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.

[JehovahsWitness]

I will raise up your offspring after you, sprung from your loins,

I have already addressed this issue, "spring/sprung from your loins" (like "seed") is a figurative way to refer to "offspring" ie descendant (which is the collective number of those that can trace their lineage back to a single individual (in this case David).

That the expression is not to be taken literally is evident since few (reasonable) people would suggest that David's grandchildren were not his offspring just because they did not come about as a direct fertilization of an egg by his literal sperm and did not come from his literal loins.

RESPONSE: Yes. And once again you are in error as demonstrated by the plain meaning of words used in the prophecy and Matthew's list of Jesus' specific lineage starting with David and ending with Joseph.

If you look above you will see I said that "seed" refers to "offspring" /desendants. This is line with the meaning of the words as demonstrated below.


source: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2233.htm

[polonius]

And of course keep in mind that in the case of a "virgin birth," as a woman Mary would not have a Y chromosome for maleness which she could transmit to Jesus. Jesus would have had to been a woman if Mary were still a virgin when she conceived.

QUESTION: How could Mary give birth to a Male child if she was a virgin? Wouldn't she only be capable of giving birth to a female?

Yes, if Jesus was a clone of Mary. The scriptures indicate however that was not the case but that Jesus' conception came as a direct result of a miracle in which the life of God's son (The Word) was transfered into the womb of Mary.

JW

I hope you are not claiming then that God is male.

But when the evidence provided does not support a literal or inerrant view, one can always play the "miracle" card.

Once upon a time an older woman from Ireland was clearing American customs with four quart bottles under her arms. The customs inspector asked her what they contained. "Holy water from Lourdes" was the woman's reply. He opened a bottle and took a smell. He said "This smells like Irish whiskey."

"Does it? she replied. "Glory be! Another miracle!

Do you think that the custom's inspector should believe her explanation? Should we believe your explanation?

[JehovahsWitness]

And of course keep in mind that in the case of a "virgin birth," as a woman Mary would not have a Y chromosome for maleness which she could transmit to Jesus. Jesus would have had to been a woman if Mary were still a virgin when she conceived.

QUESTION: How could Mary give birth to a Male child if she was a virgin? Wouldn't she only be capable of giving birth to a female?

Yes, if Jesus was a clone of Mary. The scriptures indicate however that was not the case but that Jesus' conception came as a direct result of a miracle in which the life of God's son (The Word) was transfered into the womb of Mary.

JW

I hope you are not claiming then that God is male.

No, I'm claiming God is a miracle worker.

LUKE 18:27
Jesus replied, "What is impossible with man is possible with God." - NIV

JW

[polonius]

Lets review one of your recent posts regarding the word "zera"

Result of search for "zera": Strong's Concoedance, Hebrew.

2233 zera` zeh'-rah from 2232; seed; figuratively, fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity:--X carnally, child, fruitful, seed(-time), sowing- time.

RESPONSE:

1. Please note that the word 2233 "zera" is singular not plural.

2. PLease note that all of the progenitors of Jesus are singular names in direct biological lineage from David.

[polonius]

And of course keep in mind that in the case of a "virgin birth," as a woman Mary would not have a Y chromosome for maleness which she could transmit to Jesus. Jesus would have had to been a woman if Mary were still a virgin when she conceived.

QUESTION: How could Mary give birth to a Male child if she was a virgin? Wouldn't she only be capable of giving birth to a female?

Yes, if Jesus was a clone of Mary. The scriptures indicate however that was not the case but that Jesus' conception came as a direct result of a miracle in which the life of God's son (The Word) was transfered into the womb of Mary.

JW

I hope you are not claiming then that God is male.

No, I'm claiming God is a miracle worker.

LUKE 18:27
Jesus replied, "What is impossible with man is possible with God." - NIV

JW

RESPONSE: Perhaps. But in this case Paul tells us that Jesus was born according to the law. No miracle. Just the natural order of things.
Paul, Mark, and John say nothing of a Virgin Birth. And outside of their first three chapters, neither do Matthew or Luke. Since Matthew and Luke wrote more than 80 years after the event, we can but wonder where they got their information, which neither Paul (50-64 AD) or Mark (70 AD) wrote anything about.

[JehovahsWitness]

Paul tells us that Jesus was born according to the law. No miracle. Just the natural order of things.

Are you suggesting Paul said there was nothing miraculous about Jesus' birth? To which scripture are you referring?

Paul, Mark, and John say nothing of a Virgin Birth. And outside of their first three chapters, neither do Matthew or Luke.

So?

[JehovahsWitness]

Since Matthew and Luke wrote more than 80 years after the event, we can but wonder where they got their information ...

There are those that place Matthews gospels within 10 years of the events reported therein, and there are very few scholars that suggest the gospels were written in the 2nd century (ie 80 years after Jesus' death in 33 CE). It is generally accepted that John wrote the last gospel and since we have a fragment of a copy dated to the beginning of the 2nd century, the original must have been written towards the end of the first. If it was (as is generally accepted) the last of the gospels, that places all the others in the first century.

If Jesus, as reported, died a young man in the 30s then anyone in the mid-to late first century could have been eyewitnesses or as in the case of Luke, been in a position to interview eyewitnesses of the events in question. In short the evidence indicates the gospels were all written within living memory of the events.

We don't know who Mary told about the nature of her pregnancy, she could well have told nobody and it was revealed by God by means of a divine revelation (a miracle), but there is no reason to believe she or one of her acquaintances (for example one of her other children) was not alive to confirm the details when at least some of the earlier gospels were written

[polonius]

Paul tells us that Jesus was born according to the law. No miracle. Just the natural order of things.

JW posted.

Are you suggesting Paul said there was nothing miraculous about Jesus' birth? To which scripture are you referring?

RESPONSE: Is this a serious question? The New Tesstament,

Paul never heard the virgin birth yarn, since it hadn't been invented in 50-64 AD when he wrote his epistles so obviously Paul wouldn't write about it. Mark, writing about 70 AD, didn't report it for the same reason. Neither wrote about any Ascension of Jesus either. Same reason

But somebody added a "longer ending" to Mark's gospel early in the second century so it would have an Ascension story too..

Paul, Mark, and John say nothing of a Virgin Birth. And outside of their first three chapters, neither do Matthew or Luke.

So?

RESPONSE If something miraculous regarding Jesus had really happened, would't they have reported it? If they didn't report it, what is the most obvious reason?

[JehovahsWitness]

RESPONSE If something miraculous regarding Jesus had really happened, would't they have reported it?

Very few of the miracles are reported by all four gospels; there are a number that are reported by only one, two or three. Clearly then the writers wrote independently and chose to focus on different aspects of Jesus' life.

If they didn't report it, what is the most obvious reason?

That they didn't want to report it because the wanted to focus on other things.

JOHN 21:25
Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. ESV

[polonius]

Since Matthew and Luke wrote more than 80 years after the event, we can but wonder where they got their information ...

JW posted:

There are those that place Matthews gospels within 10 years of the events reported therein, and there are very few scholars that suggest the gospels were written in the 2nd century (ie 80 years after Jesus' death in 33 CE). It is generally accepted that John wrote the last gospel and since we have a fragment of a copy dated to the beginning of the 2nd century, the original must have been written towards the end of the first. If it was (as is generally accepted) the last of the gospels, that places all the others in the first century.

If Jesus, as reported, died a young man in the 30s then anyone in the mid-to late first century could have been eyewitnesses or as in the case of Luke, been in a position to interview eyewitnesses of the events in question.

Documenting Jesus' death is not a problem, but documenting any "Resurrection" or "Ascension" is. Although Paul (a non witness) claimed that 500 people saw the risen Jesus, none of them nor any of the thousands they would reasonably be expected to have told, ever produced any writing reporting any such thing.

JW says

In short the evidence indicates the gospels were all written within living memory of the events.

RESPONSE: Really? What "evidence" exactly are you referring to?

JW wrote

We don't know who Mary told about the nature of her pregnancy, she could well have told nobody and it was revealed by God by means of a divine revelation (a miracle), but there is no reason to believe she or one of her acquaintances (for example one of her other children) was not alive to confirm the details when at least some of the earlier gospels were written

RESPONSE: No. Not another "miracle," a term used when there is no reasonable evidence.

We know exactly who Mary told about the nature of her pregnancy. Read about her visit to Elizabeth her relative and what she said (eg the Magnificat) in Luke chapter 1. Also her husband would have known. According to the story, Joseph already knew having been told by an angel.