Why don't we know anything about Jesus' Childhood?

12,145 Views | 117 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by AG @ HEART
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The author of Luke-Acts was the better educated of all the NT writers, with a big vocabulary but also dedicated to the priestly traditions (and hymns) in his community.

Quote:

Luke is often considered the most humane of the evangelists, since he alone tells such moving stories as that of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, and the Good Thief, and he shows special sensitivity to women, not only to the mother of Jesus but to the widow of Nain, to the woman who washes Jesus' feet, to the longtime cripple, the woman with a menstrual disorder, the woman with the lost coin, the woman with the small donation, the women who follow Jesus on his travels in Galilee, as well as those he addresses on his way to Golgotha.

He is also called irenic, or ecumenicala reconciler of Jews with Romans, and even of Peter with Paul. This has made him popular with those who want a less thunderous Jesus. Dante called Luke "a describer of Christ's kindness," and Ernst Renan called his Gospel "the most beautiful book that ever was."7 Luke also has special liturgical interests. It has already been mentioned that his account of the walk toward Emmaus re-creates a Christian ceremony around the Sacred Writings, the Eucharist, and a profession of faith. The hymns ("canticles") of the opening of the Gospel seem to be drawn from the singing of the early gatherings. This goes with the logistics of Christian meetings in the Acts of Apostles, where the reading of the "humane" parables would emphasize consolation of the gathered Brothers and Sisters.

Quote:

ALTHOUGH LUKE'S first sentence promises to put in order traditions going back to "eyewitnesses" (autoptai), his birth narrative can have no firsthand testimony, any more than Matthew's did. Matthew, as we have seen, drew on popular narratives dramatizing the Sacred Writings. Luke is even more liturgicalhe relies on songs created by the early communities. The change from his polished first sentence to the Semitic patterns of the "canticles" raised questions in the past about Luke's ethnic and linguistic backgrounddid he know Hebrew, to create such striking poems? The answer is probably that Luke, as he assures us, is drawing on the traditions of the communities he writes for, where the Christian poems he puts in the mouth of Mary and Simeon were performed.

Annunciation of the Baptist's Birth

AS WAS MENTIONED earlier, Luke is more interested in the priestly traditions of the Sacred Writings than in kingly ones. The first annunciation in his narrative is not to Joseph, a Davidid, as in Matthew, but to a priest as he officiates in the Temple, Zechariah, who is told that his barren wife will have a child, who will be called John. The providence of the Lord in keeping the Jews' line intact is often symbolized in the birth of children from apparently barren womenRebekah (Genesis 25.21), Rachel (Genesis 29.31), Hannah (1 Samuel 1.2). But only one couple resembles Zechariah and Elizabeth, in that both husband and wife are beyond the child-begetting age. That other couple is Abraham and Sarah, who beget Isaac (Genesis 18.11). Luke's use of poetic speech is already present in the repetitive patterns of the angel's annunciation to Zechariah. This may be the best place to point out that the principal metrical unit for Hebrew poetry is the paired clause, a second (or third) line echoing, supplementing, or defining the first (sometimes by contrast). This kind of poetry fills the early passages of Luke.
The poetic prose/phrases are lost on most modern English readers, as is the real context of his opening history. He gets some of the 'history' wrong, particularly jewish law, such as where he says both Joseph and Mary had to go to the temple to be purified after Jesus' birth; only she would have been thought unclean, not both.
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ifeelold said:

Zobel said:

Sorry I'm not here to defeat anything or have arguments. Your original statement about the timing of writing about Jesus was incorrect and is outside of scholarly consensus about the writings of the NT. The whole childish taunting thing really doesn't inspire confidence this is going to be a good discussion. You get what you give.

Cheers!


Lol what?!?! Everything I said is entirely in the scholarly consensus. I do agree that your childish taunting snd complete lack of engagement to anything I've said indicates there is no discussion possible between you and I. You have made it abundantly clear you have nothing to offer.
I think most on here would agree that you came into this discussion with an agenda and we're unwilling to receive anything offered. But again, I realize you are dealing with a deep seeded hurt and unfortunately a discussion board probably isn't the best place to resolve issues of faith or lack there of. I don't mean any disrespect but nothing anyone says, and possibly God even trying to communicate with you, will take hold unless your heart is open to actually listening
ifeelold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BluHorseShu said:

ifeelold said:

Zobel said:

Sorry I'm not here to defeat anything or have arguments. Your original statement about the timing of writing about Jesus was incorrect and is outside of scholarly consensus about the writings of the NT. The whole childish taunting thing really doesn't inspire confidence this is going to be a good discussion. You get what you give.

Cheers!


Lol what?!?! Everything I said is entirely in the scholarly consensus. I do agree that your childish taunting snd complete lack of engagement to anything I've said indicates there is no discussion possible between you and I. You have made it abundantly clear you have nothing to offer.
I think most on here would agree that you came into this discussion with an agenda and we're unwilling to receive anything offered. But again, I realize you are dealing with a deep seeded hurt and unfortunately a discussion board probably isn't the best place to resolve issues of faith or lack there of. I don't mean any disrespect but nothing anyone says, and possibly God even trying to communicate with you, will take hold unless your heart is open to actually listening


I'm sorry you got that impression. I don't have anything that needs resolving, some silly agenda and I'm certainly not hurt. I simply enjoy the topic but it seems the topic isn't something anyone wishes to discuss. One doesn't need to be a theist to be interested in religion or to be happy and content. I'm always happy to listen as I have listened and tried to thoroughly engage to the few comments of substance sent my way.
Tibbers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I appreciate the thoughtful response. Thank you.
Tibbers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ifeelold said:

BluHorseShu said:

ifeelold said:

Zobel said:

Sorry I'm not here to defeat anything or have arguments. Your original statement about the timing of writing about Jesus was incorrect and is outside of scholarly consensus about the writings of the NT. The whole childish taunting thing really doesn't inspire confidence this is going to be a good discussion. You get what you give.

Cheers!


Lol what?!?! Everything I said is entirely in the scholarly consensus. I do agree that your childish taunting snd complete lack of engagement to anything I've said indicates there is no discussion possible between you and I. You have made it abundantly clear you have nothing to offer.
I think most on here would agree that you came into this discussion with an agenda and we're unwilling to receive anything offered. But again, I realize you are dealing with a deep seeded hurt and unfortunately a discussion board probably isn't the best place to resolve issues of faith or lack there of. I don't mean any disrespect but nothing anyone says, and possibly God even trying to communicate with you, will take hold unless your heart is open to actually listening


I'm sorry you got that impression. I don't have anything that needs resolving, some silly agenda and I'm certainly not hurt. I simply enjoy the topic but it seems the topic isn't something anyone wishes to discuss. One doesn't need to be a theist to be interested in religion or to be happy and content. I'm always happy to listen as I have listened and tried to thoroughly engage to the few comments of substance sent my way.


the ifeelold doth protest too much, methinks
craigernaught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think Ifeelold came on a little hot here, but the pile on is obnoxious and seems meanspirited.
OnlyForNow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No one brought up the Dead Sea scrolls, which have been dated, if you believe carbon dating, to be between 300 bc and 100 ad. BIG difference I know, but those scrolls depict some things also included in the Bible. (Historical reference and connection).

Also, lots of Protestants don't believe God wrote the Bible, we believe it was divinely inspired - but with all works of man, some things are probably not 100% correct. However, it's hard to say what and where those are.

Regarding the census, since you took that on, the Romans wanted to know what tax money should be coming in, so what better way to do that than preform a census. It's my understanding that, having people go back to their home towns/areas was normal to be counted in that regions tax numbers.

In reality, these people didn't travel thousands of miles they traveled/moved maybe 100-200 miles in their entire lifetime, for normal folks. It still took a long ass time because they walked through a desert.


If your thoughts on the Bible's legitimacy regarding Jesus and His holiness isn't an issue, read some historical archeology books that focus on the time period and the general Judaea area. But don't let a preconceived notion about Jesus taint your ability to draw tangents and connections between factual history and the Bible, which you see to completely dismiss.

Then, relook at it, if you can accept a history book based on loose interpretations of small pieces of fact here and there put together to form a more cohesive document, the Bible isn't the most far fetched thing abound.
ifeelold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for the thoughtful response OFN.

There's certainly a lot of documentation made by believers through history. I certainly think a Jesus figure existed with disciples who was a preacher and was crucified by the Romans. We've found records of Pilate and that crucifixions happened and that there were preachers like this in and around the time period. That's all quite believable.

It's only those with a stake in the religion though writing about miracles. We can look across history and time and find other historical figures who did crazy supernatural things according to their supporters whether it's Mohammed or Alexander the Great. I don't think Mohammed flew to heaven on a flying horse or that Alexander the great's father was Zeus just as You don't. I simply also don't believe the miracles of Jesus too. It's just kinda a common historical thing for followers and their leaders to mythologize themselves.

Quote:

Regarding the census, since you took that on, the Romans wanted to know what tax money should be coming in, so what better way to do that than preform a census. It's my understanding that, having people go back to their home towns/areas was normal to be counted in that regions tax numbers.

In reality, these people didn't travel thousands of miles they traveled/moved maybe 100-200 miles in their entire lifetime, for normal folks. It still took a long ass time because they walked through a desert.


Regarding this I think you are missing the criticism. We know the Romans had censuses. We even have records that indicate somewhat when many occurred. We know they were to figure out what people lived where and how much money they could bring in from where. The problem is the census in the Bible is not how a census works and would be self defeating to those purposes. The census in the Bible describes people of the region returning to their ancestral home for it. For a census to work it needs to know where people live, not where someone they were once related to lived. You aren't paying taxes from your ancestral home. It's economically impractical and devastating to require vast amounts of people to stop working and travel back to a place they no longer live to be counted. Besides that what even would be an ancestral home? How many generations do you go back? Dads home? Grandpas home? Great grandpas home? More? This is the only documentation in history of a census working like this. It's a completely useless way to take a census. That alone Should make the nativity story pretty suspect but then to add to it there seems an obvious possible motivation. The messiah is supposed to be born in Bethlehem according to Micah and it's jesus of Nazareth. It seems quite clear a follower wrote that specifically to get jesus to fill that prophecy and to lend more credence to their team.

BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
craigernaught said:

I think Ifeelold came on a little hot here, but the pile on is obnoxious and seems meanspirited.
Not sure 'mean spirited' describes the responses. But then I use F16 as the measuring stick for pile ons
craigernaught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lol. Fair.
ifeelold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I find it absolutely hilarious that there are 3x more comments about me than there are responding to anything I have put forth.
OnlyForNow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There are very different takes on the "that census"

https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011census/howourcensusworks/aboutcensuses/censushistory/censustakingintheancientworld#:~:text=The%20Romans%20conducted%20censuses%20every,keep%20track%20of%20the%20population.&text=The%20census%20played%20a%20crucial,was%20used%20to%20determine%20taxes.

and the opposition


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
ifeelold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for the links. I have seen the statement in the first one a couple places but it never seems to come from any source at all. With how ubiquitous christianity is in the west it seems like something that got thrown in there by someone familiar with the nativity story and nobody questioned it.

https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/view/15367

I have clipped some out to try and stick to the parts relevant to out discussion.

Quote:

The Beginnings of the Roman Provincial Census: A New Declaration from 3 BCE

THE PROVINCIAL CENSUS was one of the most durable and pervasive institutions of the Roman Empire.1 Although organized at the provincial level and marked by local variation,2 the institution was an emblem of imperial rule. Luke's famous narrative of the nativity census, while problematic in detail, is important evidence for the provincial impression of the census as universal and stemming from the direct command of the emperor.

For most provincials, on the other hand, the census and the closely-related poll tax were simply facts of life and burdens from which there was little chance of escape; for some, the imposition of a poll tax and regular censuses could have become "a potent symbol of subjection to Roman rule.

When we move from general considerations to a more detailed examination of the mechanics of this system, we find a dearth of evidence.

Actual responsibility for conducting the census generally lay with the emperor's representatives, the provincial governors, who in turn relied on subordinates and local organs of government to see the process through.7 For example, during the well-known census of Syria and recently annexed Judaea ca. 6 CE, the assessment of the polis of Apamea was entrusted to a military prefect "on the orders of [P. Sulpicius] Quirinus," the governor to whom Luke refers at the beginning of his work.8 In Egypt, by comparison, the phrase (vel sim.) in census declarations submitted to local officials becomes common from 89 on, although the earlier censuses were probably likewise set in motion by prefectural edict.9 As usual, the papyrological evidence from Egypt provides the most-detailed picture of the workings of this system. Every fourteen years the inhabitants of Egypt were required to submit a declaration to local authorities containing the names, ages, and other identifying information of all co-residents. Many such declarations survive on papyrus, often as lone documents deprived of their original context, but occasionally still glued together as part of administrative rolls or traceable to an archive of family papers.
So census and taxes are related. Probably not controversial. Taxes are one of the most important reasons for the census. We've got an example of our best documented census showing local official handling their area and each reporting back to the governor

https://www.unrv.com/economy/roman-taxes.php#:~:text=In%20the%20early%20days%20of%20the%20Roman%20Republic%2C%20public%20taxes,in%20situations%20such%20as%20war.&text=With%20limited%20census%20accuracy%2C%20tax,a%20difficult%20task%20at%20best.

Quote:

Taxes in the Provinces

With expansion, Roman censors found that accurate census taking in the provinces was a difficult task at best. To ease the strain, taxes were assessed as a tithe on entire communities rather than on individuals. Tax assessments in these communities fell under the jurisdiction of Provincial governors and various local magistrates, using rules similar to the old system.

Tax farmers (Publicani) were used to collect these taxes from the provincials. Rome, in eliminating its own burden for this process, would put the collection of taxes up for auction every few years. The Publicani would bid for the right to collect in particular regions, and pay the state in advance of this collection. These payments were, in effect, loans to the state and Rome was required to pay interest back to the Publicani. As an offset, the Publicani had the individual responsibility of converting properties and goods collected into coinage, alleviating this hardship from the treasury. In the end, the collectors would keep anything in excess of what they bid plus the interest due from the treasury; with the risk being that they might not collect as much as they originally bid.
Basically we have a system where local officials take a census of their communities, tax law gets applied and then local tax collectors come around and collect taxes in the community and this gets sent back up the chain to the provincial governor who relays information and appropriate taxes back to Rome. This is pretty darn smart and efficient.

There is no sense in going back to another town where you don't live and having somebody there document you and then you go back to the town you live in where your tax collector is. Is your home town official going to report to your local tax collector the information they need based on the census? It's not only a huge inconvenience to people it literally makes the job of collecting taxes harder. There is no record of any census ever happening that way except for luke or people referencing luke because it makes no sense at all. It really makes it obvious that the writer of luke or his source was willing to make a complete fabrication in order to put jesus birth in bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy in micah



This last one is all pretty spot on to my argument (better actually) though it includes additional arguments about dating and who was who when and where as well as addressing mine somewhat more gracefully
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm
OnlyForNow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That almost makes sense, except just like now. You can live and work in a place and pay taxes where you used to live or still have a home.

Cars are to be registered where you live, unless your a college student and then they need to be registered where your parents live (if in their name) and you have to get them inspected in that original county.

BUT, I understand your point and agree that there are logical hurdles which one must come to pass one way or the other during your own faith journey. Do you believe Jesus magically multiplied fish and bread, or is it more likely everyone started sharing what they had and surplus was left over….

The take home isn't that Jesus is magic, the take home is that trust and believe and God can and will provide, appropriately.
ifeelold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Even if I granted those modern situations being relevant to ancient times you literally having a dude going to a town he doesn't live in to do a census for taxes he's going to pay in the town he lives in and not just him but everybody in the entire region that doesn't still live in their hometown. It literally makes it harder for collecting taxes, is devastating for the economy and it's only ever brought up by a guy who really needed Jesus to fulfill Micah's prophecy. It a bit more than a logical hurdle imo. It's a giant red flag dancing the Macarena that this writer is lying to bring legitimacy to his team.

There was certainly no miracle feeding folks with fish and bread as certainly as Mohammad didn't fly to heaven on a flying horse and Zeus didn't sire Alexander the Great.

There were no fish and bread miracles, flying horses to heaven or babies of Zeus. Trusting in the face of deliberate deception is foolhardy.
OnlyForNow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Alright, have a good day!
ifeelold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You too! Thank for the discussion.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ifeelold said:

I find it absolutely hilarious that there are 3x more comments about me than there are responding to anything I have put forth.

I'll add one more, this time from an someone who would normally align on your 'side' of the debate.

I understand the questions and doubts you are putting forth in your posts. I do think they are important and that there is something there worth discussing. However. . . . . if you are interested in a fruitful discussion, I fear that accusing Zobel of not being able to follow an argument and saying he hasn't been able to critically engage with his faith at the first sign of animosity toward your position is not the way to achieve those means.

I disagree with Zobel on most things. . . but you'd be hard pressed to find a poster on this board that less fits the qualities you've assigned him.

ifeelold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm sure you are correct as I don't have a feel for the people here and I certainly should have taken the high road and simply ignored his memes and responses that didn't engage rather than assign character traits to him for not engaging. Live and learn I guess.
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We know plenty. I recommend this:

https://www.amazon.com/Christ-Biblical-Revelations-Supplemental-Reading-ebook/dp/B00EE0AYL2
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Have never heard of this person or account. But even the Vatican basically stated, "yeah this probably is dubious"
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nope. Her title of Blessed means her life and integrity have been thoroughly investigated and she is well on the road to being declared a Saint.

Next, and related, her revelations CANNOT be officially validated - and certainly not like St. Thomas Aquinas, the philosopher of the Church ….
Because she didn't write!

So, we take with grains of salt - subjective, as mystical experiences are, and then transcriptions.
BUT, AT THE SAME TIME
She is considered favored by God.

As for the books - astonishing. I recommend the 7 volume TAN Books set.
The core of this is the 4 volume Life of Jesus Christ.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For those playing along at home, the book Redstone is linking are visions attributed to Anne Catherine Emmerich across her whole life in Germany from 1774-1824. The books are written by a poet, Brentano, who had conversations with her (through a translator as they didn't speak the same language?) and then wrote down their conversations after talking to her. The conversation notess were left alone for a long time, collated, revised and published about 10 years after her death. There are some serious, credible accusations that the poet embellished the stories told. The vatican gave her the title blessed because of her devotion and visions. But they go out of their way to claim that the poet's accounts of those visions are not correct. Here's just what wikipedia has to say:

  • When the case for Emmerich's beatification was submitted to the Vatican in 1892, a number of experts in Germany began to compare and analyze Brentano's original notes from his personal library with the books he had written.[4] The analysis revealed various apocryphal biblical sources, maps and travel guides among his papers, which could have been used to enhance Emmerich's narrations.[4]
  • In his 1923 theological thesis, German priest Winfried Hmpfner, who had compared Brentano's original notes to the published books, wrote that Brentano had fabricated much of the material he had attributed to Emmerich.[5][14]
  • By 1928, the experts had come to the conclusion that only a small portion of Brentano's books could be safely attributed to Emmerich.[4][5]
  • At the time of Emmerich's beatification in 2004, the Vatican position on the authenticity of the Brentano books was elucidated by priest Peter Gumpel, who was involved in the study of the issues for the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints: "It is absolutely not certain that she ever wrote this. There is a serious problem of authenticity".[5][9][10] According to Gumpel, the writings attributed to Emmerich were "absolutely discarded" by the Vatican as part of her beatification process.[4]

This brings up huge theological questions about private revelation, but also begs the question why. Why does this one girl get to answer for literally eons worth of unanswered questions and fill in the backstory of every missing nook and cranny of the bible. If there is truth to this-great, but lets not act like we found the apostles missing notes. Examining religions 101: Whenever one person claims to have the whole whole story, alarm bells should be going off in your head. The only person who had that ability throughout the biblical narratives was Jesus, and that guy didn't think it was important to say anything near what is mentioned in these tomes.
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

poet, Brentano, who had conversations with her (through a translator as they didn't speak the same language?)

He called himself Pilgrim, and was brought back to the Catholic faith by his experiences in her room. Their German dialect was different, but he was an accomplished man and didn't have too much trouble.

Quote:

The conversation notess were left alone for a long time, collated, revised and published about 10 years after her death. There are some serious, credible accusations that the poet embellished the stories told.

Very thoroughly vetted in real time and since by Church authorities, even as there is no official recognition - because again, these are personal visions. There is subjectivity that is inherent. And, as mentioned, the title "Blessed" is very significant.

Quote:

But they go out of their way to claim that the poet's accounts of those visions are not correct. Here's just what wikipedia has to say:

Nope. The wiki summary matches mine articulated in these posts. There has been plenty of internal Church disagreement, and MANY decades of study and study again. (BTW- Look into Mary's house at Ephesus.) And then, the title - meaning her life and honesty is to be emulated.

As for Brentano? He had a major conversion. He transcribed. Which is why there is no official statement on the revelations, as I stated. We can read with confidence. I recommend TAN 7-volume set.

About your last paragraph - the Apostolic Church (Catholic / Orthodox) has many hundreds of private revelations. Read with caution and discernment.

Bl. Emmerich endures for excellent reasons.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ifeelold said:

Correct. You'd think an omnipotent god communicating the most important truth ever to his creation could do it in a way that is beyond reproach. We don't have Jesus writing stuff. We don't have his contemporaries writing stuff. We don't have any meaningful outside corroboration of anything in the Bible. It's not only a terrible medium for an omnipotent god to choose but he did it absolutely poorly. The most important message ever shouldn't be passed down through invisible trees of connectivity and written years after his sons death. An omnipotent gif would know how this would be seen in the future and not communicate such an important truth in such a dodgy way.


I find it interesting that you have this strong need that the historacity of the NT be flawless. It's possible that some of the details in some of these stories were obfuscated or changed in order to protect the innocent. Same goes with the time gap between the events and when the letters that were preserved were written.

This kind of feels like Job, Where the prophet gets this great idea to tell God how He was supposed to be doing his job.

Finally, The text about the census in Greek isn't super clear that all people were returning to their "ancestral" homes.
The word used was the city "of themselves".
It's possible Joseph was going to Bethlaham because he owned land there, and not in Nazarath, he wanted to for pride, or he was expecting to see some family there at some point, or maybe because that's where he was counted in the last census, or even just so he could fulfill the prophesy.

No idea why he would have stayed in an inn as opposed to any land he owned there, unless it was still raw land that he had inherited but never lived on.

So, plenty of potential reasons for Joseph to go to Bethlaham even if other people weren't doing something similar.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah that's gonna be a no from me though, Redstone. I enjoy your perspectives but to me that sort of 'ecstatic revelation' reminds me on the protestant side of Beth Moore. Someone who is basically starving/claiming to have these visions I just don't buy into being given such divine revelation, and I don't give much credence to the RCC's process of beatification to add credibility, respectfully.
ifeelold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think their is a strong argument scripture from an all powerful all knowing deity should not be inaccurate. Even so it's my opinion that rather than slightly errant it has pretty significant errors, a good reason invalidate other faiths and a good reason many Christian's invalidate other faiths.

Thanks for the thoughts on the census. I'm not really sold on any of that but It's an interesting thought.

I think a huge reason the census story and historicity is important is because once one comes to the conclusion it was made up it's hard not to see the purpose was to retcon Jesus into fulfilling a prophecy. When gods "holy book" is having to lie to make Jesus fulfill prophecies the whole thing falls apart. It's seems a giant flag pointing out that early Christian's were completely willing to make stuff up from whole cloth to advance their faith.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So, I'm just going to disagree with your premise that God wrote the Bible. That has been the position of many in the past, but it is not fundamental to Christianity.

Your position seems to be, that if God was so great, he should have written the Bible and made it perfectly accurate from a historical perspective.

I think that is a false litmus test. If that's the position you want to take, I guess that's fine, but many would disagree with you.

I also want to point out that there is a difference between perfect and perfectly accurate. I think it is a mistake to hold out the Bible as perfectly accurate as proof that Christianity is true, even though that has been a mainstream viewpoint for a while. The reality is, the amount of things that the NT got right are strong evidence that it was written contemporaneously.

Finally, I recommend that you spend 10 minutes looking at an interlinear version of the census passage before you dismiss my arguments completely out of hand. I'm not saying that the passage definitively states that only Joseph was returning to his ancestral home, I'm saying the passage is vague enough that you cannot say that everyone was returning to their ancestral home. If it is ambiguous, I'm not sure it's fair to chalk it up as a historical inaccuracy.

Finally, finally, you don't address the fact that Joseph might have been led to bethlaham to fulfill prophesy. You just asse authors made it up. That's convenient, but not the only conclusion.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
ifeelold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think you have stated my premise fine and I think I understand what you are saying and it is perfectly okay for us to disagree on this.

I would say my criticism here is a bit more than simple inaccuracy here. From my view this seems like a purposeful lie created to get Jesus of Nazareth born in Bethlehem. You likely don't agree with that reading but if it is true it would certainly be damning that early Christian writers manufactured a story so their guy could fulfill a prophecy he didn't actually fulfill.

Relevant part from Luke
" In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn."

That's the ESV version and I'm sure the phrasing may be slightly different in other versions and there may be some experts here in the original/oldest text languages who may point out some ways this may be lacking.

I see some ambiguity in "own town." A plain reading would be where they live which would not justify going to Bethlehem. The explanation why Bethlehem seems to match with the concept of some ancestral home. Could be some ambiguity of what that means as I've said before. How far back? No doubt some for many generations were in the same town or simply didn't have heritage they could trace back. You'd still have many other than Joseph needlessly going to a place they don't live, stopping work and productivity to get counted in a place they aren't paying taxes. It defeats the purpose of the census. You mentioned Joseph owning property in Bethlehem. Does a man who owns property in Bethlehem not own property in Nazareth where he lives? Does a person who owns property of value enough to leave where he lives to register for taxes there not know anyone he can stay with and get stuck in a barn? I feel like any set of events that could make the story true require the Roman's being bafflingly silly and doing something they don't seem to have ever done before or since or some incredibly unique situation to Joseph though the story doesn't indicate that.

Quote:

The reality is, the amount of things that the NT got right are strong evidence that it was written contemporaneously.


We have all kinds of stories through history that talk about real people and real places that weave in wild events and supernatural events. These may be contemporaneous but that doesn't mean they are truthful.





BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It doesn't help that the church has taught that everyone went back to their ancestral lands for the census for millennia. It gets ingrained in the story, even though it is not nessasarily true.

But to me, it's hard to write this up as a falsehood. Just because it may look suspiciously convenient to you, doest mean it absolutely was a lie.

Question here though. If the interpretation is as you say, don't you think readers sixty years later would call bull***** If the writer is saying that tens or hundreds of thousands of people had to travel for the census, and this is incorrect, wouldn't a 90 ad reader know enough to call bs? I mean, the writer mentions the name of the census, so people that were alive for that census would have recognized it.

It seems silly to add in an obvious and easily refuted lie. It might not be easy to refute 2000 years later, but it would have been easy back then.

Or, do you believe that this story was added much later, after everyone who remembered this census, or who's grandparents would have talked about the census, had already died? Different animal.

I see several possible explanations that make sense. We don't know what age Joseph was, where his family was from, how long Joseph had been in Nazareth, whether or not he went to Nazareth from Bethlaham expressly to be betrothed to Mary. We know very little.

We have three elements here:

1) a census was called
2) Joseph was "of bethleham" and went there for the census
3) Joseph was of the line of David

#3 was important to distinguish for other reasons. You are assuming #2 and #3 are related. It's easy to infer from the reading, but it is a logical leap, just an inference. If #2 and #3 are not related, there is no problem with the story.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
lb3
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm intrigued by the theory that the 3 wise men were Buddhist monks searching for their next Lama and that Jesus could have spent his childhood training in India.

I view Buddhism as more philosophy than religion if you ignore the reincarnation thing so I don't have any real heresy issues with this theory.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is a very entertaining and very heretical novel called Lamb that goes into Jesus traveling the world in his childhood and meeting all sorts of gurus.
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Believe in Bl. Emmerich or not, her visions have had SOME MEASURE of materialist / archeological validation - most famously near Ephesus.

Quite different than the many Gnostic-based traditions in written and oral form, including that one - which started after all the Gospels were composed.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
lb3 said:

I'm intrigued by the theory that the 3 wise men were Buddhist monks searching for their next Lama and that Jesus could have spent his childhood training in India.

I view Buddhism as more philosophy than religion if you ignore the reincarnation thing so I don't have any real heresy issues with this theory.
I thought the consensus view was the Magi were zoroastrianists from ancient Iran.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
one MEEN Ag said:

lb3 said:

I'm intrigued by the theory that the 3 wise men were Buddhist monks searching for their next Lama and that Jesus could have spent his childhood training in India.

I view Buddhism as more philosophy than religion if you ignore the reincarnation thing so I don't have any real heresy issues with this theory.
I thought the consensus view was the Magi were zoroastrianists from ancient Iran.
And here I thought they were Persian Jews from the courts of that empire that were part of a yeshiva started by Daniel.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.