Well, it’s that time of year again. Regular church attendees are going to have to share their pews with people who have finally decided to make it out for their second service of the year. Their belief that Jesus bled and died so they can gain eternal salvation might be unshakable, but it apparently isn’t all that motivating, considering how little these believers seem to do in response. Nevertheless, they can at least be counted on to show up for a retelling of Jesus’s miraculous birth.
But what version will they hear? More than likely, they’ll hear a “Hollywood” version of the tale that incorporates the most exciting elements of the two versions that we read about in Matthew and Luke. A quick Google search turned up this one, which illustrates my point perfectly. But what if someone tried to tell the full version? A version that included every detail that both Matthew and Luke provide?
Honestly, it just can’t be done. I had wanted to attempt it here, but there’s just no practical way to do it. For example, the version I linked to above goes like this:
The Standard Tale
- Mary’s visited by an angel who tells her about the pregnancy (Luke)
- She and Joseph live in Nazareth of Galilee, but are forced to travel to Bethlehem in Judea for a census commanded by the Roman authorities (Luke)
- They’re unable to find normal accommodations and are forced to room in an area intended for livestock. Mary gives birth there and is visited by local shepherds (Luke)
- Wise men far to the east see a star that somehow signifies the birth of the Jewish Messiah (Matthew)
- They travel for an unspecified period until they reach Jerusalem, where they inquire about the child (Matthew)
- These inquiries reach Herod, the ruler of the region, and he asks the wise men to send back word to him once they find the child, so Herod himself can also pay his respects (Matthew)
- The wise men make their way to Bethlehem, find the family, bestow their gifts, and return home via a different route (Matthew)
- An angel tells Joseph to hightail it out of Bethlehem, because Herod’s sending a posse to wipe out all the children 2 years old and under in an effort to stamp out Jesus (Matthew)
- Joseph and his family flee to Egypt and remain there until an angel tells him it’s safe to return, because Herod has died (Matthew)
- Joseph intends to go back toward Bethlehem, but after finding out that Herod’s son is in charge, he takes the family to Nazareth in Galilee (Matthew)
So what’s wrong with this story? I mean, it’s very cohesive, and it makes for a compelling tale. What’s not to like? Its only real problem is that the very books of the Bible that provide its details, contradict its overall narrative.
Two Very Different Stories
Let’s go back to Luke’s version. After Jesus’s birth and the visit from the shepherds, we don’t read about wise men or Herod’s animosity. Instead, Luke 2:22 says that after the days of Mary’s purification were over, the family went to Jerusalem. The “days of purification” are referring to Leviticus 12:1-4, where the Law of Moses stated that a woman was to be considered “unclean” for 40 days after giving birth to a male child. So when Jesus was about 40 days old, Luke claims that they all traveled to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices as thanks for his birth. While there, two elderly people see Jesus and begin proclaiming praise and prophecies concerning Jesus. And there’s no indication that an effort was made to keep any of this quiet, which is very different in tone to what we read in Matthew. Finally, in Luke 2:39, we read “And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” We’ll come back to this point in a moment.
The synopsis we looked at earlier incorporated most of Matthew’s version of the story. As we just read, his story ends very differently from Luke’s. However, it’s also significant to note that Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth. Matt 1:18 through the end of the chapter talks about Mary’s pregnancy, even though she and Joseph had never slept together, but it never specifies where they’re living. Chapter 2 begins with the sentence “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?'” Of course, it’s possible that Matthew still knew they were originally from Nazareth and just doesn’t bother to tell us that or divulge how they got to Bethlehem in the first place. But there are three context clues that point against such a possibility. First of all, regardless of how far the wise men had to journey, it likely took them quite a while to make the trip. When Matthew says “the east” he certainly doesn’t mean “east Jersualem,” and travel being what it was back then, any journey would have taken considerable time. The second clue is that Herod supposedly kills all the male children of Bethlehem who are 2 and under. So it’s unlikely that we’re supposed to still be thinking of Jesus as a newborn. Finally, Matthew says that when the family was able to leave Egypt, Joseph wanted to go back to Judea (where Bethlehem is). But after finding out Herod’s son was ruling, he became afraid and “went and lived in a city called Nazareth” (Matt 2:23). This is a very strange way to refer to Nazareth, if it’s where Joseph and Mary were already living.
So Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary were just visiting Bethlehem. He never mentions a manger; instead, he references a house that they were staying in. He never talks about the shepherds from the fields, but has wise men who visit the child. He includes a story about Herod slaughtering a town’s children, though no other historical or biblical source ever mentions this. He claims that the family flees to Egypt until Herod’s death, that they want to return to Bethlehem, but finally settle in “a city called Nazareth.”
Luke, on the other hand, says that Nazareth is their home town, and they’re only visiting Bethlehem. He has no story about wise men, but does talk about shepherds from the fields that visit the newborn Jesus. Instead of Herod attempting to hunt them down and a subsequent flight to Egypt, the family travels straight to Jerusalem, where Herod lives. And there’s no effort to keep Jesus’s identity secret while they’re there, as two elderly prophets begin proclaiming who he is. And after making their sacrifices, the family simply goes back home to Nazareth, far from Herod’s reach (not that Luke indicates Herod’s even interested).
Can These Stories Be Put Together?
The main sticking points between the stories are the flight to Egypt and the trip to Jerusalem. On the one hand, Luke is very clear about his timeline: Jesus was only about 40 days old when they went to Jerusalem and then went home to Nazareth. Matthew doesn’t give specifics on how old Jesus was when the family was forced to flee to Egypt, except that it must have occurred before he was 2 years old.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened before the trip to Jerusalem?
No. First of all, considering all the details Luke provides, why would he have left out such an important event? Secondly, this means Herod would have needed to die within the 40 day purification period, but Matthew tells us that this still wouldn’t have been good enough, because Joseph was determined to avoid all of Judea while Herod’s son was reigning. There’s simply no way he would have felt safe enough to travel directly into Jerusalem. That just makes no sense.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened after the trip to Jerusalem?
No. Luke 2:39 is clear that the family went straight back to Nazareth after their trip to Jerusalem. And considering Luke claimed that Nazareth was already their home, why would they have needed to go back to Bethlehem anyway?
In fact, Luke’s claim that the family was from Nazareth creates a lot of problems for Matthew’s account. Nazareth was far outside of Herod’s reach. So if Herod really had hunted Jesus in Bethlehem, the family could have simply gone back to Nazareth rather than flee to Egypt. But this isn’t a consideration in Matthew’s account, because for him, the family has never been to Nazareth until they simply can’t go back to Bethlehem anymore, even after Herod’s death (Matt 2:23).
Additional Problems
I don’t want to spend too much time here, but for completeness sake, I need to mention a couple of historical issues. Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great. Historians usually place his death in 4 BCE, which means Jesus would have been born sometime before that. However, Luke says that Mary and Joseph had traveled to Bethlehem, because Quirinius, the governor of Syria, had commanded a census. However, Quirinius didn’t become governor of Syria until 6 CE — 10 years after Herod’s death. You can find additional resources about these two issues here.
Finally, Luke’s claim is that this census required Joseph to travel back to his ancestral home of Bethlehem, since he was of King David’s lineage. But David would have lived some 1000 years before Joseph. It’s ludicrous to think that the Romans would have cared about such a thing, or that they would have wanted their empire to be so disrupted by having people move around like that for a census. It would have been an impossible feat and would have made for a highly inaccurate, and therefore useless, census.
What Do We Make of All This?
The easiest way to understand why these accounts have such major differences in detail is to understand why either writer bothered with a story about Jesus’s birth at all. You have to remember that the writers of Matthew and Luke didn’t know one another and didn’t know that they were both working on the same material. They certainly didn’t know that their books would one day show up in the same collection. Both of them were working with two basic facts: Micah 5:2 seemed to prophesy that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem; Jesus came from Nazareth (John 1:45-46).
Since those two facts were at odds with one another, it’s easy to see how both writers would have been compelled to explain how Jesus could be from Nazareth but still be from Bethlehem. Unfortunately for them, close comparison shows that both versions simply can’t be true.
How would people react if they showed up for church this weekend and were presented with the full details from both of these stories? I like to think it would spur many of them into deeper study. That it would possibly make them question some of the things they’ve been taking for granted. But 2016 has been pretty demoralizing when it comes to the number of people who seem concerned about what’s true, and I’m not sure how many of them would see this information as a call to action. I know there are people who can be changed by facts. Perhaps there aren’t as many of them as I once thought, but I know they’re out there. And with the way information spreads these days, I’m sure they’ll eventually find the facts they’re looking for.
Finding Truth 
“That Mary must have been one tough cookie. I give props to any woman who can cover over 90 miles (150 km) of rough terrain on foot during her final month of pregnancy, deliver a baby, and then complete the return trip with a nursing infant less than two months later.”
Hi Ron. I wonder whether you have made some assumptions here that are not in the text, but rather form part of popular imagination? I see no reason to believe Mary gave birth shortly after she arrived in Bethlehem – it could have been months later for all we know. Likewise, although she went home after the 40 days of purification, it doesn’t say straight after, and in any case, they WERE tough cookies in those days and travelling 6+ weeks after delivery would have been acceptable.
I think there are many assumptions made about these stories, understandably, but not necessarily accurately.
LikeLike
unkleE,
My assumptions are based on the story presented in Luke 2. That narrative claims Joseph traveled to Bethlehem and Mary gave birth while there, but they could find no lodging at the inn (contrary to Mathew’s account of them staying at a house.) And further down (verse 39) it says: “when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth”—which, according to the instructions found in Leviticus 12, would have been ~40 days after the birth. So even if we assumed they took their time getting there, it still presents an arduous journey for a pregnant woman and first-time mother.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Ron, it no longer says they stayed at an inn because that was a bad translation. The NIV has “guest room”, which means in a house almost certainly of a relative, and the Greek word simply means “a place to stay”. So the time may well have been much longer than you thought.
LikeLike
Well UnklieE. I was following you really well and agreeing until we hit a curb. I had to print off your responce so I could address it properly. First before I get into anything we may disagree with each other about, I love and respect that you can talk about this without getting upset and resorting to weird vague attacks. I will do my very best to explain what I was talking about.
First I like that you do not try to defend that the bible is the literal truth of all things, but don’t let Colorstorm hear you say that, he will go coo coo for coco puffs.
As for areas where the christian bible is wrong, it is as simple as the idea of the sun revolving around the earth, or the idea of the earth being a flat plate being held up by four pillars, with windows to let in water? Or the idea that the human genome project has proven there is no scientific basis for a single adam and eve pair? The whole idea of the global flood being a local legend from several other older “holy” texts ( I am thinking specifically of The Epic of Gilgamesh ) Oh I am not sure I need go on here at this point as we both agree the bible has problems with historical and scientific truth.
Again I want you to know that I have no problem with you or anyone believing in anything they choose as long as they don’t try to force me to believe it, to do as they do, or make it laws I have to live under, teach it in my public schools or insist that the government give it priority over everyone else.
I have stopped talking with several people who come to blogs here like C.S. as he won’t accept there is any scientifically proven errors in the bible and instead insists the book has to be word for word fact. I can not accept that nor deal with anyone who just refuses to accept the proven scientific standards we have today of our existence.
I did not claim the bible was totally full of falsehoods, however my problem is with those who refuse to admit it has errors. If we are to discuss specifics I will need to look them up and research the literature on them, as I do not have degrees in history or science. I am not sure I agree with the statement ” Conservative christians have explanations for just about any anomaly that sceptics have found, so we can hardly say “proven”” as I listen to many people far more educated than I who have proven the anomalies. However I am simply happy that you accept our world and the reality of it, the science that has been proven, and I think that means we have a basis to talk and move forward. I mean people have to have common points of reference to be able to even discuss things, if we all just disregard anything we don’t like or disagree with we wouldn’t have any discussion at all.
OK you brought up how you see Nates views. I am new to his blog so I have no real idea of what his views are. I would hope they are founded in science and reason, as I hope mine are. I have to say as you expressed it I think on this I agree with Nate. Afterall if it was so important to an omnipotent, all powerful, all knowing deity to have everyone in the world know about it and its plan, it would simply make it known. No ifs, ands, or buts. If that being could wish into creation a whole universe, then do the whole silly genesis thing and the man and woman thing… surely a mass letting everyone know “this is the truth here it is” wouldn’t be that hard, right? The statement “Conservative christians have explanations for just about any anomaly that sceptics have found, so we can hardly say “proven”” is a big problem. I have listen to many people who have proven that the anomalies exist. Just for a few Aron Ra, Matt Dillahunty, Ark. See to me that limits your god. Either he has the ability or he doesn’t. So when simple facts of the bible are proven to be wrong and people still insist they have to be right, that really demeans the god they claim is so powerful, at least to me.
You mention you and Nate’s disagreement with god’s judgment. Sorry I really can’t weigh in on that in the way you wish as I simply do not believe in your god. To me it is the same as asking my opinion on a unicorns judgement or a dragons ( that I have a few ideas on actually ) or Professor Snape’s or Dumbledore’s. To me these are fictional characters and not to be offencive but so is your god. Again if you want to believe in it, and it gives you comfort I am not here to take it from you, I just want you to not take reality from me and people who do not believe in your god. In fact before I go on reading your comment, it is people who claim to speak for your god who want to take from me my rights as a gay man, who want to deny my 26 year long marriage ( legally only two years now ) to my husband, who want to deny my equality and claim it is their right to discriminate against me and my kind while disregarding all the other laws in the same chapter of that holy book , those people who claim it is holy to throw a child out of the house because they love someone of the same sex and yet are willing to have that same child, flesh of their flesh, have to sell himself or do other horrible things to survive… no that angers me terribly! Sorry that was not called for on my part you never expressed those Ideas, it just gets so maddening to me to have people who claim a high moral ground willing to hurt those least able to defend themselves.
I figure we both have no place for hypocrites.
Back to what you wrote. See I am trying here.
I am not sure what you are saying when you say you don’t get joy out of your faith? Shouldn’t faith of any type give one joy? Otherwise why have it? Not to be argumentative here, but I have many friends I grew up with who are S.D.A and I think they get such a feeling from their church and their beliefs that it is almost wrong to confront them on it. I only do it when their life view threatens mine. It is not my job or purpose to take their joy from them, it is my only hope to keep the secular government and world I live in. If your faith doesn’t give you that joy, why do you hold to it?
I see in your comment you say you do have joy but also challenges .. I guess it is a personal thing and I really have no place there.
I think your last paragraph is the most important I think you would be more like a deist. As I understand what you wrote you believe in a deity of some kind, you believe it is powerful and has our best interest in mind, you do not regard every word of the christian bible as infallible words from god’s lips, you feel there is a higher purpose and a guiding power to mans life. I really have no problem with that. I think that is grand. See as long as you are not trying to take away from people what we should be able to move into as an enlightened society, as long as you are not trying to push science out of the classrooms to instead teach myths, as long as your belief is not harming others, Go for it !! I love it really. To me it is like sex, if all parties are consenting, and consent is the real key , if all parties are agreeable to what is going on, it is not my business. It becomes my business and everyone else’s when consent is denied, when the acts are forced on those who do not want or agree to them.
Sorry this took so long, I had to look over your comment and then I have to get my husband and son off to work. However I really don’t see where you and I have much difference in worldviews. You have a deity. Thats cool. I do not. That is cool also. I know we will talk again, and I hope it can be as friendly as this was. We may disagree on issues. But I really like we can agree we live in the same world, with the same natural laws, and the same basic understandings of human life. From there we can work on individual issues, I think. You ended with a question of what I thought of your response. I think it was grand. It was an attempt to find common ground and bridge differences. That is seriously great. Hugs
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Scotty, thanks for those explanations. There’s quite a lot in there, so let me pick out the bits I think most important.
”the sun revolving around the earth, or the idea of the earth being a flat plate being held up by four pillars, with windows to let in water?”
I wouldn’t say those things make the Bible wrong any wore than me saying the sun rose this morning. They are both the same – an archaic expression which we can still use poetically.
”the human genome project has proven there is no scientific basis for a single adam and eve pair?”
Can you show me where this has been proved, because I have studied this a bit and I don’t think it has. Yes, DNA shows that we have all descended from a single ancient woman and a single ancient man, and they probably weren’t alive at the same time – probably! – and they weren’t the only humans alive at the time. I don’t personally believe in a literal Adam and Eve, but it is possible that “mitochondrial Eve” and “Y chromosome Adam” WERE alive together. Proof needs to be way stronger than you are talking here.
”The whole idea of the global flood being a local legend from several other older “holy” texts ( I am thinking specifically of The Epic of Gilgamesh )”
I think this one is closer to proof, and of course I accept that there was probably a local flood as the basis for those early Akkadian myths, but not a global flood. But that only makes the Bible “wrong” if you think the only way a thing can be “right” is to be literally true. But a story, a myth or a legend can be a vehicle of truth – take the parable of the Good Samaritan as an example.
Had you said the Bible isn’t always literally historically true I would have totally agreed with you, but “wrong” is a whole different word.
”I am not sure I agree with the statement ” Conservative christians have explanations for just about any anomaly that sceptics have found, so we can hardly say “proven”” as I listen to many people far more educated than I who have proven the anomalies.”
Don’t just listen to one side, and certainly not just to people who are not neutral experts. I could send you to many conservative sites where they have explanations for everything. I don’t necessarily accept their explanations, I am just cautioning against countering their overly strong statements with ones of your own.
”Afterall if it was so important to an omnipotent, all powerful, all knowing deity to have everyone in the world know about it and its plan, it would simply make it known.”
What makes you think the “if” part of that statement is true?
”I am not sure what you are saying when you say you don’t get joy out of your faith? Shouldn’t faith of any type give one joy? Otherwise why have it? ”
As I said, I get mixed joy and sadness and many other emotions too. My point was that those aren’t the reasons I believe. The reason to have it is because it’s true (I believe). What better reason could there be?
”I think you would be more like a deist”
No, not at all. I have a lot of respect for deism, because I think it is a better explanation of the universe than most philosophies. But I am definitely a christian. I believe Jesus was (and is) the son of God and I try to follow him in the way I live.
”I really like we can agree we live in the same world, with the same natural laws, and the same basic understandings of human life.”
Yea, I am very happy with “live and let live” – that’s what God does to us, including atheists!! But I do feel sad that I think you are missing out on a lot.
Thanks a lot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A lot of this hinges on the truth/fact that the village of Nazareth existed as suggested in the story.
As soon as its existence during the specific time the story is set is brought into question, and one chooses to ignore any doubt put forward, especially because of the lack of archaeological evidence, one is effectively turning a blind eye, and behaving in a willfully ignorant manner.
Also, building any further case then leaves the door open to be accused of being disingenuous.
For a number of years after Alexandre made her amazing claim, revealed on or around the eve of Christmas in 2009 if memory serves ( how fortuitous), much to the delight of many Christians and quite likely the confusion and bewilderment of the vast majority who would have never even dreamed there was a whiff of scandal over this affair, It seemed that this was a ‘done deal’ and the protests of those who claimed this was little more than a publicity stunt were ridiculed and often vilified.
There were even the odd report that suggested in some sort of oblique fashion that this could have been Jesus’ actual home. Cor, wow! And of course, once such a suggestion like this is out there …
Well, a lie can run around the world before the truth is even out of bed.
I am grateful to Ken for posting the extract from Wiki as it needs to be shouted from the metaphorical rooftops.
“In 2009, Israeli Christian archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre claimed to have excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. <strong<Unfortunately this has not been corroborated by the IAA[41] or any other reliable archaeological sources.” (wiki)
my emphasis.
For those who may be interested:
This discussion ….
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/belief/nazareth-re-visited/
….took place between Unklee and a chap called Bernard.
I urge everyone here to pop over to Unk’s blog and read the exchange. And also the couple of follow up posts he did.
In light of the wiki statement above, you might want to rethink if you were contemplating any evidence has come to light.
Ark
LikeLike
Benefits of being a Christian would include:
Spending one’s entire life believing one is a sinner and nothing one ever does will be enough for Jesus, and in the end it is pretty much a crap shoot whether you pass ‘Go’ and get into Heaven.
Having to suspend critical thought your whole life and hold firm to a belief in the supernatural, convinced you are truly being a sunbeam for Jesus while forcing your brain to compartmentalize just enough to get through each day wondering why Yahweh is such a capricious arsehole.
Believe that prayer really does work … honest! Even though no prayer has even been demonstrated to have been answered … ever. And while you might be convinced Jesus is sending you a message because his … sorry, His face appeared on your burnt toast yesterday morning, kiddies are dropping dead like flies all over the world every second of every day, and by all accounts prayer flies (sic) in the face of Yahweh’s already laid out Divine Plan. Thus, any piddling whining pleas you offer up are only going to seriously piss Yahweh off and give him a bloody migraine, especially if they involve parking spaces, golf shots or curing your pet hamster of dandruff.
Acknowledging the amazing benefits of technology and how you can now reach all your Christian brothers and Sisters across the globe and then be quite surprised,nay shocked, to discover how a huge number of them actually don’t consider you are a True Christian at all.
In fact, some beleive you follow the religion of an Anti-Christ and are going to spend eternity being tortured in Hell.
But it’s okay, because once you have got over the shock of how truly repugnant some of your fellow Christians are, and you have calmed down a bit, you can take comfort in the fact you beleive exactly the same of them .
So instead, you blog about how screwed up atheists, humanists, materialists, and naturalists, are on a computer likely designed by an atheist who donates more money than you could even dream of to several atheist/humanist groups in an effort to try to offset poverty, often indirectly created by religions and their greedy self serving farking minions, yet you are convinced they will all be going to hell.
Meanwhile, some stupid misguided old baggage called Mother Theresa raked in millions upon millions and did fark all with all this boodle to alleviate pain and suffering and was made a Saint by a man in a dress who believes he has the divine right to be the arbiter between humanity and a god his church by all accounts, invented.
Having to face the world and try to convince yourself ( let alone the world) you are absolutely, and unequivocally perfectly sane and that, several billion non-Christians are the ones who are wrong, misguided, and simply nuts for worshiping other gods or no gods and are all going to hell, when meanwhile, standing right behind you are the likes of Ken Ham, The Creation Institute, and promoters of I.D, many of whom believe the earth is only around 6000 years old and dinosaurs existed with humans.
So, remind us please, exactly what is it non-Christians are missing out on again?
Ark.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Fascinating link on the two Bethlehems’.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm
LikeLike
ColorStorm,
You said:
“But your shirt scenerio? Easily answered. Each saw you at different times, thus no contradiction, because you had changed shirts.”
I think this highlights how any (literally any) contradiction can be explained away, and also shows how context can be ignored in order to reach a desired conclusion.
Can you offer an example of what you think is a contradiction?
I have seen believers invent any resolution, dream up any excuse, no matter how likely or unlikely, and proclaim, “ah ha! Therefore no contradiction,” while ignoring the fact that their own imaginations have created bridges over the gaps in a given story, or placed the Band-Aid over the gaping the hole – yet the text itself still only says what it says, for better or for worse.
I see two things, the differences and distinctions are still there, even if anyone tries to suggest otherwise, and secondly, I tend to believe that any contradiction, of any religion or story, could be “reconciled” in the way you’re trying to reconcile the bible’s issues.
Can you provide an example of what an actual contradiction is, if you believe contradictions exist, and would you be willing to explain and demonstrate how Luke and Matthew actually agree and how the issues Nate presented are actually resolved? Maybe by presenting a joined narrative that includes all information from both Luke and Matthew?
And for a kicker, would you expect a Muslim, or a believer in another faith, to defend their beliefs the same way, taking any problem or contradiction you could muster, and simply offering imagined and contrived “fixes,” whether sensible or not, and to you, would that show stubborn foolishness, or strength, devotion and diligence of faith?
LikeLiked by 1 person
…And you know, a trip to Egypt in order to avoid murder and the slaughter of a town’s babies are not minor details.
Why would God instruct, by divine inspiration, one writer to tell the story one way, and then instruct the other writer to tell it another way? Again, these aren’t minor details.
Even if we accept UnkleE’s position, that the translations were not exact enough, and Joseph was from Bethlehem and Mary from Nazareth, there are still some pretty big problems remaining, despite ColorStorm’s steadfastness of biblical inerrancy.
If I told someone that I drove to North Carolina for a holiday, and then back to New York, one would naturally assume I left New York, drove directly to NC and back again, but would easily assume I made a few stops for the potty or snacks and fuel, even if I never mentioned those stops.
But if they heard someone else say that during the same time, I drove to Ohio in order to avoid NC because someone there wanted to kill me, they may either believe the source of this tale is mistaken or lying, or that I intentionally kept some big part of the events from them, because these are significant details, not pit stops.
One must ignore how people work and ignore context, in order to reconcile these two accounts into one master harmony.
I don’t think anyone would suggest that God wanted Luke to purposely keep these big details from us while specifically having Matthew relay them, and all in a way that, if nothing else, gives the impression of a contradiction – (going Jerusalem when they were afraid to go to Jerusalem and took lengths to avoid the place – if going to a place and avoiding a place during teh same time period isn’t a contradiction, then nothing is).
And then this article didn’t even touch on Matthew’s “prophecies” connected to this tale; the biggest in my mind being the virgin birth prophecy which has so many problems with it when trying to actually connect Isaiah 7 & 8 to Jesus.
Now, if like ColorStorm, you look at a pile of puzzle pieces and proclaim, “It all Fits so perfectly,” without actually taking the time to assemble the pieces, then all of this may seem just fine – but when you actually take the time to see how each part fits together, it becomes pretty evident that they just do not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@william
Having trouble where to reply, but you said this:
‘without actually taking the time to assemble the pieces,’ as the reason for holding fast to the narrative of scripture. Uh hello? It is exactly the opposite.
It is understandable that you see shortcomings, especially if you were preconditioned by the lousy church of Christ doctrines, which are responsible for birthing spiritual dunces.
It is precisely WHY your alleged contractions have no merit, as the record has been untouched, at the risk of the scripture writers reputation.
Maybe you have heard about the field of blood that Judas bought……….when he was dead! Ha!
That’s right, he did, for the clue is given in the text. It was ‘blood money,’ and proper bookkeeping was necessary to justify the purchase. Zero contradiction, and the gripes of atheists and unbelievers throughout the world are laid bare.
But your greater concern should be: did Judas live? was he an apostle? did he betray the Lord? was there a last supper where he was present? did he lead the religious men in the dark of night to ply his wiles? was the Lord taken prisoner? did Peter warm himself by the fire? did a maiden question him as to his friendship with the Lord? did he go out and weep bitterly? was the Lord taken to Pilate? was there a town called Bethlehem? was there a town called Nazareth? did Golgotha exist?
Of course you know the answer to these questions, and it is simply a cold heart which looks for distractions. Sorry, but ti the truth.
But this is why you and others spend a lifetime trying to find ‘errors’ in scripture, and come up empty. Everytime.
LikeLike
ColorStorm,
It is good to see that we have some common ground, even if it’s only surrounding the plight of the church of Christ.
But I wasn’t asking about or talking about the death of Judas, but specifically about the birth narrative as written about in Luke and Matthew as well as on this blog post. Nate says there’s contradictions, walks us through the text, points out the issues and explains why they’re issues.
You have said he’s mistaken.
Can you do the same as he did, walk us through the text, except show how the issues that nate has pointed out and explained, are actually not in conflict, and show how they are in harmony?
From here, it looks as if any religion or any contradiction can be excused and resolved in the same manner that you’re trying to excuse and resolve the bible’s issues. And from here it looks like it’s not much more than to avoid the specific details and simply state that there are no contradictions – maybe even avoid the subject altogether by bringing up another one.
I do realize that I could be mistaken – I certainly have been before, and recognizing that has led me here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ark … your comment related to the “benefits” of being a Christian? You need to post that on your own blog. Excellent!
LikeLiked by 3 people
@William
You are a relative ‘Newbie’ when it comes to dialogue with Colstomystorm.
Fifty bucks says he will never give you a straightforward answer to any question you ask.
LikeLiked by 4 people
@william
You said this:
‘in the same manner that you’re trying to excuse and resolve the bible’s ..’
Nope. No excuse. I mentioned Judas for one reason. The so-called contradictions of his life and death are nothing but poor and sloppy reading; the same that can be said regarding any so called contradictions.
And I am trying to resolve nothing. There is nothing to resolve. The narrative of scripture speaks for itself, and is more than willing to present itself as truth to anybody who will take the time to recognize that it is not Readers Digest. God’s words requires God’s tools. Pride is a broken tool.
Perhaps you have not unpeeled the layers to satisfy your queries. Seek and ye shall find.
LikeLike
Good morning. Had not planned an in depth conversation so early in my day but let us see where this will go.
I can see we don’t agree on much. However the fact is the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth and the earth is not flat. Those are facts. It is not the same as you saying the sun rose this morning. The significance of the known fact being wrong in the bible shows that it was not written by an all knowing god, but instead by very limited men who knew little about the sciences we take for granted today. Those men who wrote the bible knew only what was in their area and it shows in what was written in the bible. That is why it is important the errors of the bible. It takes away the deity of the book, and opens it up to being a book of myths.
Again we are not in agreement over the adam and eve thing. The fact that these humans that we all link back to were not alive at the same time together rather clearly says that we are not descendant from the adam and eve of the bible. The story says we have all sinned because those two did. But the genetics prove the ones we are linked back to can’t have been adam and eve even if they existed, as if they did that line all died out. That means no sin in current man and no need for salvation, which means no need for a christ to come and die for man.
For much more detailed explanation of the project’s findings and what it means both the godless cranium and Arkenaten did great break downs of it.
Again on the flood the whole idea of Noah and the ark is beyond silly. That people like Ken Ham are still peddling it to children is very harmful for their education. I disagree the flood story is a “vehicle of truth” in any way. The fable of the dog in the manger is a great example of a teachable story. The way the bible presents the ark is not. IMO.
Sorry I don’t get your defence of the bible with the saying wrong is a different word than untrue. In fact the bible is both. I don’t think you have to have a bible to have a deity. IF you want to make up a god, make one up. But to make one up that is based on falsehoods, untruths and yes a book that has things wrong all through it is not a very good god. Not to mention the god of the bible is morally despicable. I know people who claim to love their god. Their god has nothing to do with the bible, it is a great being of infinite love and caring, able assist them in every part of their life. This god gives them comfort and can not be handicapped by a failed collections of stories in a single book.
I am not debating your god. I am saying a god based on the bible is a horrible god if it exists and not worthy of consideration or worship.
I do listen to those with the skills and judgment to show their argument is factual. I do not need to hear both sides of the global flood story to know it did not happen. I do not need to listen nor do I believe in apologetics. I do believe people such as Victoria, Nan, Ark, and many others who come here are knowledgeable about the subjects and correct in their assessment. I simply believe in what Matt Dillahunty and Aron Ra and Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have shown to be true. I have hear the debates and I agree with them. Throw in Sam Harris once in awhile for good measure. As I agree with these people, I respect their intelligence, I accept their knowledge of the subject, feel repeating what they have said to be a overly strong statement. I do not need to be able to dream up and figure out the whole theory of general relativity to be able to write E=MC squared.
However your point about tone is important. I do agree that sometimes without meaning to we do let tones creep into our words we don’t intend. I went back over everything I wrote last night to see if I felt I was overbearing or coming on too strong. I did not see it in what I wrote. In fact I was feeling rather mellow and accepting last night. The comment here I think would be more of a strongly worded and stated with more conviction than last nights. But it is early for me and I am still trying to get things percolating in the old body. 🙂
“Afterall if it was so important to an omnipotent, all powerful, all knowing deity to have everyone in the world know about it and its plan, it would simply make it known.”
What makes you think the “if” part of that statement is true? Because such a deity did not do so, therefore if it could it did not care enough to do so, and if it couldn’t it is not the omnipotent all powerful all knowing deity. Sorry but I think you are nit picking here. The sentence is self explanatory.
I will accept the parts about your faith and why you have it. I do this because it is personal and it is something only you know for sure. I don’t think anyone especially me should try to tell others what they believe or how they feel. I will say we disagree. We greatly disagree. I don’t think not have Christianity in my life diminished it in any way. I personally think it makes my life much better. I am free to explore the world as it really is. I am free to accept science, history , cosmetology, and so many other facets of understand we humans have gained in the world. I do not have to deny them to follow the error filled holy book. I like that freedom to live in this century, not the disproven ideas of up to 2000 years ago.
Your faith is your own and your own right. I won’t argue that at all, it is true. I believe religions should be joined into and taught to the consenting. Children can’t consent. I do not think that they should be indoctrinated until a more developed age, like 16 or 18. Some say 12 is OK. I Do think if an adult wants to have superstitions, myths, beliefs, it is their right. All I ask is keep it out of the secular government, out of the laws, out of the schools. Simply stop trying to force others to live by a religion they don’t agree with. Now I did not say you do this, but the majority of religious people do. Your comment about your feeling sad I am missing out on a lot shows me how you view this. I assure you I am great and fine with my own beliefs and systems. What is more I do not feel the need to take yours from you. I welcome you to your faith and wish you the best. I just don’t want any part of it.
Be well and happy, this is again really long, Nate will start putting a word limit on me. 🙂 I have to run and start the day’s emails, things are again piling up. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm,
it may not be me who’s guilty of sloppy reading, as twice you’ve turned to discussing Judas death with me and I have yet to say a word on that topic and have asked you specific questions about a different topic.
Again, here we’re talking about the birth narrative in Luke in Matthew. After your numerous comments, I think I get an idea of your position. I tend to look for a little more than, “nu uh, you’re wrong, the bible is always right, and by the way Judas death…”
I’ve noted your disagreement with nate’s position and have also noted your lack of a detailed response and demonstration. Interestingly (perhaps only to me), you remind me of the bible’s authors, making a claim, but offering no backup in support.
I hope your Christmas was a delight and that your New Year will only be better.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tks will,
But if the testimony of scripture does not suffice, then all the ‘arguing’ by myself on a matter which has long been settled will be to no avail.
LikeLike
ColorStorm,
you sited “Seek and ye shall find.” I actually think on Matthew 7 and that verse often.
What do you seek, to show that the bible is God’s inerrant Word, or the truth (whether you like it or not)?
If the former, then perhaps you don’t realize you’re starting with a conclusion and working backwards. If the latter, then good luck to you on your quest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColoStorm,
I think this,
“But if the testimony of scripture does not suffice, then all the ‘arguing’ by myself on a matter which has long been settled will be to no avail.”
is true.
For me, the testimony of the scriptures is nothing more than an assortment of claims made by men. These men only claim to speak for god, and this claim isn’t unique to them or this religion. So unless we’re going to just accept anything anyone claims regarding God(s), then we have to use to something to establish whether we can believe those claims or not, whether those claims actually have any support.
In my seeking, I have found that the bible is not of God, but merely of men, though it does have some value inside it.
If I’m wrong, then God will do to me as he sees fit, but will know my heart was sincere and that I made every effort to not make the same mistake as the young prophet in 1 Kings 13.
And if you’re wrong… Odin help you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Looks like my $50 is quite safe …
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent article, Nate. I will repost it on my blog.
Christians have had 2,000 years to find harmonizations for every discrepancy in the Holy Bible and here is the harmonization I grew up with for the two Birth Narratives: Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth. They went to Joseph’s ancestral home town, Bethlehem, for the census where Mary gave birth to Jesus in a stable. Days later, they passed through Jerusalem for Mary’s purification and then returned to Nazareth.
At some time before Jesus was two years old, the family moved to Bethlehem. This is where the Wise Men found them. After being told by an angel of the impending slaughter of the Innocents, Joseph took the family to Egypt. Years later, the family returned to Nazareth.
As for the census, Christians are always alleging new discoveries that confirm a world wide census at the time of Jesus birth. The current claim is of an inscription in the wall of a Roman building in modern day Turkey about a world wide census.
I did learn something new from Nate’s post: that Matthew refers to Nazareth as “a town called Nazareth”. If Matthew had known that this was Mary and Joseph’s home town (or even just Mary’s hometown) would he have referred to it in such a way? Very odd.
And what about UnkleE’s claim that Luke’s account is accurate and Matthew’s account is loaded with fabrications? Why couldn’t both accounts be fabrications? After all, the original Gospel, Mark, has no birth narrative. Not only that, there is no mention of Jesus being born of a virgin in that Gospel. Isn’t it possible that BOTH birth narratives were theological inventions for the purpose of supporting the NEW claim that Jesus had been the Son of God since his birth, and not just since his baptism, as the Gospel of Mark seems to suggest? We have evidence of other embellishments in Luke’s writings. He is the only author who tells us of an Ascension off of the top of a mountain in front of his disciples. If such a dramatic event had happened, why didn’t Mark, Matthew, or John mention this event?
LikeLiked by 4 people
@CS, “on a matter which has long been settled ”
What matter is this CS ? And who settled it ?
LikeLiked by 1 person