Wikipedia says clearly that for example client state could be forced to offer soldiers. And that obviously means, it can be one reason to arrange census. And that means, it was possible Romans arranged it, even if it would be against Jewish law.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Muslims all 101 contradictions of bible from shabbir ali has been debunked online do your research and dont parrot it to us again.
- Thread starter Michael Junior
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Read it again. Or do I need to quote it for you? And once again, we know that there had not been previous censuses because this change caused a small rebellion in 6 CE. You have an article that you misread, I provided one that showed that censuses had not been done before the Census of Quirinius.
Sorry, I don't think there is enough reason to believe there had not been previous.
Sorry, if I have misunderstood you. If we start this from the beginning and accept that claim, what is the problem?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is only because you cannot afford to reason rationally when it comes to the Bible. You probably believe the myths of Genesis too and that is akin to denying gravity. It is not different from a belief in a flat Earth.
Censuses in Judea or ancient Israel were against Hebrew law. That dated back to King David. You know, when God both ordered King David to hold a census and at the same time forbade that act? Either way he was punished for it. Because censuses were not allowed that caused a minor revolt in Judea. And the Romans tended to keep good records of those too, as well as the dates of their censuses.
If you want to read a very in depth article that refutes all of the claims of apologists you can read it here:
Richard Carrier Quirinius » Internet Infidels
The Date of the Nativity in Luke (6th ed., 2011) Richard Carrier It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C. (or some year before 4 B.C.). This becomes an irreconcilable contradiction...
infidels.org
Yes, I can agree with that.
Sorry, that sounds too much of speculation without anything useful. I am interested of facts, not speculation and fistful thinking.If you want to read a very in depth article that refutes all of the claims of apologists you can read it here:
Richard Carrier Quirinius » Internet Infidels
The Date of the Nativity in Luke (6th ed., 2011) Richard Carrier It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C. (or some year before 4 B.C.). This becomes an irreconcilable contradiction...