Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

When was Jesus born?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I have a question that I hope someone here can help me with.

Through the Gospel of Matthew along with the writings of Josephus and Tertullian we can place the birth of Jesus sometime between 7 - 2 B.C. He had to be born before Herod the Great died which many place in March of 4 B.C. Based on the above and known errors in the Gregorian calendar (which cannot be entirely and accurately quantified) I have come to the belief that Jesus was born some time in the fall of 2 B.C. and Herod died in 1 B.C. following a lunar eclipse (see Josephus), but I am not dogmatic on these dates.

Here is the question. In Luke's account Jesus was born during a census decreed by Augustus during the time when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. This "census" is generally agreed to have happened around the years 6-7 A.D. Cyrenius was not governor in the B.C. time frame. It is also pretty well established that no one was required to travel to their place of family origin to participate in any Roman census. Does anyone have a solid response for this supposed problem?

Thanks!
282

Edited by 282Mikado
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think it is important when he was born. Scripture does not actually give us enough information. However, I have read somewhere that Quirinius had two separate periods as governor.

There is a web site that gives the death of Herod as BC 1, as you suggest and the birth of Jesus as BC 2. They base this on the conjunctions of the planets,

Another way of looking at it is the statement Lu 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Doing a search, I find that Tiberius was emperor from AD 14, so his fifteenth year was about AD 29, when John the Baptist baptised Jesus. As Jesus was about 30 at the time it would make his birth about BC 2. (there being no AD 0 )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think it is important when he was born. Scripture does not actually give us enough information. However, I have read somewhere that Quirinius had two separate periods as governor.


I agree that the exact "when" is not really important, but I have someone that is attacking the Bible (specifically the account in Luke) because he says that no census was held until 6-7 AD which does not match the account in Matthew for the BC birth of Christ. I've heard the two separate terms for Cyrenius as well, but that is refuted by some pretty good sources so I can't really use that. However, if there could have been a census held in 2 B.C. this is really a non-issue. Albert Barnes cites a Dr. Lardher with the following explanation:

This was the first census of Cyrenius, governor of Syria." It is called the first to distinguish it from one afterward taken by Cyrenius, Ac 5:37. It is said to be the census taken by Cyrenius, governor of Syria; not that he was then governor, but that it was taken by him who was afterward familiarly known as governor. Cyrenius, governor of Syria, was the name by which the man was known when Luke wrote his gospel, and it was not improper to say that the taxing was made by Cyrenius, the governor of Syria, though he might not have been actually governor for many years afterward. Thus Herodian says that "to Marcus the emperor were born several daughters and two sons," though several of those children were born to him before he was emperor. Thus it is not improper to say that General Washington saved Braddock's army, or was engaged in the old French war, though he was not actually made general till many years afterward. According to this Augustus sent Cyrenius, an active, enterprising man, to take the census. At that time he was a Roman senator. Afterward he was made governor of the same country, and received the title which Luke gives him.


That there actually was a census that brought Joseph to Bethlehem is pretty important though, To the person to whom I am witnessing it makes the book of Luke uninspired and casts doubt on the inspiration of the entire Bible. Edited by 282Mikado
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here is a great reply from Bro. Dan on another forum I belong to:

Luke 2:2
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

The key here is the word "governor".

governor
ἡγεμονεύω hegemoneuo (hayg-em-on-yoo'-o) v.
1. to act as ruler

This is a Greek verb...not a noun...not a title.

Cyrenius (aka Quirinius) was ruler twice in Syria. First, as it's military leader (12 B.C - 2 B.C.) during a time of great civil unrest, and next as Governor (6 A.D.).

The fact is, Cyrenius is recorded as "governing" (or acting as ruler) during the census...not being the actual Governor. The census was most likely started while he was the military leader, and a census could take 7 - 14 years to complete (depending on the situation).

I've read where people try to say that the word "first" in the above quoted verse can be translated as "before". They say that it should read as...And this taxing was made "before" Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) While it is true that the Greek word translated as "first" has a root word that means "before", the root word isn't what is recorded in the word of God! Too many people try to correct the Bible.

We just need to let the Bible say what it says, and it says that Cyrenius was "acting" as ruler (as Syria's Military leader during the civil unrest). When one sees the word "governor", they immediately think of the office; however, in this case it's a verb. All the verse says is that he was ruling during the census. It doesn't say that he was the actual Governor during the census.

Think about it...what happens during times of great civil unrest? The military takes charge! Not the police...not the Mayor...not the Governor...the military does!

The fact is, this is history...and little is known about it. However, I've learned that the Bible has been proven correct time and time again when historians "thought" the Bible was wrong.

________________________________________________________________________________



As for a Roman census "requiring" people to travel to their place of family origin...again, that's not what the Bible says...

Luke 2:1
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Augustus decreed the census...that's all the information that we have. There's nothing saying that he decreed that people travel "to their place of ancestry". Yet, in verse 3 we read...

Luke 2:3
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

I'm sure the people who lived in rural areas went to their "own city" to register together with those who lived in the actual city. In other words, they went to the closest city with which they were affiliated. There's nothing in the verse indicating that these were "ancestral cities".

I liken it to being similar to people who live in rural areas today. They might live 10 or more miles from the nearest city, but their mailing address pertains to that city...so in effect, they belong to that city.

Now it does say that Joseph went to Bethlehem because he was of the lineage of David. Joseph is the ONLY person recorded in the Bible that went to his ancestral city. I'm not saying there weren't others, because we don't know, but the only one that we do know of...is Joseph.

Why did Joseph go to Bethlehem instead of staying in Nazareth? All the Bible tells us is "because he was of the house and lineage of David." Perhaps there was a clause that allowed him to do that. We can speculate reasons, but all that I do know is that Christ had to be born in Bethlehem, and God used those circumstances to fulfill prophecy.

The fact remains that there was no decree for "everyone" to return to their ancestral cities...all that we do know is that Joseph did so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree that the exact "when" is not really important, but I have someone that is attacking the Bible (specifically the account in Luke) because he says that no census was held until 6-7 AD which does not match the account in Matthew for the BC birth of Christ. I've heard the two separate terms for Cyrenius as well, but that is refuted by some pretty good sources so I can't really use that. However, if there could have been a census held in 2 B.C. this is really a non-issue. Albert Barnes cites a Dr. Lardher with the following explanation:



That there actually was a census that brought Joseph to Bethlehem is pretty important though, To the person to whom I am witnessing it makes the book of Luke uninspired and casts doubt on the inspiration of the entire Bible.



Have a look at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/census-luke2.html

and
Cyrenius

the Grecized form of Quirinus (Quirinius)
His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. Recent historical investigation has proved that Quirinius was governor of Cilicia, which was annexed to Syria at the time of our Lord's birth. Cilicia, which he ruled, being a province of Syria. He is called the governor, which he was de jure, of Syria. Some ten years afterwards he was appointed governor of Syria for the second time. During his tenure of office, at the time of our Lord's birth (Luke 2:2), a “taxing” (Revised Version, “enrolment;” i.e., a registration) of the people was “first made;” i.e., was made for the first time under his government.

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/cyrenius.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

There is strong and accurate Biblical, historical, and astromomical evidence to support what would equal our date of 11 Sep 3 B.C., with the crowning of the head being between 6:08 and 6:38 PM.
Could you share some of this evidence?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, I would be glad to, but seeing it is a rather involved and lengthy study, I don't know that this is the best way to do it. Sometimes in a forum such as this, people get upset when long held traditions and views are challenged, even when no offense is meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, I would be glad to, but seeing it is a rather involved and lengthy study, I don't know that this is the best way to do it. Sometimes in a forum such as this, people get upset when long held traditions and views are challenged, even when no offense is meant.

Considering the limited number of responses to this thread, it doesn't seem there are many with long held traditions or views to worry about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is strong and accurate Biblical, historical, and astromomical evidence to support what would equal our date of 11 Sep 3 B.C., with the crowning of the head being between 6:08 and 6:38 PM.


Could you share some of this evidence?


Yes, I would be glad to, but seeing it is a rather involved and lengthy study, I don't know that this is the best way to do it. Sometimes in a forum such as this, people get upset when long held traditions and views are challenged, even when no offense is meant.


I ask because it is statements like your first above that I find typically lead to a lot of unsupported and mis-information because people take others at their word instead of verifying the sources.


"I have a friend, who heard from a friend, that listened to a guy on some liberal talk show that read a book from another liberal "scholar" that says such and such is so...so it is obviously undeniable truth from the best sources".



I like to verify the information. Like Ronald Reagan once said..."Trust, but verify". Edited by 282Mikado
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

First let me explain how I will approach this, and see if anyone interested can and will accept the 'format'.

I believe God's Word, as originally given, is perfect. I also believe every version of that original God-breathed Word is just what it says it is - a version - and as such is subject to problems. This includes the King James Version.

I believe that no prophesy (which includes foretelling and forth-telling) of the scripture is of any private interpretation, and since that is the case it either cannot be interpreted, or it contains the keys and tools within itself on how to interpret it. For example, when God says Abraham is a prophet, yet there is nothing recorded of Abraham foretelling, but there is much recorded of him forth-telling, the definition of prophet is different from what most religions define a prophet to be. Students of the Bible must be meek to God's definitions, rather than their own.

Since the English word 'logic' comes from the Greek word 'logos', I believe sound logic must be employed in understanding God's Word. An example of this would be that if the star over Judea which the wise men saw was viewable, then there would be a record of it among a people who studied the heavenly bodies.

Lastly, God has a reason and purpose for everything He says, where He says it, why He says it, when He says it, how He says it, and to whom He says it.

Having said all that, the KJV would be the primary text; science (astronomy included) must fit with the Bible, and not the Bible with science; everyone, including the teacher) should always be open to learn as Jeremiah 33:3 proclaims; and there is no room for single-issue thinking at the expense of Biblical truth. God's Word, rightly-divided, is truth. All else, at best, is fact.

Does this sound good and acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe that God, Jesus and the Word are one (John 1:1; 1:14). I believe that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow: Phil. 2:9-10. I also believe that God has exalted His Word even above all His name: Psalm 138:2. I also believe that God has promised to preserve His word for ALL generations: Psalm 12:6-7.

I do not believe God can lie: Titus 1:2, and so I believe all the above is true and that God has preserved His word even to this generation. I believe He chose to do this with the KJV. The only problems I see in this version are those derived through my own lack of understanding. Until someone can prove to me otherwise on the afore mentioned, I believe those that say there are problems with the KJV believe so because they believe their own personal interpretation (and what they wish to believe as true) is better than what God has provided. To say that God's word is perfect as "originally given" and all else is open to human error is laughable not only because it is obvious that God's originals were perfect, but also because no one has seen God's originals for well over 1,000 years and more and this leaves a huge opening for people to provide their own interpretation to anything put before them.

It is interesting to note that Moses smashed the "original" commandments of God at Mount Sinai (Exodus 32). Was the second copy he brought down "subject to problems"?

We also read in Jeremiah 36 that the "original" words of God were destroyed by the King. Was the second copy that Jeremiah wrote "subject to problems"?

Aside from that second sentence of your above post, I am amicable with your format as long as it is in accordance with the KJV.

Edited by 282Mikado
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

" The only problems I see in this version are those derived through my own lack of understanding. "

I am not quoting all you wrote, just to save space. But to be sure I am understanding the gist of what you are saying, let me rephrase it for myself, and if it is wrong, please let me know. I am not putting words in your mouth, I am just giving feedback to make sure we are on the same page.

The KJV, as with all of God's Word, He protects and watches over (preserves). That which is not the Word (but some try to pawn it off as such) will burn and be brought to nought, regardless of what version, or manuscript, or commentary it is in. If the copy (as in the Jer 36 reference you made) was an exact replica, certainly that would be God's Word, though it is not the 'original'. The example of Moses is obviously God's Word, since God just wrote it again.

If however, a scribe or monk had made an error in copying it, had transposed words, added their own, left some out, those changes would not be God's Word, but the others unchanged would be. (This accounts for the many variances in the texts). Truly God has magnified His Word above all His name. But just as you used the word 'exalted' rather than 'magnified' in your use of Psalm 138 so you could make it more living and real in your understanding, sometimes well-intentioned copyists would do the same. If you came across many copies which had 'magnified' (as most versions translate it and only one or two with 'exalted' (as I only know the ESV translates it this way), the majority of the weight of evidence would say 'magnify' would be the more accurate word.

Your reference to Titus 1:2 is very good. God CANNOT lie. I have heard preachers say God can do anything. In light of Titus 1:2, who is right? God who says He cannot lie, or the preacher who says He can do anything? Sometimes very rightous and sincere people make mistakes. There are other such items in the Word, also.

The real requirement in people wanting to learn the Word is to receive that Word with meekness (James 1:21). You seem like such a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...