Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
So, you accept that both Luke and Josephus were correct about the taxation, which took place in 6 CE, after Archelaus was banished from Judea. That means that Luke was not confusing Jesus' birth with the 6 CE census. As Luke says, in Luke 2:2, '(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria)'.This I have to hear. How is it that my reasoning is faulty?
You only confirmed what I posted and then made your own baseless claim. The only census that Quirinius was involved with was the Census of Quirinius. There does not appear to be any others. Remember how apologetics are not allowed? Professional Christian apologists have to be liars for Jesus. They have to be The Bible is full of contradictions but they cannot own up to onw of them. This one just ruins them.
Yes, the author of Luke/Acts (probably not Luke himself since it was not called that until some time in the Second Century) got his facts right in Acts. But he screwed up in the Nativity myth. Whether on purpose or not can not be known. But where Quirinius was throughout his career was well known. At the time near the end of Herod the Great's reign he was up in what is now Turkey.
As to Judea it would not have been subject to a census before Herod's don failed. At that time Judea was a client state. That meant that they paid tribute for Rome to leave them alone. They did not pay taxes. As the author of Acts noted, Josephus recorded the census since the people, who were going to be taxed revolted against it. That did not work out for them too well.
Do you want to go over some of the bogus claims of that myth? Or do you want to go over the bogus claims of the one in Matthew? Both are clearly works of fiction and they do both clearly contradict each other.
Luke states that John, the son of Zacharias, was born during the days of Herod, king of Judea. In Luke 1:36, Mary is told that her relative, Elizabeth, is six months pregnant. Mary then visits Elizabeth, and Mary says, 'For he that is mighty hath done to me great things;' suggesting that Mary, too, had conceived. This would make the birth of Jesus about six months later than John.
Over to Matthew. Matthew says, in Matthew 2:1. 'Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king..'
I hope you notice this. There are now two independent Gospel records stating the same thing. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born during the days of Herod the king. What is more, Luke adds the following words after the shepherds visit the infant in the manger: 'But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.' So Mary, the mother of Jesus, was very conscious that the baby born to her was special. She had been visited by the angel Gabriel and told of the events that would come to pass; she conceived miraculously; she was witnessed to by her relative, Elizabeth; and then, at the time of the birth she has visits, firstly by shepherds, and later by wise men. The significance of these events is not overlooked by Mary.
Now, despite all the witnesses to the events that have occurred, you are convinced that none of it happened. You somehow imagine that Luke made the story up, and then colluded with Matthew to add to the lie. And, of course, you must deny that Zacharias, Elizabeth, and John ever existed, because they too were witnesses to key events, and must have been involved in the Quirinius census.
Finally, Mary, living her life in Nazareth, must have remained silent about these events, if the disciples were to be ignorant of Jesus' birth. Even though, when Jesus was crucified, he called upon his beloved disciple, John, saying, 'Behold your mother!' The Gospel of John also adds, 'And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.' So Mary lived with John, and, in your eyes, must have remained silent about the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem!
Then to wrap up your deception, you must explain why the Jewish historian, Josephus, records the ministry of John the Baptist. John was looked upon as a prophet of God, and directed his own disciples to follow Jesus!
It's easy for atheists to express doubts about things that they have not investigated carefully. It's much harder to provide evidence against the numerous testimonies that make up the Biblical record.
And, so far, you haven't ventured to give a reason why the evangelists would choose to devise such lies.
Last edited:
