May I copy and paste some of your words to start a new thread, so we aren't hijacking this one -- or are we on target enough here?

Actually I suppose we are still on target since the orignial post was questioning how one might or might not receive God's grace. (Also providing an example of variations in translation and interpretation.)

The questioning just went further to wonder about the thoughts of others as to the paths taken by those who were not raised in a Christian denomination.

Not only isn't the day of HIS birth not mentioned but many other dates could be devised to get to them as the date. Starting with the historical events mentioned in the bible took place before,look up the death of Herold (3-4 BC) so not only don't we know the day we don't even know the year. Problely somewhere between 7BC till 6AD . So you see the bible was not in sinc with history

Also why did Mary & Joseph take such a hard trip while she was carrying Jesus? If you check the history books no such census was held at that time. I submit my answer ,that it was Constantine ,who came up with that date was correct.

We probably will go much further since there is so much difference in thought between Christians,Catholics,Chaple people .etc. Wait until some non Christians come into it. We can on forever or change the original question and go on forever IT WON'T ever come to a conclusion until the HOLEY SPIRIT gives us the answer

Which Herod? There were several of them.

I didn't say that we knew the day. I explained why the date was set at Dec 25. You said it was because of Pagan influence. And I explained it is because the first day of Creation has been March 25 ever since Moses established the date for the first Passover.

The Bible is perfectly in sync with history. Human knowledge is just catching up to the Bible and is proving the Bible true.

God sent his only son.. Jesus to be the messiah. Jesus died on the cross when he was thirty three years old.

He arose and the plan of salvation
Came to be. You must be born again and to do that you have to be drawn by the spirit.

The Lord will trouble your heart and you will know it's him. You have a choice accept him as your personal Saviour or not.

Yes. There was a census.

The first option is defended by Ernest Martin in CKC:90:

" A Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria. This can only refer to Quintilius Varus, who was Syrian governor at two different times. Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I. Between his two governorships was Sentius Saturninus, whose tenure lasted from 4 to 2 B.C. Significantly, Tertullian (third century) said the imperial records showed that censuses were conducted in Judea during the time of Sentius Saturninus. (Against Marcion 4:7). Tertullian also placed the birth of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. This is precisely when Saturninus would have been governor according to my new interpretation. That the Gospel of Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria when the census was taken is resolved by Justin Martyr's statement (second century) that Quirinius was only a procurator (not governor) of the province (Apology 1:34). In other words, he was simply an assistant to Saturninus, who was the actual governor as Tertullian stated."


The second option is favored by William Ramsey (NBD, s.v. "Quirinius"):

"The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion (*Chronology of the NT) has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer's name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office 'for the second time' (Lat. Iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?. The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 because, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. Was held.

Under either of these scenarios, SOMEONE served twice, and under either of these scenarios, Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

No. That's wrong.

Nobody is predestined to go to hell. He said MY grace is sufficient for all.

And this one "For God so LOVED the world that he gave his only begotten, that WHOSOEVER
believeth in him shall not persish,
but have everlasting life".

Herod the Great, obviously.

That doesn't make sense.

Yet again we agree. We've got to stop doing this!! ;)