazing how the demonic crazed killer king psycho could be somehow controlled for so long, before he went on his killing spree of infants!

Nope, sorry dad -- nothing there but baseless speculation.

No. It is a possible contributing factor, at least. Obviously there were on the move, and would be for a long time.

There's that word again -- the one that translates as "this is all just baseless speculation."

Not at all. As on link pointed out, they stayed in the area awhile. Not something a poor tourist would do! Diddle around for 2 years in a strange town for no reason with a baby??

2 years with an execution order hanging over their heads? Not something a smart man would do either.

But since your two year time fram is nothing but baseless guessing (I won't even dignify it by calling it speculation), it doesn't matter anyway.

This is your usual style, dad -- first you make stuff up, then you swear by it.

No. I said that it was a PART of what was spoken of. There of course was also other parts.

Which are every bit as baseless as the first.

That is biblical, and shows you do not debate in good faith. Jesus had John care for Mary at the cross.

Long after Jesus berated her for goading him into a miracle at Cana

John 2:3-4 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Face it, Jesus wasn't exactly what you'd call a "Momma's boy," and didn't really give her the time of day up until the moment of his death.

You're really not good at this, are you?

Point being that those that believe are closer than mere relatives, but in this case Mary also was a believer obviously. You fail to see the forest for the trees.

Not so long as you lead us into an unBiblical desert.

False. That verse deals with how they felt about Jesus in His time of ministry. When He was over 30. The scandal of being called a bastard by unbelievers and etc because His mom had not been with Joesph was likely not far from the town gossip's minds.

Chapter and verse? Oh, right -- there is none, is there?

What was the quote and how it applies?

Matthew 1:18-19. Look it up.

Not in my opinion or the bible scholars, though. There are biblical principles and common threads woven throughout the bible, that one can avail oneself of, if one knows what one is talking about.

You opinion has been noted, observed to be baseless speculation, and is treated as such.

No. God was in charge of the show. If He inspired Joseph in a certain way we can't credit Joseph.

So show me Luke where God inspired Joseph. You can show it in Matthew, but in Matthew's account of the Birth, Joseph never made any trip, because Joseph and Mary were already in Bethlehem at the time.

So -- show me where in Luke God inspires Joseph.

We can say that Joseph knew that the child was to be the savior though.

He knew in Matthew, when he was already in the City of David, and needed a reason to get out and head to Nazareth -- Hence Herod's decree.

That means he also likely knew where it was going to be born. So, when the deck started to get stacked in a way that was looking like he had to move, and he had reason to go to Bethlehem, both he and Mary were likely trippin on a natural high. In other words if they knew about that one aspect, it in no way means that they were not still carried along by events and circumstances beyond their control.

Except according to Luke, the events were controlled by Rome, not God. IN Matthew, the events aren't so much as mentioned.

Nice try, dad.

 

[Supreme]

The differences in the accounts of Luke and Matthew, particularly the Nativity, have always perplexed me. All it boils down to is which account you view as more reliable- in my case, it is Luke.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The differences in the accounts of Luke and Matthew, particularly the Nativity, have always perplexed me. All it boils down to is which account you view as more reliable- in my case, it is Luke.

If you're looking at them as historical documents, it's worse than perplexing, it's a deal-breaker.

I've always seen it as a lot simpler -- Matthew and Luke both tried to fit Jesus into a particular messianic prophecy (born in Bethlehem) that simply didn't happen. They came up with two seaparate stories, each one individually suspect (to say the least), and the Church has spent the better part of the last two millenia trying to reconcile the two -- not very convincingly, IMO.

 

[Supreme]

If you're looking at them as historical documents, it's worse than perplexing, it's a deal-breaker.

I've always seen it as a lot simpler -- Matthew and Luke both tried to fit Jesus into a particular messianic prophecy (born in Bethlehem) that simply didn't happen. They came up with two seaparate stories, each one individually suspect (to say the least), and the Church has spent the better part of the last two millenia trying to reconcile the two -- not very convincingly, IMO.

And there's the fact that how on Earth would they know what happened at Jesus' birth anyway? He didn't sound like the sort of man who divulged details of his upbringing.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And there's the fact that how on Earth would they know what happened at Jesus' birth anyway? He didn't sound like the sort of man who divulged details of his upbringing.

And that's not even including those issues which no "eyewitness" could've possibly known in the first place -- The virgin Birth itself being one of them. I mean, who actually witnessed Mary not having sex with Jospeh -- or anyone else, for that matter?

As someone looking for facts, with no personal stake in the answer, I've got no problem with the theory that "Joseph" was little more than a fictionalized character to cover the embarassing truth of Jesus' illegitimacy -- The fact that his description matches up far too well with the Joseph of the Old Testament, and that he disappears completely after the birth stories are finished, without so much as a "And lo, Joseph wandered off somewhere and died," tells me that he was more a necessary literary device than an actual person.

 

[dad]

If you say this sort of thing, I'm assured you're bluffing -- or did you not count the number of times you and your commentators used words such as "probably" or "possibly"?

What gives you your "assurance"?

No man including you and your precious commentators. So you are bluffing.

False!!!! God is expected to know...the Author. So if He had them in Bethlehem, for some reason connected to being of the line of David...that is how it was. No confirmation from the pagan peanut gallery needed.

Which is not the case here -- you're making stuff up again sans Biblical support.

It WAS the case. They were on the move.

Nope, sorry dad -- nothing there but baseless speculation.

No. That is a fact. The time when the wise men got there was long after the birth.

2 years with an execution order hanging over their heads? Not something a smart man would do either.

No. The angel gave them the heads up in plenty of time. The order was after the birth.

But since your two year time fram is nothing but baseless guessing (I won't even dignify it by calling it speculation), it doesn't matter anyway.

Nonsense. Why do you think Herod had male kids up to 2 years old killed??

Long after Jesus berated her for goading him into a miracle at Cana

John 2:3-4 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Jesus keeping on a time line was not berating mom. He knew exactly the days. Daniel told of them long before this. He was on a precise time schedule.

Face it, Jesus wasn't exactly what you'd call a "Momma's boy," and didn't really give her the time of day up until the moment of his death.

Don't paint divisions where they don't belong. God loved Mary...above women....was she chosen.

Chapter and verse? Oh, right -- there is none, is there?

I responded to YOUR chapter and verse. Which was in the time of the ministry of Jesus.

Matthew 1:18-19. Look it up.

An angel reminded Joeseph not to put her away, as he thought about doing.....so????

So show me Luke where God inspired Joseph. You can show it in Matthew, but in Matthew's account of the Birth, Joseph never made any trip, because Joseph and Mary were already in Bethlehem at the time.

So what? All gospels must repeat the same aspects of the story?? ..Then why have 4???

So -- show me where in Luke God inspires Joseph.

Why in Luke?? Inspiration is across the bible board--obviously.

He knew in Matthew, when he was already in the City of David, and needed a reason to get out and head to Nazareth -- Hence Herod's decree.

So a legal excuse works... Gos uses a lot of stuff.

Except according to Luke, the events were controlled by Rome, not God. IN Matthew, the events aren't so much as mentioned.

No. One gospel may emphasize something but God is always in control...thank God!

 

[HAPMinistries]

Can you give any other reason other than a religious one why one should accept special pleading?

Give evidence for the favorable details.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What gives you your "assurance"?

You do, of course -- all you've done is speculate and blather -- haven't you noticed how you dismiss people's research when it goes against you as "baseless speculation," but treat actual baseless speculation that supports you as if it were holy writ?

False!!!! God is expected to know...the Author. So if He had them in Bethlehem, for some reason connected to being of the line of David...that is how it was. No confirmation from the pagan peanut gallery needed.

So, you've still got nothing -- just assuming that God will support your baseless specultion (for no other reason than you demand that He do so)

It WAS the case. They were on the move.

Anyone who reads the Bible knows that it cannot be so -- the whole things screams out "literary device," but the proud refuse to hear it.

No. That is a fact. The time when the wise men got there was long after the birth.

Chapter and verse?

No. The angel gave them the heads up in plenty of time. The order was after the birth.

When was the order rescinded?

Nonsense. Why do you think Herod had male kids up to 2 years old killed??

Because the Bible says so -- have you read it, or are you waiting for the movie?

Jesus keeping on a time line was not berating mom. He knew exactly the days. Daniel told of them long before this. He was on a precise time schedule.

A pity you can't make a connection to that -- you're just speculating that Jesus was referring to Daniel.

I, OTOH, have Jesus' exact words to back me up.

Don't paint divisions where they don't belong. God loved Mary...above women....was she chosen.

Don't create Idols where they do not belong -- especially baselessly.

I responded to YOUR chapter and verse. Which was in the time of the ministry of Jesus.

And you blathered, making up stuff about his family when the chapter and verse specifically was in reference to Jesus himself.

An angel reminded Joeseph not to put her away, as he thought about doing.....so????

So... Jospeh was planning to put her away in secret, to avoid a scandal, and the angel appeared to Jospeh in secret (through dreams, whcih shakes the case for a historical Joseph right there, but that's a matter you're not ready to discuss.

Such secrecy would be unnecessary if the pregnancy were already controversial, and a scandal already exsited.

So what? All gospels must repeat the same aspects of the story?? ..Then why have 4???
Why in Luke?? Inspiration is across the bible board--obviously.

Obviously -- or baselessly?

The simple fact is you don't know how inspiration works, so you wouldn't be able to recognize it anywhere, let alone "across the Bible board."

Stick with what you know, dad -- not what you think you know.

So a legal excuse works... Gos uses a lot of stuff.

A legal excuse? The wholsale slaughter of Jewish children is "a legal excuse"?

Besides, people who've actually read the Bible know that in Matthew, there never was a trek to Bethlehem -- Joseph and Mary already lived there.

The Census, the taxation, the traveling from Galilee to Bethlehem -- all that was strictly a Lucian invention.

No. One gospel may emphasize something but God is always in control...thank God!

God, not you. God.

Do rememebr that next time you try to order Him to support your unsupportable speculations.

 

[HAPMinistries]

So, in order for this particular census to have affected Joseph, he would've had to have heard about it after Judea became a Roman province, and thus affected by the tax.

Judea became a province in AD 6, so this particular census took 14 years to get that far, and we have no way to know how much longer it took even after that.

Of course, it was only 8 years later (AD 14) that yet another census was called, whcih, given the growing Roman empire, would've taken at least as long if not longer! Plus the fact with the births, deaths, and relations during these decades long affiars, the census data would already be worthless long before it was compiled!

One has to wonder how the Romans ever got anything done, what with their constant shuffling back and forth for one census after another.

It was a good excuse to get $.

Yep, I said that -- what it has to do with Judea or Galilee is a little unclear.

It had just become under Rome, and the more need to 'census' and tax the people. It actually put it all in line.

So you tell me, what was the point of forcing every Roman and Jew to relocate for a census?

Does it say Roman's had to relocate? $

So go ahead -- make some sense of it.

I am not ancient.
I can show you the fallacy of putting modern thought on a historic event.

[We know cutting people and letting their blood run out is not healthy. This is not a practice of medicine in the 21st century. In fact, it is common knowledge you do not cut people and let their blood run out for people to get 'better'.

So, history tells us America' first President was 'bled' in his last days, to try and 'cure' him.
Why that is stupid.
We know today that bleeding people hurts, not helps people's health.

Therefore, George Washington was not bled, because we know it would not have helped him.]

Just because you do not understand why an ancient Jew would drag his pregnant wife [not his baby, btw] across the country, through questionable places, for a census, lol, then you just do not have enough imagination, or you have never been married, lol.

No one ever said the truth was pretty.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It was a good excuse to get $.

A terrible excuse, actually -- citizens traveling from one town to another -- whcih the entire empire was doing at once, if the Bible is to be believed -- aren't making any $ to give to the empire.

It had just become under Rome, and the more need to 'census' and tax the people. It actually put it all in line.

Except neither Judea nor Galilee were Roman provinces at the time, and did not pay taxes to Rome.

Do we collect taxes from Iraq?

Does it say Roman's had to relocate? $

It does say that Augustus decreed all the world should be taxed -- do you have anything to indicate that Romans were exempt, or are you guessing?

It would seem quite the opposite -- you can't tax what you don't control.

I am not ancient.
I can show you the fallacy of putting modern thought on a historic event.

Only if we assume that we know absolutely nothing about ancient civilizations, which is simply not true.

You, like dad, are trying to use ignorance of the past as a shield, but the problem is, since there isn't enough ignorance to go around, you're trying to manufacture some.

We know what the purpose of the census was -- it hasn't changed a whole lot in 2,000 years.

We know what the purpose of taxation is -- sadly, that hasn't changed a whole lot, either.

If you can come up with a single reason why any civilization, ancient or modern, wouldn't want to make a registration and collection of taxes as quick and efficient as they possibly could, and then apply that reasoning to the Roman empire (whose methods of taxation are a matter of historical record), kindly do so.

Otherwise, you don't even have a straw to grasp at.

[We know cutting people and letting their blood run out is not healthy. This is not a practice of medicine in the 21st century. In fact, it is common knowledge you do not cut people and let their blood run out for people to get 'better'.

So, history tells us America' first President was 'bled' in his last days, to try and 'cure' him.
Why that is stupid.
We know today that bleeding people hurts, not helps people's health.

Your analogy fails because we have plenty of historical records regarding the Roman practice of tax collection.

Here's just a couple of sources:

Rent seeking and taxation in the Ancient Roman Empire

Roman Taxes

Amazon.com: Money and Government in the Roman Empire (9780521648295): Richard Duncan-Jones: Books

Just because you do not understand why an ancient Jew would drag his pregnant wife [not his baby, btw] across the country, through questionable places, for a census, lol, then you just do not have enough imagination,

I can see how an extremely active imagination is necessary for Biblical apologetics -- it doesn't seem to run on much else.

or you have never been married, lol.

Or I don't hate my wife that much -- there were easier ways to abort a child, even back then. Ancient Roman women used to eat wormwood root to induce miscarriage, for example.

Seems like we know a lot more about how things were done in the past than you wish we did -- one less gap to hide God in.

No one ever said the truth was pretty.

Never prettier than the things you're willing to make up.

 

[HAPMinistries]

It does say that Augustus decreed all the world should be taxed

Taxed, yes.
You said 'relocate'.
The jewish people would go to their ancestors home, their custom, but would Romans, or more be it, those of another nationality?

Or plainly, quit trying to pass off a jewish custom as a roman custom. Jews would travel multiple times a year, feast days, passover, etc.

If you can come up with a single reason why any civilization, ancient or modern, wouldn't want to make a registration and collection of taxes as quick and efficient as they possibly could, and then apply that reasoning to the Roman empire (whose methods of taxation are a matter of historical record), kindly do so.

In dealing with a nation with customs, you respect their customs.
You let the jews census the way they do it.

Your analogy fails...

My analogy succeeded. It must be a fairy tale that doctors bled George Washington, because it makes no 21st century medical sense, by your logic.

there were easier ways to abort a child

I am sure you can.
Point is, Joseph wouldn't let Mary out of his sight after that. That is common sense.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Taxed, yes.
You said 'relocate'.
The jewish people would go to their ancestors home, their custom, but would Romans, or more be it, those of another nationality?

Or plainly, quit trying to pass off a jewish custom as a roman custom. Jews would travel multiple times a year, feast days, passover, etc.

But not for taxes -- they didn't relocate for their own taxations; they're not about to do so for a foreign occupier.

In dealing with a nation with customs, you respect their customs.
You let the jews census the way they do it.

Now all you have to do is show they did it that way -- which will be difficult, considering they didn't.

My analogy succeeded. It must be a fairy tale that doctors bled George Washington, because it makes no 21st century medical sense, by your logic.

Actually, bleeding makes perfect medical sense -- it just doesn't work, that's all.

Relocating for a census, on the other hand, is both nonsensical and ineffectual.

But I'm not one to muscle in on your love affair with your own idea, so I hope you are happy together.

I am sure you can.
Point is, Joseph wouldn't let Mary out of his sight after that. That is common sense.

Pretend it's not common sense -- explain it.

You've been very creative so far -- don't let me stop you.

 

[rjc34]

My analogy succeeded. It must be a fairy tale that doctors bled George Washington, because it makes no 21st century medical sense, by your logic.

Then by your false interpretation of his logic I can deduce that Jesus was not crucified because it is not used in the 21st century. Also, Mary and Joseph must have taken a plane, because it doesn't make any 21st century travel sense to walk that suicide journey through the desert.

 

[Supreme]

Relocating for a census, on the other hand, is both nonsensical and ineffectual.

Indeed. It defeats the entire purpose of the census, in the first place.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Pretend it's not common sense -- explain it.

You are engaged to be married, according to the custom, even though you have not slept together, you are already married. [Another one of those ancient custom things.]

You have not slept with her, but suddenly she comes up pregnant.

You file for divorce/break the engagement. [Again, custom thing]

You have a dream not to break the engagement that is convincing enough to make you continue with the marriage.

Census comes, and you have to leave to register in Bethlehem.

Now, do you:
Leave her with her family that, of course, she got pregnant before with. A nice period of time while you are away, and she is there, alone...

Do you leave her with your family, who probably want to stone her to death. [Again, a custom thing.]

Or, do you take her with you?

Taking her is not unreasonable, as you would suppose.

As for the rest, the dates are all in place.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Indeed. It defeats the entire purpose of the census, in the first place.

And let's see if our friend HAP understands what the purpose of a census is?

 

[Nathan Poe]

You are engaged to be married, according to the custom, even though you have not slept together, you are already married. [Another one of those ancient custom things.]

Including the ancient custom that says a marriage is not official until it is consummated? You know, the custom that completly contradicts your point?

You have not slept with her, but suddenly she comes up pregnant.

There's a very simple explanation for that one.

You file for divorce/break the engagement. [Again, custom thing]

Now you're the one applying modern standards to ancient people.

We already know how the ancient Hebrews dealt with that sort of thing -- it involved large quantities of rapidly hurled rocks.

You have a dream not to break the engagement that is convincing enough to make you continue with the marriage.

Except we're not talking engagement -- we're talking already married. get the rocks.

Census comes, and you have to leave to register in Bethlehem.

No, I don't -- because that's neither Jewish nor Roman custom.

Just a literary device invented by Luke -- which you're already conflating with the "dream" literary device invented by Matthew.

You can't even keep your stories straight -- no wonder it's you, not me, who's mixing up past and present customs.

Now, do you:
Leave her with her family that, of course, she got pregnant before with. A nice period of time while you are away, and she is there, alone...

Joseph (in the wrong Gospel, but we'll leave that for now) gets a dream which he believes comes from God himself, and doesn't think His protection and blessing is enough?

Do you leave her with your family, who probably want to stone her to death. [Again, a custom thing.]

They'd only want to stone her if Joseph opens his mouth. (not custom, just common sense -- you can't be punished for an offense that nobody knows you committed)

Did Joseph spill the beans?

Or, do you take her with you?

Only if I wanted the desert to do the job Joseph could've accomplished with a swift kick in the abdomen.

Taking her is not unreasonable, as you would suppose.

Actually, it is -- the only danger Mary was in at home was from Jospeh himself.

Nice try, tho. B- for creativity.

As for the rest, the dates are all in place.

All in the wrong places, I'm afriad.

 

[dad]

Indeed. It defeats the entire purpose of the census, in the first place.

That depends on the population you rule over. If we ruled over Jews, we might expect that their customs would be a part of what went on in the area. If all that mattered was Roman customs, heck they could just fiddle at home.