Which of these statements is historically correct?

[polonius]

(1) PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII,ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

“Inspiration Incompatible with Error�

“For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.�

(2) According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born near the end of Herod's reign which would place his birth at 6-4 BCE.

(3) Luke tells us that Jesus was born around the time the Roman governor Quirinus took a census in Judea. That would place his birth at 6-7 CE, ten years from the end of Herod's death.

QUESTION: Are all three teachings true?

[Checkpoint]

(1) PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII,ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

“Inspiration Incompatible with Error�

“For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.�

(2) According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born near the end of Herod's reign which would place his birth at 6-4 BCE.

(3) Luke tells us that Jesus was born around the time the Roman governor Quirinus took a census in Judea. That would place his birth at 6-7 CE, ten years from the end of Herod's death.

QUESTION: Are all three teachings true?

No.
(2) and (3) have been answered/reconciled on another of your threads.

(1) is true as to the Bible's 66 books.

Grace and peace.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 2 by Checkpoint]

Question: Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great who died in 4 BC. Luke has Jesus born ten years later following the exile of Archelaus, Herod's son and inheritor from Judea in 6 AD.

Obviously both Matthew and Luke cannot be historically correct since there is a ten year difference in these events.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 2 by Checkpoint]

Question: Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great who died in 4 BC. Luke has Jesus born ten years later following the exile of Archelaus, Herod's son and inheritor from Judea in 6 AD.

Obviously both Matthew and Luke cannot be historically correct since there is a ten year difference in these events.

Please note this from Overcomer on another of your threads:

So the passages you have cited are not contradictory. You have been given several valid explanations of why both Matthew and Luke can both be correct. If you don't find any of them compelling, that's fine, but why start another thread to be told the exact same things as in the other thread? I'm not going to repeat myself by reiterating what I wrote there.

[polonius]

Checkpoint posted:

“Inspiration Incompatible with Error�

“For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.�

(2) According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born near the end of Herod's reign which would place his birth at 6-4 BCE.

(3) Luke tells us that Jesus was born around the time the Roman governor Quirinus took a census in Judea. That would place his birth at 6-7 CE, ten years from the end of Herod's death.

QUESTION: Are all three teachings true?

No.
(2) and (3) have been answered/reconciled on another of your threads.

(1) is true as to the Bible's 66 books

RESPONSE: Please cite precisely my other threads or posts where I ever claimed that Jesus was born twice, once before 4 BC (Matthew) and again in 6 AD (Luke)

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 5 by polonius]

UESTION: Are all three teachings true?





Quote:

No.
(2) and (3) have been answered/reconciled on another of your threads.

(1) is true as to the Bible's 66 books


RESPONSE: Please cite precisely my other threads or posts where I ever claimed that Jesus was born twice, once before 4 BC (Matthew) and again in 6 AD (Luke)

Sure.

"Do you accept scriptural contradictions?"

So he would have been born twice in ten years.

Grace and peace.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 5 by polonius]

UESTION: Are all three teachings true?





Quote:

No.
(2) and (3) have been answered/reconciled on another of your threads.

(1) is true as to the Bible's 66 books


RESPONSE: Please cite precisely my other threads or posts where I ever claimed that Jesus was born twice, once before 4 BC (Matthew) and again in 6 AD (Luke)

Sure.

"Do you accept scriptural contradictions?"

So he would have been born twice in ten years.

Grace and peace.

RESPONSE: Again you have failed to cite my quotation giving the post and date so so your assertion can be disregarded.

The fiction of the two different birth reports of Jesus (along with many other historical fictions in scripture demonstrate the papal claim of no errors n scripture is itself in error. There are many errors.

Should we start such a thread?

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 5 by polonius]

UESTION: Are all three teachings true?





Quote:

No.
(2) and (3) have been answered/reconciled on another of your threads.

(1) is true as to the Bible's 66 books


RESPONSE: Please cite precisely my other threads or posts where I ever claimed that Jesus was born twice, once before 4 BC (Matthew) and again in 6 AD (Luke)

Sure.

"Do you accept scriptural contradictions?"

So he would have been born twice in ten years.

Grace and peace.

RESPONSE: Again you have failed to cite my quotation giving the post and date so so your assertion can be disregarded.

The fiction of the two different birth reports of Jesus (along with many other historical fictions in scripture demonstrate the papal claim of no errors n scripture is itself in error. There are many errors.

Should we start such a thread?

Yes. Errors and additions and since that implies, possible subtractions. One marginal note by a copiest/scribe made it into Mark 7:19

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 5 by polonius]

UESTION: Are all three teachings true?





Quote:

No.
(2) and (3) have been answered/reconciled on another of your threads.

(1) is true as to the Bible's 66 books


RESPONSE: Please cite precisely my other threads or posts where I ever claimed that Jesus was born twice, once before 4 BC (Matthew) and again in 6 AD (Luke)

Sure.

"Do you accept scriptural contradictions?"

So he would have been born twice in ten years.

Grace and peace.

RESPONSE: Again you have failed to cite my quotation giving the post and date so so your assertion can be disregarded.

The fiction of the two different birth reports of Jesus (along with many other historical fictions in scripture demonstrate the papal claim of no errors n scripture is itself in error. There are many errors.

Should we start such a thread?

Nah.

The named thread was started by you on June 27, 2019.

The quoted sentence is from post 1 of the same date.

Grace and peace.

[polonius]

Christian religions use the Bible as their fundamental source which they may consider "God breathed."

But in Matthew we are told that Jesus was born during the days of King Herod who died about 4 BC, in Luke we have Jesus born during the 6 AD census of Judea.

So he would have been born twice in ten years.

Is this credible?

RESPONSE: Perhaps you should quote completely. Not just a sentence stating the obvious error.