Sober minded

[Ana the Ist]

I'm ok with that, they don't have the UB, besides, they don't even know for certain when Jesus was born, so it's hard for one to think they could be so certain, or that it's even unreasonable to think a citizen would need to register for the census in his home precinct.

Of course it's unreasonable. Why would they need to? How does this benefit the Roman census?

Imagine if they asked us to do that today...everyone has to travel to their hometown for a census. Now imagine we don't have cars...is it starting to look dumb?

 

[Colter]

Of course it's unreasonable. Why would they need to? How does this benefit the Roman census?

Imagine if they asked us to do that today...everyone has to travel to their hometown for a census. Now imagine we don't have cars...is it starting to look dumb?

Augustus wouldn't have cared about contemporary sensitivities. The decree would go something like this:

"hearye hearye, there will be a census, you have one year to register with the census taker in the town where YOU LIVE! Do it right or I will throw you to the lions! We don't want a situation where future Atheist use this census as some nit picking anti-Christ issue!....thank you, have a nice day.....and don't forget to worship me." ​

Luke


1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

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

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Augustus wouldn't have cared about contemporary sensitivities. The decree would go something like this:

"hearye hearye, there will be a census, you have one year to register with the census taker in the town where YOU LIVE! Do it right or I will throw you to the lions! We don't want a situation where future Atheist use this census as some nit picking anti-Christ issue!....thank you, have a nice day.....and don't forget to worship me." ​

Luke


1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

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

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Lol is this thread just a place that you practice building strawmen?

No one claimed that the inconvenience to citizens was a major concern to Roman officials. The concern would be the added time and difficulty in carrying out this census for the Roman officials. To use your technique of imaginary conversations...

Roman official: Hey, I wanna make sure we're collecting all the taxes we can. How long will it take to do a census?
Roman accountant: Well even if we use a great number of the military and bureaucracy... I think it would still take a couple years.
Roman official: A couple years?!? That's no good! Is there any way we can stretch this out to a decade or two?
Roman accountant: Well sure, we could make up a bunch of stupid pointless rules like making everyone return to their hometown...
Roman official: Perfect! Oh I wish I could see the look on a Jew's face when he has to tell his pregnant Jewish wife they'll be on traveling hundreds of miles just so we can count them for tax purposes!
Roman accountant: Good one, sir!

Note: I'm pretty sure ancient Romans didn't say "Hear ye"...

 

[Colter]

Lol is this thread just a place that you practice building strawmen?

No one claimed that the inconvenience to citizens was a major concern to Roman officials. The concern would be the added time and difficulty in carrying out this census for the Roman officials. To use your technique of imaginary conversations...

Roman official: Hey, I wanna make sure we're collecting all the taxes we can. How long will it take to do a census?
Roman accountant: Well even if we use a great number of the military and bureaucracy... I think it would still take a couple years.
Roman official: A couple years?!? That's no good! Is there any way we can stretch this out to a decade or two?
Roman accountant: Well sure, we could make up a bunch of stupid pointless rules like making everyone return to their hometown...
Roman official: Perfect! Oh I wish I could see the look on a Jew's face when he has to tell his pregnant Jewish wife they'll be on traveling hundreds of miles just so we can count them for tax purposes!
Roman accountant: Good one, sir!

Note: I'm pretty sure ancient Romans didn't say "Hear ye"...

It's 80 miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Jews from all parts of Israel were expected to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem at least once a year.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's 80 miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Jews from all parts of Israel were expected to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem at least once a year.

The census covered more than just Joseph and Mary, didn't it? Didn't it cover both ancient Judea and Syria? You would've had tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people forced to travel all across the country to return to their hometowns.

Not only that, but it wasn't a simple counting of heads. From the page you quoted earlier...

"From regular censuses carried out in Egypt, something is known of how Roman provincial (as opposed to earlier, Empire-wide censuses of Roman citizens) censuses were carried out: the head of each household, usually the eldest male, had to provide details of his property and who lived on it, including family members, employees, lodgers and slaves. The name, age and relationship to the head of the household was provided."

How would you account for all your estate, if you estate is on the other side of the province because you had to travel to your hometown? It doesn't make any sense...

The simple fact is that the census didn't occur the way that the bible says it did. Calling it an embellishment is being generous IMO...it's an outright lie told to dramatize the birth of Jesus. A birth that, if it happened, was probably as normal as any other.

 

[stevevw]

Of course it's unreasonable. Why would they need to? How does this benefit the Roman census?

Imagine if they asked us to do that today...everyone has to travel to their hometown for a census. Now imagine we don't have cars...is it starting to look dumb?

Well the Romans like to have a census or two. It was part of their success as an empire. The fact is they did have census's and the records from non biblical accounts show this.

The Romans conducted censuses every five years, calling upon every man and his family to return to his place of birth to be counted in order to keep track of the population. Historians believe that it was started by the Roman king Servius Tullius in the 6th century BC, when the number of arms-bearing citizens was counted at 80,000. The census played a crucial role in the administration of the peoples of an expanding Roman Empire, and was used to determine taxes. It provided a register of citizens and their property from which their duties and privileges could be listed.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-met...census-taking-in-the-ancient-world/index.html

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well the Romans like to have a census or two. It was part of their success as an empire. The fact is they did have census's and the records from non biblical accounts show this.

The Romans conducted censuses every five years, calling upon every man and his family to return to his place of birth to be counted in order to keep track of the population. Historians believe that it was started by the Roman king Servius Tullius in the 6th century BC, when the number of arms-bearing citizens was counted at 80,000. The census played a crucial role in the administration of the peoples of an expanding Roman Empire, and was used to determine taxes. It provided a register of citizens and their property from which their duties and privileges could be listed.
Census-taking in the ancient world - ONS

Maybe you haven't read all the posts about this which have discussed it at some length, so I'll just appeal to an argument you appeal to yourself. The overwhelming majority of historians and scholars agree that Joseph wouldn't have had to travel to Bethlehem to register for the census.

I'm guessing you already know this and that's why you're quoting a blurb from some UK statistics office on matters of ancient history lol.

 

[Colter]

The census covered more than just Joseph and Mary, didn't it? Didn't it cover both ancient Judea and Syria? You would've had tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people forced to travel all across the country to return to their hometowns.

Not only that, but it wasn't a simple counting of heads. From the page you quoted earlier...

"From regular censuses carried out in Egypt, something is known of how Roman provincial (as opposed to earlier, Empire-wide censuses of Roman citizens) censuses were carried out: the head of each household, usually the eldest male, had to provide details of his property and who lived on it, including family members, employees, lodgers and slaves. The name, age and relationship to the head of the household was provided."

How would you account for all your estate, if you estate is on the other side of the province because you had to travel to your hometown? It doesn't make any sense...

The simple fact is that the census didn't occur the way that the bible says it did. Calling it an embellishment is being generous IMO...it's an outright lie told to dramatize the birth of Jesus. A birth that, if it happened, was probably as normal as any other.

It's not a "simple fact" at all, you have no proof that the matter of fact statement isn't just that, a fact. And I'm not sure how well you know biblical history but for the Jews a census is an extraordinarily controversial event.

 

[stevevw]

Maybe you haven't read all the posts about this which have discussed it at some length, so I'll just appeal to an argument you appeal to yourself. The overwhelming majority of historians and scholars agree that Joseph wouldn't have had to travel to Bethlehem to register for the census.

I'm guessing you already know this and that's why you're quoting a blurb from some UK statistics office on matters of ancient history lol.

I was only including that link to show that the Romans did do census's. It wasn't to prove anything but that the Romans did have census's on occasions. There are a few sites that say the same but I just thought that site said it better. As far as Joseph not going to Bethlehem I dont know. I havnt seen any evidence either way. Most of the debate is around the timing of the census and when Jesus was born.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's not a "simple fact" at all, you have no proof that the matter of fact statement isn't just that, a fact. And I'm not sure how well you know biblical history but for the Jews a census is an extraordinarily controversial event.

The Jews didn't conduct it or really get a say, however, the census mentioned in the bible is impossible. We have the records for those census times, they aren't aligned as they would have to be to fit the bible timeline.

 

[Smidlee]

The Jews didn't conduct it or really get a say, however, the census mentioned in the bible is impossible. We have the records for those census times, they aren't aligned as they would have to be to fit the bible timeline.

Impossible? There have been many examples in the past long before I was born they claim history didn't line up with scripture only to be shown wrong after more evidence was revealed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Impossible? There have been many examples in the past long before I was born they claim history didn't line up with scripture only to be shown wrong after more evidence was revealed.

The reason it is impossible is because the named monarch who was supposedly involved, Herod if I remember correctly, wasn't alive at any point that Jesus was. For the whole range of dates at which Jesus could have even been alive, let alone the specific age he would have had to be for the census to make sense in the context of the bible, no monarch by that name was in power in the area. The last one before that point died more than a decade too early, and the one to follow him wouldn't be around until multiple decades after Jesus was dead. A few other named people are real historical figures who either committed acts matching the bible but in different times or places.

Do note that the slaughter of innocents is only in the book of Luke, if I recall correctly, and not in Matthew or John.

 

[Colter]

The Jews didn't conduct it or really get a say, however, the census mentioned in the bible is impossible. We have the records for those census times, they aren't aligned as they would have to be to fit the bible timeline.

Luke wrote from eyewitness accounts and interviews, the census that Joseph went to Bethlehem to register for was the 8'BC empire wide census which was carried out one year in Israel due to the controversy among the Jews about it. Luke was writing long after the event.

 

[bhsmte]

Luke wrote from eyewitness accounts and interviews, the census that Joseph went to Bethlehem to register for was the 8'BC empire wide census which was carried out one year in Israel due to the controversy among the Jews about it. Luke was writing long after the event.

Luke didn't write Luke and that is well established with scholars and historians.

What is your evidence that the gospel of Luke relied on eye witness accounts that can be confirmed?

 

[Smidlee]

The reason it is impossible is because the named monarch who was supposedly involved, Herod if I remember correctly, wasn't alive at any point that Jesus was. For the whole range of dates at which Jesus could have even been alive, let alone the specific age he would have had to be for the census to make sense in the context of the bible, no monarch by that name was in power in the area. The last one before that point died more than a decade too early, and the one to follow him wouldn't be around until multiple decades after Jesus was dead. A few other named people are real historical figures who either committed acts matching the bible but in different times or places.

Do note that the slaughter of innocents is only in the book of Luke, if I recall correctly, and not in Matthew or John.

Luke which was with Paul was written to the gentiles while Matthew to the Jews. Luke being the doctor didn't mention the woman spend all she had on doctors like Matthew did.

Luke mention it was the first census so there must be more than one.

 

[Colter]

Luke didn't write Luke and that is well established with scholars and historians.

What is your evidence that the gospel of Luke relied on eye witness accounts that can be confirmed?

I've told you several times now that the gospel writers used assistants or understudies to produce the written material.

The UB reveals who wrote which gospels, when AND that they were edited later with some material taken out and other things added.

 

[Colter]

From my religious book.


(1512.4) 136:2.8 (Jesus was almost thirty-one and one-half years old when he was baptized. While Luke says that Jesus was baptized in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, which would be A.D. 29 since Augustus died in A.D. 14, it should be recalled that Tiberius was coemperor with Augustus for two and one-half years before the death of Augustus, having had coins struck in his honor in October, A.D. 11. The fifteenth year of his actual rule was, therefore, this very year of A.D. 26, that of Jesus’ baptism. And this was also the year that Pontius Pilate began his rule as governor of Judea.) UB 1955



(1350.3) 122:7.1 In the month of March, 8 B.C. (the month Joseph and Mary were married), Caesar Augustus decreed that all inhabitants of the Roman Empire should be numbered, that a census should be made which could be used for effecting better taxation. The Jews had always been greatly prejudiced against any attempt to “number the people,” and this, in connection with the serious domestic difficulties of Herod, King of Judea, had conspired to cause the postponement of the taking of this census in the Jewish kingdom for one year. Throughout all the Roman Empire this census was registered in the year 8 B.C., except in the Palestinian kingdom of Herod, where it was taken in 7 B.C., one year later." UB 1955

 

[Colter]

The Herodion Dynasty began in 37 BCE and lasted unti Herod The Greats death 4 BCE after which the kingdom was divided between his three sons as a tetrachy.

Herod Archelaus, son of Herod and Malthace the Samaritan, was given the main part of the kingdom: Judea proper, Edom and Samaria. He ruled for ten years until 6 CE, when he was "banished to Vienne in Gaul, where—according to Dion Cassius Cocceianus, "Hist. Roma," lv. 27—he lived for the remainder of his days.

Herod Philip I, son of Herod and his fifth wife Cleopatra of Jerusalem, was given jurisdiction over the northeast part of his father's kingdom; he ruled there until his death in 34 CE.

Herod Antipas, another son of Herod and Malthace, was made ruler of the Galilee and Perea; he ruled there until he was exiled to Spain by emperor Caligula in 39 CE. Herod Antipas is probably the person referenced in the Christian New Testament Gospels, playing a role in the death of John the Baptist and the trial of Jesus." Wiki​

Jesus was about 4 when Herod The Great died, Joseph & family had been staying with relatives in Egypt.

 

[stevevw]

The Jews didn't conduct it or really get a say, however, the census mentioned in the bible is impossible. We have the records for those census times, they aren't aligned as they would have to be to fit the bible timeline.

There is speculation as to which census it was. There was more than one census taken around the time of the birth of Jesus. There was one in 8BC, 2BC and 6AD. So the census that Josephus mentions maybe a different census to the one Luke mentions.

 

[stevevw]

The other thing to consider about some of the stories in the bible is that it is not a history lesson. These are the personal accounts of those who either knew Jesus, spoke to those who knew Jesus or those who knew about the events. The events were orally passed on as part of the tradition for learning so someone has decided to write them down. So there will be human error with some details. Each person will see the events through their own perspective. But the basic story is what matters and there is consistency with this.

Someone may have thought a particular detail was the case when they were writing down the story and it wasn't exactly the case. But this doesn't mean that the whole thing is false, it just means they are human and can get things wrong. When they were doing the Nuremberg trials for WW2 people got details wrong. But it didn't change the fact that Hitler and his cronies killed millions in the concentration camps. Getting something wrong about how many were sent to the Gas chambers even in a particular year is not the point. The point is that they were sent to the gas chambers. The other to consider is that each person may consider something in a different way. What one person describes will be described in a different way to the next. So the stories are not going to be exactly the same.