Wow, that's a derogatory comment without cause. Can we talk?

Matthew and Luke give some information that is not duplicated by the other, so they can't possibly contradict where only one speaks.

Matthew only mentions the vision to Joseph, the magi, and the escape to Egypt.

Luke only mentions the angel speaking to Mary and the shepherds.

No contradictions here. Where they both speak, however:

Matt. 1.18 & Lk. 1.27 both say that Mary & Joseph were engaged.

Mt. 1.18 & Lk. 1.35 both say the child conceived in her was by the Holy Spirit.

Mt. 1.21 & Lk. 1.31 both say the child is to be named Jesus.

Mt. 2.1 & Lk. 2.4-7 both say Jesus is born in Bethlehem.

Mt. 2.1 & Lk. 1.5 both let us know this all took place during the time of Herod.

So, with your level of knowledge, as it may be, please point out to me the contradictions that you allege are apparently obvious. Please, I'd like to have this conversation with you. I am claiming, and have presented my evidence, that Matthew and Luke agree perfectly on how the birth of Jesus came about, and Jesus being born in Bethlehem in Judea during the time of King Herod. So may I please see your case that substantiates the erroneous level of knowledge of evangelicals. Thank you ahead of time.

> Matthew and Luke agree perfectly on how the birth of Jesus came about, or on Jesus being born in Bethlehem in Judea during the time of king Herod.

And by saying this you're letting everybody else know what's your level of knowledge. (oh wait, just realized you are an evangelical. my bad, should have expected that)

> No they don't - Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria when Herod was alive. There is no overlap, hence contradiction.

Matthew doesn't mention Quirinius, only Luke does. Hence, no contradiction.

As far as Quirinius, some recent scholarly work is rising the possibility that he was known by two names, as many others were during the era. Caesar Augustus was born Gaius Octavius. Josephus was born Joseph ben Matityahu. There is a theory that Quirinius may be the same individual as Sabinus. There is also substantial reason to question Josephus's account, as many people question information that has come to us from Josephus. If it's true that Quirinius and Sabinus are the same individual, the "falseness" of Luke disappears. The jury is still far away from resolution on this one, but it has not be settled and proved false, as you seem to be claiming. And Matthew makes no mention of any of this, so he doesn't contradict Luke.

> "Discrepancy between the genealogies" — in other words, a contradiction.

No, discrepancies are far different from contradictions. For instance, science "contradicts" itself, both over time and at the same time, viz., general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both are highly confirmed and enormously impressive; unfortunately, they can’t both be correct. According to your logic, both should be thrown out, since they "contradict." The logic is flawed. It's a discrepancy, maybe even a paradox, that has to be worked out. But if you're not ready to throw out science, by the same mercy you should refrain from throwing out the Gospel accounts. If you are consistent, you must either keep religion for re-examination, or defenestrate science.

> For instance? What percentage is corroborated? By whom?

I told you by whom: ME. I did the study. Here are some of the specifics, since you're determined to hold your opinion no matter the facts:

25 places are named in Luke. 4 of them are unknown from any other source. The other 21 are confirmed by extrabiblical corroboration. None has been proved false.

There are 19 cultural references. All 19 are corroborated.

52 people are mentioned. 35 of them are unknown from any other source. The 17 that are left are corroborated. None has been proved to be false. Quirinius and Annas (the high priest) are debated, not to their existence, but to their timing and role.

There are 8 historical references. 4 are otherwise unknown, 4 are confirmed, none are disproved.

There are 18 references to religious practices. 1 is otherwise unknown, the other 17 are corroborated.

So you do the math. Not a single element has been proved to be false. Some are otherwise unknown, but that doesn't make them untrue. Two are highly debated.

What makes Luke's account fictional?

> Matthew and Luke agree perfectly on how the birth of Jesus came about, or on Jesus being born in Bethlehem in Judea during the time of king Herod.

No they don't - Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria when Herod was alive. There is no overlap, hence contradiction.

> There is a discrepancy between the genealogies that has yet to be resolved

So in other words, a contradiction.

> There are plenty of other reasons to believe in the reliability of the accounts. For instance, I did a verse-by-verse study of the Gospel of Luke, investigating every place, person, and cultural and religious reference mentioned. Some of what Luke says we have no extra biblical corroboration on, but of the things we do have corroboration on, his accuracy percentage is over 98%.

For instance? What percentage is corroborated? By whom? Are you counting things like him mentioning Jerusalem & noting that Jerusalem existed at the time? And of the non-trivial items (eg a high priest at the time), what would have stopped him from just finding out this fact & using it to bolster a fictional account?

> That's why you should believe it: because it has been proved to be very highly accurate.

I highly doubt that. Where's the extra-biblical corroboration of the Resurrection for instance? I'm not going to accept something like that just because Luke mentions some people who were alive at the time.

You're right that some modern scholars take a dim view of biblical authorship, but it depends to which modern scholars you are referring. There's a big debate about it, but you're remiss to speak as if the issue has been settled by some scholarly skeptics.

And you so quickly disregard the weight of early scholarship that was far closer to the people and facts at hand than we are. It's like disregarding the soldiers' accounts of the Civil War in favor of 21st century scholarly accounts, because "our scholars know better than the people who were there." That's just not responsible scholarship or respectful historiography. Direct sources and sources close to the events in time and geography always carry weight.

As far as John 18.15, the text of John 21.24 would endorse the idea that the man of 18.15 was John himself. In favor of the idea is that it was even mentioned, let alone known. It doesn't figure into the plot at all, which at this point in the story is about Peter's denial. Also in favor of the idea is how so much is known about what happened in the trial—because John may have been a witness. This "other disciple" is in other texts associated with Peter and identified as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (13.23-26; 20.2-10; 21.7, 20-23). John also must have followed Jesus during the events of his death because he appears at the foot of the cross (19.25-27). So there's repeated evidence that this other individual is John.

The evidence against it being John? Well, the burden is on you for that. Give me what ya got.

So I've given you several points of evidence that several of the disciples may have been literate. What evidence do you have that shores up your perspective? You haven't given me anything yet.

Modern scholars are quite confident that the author of the Gospel of John wasn't the disciple John, regardless of what the early Church leaders decided in the centuries following Jesus' death.

And your quoted passage (John 18:15) mentions neither James nor John (just an unnamed disciple known to the high priest - we don't know why so can't extrapolate anything from this).

So I think your case that multiple disciples were literate is quite poor.

Matthew and Luke agree perfectly on how the birth of Jesus came about, or on Jesus being born in Bethlehem in Judea during the time of king Herod. No "flat contradiction". There is a discrepancy between the genealogies that has yet to be resolved, though there is reason to think their records have a logical explanation. The two are identical from Abraham to David, converge again at Zerubbabel, and again at Jesus. Various explanations have been offered, but until more information is unearthed, we still don't know the explanation for the divergence. There are a lot of things historians don't know. The ground has only preserved so much for us, and much of it hasn't been dug up yet. Time will tell if a resolution comes clear or not.

There are plenty of other reasons to believe in the reliability of the accounts. For instance, I did a verse-by-verse study of the Gospel of Luke, investigating every place, person, and cultural and religious reference mentioned. Some of what Luke says we have no extra biblical corroboration on, but of the things we do have corroboration on, his accuracy percentage is over 98%. He is dead on target from everything else we know. As a matter of fact, the only debated things are the census by Augustus and the person of Quirinius, which are not disproved, just highly debated. That's why you should believe it: because it has been proved to be very highly accurate.

The examples you give for Matthew's historiography are all flatly contradicted in Luke, who is the other example you give. At most we can believe one of them, though we could instead believe neither - what reason do we have to believe either?

Sure I've played the telephone game. It has no relation to the writing of the Gospels. Luke's preface (Lk. 1.1-4) proves that beyond the shadow of a doubt. John's Gospel is nothing like the telephone game, but an ordered account with an agenda (Jn. 20.31). Matthew's Gospel is written in the form of historiography, not rumor:

- Mt. 1.1: "A record of the genealogy of Jesus..."
- Mt. 1.18: "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about..."
- Mt. 2.1: "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod..."

> Jesus interacted with large segments of the population? How about Asia and the rest of the world?

Probably those also. He was in a location in the world that was the crossroads of civilizations. Because of the available of fresh water in the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River, Palestine was where travelers from Asia, Europe, and Africa passed. Acts 2 records some of these people groups (Acts 2.8-12). It would have been the same during the years of Jesus. Sepphoris, a mere 4 miles from Nazareth, a very culturally diverse city. People from Europe, Asia, and Africa all had the possibility of being exposed to the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus interacted with large segments of the population? How about Asia and the rest of the world?

There is nothing wrong with an interpretation for news. But, for the thing that decides humanity's eternity, we need a little more confirmation. Ever played the telephone game?