Another Quirinius Thread

[frangiuliano115]

I cannot believe Gospel writers would write something so obviously untrue (and or stupid) about such a public figure as Quirinius or an institutional public event like a government census/tax and which would have been immediately debunked and ridiculed - particularly by other early Christians who would be asking Luke;
…“dude! are you losing your marbles? There was never a census! And what the heck does Quirinius have to do with Jesus’ nativity?”

Dude! I think you bring up an important point.

I’ve often said that if we can’t trust the apostles, who can we trust? Our faith is based on what they tell us!

I think…

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes, and here we are 2000 years removed from the situation thinking that we have more knowledge on the subject than Luke had living in that present situation.

Sure, we are soooo smart!

Perhaps we should stick to trying to know our own place rather than tell individuals 2000 years ago what they were supposed to have known.

How about the fact that I kind of like that there are tiny little discrepancies. Each wrote what he remembered or thought was important or was told by someone who knew Jesus personally.

They didn’t sit around a table and decide between them what they’d say to make the story sound good.

You know, two people see the same auto accident…

Fran

 

[Faith1960]

I cannot believe Gospel writers would write something so obviously untrue (and or stupid) about such a public figure as Quirinius or an institutional public event like a government census/tax and which would have been immediately debunked and ridiculed - particularly by other early Christians who would be asking Luke;
…“dude! are you losing your marbles? There was never a census! And what the heck does Quirinius have to do with Jesus’ nativity?”

Thanks. You’re right.

 

[Faith1960]

You are right, there are as many different opinions as there are belly buttons. But this is why you need to do your own research and learn your faith well. Check the Catechism, and other documents to verify what you are told.

Especially those in BOLD CAPITOLS

it seemed off topic. I understood that the thread was about historical validity. There are plenty of people who deny the resurrection. Some refuse to accept it has an historical fact.

If being on CAF is not beneficial to your faith development, ,then you should heed the advice of your SD.

CAF can be very difficult and frustrating for people who think in black and white.

With all due respect, Faith, you are the one who needs to “be right and have the truth”. Yours is the only soul you are responsible to get to heaven. Each of us has a responsibility to study the faith. Humility is one aspect of spiritual growth that is essential. If you are willing to submit yourself to the direction of those who are trying to help you, you will get a lot further faster.

Addictions are destructive to the growth of the soul. Give up your addictions and you will find peace in Christ.

Have you consisdered investing in some treatment? It may be a better use of your resources right now than CAF.

I see a shrink and am on meds. Also, I think in black and white.

 

[ericc]

I cannot believe Gospel writers would write something so obviously untrue (and or stupid) about such a public figure as Quirinius or an institutional public event like a government census/tax and which would have been immediately debunked and ridiculed - particularly by other early Christians who would be asking Luke;
…“dude! are you losing your marbles? There was never a census! And what the heck does Quirinius have to do with Jesus’ nativity?”

I keep reminding others that enemies of the early Church would have killed the movement then if they could spot errors in the Gospels. Both the Jews as well as the Romans would have done the necessary checks and balances. Like how media go through potential Presidential candidates backgrounds and childhood/high school/college history. If Trump ever got his way, he would go though Obama birth records again with all the governmental powers/privileges available to him.

For example, isn’t it surprising that the differing genealogical records of Jesus by Matthew/Luke didn’t get any scrutiny? These records were still available in the town of Bethlehem, the tribal town of David then when Matthew and Luke were written. If the miracles of Jesus were hoaxes or without witnesses, Christianity couldn’t have survived then. If Jesus didn’t reappear after his crucifixion, Christianity will never have taken off. You would only have very demoralized apostles who felt cheated by their Master. They were a rather clueless and timid bunch.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I keep reminding others that enemies of the early Church would have killed the movement then if they could spot errors in the Gospels. Both the Jews as well as the Romans would have done the necessary checks and balances. Like how media go through potential Presidential candidates backgrounds and childhood/high school/college history. If Trump ever got his way, he would go though Obama birth records again with all the governmental powers/privileges available to him.

For example, isn’t it surprising that the differing genealogical records of Jesus by Matthew/Luke didn’t get any scrutiny? These records were still available in the town of Bethlehem, the tribal town of David then when Matthew and Luke were written. If the miracles of Jesus were hoaxes or without witnesses, Christianity couldn’t have survived then. If Jesus didn’t reappear after his crucifixion, Christianity will never have taken off. You would only have very demoralized apostles who felt cheated by their Master. They were a rather clueless and timid bunch.

That clueless and timid bunch (they weren’t all clueless and timid!) did change after that first week, didn’t they!!

Acts 5:35-39 Gamaliel’s Counsel

35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

Fran

 

[dje14338]

What year was Christ born and is there any reason, besides the Bible, to believe there was a census at that time, led by Quirinius?
A link from another thread says governor in those days could also mean “leading or in charge of” so I suppose Quirinius could have been a leader of some kind, but is txhere any proof of a census then?

Also what year was Christ born? Quirinius was leading military action from 12 BC to 2BC.

What if this is all wrong? Can the Bible be wrong in historical details? In the other thread, they say no, but other times, I’ve read yes.

It’s the thread-- The Inspired Word of God, post #47

{I have not read all of the posts in this thread so I may be repeating something someone else posted.} The census referred to by Luke took place in 6 AD. Rome conducted a census any time they took control of a new region. The last complete census of all of the Roman empire took place shortly after Augustus won the civil war, about 28 BC. Luke is internally consistent because he thinks that Jesus is about 30 when he dies.
However, I think Matthew’s date for Jesus’ birth [about 6 BC] is correct. John’s gospel states that Jesus was not yet 50. Being born in 6 BC would make Jesus around 40 when he died. [36 AD is the last possible year for Jesus’ death.]

 

[AKDee]

How about the fact that I kind of like that there are tiny little discrepancies. Each wrote what he remembered or thought was important or was told by someone who knew Jesus personally.

They didn’t sit around a table and decide between them what they’d say to make the story sound good.

You know, two people see the same auto accident…

Fran

In Lee Strobel’s book “The Case for Christ” this is exactly something he uses as a proof of the Biblical account of Christ. He said the fact that the gospels don’t copy each other exactly on every detail is exactly what you would expect from separate eye witnesses. It was proof they didn’t collaborate to “get their story straight”.

On that note, actually, I highly recommend that book to Faith1960. It really helps answer some of the questions she appears to have.

 

[steve53]

{I have not read all of the posts in this thread so I may be repeating something someone else posted.} The census referred to by Luke took place in 6 AD. Rome conducted a census any time they took control of a new region. The last complete census of all of the Roman empire took place shortly after Augustus won the civil war, about 28 BC. Luke is internally consistent because he thinks that Jesus is about 30 when he dies.
However, I think Matthew’s date for Jesus’ birth [about 6 BC] is correct. John’s gospel states that Jesus was not yet 50. Being born in 6 BC would make Jesus around 40 when he died. [36 AD is the last possible year for Jesus’ death.]

I think you are on the right track.

John is interesting and gives us another clue apart from the “not yet fifty” passage.

In John 2…19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

Let’s re-work things and say that the forty six year age referred to Jesus’ current age and not the number of years it took to build the temple. Remember, was made by Jesus the year before he was crucified.

Josephus is clear that the foundations to the temple were started in 20 B.C. Add 46 years to that and we get A.D. 27, as there is no year “0”. I don’t think anyone endorses a A.D. 28 crucifixion date.

To be fair, the Inner sanctuary of the Temple was constructed beginning in 10 B.C. If that is what was referred to in John’s passage we get a year of A.D. 37, which is untenable.

It would make symbolic sense that Jesus was referring to symbolically to his body- that at the time of the discussion with his Disciples he was 46 years of age. This would fit in quite nicely with the “not yet fifty” passage as John relates.

With a 6 B.C. birthdate, Jesus would had to have been crucified in A.D. 41, which is not tenable- as would be the case for an A.D. 6 date of birth.

If you put Jesus’ birth date earlier, say, in 12 B.C., then all things fit and Jesus was crucified in A.D. 36 at the age of 47. And, conveniently, Hally’s Comet made a pass-through that year or thereabouts as well- the Star of the East!

Several other lines of evidence point to a A.D. 36 crucifixion date and an earlier birth date. Check out Hagan’s “Year of the Passover.”

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I think you are on the right track.

John is interesting and gives us another clue apart from the “not yet fifty” passage.

In John 2…19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

Let’s re-work things and say that the forty six year age referred to Jesus’ current age and not the number of years it took to build the temple. Remember, was made by Jesus the year before he was crucified.

Josephus is clear that the foundations to the temple were started in 20 B.C. Add 46 years to that and we get A.D. 27, as there is no year “0”. I don’t think anyone endorses a A.D. 28 crucifixion date.

To be fair, the Inner sanctuary of the Temple was constructed beginning in 10 B.C. If that is what was referred to in John’s passage we get a year of A.D. 37, which is untenable.

It would make symbolic sense that Jesus was referring to symbolically to his body- that at the time of the discussion with his Disciples he was 46 years of age. This would fit in quite nicely with the “not yet fifty” passage as John relates.

With a 6 B.C. birthdate, Jesus would had to have been crucified in A.D. 41, which is not tenable- as would be the case for an A.D. 6 date of birth.

If you put Jesus’ birth date earlier, say, in 12 B.C., then all things fit and Jesus was crucified in A.D. 36 at the age of 47. And, conveniently, Hally’s Comet made a pass-through that year or thereabouts as well- the Star of the East!

Several other lines of evidence point to a A.D. 36 crucifixion date and an earlier birth date. Check out Hagan’s “Year of the Passover.”

Why do you endorse this Hagan dude so much and who is he?

 

[steve53]

Hagan looks at the secular sources first, mainly Josephus, and then goes to the NT to solve a lot of mysteries. Several characters in the NT are written about in secular sources.

Hagan is a medical physician and unaffiliated, apparently, with any religion of school of Theology.

 

[ericc]

The census referred to by Luke took place in 6 AD.

There were 2 census/registrations mentioned by Luke. The 1st being Luke 2 and the second in Acts 5:37 which would be the 6AD one also mentioned by Josephus in his Antiquities…

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think you are on the right track.

John is interesting and gives us another clue apart from the “not yet fifty” passage.

In John 2…19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

Let’s re-work things and say that the forty six year age referred to Jesus’ current age and not the number of years it took to build the temple. Remember, was made by Jesus the year before he was crucified.

Josephus is clear that the foundations to the temple were started in 20 B.C. Add 46 years to that and we get A.D. 27, as there is no year “0”. I don’t think anyone endorses a A.D. 28 crucifixion date.

To be fair, the Inner sanctuary of the Temple was constructed beginning in 10 B.C. If that is what was referred to in John’s passage we get a year of A.D. 37, which is untenable.

It would make symbolic sense that Jesus was referring to symbolically to his body- that at the time of the discussion with his Disciples he was 46 years of age. This would fit in quite nicely with the “not yet fifty” passage as John relates.

With a 6 B.C. birthdate, Jesus would had to have been crucified in A.D. 41, which is not tenable- as would be the case for an A.D. 6 date of birth.

If you put Jesus’ birth date earlier, say, in 12 B.C., then all things fit and Jesus was crucified in A.D. 36 at the age of 47. And, conveniently, Hally’s Comet made a pass-through that year or thereabouts as well- the Star of the East!

Several other lines of evidence point to a A.D. 36 crucifixion date and an earlier birth date. Check out Hagan’s “Year of the Passover.”

None of this is very convincing.

It is pretty clear the “forty-six years” refers to the building of the actual Temple. Why would we suppose the Jews making the statement had any inkling as to Jesus’ real age? Instead, it is pretty clear that they were making reference to 50 because they were certain he was younger than that age despite that they didn’t know his real age. It was a kind of couldn’t be wrong guesstimate to compare his maturity to the age of the Temple which they did know for certain.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I think you are on the right track.

John is interesting and gives us another clue apart from the “not yet fifty” passage.

In John 2…19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

Let’s re-work things and say that the forty six year age referred to Jesus’ current age and not the number of years it took to build the temple. Remember, was made by Jesus the year before he was crucified.

Josephus is clear that the foundations to the temple were started in 20 B.C. Add 46 years to that and we get A.D. 27, as there is no year “0”. I don’t think anyone endorses a A.D. 28 crucifixion date.

To be fair, the Inner sanctuary of the Temple was constructed beginning in 10 B.C. If that is what was referred to in John’s passage we get a year of A.D. 37, which is untenable.

It would make symbolic sense that Jesus was referring to symbolically to his body- that at the time of the discussion with his Disciples he was 46 years of age. This would fit in quite nicely with the “not yet fifty” passage as John relates.

With a 6 B.C. birthdate, Jesus would had to have been crucified in A.D. 41, which is not tenable- as would be the case for an A.D. 6 date of birth.

If you put Jesus’ birth date earlier, say, in 12 B.C., then all things fit and Jesus was crucified in A.D. 36 at the age of 47. And, conveniently, Hally’s Comet made a pass-through that year or thereabouts as well- the Star of the East!

Several other lines of evidence point to a A.D. 36 crucifixion date and an earlier birth date. Check out Hagan’s “Year of the Passover.”

I’m feeling whoozy right now.
And I don’t drink.

What difference does it all make? We could get so hung up on stuff.

The reference to the 46 years is clearly to the temple. You imagine the pharisees could have been symbolically answering Jesus??? And saying that it took 46 years to build His BodyTemple? Forget it.

Maybe they didn’t say 46 years, maybe they said 36 years and some error was made.
It could be many different things which is why it’s useless to try to understand this type of nuance.

Check out Beatles 3,000 on youtube. It’s the history of the Beatles as seen through the eyes of archeaologists in the year 3,000. It’s funny and explains a lot too.

Fran

 

[Faith1960]

In Lee Strobel’s book “The Case for Christ” this is exactly something he uses as a proof of the Biblical account of Christ. He said the fact that the gospels don’t copy each other exactly on every detail is exactly what you would expect from separate eye witnesses. It was proof they didn’t collaborate to “get their story straight”.

On that note, actually, I highly recommend that book to Faith1960. It really helps answer some of the questions she appears to have.

I have it, it’s just been a long time since I read it.

 

[Faith1960]

There were 2 census/registrations mentioned by Luke. The 1st being Luke 2 and the second in Acts 5:37 which would be the 6AD one also mentioned by Josephus in his Antiquities…

Which one, if either, was taken around Jesus’s birth?

 

[Faith1960]

I’m feeling whoozy right now.
And I don’t drink.

What difference does it all make? We could get so hung up on stuff.

The reference to the 46 years is clearly to the temple. You imagine the pharisees could have been symbolically answering Jesus??? And saying that it took 46 years to build His BodyTemple? Forget it.

Maybe they didn’t say 46 years, maybe they said 36 years and some error was made.
It could be many different things which is why it’s useless to try to understand this type of nuance.

./QUOTE]

According to those quoting Pope Leo XIII, Dei Verbum and Proventissimus Deus, there are NO errors in the Holy Bible.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Hagan looks at the secular sources first, mainly Josephus, and then goes to the NT to solve a lot of mysteries. Several characters in the NT are written about in secular sources.

Hagan is a medical physician and unaffiliated, apparently, with any religion of school of Theology.

Is John Hagan your source’s real name? Can you direct me to a source for his biographical info?

 

[Faith1960]

Is John Hagan your source’s real name? Can you direct me to a source for his biographical info?

Cornbread, what faith, if any, are you?

 

[cornbread_r2]

Cornbread, what faith, if any, are you?

I’m an ignostic.

You may find this essay of some value with your question about Quirinius.