Richbee

So, you wouldn't question the motives of the Romans? Oh, please. They weren't concerned with child healthcare or Synagogue attendence. (smile)

Back to the scripture: What did Luke write?

Luke 2 - NKJV

Christ Born of Mary

1 And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. 3 So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. 4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. 6 So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...2;&version=50;

spin

If we go on the text as a representative tradition source, yes. Matt has the family fleeing to Egypt and only returning on the death of Herod.

Now we have you sliding away into another apologetic. You need to go to the removal of Archelaus in 6 CE.

To be precise Archelaus was an "ethnarch" as his coins show, not a "tetrarch". The Romans used the term for leaders of vassal kingdoms.

He had control over Judea, Samaria and Idumea, which is no help for you, as Galilee was under a separate administration. Still you are forced to conjecture a census to suit your apologetic purpose now during the reign of Archelaus, despite the fact that Jesus is specifically supposed to have been born before Archelaus gained power.


spin

Richbee

From Rome's perspective, correct me if I am wrong, didn't Rome consider this Syria?

Thus, Quirinius was the Gov' of Syria?

Or, did this change over time?

BTW, just when did Quirinius start his reign? (And, when did you develop a Queer obsession with Luke and his historical facts!?)

spin

When Herod paid tribute to the Romans directly, there is no point in interfering. All you are conjecturing is that the Romans wasted money interfering with Herod to do what Herod normally did. Your rhetoric is wasted as it doesn't represent the situation, nor is it even funny.


spin

spin

You are wrong. Judea didn't get annexed to Syria until 6 CE.


The Quirinius census was to assess the newly gained region, ie 6 CE.


spin

Richbee

Excellent, so let us know exactly when Jesus was born.

Why?

Does this concern Luke and his reference to the census?

O.K., and I posted:

Augustus designated Archelaus as ethnarch with the promise to be made king if he proved capable of that position and was to rule over Idumea, Judea, and; Samaria. Antipas was made tetrarch over Galilee and Perea and Philip was made tetrarch over Gaulanitis, Tranchonitis, Batanea, and Paneas. Therefore, although Antipas lost claim to kingship, he prevented Archelaus from being king over the whole realm.

Yep.

But, my bonus question was "WHAT WAS A TETRARCH?"

Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene.....

But, I don't need any help, I trust Luke and I have no evidence yet produced to doubt Luke. (None, Zip, Zilich!)

You and the rest of the ankle biting "skeptics" need all the help you can get!!!

Let me know when you have a few important facts:

a) When was it that Quirinius became Gov' and if he covered Syria, what geography did this cover at that time?

b) When was Jesus born, and accordingly what constituted "Syria" at that time?

c) When did the census begin and end?

d) How many times would you count Jesus if you were a census taker? (See Isaiah 9)

spin

As indicated before, from Matt, the story says that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod. This is a sufficient condition for you to rewrite Luke.


Yes: the Quirinius census was in 6 CE.

I'll leave you answer that. You have a dictionary.

Obviously you don't trust him, otherwise, why rewrite the text?

Do you have to prove yourself rude and disrespectful just because you have no case?

Obviously, you should answer this question yourself in order to make your claim. You can get an idea from the fact that Judea was incorporated into Syria in 6 CE.

Matt says during the reign of Herod. Now you don't like that, so you are trying to weasel out of it. You sure trust your sources, don't you?

A rough indication of the beginning is sufficient, ie after the kingdom was absorbed into Syria in 6 CE.

What is the relevance?

ETA: I note your rewriting of your trust in Luke. Seems rather dubious, when you are rewriting what he says, because you don't like it.


spin

Richbee

More.......

Antipas the Tetrarch - Hotlink

Herod Antipas ruled from 4 B.C.-39 A.D. He was the son of Herod and Malthace ( a Samaritan) born 20 B.C. and the younger brother of Archelaus.

Of all the Herodians, Herod Antipas is the most prominent in the New Testament, for he was the tetrarch over Galilee and Perea, the two areas in which John the Baptist and Christ did most of their ministry.

Richbee

Why?

So, the census began and ended in the same year? How do you "know" this?

It is rude to doubt the Holy scriptures of over 2 Billion Christians without any proof to back you up! (Word)

Although, IMO, God has no problem at all with honest doubt! (smile)

Now, professional Atheistic, nihilistic curmudgeons! WATCH OUT!!!

spin

Apparently because you don't like the difference in what the texts of Mt and Lk say. But you should answer your own question.

It is irrelevant when the census ended to this discussion. It is sufficient that it started after Judea was annexed.

It is rude to use the phraseology which you used: "You and the reat of the ankle biting "skeptics" need all the help you can get!!!"

You seem to have personal problems with people who disagree with you, even people you don't know.


spin