05 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe discrepancy is this -
Yes, if you do not wish to point them out. How can anyone reply to imaginary
discrepancies?
The Gospel of Matthew puts Jesus birth within the life of Herod the Great, Herod died in 4BC. The Gospel of Luke puts the birth of Jesus within the time of a census, the only record of a census is the Census of Quirinius, this happened in 6AD. There is a 10 year gap between the two.
You, to reconcile the obvious problem 'speculated' (or assumed) there was a census sometime in 6BC. The problem with this is that there is no record of a census in Judea at this time, absolutely none. Also, in 6BC, Judea was not under direct Roman rule, the notion that they would be carrying out a census for tax purposes whilst King Herod was still in charge is tenuous. Add to this the claim from
Luke that this census required people to travel to their 'ancestral' home and it gets even more fanciful.
There is no evidence for a 6BC census, even if there was one, a census requiring people to travel the length and breadth of the country would have caused so much up upheavel and social unrest that someone might have mentioned it.
05 Apr 12
4 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobLuke says this was the first census. So the one in 6 A.D. is obviously not the
The discrepancy is this -
The Gospel of Matthew puts Jesus birth within the life of Herod the Great, Herod died in 4BC. The Gospel of Luke puts the birth of Jesus within the time of a census, the only record of a census is the Census of Quirinius, this happened in 6AD. There is a 10 year gap between the two.
You, to reconcile the obvious problem ould have caused so much up upheavel and social unrest that someone might have mentioned it.
first census, because it is long after Herod's death. Luke says this was a
worldwide census, that is of course in relation to the Roman Empire. So the
closest census know of Roman citizens is recorded by historians to be 8 B.C.
if they have the year right. This apparently must have been followed up by
a census of non-citizens if it was to be in the whole world of the Roman Empire.
I would bet that would take some time back in those days. And I pointed out
to you before, Quirinius was busy conducting the Homanadensian War until
6 B.C. and the net of Roman roads were not laid in Galiatia until 6 B.C. This
is the earliest time He would have been free to enforce his provincial govenor
Gaius Sentius Saturninus to do a census. See the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
I know that Christ was born 20 April 5 B.C. so it is logical that the first census
Luke was referring to must of been in the process at this time because King
Herod was also still alive until at least March of 4 B.C. After the Romans made
the roads it made travel much easier. So it does not seem at all unlikely that
a census was actually done around this time and it would be the first census,
since we already know a second census was done in 6 A.D.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWhere's the historical record for this census?
Luke says this was the first census. So the one in 6 A.D. is obviously not the
first census, because it is long after Herod's death. Luke says this was a
worldwide census, that is of course in relation to the Roman Empire. So the
closest census know of Roman citizens is recorded by historians to be 8 B.C.
if they have the year right. This apparently ...[text shortened]... ime and it would be the first census,
since we already know a second census was done in 6 A.D.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobI am not sure. But just because it is missing does not mean it never occured
Where's the historical record for this census?
because we know that other documents have either been destroyed or missing
as well. We have the record of the fact that it did occur from a very reliable
source that has been proven right by some that doubted his account of some
things in the Acts of the Apostles.
05 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsTherein lies the problem, there is no record of this census taking place. If it did, it would have been the most extraordinary Roman census to have taken place in the history of the Roman empire. A census carried out in a client kingdom that wasn't under direct Roman rule which required all citizens to return to their ancestral home and no one ever recorded it happening.
I am not sure. But just because it is missing does not mean it never occured
because we know that other documents have either been destroyed or missing
as well. We have the record of the fact that it did occur from a very reliable
source that has been proven right by some that doubted his account of some
things in the Acts of the Apostles.
Just to add, your claim that the earliest Roman census was carried out in 8BC is nonsense. The first Roman census was carried out by Servius Tullius and he died in 535BC.
05 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhy do you lie like that? You know i did not say 8 B.C. was the earliest Roman
Therein lies the problem, there is no record of this census taking place. If it did, it would have been the most extraordinary Roman census to have taken place in the history of the Roman empire. A census carried out in a client kingdom that wasn't under direct Roman rule which required all citizens to return to their ancestral home and no one ever recor ...[text shortened]... BC is nonsense. The first Roman census was carried out by Servius Tullius and he died in 535BC.
census ever carried out. If you are going to be like that, you can continue to
believe a lie for all I care. I'm done with you, liar.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsMaybe "8BC" is a typo for "6BC" rather than "a lie".
Why do you lie like that? You know i did not say 8 B.C. was the earliest Roman
census ever carried out. If you are going to be like that, you can continue to
believe a lie for all I care. I'm done with you, liar.
05 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadRJHinds frequently accuses fellow posters of "lying", seemingly every day, sometimes incessantly, post after post, and - it would also seem - regardless of what has been said or what the topic is, and more often than not, without substantiation or with comment like go back and look up your lies yourself or words to that effect. I do wonder what he is trying to achieve.
I don't think he is lying...
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by pudgIf you are talking about when Jesus was born, then it is a question for historians (which probably cannot be answered) not a question for scientists. If you are talking about the standard calendar and when AD and BC start and end then I am not aware of any dispute or any reason why there would be a dispute. Can you provide any reference for such a dispute? Again, it wouldn't be a question of science anyway.
it is a good question, and i"m not a historian. But my understanding of the terms bc and ad are that even the historians argue the actual point of when one starts and when one ends. Kind of like the barking of a dog, scientists just plainly do not know.