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.
AW is doing very well here. There are a couple of points to be made, perhaps.
Luke's narrative is to be questioned because, while Jesus could very well have been born in the time of the roman census under Quirinus (mentioned by Josephus and dated by comparison with other historic occurrences to 6 AD) the problem is that it isn't a credible explanation of Jesus being born in Bethlehem.
It is inescapable history that the Roman census (Luke 2.2 the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) is the first roman census ever in Judea because that could not happen before Rome took over Judea as a province after Archelaus was deposed. That is not a problem with the date, but it is a problem if Joseph lived in Galilee, because Galilee was under Herodian rule and was not subject to the tax or census. Even if it had been, it makes no sense for everyone to up sticks and go to register in their ancestral city since the tax would of course would be collected whether they lived and worked. That is what was meant by Luke 3 'And everyone went to their own town to register.' which is only sense. You would not register where you were visiting or were on a trade trip because you would not be taxed by the procurator there. Thus Joseph would not have gone to register in Bethlehem even if the tax applied to him, which as a Galilean it didn't.
Even if he had gone to register in Bethlehem it makes no sense to drag along his wife and the only reason he does all this is to wangle Jesus into Bethlehem for this birth. And thr only reason for that is that Luke felt that the scriptural requirement for a Son of David, King of the Jews and Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem.
You'll note that Mark has no nativity account and John pretty much displays his ignorance of any birth in Bethlehem. (7.41 But some said, “Will the Christ come out of Galilee? 42 Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” It beggars belief that John would not at least (in parenthesis) say that Jesus was in fact was born in Bethlehem, just to refute that point.
Matthew of course solved the problem by having Jesus born in Judea and moved to Galilee to escape Archelaus - the chronological contradiction with the Lucan Roman census is obvious.
I agree with most of what AREQUIPA posted except possibly:
>>Luke's narrative is to be questioned because, while Jesus could very well have been born in the time of the roman census under Quirinus .<<
There may be yet a sixth problem with Luke's account. Is Jesus's date of birth of 6 AD consistent with the dates given for the start of John's and Jesus' ministry?
Luke 3:1-2
"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the desert."
Luke 3:23 "When Jesus began his ministry he was about thirty years of age."
The 15th year of Tiberius - about 28 AD (If born in 6 AD, Jesus would have been 22 yearsold).
Question then: Was John still baptizing in 36 AD when Jesus turned 30?
Last edited by ancient warrior; 12-19-2011 at 06:36 AM..
Reason: addition
The dates could fit, more or less. Tiberius, emperor in 14 -37 AD would have his 15th regnal year in 28 AD which is when John is supposed to have started his ministry.
Josephus related the war between Aretas of Nabatea and Herod Antipas (which resulted in Aretas grabbing Damascus which was the reason Paul escaped in a basket, so he says, in 37 AD) to the beheading of the baptist. Thus John was executed by 36/37 AD.
That leaves about 8 years for John's ministry towards the end of which (if we take the gospel story) he baptized Jesus. So John' ministry could have been any time from - say- 28 - 36 AD and Jesus' ministry pretty much any time during that 8 or 9 - year period which, taking '30' years of age, would place his birth at any time from 1 BC to 6 AD.
That pretty much rules out Matthew's placing the birth of Jesus in Herod's time (died 4 BC which is, of course, before 1 BC) but the Roman census does that anyway.
Okay, look folks. You have understand that the person who identified himself as Luke was the relatively uneducated (or very simply educated) son of a local worker of the earth, out in the middle of the desert where it was nearly impossible to make a living. Life was hard and very busy; it's not like he was going to get every historical fact correct. He lived in an isolated village, far from the worldly knowledge of more bustling cities, and was writing simply, just as he had lived his childhood simply...
Oh, wait, crap, sorry. I was thinking of Skywalker. Wrong story!
Okay, look folks. You have understand that the person who identified himself as Luke was the relatively uneducated (or very simply educated) son of a local worker of the earth, out in the middle of the desert where it was nearly impossible to make a living. Life was hard and very busy; it's not like he was going to get every historical fact correct. He lived in an isolated village, far from the worldly knowledge of more bustling cities, and was writing simply, just as he had lived his childhood simply...
Oh, wait, crap, sorry. I was thinking of Skywalker. Wrong story!
RESPONSE:
So your are saying that Luke's Gospel contains errors and hence isn't divinely inspired or inerrant after all, right?
So your are saying that Luke's Gospel contains errors and hence isn't divinely inspired or inerrant after all, right?
Well, actually, I was making a joke. (Smile, people!) But no, I definitely don't think "Luke" 's story was/is inerrant. I actually pretty much think it's fiction. The message is positive but then again, the message behind The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was ultimately positive too, and I don't believe that happened either.
As to whether something could be "divinely inspired" yet contain errors, yeah, why not? I mean I could take a ton of good from one philosopher or another and misquote him or her even though I believe in the message.
Now when it came down to threatening people with Hell for not believing "my" interpretation of what that philosopher may or may not have meant, well, that's where things get a little shaky.
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)?
See Jer Z's response. The bible is a book filled with many "stories" and parables and prophecies. Why should I read it as if it were a history book?
Even the story of Noah and the Ark is highly symbolic and I consider it a prophecy about Christ who will destroy the wicked by the brightness of his coming followed by the New Heaven and new Earth. There is a flood coming! Better get in the Ark.
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.
The bible is a book filled with many "stories" and parables and prophecies. Why should I read it as if it were a history book? 
