When was Jesus born

[BrainInVat]

When was Jesus born? Luke 2:1-7 has this to say.

“In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child.”

The census referred to in this passage was taken in the year 6/7 AD. As a side note there are a few serious problems in this passage. The census was a provincial census, not an empire wide census, and certainly not a world-wide census. Does it seem reasonable to anyone that people would have to go to their ancestral town of a thousand years ago to register for the census? If Joseph had identified himself as a descendent of King David he would have been executed by the Romans.

According to both Matthew and Luke Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. So Jesus was born both before 3 BC and in 6 or 7 AD. That is a miracle.

 

[AlexBP]

Are there any sources better than Wikipedia that back up any of the things you say here?

 

[Cuddles333]

Ok BIV, Yes it's true. We women spawned both Christianity and the Quran.

 

[Harry3142]

BrainInVat-

Along with some others, I believe that Jesus was born in 12 BC. This means that at the time of his crucifixion in 33 AD he was 45 years old, rather than his being 33. In all probability Luke, who never personally met Jesus, based Jesus' age on the physical activity he was capable of doing, such as walking long distances without tiring. However, as a physician whose primary experience had been with men living in Antioch, he failed to realize that 'country folk' maintain their stamina for far longer than 'city folk' do.

As for the census, Luke had the right church, but the wrong pew. Archeologists have found evidence that there were many more calls for a census to be taken in Augustus' kingdom than was previously thought. Since the taxes due Rome were based on the size of the population in the various nations he controlled, surprise calls for a census would have kept the rulers of those nations wary of 'skimming' tax money for themselves that should be going to Augustus.

But why 12 BC? That was the year in which Halley's comet went by this planet. It was also far enough before when Herod the Great began to die of extremely slow, painful and disgusting diseases that he himself would have received visitors, such as the Magi. And in all likelihood he did not die in 4 BC, but instead died in 6 BC. But Herod Archelaus could not safely ascend the throne of his father without his first overseeing the pomp and ceremony surrounding his father's funeral and procession to the place where he was to be entombed, and then his journeying to Rome in order to get the blessing of the man who really ruled Judea and Galilee, namely, Augustus Caesar. If he had not made this journey, he would have insulted Augustus (which no sane man wanted to do), as well as losing the protection of the roman legions which had ensured that Herod the Great remained in power.

 

[ebia]

When was Jesus born? Luke 2:1-7 has this to say.

“In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child.”

The census referred to in this passage was taken in the year 6/7 AD. As a side note there are a few serious problems in this passage. The census was a provincial census, not an empire wide census, and certainly not a world-wide census. Does it seem reasonable to anyone that people would have to go to their ancestral town of a thousand years ago to register for the census? If Joseph had identified himself as a descendent of King David he would have been executed by the Romans.

According to both Matthew and Luke Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. So Jesus was born both before 3 BC and in 6 or 7 AD. That is a miracle.

The census in 6/7 is way too late. Matthew is more helpful for dating.

As a side note there are a few serious problems in this passage. The census was a provincial census, not an empire wide census, and certainly not a world-wide census. Does it seem reasonable to anyone that people would have to go to their ancestral town of a thousand years ago to register for the census? If Joseph had identified himself as a descendent of King David he would have been executed by the Romans.

You're reading things too woodenly. Obviously a Roman census would not literally be the whole world, and the family certainly has more recent connections to Bethlehem than that.
Luke's point is a theological and ironic one: the one who claims to be emperor of the world and son of god issues a command that unknowingly causes the real son of god and emperor to be born in the right place.

 

[BrainInVat]

Sorry for taking so long to reply.

Are there any sources better than Wikipedia that back up any of the things you say here?

Ironically I am using Josephus's the Antiquities of the Jews. It is probably mostly reliable, except for the TF and James, the brother of Jesus part.

The Antiquities of the Jews book 18 chapter 2 section 1:

"1. WHEN Cyrenius [Quirinius] had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium"

Caesar's victory over Anthony at Actium occurred in 31 B.C.

The Antiquities of the Jews book 17 chapter 13 section 2

"2. But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar, and that especially because they knew he had broken the commands of Caesar, which obliged him to behave himself with moderation among them. Whereupon Caesar, when he heard it, was very angry, and called for Archelaus's steward, who took care of his affairs at Rome, and whose name was Archelaus also; and thinking it beneath him to write to Archelaus, he bid him sail away as soon as possible, and bring him to us: so the man made haste in his voyage, and when he came into Judea, he found Archelaus feasting with his friends; so he told him what Caesar had sent him about, and hastened him away. And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him."

The Antiquities of the Jews book 17 chapter 13 section 5

"So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius [Quirinius], one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus."

Archelaus was the successor of Herod the Great, Quirinius was Archelaus's successor, and Archelaus ruled for ten years so Quirinius became governor ten years after the death of Herod the Great.

 

[BrainInVat]

Along with some others, I believe that Jesus was born in 12 BC.

My last post demonstrated that Quirinius was not governor in 12 BC, but became governor in 6 AD. Furthermore Qurinius led a campaign against the Homonadenses in Galatia and Cilicia from 12 - 1 BC. I admit that this info comes from Wikipedia. I will make an update when I find the source of this information.

 

[BrainInVat]

the family certainly has more recent connections to Bethlehem than that. .

Even if Joseph's father was from Bethlehem it would make no sense for Joseph to travel to Bethlehem to take part in the census.

 

[ebia]

Even if Joseph's father was from Bethlehem it would make no sense for Joseph to travel to Bethlehem to take part in the census.

You know that how? What if. say, either Joseph or Mary had family property there.

 

[BrainInVat]

You know that how? What if. say, either Joseph or Mary had family property there.

Then it would have said that Joseph went to register for the census in Bethlehem, because he had family property there since he was descended from David.

 

[ebia]

Then it would have said that Joseph went to register for the census in Bethlehem, because he had family property there since he was descended from David.

How do you know that? Just because that's what you might have written - depending on why you were writing about it in the first place - doesnt mean that's what Luke would have written. Luke's purpose is not to inform us about the census but to tell us a theological truth about the birth.

"He would have..." is always a flaky argument - a version of argument from silence. In this kind of situation it's no argument at all.

 

[BrainInVat]

Luke's purpose is not to inform us about the census but to tell us a theological truth about the birth.

Was his purpose to confuse everybody about the year of Jesus's birth and the circumstances around it?

 

[ebia]

Was his purpose to confuse everybody about the year of Jesus's birth and the circumstances around it?

I doubt he had keeping 21st century obsessions and questions in mind at all.

 

[BrainInVat]

I doubt he had keeping 21st century obsessions and questions in mind at all.

If the bible was the word of God then he would have made it timeless, or updated it periodically. He could even preach his word to each individual person and customize it for each individual.

 

[ebia]

If the bible was the word of God then he would have made it timeless, or updated it periodically. He could even preach his word to each individual person and customize it for each individual.

You've moved up from knowing what Luke ought to do to knowing what God ought to do. How can you possibly know what God would do - you don't have his perspective on things?

This was true when you were talking about Luke:

"He would have..." is always a flaky argument - a version of argument from silence. In this kind of situation it's no argument at all.

How much more true when talking about God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If the bible was the word of God then he would have made it timeless, or updated it periodically. He could even preach his word to each individual person and customize it for each individual.

I suspect that you're a bit confused as to what Christianity has historically meant by calling Scripture the written word of God. It doesn't mean that God sat down with a quill and wrote it, or that it descended on clouds of gold, or that God dictated it to people, or any such nonsense.

It means that when we approach these texts, we do so in faith we encounter the living Jesus, the Word of God Himself. The Scriptures bear witness to our faith in Christ, they testify of Him and we encounter Him in their pages. The Bible is not a series of propositions, but a collection of stories, proverbs, poetry, prophecy, and discourse that express the People of God's relationship with God in history, and from them we share in their personal history and testimony of faith.

The Bible isn't a personal tome to answer all my questions about the universe, life, and everything; but a shared collection of corporate narrative which I place myself into as living out that same shared narrative of faith, and from which I draw out my life of faith as I seek to live in concert with the people of God as we attempt to try and make sense of what it means to be that people.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AlexBP]

The census referred to in this passage was taken in the year 6/7 AD. As a side note there are a few serious problems in this passage. The census was a provincial census, not an empire wide census, and certainly not a world-wide census.

This is an uncommonly lame argument even by atheist standards. Obviously even today if we use the phrase "everyone" it's understood to apply to everyone in a certain context, not every person on Earth. For example, if someone says: "Obamacare mandates that everyone purchase health insurance", it's obviously true because the law requires everyone in the USA to purchase health insurance. Only someone of low intelligence or someone who was desperately trying to find fault with it would seriously argue that the sentence is false because Obamacare is a nationwide law, as opposed to a worldwide one.

 

[BrainInVat]

Originally Posted by BrainInVat View Post
The census referred to in this passage was taken in the year 6/7 AD. As a side note there are a few serious problems in this passage. The census was a provincial census, not an empire wide census, and certainly not a world-wide census.

This is an uncommonly lame argument even by atheist standards. Obviously even today if we use the phrase "everyone" it's understood to apply to everyone in a certain context, not every person on Earth. For example, if someone says: "Obamacare mandates that everyone purchase health insurance", it's obviously true because the law requires everyone in the USA to purchase health insurance. Only someone of low intelligence or someone who was desperately trying to find fault with it would seriously argue that the sentence is false because Obamacare is a nationwide law, as opposed to a worldwide one.

The passage does not say "everyone should be registered" it says "all the world should be registered". So your argument about the word everyone simply does not apply. The mistake in this passage would be something more along the lines of saying that since Colorado decriminalized marijuana, marijuana is now decriminalized throughout the nation. By the way I am being nice and recognizing that it might be ok to use "world-wide" in place of "empire wide".

 

[ViaCrucis]

The passage does not say "everyone should be registered" it says "all the world should be registered". So your argument about the word everyone simply does not apply. The mistake in this passage would be something more along the lines of saying that since Colorado decriminalized marijuana, marijuana is now decriminalized throughout the nation. By the way I am being nice and recognizing that it might be ok to use "world-wide" in place of "empire wide".

Oikumene means "inhabited world", from oikos (home or house) and ge (land or earth); it was usually used to describe the known, civilized world. Rome ruled the world, at last as far as everyone within Rome's borders were concerned.

It's also why we refer to the Ecumenical (oikumene) Councils, such as Nicea. Not because there were bishops from Japan or Mexico or New Zealand, but because bishops from all over the known, civilized, Roman world came and gathered for council.

It is oikumenical because it is not simply local.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Beth-Zur]

Revelation 12, Astral Prophecy and the Birth of Christ on 9/11 - YouTube​

Note the 80min. window.