Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Another obvious falsehood. Heck, you can't even understand two verses in a row in Luke.
If you understood Roman history you would understand why there was no census while Herod was king.
-
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!
Updating the Genesis Creation Story
- Thread starter sealchan
- Start date
If you understood Roman history you would understand why there was no census while Herod was king.
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
But there was a census in Israel in 6 B.C. and you cannot prove otherwise. And you are not going to open that mouth of yours and put your foot in it again, are you?
You're too afraid to reveal why you erroneously believe that no census was taken in Israel while Herod the Great was King, thereby, opening another door for the Lord through me, to reveal to all, just how wrong you are.
Give it a miss sunshine, you're on a downhill slide.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Find a reliable source. You have failed to do so yet. You do not seem to realize that when you make a positive claim you put the burden of proof upon yourself. When you make a stupid claim, such as a census where people have to leave where they live, you put a very heavy burden of proof upon yourself. The one site you linked was shown to be a lying site. You need to do a lot better than that.
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
I really think that you must have some serious mental problems son. When you have the intestinal fortitude to reveal your erroneous belief that there could be no census in Israel while Herod the great lived, so that the Lord can reveal once again, how ignorant you are to all History, biblical and Roman. Only then will I bother to respond to your evasive, negative and your ridiculous ignorant statements on this particular thread.
YES! I did make a positive claim, and the historic evidence that I supplied proves that Quirinius was a general and famous for having quelled the Marmaridea rebellion in Cilicia (Libya) in 14 B,C., and Quirinius was the one who conquered the Homonadenses nation, around 6 B.C.
When the census decreed by Emperor Augustus was being implemented in Judea, the Governors of Galatia and Syria were involved in the construction of a system of military roads and garrison cities, and they had a major problem. The Homonadenses tribe had taken control of a Roman client nation located in the Taurus mountains which traversed the centre of these operations. The campaign led by General Quirinius, the deputy of Emperor Augustus, defeated those Homonadenses allowing the. building of military roads and garrison cities to continue.
This campaign had to have been implemented from Syria.
In 6 B.C., while the census of Augustus was being carried out in Judea, as revealed in Luke 2:1; General Quirinius was dealing with the Homonadenses situation as Augustus' vicegerent, I have also clarified that the word "GOVENOR" is translated from: 'hgemwn' and can refer to any official as Caesar's deputy. [GOVENOR/VICEGERENT] as revealed in Luke 2:2.
Now you have made a positive claim, that no census could have been taken in Judea while Herod the Great lived, and you have now put the burden of proof upon yourself. So I will wait for your supposed proof that there never was a census in Israel in 6 B.C. That is of course, if you have the intestinal fortitude to reveal your biblical ignorance once again.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Wikipedia is "peer" reviewed at least. As such it tends towards representing a consensus.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This is a worthless post. Once again find a valid source. You are just a poor ignorant poster that cannot support his claims. You are not a source. But then neither am I. I too have to support my claims. If I merely made statements I would be as bad as you. But we know that is not the case. I can find valid sources that support me. I can even find Christian sources that admit that there was no empire wide census. That the only census that fits the verse is the census of Quirinius, but then they make weak excuses and clutch at straws. The proper and correct and even Christian thing to do is to admit the truth. That it looks like Luke screwed the pooch.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And it lists sources that one can check for himself.
@The Anointed provided one link that was from a very unprofessional website. It had no links. It claimed to be a translation of a rather old book, about 100 years old. It used a real author, and it used the real title of the book. And that was its downfall. I found at least two sources that had reproduced the book as a PDF and I linked one of them. The pages from the website were not in the original. I have yet to see The Anointed to won up to his error. And that tells me quite a bit about his character. I too make more than my share of mistakes. But when they are made obvious I at least acknowledge them.
ecco
Veteran Member
Your ranting posts have shown, once again, that biblical believers really go to extremes to try to verify the unverifiable.
They have also shown that you have a massive belief in your own self importance. It is unjustified.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
I did some reading about Roman censuses...it seems plausible that there were multiple censuses taking place and perhaps there is a confusion between two different censuses in the gospels. There have been many cases of ambiguities intended and not intended in the Bible that I have to always leave my mind open to this.
Also, since there is plenty of evidence that the gospels were creative re-writes of shared and unshared and personal-creative source material (Mark then Matthew then Luke and finally John) that Luke, with his more historical approach, may have meant a different census than the one added by Matthew. Maybe Luke got his information about censuses from another source...who knows.
Clearly early gospels were interested in fulfilling scripture, especially Second Isaiah, so getting Jesus to be born in Bethlehem was important. Integrating the Roman census was also a good literary move if it was not based on eyewitness testimony (who was the witness after all?).
Matthew also like to use context for not just Moses (killing of the first born, teaching on the mountain) for building his Jesus but also the Buddha's story (three temptations from the evil one followed by teaching career). Matthew's inclusion of Magi and his lumping together the Jews with the Jewish governor as a point of ridicule all show Matthew as having a knowledge of various spiritual traditions, wanting to simultaneously convince his Jewish audience but also vilify contemporary Judaism (notice how with John the Baptist how people had to travel far to get the real news about God because, apparently, your local synagogue wasn't cutting it).
Matthew uses a variety of literary tricks to paint a picture of Jesus as the bringer of a new, authentic religion even while his story wears the clothes of older religions all of which are used or borrowed from favorably except for the Jews as a current religious and governing authority. Using the Magi was a real gut punch I would say.
Also, since there is plenty of evidence that the gospels were creative re-writes of shared and unshared and personal-creative source material (Mark then Matthew then Luke and finally John) that Luke, with his more historical approach, may have meant a different census than the one added by Matthew. Maybe Luke got his information about censuses from another source...who knows.
Clearly early gospels were interested in fulfilling scripture, especially Second Isaiah, so getting Jesus to be born in Bethlehem was important. Integrating the Roman census was also a good literary move if it was not based on eyewitness testimony (who was the witness after all?).
Matthew also like to use context for not just Moses (killing of the first born, teaching on the mountain) for building his Jesus but also the Buddha's story (three temptations from the evil one followed by teaching career). Matthew's inclusion of Magi and his lumping together the Jews with the Jewish governor as a point of ridicule all show Matthew as having a knowledge of various spiritual traditions, wanting to simultaneously convince his Jewish audience but also vilify contemporary Judaism (notice how with John the Baptist how people had to travel far to get the real news about God because, apparently, your local synagogue wasn't cutting it).
Matthew uses a variety of literary tricks to paint a picture of Jesus as the bringer of a new, authentic religion even while his story wears the clothes of older religions all of which are used or borrowed from favorably except for the Jews as a current religious and governing authority. Using the Magi was a real gut punch I would say.
Last edited:
sealchan
Well-Known Member
In this day and age, following the train of sources and evaluating their work in the light of their peers is so important.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If one looks into how Rome gathered revenue one will find that semi-autonomous kingdoms, which Judea was under Herod, paid tribute. The gathering of those funds were the responsibility of the king. But once Herod's son failed and Judea was taken over outright then the tax was dependent upon the population, thus the census of Quirinius. Also the Bible clearly states that it was the Census of Quirinius in Luke 2 2 where it says that it was the census taken when Quirinius first became governor of Syria. He was in the middle of a military campaign in what is now Turkey when Herod was king and Jesus was claimed to be born. The history of Quirinius is easy to trace.
Right now I am looking for an article that I found on the Roman Censuses that explained why Judea was not under a census until it became part of the Roman empire outright. But with all of the pollution from Christian sites trying to defend this error it is hard to find. If I do find it again I will link it and probably bookmark it.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Here is another angle on the census...apparently there is some great deal of overlap between Jesus' story and that of Krishna's...one detail involves the father paying taxes during his son's birth...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone wrote……. Also the Bible clearly states that it was the Census of Quirinius in Luke 2 2 where it says that it was the census taken when Quirinius first became governor of Syria.
The Anointed...…… Once again you prove your inability to comprehend the written word. Nowhere in no bible does it say, "When Quirinius FIRST became governor in Syria, but rather, "This was the FIRST enrollment [Referring to the census in Judea, which happened] when Quirinus was governing in Syria."
The twin Towers were attacked when the Australian Prime Minister was in America.
According to your way of thinking, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, must have had something to do with the attack.
Wake up to yourself son.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, logical reasoning is totally beyond your capabilities. False analogies only make you look bad.
Once gain , can you support any of your claims with valid sources? Your one attempt failed miserably. You thought I would be left with my foot in my mouth, instead you swallowed yours up to the knee.
We know when Quirinius first became governor of Syria. It was in 6 AD, the same year he started the census that now bears his name:
P. Sulpicius Quirinius - Livius
Once again between 5 and 3 BC he was in what is now Turkey leading a military campaign:
"In Cyrenaica, Quirinius successfully fought against the Garamantes, a tribe in the Sahara desert dwelling to the south of Cyrene. As a war hero he returned to Rome and was in 12 elected consul, still the most important office in the empire - after the emperor himself of course. Quirinius' colleague was a man named Gaius Valgius Rufus, otherwise known as a poet. After this success, Augustus appointed Quirinius as governor of Galatia and Paphlagonia (central Turkey). Between 5 and 3 he fought against a brigand tribe that was called Homonadensians."
He became governor of Syria in when Herod Archealous, Herod the Great's son messed up thing so badly that Rome took over. Until then there was no census in Judea as this article explains:
"
Almost immediately, Quirinius was appointed as governor of Syria, one of the most important provinces of the empire, garrisoned with no less than four legions (III Gallica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis, XII Fulminata). The area to the south, Judaea, was unquiet. Its leader, Herod Archelaus, had made big mess of his realm, and in 6, Augustus sent him into exile in Gaul.
Ostracon from Elephantine, recording a census
Judaea now became an autonomous part of the Roman province Syria, ruled by a prefect. Quirinius was ordered to organize the taxation of the new prefecture. Until then, taxes had been paid in kind. However, during the census which Quirinius organized, the inhabitants were required to declare their property in money. There are no indications that the Roman money taxes were higher than the taxes they replaced, but taxes in money were more onerous than taxes in kind, because a farmer had to borrow in case of a poor harvest. Besides, any Roman coin would bear an image of the goddess Roma or a legend saying that the man represented was the divine emperor: a violation of at least two of the ten commandments."
Judea became part of the Roman empire instead of being a vassal state. That was why there was no census before 6 AD. And once again, Luke at least got the leader, and therefore the date of Syrian, and therefore the date of the census right. Unfortunately it tells us that his story was fiction since it contradicts itself.
If you build ideas on a false premise, then your whole scenario collapses. If you look up Exodus 3:13-15 in the Jewish Tanach you will see that God has never identified himself as "I Am".
"13 And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"
15 And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God [יְהֹוָ֞ה] of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation."
Shemot - Exodus - Chapter 3 (Parshah Shemot)
The meaning of God's name is "I Will Be"....this is not a statement of his existence but of his intentions......to "be" whatever is necessary to fulfill his purpose in creation and in putting us here.
Back to the drawing board?
sealchan
Well-Known Member
If you build ideas on a false premise, then your whole scenario collapses. If you look up Exodus 3:13-15 in the Jewish Tanach you will see that God has never identified himself as "I Am".
"13 And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"
15 And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God [יְהֹוָ֞ה] of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation."
Shemot - Exodus - Chapter 3 (Parshah Shemot)
The meaning of God's name is "I Will Be"....this is not a statement of his existence but of his intentions......to "be" whatever is necessary to fulfill his purpose in creation and in putting us here.
Back to the drawing board?
Either I can go with it cause that is the name that many are familiar with or I can change it...no big deal. Maybe I can call God Fred.
Thanks for pointing this out. I will give it some thought though in either case God proving His existence by self definition sounds like "I will be what I will be".
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
It's no good calling him Fred, because his name is Howard.
Our Father who art in heaven Howard be thy name.
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
Luke does not specifically state what the Roman office held by Quirinius when the first registration or enrolment was made in Judaea in 6 B.C. actually was. But in reference to the position he held, Luke uses the Greek word “hegemoneuontos tes Surias Kureniou.’ Which the authors of the English bible have translated “Governor.” Such as Luke 3: 1; Where it is written in most English Bibles, that Pontius Pilate was “Governor” of Judea, whereas Tacitus speaks of Pontius Pilate as the “Procurator.”
Likewise, Luke’s reference to Felix, [The hegemon] has been translated as ‘Governor’ of Caesarea, in Acts 23:24; also verses 26 and 33, then again in Acts 24: 1, and verse 10 and also Acts 26: 30.
This is from your favorite source: [Wikipedia]…….”Marcus Antonius Felix was the Roman procurator of Judaea, in succession to Ventidius Cumanus.” So the word “hegemon,” used by Luke, could apply to any Roman official holding a leading position of authority in any of the Roman provinces, including Syria.
Around the year of 6 B. C., the Governors of Galatia and Syria were involved in the construction of a system of military roads and garrison cities. 3. They had a major problem. The Homonadenses had taken control of a Roman client nation located in the Taurus mountains which traversed the centre of these operations. 4. Syria and Galatia would normally be required to intervene but Galatia had no army and Varus had no military experience. 5. Quirinius was a general and famous for having quelled the Marmaridea rebellion in Cilicia (Libya) in BC.14. 6 Quirinius was the one who conquered the Homonadenses nation. This campaign had to have been implemented from Syria. It necessarily follows that 6-5 B.C., General Quirinius dealt with the Homonadenses situation as Augustus' vicegerent, whilst Varus attended to the internal administration of Syria.
Anyone who has studied the scriptures, which excludes you, know that the Roman taxes were collected by Jewish tax collectors, who were not paid by their Roman Clients, but made their wages by how much extra money they were able to charge people, over and above the legal taxes. The fact that the people knew they were being ripped off by these collector, is borne out in Luke 3: 13; When some tax collectors came to be baptised by John and asked him; “Teacher, what are we to do?” To which John answered; “Don’t collect more than is required by the law.”
Although the majority of Jews deemed the tax collectors to be the lowest of all life forms, Jesus did not ostracize them, in fact the Jewish authorities condemned him for eating and drinking with Tax collectors, and in Matthew 9: 9; he even chose Levi called Matthew as one of his disciples.
In the KJV, which is riddled with translation errors….. Luke 2:1, 2: 2, 2: 3; 2: 5. And Acts 5: 37; the Greek word “Apographe,” is erroneously translated as “TAX.” But according to Young’s Analytical Concordance, it means, “A writing off or Register.”
The Amplified version…. Luke 2: 1; In those days it occurred that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole Roman Empire should be REGISTERED. Luke 2: 2; This was the first enrolment, and it was made when Quirinius was “hegemon” in Syria. Luke 2: 3; And all the people were going to be REGISTERED, each to his own city or town.
The Living New Testament….. Luke 2: 1; About this time Caesar Augustus, the Roman Emperor, decreed that a census should be taken throughout the nation. Luke 2: 2; this census was taken when Quirinius was “hegemon” in Syria. Luke 2: 3; Everyone was required to return to his ancestral home for this ‘REGISTATION.”
RSV…… 2: 1; In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be ENROLLED. Luke 2: 2; This was the first ENROLLMENT, when Quirinius was “hegemon” in Syria.
This reveals that the census of Augustus in 6.C, when Quirinius was on a campaign in Syria as Augustus’ Vicegerent, was not an exercise in tax collecting, but an exercise in information gathering.
Again you are seen, as one who is totally ignorant to the scriptures that you attack. Nothing about tax' in Luke.
Tell us again, why you believed that No census would be taken in Judea while Herod the Great was alive.
Last edited:
sealchan
Well-Known Member
I made the following addition to this paragraph:
It strikes me that I AM and I WILL BE are two different ways of the same thing only one is the here and now and the other is a promise of the future. As such I WILL BE reflects a resolve, a hope, rather than an accomplishment. It is a weaker confidence in having proved His/It's own existence. Which name is used could be seen to give the reader a way to see into God's own confidence in any given situation...I AM when things are going well and I WILL BE when not so well.