During the time of the judges the census was done by the jews themselves, it had nothing to do with Rome. King David actually "displeased" god by doing one which was weird to me since it was common practice before they had a king. If you read the bible cover to cover there are so many contradictions its laughable. God said David only displeased him once when he sent Uriah to die so he could bang his wife but the census pissed god off to so the whole thing is basically a load of crap

Stop chasing yer tail! Each unknown gospel writer wrote their version of the story & like any good fiction writer they wrote what their group wanted to hear.
The census was a literary device that moved the narrative in the direction that the writer wanted it to go.

What I see happening in the comments is exactly the problem the poster is talking about. ... Folks jump on the bandwagon of their already held beliefs and it becomes reinforced. However, had anyone looked at the most basic information available to anyone who uses this site, they would have found the following. From Wiki - "The word is of Latin origin: during the Roman Republic, the census was a list that kept track of all adult males fit for military service. The modern census is essential to international comparisons of any kind of statistics, and censuses collect data on many attributes of a population, not just how many people there are. Censuses typically began as the only method of collecting national demographic data, and are now part of a larger system of different surveys." So, yes, the Romans did perform a census and no, it's not crazy to think they did.

Love that last line of your post, btw.

If the God of the Bible possessed all the characteristics claimed, the Bible could be condensed into a pamphlet. God could just pluck up Joseph and pregnant Mary and move them to anywhere in the world. But, No! They had to travel by foot and by donkey for a stupid census that makes no sense.

Biblical scholar and New Testament expert Bart Ehrman has said he believes this detail of the story - while most likely false - is evidence that Jesus was a real individual. Why would the creators of this story go to such lengths and create a falsehood to get Jesus' parents from where they lived to Bethlehem where the Massiah had to be born to fulfill prophesy. Of course if this is true, it doesn't make the Jesus of the Bible any more factual, get perhaps legendary rather than mythological.

I did a little research and apparently the problem is with the years and manner in which Luke depicted it happening. The census would have required citizens to register in the town where they resided instead of the town of their birth.

I am with you and have found this ridiculous for a long time. Why have a tax base somewhere else? It's another example of changing words to fit supposedly scripture. Instead of a virgin giving birth the original wording said a virgin will be married and give birth. Even today, many middle-East cultures demand that a woman be a virgin before marriage (and sometimes showing a bloody sheet to prove). Sick, sick, sick.

I also wondered about that, even as a believer. The inn was full so apparently there were a whole lot of people who had to take these long journeys for a census. And then they never left Bethlehem, they just moved there? It was all very confusing.

Yes, and also you would put a very pregnant woman on a donkey and lead it 3 days across the mountainous terrain.... the narrative is another example of making up a story to fit some BS prophesy. The funny thing is, most of those “prophesies” aren’t what they are supposed to be.

It makes sense when you consider that no one really know who wrote the gospels . They were discovered 40 to 100 years after Jesus death and were ascribed as his disciples writings but no one knows for sure. Matthew Mark Luke and John were made up authors of those texts

You know, of all the illogical bits, that one never struck me as quite as crazy as many other portions. I think I assumed that people in that era rarely settled terribly far from their place of birth. The idea of a census for taxation generally didn't strike me as obviously crazy either.

Interesting to learn that there is no historical basis for any of it - can't say I'm all that surprised.

Just more bs to add to the mythology.

Not the first bullshit story you can find in the bible.

It's not true.

“To invent all those things [in the Bible], the last degree of rascality. To believe them, the extreme of brutal stupidity!”-- Voltaire

Fiction Jewish tradition views birth as unclean only women can be present until cleansing rituals men not allowed

Interesting that the Roman Empire fell after the ascendancy of christianity within it!

I feel blessed that I have no clue as to what you're talking about with a census in Christian mythology.. and based on the comments, I think I'll keep it that way.

The story of the census was concocted to make the kid's birth place match up with the old testament. A virgin birth, how rediculous, except to paint human sexuality as something sinful!
Human Sexuality??? Enjoy!!!

That's right.

Good point. Never wondered that myself, but unless they were going to pay taxes or collect some benefit, it seems there are more efficient ways of counting residents.

It sounds like you should find a reverend of somd sort, who has similar interests in theology and religion and endless discussion

Richard Carrier has lots to say about the lack of historical reality of all the jesus stories.

This is viewed as evidence that the Jesus story was based on a real person and not total fiction. Bart Ehrman believes that if Jesus were a completely fictional character, his birthplace could have been stated to be anywhere that fit the prophecy, but if he had been a real man from Nazareth pretending to be the messiah, there would have to be an excuse to place his mother in Bethlehem at the time he was born.

ADD: This doesn't convince me that Jesus was an actual living person, but it does provoke some thought, and made me more open to that possibility.

This was not a practice. Taxation, yes. Returning to province of origin, no. As a practical issue, taxes were actually collected through the odd process of farming out tax collecting to local residents of the provinces. This form of revenue collection was in full swing during the period stated in the bible. Below is an excerpt from an article whose URL is given below. Here is an example of having even a smattering of knowledge of history makes the bullshit of the bible glaringly apparent.

---"With expansion, Roman censors found that accurate census taking in the provinces was a difficult task at best. To ease the strain, taxes were assessed as a tithe on entire communities rather than on individuals. Tax assessments in these communities fell under the jurisdiction of Provincial governors and various local magistrates, using rules similar to the old system.

"Tax farmers (Publicani) were used to collect these taxes from the provincials. Rome, in eliminating its own burden for this process, would put the collection of taxes up for auction every few years. The Publicani would bid for the right to collect in particular regions, and pay the state in advance of this collection. These payments were, in effect, loans to the state and Rome was required to pay interest back to the Publicani. As an offset, the Publicani had the individual responsibility of converting properties and goods collected into coinage, alleviating this hardship from the treasury. In the end, the collectors would keep anything in excess of what they bid plus the interest due from the treasury; with the risk being that they might not collect as much as they originally bid.

"Tax farming proved to be an incredibly profitable enterprise and served to increase the treasury, as well as line the pockets of the Publicani. However, the process was ripe with corruption and scheming. For example, with the profits collected, tax farmers could collude with local magistrates or farmers to buy large quantities of grain at low rates and hold it in reserve until times of shortage. These Publicani were also money lenders, or the bankers of the ancient world, and would lend cash to hard-pressed provincials at the exorbitant rates of 4% per month or more."---

The full article: [unrv.com]