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.
Seems to me that if someone doesn't want to believe the Bible is true, they will find tons of evidence to stack up against it. But if you are willing to look with open eyes you just may find that it is true after all.
I and many others have supernatural proof because God reveals Himself to those who are willing to do His will and walk in His ways, and have received forgiveness through the Blood of Christ when we come to God on that basis asking forgiveness with that desire to walk in His ways. But if you want to get a "free ticket" into Heaven by praying this way, but have no desire to walk in His ways, you will never have that proof you seek.
If you want to know how I got my proof, you can hear my story on my youtube channel. I was brought up Catholic, and prayed every night without answers...until God finally Revealed Himself to me. I hadn't given up on God when this happened, but I had given up on ever hearing from Him in answer to prayer when He supernaturally intervened in my life, and proved to me not only that He was real, but that He heard my prayer...He has been answering my prayers ever since, which never happened before this event. Again ~ God will reveal Himself to you if you have Faith, and come to Him on the Basis of Jesus Sacrifice on our behalf with a willingness to walk in His Ways
My faith is grounded on the scriptures AND God's presence and power in my life. If you have an open enough mind and heart, and are not shut off to God, He can do it for you too.
Than your faith is based on faith. The worst of all evidence. The falsity of the nativity story is based on the best of all evidence. Reasonable historical impossibility. If you are going to dismiss that on the lousy accusation of 'not wanting to believe' then you cannot expect me to watch your wretched preaching video.
I suppose that, no matter how comprehensively this precedent case of Gospel fabrication is demonstrated, like Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius, this old 'second census' rubbish is going to resurface repeatedly like muck that just won't flush away, no matter how many times you do it.
[LEFT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]The matter of Luke's Census is resolved with archeology [The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (1996) by Gary Habermas, pp. 171-173]... [/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]
[CENTER][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=4]Luke's Census[/SIZE][/FONT][/CENTER]
[LEFT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]In Luke 2.1-5 we read that Caesar Augustus decreed that the Roman Empire should be taxed and that everyone had to return to his own city to pay taxes. So Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem and there Jesus was born.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Several questions have been raised in the context of this taxation [1. See Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192, for example]. Even if such a taxation actually did occur, would every person have to return to his home? Was Quirinius really the governor of Syria at this time (as in v.2)? Archeology has had a bearing on the answers to these questions. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]It has been established that the taking of a census was quite common at about the time of Christ. An ancient Latin inscription called the Titulus Venetus indicates that a census took place in Syria and Judea about AD 5-6 and that this was typical of those held throughout the Roman Empire from the time of Augustus (23 BC-AD 14) until at least the third century AD. Indications are that this census took place every fourteen years. Other such evidence indicates that these procedures were widespread [2. Ibid., pp. 193-194]. Concerning persons returning to their home city for the taxation-census, an Egyptian papyrus dating from AD 104 reports just such a practice. This rule was enforced, as well [3. Ibid. p. 194]. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]The question concerning Quirinius also involves the date of the census described in Luke 2. It is known that Quirinius was made governor of Syria by Augustus in AD 6. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay discovered several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to this date [4. Robert Boyd, Tells, Tombs, and Treasure (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), p. 175]. Within the cycle of taxation-censuses mentioned above, an earlier taxation would be dated from 10-4 BC [5. Cf. Bruce, Christian Origins, pp. 193-194 with Boyd, Tells, p. 175. Bruce prefers the date 10-9 BC for the empire-wide census, with that which took place in Judea occurring a few years later. Boyd places the date of the earlier census 6-5 BC, which coincides closely with the accepted dates for Jesus' birth]. Another possibility is Bruce's suggestion that the Greek in Luke 2.2 is equally translatable as "This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria" [6. Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192]. This would mean that Luke was dating the taxation-census before Quirinius took over the governorship of Syria. Either possibility answers the question raised above [7. While ruling out the two-date approach to the governorship of Quirinius, Sherwin-White basically vindicates Luke's account, while still finding more problems that does Bruce (pp. 162-171)].[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Therefore, while some questions have been raised concerning the events recorded in Luke 2.1-5, archaeology has provided some unexpected and supportive answers. Additionally, while supplying the background behind these events, archaeology also assists us in establishing several facts. (1) A taxation-census was a fairly common procedure in the Roman Empire and it did occur in Judea, in particular. (2) Persons were required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the requirements of the process. (3) These procedures were apparently employed during the reign of Augustus (37 BC-AD 14), placing it well within the general time frame of Jesus' birth. (4) The date of the specific taxation recounted by Luke could very possibly have been 6-5 BC, which would also be of service in attempting to find a more exact date for Jesus' birth[/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT]
Hey, Full....Did they ever come to an understanding about this. I tried to read this tome and got completely lost in the logic AND the arguements. Thoughts?
Seems to me that if someone doesn't want to believe the Bible is true, they will find tons of evidence to stack up against it. But if you are willing to look with open eyes you just may find that it is true after all.
It seems to me that if someone desperately wants to believe the bible is true, they will find tons of "evidence" to back it up. But if you are willing to look with open eyes you just may find it isn't true after all.
3. Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria and Judea until A.D. 6, many years after Jesus was born.
4. In a Roman census, Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to take Mary with him.
5. A Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was still alive.
But what about Luke’s reference, "this was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria?" When Luke says this was the "first" census that took place under Quirinius, the Greek word prote, usually translated "first," according to some Greek scholars can also be translated "prior." If that is Luke’s meaning, then, he would be referring to a census taken prior to the one taken when Quirinius was governor in 6 A.D. Is it possible that a prior census was taken, or even taken by Quirinius himself?
Well, historians know that Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria between 12 B.C. to 2 B.C. He was responsible for reducing the number of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia. As such, he was a highly placed military figure in the Near East and highly trusted by Emperor Caesar Augustus. Augustus, knowing of the turmoil in Herod the Great’s territory, may well have put his trusted friend Quirinius in charge of a census enrollment in the region of Syria just before the end of Herod’s life.
The time period from 7 to 6 B.C. also coincides with the transition period between the rule of the two legates of Syria: Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C. and Varus from 7 to 4 B.C. The transition of power between these two men took place between 7 to 6 B.C., and Augustus again may have appointed his friend Quirinius to step in and conduct a census taxation when he could not trust anyone else.
Again, Luke’s statement has a plausible foundation in history.
This is what I read about Quirinius, that he may have been governor twice. I read that this is possible due to an inscription known as the Lapis Tiburtinus. Supposedly that name Quirinius is not directly mentioned but historians seem to agree it refers to Quirinius. His governorship may me what Luke meant when he wrote "this first census". Also, his first governoship may be during the time of Jesus.
Also, what I read says that there is discrepancy regarding the exact years. Some historians may place the birth of Jesus differently within a span of I believe 2 years.
The bottom line to me? As far as from what I have read, Luke, is considered and extraordinary writer/historian. He made numerous references to people, places, event, etc. when he wrote his book.
Also, even though I may not believe in the Bible as a divine book, I do have great respect for it. Through the years in the past and present numerous events mentioned in the Bible have proved to be accurate even though in the past were considered erroneos.
I do not see why Luke would, intentionally, embelished or try to arrange accounts out of historical accuracy. In this case the sensus and pretty much everything else seems to be correct.
Perhaps something is still missing regarding the sensus but to say Luke is incorrect may not be good to state as a fact. To me the best is to be open for future research and for now simply leave it with a question mark to keep looking and see what surfaces out there. Take care.
For those who believe that the Gospels are accurate historical records of Jesus’ life, one of the most difficult problems in the New Testament is the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2:
"Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him and was with child."
So, Luke tells us Augustus took a census before Jesus was born and this was the reason Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem. However, critics say there are five reasons why Luke’s account is historically incorrect.
1. There is no known evidence of an Empire-wide census in the reign of Augustus. If it occurred, wouldn’t it be mentioned by one or another of the ancient historians who recorded this period?
2. Josephus records a lot about Herod but does not mention a Roman census in Palestine.
3. Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria and Judea until A.D. 6, many years after Jesus was born.
4. In a Roman census, Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to take Mary with him.
5. A Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was still alive.
In light of these facts, did Luke make vast historical errors in his chronology of events? All of this was stated or implied in the Peter Jennings in his ABC Special "The Search for Jesus," and continues to be brought up by many critical scholars today. Historian Dr. Edwin Yamauchi told me:
Quirinius, we know, was governor leader in A.D. 6 when there was a census and there was a revolt led by a man called Judas of Galilee. And there are several proposed solutions to this well-known problem. One solution, of course, is that Luke was clearly in error here; that he didn’t have correct information. Yet Luke is the most careful of all the Gospel writers to try to correlate events in Judea with Roman events. He knows that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus; that Jesus began His ministry in the reign of Tiberius and so forth.
An Empire-wide census?
Let’s answer some of these objections. When Luke states that a decree from Caesar Augustus went out that all the world should be taxed, was he talking about just one empire-wide census? No, according to Roman historian A. N. Sherwin White. The censuses were taken in different provinces over a period of time. But Caesar Augustus was the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. Luke uses the present tense to indicate that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly throughout the empire rather than only one time.
Second, papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt, for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number of years, and substantiates Luke’s reference to Augustus’ census, but it seems to work against the Lucan account in terms of the year when Jesus was born. Why? Because the 14-year intervals do not intersect with the year of Jesus’ birth in 4 B.C.
But concerning that problem, the Dictionary of New Testament Background [Craig Evans and Stanley Porter, eds., InterVarsity, 2000] states: "Evidence indicates that Egyptian censuses were taken at 7-year intervals during the reign of Augustus and can be established with indirect and direct evidence for the years of 11-10 B.C., 4-3 B.C., A.D. 4 and 5, and A.D. 11 and 12." This information is based on documentation presented in The Demography of Roman Egypt by Bagnell and Friar, a book published by Cambridge University Press in 1994.
Third, there are other reasons to believe a census was taken by Caesar Augustus in 4 or 5 B.C. Augustus knew of Herod’s paranoia. Herod frequently changed his will and then would kill the family member he had put in charge if he were to die. Each time he changed his will and the one who would succeed him, he had to get permission from the Roman emperor to do so.
So, Emperor Augustus knew what was happening in Palestine. It is reasonable to assume that Augustus, anticipating the problems that would come about when Herod died, would want to take a census of Herod’s territory and might well have extended the Egyptian census of 4-3 B.C. or performed something like it in Judea.
The mentioning of the census in Luke 2:1 is the only historical reference of this census from antiquity, yet it rests on a plausible reconstruction of events. Edwin Yamauchi comments, "…this is a case where we do have something recorded in the New Testament which is not directly correlated by extra-biblical evidence. This doesn’t mean that it did not happen, however, because there are many things that occur only in a given text without corroborative evidence of other texts or inscriptions."
But what about Luke’s reference, "this was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria?" When Luke says this was the "first" census that took place under Quirinius, the Greek word prote, usually translated "first," according to some Greek scholars can also be translated "prior." If that is Luke’s meaning, then, he would be referring to a census taken prior to the one taken when Quirinius was governor in 6 A.D. Is it possible that a prior census was taken, or even taken by Quirinius himself?
Well, historians know that Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria between 12 B.C. to 2 B.C. He was responsible for reducing the number of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia. As such, he was a highly placed military figure in the Near East and highly trusted by Emperor Caesar Augustus. Augustus, knowing of the turmoil in Herod the Great’s territory, may well have put his trusted friend Quirinius in charge of a census enrollment in the region of Syria just before the end of Herod’s life.
The time period from 7 to 6 B.C. also coincides with the transition period between the rule of the two legates of Syria: Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C. and Varus from 7 to 4 B.C. The transition of power between these two men took place between 7 to 6 B.C., and Augustus again may have appointed his friend Quirinius to step in and conduct a census taxation when he could not trust anyone else.
Again, Luke’s statement has a plausible foundation in history.
Why did Joseph take Mary to Bethlehem?
Next, what about the criticism that in a Roman census Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to bring Mary with him? Well, now historians have found that in A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census." This indicates it was plausible for Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem as Luke indicates. In fact, it is just one of the many reasons scholars have found why Mary would have needed to go with Joseph on his trip to Bethlehem. Claire Pfann suggests another.
I think that we find a few basic presuppositions that are just our own modern skepticism and really don’t deal with the reality of the fact that, if Joseph and Mary had come to live together as a married couple at this point, why on earth would he leave her at home when he faced a prolonged absence, waiting for the census to be accomplished?
Could a census have taken place while Herod was alive?
Next, what can be said to those who say a Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was alive?
This is simply not true. Records have now been found that show the emperor did take censuses in vassal kingdoms like Herod’s. In fact, when Herod died, his domain was divided among his three sons, and Augustus ordered that taxes be reduced in the territory of one of his sons. It proves the Roman emperor was not afraid to intervene in one of his vassal kingdoms.
Further, it is now known that in 8-7 B.C., Herod came into disfavor with Augustus and was thereafter treated as a subject rather than a friend. It resulted in Herod’s autonomy being taken away from him.
Third, historians have also discovered that the people of Herod’s domain took an oath of allegiance not just to Herod, but to both Augustus and Herod, which proves there was a greater involvement of Augustus in Herod’s realm.
Finally, Luke’s account points to a census taken before Herod the Great’s death and the division of his kingdom. Why? It would have been highly implausible to think that after Herod’s kingdom had been divided between his three sons in 4 B.C. that people in Nazareth under Herod Antipas would have traveled to Bethlehem, the territory belonging to Archelaus for purposes of taxation. It makes more sense that such traveling would have been done when all the territories were under Herod’s rule himself and Augustus called for an overall census.
So, since it has been proved that Augustus had taken censuses in other vassal kingdoms, and since Herod had come into the emperor’s disfavor, and since Herod was having troubles in his own realm with his sons, it is more than probable that Augustus would have wanted to conduct his own census, assessing Herod’s kingdom, while Herod was still alive. And this is exactly what Luke recorded.
(Reference: Ankerberg Theological Research Institute | Dr. John Ankerberg)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park
It seems to me that if someone desperately wants to believe the bible is true, they will find tons of "evidence" to back it up. But if you are willing to look with open eyes you just may find it isn't true after all.
Even though whether the Bible is the word of God or not, I love history and from that angle I do say that many events mentioned in the Bible have proved to be correct.
However, the comment you made can also be applied to you this way "It seems to me that if someone desperately wants to believe the bible is not true, they will find tons of "evidence"to back it up. But if you are willing to look with open eyes you just may find it is true after all". In other words, your comment proves nothing either way. It only proves that you are just as biased as those you comment about.
Even though whether the Bible is the word of God or not, I love history and from that angle I do say that many events mentioned in the Bible have proved to be correct.
However to believe everything in it is true because some small part was, is a fallacy.
the Spiderman Fallacy, to be exact.
While the historical peeks might be interesting, the bible is only noteworthy for, essentially, a vast collection of things which are either not demonstrable, or historically questionable. It's most important use really hinges on all the parts which are the least factually valid.
However to believe everything in it is true because some small part was, is a fallacy.
I agree. I will not say I believe everything the Bible says but I will say that I keep my mind open for future findings. The door is not close on anything as much as it may look as settled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer
While the historical peeks might be interesting, the bible is only noteworthy for, essentially, a vast collection of things which are either not demonstrable, or historically questionable.
Here is where I think you are not keeping an open mind. Why? I could guess some possible reasons but it proves nothing either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer
It's most important use really hinges on all the parts which are the least factually valid.
Why its "most important use"? To me history is history regardless of the source. It seems my observation leads me to get this perception that people judge the events and places mentioned in the Bible more harshly and with more strict demands for proof than other historical people and events. I am not referring to the miracle part of it. That is another area. I am referring to events and places mentioned in the Bible. The Bible is not one book, actually, as you may know but a compilation of Books with different writers.
So I see each individual event and/or place on its own instead as the Bible as a whole. From there I read as much as I can and weigh the different sources. Your comment does not seem to lean towards a more open minded scientific approach. Take care.
You only have to read Luke 2:2 as "...this census took place PRIOR to when Cyrenius was governor..." and everything matches up, as well as anyone could ask of ancient accounts.
Alternatively, some people make a case for Cyrenius undertaking a census before he became governor, which is possible as he was highly regarded (consul) by Augustus and a bit of a war hero.
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.
