Is the Bible Totally reliable ? The Nativity

It DID? Let us look at Matthew 2:1

quote:

---

2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

---

That is directly saying that it is Herod the king. While there were several herods, this one specifically points out HEROD THE KING. He died in 4 B.C.That directly countradicts the claims of your source.

Well, I agree, but I'm a Biblical literalist.Doesn't stop me from challenging my beliefs though, and it doesn't stop me from listening to other opinions respectfully. Unfortunately, I think the impression you've received from Christians has been an accurate one, though.

4 B.C.... is after the census. -During the 4-7 B.C. time period when most scholars believe Jesus was born, and near the 8 B.C. time period when the world wide census mentioned was decreed. Herod was still alive when my "source" said the census was being taken. Say the census reached Palestine in 7 B.C. ...two years later it's 5 B.C. Herod gives the order to kill kids. Mary and Joseph run off to Egypt until Herod dies a year later.This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-18-2005 12:33 PM

I think the strongest evidence of 2 censuses is probably from Luke/Acts itself, if what you are saying it true. These books are 2 volumes of the same book, and probably should have been placed together to make that clear.If Luke refers to the later census in Acts, then he is clearly referring to an earlier census.If that's his intent, I think it's somewhat absurd to doubt Luke based on the idea that Josephus did not refer to it so it cannot be true. That's an argument from lack of evidence to try to discount someone that has been very accurate in terms of historical facts.What would be the motive for Luke to lie here and fabricate an earlier census if it did not exist?I'd say more likely there was an earlier census, just as Luke claimed.

It appears that THE source of all this doubting of the dates is this one Robin Lane Fox, who wrote the book The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible . Maybe I've overlooked other sources that have been brought up in this discussion? I have the impression that all the evidence has been mustered from this one source -- it's all the same reasoning used there. That's pretty flimsy evidence, facts from one book by one debunker, about which many doubts can certainly be raised, as others have pointed out including me( Message 25 ): http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.htmlAnyway, I would say that the very best evidence against all this eager assault on the Bible is that not a single Biblical commentator up until this very recent "discovery" ever found a discrepancy between Matthew and Luke concerning the dating of the birth of Christ, and you can be sure they would have if there was reason to think it, because there are excellent historians among them. The discrepancy is purely the invention of this work of debunkery, as usual forcing Bible believers on the defensive for no decent reason whatever. You read a book, learn the terms of the argument, you don't need to know much history yourself, certainly needn't bother to track down anything that might discredit the argument, just go with what the book says, and there you are, all set to disprove the entire history of Christianity.By the way, to say Luke was right because he was a good historian is not circular logic. That silly idea is repeated a lot here. Luke is a credible witness with a great track record for accuracy. Logically it is a positive version of the ad hominem: The man is known to be trustworthy, therefore it is reasonable to put trust in his report over a more recent report that has no credentials except itself.All your reasoning is based on this one piece of debunkery and the usual dismissal of the Bible as evidence in its own right. When are you guys going to see that if you have one witness with an excellent reputation (2000 years of trust in this case) you have to credit that witness with a LOT, but you do the unreasonable thing instead and dismiss that witness altogether. Instead you trust any old piece of imaginative reconstruction of the events, using a few selected historical facts viewed from 2000 years in the future, which necessitates ignoring who knows how many other facts that could disprove the claim, and then you treat ordinary Christians as ignorant and evasive because we haven't the means to answer such a frame-up to your satifaction. Cute.You need to think about what you guys are doing here. Anybody can play the game of discovering discrepancies in just about anything if there's a will to do that. It's easy to put your opponents behind the eight ball this way, require impossible scholarship to defend themselves and accuse them of copping out when the whole thing was a set up in the first place. Just assemble a few facts at a remove of 2000 years when it's a monumental task to track down any kind of information to rebut the claim, then accuse your opponent of all kinds of perfidious behavior. Not fair play to say the least.The Bible record remains unrefuted by any fair standard.

Well the methodology of your side certainly appears to be sleaxy.First there is the misrepresentation of the problem.It is not argued that Luke claimed that there was a census prior to 6 AD. Rather it is argued that Luke was referring to the 6 AD census. The primary argument is not even that Luke was wrong - just that his account conflicts with that of Matthew.Your side continually refers to unreliable apologetic sites, rather than doing any serious investigation of the facts. For instance the site you refer to does not state the context or the significance of the lustrum census. He fails to indicate that it was a tradition falling into neglect and that Augustus had a program of expanding Roman citizenship. Thus Augustus' use of the lustrum indicates a respect for tradition and a measure of his success in increasing the number of citizens. At least he admits that the lustrum census was restricted to Romans - unlike other sources quoted by adrenalinejunkie who try to claim that they are censuses of the entire Roman Empire.Your "best evidence" however is that Biblical commentators did not notice the problem. From that you argue that the whole issue must be a fabrication. However the problem clearly is real. If Biblical commentators failed to notice it, then at best it indicates that their interests did not extend to the sort of investigation that would reveal the problem. I can say that I did not rely on a single book - nor did Richard Carrier whose essay I have previously referred to (carrier is - like Lane Fox - a historian, and has produced a more detailed investigation, including quoting from relevant primary sources). I have also read the relevant parts of Josephus, and sought out the Res Gestae, as well as investigating what historians had to say about the lustrum census. The latter is something the apologists quoted by adrenalinejunkie clearly failed to do - and something you and adrenalinejunkie also fail to do. It is your side which relies on quoting the arguments of others. So your argument here is to falsely accuse your opponents of acting as you do. Now THAT is sleazy.And you do it again. It is your side that attemptds to produce "imaginative reconstructions" rather than dealing with the evidence. Outside of the Bible there is nothing that even hints of an earlier census that could fit. There is no evidence that Quirinius was even in Judaea prior to being sent there in 6 AD. That doesn't stop you. On my side we have the fact that the census of 6 AD is a good match for what Luke wrote, there is no sign of anything better and therefore we conclude that Luke meant that census. Obviously your argument depends more on "imaginative reconstruction"Obviously then you know that your sides arguments should be dismissed. But rather than do that, you pretend that your opponents are using the same sort of arguments - and accuse them of indulging in sleazy tactics.

I'm really not in this argument. I'm not a historian. I have no interest in investigating facts that are just make-work for a nonexpert, and even for an expert very likely, because there's no way the facts can be shown to be *all* the relevant facts after 2000 years, no matter how good the historians. Your side has to construct your argument from these few facts. You have no idea what other facts are not available that might contradict your view, and no amount of investigation on my part is going to have any impact on any of that.I consider this kind of attack on the Bible to be unworthy of response. When Christians don't respond, of course, we get treated as evading the issue, as by jar early in the thread. Quite the set-up.You think a huge conflict has been proved that somehow went undetected for millennia. You think current scholarship based on what little information remains from 2000 years ago trumps the knowledge of all previous historians and Bible exegetes. It doesn't bother you that so little is being used to impugn the character of the Bible writers and later Bible scholars.The point about no commentator having discovered the discrepancy is that very early in church history, when the events were a lot fresher than they are now, something like that would have been noted, it would have been glaring at the time, it would have been discussed in the literature of the church fathers, it would have become a major point in the decision about which books were canonical, it would have been known to us now as an important controversy from the earliest time. Yes, it matters a lot that previous Bible commentators never noticed this supposed discrepancy.But I'm not in this argument. It's a huge waste of time and just another excuse to bully Christians.

What makes you think they didn't notice? Moreover why do you think that if they had, they would have been allowed to write about it?

Again I see a lack of any honest attempt to address the evidence.The only person who says that this is a "huge conflict" is you. And the only way to see it is to compare the Gospel accounts against each other and the historical evidence. If none of the commentators you are familiar with bothered to do that then they wouldn't notice. And by the time the Gospels were written we already know that the events weren't that fresh - there is no sign that the author of Luke knew the story in Matthew or that the author of Matthew knew the story in Luke.

quote:

---

But I'm not in this argument. It's a huge waste of time and just another excuse to bully Christians.

---

The truth is that the argument is valid and it isn't an excuse for anything. And you jumped in with your own bullying tactics because the "Christian" arguments were so obviously weak.

And again I see a lack of any honest attempt to recognize the goal of this power game you are playing about "evidence."

quote:

---

And again I see a lack of any honest attempt to recognize the goal of this power game you are playing about "evidence."

---

There is no "power game" - at least not on this side. Simply an honest discussion of the evidence. The goal is to reveal the truth - that the evidence is against your assertion.That you should call it a "power game" only illuminates your own psychology. As does the way you choose to "play".This message has been edited by PaulK, 06-19-2005 02:39 PM

No, it is NOT after the census. The census, according to Luke, is 6 C.E, when Juddah became part of the providence of Syria. That is the first time that Ceasar Augustus had the authority to order a census in Judah. It is the census that is mentioned by Josephus, and it is also the time that we know that Quintarsis was govenor of Syria.The 'census' in 8 B.C. did not cover Juddah, it was only a census of Roman citizens.. and Joseph and Mary would not have counted.In case you haven't noticed the census of 6 A.D is 10 years after 4 B.C.

9 to be totally obsessive

Ramos, considering Rome appointed the "king", I'd say Rome could order a census in Herod's kingdom just any time it pleased them.That argument just does not hold water when you consider that Herod's rule was not totally independent, but rather he was allowed to be king within the Roman Empire of an area under Rome's control.

It might have been an appointed king, and a 'subserviant' nation, but it STILL was a seperate nation. You can't get around that, no matter how much you want to ignore it, and make excuses about why there might be an
earlier census.THe alledged early census the christian appologists are trying to manufactor just is not historical.