Thread: Why are there so many holes in the whole Jesus story?

Ok christians, riddle me this. I have several holes in the Jesus story I want you to give me an honest explanation about. And no, I'm not doing this for shits and giggles as usual. Here are a few of the holes.

1) The whole having to go back to Bethlehem to pay tax and the census.

Any HR manager, IRS agent or national census conductor will tell you that moving people when you are trying to gather data is highly inefficient. The bible states that they had to go to the place of Joseph's birth, which was Bethlehem. I find this extremely dubious, as during that time you could have been born in say, Syria, and be living in Britannia. Explain why the Christ family had to go to Bethlehem.

2) Pontius Pilate's disposition.

Pilate is described in every other historical source as a wicked and ruthless governor of Judaea, yet the Bible portrays him as compassionate and remorseful. Why the personality change?

3) The custom of granting amnesty to a prisoner at a time of festival

Which is what Pilate proceeds to do for a rapist and murderer when the crowd is given a choice between him and Jesus. There is no record of this custom being practiced anywhere in the empire at any time. Roman jurisprudence forbade it.

4) Jesus walking away from the Temple unscathed

Records of the time tell us that Passover was a particularly volatile time in Judaea, and messaiah claimants tended to pop up around this time and cause problems. The romans dealt with any troublemakers, especially in the Temple, quite simply: string them up. The roman garisson had direct access to the temple courts in case of a disturbance, and despite driving the money changers from the temple, Jesus walks away unaccosted.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

Ok christians, riddle me this. I have several holes in the Jesus story I want you to give me an honest explanation about. And no, I'm not doing this for shits and giggles as usual. Here are a few of the holes.

1) The whole having to go back to Bethlehem to pay tax and the census.

Any HR manager, IRS agent or national census conductor will tell you that moving people when you are trying to gather data is highly inefficient. The bible states that they had to go to the place of Joseph's birth, which was Bethlehem. I find this extremely dubious, as during that time you could have been born in say, Syria, and be living in Britannia. Explain why the Christ family had to go to Bethlehem.

It makes about as much sense as the missing 20 years of his life. Where was he? What was he doing? Supposedly he was the son of God from birth, and people new about it, so where are the records of his whereabouts during his youth and 20's?

Originally Posted by Ausinus

2) Pontius Pilate's disposition.

Pilate is described in every other historical source as a wicked and ruthless governor of Judaea, yet the Bible portrays him as compassionate and remorseful. Why the personality change?

Unexplainable. The punishment for Christ breaking Jewish laws at that time was stonig. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment. If the high priests were screaming for his death, then they would have stoned him.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

3) The custom of granting amnesty to a prisoner at a time of festival

Which is what Pilate proceeds to do for a rapist and murderer when the crowd is given a choice between him and Jesus. There is no record of this custom being practiced anywhere in the empire at any time. Roman jurisprudence forbade it.

4) Jesus walking away from the Temple unscathed

Records of the time tell us that Passover was a particularly volatile time in Judaea, and messaiah claimants tended to pop up around this time and cause problems. The romans dealt with any troublemakers, especially in the Temple, quite simply: string them up. The roman garisson had direct access to the temple courts in case of a disturbance, and despite driving the money changers from the temple, Jesus walks away unaccosted.

It is very odd. The Romans wanted one thing from the people they ruled over, their tax money. As Jesus was not a major sort of income for them, why would they leave him alone when he was thought to be a rabble rouser?

1) The whole having to go back to Bethlehem to pay tax and the census.

Any HR manager, IRS agent or national census conductor will tell you that moving people when you are trying to gather data is highly inefficient. The bible states that they had to go to the place of Joseph's birth, which was Bethlehem. I find this extremely dubious, as during that time you could have been born in say, Syria, and be living in Britannia. Explain why the Christ family had to go to Bethlehem.

1) There is some speculation that Matthew confused the census of Quirinius with the trip of Joseph and Marry to Bethlehem. The trip may have had another motivation-- Mary's "illicit" pregnancy.

Joseph may have been returning to Bethlehem, because his espoused wife was pregnant, in a culture where this was sometimes a capital offense.

There is a poignancy in one of the possible translations which supports this.

In the version I mention, the word that we generally associate with "inn" would actually refer to a family living area, in this case Joseph's extended family.

In this version, the family makes no room for Joseph's pregnant finance, and allows her to deliver her child in the barn. How very human.

2) Pontius Pilate's disposition.

Pilate is described in every other historical source as a wicked and ruthless governor of Judaea, yet the Bible portrays him as compassionate and remorseful. Why the personality change?

2) Why do the Palestinians see the Israelis as monsters even when they provide them with legal protections and a standard of living higher than neighboring countries?

The Roman's were seen as oppressors by many people, and they weren't likely to write well of the Roman Legate, no matter the facts.

Pilate was also living in a time of upheaval and intrigue in the Empire, and fell into disfavor later. It is unlikely that most surviving Roman accounts would show him in a better light.

To return to my illustration. Were you to read most of the accounts of the Israelis in the mainstream press, would you be highly cognizant of the fact that they do extensive medical research, are accomplished in the arts, have a powerful peace movement, accomplish first-rank scientific study, and perform charity surgeries for Arab children?

As for Biblical accounts, Pilot had made at least some seeming effort to free a man beloved by the authors. It is easy to imagine them having some gratitude for that and remembering him in a more favorable light.

3) The custom of granting amnesty to a prisoner at a time of festival

Which is what Pilate proceeds to do for a rapist and murderer when the crowd is given a choice between him and Jesus. There is no record of this custom being practiced anywhere in the empire at any time. Roman jurisprudence forbade it.

3) Roman law forbade an number of things, such as poisoning the dinner guests-- but that's another issue.

Pilot was an unpopular representative of a despised regime in a province that simmered on the edge of open rebellion. In a few decades, the situation would motivate the Romans to raze Jerusalem.

Now, a man, who by the accounts Pilot saw as innocent, possibly even as a Pro-Roman element was before him. He may have decided, and certainly may have had the prerogative, of relaxing the statute in an attempt to mollify the population.

Leaders do things like this in crisis. You're probably unaware that one of the most respected American Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, suspended fundamental legal protections for citizens during the American Civil War. I use this as an illustration.

4) Jesus walking away from the Temple unscathed

Records of the time tell us that Passover was a particularly volatile time in Judaea, and messaiah claimants tended to pop up around this time and cause problems. The romans dealt with any troublemakers, especially in the Temple, quite simply: string them up. The roman garisson had direct access to the temple courts in case of a disturbance, and despite driving the money changers from the temple, Jesus walks away unaccosted.

4) This is the easiest of your questions to answer from both religions and nonreligious points of view.

From the point of view of the faithful, we are told that he was protected from harm in general, until the time that he was ready to give the protection up.

"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:

" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

He had walked out of a similar hostile situation in Nazareth.

From the secular point of view, Jesus was preaching nonviolence, good civil order, respect for authority, and paying Roman taxes. The Romans were likely to want him to continue.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

Ok christians, riddle me this. I have several holes in the Jesus story I want you to give me an honest explanation about. And no, I'm not doing this for shits and giggles as usual. Here are a few of the holes.

1) The whole having to go back to Bethlehem to pay tax and the census.

Any HR manager, IRS agent or national census conductor will tell you that moving people when you are trying to gather data is highly inefficient. The bible states that they had to go to the place of Joseph's birth, which was Bethlehem. I find this extremely dubious, as during that time you could have been born in say, Syria, and be living in Britannia. Explain why the Christ family had to go to Bethlehem.

Will it make any difference for you no matter what is said? How about if I answer just one so as not to waste too much time? Will you continue to be skeptical and rebellious no matter what? Then again you just said you are not doing this for the usual reasons. Are you open to the idea that there are answers for questions like these, even if we do not have the answers yet. Are you open to the idea that many many questions like this have been answered and more answers will be forthcoming?

Ok here goes:

First, Your dubiousness has no bearing on whether or not the events took place. We just need to ask if we know that they took place or if it is plausible that they took place as described.

Did it certainly take place? The answer is we have no record that this specific census did. The historian Josephus records a census about that time in that place but it was only for Roman citizens. Let's suppose that neither Joseph nor Mary were Roman citizens. Though there were jews that were roman citizens it was very expensive.

Could there have been a census?

Papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt, for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number of years, and substantiates Luke’s reference to Augustus’ census. Evidence indicates that Egyptian censuses were taken at 7-year intervals during the reign of Augustus and can be established with indirect and direct evidence for the years of 11-10 B.C., 4-3 B.C., A.D. 4 and 5, and A.D. 11 and 12." The emperor Augustus concerned about the instability of Herod very well could have extended the Egyptian census to Palestine in preparation for Herod's death. As an abberation in the normal procedure or as an example of the first for the area (which is what Luke calls it - the first) it very well may not have records documenting it that exist to today.

In short if the Romans took 258 other censuses why is it not plausible that they took one or two in Palestine? By the way, the way the Romans took the census was not to count all the people on a particular day but to count some regions one year and another region another year on and on until the whole empire was counted. Which explains why they took so many censuses (each consisting of many parts) and why Luke refers to the census in the present tense as something that started way back when but continues to occur.

So why would Joseph and Mary have to go to Bethlehem?

A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census." If the emperor in A.D. 104 would issue an edict that people would have to travel back to their home cities it seems pretty plausible that Augustis would have done the same thing. The problem is not that these emperors did things that were silly but that Ausinus is trying to apply his understanding of modern HR principles to what emperors did 2000 years ago.

Was Luke Wrong About the Census Under Quirinius?


If the question Ausinus asked had been asked prior to finding the papyri in
Egypt or prior to finding the edict by Vivius Maximus we would have had little reason outside of the bible to suppose that it happened. Little reason to doubt it either.

But now we do have these papyri and evidence that events like the one described in the book of Luke did happen.

The point is that so far in all questions about the historicity of the bible emerging evidence has always validated the bible rather than invalidating it.

Why pose an endless array of questions if the motive is not just to cast aspersions?

If the real motive is just to know the truth then why ask questions about insignificant details when there are real questions that beg to be asked?

Because there are legends that the MAN Jesus travelled as far is India. However, the most important reason is that an Emperor, who was a pagan, needed to have peace in his Empire. These pesky Christians...always fighting amongst themselves whether or not Jesus was divine or not. He could not have that in his empire so he called a council to come to an agreement. And, of course, if an Emperor calls for people to come to an agreement, I'm sure there was some agressive "persuasion". However, once it was decided by this nice little council that this good pious little Jewish man was God in the flesh, the Emperor had to make sure that ONLY writings about this good little Jewish man were the ones that metaphorically made him out to be God in the flesh. Think about it....of all that is out there and if this is the history of the ONLY true religion, why is it not thicker than the dictionary? It was men that decided what to include that what not to include in the New Testament. Bottom line, what was included was all that THEY wanted you to know. It played out very well for Constantine. By force, it became the law of the land. And by force, it spread throughout the Empire.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Will it make any difference for you no matter what is said? How about if I answer just one so as not to waste too much time? Will you continue to be skeptical and rebellious no matter what? Then again you just said you are not doing this for the usual reasons. Are you open to the idea that there are answers for questions like these, even if we do not have the answers yet. Are you open to the idea that many many questions like this have been answered and more answers will be forthcoming?

Ok here goes:

First, Your dubiousness has no bearing on whether or not the events took place. We just need to ask if we know that they took place or if it is plausible that they took place as described.

Did it certainly take place? The answer is we have no record that this specific census did. The historian Josephus records a census about that time in that place but it was only for Roman citizens. Let's suppose that neither Joseph nor Mary were Roman citizens. Though there were jews that were roman citizens it was very expensive.

Could there have been a census?

Papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt, for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number of years, and substantiates Luke’s reference to Augustus’ census. Evidence indicates that Egyptian censuses were taken at 7-year intervals during the reign of Augustus and can be established with indirect and direct evidence for the years of 11-10 B.C., 4-3 B.C., A.D. 4 and 5, and A.D. 11 and 12." The emperor Augustus concerned about the instability of Herod very well could have extended the Egyptian census to Palestine in preparation for Herod's death. As an abberation in the normal procedure or as an example of the first for the area (which is what Luke calls it - the first) it very well may not have records documenting it that exist to today.

In short if the Romans took 258 other censuses why is it not plausible that they took one or two in Palestine? By the way, the way the Romans took the census was not to count all the people on a particular day but to count some regions one year and another region another year on and on until the whole empire was counted. Which explains why they took so many censuses (each consisting of many parts) and why Luke refers to the census in the present tense as something that started way back when but continues to occur.

So why would Joseph and Mary have to go to Bethlehem?

A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census." If the emperor in A.D. 104 would issue an edict that people would have to travel back to their home cities it seems pretty plausible that Augustis would have done the same thing. The problem is not that these emperors did things that were silly but that Ausinus is trying to apply his understanding of modern HR principles to what emperors did 2000 years ago.

Was Luke Wrong About the Census Under Quirinius?


If the question Ausinus asked had been asked prior to finding the papyri in
Egypt or prior to finding the edict by Vivius Maximus we would have had little reason outside of the bible to suppose that it happened. Little reason to doubt it either.

But now we do have these papyri and evidence that events like the one described in the book of Luke did happen.

The point is that so far in all questions about the historicity of the bible emerging evidence has always validated the bible rather than invalidating it.

Why pose an endless array of questions if the motive is not just to cast aspersions?

If the real motive is just to know the truth then why ask questions about insignificant details when there are real questions that beg to be asked?

The romans knew perfectly well how to take a census, and people returning to the place of their birth was at that time the most inefficient way to do it - hence, its highly unlikely that the reason they went to Bethlehem was for a census.

More likely Mary got raped or was adulterous and they went to avoid the social issues caused by this.

well the part that i dont get is that the bible was written by several hundred people over a thousand years. not to mention, its been rewritten a time or two.
Jesus wasn't claimed to be the son of god till about 700 years after his death.
Some say christianity was built for control. It scares people and makes them do right. If people beleive in it so much, the 'priests' can control the people with their beliefs. ok im done!

No!...This is what really happened. You know that time span where Jesus went from, I don't know...13 and 30?, whatever it was anyway...He was writing his first fictional novel where he dreamed up all the wise men stuff, and devine conception, and all the rest. Then he and Mary M. spent all those unaccounted for years with his publicist and his editor coming up with crucifixion and resurrection, big bang ending stuff.

The holes in the story are a result of too many customized translations over the years, like King James, he had a huge moral agenda to work into it.

Don't get me wrong, this little foundationless theory of mine is in no way intended to debunk or criticize in any way the spiritual revelations or awkenings people have involving church and the Bible. I'm all about contentedness and some of the beautiful timeless wisdom the book has to share, and I would never disrespect anyone's beliefs, so I hope you can respect my partial disbelief, not in a God, but the document.

That's weird. I could have sworn I already replied to this thread. Attempt two.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

2) Pontius Pilate's disposition.

Pilate is described in every other historical source as a wicked and ruthless governor of Judaea, yet the Bible portrays him as compassionate and remorseful. Why the personality change?

What sources on Pilate do we actually have? Excluding the gospels (canon and apocryphal):

A couple of mentions in a letter by Philo of Alexandria
A brief discussion in Josephus' account of events befalling the Jewish community
A short mention in Tacitus
A stone with his name on it
Descriptions written later by the early Church Fathers which contradict one another.

This is not enough evidence to build up a realistic picture of the man. I could easily find you three contemporary sources describing George Bush as a great man and three describing him as evil and/or a retard. None of this would be enough to establish his character.

Originally Posted by Gas on the Fire

well the part that i dont get is that the bible was written by several hundred people over a thousand years. not to mention, its been rewritten a time or two.
[b]Jesus wasn't claimed to be the son of god till about 700 years after his death. [b/]
Some say christianity was built for control. It scares people and makes them do right. If people beleive in it so much, the 'priests' can control the people with their beliefs. ok im done!

"For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God…. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God."

From Novatian's Treatise Concerning the Trinity, written about 200 years after Jesus' death.


A brief perusal of other early Church fathers and other Christian documents will reveal that Jesus' divinity was claimed long before 700 years after his death. Are you aware that by that time England's last pagan king had been dead about 75 years; Ireland had established it's own form of Christianity; France had been Catholic for hundreds of years and missionaries such as Boniface were working their way through pagan Germany. Christ as Lord was a well established concept by then.

Originally Posted by Ausinus

Ok christians, riddle me this. I have several holes in the Jesus story I want you to give me an honest explanation about. And no, I'm not doing this for shits and giggles as usual. Here are a few of the holes.

1) The whole having to go back to Bethlehem to pay tax and the census.

Any HR manager, IRS agent or national census conductor will tell you that moving people when you are trying to gather data is highly inefficient. The bible states that they had to go to the place of Joseph's birth, which was Bethlehem. I find this extremely dubious, as during that time you could have been born in say, Syria, and be living in Britannia. Explain why the Christ family had to go to Bethlehem.

2) Pontius Pilate's disposition.

Pilate is described in every other historical source as a wicked and ruthless governor of Judaea, yet the Bible portrays him as compassionate and remorseful. Why the personality change?

3) The custom of granting amnesty to a prisoner at a time of festival

Which is what Pilate proceeds to do for a rapist and murderer when the crowd is given a choice between him and Jesus. There is no record of this custom being practiced anywhere in the empire at any time. Roman jurisprudence forbade it.

4) Jesus walking away from the Temple unscathed

Records of the time tell us that Passover was a particularly volatile time in Judaea, and messaiah claimants tended to pop up around this time and cause problems. The romans dealt with any troublemakers, especially in the Temple, quite simply: string them up. The roman garisson had direct access to the temple courts in case of a disturbance, and despite driving the money changers from the temple, Jesus walks away unaccosted.

Fine then don't ask me Aus. Exclude me from your discussion. I will just sit here and remind myself I am Fagan.

But seriously, you sound like those guys that find all the bloopers in the movies.

I am sure you can find a lot more.