Bethlehem

[HitchSlap]

Suit yourself ... what else is new?

I wasn't there ... so I'll say 'yes.'

And had I actually been there, I'm sure I would agree.

Unfortunately, those who could have been there, didn't write anything down. So you'll never know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately, those who could have been there, didn't write anything down.

Really? you were there?

I thought a registration was taken?

Which means it was written down.

So you'll never know.

Yes, I do know; but not in the way you're accustomed to knowing.

Your problem isn't that it wasn't written down, but that the secular registers weren't preserved by God.

In short, I believe they were written down, but not preserved.

 

[Jade Margery]

So I guess the Bethlehem question has been settled then.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I guess the Bethlehem question has been settled then.

Long before it was asked.

 

[46AND2]

He cites his sources.

So, if Rome asked Herod to collect some for them, he would tell them to buzz off? I think not.

Are you an expert on Roman history?

I didn't say that Rome didn't collect taxes. I'm saying that they didn't directly perform censuses on provinces which were not under their control.

I don't care if he cites sources. I would like to know what his expertise is.

No, I am not an expert on Roman history, but I haven't tried to publish any history books on it, either. I would prefer to get my education from people who are qualified to teach the subject.

Would you want a bus driver to teach you how to fly a plane?

Furthermore, it is particularly important to know that the author has expertise in light of the fact that he is going against the consensus opinion of scholars, both Christian and secular.

If you feel, however, that his argument has merit, please update this page:

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

with the correct information, and show how the scholars complaints to such arguments are incorrect.

These are not new arguments. They have been debated for many decades. Even your article was from 20+ years ago, and the consensus is STILL that the two gospels don't match up.

So, if your article is so convincing, why has it not convinced the scholars?

Have you researched this yourself, and looked at both sides objectively? Are you aware that there are arguments specifically addressing how the one you posted is wrong?

 

[46AND2]

So I guess the Bethlehem question has been settled then.

Yeah, I got exactly the type of replies I expected.

 

[AV1611VET]

Furthermore, it is particularly important to know that the author has expertise in light of the fact that he is going against the consensus opinion of scholars, both Christian and secular.

If you feel, however, that his argument has merit, please update this page:

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

with the correct information, and show how the scholars complaints to such arguments are incorrect.

These are not new arguments. They have been debated for many decades. Even your article was from 20+ years ago, and the consensus is STILL that the two gospels don't match up.

So, if your article is so convincing, why has it not convinced the scholars?

Have you researched this yourself, and looked at both sides objectively? Are you aware that there are arguments specifically addressing how the one you posted is wrong?

I always thought the guy who was governor of Syria was Cyrenius, not Quirinius.

Luke 2:2 ( And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. )

 

[46AND2]

I always thought the guy who was governor of Syria was Cyrenius, not Quirinius.

Luke 2:2 ( And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. )

It's the same person, just translated differently. Cyrenius is the Anglicized Greek form, and Quirinius the Latin form, but it's the same name.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's the same person, just translated differently. Cyrenius is the Anglicized form, and Quirinius the Latin form, but it's the same name.

Kinda like George Bush being President of the United States during the war with Kuwait, and George Bush being President of the United States during the war with Iraq?

 

[46AND2]

Kinda like George Bush being President of the United States during the war with Kuwait, and George Bush being President of the United States during the war with Iraq?

No. Nothing at all like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Nothing at all like that.

Just fyi:

William Ramsay discovered several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to A.D. 6. According to the very papers that recorded the censuses, (see Ramsay, Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?)there was in fact a census between 10 and 5 B.C. Periodic registrations took place every fourteen years. Because of this regular pattern of census taking, any such action was regarded as the general policy of Augustus, even though a local census may have been instigated by a local governor. Therefore, Luke recognizes the census as stemming from the decree of Augustus.

SOURCE

 

[46AND2]

Just fyi:

SOURCE

Those inscriptions say nothing about Quirinius...doesn't name anybody, in fact. Nor does it say anything about being governor twice in Syria, only that his (whoever it was) second governorship was Syria. Would you like to read the text of the inscriptions?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you like to read the text of the inscriptions?

No, thanks.

The bottom line with me is that the Bible says it, so that settles it.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

No, thanks.

The bottom line with me is that the Bible says it, so that settles it.

Even though you the Bible is just an old bit of writing by human authors, just like the inscriptions you don't want to read.

 

[Papias]

46And2 wrote:

Those inscriptions say nothing about Quirinius...doesn't name anybody, in fact. Nor does it say anything about being governor twice in Syria, only that his (whoever it was) second governorship was Syria.

Right. - supporting point #1, below.

While AV and others might ignore the historical information that Quirinius wasn't governor when Herod was king, that's a smaller point than the realization that the whole premise of the "ancestor" based census is completely absurd (points 2-6 below). Even if AV and others imagine inscriptions showing an actual census, under Quirinius, and saying that he was governor in 3 BC, they can't get around the complete absurdity of points 2-6 below. That's why AV and others didn't even try to offer a reasoned response to them.

From post #39:

Luke's "census" is obviously an inspired fabrication for a number of reasons.

1. First, Romans record censuses. That's why they have them. There is no census recorded when Herod was king near the proposed time.
2. Second, Roman censuses simply count people - we have tons of them recorded, and every time, they simply count the men. They don't require you to travel to former home of your father, grandfather, or g^40th grandfather.
3. third, a little math shows how silly such an idea is in the first place. You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, etc, or 2^(#generations) ancestors. Taking 25 years as a generation, 1000/25 = ~40 generations. Now, 2^40 = 1,000,000,000,000 people. Since that's more than the whole world population in 1,000 BC (or even today), we can conclude that Joseph was a descendant of most of the people living anywhere near Israel in 1,000 BC, in addition to many others in Babylon, Egypt, and so on. So which of the hundreds of cities should he go to? If that were held today, where would you go?
4. Forth- faced with the above, if everyone had to travel to the city of one of their ancestors, then imagine the huge mass migrations as everyone tried to travel to another city at the same time. Such bedlam would provide a bonanza to thieves and highway robbers, who could alternatively sack people's abandoned houses or the travelers themselves.
5. Fifth - faced with #4, the regional economy would be devasted as everyone stopped working for weeks or months so they could travel. There wouldn't be sufficient travel related supplies, and many people would die of food shortages as everyone who made food was out traveling.
6. Sixth - if such an armageddon as #4 and #5 above (plus all the problems I didn't mention, like disease from travel and conditions, and more) occurred, why do we see nary a peep about it in the normally very meticulous Roman records? If nothing else, we'd certainly see the resulting crash in tax revenues show up, since that was the emperor's main concern anyway, and like other disturbances, would no doubt cause the army to be sent out there.

Anyone who thinks about this for a moment could come up with more reasons. It makes the Holy Word of God look silly to pretend that Luke's story here is in any literal way a real event. God's point - that Jesus was Royalty like David, is clear.

Since the story is obviously an inspired fabrication, arguing about which Bethelhem he went to is like trying to have a serious argument over whether humpty dumpty broke into 362 pieces, 219 pieces or 527 pieces - it misses the whole point of the story and is oblivious to reality.

Papias

 

[AV1611VET]

Even though you the Bible is just an old bit of writing by human authors, just like the inscriptions you don't want to read.

... What?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

... What?

You have 2 pieces of old writing by human authors - nothing more, nothing less. One you believe is true even when it contradicts all of reality, the other you don't even want to look at even though there are objective reasons to consider it to be accurate. That is the point.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have 2 pieces of old writing by human authors - nothing more, nothing less.

Try three, scientist.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

I suppose Micah is wrong too, isn't he? or perhaps Micah never existed?

May I ask what your area of expertise is?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Try three, scientist.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

I suppose Micah is wrong too, isn't he? or perhaps Micah never existed?

May I ask what your area of expertise is?

Reading comprehension -- something you might to brush up on.

You've just identified the source of the conundrum -- not its solution.

The OT Jews were convinced that their "Messiah" would restore Israel to its glory days, and to them, the "glory days" were associated with the reign of David -- what better way to do that than to have the Messiah come from David's lineage? Micah tops this by actually saying that the Messiah will come from David's home town.

That puts Matthew and Luke in a bit of a conundrum -- they want to establish Jesus as the Messiah, but they need him to fulfill this little requirement or else their respective audiences just won't buy it. Jesus being Jesus of Nazareth is something of a stumbling block here. So, they come up with two separate contrivances --

• Matthew, writing to an orthodox Jewish audience, delves deep into the Old Testament for a story straight out of Genesis and Exodus.
• Luke, writing for displaced Hellenized Jews, puts the onus on everyone's favorite bad guys: The Roman Empire.

So, yeah -- Micah was wrong. Of course, if these archaeologists are right, then Micah was close to the right answer (right name; wrong province)... but after all, he was only human.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Try three, scientist.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

I suppose Micah is wrong too, isn't he? or perhaps Micah never existed?

Refer to TLK Valentine's post above and then try addressing the post again, which you haven't so far.

May I ask what your area of expertise is?

I wouldn't say I have one. Do you?