Quote# 8147

When mary and Joseph went to bethlehem they had to fill in what we now call the electorial register....when Jesus went to court there are written transcripts.

how much more proof would you like?

LindaJ, Bibleforums.org 15 Comments [10/18/2005 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Tiny Bulcher

So, were Joe and Mary registered as Democrats or Republicans? Just askin'...

Otherwise. WTF??

10/18/2005 8:34:42 PM


That's proof that they existed. Now how about proof of Jesus' divinity?

10/18/2005 10:26:28 PM

Jesse Custer

There's no such proof, anywhere.

There are some (much later additions!) references in Josephus, but not much.

Absolutely NO historical document refers to Joseph and Mary, or to Jesus. None whatsoever.

10/19/2005 1:16:10 AM


My Christian upbringing taught me that the reason Joseph and Mary were traveling was to enroll in the census. As far as i can tell though there is no proof whether or not the actually were oficially enrolled. I could understand why. A census form doesn't seem too important if you just gave birth to God in a manger.

10/19/2005 2:22:32 AM

Jesse Custer

A couple other problems with the story:

1. Nazareth did not exist in the first century CE.

2. Since Galilee and Judaea were two entirely separate political entities, no authority in the Empire (short of the emperor himself) could have ordered someone from Galilee to be counted in a census in Judaea.

3. Even if such an empire-wide census might have been ordered, no record of it exists (unlike other censi from the time, which are recorded.)

10/19/2005 3:38:53 AM

Darth Wang

The only records of Jesus are from at least 100 years after he supposedly lived.

10/19/2005 6:43:58 AM

Jesse Custer

I should amend: it has a 99%+ chance of not having existed, for a variety of reasons.

1. Why didn't Josephus ever mention it? He lived about a mile away from there, in Japha, and he mentions 45 other cities and villages in Galilee. (There can't be too many - it was less than 1,000 square miles!)

2. The area where Nazareth is today was a cemetery in the 1st century. This cemetery provided service to Japha, and was in active use up until 67 AD, when Trajan destroyed the city. You know just as well as I do about the Jewish prohibition against being around dead things. Who would build a city in the middle of a graveyard?

3. Archaeology shows absolutely NOTHING not of a funerary nature at the site between the early 6th century BC and the mid to late 2nd century AD.

I could write more later, if you've got any questions?

10/20/2005 2:48:48 PM


Mind citing your sources for any of those claims, Jesse Custer? Unfortunately, it IS (one of) the atheist equivalents of \"no transitional fossils.\" Glenn Miller offers two compelling arguments ripping that view to pieces, here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nazy.html

Yes, it's a Christian website, but he references very solid sources (like Meier's \"A Marginal Jew\"). The two points that make your hypothesis implausible are:

(1) Archaeology indicates it was continuously occupied since the 7th century BC (Meier).
(2) The first extra-biblical reference to the town, even from a Christian, is from the second century. Nazareth was the equivalent of Bumfuk, Kansas, with anywhere from 500-2000 residents. No one would have mentioned it unless they had an interest there, for some reason.

I seem to recall all of the arguments you've just quoted debunked with the ferocity of wolves eating Bambi.

10/23/2005 12:25:20 AM

Jesse Custer


Absolutely, I'd love to talk about sources. I already sent an interesting website to Yahweh. Check out http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html. All his sources are well documented, and it pretty thoroughly covers all the bases.

Your link ... is less than helpful. It simply shows two paragraphs from two different books. It is not in any way compelling, and it doesn't rip a single damn thing to shreds.

The archaeological data shows that the land was in more or less continuous USE, but not necessarily occupation on any sort of scale approaching even a village in BFE.

10/23/2005 4:48:40 AM


Interesting, Jesse & Allan. If you take this to a different discussion board, would you let me know?


10/23/2005 3:58:44 PM



Josephus' lack of notation of the town is noteworthy, but not dispositive. Meiers is an accepted scholar, but a fairly conservative Xian one. And while Miller is a fairly good fundamentalist apologist, he is just that, so take his arguments with that understanding.

But to accept a non-existent census in an independent principality that would cause a 8 months pregnant non-Roman woman travel for \"registration?\" It's hardly even a good literary device, let alone historical (and surely not documented).

10/31/2005 4:10:44 AM


Jesse, There are some writings that are supposed to have been written by Josephus mentioning Jesus. Unfortunately there is no way to know if they are genuine, what he actaully said or why so they don't prove anything.

It is important to try to be as factually accurate as possible and point out mistakes when they occur otherwise it just looks hypocritical pointing out the ones made by fundies.

1/18/2006 11:06:05 PM


Sources or it didn't happen.

1/18/2008 3:57:13 AM

What's more likely? Mary was a virgin and had jesus? Or a young, poor jewish girl lied about being a virgin and had jesus?

1/18/2008 4:46:12 AM

Crimson Lizard

All right, produce the documents (since you made the claim, it's up to you to support it - don't sneer "do your own research"). Until then, you're just another liar for jeebus.

9/12/2013 9:35:40 AM

1 | top: comments page