[Miss Cassandra]

Dear christians,

I would like to ask all of you a question. Who was the governor of Judaea when Jesus was born? You see, according to Matthew, it was Herod:

Matthew 2:1-3: Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Herod the Great was governor from the Roman province of Judaea from 41-4 BC. After his death, Herod Archilaus succeeded him, until he was deposed in 6 AD, when Judaea fell under the direct control of Rome, and Quirinius, also known as Cyrenius, became governor.

Now, let's pick up the Bible again, and read what Luke reports:

Luke 2:1-5: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David
To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.



Wait, what? Now suddenly, Cyrenius is in charge instead of Herod? Did Jesus travel back in time ten years after he was born?


Please tell me, christians, how could the bible possibly be infallible here? How could both Luke and Matthew be right? How could Jesus both be born at 4 BC and at 6 AD?


If the Bible is the foundation of your worldviews, I would think it's rather shaky, wouldn't you?

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Miss Cassandra

Dear christians,

I would like to ask all of you a question. Who was the governor of Judaea when Jesus was born?

There was no governor of Judea when Christ was born. Herod the Great was the King of Judea at the time.

Wait, what? Now suddenly, Cyrenius is in charge instead of Herod?

Cyrenius was the governor of Syria, not the King of Judea, at the time of Christ's birth.

After his death, Herod Archilaus succeeded him, until he was deposed in 6 AD, when Judaea fell under the direct control of Rome, and Quirinius, also known as Cyrenius, became governor.

Can you prove that Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria before 6 AD?

Please tell me, christians, how could the bible possibly be infallible here? How could both Luke and Matthew be right? How could Jesus both be born at 4 BC and at 6 AD?

Jesus was clearly not born in 6 AD.

If the Bible is the foundation of your worldviews, I would think it's rather shaky, wouldn't you?

Not at all.

[Cranky Old Man]

Originally Posted by Miss Cassandra

I would like to ask all of you a question.

No you want to insult us. There is a difference!

Herod the Great was governor from the Roman province of Judaea from 41-4 BC.

Do you have scripture to back that up?

Jesus travel back in time ten years after he was born?

There are no limits to what He can do, so why not? Luke 18:27 "And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God."

Please tell me, christians, how could the bible possibly be infallible here?

Simple, God created it to be infallible.

[Miss Cassandra]

Originally Posted by WWJDnow

There was no governor of Judea when Christ was born. Herod the Great was the King of Judea at the time.

Exactly. He was in charge, no matter how you call him.

Cyrenius was the governor of Syria, not the King of Judea, at the time of Christ's birth.

Quirinius became legate of Syria in 6 AD, and it was only at this time that Judaea was incorporated in the Syrian province. There was no King of Judaea anymore during the time he was legate.

Can you prove that Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria before 6 AD?

He was only appointed legate of Syria in 6 AD (John Haralson Hayes, Sara Mandell, The Jewish People in Classical Antiquity (Westminster John Knox Press, 1998) page 153-154). So no, he was not.

Jesus was clearly not born in 6 AD.

Yet Luke claims he was, and your god, according to you, put Luke's gospel into the bible. Isn't there a slight problem there?

Originally Posted by Cranky Old Man

No you want to insult us. There is a difference!

I won't deny I do. But wanting to insult and asking questions are not mutually exclusive concepts, you know.

Do you have scripture to back that up?

I quoted Scripture that referred to events happening around then, and historical records tell us the chronology of these events. So, yes, I did, sort of.

There are no limits to what He can do, so why not? Luke 18:27 "And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God."

Then why is this amazing miracle not recorded in the Bible?

Simple, God created it to be infallible.

And he failed. Isn't that ironic?

[Phebe Carlyle]

Miss Cassandra,

You seem to be missing the most vital point and that is, Jesus WAS BORN and BOTH scriptures agree on this undeniable fact.

It is your interpretation of the other irrelevent issues that is the fail here.

PRAISE JESUS!

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Miss Cassandra

Quirinius became legate of Syria in 6 AD, and it was only at this time that Judaea was incorporated in the Syrian province. There was no King of Judaea anymore during the time he was legate. He was only appointed legate of Syria in 6 AD (John Haralson Hayes, Sara Mandell, The Jewish People in Classical Antiquity (Westminster John Knox Press, 1998) page 153-154). So no, he was not.

Surely Hays and Mandell weren't around at the time as eyewitnesses. So what contemporary sources or documents do they cite to support the proposition that Quirinius was not also governor of Syria in 4 BC?

I'll give you a hint. They don't.

[BelieverInGod]

Cassandra,

I have a hard time believing that you were actually raised by good members of LBC. Why all the hate and anger? Don't you think it's time to put away your teenage angst and return to the fold? Do you not worry about going to hell? About what you are doing to your parents?

I pray for you, please quit fighting Jesus, you can't win. I am sure that your mother, father, and all the members of LBC would gladly accept you back into the fold if you repented.

YIC
Liz

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Miss Cassandra

Yet Luke claims he was, and your god, according to you, put Luke's gospel into the bible. Isn't there a slight problem there?

Nowhere did Luke say that Jesus was born in 6 AD. Luke didn't give specify any year for Jesus's birth. All Luke said was that Quirinius was the governor of Syria when Jesus was born. Provide proof that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria when Herod lived and I'll admit that the Bible is wrong, but so far all you've offered up in support is hearsay written 2,000 years after the fact.

It's amazing to me that people believe Wikipedia, which any atheist can edit, over the Bible.

[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Originally Posted by Miss Cassandra

Herod the Great was governor from the Roman province of Judaea from 41-4 BC. After his death, Herod Archilaus succeeded him, until he was deposed in 6 AD, . . .

We all know Archelaus was the son of Herod. When the Holy Family returned from Egypt, Archelaus was in charge "in the room of his father Herod":

Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

So once again the Bible proves itself to be the world's most reliable history book.

[Cranky Old Man]

Originally Posted by Miss Cassandra

I won't deny I do. But wanting to insult and asking questions are not mutually exclusive concepts, you know.

You could try to be more honest and just say up front what you are up to!

I quoted Scripture that referred to events happening around then, and historical records tell us the chronology of these events. So, yes, I did, sort of.

You did not even "sort of" prove anything. You mention a King Herod and a governor Cyrenius, people who according to the scripture you yourself quoted covered different regions. I completely fail to see how any of that would be a contradiction. And as you admit now, the other claims you make can not be backed up by scripture.

Then why is this amazing miracle not recorded in the Bible?

What makes you think all miracles are recorded in the Bible?

And he failed. Isn't that ironic?

So much all I have seen failing here is you.

[Miss Cassandra]

Originally Posted by WWJDnow

Surely Hays and Mandell weren't around at the time as eyewitnesses. So what contemporary sources or documents do they cite to support the proposition that Quirinius was not also governor of Syria in 4 BC?

I'll give you a hint. They don't.

Originally Posted by WWJDnow

Nowhere did Luke say that Jesus was born in 6 AD. Luke didn't give specify any year for Jesus's birth. All Luke said was that Quirinius was the governor of Syria when Jesus was born. Provide proof that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria when Herod lived and I'll admit that the Bible is wrong, but so far all you've offered up in support is hearsay written 2,000 years after the fact.

It's amazing to me that people believe Wikipedia, which any atheist can edit, over the Bible.

So, WWJDnow, your faith hinges upon whether or not Quirinius/Cyrenius was legate of Syria when Jesus was born. Well, let's first consider Pastor Prune's contribution:

Originally Posted by Prune Danish

We all know Archelaus was the son of Herod. When the Holy Family returned from Egypt, Archelaus was in charge "in the room of his father Herod":

Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

So once again the Bible proves itself to be the world's most reliable history book.

As mentioned before, Archelaus reigned in Judaea after Herod's death, so the Bible agrees with history on that.

So what must that mean, according to you? That Cyrenius reigned in Syria before Archelaus' reign in Judaea, contemporary with Herod. Otherwise, one gospel would contradict the other.

You want a contemporary source. Does the name Flavius Josephus ring a bell? He provides a source dating from 75 AD:

But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar,... ...And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him.
- Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book XVII, Chapter 13, paragraph 2

So, ten years after he became king, Caesar removed Archilaus from his position.
Who succeeded Archilaus? Again, Flavius Josephus answers that question for us:

Now I did not think these histories improper for the present discourse, both because my discourse now is concerning kings, and otherwise also on account of the advantage hence to be drawn, as well for the confirmation of the immortality of the soul, as of the providence of God over human affairs, I thought them fit to be set down; but if any one does not believe such relations, let him indeed enjoy his own opinion, but let him not hinder another that would thereby encourage himself in virtue. So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus.
- Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book XVII, Chapter 13, paragraph 5

There you have it. After Archelaus was banished, ten years after Herod died, Cyrenius was sent to Syria. This supports that Herod and Cyrenius never reigned together, which implies that either Matthew or Luke must have been wrong.

Originally Posted by Cranky Old Man

You could try to be more honest and just say up front what you are up to!

My main motive was asking a question. That it insulted you, is nothing more than a positive side-effect.

You did not even "sort of" prove anything. You mention a King Herod and a governor Cyrenius, people who according to the scripture you yourself quoted covered different regions. I completely fail to see how any of that would be a contradiction. And as you admit now, the other claims you make can not be backed up by scripture.

Well, you can read it above.

So much all I have seen failing here is you.

That, dear Crank, is mutual.

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Miss Cassandra

So, WWJDnow, your faith hinges upon whether or not Quirinius/Cyrenius was legate of Syria when Jesus was born.

Indeed it does.

Archelaus reigned in Judaea after Herod's death, so the Bible agrees with history on that.

Yes, that is right. The Bible always agrees with history when history is correct.

So what must that mean, according to you? That Cyrenius reigned in Syria before Archelaus' reign in Judaea, contemporary with Herod. Otherwise, one gospel would contradict the other.

Cyrenius governed in Syria, not reigned, but yes, according to me, Cyrenius governed Syria during the reign of Herod the Great.

You want a contemporary source. Does the name Flavius Josephus ring a bell?

Indeed it does. Josephus acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ, so I am pleased to hear that you accept Josephus as a reliable source.

Unfortunately the language from Josephus that you quoted is irrelevant. Whether Cyrenius was legate of Rome after the death of Herod the Great isn't germane, because the gospels are crystal clear that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. High-level Roman administrators/generals moved around a lot, and there is no reason of which I am aware to believe that Cyrenius was not also governor of Syria in or shortly before 4 BC. Yet Josephus tells us nothing about what Cyrenius was doing in 4 BC or about the identity of the Syrian governor in 4 BC.

So, again I ask you, where is your proof that Cyrenius was not the governor of Syria in 4 BC? If you can't prove that, then you have failed to prove the Bible to be inconsistent.

[Cranky Old Man]

Originally Posted by Miss Cassandra

Well, you can read it above.

I did, but it didn't contain any scripture so I do not see how it proves anything?

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

You God-mockers love to twist Scripture to make it sound internally inconsistent. However, if your "interpretation" of God's Word makes it out to be wrong, then it's your "interpretation" that's wrong. The Bible tells us about people like you:

1 Cor. 2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

[Miss Cassandra]

Originally Posted by WWJDnow

So, again I ask you, where is your proof that Cyrenius was not the governor of Syria in 4 BC? If you can't prove that, then you have failed to prove the Bible to be inconsistent.

He was not. Publius Quinctilius Varus was. Let's read Josephus again, first about the death of Herod:

But as they were come to Cesarea, Sabinus, the procurator of Syria, met them; he was going up to Judea, to secure Herod's effects; but Varus, [president of Syria,] who was come thither, restrained him from going any farther.
- Flavius Josephus, War of the Jews, Book II, Chapter 2, paragraph 2

We can see that, after Herod's death, Publius Quinctilius Varus was president of Syria. However, Varus also was president of Syria in the account of the execution of Antipater, Herod's firstborn son whom Herod had executed, a year before Herod's Death:

Now Quintilius Varus was at this time at Jerusalem, being sent to succeed Saturninus as president of Syria, and was come as an assessor to Herod, who had desired his advice in his present affairs; and as they were sitting together, Antipater came upon them, without knowing any thing of the matter; so he came into the palace clothed in purple.
- Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, Chapter 5, paragraph 2

So in 4 BC, we can be certain that Cyrenius was not governor of Syria. Also, before Varus, Saturninus was president in Syria, not Cyrenius. We can find the name Saturninus again when be go back further in time, to Herod accusing two other sons of him of plotting to overthrow him, in 8 BC. We read:

SO Caesar was now reconciled to Herod, and wrote thus to him: That he was grieved for him on account of his sons; and that in case they had been guilty of any profane and insolent crimes against him, it would behoove him to punish them as parricides, for which he gave him power accordingly; but if they had only contrived to fly away, he would have him give them an admonition, and not proceed to extremity with them. He also advised him to get an assembly together, and to appoint some place near Berytus, which is a city belonging to the Romans, and to take the presidents of Syria, and Archelaus king of Cappadocia, and as many more as he thought to be illustrious for their friendship to him, and the dignities they were in, and determine what should be done by their approbation.
- Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVI, Chapter 11, paragraph 1

The "presidents of Syria." Who were they? Reading a little back, we find the answer:

Sylleus, who had laid Obodas aside, and managed all by himself, denied that the robbers were in Arabia, and put off the payment of the money; about which there was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, who were then the presidents of Syria.
- Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVI, Chapter 11, paragraph 1

So, Saturninus was already president of Syria in 8 BC. We can rule out the possibility of Cyrenius reigning in Syria anywhere near the time Herod was king.

Does this mean you're not a christian anymore?

[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Originally Posted by Miss Cassandra

He was not. Publius Quinctilius Varus was. Let's read Josephus again, first about the death of Herod:

Yes, let's read Josephus again. This is the quote you gave us:

But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar,... ...And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him. (Antiquities, 17, 13, 2)

You employ Josephus to prove that Archelaus reigned for 10 years. And Josephus even adds that the ethnarch had a dream about corn and oxen, where each ear of corn corresponds to a year -- just like Pharaoh's dream in Genesis 41. Ten years and ten ears of corn.

Now, before Archelaus was gone up to Rome upon this message, he related this dream to his friends: That he saw ears of corn, in number ten, full of wheat, perfectly ripe, which ears, as it seemed to him, were devoured by oxen. [...] the ears of corn being ten, determined the like number of years, because an ear of corn grows in one year; (Antiquities, 17, 13, 3)

Ten years and ten ears of corn. What evidence could be more solid than this?

Unfortunately for God mockers like you, Josephus told the same story once more. And this time he altered the facts ever so slightly:

And now Archelaus took possession of his ethnarchy, and used not the Jews only, but the Samaritans also, barbarously; and this out of his resentment of their old quarrels with him. Whereupon they both of them sent ambassadors against him to Caesar; and in the ninth year of his government he was banished to Vienna, a city of Gaul, and his effects were put into Caesar's treasury.

But the report goes, that before he was sent for by Caesar, he seemed to see nine ears of corn, full and large, but devoured by oxen. [...] one of the sect of Essens, said that he thought the ears of corn denoted years, [...] That therefore he should reign as many years as there were ears of corn; (War 2,7,3)

Not only does Josephus change history, but he's even able to update the dreams of a long dead ruler. It should be as plain as the hooked nose in his face, that you can't trust these pushy Jewish storytellers, who will say anything for a few shiny shekels.

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Titus 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

[Miss Cassandra]

Originally Posted by Prune Danish

Yes, let's read Josephus again. This is the quote you gave us:

But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar,... ...And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him. (Antiquities, 17, 13, 2)

You employ Josephus to prove that Archelaus reigned for 10 years. And Josephus even adds that the ethnarch had a dream about corn and oxen, where each ear of corn corresponds to a year -- just like Pharaoh's dream in Genesis 41. Ten years and ten ears of corn.

Now, before Archelaus was gone up to Rome upon this message, he related this dream to his friends: That he saw ears of corn, in number ten, full of wheat, perfectly ripe, which ears, as it seemed to him, were devoured by oxen. [...] the ears of corn being ten, determined the like number of years, because an ear of corn grows in one year; (Antiquities, 17, 13, 3)

Ten years and ten ears of corn. What evidence could be more solid than this?

Unfortunately for God mockers like you, Josephus told the same story once more. And this time he altered the facts ever so slightly:

And now Archelaus took possession of his ethnarchy, and used not the Jews only, but the Samaritans also, barbarously; and this out of his resentment of their old quarrels with him. Whereupon they both of them sent ambassadors against him to Caesar; and in the ninth year of his government he was banished to Vienna, a city of Gaul, and his effects were put into Caesar's treasury.

But the report goes, that before he was sent for by Caesar, he seemed to see nine ears of corn, full and large, but devoured by oxen. [...] one of the sect of Essens, said that he thought the ears of corn denoted years, [...] That therefore he should reign as many years as there were ears of corn; (War 2,7,3)

Not only does Josephus change history, but he's even able to update the dreams of a long dead ruler. It should be as plain as the hooked nose in his face, that you can't trust these pushy Jewish storytellers, who will say anything for a few shiny shekels.

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Titus 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

So, in effect your argument boils down to: "Josephus changes the number of corn and oxen and years Archelaus reigned (from 10 to 9) in his later work, therefore he can't be trusted. Additionally, he's a jew." There are numerous problems with this argumentation:

1. It is very well possible that Josephus changed this minimal and insignificant detail after hearing and reading additional sources about this time, correcting minimal inconsistencies, and rounding down to 9 the duration of his reign, which likely was between 9 and 10 years.
You'll notice that in both works of Josephus there is a large temporal gap between the death of Herod and the start of the reign of Cyrenius as legate of Syria.

2. To make the gospels fit one another, the number of years of Archelaus' reign should not be changed from 10 to 9, but from 10 to 0. According to the gospels, Josephus should have written it as follows:

Now, before Archelaus was gone up to Rome upon this message, he related this dream to his friends: That he saw ears of corn, in number none, full of wheat, perfectly ripe, which ears, as it seemed to him, were devoured by oxen. [...] the ears of corn being zero, determined the like number of years, because an ear of corn grows in one year;

Which would make no sense.

This is because Archelaus didn't reign until after Herod died, and his reign ended when Cyrenius came to power, so to make the gospels fit with one another, Archelaus shouldn't even exist. However, Matthew recognizes his existence:

Matthew 2:22: But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee

So Matthew unambiguously places Jesus' birth during Herod's reign, before Archelaus' reign, and therefore also before Cyrenius' reign.

3. You say that "jewish storytellers" shouldn't be trusted, quoting Titus to prove your point. However, according to christians, Titus is written by Paul. What was Paul's ethnicity again?

Oh yes, of course, a jew.

And what did he do?

He went around Greek cities and told stories.

So why don't you apply Titus 1:13-14 to Paul then? That one suddenly becomes a rather self-defeating argument.

4. Josephus believed Jesus was the christ, according to your ally WWJDnow. What would then be his motive to falsify history to disprove christianity? That doesn't make sense.

Look at it like this:

If he hadn't read both gospels, he wouldn't know what parts of history to falsify to either prove or disprove the gospels, so he couldn't have done so.

If he had read both gospels, he certainly would have falsified history to make them fit together, if he wanted to falsify history to prove his worldviews.

Either way, there is no way in which Josephus would have changed historical fact to make Luke and Matthew conflict with one another.

5. If Luke and Matthew were both correct, then the Romans would have taken a census in Judea at the time when they were a client kingdom under Herod. That doesn't make sense at all, as the already impopular Romans would have made themselves even more hated among the jews. The Romans never did this in their entire history. Would they have done something that unusual, completely unnoticed by Josephus, even though Josephus notes that the census of 6 AD by Cyrenius infuriated the jews?

I think that Christian logic is to logic what creation science is to science.

[lupis78]

The death of herod is in debate from anywhere from 8 bc to 1 bc. We don't know who was governor of syria from 4 to 1 bc so a theory has been pushed out that he was governer there on 2 occasions. The theory itself is thin but it is a theory none the less.

[lupis78]

He was conducting wars in galatia and cilicia at that time frame.

[Felicity]

@lupis78 Welcome! I hope we can be friends!

It would be great if you could make a thread of your own in the introductions section of the forum! That way everyone here can meet you and see how much you love Jesus!

Since you are new here please look at our please read this before posting and our your rights on this forum threads! There you can learn that this forum is not about debating or unsaved opinions but about praising Jesus!