re: Are people born as an IDIOT, or does it Evolve? Case in Point

Oh look, I can use ChatGPT too:

I. The Census Objection Overreaches the Evidence

1. Luke does not say Joseph returned to his “place of birth”

Luke states Joseph went to Bethlehem because he was “of the house and lineage of David” (Luke 2:4). That language does not require birthplace, and Luke nowhere claims Joseph was born there.

In the ancient world, family registration, clan affiliation, and land-based enrollment were common—especially in Judea, where land tenure and tribal identity were historically significant. Rome routinely adapted local customs for administrative efficiency.

The objection assumes a modern Western census model, not a first-century provincial one.

2. Roman censuses were not uniform across the empire

It is historically inaccurate to treat Roman censuses as monolithic. As A. N. Sherwin-White, F. F. Bruce, Darrell Bock, and Craig Keener have shown, Rome frequently accommodated local practices, particularly in client kingdoms and newly annexed regions.

Judea had:
• A strong land-inheritance tradition
• Recent political instability
• A unique transition from Herodian to Roman administration

Luke’s account fits a localized enrollment tied to family and land rather than a standardized imperial headcount.

3. The Quirinius problem is not settled

The post treats Luke’s reference to Quirinius as a settled historical blunder. It is not.

Credible orthodox options include:
• A prior administrative role for Quirinius in Syria (attested by inscriptions)
• A broader census process spanning years, with the well-known AD 6 census being its culmination
• A plausible translation of Luke 2:2 as “this census was before Quirinius was governing Syria”

None of these are ad hoc; all are defended in peer-reviewed scholarship.

?

II. The Nazareth Argument Is Historically Weak

The claim that Nazareth “was not populated” during this period is no longer defensible.

Archaeological evidence (including tombs, agricultural installations, and domestic structures) supports a small but real settlement in the late Second Temple period.

The argument fails because it equates “small village” with “nonexistent,” which archaeology does not support.

Luke does not require Nazareth to be a major urban center—only a hometown.

?

III. Genealogical Descent from David Is Not Meaningless

The post’s analogy to Genghis Khan or Charlemagne is genetically clever but historically irrelevant.

1. Biblical genealogy is legal and covenantal, not statistical

Messianic descent in Judaism is:
• Legal (dynastic)
• Covenantal
• Publicly recognized

Joseph’s Davidic lineage mattered not because of DNA frequency but because Davidic kingship passed through legal succession. Adoption and legal paternity were sufficient under Jewish law.

2. Matthew and Luke trace lineage for different theological purposes

Matthew emphasizes royal succession
Luke emphasizes human solidarity

Different genealogies do not imply invention—only different angles on the same historical claim.

?

IV. Matthew and Luke Are Not Contradictory Accounts

The post repeatedly asserts contradiction where selective narration fully explains the differences.

1. Silence is not denial

Luke does not say:
• No Magi came
• No house existed
• No flight to Egypt occurred

Matthew does not say:
• Jesus was not placed in a manger
• Shepherds did not visit

Ancient biographical writing (bios) routinely omitted details irrelevant to the author’s purpose.

2. The “house vs. manger” objection misunderstands time

Luke describes Jesus being laid in a manger at birth.
Matthew describes the Magi visiting later, when the family was in a house.

This is not harmonization gymnastics—it is the most straightforward reading.

?

V. The Magi Argument Proves Symbolism, Not Fiction

Orthodox scholars agree the Magi function symbolically. That does not make them fictional.

1. The Magi were real historical figures

Magoi were:
• Known Persian religious specialists
• Associated with astrology and royal interpretation
• Precisely the kind of figures who would interpret celestial signs as royal omens

Matthew’s account is culturally coherent, not fantastical.

2. Isaiah 45 strengthens, not weakens, Matthew’s case

Yes—Cyrus is called God’s “anointed.”
That is the point.

Matthew presents:
• Gentile representatives acknowledging Israel’s Messiah
• Pagan rulers recognizing what Jerusalem’s leaders miss

Symbolism does not negate historicity. Biblical history routinely interprets real events theologically.

?

VI. “Conflicting Fairy Tales” Is a Philosophical Conclusion, Not a Historical One

The post’s final claim—that these are “conflicting fairy tales”—does not follow from the evidence.

What actually exists is:
• Two independent infancy traditions
• Different narrative emphases
• No direct contradictions
• A shared core: Davidic descent, Bethlehem birth, Nazareth upbringing, divine initiative

The move from “not easily harmonized” to “fiction” is driven by methodological naturalism, not by historical necessity.

As J. Gresham Machen observed:

The problem is not that the Gospel narratives are unhistorical, but that modern critics exclude the supernatural in advance.

?

VII. Mark’s Silence Is Not Evidence Against Matthew or Luke

Mark begins where his theological aim begins: Jesus’ public ministry.

Silence about infancy proves nothing. Paul likewise omits birth narratives without denying the incarnation (cf. Gal. 4:4).