quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard What we do know for certain; however, is that there was a census and two years later Harod ordered all the male children of Bethleham under the age of two be killed.

Actually, this is not "known for certain" at all. There is no evidence -- none -- outside the Gospel of Matthew that this actually happened. People who argue for its historicity are arguing from silence. There is also no evidence outside the Gospel of Luke that the alleged "census" took place during the end of Herod's reign, as Luke alleges.

nothing can be known for certain with jesus.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Actually, this is not "known for certain" at all. There is no evidence -- none -- outside the Gospel of Matthew that this actually happened. People who argue for its historicity are arguing from silence. There is also no evidence outside the Gospel of Luke that the alleged "census" took place during the end of Herod's reign, as Luke alleges.

I'll give you that there is no evidence that an Empire-wide census took place; however, periodic censuses were normal throughout the Empire and evidence suggests the province of Judea had a census in 5BC. Additionally, we know that the process of registering every citizen in the Empire was completed by 2BC based on Ceasar Agustus' own writings, "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country."

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by trewqy nothing can be known for certain with jesus.

Agreed, but much is generally accepted by schollars, including that he was a historical person (contrary to PKC's skepticism).

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I'll give you that there is no evidence that an Empire-wide census took place; however, periodic censuses were normal throughout the Empire and evidence suggests the province of Judea had a census in 5BC.

If you're talking about the census of Quirinius (the one mentioned by the Bible and other historical sources), that happened in 6AD, about ten years after the date traditionally given for the birth of Jesus -- and, incidentally, after the death of Herod the Great and the exile of Herod Archelaus.

In order to reconcile the discrepancy between dates, apologists typically say that there was another census taken by another Quirinius, but they have only their assertion with no historical evidence to back it up.

In any case, the censuses of Augustus only included Roman citizens, a category which at that time did not include most Jews.

quote:

Originally posted by trewqy nothing can be known for certain with jesus.

___________________

Short time TA, Long time Guver, Good time giver.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard What we do know for certain; however, is that there was a census and two years later Harod ordered all the male children of Bethleham under the age of two be killed. This would seem to corroborate that Jesus was born in Bethleham. Additionally, the biblical story of the Magi paying homage to Jesus in Bethleham approximately 2 years after his birth certainly suggests that Joseph and Mary continued to live in Bethleham for at least 2 years following his birth. The bible is also quite clear that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazereth following their flight to Egypt and that Jesus was raised in Nazareth. The birth in Bethleham satisfies one prophesy and being raised in Nazareth satisfies another. To be honest, I don't imagine too many Christians care if all of the messianic prophesies are fulfilled by the accounts of Jesus' life, I certainly don't care.

___________________

Short time TA, Long time Guver, Good time giver.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard They have found a handfull of references to Jesus from Nazarith that are non-biblical and fit the period of time we're looking for... Most noteable of these would be Josephus (c.37-100CE)... "About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks." (taken from his text "the Antiquity of the Jews). This is a rather interesting source as Josephus was a jewish high-priest.

Which is exactly why he wouldn't have said that. Scholarship largely recognises at least the "if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man" line as a later redaction, if not the entire passage. Besides, Antiquities of the Jews was written right at the end of the first century, after the synoptic gospels had been written (and possibly John as well) and about six decades after the death of Jesus - hardly the eyewitness account we're looking for.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard What we do know for certain; however, is that there was a census and two years later Harod ordered all the male children of Bethleham under the age of two be killed.

Firstly, as MrJiveBoJingles has already said, Quirinius (who, according to Luke 2:2, is the man responsible for the census) didn't come to power until 6AD and Herod died in 4 BC. Luke's account is in conflict with itself, to say nothing of its conflict with Matthew's account. Secondly - even if we ignore the impossible timing or presume it was a different census - there is absolutely no reason why the calling of a census would require Joseph to go to his father's town of Bethlehem. That's not the way that censuses (then or now) work.

quote:

This would seem to corroborate that Jesus was born in Bethleham. Additionally, the biblical story of the Magi paying homage to Jesus in Bethleham approximately 2 years after his birth certainly suggests that Joseph and Mary continued to live in Bethleham for at least 2 years following his birth. The bible is also quite clear that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazereth following their flight to Egypt and that Jesus was raised in Nazareth.

Nowhere in early Christian literature - outside of the gospels of Matthew and Luke - is it suggested that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, or came from anywhere other than Nazareth. The (irreconcilable) claims made by Matthew and Luke are not corroberated by any of the Pauline epistles, the Catholic epistles, the Book of Acts, the Gospels of John, Mark or Thomas, or by any of the apocrypha (at least, none that I am familiar with). The only credible way to explain all this is to assume that Jesus was born and raised in Nazareth and that the fictional accounts of Matthew and Luke which place his birth in Bethlehem were penned for theological reasons, rather than for any interest in biographical accuracy.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Jesus?!