flaws in the gospels: Jesus' birth, when?

[URAVIP2ME]

And the environments between the 2 gospels are shown to be the exact opposite to each other. Herod threaten Jesus' existence, while in Luke's it was all peaceful, hence no massacre and no exile. In Luke 3, it was peaceful enough that 8 days later, Jesus was circumcised; and then Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the temple. No exile in Egypt.
It seemed to be 2 completely different birth myths. Even the genealogies are completely different.
Even Nazareth is completely left out in Matthew (2:19-23) until after Joseph decided to return to Israel. Joseph decided to move to Nazareth because of Archelous was ruling Judaea. The omission of Nazareth (everything prior to 2:19-23, so including chapter 1) seemed to indicate Joseph and Mary were actually living in Bethlehem. But of course, Luke tells a completely different story.
The only commonality between the two is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but every other detail about the conception and birth of Jesus are different. When you look at the gospels side by side, they don't make sense.

Why do you use the plural gospels as if there is more than one gospel?

We have the gospel [singular] according to Matthew
We have the gospel [singular] according to Mark
We have the gospel [singular] according to Luke
We have the gospel [singular] according to John

Four writers of one gospel.

The writings of all four are to be viewed as one. One gospel.
What one mentions does not mean the other needs to repeat.
Not different genealogies but one traced through Jesus paternal side,
and the other one through his maternal side.
Those old temple records were not challenged in the first century.
No one at Jesus time frame wrote that his genealogy was wrong.

 

[gnostic]

Why do you use the plural gospels as if there is more than one gospel?

We have the gospel [singular] according to Matthew
We have the gospel [singular] according to Mark
We have the gospel [singular] according to Luke
We have the gospel [singular] according to John

Four writers of one gospel.

The writings of all four are to be viewed as one. One gospel.

That's semantic!

I am not a Christian, I don't see the bible in the same way believers do. So I see 4 gospels in the Bible, not one.

And there are numbers of other gospels outside of the bible. Should I include them as just being "one" gospel?

In some cases, they tell the same story, but the details are different.

What one mentions does not mean the other needs to repeat.

First off, the author of each gospel (leaving out those not in the bible) was not anonymous. We don't know who wrote those gospels. The names have been ascribed to the gospels.

Second, the gospels were not written at the same time, and it is more than likely, each author (whoever the real author was), did not know what the other person had written, unless you accept the Two-Source Hypothesis, in which the gospels (Luke and Matthew) used Mark and Q gospel as their sources.

And beside that, of the 4 gospels, John (gospel) was written last, so how would the other authors even know not to include the Lazarus episode?

For them to not repeat what the other have written they would be disclosing what each of them would write - collaborate.

And sometimes, they do narrate the same event, but they can't agree on the detail, like the which women were present in Jesus' resurrection. They all agreed that Mary Magdalene were there, but depending on which version, sometimes she allow and sometimes with a couple of other women, but they don't always agree with the name.

There are bound to be contradictions. But it is the birth of Jesus that is most telling on how different they (2 gospels) are. Matthew tells a completely different birth story to Luke. The only thing they agree on is where it took place (Bethlehem).

 

[gnostic]

Do you have anything to say about the list of legates that I've given (back at post #17), and to the fact that Quirinius was elsewhere in Galatea and Cilicia, where he was legate in the former province?

 

[gnostic]

The other thing is that Roman don't do census of the whole Roman Empire, which Luke suggested:

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.

It is absolute nonsense.

If there was such census at any time of this period, there would be records in every province, as well as in Rome.

They certainly wasn't doing such census in the last 6 years of Herod's reign (10-4 BCE), and any census wouldn't include Judaea because of its "client state" status.

The other thing that is absolutely wrong about having family travelling back to the home of their ancestry.

For example, retired Roman legionaries were often given lands in colonies, as part of their pensions. So if a Roman was living in a colony, say just outside of Carthage, in the Africa province, he does sailed back to Rome, to register his census. The census would take place wherever he lived, in that colony.

Likewise, if Joseph had property in Galilee, like in Nazareth, as stated in Luke 1:26-27 and 2:4, then Nazareth would have been the place where he would enroll for census, not Bethlehem. According to Luke (2:7), Joseph didn't have property in Bethlehem, and had to take shelter in the manger, since there there were no other rooms available.

Personally, I think both birth-stories were invented by their respective authors, both throwing real historical figures, like Herod, Augustus and Quirinius, but with no idea when Jesus was born.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That's semantic!
I am not a Christian, I don't see the bible in the same way believers do. So I see 4 gospels in the Bible, not one.
And there are numbers of other gospels outside of the bible. Should I include them as just being "one" gospel?
In some cases, they tell the same story, but the details are different.

SINGULAR

Please open a Bible and you will see: 'singular'

The Gospel [singular] according to Matthew.
The Gospel [singular] according to Mark
The Gospel [singular] according to Luke
The Gospel [singular] according to John

Comprised all together they make up one Gospel.
One adds details that another might not,
but put all together they form one picture of one Gospel.


Apocryphal books exclude themselves being out of harmony with the rest.

 

[gnostic]

Comprised all together they make up one Gospel.
One adds details that another might not,
but put all together they form one picture of one Gospel.

This is okay, if only it doesn't conflict with each other.

Here is a example. In Bethany, near the time of Jesus' death, both Matthew and Mark say that Jesus was enjoying the hospitality of Simon the Leper, and the unnamed woman who anointed Jesus' head. While John say it is the home of Lazarus, and his sister Mary anointed Jesus' feet.

The gospel of John is not only adding something in, but it actually conflict with two earlier gospels. The names of the hosts are different. And there is a big difference between anointing one's head and one's feet.

 

[outhouse]

exactly why its so hard rto pull historicity concerning yeshua.

Im not sure they know anything about yeshua before he was 30 ish

I know some will say nazareth and the 13 year old event. Not sure I buy it.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This is okay, if only it doesn't conflict with each other.
Here is a example. In Bethany, near the time of Jesus' death, both Matthew and Mark say that Jesus was enjoying the hospitality of Simon the Leper, and the unnamed woman who anointed Jesus' head. While John say it is the home of Lazarus, and his sister Mary anointed Jesus' feet.
The gospel of John is not only adding something in, but it actually conflict with two earlier gospels. The names of the hosts are different. And there is a big difference between anointing one's head and one's feet.

Yes, at Simon's house.

Please post where John says Lazarus' house ?
I see at John 12v1 Bethany the town is mentioned.
Verse 2 says 'there' ['There' is Bethany] no house mentioned.

One writer mentions Jesus head and the other includes his feet .
John names the woman of Matthew and Mark.

Jesus earlier would have been in Lazarus home, but Simon another resident of Bethany invites, not just Jesus, but invites Lazarus and his sisters to his house.
Martha, at Simon's house, is ministering to all of Simon's guests at Simon's house. Mary is the woman who causes the controversy about the perfume.
Mary is the one who pours the perfume on Jesus head and on his feet and the scent fills the house.

One Gospel written by four people. John adds details that were not already mentioned by the previous three writers. [John wrote last around the year 98]

 

[URAVIP2ME]

exactly why its so hard rto pull historicity concerning yeshua.
Im not sure they know anything about yeshua before he was 30 ish
I know some will say nazareth and the 13 year old event. Not sure I buy it.

According to Luke [2v51,52] the years between age 13 and 30 Jesus remained subject to his parents and Jesus increased in wisdom and [physical] stature and found favor with both God and man.

A reason for Jesus being 30 at the start of his Ministry has to do with Daniel's prophecy. Daniel's writings were the reason for the first-century people to expect, or to be in expectation of Messiah to arrive. [Luke 3v15; Daniel 9v25]

Daniel told about the time frame for Messiah to appear on the scene.
The time frame starting at the year 455 BCE
[Date established in Persian history and Nehemiah 2 vs1-5]
The time of Jesus arrival was measured in weeks of years.
Meaning: each 'week' was 7 years long.
There would be 7 plus 62 weeks of years, or a total of 69 weeks of years.
That equals 483 years, or marks the time of Jesus baptism as Messiah as being 483 years later.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, at Simon's house.

Please post where John says Lazarus' house ?
I see at John 12v1 Bethany the town is mentioned.
Verse 2 says 'there' ['There' is Bethany] no house mentioned.

Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.

Jesus had just raised Lazarus from the dead, and since Lazarus and his sisters lived there, it very clear that Lazarus was host for supper. Why else would Martha served them at the table, if they don't live there (in verse 2).

The previous chapter mentioned Mary staying at home (John 11:20), instead of going out to meet Jesus when he arrived.

When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home.

One writer mentions Jesus head and the other includes his feet .

No, 2 authors wrote that it was Jesus' head that got anointed. The 2nd version John, say that it was his feet. And if include Luke's version, also feet, but this happened in another town, and no where near Bethany. Luke omitted Bethany altogether.

Jesus earlier would have been in Lazarus home, but Simon another resident of Bethany invites, not just Jesus, but invites Lazarus and his sisters to his house.
Martha, at Simon's house, is ministering to all of Simon's guests at Simon's house. Mary is the woman who causes the controversy about the perfume.
Mary is the one who pours the perfume on Jesus head and on his feet and the scent fills the house.

One Gospel written by four people. John adds details that were not already mentioned by the previous three writers. [John wrote last around the year 98]

I would hardly think so.

Of the gospels, Mark's was written first, at least several decades before John's version. Matthew's confirmed the earlier version. Because Jesus was already Bethany, John twisted the earlier version, and simply replaced the host, Simon the Leper, with Lazarus.

I'd find it improbable that Jesus would go to different homes in Bethany, to get anointed. If what you are saying is true, then why didn't John also include the Mark's version too?

 

[gnostic]

About the Quirinius being legate of Syria, he was only governor of Syria once.

Wikipedia provides a comprehensive list of governors of Syria. It is the 2nd table that everyone should be interested in:

Wikipedia, List of Roman governors of Syria => Propraetorial Imperial Legates of Roman Syria (27 BC to 135 AD)

Gaius Sentius Saturninus (9-6 BCE) and Publius Quinctilius Varus (6-4 BCE) were governors at the time of Herod's reign in the last 6 years. So Quirinius couldn't have been governor back then.

 

[Me Myself]

Has any literalist answered this successfully already?

 

[outhouse]

Has any literalist answered this successfully already?

that would be impossible


the gospel authors couldnt tell you if jesus hair was braided or short or long or blonde or black with credibility let alone decribe his childhood and I can guess and have the same odds of hitting the truth of his birth then they did.

the question is factually unanswerable

 

[gnostic]

When the Romans conquered Egypt in [30 BCE],
wasn't the census registration already a tried-and-tested feature of those Egyptians ?
Easily the Romans could have learned or adopted that system with their own procedures adapting to their own empire.

No, Rome already had their own systems of census, for the Roman citizens (for centuries), and later for the provinces.

The earliest census in Rome, goes as far back as Servius Tullius (c.578 – 535 BCE), who was the 6th king of Rome. The consuls took over the role of census, until 442 BCE, when new magistrates were formed, called the censors.

The system for the province are obviously different to that of Rome. and the roles were taken by governors and their subordinates, during Imperial time.

 

[Super Universe]

Jesus was born at noon on August 21, 7 B.C.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

that would be impossible
the gospel authors couldnt tell you if jesus hair was braided or short or long or blonde or black with credibility let alone decribe his childhood and I can guess and have the same odds of hitting the truth of his birth then they did.

Truth of Jesus birth can be traced back from the time of Luke [3 vs 1,2,23] counting back from the time of verses 1 and 2 subtracting 30 years.

Luke traces Jesus' genealogical record [family tree] from the temple public records at Jerusalem. Those public records were accepted by all, including the false religious leaders who if they could have disproved them they would have.

There are no odds to hit about the shepherds being outside at night.
No winter birth because shepherds would not have been outside in December.

Jesus appearance would have been as the rest of his culture was in the first century.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

About the Quirinius being legate of Syria, he was only governor of Syria once.
Gaius Sentius Saturninus (9-6 BCE) and Publius Quinctilius Varus (6-4 BCE) were governors at the time of Herod's reign in the last 6 years. So Quirinius couldn't have been governor back then.

Please note that Luke [2 vs 1,2 ] refers to the 'first' or earlier tax registration.

Josephus mentions a 'duel' rulership in Syria. Two persons serving simultaneously.
-XVI,227, 280; XVI 334
If Josephus is correct, then Quirinius could have served at the same time with another person either Saturninus or Varus.
Remember: Simultaneous serving not impossible because Saturninus did serve simultaneously with Volumnius.
Josephus mentions a simultaneous assignment of Quirinius with Coponius.
XVIII 1,2,3,4
So a 'duel' rulership was quite possible making earlier and later rulerships possible.
The revolt [ Acts 5 v 37] took place according to Josephus in the 37th year after Caesar's defeat [ XVIII,26 ] that would indicate Quirinius as governor in 6 C.E.

The Lapis Tiburtinus found in Rome [1764] could apply to Quirinius.
The Lapis Venetus found in Venice could refer to either a first or earlier census.

There is No evidence that any early historian challenged what Luke wrote.
That includes even the early critic Celsus.

 

[outhouse]

Truth of Jesus birth can be traced back from the time of Luke [3 vs 1,2,23] counting back from the time of verses 1 and 2 subtracting 30 years.

Luke traces Jesus' genealogical record [family tree] from the temple public records at Jerusalem. Those public records were accepted by all, including the false religious leaders who if they could have disproved them they would have.

There are no odds to hit about the shepherds being outside at night.
No winter birth because shepherds would not have been outside in December.

Jesus appearance would have been as the rest of his culture was in the first century.

you cannot state a bit of this with any certainty. Other then yes jesus would have been simular to other Galileans in apperance.

Nothing pre 30 in jesus life has any historcity at all. Luke would have never known jesus, thus they built in his history in literature and it contradicts the other legends on the topic.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus was born at noon on August 21, 7 B.C.

At last! I've been hanging in there for something new. Could you please give some evidence for your finding/belief?

 

[Super Universe]

At last! I've been hanging in there for something new. Could you please give some evidence for your finding/belief?

The Urantia Book, section 1351.5.