Biblical Contradictions; a thing of graphical beauty.

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

What's with the red half circle?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

A Fundamentalist Athiest founded the group that did this, so I won't trust it. Besides, if you want to debunk the Bible, use the Greek/Hebrew versions, translate them for yourself, learn about life in the day, and of course use verses that actually exist. But Fundamentalist Athiests don't have time for that, they're too busy claiming the "horrors" of religion.

Exactly.

[afleitch]

A Fundamentalist Athiest founded the group that did this, so I won't trust it. Besides, if you want to debunk the Bible, use the Greek/Hebrew versions, translate them for yourself, learn about life in the day, and of course use verses that actually exist. But Fundamentalist Athiests don't have time for that, they're too busy claiming the "horrors" of religion.

Exactly.

Are you going to answer Dibble's question?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

A Fundamentalist Athiest founded the group that did this, so I won't trust it. Besides, if you want to debunk the Bible, use the Greek/Hebrew versions, translate them for yourself, learn about life in the day, and of course use verses that actually exist. But Fundamentalist Athiests don't have time for that, they're too busy claiming the "horrors" of religion.

Exactly.

Are you going to answer Dibble's question?

Which one?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There's no archeological evidence for really anything at all in the Old Testament (and in many cases not the New Testament), to include even the Exodus, which obviously was a major, major ordeal. It's a little like the King Arthur business. If not made up all together like James Bond, Arthur was either a 1) Welsh god who became part of history or 2) a military leader who helped the Britons momentarily fight back the Saxons. It's possible that both of these scenarios combined, because Arthur would have been an ordinary person whose accomplishments got blown way out of proportion in the ensuing centuries. Then he became associated with magic and acts of God and the grail and all that.

Same with the Old Testament. Example, the flood, if it happened, was likely a local flood from the early days of shipbuilding. "The Exodus" could most certainly have been someone leading a group of nomads across the desert. Ordinary things that took on a life of their own in later times and became the stuff of legend. That's if they weren't made up altogether. Humans love storytelling. Always have, always will.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

goodness - that's a strong claim.  Do you consider ancient inscriptions from the surrounding cultures that corroborate events in the Bible to be archaeological evidence?  Because you have that going back at least to the 9th cent BC (ex. Mesha Stele, Obelisk of Shalmenesser).

[DemPGH]

There's no archeological evidence for really anything at all in the Old Testament (and in many cases not the New Testament), to include even the Exodus, which obviously was a major, major ordeal. It's a little like the King Arthur business. If not made up all together like James Bond, Arthur was either a 1) Welsh god who became part of history or 2) a military leader who helped the Britons momentarily fight back the Saxons. It's possible that both of these scenarios combined, because Arthur would have been an ordinary person whose accomplishments got blown way out of proportion in the ensuing centuries. Then he became associated with magic and acts of God and the grail and all that.

Same with the Old Testament. Example, the flood, if it happened, was likely a local flood from the early days of shipbuilding. "The Exodus" could most certainly have been someone leading a group of nomads across the desert. Ordinary things that took on a life of their own in later times and became the stuff of legend. That's if they weren't made up altogether. Humans love storytelling. Always have, always will.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

goodness - that's a strong claim.  Do you consider ancient inscriptions from the surrounding cultures that corroborate events in the Bible to be archaeological evidence?  Because you have that going back at least to the 9th cent BC (ex. Mesha Stele, Obelisk of Shalmenesser).

The Moabite Stone was a rare find, and appears to agree with a single account found in II Kings, I believe, and both of your examples have to do with offering tributes. That a certain place existed or that a tribe of people settled somewhere or subjugated another tribe are possible, but of course difficult, for archaeology to verify the further back you go. Neither example has anything to do with the flood, the Ark, the Exodus, Creation, Noah, Moses, etc.

That tribes subjugated other tribes is widely known and accepted, and since most of the Old Testament concerns nothing but tribes subjugating other tribes, that there is some parallel there is no surprise. 

[afleitch]

A Fundamentalist Athiest founded the group that did this, so I won't trust it. Besides, if you want to debunk the Bible, use the Greek/Hebrew versions, translate them for yourself, learn about life in the day, and of course use verses that actually exist. But Fundamentalist Athiests don't have time for that, they're too busy claiming the "horrors" of religion.

Exactly.

Are you going to answer Dibble's question?

Which one?

Don't be obtuse; this one.

[quote author=IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble link=topic=167026.msg3573021#msg3573021 Speaking of evidence, you claimed it exists and supports you on this - if you're going to ask me for my, where's yours?
[/quote]

[To The Cliffs!]

...if you want to debunk the Bible, use the Greek/Hebrew versions, translate them for yourself...

Instead of learning Greek/Hebrew, why don't we just assume the translators have it largely correct and use a couple of the more common translations like the KJV and RSV?  If the bible has contradictions, then certainly it would show up in common translations.

[To The Cliffs!]

Wow, this thread is not very impressive…consider the post below:

On the matter of the NT, it actually tries to be very precise in it's history but is still riddled with errors. Let's just look at the Christmas story. According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Herod died in 4 BC but any census took place in 6 or 7 AD.

Luke 2:1 “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.  (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)”

“First” Census…meaning that there was another…kinda like saying the FIRST Gulf War….get it?!  The parenthetical statement referring to the FIRST census under Quirinius is CLEARLY meant to differentiate this previous census from “THE census” (the infamous one that caused so much revolt in 6/7 AD).  Which is why the Res Gestae, the Deeds of the Divine Augustus, records three such world-wide censuses taken by Augustus. One of which was ordered in 8 BC! 

So, not only does Luke have his facts straight, he is even able to differentiate this prior census (confirmed by Res Gastae to have been ordered by Augustus in 8BC) with the infamous census  of 6/7 AD(which Luke also referenced in Acts:

Acts 5:37 “…Judas the Galilean (founder of the Zealots) appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt.”

The idea that every citizen in the Roman Empire had to return to their place of ancestry is logistically impractical and there is no contemporary record to suggest that took place. Census' of taxation you would assume would be concerned where people live and work, not where their families came from. Matthews over zealous concern with Micah led to him to placing his candidate for the messiah in Bethlehem.

Not to their place of ancestry, but to the house of their own property.  Joseph was from the tribe of Judah and has to return to the property that he actually owned in Judea.  Nazareth (in Galilee) is far north of Judea, with Samaria in between.  And there is actual historical evidence, the very kind they you claim you seek, that supports the NT account that people had to return to their homes to carry out the census:

Gauis Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt (104 A.D.): “Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.”

There is also another problem with the census. In the Acts of the Apostles there is a reference made by Gamaliel to a man called Theudas who was killed, his following broken up and then after him, we are told came 'Judas the Galilean at the time of the census.' Josephus talks of the same Theudas, but that was in 45-46 AD, which is of course 40 years after the census long after Judas the Galilean and indeed was an event that took place after Gamaliel was apparently speaking.

You’re simply assuming Josephus was talking about the same Theudas, but there are no other facts mentioned that lead us to believe Josephus and Luke were talking about the same person other than sharing the same name.  It’s not like he is referring to a famous person having a unique place in history with an uncommon title and an uncommon name (e.g. President Lincoln).  And given the facts surrounding how accurate of a historian Luke was in detailing all the other people and places of that era, there is no reason to mark this as being incorrect.

Herod probably didn't kill all male children under two years old. Firstly he didn't have the authority to do so in terms of what powers he retained under Roman suzerainty. Secondly there is no historical record that it happened. Josephus who was notable in noting Herod's crimes never mentioned it happening.

Herod was historically noted for his cruelty to the Jews, as well as his obsessive attempts to kill anyone whom he thought threatened his position (his paranoia of losing his position of authority led him to kill even his own sons around the same time of the killing of the infant boys of Bethlehem!).  It is an historical fact that Herod was an extremely cruel psychopath obsessed with destroying any potential successors!! 

And Josephus’ account was NOT intended to be exhaustive…furthermore, eestimates of the number of infant boys under 2 years of age in Bethlehem, at the time a town with a total population estimated around 1000, would expected to be around twenty (20).  That’s not a great number to have been considered of great historical significance apart from the context of the NT narrative.

Matthew also has the whole family fleeing to Egypt, a 350 mile trip (this was the same trip that apparently took Moses and the Israelite's 40 years to make at a rate of less than 9 miles a year)

Ok, so you don’t know much about the Old Testament…no big deal, I can help:  The Israelites under Moses WANDERED for 40 years, meaning they didn’t make a bee-line to the Promised Land.  But they did in fact reach the Promised Land TWO YEARS after the Exodus and sent in 12 spies to scout the land for 40 days, but only two of the spies (Caleb and Joshua) reported they could take the land, the other 10 spies convinced the majority of the Israelites not to attack the land…in response, God had Israel wander in the desert 40 years, one year for every day the spies scouted the land, until that cowardly generation had died off.

So, your statement that the nation of Israel could only travel 9 miles a year is EXTREMELY IGNORANT!!

Matthew also has the whole family fleeing to Egypt, a 350 mile trip…Compare this with Luke who says that forty days after Jesus was born he was brought to the temple and then returned to Nazareth.
During this period, Matthew has Jesus being born, the Magi visiting Herod (who is presumably in Jerusalem) then visiting Jesus, then Herod killing infants under two years of age, the family fleeing 350 miles to Egypt, then coming back again in another 350 mile trip. That means the holy family is, if we give the Magi a few days to visit Jesus undertaking something like a 20-30 mile trek each day without stops. Poor Mary. Factoring in a brief sojourn in Egypt until the coast was clear, they are covering a hell of a distance in a short period of time. Even the best men of the Roman Army could only cover 25 miles a day.
 

I see your ignorance of the bible isn’t limited to just the Old Testament, you simply cannot read.  That’s alright, I can help you with the New Testament also:  Matthew doesn’t have Jesus’ family fleeing to Egypt until AFTER the visit of Magi, which takes place up to two years AFTER his birth.  Two years is plenty of time to give birth to Jesus in Bethlehem in Judea, present the infant Jesus at the Temple in Jerusalem (also in Judea), and return to Nazareth in Galilee and then back to Bethlehem (Joseph’s home town)…BEFORE the visit of the Magi and prior to fleeing to Egypt.

As for the length of their stay in Egypt, the NT only states that AFTER Herod’s death (Mat 2:19-23), they were informed in Egypt by an angel that the coast was clear to return to Israel, but when Joseph learns that Herod’s son is now reigning, Joseph decides to take the family back to Nazareth to live.

[To The Cliffs!]

So, the chronology can be nailed down pretty easily:

1)   In the time of Herod (died in 4BC) king of Judea, Joseph (from the tribe of Judah) and Mary lived in Nazareth where Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:26).
2)   Joseph is told in a dream that it was ok to take Mary as his wife, as the child she is carrying was conceived by the Holy Spirit. (Mat 1:18-24)  But Matthew does NOT mention the city in which this took place.
3)   In those days the Roman Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world (according to Res Gestae, he issued this decree in 8BC ), so Joseph took pregnant Mary from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea where Joseph rightfully owned property to register for the census (which, according to the Prefect of Egypt, was customary).  Joseph and Mary had to stay in a stable because the inn was full.  (Luke ch 2)… (This logically means that even though Joseph rightfully owned property in Bethlehem, he didn’t have a house in Bethlehem – they lived, as stated by Luke, in Nazareth - thus when they reached Bethlehem, they tried to find a room in the hotel, but the hotel was full.)
4)   Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Mat 2:1, Luke 2:6-7)
5)   Jesus was presented at the Temple in Jerusalem (very close to Bethlehem) according to the Law of Moses (this means Jesus, according to the timeframe established by the Law of Moses, was presented at the Temple within 40 days of his birth). (Luke 2:22-24)
6)   After presenting Jesus at the Temple, Joseph and Mary return home to Nazareth (Luke 2:39).
7)   Two years after his birth (timeframe established by Mat 2:16), the Magi visit Jesus, who is now living in a house in Bethlehem. (Mat 2:1-12 )..So, there is a timespan of up to two years between a) Luke’s account of Jesus returning to Nazareth after being presented by the Temple within 40 days of his birth, and b) Matthew’s account of Jesus being found living in a house in Bethlehem at the time he was two years old.  So there is absolutely no contradiction between the nativity scenes of Matthew and Luke.
8 )   After the Magi leave, Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt because Herod will attempt to the child Jesus. (Mat 2:13-15)
9)   Herod decides to kill all male children up to two years old in Bethlehem (Mat 2:16-18).
10)   Joseph takes Mary and Jesus and chills in Egypt until the death of Herod, upon which they return to live in Nazareth (Mat 2:19-23) where, according to Luke ch 2, they had lived prior to traveling to Jerusalem for the census.

The two separate accounts are exactly what is be expected from telling the same story from two different angles:  they include some facts in common, including overall context (in this case, the birth of the Messiah), and the facts that are unique to each story can easily be reconciled so that they complement each other instead of conflicting with each other.

[afleitch]

Hi jmfcst

[To The Cliffs!]

Hi jmfcst

Sadly, you seemed to have had only one teacher to help you read prior to me.  Sadder still is the fact this prior teacher failed to help your reading skills...or maybe, just maybe, he didn't have much with which to work.

[John Dibble]

Hi jmfcst

Sadly, you seemed to have had only one teacher to help you read prior to me.  Sadder still is the fact this prior teacher failed to help your reading skills...or maybe, just maybe, he didn't have much with which to work.

You aren't exactly making it any less obvious that you're jmfcst.

[To The Cliffs!]

You aren't exactly making it any less obvious that you're jmfcst.

Let me state this out loud, just to get it straight in my mind:  According to you and the other poster, jmfcst and I are the only ones in the history of this forum who are able to read?!

That's your story?  I'm correct about that, right?

[To The Cliffs!]

My points were: 1) It is very easy to reconcile the details and form a chronolgy of the events surrounding Jesus' birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke.  2) It is very easy to point out the  obvious errors of those whose aim is to claim contractions between the two accounts.

[John Dibble]

You aren't exactly making it any less obvious that you're jmfcst.

Let me state this out loud, just to get it straight in my mind:  According to you and the other poster, jmfcst and I are the only ones in the history of this forum who are able to read?!

That's your story?  I'm correct about that, right?

No, we recognize your posting style to be the same. For instance we have in this post I'm responding to now your habit of creating straw men for other people's positions when they don't agree with you. If you're going to bother trying to act as if you're someone else, don't play the same character - seriously, who do you think you're fooling?

[To The Cliffs!]

No, we recognize your posting style to be the same. For instance we have in this post I'm responding to now your habit of creating straw men for other people's positions when they don't agree with you. If you're going to bother trying to act as if you're someone else, don't play the same character - seriously, who do you think you're fooling?

I am the one forming strawmen?!  Did the poster not make the following statesments (just to name two of the many strawmen he created):

1)  [The census occured in 6/7 AD, not during reign of Herod]...(this strawman is refuted by Res Gastae, in which Augustus is reported to have issued an earlier census in 8 BC, which would have fallen within the reign of Herod, just as the NT states)
2) [There is no historical record of people being required to return to their home provinces for a census]...(another strawman refuted by the record of Prefect of Egypt in 104 AD)

So, how, exactly did I misrepresent his statesments?  Or is this just the line you use when you lose an argument?

[To The Cliffs!]

To whom it concerns:

There's been speculation that I was involved in previous events that occurred on this forum and within its past debates...I know that it's confusing, but it is one thing to question my official identity, and another thing entirely to make wild accusations, or insinuate that I'm a superhero.

That would be outlandish and fantastic.  I'm just not the hero type. Clearly.

[John Dibble]

This is your strawman right here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Come on, do you honestly think that's our position? This is exactly the kind of thing jmfcst would say - do you honestly think you can just start a sock account and do the exact same things you did for years before you got yourself banned and not have it be immediately obvious? Either you are jmfcst and you're here to troll or you're a different troll emulating his style very well.

To whom it concerns:

There's been speculation that I was involved in previous events that occurred on this forum and within its past debates...I know that it's confusing, but it is one thing to question my official identity, and another thing entirely to make wild accusations, or insinuate that I'm a superhero.

That would be outlandish and fantastic.  I'm just not the hero type. Clearly.

Lulz. So obvious.

[afleitch]

No, we recognize your posting style to be the same. For instance we have in this post I'm responding to now your habit of creating straw men for other people's positions when they don't agree with you. If you're going to bother trying to act as if you're someone else, don't play the same character - seriously, who do you think you're fooling?

I am the one forming strawmen?!  Did the poster not make the following statesments (just to name two of the many strawmen he created):

1)  [The census occured in 6/7 AD, not during reign of Herod]...(this strawman is refuted by Res Gastae, in which Augustus is reported to have issued an earlier census in 8 BC, which would have fallen within the reign of Herod, just as the NT states)
2) [There is no historical record of people being required to return to their home provinces for a census]...(another strawman refuted by the record of Prefect of Egypt in 104 AD)

So, how, exactly did I misrepresent his statesments?  Or is just the line you use when you lose an argument?

The 104AD census only required migrant workers to return to their family home. Again, that's what would be required in a census of taxation. There's no evidence of any requirement to return to an ancestral home. The Res Gastae Divi Augusti outlines Augustus' censuses. The closest match is 8BC (or 14 AD). Herod was dead in 4BC. Quirinius' census according to Josephus, who sad that Quirinius took office in 6 or 7 AD must have took place at that time. Quirinius was not governor at the same time Herod was alive.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Anyway, before you go again, would you mind posting some dinner doodles?  While I didn't always agree with the interpretations they contained, they were interesting to read.

[To The Cliffs!]

The 104AD census only required migrant workers to return to their family home

Now you are just making things up, for it was clearly stated: “Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.”

“any cause whatsoever” is not limited to “migrant workers”…also, Joseph would NOT have been seen as a permanent resident of Nazareth, since that land would belong to either the tribe Naphtali or Zebulun…his home province would have been considered Judea.

---

The Res Gastae Divi Augusti outlines Augustus' censuses. The closest match is 8BC (or 14 AD). Herod was dead in 4BC. Quirinius' census according to Josephus, who sad that Quirinius took office in 6 or 7 AD must have took place at that time. Quirinius was not governor at the same time Herod was alive.

Quirinius returned to Rome in 12AD, so if you saying he was only the "governor of Syria” between 6AD-12AD, then there would have been only ONE census during the reign of Quirinius, yet Luke writings imply more than one census under Quirinius' leadership of Syria, the first one coming during the reign of Herod.

Now, that would mean Quirinius served TWICE in some capacity as governor of Syria…and a Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria…given the location of the inscription, it would make since it is referring to Quintilius. 

But, at the very least, Quintilius was military administrator over Syria during 8BC, and the Roman power structure over Syria at the time was complicated due to the Homanadensian war…so we may be splitting hairs.

In any case, Luke is historically correct in saying Augustus issued a census during the reign of Herod, that historical fact is back up independently.  What is in question is Quintilius' role in Syria around 8 BC and whether or not he is one referred to in the inscription as serving TWICE as governor of Syria.

[afleitch]

The 104AD census only required migrant workers to return to their family home

Now you are just making things up, for it was clearly stated: “Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.”

“any cause whatsoever” is not limited to “migrant workers”…also, Joseph would NOT have been seen as a permanent resident of Nazareth, since that land would belong to either the tribe Naphtali or Zebulun…his home province would have been considered Judea.

---

The Res Gastae Divi Augusti outlines Augustus' censuses. The closest match is 8BC (or 14 AD). Herod was dead in 4BC. Quirinius' census according to Josephus, who sad that Quirinius took office in 6 or 7 AD must have took place at that time. Quirinius was not governor at the same time Herod was alive.

Quirinius returned to Rome in 12AD, so if you saying he was only the "governor of Syria” between 6AD-12AD, then there would have been only ONE census during the reign of Quirinius, yet Luke writings imply more than one census under Quirinius' leadership of Syria, the first one coming during the reign of Herod.

Now, that would mean Quirinius served TWICE in some capacity as governor of Syria…and a Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria…given the location of the inscription, it would make since it is referring to Quintilius. 

But, at the very least, Quintilius was military administrator over Syria during 8BC, and the Roman power structure over Syria at the time was complicated due to the Homanadensian war…so we may be splitting hairs.

In any case, Luke is historically correct in saying Augustus issued a census during the reign of Herod, that historical fact is back up independently.  What is in question is Quintilius' role in Syria around 8 BC and whether or not he is one referred to in the inscription as serving TWICE as governor of Syria.

Before you get banned, how can you say that the instruction to those who are 'residing out of their own provinces' means that people are to return to their ancestral homeland? What purpose does that serve a census of taxation? That's like asking the Kennedy's to return to Ireland.

As for Quirinius, there is no record to suggest he was governor of Syria under Herod. We know exactly what he was doing in the years before Herod's death; he was campaigning in Galitia. He was appointed as a Legate of Syria in 6-7 AD. There is no evidence he was also governing Syria to the south at the same time. We also know who was governor of Syria; Quintilius Varus from 7 to 4 BC and before him, Sentius Saturninus.

The inscription to which you refer is interesting. but it doesn't mention Quirinius. It says;

'KING BROUGHT INTO THE POWER OF...
AUGUSTUS AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE AND SENATE...
FOR THIS HONORED WITH TWO VICTORY CELEBRATIONS...
FOR THE SAME THING THE TRIUMPHAL DECORATION...
OBTAINED THE PROCONSULATE OF THE PROVINCE OF ASIA...
AGAIN OF THE DEIFIED AUGUSTUS SYRIA AND PH[OENICIA]'

You may be mixing it up with something else.

[To The Cliffs!]

how can you say that the instruction to those who are 'residing out of their own provinces' means that people are to return to their ancestral homeland? What purpose does that serve a census of taxation? That's like asking the Kennedy's to return to Ireland.

The order didn't specify to retrun to "your ancestral homeland", but "home" to a Jew would have been to a place where he actually owned property.  For a member of tribe of Judah, it would have meant returning to Judea.  In the case of of Joseph, his alloment of the Promised Land was through the line of David in Bethlehem.

A member of tribe of Judah had no claim to any land in Nazareth, which belonged to the tribe Naphtali or Zebulun.  According to Jewish Law, Joseph would have offically considered himself a resident of Bethlehem, NOT Nazareth. 

---

Also, it should also be pointed out that there is no motive for Luke to make up this story about how Jesus' parents arrived at Bethlehem, as the gospel of Matthew already stated that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and later lived in Nazareth…If Luke made up his story, why start the story at Nazareth and bring his birth to Jerusalem by means of a convoluted story about a census?  Wouldn’t it have been much simpler and cleaner to have Joseph, a descendent of David from the tribe of Judah, living in Bethlehem in Judea from the beginning of the story?!

And if the story of Joseph and Mary really began in Jerusalem and not Nazareth, then why does Matthew fail to state that the location of the conception of Jesus?  Compare:

Location of Jesus' conception:  (Matthew - unstated; Luke - Nazareth)
Location of Jesus' birth: (Matthew - Bethlehem; Luke - Bethlehem)
Location of Jesus' upbringing: (Matthew - Nazareth; Luke - Nazareth)

So, if Matthew could get away with not mentioning where Jesus was conceived and how his parents came to Bethlehem or whether or not they were always in Bethlehem, why would Luke see the need to concoct some convoluted story that starts them off in Nazareth and brings them to Bethlehem by way of a census?   Why not have the story begin in Bethlehem…and if the story began in Bethlehem, why doesn’t Matthew leave the location unstated?!

There is no scriptural reason for the census story and to have them start off in Nazareth...there is entirely no motive for Luke to make up such a journey from Nazareth.  But now that we have Luke’s account of them starting off living in Nazareth before Jesus was born in Bethlehem, it complements Matthew’s account of the return from Egypt and explains why Matthew has Joseph choosing to live in Nazareth out of fear of returning to Judea – the reason being Nazareth is where they had lived prior to Jesus being born in Bethlehem, it is Matthew’s unstated location to the story of Jesus’ conception. 

Luke’s effortlessly and perfectly complements Matthew’s account, yet clearly is not directed at Matthew’s account nor is it responding to it.  Not to mention, accounts of real people's lives are usually complicated, and this complication is evidence by the unstated location within Matthew's account and the census story within Luke's account.

The story of the census raises too many questions - if Luke were making up the story, he would have chosen to begin their story in Bethlehem (no one would have questioned that), he would not have chosen to expose his account to unnecessary scrutiny with a convoluted made-up census-trek story.

[To The Cliffs!]

As for Quirinius...Quintilius

Yes, I mean Quininius but wronte Quintilius

---

The inscription to which you refer is interesting. but it doesn't mention Quirinius.

it doesn't mention whom it is referring to, but only show someone was a Roman military leader who was considered to have become govenor of Syria TWICE.