Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9025 total)
50 online now:
anglagard, jar, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Tangle (6 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: Ryan Merkle
Post Volume: Total: 882,921 Year: 567/14,102 Month: 567/294 Week: 54/269 Day: 14/6 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem?
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 14 of 156 (507966)
05-09-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Michamus
05-08-2009 3:04 AM


Michimus writes:

Would Mary have traveled?
Assuming the Census did occur as Luke describes, for Joseph to have brought his wife on such a journey would have been highly unusual. Women were considered property are the time, as such they were incapable of owning property. This fact would have made Mary as necessary for presence as all the rest of Joseph's property, including his land. If such a journey was required, Joseph would have had a local tax collector endorse his property statements as authentic, and merely provided the "paperwork" to the Bethlehem authorities.

Are you assuming that the Romans did not require married women to be registered along with their husbands? If the census required all 'families' to be registered, then why is it unusual that a man and his wife would go to register as a family?

Michimus writes:

Mary's Pregnancy
Assuming the Census occurred as stipulated in Luke, and that Joseph wanted to bring Mary along for whatever reason his heart desired, we are still left with two other major issues.

a. Mary being "heavy with child" would have most certainly meant losing her child on such a massive journey. Even if she had rode, the rough roads, and constant jarring would have caused hemorrhaging within her Uterus, as a result of the child being constantly rubbed against it's walls. Also, the child would be enduring traumatic injury with each violent jar.

This is really far fetched. Her uterus would not have hemorrahaged on such a trip. The journey is said to be 3 days.Thats not really a massive trip.
It would have been a slow walking pace, which would most likely be a nice smooth ride...like being on a rocking horse. Heavily pregnant women are out plowing fields in some 3rd world countries and they manage quite well. At the worst Mary would have been uncomfortable but not in any pain and certainly not in great danger.

Michamus writes:

Even if by some miracle, Mary made it to Bethlehem with pregnancy in tact, she would still have the difficulty of the return journey, having just given birth, which would drastically increase her chance of mortality. Not to mention the opportunity it would present the child to expire through sheer exposure, and once again enduring the traumatic episodes of jarring due to rough roads.

The return journey was not made immediately following the birth.
They first went to the temple in Jerusalem ( 5.5 mile journey ) in obedience to the Mosaic Law, to make an offering of purification. This is a requirement of law at the 40th day. So they were in Bethlehem all that time until they went to Jerusalem.

There is also the incident of herod attempting to kill all infant boys up to the age of 2 which indicates that Herod has some idea of the age of the child born to mary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Michamus, posted 05-08-2009 3:04 AM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 05-09-2009 9:56 AM Peg has responded
 Message 16 by bluescat48, posted 05-09-2009 9:56 AM Peg has responded
 Message 17 by Michamus, posted 05-09-2009 11:08 AM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 18 of 156 (508044)
05-10-2009 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Huntard
05-09-2009 9:56 AM


Huntard writes:

An incident, by the way, for which there is absolutely no evidence of it ever having happened.

Herod was a pretty ruthless character...some of his other recorded atrocities show what he was capable of.

but lets just say that the account was a fraud... why would the writer give a specific age of the baby boys who Herod wanted killed? Why not just say 'and Herod sent to have all the baby boys killed'

There are too many specific details in the account to conclude that it was a false account. You have to remember that these gospels were being circulated to the jews themselves to prove jesus Messiahship. Any untruths would have quickly been identified by the authorities and squashed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 05-09-2009 9:56 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by purpledawn, posted 05-10-2009 9:47 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 99 by deerbreh, posted 05-26-2009 11:57 AM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 19 of 156 (508046)
05-10-2009 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by bluescat48
05-09-2009 9:56 AM


bluescat writes:

The point is why would the Romans create a total logistical nightmare by having people all over the empire go back to their ancestral home simply to register when it would be simpler to just have them register where they are.

i have no idea on that

but surely if each city had a registration office, it would make sense to require the inhabitants of the city to come in to register at the correct office rather then anyone registering at any office.

who knows?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by bluescat48, posted 05-09-2009 9:56 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 20 of 156 (508051)
05-10-2009 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Michamus
05-09-2009 11:08 AM


Michamus writes:

Also, since it is not required for Mary to be present for this census that is completely unfounded historically, it would be HIGHLY UNUSUAL for her to travel in her late stage of pregnancy .

She may not have been required to go but if i was heavily pregnant and my husband was required to go away for a length of time, i think i would want to go along too. I doubt she would want to stay behind knowing that he would miss the birth.
Its probably as simple as that.

Michamus writes:

ROFL! It is an 80 mile journey... are you seriously describing a 26 mile a day journey as a leisurely stroll? That would be 12 hours of constant walking a day for three days.

and that was quite normal in those days...thats how people got around. They were used to it.

Michamus writes:

Unlike you Peg, I have actually walked on the type of roads Mary would have walked on for several hours, and it is painful. It is anything but a "smooth ride" that is "like being on a rocking horse". I can only imagine how seriously painful it would be if I were a woman in her LATE 3rd trimester.

I mean, we are seriously talking about a woman who is in her 34th to 38th week of pregnancy walking on rough roads for 80 miles. Are you seriously telling me this would not be difficult?

Mary didnt walk, she was carried on a donkey.

Michamus writes:

Quite a naive assessment if you ask me.

not naive, i've had 3 pregnancies myself

Michamus writes:

I notice that you had no rebuttal to my historical* dates in regard to the timing of the only census that was even remotely close to the supposed date of Jesus birth as well, and the complete lack of an historical evidence for a "Luke style" census having ever occurred at all*. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if you threw that out to in favor of whatever your heart desires.

I didnt give a rebuttal earlier but if you want some additional information im happy to provide it.

You said

quote:
There were three censuses during the reign of Caesar Augustus 28 BC, 8 BC, and 14 AD. Quirinius did not take up Governorship until 6-7AD.

The fact is that Quirinius came to rule 2 times as governor.

You may have heard of the Lapis Tiburinus inscription which was found in Rome in 1764. It contains the statement that on going to Syria he became governor (or, legate) for 'the second time.' This find has led many historians to acknowledge that Quirinius was also governor of Syria in the BCE period.

They agree that the timing was about 3-2 BCE. Some scholars call attention to the fact that the term used by Luke, and usually translated "governor" is he.ge.mon'. Its a Greek term used to describe Roman legates, procurators, and proconsuls, and it means, basically, a 'leader' or 'high executive officer.' Some suggest that, at the time of what Luke refers to as the 'first registration' Quirinius served in Syria in the capacity of a special legate of the emperor exercising extraordinary powers. This also helps to understabd Josephus's reference to a dual rulership of Syria. He speaks of two people, Saturninus and Volumnius, serving simultaneously as 'governors of Syria.' So its possible that Quirinius served simultaneously either with Saturninus (as Volumnius had done) or with Varus prior to Herod’s death (which likely occurred in 1 BCE).

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge presents this view: "Quirinius stood in exactly the same relation to Varus, the governor of Syria, as at a later time Vespasian did to Mucianus. Vespasian conducted the war in Palestine while Mucianus was governor of Syria; and Vespasian was legatus Augusti, holding precisely the same title and technical rank as Mucianus."

Luke's account has been proved accurate in reference to Quirinius as governor of Syria around the time of Jesus birth. The historical evidence backs him up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Michamus, posted 05-09-2009 11:08 AM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by bluescat48, posted 05-10-2009 9:43 AM Peg has responded
 Message 23 by purpledawn, posted 05-10-2009 10:15 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Michamus, posted 05-10-2009 1:59 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 25 of 156 (508165)
05-11-2009 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by bluescat48
05-10-2009 9:43 AM


That date of 4bc is accepted but it doesnt mean its correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great#Death
quote:
Josephus wrote that Herod died after a lunar eclipse,[19] and a partial eclipse[20] took place in 4 BC. It has been suggested that 5 BC might be a more likely date[21] – there were two total eclipses in that year

While Josephus did write that herod died during an eclipse it doesnt mean it was the eclipse of 4bc. It could have been an eclipse which happened in 1bc. Researchers in the 1980's discovered that there was an eclipse at that earlier date.
John Mosley of Los Angeles’ Griffith Observatory officially went on record as saying that the lunar eclipse mentioned by Josephus may not have been the eclipse of 4BC.

Its also accepted that Josephus’ statement that Herod died 37 years after being made king by the Romans is correct. But they calculate it based on the time the roman senate actually gave their consent for the capture of the city and not the actual date of the capture.

Its easily calculated because Herod did not capture Jerusalem and begin his reign as king until the summer of 38 BCE.

Its makes sense to calculate it based on the date of the capture because from the perspective of the inhabitants, they would not have known Herod as king until the capture...they would not have known anything of Rome giving their consent 3 years earlier.

Obviously Josephus dated Herod’s reign from when he actually began ruling as king, which would make his death 37 years later as 1 BCE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by bluescat48, posted 05-10-2009 9:43 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by bluescat48, posted 05-11-2009 5:56 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 38 of 156 (508408)
05-13-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by bluescat48
05-12-2009 1:31 PM


bluescat48 writes:

I don't think anyone is denying the possibility that a tax census was conducted during the time Quirinius's rule , but it still shows no reason why every person in the roman Empire would have to travel back to their Ancestral home to register. What are they going to tax the ancestors? Also if one looks at the Roman Empire in ~4 BCE, It ranged from the Atlantic to Mesopotamia & all of Northern Africa. A person living in what is now Belgium but who came from Cairo traveling by foot or ass would take considerable time to arrive at his destination. Try going from Los Angeles to Boston by ass and see how long it would take.

perhaps the register was for the Jewish occupants only?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by bluescat48, posted 05-12-2009 1:31 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by bluescat48, posted 05-13-2009 9:14 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Michamus, posted 05-15-2009 2:43 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 69 of 156 (509467)
05-22-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ramoss
05-21-2009 10:36 PM


ramoss writes:

Well, that is the story in Matthew. However, the census that is talked about in Luke happened in 6 c.e., a full 10 years after the death of Herod the King.

This is what is known as a 'contradiction'.

There is evidence that Quirinius served at two different times though.

Josephus (jewish historian) wrote that Quirinius came into Judea and ordered a taxation which lead to a revolt led by Judas, a Gaulanite.
(the bible book of Acts mentions such a revolt by such a man at Acts 5:37) According to Josephus it took place in the 37th year after Caesar’s defeat of Antony at Actium. (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII)

That puts the timing of Quirinius governership of Syria in 6 C.E. But There is further evidence of an earlier census in the BCE period in the writings of Tertullian who records the census "taken in Judea by Sentius Saturninus." and he was Legate of Syria from 9 to 6 BCE

There is also the Lapis Tiburtinus inscription. Although it doesnt name Quirinirus, it does say that a man victorious in war who upon going to Syria became governor (or, legate) for ‘the second time.’ Quirinius was a roman general who lead forces and was a governor, this is why many scholars agree that it can only point to him.

This explains why Luke calls the registration 'the first registration'. It took place when Jesus was born in the BCE period and the later registration took place when Quirinus became governor for the 2nd time 6 CE and sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean as mentioned in Acts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ramoss, posted 05-21-2009 10:36 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 05-22-2009 1:25 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 81 of 156 (509800)
05-25-2009 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by PaulK
05-23-2009 2:27 AM


PaulK writes:

So we don't have any indication of a census or a loyalty oath directly connected to this event other than Orosius's claim that this is so - and Orosius could easily be assuming a census based on Luke, not on any other source.

Josephus does in fact mention a tax under Quirinius that led to a jewish revolt however Luke mentions no such revolt in his account of the registration indicating that they were writing about two different registrations.

The Jewish encylopedia says: It was then that Judas, the son of Hezekiah, the above-mentioned robber-captain, organized his forces for revolt, first, it seems, against the Herodian dynasty, and then, when Quirinus introduced the census, against submission to the rule of Rome and its taxation.

there is more information about Judas the Galilean and the revolt against Qurinius here http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants04.html

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 05-23-2009 2:27 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 05-25-2009 6:39 AM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 83 of 156 (509804)
05-25-2009 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by PaulK
05-25-2009 6:39 AM


PaulK writes:

That's not a valid argument. There's no reason to assume that Luke would mention the revolt. It plays no role in his story

Your right. The revolt played no role in the story because there was no revolt during that registration.

He does mention the revolt though. He specifically mentions it with regard to 'the first registration' (Acts 5:37)

So Luke knew of the revolt but did not write it in his gospel. The only reason he would do this is because the registration he wrote about in the Gospel, was a different registration to the one that resulted in a jewish revolt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 05-25-2009 6:39 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 05-25-2009 8:13 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 85 by kbertsche, posted 05-25-2009 12:39 PM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 89 of 156 (509897)
05-26-2009 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by kbertsche
05-25-2009 12:39 PM


Cheers for that, the gospel account is the first registration.

I just wanted to point out that the scriptures put the birth of Christ at 2bce...so if we take the scriptures chronology as superior to the ancient historians (of which there is much speculation and confusion) then Lukes account about the registration took place in 2bce rather then 5-4bce.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by kbertsche, posted 05-25-2009 12:39 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2009 1:28 AM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 91 of 156 (509917)
05-26-2009 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by PaulK
05-26-2009 1:28 AM


PaulK writes:

Since the date of Jesus' birth according to the Gospels is a prime example of "specualtion and confusion" you would be very foolish to take that chronology as superior to Josephus with regard to that period.

their is no speculation in scripture with regard to the year of christs birth. Jesus commenced his preaching work after being baptized by John when he was 30yrs of age.

Luke 3:1-3 says that John began his baptizing activity in the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,"
Augustus chose Tiberius as his successor and died on August 17, 14 CE. It was September 15 that the senate proclaimed Tiberius emperor.
If the years were counted from the death of Augustus, the 15th year ran from August 28 CE to August 29 CE.
If we count them from when he was formally proclaimed emperor, the year would run from September 28 CE to September 29 CE.

So if Jesus was 30 yrs old in August or September of 29CE, it means he was born in 2BCE.

There is no confusion according to Luke.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2009 1:28 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2009 5:20 AM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 93 of 156 (509926)
05-26-2009 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by PaulK
05-26-2009 5:20 AM


Paulk writes:

When he was "about 30". Which allows a few years either way. To say that he was 30 years old is speculation.

No, to say that he was 30 years is in line with how old the bible writers said he was.
It doesnt allow for a few years either way for a number of reasons. 1. According to the Mosaic law at Numbers 4, sacred service was forbidden for anyone under the age of 30. So Jesus would not have attempted to preach and teach publically if he was less then the prescribed age for those in priestly service.

2. It is very specific "about 30" would mean he was 30 years + some months. Had he been older then 30, there was nothing stopping Luke from writing it.

PaulK writes:

But he doesn't say when Jesus was baptised. Obviously it would have to happen at some point when John the Baptist was active, but that doesn't have to be in the first year of his ministry - that is more speculation.

Johns activity didnt even last 1 full year. He began baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius and he was imprisoned shortly after baptizing Jesus.

You can keep bringing up all sorts of objections, but the scriptures are in full harmony with the year of Jesus birth, the commencement of his ministry and the time of his death.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2009 5:20 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2009 7:36 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 94 of 156 (509929)
05-26-2009 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by PaulK
05-26-2009 5:20 AM


PaulK writes:

The "about 30" is the age that Jesus started his ministry. Since that does not have to immediately follow his baptism we have yet another uncertainty

the accounts say that he commenced his ministry when he returned from his 40 days in the wilderness.

quote:
Matt4:12 Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Gal′i·lee. 13 Further, after leaving Naz′a·reth, he came and took up residence in Ca·per′na·um beside the sea... 17 From that time on Jesus commenced preaching and saying: “Repent, YOU people, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2009 5:20 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 96 of 156 (509943)
05-26-2009 8:42 AM


on the contrary, the fact that i base my facts on the bible accounts shows my respect for the authority of the bible

it hasnt let me down yet.


Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2009 8:57 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 100 by deerbreh, posted 05-26-2009 12:02 PM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 102 of 156 (510044)
05-27-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by ramoss
05-26-2009 9:45 AM


ramoss writes:

I would also point out that the census being mentioned by Luke is just one bit of evidence that Luke used Josephus as a historical reference.

the fact that Luke fails to mention one of the greatest catastrophies to befall the jewish inhabitants makes it highly unlikely. Lukes writings must have been complete befor the 70CE destruction took place.

ramoss writes:

The fact Josephus has John the Baptist being executed in 36 c.e. and Jesus starting his ministry that same year is another clue, since at that point, Jesus would have been 30, as described by the gospels.

what reference do you have for John being put to death by Herod Antipas in 36ce?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ramoss, posted 05-26-2009 9:45 AM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2009 3:29 AM Peg has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021