...true, but it comes at a cost of debilitating cognitive dissonance. At least it did for me, a former ordained Christian minister. Some, however, have guzzled so much Kool-Aid that their capacity to think critically is drowned.
@@User81981 That's the point. He's not stating facts. He's making things up and twisting what few 'facts' he threw out to fit his preconceived narrative.
One of the problems I've found is how many people believe this sort of argument made by apologists. But, I've also found that if you have a queasy feeling in your gut, this queasiness is there for a reason.
Apologists always go with a _plausible_ explanation that supports their beliefs rather than the _most likely_ explanation. Coming up with a plausible scenario doesn't really mean much if it's not the most likely scenario. This is why most scholars disagree with IP.
It’s important to qualify your statement about favoring the most likely explanation *in absence of other evidence**. Unlikely events and happenings appear all throughout the historical record, we just shouldn’t presume them to be true over a simpler/more mundane account in the absence of corroborating evidence.
Even the most likely explanation doesn't necessarily mean much. The "most likely" outcome of rolling two fair six-sided dice is 7. However, if you live your life according to following the "most likely" explanations to a fault and therefore bet that every roll is going to be a 7, you're going to be wrong about five times as often as you're right.
You have to admire IP for presenting his implausibilities so confidently. Confidence is possibly his superpower. He is a man who relies on confidence. He is a Confidence Man.
@@MrMortal_Ra exactly. This is how people end up buying London Bridge. (If you're not aware, there was a famous incident where someone sold London Bridge to a rich American - who thought he was buying the bridge in London that is the most iconic - Tower Bridge. When people want something enough they can be easily influenced - whether that's a bargain, the chance to own an iconic status symbol - or validation for their religious beliefs. Enter the Con Man.
@@MrMortal_Ra precisely. That's why you'll never see IP discuss his arguments with actual scholars like Dan - he wants his audience to remain isolated from dissenting views.
Ok, I am going to refute all the video's objections: 1. First, pertaining to Quirinius, we cannot rule out that he held some administrative charge in the province of Syria before the year 6 AD. After all, Justin Martyr reported that the biblical census took place while Quirinius was only a procurator, while Tertullian wrote that the census took place under the governorship of Sentius Saturninos, who was the governor of Syria from 9-6 BC. On this basis, the historian Sabine Huebner has suggested that Luke was probably referring to a census that took place around the same time as the Roman imperial census of 8 BC, when Sentius Saturninos was governor of Syria while Quirinius was possibly a lower official who actually carried out the census. This would also place the census in a period when both Bethlehem and Nazareth would have fallen under a single jurisdiction, which was not the case in 6 AD. 2. There is one extrabiblical evidence corroborating Luke's report of an Augustan decree ordering all the people of the Roman empire to be registered. The scholar Anthony Giambrone, OP has recently noted that Hyginus Gromaticus, a pagan writer on land-surveying from the times of Trajan, reported that the emperor Augustus had ordered that all the provinces of the empire had to conduct censuses "so that property of no man should be considered unclear with respect of the amount that he would assume for paying taxe". Giambrone argues that this independent witness indicates that there was an Augustan policy to undertake separate, but loosely coordinated censuses through all the parts of the Roman empire. This scenario would be totally consistent with Luke's account. 3. There is also another piece of extrabiblical evidence indicating that the Romans could conduct a census in the client kingdoms of their empire. Anthony Giambrone notes that there is evidence indicating that the Romans were conducting censuses in the client kingdom of the Nabatea from at least the year 1 BC. Also, Tacitus' report on the Roman-style census in Cilicia Tracheia nowhere states that said census was conducted solely on the orders of Archelaus II; on the contrary, Tacitus seems to imply that the census was an unprecedented event in that client kingdom, suggesting that the Romans probably influenced the occurrence of that census. 4. Finally, the Lukan text never states that Joseph had to return to Bethlehem because that was an "ancestral hometown" (in fact, Luke 2:3 states that the people of the empire had to return to their own homes, not to any "ancestral" home). Saint John Chrysostom argued that Joseph was probably a citizen of his native town of Bethlehem and was only temporarily residing in Nazareth at the time of the Annunciation. (For further evidence in support of this reading, see also Stephen C. Carlson, "The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7,” New Testament Studies 56 (2010), 326-342.") Sabine Huebner concurs, and argues that this specific scenario would accord with the papyrological evidence from Egypt, which describes how the rural population at Alexandria had to return from their places of work in the city to the places where their families were resident. I would also recommend that you read Anthony Giambrone's article "Augustus as Censor and Luke's Worldwide Enrollment: Roman Propaganda and Lukan Theology from the Margins", which provides a very detailed case for the historicity of the Lukan census.
@@alejandromiranda2745 1 - this is an argument from silence, and given that in the last decade of the 1st century BCE, Quirinius was campaigning against local tribesman in Galatia/Ciliica, it seems a big stretch for him to have taken a demotion in rank just to carry out some census in a territory not under direct Roman control...only to then carry out another census 12 years later when he was in control of the whole region. So no, that's very weak. 2 - for this point to even get off the ground the census has to have taken place after 6CE, since until then Judea wasn't a Roman province and Rome would not have any direct authority there - let alone the desire to carry out a property census. 3 - Why are you bringing up Archelaus II? He was given sovereignty of sorts over an area of land WITHIN a Roman province. Cilicia Tracheia was within the Roman province of Cappodocia. It's not the same thing as Judea being a client kingdom. 4 - yeah, the "ancestral" part of the order isn't the issue. The issue is that it's nonsensical to make every person in a country return home to their birthplace simply to conduct a sentence about property ownership. Sorry, but it sounds like you've just not actually considered anything said in this video, and just parroted some old IP video without understanding the entailments of any of the points.
@@alejandromiranda2745 My reply is hidden - only visible if you change your settings to 'newest first'. I'll briefly reiterate. Suffice to say, your points don't actually refute any of Dan's points, and seem like just a rehash of IP's argument. Your first point is an argument from silence that holds little weight considering Quirinius was in Asia minor during the last decade of the 1st century BCE. Your second and fourth point are dealt with by Dan in the video - note his remarks about the purpose of censuses. And the idea that 'ancestral' is the issue rather than merely 'native' - again, argument from silence concerning why Joseph was in Nazareth, and you're trying to compare apples and oranges when you appeal to Egypt. Your third point is likewise a non sequitur, due to Cilicia Tracheia not being a client state, but merely an area within a Roman province.
I like how IP tries to turn a weakness: Luke being the only source for the census, into a strength… well you can’t show that Luke was lying so he must be telling the truth. Again, if this was a non Christian source he would reject it as weak coming from a single source and highly implausible.
It really comes from starting from the answer. If the evidence disagrees then any possible problem shows total error, while even the most tenuous ideas are definitive if they coalesce with the presuppositions.
Except it works the other way down. We have far less evidence for all the other major historical persons of ancient history. The evidence for Jesus is incredibly abundant. The reason people reject this is philosophical and nothing to do with evidence.
That's actually a poor translation/context problem that Dan has addressed. It is most likely that the story has them staying with someone, but in the lower part of the house. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jzxtcJ8pNbo.html
@@sobertillnoonSince I can’t prove Joseph was on good terms with his father (er, one of the two people the Bible says was Joseph’s father) then I must believe you are correct that they weren’t on good terms.
It just seems so obvious that the final editor of Luke read Josephus and didn't understand the chronology very well but decided to use the infamous census that triggered the Zealot movement as a touchstone for Jesus' birth and explain how he could have been born in Bethlehem while still being from Nazareth.
My esteemed opponent, it is true that Mary and Joseph were residents of Galilee, which was separated from Judea by Samaria. However, it is important to note that Luke's account of the census specifically mentions that Joseph went up from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea. This journey was necessary for Joseph to comply with the Roman decree of registering in his ancestral home. Therefore, even though they may have been residing in Galilee, they were required to travel to Bethlehem for the purpose of the census. Thus, the fact that Mary and Joseph were from Galilee does not undermine the historicity of Luke's account of the census.
@@Bible-Christian Except that wasn't a thing. There was never any Roman decree to go to one's ancestral homeland for a census. The very idea is laughable. The point of the census was to register for taxation purposes, not to testify to one's ancestry. And to be clear, Matthew doesn't say anything about such a census at all. The story in Matthew has nothing in common with Luke whatsoever. In Matthew, they are originally from Bethlehem but decide to move to Galilee to escape the rule of Herod Archelaus, which puts the story firmly prior to any census.
@Bible-Christian Joseph and Mary were residents of Galilee, and the census applied to residents of Judea. It doesn't matter if Joseph had an ancestor that lived in Judea. He was not living in Judea, and the census didn't apply to him, a nonresident.
@@TacticusPrime My learned opponent, I understand your concerns about the historical accuracy of Luke's account of the census. However, it is important to note that the purpose of the census was not limited to taxation alone. In ancient times, censuses often served multiple purposes, including assessing population size, determining military conscription, and even verifying ancestral ties for inheritance and legal matters. Therefore, it is plausible to consider that the Roman census mentioned in Luke served a broader administrative purpose beyond taxation. As for the discrepancy with Matthew's account, it is not unusual for different Gospel writers to present different perspectives and emphasize different aspects of the story. These variations do not necessarily indicate falsehood, but rather provide a more comprehensive understanding of the events.
It's pretty funny that so many people, in order to defend a literalistic reading of the text, end up having to invent so much extrabiblical structure, and in some cases twist the meaning of the text It's something I also note when people try to "harmonize" discrepancies in things like the resurrection story, where in order to try and make every story literally true they need to invent a story that contradicts all the individual stories. If a secular critic played this fast and loose with the text the apologist would tear them apart, but I guess the "principle of charity" only goes one way.
My learned adversary, I understand your concerns about the interpretations of the text and the potential inconsistencies that may arise. However, let us not forget that the Bible is a complex collection of texts written by multiple authors over centuries. It is natural for different perspectives and details to emerge. Rather than dismissing or twisting these details, it is crucial to approach them with careful analysis and understanding. The Principle of Charity, which promotes interpreting arguments in the most reasonable and coherent way, should indeed be applied to all perspectives, whether secular or apologetic. By engaging in respectful and open-minded dialogue, we can deepen our understanding of the text and its historical context.
@@Bible-Christianand I think you must agree that the argument that the bible is the inerrant word of god and completely true is obviously incorrect. If you do not agree with this statement then there really isn't any benefit to humanity in continuing the discussion. Do you agree with my statements?
@@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279 I can't agree with your statements. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God. It's the complete and authoritative guide to all matters of faith and practice. Here are some Bible verses that support the authority and inspiration of Scripture: 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Psalm 119:160: "All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal." Proverbs 30:5: "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." Additionally, Jesus himself affirmed the authority of the Old Testament, saying, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). It's important to note that while there may be difficulties and seeming contradictions in the Bible, these can be resolved through careful study, interpretation, and application of the text. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your statement that the argument for the Bible being the inerrant Word of God is "obviously incorrect." Instead, I believe that the Bible is the authoritative and trustworthy Word of God, and it's the foundation for our faith and practice.
He completely ignores what is the weakest part of the story IMO. Even if we grant everything else, it’s insane to think that Mary - great with child - would make the journey.
Well done, and a great summary at the end. Yes, it's typical apologetics. If there is the faintest possibility that it might have happened then it suddenly becomes highly probable that it did happen. But that's not how rationality works. That's the stuff of faith.
According to Luke, it was 42 generations from David to Joseph. Mathew claims 27 generations. It is absurd to think that anyone would know who their ancestors were that far back and even more absurd that any state would send people to origins connected to ancestors that far back in time. The only thing any state has ever conducted a census for was to find out how many people there are, who they are and where they are at the moment.
I’m so glad you made this Dan. I just had an extended discussion of this issue with my former pastor, and I was trying to point out these many inconsistencies. He would, like IP here, point to the plausibility of the various points. I kept pointing at the implausibility of the points. As are most of my interactions with apologetically inclined Christian’s, it was (seemingly) pretty fruitless. I didn’t change his mind, he didn’t change mine. But it was frustrating to leave the discussion with no external proof or validation of my reasoning. This video gave me that. I feel that even if these Christians are committed to their interpretations through whatever means, I can rest assured it’s highly unlikely and go my way.
@@Kenji17171 He replied back some of it, I think it was on the topic of the goddess Ashera, i think IP indirectly admitted that his video was a minority view.
Very inventive apologetic. A for creative reasoning. F for being historical or reasonable or logical. Question: Is there any record anywhere or anytime in which a government did a census that wasn't to count the people who actually live in the geography of the census? If so, what would be the point? It would be like the Constitutional requirement in the American Constitution requiring Chinese Americans to go to China and Mexican Americans to go South. It's a bizarre argument.
Yep and think a Jew Egyptian from upper Egypt in northern France going back. So about 6 months travelling, massive costs, businesses up the wazoo. So tax rolls are useless as they are now skint
I have heard of the argument, that Joseph was a carpender. And they did went around Israel at the beginning of their job. And than later came back, to the land that the family inheritated from their acenstors. Than it would also kinda make sense to relate their hometown after their famous ancestor David.
If you honor Santa in this life, he will give you many gifts for the Eternal Christmas Party once your soul is admitted to True North Pole. But to those who do not worship Santa in this life, he will say "take this coal, for I never knew you", and you will wander into the blizzard and be consumed.
Always be suspicious of apologetic clips with rousing, inspirational music in the background, is my take. Cold, hard facts don't need heart-tucking music to accompany them.
Have you thought that there was no room because of the many people who had returned to Bethlehem for the census? A sort of random event that backs the truth of the scripture?
Man, I love everything you do, but I have a totally unrelated question. How excited are you for the new X-Men ‘97 cartoon that is releasing, and have you seen the new trailer that dropped for it?
Ok, I am going to refute all your video's objections: 1. First, pertaining to Quirinius, we cannot rule out that he held some administrative charge in the province of Syria before the year 6 AD. After all, Justin Martyr reported that the biblical census took place while Quirinius was only a procurator, while Tertullian wrote that the census took place under the governorship of Sentius Saturninos, who was the governor of Syria from 9-6 BC. On this basis, the historian Sabine Huebner has suggested that Luke was probably referring to a census that took place around the same time as the Roman imperial census of 8 BC, when Sentius Saturninos was governor of Syria while Quirinius was possibly a lower official who actually carried out the census. This would also place the census in a period when both Bethlehem and Nazareth would have fallen under a single jurisdiction, which was not the case in 6 AD. 2. There is one extrabiblical evidence corroborating Luke's report of an Augustan decree ordering all the people of the Roman empire to be registered. The scholar Anthony Giambrone, OP has recently noted that Hyginus Gromaticus, a pagan writer on land-surveying from the times of Trajan, reported that the emperor Augustus had ordered that all the provinces of the empire had to conduct censuses "so that property of no man should be considered unclear with respect of the amount that he would assume for paying taxe". Giambrone argues that this independent witness indicates that there was an Augustan policy to undertake separate, but loosely coordinated censuses through all the parts of the Roman empire. This scenario would be totally consistent with Luke's account. 3. There is also another piece of extrabiblical evidence indicating that the Romans could conduct a census in the client kingdoms of their empire. Anthony Giambrone notes that there is evidence indicating that the Romans were conducting censuses in the client kingdom of the Nabatea from at least the year 1 BC. Also, Tacitus' report on the Roman-style census in Cilicia Tracheia nowhere states that said census was conducted solely on the orders of Archelaus II; on the contrary, Tacitus seems to imply that the census was an unprecedented event in that client kingdom, suggesting that the Romans probably influenced the occurrence of that census. 4. Finally, the Lukan text never states that Joseph had to return to Bethlehem because that was an "ancestral hometown" (in fact, Luke 2:3 states that the people of the empire had to return to their own homes, not to any "ancestral" home). Saint John Chrysostom argued that Joseph was probably a citizen of his native town of Bethlehem and was only temporarily residing in Nazareth at the time of the Annunciation. (For further evidence in support of this reading, see also Stephen C. Carlson, "The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7,” New Testament Studies 56 (2010), 326-342.") Sabine Huebner concurs, and argues that this specific scenario would accord with the papyrological evidence from Egypt, which describes how the rural population at Alexandria had to return from their places of work in the city to the places where their families were resident. I would also recommend that you read Anthony Giambrone's article "Augustus as Censor and Luke's Worldwide Enrollment: Roman Propaganda and Lukan Theology from the Margins", which provides a very detailed case for the historicity of the Lukan census.
To your point 4: Luke 2:4 specifically says "Joseph 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." So why did Joseph go to Bethlehem according to Luke? Because he's a descendent of David. So yes the Lukan text said he returned to Bethlehem because it was his ancestral home. That is the exact reason Luke gives. I suppose you could make the argument that it's not impossible that, while normal people just went back to the towns they lived in, Joseph decided of his own free will that it would be better if he registered as a citizen of Bethlehem instead of a citizen of Nazareth. But with a very pregnant wife that you're going to drag along, that would be a very dumb decision to make. Matthew just starts Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and has them move to Nazareth later. Either Matthew or Luke is wrong, and since Luke's story has more holes, it's probably Luke.
When I was 5, it was my first Christmas at school and I was told the nativity for the first time. I asked the teacher (Ms Lambert, just fyi) did they do censuses wrong back then, why would they need to uproot for a census? I got in so much trouble I lost my role as a sheep 😢
Yeah this bugs me too. Luke seems to have gone out of his way to make Mary and Joseph start in Nazareth. Probably to have Mary meet Elizabeth I guess, but then Luke could have just said "Joseph too had to travel back to his home in Bethlehem" instead of saying he traveled because he was descended from the house and family of David.
I can't recall ever hearing about some "principle of charity" ever guiding my willingness to accept some particular explanation of a historical account. That sounds more like a willingness on the part of the adherent of that explanation to arbitrarily overlook an absence of evidence for their particular version. There seems to be a lot of that occurring in retelling various biblical stories and their orthodox explanation.
A census is (despite it currently be used in the USA for other purposes like appointing the electoral votes etc per state) an estimate of the taxable base of population of a region. You want to KNOW how many people live and work in what town. Sending Joseph to Bethlehem does not help the Tax collector to know how many houses he needs to visit in effing Nazareth/Kapernaum/Egypt, wherever he'd live the next couple of years... it's an absolutely braindead idea to form a census in this way. No sane person in history has ever done anything as stupid as that.
Great Video. It infuriates me how apologists lie and obfuscate to support their claims. This topic is already confusing enough and person not versed in the details could easily be persuaded. Thanks Dan
Just a thought - from my experience watching these various presentations by many different creators -I am realizing how subtle the process of faith driven interpretation is ! I wonder is this the case with creators of various different philosophical or political evaluations and critiques? Or do religious people exceed the norms of bias in their evaluations of religious texts ? If they do - they should refrain from this as it has the effect of increasing skepticism and is seriously counter productive to their desired end ! Just a thought?
So often apologist (excusist) grab at anything that will scarcely defend their dogma. I often fell into this trap when I was a believer. Just presenting that a dogmatic belief is possible when seen in the right light of that specific religious framework.
To say nothing of the freezing temps at that time of year in Palestine, just the economic disruption alone, and add that all your ENEMIES would know that entire non-ancestral towns would be left totally vacant, ripe for the taking.
Luke was a careful historian and seems to right on so many things. It seems unlikely that he would just make this up. Luke deserves the benefit of the doubt here. After all, he was a lot closer to these events than we are.
The census was in 6AD. Quirinius was never governor of Syria when Herod was alive. Herod died in 4 BC. The census just required men to register their property. Also, on Tuesday, April 6, 6AD, Judas the Galilean prepares for his uprising against the census.
misusing "innocent until proven guilty" for anything that isn't a criminal case is also pretty disgusting (especially considering how much people love to dogpile if it's someone they don't like)
Or here is something you could think about. With all the extended family staying because of the census there was no room....just like if all your family tried to turn up at Christmas. Can never understand why people dont think things through.
Have you done a video on the contradictions of Jesus and Joseph's Lineage in the two accounts in Matthew and Luke ? Apologists have tried so hard to explain those away
🏡 🏠 Jimmy Akins and his *Joseph's two homes* idea Matthew is rather explicit that he's explaining how a family who *had to be from Bethlehem,* because of the Davidian prophecy, ended up being known as being from Nazareth, which was also supposedly prophesied per 2:23. Luke reads as if he is explaining how a family believed to be from Nazareth could have given birth in Bethlehem. *Problems in Matthew 2:22-23, and especially Luke 2:39:* Matthew reads clearly as if they are going to Nazareth for the first time. 1) They returned from Egypt when they learned Herod was dead, ala Moses fearing Pharaoh 2) after leaving Egypt, they found out Herod's son Archelaus was going to take his place (Whom did they expect? Was Archelaus more vicious than Herod’s other sons?), so they went to Galilee instead... 3) to a place called Nazareth. *So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.* So Nazareth was new to them in Matthew. If they had lived there before, they would not need to go there to be called Nazarenes. The plain reading of "..to a place called..." is also that it is new to all involved, except the author. The subsequent claim of being a fulfillment of a prophecy would seem to be *blasphemy if the real reason they went was because they had already lived there.* If Joseph and Mary had family there already, this would have been the time to mention it. Otherwise, this is poor and/or very dishonest writing. Luke 2:39 They returned to their own city, Nazareth, after going to Jerusalem directly from Bethlehem. Yes, Luke 2:3-4 also refers to Bethlehem as their city, but the subsequent story shows that their *home* was Nazareth. The key to the "home" contradiction is Matthew 2:23 vs Luke 2:39. Luke has J&M go to Bethlehem because they were of the house of David. Akins uses a double equivocation by converting this [reference to a 1,000-year-old family connection] to "they had relatives there, which is consistent with having family property." It doesn't say they had relatives there anymore. If they did, those relatives could have dealt with the tax registrars. What purpose would there be for Joseph to go to Bethlehem? Even less a pregnant woman. There was no suspension on vehicles then, so no matter the transportation, it would have been dangerous to Mary and her fetus. The purpose of the registration was to tax property, not to have a body count, especially of people who didn't live there (and had a significant chance of dying on on the way). The whole point of the story seems to be that they were of the house of David; the author is trying to establish that Jesus has the credentials to be the Tanakh-approved messiah. It doesn't say they went because they had property. Property is not mentioned, even though that was the purpose of the registration, according to Josephus. Luke ignores this. Matthew may have been written before Josephus wrote about the -census- land registration. In the virgin conception scenario, Jesus is not explicitly a descendant of David. In Luke 4:31-42, the people of Capernaum don't know Jesus is the son of God and Jesus tries to stop the breath/spirit of the unclean _(daemon)_ from letting people know that Jesus is "the holy one of God." If people who thought they were of the house of David (my family had its own false legends of regal heritage, so I'm not criticizing) *all* went to Bethlehem, that little town would have been disastrously overrun. Everybody is a descendant of a lot of people, and a large chunk of the Jews probably thought they were descended from David (and they might well be right, based on how much *one* king might "get around", not to mention that several generations of his descendants were also kings and that might get around, too). All those people travelling based on 1,000-year-old family connections would have been an economic disaster, making some people unable to give tax money - exactly the opposite of the purpose of the registration. According to Luke 3:23, Joseph's father was Heli (Eli). According to Matthew 1:16, Jacob (Yekub) was the father of Joseph. Arguing that Father could sometimes mean Ancestor doesn't help, because the whole point of the count in Matthew is to say there were 14 generations between the greatest characters. It renders the number meaningless if you have to ignore some of those genarations. More importantly, it doesn't resolve the contradiction, it just changes the wording, because it would mean that Matthew thought Jacob was Joseph's previous important ancestor and Luke thought Heli was. Augustus did not tell vassal kings how to raise taxes: just to pay them. The local rulers decided how to collect. There was no registration of the whole (Roman) world. Jimmy Akins, Catholic Apologist article on his "Joseph's two homes" idea jimmyakin.com/2022/03/where-was-josephs-residence.html
Luke seems to place Jesus birth during or near the end of Herods reign when he begins his gospel “in the days of Herod” and says Jesus was about 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius. These two data points within the same letter suggest to me that Luke is actually pointing away from Jesus’ birth during the “big” census of Quirinius, and was perhaps offering clarification that the census being talked about was not the one which led to the well known revolt. The charity I offer Luke is the assumption that he knows when Quirinius was in charge and when Herod was in charge, and that Jesus wasn’t born 6-8 years apart at the same time under two different rulers.
Wait a minute. If Joseph was still part of his father’s household in Bethlehem wouldn’t he have a room there? Why would they have wound up in a manger?
Or here is something you could think about. With all the extended family staying because of the census there was no room....just like if all your family tried to turn up at Christmas. Can never understand why people dont think things through.
Even if the premises of these arguments were factually correct, most of them are like saying, "we have evidence from the 1990's that it was possible to build a car that could travel faster than sound, therefore it's safe to assume that everyone in that era drove to Walmart at supersonic speeds."
One point that is often overlooked. A Roman census was basically a way to assess people to tax them, think doomsdsy book in England. What is the point af destroying someones entire weallth by making them abandon their business snd go many days jounrney at high cost?
@@MrMortal_Ra IP used the same argument and went further to cite examples of insurrectionists who were spared from crucifixion (those were the exception, not the norm). He also tried to make it seem plausible by saying that Roman states had their own rules. Lastly, he accused critics or skeptics of finding patterns in the Bible to say that this story must have been based on another. He links this with how two presidents from the 20th century had similar lives.
If josephs father lived in bethlehem and Joseph was part of his household why did they not stay in that househould over the barn in the back of an inn? Is Joseph not presented as an older man or widower that more ore less "adopted" Mary. I think I have heard it presented like that on Bart Ehrman's podcast, it might have been the on on the infancy gospels from the end of last year.
….not to mention there would have been absolutely no reason for anyone to document the birth of a poor kid from Nazareth. The account In Luke was written over 50 years after the fact by a person (probably not named Luke) that never even met Jesus.
Why does he say Sir William Ramsay when the book is Credited to William M Ramsay. Is that to make the name more authoritative? Since William M Ramsay wasnt Knighted until years after this book was published I feels a little like that.
Its probably been said, but wasn't Joseph supposed to be an older man with children from a previous marriage? Its unlikely his father was still alive and in Bethlehem, or that Joseph was not his own head of household.
Just one point on the going to Bethlehem because he was of the house of David, this is probably because of the tribal rights and land, see old testament on this. Land areas remain in tribes, so it’s quite possible as Judah and Benjamin were the only two tribes still in that sort of existence, that he would indeed travel back to his ancestral home as this is his inheritance, not somewhere in Galilee.
Dan consistently quotes critical scholars and the main academic consensus to debunk the Evangelical nonsense spouted by people like the creator of the video he is refuting. Dan does the same in many videos. Apparently I misinterpreted who the "he" referred to in your original reply.
At this point, IP should change his channel name to "Inspiring Cherry Picking"... EVERY argument he makes is simply "I found a quote which seems to make my position "plausible" so you can't prove I'm wrong."
Also, why would we ever grant Luke charity? We don't for literally any other source from this era if they say something implausible lol. We don't look at the story of the Ides of March and say its plausible because "well why not give that account the benefit of the doubt??" We look at the historians credibility. We look at whether their account is on par with the society they're describing: Luke's described census' are not but assassinations are commonplace in roman history. Luke's census defies logic; the idea that his rivals wanted him dead makes sense lol
So I was a philosophy major in college, did some journalism; and I typically leave long-winded, overly verbose replies. I'm struck by the number of times my reaction to Dan's various rebuttals is simply: "Duuuuude!"
Also, even if we take the gospel of Luke at face value, it still contradicts Matthew because Luke 3:23 tells us Jesus was _about_ 30 years old (that is, slightly short of in the Lukan context) in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (3:1), a date many estimate to be 29 CE. If Jesus was allegedly under thirty at that time, this would accord with a birth around 6-7 CE, but it would make any birth during Herod the Great’s reign impossible according to Luke’s dating. So something is very wrong with the data set here.
@dmnemaine You are missing the point. He has to state the arguments made by scholars against. Bring the evidence here. And not just throw the word scholar around. Also, which scholars.
@dmnemaine That's why I said at the beginning. He moved from there as if he had made an argument. He's just appealing to authority on the first point. But not giving us anything to chew on. Why do scholars reject the argument? That's more educational for me. And I think it's because he's reaction to a 30-minute video in 9 minutes.
It is pretty easy to make any apparently ludicrous story seem at least possible and that’s a powerful tool in the arsenal of any apologist. Does one gospel say that Judas died by hanging and another text say he fell headlong and split in the middle? Well maybe he hanged himself and after decomposing for a while his rope snapped and then he fell headlong after hitting a branch with his belly split open. Contradiction solved!
The Holy Ghost that inspired the canonization of the Bible seemed to be more interested in feels than facts. Does it matter when believers require credulity to follow the faith?
So Joseph is married and Mary is expecting, but he's still part of father's household. Right. And then they all bounce back to Nazareth and stay there even though that was only a temporary gig. Uh-huh.
Fundamentally, what is this story? It is a story about a husband dragging his wife on a trip while not being sufficiently conscientious to make a hotel reservation. So, how can this story *not* be true? Furthermore, it explains why churches dedicated to Mary are frequently grand palaces, while churches dedicated to Joseph look like afterthoughts knocked together over a weekend. Also, it may lie behind the fact that Mother's Day compares to Father's Day the way Castle Neuschwanstein compares to a tarpaper shanty.
You are right: it isn't reasonable to expect a story written seventy years after the events it describes to get every detail right. Especially when written by someone from outside the geographic area that is being described. Such details only becomes a problem when the reader insists that the story is part of something he calls "the inerrant word of god."
