Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Angrboda]

In Luke's account Mary conceives in the reign of Herod the Great (latest date 4 BCE) but gives birth during the governorship of Quirinius (earliest date 6 CE) resulting in a 10 year pregnancy as mentioned in another thread.

There are numerous theories on this. Even if Quirinius was governor, there still would not have been an expected census in 6-4 BC. Josephus could have misdated it as well, after all he does get certain other things wrong and he is writing some 30+ years later than Luke. Nevertheless according to Josephus, Varus was governor of Syria at the time Jesus had to have been born. Some have simply suggested the correct reading is "this was the registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria". Some have suggested that it is entirely possible that Quirinius served a short stint as governor at the time Jesus was born, and then again from 6 AD.

Historically speaking, the chances are virtually zero that Augustus ordered an empire-wide census and that we have no record of this in ancient historians or in official records. It is also very unlikely that the Romans who were only interested in collecting money would develop the impractical scheme of having everyone return to the locality his ancestors originally came from.

The chances that Luke could make an error regarding these facts is virtually zero. The Census of Quirinius was a famous census, everyone knew about it and remembered it, everyone knew that you didn't have to return to your town of birth, etc. And everyone would have know that Herod was dead at that time. The chances that Luke could make that many mistakes a mere 50 years after the event is untenable.

The bigger problem would be that Luke would have known exactly when this census takes place - 6 AD, and that it would make Jesus too young to begin his ministry and then die on the cross between c. 30-33 AD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the previous census would have been in 10 BC, correct? There's simply no way that Luke would make such a huge error - he must be talking about a census that takes place 6-4 BC, there's simply no other logical explanation.

Another explanation is that it's widely known that the census of 6 AD introduced an inheritance tax, known because Josephus tells us. For this reason, it could have been a requirement that people register at their home towns.

Dio Cassius was a Roman and a historian in the 2nd-3rd century AD. He spent 22 years writing an 80-volume history of Rome spanning back 1,400 years. When he writes about the census of 6 AD, he mentions that the inheritance tax was introduced for the second time, being introduced once before but abolished.

Now although it seems unlikely that such a census would take place separate to the regular ones, we have no other records of this "forgotten" attempt at introducing an inheritance tax, so it is yet another possibility.

So I don't agree with your assertion that there has to be rock-solid proof for a census occurring in 6-4 BC, or it didn't happen. Could it have been an earlier attempt at introducing the inheritance tax? It's plausible. Could it have been for a different political reason now long forgotten? Also plausible.