# Skeptic's questions about Jesus' birth



## nwink (Mar 24, 2014)

For those who have studied the historical issues surrounding Jesus' birth and the Gospels, how would you respond to the following issues raised by liberal scholars? (And are there any good resources on learning more about these type of issues?)

(1) The Roman census under Quirinius involved only those resident in the newly established province of Judea, not those living in Antipas' Galilee. (Mary and Joseph lived in Galilee)

(2) Why do you think Augustus wanted people to register in the town of one of the person's ancestors forty-two generations earlier?

(3) Quirinius' census was in 6 AD, but King Herod died in 4 BC. Do you think "King Herod" should be Archelaus the tetrach who reigned from 4 BC to 6 AD?

(4) How is Jesus the son of David according to the flesh if he was not born of Joseph, but only of Mary?


----------



## raydixon9 (Mar 24, 2014)

Since no one has responded, I'll venture part of your answer with hopes that someone more learned will pick this thread up and give you the correct answers you seek. If I'm not mistaken, there were two Quirinius' which may answer 1 and 3. I have no answer for 2. If you'll notice the lineages in Matthew and Luke, under David you have two different sons. The lineage Luke gives through Nathan can be traced by blood to Mary thus giving Christ his blood relationship to the tribe of Judah. The Matthew lineage gives you the legal standing of Christ as a son of Joseph through his adoption of Jesus. Hope this helps some despite its lacking in comprehensiveness.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 24, 2014)

So today, 2000 years later, we know more about the political happenings of those times than did Luke, who either lived through them or was born shortly afterwards, and who tells us he investigated carefully in order to give an accurate report. Really? If his gospel were any other historical record from that time, scholars would consider it a great find providing invaluable historical data of high reliability.

Only because it is seen as a "religious" work that contains stories about Jesus, and accounts of miracles, and appeals for faith, do scholars discount Luke's carefully researched account and point to less detailed records that supposedly show Luke to be wrong. That's cultural snobbery ("we understand better than those people did, even though they lived through it"), temporal snobbery ("we know more today than they did then"), and anti-religious snobbery ("we have a more trustworthy perspective than those religious people did"). Don't be that way. A fair person ought to trust Luke.


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 24, 2014)

Triablogue has a number of well informed posts on the issue...I'll see if I can find them.


----------



## nwink (Mar 25, 2014)

Thank you to everyone for your input thus far. Here are a couple good resources I found this morning:

Triablogue: 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004

https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx#Article


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 25, 2014)

This may be of some use (?)
The Nativity Stories Harmonized


----------



## Free Christian (Mar 25, 2014)

It amazes me how people knock the birth of Jesus. "How could he be born from a virgin" and so on and yet they believe themselves to have come from lesser than Jesus did! Jesus came from God, born of a woman. They came from bacteria! Which came from....nothing.


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 25, 2014)

Triablogue: Jesus' Childhood Outside The Infancy Narratives
This might help. I know he did a series on it, you can navigate via the search on top or the side bar on the right.


----------

