"Are the Bibilical authors confused about Jesus Birth?"

According to Wikipedia, honesty or truthfulness is a facet of moral character that connotes positive and virtuous attributes such as integrity, truthfulness, straightforwardness (including straightforwardness of conduct: earnestness), along with the absence of lying, cheating, theft, etc. Honesty also involves being trustworthy, loyal, fair, and sincere.

In this post I want to look at an atheist call in podcast conversation that could put the word honesty into question. In the podcast, Justin, the host of the program probably is not trying to be dishonest. He is most likely a good citizen with basic American moral values, make a very good neighbor, and could be trusted to watch your house while you were gone. However, there is a subtle kind of dishonest we can all be guilty of if we are not careful. It involves the way we present the facts, do we present them in a way that suggest things that may not be true. This is where I think we find Justin. 

If when calling into his program you do so with the understand that everything he has researched will be presented from one point of view, his. If he makes this clear from the beginning his honesty would be less questionable, and the caller may have been informed of this before they were admitted to the program. But it was not presented in the program, so the listeners assume his statements are factual. So lets take a look at the conversation.

Justin begins by quoting some scripture,  "[Luk 2:1-2 ESV] – 1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria." (and then continues his conversation stating )and so on and so forth and they go to Bethlehem and Jesus is born in Bethlehem which means Jesus was born after the census of Quirinius and the problem we have here is that this couldn't match what we find in Matthew (which states: [Mat 2:1 ESV] – 1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem,)  because Quirinius didn't become governor of Syria until Archelaus (Herod) was already deposed and we find this in multiple historical texts even Josephus. So between the birth of Jesus in Matthew and the birth of Jesus in Luke, we have a minimum of 10 years difference. It couldn't be that he was born prior to the death of Herod, but then also born after the death of Herod after his son was ruling and already deposed. Those two things can't both be true.

Those facts that Justin just stated above are true, so where is the dishonesty? That we find in what he does not say and in what he implies. The caller states she believes the Bible to be trustworthy, Justin challenges her by suggesting there are multiple ways to prove it's not. He states, "I think the easiest way to demonstrate its unreliability is through simple contradictions like when it says one thing here then it says another thing there and they can't be reconciled." Note he tells her and his audience that they cannot be reconciled. If he is the scholar he says he is, then he knows this apparent discrepancy can be reconciled a number of ways. But he neglects to address or even mention those reconcilable options that are available and mislead his audience and his caller. 

One way to reconcile the discrepancy is looking at the Greek wording of the Luke text. The word πρῶτος in the Greek when brought over into English can mean first or before. In a number of passages other than the Luke passage it is rendered before rather than first. To distinguish which way to translate depends on context and sentence grammar. In the Luke passage it is more difficult to determine, but seems to lean toward first, but before remains a possibility.  

πρῶτος prōtos, pro'-tos; contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):—before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former. 

Most modern translations have a footnote informing the reader the translation stating, "This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria." could also be translated "This was the registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria". We also find Tertullian (155-220 AD) who was an early church scholar states in his writing (Against Marcion, Book IV Chapter 19) ". . . there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ." Though Tertullian does not address the word "protos" and its meaning, he does lend support to that view by pointing to another census that was taken before the better known census of Quirinius. 

This would solve the apparent contradiction between the two passages. There also was another Quirinius that was governor during the time Herod was king, however there is no record of him ordering a census, but if he did Luke could be referencing that Quirinius, the problem is we are looking at records of events that occurred 2000 years past. To say exactly why Matthew and Luke appear to disagree is impossible to determine at this point. 

I agree that apparent contradictions in the Bible deserve serious examination. I don't believe we should dismiss them simply because they challenge our understanding of Scripture.

Take the difference here between Matthew's account of Jesus' birth and Luke's reference to the census under Quirinius. There is a genuine historical difficulty here and some proposed explanations are plausible, but Luke's exact meaning remains unknowable for certain.

However, I would distinguish between identifying a difficulty and proving that the text is erroneous. Because Justin can identify difficult passages, his assertion that it renders the Bible untrustworthy requires a leap beyond logic. If he could prove there was a true contradictions by ruling out the other possibilities, he would be on a more solid foundation. But he cannot rule out those other possibilities, they remain a viable possible option, so his assertion is false. I repeat again, if he is the scholar he says he is, he knows this. If he does, his assertion is dishonest and therefore he purposely avoids addressing those options honestly that he might further his agenda. It all depends upon what he actually knows and why he does not mention the other reconcilable options. 

For the New Testament, there is substantial agreement on several points, even among scholars who disagree sharply about Christianity.

First, we possess a large and diverse body of manuscript evidence. Thousands of Greek manuscripts, along with ancient translations and quotations by early Christian writers, give textual critics a substantial basis for comparing readings. The manuscripts contain many variations, but the number of variations is not the same thing as the number of passages whose original wording is uncertain.

The Religious Studies Center states that most textual variants are relatively minor. Many involve spelling, word order, or other differences that do not materially change the meaning. A smaller number affect interpretation, and a still smaller set involve substantial passages whose status is disputed. Scholars disagree about some readings, but they do not treat every variant as equally important.

 

The Cambridge Core states that textual criticism can recover much of the New Testament wording with considerable confidence. However, that is not the same as saying every original reading is certain. Some passages remain disputed, and scholars can disagree about what the earliest recoverable text said. Even the meaning of "original text" can become complicated when considering how an ancient work may have circulated or undergone authorial revision. 

 

However, a critic cannot establish that the Bible is historically unreliable merely by pointing out that manuscripts contain variants. The critic must show how a particular variant affects a particular claim. In this case the apparent contradiction cannot be proved to be a true contradiction, but neither can it be disproved. This is something both sides have to live with. It is when one side suggest things as certain when they are not is when we move into dishonesty.

 

Hope this is helpful,

 

David  

 

  
 

  
 

Before Jesus?

A.I. can be helpful, if what you are looking for is information, and even then it needs to be confirmed. It works pretty good with objective facts. For instance if you ask it what is 2+2 it will quickly and concisely answer 4. But after doing so it might ask you why you asked. LOL. However, if you ask it who is right about God, the Atheist or the Theologian? It can't give you an answer, it will only give you a conglomerate of views from both sides which not only does not answer your question but induces more confusion and complication. If you ask it does God exist? It will answer, "No one knows with certainty, and the question is not settled by science, logic, or consensus." It will then proceed to enter into various views that are put forward. That is because as much as the atheist would like to promote the idea science has settled the question, it has not. And the scientific interpretation of the evidence the majority view puts forward for evolution is not objective fact and A.I. cannot reason it as such.

With that, I would like to examine a conversation my friend Gene has had with A.I. concerning one of his questions. He begins, "John 14:6 (King James Version):

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
"So then, according to how I interpret the Verse above, all those who lived and died before Jesus arrived, and for all those who did not hear his word after he arrived will go to hell."

A.I. responded to Gene by saying, "You've raised one of the most difficult theological questions surrounding John 14:6, and your interpretation follows a logical line of reasoning." 

A.I. then proceeds into a back and forth response with Gene concerning the subject. I want take to time to cover all the back forth, because A.I. never answers Gene's question but induces more confusion as it reaches out over the vast amount of information it has access to, both good and bad, which in turn leads Gene into various other questions. A.I. can't answer the question because the answer is not in the objective, it is subjective to interpretation. If you ask A.I. why it can answer the question concerning mathematics and cannot God's existence, it states, “The mathematical definitions and rules that lead to 2+2=4 are agreed upon, while there is no universally agreed method or standard of evidence that proves or disproves God’s existence.” A.I. continues stating, "That captures the contrast without implying that the question of God’s existence is purely subjective." 

I think our best approach is to address his original question from a scriptural stand point which is not that complicated. So let's look at it again, [Jhn 14:6 ESV] – 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Gene states, "So then, according to how I interpret the Verse above, all those who lived and died before Jesus arrived, and for all those who did not hear his word after he arrived will go to hell."

Gene is interpreting the verse in its very narrowest context, however, we have the whole Bible to consider. Anyone can take one verse and make it say almost anything, we must be very careful not to do that. The best place to start may be in the beginning.  

[Gen 3:15 ESV] – 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

The fuller context shows that after Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the forbidden tree (Genesis 3:1-7), they encountered the immediate consequences of sin (Genesis 3:8-13, 23-24). In the midst of these judgments, God pronounces the curse upon the serpent, indicting that there will be ongoing hostility between the serpent’s offspring (understood theologically as the forces of evil) and the woman’s offspring (human descendants, culminating in a particular Redeemer).
This chapter details the tragic entry of sin into the world, but it also includes this promise that evil will one day be decisively defeated by the offspring of the woman. Thus, Genesis 3:15 is regarded not simply as a pronouncement of doom on the serpent, but as a ray of hope for humanity. This is know as the “Protoevangelium” which comes from two Greek terms: “proto,” meaning “first,” and “euangelion,” meaning “good news” or “gospel.” This term is used to describe what is consider to be the earliest announcement of the gospel message in Scripture. 

Since the earliest centuries of the church, theologians have viewed the Protoevangelium as foreshadowing a future Redeemer who would conquer the power of sin and darkness. Early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus (130-202 AD), and Tertullian (155-220) discussed Genesis 3:15 in the context of the ultimate triumph of Christ over Satan at the cross and through His resurrection. So this has been the understanding of the church for a very long time. 

People from the very beginning have always been saved the same way, by faith in the redeemer. This redeemer is the center of the Old and New Testaments, the theme is seen in the telling of historical details, Psalms, worship rituals, and prophecies. It's all about him from beginning to end. Jesus said, "[Jhn 5:39 ESV] – 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me," The Scriptures of which Jesus was speaking was the Old Testament writings, from the very beginning salvation was obtained by faith in the revelation that was given of the redeemer. 

In Genesis 4:1-8 we see worship already established in the time of Cain and Abel. We are not told the exact details of their worship, but of necessity it would have to center around the redeemer revealed in chapter 3. 

Abraham also had faith in Christ, [Jhn 8:56-58 ESV] – 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." 57 So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." All of the Jewish Temple rituals centered around the work of Christ in redemption. 

However, Gene also asked about those who never heard about the redeemer after he came. But you would also have to include those in Old Testament times as salvation was obtained then by faith in the redeemer as well. There are two views that are generally taken on this, one is easier for us but it makes God more like us and is more difficult to reconcile to Scripture. It goes something like this, the scriptures indicate that everyone has some knowledge of God through creation, and those who have never heard the gospel will be judged based on what they have known and how they responded to that knowledge (Romans 1:18-20, Romans 2:12-15). Ultimately, salvation is only through faith in Jesus, as stated in John 14:6, but God's justice will ensure that those who genuinely never had the opportunity to hear will be judged fairly (Romans 2:12-15).

You can deduce that from Romans, but it seems like a weak answer to me. It does state that salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ, as stated in John 14:6, but then adds a "but". And that view really don't have a really good answer for the "but".

I think a more biblical answer would be the old question that was asked, “Will God condemn the innocent tribesman who has never heard the name of Christ? No, because there are no innocent tribesmen”  You see, we start with the wrong presupposition, we assume that if God could save everyone, there would be something unjust about him if he did not do so. [Jhn 3:18 ESV] – 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. John tells us even those who do hear and don't believe were already condemned. It doesn't matter of you hear or not, you are condemned already. 

If you hear and believe, you have received Mercy and not Judgment. But even if you don't hear, you have not received injustice, because you are already condemned and the Judgment set. You might be thinking, why would God send someone to hell who did not hear the Gospel, but would have believed if they had? If it were possible for that to happen, there would be an injustice with God. However, Scripture tells us, "[Psa 139:1-4, 6 ESV] – 1 O LORD, you have searched me and known me! 2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. 3 You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. 4 Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. ... 6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it." 

And again in "[Rom 8:27-30 ESV] – 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

So you see, no one will go to hell that would have received Christ had they heard. In Gods Omniscience, it is impossible for someone who would have or will believe not to hear the Gospel. You can follow this doctrine through the entirety of the Scriptures from the Old to New Testament. 

Hopes this helps,

David