Just the facts.
Luke they are in a manger Matthew they are in a house. Fact.
Once again, for the sake of argument let's say Luke, who you confessed NEVER EVEN MET JESUS, uses terms more gentile friendly... That still does not excuse several errors and facts changed. Sorry it just doesn't. A Texas writer may for southerners add in a howdy instead of hello in a story that was being written at the same time by a New Yorker as a team effort ... But that wouldn't allow him to completely change important facts of the story!
This is just the birth narrative and they can't even get that straight! The gospels vary wildly from each other. Beyond a few basic plot lines they do not match up whatsoever. You are flailing and failing desperately on the birth errors so let's start you off on an easier one. Let me bring it down some as the birth errors are to complex for you. I did chuckle at your roman imperial comment and how strict they were but then you fail to see how Tacitus a Hellenistic worshipping roman imperial would be risking his life calling Jesus the messiah. Maybe one day that will sink in along with a practicing Jew like Josephus would never gush about Jesus the way his forged work claims.
As I said let's start you off with an easier one.
Why would they mention Joseph's family line of he wasn't the father of the child? It would be a fruitless endeavor and completely pointless. Moreover in Jewish tradition the birth line goes trough the father not the mother. But if Joseph wasn't the father than Jesus would have a failed bloodline for messiah consideration. If Joseph was the father, than Mary wasn't a virgin and the gospels lied.
Which is it?
<quoted text>How in the hell do you come to all these ridiculous conclusions?
Now you're shifting goal posts saying the writers changed the gospels. Was that before or after they wrote them? Why are you so thick in the skull? You're using a straw man fallacy.
Luke didn't meet Jesus. That is true. But he did talk to people who did. And in writing history, that counts. When an author writes something down, it is written through the lens of his or her own cultural experience and perspective. Matthew was a Jewish male writing to other Jews. This is plainly evident by the way he opens his gospel narrative. He writes the geneology to illustrate what was most important to the Jews; that the Messiah is of the line of David. He follows that up with the visit from the magi from the east. Now while it says the Magi visited Jesus in a house. Luke is writing to an official in the Roman empire and is assuring this official that he (Luke) has taken the time to get the facts straight. Luke would obviously know that a Roman official was not somebody to lie to. Embarrassing a highly placed representative of imperial Rome is not a great way to verify one's status as a historian?