I am always puzzled by the alternating scriptures for Christmas, the writings of Matthew and the writings of Luke.
Matthew tells us that Jesus was born while Herod was king (who died in 4 BC). Luke tells us that Jesus was born during the census of Syria conducted by Quirinus in 6 AD.
Luke tells us that John’s parents came from a priestly family of Aaron, not David, This is what is meant by ‘daughter of Aaron,’ (not a daughter of David).
So if Mary were the cousin of Elizabeth or any blood relative, she would also be of Aaron’s bloodline, not David’s.
And, of course, women lack a Y chromosome so they can’t transmit the DNA for maleness.
So if Jesus was of virgin birth he would not have been of Davidic ancestry and would be a woman.
Are we to consider both Matthew’s and Luke’s scripture to be inspired on these points?
A Christmas time contradiction.
Moderator: Moderators
Re: A Christmas time contradiction.
Post #41[Replying to polonius]
It is understandable that you would be puzzled…Mainly, because there are no alternating scriptures for Christmas and the Aramaic text is more accurate than the Greek text, relating to the topic! The bible does not support the idea that the Christ was born on Dec.25. As a matter of fact, the bible states that "one's death" is more important than one's birth (Ecclesiastes 7:1). So, the reality that there are no (verifiable) records of the year and day the Christ was born makes assigning a date for his birth irrelevant. Hence, besides the Christians, most circumstantial evidence points to the birth of the Christ, as being sometime in September or the Hebrew month Tishri, before the death of King Herod (4 B.C.).
Well, it's quite obvious that there was an earlier census or taxing campaign, which Luke is actually referring to. He states this in Luke 2:2 (this census "first" took place). It is clear that Luke knew about the first census and the one around 6 A.D., since the book of Luke is said to be written sometime in the 60's A.D. When, we review the Greek word, which was translated into the English word governor, there's a problem. This Greek word really means: to be leading or in charge of a province, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first census would have been when Quirinius was leading a military action against the Homonadensians, during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. The title he held at the time was "legatus" or military governor, not political governor. He had the authority over the region's peoples for enlisting soldiers, during this campaign. The actual "political" governor was Publius Quinctilius Varus (7-4 B.C.), who was known for his harsh rule and high taxes. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions the swift action of Varus against a messianic revolt in Judea, after the death of King Herod, in 4 B.C. Hence, to imply that there was only one taxing period or census, during the time frame in question, is unreliable.
(The following comment is supporting certain statements made by JW)
No, this isn't accurate…Mary and Elizabeth could be cousins, if their fathers were from different tribes or linage and their mothers were sisters. This explains the closeness of the two women, not because of their fathers, but their mothers…It also shows how Mary is tied to David through the kingship line of Solomon and outlined in Matthew. So, it was common practice (at the time) for the tribes of Israel to intermarry with each other. However, the linage did not come from the women, but from the men! Therefore, Mary's father, who was named Joseph came from the line of David through Solomon. Joseph, Mary's husband, received his linage through David's son Nathan. So, upon further research, Matthew 1:16 should read: Joseph, Mary's father, not husband. This is supported in Matthew 1:17. Yet, the possibility that Mary had Levite blood in her veins, also supports the Christ's title of being a High Priest. Which, I'm sure you know that only those with linage or blood line from Aaron, can be a High Priest! It is clear that God covered all the needed details: the male DNA (which God supplied through a miracle), the linage to kingship (Mary's father) and the linage to being High Priest from Mary's mother.
Yes, we are! However, much more research is needed to piece the puzzle together and we can't always trust others to properly record the real truth, even when others assumed they were inspired to so.
polonius wrote:I am always puzzled by the alternating scriptures for Christmas, the writings of Matthew and the writings of Luke.
It is understandable that you would be puzzled…Mainly, because there are no alternating scriptures for Christmas and the Aramaic text is more accurate than the Greek text, relating to the topic! The bible does not support the idea that the Christ was born on Dec.25. As a matter of fact, the bible states that "one's death" is more important than one's birth (Ecclesiastes 7:1). So, the reality that there are no (verifiable) records of the year and day the Christ was born makes assigning a date for his birth irrelevant. Hence, besides the Christians, most circumstantial evidence points to the birth of the Christ, as being sometime in September or the Hebrew month Tishri, before the death of King Herod (4 B.C.).
polonius wrote:Matthew tells us that Jesus was born while Herod was king (who died in 4 BC). Luke tells us that Jesus was born during the census of Syria conducted by Quirinus in 6 AD.
Well, it's quite obvious that there was an earlier census or taxing campaign, which Luke is actually referring to. He states this in Luke 2:2 (this census "first" took place). It is clear that Luke knew about the first census and the one around 6 A.D., since the book of Luke is said to be written sometime in the 60's A.D. When, we review the Greek word, which was translated into the English word governor, there's a problem. This Greek word really means: to be leading or in charge of a province, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first census would have been when Quirinius was leading a military action against the Homonadensians, during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. The title he held at the time was "legatus" or military governor, not political governor. He had the authority over the region's peoples for enlisting soldiers, during this campaign. The actual "political" governor was Publius Quinctilius Varus (7-4 B.C.), who was known for his harsh rule and high taxes. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions the swift action of Varus against a messianic revolt in Judea, after the death of King Herod, in 4 B.C. Hence, to imply that there was only one taxing period or census, during the time frame in question, is unreliable.
polonius wrote:So if Mary were the cousin of Elizabeth or any blood relative, she would also be of Aaron’s bloodline, not David’s.
(The following comment is supporting certain statements made by JW)
No, this isn't accurate…Mary and Elizabeth could be cousins, if their fathers were from different tribes or linage and their mothers were sisters. This explains the closeness of the two women, not because of their fathers, but their mothers…It also shows how Mary is tied to David through the kingship line of Solomon and outlined in Matthew. So, it was common practice (at the time) for the tribes of Israel to intermarry with each other. However, the linage did not come from the women, but from the men! Therefore, Mary's father, who was named Joseph came from the line of David through Solomon. Joseph, Mary's husband, received his linage through David's son Nathan. So, upon further research, Matthew 1:16 should read: Joseph, Mary's father, not husband. This is supported in Matthew 1:17. Yet, the possibility that Mary had Levite blood in her veins, also supports the Christ's title of being a High Priest. Which, I'm sure you know that only those with linage or blood line from Aaron, can be a High Priest! It is clear that God covered all the needed details: the male DNA (which God supplied through a miracle), the linage to kingship (Mary's father) and the linage to being High Priest from Mary's mother.
polonius wrote:Are we to consider both Matthew’s and Luke’s scripture to be inspired on these points?
Yes, we are! However, much more research is needed to piece the puzzle together and we can't always trust others to properly record the real truth, even when others assumed they were inspired to so.
Post #42
From https://history.stackexchange.com/quest ... man-census
Why travel to one's birthplace for a Roman census? Well Exactly. I suspect since there was a lot of prophecy that needed fulfilling, something had to emerge from the convenience dimension to make Jesus both Nazarene and born in Bethlehem.
The article "Serious Problems With Luke's Census" is a well cited article on how the census story is dubious.
It points out that the census is not consistent with contemporary documents. For example: - There's no independent documents (we have a lot of roman documents) that verifies the existence of a fairly serious bureaucratic exercise. Quirinius is named incorrectly as the governor of Judea at the time (he wasn't).
An article on the http://www.biblearchaeology.org points out, as well as there being litttle evidence for this "empire-wide" census; if there had of been one it wouldn't have been administered in a client kingdom.
Why travel to one's birthplace for a Roman census? Well Exactly. I suspect since there was a lot of prophecy that needed fulfilling, something had to emerge from the convenience dimension to make Jesus both Nazarene and born in Bethlehem.
The article "Serious Problems With Luke's Census" is a well cited article on how the census story is dubious.
It points out that the census is not consistent with contemporary documents. For example: - There's no independent documents (we have a lot of roman documents) that verifies the existence of a fairly serious bureaucratic exercise. Quirinius is named incorrectly as the governor of Judea at the time (he wasn't).
An article on the http://www.biblearchaeology.org points out, as well as there being litttle evidence for this "empire-wide" census; if there had of been one it wouldn't have been administered in a client kingdom.
Post #43
polonius wrote:
Matthew tells us that Jesus was born while Herod was king (who died in 4 BC). Luke tells us that Jesus was born during the census of Syria conducted by Quirinus in 6 AD.
Well, it's quite obvious that there was an earlier census or taxing campaign, which Luke is actually referring to. He states this in Luke 2:2 (this census "first" took place). It is clear that Luke knew about the first census and the one around 6 A.D., since the book of Luke is said to be written sometime in the 60's A.D. When, we review the Greek word, which was translated into the English word governor, there's a problem. This Greek word really means: to be leading or in charge of a province, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first census would have been when Quirinius was leading a military action against the Homonadensians, during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. The title he held at the time was "legatus" or military governor, not political governor. He had the authority over the region's peoples for enlisting soldiers, during this campaign. The actual "political" governor was Publius Quinctilius Varus (7-4 B.C.), who was known for his harsh rule and high taxes. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions the swift action of Varus against a messianic revolt in Judea, after the death of King Herod, in 4 B.C. Hence, to imply that there was only one taxing period or census, during the time frame in question, is unreliable.
RESPONSE:
Not at all. The first census took place when Judea was placed under direct Roman rule (See Jewish Antiquities by Josephus on the web). The occurred in 6 AD. That Quirinius led a military campaign earlier near the region is different than his governorship in 6 AD.
There was a near Jewish riot associated with the firs Roman taxation of the Jews. Also note that Quirinus's control was limited to Syria and Judea, Not Galilee where Nazareth is located,
Luke's gospel was written about 80 A.D.
See Wikipedia: The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.[1] The Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1–5), but places it within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier.[2][3][4] No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge,[5] and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.[6]
Matthew tells us that Jesus was born while Herod was king (who died in 4 BC). Luke tells us that Jesus was born during the census of Syria conducted by Quirinus in 6 AD.
Well, it's quite obvious that there was an earlier census or taxing campaign, which Luke is actually referring to. He states this in Luke 2:2 (this census "first" took place). It is clear that Luke knew about the first census and the one around 6 A.D., since the book of Luke is said to be written sometime in the 60's A.D. When, we review the Greek word, which was translated into the English word governor, there's a problem. This Greek word really means: to be leading or in charge of a province, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first census would have been when Quirinius was leading a military action against the Homonadensians, during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. The title he held at the time was "legatus" or military governor, not political governor. He had the authority over the region's peoples for enlisting soldiers, during this campaign. The actual "political" governor was Publius Quinctilius Varus (7-4 B.C.), who was known for his harsh rule and high taxes. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions the swift action of Varus against a messianic revolt in Judea, after the death of King Herod, in 4 B.C. Hence, to imply that there was only one taxing period or census, during the time frame in question, is unreliable.
RESPONSE:
Not at all. The first census took place when Judea was placed under direct Roman rule (See Jewish Antiquities by Josephus on the web). The occurred in 6 AD. That Quirinius led a military campaign earlier near the region is different than his governorship in 6 AD.
There was a near Jewish riot associated with the firs Roman taxation of the Jews. Also note that Quirinus's control was limited to Syria and Judea, Not Galilee where Nazareth is located,
Luke's gospel was written about 80 A.D.
See Wikipedia: The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.[1] The Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1–5), but places it within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier.[2][3][4] No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge,[5] and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.[6]
Post #44
[Replying to post 43 by polonius]
But the censes would not have required people to go the place of some ancestors birth place. The Romans would have just liked to know the population of where people currently resided.
Tell me last censes you were in that required you to travel to where your great grandfather lived?
Outside of the bible where in any records did a censes require one to go to some place else to be counted?
But the censes would not have required people to go the place of some ancestors birth place. The Romans would have just liked to know the population of where people currently resided.
Tell me last censes you were in that required you to travel to where your great grandfather lived?
Outside of the bible where in any records did a censes require one to go to some place else to be counted?
Post #45
[Replying to post 44 by Donray]
RESPONSE: Yes, It's kind of a common sense thing. The Romans wanted to know how many people lived in their territory and what property they owned. This formed the basis for taxation.
But curiously, there was not Worldwide census conducted by Rome is 6 AD nor were the residents of Judea (like Nazareth - Joseph and Mary's home)) counted in Quirinius' census of Judea.
RESPONSE: Yes, It's kind of a common sense thing. The Romans wanted to know how many people lived in their territory and what property they owned. This formed the basis for taxation.
But curiously, there was not Worldwide census conducted by Rome is 6 AD nor were the residents of Judea (like Nazareth - Joseph and Mary's home)) counted in Quirinius' census of Judea.
-
rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: A Christmas time contradiction.
Post #46[Replying to post 41 by FWI]
At least, that's what I've heard and been told by other Christians. However, I do have to ask you - if the birth date, even the YEAR, of your Christ is unknown and according to you irrelevant, how do you identity this individual to actually be the Christ? If someone hands me a prophecy regarding a major war that is supposed to happen, and they say it refers to a specific war, but that the year is irrelevant...I'm going to have take their claim with a huge chunk of salt.
I find the mindset that went into writing this sentence puzzling. I thought "The Christ" was supposed to be the prophesied Messiah saviour of the Jewish (and maybe the wider world?) people. That his birth, death and life, were prophesied to a more or less exact degree in earlier writings, that these things can be traced and shown, that there was foreknowledge involved.So, the reality that there are no (verifiable) records of the year and day the Christ was born makes assigning a date for his birth irrelevant.
At least, that's what I've heard and been told by other Christians. However, I do have to ask you - if the birth date, even the YEAR, of your Christ is unknown and according to you irrelevant, how do you identity this individual to actually be the Christ? If someone hands me a prophecy regarding a major war that is supposed to happen, and they say it refers to a specific war, but that the year is irrelevant...I'm going to have take their claim with a huge chunk of salt.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
