P
PNEUMA
Guest
There’s another thing, the Roman census was taken in the Roman province Judea, that did not exist before year 6 A.D.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_(Roman_province
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_(Roman_province
- Status
P
PNEUMA
Guest
There’s another thing, the Roman census was taken by the Romans in the Roman province Judea, that did not exist before year 6 A.D.
[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_(Roman_province](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_(Roman_province)
[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_(Roman_province](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_(Roman_province)
S
steve53
Guest
That would make more sense. But then why would Luke go to such trouble to date when John the Baptist started his ministry- A.D. 28- when he would quickly jump ahead to A.D. 34?
Things work out if you assume that Jesus started his ministry in A.D. 34 after JB was locked up by Antipas. And the reading Luke can be flexible to account to Jesus’ three Passovers as John attests to.
A younger Jesus at 30 would argue for him being more of a Zealot or mentally unbalanced. As we age, we lose a lot of initiative and our psyche tends to calm down and normalize.
I would recommend you read Josephus. There is a lot of stuff that has to be fit into your chronology- the beath of Herod Philip in A.D. 34, the wanderings of Agrippa, the war between Aretas and Antipas, etc.
E
ericc
Guest
To get enlightened, you need to see that the Greek words mean more than the English translation that you now have. I am trying to help you see that the original Greek has a wider meaning than what translators have done. You can doubt what I said, however you owe it to yourself to verify what I said is true or not. Or are you stuck in your position that you dug yourself into by mere imprecise translations?So in order to get it your way, two words in Luke’s account (census and governor) must be translated differently
The broad meanings of those Greek words are easily verified. Aren’t you as a minimum intellectually honest enough to want to know what they are?
E
ericc
Guest
If the registration is not a census, looking for it in census related literature is a futile exercise.
There are 2 possible activities that you might want to look at. Tax and oath taking during Augustus time.
And since you are a fan of Josephus Antiquities, you may want to know that Book XVII, chapter 2 he mentioned that 6000 Pharisees refused to take that oath of loyalty to Augustus. Obviously that number is determinable through some sort of tracking mechanism. A registration exercise would fit that ability aptly. I am not guaranteeing that Luke’s registration exercise is pertaining to this one specifically. However, this should alert you that besides census taking, there are other sorts of registration activities. And therefore betting on one possible outcome is not prudent. But if you insist you are right, that is your right.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
Reading Luke and reading Josephus I see something else,
6 A.D. marks the birth of the Roman province Judea and the anti Roman movement. That’s why Luke says Jesus (the true Son of God) was born in 6 A.D, cause he is the only successful anti Roman Jew of the first century.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
I am not a fan of Josephus Antiquities, I just read jewish history. In 6 A.D Quirinius was sent to carry out a census/registration for tax purposes. This is the year Luke says Jesus was born.If the registration is not a census, looking for it in census related literature is a futile exercise.
There are 2 possible activities that you might want to look at. Tax and oath taking during Augustus time.
And since you are a fan of Josephus Antiquities, you may want to know that Book XVII, chapter 2 he mentioned that 6000 Pharisees refused to take that oath of loyalty to Augustus. Obviously that number is determinable through some sort of tracking mechanism. A registration exercise would fit that ability aptly. I am not guaranteeing that Luke’s registration exercise is pertaining to this one specifically. However, this should alert you that besides census taking, there are other sorts of registration activities. And therefore betting on one possible outcome is not prudent. But if you insist you are right, that is your right.
I see no relevance to “6000 Pharisees refused to take that oath of loyalty to Augustus”
S
steve53
Guest
Why not? It’s nothing to be ashamed of and understanding it is the key to understanding the New Testament and the times of Jesus.
Also, Josephus “War of the Jews” is the equal to any military action book you can think of.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
“fan” ? “ashamed” ? Why this extreme words ? There’s nothing special about Josephus, he’s just an historian.
D
dje14338
Guest
Yes, he is an historian. I suggest that one reads the account of events around the time of Herod the Great’s death and the account of events around the time of the removal of Archelaus by the Romans. These events are similar and probably caused the confusion in the historical setting of the Nativity stories. Matthew knew of one set of events to fashion his story while Luke knew of the other set. Personally, I think Matthew is correct with regard to the year of Jesus’ birth.
E
ericc
Guest
You are repeating the mantra that Luke said Jesus was born in 6AD without evidence. Luke NEVER said anything like that. Arguing by repetition is fallacious reasoning.
I am not surprised seeing that you are wholly invested in a 6AD census. Other inconvenient pieces of data may just confuse you.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
Luke 2:1 “Now in those days 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.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
P
PNEUMA
Guest
Since Luke wrote both the Gospel of Luke and Acts, we can’t afford to say Luke got this wrong.Yes, he is an historian. I suggest that one reads the account of events around the time of Herod the Great’s death and the account of events around the time of the removal of Archelaus by the Romans. These events are similar and probably caused the confusion in the historical setting of the Nativity stories. Matthew knew of one set of events to fashion his story while Luke knew of the other set. Personally, I think Matthew is correct with regard to the year of Jesus’ birth.
Luke 1:3 “I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus”
Acts 1:1 “In the first book, Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught”
E
ericc
Guest
It didn’t say that was 6AD. Both Matthew and Luke said Jesus and John the Baptist were born during the reign of King Herod. The original Greek didn’t say it was a census, it said that was a registration/enrollment. The original Greek didn’t say Quirinius was Governor, it say he was ruling or administering. It didn’t say what title or position he had. That is not an unusual error to make for one to assume the job title must equate to the responsibilities. But that is not a compulsory or even necessary assumption to make. But what is audacious is that you claim to be right and in the process you have to make Matthew and Luke in error. And that is a terrible thing to claim because you offer no proof that Matthew and Luke are in error.
I wasn’t disputing that the census in 6AD didn’t exist. The mistake is that you assumed that Luke’s 1st registration to be this 6AD census. Luke differentiated this first registration with that of the 6AD census in Acts 5:37. So Luke clearly understood the timing difference. The 6AD census is not during King Herod’s reign. That is a fact. For you to claim that Luke 2:1 and Acts 5:37 are referring to the same event, you need to provide evidence. Linking one event to another and repeating the mantra that they are the same does not prove it is so. That is a terrible way to win an argument.
C
Cyberseeker
Guest
It happens on Internet forums.
As my dear old mother used to say, “Its enough to make a saint swear.”
P
PNEUMA
Guest
Acts 5:37 “After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.”
Judas the Galilean arose in 6 A.D. the same year Jesus was born, the same year Quirinius became governor of Syria, the same year the cencus/registration was taken in Judea (Bethlehem) !
Luke 2:1 “Now in those days 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.”
P
PNEUMA
Guest
There’s nothing wrong with Matthew and Luke, it’s just you that don’t understand, that they write from a different perspective, to a different audience.
To Matthew, exact years and dates, were less important. Matthew wanted his Jewish audience to understand that Jesus is the one the scriptures speak of.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
By bending the truth just a little?
Doubtful.
A far better explanation is that there is a better explanation, we just haven’t fully grasped it yet. Patience and diligence are virtues.
As an aside and, at the same time, a point in fact, have you heard or read of Colin Nicholl who very recently has come up with a compelling explanation for the Star of Bethlehem?
youtu.be/6mT-8O8S_Fw
Briefly, he pretty much establishes using astronomic data, that the Star of Bethlehem was a long lasting comet that spectacularly came through the “womb” of the constellation Virgo, The Virgin – thus alerting the Persian astrologists of the “birth” of a great king – and narrowly avoided the constellation Hydra – the Serpent.
Nicholl has compiled a compelling case for the comet and when it first appeared based upon data from ancient sources and modern astronomy. He pins down an exact date +/- a day or two.
Worth a listen or read.
The point is…
… we don’t always know what we think we know.
AND, if Scripture is inspired, then… well, it IS inspired.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
No, I don’t believe in astrology and astrologers.
Matthew and Luke had two very different viewpoint. Matthew thought that the gospel was only for the Jews, Luke thought it also was for the Gentiles. These two views, divide the first century church. The gospel of Luke and the gospel of Matthew, reflects this division.
Matthew 15:24 “He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”
Matthew 10:5 “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”
E
ericc
Guest
Yes the audiences are different. But you are alluding that they lied and wrote untruth WITHOUT a shred of evidence. Just so to maintain your agenda? And now you are claiming that you understand and that I don’t? Perhaps coming down from your high horse is a good idea. Humility is difficult to learn and ego difficult to overcome.
But both Matthew and Luke agree on King Herod timings. Since we know Jesus and John the Baptist are within few months of each other, you have no logical conclusion to reach a 6AD date. You are standing on very weak arguments. You are prepared to sacrifice Matthew and Luke to errors and ridicule just to protect your pet theory? Now what exactly is your agenda?
Regardless of audiences, there is no reason for Matthew and Luke to fudge on the timing of King Herod. If Matthew can’t get it right, it would be better to omit Chapter 1 and 2 altogether. And since he wrote it down, he was prepared to defend his Gospel against all enemies of early Christianity. Similar for Luke. Anything that they wrote if remotely untrue would be seized by the Jews and Romans to discredit them and their cause. And yet their Gospels stand today. Your theory will just fade away if your foundation is not solid. And it is not. Accusing Gospel writers of error using irrational logic is just taking cheap shots at them. Stating audience is different and therefore Matthew/Luke lied is a terrible terrible way of accusing anyone of untruth. You wouldn’t want me to accuse you that your audience is different and therefore you lied as a good argument would it? You could use this tactic to discredit ALL of the biblical writers since you are at it. And throw in Josephus as well. ALL of them have their own audiences.
Now defend your accusations of error for Matthew and Luke. List them down and your rationale for concluding that they are in error.
- Status