FINALLY! The correct answer has been posted...

[Mental flatliner]

A contradiction looks like this:
--Matthew said Jesus was a Jew born in Bethlehem
--Luke said Jesus was a Parthian born in Nimrud

Here's one for you" Matthew says Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the great. Luke says Jesus was born ten years after Herod died.

By the way, the Gospel of John acknowledges it as a problem that Jesus was perceived as NOT having been born in Bethlehem. John does not try to correct this as a misperception, but tries to explain it away as unimportant. This shows that the author(s) of John had no awareness of a Bethlehem nativity tradition even as late as 100 CE.

I'll give you guys a crack at this first to see if you can find the problem with Diogenese' claim. It's rather humorous, actually. Well, to me.

(I'll give you the correct answer in awhile, although I wish someone would pick a challenging one.)

[Stephan Huller]

The only reason you 'like' this contradiction is because you think you can use it to win an argument. But the point shouldn't be to demand that people change your mind when you know in advance you aren't listening to what they are saying. It might be more productive to seek out friends or join Meet Up http://www.meetup.com/.

[hjalti]

There is no problem with Diogenes' claim. Luke places Jesus' birth ~10 years after the death of Herod the great.

[Mental flatliner]

The only reason you 'like' this contradiction is because you think you can use it to win an argument. But the point shouldn't be to demand that people change your mind when you know in advance you aren't listening to what they are saying. It might be more productive to seek out friends or join Meet Up http://www.meetup.com/.

You're partly right.

I enjoy making a public spectacle of people who have the audacity to lie about anything, especially when the dishonesty is used to try to defame the beliefs of others.

This is the kind of open bigotry that, in any other nation than the US, might lead to widespread religious oppression.

[Mental flatliner]

Here's one for you" Matthew says Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the great. Luke says Jesus was born ten years after Herod died.

I'll give you the humorous part first. Diogenes, don't take this the wrong way. Idiotic claims always lead to this kind of error in judgment. You would have caught it if you were a reader of Luke:

Luke 1:5-24 claims that Elizabeth became pregnant with John "in the days of Herod the great".
Luke 1:26 and 36 claim that Mary became pregnant six months later.

Herod the Great died in 4 BC, and according to Diogenes, Mary carried that baby for at least 9 years before giving birth "ten years" later.

**************
Here are some other ways of showing that Luke placed Jesus' birth at or near 4 BC:

Luke 3:1 dates John's ministry in the 15th of Tiberius (27 AD) when Jesus was "about 30 years old" (Luke 3:23) in agreement with John 2.

Luke 2:1 dates Jesus' birth to "the first enrollment", implying there was more than one.
Josephus mentions two in both "Antiquities" and "Wars".
Luke clarifies that he refers to that of 4 BC in Acts 5:37 with reference to the rebellion of Judas of Galilee "in the days of the census".
(For the rebellion of Judas in the year of Herod's death, see "Antiquities" XVII-10-5 and "Wars" II-4-1.)

**************
I really hope that the basis for this date of "ten years later" is based on more than confusion over Quirinius. That's a really weak case to try to make.

[hjalti]

I really hope that the basis for this date of "ten years later" is based on more than confusion over Quirinius. That's a really weak case to try to make.

Why is that a weak case to make?

[TedM]

Well, now at least you are interacting with actual gospel quotes. Maybe you do know more than what you have demostrated. Or you are working out of the apologist handbook..

Anyway, I think you have given some good quotes that show Luke thought Jesus was born around 4 BC, and therefore he thought the census occurred around 4BC under Herod. So, that's the question then. Was there a census under Quirinius around 4BC that required people return to their
own city' which seems to be related to the tribe they belong to, to register for the census? Are we to read this to mean that all citizens mass migrated to one of 12 cities for this registration? I don't understand the logistics for such an approach. How would the Romans know if someone who was supposed to migrate didn't do so? Surely the people weren't on a honor system. I don't see how it would work in a practical sense. It might have simplified things for the Roman govt since there were only 12 places involved, but I just don't see how it makes any sense for counting people.

I will say that Luke certainly could have just said they took a trip to visit some family in Bethlehem, so this census was not required to get them there...and one would think that Luke wouldn't make up something that everybody knew was a complete fabrication. So I'm curious as to the evidence for the JOURNEY aspect of the census. Is there any? I know Case for Christ mentions an Egyptian census document that requires that people 'return to their own homes' if they are outside the Province but that sounds to me more like someone TRAVELING but not LIVING outside of their province...its not clear enough.

I'll share too that last night I checked out the Tekton explanation for harmonizing the 2 birth accounts. As usual, Mr Holding is quite inventive, suggesting that the magi were the source for Matthew and that their visit was actually some time after the actual birth, and that Luke withheld certain information out of sensitivity to his Roman readership. Interesting, probably major stretch, but I am giving it a fair shake and will think about it some more.

Here's one for you" Matthew says Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the great. Luke says Jesus was born ten years after Herod died.

I'll give you the humorous part first. Diogenes, don't take this the wrong way. Idiotic claims always lead to this kind of error in judgment. You would have caught it if you were a reader of Luke:

Luke 1:5-24 claims that Elizabeth became pregnant with John "in the days of Herod the great".
Luke 1:26 and 36 claim that Mary became pregnant six months later.

Herod the Great died in 4 BC, and according to Diogenes, Mary carried that baby for at least 9 years before giving birth "ten years" later.

**************
Here are some other ways of showing that Luke placed Jesus' birth at or near 4 BC:

Luke 3:1 dates John's ministry in the 15th of Tiberius (27 AD) when Jesus was "about 30 years old" (Luke 3:23) in agreement with John 2.

Luke 2:1 dates Jesus' birth to "the first enrollment", implying there was more than one.
Josephus mentions two in both "Antiquities" and "Wars".
Luke clarifies that he refers to that of 4 BC in Acts 5:37 with reference to the rebellion of Judas of Galilee "in the days of the census".
(For the rebellion of Judas in the year of Herod's death, see "Antiquities" XVII-10-5 and "Wars" II-4-1.)

**************
I really hope that the basis for this date of "ten years later" is based on more than confusion over Quirinius. That's a really weak case to try to make.

[Mental flatliner]

I really hope that the basis for this date of "ten years later" is based on more than confusion over Quirinius. That's a really weak case to try to make.

Why is that a weak case to make?

Every time I've seen the case made, it was nothing but an attempt to force a change of spelling into Luke's text. This is too arbitrary to be convincing.

[Mental flatliner]

Was there a census under Quirinius around 4BC that required people return to their own city' which seems to be related to the tribe they belong to, to register for the census?

So I'm curious as to the evidence for the JOURNEY aspect of the census. Is there any? I know Case for Christ mentions an Egyptian census document that requires that people 'return to their own homes' if they are outside the Province but that sounds to me more like someone TRAVELING but not LIVING outside of their province...its not clear enough.

For the first question, I gave you four historical sources that give evidence of a census, taxation and anti-taxation rebellion by the Zealots in 4 BC and again in 6 AD. I don't understand the motivation for asking if there is evidence?

The gospels state a journey happened, and Matthew and Luke agree on this. Luke tells the point of origin, destination and return, Matthew gives the destination and the return. Since Nazareth and Bethlehem are only separated by about 55 miles, I don't see the problem, and since the gospels are not in disagreement, nor are they in disagreement with Josephus, you have what appears to be a reliable composite picture of that year.

This other source you mentioned is not a primary, therefore I would hessitate to use it. If there is any evidence of embellishment, I'd toss it. Most books written on Bible topics have a bias or a modern day issue they're attempting to resolve, and this will distort the conclusions. I accept nothing but a clear, unembellished reading of history.

Historians often allow themselves to speculate a limit of one step away from the known facts, and I usually avoid that as well. The facts themselves are usually sufficient.

[stevencarrwork]

Luke 3:1 dates John's ministry in the 15th of Tiberius (27 AD) when Jesus was "about 30 years old" (Luke 3:23) in agreement with John 2.

'About 30'? Didn't he know how old Jesus was?

And, of course, Luke 3:23 does not refer back to 3:1, despite your claim of 'when'....

Luke doesn't say how long John had been ministrating when Jesus was 30 years old. You just made up the claim that the two began simultaneously.