Did St. Luke make a mistake in Chapter 2 of his Gospel? Answered in the Negative

Did St. Luke make a mistake in Chapter 2 of his Gospel?
Decrevi Determined to be Catholic @thecatholicman | 21 janv. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWLIxGXYxgk

The ensuing dialogue starts with my first comment to the title, ignoring all the rest.

No, he didn't. Quirinius was not THE governor, and Luke doesn't say he was, he was in the business of governing (along with Saturninus) Syria, and St. Luke says he was.

Again, there were many Roman censuses over Roman provinces, the one that Josephus remembered from 6 AD was in Judaea, and it's recalled because it caused a revolt.

The one Luke mentions was in Galilee, already a province, while Judaea was just a protectorate. There was no Roman census official in Bethlehem, the census Joseph most chaste Spouse took was for the Temple tax. Shekels were still the common currency in Bethlehem and in Jerusalem, or at least a common one.

Joe Bloggs

@joebloggs1356

Bethlehem is stones throw from Jerusalem. If they didnt use some sort of common money I'd be very suprised. As for the debate about the status of Judea and Samaria in the time of Jesus, history is very very clear. Pompey the Great put the Edomite Herodians into power, creating a Patron/Client relationship between Rome and Judea-Samaria, this alone gave the Romans a very big interest in knowing the wealth status of this entity which has effectively lost independence long before and legates or governors officially sat in power.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@joebloggs1356 Nevertheless, Judaea was a vassal kingdom, not a province, making it a thing outside normal Roman taxation (at that point only of provincials) and so, presumably, of censuses.

Joe Bloggs

@hglundahl no, in the time of Jesus Judea was a part of Syria for administration reasons. Romans, you cant beat em😂

This is what chatgpt said, but its very solid history It happened in AD 6.
When Herod Archelaus (ethnarch of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea) was deposed by Augustus in AD 6, his territory was converted into a Roman province (often called Judaea/Iudaea) and placed under the oversight of the legate (governor) of Roman Syria. That’s the moment Josephus describes as Judaea being “added/annexed” to Syria for administrative purposes, and it’s when Quirinius came to conduct the property assessment that sparked opposition.
---------

So as you can see that Judea/Edom/Samaria wasnt as independent as you think.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joebloggs1356 Exactly.

AD 6, the independence of Judaea was over.

And that's too late for Luke 2, so it's not the census Luke is talking about.

Joe Bloggs

@hglundahl the census luke mentions isnt the taxation type, its a 'census of the world', and Joseph goes to register, with Mary. Because he is of the House of David. Quirinius is made governor in Syria of which Judea is part in ad 6. Im not sure what people are missing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joebloggs1356 "a 'census of the world',"

Was there actually such a thing?

As mentioned, AD 6 is too late, since Herod the Great had already died by then.

Joe Bloggs

@hglundahl it's hard to make people understand that yes, the Roman's thought the Mediterranean civilisation and near attached lands were the "world" even if they were only slightly aware of anything bigger, it didn't matter to them

@hglundahl I see the point about Herod being dead. I'm also not going to say that 'muh bible is wrong' just because I'm too stupid to explain what's happening. The Bible is the inspired Word of God and if theres a mystery there then by faith I believe it's there for a reason, and not some 2000 year old error, because even the ancients were aware of it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@joebloggs1356 Quirinius was in the title position of Governor in 6 AD, but he was doing the job of one under Saturninus "in the title" back when Jesus was born.

As to "the whole world" I think the actual words of Augustus would have been "in all of the provinces of the Roman Empire" and then a certain tax or census officer in Galilee somewhat overreported this to the Holy Family. Or even, it was the actual wording of Octavian, but involved an overreach which has so far not been quite filled with actuality.

Noting that the census edict is available for registered users (I'm so far not one) on the Valtorta app.

So, I can't check if I agree or disagree with her.

[Wait, did Robert Nugent say sth about Saturninus? The thing is Saturninus, as I recall, was actually "in office" as to the title, but it was Quirinius who was doing the job.]

Crucifix and the Swiss Nightclub Crans-Montana

“Miracle” in Swiss nightclub inferno: Boy survives holding crucifix
Decrevi Determined to be Catholic @thecatholicman | 6 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1dNXDLB1BQ

I Believe in Prophecy. Doesn't Mean I Believe I'm a Prophet

As, doesn't mean it. I don't believe that I'm a prophet.

A prophet is a very specific kind of writer who specifically on the occasions writes precisely what God dictates to him. Or shows him in a vision. I'm as little that kind of writer as Gilbert Keith Chesterton was. But St. Bridget was certainly and some say Maria Valtorta was also a prophet.

What would St. John of the Cross say about Maria Valtorta's writtings?
Decrevi Determined to be Catholic @thecatholicman | 10 Dec. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLXkE9RMbu4

It can be mentioned that the basis for canonising St. Bridget of Sweden was a minute examination of all of her prophecies (they fill volumes).

1) No unconditional prophecy could have been unfulfilled.
2) No prophecy could contain doctrinal error.

My friend Stephan Borgehammar and I were a few years ago discussing the identity of St. John the Beloved. In 1968, a French priest argued:

1) he couldn't be the son of Zebedee
2) but had to be a Cohen

with one of the arguments being an Asia Minor reference ("we have known John who wore the golden head band"). This leads to it being a Cohen Gadol. I suggested Theophilus, because that makes "the disciple who Jesus loved" a pun on his name (since we admit Jesus is God). He was against it, since St. Mary had spoken to St. Bridget and one of the words was "I loved John, because he was a virgin" (and Theophilus Ben Hanan had children). I suggested, after some F-search in the document, that his virginity is not as marked as that of St. John the Baptist, "a virgin who never ejaculated", but could have been a life in the virginal style, acquired after the marriage.

I just recently found a reason why Fr. Jean Colson could have been right not to limit the options to known High Priests of Israel. Zachary did the duty of a High Priest on Yom Kippur in Luke 1, but he's not listed. So, St. John the Gospeller could have been a lifelong virgin too.

When Acts 4 mentions And Annas the high priest, and Caiphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest. — Do you think "John" means Hanan Ben Hanan, brother in law of Caiphas, killer of St. James, or do you think it means a John who later made a coming out as disciple?

Fr. Colson obviously didn't think that the Johannine corpus was written by the Son of Zebedee. As I recall, the speeches of the Virgin to St. Bridget about John the Beloved, they do not include a reference to him being among the twelve, or son of Zebedee, but that could have been the poor choice of terms in my F-search.

"You Can't Read the Bible on Your Own" ... Is That Precise?

How to Study the Bible as a Layman
Decrevi Determined to be Catholic @thecatholicman | 5 août 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS6a_FNmucA

0:10 I've heard from Robert Sungenis, the textual apparatus and cultural explanations and whatnot are top notch BUT it unfortunately includes the modernist view of Genesis 1 through 11 in the comments.

6:59 Ah yes, in France (and presumably Belgium and Switzerland) there is a Magnificat in French.

14:16 "you can't interpret the Bible on your own"

Magisterial and pre-Vatican II source, please?

1) You can't interpret prophecy of the OT without knowing the NT is certain: the Ethiopian Eunuch.
2) You should take care not to read Scripture as unlearned and unstable (St. Peter singled out some passages in St. Paul's Epistles)
3) If you interpret the Bible on your own and come up with something contrary to what the Church hath held and now holds or also to the consensus of the fathers, you are wrong.
4) If a whole set of communities have as basic principle,_everyone_ interprets the Bible on his own, it can't achieve unity.

I've featured: Acts, II Peter, Trent session IV, Pius XI (was it Mortalium Animos?).

BUT: none of these says in so many words that no Christian can interpret the Bible on his own. They just say there are pitfalls if he does and passages he won't get. Not that he absolutely can't. Christians are obviously now in a better position to interpret OT prophecy because we have the NT.

Now, let me be precise. In a matter where a Christian who already is a Catholic (I've converted) actually has access to the interpretation of the Church (over centuries and two millennia, as per Trent IV), he cannot on his own say "no, I'll interpret it in the opposite way" ... Ephesians 2 verses 8 to 10, notice I said 10, not 9, indicate justification is not from good works prior to justification, but involves signing up for good works. If I tried to deny this aspect, relying on a common Protestant interpretation of Ephesians 2 verses 8 and 9, and then tried to gloss over verse 10, for one thing, it wouldn't be on my own, I would be overrelying on Protestants instead of believing my own better judgement, but for another thing, in such a context NOT relying on the Church would obviously be fatal ... as well as not common to a conclusion agreeing with the Church, if we happen to read that without access to Catholic doctrine.

Now, the Catholic Church has NOT dogmatised how Genesis lines up with archaeology. That's the ONE item where I've actually done some original interpretation, notably identifying Nimrod's Babel of Genesis 10 and more story details 11 with Göbekli Tepe, I'm highly confident, I have not spoken against the position that the Church hath held and holds, as well as, I double-checked, the interpretation of the text is not uniformly "one vertical piece of ground fixed architecture." In Postilla in libros Geneseos, St. Thomas (or a contemporary, but I think it's a youth work of his) suggests the reading "city wall with many towers forming a skyline" rather than "skyscraper" ... this means, the idea that Nimrod was intending a rocket, but incompetent, and that God stopped him to give Wernher von Braun a chance is NOT going against universal tradition.

Also, I'm very well aware that the spiritual reward of reading Genesis is not acquiring a carbon 14 conversion table, but I'm equally aware that Genesis 1 to 11 are historic fact, theologically, and scientifically, that if one can date an item with organic matter independently of the carbon date, that functions as a calibration of the carbon date. I think a historic overview with archaeological support is very helpful when the historic truth of Genesis 1 to 11 is under attack. As I've heard that Study Bible does attack the historic reliability of those chapters. Obviously the older Haydock comment (also Catholic, c. 100 years older than Scofield's ineptitudes) doesn't attack it.

One Group He Didn't Mention Was Conclavism

Meanwhile, he did mention Fr. Dysmas de Lassus, and I contacted him.

Bishops Giacomo Ballini & Paul Morgan- SSPX Resistance - A cult disguised as Traditional.
Decrevi Determined to be Catholic @thecatholicman | 17 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YNd7-MpZZo

You know, for some people, a life in peace and marriage is a good way for union with God.

And the cult that has deprived me of that so far, as I can see it is not the Conclavists I am part of, since Pope Michael I admitted I had a right to print my stuff without his imprimatur given he had no time to check things properly, and neither he nor his successor have swayed me to refrain from earning money of my writings.

No, the cult that has deprived me of that so far is, what you call the Church, those loyal to the man you call "Pope Francis" ...

When I joined the Catholic Church or what I took to be such, in 1988, no one told me, I somehow couldn't be Young Earth Creationist. In the time between 1992 and 2000, I was basically SSPX-er, so I missed out on what happened. In 2001, I found out there was a Catechism telling me I was wrong, I had to believe modern scientific discoveries as per §283.

And the Catholic parish next door is somehow waiting for me to refrain from all of my writing, all of my promotion of my writing, before we can even have a chat.

They could be in league with shrinks who would pretend I'm psychotic or delusional for being Young Earth Cretionist or for being Geocentric, and part of them would add, for being Catholic, but these "Catholics" won't notice. Both the parish and the possible (probable) shrinks are playing a game of hide-and-seek, and it's dangerous for me to look for answers. Plus police won't investigate, even when harrassment goes fairly far.

17:23 If I spend time writing comments on your videos it is because I considered you a decent chap, but, it comes off as a tad cult like to want to prevent me from that under the subterfuge of caring for my union with God.