All the Dead Sea Scrolls were written before the New Testament. At least the fragments of the Bible, and the Dead Sea Scrolls weren’t stories, but like the Essene’s Talmud. The Great Isaiah Scroll{} was about 100 years prior to the New Testament. There’s evidence for the Census. Rome was a highly sophisticated state, that kept tax records death and birth certificates and everything like that. Jesus was counted in the census.

[...]

Actually, Quirinius being governor makes perfect sense. Jesus was crucified in 31AD so around 6AD He would have been born. And Luke just states He’s the governor of Syria. The census was actually taken by someone else. And from what I heard, the Census places Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem. Which it seems Josephus records in Antiquity of the Jews that census, which is probably why Luke cited it.

Or maybe the Census we do have says Nazareth, I can’t remember, but the fact is Joseph and Mary were down in Bethlehem, as that’s who Matthew and Luke got their information from was Christ’s family like His brother and Mary. So, chances are the Census is in Nazareth, as the census being conducted right when Jesus was born, are slim. But you never know? I forget what I heard exactly.

Okay, the Dead Sea Scrolls had nothing to do with the New Testament. They were all fragments of the Old Testament, and corpuses of Essene Talmudic Law. [...] And what’s actually important about them, is that the Bible Fragments and the Great Isaiah Scroll{} predate and are early, and keep the original wordings of the Old Testament that prophesies Jesus.

[...]

[...]There could have been a time lapse between the two. Meaning Jesus was born about 4BC and the Census was taken in 6AD, Interesting. That actually makes perfect sense.

And the Gospels are eyewitnesses, and based on their testimony. We actually know who wrote them.

And arguments from absence aren’t valid. About two dozen times, someone like you said a thing wasn’t, and it turned out it was. Just based on the evidence we have, the Gospels are recorded on sound evidence, at least the evidence we have.

And I didn’t hear about the census from Luke, but from a College Professor who actually saw the documents firsthand. The Vatican has those documents.

Interesting, maybe the Census says “Nazareth” because that’s their actual residence. Like when I go to Harrisburg to fill out paperwork, I don’t say “Harrisburg” but my actual home. He may actually have gone to Bethlehem to fill out the paperwork, that’s not out of the realm of possibility. But the fact is, there is a census, and I know someone who saw it. Though, I can’t remember if it said “Bethlehem” or “Nazareth” but it wouldn’t matter much in either regard.

And of course you’re trying to reconcile why Christ was born in Bethlehem, I mean, it’s a mystery. But the Census does exist. I mean, there is some contradiction in the historical record, but I guess you just have to have faith—given all the other overwhelming evidence—that it happened. I don’t think we’re going to have an answer for that.

Certainly though, we know two things. 1: There was a census, and 2: Jesus existed and fulfilled Biblical Prophecies. So, you know, I think I know what happened, but that doesn’t matter a lot in the grand scheme of things. I don’t think God wants pedants, He wants people who have faith.

Like, Luke records the Nativity story because he heard it from Mary and James. Which Paul knew Mary and James. So, that’s sound; we’d think Mary would know where Jesus was born, and my best recollection is she went down to Bethlehem twice, once for the Census and once for Jesus' Birth (Because Joseph was of the House of David, and it may be he knew his Royal Lineage) but remembered the two as if they were one event, as is consistent with human memory. And also the Census recorded in the Vatican is conducted by someone else, so Luke may have actually gotten the wrong name from Josephus. Which is fine. It’s not an important enough detail to change the facts.

[B]ecause Jesus actually existed and the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. As I proved.

:”because he belonged to the house and line of David.” : this is what you’re missing. I made a very nuanced point. I’ll read what you said, but you talked over my point, and didn’t address them.

No, I said that the Nativity story was based on Mary’s memory, and that she put the two events together of the Census and Christ’s birth, as is something human memory does. Proving it is indeed an Eyewitness. Mary.

I mean, everything you said is a factually untrue statement. But I know telling you why, it’s just going to be denied. So… let’s face it, I read what you said. I still believe, because there’s a lot of evidence, both in the Gospels and outside of it, that corroborate and prove Jesus is the Son of God.

Papias in the first century attributed three of the Gospels, and Luke we know accompanied Paul. So, you’re just wrong on all accounts, and believe something that isn’t founded on a shred of credible evidence.

And you even quoted this verse, and made it mean its complete opposite: “just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses”

The meaning of that sentence is that they were handed down by eyewitnesses. Handed down to Who? Luke. And Paul knew many eyewitnesses, and Luke travelled with Him. It’s just in a draw of an older dialect.

As for the “Contradictions” That’s just how witnesses work, and actually the witness reliability of the Scripture is exactly what it should be, if it were based on Credible eyewitnesses.

I mean what’s funny is that the last ditch effort is to say the New Testament was shaped to fit the Old. That’s incredible to me, because it means the Old Testament actually talks about Jesus, in the plainest terms, which I can assure you, was marvelous to Christ’s apostles, too, and why the religion spread like wildfire. You lose on that statement, because I know without a doubt all four Gospels are witness testimony, and because of that, it can only be that Christ is Who He says He is. Sometimes the Jews even changed the scripture to hide that.