Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem?

Whether the wife would have to accompany her husband is irrelevant. 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. No the only reason for the enclosure of such nonsense is to attempt to fulfill the prophesy.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

As I stated, Mary's presence was required just as much as Joseph's land was required. I don't know if you realize this, but women being considered anything but property is a modern concept.Don't take my word for it though, do a google search on "Roman Census" and find out for yourself. No, a census never "required all 'families' to be registered in person. A Roman Census was an opportunity for a Roman citizen to state his status, and what property he possessed. A Roman citizen also had the ability to grant his slave(s) freedom by declaring him a Roman Citizen on the census, rather than as his own property.Notice that the gender "he" and "his" is specified, in that only a man could be a Citizen, any other person was considered a member of the Citizen's house. Here is a great article on the stipulations of Roman Citizenship.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 .Then again, don't take my word for it... look it up yourself. 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.Also, I would take your medical analysis on whether her uterus would hemorrhage or not more seriously, if you actually had any formal medical education... or could spell hemorrhage correctly. 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? I know Peg, I have seen pregnant women out in these fields weeding out crops and irrigating. There is a huge difference between this, and walking 80 miles straight on rough roads.In case you try and ask another silly question like "how do you know they were pregnant with a Burka on?", do I really have to describe what a pregnant woman would look like with a sheet over her? Quite a naive assessment if you ask me. Do you not think I took that into consideration? Do you think a woman can have fully recovered from her baton death march in 2 months, to make the march again? Seriously Peg, I wonder about you sometimes. Of which there is also no evidence.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.Edited by Michamus, : typosEdited by Michamus, : to err is human (typos)Edited by Michamus, : inserted * to *

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.

i have no idea on thatbut 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?

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. and that was quite normal in those days...thats how people got around. They were used to it. Mary didnt walk, she was carried on a donkey. not naive, i've had 3 pregnancies myself 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 3-2BCE. 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 1BCE).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.

IAW one of your seemingly favorite historians, So where do you come up with 1BCE?Edited by bluescat48, : clarity

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

quote:

---

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.

---

What authorities are you talking about? Do you understand the turmoil that was going on at the time Mark was supposedly written? The author of Luke mentioned the skeptics. The word for refused to believe is Apeitheo and the meaning in Strong’s Concordance is: 1. not to allow one’s self to be persuaded and 2. not to comply with. There were Jews who didn't buy what Paul was selling and they did speak out. Remember the Gospels and the Book of Acts were all written after the Jewish War. You might also check out this thread: Was Christianity Exposed?We can't read the Gospels the way we read biographies today. As I've said many time before the authors of the Bible have a purpose for their writings specific to their audience.What makes you think these gospels were being circulated through the Jews? The writer's weren't Jews. They were Greeks. The Gospel of Mark is the earliest and apparently written in Rome. After the destruction of the Temple in the Jewish War, Christianity was cast out of Judaism.So the author of Matthew is inspired by the birth story of Moses and uses that slaughter imagery for his birth story of Jesus. Mark didn't have a birth story, so the author of Matthew and Luke were on their own.The slaughter and the census are facts that can be checked. Josephus didn't mention the slaughter and he delighted in listing all of Herod's atrocities and the census can be checked and has been checked. Since these supposed facts aren't literally true, then the reader has to understand what point the writer was trying to make to his audience.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

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.

---

If you've actually had three pregnancies then you should know better.Even today, three days of driving or riding in a car is uncomfortable in the last months. Unless I absolutely had to, I wouldn't go on such a trip with my husband so close to my due date. I wouldn't want to have a baby in a strange hospital. In those days they had a midwife.Remember marriages were arranged and the couple didn't necessarily have this need to be together. They were probably more strangers than not. These two also hadn't consummated the marriage yet.

quote:

---

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

---

We are used to daily driving also, but a three day trip of consistent driving is harder on us than daily driving.

quote:

---

Mary didnt walk, she was carried on a donkey.

---

Then the argument that she is used to walking is irrelevant. Was she used to riding a donkey for long periods of time? Probably not. They aren't comfy.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

ROFL! So when the author of Luke wrote Governor, what he really meant was something other than governor? The logical gymnastics keep coming! Judging by the fact that you didn't even get Herod's date of death correct... I am highly skeptical of everything you just stated without references. Luke's account has required gymnastics in both logic, and evidence. This is so that the moderately to poorly educated christian can believe the book to be accurate in reference to Quirinius as governor of Syria around the time of Jesus birth.There, fixed that line for you.

That date of 4bc is accepted but it doesnt mean its correct.
Herod the Great - Wikipedia

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 38BCE.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 1BCE.

It could have been 5BCE, 4BCE, 1BCE. That is the problem with proving this. When was the census? When was Quirinus Governor? The dates are all speculative. Plus the fact that these were written down years later and not by anyone who was there. Without information to confirm this it can be said that, one cannot be sure of when anything happened.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Sounds like you are making an appeal to authority. It's also your responsibility to justify your claims, not mine to justify them for you.What you supply is good evidence though. It's not completely convincing as we know nothing about how Mary made the journey, but I agree it is a serious factor. One thing to consider is that the audience for this would have been well aware about travel conditions - would they have bought the story of a very pregnant woman taking this kind of journey?More important I think is the point about censuses - I agree this sounds like a device by which Joseph and Mary could be placed in Bethlehem. So I'm fundamentally with you.

in response to your statement to Michamus I feel that he has. His statement was simply showing that it doesn't take any excess knowledge to get an answer.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Concerning the possibility of a pregnant Mary traveling long distances when just before term, while perhaps arguable it doesn't seem a particularly strong argument to me. What percentage of woman could make such a journey? I have a feeling the answer is not 0%. The historical arguments seem much stronger.Just my opinion...--Percy

quote:

---

The historical arguments seem much stronger.

---

What historical arguments? Arguments for pregnant women traveling? Or historical arguments for Mary in particular?I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say in your post.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts