first,this isnt a treatise to condemn the books of luke of mathew.i just stumbled across some inconsistencies
1.mathew accounts that the 3 wise men visited herod while luke didnt mention it
2.the book of luke records that jesus was born during the census ordered by augustus ceasar.this census occured after the death of herod the great.however,the book of mathew doesnt record this census(a very significant event) and also accounts that herod the great was alive when jesus was born
3.the book of mathew records that herod ordered the killing of all children,but that joseph took jesus and escaped to egypt and that upon his return,he feared for the child's life and stayed in nazareth.luke doesnt record this significant massacre and doesnt record a trip to egypt.it rather accounts that nazareth was actually their city and that they returned there after jesus birth.luke also records that they visited jerusalem every year till jesus turned 12.
while mathew tries to potray their going to nazareth as been an heppenstance,luke says it was actually their own city and that they "returned" to it after jesus was born.
while mathew accounts that they fled to egypt,luke says they went back to nazareth
while mathew says jerusalem was dangerous for the child to be in because of herod,luke accounts that they visited jerusalem every year
while mathew says herod was alive when jesus was born,luke says jesus was born after herod's death
any explanation for these discrepancies?

Pull the corresponding verses for both Matthew and Luke out, I will explain it to you. It's not discrepancies but complementary.

Goshen360: Pull the corresponding verses for both Matthew and Luke out, I will explain it to you. It's not discrepancies but complementary.

mathew 2:1now when jesus was born in the days of herod the king........
luke 2:1 in those days went out from ceasar augustus that all the world should be enrolled.
luke2:2 this was the first census when quirinius was governor of syria
in mathew,herod is king when jesus is born while in luke,quirinius is govenor.history helps in this case.after herod's death,he was succeeded by his son,archelaus(mathew confirms this inmathew 2:22).archelaus reigned for 10years and was deposed by augustus ceasar who then sent a governor from rome named publius suplicius quirinius whose first duty was to organize a census as confirmed by luke.however,mattew says jesus was born while herod reigned while luke says he was born when quirinius was governor which is almost 12years apart

in the geneology of jesus stated in mattew,jeconiah begat shieltel who begat zerubabel who then begat abiud,
but in luke,neri begat shieltel who begat zerubabel who then begat rhesa.
the genealogy in luke has 15 more names than the one in mattew and 25 of the names differ.
also,according to matthew,the angel appeared to joseph while according to luke,the angel appeared to mary

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. Matt. 2:1 clearly says Jesus was born in "Bethlehem of Judea" in the days of Herod the king. Kjv

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. Luke 2:1-3 Kjv

My thought here is Caesar Augustus would have given a decree from place that covers a wide range of authority for the context talked about Cyrenius being governor of Syria and same context says every one INTO HIS OWN CITY. I don't see any contradiction yet for verse 4 says:

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)

This is the same Bethlehem of Judea that was mentioned in Matt. 2:1. This is where Jesus was born as confirmed by 6-7 of Luke 2. Though I need to study more the cities, towns and locations around these mentioned locations. However, what I have known is this - Herod the great's kingdom was divided into three ways and given to his sons as follows: Archelaus ruled Judea, Samaria and Idumea; Herod Philip II ruled the regions north of Galilee (Luke 3:1); and Herod Antipas ruled Galilee and Perea (Luke 3:1). I have a chart illustrating the family tree of Herod the Great and his sons that might help you if you don't mind. I may have to scan and post it if need be.

@Goshen, it seems to me that Cyrenius is the same a Quirinius.
@Delafruita, from what you've put forth, I'll say that one of the writers of matthew and luke is mistaken or the historians are mistaken. They cannot all be equally true if they contradict this much.

Delafruita: in the geneology of jesus stated in mattew,jeconiah begat shieltel who begat zerubabel who then begat abiud,
but in luke,neri begat shieltel who begat zerubabel who then begat rhesa.

"Jeconiah begot Salathiel, and Salathiel begot Zerubbabel." Compare this record with 1 Chron. 3:17-19, which says, "The sons of Jeconiah ... Salathiel ... and Pedaiah ... and the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel," showing that Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, Salathiel's brother. Zerubbabel was not Salathiel's son but was his nephew, and he became his heir. This was a case in accordance with Deut. 25:5-6. Even that word in Deuteronomy is related to the genealogy of Christ.

Zerubbabel was one of the leaders who returned to Jerusalem from the captivity in Babylon (Ezra 5:1-2). He was also a leader in the rebuilding of God's temple (Zech. 4:7-10). The Old Testament predicted that Christ, as a descendant of David, would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:4-6). Without the return from captivity, it would not have been possible for Christ to be born in Bethlehem.

Delafruita:
the genealogy in luke has 15 more names than the one in mattew and 25 of the names differ.

Luke's account was detailed involving ALL characters and tracing down to Adam but Matthew's account focused on the important characters. This difference is name is due to that fact that OT was written in Hebrew while NT was written in Greek. The 25 more names is due to the detailed accounts of Luke.

Delafruita:
also,according to matthew,the angel appeared to joseph while according to luke,the angel appeared to mary

Angel appeared to Mary before the conception announcing she shall conceive by the power of the Most High through the Holy Spirit. Angel appeared to Joseph not to divorce Mary. Angel appeared to Joseph to warm him to take the little Jesus and flew to Egypt. Angel appeared Joseph to return to Nazareth after the death of Herod. So which of the event are you referring to that reads contradiction to you?

Mr_Anony: @Goshen, it seems to me that Cyrenius is the same a Quirinius.

Yes, he is the same person.

@Delafruita, It may interest you to check out this link. It contains and argument much like this. Hopefully it will answer your Herod/Quirinius question.

http://christianthinktank.com/quirinius.html

Goshen360: Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. Matt. 2:1 clearly says Jesus was born in "Bethlehem of Judea" in the days of Herod the king. Kjv

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. Luke 2:1-3 Kjv

My thought here is Caesar Augustus would have given a decree from place that covers a wide range of authority for the context talked about Cyrenius being governor of Syria and same context says every one INTO HIS OWN CITY. I don't see any contradiction yet for verse 4 says:

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)

This is the same Bethlehem of Judea that was mentioned in Matt. 2:1. This is where Jesus was born as confirmed by 6-7 of Luke 2. Though I need to study more the cities, towns and locations around these mentioned locations. However, what I have known is this - Herod the great's kingdom was divided into three ways and given to his sons as follows: Archelaus ruled Judea, Samaria and Idumea; Herod Philip II ruled the regions north of Galilee (Luke 3:1); and Herod Antipas ruled Galilee and Perea (Luke 3:1). I have a chart illustrating the family tree of Herod the Great and his sons that might help you if you don't mind. I may have to scan and post it if need be.

one thing is certain,mattew says herod was alive when jesus was born,herod ruled for 36 years and was crowned in 40BC.he died in 4BC and historians are in agreement that the census carried out by quirinius occured in 6AD.luke is clear that jesus was born during the census because joseph and mary had to travel down to be counted which led to jesus been born in a manger.now going by mattew's assertion,jesus was born sometime before herod 's death in 4BC while going by luke's account,jesus was born sometime during the census in 6AD.thats a gap of a whole 10 years.furthermore,Mark's account(which was written first in 70 AD) doesnt record a virgin birth.infact it begins with the baptism.the only record of these birth comes from mattew and luke who now contradict themselves.
the Bible records Jesus as been very popular to the extent thousands will flock to see him.its only sensible to expect historians of that time to have recorded about him.phinl who lived during that time never recorded about Jesus but he recorded every other thing including people and even eclipses.seneca as well lived from 2BC to around 60BC but never recorded about jesus in all his voluminous accounts.the first mention of jesus came from josephus flavius in 90AD and even that "mention" is been scrutinised because it was too bland and incoherrent.
you didnt address the question of why mattew claims joseph fled to egypt while luke says he remained in galilee and went to jerusalen every year
you also didnt address the issue of why mattew claims herod ordered a massacre(which isnt recorded anywhere except in mattew) of all children after the wise men left and that even after herod died,he was still for the child's life because of archelaus and that was why he remained in nazareth.
luke was explicit in his choice of words about the situation.he didnt record a massacre and he says joseph and his family went back to "THEIR" city,nazareth.meaning they actually came from nazareth not that they went there because of archelaus.luke also accounts that they visited jerusalem every year for the feast of passover which would be unthinkable if the child's life were really in danger.

Goshen360: Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. Matt. 2:1 clearly says Jesus was born in "Bethlehem of Judea" in the days of Herod the king. Kjv

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. Luke 2:1-3 Kjv

My thought here is Caesar Augustus would have given a decree from place that covers a wide range of authority for the context talked about Cyrenius being governor of Syria and same context says every one INTO HIS OWN CITY. I don't see any contradiction yet for verse 4 says:

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)

This is the same Bethlehem of Judea that was mentioned in Matt. 2:1. This is where Jesus was born as confirmed by 6-7 of Luke 2. Though I need to study more the cities, towns and locations around these mentioned locations. However, what I have known is this - Herod the great's kingdom was divided into three ways and given to his sons as follows: Archelaus ruled Judea, Samaria and Idumea; Herod Philip II ruled the regions north of Galilee (Luke 3:1); and Herod Antipas ruled Galilee and Perea (Luke 3:1). I have a chart illustrating the family tree of Herod the Great and his sons that might help you if you don't mind. I may have to scan and post it if need be.

one thing is certain,mattew says herod was alive when jesus was born,herod ruled for 36 years and was crowned in 40BC.he died in 4BC and historians are in agreement that the census carried out by quirinius occured in 6AD.luke is clear that jesus was born during the census because joseph and mary had to travel down to be counted which led to jesus been born in a manger.now going by mattew's assertion,jesus was born sometime before herod 's death in 4BC while going by luke's account,jesus was born sometime during the census in 6AD.thats a gap of a whole 10 years.furthermore,Mark's account(which was written first in 70 AD) doesnt record a virgin birth.infact it begins with the baptism.the only record of these birth comes from mattew and luke who now contradict themselves.
the Bible records Jesus as been very popular to the extent thousands will flock to see him.its only sensible to expect historians of that time to have recorded about him.phinl who lived during that time never recorded about Jesus but he recorded every other thing including people and even eclipses.seneca as well lived from 2BC to around 60BC but never recorded about jesus in all his voluminous accounts.the first mention of jesus came from josephus flavius in 90AD and even that "mention" is been scrutinised because it was too bland and incoherrent.
you didnt address the question of why mattew claims joseph fled to egypt while luke says he remained in galilee and went to jerusalen every year
you also didnt address the issue of why mattew claims herod ordered a massacre(which isnt recorded anywhere except in mattew) of all children after the wise men left and that even after herod died,he was still for the child's life because of archelaus and that was why he remained in nazareth.
luke was explicit in his choice of words about the situation.he didnt record a massacre and he says joseph and his family went back to "THEIR" city,nazareth.meaning they actually came from nazareth not that they went there because of archelaus.luke also accounts that they visited jerusalem every year for the feast of passover which would be unthinkable if the child's life were really in danger.

Mr_Anony: @Delafruita, It may interest you to check out this link. It contains and argument much like this. Hopefully it will answer your Herod/Quirinius question.

http://christianthinktank.com/quirinius.html

i have read through the link and frankly,even me could have made a better argument at correlating the 2 gospels than the "christian think tank" did.there are several ways to argue luke's accuracy which were not attempted by the link.theologians have tried the argument that quirinius was governor twice but there was just no evidence to back it up besides if that was true,luke wouldnt have phrased his sentence in that manner.besides if we go by mattew's account that jesus was born before herod's death probably in 6BC,that would mean by 6AD when the census held,Jesus would be 12 years old and preparing for his appearance at the temple as is customary.the Census certainly held in 6AD and we know that when jesus was 12,he made the trip to jerusalem for his temple appearance which would have been impossible if a census was been held.
however this still leaves the issue of the discrepancy between mattew and luke.theologians realise that the author of mattew liked to be melodramatic which is why the issue of herod ordering a massacre has been concluded to be pure fiction because it never happened.we also know that mattew's account of jesus crucifixion includes "the undead invading the city" and "earthquakes" which arent recorded anywhere else.theologians are therefore more inclined to accepting luke's account.that however leaves the issue of john the baptist unresolved and that is another case on its own

Mr_Anony: @Delafruita, It may interest you to check out this link. It contains and argument much like this. Hopefully it will answer your Herod/Quirinius question.

http://christianthinktank.com/quirinius.html

i have read through the link and frankly,even me could have made a better argument at correlating the 2 gospels than the "christian think tank" did.there are several ways to argue luke's accuracy which were not attempted by the link.theologians have tried the argument that quirinius was governor twice but there was just no evidence to back it up besides if that was true,luke wouldnt have phrased his sentence in that manner.besides if we go by mattew's account that jesus was born before herod's death probably in 6BC,that would mean by 6AD when the census held,Jesus would be 12 years old and preparing for his appearance at the temple as is customary.the Census certainly held in 6AD and we know that when jesus was 12,he made the trip to jerusalem for his temple appearance which would have been impossible if a census was been held.
however this still leaves the issue of the discrepancy between mattew and luke.theologians realise that the author of mattew liked to be melodramatic which is why the issue of herod ordering a massacre has been concluded to be pure fiction because it never happened.we also know that mattew's account of jesus crucifixion includes "the undead invading the city" and "earthquakes" which arent recorded anywhere else.theologians are therefore more inclined to accepting luke's account.that however leaves the issue of john the baptist unresolved and that is another case on its own

There is no how an individual's lifetime event can be documented by more than one person without discrepancies.

lekkie073: There is no how an individual's lifetime event can be documented by more than one person without discrepancies.

its one thing for discrepancies about a person's lifetime to occur in different accounts.but we're talking JESUS here.and the date of his birth in 2 accounts of people who write as though they were with him differs by more than 10 whole years.thats not a discrepancy,its an anomaly.moreover,if they are just discrepancies as you say,doesnt that negate the claim that the bible was "written by inspiration of God"?will God inspire 2 people to write conflicting accounts?

Goshen360: Pull the corresponding verses for both Matthew and Luke out, I will explain it to you. It's not discrepancies but complementary.

you get time sef. Delafruita is a profesional scoffer LOL

buzugee: you get time sef. Delafruita is a profesional scoffer LOL

why dont you just read through comments posted and comment objectively rather than attempting to derail the thread.
i am not making any inane suggestions or creating scenarios,all my arguments are based on the Bible.you should know i like to learn and you know whatever points you make,i wont refute them without reading through them.i suggest you do same

Delafruita:
why dont you just read through comments posted and comment objectively rather than attempting to derail the thread.
i am not making any inane suggestions or creating scenarios,all my arguments are based on the Bible.you should know i like to learn and you know whatever points you make,i wont refute them without reading through them.i suggest you do same

lol i aint falling for that crap. i fell for it initially cuz i hadnt seen your name around before so i thought you were serious minded. after a few interactions you fall under the category of logicboy. a professional scoffer.you are set in your ways. you are not looking for explanations. you are looking for holes to pick.

buzugee: lol i aint falling for that crap. i fell for it initially cuz i hadnt seen your name around before so i thought you were serious minded. after a few interactions you fall under the category of logicboy. a professional scoffer.you are set in your ways. you are not looking for explanations. you are looking for holes to pick.

i probably look for holes,then ask for explanation for why those holes exist.unlike you,my mind is open to new ideas.

Delafruita:
i have read through the link and frankly,even me could have made a better argument at correlating the 2 gospels than the "christian think tank" did.there are several ways to argue luke's accuracy which were not attempted by the link.theologians have tried the argument that quirinius was governor twice but there was just no evidence to back it up besides if that was true,luke wouldnt have phrased his sentence in that manner.besides if we go by mattew's account that jesus was born before herod's death probably in 6BC,that would mean by 6AD when the census held,Jesus would be 12 years old and preparing for his appearance at the temple as is customary.the Census certainly held in 6AD and we know that when jesus was 12,he made the trip to jerusalem for his temple appearance which would have been impossible if a census was been held.
however this still leaves the issue of the discrepancy between mattew and luke.theologians realise that the author of mattew liked to be melodramatic which is why the issue of herod ordering a massacre has been concluded to be pure fiction because it never happened.we also know that mattew's account of jesus crucifixion includes "the undead invading the city" and "earthquakes" which arent recorded anywhere else.theologians are therefore more inclined to accepting luke's account.that however leaves the issue of john the baptist unresolved and that is another case on its own

Perhaps you didn't read the link properly.

There is the argument that Quirinius was not necessarily governor i.e. the Greek word used by Luke was hegemon which could refer to any officials with authority ranging from prefects to ceasar himself. This would mean that he could have overseen another census during the time he was deputy to Quintilus Varus. Augustus was known to have a census every 14 years and so it is concievable that Luke may have been refering to the census 14 years before 6 AD

There is also a suggestion that the census being talked about was not the first census to be overseen by Quirinius because in Luke 2:2, the word "first" was translated from the Greek word prote which can also be translated as "before" so the phrase could have read "....the census before Quirinus was governor..." this would also refer to a census 14 years before 6 AD.

The reason why the 6 AD census was popular is because it led to an uprising of the zealots who protested against taxation so it would serve as a good reference point for a historian but this doesn't necesarily mean that Luke was saying that Jesus was born in 6 AD.

Here's another link on the same issue: http://www.orlutheran.com/html/census.html

You see my friend, history is not my forte and the views I have presented are not necessarily mine. I simply believe what the bible says.
The thing I have noticed is that you on the other hand keeps trying to discredit the bible but without any success.
I do not deny that the bible can be mistranslated but that does not in any way diminish the truth of scripture.
All the same thanks for pointing out the "discrepancy" to me. My faith is all the more strengthened.

Mr_Anony:

Perhaps you didn't read the link properly.

There is the argument that Quirinius was not necessarily governor i.e. the Greek word used by Luke was hegemon which could refer to any officials with authority ranging from prefects to ceasar himself. This would mean that he could have overseen another census during the time he was deputy to Quintilus Varus. Augustus was known to have a census every 14 years and so it is concievable that Luke may have been refering to the census 14 years before 6 AD

There is also a suggestion that the census being talked about was not the first census to be overseen by Quirinius because in Luke 2:2, the word "first" was translated from the Greek word prote which can also be translated as "before" so the phrase could have read "....the census before Quirinus was governor..." this would also refer to a census 14 years before 6 AD.

The reason why the 6 AD census was popular is because it led to an uprising of the zealots who protested against taxation so it would serve as a good reference point for a historian but this doesn't necesarily mean that Luke was saying that Jesus was born in 6 AD.

Here's another link on the same issue: http://www.orlutheran.com/html/census.html

You see my friend, history is not my forte and the views I have presented are not necessarily mine. I simply believe what the bible says.
The thing I have noticed is that you on the other hand keeps trying to discredit the bible but without any success.
I do not deny that the bible can be mistranslated but that does not in any way diminish the truth of scripture.
All the same thanks for pointing out the "discrepancy" to me. My faith is all the more strengthened.

accounts of history indicate that quintillus was THE governor sent by augustus ceasar.quintillus varus was governor before quirinius and it is indeed noted that quirinius assisted quirinius in battle in the germanus was in which varus lost 2 leagues.
it wasnt a culture to hold a census every 14 years,there's no historical prove of that.the census of 6AD was ordered because ceasar had deposed archelaus and wanted to take stock of his properties and subject.that is the census luke reffered to.

Delafruita:
i probably look for holes,then ask for explanation for why those holes exist.unlike you,my mind is open to new ideas.

my mind is open to new ideas but not regarding the scriptures. see i am at a point in this journey where i am so solidly firmly rooted in the truth, that i do not consider any other persons opinion if it does not align with mine. there are over 50 prophesys in the bible that i can show you that happened but were predicted to happen thousands of years ago. specific incidents like the transatlantic slave trade on slave ships, how america and israel the land masses will be invaded and taken over, how the continents will recieve their names from the conquering empire etc etc. i am firmly rooted in these scriptures bruh. so i am not here to recieve knowledge. so you are right, my mind is not open when it comes to these scriptures. which is why if there is someone whose mind is not open with regards to their atheism then all we are going to be doing is a never ending dance, like the kind you see with logicboy. its just a never ending d-ick measuring contest. from such i want to desist, unless of course its one of those slow days and i need an atheist to mess with for fun. but yeah you right I AM RIGID in these scriptures. i cant be moved. even an avalanche the size of texas would not move me from my convictions.

buzugee: my mind is open to new ideas but not regarding the scriptures. see i am at a point in this journey where i am so solidly firmly rooted in the truth, that i do not consider any other persons opinion if it does not align with mine. there are over 50 prophesys in the bible that i can show you that happened but were predicted to happen thousands of years ago. specific incidents like the transatlantic slave trade on slave ships, how america and israel the land masses will be invaded and taken over, how the continents will recieve their names from the conquering empire etc etc. i am firmly rooted in these scriptures bruh. so i am not here to recieve knowledge. so you are right, my mind is not open when it comes to these scriptures. which is why if there is someone whose mind is not open with regards to their atheism then all we are going to be doing is a never ending dance, like the kind you see with logicboy. its just a never ending d-ick measuring contest. from such i want to desist, unless of course its one of those slow days and i need an atheist to mess with for fun. but yeah you right I AM RIGID in these scriptures. i cant be moved. even an avalanche the size of texas would not move me from my convictions.

first,i know about prophecies coming ti pass though it would be nice if you could highlight some of them.
second,even nostradamus made prophecies that came to pass and as far as i can tell,he wasnt inspired by Yahweh
third,prophecies have long been part of religion and many a time,these prophecies come to pass.does that mean all these gods are also deserved of worship and adulation?

Delafruita:
accounts of history indicate that quintillus was THE governor sent by augustus ceasar.quintillus varus was governor before quirinius and it is indeed noted that quirinius assisted quirinius in battle in the germanus was in which varus lost 2 leagues.
it wasnt a culture to hold a census every 14 years,there's no historical prove of that.the census of 6AD was ordered because ceasar had deposed archelaus and wanted to take stock of his properties and subject.that is the census luke reffered to.

Are you reading what I am writing at all or are you just re-stating your bias?

Actually there is evidence suggesting a census before the 6 AD census. If you had properly read the link I showed you, you would have seen it. Here's a quote:

" A sixth reason for placing the nativity of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. is the coincidence of this date with the New Testament account that Jesus was born at the time when a Roman census was being conducted: "There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the IRoman] world should be registered" (Luke 2:1). Historians have not been able to find any empire-wide census or registration in the years 7-5 B.C., but there is a reference to such a registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself: "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country" (Res Gestae 35, italics added). This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C. Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C. And besides that, Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45). This agrees nicely in a chronological sense with what Luke records. But more than that, an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts." And dovetailing precisely with this inscription, the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.''. The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C."

Delafruita:
first,i know about prophecies coming ti pass though it would be nice if you could highlight some of them.
second,even nostradamus made prophecies that came to pass and as far as i can tell,he wasnt inspired by Yahweh
third,prophecies have long been part of religion and many a time,these prophecies come to pass.does that mean all these gods are also deserved of worship and adulation?

see, prophesys is just one aspect of it. the layout of the world, the power structure, who is controlling the world, why they are controlling the world, who will take over after this power structure, etc etc. its all in the bible if you know what you are looking for. they may not be obvious but the words are in parables. let me tell you how entrenched in these scriptures i am. you can give me any situation in this world, any worldly situation, like say why is obama the president of america, why is america trying to invade iran, why did that girl get killed over 5 dollars, why did that woman miscarry, why is nigeria going through a rough patch, why do we have a president like jonathan in office. ANY SITUATION, STORY OR SCENARIO. and without opening the bible at all i would string together biblical verses from both the old and new testament explaining spiritually the what how why and when of the situation. thats how entrenched i am in these scriptures. i can write a story by stringing bible verses together without looking at the bible. so trust me, i know these scriptures, by the power and grace of the almighty of course. about highlighting the prophesys ? i aint about to cast my pearl before swines. i have seen you in action before. something could make the absolute perfect sense but just for the sake of disagreeing, you cast it aside with your inane explanations LOL. hey just hold on to your atheism. if you are strong in your convictions, you dont need me trying to convince you out of it just like i dont need anyone to convince me out of mine.

Mr_Anony:

Are you reading what I am writing at all or are you just re-stating your bias?

Actually there is evidence suggesting a census before the 6 AD census. If you had properly read the link I showed you, you would have seen it. Here's a quote:

here's the problem with your analogy,even if there was indeed a census in 2BC as you stated,that still leaves open 3 loopholes-
1,if the census luke reffered to occured in 3 BC,that still creates a problem because herod died in 4BC and according to mathew,jesus was born almost 2 years before herod died.hence there will still be a 3 year difference between mattew and luke
2.luke was explicit in his description of that census,saying it occured while quirinius was governor.here's a chronology of syrian governors
13-10BC- marcus titus
10-7BC- sentius sartuninus
7-4BC- quintilius varus
4-1BC- calpurnius piso
nowhere in here did quirinius serve as governor.he didnt become governor till 6AD and the census was his first assignment.even your link agrees that quirinius was governor in 6AD.it also agrees that he conducted a census but the authors tried so hard to align luke and mattew with their analogies which just didnt add up.they cant just assume quirinius served under someone and conducted the census when bo evidence exists to back it up.
besides between 6BC-1BC,quirinius was part of the roman campaign in galatia and could not have been part of a census that occured in 4BC.
a straight forward statement from luke says quirinius was governor when jesus was born,because it conflicts with mattew,bible scholars have over the past centuries loooked for ways to reconcile both but they havent found a way.

Delafruita:
here's the problem with your analogy,even if there was indeed a census in 2BC as you stated,that still leaves open 3 loopholes-
1,if the census luke reffered to occured in 3 BC,that still creates a problem because herod died in 4BC and according to mathew,jesus was born almost 2 years before herod died.hence there will still be a 3 year difference between mattew and luke
2.luke was explicit in his description of that census,saying it occured while quirinius was governor.here's a chronology of syrian governors
13-10BC- marcus titus
10-7BC- sentius sartuninus
7-4BC- quintilius varus
4-1BC- calpurnius piso
nowhere in here did quirinius serve as governor.he didnt become governor till 6AD and the census was his first assignment.even your link agrees that quirinius was governor in 6AD.it also agrees that he conducted a census but the authors tried so hard to align luke and mattew with their analogies which just didnt add up.they cant just assume quirinius served under someone and conducted the census when bo evidence exists to back it up.
besides between 6BC-1BC,quirinius was part of the roman campaign in galatia and could not have been part of a census that occured in 4BC.
a straight forward statement from luke says quirinius was governor when jesus was born,because it conflicts with mattew,bible scholars have over the past centuries loooked for ways to reconcile both but they havent found a way.

Now I am even more convinced that you really are not reading my replies at all.

I showed you two things. The original Greek of Luke refered to Quirinius as hegemon which means "official in charge": This could be interpreted to mean anything from prefect to ceazar. It could refer to Quirinus as governor or as deputy governor.
Secondly the word Greek word prote was translated as "first" but could also be translated as "before" this would mean that the phrase ".....first census during the time of Quirinius......" could also have meant ".....the census before the time of Quirinius....."
These two would fit in if there was a census 14 years before 6 AD.
Quite rightly, a 2BC census doesn't fit the bill, what I was trying to show you with that quote was that Augustus did indeed have censuses prior to the 6 AD one (some suggest every 14 years). Though we may not have direct documentation, it is not impossible that there would have been a census at the time of Herod especially since Varus had just taken office in 7BC and will need to take stock and also Rome was at war at the time which would suggest more taxation and necessitate a census.
Admittedly, there are a number of "could haves" but the point is that it is not an impossibility.

Mr_Anony:

Now I am even more convinced that you really are not reading my replies at all.

I showed you two things. The original Greek of Luke refered to Quirinius as hegemon which means "official in charge": This could be interpreted to mean anything from prefect to ceazar. It could refer to Quirinus as governor or as deputy governor.
Secondly the word Greek word prote was translated as "first" but could also be translated as "before" this would mean that the phrase ".....first census during the time of Quirinius......" could also have meant ".....the census before the time of Quirinius....."
These two would fit in if there was a census 14 years before 6 AD.
Quite rightly, a 2BC census doesn't fit the bill, what I was trying to show you with that quote was that Augustus did indeed have censuses prior to the 6 AD one (some suggest every 14 years). Though we may not have direct documentation, it is not impossible that there would have been a census at the time of Herod especially since Varus had just taken office in 7BC and will need to take stock and also Rome was at war at the time which would suggest more taxation and necessitate a census.
Admittedly, there are a number of "could haves" but the point is that it is not an impossibility.

one thing i appreciate in this discourse is that we have stayed on the topic.
however,irrespective of the greek translation of the word,according to records,quirinius was a part of the roman campaign i galatia,a fact certified by the stones discovered at antioch.this campaign was between 6-1BC and it is quite impossible for quirinius to have been in 2 places at a time.
for the purpose of this discussion,lets assume quirinius actually served under a governor and actually conducted the census of 3BC(which hasnt been proven to have taken place),that will mean jesus was born in 3 BC according to luke and 6BC according to mathew which still leaves a 3 year discrepancy.how do you account for that?
moreover,it is confirmed that a census held in 6AD which would have required the family taking a trip,no accounts of this exist.rather we are only told jesus came to jerusalem when he was 12 for the traditional "spiritual rites"

Mr_Anony:

Now I am even more convinced that you really are not reading my replies at all.

I showed you two things. The original Greek of Luke refered to Quirinius as hegemon which means "official in charge": This could be interpreted to mean anything from prefect to ceazar. It could refer to Quirinus as governor or as deputy governor.
Secondly the word Greek word prote was translated as "first" but could also be translated as "before" this would mean that the phrase ".....first census during the time of Quirinius......" could also have meant ".....the census before the time of Quirinius....."
These two would fit in if there was a census 14 years before 6 AD.
Quite rightly, a 2BC census doesn't fit the bill, what I was trying to show you with that quote was that Augustus did indeed have censuses prior to the 6 AD one (some suggest every 14 years). Though we may not have direct documentation, it is not impossible that there would have been a census at the time of Herod especially since Varus had just taken office in 7BC and will need to take stock and also Rome was at war at the time which would suggest more taxation and necessitate a census.
Admittedly, there are a number of "could haves" but the point is that it is not an impossibility.

its not impossible that a census occured during the time of herod but its very likely it didnt.census of the day required a lot of time because people had to go long distances to be counted as was evidenced by the trip of joseph and mary.its quite impossible that joseph would have taken a heavily pregnant wife on a trip through bad terrain.it therefore suggests that mary's pregnancy was still at an early stage when the trip began,however by the time they arrived,she delivered.its therefore almost impossible for a census to be conducted in 5 or 6 BC and another conducted in 3BC.
it is also established that when an edict for census is given,its not necesarily meant to begin simultaneously in all provinces.therefore,if ceasar issued an edict for census in 4BC,it doesnt mean the census began in syria in 4BC.infact,after archelaus was deposed,it is recorded that quirinius journeyed for 6 months.
it is also recorded that though quirinius was governor,it was actually secundus(his consul) that conducted the census.this goes to say if quirinius was actually just a consul or an assistant,his name wont even be mentioned.

buzugee: see, prophesys is just one aspect of it. the layout of the world, the power structure, who is controlling the world, why they are controlling the world, who will take over after this power structure, etc etc. its all in the bible if you know what you are looking for. they may not be obvious but the words are in parables. let me tell you how entrenched in these scriptures i am. you can give me any situation in this world, any worldly situation, like say why is obama the president of america, why is america trying to invade iran, why did that girl get killed over 5 dollars, why did that woman miscarry, why is nigeria going through a rough patch, why do we have a president like jonathan in office. ANY SITUATION, STORY OR SCENARIO. and without opening the bible at all i would string together biblical verses from both the old and new testament explaining spiritually the what how why and when of the situation. thats how entrenched i am in these scriptures. i can write a story by stringing bible verses together without looking at the bible. so trust me, i know these scriptures, by the power and grace of the almighty of course. about highlighting the prophesys ? i aint about to cast my pearl before swines. i have seen you in action before. something could make the absolute perfect sense but just for the sake of disagreeing, you cast it aside with your inane explanations LOL. hey just hold on to your atheism. if you are strong in your convictions, you dont need me trying to convince you out of it just like i dont need anyone to convince me out of mine.

enlighten me

Delafruita:
one thing i appreciate in this discourse is that we have stayed on the topic.
however,irrespective of the greek translation of the word,according to records,quirinius was a part of the roman campaign i galatia,a fact certified by the stones discovered at antioch.this campaign was between 6-1BC and it is quite impossible for quirinius to have been in 2 places at a time.
for the purpose of this discussion,lets assume quirinius actually served under a governor and actually conducted the census of 3BC(which hasnt been proven to have taken place),that will mean jesus was born in 3 BC according to luke and 6BC according to mathew which still leaves a 3 year discrepancy.how do you account for that?
moreover,it is confirmed that a census held in 6AD which would have required the family taking a trip,no accounts of this exist.rather we are only told jesus came to jerusalem when he was 12 for the traditional "spiritual rites"

Please dude, read me carefully before replying, and also read the links I sent you carefully as well. I am not saying that Jesus was born in 3BC or any date in particular (frankly the exact date of Jesus' birth does not affect my faith in any way).
All I have tried to do is show you possibilities that Luke could have been referring to about 14 years before 6 AD. This would tally with the time when he was with Varus. The census Luke referred to could have taken place in 7 BC and this would tally with Matthew.

The truth of these matters is that Jesus was never a political leader so it is quite possible that historians would miss him, however this does not automatically mean that he never existed. In fact there is stronger evidence for Jesus existing than there is for his non-existence, and if Jesus did indeed exist, then he must have been born at a particular date and died at a particular date. Squabbles over exact dates does not do anything to disprove His life.

Now the thing about history, is that history can sometimes be vague but if there is a possibility, then it shouldn't just be discarded unless it can be proven beyond doubt to be absolutely impossible.

Delafruita:
its not impossible that a census occured during the time of herod but its very likely it didnt.census of the day required a lot of time because people had to go long distances to be counted as was evidenced by the trip of joseph and mary.its quite impossible that joseph would have taken a heavily pregnant wife on a trip through bad terrain.it therefore suggests that mary's pregnancy was still at an early stage when the trip began,however by the time they arrived,she delivered.its therefore almost impossible for a census to be conducted in 5 or 6 BC and another conducted in 3BC.

The fact is that it is not impossible that such a census took place moreso considering the fact that Roman emperors weren't particularly known for being considerate.

Delafruita: it is also established that when an edict for census is given,its not necesarily meant to begin simultaneously in all provinces.therefore,if ceasar issued an edict for census in 4BC,it doesnt mean the census began in syria in 4BC.infact,after archelaus was deposed,it is recorded that quirinius journeyed for 6 months.
it is also recorded that though quirinius was governor,it was actually secundus(his consul) that conducted the census.this goes to say if quirinius was actually just a consul or an assistant,his name wont even be mentioned.

This says a lot because it could also suggest that though Varus would have been charged with a census in 7BC it could also have been Quirinius that actually carried it out.