THE LIGHT
Silver Member
Nope. No contradictions. Only differences in viewpoint as would be expected by credible witnesses in a court of law. If everyone had the same made up story then something would be fishy. Your statement contradicts itself in logic anyway because if they collaborated and wrote the gospels at a later date then they would have fixed them discrepancies don't you think?
.
Um. No.
There's a HUGE contradiction at the beginning of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Now, both Matt and Luke plagiarize heavily from Mark's Gospel. In fact, 96% of Mark is repeated in one or both of them. But Mark didn't talk about Jesus' early life.
If the 4 gospels agree, then you say they are plagiarized and if there is an apparent difference then you say it is a contradiction.
Luke and Matthew decide to throw in the virgin birth in Bethlehem part of the story and trace JC's genealogy back to King David to up his street cred as the Messiah. The problem was, of course, they were making this shit up on the fly. So of course, their "genealogies" list difference people as Jesus' ancestors, and both trace his lineage through Joseph, who wasn't actually his father. It was supposedly God who got his sticky man Juice in the "Virgin" Mary.
Nay, but it was the skillful work of a designer. Hiding the plain truth right in front of your nose. Luke account traces the genealogy of Mary from Adam while Matthew traces the genealogy of Joseph back to Abraham. Satan thought he had it all figured out by getting God to place a blood curse on Jeconiah stating that no man of Jeconiah's seed would inherit the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30). But Jesus was not of the seed of Joseph. Joseph was only his "legal" father.
The Hilarity gets even better. Matthew's Jesus is born in Bethlehem but Joseph Flees to Egypt and then Galilee because King Herod went on a baby-killing rampage just like Pharaoh did when Moses was born. (Plagiarism Alert)
And that isn't plagiarism, that is just what satan does when he is trying to eliminate a person of promise. I don't see anything "Hilari[ous]" with killing babies.
Luke's Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Roman Governor Quirinius ordered a census that required his family to come down from Galilee to get counted. Which is where you get the whole "Born in a Barn!" bit.
Don't see any "discrepancy" just both accounts looking at different details.
The decree was by Augustus.
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(Luke 2:1 KJV)
Now here's where we have a HUGE problem. Herod died in 4 BCE. Which means Jesus had to have been born between 6-4 BCE for the story to work. MEANWHILE- Quirinius was governor of Syria and Judea (but not Galilee) form 6 AD to 12 AD.
So now you have a 10-18 year gap as to when Jesus was born.
or they were just making this shit up.
Josephus says that Herod's death was between a lunar eclipse and passover. The most fitting total eclipse that could be seen from Jerusalem would likely be the one on January 9, 1BC. Therefore Herod's death would be sometime in early 1BC and Jesus would have been born around 1-2 BC. Irenaous states that Jesus was born in the 41st year of Agustus' reign, and since Agustus began his reign in 43 BC, this once again confirms the date of 2 BC.
So to recap. No discrepancies found.