Gospel of Matthew and Luke contradiction

A question for our Christian posters. I'm interested to read how Christians on this board reconcile the contradiction regarding the birth of Jesus in the Bible. By that i mean this -

The Gospel of Matthew places the story of Jesus birth within the lifetime of Herod the Great, the 'massacre of the innocents' for instance. Herod died in 4BC, so Jesus, according to the Gospel of Matthew, had to be born at the latest in 4BC. The Gospel of Luke places Jesus birth at the time of a census, the reason why Mary and Joseph who were from Galilea ended up in Bethlehem. The only known census at that time was the 'Census of Quirinius' which was carried out in 6AD, ten years after the death of Herod the Great. There's the contradiction.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
A question for our Christian posters. I'm interested to read how Christians on this board reconcile the contradiction regarding the birth of Jesus in the Bible. By that i mean this -

The Gospel of Matthew places the story of Jesus birth within the lifetime of Herod the Great, the 'massacre of the innocents' for instance. Herod died in 4BC, so Jesus, ...[text shortened]... ut in 6AD, ten years after the death of Herod the Great. There's the contradiction.

i think you and i have been through that!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i think you and i have been through that!

Ah yes, the rather spurious Tiburtine inscription. Even if you take that to be true, the Romans wouldn't have been carrying out a census in Judea under the rule of Herod the Great, the whole point of the Census of Quirinius was because the Romans had booted out Herod Archelaus and placed Syria and Judea under direct Roman rule. It also doesn't explain the rather bizarre notion that the Romans would require people to travel to their 'ancestral' home as the Gospel of Luke claims.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
A question for our Christian posters. I'm interested to read how Christians on this board reconcile the contradiction regarding the birth of Jesus in the Bible. By that i mean this -

The Gospel of Matthew places the story of Jesus birth within the lifetime of Herod the Great, the 'massacre of the innocents' for instance. Herod died in 4BC, so Jesus, ut in 6AD, ten years after the death of Herod the Great. There's the contradiction.

The Romans governed the Orient by a generalissimo and provincial governers. The first
generalissimo or vice-emperor was Cn. Pompeius Magnus, the second was Mark Antony, the
third was Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, and the fourth was P.Sulpicius Quirinius. Quirinius
became consul on January 1, 12 B.C. and was released from his duties as consul on August
1, 12 B.C. Agrippa died on March 12, 12 B.C. There seems to be no record of anyone
appointed as generalissimo to replace Agrippa immediately after his death. But it is
apparent that Quirinius was in charge of all campaigns and other affairs in the East
during the following years, so it seems logical to conclude that he replaced Agrippa
as vice-emperor of the Orient. It appears that in Syria he governed alone as did
Agrippa before him, and sometimes with the aid of an imperial provincial governor.
From 10-9 B.C., it is know to be M. Titius; from 9-6 B.C., it was G. Sentius Saturnius,
and from 6-3 B.C., it was P. Quintilius Varus. Varus may have been governor a little
longer; but according to Josephus, Varus was still in office after a passover that the
translator William Whiston dates as 3 B.C. in his footnotes. According to Josephus,
Herod died after an eclipse of the moon that occurred the night after a fast of the
Jews. Whiston says this eclipse has been calculated by the rules of astronomy to have
happened on March 13th in the year of the Julian period 4710, which is believed to be
4 B.C. The fast mentioned is probably Purim which would have been just before that
time in 4 B.C.

It is not likely that Quirinius would have conducted a census in Judea before 6 B.C.
because he was very busy conducting the Homanadensian War up to that time. It was in
6 B.C. that the net of Roman roads were laid out in Galatia. So this appears to be the
earliest date that Quirinius would be free to enforce a census upon Judea. As you say
there is only one census known to be conducted in Judea when Quirinius was governor and
that could not possibly be the one Luke is referring to when he says the first census.

Augustus is known to have taken a census of Roman citizens at least three times, in 28
and 8 B.C. and 14 A.D. There is also evidence that censuses were taken at regular
intervals during his reign in the provinces of Egypt and Sicily, important because of
their wealthy estates and supply of grain. In the provinces, the main goals of a census
of non-citizens were taxation and military service. The earliest such provincial census
was taken in Gaul in 27 B.C.

So I can only speculate that after Augustus ordered the census in 8 B.C. of Roman
citizens, that non-citizens were also ordered to be counted in other areas, such as
Judea. Quirinius got around to it about 6 B.C. which would be before King Herod died.
This was probably his first census referred to by Luke. I have found no information
that would account for them to be required to go to their place of birth other than
what is written in the Holy Bible. However, I have no reason not to believe it since
all details of any of the censuses taken are not known.

Below is another idea in an attempt to explain it, which I found on the web.
You might want to google it and maybe you will find someone that can give you an answer.

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/census.html

I found the following statement in the wiki article "Census of Quirinius"

It may have been in response to this problem that Tertullian, writing around 200, stated that the census had been taken by Gaius Sentius Saturninus (legate of Syria, 9 - 6 BC) rather than Quirinius.

I had mentioned him earlier as an imperial provincial governor under Quirinius.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
A question for our Christian posters. I'm interested to read how Christians on this board reconcile the contradiction regarding the birth of Jesus in the Bible. By that i mean this -

The Gospel of Matthew places the story of Jesus birth within the lifetime of Herod the Great, the 'massacre of the innocents' for instance. Herod died in 4BC, so Jesus, ut in 6AD, ten years after the death of Herod the Great. There's the contradiction.

Two different people two different minds to write about Jesus.

For example if you asked me where i ate, i would say Taco Bell and if you asked my mom she would say a mexican pizza at taco Bell.

Interesting article on the difficulty of determining the real birthplace and birthyear of Jesus:

http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/nativity-02.asp

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Interesting article on the difficulty of determining the real birthplace and birthyear of Jesus:

http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/nativity-02.asp

I will give you knowledge very few people know. You are not likely to believe
me anyway because I am considered a cheat and a liar by many here. But if
it will clear your mind, believe me. Yahshua was born in Bethlehem near
Jerusalem, Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem

According to our calendar, Yahshua was born on Thursday night, 20 April 5 B.C.
He died bodily on Wednesday, 25 April 31 A.D. at the age of 35.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I will give you knowledge very few people know. You are not likely to believe
me anyway because I am considered a cheat and a liar by many here. But if
it will clear your mind, believe me. Yahshua was born in Bethlehem near
Jerusalem, Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem

According to our calendar, Yahshua was born on Thursday night, 20 April 5 B.C.
He died bodily on Wednesday, 25 April 31 A.D. at the age of 35.

I read the bit on the birthplace of Jesus, and I thought they presented some good reasons for not affirming that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The two gospels seem like they made up their own stories of the Bethlehem birth to tie it to OT prophecy and validate Jesus as the Messiah.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I read the bit on the birthplace of Jesus, and I thought they presented some good reasons for not affirming that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The two gospels seem like they made up their own stories of the Bethlehem birth to tie it to OT prophecy and validate Jesus as the Messiah.

They may seem to have good reasons. But they are wrong and I am right.
Believe it or not.

The slaughter of the innocents had to occur 0-2 years aprox after the birth of Christ only because the Magi came because they saw "The Star" and came to Jerusalem asking where is the child born king of the Jews? Herod ordered 2 and under males killed. 4-7B.C. approx for the birth of Christ. So we can safely say that the Magi came about 2 years after the birth. When did Herod die?



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
The slaughter of the innocents had to occur 0-2 years aprox after the birth of Christ only because the Magi came because they saw "The Star" and came to Jerusalem asking where is the child born king of the Jews? Herod ordered 2 and under males killed. 4-7B.C. approx for the birth of Christ. So we can safely say that the Magi came about 2 years after the birth. When did Herod die?



Manny

You don't need to approximate the birth of Christ because I tell you the truth.
Christ was born on Thursday night, 20 April 5 B.C.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Two different people two different minds to write about Jesus.

For example if you asked me where i ate, i would say Taco Bell and if you asked my mom she would say a mexican pizza at taco Bell.

How is your answer, in any way shape or form, relevant to the points i raised in the OP?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Romans governed the Orient by a generalissimo and provincial governers. The first
generalissimo or vice-emperor was Cn. Pompeius Magnus, the second was Mark Antony, the
third was Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, and the fourth was P.Sulpicius Quirinius. Quirinius
became consul on January 1, 12 B.C. and was released from his duties as consul on August
1, 12 ...[text shortened]... Quirinius.

I had mentioned him earlier as an imperial provincial governor under Quirinius.

10/10 for effort on that one Ron, i'm a little taken aback to be honest.

Interesting turn off phrase here -

So I can only speculate that.........

Speculate? Is that not another word for assume? We all know what you say about assuming something. So you're assuming, without a shred of evidence, that there was a census sometime in 6BC. The notion that the Romans ordered such a massive census on a people who weren't under direct Roman rule is puzzling enough, but couple that with the statement from Luke that people had to trouble to their ancestral homelands is nothing short of bonkers.

In short -

It is not plausible that the Romans conducted a census in the manner described by Luke. There would have been no reason for them to demand that the people being enumerated return to the towns of their ancestors rather than register in the towns in which they actually resided. There would have been no need to make a difficult situation worse. It was obviously unnecessary for people to have to travel to a place often hundreds of miles away which they probably had never seen before.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:the-roman-census-in-luke-actually-carried-out&catid=58:birth-of-jesus&Itemid=488

Originally posted by Proper Knob
10/10 for effort on that one Ron, i'm a little taken aback to be honest.

Interesting turn off phrase here -

So I can only speculate that.........

Speculate? Is that not another word for assume? We all know what you say about assuming something. So you're assuming, without a shred of evidence, that there was a censu rticle&id=70:the-roman-census-in-luke-actually-carried-out&catid=58:birth-of-jesus&Itemid=488

There have been far more intelligent people than you who have doubted the
accuracy of Luke. But in every case, eventually, he was proven right. So I
will not make that same mistake by not believing him when he writes that he
has investigated everything carefully from the beginning.

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things
accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who
from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed
fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the
beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent
Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have
been taught."
(Luke 1:1-4 NASB)

P.S. I notice that you view any speculation I make as an assumption. However,
when scientist speculate and assume, it becomes fact. And you do not notice
the assumption that these "Jews for Judaism" make. They not only assume,
but they lie about what Luke wrote. Besides, I have not speculated on
anything of importance.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There have been far more intelligent people than you who have doubted the
accuracy of Luke. But in every case, eventually, he was proven right. So I
will not make that same mistake by not believing him when he writes that he
has investigated everything carefully from the beginning.

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things ...[text shortened]... that you may know the exact truth about the things you have
been taught."
(Luke 1:1-4 NASB)

So in answer to the poser i raised in my OP, how do you reconcile the discrepancies between the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, answer - denial.