Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[TeancumsSword]

I am more interested in your name then your question. Why have you given yourself the names of two Sumerian gods?

[Just_A_Guy]

Enlil-An, I agree with you that Matthew sometimes takes unwarranted liberties with his interpretations of Jewish prophecy.

That said, you seem to be (to use the classic legal terminology) "drawing inference upon inference".

Your apparent assumption that Jesus was not born at Bethlehem seems to be drawn from, among other things, the unwarranted assumptions that a) Matthew tells us why Joseph feared to subject himself to Archelaus' rule (in fact, he does not), and b) Matthew's "a city called Nazareth" verbiage means that Matthew is hinting that neither Joseph nor Mary had had any prior connection with that city (as opposed to, say, simply introducing a new and relatively obscure location into the narrative).

If you're using that assumption to assert that Jesus wasn't really born in Bethlehem, that Nephi's account is wrong, and/or that the GAs are suspect because they don't buy into the prior two assertions--that just isn't a bandwagon I'm willing to jump onto.

[rameumptom]

We believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. Since we are not sure which parts are the correct translation, the Lord allows us to believe it all, until he is ready to clarify it.
Bible Scholar, April Condick, suggests in her blog that the story of Jesus was put together by separate peoples years after Jesus' death. It is very possible that various stories came up as legends about Jesus. In fact, there are stories about his childhood that are still available for reading. Chances are, some were based on facts, while others were stories that were derived from various rumors or legends.

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

It recently came to my attention that the birth narratives of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are irreconcilably contradictary. According to Matthew, the Savior and his parents are from Bethlehem, stay there for two years after Jesus' birth, fly to Egypt to escape King Herod, and arrive at Nazareth for the first time once Herod is dead. In Luke, Mary and Joseph are from Nazareth, travel to Bethlehem for the census, stay there only a month during her purification according to Levitical law, and then return back home to Nazareth. There is no flight to Egypt, no wise men following a star, no death decree by Herod.

After reading these narratives closely, it becomes obvious that Matthew and Luke are telling two totally different, contradicting stories. Both of them can't be true. The prophet, Nephi, prophesied that Jesus' mother would be from Nazareth but only says that Jesus would be born in "the land of Jerusalem". There are no other places in the standard works that specify where Jesus was born or how he got there.

My question is, has anyone else here noticed this and how do we reconcile it with the Church's position that the Bible is the word of God (originally written by inspired men) and that the only errors in it are mistranlations and interpolations here and there?

If you have a choice between the four apostles as to the details of the Savior's life, whom would you pick? Unfortunately for us, it was not the true followers of Christ that canonized the contents within since we are left with four accounts vice twelve.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

. . . since we are left with four accounts vice twelve.

Two accounts, actually. AFAIK, neither Mark nor Luke were apostles, technically speaking.

[Azriel]

Some thoughts:

Wise men did not warn Joseph to flee. An Angel of God did this after the wise men left.
So Joseph fled.
It never says Christ was 2 years old when the wise men arrived at His doorstep.
It says, that after Herod realized his wise men weren't going to return at all, it had been two years since Christ's birth.

Matthew does not say that Joseph and Mary are from Bethlehem.
(He does say that Joseph wanted to put Mary away privily, and I would not be surprised if they left wherever they were FROM [where people knew her, and knew she was unwed/pregnant] and went to a town where people wouldn't know of her condition)

Luke states:
39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

But it doesn't say how long it took to do all the things, what all the things were, and where they were currently dwelling before their return.

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

Two accounts, actually. AFAIK, neither Mark nor Luke were apostles, technically speaking.

Could you name the twelve?

[Just_A_Guy]

Wikipedia lists the names of the Twelve as recorded in each Gospel. In all of the lists, both Luke and (John-)Mark are absent.

[Hemidakota]

The gospel according to the wiki god. Go figure....

Yes, I am aware of the original twelve and that many things did transpired after the Savior left. Even Paul, there is no direct ordination of him being called to Apostleship. In fact, Luke was called many times as a physician by Paul. Seeing the two largest writings were completed by Luke [Acts], I have no doubt being a earlier scribe, he was in no doubt called. Some non-canonize work has indicated it since he was mentioned frequently.

On the level of likelihood, a number of careful scholars ask about the authorship of Luke: "If people were guessing, would they not be much more likely to come up with an apostle?" And on the restricted question of fact, Luke is the only author mentioned by the prominent church fathers and important hand-written copies of the Gospel in the early Christian centuries.

Paul profiles Luke. Besides giving Luke's general greetings in two letters (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11), the apostle was specific at the end of Colossians, describing him as "the beloved physician" (Col. 4:14). While Christian leaders regularly addressed their converts by "beloved," this term of endearment applied to a fellow laborer amounts to a designation of intense trust. Paul was most sensitive about who instructed the volatile branches, so here he really designated Luke as an apostolic associate whose spiritual—and historical—knowledge could be trusted. This relationship gives important color to Luke's preface; he could record what apostles knew because he was their intimate companion.

[Hemidakota]

In the case of Mark as with Luke, he was not also included in the original twelve choosen by the Savior. We do not know the precise relationship with the Savior, although Mark may have been among the larger circle of the Saviors' early followers. Tradition says that Mark was a missionary companion of Peter and that the Gospel of Mark represents in large measure Mark's account of Peter's recollections of the Lord and his ministry. That seems probable. It seems so if you would listen to not only Elder McConkie but those who subscribe to the learnings of scriptures.

Again, Luke is identified as the beloved physician and companion of Paul and was thus a bit more distant from the historical Jesus than was Mark. Mark, is considered by many to have been very careful, a historian who gathered all the information he could from "eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word" (Luke 1:2) as he wrote his two-part work, Luke and Acts, which he dedicated to Theophilus, a person otherwise unknown to us.

According to many, Mark is traditionally said to have written his gospel in Rome during the time of Nero's persecution of the Church. Many of the slums of Rome had been burned, an act that is probably attributable to Nero, who wanted to make room for public buildings. Nero needed a scapegoat, however, and the Christians, who were not popular anyway because of their rather "narrow" religious views, were a group that could be easily blamed. Thus, the members of the Church among whom Mark worked and served were undergoing tremendous persecution, and suffering greatly. Apparently Mark longed to bring a message of hope to these people in the midst of their sufferings, as well as to explain through Jesus' own words and actions why people suffer in this world when they are doing what the Lord requires of them. Thus, the persecution that Peter and Mark faced in the Roman church determined to a large degree Mark's focus on the suffering in Jesus' life and the lives of his followers. Yet, I do believe Mark's writings are considered older than the other three accounts.

Now, it doesn't stop Mark in being called to Apostleship when there was need to fill the missing position. Whether it was so, we are left to the mercy of the scanty writings of what was considered canonized. Yet, the puzzling here, only a prophet and the twelve can write scriptures.