You appear to be unable to follow the well reasoned argument in the article. You've selected an introductory statement to quote here and commented on it, while ignoring the evidence provided in the rest of article supporting the conclusion that Luke did not contradict himself. The evidence takes the form of first showing that the correct translation of the text is that the census took place before that of Quirinius and then giving the reason why it was presented as such. The earlier census was not as well known as the one by Quirinius, (and also Luke might not have known enough about it to give details) but Luke wanted to avoid confusion by clearly stating that he was not referring to the census that took place under Quirinius. The problem was caused by incorrect translations and not by Luke's writing.

http://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2014/11/cyrenius-does-not-mean-quirinius.html

Doug Shaw, first you refuse to o accept all the many good reasons to take the Gospels to be eyewitness evidence. Then you deny that there is any such reasons. And after that you have the nerve to suggest that we should study logic. The only notable feature about you is your willingness to waste the time of others by continuing to give repetitious and absurd replies; which is why, having said this, I will not answer anything else you say. Do please go on repeating yourself till the next millennium.

Was I in error? Have you studied logic?

Yes, I have. Both in school and privately

Then I was in error.

What do you think is the meaning of "consistency"?

Staying on topic and avoiding contradiction in one's ideas.

Logical analysis is essential to the avoidance of contradictions.

I've taken four classes in logic and didn't flunk any of them.

Why is that so important to you?

You're the one who brought up people flunking logic classes.

What do you think is the meaning of "consistency"?

Staying on topic and avoiding contradiction in one's ideas.

Was I in error? Have you studied logic?

Yes, I have. Both in school and privately.

I've taken four classes in logic and didn't flunk any of them.

You say so. Why is that so important to you? And what do you expect me to say in response?

In discussions and debates, grammar and consistency are much more important to arriving at truth than explanations about logical conditional statements.

What do you think is the meaning of "consistency"?

I don't remember saying any such thing. I said it was not "my field of expertise". How does that equate to, "never studied logic?"

Was I in error? Have you studied logic?

Lots of people have studied logic and flunked.

I've taken four classes and didn't flunk any of them.

Then you've been doing most of your talking with people who don't know enough about logic to notice your fallacies.

In discussions and debates, grammar and consistency are much more important to arriving at truth than explanations about logical conditional statements. Let's look at your statement below.

You have shown me nothing of the sort. I have studied logic. You admit that you have not.

The first three sentences have nothing to do, one with the other. Let me break it down.

You have shown me nothing of the sort.

That's a reference to me saying I had shown you where you misapplied your logic. You deny it. Well, I guess you forgot. But, it doesn't really matter. Next, you say:

I have studied logic.

And I'm supposed to assume what? Lots of people have studied logic and flunked. There are some people who never studied logic and are more logical than some who have studied it for years.

You admit that you have not.

I don't remember saying any such thing. I said it was not "my field of expertise". How does that equate to, "never studied logic?"

And that's how I debate. I avoid the x's and y's that merely muddle a conversation to where no one knows what is being said.

I've been defending my faith for close to twenty years. Your the 2nd person that ever brought up logic.

Then you've been doing most of your talking with people who don't know enough about logic to notice your fallacies.

And you're the 2nd person whom I showed that you were applying the logic incorrectly.

You have shown me nothing of the sort. I have studied logic. You admit that you have not.

I find textual criticism fascinating (and am continuing to learn a whole lot more about it), and I understand why you accuse me of sophistry when that is honestly not what I'm trying to do. I'm searching for the real truth, though sometimes my comments my lack appropriate finesse. In reading the gospel of Mark, I've rediscovered (after losing a lot of sleep and internal debate) a very personal God. What you're telling me is, you don't want to really debate it, and that's ok. I don't want to be a stumbling block for you.

Your excuses are getting more and more pathetic.

I'll let our readers be the judge of that.