Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How old was Jesus when . . .

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Faber View Post
    What would be wrong about Luke's narrative? If Herod died around 5-4 BC, then Jesus would have been born at the latest around 6-5 BC. He woul have been about age 33 when he began his ministry, if that was AD 28. and probably close to 35 if he died AD 30, which is the most commonly accepted year of his crucifixion.
    If Jesus was born around 6-5 BCE he could not have been born during Quirinius' census of 6 CE. Therefore Luke's account of Joseph and Mary travelling to Bethlehem for the census and Mary giving birth there, must be wrong.
    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      Using your own logic then Luke's birth narrative must be wrong.
      Why? Luke wrote Jesus was about 30. How close to 30 does Jesus have to be for " about 30" to be a true statement?
      . . . ωσει ετων τριακοντα . . . .
      . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        If Jesus was born around 6-5 BCE he could not have been born during Quirinius' census of 6 CE. Therefore Luke's account of Joseph and Mary travelling to Bethlehem for the census and Mary giving birth there, must be wrong.
        Unless it's the translations of Luke 2:2 that are wrong.

        The Greek says, "αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου." (This [was] the first census taken [while] Quirinius was governor of Syria.)

        Unfortunately, every translation takes πρώτη as an adjective, translating it "first", which makes a lot of sense, being in the feminine gender, same as ἀπογραφὴ (census). But the result is a blatant discrepancy of ten years in the historical account, as you notice.

        Josephus even tells us how turbulent those ten years were:

        In the tenth year of Archelaus’ rule, the leading men among the Jews and Samaritans, finding his cruelty and tyranny intolerable, brought charges against him before Caesar the moment they learned that Archelaus had disobeyed his instruction to show moderation in dealing with them. Accordingly, when Caesar heard the charges, he became angry, and summoning the man who looked after Archelaus’ affairs at Rome–he was also named Arcelaus–, for he thought it beneath him to write to Archelaus (the ethnarch), he said to him, “Go, sail at once and bring him here to us without delay.” So this man immediately set sail, and on arriving in Judaea and finding Archelaus feasting with his friends, he revealed to him the will of Caesar and speeded his departure. And when Archelaus arrived, Caesar gave a hearing to some of his accusers, and also let him speak, and then sent him into exile, assigning him a residence in Vienna, a city in Gaul, and confiscating his property. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17 (Niese 17:342-4; Whiston xvii.13.2), Ralph Marcus, Ph.D., trans., Josephus, with an English Translation In Nine Volumes, Vol. VIII (Jewish Antiquities, Books XV-XVII) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963, 1969) 531.)
        Luke starts out in 1:3, "....having investigated everything carefully from the beginning", then makes a preposterous mistake in skipping over the ten years that Archelaus mismanaged Judea and got booted out by the Roman Emperor Augustus, who turned Judea into a Roman province subject to Syria and appointed Cyrenius governor of Syria? Absurd!!!

        But suppose we took πρώτη to be a preposition instead of an adverb. Then what do we have? "This [was] the census taken BEFORE Quirinius was governor of Syria." Granted, we are more accustomed to the preposition being spelled πρώτον.

        But this not only make grammatical sense, but it also makes absolute historical sense. The AD 6 census under Quirinius was so notorious that Luke wanted to distinguish it from the census which took place when Jesus was born. But instead, a misunderstanding of Luke’s statement had the opposite effect.

        So what was Luke’s big blunder? A blatant contradiction in history, wherein a learned scholar places the birth of Jesus in the time of Herod in one chapter, and during the Roman control of Judea under Quirinius, governor of Syria, at least ten years later, in the next chapter? Or was it simply using an adjective where rules of grammar say he should have used a conjunction? Or maybe for some reason he modified the spelling of that conjunction? Maybe he didn't know how to spell πρίν, or didn't want to.

        Besides, the census under Quirinius was for a taxation. Augustus Caesar didn't exert the authority to impose a tax on client kingdoms.
        Last edited by Faber; 06-30-2020, 04:48 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          Using your own logic then Luke's birth narrative must be wrong.

          ....or Josephus was wrong about the date.
          Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Faber View Post
            Unless it's the translations of Luke 2:2 that are wrong.

            The Greek says, "αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου." (This [was] the first census taken [while] Quirinius was governor of Syria.)

            Unfortunately, every translation takes πρώτη as an adjective, translating it "first", which makes a lot of sense, being in the feminine gender, same as ἀπογραφὴ (census). But the result is a blatant discrepancy of ten years in the historical account, as you notice.

            Josephus even tells us how turbulent those ten years were:



            Luke starts out in 1:3, "....having investigated everything carefully from the beginning", then makes a preposterous mistake in skipping over the ten years that Archelaus mismanaged Judea and got booted out by the Roman Emperor Augustus, who turned Judea into a Roman province subject to Syria and appointed Cyrenius governor of Syria? Absurd!!!

            But suppose we took πρώτη to be a preposition instead of an adverb. Then what do we have? "This [was] the census taken BEFORE Quirinius was governor of Syria." Granted, we are more accustomed to the preposition being spelled πρώτον.

            But this not only make grammatical sense, but it also makes absolute historical sense. The AD 6 census under Quirinius was so notorious that Luke wanted to distinguish it from the census which took place when Jesus was born. But instead, a misunderstanding of Luke’s statement had the opposite effect.

            So what was Luke’s big blunder? A blatant contradiction in history, wherein a learned scholar places the birth of Jesus in the time of Herod in one chapter, and during the Roman control of Judea under Quirinius, governor of Syria, at least ten years later, in the next chapter? Or was it simply using an adjective where rules of grammar say he should have used a conjunction? Or maybe for some reason he modified the spelling of that conjunction? Maybe he didn't know how to spell πρίν, or didn't want to.

            Besides, the census under Quirinius was for a taxation. Augustus Caesar didn't exert the authority to impose a tax on client kingdoms.
            Interesting.
            Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Faber View Post
              Unless it's the translations of Luke 2:2 that are wrong.

              The Greek says, "αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου." (This [was] the first census taken [while] Quirinius was governor of Syria.)

              Unfortunately, every translation takes πρώτη as an adjective, translating it "first", which makes a lot of sense, being in the feminine gender, same as ἀπογραφὴ (census). But the result is a blatant discrepancy of ten years in the historical account, as you notice.

              Josephus even tells us how turbulent those ten years were:



              Luke starts out in 1:3, "....having investigated everything carefully from the beginning", then makes a preposterous mistake in skipping over the ten years that Archelaus mismanaged Judea and got booted out by the Roman Emperor Augustus, who turned Judea into a Roman province subject to Syria and appointed Cyrenius governor of Syria? Absurd!!!

              But suppose we took πρώτη to be a preposition instead of an adverb. Then what do we have? "This [was] the census taken BEFORE Quirinius was governor of Syria." Granted, we are more accustomed to the preposition being spelled πρώτον.

              But this not only make grammatical sense, but it also makes absolute historical sense. The AD 6 census under Quirinius was so notorious that Luke wanted to distinguish it from the census which took place when Jesus was born. But instead, a misunderstanding of Luke’s statement had the opposite effect.

              So what was Luke’s big blunder? A blatant contradiction in history, wherein a learned scholar places the birth of Jesus in the time of Herod in one chapter, and during the Roman control of Judea under Quirinius, governor of Syria, at least ten years later, in the next chapter? Or was it simply using an adjective where rules of grammar say he should have used a conjunction? Or maybe for some reason he modified the spelling of that conjunction? Maybe he didn't know how to spell πρίν, or didn't want to.

              Besides, the census under Quirinius was for a taxation. Augustus Caesar didn't exert the authority to impose a tax on client kingdoms.
              The problem of the historical reliability of Luke’s statements concerning the census of Quirinius has been discussed on numerous occasions. Luke’s historical accuracy in connection with his statement on the census under Quirinius cannot be defended on the basis of the available evidence.

              Josephus documents Herod’s reign in meticulous detail [Jewish Antiquities, Books 14-17] and is remarkably well informed on Herod’s final years. Yet he makes absolutely no reference to any census conducted during the lifetime of this ruler. Moreover, the assessment carried out, by Quirinius, after the deposition of Archelaus, in 6 CE, is described by Josephus as something totally new and absolutely unprecedented among the Jewish people. He would hardly have made such an observation had a previous Roman census, which would have been deeply offensive to Jewish sensibilities, already taken place.

              Like Matthew, Luke supposes that Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod. He therefore places the Census mentioned by him during Herod's reign. He also says expressly that it was held: ήγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου which can only mean - 'while Quirinius had supreme command over Syria', i.e. when he was Governor of Syria.

              With regard to the translation of the Greek adjective πρωτος the word is only sometimes found as a comparative with the genitive case, meaning before, or sooner than. [Latin = priusquam]. However, in this specific textual instance both απογραφη and πρωτη (noun & adjective) are in the nominative case. Hence it is obvious that Πρωτη in Luke 2.2 can be translated only in the usual sense. It means 'first'. If the author had actually intended to convey the definite sense of, “before,” he would have employed the rather more direct Greek term, προτερος.

              Your comments are therefore nothing more than pure speculation and suggest an attempt to manipulate and misconstrue the text in order to make it conform with preconceived beliefs. It would appear, contrary to your conjectures, that the author of Luke had a definite apologetic purpose in mind when he connected the birth of Jesus with the Roman census.

              See, H.R. Moehring: “The Census in Luke as an Apologetic Device” pp. 144 - 160 in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour of A.P. Wikgren, Edited by D.E Aune.Brill, Leiden 1972 for a full discussion of the issue.
              "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

              Comment

              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
              Working...
              X