# Census of Quirinius



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2012)

I'd like to know what the resident apologists make of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius



> The Census of Quirinius refers to the enrollment of the Roman Provinces of Syria and Iudaea (Judaea) for tax purposes taken in the year 6/7 during the reign of Emperor Augustus (27 BC – AD 14), when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria, after the banishment of Herod Archelaus from the Tetrarchy of Judea and the imposition of direct Roman rule.[1]
> 
> An account of the census was given by the first century historian Josephus,[2] who associated it with the beginning of a resistance movement that he called the Zealots.
> 
> In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus to a census of the entire Roman world in which individuals had to return to the birthplace of their ancestors. It describes how Jesus' parents, Joseph and Mary, travel from their home in Nazareth, in Galilee, to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born. This explains how Jesus, a Galilean, could have been born in Bethlehem in Judea, the city of King David. There is no evidence of the Romans requiring people to return to their ancestral homes for a census and there is skepticism among scholars that such a custom existed or would have been practicable.[3][4][5][6] The Gospel of Matthew, which has a different birth narrative, describes Jesus' birth taking place during the life of Herod the Great, who died ten years earlier, in the spring of 4 BC. Biblical scholars, troubled by the apparent contradiction in Scripture,[7] have traditionally sought to harmonise these accounts, while most critical scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke.[8]






> The first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke comprise a birth narrative that is unique to this gospel.
> 
> In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. (Luke 2:1–7—NRSV)
> 
> ...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 10, 2012)

Lukes gospel when compared with the NT holds so much contridiction that someone should write a book about it. When you start to compile them all, it becomes overwhelming. Luke apparently was writing much later and was recording things that he had not verified, as he claimed, but was simply recording the oral traditions that had been embellished over time.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 10, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Lukes gospel when compared with the NT holds so much contridiction that someone should write a book about it. When you start to compile them all, it becomes overwhelming. Luke apparently was writing much later and was recording things that he had not verified, as he claimed, but was simply recording the oral traditions that had been embellished over time.



This would make a lot of sense. I suspect that Jesus being from Nazareth may have been a sticking point in persuading jews that he was the messiah. It would explain a later story about how he was actually born in Bethlehem.

I know you don't consider the bible inerrant but many do. How many times have we been told the bible should be believed because of it's historical accuracy? Don't understand how that can be said in light of problems like this with the gospels.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 10, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> This would make a lot of sense. I suspect that Jesus being from Nazareth may have been a sticking point in persuading jews that he was the messiah. It would explain a later story about how he was actually born in Bethlehem.
> 
> I know you don't consider the bible inerrant but many do. How many times have we been told the bible should be believed because of it's historical accuracy? Don't understand how that can be said in light of problems like this with the gospels.


Many will "by faith" ignore these major contridictions. Those thinking they know the bible so well have somehow read right over these things


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 12, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Many will "by faith" ignore these major contridictions. Those thinking they know the bible so well have somehow read right over these things



That would explain the lack of response to this thread.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 12, 2012)

Luke is very problematic for me. I see his major contridictions and realize that nothing he writes is credable. And I wonder what was Luke's motive when he had a copy of Mark, and instead of passing it along, he rewrites it over. Why not pass it along. Was it to build his own reputation. He essentially copied 75% of Mark. Was Mark of a bad reputation that it should come from another source? Or was it just the opposite, that Mark had made quite a name for himself through his gospel and Luke thought that this attention could be his own if he had a writing as his own????  Clearly, none of the gospel writers ever imagined that we would be doing a side by side comparison


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 12, 2012)

Hey Atlas, I would not want anyone to think that I was making unfounded accusations against Luke so I would like to give an example to support my statement. Luke says that after Jesus was presented in the Temple, the eight day, I think is correct, meeting Simeon and Anna, that he, LK 2:39, "returned [8 to 12 days] to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth". But Matt has him living all over the place, Bethlehem, Egypt, Israel and then going to [several years later] the district of Galilee in a town called Nazereth. I think that Luke was trying to have him born in Bethlehem to fit the scriptures and Matthew was trying to put him in Egypt to fit the scriptures. What a mess. "Out of Egypt I called my Son" is where Matthew got this idea. Egypt is a picture of the slavery to the Jews, to the Christians, it is a picture of freedom of bondage. Matthew makes it literal. But contridictions are contridictions. We are faced with 2 choices. Either someone is lying, or they are passing along false second hand, third, 4,...., hand information that has so long ago happened that no one is expected to point out their error. I believe the last option


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 12, 2012)

Either way it shows that at least one of them is writing something that they don't really know to be true, intentional or not. Given their reliance on Mark I'd say both are spinning a tale based on 2nd hand knowledge and perhaps embellished with a theological message of their own. In this particular case it appears intentional fabrication to get Jesus from Bethlehem.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Either way it shows that at least one of them is writing something that they don't really know to be true, intentional or not. Given their reliance on Mark I'd say both are spinning a tale based on 2nd hand knowledge and perhaps embellished with a theological message of their own. In this particular case it appears intentional fabrication to get Jesus from Bethlehem.



Hard to believe that EVERYTHING they wrote is not 100% spot on accurate.....being the inspired word of God and all.

There won't be any logical discussion from many of the believers on this thread. There are only so many excuses that can be made.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 12, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Atlas, I would not want anyone to think that I was making unfounded accusations against Luke so I would like to give an example to support my statement. Luke says that after Jesus was presented in the Temple, the eight day, I think is correct, meeting Simeon and Anna, that he, LK 2:39, "returned [8 to 12 days] to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth". But Matt has him living all over the place, Bethlehem, Egypt, Israel and then going to [several years later] the district of Galilee in a town called Nazereth. I think that Luke was trying to have him born in Bethlehem to fit the scriptures and Matthew was trying to put him in Egypt to fit the scriptures. What a mess. "Out of Egypt I called my Son" is where Matthew got this idea. Egypt is a picture of the slavery to the Jews, to the Christians, it is a picture of freedom of bondage. Matthew makes it literal. But contridictions are contridictions. We are faced with 2 choices. Either someone is lying, or they are passing along false second hand, third, 4,...., hand information that has so long ago happened that no one is expected to point out their error. I believe the last option



Where's the contradiction?


[1] c 6BC - The Birth of Jesus at Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) 
[2] Jesus is taken as a baby to Jerusalem for presentation at the Temple (Luke 2:22) 
[3] c 4BC - Joseph and Mary take Jesus from Bethlehem to Egypt to escape the "massacre of the infants" by Herod the Great (Matthew 2:13-18) 
[4] c 3BC - Joseph returns to Palestine from Egypt, but discovers Archelaus (a brutal man, later deposed) is now ruler of Samaria and Judea. The family settles in Nazareth in Galilee (Matthew 2:19-23)


[5] c AD6 - The 12 year old Jesus travels from Nazareth to Jerusalem with his family, and stays behind in the Temple (Luke 2:41-46)
[6] c AD6-27 - On his return to Nazareth (Luke 2:51) according to tradition, Jesus stays for the next 20 or so years, and follows in Joseph's footsteps as a carpenter 
[7] c AD27 - Jesus travels from Nazareth to the River Jordan to be baptised by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:13)


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 12, 2012)

Here is another example; Luke goes into great detail about Paul/Saul and the disciples, and that they actually sent off Paul and Barnabus from Jerusalem. See acts 9:20 - 29. Yet we have Paul in Gal 1:15- 2:10 going into great detail with just the opposite story, that he had not gone to see the disciples. Who do we believe, Luke or Paul??? When faced with this, we realize that Luke's account can't be trusted as fact. Now what is problematic is that now we know that much of his detail in his account is completly fabricated. Take Mary's song for example. If he has these other accounts wrong, then it is reasonable that this to is fabricated.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 12, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Where's the contradiction?
> 
> 
> [1] c 6BC - The Birth of Jesus at Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7)
> ...


The contridiction is that he could not go home to Nazareth on the eight day in LK's account and go to Egypt in Matt's account, wait for Herod to die several years later, then home to Nazareth


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 12, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Where's the contradiction?
> 
> 
> [1] c 6BC - The Birth of Jesus at Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7)
> ...



Did you read the OP? The census of Quirinius was in 6 or 7 AD. Herod had been dead for 9 or 10 years at this point. Also the Romans didn't make people go back to their ancestral homes for the census as Luke indicates.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 12, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Did you read the OP? The census of Quirinius was in 6 or 7 AD. Herod had been dead for 9 or 10 years at this point. Also the Romans didn't make people go back to their ancestral homes for the census as Luke indicates.


Even if there was a cenus, Mary would not have gone with Joseph as one "pledged to be his wife".


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 12, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> The contridiction is that he could not go home to Nazareth on the eight day in LK's account and go to Egypt in Matt's account, wait for Herod to die several years later, then home to Nazareth



I don't see it. Just because Matthews account doesn't include the circumcision doesn't mean it didn't happen.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 12, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Even if there was a cenus, Mary would not have gone with Joseph as one "pledged to be his wife".



Why not?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 12, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Did you read the OP? The census of Quirinius was in 6 or 7 AD. Herod had been dead for 9 or 10 years at this point. Also the Romans didn't make people go back to their ancestral homes for the census as Luke indicates.



Yes I read it. I don't believe it to be true.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 12, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes I read it. I don't believe it to be true.



You don't believe the historical dates?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 12, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Why not?


"Pledged to" is what my text says; She was not yet part of his family. And she would have never been allowed to travel with a man that she was not married to.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 12, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> "Pledged to" is what my text says; She was not yet part of his family. And she would have never been allowed to travel with a man that she was not married to.



Wasn't there a special situation here, like she was very pregnant?It was probably safer for her to be with her espoused husband, as many of her friends and family wouldn't have believed she was still a virgin.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 12, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Wasn't there a special situation here, like she was very pregnant?It was probably safer for her to be with her espoused husband, as many of her friends and family wouldn't have believed she was still a virgin.


That or she was already married to Joseph?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 12, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> That or she was already married to Joseph?



The book says espoused, I see no reason to believe otherwise.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 12, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> I don't see it. Just because Matthews account doesn't include the circumcision doesn't mean it didn't happen.


I'll parphrase what I deciper from the text. He went to Nazareth in Lukes gospel at age 8days but in Marks account, it was at least several years later. Look at it from another angle. Luke seemed to know so much about the details of being presented at the temple, Simeon and Anna, then has him headed home to Nazareth. Yet he did not include anything about Herod and his wanting to kill Jesus. Herod assumed he was in Bethlehem so he supposedly had all the boys killed under two years old. So they went to Egypt. This tells us that almost 2 years had past since he talked to the wise men about the birth of a king. So only after at least a year did they go to Egypt. From then we don't know how long until Herod died. 1 day or 10 years. But either way, it is clear that Luke knew nothing of this, otherwise he would not have recorded him going home to Nazareth after his being presented at the temple, what was most likely the 8th day.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 12, 2012)

The Gospels were not written to be 4 duplicates of the same narrative.  
None of the gospels are exactly alike.  To expect that one gospel can be graded against another is a mistake.  If that were so, John's gospel would be very suspect, cause he left much out yet includes many chapters that the others don't.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 12, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> The book says espoused, I see no reason to believe otherwise.


Some translations say pledged. Espoused means engaged I'm assuming. Any girl traveling then or now with a man would appear to be married, or should I say, appear not to be a virgin. She was very much pregnant since she gave birth in Bethlehem. I don't suspect that they tried to make anyone believe she was a virgin. I believe they were very much married. That Joseph was the Father and that Jesus was the Son of God by adoption. If Jesus were not Joseph's son then he was not of Davids lineage. Nowhere in the bible had any king came through the mothers lineage. Women were considered of little importance. Luke insisting on making Jesus fit the mistranslated "virgin" has Jesus as God's literal son as if God implanted sperm into Mary. This is typical folklore of the many "demigods" of the past. The modern beliefs are a strange thing because it is the Holy Spirit who "Fathered" Jesus, yet he is not the father????I realize that I stand alone on this so just consider me a nutcase


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 12, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> The Gospels were not written to be 4 duplicates of the same narrative.
> None of the gospels are exactly alike.  To expect that one gospel can be graded against another is a mistake.  If that were so, John's gospel would be very suspect, cause he left much out yet includes many chapters that the others don't.


I would consider them more real if they were all very different, like John's, as long as they don't contridict. My example of Luke writing in Acts about Saul/Paul, him going into great detail about Paul and the disciples, convincing in that the amount of detail seems to imply that he knew what he was talking about. Yet Paul himself tells use that he was unknown to those in Judea, that they had only heard about him. He goes into great detail in just the opposite sense. He did not get his gospel from the disciples, that he went up fourteen years later with Barnabus. But Luke has him going straight to the apostles where he spent time with them and that they sent off him and Barnabus? The fact that so much detail opposes each other in this issue means that one or the other is simply not true.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 12, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Some translations say pledged. Espoused means engaged I'm assuming. Any girl traveling then or now with a man would appear to be married, or should I say, appear not to be a virgin. She was very much pregnant since she gave birth in Bethlehem. I don't suspect that they tried to make anyone believe she was a virgin. I believe they were very much married. That Joseph was the Father and that Jesus was the Son of God by adoption. If Jesus were not Joseph's son then he was not of Davids lineage. Nowhere in the bible had any king came through the mothers lineage. Women were considered of little importance. Luke insisting on making Jesus fit the mistranslated "virgin" has Jesus as God's literal son as if God implanted sperm into Mary. This is typical folklore of the many "demigods" of the past. The modern beliefs are a strange thing because it is the Holy Spirit who "Fathered" Jesus, yet he is not the father????I realize that I stand alone on this so just consider me a nutcase



Am I reading that correctly?
That's what you believe?


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 12, 2012)

Isaiah 7:14 
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Some translations say pledged. Espoused means engaged I'm assuming. Any girl traveling then or now with a man would appear to be married, or should I say, appear not to be a virgin. She was very much pregnant since she gave birth in Bethlehem. I don't suspect that they tried to make anyone believe she was a virgin. I believe they were very much married. That Joseph was the Father and that Jesus was the Son of God by adoption. If Jesus were not Joseph's son then he was not of Davids lineage. Nowhere in the bible had any king came through the mothers lineage. Women were considered of little importance. Luke insisting on making Jesus fit the mistranslated "virgin" has Jesus as God's literal son as if God implanted sperm into Mary. This is typical folklore of the many "demigods" of the past. The modern beliefs are a strange thing because it is the Holy Spirit who "Fathered" Jesus, yet he is not the father????I realize that I stand alone on this so just consider me a nutcase



And people think my beliefs are weird. I'm kidding as I already know your beliefs from other posts about Jesus.
I don't go quite as far as you but as you already know, I don't believe Jesus is God. I don't believe every book of the Bible was inspired by God either. What about the books left out? Trying to bring this back to Luke and other books that contradict each other. I've also heard there are no verses in the Bible that contradict each other.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2012)

1GR8BLDR, I think i asked you this before but what about Jesus being with God from the foundation of the Earth or time or something like that?
And then maybe tell us something to get back on track.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 12, 2012)

Here's a site with a few dozen bible contradictions.. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html


----------



## Asath (Aug 12, 2012)

Don’t worry fellas.  We’ve pointed out these sorts of problems time and again.  Didn’t make a difference then, and it won’t make a difference now. Folks that WANT to believe in the impossible will continue to do so.

The odd thing is that this all happened in one stroke of the whim of a single man – The Emperor Constantine.  HE decided, through his well educated but properly frightened tool Eusebius (historical spellings vary), just what would be included in the ‘Official’ Bible and just what would not.  All of ‘Christian’ thought was placed in a single slim volume, by royal fiat, and that was that.  His dictate was simple: Agree with Constantine, or die.  He ordered all copies of dissenting or differing information to be hunted down and burned, and ordered that anyone in possession of such information be summarily executed. Might not be a wonder why most folks in what had suddenly become the ‘Holy’ Roman Empire saw the light.  Christianity, and monotheism, was imposed at the point of a sword, and it wasn’t really very safe to disagree. 

In effect, those who think the bible is the WORD, and has no possible counterpoint, fail to realize that they become at that moment of believing such a thing less a believer in their own God than only another subject of the whims of a long-dead Emperor.  God didn’t write that book—Constantine did.  

Sad.  But true.

Then, over a thousand years later, came the Protestant Reformation, where EVERYONE got to write their own version.  

Right now there are hundreds of different Bibles, differing not only in languages and translations but in content (exclusions and inclusions), as well as style, tone, message, ease of reading (accessibility), and perhaps most importantly – interpretations.

Sorry to point it out, but those of us on this side of the aisle have a hard time thinking that a God, were there such an omnipotent being, would be having such a hard time sending along whatever His message might be to his lowly Creations, and especially to his particularly cherished Christians, at the expense of the REST of His Creation who compose the majority.  Y’all have been killing each other over this point for countless generations, and I have to think that wasn’t what your God had in mind.  If anyone thinks that He DID, then we diverge even further in our thoughts.

It WAS, however, what MEN had in mind when they wrote all that crap, and enlisted people into believing it, at sword-point . . .

Got a God?  Really?  Be serious.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 13, 2012)

This is another one of those irreconcilable differences in the accounts. According to Luke, Jesus was born about a decade after Herod had died.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 13, 2012)

bigreddwon said:


> Here's a site with a few dozen bible contradictions.. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html



Looking at this list, it's laughable, and sad at the same time.It's sad that people dont study the word any deeper than reading black letters on white paper.It's laughable that someone put this list together and try to seem as they are smarter than the average bear.Some of these are so easy I'm not going to waste our time on, such as God being a God of war and a God of peace, but lets take a look at this one since it's kind of inline with the subject .



> Who is the father of Joseph?
> MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
> 
> LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.



Theres a very simple answer to this, in Lukes account he gives us the lineage of Mary, not of Joseph.Matthew gives us the lineage of Joseph.






> Matthew 1:1-17 is the lineage of Joseph, through whom the kingly descent as
> the "Son of David" was validated (Matt. 1:1).  Luke 3:23-38 is a different
> lineage - the flehsly lineage of Jesus through his mother, Mary.  It records
> the physical descent of Jesus from Mary, through David's son Nathan, and
> ...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Looking at this list, it's laughable, and sad at the same time.It's sad that people dont study the word any deeper than reading black letters on white paper.It's laughable that someone put this list together and try to seem as they are smarter than the average bear.Some of these are so easy I'm not going to waste our time on, such as God being a God of war and a God of peace, but lets take a look at this one since it's kind of inline with the subject .
> 
> 
> 
> Theres a very simple answer to this, in Lukes account he gives us the lineage of Mary, not of Joseph.Matthew gives us the lineage of Joseph.


Our translations seperate this to try to escape this problem. If you look at the greek original, you can see that it was not this way. It has Joseph as son of Heli. They attempted to divert the issue but failed. Are we to think "Mary" son of Heli???


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> 1GR8BLDR, I think i asked you this before but what about Jesus being with God from the foundation of the Earth or time or something like that?
> And then maybe tell us something to get back on track.


Hey friend, there are several verses that seem to say this. If you could be more specific as to which one. My motive in this is that a "blanket" answer is not very convincing when it comes to debating traditional thinking.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Isaiah 7:14
> Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.


Hey Ronnie, Are you aware of the debate over the correct translation of this word "virgin". Originally in Isaiah, this word is thought to be "young lady". If I recall, it is used this way in another verse. The thought is that it later got deemed virgin. I think the Septuantjghjhsghhhdh [I can't spell that word] Since I'm going from memory, if your interested in the debate, you could google it. I might do the same to refresh my memory


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Am I reading that correctly?
> That's what you believe?


Yea, I don't believe God put sperm into Mary, nor do I believe she conceived with only an unfertilized egg. One has to think it through and decide what it is they believe about this. Maybe you believe that a baby was put in her womb? Some might take this stand, it would fit better by eliminating the socalled "sin nature" from Jesus. I believe that Joseph is the literal father of Jesus, that they were married, maybe conceived Jesus at their wedding consumation. I believe that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptismal, verified as Son of God by his being seen after being raised from the dead. Heb 1:5 "You are my Son, today I have become your father". I believe he is the "firstborn among many brothers".


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 13, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Our translations seperate this to try to escape this problem. If you look at the greek original, you can see that it was not this way. It has Joseph as son of Heli. They attempted to divert the issue but failed. Are we to think "Mary" son of Heli???



I cant read greek but I do have many concordances and commentarys.One of which I respect highly, Matthew Henry says,
_His pedigree,v 23, &c. Matthew had given us somewhat of this.He goes no higher than Abraham, but Luke brings it as high as Adam.Matthew designed to show that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom (all the families of the earth are blessed), and that he was the heir to the throne of David;and therfore he begins with Abraham, and brings the geneolgy down to Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, an heir male of the house of David: but Luke, designing to show that Christ was (the seed of the woman), that should break the serpents head, traces his pedigree upwards to Adam, and begins it with Eli or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary._


----------



## fish hawk (Aug 13, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> That would explain the lack of response to this thread.



You did say......"I'd like to know what the resident apologists make of this"......So that probably has a lot to do with the lack of responses.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> I cant read greek but I do have many concordances and commentarys.One of which I respect highly, Matthew Henry says,
> _His pedigree,v 23, &c. Matthew had given us somewhat of this.He goes no higher than Abraham, but Luke brings it as high as Adam.Matthew designed to show that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom (all the families of the earth are blessed), and that he was the heir to the throne of David;and therfore he begins with Abraham, and brings the geneolgy down to Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, an heir male of the house of David: but Luke, designing to show that Christ was (the seed of the woman), that should break the serpents head, traces his pedigree upwards to Adam, and begins it with Eli or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary._


That is a great leap to assume that he is saying that "Mary" is the son of Eli. If it were not for the word "son" I would have to concede that it is debatable


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 13, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> That is a great leap to assume that he is saying that "Mary" is the son of Eli. If it were not for the word "son" I would have to concede that it is debatable



Jesus being(As was supposed) the son of Joseph. Luke is pointing out the fact that Jesus is not the fleshly son of Joseph, being born of a virgin, his closest fleshly father would be the father of Mary, Heli.

Did you know Luke is the only gentile to write scripture in the Bible? The author of Luke and Acts. His style was different being a gentile and a physician, being an educated man and witnessing probably to a different crowd some things were probably more important to his ministry versus the Christians of Hebrew decent.

The deeper we dig the more sense these things make. I was a critic for a long time until God made himself real to me, and I have learned things that just didn't seem to jive in the past is because I was at error in my studies and now when I come across something that doesn't seem right to begin with it creates a study and I learn more about my savior.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 13, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Jesus being(As was supposed) the son of Joseph. Luke is pointing out the fact that Jesus is not the fleshly son of Joseph, being born of a virgin, his closest fleshly father would be the father of Mary, Heli.
> 
> Did you know Luke is the only gentile to write scripture in the Bible? The author of Luke and Acts. His style was different being a gentile and a physician, being an educated man and witnessing probably to a different crowd some things were probably more important to his ministry versus the Christians of Hebrew decent.
> 
> The deeper we dig the more sense these things make. I was a critic for a long time until God made himself real to me, and I have learned things that just didn't seem to jive in the past is because I was at error in my studies and now when I come across something that doesn't seem right to begin with it creates a study and I learn more about my savior.


I concede that this may be a possibility, father being used as a father figure, not literal father. I don't agree but concede the possibility


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 13, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Jesus being(As was supposed) the son of Joseph. Luke is pointing out the fact that Jesus is not the fleshly son of Joseph, being born of a virgin, his closest fleshly father would be the father of Mary, Heli.
> 
> Did you know Luke is the only gentile to write scripture in the Bible? The author of Luke and Acts. His style was different being a gentile and a physician, being an educated man and witnessing probably to a different crowd some things were probably more important to his ministry versus the Christians of Hebrew decent.
> 
> The deeper we dig the more sense these things make. I was a critic for a long time until God made himself real to me, and I have learned things that just didn't seem to jive in the past is because I was at error in my studies and now when I come across something that doesn't seem right to begin with it creates a study and I learn more about my savior.



Please describe this incident.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Please describe this incident.



I would if the Lord prompts me to, but it's really personal, too personal to share on an Internet forum.Its kind of along the lines of the story of Job, and then an event that can't be explained by any psychological or scientific reasoning. It was no doubt spiritual.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 13, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Ronnie, Are you aware of the debate over the correct translation of this word "virgin". Originally in Isaiah, this word is thought to be "young lady". If I recall, it is used this way in another verse. The thought is that it later got deemed virgin. I think the Septuantjghjhsghhhdh [I can't spell that word] Since I'm going from memory, if your interested in the debate, you could google it. I might do the same to refresh my memory



Yes, I'm fully aware of it.
Except it wasn't a debate.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 13, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Isaiah 7:14
> Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.





1gr8bldr said:


> Yea, I don't believe God put sperm into Mary, nor do I believe she conceived with only an unfertilized egg. One has to think it through and decide what it is they believe about this. Maybe you believe that a baby was put in her womb? Some might take this stand, it would fit better by eliminating the socalled "sin nature" from Jesus. I believe that Joseph is the literal father of Jesus, that they were married, maybe conceived Jesus at their wedding consumation. I believe that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptismal, verified as Son of God by his being seen after being raised from the dead. Heb 1:5 "You are my Son, today I have become your father". I believe he is the "firstborn among many brothers".



Then you don't believe the Isaiah prophesy has any reference to Christ?


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 13, 2012)

Here's a site that provides lots of alternative views of the OP.

http://bible.cc/luke/2-1.htm

Scroll down past all the scripture texts.


----------



## Asath (Aug 15, 2012)

“So that probably has a lot to do with the lack of responses.  . . . “

Well, the lack , in your view, is likely different than it is in ours.  You seem to view endless, bullying repetition as a victory.  Welcome to religion.

When some strident lecturer jumps up on a soapbox in the public square and begins shouting at the assembled crowd, out of context, and in entirely the wrong venue, and completely ignores not only the place and time but also the topic that might have been at hand, in favor of evangelizing whatever message might have sprung immediately to mind . . . 

Well . . . why would it surprise anyone when the assembled guests quietly and politely take their leave, and allow the thin air to absorb that sort of nonsense?

Sorry, but shouting and quoting nonsense is not discussing anything, and it becomes tedious and pointless to bother responding to.

If we may not speak, here, as the last place set aside for intelligence, without being endlessly badgered with things that reveal a sheer lack of learning, then we will quietly leave you to your own lack.

This ought not surprise you.  It is not a victory, for you, that we stop responding at some point.  It is an expression of our disappointment in you.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 15, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Here's a site that provides lots of alternative views of the OP.
> 
> http://bible.cc/luke/2-1.htm
> 
> Scroll down past all the scripture texts.





Asath said:


> “So that probably has a lot to do with the lack of responses.  . . . “
> 
> Well, the lack , in your view, is likely different than it is in ours.  You seem to view endless, bullying repetition as a victory.  Welcome to religion.
> 
> ...



You could take a look at the alternative views from the site above that I provided.

There are many alternative views to the OP.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 15, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> You could take a look at the alternative views from the site above that I provided.
> 
> There are many alternative views to the OP.



I didn't see anything in that link about the dating problem. Did I miss it?


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 15, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I didn't see anything in that link about the dating problem. Did I miss it?



Didn't speak of it directly but it solved it.

.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 15, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Didn't speak of it directly but it solved it.
> 
> .



How?


----------

