Is the Bible Totally reliable ? The Nativity

Well, that is the arguement to try to get them togather.However, there is also another piece of information. Legally, Augustus Ceasar would only be able to order a census in the Roman Empire. Until 6 C.E. Judah was not part of the Roman Empire,but it was another country that gave tribute to Rome.The first time Ceasar Augustus COULD order a census was when it became part of the providence of Syria, which happened in 6 C.E.That fact negates the 'two census' or 'quintaris was govenor twice' speculations. It makes those two attempts at appolgics irrelavent.

Actually, you are totally incorrect. A stone with a name totally wiped out, and having it specularted that it might be quintarsis is not evidence of anything, but rather evidence of strong straw clutching by appologists.Nor, does anything this link have in it addresses the fact that Ceasar augustus did not have the authority to order a census in Judah during the reign of Herod the king.The whole bit of speculation about planetary conjunctions is pretty weak too. It is a fun piece of mental gymnastics, but hardly means anything what so ever.

Sigh,You are wrong about the latin inscription.. and besides it would not matter if Quintarsis was in a position of power twice or not.The fact of the matter that Augustus Ceasar could NOT have ordered a census in Judah until 6 C.E... because that is the year that Judah was made part of the providence of Syria. That is mutually exclusive to the account in Matthew, where Herod the King allegedly gathered up baby boys and had them killed (of which there is no record of this).I am sure that Luke meant the census in 6 c.e., and that is an historical event. However, the story about how mary and joesheph were
in bethleham is very fanciful, and the reason is not based on history..

Glenn Morton recycles some old appologist claims that were long refuted.His ciruclar logic (Luke was right because he was a good historian) does not address the fact that the birth account in Luke is mutually exclusive to the birth account in Matthew.He is also 'missing hte mark' about the alleged earlier cencus. The was
that was alledged to have happened during the time of herod was for ROMAN CITIZENS only, and therefore the population of Judah would not be involved.In Matthew, the claim is that Herod called for the massacre of baby boys in Bethelham at that time.. yes. However, there is NO evidence
outside of matthew that this occured.YOu can trust the biblical record that is written if you want, but evidence shows that the birth accounts in Luke, and the birth accounts in Matthew are mutally exclusive, and it was NOT the custom/law that someone had to travel many days to with a pregnant wife to be counted. That is as phony as a 3 dollar bill.

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.

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.

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.

If that is the strongest evidence, there was only one cencus. The one is 6 C.E... which is recorded by secular sources also, and therefore confirmed.ALl else is smoke, mirrors, and invalid assumptions.

Sigh, you don't understand what the 'arguement from silence' is. The
arguement form silence is NOT a logical fallacy. It does deal with
probablities though. The more information we have, the more probable
that the arguement from silence is correct. When it comes to the cencus
we have extremely good reason to say that the earlier cencus did not occur. We have plenty of documentation that any cencus that took place did not involve Judah, or people from Galilee needing to travel to Bethlaham to be counted (even if it was the Luke censuc alone, that particular claim is totally ridiculous).Second of all, there is no evidence that isn't distorted or read into beyond reasonbleness that QUntarsis was govenor of syria twice.

There was no evidence for a world wide census in 8 B.C. Augustus ceasar would not have had the authority to conduct an censuc in Juddah at that time anyway, since Juddah was offically a seperate kingdom. (Can you get that through your head), Third of all, there is no evidence that Quintarsis was govenor of syria at this time.We know that there was a census in 6 C.E, under quintaris, because Joepshus mentioned it in Antiquties, at the time that Judah became a providence of Syria. We have zero evidence of a 8 B.C. census. We have zero credible evidence that Quintaris was a govenor of syria before 6 C.E.Other than pure speculation, show otherwise.

WHy don't you present this alledged evidence. The only peice I have seen was a claim for a stone that had the name obliderated.. that is not evidence, that is wishful thinking.According to historical sources, there are three census's that augustus had on his orders. One was 28 B.C., when he first became emporer (of roman citizens), the second one was 6.C.E... mentioned in Joesphus, and the third one was 13 c.e.so, from known historical sources, there was no known census order by augustus in 8 b.c.e.Let's see if you can find one secular historian (i.e. one that is not trying to use a census in relationship to a religious arguement)that says Augustus ordered a census in 8 b.c.This message has been edited by ramoss, 06-20-2005 08:39 PM

If we don't have any records of that time, why do we have records of the
first cencus of Augustus in 28 B.C., when he first became ruler?Now, you are just not making any sense with that claim.

Well, yes, Herod taxed his kingdom, and then paid tribute to Rome.That does not say that ROME taxed the kingdom.. silly boy.

Did you see, the one in 8 B.C> was ROMAN CITIZENS.Juddah was a seperate kingdom. They were not roman citizen.Plus, you know that just because someone makes a comment in the sidelines doesn't mean that comment is accurate

Responding to an old post,.. never mind.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.