Inaccuracies?

[UsagiTsukino]

1. Story of the Slaughter of Innocents - Supposedly, Herod the Great heard about the newborn Jesus and sent his army out to kill all the children in the land, assuming Jesus would be among them, but the family got a divine warning and left the area. A miracle that Jesus survived, although every other child was slaughtered. Some miracle, right. Anyway, it gives us a date to work with. Herod died in 4 BCE, so the birth of Jesus was before that.

2. Census story - When Mary was near due, Joseph and Mary had to travel to Jerusalem al Judea for the census. This was big, because prophecy said that the Messiah would be born in Judea, and this move for the census seemed to answer the prophecy. The NT mentions the name of the Governor who ordered the census - Quirinius - and this gives us another date. Quirinius was made Governor in 6AD, so the census, and the birth, must be after that. Analysis: How can a child born after 6 AD be pursued by a jealous king who died more than 10 years earlier? Chronologically speaking, both cannot be true, so one of them must be false.

3. Jesus ministry - NT says that Jesus was at least 30 when he began his ministry, and ministered @ 2 years before his death, making him at least 32 when he died.

4. Crucifixion - NT claims that the crucifixion was ordered by Governor Pontius Pilate. Pontius left office in 36 AD. Analysis of 2,3,&4: If Jesus was born after 6 AD (census) and died before 36 AD (Pontius left office), then he could not have been AT LEAST 32 when he died, and that is assuming that Quirinius ordered and completed the census on his first day as governor (impossible) and Pontius held the execution on his last day in office (highly unlikely). Add to that, biblical scholars, using New Testament references, determined that the crucifixion was April of 30 AD, making Jesus age at time of death to be less than 24 (more likely 22 or 23), not greater than 32, as the NT claims. One or all of those stories must be false, because it is chronologically impossible for them to all be true. The main reason that Christians don't spot these obvious flaws is that they don't examine these stories as a chronological whole. Trying to create a timeline of biblical stories is impossible, because so many of them are clearly conflicting, timewise, and therefore chronologically impossible when taken together. There is more than one account in the NT of Jesus last words as he died on the cross, and they aren't even remotely close. Only one account of the last words could be true, because last words are a one time deal. The rest must be false. I could go on, but you get the point, right?

What do you guys think about these historical inaccuracies?

[Philip]

Jesus was probably born somewhere between 6 and 4 BC.

https://www.gotquestions.org/what-year- ... -born.html

[DBowling]

1. Story of the Slaughter of Innocents - Supposedly, Herod the Great heard about the newborn Jesus and sent his army out to kill all the children in the land, assuming Jesus would be among them, but the family got a divine warning and left the area. A miracle that Jesus survived, although every other child was slaughtered. Some miracle, right. Anyway, it gives us a date to work with. Herod died in 4 BCE, so the birth of Jesus was before that.

Correct... the scholarly consensus is that Jesus was born between 6 BC and 4 BC.
No problem here.

2. Census story - When Mary was near due, Joseph and Mary had to travel to Jerusalem al Judea for the census. This was big, because prophecy said that the Messiah would be born in Judea, and this move for the census seemed to answer the prophecy. The NT mentions the name of the Governor who ordered the census - Quirinius - and this gives us another date. Quirinius was made Governor in 6AD, so the census, and the birth, must be after that. Analysis: How can a child born after 6 AD be pursued by a jealous king who died more than 10 years earlier? Chronologically speaking, both cannot be true, so one of them must be false.

The issue of Quirinius is actually a legitimate historical question.
We have a statement from Luke that appears to be inconsistent with a statement from Josephus.
Who's right?
Who's wrong?
Or are they both right?
Here's a good discussion of the Quirinius issue:
https://carm.org/was-luke-wrong-about-t ... -quirinius

3. Jesus ministry - NT says that Jesus was at least 30 when he began his ministry, and ministered @ 2 years before his death, making him at least 32 when he died.

Close...
Luke 3:23 tells us that Jesus was "about" 30 years old when he began his ministry.
The scholarly consensus is that Jesus' ministry lasted for 3 years, so Jesus was most likely crucified when he was around 33 years old.

4. Crucifixion - NT claims that the crucifixion was ordered by Governor Pontius Pilate. Pontius left office in 36 AD. Analysis of 2,3,&4: If Jesus was born after 6 AD (census) and died before 36 AD (Pontius left office), then he could not have been AT LEAST 32 when he died, and that is assuming that Quirinius ordered and completed the census on his first day as governor (impossible) and Pontius held the execution on his last day in office (highly unlikely). Add to that, biblical scholars, using New Testament references, determined that the crucifixion was April of 30 AD, making Jesus age at time of death to be less than 24 (more likely 22 or 23), not greater than 32, as the NT claims. One or all of those stories must be false, because it is chronologically impossible for them to all be true.

The error in your analysis above is that Jesus was born after 6 AD.
As noted under #1, the scholarly consensus is that Jesus was born somewhere between 6 BC and 4 BC, which fits in just fine with Luke's statement in Luke 3:23 and when Pilate left office.

The main reason that Christians don't spot these obvious flaws is that they don't examine these stories as a chronological whole.

That is not accurate.
Christians have been examining the Gospel stories as a chronological whole since before Taitian published his Diatessaron around 160 AD.

Trying to create a timeline of biblical stories is impossible, because so many of them are clearly conflicting, timewise, and therefore chronologically impossible when taken together. There is more than one account in the NT of Jesus last words as he died on the cross, and they aren't even remotely close. Only one account of the last words could be true, because last words are a one time deal.

There is nothing at all contradictory about the different accounts of the words Jesus spoke during the crucifixion.
Different Gospel writers simply record different things that Jesus said while he was being crucified.
Luke 23:46 records the last words Jesus spoke before he died.

What do you guys think about these historical inaccuracies?

You are factually inaccurate in many of your alleged inaccuracies above.

However, you do bring up a legitimate historical question regarding the relationship between the census at the time of the birth of Jesus and when Quirinius was Governor of Syria.
But even there, the presumption that Luke is in error is just that... a presumption.

[Philip]

Usagi: "4. Crucifixion - NT claims that..." Etc.

Usagi, as a Christian, you need to understand that everything you know about God - at least as far as His Holy character, love, and unlimited power and abilities - comes from the Bible. So, you first appear to believe that God / Christ created all things and He has power over life and death - these are extraordinary, incredible things to believe - but faith in Christ and believing these are what all Christians do. So, as He exists as you appear to believe He does, then why do you doubt that the words He inspired His hand-picked prophets and Apostles to write down? Why do you appear to doubt a God who has the power to create a universe from nothing, who knows the future like it was moments ago, Who has forever known ALL things, Who spoke the universe into existence - why doubt that He could not inspire and control what was originally written down? Why doubt He doesn't also have the power to have protected His words to mankind in Scripture? Does that make any sense?

Jesus said all of the words of The Law and the Prophets are all about Him - that He came here to DIE to fulfill those words. Now, if the words of God are so important that Jesus (also fully God) found them so important that He was willing to suffer an unspeakably horrible torture and death on the Cross to fulfill His words to man - words that He confirmed were ALL God given, then don't you think He would find it important to PROTECT those words? Do you think He would allow His word to have been mixed up and blended with lies, myths and outright fabrications - would He allow that to happen to the very words He said He came to DIE for? Now, of course people have added myth and lies to Scripture IN OTHER BOOKS (The Quaran, Book of Mormon, etc.), but as for the Bible as originally inspired and written, scholars tell us that we can have a high degree of confidence that we still have today, except for some misspellings, tiny word order mistakes, minor copists' errors, etc., high confidence that the Bible as originally written down is what we still possess. And it's preservation shows God's miraculous protection of it!

So, either God's words in Scripture were important enough for Him to die for, and He either has the power to protect them, and He possesses the trustworthiness, righteousness and power to prevent lies and myth from being mixed in with it - or He does not. And if God did not protect His word - He would either have been unable to protect it OR He wouldn't have cared how it was distorted, changed or added to - again, things which are inconsistent with all with know about God and His Holy Character! And if we could not know what parts of the Bible were true, as opposed to parts that might have been myth, lies or distortions - HOW COULD WE KNOW WHICH PARTS ARE WHICH? How could we even know that Jesus Crucifixion occurred? How could we be sure that Jesus defeated death and came back alive in the same body? The reality is, everything Christian believe, they first learned about it from what the Bible tells us!

Do you believe 2 Timothy 3:16? https://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/2%20Tim%203.16

Read some of thse links:

https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/colum ... eve-bible/

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f8#p236230

[PaulSacramento]

However, you do bring up a legitimate historical question regarding the relationship between the census at the time of the birth of Jesus and when Quirinius was Governor of Syria.
But even there, the presumption that Luke is in error is just that... a presumption.

There is a valid argument for Quirinius being governor twice.


https://crossexamined.org/really-census ... -augustus/

[UsagiTsukino]

Okay sorry I didn't make this clear. This is copied from a person who told me this is what he found questioning Jesus's biblical history.

[Ged]

Bible chronology is one of my special interests. Here is my diagram summarizing the life of Jesus. Key event point to his death in AD 30 and his age at death to be about 33. Your reference to his age was when he started his ministry, not when he died.