The story of the birth of Jesus appears only in Matthew and Luke.
The Book of Matthew was written at least 80 years after Jesus’ birth. The Book of Luke was written at least 85 years after Jesus birth. Pray tell, how did either of them know what to say? There were not there at the birth of Jesus. It was the Holy Spirit/Ghost you say? Then why is Matthew’s story completely different than Luke’s story?
This is the nativity story according to Matthew 1:18-2:23:
- Joseph and Mary are already in Bethlehem; no reason is given.
- An angel appears to Joseph to reassure him, and so he marries Mary.
- Jesus is born in a home Bethlehem.
- Perhaps two years later (or perhaps not), wise men see his star. They come and inform Herod.
- The wise men – bringing gifts – find Jesus in Bethlehem.
- Warned in a dream, Joseph and family flee from Bethlehem to Egypt.
- Herod commences the massacre of the infants.
- Herod dies. Informed in a dream of Herod’s death, Joseph takes the family back.
- But he is afraid to go to Judea, and so makes his home in Nazareth, Galilee.
This is the nativity story according to Luke 2:
- A census requires Joseph and Mary to go from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem.
- Jesus is born in Bethlehem.
- There is “no room in the inn”; Mary places Jesus in a manger.
- Nearby shepherds are told of these events by angels.
- The shepherds visit the family.
- After about a month or so, Jesus is taken to temple in Jerusalem.
- There, Simeon and Anna praise Jesus.
- Soon after, Joseph and Mary return to their home in Nazareth.
Contradictions Galore!
- Matthew: Jesus was born under the reign of Herod who died in 4 BC.
Luke: Jesus was born after Cyrenius instituted the tax (6 AD) that Caesar Augustus decreed
. - Matthew: has wise men from the East bring gifts
Luke: has shepherds abiding in the field, no gifts
. - Matthew: A star leads the wise men to the house in which Jesus is born.
Luke: An angel of the Lord points the shepherds to the city of David, where Jesus is born in a manger
. - Matthew: Joseph and Mary are already in Bethlehem, then Jesus is born
Luke: Joseph must return to his forefather’s homeland in order to be taxed.
. - Matthew: King Herod decrees that all children 2 and under living in Bethlehem and and in all the coasts thereof be murdered.
Luke: No mention of King Herod or the massive infanticide.
. - Matthew: Immediately after birth, Joseph, Mary and Jesus flee to Egypt to escape King Herod’s decree.
Luke: While still in Bethlehem, Jesus is circumcised 8 days after his birth, after the circumcision Mary spends 8 days being “purified” and a pair of Turtledoves are sacrificed, all according to the Law as presented by Moses (and important only to Jews – no one else gives a hoot). Then, at least 16 days after the birth of Jesus, they all went to Nazareth.
. - Amazing! Impossible!
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) Luke 2:4
HOW did Joseph know that he should return to the city of David, Bethlehem? How did Joseph know that he was of the lineage of David? Joseph is the 28th generation after David. Do you know who your grandfather 28 generations ago was? How did Joseph know? Why did he go to the city of his great *28th grandfather and not to the city of his great * 42nd grandfather, Abraham? Why stop at the middle of the generations?
.
- Roman Taxation
The Romans would have no interest in sending people back to the home of their ancestors to be taxed. Imagine the chaos as every Roman citizen returns to the birthplace of their grandfather 42 generations ago. “And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.” That means that every Roman male had to figure out where his deepest male ancestor was born, every Roman female had to figure out where her deepest male ancestor was born. How would they begin to know where to go?Let’s say they got the information from the Church of Latter Day Saints database in Salt Lake City, Utah. So now, we have every Roman citizen carrying bags of money (to pay the tax) all around the “world” (Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. ) in order to arrive at “his own city“. Utter nonsense. All the Romans cared about was getting their tax from the citizenry. Only the Jews cared about where ancestors lived and only if it related to their super hero, David – who was one of history’s most detestable men.
Anyone doing today, what David is alleged to have done, would be in a mental institution for the criminally insane. (See David Should be Reviled, Not Revered).
- Lineage to David or Holy Spirit?
Since Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, Joseph’s lineage is immaterial. The human Joseph was not the father of Jesus.
Non Events
Which of the two stories, Matthew’s or Luke’s is true? Neither is true. Each relates an event that did not happen!
- Herod (who died in 4 BC) did not mass murder children under two.
- Augustus Caesar (reigned in 6 AD) did not require everyone in the Roman Empire to return to the home of the ancestors (which level of ancestor?) to be taxed.
Both of those events are literary conceits put in the story to allow the author to insert a fulfillment of prophecy.
How Many Virgin Births In History?
Luke and Matthew both contain the story of a virgin birth. If you choose to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus then you surely also believe in the virgin births of Ra, Zeus, Zoroaster, the Pharaoh Amenhotep III, Perseus, Romulus . . . even Augustus, Pythagoras, and Alexander the Great all were the subject of miraculous birth claims.
Horus was known to all of ancient Egypt as having been born of the virgin Isis and his conception and birth was considered one of the three great mysteries or mystical doctrines of the Egyptian religion.
Innumerable virgin births are described (with 83 citations) in this Wikipedia article, “Miraculous Births”
The ancients who believed in the virgin births of their gods believed as strongly as Christians. Why were they wrong and Christians right?
Same Story – Two Perspectives?
It is certainly probable that two different reporters covering the same events would pick and choose different details or which minor aspects to emphasize. That is not the case here. It is not a matter of telling similar stories with only a few differing details or points of emphasis. They are telling completely different stories. One of the authors is not telling the truth. We suspect that neither is telling the truth. It is already clear that the authors could not have been instructed by the Holy Spirit because of the two different stories. The ONLY overlapping details are the angelic annunciation and that it happened in Bethlehem, which was needed to satisfy Micah 5:2, which is often interpreted by Christians as being a prophecy of Jesus.
The story of the birth of Jesus contains verifiable historical inaccuracies.
- “They go to Joseph’s ancestral home to be counted in the census”. Joseph’s ancestral home – yeah right. And why do the Romans care a whit about anyone’s ancestral home? All the Romans wanted was to know how many were in a city so they could know their tax collectors weren’t holding out on them.Concern about one’s ancestral home is a Jewish conceit only. It was included in the story to link Jesus to David – no matter that Joseph wasn’t even Jesus’ biological father. That inconvenient fact is ignored.There is no way a peasant like Joseph could know his genealogy all the way back to David. How would he know which is the first home of his (which) ancestor? Which ancestor?And this ancestral home nonsense ignores all the other people in the region at the time. Presumably, they too would have to know the home of their prime ancestor. the whole region would have been in turmoil. Thousands of people going about trying to find their “ancestral home” How would everyman know in what city his foremost ancestor lived?. This is a contrived conceit to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, in order to fulfill Old Testament prophecy. Once again an attempt to connect Jesus with “the house of David”.For an irrefutable proof of how wrong this whole birthing story is and a complete debunking of all counter arguments , see “The Date of the Nativity in Luke (6th ed., 2011) by Dr. Richard Carrier
- The scenario of Luke 2:1-7 is unrealistic:
People would not be required to travel in order to register for tax purposes (it would be the taxation officials who would travel, as they had to link property to its owners), and Joseph, as a resident of Galilee rather than Judaea, would not have been affected by the census in any case. - There was no mass murder of babies under age two under the reign of Herod. (Matt 2:16). There is no other external historical source, Jewish or otherwise, to confirm what would have been a horrendous holocaust. Josephus, who documented Herod’s life in detail, did not make any mention of this monumental event.
. - Bethlehem of Galilee is less than ten miles on foot from Nazareth. Perhaps the most important reason to suspect the accuracy of Matthew and Luke is that Bethlehem in Judea did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 BCE when Jesus is believed to have been born. Archaeological studies of the town have turned up a great deal of ancient Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 BCE and lots of material from the sixth century CE, but nothing from the 1st century BCE or the 1st century CE.
- The leading star is a literary invention of the author of the Gospel of Matthew, to, yet again, claim fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy (Numbers 24:17). Proof of “literary invention”? Follow this…
- 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
- 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
.
- The Impossibility of the “follow the star” story
- “Wise” men came from the East. That means they were traveling West.
“… seen his star in the east”. The star, in order to lead them would have to have been in the west! - In his infinite ignorance, the author of Matthew believed that stars were little points of light just above his head. In that case it would be possible to “follow a star”.
But you know it is impossible to follow a star. Have you ever tried following a star? You can’t do it. What star is over your house right now?
How did they follow the star in the daylight?
.
- “Wise” men came from the East. That means they were traveling West.
- You celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25, but no biblical scholar believes that Jesus was born on that date. The date, December 25 was chosen to coincide and compete with pagan festivals that celebrated the beginning of longer days and the reappearance of the SUN!
. - Jesus was not born of a virgin. There were/are numerous fables about virgin births, but the true fact is, without artificial insemination, no one is born of a virgin.
Jesus of Nazerath Born in Bethlehem?
Note the contrivance of both authors to get Jesus of Nazareth born in Bethlehem. Why is he not known as Jesus of Bethlehem? Because the Old Testament contained prophecy that the Jewish Messiah would be born in Bethlehem so Matthew and Luke put him in Bethlehem, one by fiat, one by contrivance of a tax/census.
Inconsistent Genealogies
In their zeal to prove that Jesus really came from the line of David, (which was only important to Jews – no one else cared a wit) was the messiah and King of the Jews, both Matthew and Luke provide a genealogy that “proves” Jesus is derived from King David’s bloodline. The problem is, they give two different genealogies. From David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Apologists work hard to come up with sufficient spin but why is that necessary in a book written by God? Hmm, maybe it wasn’t written by God.
Even worse is the fact that neither of these genealogies matches the Old Testament (1 Chron 1-3). Matthew’s comes closest, but it’s still different in several areas. He omits several names from his list: Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim. This might not be such a problem, but it becomes more of one when we read verse 17:
-
So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.
The statement here is not true. First of all, according to Matthew’s list, there are only 13 generations between the deportation and Christ, unless you count Jechoniah again. But the bigger problem is that Matthew presents this statement as though this were a divinely guided pattern showing us that Christ truly came at the appointed time. But he only gets these numbers by omitting people from the genealogy. Therefore, his statement is not factually true. There was no pattern in the genealogy as it is recorded in the Old Testament
The story of the birth of Jesus contains an interesting thought.
If Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are one than it must be true that Jesus (in the form of the Holy Spirit) had sex with his own mother to give birth to himself (in the form of Jesus); then he (Jesus) sacrificed himself to himself (god) to save us from himself (in the form of God). We think that is a very accurate rendition of the story of Jesus.
Or, as Kevinator (see comments below) so succinctly put it:
Mary was impregnated by her unborn son so he would be born in order to kill himself in order to save us from himself.
The Fabrication is SO obvious
In the earliest Gospel, Mark, Jesus just appears as an adult, no mention of Jesus’ birth:
“And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan’. Mark 1:9
That is Mark’s first reference to Jesus. There is no mention of the birth story even though Mark’s gospel appeared first, before Matthew, Luke and John. Ten to fifteen years later, Matthew, then Luke realizing that they can’t have Jesus appear out of whole-cloth, concoct two separate, inconsistent, impossible stories to explain his birth. They then ignore the rest of his life until he just appears as a full adult; just like in Mark. John just has Jesus appear out of whole-cloth, a full grown Messiah.
The consensus is that the whole birth story is a fiction concocted 80 to 90 years (Matthew wrote after Mark) after the “birth” of Jesus (4 BC or 6 AD) to provide a back story for Jesus, once this charismatic preacher (al la David Korish, Jim Jones and others) was thought to be the Messiah by his mesmerized followers.
Please Explain This
The Gospels say Mary produced the son of God by virgin birth, before she moved in with Joseph. That would have meant Mary birthed a child out of wedlock. Becoming pregnant out of wedlock was a crime punishable by death.
So why wasn’t Mary executed? NO ONE, other than the Holy Spirit and Joesph? knew the circumstances of her pregnancy. One more piece of evidence proving that the birth of Jesus could not have occurred as described in the bible.
The Church Of Truth™ 
Nothing here that hasn’t been known for a long time. The Christmas stories are legends. That doesn’t mean the Bible is “wrong”. Just that only an idiot would think of reading Luke and Matthew’s accounts as if they are history and then grumbling because they’re not. There are plenty of idiotic atheists around, it would appear.
Who cares?
Jesus’ teachings seem O.K. to me ,in part anyway.Love God and love your neighbour i.e.I suppose everybody.
I don’t believe in any god but the rest seems reasonable,especially if you include other members of the animal kingdom.
Millions of people care and take actions based on a fable. There is very little in the new testament that speaks of love. Jesus has some pretty nasty things to say, take Luke 12:51 for examplel: “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division”
For more nasty things spoken by Jesus, see “Jesus Does Not Love You” here: https://thechurchoftruth.org/jesus-does-not-love-you/
Readers may be interested in a commentary on the New Testament by Paramhansa Yogananda, entitled “The Second Coming of Christ, The Resurrection of the Christ Within You” (two volume set, $ 20 at Amazon). Yogananda says that Jesus was a re-incarnation of Elisha of II Kings in the Old Testament, who plowed the earth using 12 head of oxen, the latter symbolizing the 12 apostles. His master, Eliza, returned as John the Baptist (which explains why JB was asked “Are you Eliza ?”) Supposedly, the “East” refers to the forehead in Indian tradition, and the “star” represents the light of intuition. Three enlightened masters (ie, the 3 Wise men) in India cognized the birth by the light of their intuition, and sought Jesus, who was to become another enlightened master. The gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh have specific symbolisms, which I now forget. Yogananda is highly critical of orthodox Christianity, and points out numerous errors in translations of the New Testament.
Why replace one ridiculously fanciful story with another ridiculous, fanciful story?
There is a comment stating that Bethlehem at the time of Jesus did not exist. I read on another site that it was Nazareth that did not exist at the time of Jesus. Maybe they both never existed at that time. If neither or both of them never existed, how can we prove that the Jesus of the New Testament even existed. The truth only comes from people who want the truth and do not have any ulterior motives. (for example: trying to promote a religion for their own financial benefit)
I’m surprised no one has mentioned THE WORLD’S SIXTEEN CRUCIFIED SAVIOURS by KERSEY GRAVES 1813 – 1883, a Quaker turned atheist. It can be read on line free. Perhaps you are him re-incarnated. All these questions and answers are perhaps an exercise in futility because there is no pragmatic evidence we even survive this life. It is a matter of faith. The birth of Jesus, as I am sure you know, was picked by Constantine 1 at the Council of Nicaea 325AD as December 25, close to the celebration of the Persian god Mithras, adopted by the Romans where gifts were exchanged and excessive drinking celebrated its return. So what’s new?
Richard j. Lanzara
You have clearly devoted considerable time and resources in presenting such compelling evidence for a cast iron case against many details in the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. I must challenge your claim regarding ‘the Impossibility of the “follow the star” story’, since astronomers can demonstrably refute your statement as it stands. I have also presented a similar challenge to Prof Bart Erhman over the same topic in his book “Forged”, so my reply is based on my response
My intention is not to undermine your work, but rather to present you with verifiable, scientific evidence that an astronomical event did in fact occur that matches the description of the apparent motion of the ‘Star’ of Bethelehem. I would like to offer an alternative hypothesis from an astronomical/astrological perspective that best fits the description of a ‘star’ that ‘moves’ and then ‘stops’ over where the child lay.
There have been numerous theories put forward by astronomers in the past as scientific explanations of the Star of Bethlehem, including a comet, a supernova – where a star explodes and produces huge amounts of light, and a planet.
Mark Thompson, a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society here in the UK, claims that there was an unusual astronomical event involving the retrograde motion of planet Jupiter and three conjunctions with Regulus, the brightest star in the constellation of Leo, that supports the account in the gospel of Matthew about the star leading the Magi to Bethlehem. He used computer simulations that allow the position of the stars and planets to be charted back to around the time when Jesus is believed to have been born.
Between September 3BC and May 2BC there were three “conjunctions” where the planet Jupiter and the star Regulus passed close to each other in the constellation of Leo. Jupiter first moved past Regulus traveling in its usual easterly movement, before appearing to slow down, ‘stop completely’ and then reverse direction to pass Regulus again in a westerly direction, before finally slowing down, stopping (over Bethlehem) and changing direction once more to resume its normal direction to the East to pass Regulus for a third time.
So to work in your objections to these facts ….
Jupiter first moved past Regulus traveling in its usual easterly movement (so the magi/obervers are West of Jupiter but still East of Judeah, for “we have seen his star in the east”.
Jupiter appeared to slow down, ‘stop completely’ and then reverse direction to pass Regulus again in a westerly direction, “Wise” men came from the East. That means they were traveling West. The star, in order to lead them would have to have been in the west! Correct since Jupiter is now travelling West across the night sky.
before finally slowing down, stopping (over Bethlehem) and changing direction once more to resume its normal direction to the East to pass Regulus for a third time.
But you know it is impossible to follow a star. Have you ever tried following a star? You can’t do it. Yes you can as I’ve mentioned they were following the planet Jupiter as it moved across the night sky.
How did they follow the star in the daylight? You can see both -4 magnitude Venus and -2 magnitude Jupiter during the day if you know where and when to look.
Retrograde motion is when an outer planet, like Jupiter or Saturn (easier to see in the night sky with the naked eye), appears to ‘slow down’ gradually, then ‘stop’ and gradually resume travelling in the opposite direction against the background of stars. This occurs when our faster orbiting Earth catches up with and overtakes the slower orbiting outer planets. This ‘movement’ and ‘stopping’ motion fits the description in Matthew 2:9 describing the ‘star’ moving then stopping overhead.
Whilst this might not have be a great ‘Astronomical’ event, like the awesome Comet McNaught (C/2006 P1) was in 2007, the three conjunctions between Jupiter and Regulus would have been regarded as being of huge ‘Astrological’ significance to Zoroastrian Astronomers, with the King of Planets and King of Stars moving so close to each other three times. On a forum about this subject, one commentor suggested that the Magi, although Zoroastrians could be of Jewish ancestory as this could explain their interest in the affairs of Judea. This may also help explain why Herod and his courtiers were oblivious to ‘the star’, since they did not buy into the Eastern mysticism and Babylonian Astrology.
Regarding your other claims, I’m not sure if the reference to the star being fulfilment of Numbers 24:17 is strained somewhat, since the NIV text states “A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel.” The text is clearly speaking metaphorically about someone or something coming out of the people and nation Israel, and not a literal star in the night sky.
So now I offer you an alternative hypothesis that harmonises the astronomy with the blatant facts that teh author of Matthew was desperately trying to make Jesus appear to be a fulfilment of ancient prophecies. I suggest that here the author(s) blurred factual events with a fictional accounts, and this is what happened here with the visit of the Magi and the ‘star’ of Bethlehem. The Astronomical event that best fits the description of a ‘star’ moving and ‘stopping’ definitely did happen, so most likely, the author(s) of Matthew took this factual account of the star and invented the legendary embellishment of the Magi to draw attention to the ‘cosmic sign’ announcing the birth of the Jewish Messiah. You also showed how the authors of the gospels tried to include anything prophetic (even if it was out of context like Isaiah 7:14) about Jesus’s birth or ministry being foretold, to enhance the credibility of the fledgeling Christian religion and message. In a similar way, it looks like the author(s) of Matthew intentionally included this ‘celestial announcement’ to the gospel account to enhance the credibility of Christianity, since most pagan gods and demigolds in ancient times had some cosmic event announce their birth or arrival.
I hope this adds another perspective for you to consider.
“The correct interpretation of the Jesus story then is: Mary was impregnated by her unborn son so he would be born in order to kill himself in order to save us from himself.”
OMG! I just realized! What the Christians have on their hands is a belief in a Fantasy being with a case of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), previously known as Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD)! One is a megalomaniac serial killer ordering his worshipers to commit murder, genocide, infanticide etc. like Charles Manson, another is a Charismatic Con Man (Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc) who created a cult of followers who he has separated from their families and loved ones and has convinced to sell off everything they own to join him in his demented fantasies, and the third is an incubus, a spiritual rapist that has sex with and impregnates virgin women inorder to perpetuate himself! WOW! That is so INCESTUAL! They are even more bamboozled than I originally thought! Didn’t Manson, Koresh and Jones claim that they were Jesus Christ?!?
Kev
Great Post Kevminator – I think you nailed it.
Your succinct description of the Holy Spirit -> Mary -> Jesus/God relationship is much better than mine. Well done. I would like to use it; I assume that is OK with you.
And yes, all those Gods you named did claim to also be Jesus Christ; along with about 5,000 others we don’t hear about because they are in mental institutions.
Permission GRANTED!
The lame apologetics are SO entertaining and desperate. Keep up the bad work, kids!
The Mark-Q source hypothesis has great explanatory power but doesn’t address the similarities between the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke. Don’t get me wrong: those stories are hopelessly, utterly contradictory. However, they have some similarities that are very unlikely for two totally independent fake accounts: the virgin birth, the Bethlehem birth location, and the fact that they skip the whole Jesus childhood/teen years, e.g., “They buried the diaper in which the Lord had shat and a mighty fig tree grew in that place … which he petulantly withered as an adult because it didn’t bear figs out of season.” Is there some apocryphal gospel that tells the story of teen Jesus learning to spank the plank? Perhaps a strategically-placed serpent metaphor … but I digress ….
Supreme Truthsayer (or somebody else knowledgeable): What credible scholarly hypotheses account for these nativity story similarities? Perhaps some post-Mark oral tradition that provided a few “facts” around which Matt and Luke spun their nativity tales? It’s a fun problem that I haven’t seen discussed.
You are surprised there are similarities? Why shouldn’t there be similarities? They are presenting the same important story that should contain NO discrepancies. Every “fact” in any telling of the same story should be identical. This is especially true because every word in the Bible has been edited by the Universe’s best editor-in-chief, the Holy Spirit.
With the Holy Spirit looking over the shoulder of every author, every copiest, etc. it should be impossible for there to be any contradictions, errors, etc. And, for such an important message, there should be no room for misinterpretation.
Alas, there are many contradictions, provable errors of science and history. Every now and again, there are some similarities – especially when Matthew and Luke copy word for word from Mark. Sometimes they don’t copy word for word, sometimes they embellish Mark – ergo similarities.
I loved your “digression”. Good thinking.
About the 3 wise men it does not say that. It says wise men with 3 gifts implying maybe 3 wise men each with a gift. The Magi who studied the stars. As far as to follow a star supposedly you can because that’s how they did it with navigation to get places. Mayan’s did this as well as later civilizations using following stars with different patterns. Even a certain device was made doing this but I don’t know much more than this. I need to find out how & when exactly. You did have a point I thought about the position – destination. I actually think it’s funny but admirable when kids think the moon is literally following them but that’s understandable at a young age as kids.
Navigation by stars works because they are in FIXED locations. And you need a sextant to do it and knowledge of celestial bodies.
The Christian world thinks there were three “wise” men – I don’t care, the whole story is cockamamie anyway.
For evidence against evolution, search up Icons Of Evolution on Youtube
OMG – YouTube to prove evolution is not true? Try reading some textbooks in Biology, Botany, Chemistry, Paleontology for starters.
Read “The Language of God” by by Francis Collins in which he advocates theistic evolution. Francis Collins is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP) . He is also a devout Christian.
Everything in this article is wrong for the following reasons:
1. There was more than one Herod.
2. Matthew: Several (not 3) wise men from the east bearing 3 gifts went to the house where Jesus was staying (it doesn’t say he was born there).
Luke: Several shepherds went to the stable where Jesus was born bearing no gifts.
Therefore, the shepherds visited Jesus when he was born, and the wise men visited Jesus about 2 years later, when Jesus was living in a house.
3. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, so obviously his parents were “already” in Bethlehem when he was born.
4. Matthew and Luke were focusing on different themes in their books, hence Matthew’s inclusion of the tragedy while Luke leaves it out.
5. What evidence is there that it didn’t take 16 days for Herod to work out that the Wise men had gone?
6. One genealogy is written from the mother’s line, while the other is written from the father’s line. Heli was the mother of Joseph, while Jacob was the father of Joseph.
7. Obviously Matthew was only including the most important names in his list, otherwise it would carry on for pages.
8.
Obviously this document contains heaps of errors and insufficient evidence and research and therefore should be treated as a load of bias, lies and rubbish
It makes absolutely no difference how many Herod’s there were because there is no record of any Herod murdering children as described in the Bible! Moreover, Mary’s genealogy means absolutely nothing because genealogy, by God’s decree, was from the male not the female side. And anyway, Joseph’s lineage is irrelevant because he did not impregnate Mary!! The Christian Bible clearly claims that Mary was impregnated by the holy spirit, in other words God, notwithstanding the fact that God had already promised King David and his son Solomon that the messiah would come through them! In other words he would be 100% human and not a god/man! Your number 8 is more appropriately applied to a description of the Bible!
You do have good points that I sought out also. What I was told was that Mary’s genealogy was important to show it was The Messiah in which that’s true, why only Mary’s Genealogy? The answer I guess was to prove through her background but also I asked the other one many times. Why Joseph if he isn’t blood related. I was answered with this : well he’s still a father figure & all males get a genealogy from the beginning to link to important people, especially to Jesus & it was a custom to put every leaders genealogy to show the relations…so basically they did it anyway to show who someone is. AND JUST HOW WERE THESE GENEALOGIES OF 50+ GENERATIONS DISCOVERED? I GUESS THEY USED THE MORMON’S DATABASE (LOL) I’m not sure but I think Muslims don’t believe in the Virgin birth but they believe he was sinless& a special prophet but nothing more…also why is everyone who degrades Christianity saying The Dec 25th Birthday Because That’s Been Said not True & Possibly Sept – Oct was the Actual alleged event. I heard Christians wanted to be more open to followers so they picked up Pagan ideas thinking they weren’t that bad if they get people to convert.
YOU HEARD CORRECTLY. L
“… Mary impregnated by the Holy Spirit”. But are not the Holy Spirit, God and Jesus one and the same? So Mary was impregnated by her unborn son? Do I have that right? Why is that not a correct interpretation?
The correct interpretation of the Jesus story then is: Mary was impregnated by her unborn son so he would be born in order to kill himself in order to save us from himself. Now that is right – I don’t even have to ask.
One other thing… why wasn’t Mary stoned to death? An unmarried pregnant woman would have been stoned to death with her father throwing the first stone at the city’s gates. Only Joseph knew that she had been impregnated by the “Holy Spirit”.
My first wife told me that too – about “our” son. I divorced her.
OH Brother. The twists and turns you have to impose on the story to give it any sense of truth. Most glaring – different genealogies; one is for Joseph and the other for Mary. That is absolutely not true.