cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[gnostic]

Yes, this is the issue. But once it can be agreed that Luke cannot be confusing the census of Quirinius (Cyrenius) in 6 CE with the census undertaken when Herod was king of Judea, then one has to search afresh.

Except there were no two censuses, when Herod was alive and another when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

You are fabricating story where there are no ancient sources to substantiate your claim. Luke 2 don’t say Herod ordered a census, but that Augustus did.

However historically, the new census in which the emperor ordered after Judaea was annexed (in 6 CE) and appointed a new governor to Syria, 10 years after Herod’s death (4 BCE).

Josephus reported no such census ordered by Herod. And Quirinius was never in Syria when Herod was alive.

Unless you can show early sources that support your two-census claim, your claim is just another lie.

Do Christian apologists make up stories to justify the conflicting timeline of when the Jesus’ birth & census occurred?

The answer is most definitely “yes”.

This is the reason why I don’t trust apologists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your late dating fails to explain the absence of the Jewish Wars from Acts. How do you explain this?

The apostles were active in the Jewish Wars?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Except there were no two censuses, when Herod was alive and another when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

What you're saying is that you don't have evidence against Luke. It's a simple case of his word against yours.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The apostles were active in the Jewish Wars?

In your fairyland, they probably were!

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you're saying is that you don't have evidence against Luke. It's a simple case of his word against yours.

No, he said that we do have evidence against the writings in Luke.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your fairyland, they probably were!

OoH! Look the believer in fairy tales assumes that others have your flaws.

Why didn't you answer the question? Did you realize that the point that you were trying to make was rather stupid?

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, he said that we do have evidence against the writings in Luke.

As already stated, the argument from silence is a logical fallacy.

We don't, at present, have the evidence to know whether Cyrenius was Legate in Syria at the time he fought against the Homonadesians in Galatia, 10 BCE - 2 BCE.

Therefore, you cannot claim that he wasn't governor in Syria.

Also, Augustus did pass a decree in 8 BCE requiring an empire wide census. It may have been this decree that led to the enrolment in Judea, carried out by Herod.

Without a doubt, the people living at the time, or even near the times, would have had a much clearer understanding of the history. And there is nothing written in Luke that is contradicted by Josephus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As already stated, the argument from silence is a logical fallacy.

We don't, at present, have the evidence to know whether Cyrenius was Legate in Syria at the time he fought against the Homonadesians in Galatia, 10 BCE - 2 BCE.

Therefore, you cannot claim that he wasn't governor in Syria.

Also, Augustus did pass a decree in 8 BCE requiring an empire wide census. It may have been this decree that led to the enrolment in Judea, carried out by Herod.

Without a doubt, the people living at the time, or even near the times, would have had a much clearer understanding of the history. And there is nothing written in Luke that is contradicted by Josephus.

No one is using that. You do not seem to understand what an argument from ignorance is. It is when one only uses the lack of evidence against for an argument. No one has done that on the side of reality;

If anyone is trying to use an argument from ignorance it would be you. Where he was when is known better than you seem to think.

 

[gnostic]

As already stated, the argument from silence is a logical fallacy.

We don't, at present, have the evidence to know whether Cyrenius was Legate in Syria at the time he fought against the Homonadesians in Galatia, 10 BCE - 2 BCE.

Therefore, you cannot claim that he wasn't governor in Syria.

Also, Augustus did pass a decree in 8 BCE requiring an empire wide census. It may have been this decree that led to the enrolment in Judea, carried out by Herod.

Without a doubt, the people living at the time, or even near the times, would have had a much clearer understanding of the history. And there is nothing written in Luke that is contradicted by Josephus.

Man, you use Josephus when it suit you, and then disagree with it when it don't.

From Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, chapters 1 to 3, we know that Gaius Sentius Saturninus was legatus of Syria from 9 to 7 or 6 BCE. And Publius Quinctilius Varus, from 7 or 6 to 4 BCE, Book XVII, chapters 5 to .

Varus was Saturninus' successor to the legate of Syria:

2 Now, Quintilius Varus was at this time at Jerusalem, being sent to succeed Saturninus as president of Syria, and was come as an assessor to Herod, who had desired his advice in his present affairs...

The "affairs" being the intrigues that went on between him and his family, culminating with the execution of his son, Antipater in 4 BCE (XVII, chapter 7), just before Herod's own death (XVII, chapter 8).

Judaea was divided between Herod's children, with Archelaus getting Judea and ruled for 10 years before he was banished to Vienna (XVII, chapter 13), and Judaea became a new Roman province in 6 CE, Book XVIII, chapter 1.

Varus served long enough after Herod's death, to put down a revolt against Archelaus' rule, in 4 BCE, Book XVII, chapter 9.

In none of these chapters in book XVII (from chapter 1 to 12), do I find any mention of Quirnius or Cyrenius as legatus of Syria until at the end of chapter 13, or the census wasn't mention until Book XVIII, chapter 1.

More detail about Quirinius in Book XVIII, as well as Coponius, the newly appointed prefect of Judaea.

You keep forgetting about Saturninus and Varus, or simply ignoring these 2 governors who were around before Herod died.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You keep forgetting about Saturninus and Varus, or simply ignoring these 2 governors who were around before Herod died.

If you look up the list of Roman governors of Syria, with dates, you will see that there is one glaring omission, dated 4 BCE - 1 CE. It is quite possible that Cyrenius was governor at this time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you look up the list of Roman governors of Syria, with dates, you will see that there is one glaring omission, dated 4 BCE - 1 CE. It is quite possible that Cyrenius was governor at this time.

Nope. As I already told you more of Quirinius's history is known than you think that it is. He did not leave Rome until January 29, 1 BCE.

P. Sulpicius Quirinius - Livius.

Herod was already dead. And Herod Archelaus was ruling Judea. He did not take over Judea until 6 CE. Please drop your arguments from ignorance. What evidence do you have for your beliefs? Remember, apologists are not historians. Apologist sites are not valid in a discussion on history.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Nope. As I already told you more of Quirinius's history is known than you think that it is. He did not leave Rome until January 29, 1 BCE.

P. Sulpicius Quirinius - Livius.

Herod was already dead. And Herod Archelaus was ruling Judea. He did not take over Judea until 6 CE. Please drop your arguments from ignorance. What evidence do you have for your beliefs? Remember, apologists are not historians. Apologist sites are not valid in a discussion on history.

You should try reading the very article you quote!

'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.'

 

[gnostic]

You should try reading the very article you quote!

'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.'

That BCE, which would still mean Quirinius wasn’t around Syria and Judaea to be running any census before Herod died.

As I stated earlier, Saturninus and his successor, Varus, were governors in Syria when Herod was alive and Quirinius was governor of Galatia.

Before Galatia, he was governor of Cyrenaica (today, Libya) and Crete.

Cyrenaica and Crete was a proconsulate position, in which proconsul was usually appointed by the Senate, not appointed by the emperor; normally you would have to be elected consul first and serving in Rome, before becoming proconsul.

But in Quirinius’ case, he became proconsul of Cyrenaica around 15 BCE, defeated some desert tribes near Cyrene, won the name Cyrenius for his victory, and by 12 BCE, became consul.

So Quirinius was very busy elsewhere, not in Syria or Judaea when Herod was alive. No where in that webpage from Livius showed that Quirinius was running any census that Joseph had to enroll when Herod was still alive.

The earlier census is a fiction, created by some stupid apologists in the 20th century.

 

[gnostic]

Btw, @Redemptionsong

Quirinius did serve in Syria earlier, in 1 BCE to 4 CE, but only to assist Augustus’ grandson and heir, Gaius Caesar, who was governor during that time.

Quirinius’ capacity was Gaius’ as tutor and advisor, not as governor, because Gaius was a young man, 19, when he began his term in Syria. Gaius Caesar led the legions in campaign during the trouble in Parthia and Armenia. However Gaius died from his wounds. Quirinius didn’t become governor of Syria until after Archelaus was banished from Judaea and Judaea became province in 6 CE.

I have told you most of that, in my earlier replies.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Btw, @Redemptionsong

Quirinius did serve in Syria earlier, in 1 BCE to 4 CE, but only to assist Augustus’ grandson and heir, Gaius Caesar, who was governor during that time.

Quirinius’ capacity was Gaius’ as tutor and advisor, not as governor, because Gaius was a young man, 19, when he began his term in Syria. Gaius Caesar led the legions in campaign during the trouble in Parthia and Armenia. However Gaius died from his wounds. Quirinius didn’t become governor of Syria until after Archelaus was banished from Judaea and Judaea became province in 6 CE.

I have told you most of that, in my earlier replies.

If the governor of Syria is unknown (to non-Christian sources) between 4 BCE and 1 BCE, then it is possible that Quirinius was governor at some point during this time.

The references to Quirinius found in Roman sources do not explain his whereabouts for each of the years when information on the governorship is missing.

Quirinius is said to have been a tutor in Armenia, but the time period was not specified, and need not have prevented him from being governor in another year.

The death of Herod has always been reckoned on a statement made by Josephus concerning an eclipse. To my understanding 4 BCE was not the only year between 4 BCE and 1 BCE when eclipses occurred over Judea.

 

[gnostic]

If the governor of Syria is unknown (to non-Christian sources) between 4 BCE and 1 BCE, then it is possible that Quirinius was governor at some point during this time.

The references to Quirinius found in Roman sources do not explain his whereabouts for each of the years when information on the governorship is missing.

Quirinius is said to have been a tutor in Armenia, but the time period was not specified, and need not have prevented him from being governor in another year.

The death of Herod has always been reckoned on a statement made by Josephus concerning an eclipse. To my understanding 4 BCE was not the only year between 4 BCE and 1 BCE when eclipses occurred over Judea.

I don't particularly care about a lunar ecilpse, because Josephus composed Antiquities nearly a century after Herod's death.

The Babylonian astronomers were great astronomers, the Jews not so much, as there are no evidence of that Jewish astronomers keeping meticulous records of astronomical events or calculating past or future astronomical phenomena.

I suspected Josephus on this occasion, exaggerated Herod's death with astronomical omen.

But Josephus did make it quite clear that Varus WAS STILL GOVERNOR OF SYRIA, in 4 BCE, when he had to crush rebellion for Archelaus, after Herod's death.

Varus served in Syria from either 7 or 6 BCE to 4 BCE.

This is the PART that you keep ignoring. The governor wasn't UNKNOWN at the time of Herod's death.

Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria, until Judaea was made into a Roman province in 6 CE, 10 YEARS AFTER HEROD'S DEATH.

Why do you keep ignoring Publius Quinctilius Varus?