Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem?

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, 14CE. 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 28CE to August 29CE.
If we count them from when he was formally proclaimed emperor, the year would run from September 28CE to September 29CE.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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

Luke 3:1-3 says that John began his baptizing activity in the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,"

---

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.[ADDED]
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 uncertaintyEdited by PaulK, : See ADDED text above

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. 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.

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

quote:

---

Matt4:12Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Gal′ilee. 13Further, after leaving Naz′areth, he came and took up residence in Caper′naum beside the sea... 17From that time on Jesus commenced preaching and saying: Repent, YOU people, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.

---

quote:

---

No, to say that he was 30 years is in line with how old the bible writers said he was.

---

So would saying that he was 28 or 32.

quote:

---

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.

---

Not true. Numbers 4 specifies that Levites from specified families will have certain duties in the tabernacle from the ages of 30 to 50. No reason is specified and there seems no good reason to assume that it applies to preaching (after all people older than 50 can still preach).

quote:

---

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.

---

No, it is quite non-specific - "about 30" includes 28 and 32. Had he been 30 + some months there is nothing stopping Luke from saying that he was 30. So if your argument means anything it suggests that Jesus was younger, since Luke might well have wanted to obscure that. (It is also possible that Luke did not know exactly which year Jesus started to preach - since we don't have an exact date for the crucifixion either).

quote:

---

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.

---

This is pure speculation We don't know how long John had been preaching before he baptised Jesus. Therefore even if we grant your claim that he was arrested soon after (which doesn't come from Luke) we still can't use that to set a duration for John's ministry.

quote:

---

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.

---

You mean that I can keep pointing out the fact that the Bible doesn't say what you want it to say - and you'll go right on ignoring it. I find it truly amazing that there are "Christians" like you who respect the Bible less than I do.[and message 94]

quote:

---

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′ilee. 13 Further, after leaving Naz′areth, he came and took up residence in Caper′naum 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.

---

---

In other words the only useful information it gives is that Jesus didn't begin preaching until after John had been arrested. Which means that you MUST include the length of John's ministry in your calculations, if they are to reflect what Matthew says. And you didn't (and can't without speculating).

on the contrary, the fact that i base my facts on the bible accounts shows my respect for the authority of the bibleit hasnt let me down yet.

quote:

---

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

---

So what you are saying is that since the real Bible lets you down by failing to say what you think it should, you show your "respect" for it by pretending that it does anyway.

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 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.

Actually if you talk to a trial lawyer they will tell you that specific details from an eyewitness is no guarantee of accuracy - in fact, the opposite is often true. Someone who is lying will often make up details to try to make their account more credible by closely fitting with the circumstantial evidence - and it is exactly those specific details that a good trial lawyer will use to trip up the witness on cross examination. You make a lot of assumptions about how the gospels were written that cannot be independently verified. And furthermore, most people in the 1st century were illiterate, there were no printing presses, no newspapers, no books or pamphlets - so to talk about the "gospels being circulated" in a form that "the authorities" could find and squash is rampant speculation at best.

How does pretending the bible says something based on your preconceived notions of how and why it was written show "respect" for it?

quote:

---

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.

---

Unfortunately we don't have good evidence that John was executed in AD 36. What we know is that the Josephus claims that the Jews blamed a military defeat in AD 36 on the execution of John. That indicates that they linked the two events, but unfortunately there is more to the link than time. (Herod Antipas' marriage to Herodias - circa 23 AD - was an issue in the war - the father of his previous wife was the enemy - and John was apparently arrested for criticising the marriage). It does suggest that the two events were reasonably close in time, but to say that they happened in the same year is pushing too far.

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

most of the population was illiterate???Are you really saying that because there were no newspapers or books or pamphlets most people were illiterate???ancient nations invented the written word without books, newspapers and pamphlets...give them some credit.The apostles and early disciples were able to read and write, Jesus was reading aloud in the synagogues from a young age so I think you can safely conclude that most people could read and write in the first century.

Luke says that Jesus was 'about 30 years of age when he began his ministry'please explain how this cannot mean 30 years of age... paulk says it could mean 28 or 33I am not pretending, i believe that Luke wrote exactly what he meant to write...if you can read another age into it then perhaps there is a lack of honest review going on.

quote:

---

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.

---

Since Luke didn't write about the events of 70 AD it is entirely possible that he would not have mentioned it. The more so since Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse appears to have been changed (from that found in Mark) to better fit the actual events - evidence that Luke wrote AFTER 70 AD.