Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your bible is historically inaccurate and your holiday is in vain! Merry Christmas!
Love,
Ancient Warrior" ?
lol I can just feel the Holiday Spirit! Couldn't you have waited till after Christmas?!! I like the lights, the manger scenes, the presents, and I can tolerate most of the music!!! Just kidding. I'm probably reading too much into it and I'm bored and no one else seems to be answering so far (Edit: Ok someone posted while I was writing this)
There is really no real consensus on the historical birth date of Christ and doubt most of the people here are militant about it being December 25, 0000 ;p I have seen a few possible explanations over the years for the problem above. Here's one I just found: Foundations: Studies in Bible Theology. If I under stand the link correctly, it might be possible that the disarray of Herod's illness and uncertainty of a heir forced a census but I'm not entirely sure how provable that is. I even remember at least one historian who placed Herods Death at 1BC, but I can't remember why at this time. I'm actually kind of glad you brought this us (yeah even before Christmas ) since I haven't studied this in a long time.
RESPONSE:
There is no "uncertainy" about it. When Herod died in 4 BC, his kingdom was divided between his three sones: Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip.
Archelaus did a particularly bad job and was exiled from Judea. Judea then came under direct Roman control.
But Matthew's account has Jesus born during the reign of Herod, thus 4 BC or earlier. If Luke is correct about Jesus bei ng born during the 6 AD census, the events attributed to Herod: the Visit of the Magi, The Star of Bethlehem, the Slaughter of the Innocent, and the Flight into Egypt are not possible since Herod had been dead for ten years by 6 AD.
Thus the inerrancy and inspiration of the nativity naratives don't exist in the real world.
I agree with you, we don't really know when Jesus was born. All we know is that he was born. The rest is fiction.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 12-18-2011 at 05:43 AM..
Reason: typo
As far as I'm concerned, the bible is NOT a history book. It's a spiritual book. This kind of study has no effect on my faith in Christ. Since you asked for opinions. Same goes for that crazy Old Testament... not a history book.
Merry Christmouse -
RESPONSE:
So you have no difficulty founding your belief system on a writing which is largely not historical (ie. many of the events described never happened)?
The three Gospel Accounts and The Gospel Testimony of Jesus beloved disciple are all 100% accurate. Luke is making no claim in his account of Christ that a census took place in 6 AD...only that a census took place. When this census took place is still open for debate, not the validity of Luke's Gospel Account. You're looking for errors in a place where none exist.
RESPONSE:
On the contrary, Luke is descibing a particular census the date of which we know.
Luke 2:2 "This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria" (NRSV)
The Census under Quirinius, Josephus, Antiquities 17.342-344, 355
"In the tenth year of Archelaus’ rule the leading men among the Jews and Samaritans, finding
his cruelty and tyranny intolerable, brought charges against him before Caesar the moment
they learned that Archelaus had disobeyed his instructions to show moderation in dealing
with them. Accordingly, when Caesar heard the charges, he became angry, and summoning
the man who looked after Archelaus’ affairs at Rome. . ., he said to him, “Go, sail at once and
bring him here to us without delay.” . . . And when Archelaus arrived, Caesar gave a hearing
to some of his accusers, and also let him speak, and then sent him into exile. . .
Now the territory subject to Archelaus was added to (the province of) Syria, and Quirinius, a
man of consular rank, was sent by Caesar to take a census of property in Syria and to sell the
estate of Archelaus."
The Gospels are nowhere near 100% accurate.
Last edited by ancient warrior; 12-18-2011 at 06:00 AM..
Reason: removed brackets
So you have no difficulty founding your belief system on a writing which is largely not historical (ie. many of the events described never happened)?
No more so than Joseph Smith's fictional works, which are wrong historically and geographically; Charles Taze Russel's personal writings and others. Most histories are difficult to prove or disprove simply because there is always large pieces left out.
One has to accept the message--not the history--you either believe in the premise or you do not..
My opinion is you would do well to look into this a bit deeper. Why?
Several things.
First the word 'taxed' is apographo and means to enroll or to register and this was the first registration to be made. A second is mentioned int Acts 5:37.
Second: Cyrenius is Gr. for the Latin Quirinus. His full name was Publins Sulpicius Quirinus.
v. 3 "every one" &c. A Papyrus [in the British Museum] being a rescript of the Perfect Gauis Vibius Masimus [A.D. 108-4] shows that Herod must have been acting under Roman orders. Vib. Max. was Praefect of Egypt, and wrote; "The enrolement by households being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause soever are outside their homes to return to their domestic hearths, that they may accomplish the customary dispensation of enrolement, and continue steadfastly in the husbandry that belongeth to them." There is a large number of Papyri relating to these enrolments. See Deissmann's Light from the Ancient East, pp. 268,269
RESPONSE:
I've studied the history sufficiently. Perhaps you didn't read what you posted.
>>all who for any cause soever are outside their homes to return to their domestic hearths<<
Yep, where they actually resided, not where their ancestors originated.
(Although "Vib. Max. was Praefect of Egypt" not Syria).
Last edited by ancient warrior; 12-18-2011 at 06:05 AM..
Reason: addition
The information you present as PROBLEMS are only problems because they are not factual. There is no historical concensus that the information you present is accurate.
Just look at point 5, your opening premise is that Herod died in 4 B.C.E. That is not a FACT. There are many different versions of history that support the conclusion he died in 1 B.C.E
There is really no point to discuss these 5 statements since the comparative history you want to use for analysis of Biblical chronology is not authoritative.
RESPONSE:
It is. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, ie, the Luke and Josephus are in error? If so, please present it.
Of course, Herod died before his sons inherited his property. That should be obvious.
(Perhaps you will cite for us your source that Herod died in 1 BC. )
His evaluation is very bad analysis for he didn't present any data to prove the Roman Census information that he specified was accurate or to be trusted.
RESPONSE:
Once more, the accuracy of the census is not the issue. The date it occurred is.
Agreed, the statements are assumed and presented as factual, but in reality they are just speculative, and contradicted by many other authoritative historical resources.
RESPONSE:
Then by all means, please cite precisely the " authoritative historical resources"you claim.
Agreed, the statements are assumed and presented as factual, but in reality they are just speculative, and contradicted by many other authoritative historical resources.
RESPONSE:
Then you should have little difficulty in proving your assertion. Can you?
Or is this just another assertion without evidence?
"In the year 6 of the common era, a deputation of the Jewish and Samaritan aristocracy waited upon Augustus in Rome, to prefer charges against Archelaus, with the result that he was immediately summoned to Rome, deprived of his crown, and banished to Vienne in Gaul, where—according to Dion Cassius Cocceianus, "Hist. Roma," lv. 27—he lived for the remainder of his days."
H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0674397312, page 246: "When Archelaus was deposed from the ethnarchy in 6 CE, Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea were converted into a Roman province under the name Iudaea."; page 274: "Josephus connects the beginnings of the extremist movement with the census held under the supervision of Quirinius, the legate of Syria, soon after Judea had been converted into a Roman province (6 CE)."
Last edited by ancient warrior; 12-18-2011 at 10:30 AM..
Reason: addition
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just kidding. I'm probably reading too much into it and I'm bored and no one else seems to be answering so far (Edit: Ok someone posted while I was writing this) 
) since I haven't studied this in a long time.
