There was no census when Jesus was born

[Minimalist]

“This was the census taken before Quirinius was governor.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Quirinius-census.html

There was no census in Judaea before Quirinius was governor, idiot. It was part of Herod's Kingdom and then ruled by Archelaus. Herod paid a tribute to the Romans as per their treaty. How he collected it was his business..and responsibility.

Of course, Caesar Augustus himself does tell us when he conducted a lustrum of the number of Roman citizens in the empire....and the "Christ" family would not have been citizens, in the Rex Gestae Divi Augustus.

http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html

in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens.

Augustus seems a far more reliable source than the dubious shit you spout from your so-called gospels. So 28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD. None of those do much to help your stories out and, as noted, they were mainly concerned with counting Roman citizens. Direct taxation of Roman citizens in Italy had ended in the 2d century BC. The link between a census and taxation unfortunately dates from much later, 73 when Vespasian in the aftermath of the civil wars conducted the final lustrum. Again, no one was required to go to their place of birth - that is just xtian stupidity trying to get their godboy to where they thought he ought to be and even that is a dismal mis-reading of Micah 5. But 73 was a lot closer in time to when this happy horseshit was written and seems to have made quite an impact on the writer.

[Beta Ray Bill]

You Christians sure like to insult. Where's that superior Christian morality I'm always hearing about?

Denying the facts doesn't make them go away. It takes a lot of work to show any kind of truth in the Bible, but I can show you a simpler, more widely accepted and direct collection of facts. Yet you deny them? You ask who am I trying to convince? The same can be asked of you.

The Bible has hundreds of errors and contradictions, but Christians will always try to find a way to bend the facts so that those errors look a little more truthful. But they never do.

If there was a God writing the Bible for us, don't you think he would have made it a lot easier to understand? Why confuse us or cause hateful, insult-ridden debates? Is that the reasoning of an omniscient and loving God? Sounds a little more devilish to me.

But anyways, I was just trying to help you Christians see the simple truth. I am sad that you won't let yourself.

[Minimalist]

They don't want your help.

They want their fairy tales to be right.

[Godscreated]

You Christians sure like to insult. Where's that superior Christian morality I'm always hearing about?

Denying the facts doesn't make them go away. It takes a lot of work to show any kind of truth in the Bible, but I can show you a simpler, more widely accepted and direct collection of facts. Yet you deny them? You ask who am I trying to convince? The same can be asked of you.

The Bible has hundreds of errors and contradictions, but Christians will always try to find a way to bend the facts so that those errors look a little more truthful. But they never do.

If there was a God writing the Bible for us, don't you think he would have made it a lot easier to understand? Why confuse us or cause hateful, insult-ridden debates? Is that the reasoning of an omniscient and loving God? Sounds a little more devilish to me.

But anyways, I was just trying to help you Christians see the simple truth. I am sad that you won't let yourself.

I ask you to show us a couple of things.... well you going to or not.

GC

[Beta Ray Bill]

[/quote]

I ask you to show us a couple of things.... well you going to or not.

GC
[/quote]

This source talks about both the lunar eclipse and the Star of Bethlehem:
http://www.denverastrosociety.org/dfiles...hlehem.pdf

"Author Susan S. Carroll writes in her articl
e The Star of Bethlehem: An Astronomical
and Historical Perspective
, that according to Flavius Josephus (circa 100 AD), Herod
died after a lunar eclipse and was buried be
fore Passover. Lunar
eclipses during this
period occurred:
•
March 23, 5 BC (total)
•
September 15, 5 BC
•
March 13, 4 BC (partial)
•
January 10, 1 BC (total)
2
The March 23, 5 BC eclipse was ruled out because there was not enough time between
this eclipse and the burial of Herod’s body
to conform to local customs and mourning
periods. September 15, 5 BC, was ruled out
because Herod was alive and in Jericho at
his winter palace at that time and, although ill,
would have objected strenuously to being
buried. The eclipse of March 13, 4 BC wa
s only partial (40%) and ruled out because
Josephus referenced the moon turning red (whi
ch he attributed to the blood of slain
rabbis) and a partial eclipse would not ha
ve resulted in a red moon [Kaufmann &
Freedman 1999]. Some scholars place Herod’s
death as late as January, 1 BC, which
coincides with the January 10 eclipse.[Carroll, Hughes] A large number of scholars still
favor 4 BC as the year of Herod’s death."

So, you see, the eclipse just doesn't work, unless you throw out every other fact. That is unreasonable. Besides, in this forum Josephus has been called a "forger", so even if you wanted to follow the eclipse theory, how could you?

Something to remember about the Star of Bethlehem:
"The reader should rememb
er that the Bible only mentions the word
“star” four times in Matthew, but nowhere else
in the Bible, not even Luke"

If the star was a fact, don't you think the other gospels would have mentioned it? You can defend it if you like. I just think if you do, you're grasping at straws.

And never forget Quirinias! In order to believe the star or lunar eclipse, you have to just throw him out. Not a good idea.

Anyways, have a good day.

[CleanShavenJesus]

I like this guy.

[Minimalist]

A large number of scholars still favor 4 BC as the year of Herod’s death."

Xtians seem to forget that other nations have histories which are not dependent....or even interested in....their religious bullshit. Herod's death occurred while Publius Quinctilius Varus was governor of Syria and his term started in 7/6 BC. The only doubt about Varus term is when it ended not when it began. As there were revolts which broke out upon Herod's death and Varus was busy putting them down it seems likely that his command was simply continued, although some scholars try to shoehorn Lucius Calpurnius Piso into the gap between 4 and 1 BC.. Rome had a history of maintaining commands in the middle of a war and Augustus could have done whatever the hell he wanted to do.

[Beta Ray Bill]

The Greek word for “first” in Luke 2:2 is protos and can be translated “before.” Thus Luke 2:2 could actually be translated, “This was the census taken before Quirinius was governor.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Quirinius-census.html

Okay, I better cover all the bases before I just let this thing go.

I have seen respectable evidence from both sides of this issue saying that the Greek grammar was correct, and also that it was incorrect. However, the entire grammar point is moot, because, remember, Judea was just a client kingdom until 6 C.E., and they did not have census' taken there. Do the research. So saying "before" instead of "first" is pointless.

(If you want to debate translation, and I'm sure you've heard of this one before, did you know the original Hebrew word to describe Mary means "young woman" and not "virgin?" Only when it was translated to Greek did the meaning change. Do you still want to argue the value of translation?)

Other suggestion:
Quinirias was governor of Syria twice, so the census could have happened in his first governor-ship.
Not possible. Nowhere in Roman history was a man governor of any province more than once. That isn't just a Josephus fact, that's an EVERY ROMAN HISTORIAN fact.

Anyways, I think I've proven my point.
If you want even more evidence against the census read this:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...inius.html
But if you're Christian, I doubt you would even dare to.

[Minimalist]

Quinirias was governor of Syria twice, so the census could have happened in his first governor-ship.

Not possible. Nowhere in Roman history was a man governor of any province more than once. That isn't just a Josephus fact, that's an EVERY ROMAN HISTORIAN fact.

WHEEP, WHEEP, WHEEP, WHEEP! (That's the Special Pleading Alarm going off.) It goes something like this:

"BUT...IT'S JEE-ZUS...ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE WITH JEE-ZUS. SO WHAT IF NO ONE EVER GOVERNED THE SAME PROVINCE TWICE. IT'S FOR JEE-ZUS. AND SO WHAT IF WHEN THE ROMANS CRUCIFIED SOMEONE THEY LEFT THE BODY ON THE CROSS TO ROT AS A WARNING. THIS WAS JEE-ZUS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. HE'S DIFFERENT!"

[Angrboda]

@GC:

I have something to add on the star of Bethlehem, but it's been a long time since I read the literature which prompted it, so I cannot properly source my theory, and it is just that, a personal theory.

The word magi in the bible actually refers to a certain class of court diviners in the regions/countries northeast of Bethlehem (in the direction of Akkadia, Babylon, etc, but I forget the specifics). The reason the magi enter into the story is that these magi in real life used astrology as their primary means of divination and prophecy. Their predictions were predicated on the stars. Thus, I think — and granted it's something of a stretch — that the mention of "magi" being led to the baby Jesus by "a star" is a subtle suggestion that even the prophesies of the heathen diviners to the east are led to the baby Jesus by their very own magics. Sort of a "hoist on their own petard" reference for anyone of the time, familiar with the practices of the magi, and another example of Christ fulfilling prophecy, only this time the prophecy of foreign pagans. (And note that the account of the Magi occurs only in Matthew, a gospel well known for its extensive references to prophesy fulfillment, more so than any other gospel.)