by uncle_onion 42 Replies latest jw friends
Another book I am reading called "the Jesus mysteries" makes this claim:
"According to Matthew, Jesus is born in the reign of Herod, who tries to have him killed as a baby to prevent him becoming King of the jews. Herod who died in 4BCE.........Luke makes a similar point of having his Jesus born 10 years later at the time of the census of 6CE."
So it seems that we have a contradiction here. Any ideas?
UO
Right.
Matthew has Jesus being born during the reign of Herod. Josephus tells us that Herod died shortly after an eclipse. This has made it possible to date his death to around 4 BC with a quite high probability. Nobody suggests Herod died later than 1 BC.
Luke, on the other hand, is quite clear that Jesus was born during the census conducted by Cyrenius (Luke 2:1-2). Josephus records that Cyrenius became a governor of Syria when Archelaus was banned, which happened in his 10th year. This happened in the year 6 CE, which is 10 years after the death of Herod. It cannot have been earlier, since we know Syria indeed became a Roman province no sooner than 6 CE, so nobody could have been governor there earlier. This is confirmed by a number of sources.
Apologists have sometimes made attempts to reconcile this problem. For example, they claim that Jesus was born during an earlier census. However, Luke says this was the first census, and Josephus says the same thing. No record of an earlier Roman census of Palestine exists.
This is not the only contradiction between the birth accounts in Matthew and Luke. Obviously, these were two different traditions, and the stories are wholly different and not possible to harmonize. Attempts by fundamentalists to harmonize the gospels might, however, provide the rest of us with some amusement.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
I ran across an interesting site that lists many bible contradictions:
http://www.uib.no/zoo/brage/bible/1innerr.html
I can't resist using this opportunity to post another contradiction in the Bible, a bit less known:
How much did Jesus know about the Bible? Not having a handy edition around, he had to rely on his memory. And how well did Jesus recall an account from the text? Let's see one example:
Mark 2:25, 26 "But he said to them: "Have you never once read
what David did when he fell in need and got hungry, he and the men with him?
How he entered into the house of God
in the account about Abiathar the chief priest,
and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests, and he gave some also to the men who were with him?""
The WTS often makes much of the fact that the New Testament frequently refers to and quotes from Old Testament texts. The fact is, NT writers frequently misquotes, misapplies and are plain wrong about their references. Many NT writers were not very well versed in the Holy Scriptures, and this applies especially to the synoptical gospels, which helps explain blunders as the ones we can see above.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
Very interesting "think" but some of those contradictions can be explained ie
Christians to hate their brothers - - Luke 14:26
Whoever hates their brother cannot have eternal life -
1 John 3:15. Thanks.
JH
Good point again.
uo
Very interesting but some of those contradictions can be explained ie
And how can you explain those?
I see Christians sometimes make claims that it can be "explained" but are more reluctant to actually try to post that explanation. Like the utterly ludicruous idea that the differing geneaologies for Jesus can be "explained" by saying one of them is for Mary.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
I have to go to work now so I wil be brief.
The scripture that I quoted has to be taken in context. Did you read the scripture Jan?
I only had a quick glance at the list and that is the one that caught my eye.
There seems to be a lot of contradictions in the Bible but I feel that some of them can be explained.Some not the vast majority. At the end of the day I want truth but I want to arrive there by examining all the evidence and giving it a fair hearing from both sides.
UO
wow!
The more I read the scarier it gets. Thanks for providing this info guys.
Uncle O,
Was 1 John to be a rebuttal to the Luke verse? If so, do you feel it is a valid argument?
wendy
Hey JanH:
In your rendition of that account if you're being technical, then yes Jesus was wrong in that he didn't quote the scripture verbatim. But he did paraphase it quite nicly and took in to account what anyone who reads the text could naturally infer. For instance though David was alone when he approached the Priest it's obvious that he was seeking to procure some sustenance for others whom he would meet later as he indicated. Otherwise why would he ask for five loaves of bread? Also the priest to indicated that althought they were not present that David was in fact with others because he gave the bread under the stipulation that the men had not slept with any women.
"..... anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he had been taught how to destroy himself, not how to preserve himself." The Prince. Niccolo Machiavelli.
bigboi,
In your rendition of that account if you're being technical, then yes Jesus was wrong in that he didn't quote the scripture verbatim.
Being "technical" is not the problem. Of course it is a paraphrase. That is fine. But Jesus is actually wrong in all details, even the major facts that made this story relevant for Jesus' discussion with the Scribes in the first place. That includes numbers, places, names and events.
Of course, you know that, since you made no detailed attampt to rebut my quite detailed analysis of the text. You just handwave and make some comments that demonstrate you haven't even bothered to look up this text.
But he did paraphase it quite nicly and took in to account what anyone who reads the text could naturally infer.
For instance though David was alone when he approached the Priest it's obvious that he was seeking to procure some sustenance for others whom he would meet later as he indicated.
David had just said goodbye to Jonathan for the last time. Of course nobody was with him when he escaped. He needed supplies, and went to the priests to get bread and a weapon. He went to Gat, where he had to play crazy to escape. He was obviously alone here. Then he escaped to live in some caves. Only there (22:1) did he meet others, who actually were family members. They came, it says, because they had heard he were hiding there. So they had not accompanied him to Nob.
Otherwise why would he ask for five loaves of bread?
Also the priest to indicated that althought they were not present that David was in fact with others because he gave the bread under the stipulation that the men had not slept with any women.
It is interesting to note that Jesus' point in making a reference to this story builds upon his own sloppy memory. Jesus' point was that people could even enter the Holy if there was an emergency. That is false! David did not enter it. The breads were no longer on display.
But thank you for demonstrating what I said earlier: Christians often make all sorts of ridiculous attempts to reconcile black with white to make excuses for even the most obvious Bible errors. In so doing, they demonstrate not only lack of logical skills, but a sloppy knowledge about the Bible itself. Lastly, such examples of excusogetics (sic) demonstrates gross intellectual dishonesty.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
