"An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories"

[excreationist]

On the topic of Bethlehem:
http://uncensored-christmas.sky-walker.net/read-it/#journeys

...In John 7:41-42, people in a crowd say that Jesus isn't the Messiah because he comes from Galilee rather than Bethlehem. Those people also said that Jesus wasn't a descendent of King David. No one is said to correct them, nor does the author of John....

So different gospels deal with the prophecies of Bethlehem and David differently... in Matthew they begin in Bethlehem and Jesus is related to David through Solomon - in Luke they travel to Bethlehem temporarily and Jesus is related to David through Nathan.

In John, the crowd says Jesus was NOT from Bethlehem or David... the author of John doesn't say this explicitly about his own opinion but doesn't disagree with their opinions. BTW it happened at a festival and Jesus' brothers also attended the festival (John 7:10).

 

[Sarpedon]

All of this is can be avoided if you just assume Joseph was just going to extreme lengths to avoid paying his taxes!

 

[Lion IRC]

*sigh*

They didn't go to Egypt on the way back to Nazareth.

There is no false dilemma/trilemma such that bible readers have to decide which trip Joseph and Mary actually made.

There is nothing in the text which forces us to decide between competing options - Bethlehem, Egypt or Nazareth.

And every facet of your alleged contradiction depends on;
a) Argument from silence - filling in the gaps with your own speculation
b) Argument from incredulity - you personally think it "seems a bit overboard" (Ironically, it's your own misreading of the text which leads to the imaginary scenario that you find hard to believe.)
c) A general lack of reading comprehension/logic. If a story narrative says Frodo returned to The Shire but earlier in the book it says Frodo returned to Mordor, nobody would call that a contradiction or presume there must have been two characters named Frodo, or speculate that the author must have botched the storyline continuity.

There is absolutely zero Roman or Jewish records to validate any of it. A couple or family wandering between egypt and Palestine is absurd.

The travel time isn't problematic - especially since the hard/soft border defining where Egypt officially begins need not have been where it is today.

And the claim that Roman authorities never took censuses for the purpose of taxation is false.

 

[steve_bank]

*sigh*

They didn't go to Egypt on the way back to Nazareth.

There is no false dilemma/trilemma such that bible readers have to decide which trip Joseph and Mary actually made.

There is nothing in the text which forces us to decide between competing options - Bethlehem, Egypt or Nazareth.

And every facet of your alleged contradiction depends on;
a) Argument from silence - filling in the gaps with your own speculation
b) Argument from incredulity - you personally think it "seems a bit overboard" (Ironically, it's your own misreading of the text which leads to the imaginary scenario that you find hard to believe.)
c) A general lack of reading comprehension/logic. If a story narrative says Frodo returned to The Shire but earlier in the book it says Frodo returned to Mordor, nobody would call that a contradiction or presume there must have been two characters named Frodo, or speculate that the author must have botched the storyline continuity.

There is absolutely zero Roman or Jewish records to validate any of it. A couple or family wandering between egypt and Palestine is absurd.

The travel time isn't problematic - especially since the hard/soft border defining where Egypt officially begins need not have been where it is today.

And the claim that Roman authorities never took censuses for the purpose of taxation is false.

There are no recods anywhere from Rome. Josphus is cited but he did not have any firsdt hand or even scond hand reports.

In the times the Jesus from the gospels would have been one of many claiming to be the messiah, some plane bandits. JC in the grand scheme of thin mgs would not have stood out to Roman authorizes. One of rabble in Judea.

Torture and crucifixion was common. Romans lined a road with crucifixions to make a point to travelers.

JC did not even get honorable ,ention.

The nativity story is fabrication. Probably outright invention by the gospel writers to provide a backdrop for the gospels. The narrative starts with mystical travelers show up post birth bearing gifts and a miraculous pregnancy. Not unlike like a phantasy fiction of today. Lord Of The Rings, epic contest between good and evil.

Imagine traveling from Jerusalem to Cairo today on foot or on donkey without modern conveniences. Heat, navigation, sand, bandits, lack of water and food. All that with a pregnant woman.

 

[excreationist]

....The travel time isn't problematic - especially since the hard/soft border defining where Egypt officially begins need not have been where it is today....

http://uncensored-christmas.sky-walker.net/read-it/#journeys

Yes it looks like back then, "Egypt" included part of today's Israel.
(based on https://www.conformingtojesus.com/charts-maps/en/map_of_israel_at_the_time_of_jesus.htm )

 

[excreationist]

....The nativity story is fabrication. Probably outright invention by the gospel writers to provide a backdrop for the gospels.

It seems impossible to me to convince Lion IRC that even one verse of the stories is untrue. Good luck convincing them that most/all of it is untrue.

...Not unlike like a phantasy fiction of today. Lord Of The Rings, epic contest between good and evil.

Though on the other hand no-one I know of believes that the Lord of the Rings really happened.

https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/matthew-2/
“Egypt was a natural place to which to flee. It was nearby, a well-ordered Roman province outside Herod’s jurisdiction; and, according to Philo (writing circa A.D. 40), its population included about a million Jews.” (Carson)

....Imagine traveling from Jerusalem to Cairo today on foot or on donkey without modern conveniences.

It is 420 km by plane to get to Cairo (though in Matthew it doesn't say they went to Jerusalem).
http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/the-journeys-of-mary-and-joseph.html
"Their journey from Bethlehem to what is Egyptian-controlled territory (which was outside the jurisdiction of Herod) was at least 65 kilometers (40 miles)." (BTW that's closer than from Nazareth to Bethlehem)

Heat, navigation, sand, bandits, lack of water and food. All that with a pregnant woman.

Mary wasn't pregnant when they went to Egypt!

 

[excreationist]

....A couple or family wandering between egypt and Palestine is absurd.

...Imagine traveling from Jerusalem to Cairo today on foot or on donkey without modern conveniences. Heat, navigation, sand, bandits, lack of water and food....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_into_Egypt
"Egypt was a logical place to find refuge, as it was outside the dominions of King Herod, but both Egypt and Israel were part of the Roman Empire, linked by a coastal road known as "the way of the sea", making travel between them easy and relatively safe."

Not so "absurd"...

 

[steve_bank]

It seems impossible to me to convince Lion IRC that even one verse of the stories is untrue. Good luck convincing them that most/all of it is untrue.


Though on the other hand no-one I know of believes that the Lord of the Rings really happened.

https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/matthew-2/
“Egypt was a natural place to which to flee. It was nearby, a well-ordered Roman province outside Herod’s jurisdiction; and, according to Philo (writing circa A.D. 40), its population included about a million Jews.” (Carson)

....Imagine traveling from Jerusalem to Cairo today on foot or on donkey without modern conveniences.

It is 420 km by plane to get to Cairo (though in Matthew it doesn't say they went to Jerusalem).
http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/the-journeys-of-mary-and-joseph.html
"Their journey from Bethlehem to what is Egyptian-controlled territory (which was outside the jurisdiction of Herod) was at least 65 kilometers (40 miles)." (BTW that's closer than from Nazareth to Bethlehem)

Heat, navigation, sand, bandits, lack of water and food. All that with a pregnant woman.

Mary wasn't pregnant when they went to Egypt!

But to the fans it becomes a reality. New Zealanders Complained about tourists wandering around in costume all over the place. An example of how Christianity got started.

 

[excreationist]

...But to the fans it becomes a reality. New Zealanders Complained about tourists wandering around in costume all over the place. An example of how Christianity got started.

That sounds like the documentary "Batman and Jesus":
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnS8FjMQx0k[/YOUTUBE]

 

[James Brown]

[h=1]The Date of the Nativity in Luke[/h]

t is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C. (or some year before 4 B.C.). This becomes an irreconcilable contradiction after an examination of all the relevant facts.

And the claim that Roman authorities never took censuses for the purpose of taxation is false.

The criticism is not that Roman authorities never took censuses. The criticism is hinged on, did the one census mentioned by Luke actually occur, and if it did, why would it be conducted in such an absurd fashion?

 

[Lion IRC]

How can Luke and Matthew definitively contradict each other on the date of Jesus' birth when neither stipulates the year or any specific timeline connected to that year?

Latter day competing opinions and guesses about the date can certainly contradict each other, but there is no contradiction in the actual text itself.

 

[James Brown]

How can Luke and Matthew definitively contradict each other on the date of Jesus' birth when neither stipulates the year or any specific timeline connected to that year?

Latter day competing opinions and guesses about the date can certainly contradict each other, but there is no contradiction in the actual text itself.

It's true that neither Gospel Author mentioned a year of Jesus' birth. But both did mention historical events or persons from which we can deduce a given year. If someone said she was breast-fed by her mother while watching Neil Armstrong walk on the moon, we can deduce that she was born in 1968 or 1969.

Luke says that Jesus was born while Quirinius was governing Syria. We know from non-Biblical sources that Quirinius did not take his position in Judea until after Archelaus, and Archelaus came after Herod the Great. Even Matthew confirms that.

Matthew, on the other hand, has Herod the Great in power at the time Jesus was born. So even if we didn't know the exact year of any historical event, we still see a contradiction: Matthew writes that Jesus was born before Herod died, and Luke has it after.

But we do know several dates of ancient events. Herod died in 4 B.C., and Quirinius assumed power in 6 A.D. These are confirmed by non-biblical writers such as Josephus and Cassius Dio.

 

[Lion IRC]

Nope. These are your interpretations of the ambiguity in Luke and Matt. coupled with extrabiblical documents that are similarly unclear as to exact dates. Quirinius can easily be described as taking (effective/actual) power over a wide range of dates - especially if he held the position more than once.

Show me the biblically precise date equivalent of Neil Armstrong landing on the moon.

 

[James Brown]

Josephus wrote:

In the tenth year of Archelaus's government the leading men in Judaea and Samaria could not endure his cruelty and tyranny and accused him before Caesar...and when Caesar heard this, he went into a rage...and sent Archelaus into exile...to Vienna, and took away his property.

(Antiquities of the Jews, 17.342-4)

So that's ten years from the end of Herod to the exile of Archelaus when Quirinius took over and continued the census. When did the census occur?

Quirinius made an account of Archelaus' property and finished conducting the census, which happened in the thirty-seventh year after Caesar's defeat of Antony at Actium.

(Antiquities of the Jews, 18.26)

The  Battle_of_Actium occurred in September, 31 B.C, and that was a major historical event, confirmed in histories, inscriptions, and coins. Quirinius' census happened "in the thirty-seventh year" afterwards. Using the modern reckoning of B.C. and A.D., 31 B.C. plus 37 years provides us with Jesus being born in 6 A.D., some ten years after Herod (the man who Matthew reports tried to have him killed) had died.

 

[bilby]

Sure, but we KNOW from the Bible that people were being resurrected at about that time; So OBVIOUSLY Herod could have come back to life in 6AD.

/desperateapologetics

 

[excreationist]

....there is no contradiction in the actual text itself.

What about what the crowd was saying at a festival that Jesus' brothers attended (John 7:10)?
(post 21)

...In John 7:41-42, people in a crowd say that Jesus isn't the Messiah because he comes from Galilee rather than Bethlehem. Those people also said that Jesus wasn't a descendent of King David. No one is said to correct them, nor does the author of John....

So people in the crowd are explicitly saying that Jesus is NOT from Bethlehem (or David) and no-one, including the author of John, corrects them implying that Jesus was not in fact born in Bethlehem (or a descendent of David). Though in Matthew and Luke he is (told in different ways including the different genealogies regarding David), to prove he is the Messiah. (in John being from Bethlehem and David was a requirement of being the Messiah)