Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem?

yup mary went to bethlehem with joseph... it is written in matthew.
__________________________________________________________________
floating tanks
Horses for Sale
This is not an advertising venue.Edited by arabela, : No reason given.Edited by AdminModulous, : edited links

quote:

---

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.

---

Where do you get "heavy" with child? Lk 2:5 only says that she was pregnant. Couldn't she have been only 3-4 months pregnant, in which case the journey would not be nearly so dangerous as you describe?

Doesn't it say she gave birth relatively soon after arrival? How long do you think it would take for Joseph to register with the officials for the census? Certainly not 6-5 months.

There are a number of mistakes in your recitation.First, there is no evidence that Quintarsis was a governor of Syria more than once. The entire argument is a 'well maybe' , based on an inscription that had the person it was referring to totally erased by time.The next big problem with the entire story of Luke is that Galilee was not part of the Kingdom of Judah, but was being ruled by Antipas. It was not subject to taxes at the time. Judah was, because it's ruler was just replaced, and put under direct roman control.So, Luke's entire story , with Joesph and Mary coming from Nazareth, and Mary being that close to labor is unlikely to the extreme.It is, however, some bit of evidence that the writer of the Gospel of Luke/Acts did use Joesphus as a historical source.

quote:

---

No. 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.
This would obviously mean that the first Roman census to occur with Quirinius as Governor of Syria would have been 14AD. This is at least 8 years too late for the supposed birth of Jesus.

---

Yes, the census at Jesus' birth poses a problem which has no simple solution. The grammar of Luke 2:2 is investigated in The Problem of Luke 2:2, which concludes:

quote:

---

The next big problem with the entire story of Luke is that Galilee was not part of the Kingdom of Judah, but was being ruled by Antipas. It was not subject to taxes at the time. Judah was, because it's ruler was just replaced, and put under direct roman control.

---

No, this division of the kingdom occurred only after the death of Herod the Great (Herod I). Jesus was born while Herod I was king of Galilee as well as Judah.

quote:

---

Jesus was born while Herod I was king of Galilee as well as Judah.

---

So you know when Jesus was born?

---

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

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 6C.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 BCEThere 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 6CE and sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean as mentioned in Acts.

Are you serious? Surely this is a joke?

quote:

---

Luke 2:
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

---

Did you not think to perhaps read the story before commenting? Sadly, I feel the author will be holding his breath forever on that one. I already addressed the likelihood of any new information coming out that may corroborate Luke's story as being nil in Message 59.Perhaps if we were discussing a more obscure empire you would have hope.

quote:

---

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

---

No, there isn't.

quote:

---

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

---

Tertullian was a Christian apologist who converted at the end of the 2nd Century AD. His assertion may be no more than an attempt to reconcile the two Nativity stories. He does not mention Quirinius being present.

quote:

---

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.

---

"Many scholars" would be nuts, in that case. Quintilius Varus, to name one famous example, contemporary with Qurinius, was Governor of Syria -and lead Roman troops. Nor does the stone clearly say that the man in question was governor of Syria twice.Note also that Tertullian's alleged census is held under Sentius Saturnius, not Quirinius so any argument that assumes that Quirinius was governor of Syria contradicts Tertullian. You can't use both arguments at the same time.

quote:

---

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.

---

Or perhaps he calls it the first registration because the 6 AD census was the first tax census held by the Romans. The facts are:We have no record of any earlier tax census of Judaea. (Or even a good reason for one to be held)We have no record of Qurinius holding any power in Judaea prior to 6 ADWe DO have information that Quirinius was responsible for the 6 AD census.On this basis the idea that Luke meant the 6 AD census is clearly the best explanation.

First of all, you say that the Lapis Tiburtinus appears more likely to mean ‘governor of Asia and governor of Syria’.But the lapis doesn’t contain the expressions uno tempore, eodem tempore or similar. So, where do you find that the Latin term iterum (present in the lapis) has the meaning of and or together (or similar)?Really more likely the lapis appears to mean governor of Syria again, or for the second time (or similar), just the true meaning of iterum suggests us.Edited by Asteragros, : No reason given.

What I mean is that it can be interpreted as saying that the position of governor was held twice (that is what is repeated), but in two different places. My phrasing was a possible interpretation, not an attempt at a word for word translation as you suggest.Of course, unless the stone can be shown to refer to Quirinius the interpretation is moot.

I wrote:

quote:

---

Are you serious? Surely this is a joke?

quote:

---

Luke 2:
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

---

---

Perhaps you don't realize that the Gospel of Luke was written in Koine Greek, not in King James English? The King James translation of this verse is somewhat misleading. The original Greek simply uses the adjective "pregnant" (egkuos). Nearly all modern translations convey the same sense as the Greek:

quote:

---

Did you not think to perhaps read the story before commenting?

---

Did you not think to perhaps check the original or some modern translations before commenting?

quote:

---

So you know when Jesus was born?

---

Almost certainly between 2 BC and 7 BC. Many make a strong case for about 4 BC, which is perhaps the most likely date.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.