Are the Nativity Stories True?

[Lotan]

Were the birth narratives found in Matthew and Luke invented?

They seem to stem from a common tradition, as can be shown by a comparison of those parts of the gospels that deal with angelic visitations of Mary and Joseph ( Matt. 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38 ).

They share, in common, that during the reign of Herod...

1. A virgin
2. named Mary,
3. espoused to
4. Joseph
5. of the House of David, shall
6. bring forth a son,
7. conceived of the Holy Ghost.
8. Mary is visited (in Nazareth) by the angel Gabriel and told to "Fear not".
9. Joseph is later visited (in Bethlehem) by an angel (in a dream) and told to "Fear not".
10. Mary shalt call his name JESUS.
11. Joseph shalt call his name JESUS.

Beyond that, they are two different stories; Both contain genealogies, but they conflict. The star and the magi, the flight into Egypt, and the massacre of the innocents, are found only in Matthew. The story of John the Baptist's birth, the census, the "tidings of great joy" to the shepherds, the manger, Simeon and Anna are found only in Luke.

Because of the differences between the two accounts and the large number of elements within them that are lifted from the Old Testament, I think that it's most likely that they were created independently, perhaps based on an earlier tradition, to provide a fitting origin story for Jesus.
In short, they are the product of pious invention

[Bill55AZ]

I believe it was Luke, could be wrong, who came from a background where the virgin birth concept was part of his traditional heritage, and thus it could be that he made that part up. Certainly we have combined the best parts of each version of the stories to make up a good story to teach our children.
Some Christians get too hung up (my opinion) on whether or not the Bible is true in its entirety. Likewise the athiests/detractors who use minor inconsistencies to try to say that if one part is wrong, then all of it is wrong. It doesn't bother me that some parts consist of outlandish tales. The message and mission of Christ should be the only part we need to worry about.

[Lotan]

Bill55AZ wrote:

It doesn't bother me that some parts consist of outlandish tales. The message and mission of Christ should be the only part we need to worry about.

That's the problem. How can we know just what the message and mission of Yeshua was? If the black print is untrustworthy, then the red print is questionable too.

[Bill55AZ]

And why does it have to be all or nothing? Can you not find anything good in the bible?
Many preachers and pastors are making the simple messages needlessly complicated, and many athiests who can't leave people alone are compounding that mistake.
Both sides fight over every little word, and the real message is lost.
Christianity may not have originated the golden rule, or rules, that say we should treat each other nicely, but it has done more than most other religions to spread that idea for a very long time.
Picking nits is for monkeys, we humans should be able to discuss concepts and ideas without getting hung up on trivial issues.
The mission of Christ, as I understand it, it to bring salvation to mankind through the atomement. Man was in a fallen state, Christ gave man a second chance. Why? I don't know. Is it important that we understand all of the bible? That I think I do know. The answer is no. If God exists and all this stuff in the bible is true, it will be revealed to us in the hereafter.
But to sit around and pick apart other's beliefs, whether you be an athiest, or a wild eyed fundamentalist evangelist who thinks that only his beliefs are true probably borders on some kind of mental defect.

[bernee51]

And why does it have to be all or nothing?

because, it is claimed, the bible is the inspired word of god. If some of it is shown to be fallacious it throws doubt on either god's perfection or the bible's veracity. (or both)

Where do you draw the line?

Can you not find anything good in the bible?

there is much in the bible that could be considered 'good'. The same can be said of a myriad other spiritual or religiously slanted texts. The koran, the writings of the Dalai Lama, even Deepak Chopra {smirk}

Many preachers and pastors are making the simple messages needlessly complicated,

if they are - why do they do this?

and many athiests {sic} who can't leave people alone are compounding that mistake.

atheists are to blame for misundestandings in the bible?

Both sides fight over every little word, and the real message is lost.

lost? by whom? atheists?

The mission of Christ, as I understand it, it to bring salvation to mankind through the atomement. Man was in a fallen state, Christ gave man a second chance.

what do you mean by 'fallen'? who says 'man' was in a fallen state? fallen from what? why is 'man' any different now than 2000 years ago? is 'he' still fallen?

If God exists and all this stuff in the bible is true, it will be revealed to us in the hereafter.

how do you know there is a 'hereafter'? If you base your belief in the hereafter on words stated in the bible that could be one of the bits that are 'wrong'

But to sit around and pick apart other's beliefs, whether you be an athiest, {sic} or a wild eyed fundamentalist evangelist who thinks that only his beliefs are true probably borders on some kind of mental defect.

perhaps believing in mythical creatures is bordering on some sort of personality disorder.
(See two can play ad hominems)

kind regards

[Bill55AZ]

apparently you have nothing to add to debates, you just want to nitpick, even down to my spelling. I suppose YOUR errors are typos.
have a nice, lonely life....

[otseng]

Boy, we seem to have a rash of personal attacks against each other lately on the forum.

Let me remind everyone not to take debates to a personal level. Making comments about poster's intentions, qualifications, character, etc are out of line on this site. If you think someone posted something that has attacked you, do not respond to it. Report the post to a moderator and appropriate actions will be taken. However, if you get attacked and you attack back in a post, most likely you will get warned rather than the initial attacker.

Be reminded that the purpose of this entire forum is to engage in civil and thoughtful debates. Those who cannot comply with this are discouraged from participating on this site.

[FresaRoja]

The reason why the two stories aren't identical is that they were written by different authors who wanted to emphasize different events. I mean, just because the other books don't describe the nativity at all, we cannot assume that the nativity did not take place.

If you will notice, the two accounts do not contradict each other. Indeed, if we combine both of them, we have a more complete picture of what truly happened.

[Lotan]

Hi FresaRoja. Thank you for responding on topic.

FresaRoja wrote:

If you will notice, the two accounts do not contradict each other.

I do notice.

First off, the two genealogies contradict each other. I don't buy the idea that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's either, but that's a separate argument.

Also, the census of Quirinius and the death of Herod are presented as contemporaneous, when in fact, they occurred 10 years apart. This is a well known contradiction. See "The Date of the Nativity in Luke".

Finally, Matthew presents Joseph as being at home in Bethlehem (Matt. 1:24-2:1), while in Luke Joseph has to travel to Bethlehem (Luke 1:26-27, 2:1-7). Passages in Mark and John suggest that Jesus was actually born in Nazareth (Mark 1:9, 6:1, John 7:41-43).

The two birth narratives have so little in common that it's not too surprising that they don't contradict more than they do. Since so much of the synoptic gospels is repeated in all three, it's rather surprising that Matthew or Luke would choose to present "a more complete picture of what truly happened" by leaving out half of the story, especially considering that at the time they were written, their gospels weren't part of the NT canon, but were intended to stand alone.

[bernee51]

apparently you have nothing to add to debates, you just want to nitpick, even down to my spelling. I suppose YOUR errors are typos.

I believe seeking clarification and extending people to think outside their narrow POV's is a good way to stimulate debate and dialogue. You onviously think otherwise.

Are you in a 'fallen' state Bill? And, if so, what exactly is a fallen state?

The only spelling I pinged you on was the word atheist (which you have consistently spelled 'athiest'. Typos I can tolerate...but that was not a typo,

have a nice, lonely life....

thank you, but I have other intentions.

What a nice friendly fellow you are.