We’re told that Jesus was born of a VIRGIN in Bethlehem,
which makes it the most important birth in all of history by far. The problem is, that of all the books of the
bible, only two of them tell the story, Matthew and Luke. The other epistles do not mention his
birth. Let’s examine these two.
1.
Angels relayed the good news that Mary was
pregnant.
a.
Matthew 1:20, 24-25
b.
Luke 1:26-28, 31
i. Who
was told, Mary or Joseph?
2.
Somehow Mary and Joseph got to Bethlehem for Jesus to
be born.
a.
Luke 2:1-5 (Luke comes up with this story using
a census, and it is here that we have our first major problem, writing nearly
80 years AFTER the event. Augustus ruled
from (c) 44-42 BCE until 14 CE, but there is ZERO record of any empire record
census. Sending people back to their ancestral
lineage home would have been impossible as well as turn the Roman Empire upside
down. However, there was a census done
by Suirinius, who was also known as Quirinius because the names are
interchangeable, while he was governor of Syria in the year (c) 6-7 CE and it
was not the whole empire, just a local Judeo census. The problem is, Matthew (Matthew 2) said that all of these things happened in the
days of Herod. Herod was king until he
died in 4 BCE, making him dead 10 to 11 years before the census of Quirinius
was conducted.
3.
Baby Jesus had visitors after his birth.
a.
Luke 2:7 (No mention of the wise men)
b.
Luke 2:8-12
c.
Matthew 2:1, 8-11 (Here we find Jesus in a cozy
house in verse 11 and not in a manger)
4.
The families left Bethlehem and ended up in Nazareth
a.
Luke 2: 21-22
b.
Luke 2:39 (Pretty straight forward story of how
they got to Nazareth huh? Matthew on the
other hand tells a different story of what happened when they left Bethlehem.
c.
Matthew 2:13-23
i. A
historian would have recorded the mass murder of of babies at an important time
in history. There is zero record of such
an account. This event was so horrific, it
would be impossible to be ignored by and not recorded.
ii. Matthew
calls upon an Old Testament prophecy in verse 23 stating that Jesus would be a
Nazarene. There is NO Old Testament
prophecy of Nazarene. Nazareth, a
village is completely unknown and never referred to in the Old Testament. Most
religious scholars uses Judges 13:5 to validate Matthew. Unfortunately, there are two problems with
this unfounded interpretation. First,
this story has nothing to do with the story of Jesus’ birth. Instead, it is the prophecy of Samson’s
birth. Secondly, the word “Nazarite”
does not mean someone from Nazareth. A
Nazarite is a person who takes a lifestyle vow to reframe from cutting their
hair, which would avoid alcohol, avoid corpses and graves. By this definition alone, Jesus would
automatically fail at being a Nazarite.
Review Luke said:
·
An angel told Mary
·
There was a Roman census
·
They went to Bethlehem
·
Jesus was born in a stable (manager)
·
An angel tells a bunch of farmers to go say hi
to Jesus
·
The family leaves and goes to Nazareth
Review Matthew said:
·
An angel told Joseph
·
Herod sends out an unnumbered wise men to find
Jesus in a house
·
Mary and Joseph escaped with the baby to Egypt
while Herod conducted a mass murder of children
·
Baby Jesus is returned to Nazareth to fulfill
prophecy
Why is it ok to take these two stories, take out all the nasty
parts and keep the cute stuff and declare it to be true?
