Are the Nativity Narratives really historical or allegorical

[polonius]

Since it is approaching Christmas, perhaps it would be a good time to review Matthew’s and Luke’s Nativity Narratives which comprise the first few chapters of their gospels.

We understand that the earliest stratas of Matthew, used by the very early Palestinian Ebionite Christians, who remained obedient to Mosaic Law, did not seem to include such a nativity narrative suggesting that it was added later (perhaps to both Matthew and Luke).

Each narrative describes the birth of Jesus but involves serious contradictions. Let’s begin with the date of Jesus’ birth as given by each.

[polonius]

1. King Herod ruled Israel until his death in 4 BC. Thereafter, his sons became his inheritors. Archelaus was made ruler of Judea.

2. Archelaus was a very objectionable ruler both to the Romans and the Jews, and he was exiled in 6 AD after reigning for 10 years. Prior to this time any census or tax collection was performed by the Herods.

3. Quirinius and a few other were sent to Syria. Judea was placed under Syria and ruled the governor Quirinius who conducted a Roman census and computed the former holding of the exiled Archelaus. This occurred in 6 AD or ten years after the death of Herod.

4. Luke's gospel reports that Jesus was born during this census. (Like Matthew, Luke reported a Virgin birth of Jesus not reported by Paul who wrote in from about 50 to 64 AD, or Mark who wrote about 70 AD, or John who wrote about 95 AD.) Aside from the two nativity narratives, there is no other report of Jesus' virgin birth.

[polonius]

So regarding the nativity narratives, at this point we are facing two contradictions:

Matthew places Jesus'birth as being during the lifetime of King Herod. Luke places Jesus' birth as being ten years later (at the time of the 6 AD Roman census).

Both Matthew and Luke claim a virgin birth for Jesus yet the Old Testament states that the Messiah will be the biological descendant of both David and Solomon.

So much for those to try to tell us that if something is stated in the Bible it has to be true, or cite the Bible as being completely reliable and indisputable evidence!

[marakorpa]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

So what is wrong with that. The Bible gives a linage back to Adam for Jesus, and you discount the fact that his virgin birth was predicted by God, and that God was his Father by the miracle of the birth.

The Bible has been around for a long time, and so far, no one has found a truthful inaccuracy that makes any difference to what is written.

If you know of any inaccurate scripture let me know, please; however, if you quote scripture quote it in its entirety.

[oldbadger]

So regarding the nativity narratives, at this point we are facing two contradictions:

Matthew places Jesus'birth as being during the lifetime of King Herod. Luke places Jesus' birth as being ten years later (at the time of the 6 AD Roman census).

Both Matthew and Luke claim a virgin birth for Jesus yet the Old Testament states that the Messiah will be the biological descendant of both David and Solomon.

So much for those to try to tell us that if something is stated in the Bible it has to be true, or cite the Bible as being completely reliable and indisputable evidence!

The virgin birth tale, just as with the nativity tales, might have some truth pills within it. Honest!
Sepphoris (Zippori) was a hellenised city just to the north of Nazareth, and a legend exists that Mary was a Temple virgin in that city, and that when Legate Varus's legions took the city back from brigand Judas BarEzekiah that a Roman soldier, Patronus, either loved her or raped her, which is possibly why Mary was pregnant when she went (ran!) south with Joseph. Which would mean that they were refigees into Judea rather than tax-applicants.
I reckon that the whole nativity story is in fact spun from a bunch of separate and disconnected facts.

Can I prove it? Nah! I'm afraid that all we can do now is make guesses based upon the balances of possibility and probabability.

[polonius]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

So what is wrong with that. The Bible gives a linage back to Adam for Jesus, and you discount the fact that his virgin birth was predicted by God, and that God was his Father by the miracle of the birth.

RESPONSE: Where precisely (citation please) does Paul, Matthew, Mark, or Luke claim that Jesus had his virgin birth predicted by God?

The Bible has been around for a long time, and so far, no one has found a truthful inaccuracy that makes any difference to what is written. (Perhaps you should read the Bible more carefully, or perhaps I can supply many other examples).


If you know of any inaccurate scripture let me know, please; however, if you quote scripture quote it in its entirety.

Since we are discussing the Nativity Narratives, does Micah list Bethlehem as a city in Judea, or as a Jewish clan.

[JehovahsWitness]

Since we are discussing the Nativity Narratives, does Micah list Bethlehem as a city in Judea, or as a Jewish clan.

A city in Judea.

For more details see my earlier post linked below
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 979#781979

[JehovahsWitness]

Can I prove it? Nah! I'm afraid that all we can do now is make guesses based upon the balances of possibility and probabability.

Well we have evidence in the bible canon narrative, that Mary was not raped or a "temple prostitute" but rather begotten by holy spirit and that take authority over non-biblical "legends" and individual"s unproven "guesses"

JW

[oldbadger]

Can I prove it? Nah! I'm afraid that all we can do now is make guesses based upon the balances of possibility and probabability.

Well we have evidence in the bible canon narrative, that Mary was not raped or a "temple prostitute" but rather begotten by holy spirit and that take authority over non-biblical "legends" and individual"s unproven "guesses"

JW

Now...... what I would like you to do is to copy what I wrote exactly, and underline where I wrote the word 'prostitute'. If you can't do that then you might cionsider acknowledging that I wrote nothiong of that kind, but in any event please don't attribute words to me again that I did not write.

I'm afraid that too many bible narratives contend with other bible narratives for me to auto-believe in them. The nativity tales as written in Matthew and Luke are in contention with each other, and within themselves, and with historical dates, and with historical facts.

[JehovahsWitness]

The nativity tales as written in Matthew and Luke are in contention with each other, and within themselves, and with historical dates, and with historical facts.

The nativity tales as written in Matthew and Luke are not in contention with each other and contain no internal contradictions, they do not conflict with any historical dates since they provide few dates if any dates and the historical context provided do not conflict with any proven historical facts.

When there is a conflict between what historians suppose and biblical detail, which is rare, the bible is right.

JW

[oldbadger]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

So what is wrong with that. The Bible gives a linage back to Adam for Jesus.......

....which lineage do you favour, Matthew's or Luke's?

Which date do you prefer for his birth, 4bc or 6ad?

Which journeys do you prefer, Egypt or back to galilee?

Why does Luke make john a relative when Matthew does not?

Did john know he was a relative of Jesus?

Why did john need to send his disciples to ask Jesus, are you the one?

....the questions are endless, the answers never coming....

Sent by mobile....