Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[JohnnyRudick]

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 have read this thread through at least three times and gone over Matthew and Luke

over and over looked at all the notes that I can still discern and I see no problem with

the narratives:confused:

Not two different stories,

Just two different accounts.

One from a student of the legal perspective.

(Matthew)

And one from a doctors perspective.

(Luke)

Just cannot see your problem.

I have heard these arguments years ago and have found them mostly to be from people just trying to find discrepancies in the Scripture.

I can't find it:cool:

I am sure that does not include you.

Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

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.

[volgadon]

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?

You are parroting. I addressed the issue, why don't you refute it.

You are focusing on it being Herod's son, when the problem is not that, but the cruel and bloody Archelaus. Going to the Galilee solves that problem because Archelaus had no control in Galilee.

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.

The journey is not excplicitely mentioned in Matthew, no, but what precludes it?

Anyway, if Joseph wasn't from Nazareth he could have been from Bethlehem, or at least from there originaly.

Another possibility is that Matthew didn't care where Mary and Joseph were from, the important thing to his audience was how the birth fit into Jesus's role as Messiah. Also, mentioning Nazareth explicitly might have weakened the account or at the very least, distracted from it.

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've addressed Nathaniel.

The arugment among the crown in 7:41-42 has nothing to do with what Matthew said, that he should be called a Nazarene. I suspect that Christ being born in Bethlehem was not known to everyone. Nowhere does it say that this should be a way for him to prove that he is the Messiah.

Those talking to Nicodemus are obviously ignoring the good amount of OT prophets who HAVE arisen out of Galilee. There are though several traditions about the Messiah appearing out of Galilee, look up Arbel. A prophet however is not a messiah necesarily.

I don't believe that applies to John in this situation.

What do you mean?

Do you have sources of these?

Yes, but I didn't jot down notes, so I'll have to search again.

All of the prophecies Matthew quotes in reference to Jesus' birth are taken completely out of context. All of them.

Or they have multiple applications, an aspect of OT prophecy which is accepted by academics. Yes, Hosea is talking about the Exodus, but why isn't he talking about Christ as well, seeing as the Exodus is a type and shadow of Christ.

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.

And why should we accept that premise if it can be refuted?

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.

How long does it take to find a house?

It is about a year or two from the point the star appeared to the magi, not neccessarily from Jesus's birth.

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.

But you at least accept that neglecting parts of the story is a reasonable and likely possibility, just as likely as yours.

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 says he was under two.

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.

And he is right (about stumbling blocks, not your opinion that John believed Jesus was born in Nazareth), but that is neither here nor there.

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.

On what grounds do you throw out everything in Luke?

[Enlil-An]

You are focusing on it being Herod's son, when the problem is not that, but the cruel and bloody Archelaus. Going to the Galilee solves that problem because Archelaus had no control in Galilee.

The point is that if Joseph was planning on going to Galilee in the first place, why worry about who was ruling in Judea?

The journey is not excplicitely mentioned in Matthew, no, but what precludes it?

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."

Another possibility is that Matthew didn't care where Mary and Joseph were from, the important thing to his audience was how the birth fit into Jesus's role as Messiah. Also, mentioning Nazareth explicitly might have weakened the account or at the very least, distracted from it.

You're reaching. There is no evidence for any of this.

I've addressed Nathaniel.

The arugment among the crown in 7:41-42 has nothing to do with what Matthew said, that he should be called a Nazarene. I suspect that Christ being born in Bethlehem was not known to everyone. Nowhere does it say that this should be a way for him to prove that he is the Messiah.

Those talking to Nicodemus are obviously ignoring the good amount of OT prophets who HAVE arisen out of Galilee. There are though several traditions about the Messiah appearing out of Galilee, look up Arbel. A prophet however is not a messiah necesarily.

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.

What do you mean?

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.

Or they have multiple applications, an aspect of OT prophecy which is accepted by academics. Yes, Hosea is talking about the Exodus, but why isn't he talking about Christ as well, seeing as the Exodus is a type and shadow of Christ.

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.

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.

And why should we accept that premise if it can be refuted?

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.

How long does it take to find a house?

It is about a year or two from the point the star appeared to the magi, not neccessarily from Jesus's birth.

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.

But you at least accept that neglecting parts of the story is a reasonable and likely possibility, just as likely as yours.

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.

It says he was under two.

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 what grounds do you throw out everything in Luke?

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.

[volgadon]

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 he had to travel through.

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."

In the Hebrew and Slavonic it reads he arrived in the city Nazareth and lived there. That is an entirely neutral statement, which does not exclude the possibility of them knowing it earlier.

You're reaching. There is no evidence for any of this.

Not any more than you. I'm speculating based on the text.

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.

Really? None at all? Try Menachem ben Amiel. Were I to look outside my window, I would see Mt Arbel, so I think it is rich to claim that there are no traditions.

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.

Meaning that I don't take notes as well as I ought to when I come across things.

As I have indicated, John's gospel does not make that out to be the case.

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.

There most certainly are and the author does not always reveal them. This is especially true of Isaiah.

Here's a question for you, what does it mean if Nephi supports Matthew's interpretations?

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.

That Matthew lied is neither the only nor the likeliest of possibilites.

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.

Yes we know what each account omits.

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.

I'll recommend this again. Read up on historiography of the late classical period, that might lay to rest some of your presentist assumptions. These are two different accounts written for two very different target audiences and bearing two different agendas.

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.

All that verse means is that Herod was taking no chances.

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.

Then according to your strict criteria, one would have to throw out 90% if not all primary sources ever written.

[Enlil-An]

because he had to travel through.

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.

In the Hebrew and Slavonic it reads he arrived in the city Nazareth and lived there. That is an entirely neutral statement, which does not exclude the possibility of them knowing it earlier.

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?

Not any more than you. I'm speculating based on the text.

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.

Really? None at all? Try Menachem ben Amiel. Were I to look outside my window, I would see Mt Arbel, so I think it is rich to claim that there are no traditions.

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.

Meaning that I don't take notes as well as I ought to when I come across things.

As I have indicated, John's gospel does not make that out to be the case.

When you find the information again, let me know.

There most certainly are and the author does not always reveal them. This is especially true of Isaiah.

Chapter and verse, please?

Here's a question for you, what does it mean if Nephi supports Matthew's interpretations?

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.

That Matthew lied is neither the only nor the likeliest of possibilites.

Assersions without argument to back them up is worthless and a waste of time.

I'll recommend this again. Read up on historiography of the late classical period, that might lay to rest some of your presentist assumptions. These are two different accounts written for two very different target audiences and bearing two different agendas.

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.

All that verse means is that Herod was taking no chances.

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

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.

Then according to your strict criteria, one would have to throw out 90% if not all primary sources ever written.

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.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Enlil-An

[JohnnyRudick]

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.

In the Accounts of Matthew and Luke where they mention the events which transpire during the first few years of Jesus' life concern very few verses.

The Wisemen coming to the house being led by the star rather then going on to Bethlehem could very well have been led to Nazareth where I believe they returned to after the circumcision.

Joseph takes his family from Nazareth and heads to Egypt.

Coming back from Egypt they settle in Galilee in or near Nazareth.

I find no problem in any of the Gospels concerning this.

I know.

You can't help me:confused:

Bro, Rudick

[volgadon]

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

[volgadon]

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.

What a pathetic attempt to set a snare. Your question was 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?

You did not ask was Joseph going to live in Judaea. I don't see how my answers contradict my position that Joseph was passing through. If Archelaus was a murderus nutcase, then passing through land under his control was scary to Joseph, who had a wife and kid. Archelaus has no control over the Galilee, so there is no problem with living there.

The text does not say that Joseph went to the Galilee because Archelaus ruled over Judaea. The text says that he was afraid to go through Judaea, because Archelaus ruled there. What we have is a case of Joseph being given a command from God to go to a certain place, yet is scared to do so, because he has to pass through a dangerous area. He overcomes those fears because he was commanded in a dream to do so and if God commands, then he will provide a way. The warned in verse 22 is rendered commanded in every other translation I have.

So no, it isn't obvious.

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?

It precludes nothing.

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?

Or if I said that in the summer of 2008 whilst living in the village of Livnim I found a job in a towen called Hatzor, does that preclude my having lived there in the past?

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 are trying some put-downs. I haven't painfuly twisted anything, but I've challenged some of your assumptions. And guess what, I was raised in an environment which doesn't believe in Christ, so I've heard all these arguments way before you brought them up.

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.

What spin? I took your statement at face value. "There is definately no tradition of the Messiah coming out of Galilee and especially none of him coming from Mt. Arbel."

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.

When you find the information again, let me know.

Will do.

Chapter and verse, please?

Here's one off the top of my head. Isaiah 9:1-2.

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, and before you go saying that Matthew twisted the verse out of context you should realise that tzalmaveth, the word translated as the shadow of death, was another term for hell. The third fulfilment was in 2007, when the Galilee Branch meeting house was dedicated. Elder Holland explicitely stated so, so that isn't my interpretation.

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.

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

Assersions without argument to back them up is worthless and a waste of time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[volgadon]

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

[JohnnyRudick]

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

Edited June 27, 2009 by JohnnyRudick

[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.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Dravin

[Hemidakota]

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

[JohnnyRudick]

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]

. . .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]

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]

. . .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

Edited June 29, 2009 by JohnnyRudick

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by Hemidakota

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

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.

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by Johnny Rudick

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.

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

[JohnnyRudick]

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

This was in response to your finding fault with Johns account.

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?"

Which is an outgrowth to the rest of this thread of trying to discredit part of the Standard Works of the Church.

(I guess you have to start somewhere but even saying that the author was making it up?)

I made the statement that If I wrote;

"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.

Yes

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

That is very true.

But it skirts the point I in my clumsy way am trying to make.

People say things all the time and will say things that in no

way is even close to what they meant.

They are quoted.

That does not make the person doing the quoting wrong.

They were arrogant people boasting in their pride.

They were wrong in their boasting.

That does not make John wrong nor the Scripture.

Matthew wrote of the events of the birth acording to what the Spirit had him write as did Luke.

Read in the Spirit, it is easily decoded.

Don't blame the author if you don't possess the key.

Bro. Rudick

[volgadon]

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.

Right, except that the small part of the coastal road given to Salome came under Archelaus's control. Samaria suffered just as much as the heart of Judaea.

Josephus Wars, book II, chp 6-7.

Those towns given Salome were considered as Judah by Jewish writers, not as Idumaea.

I have yet to see a reference in the Mishna and Talmud to Jamniah being Idumaea.

You are basing your arguments on the KJV. I'm still waiting for someone who knows Koine Greek to tell me that it doesn't say going in or through where the English has thither and that the word is warned, as you claim and not commanded or instructed.

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]

How are they irelevant? Let us say you read one post where I say I worked in a factory in Hatzor, my own city, and then read another where I say I live in Livnim but work in a factory in Hatzor. Which account is wrong?

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?

As you can't be bothered to look those up, you expect me to take the time to translate them into English?

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'm sorry, but you haven't. As for the scholarly works, I've read many over many years, and quite a bit of that isn't in English. I'll try and post a short bibliography.

As for context, that is easy. Read the chapter. If that doesn't help, where was the Aramean and Assyrian invasion route? Through the northern end of the Sea of Galilee, the area described by Isaiah, and this is backed up by archaeology (such as at Bethsaida, which my brother dug at and found Assyrian arrowheads and bits of scale).

I would tell you to take a look at Yair Hoffman's comments in the Isaiah volume of Olam HaTanakh (which he edited), but you couldn't read it. Yair Hoffman is one of the eminent Israeli biblical scholars.

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.

Here are your words. "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." (where is the exact reference BTW).

"For example, Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 to show that the virgin birth was predicted in scripture. The problem is that the scripture he quotes is the Greek translation which uses the word parthenos (an ambiguous Greek word meaning either "young girl" or "virgin"). The original Hebrew reading uses the word aalmah which simply means "young girl" (the Hebrew word for "virgin" is betulah) and would not be construed by anyone reading Hebrew to mean that a baby would be born from a virgin."

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.

Corruption accounts for most of the errors and contradictory statements in ancient texts.

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

I was going off of what you said.

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.

Assuming that your reading is correct, it still doesn't support your conclusion. Their statement is the height of arrogance and wilful ignorance and contrasts with the Saviour's teachings. It does not mean that whoever wrote John was ignorant of the captivity. No, it is chauvinism in its fullest sense.

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

Or you could use the table of contents or index to find those sections which fit the time-frame.

Search engines make that even easier.

Try Antiquities, book XVIII, chp I, 6.

Wars, book II, chp VIII, section 1, chp XVII, 8.

And yes, it would help if you would read all of Josephus, to get an idea of the political and social backdrop to the Gospels.

Before making such pronouncements on the authenticity of the Gospels I would hope you would at least acquaint yourself with other contemporary or near-contemporary materials.

[quote}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?

Where have you quoted an exact source and precisely where it is located?

Edited June 29, 2009 by volgadon
Fixing [ quote ] boxes

[JohnnyRudick]

Actually I believe Jesus had to reenter the land, crossing the

Jorden from East to West for symbolical reasons and

God made them have to do it.

If they went up the coast it would not have been done that way.

Just what I believe