real life wrote:timberlandko wrote:Now, immediately following the birth of Jesus Matthew has Joseph and family flee to Egypt to avoid Herod's slaughter of babes (itself a singular and spectacular event unremarked in any other annals), remaining in hiding there for some years.
Where does it say this? It doesn't.
Yes it does:
[url=http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/mat2.html][u][i][b]2 Matthew: 13-21 (KJV)[/b][/i][/u][/url] wrote:
13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
rl wrote:timberlandko wrote: Luke has them shortly after the nativity return to Nazareth, from whence he has Joseph and Mary present the infant at the temple in Jerusalem 40 days following the birth........ Obviously, we're dealing with a miracle here; as the Bible is inerrant, Jesus and family possessed the unique ability to be 2 places at once.
Where does it say this? It doesn't.
Yes it does.
[url=http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/luke2.html][u][i][b]2 Luke: 21-24, 39-41 (KJV)[/b][/i][/u][/url] wrote:
21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons ...
39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover ...
rl wrote:timberlandko wrote:That's hardly the only miracle surrounding the events of the nativity; the census, of which unique among Roman censii there remains no record nor other reference, and which census was carried out in a manner nowhere else evidenced as being consistent with Roman practice, reportedly occurred during the reign of Herod, and while Quirinius was governor of Syria.
This is basically an argument from silence. But if your vague charge is referring to Mary and Joseph being required to return to Bethlehem, I have posted an instance where we can see that this was indeed a known practice in the Roman empire.
I submit, rl, that what you dismiss as an "argument from silence" is no such thing; you have presented an assertion which is at odds with documented history. Now, there was a limited Roman Census in 6CE, which is recorded, and which was a census on the established 14-year schedule; its predecessor, the Census of 8 BCE, also is recorded. Neither census included Gallilee. A Roman census counted only freeborn Roman Citizens; Patricians, Equestrians, and Plebians, whether in the city of Rome proper, its immediate environs, or on government or mercantile foreign service, including the military. Excluded were client-state residents other than Roman Citizens, exiles, slaves, women, males of less than 20 years of age, and most freedmen (the laws of manumission provided certain circumstances which granted full citizenship to freed slaves, but the circumstances were unusual, typically though not always involving some notable service to the Empire). Nowhere in the record of Roman censii is there any mention of requiring anyone to return to his ancestral home for the purpose of registration,a proposition which on its own face is absurd. Apart from the fact there is no record of a census encompassing Gallilee at any time remotely close to the required time window, the Romans were quite efficient in matters of civil administration, and would not dream of uprooting vast numbers of people, disrupting commerce, government, and the general public peace. On top of that, Gallilee at the time was among the more troublesome of Rome's client states, with widespread civil unrest and even armed resistance to Roman/Herodean rule. Far from indicating any rationale for moving people about, the extant political situation argues strongly that the Romans would have been exceedingly more likely to take steps to ensure folks stayed where they were and in particular did not flock to and assemble in cities.
rl wrote:timberlandko wrote:There are multiple miracles here; not only does history plainly and unambiguously record that Quirinius became governor of Syria a decade following Herod's well-documented death,
Herod's date of death may be well known, but the date of the Biblical event is not. So how can you say they do not coincide?
Herod died in 4BCE, as multiply independently documented. Quirinius was posted to and became governor (actually, Legate) of Syria in 6CE, as multiply independently documented. A decade separates the end of Herod's life, during which the Gospels clearly claim Jesus was born, and Quirinius' governorship of Syria, during which the Gospels clearly claim Jesus was born. To fulfill the Gospel account, Jesus would have to have been born simultaneously at two different times at least 10 years apart.
rl wrote:timberlandko wrote:but neither did any record or other mention of this utterly remarkable census survive. Obviously, in order to fulfill different prophecies, God effected a simultaneous spatial and temporal incongruity, recorded only in the Gospels, and he caused the Romans to do something they never before had done, never since repeated, and of which massive undertaking the Romans kept no record nor made any mention.
No record of the census? Maybe, maybe not. We do have records of the census being taken several times in this general time frame. Dating it specifically can be problematic, but not necessarily impossible. Or it may refer to a completely different census than these.
But again from you an argument from silence repeated. Is it true that if we have no absolute proof for each detail, then it couldn't have happened at all? Silly bird, of course not.
And once again to say that the census was conducted in a manner not done before (if your vague statement again refers to Joseph and Mary's mandatory return to Bethlehem) would be irrelevant. Whether this was the first time it had been done or not, we know it was done subsequently.
I submit, rl, that unvarying Roman practice, dating to at least the early 4th Century BCE and extending into what is known as The Fall of the Empire was to register citizens at their city or town of residence or the city or town nearest that place of residence, regardless of the citizen's heritage, provided only that the citizen at question's heritage actually qualify that citizen for Roman citizenship, something not granted to client-state populations, which peoples, by definition, regardless of class or condition of liberty were not Romans.
I submit, rl, that I do not "argue from silence", but that you argue from ignorance at the very least, if not in fact from fabrication.
