Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by volgadon

Johhny, that is a wonderful theory, except for one problem. Matthew is very adamant about Bethlehem.

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in
the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the
east to Jerusalem,

This does not mean that when the wise guys came to Jesus, Jesus was in Bethlehem.

It only in this case means that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

And wise men came looking for him in those days, looking for Jesus who was born in Bethlehem.





Matthew 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.


Now by this time that they got to the land, it was that Mary and Joseph had already had the circumcision and gone back to the land of Galilee.


Matthew 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was
troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Matthew 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and
scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ
should be born.

Matthew 2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for
thus it is written by the prophet,


No problem, He was born in Bethlehem but now he is gone to Galilee but they do not know it.


Matthew 2:6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not
the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a
Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Matthew 2:7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise
men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

Matthew 2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and
search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found
him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

He tells them to go to Bethlehem 'cause he does not know that God has arranged it so that these people are run around in circles. (and also years later the trap is set for unbelievers who come to Jesus and today, those who read by their flesh only and not with the Spirit.)


Matthew 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and,
lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till
it came and stood over where the young child was.


No where are we told that the star was "over" Bethlehem.
We read it that way because we have grownup on the stories told by preachers who know little of the Scripture and go by what some preacher told them.



Matthew 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with
exceeding great joy.


They decided to follow it instead of taking the so-called "King"s advice.

Then going forward together to Galilee


Matthew 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw
the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and
worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they
presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

They did not follow their own trail home.

Matthew 2:12 And being warned of God in a dream that they
should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country
another way.




Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of
the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take
the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou
there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young
child to destroy him.

Matthew 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his
mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet,
saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.


Israel in the Scripture was called "God's Son".

A type of Christ.




Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

The text does not say that Joseph went to the Galilee because Archelaus ruled over Judaea.

That's exactly what it says. It says that the only reason Joseph went to Galilee was because Archelaus ruled over Judaea. That only makes sense if Joseph was planning on going to Judea originally. The text says he was afraid to "go thither" (not go through) even though he was warned by an angel that it was safe so he "turned aside" (not continued on) into Galilee and "dwelt in a little town called Nazareth".

It's very obvious for those without an agenda.

If I were to say in the summer of 2007 I went by train through the city of Krasnodar, yet my friend says he went through the city of Krasnodar, where he had previously been, which is the contradictory statement?

It all depends on the wording. The wording in Matthew (along with the rest of his story) precludes their arrival at Nazareth from being a return from a trip which is what it is in Luke.

Most Jewish traditions were written down years later, because before the destruction of the temple, they considered it a sin to write down the oral teachings. Here is another wild goose chase for you. Learn a bit about the Mishan, Talmud and other ancient Jewish writings.

Then, I'm afraid they can't be varified to be from before Christ's birth and are not evidence for anything. Do the Mishan and the Talmud contain prophecies of the Messiah coming from Galilee?

The first time the prophecy was fulfilled was when the Assyrians suffered defeat. The second was when Christ began his ministry and dwelt in Capernaum...

Who told you that Isaiah 9:1-2 meant both of those things?

Must have been reading a different Nephi. He states that Mary is a virgin.

I know he does. So does Luke and Matthew. That's not the point. The point is that nowhere does Nephi use the prophecies of Isaiah that Matthew uses as a fulfillment for the future birth of Jesus. Nephi receives his own vision that Jesus would be born of a virgin. Nowhere does Nephi say that Jesus would be born at Bethlehem either. Luke and Matthew are the only authors from scripture that make this claim.

When formulating a theory, you really do need to consider all the other possibilities, if just to rule them out.

Here is one no less likely than your own. Scribal error and corrupted texts.

Already considered it. All the evidence points to two different accounts, not the same account corrupted over time.

What you term a wild goose chase I term learning. I really don't care if you won't learn more about it, your loss.

The only thing I'm learning so far is that you are a jumble of facts without the apparant ability to interpret them correctly. Each time I've researched something you've told me to it turns out to NOT support what you say. It's like a poorly researched conspiracy theory with very loose connections and wishful conclusions.

"It means that the star appeared in the sky about a year before the wise men arrived at Jerusalem."

But did it appear when Jesus was born, or before.

In Luke it doesn't appear at all. I suppose if you want to believe, the star could have appeared at anytime. But the only reason to assume it appeared a year before his birth is because it contradicts Luke's account which says that they went back home 33 days after Jesus was born. Since this already contradicts Matthew who says they escapted to Egypt first, why should we try so hard to reconcile another contradiction made in the same statement?

Luke is still a primary source, even the majority of Israeli scholars consider it as such. Not all primary sources share the same degree of accuracy though.

Luke isn't even considered a primary source by devotional scholars who realize that Luke was only a travelling companion of Paul who never met Jesus in mortal life.

And another thing, where in John are the pharisees ignorant of the captivity?

John 8:33 - "They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?"

[Dravin]

Luke and Matthew are the only authors from scripture that make this claim.

Micah 5:2 and John 7:42. Though I suppose one could hedge with the fact it says come out of, not born in.

[Hemidakota]

What is the point of this thread beside 12 pages of arguments?

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

What is the point of this thread beside 12 pages of arguments?

Just as it has always been every sense I can remember.

There is Scripture we trust as Scripture

That may be just made up fairy tales.



Where will it all end?




Bro. Rudick

[Hemidakota]

We have BYU professors who believe many things were added to the stories but never failed to seek to find the truth from the source - Jesus Christ - on whether it was added or not. But then, if it was a fairy tale, I think personally Joseph would of wrote it down as such. There are few here would claim Job was made up but Christ mentioned his name twice to Joseph Smith of the order of those who went through trials of fire. I highly doubt the Savior can lie.

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

. . .There are few here would claim Job was made up but Christ mentioned his name twice to Joseph Smith of the order of those who went through trials of fire. I highly doubt the Savior can lie.

Some may very well claim that Joseph made that up I guess.

No telling where it ends when you start saying that the author
of a book of Scripture just made up a story that he placed
in that book of Scripture.



Bro. Rudick

[volgadon]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

That's exactly what it says. It says that the only reason Joseph went to Galilee was because Archelaus ruled over Judaea. That only makes sense if Joseph was planning on going to Judea originally. The text says he was afraid to "go thither" (not go through) even though he was warned by an angel that it was safe so he "turned aside" (not continued on) into Galilee and "dwelt in a little town called Nazareth".

It certainly does say travelling in. And he was already in Archelaus's realm when that verse appears. The warning is not a warning but a command, it is the dfream he had in Egypt.

It's very obvious for those without an agenda.

Then it can't be very obvious to you.

It all depends on the wording. The wording in Matthew (along with the rest of his story) precludes their arrival at Nazareth from being a return from a trip which is what it is in Luke.

I just gave you an example of different wordings.

Then, I'm afraid they can't be varified to be from before Christ's birth and are not evidence for anything. Do the Mishan and the Talmud contain prophecies of the Messiah coming from Galilee?

That is from the Talmud. Try m. Taanit 2 and and Berachot 2 in the Yerushalmi (the Yerushalmi also known as the Palestinian Talmud is the older of the two talmuds), as well as midrash Bereshit Raba, chp 20.

Who told you that Isaiah 9:1-2 meant both of those things?

One is context and scholarly works, the other is Matthew, backed up by elder Holland.

I know he does. So does Luke and Matthew. That's not the point. The point is that nowhere does Nephi use the prophecies of Isaiah that Matthew uses as a fulfillment for the future birth of Jesus. Nephi receives his own vision that Jesus would be born of a virgin. Nowhere does Nephi say that Jesus would be born at Bethlehem either. Luke and Matthew are the only authors from scripture that make this claim.

So if Nephi was right about the virgin birth, how is Matthew wrong about it?

Already considered it. All the evidence points to two different accounts, not the same account corrupted over time.

Not necessarily over time.

The only thing I'm learning so far is that you are a jumble of facts without the apparant ability to interpret them correctly. Each time I've researched something you've told me to it turns out to NOT support what you say. It's like a poorly researched conspiracy theory with very loose connections and wishful conclusions.

You have not.

In Luke it doesn't appear at all. I suppose if you want to believe, the star could have appeared at anytime. But the only reason to assume it appeared a year before his birth is because it contradicts Luke's account which says that they went back home 33 days after Jesus was born. Since this already contradicts Matthew who says they escapted to Egypt first, why should we try so hard to reconcile another contradiction made in the same statement?

First of all, it would not be 33 days, but 66. You are the one with wildly inacurate information. Ad what is more, Luke leaves open the possibility that there were other things, such as festivals.

Luke isn't even considered a primary source by devotional scholars who realize that Luke was only a travelling companion of Paul who never met Jesus in mortal life.

Luke isn't a favourite primary source, but c'est la vie.

John 8:33 - "They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?"

I had a feeling you would use that one. They are speaking of themselves. That generation had never been in the Babylonian captivity. At any rate, John is showing their supreme arrogance. Read Josephus.

[Enlil-An]

It certainly does say travelling in. And he was already in Archelaus's realm when that verse appears. The warning is not a warning but a command, it is the dfream he had in Egypt.

The scripture doesn't say that. It says, " And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel." His journey from Egypt to Israel would have been on the trade route from Pelusium to Gaza which would put him in the Idumea province which was governed by Herod the Great's sister, Salome I, not Herod Archelaus. The scripture then says, "But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither..." The phrase "go thither" means he was afraid to go into the land of Judea which wouldn't make sense if he was in that land already as you claim. The scripture then says, "notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee..." To do this, all Joseph needed to do was travel up the Palestinian coast through the terrirtory Salome until he got to Samaria and then from Samaria to Galille thus avoiding the heart of Judea.

I just gave you an example of different wordings.

Which are irrelevent to the wording in Matthew and Luke.

Matthew "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth..."

Luke "...they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." [emphasis added]

That is from the Talmud. Try m. Taanit 2 and and Berachot 2 in the Yerushalmi (the Yerushalmi also known as the Palestinian Talmud is the older of the two talmuds), as well as midrash Bereshit Raba, chp 20.

Since I don't have either of those Jewish scriptures on hand, why don't you be so kind as to provide the exact quotes that show the prophecies of the Messiah coming from Mt Arbel or Galilee?

One is context and scholarly works, the other is Matthew, backed up by elder Holland.

Why don't you be helpful and quote and explain the context as well as the "scholarly works" you're referring to so we can all compare them? Afterall, that's what I've been doing for you. You could at least return the courtesy to the rest of us.

So if Nephi was right about the virgin birth, how is Matthew wrong about it?

I didn't say Matthew was wrong about the virgin birth. I said he was wrong about everything else. Matthew just isn't a credible source for determining that Jesus was really born at Bethlehem.

"Already considered it. All the evidence points to two different accounts, not the same account corrupted over time."

Not necessarily over time.

There's no evidence that it was corrupted right away either. All the evidence suggests that Matthew and Luke are two different contradictory accounts and that they were so even when they were first written.

You have not.

More accusations without evidence, volgadon? Do you really expect me to respond to this?

First of all, it would not be 33 days, but 66. You are the one with wildly inacurate information. Ad what is more, Luke leaves open the possibility that there were other things, such as festivals.

Sorry, but Luke doesn't leave open the possibility that the divine family fled to Egypt for their lives. He says they immediately returned to Nazareth from Jerusalem. And Leviticus 12:4 says, "And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled."

I had a feeling you would use that one. They are speaking of themselves. That generation had never been in the Babylonian captivity.

No, they are saying that "we" as the "seed of Abraham" have never been in bondage. But we all know that the seed of Abraham has been in bondage before.

At any rate, John is showing their supreme arrogance. Read Josephus.

Read Josephus? You mean, like, the whole thing? In the next few days? Do you know how extensive the work of Josephus is?

How long are you going to play these games, volgadon? Everytime I've used a source to back up one of my arguements, I've quoted the source and precisely where it's located so that everyone can see it in the context of my arguement and can prove it for themselves by finding it quickly. The more you neglect to do this also, the more shakey your arguements look. Why don't you provide us with the exact quotes for your claims? Are you hoping that by not doing so, we'll just take your word for it and be too discouraged or lazy to check it out ourselves - kind of like Matthew does when using the vague assertion "spoken by the prophets" in reference to Jesus being a Nazarene?

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

. . .No, they are saying that "we" as the "seed of Abraham" have never been in bondage. But we all know that the seed of Abraham has been in bondage before. . .

Much to extensive for someone so lazy as I to get into but I will just pick out this one
little bit to comment on here.

As in many narratives we read in the bible - it is to be close to what is said.


I hear people say all the time and I find that I myself will say something that in no
way is even close to what they meant.

"I ain't got no money."

If someone was to quote me and 1000 years down the road the reader was to find
that I was not exactly broke I am sure he would find fault with the chronicler.

O, well.


Bro. Rudick