jeremyp

Why would the Romans care about what Jewish tribe Joseph was in? If they were conducting a census they'd want to know about him in the context of where he was economically active.

Come to think of it, if he was from Galilee why would they care about him at all? (Galilee was still under control of Herod's descendants at the time.)

Minimalist

They would have probably been more convincing if they did not contradict each other.

I fully agree with your last observation.

Sauron

Not at this point in history, it wasn't.

I think you mean "as the author of GLuke claims".

Except that the census was ordered by Rome, not by the priests in Jerusalem.

Indeed.

In fact, at this point in history Judaea was not even a Roman province yet, and thus would not have been subject to a Roman census in the first place.

It would not "appear" so - it is often *claimed* to be the case, but the only evidence is (a) circular and (b) contradictory to what we know about Roman taxation processes.

Johnny Skeptic

Upon what evidence do you base your assumption that Joseph owned inherited property in Bethlehem? Even if he did, Jesus might have been born elsewhere.

Do you accept Christianity as the one true religion?

Boro Nut

Good point. Shouldn't we find a stable with a blue plaque on it or something? If there had been one surely it would have been on the tourist map by now, ergo sum Latin - it never existed in the first place, although I accept the bible doesn't suggest that Bethlehem was the first place.

Boro Nut

Minimalist

The Romans had burned the whole country to the ground, twice, between the alleged nativity and the visit of Constantine's mum to chart out the "holy places."

Who would tell the Emperor's mother that what she wanted to see had been destroyed? Easier just to say, "Here you are, Ma'am!"

Timetospend

The census of Quirinius is one of the most troublesome Biblical problems. Many solutions have been offered, including alternate translations, but none are totally satisfying. Certainly there is credible historical evidence of the existence of Jesus but not necessarily the one described in the NT. It would seem that if Jesus was not borned in Bethlehem that first century Jews would have cried foul, but that is also not a full proof.

I was curious if you had any real data to support the "silly"/"mythical" claim made in your post.

Thanks,

Minimalist

Such as?

vsop44

Try taking a more than 8 1/2 month pregnant woman on a 130 km donkey ride and see if she's going to make it or give birth in the middle of nowhere ! I bet on the latter .

Timetospend

If you want to debate the point, please go elsewhere. In case your question is serious, let me offer three tidbits...if you search, you will find more.
1. I do not know of too many serious historians who doubt the existence of Jesus (actually, I could not find any in a quick internet search, but there must be some; apparently I looked in the wrong places.)
2. The Bible itself is a historical document whether one chooses to believe every word in it, or is more choosy.
3. Josephis usually the first source cited outside the Bible:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."
(Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3)

"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."
(Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1)

If you search, you will find more. They will not necessarily paint the same picture of Jesus that is in the NT, although some will.a

(NOTE: For disclosure and my personal typing ease since I could not locate my on-line Josephus, I took the above quotes from Christopher Price.

Thanks,