Re: Happy Birthday Baby Jesus,

by Shoeshine Thu 24 Dec 2009, 11:10

Bradman wrote:
Shoeshine wrote:No, no - several hundred years after Christ. Christmas is a Roman invention really, hence the tie in to Saturnalia. The Jews didn't celebrate birthdays anyway back then, so the idea of celebrating Christ's birthday wouldn't make sense.

However, given that the whole story of the nativity is historically impossible anyway, it's not an issue!

Saturnalia was a Roman tradition long before Christ. And again I know about the historical blumps. Even Matthew and Luke couldn't agree on Christ's family tree. Though how you could have one when you're popped into Mummy's tummy is beyond me.

I think you might have misunderstood what I'm saying. Of course Saturnalia had been going on for centuries. What I was saying was that the Christians appropriated it. It was the means of attracting the pagans, to keep their festival and give it new Christian clothes.

Oh the historical/chronological disaster goes well beyond that. Two of the gospels don't don't mention it at all, we're left with just Matthew and Luke to tell the story.

Matthew connects the birth of Christ with the reign of King Herod and puts it in Bethlehem, whilst Luke (and this is largely the version that the story of the nativity rests upon) goes further, mentioning a decree from Augustus that world should be taxed and connecting it with when first Quirinius was made governor of Syria. And herein lies the problem. Whilst you can debate the events of Genesis with no supporting or contradictory material to measure it against, in the time of Rome we do have huge amounts of source material to compare such writings with. Quirinius is a well known historical character, not least to Josephus, from whom many supporters of Gospel work offer citations. But Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until AD6. Herod is known to have died in either 4BC or (in some arguments) 5BC. They were not contemporaries, it is impossible for events to have taken place in both lifetimes. Matthew ignores Quirinius completely, and states that the nativity took place during the period of Herod's reign. The two gospellers are therefore dating the nativity at least ten years apart.

Then we come to Luke's use of the worldwide census for tax purposes. His entire story hinges on this point, and it has some serious problems. For one thing, if the nativity occurred during the reign of Herod, then the Jews were still Herod's subjects, not Rome's. Rome could not possibly have issued such an edict to the Jews, because Rome didn't rule the region at the time directly. Taxation was the responsibility of the client-Kings, not Rome. As one writer puts it "It is not just that Herod never coincided with Quirinius as governor, he never coincided with Roman taxing of Judea".

Equally, it is extremely unlikely that Augustus even ever issued a decree for a worldwide tax. Not entirely impossible, but one would expect to find plenty of supporting documentation from Rome for such a major (and massively labour intensive) event. There is none. The Romans certainly did take local censuses, but global ones? No. In AD6, Augustus did institute a tax on inheritance, to pay for his armies, but it only affected Roman citizens, certainly not Jews.

Now, in AD6, there was a local census instituted by Quirinius (Herod long dead, remember), and this is backed up by several historians of the time.

And here is the real contradiction: In Luke, if Quirinius was governor, then a census is possible, but Herod was dead, with Matthew it goes further, if the first two elements are true, then not only was Herod dead, but his lengthy tale of the massacre of the innocents, the flight into Egypt and the three Wise Men are chronologically impossible.

Even the question of the census itself has real difficulties. Any census would have been for the purposes of tax alone (Jews were exempt from military service). It is entirely true that Joseph would have had to go to his "own city", but the idea that this was on the basis of ancestry is preposterous. Tax was managed on the basis of property. Joseph of Nazareth would have been taxed in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. The Romans cared not a jot for real ancestry, let alone a mythical one. No Roman census would have taken Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, and they certainly would not have needed to stay at an inn (what would be the point, it wasn't theirs to be taxed?). Indeed, Mary would not even have needed to go at all, as we know from Egyptian records that only one householder was required. Given that she was (in the story) extremely heavily pregnant, it stretches credulity to suggest that she would have chosen to make such a journey anyway.

Luke's story was thus "historically impossible and internally incoherent". The reason for the problem is fairly clear, that the prophecies all mention certain parameters that the Messiah would fulfill, and so he had to shoehorn the story to fit the prophecy. It is his bad luck that we have so much information about the history of the period that we can tell, without a shadow of a doubt that it could not possibly have happened.

Now, if you take the view that the specific history is not necessarily critical, and that the essence of the story is the thing, that is entirely your prerogative. But few would argue anything other than that the nativity could not possibly have happened according to the gospels.

Please remember to tell this to all your children when they put their stockings out at night.
Laughing

by DJ_Smerk Thu 24 Dec 2009, 11:12

Pass the muld wine!

by Bradman Thu 24 Dec 2009, 11:25

Jesus SS I know all that, though you've got parts of it wrong (well not wrong just one story). Yes the Romans and others hijacked various beliefs to make Christianity palatable.

My point with Jesus' bloodline was if you believe in the scriptures (which I don't) how can the guy have a bloodline.

Matthew was writing for Greeks and Luke for Romans. Jesus' father (as much as you can have one when you were begat by a diety) was an attempt to marry the two royal houses. Joseph was the product of a couple of levirate marriages that allowed the two lines to be fused but Christ wasn't Joseph's son. Plus his mother's ancestry is that farked up it's not funny.

by Shoeshine Thu 24 Dec 2009, 11:29

Bradman wrote:Jesus SS I know all that, though you've got parts of it wrong (well not wrong just one story). Yes the Romans and others hijacked various beliefs to make Christianity palatable.

My point with Jesus' bloodline was if you believe in the scriptures (which I don't) how can the guy have a bloodline.

Matthew was writing for Greeks and Luke for Romans. Jesus' father (as much as you can have one when you were begat by a diety) was an attempt to marry the two royal houses. Joseph was the product of a couple of levirate marriages that allowed the two lines to be fused but Christ wasn't Joseph's son. Plus his mother's ancestry is that farked up it's not funny.

Which bit? I don't claim infallibility - thats the Pope's job!

by taipan Thu 24 Dec 2009, 11:30

Shoeshine wrote:
Bradman wrote:Jesus SS I know all that, though you've got parts of it wrong (well not wrong just one story). Yes the Romans and others hijacked various beliefs to make Christianity palatable.

My point with Jesus' bloodline was if you believe in the scriptures (which I don't) how can the guy have a bloodline.

Matthew was writing for Greeks and Luke for Romans. Jesus' father (as much as you can have one when you were begat by a diety) was an attempt to marry the two royal houses. Joseph was the product of a couple of levirate marriages that allowed the two lines to be fused but Christ wasn't Joseph's son. Plus his mother's ancestry is that farked up it's not funny.

Which bit? I don't claim infallibility - thats the Pope's job!

Isn't that chastity?

by Shoeshine Thu 24 Dec 2009, 11:34

taipan wrote:
Shoeshine wrote:
Bradman wrote:Jesus SS I know all that, though you've got parts of it wrong (well not wrong just one story). Yes the Romans and others hijacked various beliefs to make Christianity palatable.

My point with Jesus' bloodline was if you believe in the scriptures (which I don't) how can the guy have a bloodline.

Matthew was writing for Greeks and Luke for Romans. Jesus' father (as much as you can have one when you were begat by a diety) was an attempt to marry the two royal houses. Joseph was the product of a couple of levirate marriages that allowed the two lines to be fused but Christ wasn't Joseph's son. Plus his mother's ancestry is that farked up it's not funny.

Which bit? I don't claim infallibility - thats the Pope's job!

Isn't that chastity?

That too. Apart from those occasions when the papacy was handed to the pontiff's son.... Laughing