This is the seventeenth chapter in the series My List: Believe the Bible? Read why I started this list in About Me.
As we approach the holiday of Christmas, millions celebrate the birth of a Jewish man from 2,000 years ago. The story of a virgin birth under a guiding star with angels, wise men, and shepherds all around. A savior king who was God himself asleep in a manger filled with hay.
Like most Christians, I loved the story of Jesus’ birth. Unfortunately this amazing story is one of the most erroneous, inconsistent and impossible testimonies in the entire Bible.
Let’s start by looking at the New Testament as a whole. The birth of Christ only appears in two Gospels, Matthew and Luke. It wasn’t even mentioned in the first Gospel of Mark written 40+ years after Jesus’ death. You have to agree that it’s a pretty huge detail to exclude from the story of Jesus. Why would the author overlook mentioning that Jesus was incarnated by God in a virgin and was God himself in the flesh? The earliest texts by the Apostle Paul don’t refer to Jesus’ virgin birth either. Paul says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Romans 1:3) and was “born of a woman,” not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).
The reason the story of Jesus’ birth was important was to convince skeptical Jews that Jesus had fulfilled Old Testament prophesy to prove he was the messiah. Unfortunately the authors of Matthew and Luke didn’t get their stories or historical data straight.
THE DATE
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod’s death.
THE PLACE
Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).
In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a chaotic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel).
THE PROPHECIES
Matthew says that the birth of Jesus and the events following it fulfilled several Old Testament prophecies. These prophecies include:
1. The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14)
This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a “young woman” will give birth, not a “virgin” which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.
This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).
2. The “slaughter of the innocents” (Jeremiah 31:15)
Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy.
This story is pure historical fiction. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the murder of several members of his own family. However, ancient historians such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod’s crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod’s greatest crime by far. It simply didn’t happen.
The context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.
3. Called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1)
Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 2:15). However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.
As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened, one need only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened between the time of Jesus’ birth and the family’s arrival in Nazareth. According to Luke, forty days (the purification period) after Jesus was born, his parents brought him to the temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Luke makes no mention of Egypt or the slaughter of children.
The main focus of Christmas today is on secular traditions. Gathering with family, exchanging gifts around an illuminated pine tree, all while waiting for an old fat man to come down the chimney. Maybe Christians were trying to distract from the absurdity of the true Christmas story. But who doesn’t enjoy getting a few days off work to party, overeat and to receive a few cool new gadgets to play with?
(via)
Tags: Christianity, God, Bible, Jesus, Conflicting, Messiah, Matthew, False, Folklore, Flawed, Inconsistent, Virgin, Christmas, Birth, Manger, Fiction, Savior, Herod, Luke
December 22, 2009 at 2:38 am |
These inconsistencies are covered very well in Bart Ehrman’s book “Jesus, Interrupted” which I would imagine that you have already read. It is amazing how few people actually realise all this and will look the other way when you point it out.
The “story” of christmas as we have it today is an amalgamation of the different gospels to make one completely new story that has nothing to do with what the bible says.
I pointed these issues out to my brother, a youth minister, and he wasn’t even slightly curious about it, didn’t care. “The story is as we tell it, a combination of all of it gives us the truth”. Utter bullshit.
December 22, 2009 at 4:35 am |
Shawn I see this type of belief all the time. I always look at it as normal christian views. Most christians have no real knowledge of what the bible says only what they have been told by members of the church and family. I can understand why many don’t read the bible completely, I have tried several times to read the whole thing but usually end up either sickened or asleep.
Another good post on the inconsistency of the bible and those that claim to believe it.
December 22, 2009 at 8:37 am |
My pastor compared the various Gospel “testimonies” to watching a news story on different news stations. The same story from different perspectives.
But the obvious flaw of this logic is that these are not different perspectives. They are blatant factual inconsistencies and completely uncorroborated historical events. Also, neither of the authors were present at the birth or they would have been well over a hundred years old when they wrote these testimonies. Their account of the story is little more than hearsay, which helps explain why there are two completely different versions of the story.
December 23, 2009 at 11:45 am |
Of course, this ignores the fact that if news stations are reporting drastically different facts about a story, I’m not inclined to believe either of them, especially if they’re reporting about something from a few decades ago.
I wonder what it is with Christianity and really bad metaphors. Does anyone else feel like Christians explain away far too many things with metaphors that really don’t make sense when you think about them?
December 24, 2009 at 8:49 am
I wonder what it is with Christianity and really bad metaphors….
What else have they got? As you say, the things they are trying to explain simply do not make sense.
May 30, 2010 at 10:16 am
I think it’s actually the “argumentation by analogy” fallacy. One can legitimately try to _explain_ by analogy, but one cannot _prove_ anything by analogy. Example: You can think of electricity as a rubber band. The tension on the rubber band is the voltage, the width of the rubber band the amperage. High tension and small width will sting you but won’t kill you. Wide width and low tension won’t hurt you either. Sufficient tension and width will sting significantly. However, you can’t look at electricity under the microscope and see its elastic structure. Electricity _is not_ a rubber band.
That said, Christians do come up with the most utterly god-awful, stupid, childish, asinine, inappropriate analogies.
December 22, 2009 at 12:51 pm |
It is posts like this one that remind me why I love reading your blog!! Well thought out, well written and all based on factual evidence. Thank you for tackling this topic in such a clear and concise way.
December 22, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
A couple of days ago I saw a TV program (NatGeo?) on the star of Bethlehem. There seem to be several options for unusual celestial events around that time, but perhaps the same could be said for any 5-7 year block of time. What I totally don’t buy is that Persian mages followed some sign and it led them to the manger. I’ve done some overland navigating using both stars and compasses, and you don’t get to a specific point unless you rely heavily on the compass and already know what point you are trying to reach. Plus, why exactly would Persians care about the change in Jewish rulers? Seems like stuff added in because any god/hero worth his salt had to have astrological cred.
December 22, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
As soon as I get to your ignorant usage of “there” instead of “their”, I realise you’re semi-retarded, and immediately stop reading.
I suggest to you that most educated people are insulted by your poor writing.
Do yourself a favour and study some English.
December 22, 2009 at 9:49 pm |
It never ceases to amaze me how underhanded Christains are willing to strike.
After centuries of burning witches, intellectuals and comrades alike, it would appear that reason has become a lost cause in your delusional minds.
December 22, 2009 at 11:40 pm |
Indeed, proofreading is next to godliness. But I suggest to you that most educated people are able to deal with an occasional typographical error without throwing a tantrum.
December 23, 2009 at 10:09 am |
Disagree with the OP? Can’t find the argument? Right, let’s attack the OP’s character. GTFO, troll, and merry christmas. >_>
December 23, 2009 at 7:06 pm |
As soon as I get to your ignorant usage of “there” instead of “their”, I realise you’re semi-retarded, and immediately stop reading.
Dude. This is the Internet. Do you really expect everybody to always spell properly on a contraption invented by Al Gore? Get over yourself.
December 23, 2009 at 7:15 pm |
Also Mobius, as far as grammar goes, you are no prize pig.
“As soon as I get to your ignorant usage of ‘there’ instead of ‘their’, I realise you’re semi-retarded, and immediately stop reading.”
I’ll ignore that you misspelled realize as realise. (And don’t even come back claiming to be British!) But you have a severe problem with tense here. You are using present tense, which applies that you keep coming to the blog and reading and then stop when you get to the incorrect usage of “there.” Then you come read again, and do the same. You are constantly doing this right? Over and over? If not, then you need to study some grammar my friend, because you clearly should be using past tense. “As soon as I got to your ignorant usage of ‘there’ instead of ‘their’, I realized [that] you’re semi-retarded, and immediately stopped reading.”
There is still the problem that in modern writings, you do not put the commas after the quotations marks like “yo”, but inside them like “yo,” so clearly you aren’t up to date on that point either.
“I suggest to you that most educated people are insulted by your poor writing.” You are certainly not among them, since you clearly are not as educated as you think you are.
“Do yourself a favour and study some English.”
Do yourself a favour and learn that in modern English favour is spelled favor. (Again, don’t claim to be British. Besides, even if you are, British usage is all wrong because America rules the world now, especially since Barak Obama the ‘anointed one’ is President and all the world loves us again.)
December 23, 2009 at 7:16 pm |
Oh no! I wrote applies instead of implies by mistake! I must be semi-retarded!!!!! Whatever shall I do?????
December 23, 2009 at 7:17 pm
And I said modern writings rather than modern writing. Why? why????????
December 23, 2009 at 9:20 pm |
There is not enough controversy here. I want to say, in defense of Mobius, that, whatever the approved convention, it is illogical to put the comma inside the quoted string if it is not part of the thing being quoted.
If I need to quote the word “Example” and a comma is required for the sentence structure immediately after “Example,” what is the comma doing inside the quotes? This is a parsing headache because I have to sort out that “Example,” is not being quoted but “Example”, which is how the quote ought to be written in a sensible system.
I apologize in advance to the educated readers if their are any typos in hear.
December 24, 2009 at 8:03 pm
“There is not enough controversy here. I want to say, in defense of Mobius, that, whatever the approved convention, it is illogical to put the comma inside the quoted string if it is not part of the thing being quoted.”
I agree. What about parenthesis in citations? Do you like the oldschool way or the new?
Old: So and so incorrecly argues such and such (Some book by so and so, page 10).
New: So and so incorrecly argues such and such. (Some book by so and so, page 10)
December 24, 2009 at 11:10 pm
I like the Old style, with the period after the citation. The citation belongs with the preceding sentence.
If the period comes before, then when the reader hits the period, all the reading machinery wraps up the sentence and prepares for a new sentence. And now what’s this stuff in parentheses? It’s a distraction. It requires slightly more processing to find the beginning of the next sentence.
If the period comes after, the parenthesis is processed properly with the sentence where it belongs. It is quickly recognized as a citation and the reader skips over it to the end parenthesis, sees the period, and is ready for the next sentence. Much smoother.
And then what happens in the New style if there are two citations in the same sentence? Then there is one inside and one outside. An inconsistency and more distraction.
New: So and so incorrectly argues such and such. (Some book by so and so, page 10) Whozit does a good job in refutation on Point A (First Journal Article by Whozit) but goes too far on Point B. (Another Journal Article by Whozit) In this essay I will give the definitive exposition of the matter.
Old: So and so incorrectly argues such and such (Some book by so and so, page 10). Whozit does a good job in refutation on Point A (First Journal Article by Whozit) but goes too far on Point B (Another Journal Article by Whozit). In this essay I will give the definitive exposition of the matter.
December 25, 2009 at 8:03 am |
you are no prize, pig.
I filled in the missing comma for you. Your welcome.
December 25, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Lol. I meant them to go together, but its funnier this way.
December 24, 2009 at 9:55 am |
For acres of ungrammatical, misspelled prose, hop on over to any fundie website, or, better yet, any YouTube video involving demons or miracles.
Anyway, guys, are we commentors or commenters? My pre-internet dictionary doesn’t say. I prefer commentor, but Dictionary.com has commenter. We are not commentators, since we don’t do this for a living, but some of us may be common taters.
December 24, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
When I first needed to use the word “commenter/or”, I checked my dictionary and did not find either form; so I used “commenter” because it seemed the most natural in English.
After I read your question, I looked in my Latin-English dictionary and at Dictionary.com and was all set to write a dissertation on the underlying meanings of the related Latin words, etc. But then I was stopped in my tracks by the realization that the decision has already been made: “commenter” is in the electronic dictionaries used by software spelling checkers (at least for Microsoft Word and Firefox) but “commentor” is not. If you like “commentor” (and maybe “commentrix” for a lady) and use spelling checkers to help with proofreading, you will probably have to ignore red underlining every time you use it.
In his capacity of blogger, theBEattitude is a commentator because the blog as a whole counts as a commentary.
And I have tarried far too long over this comment.
December 27, 2009 at 8:21 pm |
I may be semi-retarded, but I know a Red Herring when I see one. Distract completely from the various points of my post with an irrelevant typo.
I also “realise” it is difficult for you, but you should really use spell check before ridiculing another person’s grammar. Typos happen, even to non-retarded people like yourself. Next time you attempt to insult a person, you might try phrasing your comment above an immature pre-pubescent level.
January 5, 2010 at 2:01 am |
I’m a Christian
And I’d like to post a response to these points you’ve brought up.
Not to argue with you, just to show that Christians aren’t blind sheeple:
-NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE
You say that the Gospels are inconsistent because they don’t mention the birth of Christ. I would disagree.
You say that the birth of Jesus is meant to convince Jews that he fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. This is true so far as Matthew is concerned (which was the only Gospel written specifically for a Jewish audience.
The absence of Jesus’ birth in the Gospel of Mark isn’t really unbelievable. The early Church for the first few decades after Christ’s death was led by the Apostles, who could relate everything to fellow Christians. After about 40 years as you say the Church was becoming larger and information needed to be written down for preservation. Mark’s Gospel was the first of these, and most historians agree that the Gospels of Luke (written for gentiles) and Matthew (written for Jews) are heavily based on Mark’s Gospel and do include the birth of Jesus. Mark is almost a blueprint Gospel.
John was later written about 70 AD to detail WHY Jesus did what he did. John is not structured like Mark and does not mention Jesus’ birth most likely because it’s something already covered in depth in Matthew and Luke.
-THE DATE
Herod the Great died in 4 BC, and Quirinius became Governor of Syria in 6 AD.
However, I don’t believe that the census mentioned in Luke was taken after Herod’s death. There are three reasons:
1) The term “governor” translated from the original Greek does not necessarily mean the political position. It could just as easily mean that Quirinius was in a position of governance. There is substantial historical data that shows that Quirinius was a Procurator of Syria under Sentius Saturninus during the final years of Herod’s life.
2) Luke 2:2 says “the first census” of Quirinius. This could mean it was the first census under his governance. Some Greek Scholars also translate the word “first” as “prior”. So perhaps Luke was saying that Quirinius was the Governor in 6 AD and this census was prior to that. Either way, it’s possible.
3) Why did no one at the time use this against the Church? Or afterwards?
The Romans persecuted Christians and could have disproved their claims if there was actually a problem with Luke’s history. The fact that this never happened suggests that there is not actually a problem.
-THE PLACE
Matthew does not say that it was ONLY after the birth of Jesus that they lived in Nazareth. It says that after Harod’s death they returned to Israel, with the intent of continuing to live in Judea. However, they were afraid to return to Judea and instead lived in Nazareth. Jesus was raised in Nazareth, making him a Nazarene.
It would make sense that they would not want to live in Nazareth, and only returned there out of fear. According to the Gospels it was a terrible place, and according to archaeological evidence, it was a tiny town.
So we can assume that they lived in Nazareth, went to Bethlehem, lived there for a while. Then left to Egypt and lived there for a while. Then they were told to return to Israel, specifically Nazareth because it was still not safe in Judea.
As for the census: census’ like that described in Luke were not uncommon in the Roman Empire. Censuses like that were taken every 14 years. Some evidence says even every 7 years.
-THE PROPHECIES
1) Yes, this prophecy is for King Ahaz, but in Isaiah 7:13 Isaiah says “listen Royal Family of David”. Prophecies that are addressed to the Royal line of David are also messianic prophesies.
There is no Hebrew word that means virgin as we know it. The word used here carries connotations meaning that the young woman is young and virginal. And the word was not mistranslated into Greek. Jewish rabbis translated it as virgin into Greek (before the birth of Christ). It was understood by the Jews that this word meant a young virgin girl.
“Immanuel” means “God with us”. If Jesus is God, then he is Immanuel.
2) In this verse it is Ramah who is weeping. She’s considered the mother of Israel, since her husband is Jacob, whose 12 sons created the 12 tribes of Israel. The life of Jesus mirrors the history of the Jewish people (he is believed to be Moses and Elijah, the deliverer and a great prophet).
3) Again, Jesus’ life mirrors that of the Jewish people (they are even led by a man named Joseph into the promised land). Matthew points this out to his Jewish audience. If Jesus is the Son of God then it is not far fetched that Jesus’ life would be this way.
And Luke doesn’t say that immediately after the purification period that Joseph, Mary and Jesus all immediately returned to Nazareth. It says that they returned to Nazareth after fulfilling the requirements of the law of the Lord. Can this mean a day went by in between or a year or a decade? Yes. Although, I don’t think it was much more than a year if that, considering when Harod died.
Keep in mind that Luke is a historian, not an Apostle. His book is written based on information he has come by (most likely including the Gospel of Mark). Just because he skips something doesn’t mean that it never happened. It is very difficult to interpret the passage of time in the Bible, and it usually has to be done with markers (historical rulers, life spans, etc.)
-THE MAIN FOCUS OF CHRISTMAS TODAY
I don’t think that Christians are trying to distract from the Christmas story. If anything, we’re trying to emphasize it. Santa, trees, and presents are all byproducts of corporations hijacking Christmas and trying to secularize and commercialize it.
Well, technically a lot of it is from Saturnalia, which was made into Christmas by Constantine so people could celebrate the birth of Christ, but the important thing is that Christmas should be a time to remember the birth of Christ. If all you want is presents and trees and food then celebrate Saturnalia.
Or Festivus.
God Bless
January 11, 2010 at 8:50 am |
Good job.
January 11, 2010 at 1:40 pm |
You have an impressive database of Christian apologetics. I’m always amazed at the laundry list of rationalizations for every Bible absurdity.
I won’t touch on all of your points as most have been covered in the post. I will hit on a few.
You don’t find it unbelievable for the author of Mark to omit the story of the virgin birth of Christ? If the purpose of the written Gospel was to preserve the story, it would have been included. There are much less important pieces of information that were included.
Your points of argument here are very weak. When these stories were passed by word of mouth, it is not hard to imagine how the dates would have been erroneous in this fictional story written 80-90 years after the birth supposedly occurred.
You ignored the most important flaw in this part of the story. The Roman government would never have required a man to travel to Bethlehem with his pregnant wife to take part in a census. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation. They were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born.
I notice you don’t mention anything about the slaughter of the children. I can understand why you would avoid discussing this one. It never happened. Regardless of what the prophesy said, this part of the Jesus story is a complete work of historical fiction. I challenge you to show me any evidence of otherwise. Not only does the other Gospel not support it, not a single shred of historical data supports any part of the story.
I actually enjoy Christmas as a secular holiday. Time with family and friends, good food and fun watching my children opening gifts. There is nothing wrong with the holiday, only the fictional story that it’s based on. Sort of a Festivus for the rest of us.
-Peace
January 15, 2010 at 10:02 pm |
Dear Sir,
I wanted to respond to you in a most kind and respectful way. I have been a believer in Jesus Christ for over 20 years but I’ve recently begun to really dig into and act on my beliefs. Many of the things you have brought up are things I myself have struggled with and sometimes still do. My faith has been shaken more than once by these struggles, but I have found Jesus on the other side of every struggle I’ve had. I’m not trying to convince you of anything, that’s not my job. My mission is to love and respect people. All people whether I agree with them or not. My reason for responding to you is because I respect your honesty and quite frankly I’m disgusted by the nasty attitudes of people who claim to be followers of Christ. Whether you believe it or not the God of the Bible is real and He really loves you. I will keep you in my prayers.
Sincerely,
Marsha Son
January 16, 2010 at 4:26 am |
If you are trying to be respectful then why did you end your comment with a curse on me?
January 16, 2010 at 12:00 pm |
My wife did not curse you. You are cursed by your own doing. I too will be praying for you, not as a curse but for your eyes to be opened. You your self are fulfilling New Testament prophecy by your verbal persecution of Christians. Now i shake the dust off my feet and move on. Have a nice life
January 16, 2010 at 12:29 pm |
“I too will be praying for you, …”
Yeh, thanks for that it means so much … no really it does.
January 16, 2010 at 3:25 pm |
My eyes are open unlike yours. I am willing to take all I know and believe is the truth and throw it in the trash if I am shown actual evidence I am wrong. Can you say that? I very much doubt you can and until you can, you are the one with his eyes closed.
January 16, 2010 at 3:55 pm |
It’s the old you’re not opened minded if you don’t believe in my god even without a shred of evidence. Of course the many thousands of other gods are obviously false as there is no evidence for them.
January 17, 2010 at 12:05 am |
Wayne and Marsha–
My purpose is not to be disrespectful. But what you don’t realize is how disrespectful it is to view every non-Christian as cursed soul. Your prayer for me is with good intention, but it is not a loving act when you proclaim it as though you’re somehow going to save me.
Let me put it into context. If I went to a Christian blog and said, “Your god is imaginary and I feel sorry for you,” it would be offensive to you. But this is exactly what a Christian is doing when they proclaim their intention to pray for me.
You are free to pray for me if you like, but don’t confuse your verbal proclamation as an act of love. You are essentially telling me I’m stupid for not sharing your version of religious superstition. I don’t make it my mission to save you from your belief system. It’s none of my business. You are just more willing to blindly believe absurd ancient theology than I am.
April 12, 2010 at 6:47 pm |
Strange this post is totaly unrelated to what I was searching google for, but it was listed on the first page. I guess your doing something right if Google likes you enough to put you on the first page of a non related search.