Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[Minimalist]

I can tell you are not a historian, Max. It shows through brightly.

"PROPOSALS "


Here is the problem. The author feels the need to make proposals to get his bible bullshit off the hook. The reason he outlines prior are sufficient to dismiss Luke as a bullshit artist. The only reason to try to twist the facts is apologetics. Apologetics is the shameless need to make excuses for why the bible is a pile of crap.

I think writing "I am not an Historian" was a pretty good clue that I'm not an Historian. I thought it was an interesting article and admitted that there is a discrepancy. My son is an Historian and Greek and Roman History is his specialty. I'll have to ask him about this.

---

Here is something else I will have to look into: I wonder if any ancient Christians have written about this, if they noticed any discrepancies in dates and so forth. Interesting stuff.

Good idea.

You can show him this.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...inius.html

Historian Richard Carrier takes the time to demolish the apologetic claims that try to show that there is no contradiction between the only two gospels which mention the story.

His conclusion?

There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of at least one of the two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus.