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?
(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?