@ghost-of-a-duke saidThe need for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem seems to hinge on the discussion between king Herod and the Magi, and what is written in Micah.
But there is no record of any such census and if there were you wouldn't have to return to your hometown. That wasn't (or isn't) how a census works.
'There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled" (Lk. 2:1). The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events. Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes aga ...[text shortened]... the various governors at the provincial level.'
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm
Everyone else seemed content later on that Jesus was a Nazarene, and Bethlehem was soon forgotten.
Still, much went into the demand and requirement that Bethlehem had to be His birthplace.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I think you are slightly circumnavigating the point. For example, how do 'you' account for the dubious plot twist of Joseph and Mary returning to Bethlehem?
I don't see any "plot twist". The theme of the Gospel is given in Matthew 1:1. This is how the Anointed of God, the Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham came to the world.
While you are eager to examine me I still wonder why you are so eager to cut God out of the Gospel of Matthew. Perhaps you're thinking that atheism is the only proper and normal default approach to reading the New Testament.
Then you predetermine that any mention of God is a twist in the plot artificially inserted by sneaky people afterwards.
"As face answers to face in water, so the mind of a man reflects the man."
It could be that the sneakiness you are sure of in clever people artificially twisting the plot to insert God into the story is your projecting. Actually you are being clever in exploring ways to eliminate God OUT of the narrative for reasons of your preferred atheistic belief that there is no God.
Why is God the enemy?
@chaney3 saidTo me, it seems like the writer sat down and thought, 'hmm, now how do we place Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem to fulfill the OT prophecy? I know, a Census!"
The need for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem seems to hinge on the discussion between king Herod and the Magi, and what is written in Micah.
Everyone else seemed content later on that Jesus was a Nazarene, and Bethlehem was soon forgotten.
Still, much went into the demand and requirement that Bethlehem had to be His birthplace.
"But Luke sir, people do the census where they reside, they don't travel back to their place of birth, and err, there hasn't been a census recently."
"Don't worry. Nobody will check..."
@sonship saidAgain, the text should hold water historically. It should stand on its own two feet and not contain contradictions and absurdities.
@Ghost-of-a-DukeI think you are slightly circumnavigating the point. For example, how do 'you' account for the dubious plot twist of Joseph and Mary returning to Bethlehem?
I don't see any "plot twist". The theme of the Gospel is given in Matthew 1:1. This is how the Anointed of God, the Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham came to the w ...[text shortened]... ve for reasons of your preferred atheistic belief that there is no God.
Why is God the enemy?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidDo you happen to know how many prophecies suggested that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem?
To me, it seems like the writer sat down and thought, 'hmm, now how do we place Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem to fulfill the OT prophecy? I know, a Census!"
"But Luke sir, people do the census where they reside, they don't travel back to their place of birth, and err, there hasn't been a census recently."
"Don't worry. Nobody will check..."
Because either Jesus was in fact born there, as scripture says, or a whole lot of trouble went into making sure He was born in Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy.
If it was just a random statement in Micah, then why all the trouble? Unless it's quoted elsewhere?
@chaney3 saidThe thing is, if the Bible is the word of God then every word matters. (Especially prophecies).
Do you happen to know how many prophecies suggested that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem?
Because either Jesus was in fact born there, as scripture says, or a whole lot of trouble went into making sure He was born in Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy.
If it was just a random statement in Micah, then why all the trouble? Unless it's quoted elsewhere?
Don't you think?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYes, I agree with that, which is why I included the statement above that Jesus being born in Bethlehem is what scripture says. Also, if one does believe scripture, then prophecy wouldn't matter because they can just believe what's said in the gospels at face value.
The thing is, if the Bible is the word of God then every word matters. (Especially prophecies).
Don't you think?
I was just curious how many prophecies suggested that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem.
@chaney3 saidI'm not sure to be honest. Isaiah also made some prophecies about Jesus, but I don't think about the location of his birth.
Yes, I agree with that, which is why I included the statement above that Jesus being born in Bethlehem is what scripture says. Also, if one does believe scripture, then prophecy wouldn't matter because they can just believe what's said in the gospels at face value.
I was just curious how many prophecies suggested that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Again, the text should hold water historically. It should stand on its own two feet and not contain contradictions and absurdities.
Again, when you come with the foregone conclusion that reference to God is absurd you are already pre-committed to dismissing Matthew.
Probably you have read rebuttals to the "No Roman Census" criticisms of the Gospels before.
If not I doubt you will give much attention to a detailed explanation offered in
articles on that line of skepticism.
For example the question submitted to Glenn Miller's Christian Thinktank. It is responded to with lengthy historical examination. Below Jesus Mythicist Richard Carrier is responded to.
How is exactly would you respond to the paragraph Richard Carrier wrote showing how Apamea was conquered by Pompey and was already part of the Roman Republic in 64 BC.
"As for the example given to show a census in Cappadocia, the Roman Empire already controlled Cappadocia as a province in 17 AD, so how would a census in 36 AD imposed on the Cietae tribes show anything?
"Does the data about Apamea and the Ciete support the view that Rome carried out registrations in client kingdoms?"
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/tax4kings1.html
@chaney3 saidFollowing the story narrative and your speculation, Luke 1:45-55 appears to indicate that she did.
Unless..... Mary knew.
I need to investigate, but I think there are theories out there believing that Mary knew what was coming. So, she would have saved the myrrh.
(Your post initially made me laugh, I must admit)
Known as The Magnificat, Mary’s song parallels earlier passages in the Old Testament in Isaiah. This indicates that Mary was well versed in the prophecies/messianic narratives that were handed down for generations and preserved in temple texts.
@hakima saidThe best song I've heard with regards to Mary is "Breath of Heaven" by Amy Grant.
Following the story narrative and your speculation, Luke 1:45-55 appears to indicate that she did.
Known as The Magnificat, Mary’s song parallels earlier passages in the Old Testament in Isaiah. This indicates that Mary was well versed in the prophecies/messianic narratives that were handed down for generations and preserved in temple texts.
When I listen to it, and imagine that Mary is singing, it gives me chills, and adds her perspective on what she went through.
@chaney3 saidI wager that there is a decent study to be had on the three gifts appertaining to the saving nature of God.
Your Isaiah parallel is interesting.
Gold - his spiritual royalty. Similar to the Ark of the Covenant being covered on gold.
Frankincense - cleansing and fragrance
Myrrh - healing
I find this sort of insight quite fascinating both from secular and spiritual perspectives.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
It impresses me that John tells the reader WHY he has written his Gospel.
It is history he claims. But it is not written simply that we may know a lot of things about human history. Therefore, only in passing are some facts mentioned in favor of his real purpose to persuade us to believe Jesus IS the Son of God and have Jesus as divine life.
"Moreover indeed many other signs also Jesus did before His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name." ( John 20:30,31)
We should come to the whole Bible seeking the Son of God. It is not good to come to the Bible with a motive to eliminate out of what you are reading the Son of God.
Does anyone want to appear before God having mastered thousands of details about Roman politics and ancient Middle East culture but having missed Jesus the Savior - the Son of God? Check the history. But don't lose focus on having eternal life in His name, believing Jesus is the Son of God.
Is this the Spirituality forum ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
To me, it seems like the writer sat down and thought, 'hmm, now how do we place Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem to fulfill the OT prophecy? I know, a Census!"
"But Luke sir, people do the census where they reside, they don't travel back to their place of birth, and err, there hasn't been a census recently."
"Don't worry. Nobody will check..."
It is not reasonable to think Luke would divert considerable attention to making sure every and all possible skeptical unbelievers have nothing to read which he doesn't back up with volumes of historical data.
Then the 24 chapters would expand to 24 volumes of perhaps 10,000 pages each.
He did tell us generally some facts to check as readers down through the ages raise a skeptical eyebrow.
"Now in the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Caesar, while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, during the priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zachariah in the wilderness." (Luke 3:1,2)
But should we assume Luke while writing about the most truthful and genuine man who ever lived, is himself lying ruthlessly to do so?
Should we not trust his report because, after all, it did not include detailed biographies of Tiberius, Pilate, Herod, Philip, Lysonias, Annas, Caiaphas, and Zachariah including son John?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
On a whole more detail is given to geography and biography and politics elsewhere in God's communication of the Bible.
After years of considering the Scriptures I have come to a conclusion. It is like God says -
" I want you to come to Me voluntarily because you are attracted to Me and want Me. But if you really don't want to have anything to do with God, here's a side door for you to exit out and go your own way. Here's at least, a plausible excuse for you."
The capacity for the us to say "No thanks, for this reason, for that reason, for this other reason, for that other reason" God will not bludgeon into submission. Both in the Bible and in the testimony of creation itself, we are not FORCED to accept God. He always seems in the book and in nature to leave you a way to slip out the exit away from Him if you really want that.
This to me is the other kind of "fine tuning". I do not mean fine tuning for life in this instance. I mean God fine tunes things so that if you really don't want Him, a door is left for you, a plausible rationale to dismiss yourself from Him.
' I don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah, son of David, son of Abraham, the blessing to the nations, well, because, a smart modern historian said Luke didn't know as much about ancient history as him in 2021 AD. And this really educated man writes - "Anybody Except Jesus" as the intellectual's best reaction to the Gospel. '