- Jan 4, 2019
- 5,240
- 4,218
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
In light of my previous thread, I have been investigating more into apparent discrepancies that most non-believers have propagated in an attempt to disunify the whole fabric of the inspired, inerrant and infallible Scripture. In this research, I've found some unsettling passages that I haven't been able to reconcile. Some of you had great answers in my last thread for the confusion I had with the Savior's words. I believe the "sign of Jonah" was, as one poster replied, more or less a riddle that needed no actual, visible recognition to the adulterous generation that rejected what was already visibly evidence of his ministry and preaching. However, I want to continue asking in this forum about some more passages that have bothered me for quite some time. I have often gleaned through annotations of well-aged commentators and authors for answers, and have had discussions with my elders, but often was left in a state of dissatisfaction. If you are willing to avail me of this problem, it would be most edifying!
We find that in the synoptic gospels that after our Savior was baptized by John, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). However, we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John that the very "next day" after this event, Jesus calls and meets Andrew, Peter and possibly John (John 1:35-42), and the "next day" after that Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael (v. 43-51), and the "third day" they attended the wedding in Cana in Galilee (2:1-2), and after this they travelled to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples and stayed there for a few more days (v. 12). Here we have an apparent chronological problem.
Then there is an apparent chronological inconsistency of the narrative and historical events of Christ, which some of you may have heard before. In Matthew, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" (Matthew 2:1), but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census of Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). In extrabiblical records, more specifically the first-century historian Josephus, Publius Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria after Caesar Augustus disposed Archelaus, Herod's son and one of his successors, from that position in 6 AD. Publius Quirinius was assigned to carry out a census of the new province of Judea for tax purposes. This seems to be two entirely different periods in that timeline. Herod I died around 4 BC, that is at least a decade apart from Luke!
In the commentators I've read, as well as my elders have pointed out, that Quirinius may have been the governor of Syria before. Some even speculate that there were two different census carried out by Quirinius as governor of Syria by referencing Acts 5:37. However, there were only three "empire-wide" census (28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD), and none of them happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Also, this particular census referenced by Luke is the same one that triggered a revolt by Judas of Galilee mentioned Acts 5:37, who encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers. So there was only one census, and the revolt happened during this one and the same census. Also, there was no such mandate for people to return to their ancestral place of origin for a census solely for taxes. Why would the Romans care about where your ancestors were from? Who would financially be able to travel to such great lengths? How do we resolve these apparent historical issues?
There are more apparent birth narratives problems I found, but I may spare that for another time. For example, when Joseph fled to Egypt being warned in a dream and then told to return, why did he want to return to Bethlehem but instead fled to his native home of Nazareth because of Archelaus (Matthew) if he was only there for the census (Luke)? Or how do we reconcile the the purification of Mary after the birth of Christ (Luke) with her fleeing with Joseph to Egypt (Matthew)?
We find that in the synoptic gospels that after our Savior was baptized by John, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). However, we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John that the very "next day" after this event, Jesus calls and meets Andrew, Peter and possibly John (John 1:35-42), and the "next day" after that Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael (v. 43-51), and the "third day" they attended the wedding in Cana in Galilee (2:1-2), and after this they travelled to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples and stayed there for a few more days (v. 12). Here we have an apparent chronological problem.
Then there is an apparent chronological inconsistency of the narrative and historical events of Christ, which some of you may have heard before. In Matthew, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" (Matthew 2:1), but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census of Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). In extrabiblical records, more specifically the first-century historian Josephus, Publius Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria after Caesar Augustus disposed Archelaus, Herod's son and one of his successors, from that position in 6 AD. Publius Quirinius was assigned to carry out a census of the new province of Judea for tax purposes. This seems to be two entirely different periods in that timeline. Herod I died around 4 BC, that is at least a decade apart from Luke!
In the commentators I've read, as well as my elders have pointed out, that Quirinius may have been the governor of Syria before. Some even speculate that there were two different census carried out by Quirinius as governor of Syria by referencing Acts 5:37. However, there were only three "empire-wide" census (28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD), and none of them happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Also, this particular census referenced by Luke is the same one that triggered a revolt by Judas of Galilee mentioned Acts 5:37, who encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers. So there was only one census, and the revolt happened during this one and the same census. Also, there was no such mandate for people to return to their ancestral place of origin for a census solely for taxes. Why would the Romans care about where your ancestors were from? Who would financially be able to travel to such great lengths? How do we resolve these apparent historical issues?
There are more apparent birth narratives problems I found, but I may spare that for another time. For example, when Joseph fled to Egypt being warned in a dream and then told to return, why did he want to return to Bethlehem but instead fled to his native home of Nazareth because of Archelaus (Matthew) if he was only there for the census (Luke)? Or how do we reconcile the the purification of Mary after the birth of Christ (Luke) with her fleeing with Joseph to Egypt (Matthew)?
Last edited: