Mary was impregnated 6 months into Elisabeth's pregnancy. - true but biblical reference only
Mary was probably age 9-14 as was the customer - probably true non biblical references probably exist as to the custom
Herod, the king of Judaea died in 4BCE - true non-biblical references exist
Quirinius (Cyrenius) became the new king in 6CE - true by evidence in the bible +1 scrap of paper non biblical
There was a famous census taken in 6CE- sure

-It is most likely under an unattested office that Quirinius officiated over what Luke describes at the time of Jesus' Birth.
-Luke appropriately describes with (h[gemoneuontoj thj Suriaj) hegmoneuontos tēs Surias, a description could also appropriately describe the office from which he took his well-known census. Luke could have easily used legatus for governor, but didn't.
-It could just as easily be assumed (as with modern politics) that the orders of a leader on the outs can get completed and attributed to the next successor in line.
-Dr. Luke with all of his other accurate and verifiable observations would have been completely remiss in missing a both miraculous and a 10 year pregnancy. Perhaps he was under the assumption that people 2000 years from then would still have a 9 month human gestation, and it would be just as common and unworthy of noting how long it took.
-It is reasonable to conclude that Quirinius could have been appointed to start a census a the time of Jesus' birth and a repeat appointment for the A.D. 6 census .


My question is why does no one questions the historicity of the second census taken by Quirinius about A.D. 6, despite the fact that the sole authority for it is a single inscription found in Venice? Seems like a lot of really hard fishing with weak results to try and disprove one author in the Bible.

(November 27, 2018 at 4:19 pm)tackattack Wrote: -Dr. Luke with all of his other accurate and verifiable observations would have been completely remiss in missing a both miraculous and a 10 year pregnancy. Perhaps he was under the assumption that people 2000 years from then would still have a 9 month human gestation, and it would be just as common and unworthy of noting how long it took.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I say it was a miracle and you can't prove it wasn't. 

Quote:-It is reasonable to conclude that Quirinius could have been appointed to start a census a the time of Jesus' birth and a repeat appointment for the A.D. 6 census .

Not exactly. We knew where Quirinius was at the time of Herod the Great's reign and it wasn't in Syria. He was governor of a province in the middle of modern day Turkey. Also, Rome didn't own Judea at that time. It was an independent client state of Rome. There was no cause to run a census in Judea until its annexation in 6 CE.

P. Sulpicius Quirinius was named Imperial Legate for the Province of Syria in 6 AD.  He was never a "king."

I don't know what you are referring to in "Venice" which did not even exist in the first century but Josephus tells the story of how the Sanhedrin petitioned Augustus to become a Roman prefecture and pension off Archelaus who was apparently something of a dick.  Quirinius, with an equestrian by the name of Coponius as Prefect, was assigned to evaluate the wealth of the newly-formed prefecture.  There was never any worldwide census.  Whatever clown wrote "luke" pulled that out of his ass.

(November 27, 2018 at 5:05 pm)Minimalist Wrote: P. Sulpicius Quirinius was named Imperial Legate for the Province of Syria in 6 AD.  He was never a "king."

I don't know what you are referring to in "Venice" which did not even exist in the first century but Josephus tells the story of how the Sanhedrin petitioned Augustus to become a Roman prefecture and pension off Archelaus who was apparently something of a dick.  Quirinius, with an equestrian by the name of Coponius as Prefect, was assigned to evaluate the wealth of the newly-formed prefecture.  There was never any worldwide census.  Whatever clown wrote "luke" pulled that out of his ass.

Wouldn't it make sense for Rome to evaluate the tax potential of their newly acquired province and it was exaggerated to be a "worldwide" census? That's why I don't question that a census was conducted (though unlikely involving people reporting to their home town, a contrivance likely used to explain how Jesus was of Nazareth and yet born in Bethlehem) but an earlier Roman census of Judea seems unlikely since Rome didn't own that province yet.

Quote:and it was exaggerated to be a "worldwide" census

What?  An "exaggeration" in the supposedly inerrant fucking bible?  How can that be?

(November 27, 2018 at 5:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:and it was exaggerated to be a "worldwide" census

What?  An "exaggeration" in the supposedly inerrant fucking bible?  How can that be?

Damn! You got me! I forgot to preface with "Some people say..." and end with "...but of course I don't believe that."

(November 27, 2018 at 1:54 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote:

(November 27, 2018 at 1:19 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Luke clearly has his Herods muddled up.  

IT'S THE HOLY REVEALED WORD OF GOD! THERE ARE NO ERRORS! 

NO ERRORS!!!!!!

---

(November 27, 2018 at 1:46 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I read over your points, but the issue I see is that you're basing a timeline off the quote "the babe leaped in her wound", but that is referring to Elisabeth and John.  So it would be hard to use it as a marker for conception then fast forward 10 years.  Interesting observation though.

It also says Elisabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit", meaning God within, allowing her to know Mary was pregnant. She refers to the fruit of her womb in the present tense. Mary was pregnant at the point of her visit.

I think the best way to analyze something is to look at it in its base form without adding anything unnecessarily.  If not we end up trying to state facts based on assumptions.  What we know is it says she was "filled with the Holy Spirit", but it's referring to Elisabeth. As far as the tense, that line was written in Greek with the word "Karpos" (fruit) and the tense isn't the same. In fact, the Greek language uses more tenses than English.  So to assume that John leaping in the wound meant Mary was pregnant isn't something that could be concluded.  Additionally, if you've ever been to a Catholic church, they'll frequently speak that line. I'm not a Roman Catholic but have been to their churches before and they honor Mary by saying something like, "Mary, Mother of God, Blessed is the fruit of thine would..."  Even now they speak in that tense, but their ideology states that the meeting with Elisabeth was a confirmation that Mary was to be the mother of Christ.  Whenever you translate texts from other languages, there are going to be difficulties. That's true especially with any ancient literally works, including the Bible, and even more so since it is a compilation of many books from several languages.

Glad you brought it up though. It's an interesting subject.

(November 27, 2018 at 5:37 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: As far as the tense, that line was written in Greek with the word "Karpos" (fruit) and the tense isn't the same. In fact, the Greek language uses more tenses than English.  

Translation errors would still be errors AND THERE ARE NO ERRORS!!!!!!!!! 

[Out of character]
I'm analyzing the Bible from the perspective of "the inerrant Word of God" to criticize believers. My criticism doesn't apply to those who argue for it as an imperfect historical text.

How about those who argue that it is merely shitty literature?

And an even shittier instruction manual unless you're on the sociopathic spectrum of course.