Jesus was born on 9/11 (1 Tishri 3 BC)

[oldbadger]

There were only 1 census held that year, not 2.

No where does it say coponius was responsible for the census.

...................................... Provide sources.

Excellent! And so, finally, after splashing years and years of irrelevant history at me, you finally just address my first post and demand to be shown sources.

Your post ends: Provide Sources. nice.

If you think that the Legate of all the Syrian Territories would bother to personally oversee a census in three minor provinces within his remit, then you've lost the plot. He would have passed instruction down to his subordinate in charge of that area, a prefect. When the prefect lost control the Syrian Legate then had to supervise it all himself. I expect that he was quite irritated................. Please read this, and I hope that you might learn from it:

Judas the Galilean (6 CE)
Sources: Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.433 and Jewish Antiquities 18.1-10 and 18.23; Acts of the apostles 5.37.
Story: The Jewish king Herod Archelaus was an incapable ruler, and the Roman authorities decided to dispose him in 6 CE. His realm, Judea, Samaria and Idumea, was annexed as the province Judaea. The new governor, a man named Coponius, tried to establish new taxes, but a large rebellion was the only result. Its leader was Judas the Galilean, and when the high priest Joazar had shown himself incapable of overcoming the rebellion, the governor of adjacent Syria interfered and conducted the census. This was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, well known from the census mentioned in the Gospel of Luke (2.2).
There was one Judas, a Galilean, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Zadok, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt. Both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same. So men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height.
[Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.4-6]

 

[Muffled]

The timing for the tax collection and any census? (no known census until 6 AD, Herod the Great died in 4 BCE) was in the spring after the new born lambs and other farm animals were born. Travel would not be practical in winter.

The flocks were in the fields in the spring and summer not in the winter,

There numerous conflicts and contradictions in the gospels as to when Jesus was born, The authors particularly Luke were not knowledgeable concerning the history of Judea in the years Jesus was born,

See: When Was Jesus Born

"In summation, then, it may be explicitly stated that both Matthew's and Luke's nativity stories were theologically derived, rather than historically based. Just as there is not a single reference in either Christian or non-Christian sources to Herod's slaughter of innocent children, other than that by Matthew, so also is there no mention of a Roman census that would have involved Jesus' family, other than that by Luke. In other words, not a single piece of credible historical evidence exists that connects Jesus' birth to either of these purported events. In addition, both "events," as they are described in the two gospels, contain elements that are clearly illogical. Both "events" merely served as props upon which Matthew and Luke constructed their respective nativity stories. They were used to provide the stories with verisimilitude by investing them with an air of historicity. The census story was introduced by Luke as a literary device to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, while the slaughter of innocents story was created by Matthew as a vehicle to link Jesus' life to that of Moses. Each author chose their respective settings for Jesus' birth in order to create a dramatic context that would enhance their particular theology. For Matthew, Jesus' escape from Herod's "Slaughter of the Innocents" was a replay of Moses' escape from the Pharaoh's killing of the first born in Exodus (1:16-22) and of the Israelites escape from Yahweh's genocidal slaughter of Egyptian children (see Exodus 11-12) in the Hebrew Bible. Luke, on the other hand, was not as concerned with explicitly linking Jesus to Moses, as was Matthew; he was more concerned with placing Jesus' birth in the context of the Gentile Roman world for which he wrote. So, Luke situated Jesus' birth during the Roman census of Judea. However, Luke made extensive use of Old Testament birth narratives, in particular those describing the births of Isaac, Samuel and Samson, in creating his birth story.34 The Old Testament, therefore, served as an important source for both Matthew and Luke.

The two infancy narratives depended not only on canonical readings of Old Testament stories, but also upon popular versions of the same stories. Winter (1958: 263) summarizes the situation quite well.

[W]e should not overlook the fact that the O.T. circulated not only in literary form among the learned, but also in midrashic form for the edification of the unlearned, and that in its oral tradition it was often embellished and enlarged by popular motifs. The stories of the birth of Isaac, of Moses, of Samson, of Samuel, and other O.T. heroes were passed on from mouth to mouth and thus came to be assimilated to each other in current narratives. Traits from one story were combined with traits from another. Circumstantial details were added. From time to time these stories were committed to writing, and all the amplifications that had accumulated around the canonical accounts were included in popular new versions. The recently discovered Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran, the Book of Jubilees, the Liber Antiquitatum by PseudoPhilo, and later Midrashim bear witness to a development of this kind. It is the way in which popular narratives come to grow together. The same phenomenon can be observed in our own time, with regard to New Testament stories. There are children's books retelling the Story of Jesus, features from Mark and John and Luke and Matthew being all woven together into one fabric of many colours. Similarly the stories from the Old Testament about the birth of prominent men were legendarily enlarged so as to produce folklore for the edification of a Jewish public in ancient Israel. These legends provided most of the subject matter for the description of Jesus' birth both in Matthew and Luke. Whilst in Matthew chiefly legends about the birth of Moses served as the prototype, or model, for describing the birth of the New Moses, in Luke it is a popular narration of Samson's birth which was utilized firstly in a description of the birth of John the Baptist and later after being adapted by a Judeo-Christian redactor came into the hands of the Third Evangelist. He finally employed it without any significant changes on his part, in the first two chapters of his gospel.

Thus, neither Matthew's nor Luke's birth story can be accepted as a historically reliable description of Jesus' birth or, by extension, a plausible basis for dating that birth. In the end, no credible evidence exists that can be used to determine which year Jesus was actually born. His birth year, therefore, remains a mystery."

I believe the Bible reported a census. Too bad history is deficient on that.

I believe there were many Herods. If the Bible only says Herod then how do you determine it was Herod the great?

I believe a Roman command would have to be obeyed whether it was practical or not and Romans were not concerned about the health and safety of Jews.

When men are visiting a city the flocks can't be in the city but in the fields. There was no choice in the matter.

I believe this is unsupportable. You are not able to get in a person's head that lived thousands of years ago and claim to know what they knew and didn't know. One might make a case for Luke not being from Israel but he said that he inestigated which meant it wasn't his own information.

I believe that is balderdash.

I believe the claim that something must be historical to be true has no merit.

 

[Muffled]

His book about the temple, if true, lends strength to JC's prophetic words...

Matthew 24:2 "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

Not one stone left upon another.

I believe I fail to see how that is relevant. Certainly you are not going to claim that if an author is right about one thing he is right about everything. (not that I am saying he is right about one thing)

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe the Bible reported a census. Too bad history is deficient on that.

.

Rainbow type does not help your argument. The Roman records are accurate enough to know when and where the census occurred, Romans were great bureaucrats and keep good records of such things.