Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Bad Writer]

Congruent yet independent accounts of a crime can be seen as evidence of collusion between the eyewitnesses. That is why investigators look for divergence in details but similarity in the major points. The divergence signifies that each individual is reporting what they saw in their own words (which is not going to be exactly the same as what another records) and the similitude of reports on the major points, i.e. that a man was shot in the head by a woman gives credence to their claims as eyewitnesses.

I was only referring to the fact that you don't think contradiction means what it actually means, but enough on that; we know that you have brain damage, and I think we're getting closer to figuring out just how much.

So I suppose different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew and Luke is a small detail. Not to mention, the genealogy for Joseph's family shouldn't even matter if that's not his real father. Small detail, right?

Another missed detail is that Mark, John, and even Paul seem to be completely oblivious to a virgin birth. Do they just not want to talk about it, or do they simply have no idea that it occurred?

Also, quick question about that birth:
Was Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great as suggested in Matthew, or was he born while Quirinius was governor of Syria as Luke seems to think? It's just bugging me a bit because history tells us that Herod died about 10 years before Quirinius' great census that supposedly brought both Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.

But that's a tiny detail, so no need to worry, I'm sure.