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.
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.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
