December 23, 2012
-
The Birth of Jesus
This is just noting a few of the most notable issues I’ve found with the Jesus birth accounts, which is by no means exhaustive, but merely the ones I noted during my study of the Bible at the beginning of the decline of my faith. While these have been well documented by many scholars, I came about these by reading nothing but the Bible about five years ago, which I then looked to outside sources to corroborate.
Only two of the four gospels, Matthew and Luke, deem Jesus’ birth to be a noteworthy event (seems pretty fucking important to me, but hey, I’m no 1st century scribe who heard this story second or third hand, so what the hell do I know?). John tells us only of the Incarnation – that the Logos “became flesh” – while Mark doesn’t say anything about Jesus until his baptism at around 30 years old (he probably didn’t do anything important in that time anyways). Certainly Mark knows nothing of the Annunciation or the Virgin Birth. In fact, Mark’s account seems to indicate there was no angelic announcement of Jesus’ birth and godliness, since in 3:30-31, Jesus’ family declare him to be “out of his mind” upon declaring himself the Son of Man. Then again, maybe Mary and Joseph were on to him.
There are discrepancies in the genealogies of the gospels, which I’ll merely link to and move on.
Luke 2 tells us that Jesus was born in Nazareth, while Matthew 2 tells us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and moved to Nazareth after his return from Egypt.
Then there’s the issue of the Roman census talked about in Luke 2. It indicates that Joseph was an inhabitant of Nazareth, yet for some reason was compelled to travel to the “city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David.” The genealogies given to us by Luke list dozens of generations between David and Joseph. It’s doubtful that Joseph would even know his genealogy going back this far, let alone which part of his genealogy to trace back (I, personally, would have no idea whether to follow my family line back to Ireland, England, Sweden, Finland, Norway or Northwest America). Furthermore, why the fuck would he be required to return to the land of his ancestors anyways, when a census would likely require him to register himself in the town he lives in? This would be a ridiculous way to conduct a census. Like, Ron Paul ridiculous.
P.S. Just showing you all what you’re missing by not following me on WordPress: linky.
Comments (14)
Ok. Let me take a shot at this:
Here are the exact quotes from the passages you linked saying Luke and Matthew were saying Jesus was born from a different city:
Luke 2:4 “So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.” The Luke passage goes on to say: ”When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”
Now lets use the Matthew passage from your link:
Matthew 2: ”When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: 6“‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.”
So your statement was inaccurate and anyone going to either of those passages that you linked can tell that.
It looks like your third statement is basically, “I don’t know my genealogy so no one in the time of the Bible must know his/her genealogy either.”
Is it possible that the people of that time felt their genealogy was more important than we think it is now? When I was in jr. high we had to write out our genealogy. A few kids went back 5-6 generations. I was able to go back 7 generations on one side and 8 generations on the other side. One kid was able to go back 10 generations. Based on your logic, the kid who was able to go back 10 generations probably did not exist because “who keeps track of their genealogy that far?”
I have to take my second son to practice basketball so I will be back for the fun later.
It is funny because in reference to the genealogies some of you want to say there are inconsistencies in the Bible. And yet some of the same people go up and down about how the writers were trying to bias the story in order to make the whole thing up. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. If they were making up the whole story you would have thought they would have gotten together and matched stories. But the reality is they just shared from their perspective with little thought for down the line when people would parse every sentence for an inconsistency. If a general grace is held to these writings, you would find a logical explanation for most of these perceived inconsistencies.
I wonder why Trump doesn’t ask to see his birth certificate.
I think Jesus was born cause Mary believed in miracles and listened to her dreams. And Jesus may have in fact been born a girl, we don’t know that for certain. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Φ ≡
yeah… what Dan said. and…. just because you don’t know your genealogy doesn’t mean nobody else does. Especially don’t you think that if there was a census like that, everyone would have to know where they were from and would find out (if it’s required to know, you will know – like your SSN)? Third, and I acknowledge that this is a fairly weak argument, for some political things I have to fill out paperwork in my “hometown” (the place where my parents live and where I lived for a large portion of my life), even though I presently live on the other side of the state…….
so…. Sorry, but there are plenty of pretty obvious things your arguments are missing.
@TheTheologiansCafe - ”But the reality is they just shared from
their perspective with little thought for down the line when people
would parse every sentence for an inconsistency.” Nah, genealogies were kept at the Temple. They just went to the genealogical books.
Matthew traces the genealogy of Joseph. Luke traces the genealogy of Mary. Luke begins with Mary and he works backward all the way to Adam. Some of this would have been available in the Temple since the genealogy is of royal line of David, Abraham, and so on. I have no idea if any genealogy in record before Luke did date back to Adam. Many books were available to be included into the bible that were not included. Some scholars give proofs that some books were changed. The books of the bible that are accepted as divine by all Jews and by all Christians are only the first five books of the Old Testament. Now, I do not at all consider myself to be a biblical scholar. There are plenty of them online. If you do some searching I think you’ll find that what I’ve given you is widely accepted. However, there are varying views among scholars.
matthew 2:8-9 says “He sent
them to
Bethlehem
and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As
soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship
him.”
After
they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had
seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place
where the child was.”
Luke 2:4-7 says “So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son”
The highlighting is mine, and both are from the NIV (the translation you referenced).
clearly the bible verses you mentioned agree with each other, and both teach that he was born in Bethlehem.
As to the insanity question:
Jesus here is clearly called “ἐξέστη” here which the NIV chooses to translate as “out of his mind.” While this is most popularly rendered as “out of his mind” or something of the sort, the word can also be translated to mean “amazed, astounded” or perhaps “to throw from a position” – it is often translated as “out of his mind” by committees for several reasons – 1)because it is done to increase the dramatic tension of the moment (a literary reason), and 2)because of the word κρατῆσαι follows it (this word means to arrest or restrain by physical force. The modern concept of arrest by the rule of law didn’t really exist in the same way, so just imagine it meaning to communally hog-tie someone, and you’ll be close to the meaning of the word here).
What you haven’t considered in your reasoning here is that this takes place in an honor/shame society in the ancient near east. In that community, you have to recall that the actions of an eldest son would have greatly affected the rest of the family. In this case, we also see that there is only a mother and brothers mentioned (no joseph, though you reference him as being around – in all likelihood joseph is dead by this point). This means that Jesus, as an eldest son, would have affected the other guys in the family a great deal by what he was doing – his actions affected their honor and shame.
Think of it like this – Jesus, by being someone who did something out of the societal norms at the time – was lowering their honor level, and increasing their shame level at the same time. It was in their best interest to their immediate senses, that Jesus stop, so that they could keep their honor – the most valuable thing in their ancient world.
A likely reason for this (as we know from Jesus’ other gatherings) was that Jesus did not have gatherings which were divided by social status. He allowed anyone to come, even children, prostitutes, and tax collectors – who all destroyed the honor of the family simply by being present, and who would have increased their shame.
What is particularly of note as well is that although the family is doing everything it can to preserve its own good name, they don’t ever tell Jesus that what he has done is dishonest, or that he is lying, simply that he needs to stop. It would have been better for them (societally speaking again) to be related to a liar than a blasphemer (what Jesus was often accused of). However, they never call him that he is lying, which is a fascinating point the text does not make.
Finally, you’ll note that he is asked to come to his family – although not to stop lying (implicit evidence that he wasn’t). Now, if Mark was trying to prove that Jesus was the messiah, why would he include this passage at all? He clearly had the choice. If he was going to throw in random hints about Jesus being a liar, why not just come out and say it? Or, if Jesus’ family was so sure Jesus was “up to” something, why not just say it? Your conspiracy theory on Mary and Joseph rings false on this note. So, perhaps the problem is not that Jesus family thinks that Jesus is a liar, but rather that Jesus’ family thinks that he is insane to be doing what he is doing – holding a huge gathering, something we don’t think about in our culture much, but which would be VERY important in that place and time.
I think a lot of these could be easily explained with a deeper understanding of biblical hebrew culture.
this should clear all that up for you nicely…
Link
@acomfortingcolloquy - He’s full of this kind of thing. Part of his gimmick.
It is important to understand the distinction between John who actually claim to knew Jesus and the other gospel writers who actually was trying to recapture the historical Jesus who started to become vague in the minds of the followers.
You’ve posted this before and gotten the same kind of feedback. Why not advance the arguement instead of reapeating things that have been shown to be wrong?
It takes 4 gospels to understand Jesus.
Matthew portrays Jesus as king. He was appointed by god to minister to the Jews
Luke portrays the humanity of Jesus which has traces to the first man
Mark- this gospel portrays Jesus the labourer, he is always working, you will find words like ‘immediate’ in the book of mark.
John meaning grace and he portrays Jesus as God divinity, i believe he knew who god was to him, which is also why he calls himself the beloved disciple of Jesus.. Jesus loves all his disciple with no favoritism but john personalised his love for Jesus, which all of us should do too..
Like
I am… insert your name… whom Jesus loves.
I really like what my pastor said, even if we have lots of bible knowledge, it’ll mean noting if we don’t have a heart for Jesus.
Ah, Dec 25th, virgin earth mothers and fathers that are gods………….
To preface this, I do not think, feel or believe that Heaven is real, I know it is. But when BS is put in front of me, I call it like it is. I do not need someone to try to scare me into being a good person, and stories, especially old, REALLY REALLY REALLY old stories, modified and rehashed to fit a specific purpose, are not going to convince me to be something other than how I am. But we all need to remember that not everyone is as strong as you and need to find comfort in believing in these types of stories. I wonder if they, virgin mother Dec. 25th types, ever learned to simply love everyone like they do themselves instead of judging those who do not think like they do if you would have as much fun as you do……………
Buddha;
The Buddha was born of royal descent. Born to the Virgin Maya, also called the Queen of Heaven on December 25th, somewhere around 563 to 483. That’s BC as opposed to BS. His birth was announced by a star (sounding familiar?) and attended by wise men presenting costly gifts. At his birth Brahma angels sang hymns. An aged holy woman beseeched the heavens to bless the new birth.
Common nick names for Buddha:
Good Shepherd; Carpenter; Alpha and Omega; Sin Bearer; Master; Light of the World; Redeemer; Saviour of the World.
Personal note: I cannot say when these nicknames or any of the other nick names came to be used, but based on the other parts of the stories, Birth Day and sexual status of mommy dearest, I will let you make the call.
Attis:
Attis was born to the virgin Nana on December 25. In 1400 or so, BC. Funny thing is that this religion was in Rome about 200 BC
Nick Names:
Good Shepherd; the Most High God; Only Begotten Son; Saviour.
Hercules:
Heracles was born on December 25 to a virgin somewhere around 800BC. His daddy, a “God”, refrained from sex with her until her God-begotten child was born. Remember his uncle was the ruler of Hell. (And like Jesus, he descended in Hell for three days. But MANY, MANY, others with they same story as Jesus descended into Hell, well before Jesus, but we are not talking about that today, are we?)
Nick names: Even though Hercules might have had a sultry reputation for a while, he was referred to as Saviour; Only begotten; Prince of Peace; Son of Righteousness.
This one is a little creepy for some Christians:
Horus:
Horus was born to a virgin (who remains eternally virginal), Isis-Meri, on December 25 about 3K BC.
Nicknames:
Horus was called: Resurrected One; Iusa, the ever-becoming son, or the Father. Also the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Word, the Word made Flesh, God’s Anointed (but then again King Cyrus was referred to as God’s Anointed by the GREATEST prophet of them all in Issiah)Word of Truth. These titles were bestowed long, long before they were given to Jesus. Oh yea, he was crucified on a tree, between two thieves.
Horus father was Osiris. Osiris was called Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods; the Good Shepherd; the Resurrection and the Life, the god who made men and women to be born again.
Also the “GODS Tammuz and Lao ZI both predating Jesus by a long time are storied to be of virgin mothers and born on Dec. 25th well before Jesus came along.
All these stories have always led me to wonder if the writers of the Bible would have said half of the stuff they said if we had world religion classes back then………………….
You are a bright young man GL and often I have been tempted to reply in depth to some of your blogs, but time no longer allows me to do these types of things. Between homeschooling my kids, running a business in a country where I do not speak the language, and a smoking hot wife that is 20 years my younger, I have my hands full.
I have been mulling a reply to something I saw you write once about being an atheist because you are “grounded in science”, but remember sometimes scientific methods of experimental repetition on demand are what are lacking. Not theories. Keep an open mind and keep writing.
good thoughts,
justmarty