Originally Posted by Geko45
... Supposedly, jesus was born during an empire wide census ordered by Caeser Augustus and carried out by local Roman governor Quirinius. This was also supposedly during the time of Herod the Great's rule. The problem is that Herod the Great died about ten years before Quirinius carried out the (local) census. Those two things couldn't have happened at the same time and if Herod was not king at the time then there could not have been a "massacre of the innocents" in Bethlehem. If Herod was king then the Quirinius's census wasn't happening and there would not have been a reason for Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem.
The census itself is problematic because there is not record of Caesar Augustus ever ordering an empire wide census. Quirinius's census was a local only. It also introduces another problem as there would not have been a Roman census under Herod's rule because Herod would have collected his own taxes and paid tribute to Rome himself. Not until after his death did Rome step in and start collecting taxes in the region directly. ...
Quirinius may have twice ruled over/governed Syria, once around 7 BC and then again once more around around 7 AD, which this supposition is wholly supported by certain other inscriptions from that timeline.
Simply put, Luke's word pròtos is in recollection of the first census in 7 BC, rather than the one you are referring to which took place in 7 AD.
Anymore supposed problems?