Enlil-An

Can you be more specific? What exactly is the valid, underlying gospel that underpins the Church, exactly? Or, to put it more plainly, what parts of the Church do you actually have a testimony of and think are true?You came after me for pointing out the discrepencies between the two birth narratives of Jesus saying that you were annoyed with people like me who come on these boards to "sound the alarm" as you put it. But you've started a number of threads on these boards doing what appears to me to be the same thing. Is there a difference I'm not seeing?

If you have two people telling the same story, they need to corrobarate eachother at least in some way. The problem isn't that the accounts of Matthew and Luke don't match exactly, the problem is that they don't match at all. They both purport to tell the story of how Jesus was born at Bethlehem and they both tell completely different tales about how it happened.Let me ask you a question. What is it about the accounts of Matthew and Luke that make you believe they're telling the same story?

volgadon, I believe we've covered all the ground that you and I can cover on this subject and it appears that I've unintentionally offended you, rameumptom, and Johnny Rudick (and possibly others) so I'm not really interested in continuing our conversion but a promise is a promise so here is the excerpt from Paula Fredriksen's From Jesus to Christ that I referenced earlier: 'Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy. In its original context, it represents God through the prophet assuring King Ahaz that evil days are fast approaching for his enemies...Further, the Hebrew aalmah simply means "young girl." But it was translated in the LXX by the more ambiguous parthenos, which means either "young girl" or "virgin" (Heb. betulah). Thus this relatively unexceptional event - a young girl bearing a child - becomes a prediction of a miraculous birth. Similarily, "God with us" (emmanu-El) would mean one thing to its original Jewish audience, and something quite different to a Christian when applied to the figure of Jesus.' Do with it what you will.

The translations you've consulted aren't wrong, your interpretation of the passage itself is. You're assuming that Joseph was originally heading for Nazareth in Galilee even though Matthew makes no indication of any such thing. Yes, I have. And their arguements (like yours) don't hold up against the evidence. Very creative, but if we read the passage in sequence, there are two dreams. The second one was a warning, the first one wasn't. And, like I said, there is no indication in Matthew's gospel that Joseph was ever originally travelling to Galilee. And how do they translate and interpret Isaiah 7:14? It's very hypocritical of you to demand "hard and fast" evidence from me when you refuse to supply it yourself. And any evidence I present, you'll just twist it around anyway like you have been doing with the scriptures I've been quoting. Nevertheless, I will agree to humor you on one condition. I will post the exact words of Professor Fredriksen regarding Isaiah 7:14 typing it directly from her book if you will cut & paste (a much easier job) the parts of Josephus you believe vindicate your claims that Jews in Christ's time regularly feigned ignorance out of arrogance. Until then, take some of your own medicine: Paula Fredriksen From Jesus to Christ page 38. Who told Isaiah she was a virgin? Certainly you're aren't accusing a man of God of...looking, are you? Click here and type in Samson. See for yourself: Search Baby Names and Meanings, Name Meanings, Meaning of Names On the contrary, if Jewish people at anytime have interpreted the original Hebrew version (not the Greek Septuigent) of Isaiah 7:14 as a virgin giving birth to the God of the universe (a totally absurd idea for an ancient Israelite to believe), I would see that as powerful evidence that Matthew is right about that prophecy. The Mt Arbel thing is much more of a stretch. If you were Isaiah, and received a revelation that a virgin was going to have a child, would you record this revelation of such an unprecidented event in Israel using the word virgin or would you use the more ambiguous phrase young woman? Think about it. I have a strong feeling that you and I interpret scriptures very differently. So instead of asking me what I get out of it, why don't you just save us all some time tell us how you interpret it and how it relates to your current position? I don't take anybody's word at face value unless that person has proven their credibility to me by demonstrating the truthfulness of their words. I take certain academics' at their word when discussing the historical research behind the ideas and meanings of many things in the Bible and I take a prophet at their word when they discuss feelings of the spirit and how to have a better relationship with God. When these people start making claims outside of their area of expertise, I take what they say as accurate if I already know it to be true or if it's something that can be verified. My mistake. The bigger issue is your claim that 1 Ne. 11:13 shows that Jesus was born at Bethlehem which it doesn't. Two points: 1) That scripture isn't specific enough to exclude Nazareth because Alma was prophecying to people on another continant entirely. In that context, the "land of Jerusalem" could have easily meant "the land where all the Jews come from" which is the other side of the world. 2) It doesn't really matter to me whether Jesus was born at Bethlehem or not (judging by the gospel of John, I'm leaning toward the idea that Jesus was probably born at Nazareth). The point is that if he was born there, he didn't get there the way Matthew and Luke says he did because, not only do they contradict each other, but both accounts on their own are historically dubious. Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, volgadon. This is what I mean by haggling. See for example: haggle definition | Dictionary.com The crowd of Jews who thought Jesus was the predicted Messiah weren't basing their belief of him on any tradition that the Messiah would come out of Nazareth or Galilee according to John. THAT is the critical point.

It's not MY premise, it's Joseph Smith's. Now you've contradicted yourself. The AoF says that the Bible is the "word of God" insofar as it is "translated correctly" but before that you said that the gospels weren't written by prophets of God so if they were never the words of God to begin with, how can the AoF be correct in it's claim that the Bible was the word of God before it was corrupted through mistranslations? Joseph Smith said there was no error in the things he had taught. Joseph Smith said his revelations came from God. Are you saying that man can actually improve the words of God? Didn't Joseph Smith write the Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price? Didn't he write the Doctrine and Covenants? Didn't Nephi write the first and second book of Nephi?

Very possibly. It's also possible that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. He just didn't get there the way Matthew and Luke said he did.

Luke possibly. Matthew definately. John doesn't say anything about the virgin birth or Jesus being born at Bethlehem. I don't think he believes it. There's no disputing that Jesus was from Nazareth. The point is how he got there. Matthew and Luke are painting the target around the arrow with their birth narratives of Jesus because they're trying to demonstrate how Jesus was from Nazareth, but really born at Bethlehem where the prophecy of Micah says the Messiah is supposed to come from and they both come up with different stories of how Jesus got from A to B. No, the direction I'm leaning in is that Jesus was probably really born in Nazareth and that all oral traditions of him being born at Bethlehem were invented to conform to prophecy.

That's not what the 8th Article of Faith says. It says we believe the Bible to be the word of God. Do you really believe it's been that badly translated that whole entire stories are false? I don't think that's the Church's position and I've never heard a Sunday school teacher or general authority put the Bible into the prespective that you just did. He said there was no error in the things he had taught. Apparently that was wrong. It isn't just the stories in the Bible that have problems. The doctrines do as well. And if a prophet can be so fallible as to lie and give wrong information, what is the benefit of following a prophet over any other man? No, I'm saying that if Joseph Smith was wrong in his interpretation of scripture and prophecy, there might be something more complex about being a prophet that what the Church has traditionally taught. Don't you believe that the Church should teach the truth about this complexity? No, we claim that it's true. And obviously there are parts of it that are not true. I do when I'm talking to non-members on other threads.

The text says in the overwelming majority of translations that Joseph was afraid to go to Judea (not travel through) and that only when he was warned in a dream did he travel to Galilee. It's obvious to mea that he was originally going back to Judea and only went to Galilee to flee from Archelaus. I have no other arguements I can bring to the table than those I already have. If you don't want to interpret the scripture that way, that's fine. I'm not doing any such thing, volgadon. The historians who accept Matthew and Luke's nativity story as independent contradictory accounts have already provided enough evidence to show me that the two stories cannot be harmonized. And what difference does this make on anything we've been talking about? Spell it out for me. You are wrong if you are asserting that there are traditions of the Messiah coming from Galilee that go back to the time before Christ. I have no doubt that later traditions of Jesus invovling Mt Arbel have developed. Hogwash! You haven't given me any thing to research that has any meaningful support for your point of view and now you're trying to weasle out of posting quotes from your sources, we must assume, because you don't want to us to see how weak they are as a defense for your arguements.I read biblical historiography on my own and I can assure you, nothing I have read (and doubtful will ever read) has lead me to the wild conclusions you're making about the Jews in John's gospel and unless you provide quotes or a link to a precise statements from credible sources (quote Josephus if you want), there's no reason to think that you know what you're talking about and no reason for me to exert myself any further. I guess all of our beliefs are based on our opinion, aren't they? Her opinion is shared by many other historians (who aren't paid evangelists) who have also written scholarly works on this subject. It's the only real logical opinion that there is...in my opinion. Nephi knew Mary was a virgin because he had his own vision concerning her. Nothing in anything Nephi writes suggests that he got this idea from Isaiah."Almah" may not preclude virginity (just like the english phrase young woman deosn't) but the problem is that it doesn't insinuate virginity and there's no reason to assume that it would. It would be more presuptiuous to assume that Isaiah used such a vague word for virgin when there was a more precise word available. Don't you think that if Isaiah wanted his readers to know she was a virgin, he would have said "virgin" and not "young woman"? Afterall, a many babies do you think were born of a virgin in Isaiah's world? It's a Hebrew name like mine, Matthew which means "gift of God". Many Hebrew names incorporate divine status in their meanings. Immanual (which is not the Hebrew name for Jesus) is a very common Israelite name and when reading Isaiah 7:14 in context with the rest of the chapter and the correct Hebrew wording, it's obvious that it isn't referring to Jesus.The name Samson means sun child and his birth was also predicted in scripture. Does that mean we should believe that his mortal father was not his real father and that he was begotton by the sun? There is no evidence that Jews ever interpreted Isaiah 7:14 that way even before Christ was born. And the fact that the original Hebrew doesn't use the word virgin, is solid evidence that Matthew is the one using that verse for polemical reasons. Why don't you just explain the point, Sherlock, and post whatever quotes from that chapter (and the following ones if necessary) to demonstrate it exactly what your point (which you still haven't made clear) is and how Isaiah and Nephi support it? Because I've lost my faith in the abilities of general authorities to always correctly interpret the Bible. How on earth do 1 Nephi 11:13 and Alma 7:10 support that? Niether Nazareth nor Bethlehem are even mentioned in those scriptures. There were many Jews who appealed to scripture but others still believed in him because of the miracles. It says this quite clearly in John chapter 7. If the verses you want me to find are very precise, why don't you give me the precise number for those verses. I'm not scouring four whole chapters of Josephus just to find...what ever it is you want me to find. I know the difference and you definately like to haggle. But nevermind...

Nice try, but that's not what the scripture is saying. In every instance, when Joseph learns that Archelaus is the ruler of Judea, the scripture says he was afraid to "go there" (KJV "go thither"), not that he was afraid to "travel through" and when he received a warning from the angel, the scripture clearly indicates that he changed course in going to Galilee. Many english translations say, "he withdrew" into Galilee. The KJV says he "turned aside" (essentially the same as withdrew). The Messege translation of the Bible even says, "But then Joseph was directed in a dream to go to the hills of Galilee." Why would an angel need to direct Joseph to go to a place that he was going to already?All the indications from Matthew 2:21-23 is that Joseph was originally going back to the land of Judea (presumably home to Bethlehem) and that he only went to Galilee instead because Archelaus was the new ruler of Judea and the angel's warning. You can (and will no doubt) disagree with this assessment but this is how it sounds to me and this is how most historians interpret it as well. What difference does it make whether Joseph was warned or commanded? The point is that he wasn't originally going to Galilee. And if you are right that Joseph was "commanded" to go there, it is only more evidence that he wasn't originally heading there in the first place. Your scenarios don't contradict either other at all. But then they don't have a back story do they. I'm sure you could invent a back story and word it in such a way that it could support your position, but Matthew and Luke cannot be harmonized with one another the way they are told and worded. They are different, contradictory stories. In Matthew's gospel, the holy family travels from Bethelehem to Egypt to Nazareth. In Lukes' they travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem back to Nazareth and they journey under completely different circumstances than those laid out in Matthew. The birth stories of the two gospels can't be reconciled. Why must I repeat myself two and three times because you seem to skim over everything I write and only pick out portions of it to nit-pick? I gave you two options, valgadon. Either post a link to the source online or type the quote into your post. Until you do, I'm not going on anymore of your scavanger hunts just to find out what I know already - that you are wrong. If you can't provide them, then there's no point telling us you have them to begin with because you can't use them to back you up. You're the one making sweeping announcements about the Gospels. I'm just reading them as they stand and because they don't support what you want to believe you resort to all kinds of ludicrous tactics for refuting them from challenging the accuracy of their translations to stretching the text to mean something it doesn't and even refusing to take the passages at face value trying instead to invent some alternate meaning for them. "Oh, well it was customary for the Greeks to tell histories that contradict eachother. It's part of there culture." "Well, you see, when Jews claim they don't know something, they're only pretending to be ignorant toward an idea they find repulsive." What nonsense! Can you provide any real evidence for these absurd claims or not? Because she read them in the context in which they were written just like I did. Something Matthew DID NOT do. You are obviously having a hard time understanding what I've typed. You need to slow down and read my posts more carefully so I don't have to keep repeating myself. Let me say it again:I don't have a problem with Matthew saying that Jesus was born of a virgin. I have a problem with Matthew saying that Isaiah prophecied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Nephi never claims that Isaiah prophecies of the virgin birth. Nephi makes his own prophecy of the virgin birth. My problem with Matthew isn't that he says Mary was a virgin. My problem is his interpretation that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of Jesus' birth. Got it now? "The original Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 reads as follows (translated):"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman [ha-almah] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el".[1] Jewish scholars reason that [ha-almah] ("young woman") does not refer to a virgin and that had the Tanakh intended to refer to such, the specific Hebrew word for virgin [bethulah] would have been used. This view is often disputed by Christians (see below), and has been a point of contention between Jews and Christians since the formation of the modern Church. Jerome, in 383 CE, wrote in "Adversus Helvidium" that Helvidius misunderstood just this same point of confusion between the Greek and the Hebrew." Isaiah 7:14 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There is absolutely NOTHING in that chapter that supports your claim that Nephi believed Isaiah prophecied of the virgin birth of Jesus. Another wild goose chase. No, it wouldn't. Sorry. Once again, neither of those verses support Matthew's claim that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about Jesus or his virgin mother. And you accused me of needing everything explained? There was a division because many Jews thought he was the Messiah based on all the miracles he was performing (not from some non-existant tradition that the Messiah would come from Nazareth) but the other Jews refused to believe he was the Messiah because he wasn't from Bethlehem as Micah prophecied. No. No more wild goose chases. I read 2 Nephi 11 and the other scriptures you cited because you couldn't be bothered to cut and paste them into your post. Now it's your turn to show a gesture of good faith. If you want me to read that part of Josephus that you maintain supports your point of view, post it in the thread for all of us to read. I'm not doing anymore work to search out your sources when all of them so far have been nothing but dead ends.If you can't do this, we might need to just agree to disagree and spare ourselves any further haggling.

The position of the Church is that the Bible was originally written by prophets under the influence of the Holy Ghost. But if historians are able to show that books like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by men who were not only under the direction of the Holy Spirit, but also embellished and invented stories of Christ to support theire particular agenda's, where does that leave the Church who believes the stories in these books to be authentic? There were many other claims Joseph Smith made about the Bilbe some of which seem to be getting debunked by modern research. Are you going to be forced to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired some of the time but not all of the time? And what if we find evidence of Joseph Smith embellishing some things himself? Except that the unscientific things in Genesis are also backed up by the Pearl of Great Price which is supposed to be revelation from God. Is God unscientific? And what about error's in the Doctrine & Covenants or the Joseph Smith Translations of the Bible?

You're right. My mistake. But that creates a problem for Matthew's account because going to Galilee doesn't keep the divine family from having to travel through Judea. So how is that a valid solution for keeping Jesus safe from Archelaus? New International Version"So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth." New American Standard Bible "So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth..." The Message "Joseph obeyed. He got up, took the child and his mother, and reentered Israel. When he heard, though, that Archelaus had succeeded his father, Herod, as king in Judea, he was afraid to go there. But then Joseph was directed in a dream to go to the hills of Galilee. On arrival, he settled in the village of Nazareth." Amplifed Bible "Then he awoke and arose and [tenderly] took the Child and His mother and came into the land of Israel. But because he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in the place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being divinely warned in a dream, he withdrew to the region of Galilee. He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth..." New Living Translation "So Joseph got up and returned to the land of Israel with Jesus and his mother. But when he learned that the new ruler of Judea was Herod’s son Archelaus, he was afraid to go there. Then, after being warned in a dream, he left for the region of Galilee. So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth." For a list of more of the same, click here BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. and type Matthew 2:22 in the search. Do you believe that all these english translations of the original greek are wrong? What would be the odds? Because you are speaking in the present tense. Matthew and Luke are telling a history and are speaking in the past tense. Matthew says, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth..." but Luke says, "...they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." Those are two totally different accounts. In Luke they are returning to the beginning point of their journey. In Matthew, they're not. Or quote an english version of the source you're citing, absolutely. At least provide a link to the source on-line if you can't be bothered to post the wording. What good will that do if they're not even in english?Volgadon, no one is going to trudge through all the "scholarly works" that you've read just to find the one or two paragraphes that supposedly support your arguements. The only logical and decent thing for you to do is post those parts that support your position and the details of the source so we can look it up for ourselves if we want. That's how on-line debates of this kind are done. Here's one: "Matthew chooses innumerable passages and verses that in thier original context had nothing to do with a messiah, and by applying them to Jesus makes them seem so." From Jesus to Christ by Paula Fredriksen, page 38. No where does Nephi claim that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about the Savior. Nephi makes his own prophecy of the virgin birth and doesn't claim to get this idea from the Old Testament, like Matthew. Corruption accounts for most of the contradictory statements found in texts of the same source. Matthew and Luke are two independent sources and the reason they disagree concerning the nativity of Jesus is because they're telling two different stories. What evidence is there for this? It wasn't only the arrogant Jewish leaders who claimed to have never heard of an oral tradition of the Messiah coming out of Nazareth. The Jewish masses never heard of any such prophecies either:John 7:40-43 "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him." Great! You're half way there. Now all you need is to post the part of your source that you feel supports your claims or a link to the quote so we can read it on-line the way I've been doing for you this whole time. Every scripture I've referred to that help make my point, I've posted the actual words of the scripture and their location in the Bible. You're the one who brought outside sources into this discussion.

Anything's possible. But only some things are probable.

No one has yet addressed the original point I brought up. Everyone just wanted to agrue about the premise instead. Maybe once others accept the premise, my original question may get answered...but so far it looks like that's not going to happen.

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

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. 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. 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? Who told you that Isaiah 9:1-2 meant both of those things? 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. Already considered it. All the evidence points to two different accounts, not the same account corrupted 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. 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 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. 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?"

Try and think at least 3 steps ahead, volgadon. If Joseph had to travel through Judea to get to Galilee and he was headed to Galilee already, why does Matthew say that he went to Galilee because Archelaus was ruler over Judea?It's obvious, isn't it? Joseph was originally heading to Judea, not Galilee. When he found out Archelaus was ruler over Judea, he changed his mind and went to Galilee. You yourself said that he moved to Galilee because Archelaus had no control over Galilee. But in saying that you contradicted what you said earlier that he was always planning on going there anyway. Matthew says Joseph only went to Galilee because Archelaus reigned in Judea. I never said that. I said it precludes the possibility of their arrival there being a return journey. Look at the way Matthew phrases it as opposed to the way Luke phrases it:Matthew "He turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth." Luke "They returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." See the difference? No, you're speculating based on the Chrismas programs you were raised on that merge Matthew and Luke together to make one story and your painfully twisting the scriptural passages to make it work...which it doesn't. You're trying too hard to spin the things I've claimed. I never said that Mt Arbel had no traditions. I said that there are no prophecies befor Christ stating that the Messiah would have any association with Mt Arbel. And I stick by that claim until you can prove otherwise without sending me on another wild goose chase. When you find the information again, let me know. Chapter and verse, please? He doesn't. And if he did it would be strong evidence against the Book of Mormon or it would mean that Nephi is reading the the Old Testament in Greek just like Matthew which is an impossibility. Assersions without argument to back them up is worthless and a waste of time. No. The idea that methodology of the "historiography of the late classical period" some how supports your idea that two contradictory stories can both be true is just rediculous. If you've got any real evidence that these two opposing birth narratives are compatible, provide a link. I'm not going on another one of your wild goose chases. It means that the star appeared in the sky about a year before the wise men arrived at Jerusalem. Don't be silly. All three of those points I made are supposed to go together. If there was another source that somehow supported Luke's dubious claims his story might stand a chance. But Luke stands alone on his position and all other historical sources refute what he says.Edited to add: Luke is far from being a primary source for Roman and Israelite history in 1 BC. The primary sources for that time say that Luke is wrong.

The point is that if Joseph was planning on going to Galilee in the first place, why worry about who was ruling in Judea? Because Matthew makes it quite clear that the divine family only end up in Nazareth by an inconvenient set of circumstances. They never had any intention of going there originally. "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth." Unlike Luke who says, "they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." You're reaching. There is no evidence for any of this. Your explaination of Nathaniel's ignorance of messianic prophecies is weak to say the least. The Jewish crowd in John 7 shows that, contrary to what Matthew says, there is no prophecy written or oral that says the Messiah would be from Nazareth. If John really believed that Jesus was from Bethlehem, he would have corrected their mistake for his readers but he doesn't. Reading the gospel of John, no one would know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem either. John's Pharisees are ignorant about a lot of things including the Jewish captivity in Babylon (which demonstrates more that John's account is inacurrate), but I think they were telling Nicodemus that there was no prophecy of any prophet arising out of Galilee which I think is true. There is definately no tradition of the Messiah coming out of Galilee and especially none of him coming from Mt. Arbel. Meaning that there is no evidence to show that the Jews were denying prophecies of the Messiah coming out of Nazareth because they didn't like the idea. Everything in John's gospel denotes that they were sincerely confused because there were no such prophecies or traditions. And John never corrects them on this fact for the benifit of his readers. Because there is no evidence for that. There are no examples of prophecies with multiple meanings in the Old Testament without the author revealing them. This is just pure conjecture. Because it can't be refuted. All those who have tried have resorted to implossible conjecture none of which is based on any real evidence. Herod inquires as to the time of the star's appearence to determine the Savior's birth. But even if the Savior was only two days old when the wise men found him, it makes no difference because the accounts contradict eachother. In Luke Jesus' life isn't threatened at all and they don't escape to Egypt. Wise men don't come to visit and there's no star announcing the Savior's birth. No I don't. The plot of both narratives doesn't allow for them to be different highlights of the same story. They are two totally different stories. Even if you could force them together ignoring the blatant contradictions there is still a problem. None of the events in Matthew are mentioned in Luke while none of the events in Luke are mentioned in Matthew. The odds of two independant authors recounting the same history and not covering at least one event twice is so astronomical as to be impossible. No it says that Herod ordered the deaths of all boys two years of age and younger. It doens't specifically say that Jesus was under two. Even if it did, saying a child is under two and saying they are a month old is very differenct, don't you think. On the grounds of his dubious history. Herod was not alive during the rein of Quirinius and Quirinius' census didn't require people to travel to their ancestral home. Also the fact that nothing Luke says in his first couple of chapters can be corroborated in any of the other Gospels including Matthew's.

I can't help you, Brother Rudick. I wasn't looking for discrepencies when I found this out. When someone first told me the birth narratives contradicted eachother, I didn't believe them. But once they showed me how they contradicted eachother, it took me only one reading of both accounts and I saw it right away.

Even without the phrase, "turned aside", it's still obvious that Joseph was planning on returning to Judea.Answer these questions the best you can. 1. Why was Joseph afraid when he found out Herod's son ruled in Judea? 2. How was going to Galilee a solution to this problem? It precludes it from being a return journey which is what it is in Luke. What does it really matter whether Luke thought they both came from Nazareth or just one of them came from there? The point is that Luke has them make a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem and then back to Nazareth. This Journey does not occur in Matthew. No, none of them knew about any prophecy of the Messiah coming out of Nazareth...John 1:45-46 - "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" John 7:41-42 - "Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" John 7:50-52 - "Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." I don't believe that applies to John in this situation. Do you have sources of these? All of the prophecies Matthew quotes in reference to Jesus' birth are taken completely out of context. All of them. The only ones who don't believe Matthew's prophecies are bogus are those who refuse to accept the premise that Matthew could be lying. They don't compliment each other. They contradict each other. In Luke, they stay about a month and return straight back to Nazareth. In Matthew they stay in Bethlehem long enough to find a house (the Bible says Jesus was 2 years old which means he was about 1 year old) and escape to Egypt before moving to a little town called Nazareth.The problem is that how can Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus is the Messiah when everyone knows that the Messiah is supposed to come from Bethlehem and Jesus comes from Nazareth. Both authors tackle the same problem from different angles. Matthew's story starts out at Bethlehem and ends up in Nazareth in an attempt to save the young baby's life. Luke's story starts at Nazareth and has the divine family travel to Bethlehem for the census which just happened to coincide with the Savior's birth and then travel back to Nazareth after it's over. There is no dangerous escape from Judean authorities or anything of the sort. To my mind, neither authors deglected parts of the original story. The simplist thing to me is to see them as two different stories altogether. The scripture says Jesus was two years old. Either way, it's of little matter because the Savior never comes to the attention of any Judean authorities in the gospel of Luke. His parents present him at the temple after which they peacefully return back to Nazareth no one pursuing them at all. It definately wasn't known to Luke. I personally think John believed Jesus really was born at Nazareth and just doesn't care. In John's gospel, worrying about where the Savior is born is nothing more than a stumbling block for those who are outside God's favor. That's assuming of course that Luke is correct about that part of history when he was wrong about other parts. No other gospel mentions any relatives in Judea. Luke 2:22, 39 - "And when the days of [Mary's] purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished [33 days according to Leviticus], they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord...And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."Also notice the difference in wording between the two gospels here: Luke "They returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." Matthew "He turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth."

I believe the scripture versus are using the phrase "land of Israel" in the broad sense which includes the land of Judea. The reason I believe this is because of verses 21 and 22 which say, "And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither..." Since Galilee is north of Judea, we must assume that when Joseph "turned aside" into Galilee because he was coming from the south. Afterall, he wouldn't need to avoid Judea if he had entered Palestine from the north.So I think the phrase "land of Israel" doesn't really prove that he wasn't going to Judea and it wouldn't explain why he had to "turn aside" into Galilee since if he was heading that way anyway. Well, this is just my opinion, but I think if Matthew believed Joseph or Mary were originally from there he would have worded it differently. He would have said something like, "and they dwelt at Nazareth which was Mary's original home," or "and they returned to Nazareth, their home" or words to that effect. "...they came and dwelt in a little town called Nazareth" denotes that they had never lived their before. It's definately possible, but not likely. Either way, Matthew makes no mention of her being from there and doesn't mention any census either. If it was some kind of oral tradition that the prophets prophecied that the messiah would be a Nazarene, then why don't any Jews in John's gospel know about it? All the Jewish skeptics in John challenged Jesus' messiahship on the bases that he came from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, including the Pharisees. Don't you think they were aware of all Jewish prophecies written and oral? Professional historians agree with me on this. I'm not just referring to one of Matthew's prophecies. I'm talking about all of them. All of them are bogus. We can assume the sky but the likelyhood that Luke's and Matthew's account contradict eachother because of mistranslations or copying errors is extremely remote. The thing to take note of is that there are are no events in the birth stories of Jesus that both Matthew and Luke cover. Both stories cover completely different events. Matthew has the wisemen, king Herod's decree, the new star, and the flight to egypt. None of these events appear in Luke. Luke has the census, the journey to Bethlehem, the manger, the shepards, and the prophecies at the temple. None of these incidents appear in Matthew. If both gospels are trying to recount the same story, I think they would cover at least a few of the same events but they don't. The only thing they agree on is the virgin birth and that it took place at Bethlehem. They are if they skip every single one of them. Anyway, the two stories can't be reconciled because Matthew says Jesus was at least 1 years old when they left Bethlehem and Luke says they left 40 days after he was born. And do you really think Luke would forget that Herod tried to kill baby Jesus if it really happened? Why would you assume that Mary or Joseph has relatives in Judea? If Matthew and Luke are wrong about the birth narratives, what makes you think they are right about the Savior's geneology? That parts not an assumption. That's what Luke says. But go ahead when you're ready.

Yes, that's easily possible. The passage is too vague to know if Joseph was planning on moving back to Judea or if he was simply planning to travel through Judea on his way to Galilee but the next verse makes it clear by Matthew's choice of words ("And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth")that Joseph and his family are arriving at Nazareth for the very first time and didn't live there previously as in Luke's gospel. The problem with Matthew's prophesy of the messiah being a Nazarene is that it is the only prophecy that Matthew doesn't quote simply saying it was "spoken by the prophets" implying that he didn't really know of any such prophecy. Also, it isn't just the Pharisees that have never heard of that prophecy in John's gospel. It's all the Jewish people Jesus comes across including one of his own disciples.The 3rd problem with it is that none of Matthew's prophecies actually validate his birth narrative because all of the prophecies he quotes are taken out of context. So even if there is some obscure scripture Matthew is referring to about the messiah being a Nazarene, chances are he's misinterpreting that one too. Luke's narrative is historically dubious in every way and even if it weren't, it is completely at odds with Matthew's account. If we are to insist that both of these birth stories are true somehow, then we have to presume that both of them got several things incorrect. The stories just don't match up. No but he doesn't mention any other place. Remember that Matthew was not writing in collaboration with Luke. If you were a 1st century Christian and Matthew was the only gospel that you had, you would naturally assume that Bethlehem is where Joseph and Mary were from. Other parts of the story provide further evidence for this. Joseph and Mary stay in Bethlehem with Jesus for about a year (in a house) with no apparent intentions of leaving until the Savior's life is threatened whereas in Luke's gopel they don't stay for even two months. And the fact that Matthew makes it sound as if they're arriving at Nazareth for the first time at the end of chapter 2, demonstrates pretty clearly that Matthew doesn't think that Joseph and Mary originally come from Nazareth.

Rameuptom, I agree with everything you posted. Just to clarify: Yes, I'm aware of the contradictions. What I mean when I say that the individual books are consistant in themselves is that the theology of them is not mistranslated. They are consistant with what the Hebrews believed at the time. For example, 1 Chronicles 21:1 says, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." In 2 Samuel 24:1, however, it says, "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah."The reason for the discrepancy isn't a mistranslation. The reality is that the ancient Hebrews had no concept of Satan until after the exilic period. The idea of an evil adversary comes from Persia, not Israel. Prior to the book of Chronicles, God was the source of all good and evil. This is a consistant belief in the OT prior to 1 Chronicles.

I think the problem goes deeper than that. I believe the God of the Old Testament is the God that we worship but I don't know if I accept the belief that the Old Testament was originally written in purity and then corrupted over generations through mistranslations or changes made by scribes. The reason for this is that even though much of the theology of the OT is different than the NT and the revelations of JS, the books of the OT are completely consistant with themselves.There is far more evidence to show that the full theology of the Bible was a system in the making. One in which many precepts that we take for granted like life after death, the coming of a messiah, belief in the devil, even monotheism itself were not held nor taught by the ancient Hebrews prior to a certain time in their history. Yes, I agree with this. Joseph Smith got many things right that he couldn't have gotten right unless he knew about them through supernatural means. But he also got quite a few things wrong and that makes it extremely difficult for a person who was taught to believe that revelation is more accurate than any other form of learning. Yes, that can account for some of the problems in the Bible but not all of them. There were many other factors as well. There is strong evidence for outside influences that contributed to the ideas, stories and religious teachings in the Bible. The Presians, the Caananites, the Egyptians, the Mesopotamians, and later on the Greeks seem to have all influenced the Bible in more than a few ways. Other beliefs seem to have generated as a result of the developing history of the Hebrews themselves. As they faced knew challenges, prophets came up with new, updated (sometimes contradictary) answers to people's questions. The problem is that not all of the corrections Joseph Smith made were doctrinal. Many of his claims were historical and modern research has shown (to me) that many of them were wrong. This creates a problem because more than a few of Joseph Smith's historical interpretations were the crux for many of the docrines he taught. The history of the gospel is tied up to the docrines of the gospel.I haven't peaced it all together yet, but the theory I'm toying with now is what I call "revelatory impressionism" (made it up myself) which means that a prophet (like Joseph Smith) can only receive revelation about things he's meditated on and prayed for and those revelations can only be given as thoughts and impressions and would be interpreted through JS's on preconceived ideas. It does seem that Joseph Smith was requried to do a lot more guessing than we as members are inclined to believe. There even seems to be evidence that JS embellished and made a few things up. But I don't know for sure. Lately I've been concentrating just on the Bible. I'm not reavaluating my beleif that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I have a strong testimony of that. I'm reavaluating my understanding of what a prophet is and how he gets his revelation and whether that revelation is always right. Edited to add: I've skimmed through much of Joseph L. Allen's Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon as well and think its incredible how that Mesoamerican scholar has been able to demonstrate that that area of the globe fits so perfectly with the landscape described in the BoM. Throw in the BoM's description of the Arabian Penninsila and the loyalty of the witnesses to what they saw and experienced and you've got far more evidence that Joseph Smith was receiving divine help than not. What I've been learning lately only makes things more complex. But one of my favorite sayings by a philopher (who's name I can't recall) is, "A little philophy inclineth a man to atheism but a lot of philosophy brings a man back to religion." Likewise I fully believe that if I continue to study and pray that all of these things will be satisfied in some way and that I'll emerge with a greater testimony of the whole thing than I had before.

(Wow! This post is way too long. The only reason I don't edit it is because I'm too tired. Hopefully it's not boring. I'll understand if you don't read all of it.) Lovely12, I just discovered this thread tonight and read through all your posts and some of the responses. I suppose I'm too late since your issues seem to have been resolved but I had it in my mind to respond and now that idea is fixed. I was just going to say, first of all that I'm proud of you and your family. I have known others who went inactive and fell away for a lot less. I don't think your concerns were light ones. I think they're completely valid and I understand what you were going through earlier because I'm struggling myself at the moment with things I've been reading. I've been studying the history and cultures of the Ancient Near East the last couple of years and when I began to compare them with stories in the Bible it started to become obvious that many things in the Old Testament were influenced more by the beliefs of the times and cultures around them than they were by revelation from heaven. Then I stumbled across something in the New Testament (or rather it was pointed out to me by a historian) that completely pulled the rug out from under me. It was so devistating (to me) to what I had been taught to believe about the Bible in the Church that I literally couldn't do anything the whole day. My wife literally had to watch the kids and do everything that day all on her own. I just laid in bed thinking about what it all meant regarding the Church, Joseph Smith, and my own life and what I was going to choose to believe from that day on. After a lot of meditating, I came to the conclusion that my spritual experiences in the Church and on my mission (both from God and the devil) told me that what ever God's purposes were they were wrapped up in this Church and that the supernatural forces of evil were constantly trying to keep me from it so I knew I would never leave the Church but my testimony is becoming increasingly more complex. Once I discovered the things that I did, I couldn't leave it alone. I'm now studying the Bible in depth and started reading books that explain the Bible form the historical critical point of view as well as reading LDS commentaries on the Bible and the more I study the more I'm inclined to believe that the last century of historical research has revealed more about the teachings in the Bible than many of the prophecies of Joseph Smith. In fact many things Joseph Smith said (especially the JS Translations) I feel (I stress the phrase I feel) are downright inaccurate. I began to feel just like you did. If not all of the words of a prophet of the Lord can be trusted then what is the benefit of following a prophet? If the Holy Ghost couldn't correctly guide an amazing prophet like Joseph Smith into understanding the scriptures correctly, then what chance of I in using the Holy Ghost to sift through the teachings of the prophets to know what was true and what wasn't? As I was struggling with these things, oddly enough I was called to be 2nd counciler in the Elder's Quorum. The Spirit was very strong when I received my calling and I received the usually Satanic oppositional feelings the previous couple of days. A couple of weeks later, the Elder's Quorum lesson was on Joseph Smith in Carthage jail and all the terrible things that happened to the Saints in Missouri as well as the "golden era" of the Church in Navou after that and the building of the Navou temple. The teacher had really prepared for the lesson and knew the period well. The Spirit in that lesson was the strongest I'd ever fealt it for a long time, perhaps in my life. All of this is very perplexing because the experiences I receive when I'm doing work in the Church just don't gel with the things I've been learning and I haven't been able to piece it all together in a coherant thesis yet. Last Sunday in fast and testimony meeting, there was a lull in testimonies (about 4 minutes) so I got up to bear my testimony. Questioning everything from the Church's interpretation of the afterlife to Christ's infinite atonement, I stuck to what I know. I said, "I want to bear my testimony that I know the Spirit of God is in this Church. That he directs the work and the more we become involved and participate in the work and our callings the more we will feel his presence and see his influence in our lives." I said some other things but that was the gist of it. The Spirit was very strong while I was up there and stayed with me when I went back to my seat. I finally decided to find an LDS forum to join and found this one. I brought up some of my concerns and started a thread (which hasn't been deleted yet, I think) and the responses I got surprised me. They ranged from disbelief to confrontation to personal attacks concerning my motives to twisting the scriptures to mean something they didn't. The only sympathizing responses I received were in private messages. I don't think any of the members who reponded to my post were bad. I just don't think many of them were ready or willing to accept what I was saying or adjust their own testimonies to it the way I have been forced to adjust mine. Anyway, I want to say again that I'm proud of you for coming back and proud of you for staying. I know I'm not going anywhere. After obsorbing the shock of the things I had learned I came back to the fact that I had received personal witnesses from God that he is real and will help me (save me more like) in times that I need him and it was through the teachings and callings of this Church that I discovered this truth (I wasn't active until I turned 23) so here's where I'm going to stay until God directs me otherwise which I doubt he will do. I hope you take the same approach whatever other challenges come your way.