Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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"...
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.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.
Census-taking in the ancient world - ONS
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.
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.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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.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 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?
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?