(August 29, 2013 at 5:58 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote:

---

Okay, Christians, explain this:

For 1600 years, it was accepted that Jesus was born in 3 B.C. But then about a 100 years ago, someone realized that "Hey, Herod died in 4 B.C., so Jesus had to have been born in 6 B.C." Unfortunately, there are problems with this theory:

1) There is no historical record of any kind from any culture that Herod ordered a census to be held in the last couple years of his life. Josephus kept extensive records of the life of Herod, and never once mentions a census between 6 and 4 B.C.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_there_reco..._Bethlehem

2) Despite this, it is also well established in the book of Luke that Quirinias was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) when the census was held. However, Quirinias was not Governor of Syria until 6 C.E. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius), ten years after Herod's death. According to other historical records. Quirinias did indeed hold a census (not Herod) in 6 or 7 C.E.

3) Why did Quirinias wait to hold a census in 6 or 7 C.E.? Because Judea was not a Roman Province until 6 C.E. There was no need for the Romans to take a census in the time of Herod because Judea was just a client kingdom.
http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/judaea/judaea.htm

So, I have established, with references, that Herod did not order a census, was not even alive when Quirinias was governor of Syria, and most importantly of all, Judea was not even a part of the Roman Empire until 6 C.E., when Jesus would have been 12 years old according to modern estimates. The bible is in error, and therefore, not the word of God, but just some fantasy written by creators of a new religion.

---

So, Christians, don't give me any "where's your proof" B.S., because I can give you more. And don't give me any garbage about the lunar eclipse. I can take that theory down, too.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...inius.html

(August 30, 2013 at 4:20 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: The bit I find unconvincing in the story is the need for everyone to go back to their place of birth. A requirement that would cause massive upheaval, decimate the economy and be avoided by adding the question "place of birth" on the the census.

(August 30, 2013 at 4:42 am)Godschild Wrote:

(August 30, 2013 at 4:20 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: The bit I find unconvincing in the story is the need for everyone to go back to their place of birth. A requirement that would cause massive upheaval, decimate the economy and be avoided by adding the question "place of birth" on the the census.

The economy of that time was not even close to what we have, and it would be like most everyone going on vacation and spending money on their needs, so it would generate a bit of money being passed around. I would say that many people never left their birth place or at least not far away. Many Jews of the day traveled to Jerusalem every year for Passover. Just some ideas to think about.

GC

(August 30, 2013 at 1:52 am)Minimalist Wrote: That, too. Variety, you know. For a bunch that is supposed to be "celibate" they do seem to get around.

(August 30, 2013 at 6:30 am)LastPoet Wrote:

(August 30, 2013 at 1:52 am)Minimalist Wrote: That, too. Variety, you know. For a bunch that is supposed to be "celibate" they do seem to get around.

They are all into their follow jesus stance, why the fuck didn't they just keep celibate as he did, as portrayed in their storybook?

(August 29, 2013 at 6:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Even Quirinius' census would not have extended to friggin' "Nazareth" which apparently did not even exist at the time and later on, when it was founded, was in Galilee which was not part of the new praefecture of Judaea.

Xtians have fucked this up to a fare-thee-well because by the time these silly gospels were written no one remembered the political situation at the beginning of the first century.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...inius.html

Enjoy.

(August 29, 2013 at 10:09 pm)ronedee Wrote: You've gone through a lot of trouble for nothing.