[lupis78]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

Very good point...i don't believe it is possible anyway since the birth narratives are history prophesied and not memorized.

[Miss Cassandra]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

This does an excellent job of breaking apart your misunderstanding of the scriptures.

I have disproved everything I read there already. They propose that Augustus replaced Varus with Cyrenius for a short while, which is ridiculous, because:

1. All my previous arguments regarding the impossibility of the Romans holding a census in a client kingdom still apply.
2. Josephus does not mention this anywhere, though it would have severely affected this already tricky situation. He did tell a lot about the distrust between Varus and the jewish people, so why would he leave that essential fact away?
3. Herod was in Augustus' good grace, and Varus was a friend of him. Varus was not distrusted at that point by Augustus.
4. The census of 6 AD got a lot of attention from Josephus, as it brought a lot of turmoil to Judea. Why wasn't Luke clearer when referring to the census, if he really meant an earlier, obscure census? Why didn't he mention Herod in his entire gospel?
5. The Homonadensian revolt was squelched by Cyrenius during the time he supposedly would have held the census.
6. This explanation (Cyrenius being governor prior to 6 AD) isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and neither in any historical document. The only reason people believe it is because it is necessary to believe it in order to believe in an infallible bible, not because there is any evidence, biblical or non-biblical.

Come on, Levi, you can do better. I know I already outwitted you at sunday school when I was thirteen, but this effort on your part was pitiable.

Which could still mean he was governer since Quirinius was governer in 6 and acording to josephus herod died towards the end of 4 bc there is still a 2 year gap of possibility. Of course if the dates for Quirinius being in galatia at the time are right then the point is proven. Then again josephus might of just gotten his dates wrong too you never can be sure with ancient sources.

1. the 6 applies to AD, while the 4 applies to BC, which means there is a ten year gap.
2. Josephus was not aware of the Anno Domini dating system, which was created in the sixth century. The dates given to the events result from calculations backwards in time, but the years between certain events are counted sometimes by Josephus, which is why we place events at a certain time interval apart, like the death of Herod and the accession of Cyrenius as governor of Syria.
3. About Josephus getting his sources wrong; only the non-existence of Archelaus could make the kingship of Herod and the governorship of Cyrenius happen at the same time. As Archelaus' existence is confirmed by the bible, this argument solves one error in the bible by creating another.

[lupis78]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

oh i did don't worry.

[Felicity]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

@lupis78 Please do not forget to make a thread of your own in the introductions section of the forum!

[lupis78]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

Well, the exact BC or AD dates don't matter very much, as Josephus was clear about the fact that that 9-10 years passed as Archelaus reigned, which was the period between the end of Herod's reign and the start of Cyrenius' reign.

As I've shown, Josephus confirms that Varus was the last governor of Syria during Herod's reign, and Saturninus the one before Varus, and both reigned several years, so Cyrenius couldn't have been governor if Jesus was born during the end of Herod's reign (according to Matthew 2:21, Jesus was still very young when they returned to Galilee).

Which could still mean he was governer since Quirinius was governer in 6 and acording to josephus herod died towards the end of 4 bc there is still a 2 year gap of possibility. Of course if the dates for Quirinius being in galatia at the time are right then the point is proven. Then again josephus might of just gotten his dates wrong too you never can be sure with ancient sources.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

This does an excellent job of breaking apart your misunderstanding of the scriptures.

[Miss Cassandra]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

The death of herod is in debate from anywhere from 8 bc to 1 bc. We don't know who was governor of syria from 4 to 1 bc so a theory has been pushed out that he was governer there on 2 occasions. The theory itself is thin but it is a theory none the less.

Well, the exact BC or AD dates don't matter very much, as Josephus was clear about the fact that that 9-10 years passed as Archelaus reigned, which was the period between the end of Herod's reign and the start of Cyrenius' reign.

As I've shown, Josephus confirms that Varus was the last governor of Syria during Herod's reign, and Saturninus the one before Varus, and both reigned several years, so Cyrenius couldn't have been governor if Jesus was born during the end of Herod's reign (according to Matthew 2:21, Jesus was still very young when they returned to Galilee).

[Felicity]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

@lupis78 Welcome! I hope we can be friends!

It would be great if you could make a thread of your own in the introductions section of the forum! That way everyone here can meet you and see how much you love Jesus!

Since you are new here please look at our please read this before posting and our your rights on this forum threads! There you can learn that this forum is not about debating or unsaved opinions but about praising Jesus!

[lupis78]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

He was conducting wars in galatia and cilicia at that time frame.

[lupis78]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

The death of herod is in debate from anywhere from 8 bc to 1 bc. We don't know who was governor of syria from 4 to 1 bc so a theory has been pushed out that he was governer there on 2 occasions. The theory itself is thin but it is a theory none the less.

[Miss Cassandra]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

Yes, let's read Josephus again. This is the quote you gave us:

But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar,... ...And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him. (Antiquities, 17, 13, 2)

You employ Josephus to prove that Archelaus reigned for 10 years. And Josephus even adds that the ethnarch had a dream about corn and oxen, where each ear of corn corresponds to a year -- just like Pharaoh's dream in Genesis 41. Ten years and ten ears of corn.

Now, before Archelaus was gone up to Rome upon this message, he related this dream to his friends: That he saw ears of corn, in number ten, full of wheat, perfectly ripe, which ears, as it seemed to him, were devoured by oxen. [...] the ears of corn being ten, determined the like number of years, because an ear of corn grows in one year; (Antiquities, 17, 13, 3)

Ten years and ten ears of corn. What evidence could be more solid than this?

Unfortunately for God mockers like you, Josephus told the same story once more. And this time he altered the facts ever so slightly:

And now Archelaus took possession of his ethnarchy, and used not the Jews only, but the Samaritans also, barbarously; and this out of his resentment of their old quarrels with him. Whereupon they both of them sent ambassadors against him to Caesar; and in the ninth year of his government he was banished to Vienna, a city of Gaul, and his effects were put into Caesar's treasury.

But the report goes, that before he was sent for by Caesar, he seemed to see nine ears of corn, full and large, but devoured by oxen. [...] one of the sect of Essens, said that he thought the ears of corn denoted years, [...] That therefore he should reign as many years as there were ears of corn; (War 2,7,3)

Not only does Josephus change history, but he's even able to update the dreams of a long dead ruler. It should be as plain as the hooked nose in his face, that you can't trust these pushy Jewish storytellers, who will say anything for a few shiny shekels.

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Titus 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

So, in effect your argument boils down to: "Josephus changes the number of corn and oxen and years Archelaus reigned (from 10 to 9) in his later work, therefore he can't be trusted. Additionally, he's a jew." There are numerous problems with this argumentation:

1. It is very well possible that Josephus changed this minimal and insignificant detail after hearing and reading additional sources about this time, correcting minimal inconsistencies, and rounding down to 9 the duration of his reign, which likely was between 9 and 10 years.
You'll notice that in both works of Josephus there is a large temporal gap between the death of Herod and the start of the reign of Cyrenius as legate of Syria.

2. To make the gospels fit one another, the number of years of Archelaus' reign should not be changed from 10 to 9, but from 10 to 0. According to the gospels, Josephus should have written it as follows:

Now, before Archelaus was gone up to Rome upon this message, he related this dream to his friends: That he saw ears of corn, in number none, full of wheat, perfectly ripe, which ears, as it seemed to him, were devoured by oxen. [...] the ears of corn being zero, determined the like number of years, because an ear of corn grows in one year;

Which would make no sense.

This is because Archelaus didn't reign until after Herod died, and his reign ended when Cyrenius came to power, so to make the gospels fit with one another, Archelaus shouldn't even exist. However, Matthew recognizes his existence:

Matthew 2:22: But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee

So Matthew unambiguously places Jesus' birth during Herod's reign, before Archelaus' reign, and therefore also before Cyrenius' reign.

3. You say that "jewish storytellers" shouldn't be trusted, quoting Titus to prove your point. However, according to christians, Titus is written by Paul. What was Paul's ethnicity again?

Oh yes, of course, a jew.

And what did he do?

He went around Greek cities and told stories.

So why don't you apply Titus 1:13-14 to Paul then? That one suddenly becomes a rather self-defeating argument.

4. Josephus believed Jesus was the christ, according to your ally WWJDnow. What would then be his motive to falsify history to disprove christianity? That doesn't make sense.

Look at it like this:

If he hadn't read both gospels, he wouldn't know what parts of history to falsify to either prove or disprove the gospels, so he couldn't have done so.

If he had read both gospels, he certainly would have falsified history to make them fit together, if he wanted to falsify history to prove his worldviews.

Either way, there is no way in which Josephus would have changed historical fact to make Luke and Matthew conflict with one another.

5. If Luke and Matthew were both correct, then the Romans would have taken a census in Judea at the time when they were a client kingdom under Herod. That doesn't make sense at all, as the already impopular Romans would have made themselves even more hated among the jews. The Romans never did this in their entire history. Would they have done something that unusual, completely unnoticed by Josephus, even though Josephus notes that the census of 6 AD by Cyrenius infuriated the jews?

I think that Christian logic is to logic what creation science is to science.

[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

He was not. Publius Quinctilius Varus was. Let's read Josephus again, first about the death of Herod:

Yes, let's read Josephus again. This is the quote you gave us:

But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar,... ...And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him. (Antiquities, 17, 13, 2)

You employ Josephus to prove that Archelaus reigned for 10 years. And Josephus even adds that the ethnarch had a dream about corn and oxen, where each ear of corn corresponds to a year -- just like Pharaoh's dream in Genesis 41. Ten years and ten ears of corn.

Now, before Archelaus was gone up to Rome upon this message, he related this dream to his friends: That he saw ears of corn, in number ten, full of wheat, perfectly ripe, which ears, as it seemed to him, were devoured by oxen. [...] the ears of corn being ten, determined the like number of years, because an ear of corn grows in one year; (Antiquities, 17, 13, 3)

Ten years and ten ears of corn. What evidence could be more solid than this?

Unfortunately for God mockers like you, Josephus told the same story once more. And this time he altered the facts ever so slightly:

And now Archelaus took possession of his ethnarchy, and used not the Jews only, but the Samaritans also, barbarously; and this out of his resentment of their old quarrels with him. Whereupon they both of them sent ambassadors against him to Caesar; and in the ninth year of his government he was banished to Vienna, a city of Gaul, and his effects were put into Caesar's treasury.

But the report goes, that before he was sent for by Caesar, he seemed to see nine ears of corn, full and large, but devoured by oxen. [...] one of the sect of Essens, said that he thought the ears of corn denoted years, [...] That therefore he should reign as many years as there were ears of corn; (War 2,7,3)

Not only does Josephus change history, but he's even able to update the dreams of a long dead ruler. It should be as plain as the hooked nose in his face, that you can't trust these pushy Jewish storytellers, who will say anything for a few shiny shekels.

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Titus 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

[Miss Cassandra]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

So, again I ask you, where is your proof that Cyrenius was not the governor of Syria in 4 BC? If you can't prove that, then you have failed to prove the Bible to be inconsistent.

He was not. Publius Quinctilius Varus was. Let's read Josephus again, first about the death of Herod:

But as they were come to Cesarea, Sabinus, the procurator of Syria, met them; he was going up to Judea, to secure Herod's effects; but Varus, [president of Syria,] who was come thither, restrained him from going any farther.
- Flavius Josephus, War of the Jews, Book II, Chapter 2, paragraph 2

We can see that, after Herod's death, Publius Quinctilius Varus was president of Syria. However, Varus also was president of Syria in the account of the execution of Antipater, Herod's firstborn son whom Herod had executed, a year before Herod's Death:

Now Quintilius Varus was at this time at Jerusalem, being sent to succeed Saturninus as president of Syria, and was come as an assessor to Herod, who had desired his advice in his present affairs; and as they were sitting together, Antipater came upon them, without knowing any thing of the matter; so he came into the palace clothed in purple.
- Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, Chapter 5, paragraph 2

So in 4 BC, we can be certain that Cyrenius was not governor of Syria. Also, before Varus, Saturninus was president in Syria, not Cyrenius. We can find the name Saturninus again when be go back further in time, to Herod accusing two other sons of him of plotting to overthrow him, in 8 BC. We read:

SO Caesar was now reconciled to Herod, and wrote thus to him: That he was grieved for him on account of his sons; and that in case they had been guilty of any profane and insolent crimes against him, it would behoove him to punish them as parricides, for which he gave him power accordingly; but if they had only contrived to fly away, he would have him give them an admonition, and not proceed to extremity with them. He also advised him to get an assembly together, and to appoint some place near Berytus, which is a city belonging to the Romans, and to take the presidents of Syria, and Archelaus king of Cappadocia, and as many more as he thought to be illustrious for their friendship to him, and the dignities they were in, and determine what should be done by their approbation.
- Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVI, Chapter 11, paragraph 1

The "presidents of Syria." Who were they? Reading a little back, we find the answer:

Sylleus, who had laid Obodas aside, and managed all by himself, denied that the robbers were in Arabia, and put off the payment of the money; about which there was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, who were then the presidents of Syria.
- Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVI, Chapter 11, paragraph 1

So, Saturninus was already president of Syria in 8 BC. We can rule out the possibility of Cyrenius reigning in Syria anywhere near the time Herod was king.

Does this mean you're not a christian anymore?

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

You God-mockers love to twist Scripture to make it sound internally inconsistent. However, if your "interpretation" of God's Word makes it out to be wrong, then it's your "interpretation" that's wrong. The Bible tells us about people like you:

1 Cor. 2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Biblical infallibility REFUTED: Luke contradicts Matthew!

Well, you can read it above.

I did, but it didn't contain any scripture so I do not see how it proves anything?