Biblical Contradictions

[Almost there]

Just a general comment on the op:

The most troubling thing about the guy in the video is that he brings up some contradictions that really are not. One was the one I brought up about the genealogies. It is extremely disengenuous and he should know better, which causes one to question his motives and the veracity of his claims.

Matthew 1 uses the word "Begat" and flows from father to son beginning with Abraham. It is the bloodline of Joseph. Notice it shifts to "son" at the beginning and doesn't say Joseph begat Jesus.

Meanwhile, Luke starts with Jesus and works backwards, using the phrase, "son of". It also says that Joseph was thought to be the father. And it says Joseph is the son of Heli, who was Mary's biological father. We have two genealogies because we have two "parents".

 

[cloudyday2]

How long does it take to travel from the east?

Here is a website that calculates Roman travel times. It says from Jerusalem to Alexandria is 6.3 days in January. Unfortunately it doesn't include non-Roman cities like Babylon. I suppose a trip from Babylon up the Red Sea and overland to Jerusalem would make the most sense and wouldn't take all that long.
ORBIS

 

[Almost there]

So, the Magi followed the star of Bethlehem for two weeks, to visit Jesus in Bethlehem, 1 - 2 years after he was born?

I'll just defer to this source: https://christiananswers.net/christmas/mythsaboutchristmas.html

 

[HitchSlap]

Just a general comment on the op:

The most troubling thing about the guy in the video is that he brings up some contradictions that really are not. One was the one I brought up about the genealogies. It is extremely disengenuous and he should know better, which causes one to question his motives and the veracity of his claims.

Matthew 1 uses the word "Begat" and flows from father to son beginning with Abraham. It is the bloodline of Joseph. Notice it shifts to "son" at the beginning and doesn't say Joseph begat Jesus.

Meanwhile, Luke starts with Jesus and works backwards, using the phrase, "son of". It also says that Joseph was thought to be the father. And it says Joseph is the son of Heli, who was Mary's biological father. We have two genealogies because we have two "parents".

What's the point of listing your mother's lineage then, if taxes were based on the patriarchal ancestor's town?

 

[HitchSlap]

"Both views have problems which are difficult to answer, not the least of which is the fact that the two genealogies meet at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then split a second time only to come together at Joseph and Jesus. (Cf. comments on Matt. 1:12.) Regardless of one’s view it is important to note an important aspect of the theology Luke expressed in his genealogy. He related Jesus not only to Abraham but all the way back to Adam and to God. This is an indication of the universal offer of salvation, which is common to his Gospel—that Jesus came to save all people—Gentiles as well as the nation of Israel (cf. Luke 2:32)."

 

[Almost there]

OK, so your argument is that a supporting fact for the resurrection is that no one would invent a story in which the testimony of women is accepted as true, even though you agree that the testimony of the women was not taken as true.

No. That is just a side issue I mentioned as an "oh, by the way".

 

[Almost there]

Here is a website that calculates Roman travel times. It says from Jerusalem to Alexandria is 6.3 days in January. Unfortunately it doesn't include non-Roman cities like Babylon. I suppose a trip from Babylon up the Red Sea and overland to Jerusalem would make the most sense and wouldn't take all that long.
ORBIS

Are those calendar days or business days?

 

[Almost there]

What's the point of listing your mother's lineage then, if taxes were based on the patriarchal ancestor's town?

The book of Luke is not an attachment to Joseph's 1040.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No. That is just a side issue I mentioned as an "oh, by the way".

Would you consider removing that side issue from your bag of tricks since it has been debunked?

 

[FenderTL5]

I watched the video.
For me the information isn't scandalous.
The Bible is not a history book, nor intended to be. It is a theology book.

The speaker in the video seems intent on arguing the historical accuracy. That's well and good and there's a lot that he says that our church would agree with.
For instance, the Gospels were written 30-70 years after Christ. The church was practicing, baptizing, celebrating the Eucharist for years before there was a thought to write any of this down.
The early church was under the impression that Christ's return would be imminent. It was only after the martyrdom of the early Apostles and the realization that the message was in danger of being lost that they understood the importance of writing it down.

The synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were compiled from numerous testimonies/witnesses. Some may have been first hand, others passed on stories. This was done independently in different regions. They all had a similar intent, which was preserving the stories. That there are discrepancies doesn't bother me.
It would be like having a group of people recall what happened in high school.. the stories would differ but there would be some continuity and overlap along with a few discrepancies. People remember events differently

 

[Almost there]

Would you consider removing that side issue from your bag of tricks since it has been debunked?

I don't think it's been debunked. But sure, I'll remove it. It's just a rabbit hole in this thread anyway. I suppose if we want to really get into it we can start a thread on it.

 

[HitchSlap]

The book of Luke is not an attachment to Joseph's 1040.

But the book of Luke begins Jesus' genealogy with Joseph as the father, but it's really Mary's lineage?

 

[Oldmantook]

I did read it. That's why I asked the question.

"Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem to present the new born infant in the temple. From there, they went back to their home in Nazareth. A short time later, the holy family decided to return to Joseph's ancestral hometown and Jesus' birthplace, namely Bethlehem in Judea. This is where Matthew picks up. When the Magi found the child Jesus, he was already up to two years old. Being told in a dream about Herod's desire to kill the child, Joseph left his home and took his family to Egypt until the death of Herod. Fearing that Herod's son Archelaus would search them out if they returned to Bethlehem, the holy family once again returned to Nazareth and settled there."

This explanation puts Jesus in Bethlehem two times, two years apart.

The article would have us believe that:

Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem. Jesus is born. Thirty-two days later, Jesus receives rites of purification. J,M & baby Jesus then return to Nazareth. Sometime during the next two years they return to Bethlehem. Afraid Herod might kill toddler Jesus, they flee to Egypt.

Is it not the only explanation that make sense? It is the false teacher on the video who presupposes that the Matthean and Lukan accounts occur at the same time frame. Herod's mandate however conflicts with that supposition. If Jesus were only at Bethlehem once during his birth as an infant, not much more than a month, then why would Herod order the killings of every male child 2 years-old and under? Would he not have ordered the killing of every infant male instead? Notice that Matt 2:1 states "Now after Jesus was born in Judea...." This verse only refers to the time frame after his birth. It does not specify how short or long after his birth. The only clue provided is Herod's edict to kill male children 2 years or younger; not infants.
One must take all of the scriptures into account when reconciling them. The speaker in the video was obviously remiss in not taking this into account.

 

[HitchSlap]

Is it not the only explanation that make sense? It is the false teacher on the video who presupposes that the Matthean and Lukan accounts occur at the same time frame. Herod's mandate however conflicts with that supposition. If Jesus were only at Bethlehem once during his birth as an infant, not much more than a month, then why would Herod order the killings of every male child 2 years-old and under? Would he not have ordered the killing of every infant male instead? Notice that Matt 2:1 states "Now after Jesus was born in Judea...." This verse only refers to the time frame after his birth. It does not specify how short or long after his birth. The only clue provided is Herod's edict to kill male children 2 years or younger; not infants.
One must take all of the scriptures into account when reconciling them. The speaker in the video was obviously remiss in not taking this into account.

The speaker in the video is actually a published scholar.

So Luke has Jesus being born when Quirinius was governor. Matthew has Jesus being born while Herod was still alive. There is no evidence that Herod ever decreed all male children under age two be slaughtered.

So, you're still stuck with an impossible timeline.

 

[HitchSlap]

I watched the video.
For me the information isn't scandalous.
The Bible is not a history book, nor intended to be. It is a theology book.

The speaker in the video seems intent on arguing the historical accuracy. That's well and good and there's a lot that he says that our church would agree with.
For instance, the Gospels were written 30-70 years after Christ. The church was practicing, baptizing, celebrating the Eucharist for years before there was a thought to write any of this down.
The early church was under the impression that Christ's return would be imminent. It was only after the martyrdom of the early Apostles and the realization that the message was in danger of being lost that they understood the importance of writing it down.

The synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were compiled from numerous testimonies/witnesses. Some may have been first hand, others passed on stories. This was done independently in different regions. They all had a similar intent, which was preserving the stories. That there are discrepancies doesn't bother me.
It would be like having a group of people recall what happened in high school.. the stories would differ but there would be some continuity and overlap along with a few discrepancies. People remember events differently

I find your opinion to be very reasonable.

 

[cloudyday2]

What's interesting to me is that the first contradiction (resurrecting the man's daughter) is between Mark and Matthew. Most scholars think Matthew used Mark as a source, so I would expect them to agree on whether the daughter was already dead when the father asked for help from Jesus. I wonder if different manuscripts of Mark contradicted each other on this point or what.

 

[Oldmantook]

The speaker in the video is actually a published scholar.

So Luke has Jesus being born when Quirinius was governor. Matthew has Jesus being born while Herod was still alive. There is no evidence that Herod ever decreed all male children under age two be slaughtered.

So, you're still stuck with an impossible timeline.

Published scholar; big deal. Any appeals to authority can be a logical fallacy. Published scholar or not since he ignores the details of the biblical text, his credentials aren't worth much in my opinion as he has an axe to grind. In Luke 2:2, it refers to Quirinius as hegemoneuo. In the Greek, this word is a verb and not a noun; therefore more accurately translated as governing instead of governor. Ouirinius was governing but it does not automatically entail that he was the governor at the time as he could have just been governing as a high ranking official - and not as the governor. If he was the Governor, then Luke could have used the noun form of the word which he did not. Thus no contradiction in timeline.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't think it's been debunked. But sure, I'll remove it. It's just a rabbit hole in this thread anyway. I suppose if we want to really get into it we can start a thread on it.

I'd be up for it if you made a thread on it.

 

[HitchSlap]

 

[HitchSlap]

In Luke 2:2, it refers to Quirinius as hegemoneuo. In the Greek, this word is a verb and not a noun; therefore more accurately translated as governing instead of governor. Ouirinius was governing but it does not automatically entail that he was the governor at the time as he could have just been governing as a high ranking official - and not as the governor. If he was the Governor, then Luke could have used the noun form of the word which he did not. Thus no contradiction in timeline.

Is that kind of like being pregnant until you're actually pregnant?

By the way, was Herod dead in 6 C.E., or just simply dying by then?