All the World Should be Taxed...

[Hemidakota]

Why would Rome want everyone to leave the home in which they lived, where they could be easily counted and taxed, and travel to their ancestral homes to conduct a census and then tax them where mass confusion and avoidance would plague the effort? What good would a census of ancestral homes do?

Side issue for the global flood aficionados - was literally the whole world to be taxed as described in Luke?

Is this going to be the same for the IMF?

Edited December 28, 2009 by Hemidakota

[OmahaLDS]

True.. was a republic after ceasar

Exactly.

[Guest]

I don't think the issue Snow is bringing up is about taxes. The issue he brings up is the whole world connotation. How about we stick to THAT?

[Dravin]

I don't think the issue Snow is bringing up is about taxes. The issue he brings up is the whole world connotation. How about we stick to THAT?

Considering that Snow himself labels it a side issue I don't think it horribly out there to discuss a question he asked. Well, tangents from the question asked, he was inquiring into motivations for taxing in such a manner. Modern taxes is a little far afield unless one is going to use it as an example of a like event, but I'm not aware of any such case. So yeah, dropping the talk of modern property taxes and political figures is a good idea. But otherwise, discussing what the current political system in place at the time of the supposed event doesn't seem terribly out there as far as tangents/wandering discussion goes.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Dravin

[Hemidakota]

Why would Rome want everyone to leave the home in which they lived, where they could be easily counted and taxed, and travel to their ancestral homes to conduct a census and then tax them where mass confusion and avoidance would plague the effort? What good would a census of ancestral homes do?

Side issue for the global flood aficionados - was literally the whole world to be taxed as described in Luke?

Depending on the writer viewpoint and what was observed.

How many times do we have to spend in endless loop here in approving or disproving a writer’s observation of Noah’s flood, when really this is not the true intent of the thread? Simply put, if ‘YOU DO BELIEVE’ Noah was in the Americas, as we call it today, then travel eastward across the ocean, what landfall would he had seen first if it was a local flood? It would not be Turkey or nearby hills.

As one views the universe, Moses would state one thing, Abraham state something different, Brother of Jared would state something different, and Joseph Smith would state something different. Now, each may had view the same vision or dream, what ever the case, it is really no different between them all. We have different observers with different style of culture writing and grammar usage here. If I have to add my viewpoint to the overall universe [example], I would point out that our Universe is not infinite but finite when it came to space. My observation point of view differs from the past prophets based on the observation viewpoint. Yet, we still know the surety that we have a Creator(s), materials are eternal, and man/woman is everywhere. But our usage of words on describing on what is shown will very on the observer.

You simply cannot add a writer viewpoint of the past to another person not of the same era as a ‘collective heap’ when we do not have the privy to wear the same latchet shoes.

[talisyn]

Considering how at the time of Christ's birth people really didn't move around that much, was it that much of a hardship for every male to return to the town of his birth?

And of course the whole world wasn't taxed. The Romans probably didn't even know about China, and certainly didn't know about the Nephites. Which brings up an interesting question: How much literary license did the Apostles take when writing their individual views of events?

Edited December 29, 2009 by talisyn

[Snow]

Here are the issues:

The Luke account places the birth account around the time of a census in about 6 CE but the Matthew account places the birth during or just after the reign of Herod the Great who died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE

Nothing is known of a general census during the time of Augustus

In a Roman census, Joseph would not have had to travel to Bethlehem and Mary would not have had to travel at all. [For example, that it would require people to keep track of millions of ancestors; tens of thousands of descendants of David would all be arriving at Bethlehem, his birthplace, at the same time; and Herod, whose dynasty was unrelated to the Davidic line, would hardly have wished to call attention to royal ancestry that had a greater claim to legitimacy. He adds that it would have been the practice for the census-takers, not the taxed, to travel, and that Joseph, resident in Galilee, would not have been covered by a census in Judaea. E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin, 1993, p86; see also Bart Ehrman, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, p103.]

No Roman census would have been made in Judea during Herod’s reign.

Quirinius was not govenor of Syria during Herod’s reign

Apologists for an inerrant view of the Bible get very creative in trying to explain away the contradictions and difficulties but no apologetic answer satisfies. It is obvious that the author of Luke relies on oral tradition and is unaware of the historical problems with his version or doesn’t care about them.

Some believe that the author is aware of the prophecy in Micah that the Messiah would be born in the city of David and so needs a device to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. Given the difficulties in the Gospel accounts that indicate that inerrancy is not possible, that makes sense.

Wiki has a pretty good review of the issues at: Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the Luke account that the whole world was to be taxed, the specific words are whole whole oikoumene οἰκουμένη, meaning whole inhabited world but of course it does not refer to the whole inhabited world, it refers to that portion of the inhabited world with which the Romans and the Gospel author were concerned - the Roman Empire. People understand that don’t question it. The only reason that people get hung up on a literal interpretation of the whole earth in the Genesis account is because they are stuck in a middle ages interpretation and they think that is what they are supposed to believe.

[OmahaLDS]

Here are the issues:

The Luke account places the birth account around the time of a census in about 6 CE but the Matthew account places the birth during or just after the reign of Herod the Great who died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE

Nothing is known of a general census during the time of Augustus

That is impossible as there was essentially a census every year in Rome (which is what the Censor did). Whether or not one was conducted in provinces, I really do not know.

In a Roman census, Joseph would not have had to travel to Bethlehem and Mary would not have had to travel at all. [For example, that it would require people to keep track of millions of ancestors; tens of thousands of descendants of David would all be arriving at Bethlehem, his birthplace, at the same time; and Herod, whose dynasty was unrelated to the Davidic line, would hardly have wished to call attention to royal ancestry that had a greater claim to legitimacy. He adds that it would have been the practice for the census-takers, not the taxed, to travel, and that Joseph, resident in Galilee, would not have been covered by a census in Judaea. E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin, 1993, p86; see also Bart Ehrman, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, p103.]

This is not necessarily true. In a Roman Census, Joseph would have to travel to Bethlehem if he was from Bethlehem, not necessarily because he was of Davidic descent. He very well could have been both from Bethlehem and of Davidic descent. Not all people of Davidic descent would have been from Bethlehem.

No Roman census would have been made in Judea during Herod’s reign.

Why not? I can think of a dozen reasons it could have happened, but no reason it couldn't have happened.

Quirinius was not govenor of Syria during Herod’s reign

This does not mean that a census would have been impossible.

Apologists for an inerrant view of the Bible get very creative in trying to explain away the contradictions and difficulties but no apologetic answer satisfies. It is obvious that the author of Luke relies on oral tradition and is unaware of the historical problems with his version or doesn’t care about them.

It could have been both.

Some believe that the author is aware of the prophecy in Micah that the Messiah would be born in the city of David and so needs a device to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. Given the difficulties in the Gospel accounts that indicate that inerrancy is not possible, that makes sense.

Why is inerrancy required?

As for the Luke account that the whole world was to be taxed, the specific words are whole whole oikoumene οἰκουμένη, meaning whole inhabited world but of course it does not refer to the whole inhabited world, it refers to that portion of the inhabited world with which the Romans and the Gospel author were concerned - the Roman Empire. People understand that don’t question it. The only reason that people get hung up on a literal interpretation of the whole earth in the Genesis account is because they are stuck in a middle ages interpretation and they think that is what they are supposed to believe.

There was no empire at the time.

[Palerider]

During bushs reign our property taxes went up 900 percent, only a slight year to year uncrease in payroll taxes but 900 percent property tax uncrease plus a number of other bussiness tax increases I;E... $200 a year because it rains e;t;c.... But bush didnt raise taxes? {hah!}:)

Dude....he never had anything to do with that....I think you are dreaming with your numbers anyway...lay off the green jello Edited December 29, 2009 by Palerider

[Snow]

That is impossible as there was essentially a census every year in Rome (which is what the Censor did). Whether or not one was conducted in provinces, I really do not know.

Read the post. No one is talking about a local census in Rome. It said "general" census.

Why not? I can think of a dozen reasons it could have happened, but no reason it couldn't have happened.

Forget the coulda's. Educate me on how it actually did happen. Your sources would be appreciated.

This does not mean that a census would have been impossible.

You missed the point. The point was that the gospel author got the history wrong.

There was no empire at the time.

Whatever. Make it the Republic then.

[Moksha]

This is not necessarily true. In a Roman Census, Joseph would have to travel to Bethlehem if he was from Bethlehem, not necessarily because he was of Davidic descent. He very well could have been both from Bethlehem and of Davidic descent. Not all people of Davidic descent would have been from Bethlehem.

This having to return to Bethlehem for a census runs contrary to the citations in the Wikipedia. What are you basing this necessity to return his place of origin on? From what I read, the tax men and census takers did the traveling.

[OmahaLDS]

This having to return to Bethlehem for a census runs contrary to the citations in the Wikipedia. What are you basing this necessity to return his place of origin on? From what I read, the tax men and census takers did the traveling.

I'm going back to my undergrad (ancient History) for this one, but Publicani based their taxes on the location of their records. It was not like now when records were easily transfered to every locale an individual might be living in. If Joseph was born in Bethlehem, and was registered with the government in Bethlehem, he would have had to go to Bethlehem. Mary would not have mattered to the government, she was a woman.

The Roman government was not about to go looking for everyone in question. Based on Roman practice, the individual would go to where they were registered (which would generally be where they were born), not necessarily the other way around.

[OmahaLDS]

Read the post. No one is talking about a local census in Rome. It said "general" census.

The issue is more complex than that. You're talking about a provincial people, so a limited local census might be construed as a general census. The Roman census was a yearly event, it seems unlikely that the provinces would not also have routine census.

It is also unlikely that the decree came directly from Augustus, as he was only Princeps Senatus, but rather from one of the Consuls. But again to the provincial Augustus was the face of Rome, so it would not have mattered to them as much as the fiction of the Republic was to Romans.

Forget the coulda's. Educate me on how it actually did happen. Your sources would be appreciated.

I am not entirely sure how that is possible. Records are somewhat scanty. I am not aware of any conclusive source one way or another. It would be possible to discuss how the Empire/Republic operated, and how it would have happened.

You missed the point. The point was that the gospel author got the history wrong.

It was likely written several decades after the events. That would not be surprising.

Whatever. Make it the Republic then.

It is an important distinction.

[mrmarklin]

Augustus died in 14AD, so any taxation etc at the birth of Christ's time would have been during his rule.

While Rome was not legally an empire, it was for all practical purposes ruled by one man: Caesar Augustus. And was what we would commonly think of as an Empire.

[Justice]

Wiki has a pretty good review of the issues at:

It's interesting how you list Wiki as a "pretty good" source, yet seem to overlook that the Bible says a census was taken while Agustus was alive, apparently to their entire population (even if just for Jews).

The only reason that people get hung up on a literal interpretation of the whole earth in the Genesis account is because they are stuck in a middle ages interpretation and they think that is what they are supposed to believe.

That's one possible explanation.

Another is that the decree for taxation was given to their "entire" province, and the word they used for this had a dual meaning, like many of our words today... slang if you will.

Another is that they used the word out of pride implying that they were powerful... kind of sarcastically to tell the people they were the largest, most powerful government in the world.

Another is that they were speaking of the "world" that they knew, which was not complete and total "land," but complete and total "understanding."

Another is that they used the word wrong in that scripture and the flood account actually was right and did signify a worldwide flood.

There are many possible ways those 2 scriptures can be used together and allow for a global flood. It is simply your choice to choose error in Genesis and not Mark. If I must I choose the error in Mark, or even a misunderstanding in Mark, because the flood account is much more specific and explains itself multiple times. I feel it leaves little room for misinterpreting what it meant. Mark, however, is stated once and could have meant multiple things.

But, I don't criticize you for your belief, or for the way you interpret the Bible more allegorically than historically; it is the way you have chosen to do it based on how you have studied and what you have learned. I don't accuse you of having a lack of faith or belief in God for this... so I hope you aren't accusing me of being intellectually inferior, or "middle age" in the way I choose to believe it. Since you are so fond of saying, there is no proof, and even very little evidence.

Quoting an article in the Ensign:

Little is known about the date of the birth of Christ from secular histories. Most of the potentially useful biblical clues, such as the star of Bethlehem (see Matt. 2:2), the slaughter of the infants (see Matt. 2:16), or an empire-wide taxation (registration or census; see Luke 2:1) while King Herod reigned (see Luke 1:5; Matt. 2:1), have not been clearly identified in secular histories. Accordingly, dates from 7 b.c. to 1 b.c. have been proposed.

The only secular thread to which the birth of Jesus has consistently been tied is the death of King Herod, who was visited by the Magi after the birth of the Savior. For several centuries it has been believed that Herod died in 4 b.c., and so the birth of Christ has been placed about two years before (see Matt. 2:1, 16), in 6 or 5 b.c. However, recent reevaluation of the evidence suggests that Herod died some time later, in 1 b.c. 14, or a.d. 1. 15 It is now a field of intense study 16, but with no clear solution in sight. The problem is the same as with the other biblical clues: lack of solid evidence. The Jewish historian Josephus is the only source for details about Herod’s life, and even he does not mention the year of Herod’s death. 17

One new historical argument for the occurrence of the birth of Christ somewhere in the 2 to 1 b.c. period is the view that the decree “that all the world should be taxed” (enrolled or registered; see Luke 2:1) has finally been identified as an empire-wide census and oath of allegiance to Augustus in 2 b.c. 18 Josephus apparently mentions that oath 19, which, according to his history, would have been a year or so before Herod’s death. These new dates fit well with the Passover pattern discussed above—that Christ was born in the spring of 1 b.c. and that Herod died in early a.d. 1.

It has been pointed out 20 that the 6 April 1 b.c. date also explains certain aspects of the New Testament account. For example, the date is during the short lambing season, which would explain why the shepherds were “keeping watch over their flock by night.” (Luke 2:8.) Moreover, the fact that “there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7) suggests that the birth probably occurred at the time of one of the three feasts, such as Passover, at which Jews were required to be in Jerusalem. 21 That proposal is also consistent with the 6 April date.

Fortunately, although secular histories are not very useful in helping us to determine Christ’s date of birth, they offer clear testimony for the dates of his ministry and death.

Entire article by John P. Pratt:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Passover—Was It Symbolic of His Coming?

[Hemidakota]

I wonder if someone would also 'slap' Moroni also if his writing wasn't accepted by Snow.

[Justice]

Quoted from the article:

However, recent reevaluation of the evidence suggests...

May I also suggest that this will always be an issue when dealing with evidence as science sees it.

[Hemidakota]

Entire article by John P. Pratt:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Passover—Was It Symbolic of His Coming?

I spent two days on this man website in seeking a further understanding of how the past calendars work.

But the hard part for me, was to down load all of his articles and put it into a word doc book form [530 pages later ]. It is now easier to gain a further understanding of what is being presented.

I do love his article called "Has Satan Hijacked Science? (Meridian Magazine, 16 Nov 2005).".

[john doe]

Let's not let this get personal or the subject will be closed.

[Snow]

It's interesting how you list Wiki as a "pretty good" source, yet seem to overlook that the Bible says a census was taken while Agustus was alive, apparently to their entire population (even if just for Jews).

Wiki is not the source. It's a review. The sources are listed in the footnotes.

That's one possible explanation.

Another is that the decree for taxation was given to their "entire" province, and the word they used for this had a dual meaning, like many of our words today... slang if you will.

Oh? Please post your source that "oikoumene οἰκουμένη" was slang for province. It sounds like you just made it up.

Another is that they used the word out of pride implying that they were powerful... kind of sarcastically to tell the people they were the largest, most powerful government in the world.

Another is that they were speaking of the "world" that they knew, which was not complete and total "land," but complete and total "understanding."

Well that's the point isn't it. That the NT account was not factual. Since there is no historical record of such a census (though there is a historical for other ancient Roman censuses) be don't know if the error it in the Gospel reporting or in the wording of the Roman decree but we do know that Mark and Luke have contradictory accounts and so both cannot be accurate.

Another is that they used the word wrong in that scripture and the flood account actually was right and did signify a worldwide flood.

The problem is that we know that there wasn't any such flood as described in the OT.

There are many possible ways those 2 scriptures can be used together and allow for a global flood. It is simply your choice to choose error in Genesis and not Mark. If I must I choose the error in Mark, or even a misunderstanding in Mark, because the flood account is much more specific and explains itself multiple times. I feel it leaves little room for misinterpreting what it meant. Mark, however, is stated once and could have meant multiple things.

But, I don't criticize you for your belief, or for the way you interpret the Bible more allegorically than historically; it is the way you have chosen to do it based on how you have studied and what you have learned. I don't accuse you of having a lack of faith or belief in God for this... so I hope you aren't accusing me of being intellectually inferior, or "middle age" in the way I choose to believe it. Since you are so fond of saying, there is no proof, and even very little evidence.

"Accuse" is the wrong word because it sounds pejorative. You do, however, follow good Middle Age dogmatic thinking. I would point out that belief in something that turns out to not be true, is not faith, it's just a wrong idea in your head. I don't think you are short on faith but neither to I think your beliefs, at least some of your beliefs, are correct. In this case, as you say, there may not be enough evidence to know exactly what happened but I think a reasonable review of the decent evidence that does exist demonstrates the problems with the conflicting dating in Mark and Luke and the untenableness of the Luke's account of where the tax took place.

[Moksha]

May I also suggest that this will always be an issue when dealing with evidence as science sees it.

In trying to compete this idea, the alternative methods to examine evidence would be possibly via legend, being blanketed with a warm feeling of peace, or did you have something else in mind?

[Justice]

In trying to compete this idea, the alternative methods to examine evidence would be possibly via legend, being blanketed with a warm feeling of peace, or did you have something else in mind?

Revelation.

[Moksha]

Revelation.

Would this come in the form of an epiphany as to the meaning of the data being studied or as a confirmation of established doctrine or dogma about the subject?

[Justice]

Well that's the point isn't it. That the NT account was not factual. Since there is no historical record of such a census (though there is a historical for other ancient Roman censuses) be don't know if the error it in the Gospel reporting or in the wording of the Roman decree but we do know that Mark and Luke have contradictory accounts and so both cannot be accurate.

The article I posted mentioned that they have discovered evidence of this census.

I don't walk away that the NT account is not factual about the census, but that evidence for it in the Bible was lost or changed. It's no secret that LDS believe the Bible has had many changes and deletions. It is the primary reason why the Bible is the source of so much confusion today.

1 Nephi 13:

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

[Justice]

Would this come in the form of an epiphany as to the meaning of the data being studied or as a confirmation of established doctrine or dogma about the subject?

It comes in the form of revealed truth through prophets.