"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king ... " -- Matthew 2:1, the holy bible (King James version)
---> Herod, who had every male infant in Judea killed, apparently, died in 4 BCE.
"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son ..." -- Luke 2:1-7, the holy bible (King James version)
---> Quirinius became governer of Syria in 6 CE (ten years after king Herod's death).
And thus came it to pass that Jesus was born twice. Well, according to Matthew and Luke, i.e., the Bible, anyway.
Typically, the birth of Jesus is said to have taken place in a stable with animals, wise men, and shepherds (in december, no really) watching over the infant, in a manger. Matthew describes wise men and he has them visit a house where Jesus is born. He doesn't mention how many wise men though, it could have been 2 or 20. Luke has the shepherds visit, but only mentions a manger, not a stable or animals.
Matthew has Jesus' parents living in Bethlehem; Luke has them living in Nazareth in Galilee. To get them to Bethlehem, Luke has them travel there during the last stages of Marys pregnancy for the sake of a Roman poll (for which there is no historical record).
Interestingly, only Matthew mentions Herod's order to slaughter all the male infants under two in and around Jerusalem. Not only does it not appear in any other gospel, it doesn't appear in any historical record at all. Supposedly, every male infant in Judea was murdered without Luke or anyone else thinking it worthy to mention. Even Flavius Josephus, who, according his writings, hated Herod and attributed all manner of crimes to him, didnt mention it.
Also, Luke simply has the family return home after the birth, without incident, while Matthew has them flee to Egypt.
Luke, chapter 2
Matthew, chapters 1 and 2
Luke and Matthew are telling us different stories about the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth and we haven't even looked at what Mark and John have to say about this.
The Bible is said to be the inerrant word of God. Shouldn't Luke and Matthew tell the exact same story about Jesus' birth then?
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : incontrovertibility
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -
New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
CD: short for inevitability