(December 1, 2018 at 6:54 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(December 1, 2018 at 4:44 am)Godscreated Wrote: Every one is ignoring the actual comment, the ten year pregnancy. It's not possible, why, because Jesus was born before Herod died and that was 4BC, Jesus was born in 6BC and was taken to Egypt before Herod died and returned to Judea soon after Herod died. It doesn't matter which Herod was ruling at the time it only matters that the same Herod was referenced in the story of Jesus birth and first couple of years. Jesus was born nine months after the Holy conception, if He was not then the rest of His life and history would not mesh which it does.
GC
You're talking about Matthew's Jesus who was clearly born under the reign of Herod the Great, since the "slaughter of the innocents" happened on his order in a story lifted right from Moses. Jesus' family fled to Egypt and then later came to settle in Nazareth.
Luke's Jesus followed a different story. Mary came to Bethlehem for the census and gave birth there. Luke specifies that she immediately returned to Nazareth with no trip to Egypt (see Luke chapter 2). This census couldn't have happened sooner than 6 CE because Judea wasn't a province of Rome until that time. Also, Luke refers to Antipas as "the Tetrarch" not "king of Judea" (see Luke chapter 9:7). Luke also places the birth of Jesus when Quirinius was governor of Syria, which didn't begin until 6 CE.
The math doesn't work out because the tale about the census was a post hoc addition so that Jesus of Nazareth could be born in Bethlehem in order to fulfil certain prophecies. The Romans didn't conduct censuses by uprooting the population. That makes no sense whatsoever. The whole point of a census is to figure out how many people are living where, not wherever they were born.
