Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
27 online now:
DrJones*, jar, Tanypteryx (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,865 Year: 16,901/19,786 Month: 1,026/2,598 Week: 272/251 Day: 43/58 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem?
arabela
Junior Member (Idle past 3684 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 05-20-2009


Message 61 of 156 (509382)
05-20-2009 11:26 PM


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


    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 62 of 156 (509422)
05-21-2009 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Michamus
05-08-2009 3:04 AM


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?

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 63 by Perdition, posted 05-21-2009 1:31 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 70 by Michamus, posted 05-22-2009 1:20 AM kbertsche has responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 63 of 156 (509424)
05-21-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by kbertsche
05-21-2009 1:01 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by kbertsche, posted 05-21-2009 1:01 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 64 of 156 (509432)
05-21-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Asteragros
05-12-2009 12:59 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Asteragros, posted 05-12-2009 12:59 PM Asteragros has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by kbertsche, posted 05-21-2009 10:19 PM ramoss has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 65 of 156 (509449)
05-21-2009 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Michamus
05-08-2009 1:14 PM


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:
In conclusion, facile solutions do not come naturally to Luke 2:2. This does not, of course, mean that Luke erred. In agreement with Schürmann, Marshall “warns against too easy acceptance of the conclusion that Luke has gone astray here; only the discovery of new historical evidence can lead to a solution of the problem."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Michamus, posted 05-08-2009 1:14 PM Michamus has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 66 of 156 (509452)
05-21-2009 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ramoss
05-21-2009 4:07 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ramoss, posted 05-21-2009 4:07 PM ramoss has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Theodoric, posted 05-21-2009 10:32 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 68 by ramoss, posted 05-21-2009 10:36 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6583
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 67 of 156 (509455)
05-21-2009 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by kbertsche
05-21-2009 10:19 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by kbertsche, posted 05-21-2009 10:19 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by kbertsche, posted 05-23-2009 12:44 AM Theodoric has responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 68 of 156 (509457)
05-21-2009 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by kbertsche
05-21-2009 10:19 PM


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'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by kbertsche, posted 05-21-2009 10:19 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Peg, posted 05-22-2009 12:13 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3188 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

    
Michamus
Member (Idle past 3416 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 70 of 156 (509472)
05-22-2009 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by kbertsche
05-21-2009 1:01 PM


kbertsche writes:


Where do you get "heavy" with child? Lk 2:5 only says that she was pregnant.


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?

kbertsche writes:


The grammar of Luke 2:2 is investigated in The Problem of Luke 2:2, which concludes:


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by kbertsche, posted 05-21-2009 1:01 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by kbertsche, posted 05-23-2009 12:27 AM Michamus has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 71 of 156 (509473)
05-22-2009 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Peg
05-22-2009 12:13 AM


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 AD

We 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Peg, posted 05-22-2009 12:13 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by kbertsche, posted 05-23-2009 1:11 AM PaulK has responded

    
Asteragros
Member (Idle past 1658 days)
Posts: 40
From: Modena, Italy
Joined: 01-11-2002


Message 72 of 156 (509483)
05-22-2009 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by PaulK
05-16-2009 1:46 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2009 1:46 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 05-22-2009 3:50 AM Asteragros has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 73 of 156 (509486)
05-22-2009 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Asteragros
05-22-2009 3:38 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Asteragros, posted 05-22-2009 3:38 AM Asteragros has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Asteragros, posted 05-28-2009 10:49 AM PaulK has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 74 of 156 (509622)
05-23-2009 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Michamus
05-22-2009 1:20 AM


I wrote:
Where do you get "heavy" with child? Lk 2:5 only says that she was pregnant.

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:

NAS: in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.

NIV: He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

NET: He went to be registered with Mary, who was promised in marriage to him, and who was expecting a child.

NKJV: to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child.

ESV: to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.

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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Michamus, posted 05-22-2009 1:20 AM Michamus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Michamus, posted 05-23-2009 5:58 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 80 by purpledawn, posted 05-23-2009 9:26 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 75 of 156 (509624)
05-23-2009 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Theodoric
05-21-2009 10:32 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Theodoric, posted 05-21-2009 10:32 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Theodoric, posted 05-23-2009 11:39 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019