JXL said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

El Oso said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Prairie Bear, did you watch either video I posted above? If so, do you care to comment?

---

I only watched video one. I'll watch two later.

I like his comparison to the gun and chain of evidence. But this is a problem.

Tradition says John wrote John--but that's not a proven thing.

Since it isn't a proven thing, there may be a chain of custody issue with John. And, much like you would with that bullet casing if there was a question about the chain of evidence--the evidence gets thrown out.

---

Im out of my league but, would assume Polycarp et al have writings that, while may not "prove" John wrote John, probably supply a fair amount of circumstantial evidence.

Dr Pitts, where are you???

---

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John. Irenaeus wrote:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

***

At no point was the Gospel of John ever attributed to anyone else. There were no competing claims of authorship - church tradition and history were unanimous in considering that the gospel was written by John. (By contrast, the church had no difficulty rejecting such spurious works as Thomas and the Acts of Peter, so it's not like they uncritically accepted everything that came their way).

Is this irrefutable proof? Nope. But it's very strong circumstantial evidence that John wrote the Gospel bearing his name.

---

Thanks JXL

fadskier said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

It isn't that hard to harmonize the accounts. GIFY. Merry Christmas!

---

I found this...

On the eighth day after his birth Jesus is circumcised according to the law of God (Luke 2:21). Wise men from the East (Magi), after seeing and following a "star" (almost certainly an angel) for two years, seek Herod the Great's assistance in Jerusalem (Matthew 2:1 - 3). The appearance of such dignitaries, in a huge caravan, causes great concern for Herod and the city. Although Herod does not have a clue of where the Messiah was to be born he asks the priests and scribes if they knew (verse 4).

Jesus is brought to Jerusalem's temple, after forty days of purification required by God's law, to be presented before God. His parents make an offering to the temple of two young birds. It is also during their visit to the temple that a priest named Simeon, prophesied about his mission in life and blessed his parents (Luke 2:22 - 35).
Before Mary and Joseph leave the temple a woman named Anna, a widowed prophetess who lived in the house of God, blesses them as well (Luke 2:36 - 38). The family returns to Bethlehem.
The priests and scribes inform Herod that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5 - 6). Herod encourages the Magi to find the Christ child (feigning he wants to worship him as well) then report back to him (verses 7 - 8). After leaving Jerusalem, the Magi notice the "star" that brought them to Judea has appeared again! It leads them directly to a house (NOT a manger!) where they find Mary and Jesus.

Finding them in a home, they offer their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh (Matthew 2:9 - 11). The Magi, after being warned in a dream, do not return to Jerusalem to report back to Herod (verse 12). An angel, after the wise men leave Bethlehem, tells Joseph (in a dream) to flee to Egypt because Herod will soon want to kill his child (verses 13 - 15).
It should be noted that Herod the Great was not seeking to worship Jesus as the "King of the Jews" (Matthew 2:2). Herod, in 40 B.C., was given this title by the Roman Senate and saw Christ as a potential rival to his throne. He wanted to know the exact location of where Jesus was born in order to KILL him! He flies into a rage when he discovers the Magi are not coming back to Jerusalem to give him the information he wants (verse 16). He then orders the cold blooded MURDER of all Bethlehem area males two years old and younger (verses 16 - 18).

After Herod dies in early 4 B.C. an angel of the Lord again appears to Joseph, in a dream, and tells him it is safe to return to Israel (Matthew 2:19 - 21). Joseph, after arriving in Judea, discovers Herod Archelaus now reigns in the area.
Fearful of going back and living in Bethlehem, Joseph is instructed in a dream to go to Galilee (Matthew 2:22 - 23, Luke 2:39). The family makes the long trip and goes back to living in Nazareth. In conclusion, both Matthew and Luke are correct in regard to their accounts of Jesus' birth. Their complimentary record not only shows their record was true (and not simply copied) but gives us added details regarding one of the greatest events in the Bible!

---

There are a lot of things to assume about Jesus and the circumstances around his birth. The earliest accounts of Paul say nothing as well as the writers of Mark and John. Matthew and Luke are where most (not all) of our traditions of Jesus' birth come, and written at least 50 years after the events narrated. These two accounts are at odds with each other and contain implausible points. Here are some points to consider:

Luke:
1. Announcement of birth of John the Baptist to Elizabeth and Zechariah
2. Annunciation by Gabriel to Mary she will conceive
3. Mary visits Elizabeth
4. There is a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world be registered while Quirinius was governor of Syria, to go to ancestral homes. Since David lived 1,000 years before Joseph, returning to the ancestral home of 1,000 years back would require a major uprooting of people. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth more than 60 miles away. However, there is no independent historical evidence or official record of Rome of this requirement/event ever occurring.
5. Mary at this time is pregnant and gives birth. The earliest texts of Luke indicate Mary gives birth on the way to Bethlehem as opposed later texts that say in Bethlehem. She give birth in a manger somewhere because there is no room in the inn.
6. Angels appear to shepherds who come to see the infant.
7. Eight days later he is circumcised. Then at 32 days Mary and Joseph go to the temple and make the purification sacrifice for cleansing. Jesus is recognized by Simeon and Anna while there.
8. They return home to Nazareth and raise Jesus.
9. This story allows the writer of Luke to answer the question of how Jesus could be the Messiah (who was to come from Bethlehem) if he was from Nazareth.
10. Aside from contradictions with Matthew, this story has historical problems. There is no outside record of any first or second registration requiring all the world to register by Caesar Augustus. Are we to believe that everyone in the Roman Empire had to register in the hometown of their ancestors? Joseph went to the town where David was born. Why not go further back to other ancestors' birthplace? Why stop with David? This makes no sense. Are we to believe that thousands upon thousands of people could trace their genealogies in those days. David live 1,000 years before Joseph. Are we to believe everyone in the Roman empire returned to their ancestral home? How would they know where to go? There are no historical records that record such a mass migration. It's not plausible.
11. Here is another huge problem. Luke says that Quirinius was the governor of Syria, and it was also in the days of King Herod of Judea (Luke 1:5). The Jewish historian Josephus tells us that Quirinius did not become governor until 10 years after King Herod died.

Matthew:
1. Matthew says nothing about John the Baptist.
2. Matthew says nothing about the Annunciation.
3. Matthew says nothing about the visit to Elizabeth.
4. Matthew says nothing about the Census.
5. Matthew says nothing about traveling to Bethlehem, the shepherds, the temple.
6. Mathew begins with genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, which differs from Luke's genealogy.
7. Next is the birth story. Mary conceives, Joseph want to quietly leave her, in a dream an angel tells him the HS is the father all to fulfill Isa. 7:14.
8. Matthew misquotes Isa. 7:14 saying a "virgin" will conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. (For some reason they don't call him that and instead use Jesus.) Matthew quotes from a Greek OT text translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translated Greek text contains a mistranslation/understanding of the word young woman (Alma) from Hebrew to erroneously mean "virgin. "
9. Next wise men come from the East following a star (which is implausible) to find the king of the Jews so they can worship him. Why would they want to worship a Jewish king? They didn't worship other kings such as Herod, David or Solomon did they? Are we supposed to assume it is the Messiah who will save people from sin as pointed out earlier?
10. The star stops or vanishes at Jerusalem where they make inquiries. King Herod gets word and asks where the Messiah is to be born, and is told Bethlehem by the scholars. He tells the wise men where and asks them to come back and report to him. Then apparently, the star reappears and bounces over to Bethlehem and stops over the house [siq] where Jesus was residing. They worship him and give three gifts (it doesn't say how many wise men there were). They all are warned in a dream not to go back to Herod and they leave by another route.
11. Herod learns he is tricked and sends the army to kill all boys two years and younger in Bethlehem, "Slaughter of the innocents" to fulfill scripture. Joseph is warned in a dream and they flee to Egypt and remain there until Herod dies. When they come back they can't go back to Judea because Herod's son Archelaus is the new ruler. So the go to Nazareth so that he would be a Nazarene to fulfill scripture.
12. If you ask according to Matthew's account what is Mary and Joseph's home town? You would have to say Bethlehem. They don't come there from somewhere else. Jesus is born in Bethlehem and they are residing in a house there. Why would they be living in a house if they were just there for a few days to register for Luke's census? The answer is because that's where they live. When Joseph brings them back from Egypt, he first plans to go back to their home in Bethlehem, until he learns about Archelaus. So, instead of going home, they go to Nazareth where Jesus grows up.
13. It took the wise men a long time to follow the star because they didn't just show up the night Jesus was born. Supposedly the star appeared when Jesus was born. Why would Herod order the slaughter of boys under two years of age, if Jesus was recently born? All he would need to do is kill newborns. Obviously it took several months at least for the wise men to show up after he was born, where they found him residing in a house in Bethlehem. The house where Joseph and Mary originally lived. They only lived later in Nazareth to escape.

Clearly these are two separate conflicting accounts. If you conflate the two, you end up with a third and separate account that is different from the two gospel accounts. Throw in some later non-canonical sources and you get the annual Christmas pageant.

Most likely Jesus was born in Nazareth, and the writers of Luke and Matthew were trying reconcile this fact with the notion that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.

TS didn't get the Wiener Whistle he wanted when he was a kid.

When he was under 12, he blamed Santa. Now he blames Jesus.

Don't understand TS's passion in attempting to discredit Jesus and Christianity... but he's a good contributor here.....whatever makes him happy.

I'm grateful to be a Christian...even though a mediocre one.

"Trust the Godpels?" Yes for faith but not historisticy
Time tables are way off. But Luke don't care. He has to get J to Bethlehem.

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

It isn't that hard to harmonize the accounts. GIFY. Merry Christmas!

---

I found this...

On the eighth day after his birth Jesus is circumcised according to the law of God (Luke 2:21). Wise men from the East (Magi), after seeing and following a "star" (almost certainly an angel) for two years, seek Herod the Great's assistance in Jerusalem (Matthew 2:1 - 3). The appearance of such dignitaries, in a huge caravan, causes great concern for Herod and the city. Although Herod does not have a clue of where the Messiah was to be born he asks the priests and scribes if they knew (verse 4).

Jesus is brought to Jerusalem's temple, after forty days of purification required by God's law, to be presented before God. His parents make an offering to the temple of two young birds. It is also during their visit to the temple that a priest named Simeon, prophesied about his mission in life and blessed his parents (Luke 2:22 - 35).
Before Mary and Joseph leave the temple a woman named Anna, a widowed prophetess who lived in the house of God, blesses them as well (Luke 2:36 - 38). The family returns to Bethlehem.
The priests and scribes inform Herod that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5 - 6). Herod encourages the Magi to find the Christ child (feigning he wants to worship him as well) then report back to him (verses 7 - 8). After leaving Jerusalem, the Magi notice the "star" that brought them to Judea has appeared again! It leads them directly to a house (NOT a manger!) where they find Mary and Jesus.

Finding them in a home, they offer their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh (Matthew 2:9 - 11). The Magi, after being warned in a dream, do not return to Jerusalem to report back to Herod (verse 12). An angel, after the wise men leave Bethlehem, tells Joseph (in a dream) to flee to Egypt because Herod will soon want to kill his child (verses 13 - 15).
It should be noted that Herod the Great was not seeking to worship Jesus as the "King of the Jews" (Matthew 2:2). Herod, in 40 B.C., was given this title by the Roman Senate and saw Christ as a potential rival to his throne. He wanted to know the exact location of where Jesus was born in order to KILL him! He flies into a rage when he discovers the Magi are not coming back to Jerusalem to give him the information he wants (verse 16). He then orders the cold blooded MURDER of all Bethlehem area males two years old and younger (verses 16 - 18).

After Herod dies in early 4 B.C. an angel of the Lord again appears to Joseph, in a dream, and tells him it is safe to return to Israel (Matthew 2:19 - 21). Joseph, after arriving in Judea, discovers Herod Archelaus now reigns in the area.
Fearful of going back and living in Bethlehem, Joseph is instructed in a dream to go to Galilee (Matthew 2:22 - 23, Luke 2:39). The family makes the long trip and goes back to living in Nazareth. In conclusion, both Matthew and Luke are correct in regard to their accounts of Jesus' birth. Their complimentary record not only shows their record was true (and not simply copied) but gives us added details regarding one of the greatest events in the Bible!

---

There are a lot of things to assume about Jesus and the circumstances around his birth. The earliest accounts of Paul say nothing as well as the writers of Mark and John. Matthew and Luke are where most (not all) of our traditions of Jesus' birth come, and written at least 50 years after the events narrated. These two accounts are at odds with each other and contain implausible points. Here are some points to consider:

Luke:
1. Announcement of birth of John the Baptist to Elizabeth and Zechariah
2. Annunciation by Gabriel to Mary she will conceive
3. Mary visits Elizabeth
4. There is a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world be registered while Quirinius was governor of Syria, to go to ancestral homes. Since David lived 1,000 years before Joseph, returning to the ancestral home of 1,000 years back would require a major uprooting of people. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth more than 60 miles away. However, there is no independent historical evidence or official record of Rome of this requirement/event ever occurring.
5. Mary at this time is pregnant and gives birth. The earliest texts of Luke indicate Mary gives birth on the way to Bethlehem as opposed later texts that say in Bethlehem. She give birth in a manger somewhere because there is no room in the inn.
6. Angels appear to shepherds who come to see the infant.
7. Eight days later he is circumcised. Then at 32 days Mary and Joseph go to the temple and make the purification sacrifice for cleansing. Jesus is recognized by Simeon and Anna while there.
8. They return home to Nazareth and raise Jesus.
9. This story allows the writer of Luke to answer the question of how Jesus could be the Messiah (who was to come from Bethlehem) if he was from Nazareth.
10. Aside from contradictions with Matthew, this story has historical problems. There is no outside record of any first or second registration requiring all the world to register by Caesar Augustus. Are we to believe that everyone in the Roman Empire had to register in the hometown of their ancestors? Joseph went to the town where David was born. Why not go further back to other ancestors' birthplace? Why stop with David? This makes no sense. Are we to believe that thousands upon thousands of people could trace their genealogies in those days. David live 1,000 years before Joseph. Are we to believe everyone in the Roman empire returned to their ancestral home? How would they know where to go? There are no historical records that record such a mass migration. It's not plausible.
11. Here is another huge problem. Luke says that Quirinius was the governor of Syria, and it was also in the days of King Herod of Judea (Luke 1:5). The Jewish historian Josephus tells us that Quirinius did not become governor until 10 years after King Herod died.

Matthew:
1. Matthew says nothing about John the Baptist.
2. Matthew says nothing about the Annunciation.
3. Matthew says nothing about the visit to Elizabeth.
4. Matthew says nothing about the Census.
5. Matthew says nothing about traveling to Bethlehem, the shepherds, the temple.
6. Mathew begins with genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, which differs from Luke's genealogy.
7. Next is the birth story. Mary conceives, Joseph want to quietly leave her, in a dream an angel tells him the HS is the father all to fulfill Isa. 7:14.
8. Matthew misquotes Isa. 7:14 saying a "virgin" will conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. (For some reason they don't call him that and instead use Jesus.) Matthew quotes from a Greek OT text translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translated Greek text contains a mistranslation/understanding of the word young woman (Alma) from Hebrew to erroneously mean "virgin. "
9. Next wise men come from the East following a star (which is implausible) to find the king of the Jews so they can worship him. Why would they want to worship a Jewish king? They didn't worship other kings such as Herod, David or Solomon did they? Are we supposed to assume it is the Messiah who will save people from sin as pointed out earlier?
10. The star stops or vanishes at Jerusalem where they make inquiries. King Herod gets word and asks where the Messiah is to be born, and is told Bethlehem by the scholars. He tells the wise men where and asks them to come back and report to him. Then apparently, the star reappears and bounces over to Bethlehem and stops over the house [siq] where Jesus was residing. They worship him and give three gifts (it doesn't say how many wise men there were). They all are warned in a dream not to go back to Herod and they leave by another route.
11. Herod learns he is tricked and sends the army to kill all boys two years and younger in Bethlehem, "Slaughter of the innocents" to fulfill scripture. Joseph is warned in a dream and they flee to Egypt and remain there until Herod dies. When they come back they can't go back to Judea because Herod's son Archelaus is the new ruler. So the go to Nazareth so that he would be a Nazarene to fulfill scripture.
12. If you ask according to Matthew's account what is Mary and Joseph's home town? You would have to say Bethlehem. They don't come there from somewhere else. Jesus is born in Bethlehem and they are residing in a house there. Why would they be living in a house if they were just there for a few days to register for Luke's census? The answer is because that's where they live. When Joseph brings them back from Egypt, he first plans to go back to their home in Bethlehem, until he learns about Archelaus. So, instead of going home, they go to Nazareth where Jesus grows up.
13. It took the wise men a long time to follow the star because they didn't just show up the night Jesus was born. Supposedly the star appeared when Jesus was born. Why would Herod order the slaughter of boys under two years of age, if Jesus was recently born? All he would need to do is kill newborns. Obviously it took several months at least for the wise men to show up after he was born, where they found him residing in a house in Bethlehem. The house where Joseph and Mary originally lived. They only lived later in Nazareth to escape.

Clearly these are two separate conflicting accounts. If you conflate the two, you end up with a third and separate account that is different from the two gospel accounts. Throw in some later non-canonical sources and you get the annual Christmas pageant.

Most likely Jesus was born in Nazareth, and the writers of Luke and Matthew were trying reconcile this fact with the notion that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.

---

You are making a lot of assumptions. Am I wrong?

The part that matters in the Luke Christmas that we want to ignore. Harmonization is really a silly game and gives everyone a vonvienent diversion
Luke 1: 50 "He always shows mercy
to everyone
who worships him.
51 The Lord has used
his powerful arm
to scatter those
who are proud.
52 He drags strong rulers
from their thrones
and puts humble people
in places of power.
53 God gives the hungry
good things to eat,
and sends the rich away
with nothing."
And you want to argue historicity. This is God's Christmas message not "Teas the night before Christmas"
God is reversing the world.

fadskier said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

It isn't that hard to harmonize the accounts. GIFY. Merry Christmas!

---

I found this...

On the eighth day after his birth Jesus is circumcised according to the law of God (Luke 2:21). Wise men from the East (Magi), after seeing and following a "star" (almost certainly an angel) for two years, seek Herod the Great's assistance in Jerusalem (Matthew 2:1 - 3). The appearance of such dignitaries, in a huge caravan, causes great concern for Herod and the city. Although Herod does not have a clue of where the Messiah was to be born he asks the priests and scribes if they knew (verse 4).

Jesus is brought to Jerusalem's temple, after forty days of purification required by God's law, to be presented before God. His parents make an offering to the temple of two young birds. It is also during their visit to the temple that a priest named Simeon, prophesied about his mission in life and blessed his parents (Luke 2:22 - 35).
Before Mary and Joseph leave the temple a woman named Anna, a widowed prophetess who lived in the house of God, blesses them as well (Luke 2:36 - 38). The family returns to Bethlehem.
The priests and scribes inform Herod that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5 - 6). Herod encourages the Magi to find the Christ child (feigning he wants to worship him as well) then report back to him (verses 7 - 8). After leaving Jerusalem, the Magi notice the "star" that brought them to Judea has appeared again! It leads them directly to a house (NOT a manger!) where they find Mary and Jesus.

Finding them in a home, they offer their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh (Matthew 2:9 - 11). The Magi, after being warned in a dream, do not return to Jerusalem to report back to Herod (verse 12). An angel, after the wise men leave Bethlehem, tells Joseph (in a dream) to flee to Egypt because Herod will soon want to kill his child (verses 13 - 15).
It should be noted that Herod the Great was not seeking to worship Jesus as the "King of the Jews" (Matthew 2:2). Herod, in 40 B.C., was given this title by the Roman Senate and saw Christ as a potential rival to his throne. He wanted to know the exact location of where Jesus was born in order to KILL him! He flies into a rage when he discovers the Magi are not coming back to Jerusalem to give him the information he wants (verse 16). He then orders the cold blooded MURDER of all Bethlehem area males two years old and younger (verses 16 - 18).

After Herod dies in early 4 B.C. an angel of the Lord again appears to Joseph, in a dream, and tells him it is safe to return to Israel (Matthew 2:19 - 21). Joseph, after arriving in Judea, discovers Herod Archelaus now reigns in the area.
Fearful of going back and living in Bethlehem, Joseph is instructed in a dream to go to Galilee (Matthew 2:22 - 23, Luke 2:39). The family makes the long trip and goes back to living in Nazareth. In conclusion, both Matthew and Luke are correct in regard to their accounts of Jesus' birth. Their complimentary record not only shows their record was true (and not simply copied) but gives us added details regarding one of the greatest events in the Bible!

---

There are a lot of things to assume about Jesus and the circumstances around his birth. The earliest accounts of Paul say nothing as well as the writers of Mark and John. Matthew and Luke are where most (not all) of our traditions of Jesus' birth come, and written at least 50 years after the events narrated. These two accounts are at odds with each other and contain implausible points. Here are some points to consider:

Luke:
1. Announcement of birth of John the Baptist to Elizabeth and Zechariah
2. Annunciation by Gabriel to Mary she will conceive
3. Mary visits Elizabeth
4. There is a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world be registered while Quirinius was governor of Syria, to go to ancestral homes. Since David lived 1,000 years before Joseph, returning to the ancestral home of 1,000 years back would require a major uprooting of people. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth more than 60 miles away. However, there is no independent historical evidence or official record of Rome of this requirement/event ever occurring.
5. Mary at this time is pregnant and gives birth. The earliest texts of Luke indicate Mary gives birth on the way to Bethlehem as opposed later texts that say in Bethlehem. She give birth in a manger somewhere because there is no room in the inn.
6. Angels appear to shepherds who come to see the infant.
7. Eight days later he is circumcised. Then at 32 days Mary and Joseph go to the temple and make the purification sacrifice for cleansing. Jesus is recognized by Simeon and Anna while there.
8. They return home to Nazareth and raise Jesus.
9. This story allows the writer of Luke to answer the question of how Jesus could be the Messiah (who was to come from Bethlehem) if he was from Nazareth.
10. Aside from contradictions with Matthew, this story has historical problems. There is no outside record of any first or second registration requiring all the world to register by Caesar Augustus. Are we to believe that everyone in the Roman Empire had to register in the hometown of their ancestors? Joseph went to the town where David was born. Why not go further back to other ancestors' birthplace? Why stop with David? This makes no sense. Are we to believe that thousands upon thousands of people could trace their genealogies in those days. David live 1,000 years before Joseph. Are we to believe everyone in the Roman empire returned to their ancestral home? How would they know where to go? There are no historical records that record such a mass migration. It's not plausible.
11. Here is another huge problem. Luke says that Quirinius was the governor of Syria, and it was also in the days of King Herod of Judea (Luke 1:5). The Jewish historian Josephus tells us that Quirinius did not become governor until 10 years after King Herod died.

Matthew:
1. Matthew says nothing about John the Baptist.
2. Matthew says nothing about the Annunciation.
3. Matthew says nothing about the visit to Elizabeth.
4. Matthew says nothing about the Census.
5. Matthew says nothing about traveling to Bethlehem, the shepherds, the temple.
6. Mathew begins with genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, which differs from Luke's genealogy.
7. Next is the birth story. Mary conceives, Joseph want to quietly leave her, in a dream an angel tells him the HS is the father all to fulfill Isa. 7:14.
8. Matthew misquotes Isa. 7:14 saying a "virgin" will conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. (For some reason they don't call him that and instead use Jesus.) Matthew quotes from a Greek OT text translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translated Greek text contains a mistranslation/understanding of the word young woman (Alma) from Hebrew to erroneously mean "virgin. "
9. Next wise men come from the East following a star (which is implausible) to find the king of the Jews so they can worship him. Why would they want to worship a Jewish king? They didn't worship other kings such as Herod, David or Solomon did they? Are we supposed to assume it is the Messiah who will save people from sin as pointed out earlier?
10. The star stops or vanishes at Jerusalem where they make inquiries. King Herod gets word and asks where the Messiah is to be born, and is told Bethlehem by the scholars. He tells the wise men where and asks them to come back and report to him. Then apparently, the star reappears and bounces over to Bethlehem and stops over the house [siq] where Jesus was residing. They worship him and give three gifts (it doesn't say how many wise men there were). They all are warned in a dream not to go back to Herod and they leave by another route.
11. Herod learns he is tricked and sends the army to kill all boys two years and younger in Bethlehem, "Slaughter of the innocents" to fulfill scripture. Joseph is warned in a dream and they flee to Egypt and remain there until Herod dies. When they come back they can't go back to Judea because Herod's son Archelaus is the new ruler. So the go to Nazareth so that he would be a Nazarene to fulfill scripture.
12. If you ask according to Matthew's account what is Mary and Joseph's home town? You would have to say Bethlehem. They don't come there from somewhere else. Jesus is born in Bethlehem and they are residing in a house there. Why would they be living in a house if they were just there for a few days to register for Luke's census? The answer is because that's where they live. When Joseph brings them back from Egypt, he first plans to go back to their home in Bethlehem, until he learns about Archelaus. So, instead of going home, they go to Nazareth where Jesus grows up.
13. It took the wise men a long time to follow the star because they didn't just show up the night Jesus was born. Supposedly the star appeared when Jesus was born. Why would Herod order the slaughter of boys under two years of age, if Jesus was recently born? All he would need to do is kill newborns. Obviously it took several months at least for the wise men to show up after he was born, where they found him residing in a house in Bethlehem. The house where Joseph and Mary originally lived. They only lived later in Nazareth to escape.

Clearly these are two separate conflicting accounts. If you conflate the two, you end up with a third and separate account that is different from the two gospel accounts. Throw in some later non-canonical sources and you get the annual Christmas pageant.

Most likely Jesus was born in Nazareth, and the writers of Luke and Matthew were trying reconcile this fact with the notion that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.

---

You are making a lot of assumptions. Am I wrong?

---

Actually what I meant opening sentence there are a lot of things to consider. I've corrected that below.

There are a lot of things to consider about Jesus and the circumstances around his birth. The earlier written accounts of Paul say nothing about his birth as well as the writers of Mark and John say nothing. Matthew and Luke are where most (not all) of our traditions of Jesus' birth come, and are written at least 50 years after the events narrated. These two accounts are at odds with each other and contain implausible points. Here are some points to consider:

Luke:
1. Announcement of birth of John the Baptist to Elizabeth and Zechariah
2. Annunciation by Gabriel to Mary she will conceive
3. Mary visits Elizabeth
4. There is a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world be registered while Quirinius was governor of Syria, to go to ancestral homes. Since David lived 1,000 years before Joseph, returning to the ancestral home of 1,000 years back would require a major uprooting of people. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth more than 60 miles away. However, there is no independent historical evidence or official record of Rome of this requirement/event ever occurring.
5. Mary at this time is pregnant and gives birth. The earliest texts of Luke indicate Mary gives birth on the way to Bethlehem as opposed later texts that say in Bethlehem. She give birth in a manger somewhere because there is no room in the inn.
6. Angels appear to shepherds who come to see the infant.
7. Eight days later he is circumcised. Then at 32 days Mary and Joseph go to the temple and make the purification sacrifice for cleansing. Jesus is recognized by Simeon and Anna while there.
8. They return home to Nazareth and raise Jesus. (The don't go to Egypt as Matthew says.)
9. This story allows the writer of Luke to answer the question of how Jesus could be the Messiah (who was to come from Bethlehem) if he was from Nazareth.
10. Aside from contradictions with Matthew, this story has historical problems. There is no outside record of any first or second registration requiring all the world to register by Caesar Augustus. Are we to believe that everyone in the Roman Empire had to register in the hometown of their ancestors? Joseph went to the town where David was born. Why not go further back to other ancestors' birthplace? Why stop with David? This makes no sense. Are we to believe that thousands upon thousands of people could trace their genealogies in those days. David lived 1,000 years before Joseph. Are we to believe everyone in the Roman empire returned to their ancestral homes? How would they know where to go? There are no historical records that record such a mass migration. It's not plausible.
11. Here is another huge problem. Luke says that Quirinius was the governor of Syria, and it was also in the days of King Herod of Judea (Luke 1:5). The Jewish historian Josephus tells us that Quirinius did not become governor until 10 years after King Herod died.

Matthew:
1. Matthew says nothing about John the Baptist.
2. Matthew says nothing about the Annunciation.
3. Matthew says nothing about the visit to Elizabeth.
4. Matthew says nothing about the Census.
5. Matthew says nothing about traveling to Bethlehem, the shepherds, the temple.
6. Mathew begins with genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, which differs from Luke's genealogy.
7. Next is the birth story. Mary conceives, Joseph wants to quietly leave her, in a dream an angel tells him the HS is the father all to fulfill Isa. 7:14.
8. Matthew misquotes Isa. 7:14 saying a "virgin" will conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. (For some reason they don't call him that and instead use Jesus.) Matthew quotes from a Greek OT text translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translated Greek text contains a mistranslation/understanding of the word young woman (Alma) from Hebrew to erroneously mean "virgin. "
9. Next wise men come from the East following a star (which is implausible) to find the king of the Jews so they can worship him. Why would they want to worship a Jewish king? They didn't worship other kings such as Herod, David or Solomon did they? Are we supposed to assume it is the Messiah who will save people from sin as pointed out earlier?
10. The star stops or vanishes at Jerusalem where they make inquiries. King Herod gets word and asks where the Messiah is to be born, and is told Bethlehem by the scholars. He tells the wise men where and asks them to come back and report to him. Then apparently, the star reappears and bounces over to Bethlehem and stops over the house [siq] where Jesus was residing. They worship him and give three gifts (it doesn't say how many wise men there were). They all are warned in a dream not to go back to Herod and they leave by another route.
11. Herod learns he is tricked and sends the army to kill all boys two years and younger in Bethlehem, "Slaughter of the innocents" to fulfill scripture. Joseph is warned in a dream and they flee to Egypt and remain there until Herod dies. When they come back they can't go back to Judea because Herod's son Archelaus is the new ruler. So they go to Nazareth so that he would be a Nazarene to fulfill scripture.
12. If you ask according to Matthew's account what is Mary and Joseph's home town, you would have to say Bethlehem. They don't come there from somewhere else. Jesus is born in Bethlehem and they are residing in a house there. Why would they be living in a house if they were just there for a few days to register for Luke's census? The answer is because that's where they live. When Joseph brings them back from Egypt, he first plans to go back to their home in Bethlehem, until he learns about Archelaus. So, instead of going home, they go to Nazareth where Jesus grows up.
13. It took the wise men a long time to follow the star because they didn't just show up the night Jesus was born. Supposedly the star appeared when Jesus was born. Why would Herod order the slaughter of boys under two years of age, if Jesus was recently born? All he would need to do is kill newborns. Obviously it took several months at least for the wise men to show up after he was born, where they found him residing in a house in Bethlehem. The house where Joseph and Mary originally lived. They only lived later in Nazareth to escape.

Clearly these are two separate conflicting accounts. If you conflate the two, you end up with a third and separate account that is different from the two gospel accounts. Throw in some later non-canonical sources and you get the annual Christmas pageant.

Most likely Jesus was born in Nazareth, and the writers of Luke and Matthew were trying to reconcile this fact with the notion that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.

TS, some of the points you bring up are addressed in the two videos.

Waco1947 said:

---

The part that matters in the Luke Christmas that we want to ignore. Harmonization is really a silly game and gives everyone a vonvienent diversion
Luke 1: 50 "He always shows mercy
to everyone
who worships him.
51 The Lord has used
his powerful arm
to scatter those
who are proud.
52 He drags strong rulers
from their thrones
and puts humble people
in places of power.
53 God gives the hungry
good things to eat,
and sends the rich away
with nothing."
And you want to argue historicity. This is God's Christmas message not "Teas the night before Christmas"
God is reversing the world.

---

It's always nonsense to argue the historicity of the Navitity. Because it means you avoid Mary's harsh truth.

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The part that matters in the Luke Christmas that we want to ignore. Harmonization is really a silly game and gives everyone a vonvienent diversion
Luke 1: 50 "He always shows mercy
to everyone
who worships him.
51 The Lord has used
his powerful arm
to scatter those
who are proud.
52 He drags strong rulers
from their thrones
and puts humble people
in places of power.
53 God gives the hungry
good things to eat,
and sends the rich away
with nothing."
And you want to argue historicity. This is God's Christmas message not "Teas the night before Christmas"
God is reversing the world.

---

It's always nonsense to argue the historicity of the Navitity. Because it means you avoid Mary's harsh truth.

---

Care to expand on this thought? Why is it nonsense to argue the Nativity? And what in your mind is Mary's harsh truth?

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Gospels are exceptionally reliable history for their time. The so-called problems with their accuracy wouldn't be problems by any normal standard. For example, the first four accounts of Alexander the Great's life were written three to five centuries after his death. To have four accounts of Jesus' life within 30-50 years is extraordinary. Of course there are minor discrepancies, as in all such cases. It would be surprising if there weren't.

---

It's like interviewing multiple witnesses of the same event. Of course there are going to be some differences and some people will emphasize certain aspects of what they observed that will different from the other witnesses. Similarly, some people will omit certain things and include other things, etc. It's totally to be expected. Does that somehow make their witness bogus or automatically mean it is something that was made up? Of course not.

When you consider that the Synoptic Gospels were written at different times and at different places by different witnesses, it's actually amazing - even if you share the belief that scripture (including the Gospels) were written under divine inspiration - that there aren't more discrepancies and contradictions, given that the authors were all human beings with human fallacies.

TexasScientist said:

---

6. Mathew begins with genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, which differs from Luke's genealogy.

---

As you know (I'm sure) that Matthew was written for a Hebrew audience. That's we he put some much emphasis on the number 14 (which implies a double measure of spiritual perfection) three times in order to show that Jesus was a son of David. Most scholars agree that many generations were skipped.

TexasScientist said:

---

8. Matthew misquotes Isa. 7:14 saying a "virgin" will conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. (For some reason they don't call him that and instead use Jesus.) Matthew quotes from a Greek OT text translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translated Greek text contains a mistranslation/understanding of the word young woman (Alma) from Hebrew to erroneously mean "virgin. "

---

Valid arguments can be made on both sides about the two terms in what I have read.

For the sake of the argument, let's say it was just 'young woman'. Tradition (Protoevangelium of James) and scripture both tell us that Mary was a virgin and planned on serving her life for the Temple. This is why she states that she 'has no relations with man.' She's betrothed but has no intentions of sexual intimacy. The Orthodox position was that Joseph was an older widower that was going to care for Mary.

Good questions
Maru's Harsh truth God's economy is turning the world upside down
Historicity doesn't match up with know history. For instance you can force a census into Augustus and Quinrius lifetimes. And would it letter? The point is ""Jesus is the true Son of God, Augustus." It's a Faith statement not history.

Waco1947 said:

---

Good questions
Maru's Harsh truth God's economy is turning the world upside down
Historicity doesn't match up with know history. For instance you can force a census into Augustus and Quinrius lifetimes. And would it letter? The point is ""Jesus is the true Son of God, Augustus." It's a Faith statement not history.

---

Totally agree that traditional Nativity settings depict a calm and serene setting. But, that's just people. The bible includes Simeon holding Jesus as a baby and telling Mary that because of Jesus her soul will be pierced by a sword. People just leave that out because it's not nice.

And contrary to TS's probable motive, he/she sure draws a lot of people in to scripture to prove how wrong he/she is.

Edmond Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good questions
Maru's Harsh truth God's economy is turning the world upside down
Historicity doesn't match up with know history. For instance you can force a census into Augustus and Quinrius lifetimes. And would it letter? The point is ""Jesus is the true Son of God, Augustus." It's a Faith statement not history.

---

Totally agree that traditional Nativity settings depict a calm and serene setting. But, that's just people. The bible includes Simeon holding Jesus as a baby and telling Mary that because of Jesus her soul will be pierced by a sword. People just leave that out because it's not nice.

And contrary to TS's probable motive, he/she sure draws a lot of people in to scripture to prove how wrong he/she is.

---

Mysterious ways indeed

Edmond Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good questions
Maru's Harsh truth God's economy is turning the world upside down
Historicity doesn't match up with know history. For instance you can force a census into Augustus and Quinrius lifetimes. And would it letter? The point is ""Jesus is the true Son of God, Augustus." It's a Faith statement not history.

---

Totally agree that traditional Nativity settings depict a calm and serene setting. But, that's just people. The bible includes Simeon holding Jesus as a baby and telling Mary that because of Jesus her soul will be pierced by a sword. People just leave that out because it's not nice.

And contrary to TS's probable motive, he/she sure draws a lot of people in to scripture to prove how wrong he/she is.

---

Our pastor has spent the last 3 weeks stripping away all the cleaning up of the Xmas story and telling it the way it actually happened according to Matthew and Luke.

He's calling the series Imperfect Christmas. It's been pretty good so far.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

6. Mathew begins with genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, which differs from Luke's genealogy.

---

As you know (I'm sure) that Matthew was written for a Hebrew audience. That's we he put some much emphasis on the number 14 (which implies a double measure of spiritual perfection) three times in order to show that Jesus was a son of David. Most scholars agree that many generations were skipped.

TexasScientist said:

---

8. Matthew misquotes Isa. 7:14 saying a "virgin" will conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. (For some reason they don't call him that and instead use Jesus.) Matthew quotes from a Greek OT text translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translated Greek text contains a mistranslation/understanding of the word young woman (Alma) from Hebrew to erroneously mean "virgin. "

---

Valid arguments can be made on both sides about the two terms in what I have read.

For the sake of the argument, let's say it was just 'young woman'. Tradition (Protoevangelium of James) and scripture both tell us that Mary was a virgin and planned on serving her life for the Temple. This is why she states that she 'has no relations with man.' She's betrothed but has no intentions of sexual intimacy. The Orthodox position was that Joseph was an older widower that was going to care for Mary.

---

The writer of Matthew's focus is that everything that happened was a "fulfillment" of Scripture.
1 In Matthew's view, Jesus' mother was a virgin to fulfill what the prophet said, and he quotes Isaiah 7:14: "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son."
2 Why was he born in Bethlehem? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Micah 5:2: "And you, Bethlehemfrom you shall come a ruler"
3 Why did Joseph and the family escape to Egypt? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Hosea 11:1: "Out of Egypt I have called my son")
4 Why did Herod have the boys two years and under killed? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Jeremiah 31.15 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation")
5 Why did Joseph and family relocate to Nazareth? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes well what does he quote, exactly? "He will be called a Nazarene." Huh?)
Matthew is the only canonical source for these fulfillment references. Clearly Matthew wants us to see Jesus as the fulfillment scriptural prophecy and a divine plan. Opening with Jesus' genealogy underscores this point. Matthew wants to show Joseph's genealogy depicts a divinely inspired pattern. Abraham to David, there are fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian Captivity there are fourteen generations, and from Babylonian Captivity to Jesus are fourteen generations according to plan. Matthew depicts Jesus as both fulfillment of scriptural prophecy and as fulfilling events described by a prophet i.e. Micah predicting a savior from Bethlehem, and using a mis-translation, Isaiah prophesying a virgin birth as fulfilling prophesy. And, fulfilling an event described by a prophet using Hosea 11:1 as an example where it says "Out of Egypt I have called my son" (son = Israel) to correspondingly show that Jesus also comes out of Egypt. God is bringing salvation again analogously.
There are several problems with these fulfillment inferences. One of the biggest problems is the quotation of Isaiah 7:14. For various reasons, Isaiah does not predict a future messiah will be born of a virgin. If you read all of Isaiah 7, it clearly is not talking about a future messiah. The word messiah does not occur anywhere in this passage. The context of Isaiah is not about a future savior. The king of Judea, Ahaz, is under siege from the kings of Syria and Israel. Ahaz asks Isaiah what to do, who tells him to do nothing. Isaiah tells him that a young woman has become pregnant, and before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, there will be prosperity in the kingdom, and the two kings will be dispersed. In the original context "a virgin will conceive and bear a son" but instead "a young woman is with child and will bear a son." Isaiah uses is "ALMA," a word that means young woman, with no reference to if she has ever had sex. He didn't use the Hebrew word "BETHULAH" which means a virgin. Further, Isaiah says the woman is already pregnant. Isaiah does not say she will become pregnant. Matthew did not read Isaiah in Hebrew, but instead read it in Greek. It is my understanding that the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (Septuagint) translates ALMA to the Greek word PARTHENOS, which also meant at the time "young maiden"- but later also became used to mean a virgin or "young maiden who has not yet had sex." Matthew misread or misconstrued the passage to refer to something in the future about a messiah, as opposed to Isaiah's time. Or Matthew is simply misinterpreting Isaiah to fill his theological narrative

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

6. Mathew begins with genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, which differs from Luke's genealogy.

---

As you know (I'm sure) that Matthew was written for a Hebrew audience. That's we he put some much emphasis on the number 14 (which implies a double measure of spiritual perfection) three times in order to show that Jesus was a son of David. Most scholars agree that many generations were skipped.

TexasScientist said:

---

8. Matthew misquotes Isa. 7:14 saying a "virgin" will conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. (For some reason they don't call him that and instead use Jesus.) Matthew quotes from a Greek OT text translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translated Greek text contains a mistranslation/understanding of the word young woman (Alma) from Hebrew to erroneously mean "virgin. "

---

Valid arguments can be made on both sides about the two terms in what I have read.

For the sake of the argument, let's say it was just 'young woman'. Tradition (Protoevangelium of James) and scripture both tell us that Mary was a virgin and planned on serving her life for the Temple. This is why she states that she 'has no relations with man.' She's betrothed but has no intentions of sexual intimacy. The Orthodox position was that Joseph was an older widower that was going to care for Mary.

---

The writer of Matthew's focus is that everything that happened was a "fulfillment" of Scripture.
1 In Matthew's view, Jesus' mother was a virgin to fulfill what the prophet said, and he quotes Isaiah 7:14: "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son."
2 Why was he born in Bethlehem? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Micah 5:2: "And you, Bethlehemfrom you shall come a ruler"
3 Why did Joseph and the family escape to Egypt? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Hosea 11:1: "Out of Egypt I have called my son")
4 Why did Herod have the boys two years and under killed? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Jeremiah 31.15 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation")
5 Why did Joseph and family relocate to Nazareth? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes well what does he quote, exactly? "He will be called a Nazarene." Huh?)
Matthew is the only canonical source for these fulfillment references. Clearly Matthew wants us to see Jesus as the fulfillment scriptural prophecy and a divine plan. Opening with Jesus' genealogy underscores this point. Matthew wants to show Joseph's genealogy depicts a divinely inspired pattern. Abraham to David, there are fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian Captivity there are fourteen generations, and from Babylonian Captivity to Jesus are fourteen generations according to plan. Matthew depicts Jesus as both fulfillment of scriptural prophecy and as fulfilling events described by a prophet i.e. Micah predicting a savior from Bethlehem, and using a mis-translation, Isaiah prophesying a virgin birth as fulfilling prophesy. And, fulfilling an event described by a prophet using Hosea 11:1 as an example where it says "Out of Egypt I have called my son" (son = Israel) to correspondingly show that Jesus also comes out of Egypt. God is bringing salvation again analogously.
There are several problems with these fulfillment inferences. One of the biggest problems is the quotation of Isaiah 7:14. For various reasons, Isaiah does not predict a future messiah will be born of a virgin. If you read all of Isaiah 7, it clearly is not talking about a future messiah. The word messiah does not occur anywhere in this passage. The context of Isaiah is not about a future savior. The king of Judea, Ahaz, is under siege from the kings of Syria and Israel. Ahaz asks Isaiah what to do, who tells him to do nothing. Isaiah tells him that a young woman has become pregnant, and before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, there will be prosperity in the kingdom, and the two kings will be dispersed. In the original context "a virgin will conceive and bear a son" but instead "a young woman is with child and will bear a son." Isaiah uses is "ALMA," a word that means young woman, with no reference to if she has ever had sex. He didn't use the Hebrew word "BETHULAH" which means a virgin. Further, Isaiah says the woman is already pregnant. Isaiah does not say she will become pregnant. Matthew did not read Isaiah in Hebrew, but instead read it in Greek. It is my understanding that the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (Septuagint) translates ALMA to the Greek word PARTHENOS, which also meant at the time "young maiden"- but later also became used to mean a virgin or "young maiden who has not yet had sex." Matthew misread or misconstrued the passage to refer to something in the future about a messiah, as opposed to Isaiah's time. Or Matthew is simply misinterpreting Isaiah to fill his theological narrative

---

Young's Literal Translation renders Isaiah 7:14 as follows:

Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel,

According to the commentary:

"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'alma designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'alma is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)

Isaiah passage is Eisegesis (/Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Wiki

We have no idea that Isaiah was referring to Jesus. It's baptizing the OT. We've been taught it so long that it's believed to be the truth. Isiah was speaking his listeners not the future. Christians have projected back into the ot for centuries but it's a stand alone testament. A Testatment to Jews with excellent insights into God.

Waco1947 said:

---

We have no idea that Isaiah was referring to Jesus. It's baptizing the OT.

---

Evasion and denial. Strange behavior from a self-claimed "Christian" minister ...

Waco1947 said:

---

Isaiah passage is Eisegesis (/Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Wiki

We have no idea that Isaiah was referring to Jesus. It's baptizing the OT. We've been taught it so long that it's believed to be the truth. Isiah was speaking his listeners not the future. Christians have projected back into the ot for centuries but it's a stand alone testament. A Testatment to Jews with excellent insights into God.

---

Im guessing eisegesis would also include cherry picking the Bible for the parts that a person believes vs doesn't believe. Propitiation would be a great example for some.

Waco1947 said:

---

Isaiah passage is Eisegesis (/Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Wiki

We have no idea that Isaiah was referring to Jesus. It's baptizing the OT. We've been taught it so long that it's believed to be the truth. Isiah was speaking his listeners not the future. Christians have projected back into the ot for centuries but it's a stand alone testament. A Testatment to Jews with excellent insights into God.

---

There are dozens if not hundreds of prophesies of Christ in the OT. That's Christian theology 101.

https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/top-40-most-helpful-messianic-prophecies/

Waco1947 said:

---

Isaiah passage is Eisegesis (/Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Wiki

We have no idea that Isaiah was referring to Jesus. It's baptizing the OT. We've been taught it so long that it's believed to be the truth. Isiah was speaking his listeners not the future. Christians have projected back into the ot for centuries but it's a stand alone testament. A Testatment to Jews with excellent insights into God.

---

it's rich getting the definition of eisegesis from you. You have , in effect, redacted the Bible according to your own biases and agendas.

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

6. Mathew begins with genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, which differs from Luke's genealogy.

---

As you know (I'm sure) that Matthew was written for a Hebrew audience. That's we he put some much emphasis on the number 14 (which implies a double measure of spiritual perfection) three times in order to show that Jesus was a son of David. Most scholars agree that many generations were skipped.

TexasScientist said:

---

8. Matthew misquotes Isa. 7:14 saying a "virgin" will conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. (For some reason they don't call him that and instead use Jesus.) Matthew quotes from a Greek OT text translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translated Greek text contains a mistranslation/understanding of the word young woman (Alma) from Hebrew to erroneously mean "virgin. "

---

Valid arguments can be made on both sides about the two terms in what I have read.

For the sake of the argument, let's say it was just 'young woman'. Tradition (Protoevangelium of James) and scripture both tell us that Mary was a virgin and planned on serving her life for the Temple. This is why she states that she 'has no relations with man.' She's betrothed but has no intentions of sexual intimacy. The Orthodox position was that Joseph was an older widower that was going to care for Mary.

---

The writer of Matthew's focus is that everything that happened was a "fulfillment" of Scripture.
1 In Matthew's view, Jesus' mother was a virgin to fulfill what the prophet said, and he quotes Isaiah 7:14: "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son."
2 Why was he born in Bethlehem? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Micah 5:2: "And you, Bethlehemfrom you shall come a ruler"
3 Why did Joseph and the family escape to Egypt? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Hosea 11:1: "Out of Egypt I have called my son")
4 Why did Herod have the boys two years and under killed? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Jeremiah 31.15 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation")
5 Why did Joseph and family relocate to Nazareth? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes well what does he quote, exactly? "He will be called a Nazarene." Huh?)
Matthew is the only canonical source for these fulfillment references. Clearly Matthew wants us to see Jesus as the fulfillment scriptural prophecy and a divine plan. Opening with Jesus' genealogy underscores this point. Matthew wants to show Joseph's genealogy depicts a divinely inspired pattern. Abraham to David, there are fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian Captivity there are fourteen generations, and from Babylonian Captivity to Jesus are fourteen generations according to plan. Matthew depicts Jesus as both fulfillment of scriptural prophecy and as fulfilling events described by a prophet i.e. Micah predicting a savior from Bethlehem, and using a mis-translation, Isaiah prophesying a virgin birth as fulfilling prophesy. And, fulfilling an event described by a prophet using Hosea 11:1 as an example where it says "Out of Egypt I have called my son" (son = Israel) to correspondingly show that Jesus also comes out of Egypt. God is bringing salvation again analogously.
There are several problems with these fulfillment inferences. One of the biggest problems is the quotation of Isaiah 7:14. For various reasons, Isaiah does not predict a future messiah will be born of a virgin. If you read all of Isaiah 7, it clearly is not talking about a future messiah. The word messiah does not occur anywhere in this passage. The context of Isaiah is not about a future savior. The king of Judea, Ahaz, is under siege from the kings of Syria and Israel. Ahaz asks Isaiah what to do, who tells him to do nothing. Isaiah tells him that a young woman has become pregnant, and before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, there will be prosperity in the kingdom, and the two kings will be dispersed. In the original context "a virgin will conceive and bear a son" but instead "a young woman is with child and will bear a son." Isaiah uses is "ALMA," a word that means young woman, with no reference to if she has ever had sex. He didn't use the Hebrew word "BETHULAH" which means a virgin. Further, Isaiah says the woman is already pregnant. Isaiah does not say she will become pregnant. Matthew did not read Isaiah in Hebrew, but instead read it in Greek. It is my understanding that the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (Septuagint) translates ALMA to the Greek word PARTHENOS, which also meant at the time "young maiden"- but later also became used to mean a virgin or "young maiden who has not yet had sex." Matthew misread or misconstrued the passage to refer to something in the future about a messiah, as opposed to Isaiah's time. Or Matthew is simply misinterpreting Isaiah to fill his theological narrative

---

This is the exegetical equivalent of a 9/11 conspiracy theory. You start with the unshakeable conviction that Matthew is trying to deceive you, and any evidence to the contrary only proves how deceptive he is.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

6. Mathew begins with genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, which differs from Luke's genealogy.

---

As you know (I'm sure) that Matthew was written for a Hebrew audience. That's we he put some much emphasis on the number 14 (which implies a double measure of spiritual perfection) three times in order to show that Jesus was a son of David. Most scholars agree that many generations were skipped.

TexasScientist said:

---

8. Matthew misquotes Isa. 7:14 saying a "virgin" will conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. (For some reason they don't call him that and instead use Jesus.) Matthew quotes from a Greek OT text translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translated Greek text contains a mistranslation/understanding of the word young woman (Alma) from Hebrew to erroneously mean "virgin. "

---

Valid arguments can be made on both sides about the two terms in what I have read.

For the sake of the argument, let's say it was just 'young woman'. Tradition (Protoevangelium of James) and scripture both tell us that Mary was a virgin and planned on serving her life for the Temple. This is why she states that she 'has no relations with man.' She's betrothed but has no intentions of sexual intimacy. The Orthodox position was that Joseph was an older widower that was going to care for Mary.

---

The writer of Matthew's focus is that everything that happened was a "fulfillment" of Scripture.
1 In Matthew's view, Jesus' mother was a virgin to fulfill what the prophet said, and he quotes Isaiah 7:14: "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son."
2 Why was he born in Bethlehem? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Micah 5:2: "And you, Bethlehemfrom you shall come a ruler"
3 Why did Joseph and the family escape to Egypt? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Hosea 11:1: "Out of Egypt I have called my son")
4 Why did Herod have the boys two years and under killed? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Jeremiah 31.15 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation")
5 Why did Joseph and family relocate to Nazareth? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes well what does he quote, exactly? "He will be called a Nazarene." Huh?)
Matthew is the only canonical source for these fulfillment references. Clearly Matthew wants us to see Jesus as the fulfillment scriptural prophecy and a divine plan. Opening with Jesus' genealogy underscores this point. Matthew wants to show Joseph's genealogy depicts a divinely inspired pattern. Abraham to David, there are fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian Captivity there are fourteen generations, and from Babylonian Captivity to Jesus are fourteen generations according to plan. Matthew depicts Jesus as both fulfillment of scriptural prophecy and as fulfilling events described by a prophet i.e. Micah predicting a savior from Bethlehem, and using a mis-translation, Isaiah prophesying a virgin birth as fulfilling prophesy. And, fulfilling an event described by a prophet using Hosea 11:1 as an example where it says "Out of Egypt I have called my son" (son = Israel) to correspondingly show that Jesus also comes out of Egypt. God is bringing salvation again analogously.
There are several problems with these fulfillment inferences. One of the biggest problems is the quotation of Isaiah 7:14. For various reasons, Isaiah does not predict a future messiah will be born of a virgin. If you read all of Isaiah 7, it clearly is not talking about a future messiah. The word messiah does not occur anywhere in this passage. The context of Isaiah is not about a future savior. The king of Judea, Ahaz, is under siege from the kings of Syria and Israel. Ahaz asks Isaiah what to do, who tells him to do nothing. Isaiah tells him that a young woman has become pregnant, and before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, there will be prosperity in the kingdom, and the two kings will be dispersed. In the original context "a virgin will conceive and bear a son" but instead "a young woman is with child and will bear a son." Isaiah uses is "ALMA," a word that means young woman, with no reference to if she has ever had sex. He didn't use the Hebrew word "BETHULAH" which means a virgin. Further, Isaiah says the woman is already pregnant. Isaiah does not say she will become pregnant. Matthew did not read Isaiah in Hebrew, but instead read it in Greek. It is my understanding that the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (Septuagint) translates ALMA to the Greek word PARTHENOS, which also meant at the time "young maiden"- but later also became used to mean a virgin or "young maiden who has not yet had sex." Matthew misread or misconstrued the passage to refer to something in the future about a messiah, as opposed to Isaiah's time. Or Matthew is simply misinterpreting Isaiah to fill his theological narrative

---

This is the exegetical equivalent of a 9/11 conspiracy theory. You start with the unshakeable conviction that Matthew is trying to deceive you, and any evidence to the contrary only proves how deceptive he is.

---

Any objective reading of his story reveals he knows the Messiah has to come from Bethlehem. Jesus is from Nazareth, so the two have to be reconciled. It's not so much that he is trying to deceive, but to advance a theological view that Jesus must also be from Bethlehem. Deception may go too far. I don't know how he came to believe that. Maybe he wants to deceive, or maybe he just wants to advance hearsay that is in circulation with other believers with who he is associated.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

6. Mathew begins with genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, which differs from Luke's genealogy.

---

As you know (I'm sure) that Matthew was written for a Hebrew audience. That's we he put some much emphasis on the number 14 (which implies a double measure of spiritual perfection) three times in order to show that Jesus was a son of David. Most scholars agree that many generations were skipped.

TexasScientist said:

---

8. Matthew misquotes Isa. 7:14 saying a "virgin" will conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. (For some reason they don't call him that and instead use Jesus.) Matthew quotes from a Greek OT text translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translated Greek text contains a mistranslation/understanding of the word young woman (Alma) from Hebrew to erroneously mean "virgin. "

---

Valid arguments can be made on both sides about the two terms in what I have read.

For the sake of the argument, let's say it was just 'young woman'. Tradition (Protoevangelium of James) and scripture both tell us that Mary was a virgin and planned on serving her life for the Temple. This is why she states that she 'has no relations with man.' She's betrothed but has no intentions of sexual intimacy. The Orthodox position was that Joseph was an older widower that was going to care for Mary.

---

The writer of Matthew's focus is that everything that happened was a "fulfillment" of Scripture.
1 In Matthew's view, Jesus' mother was a virgin to fulfill what the prophet said, and he quotes Isaiah 7:14: "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son."
2 Why was he born in Bethlehem? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Micah 5:2: "And you, Bethlehemfrom you shall come a ruler"
3 Why did Joseph and the family escape to Egypt? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Hosea 11:1: "Out of Egypt I have called my son")
4 Why did Herod have the boys two years and under killed? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Jeremiah 31.15 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation")
5 Why did Joseph and family relocate to Nazareth? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes well what does he quote, exactly? "He will be called a Nazarene." Huh?)
Matthew is the only canonical source for these fulfillment references. Clearly Matthew wants us to see Jesus as the fulfillment scriptural prophecy and a divine plan. Opening with Jesus' genealogy underscores this point. Matthew wants to show Joseph's genealogy depicts a divinely inspired pattern. Abraham to David, there are fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian Captivity there are fourteen generations, and from Babylonian Captivity to Jesus are fourteen generations according to plan. Matthew depicts Jesus as both fulfillment of scriptural prophecy and as fulfilling events described by a prophet i.e. Micah predicting a savior from Bethlehem, and using a mis-translation, Isaiah prophesying a virgin birth as fulfilling prophesy. And, fulfilling an event described by a prophet using Hosea 11:1 as an example where it says "Out of Egypt I have called my son" (son = Israel) to correspondingly show that Jesus also comes out of Egypt. God is bringing salvation again analogously.
There are several problems with these fulfillment inferences. One of the biggest problems is the quotation of Isaiah 7:14. For various reasons, Isaiah does not predict a future messiah will be born of a virgin. If you read all of Isaiah 7, it clearly is not talking about a future messiah. The word messiah does not occur anywhere in this passage. The context of Isaiah is not about a future savior. The king of Judea, Ahaz, is under siege from the kings of Syria and Israel. Ahaz asks Isaiah what to do, who tells him to do nothing. Isaiah tells him that a young woman has become pregnant, and before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, there will be prosperity in the kingdom, and the two kings will be dispersed. In the original context "a virgin will conceive and bear a son" but instead "a young woman is with child and will bear a son." Isaiah uses is "ALMA," a word that means young woman, with no reference to if she has ever had sex. He didn't use the Hebrew word "BETHULAH" which means a virgin. Further, Isaiah says the woman is already pregnant. Isaiah does not say she will become pregnant. Matthew did not read Isaiah in Hebrew, but instead read it in Greek. It is my understanding that the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (Septuagint) translates ALMA to the Greek word PARTHENOS, which also meant at the time "young maiden"- but later also became used to mean a virgin or "young maiden who has not yet had sex." Matthew misread or misconstrued the passage to refer to something in the future about a messiah, as opposed to Isaiah's time. Or Matthew is simply misinterpreting Isaiah to fill his theological narrative

---

This is the exegetical equivalent of a 9/11 conspiracy theory. You start with the unshakeable conviction that Matthew is trying to deceive you, and any evidence to the contrary only proves how deceptive he is.

---

So, what you're saying is that Bush went back in time and wrote the Book of Matthew?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

6. Mathew begins with genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, which differs from Luke's genealogy.

---

As you know (I'm sure) that Matthew was written for a Hebrew audience. That's we he put some much emphasis on the number 14 (which implies a double measure of spiritual perfection) three times in order to show that Jesus was a son of David. Most scholars agree that many generations were skipped.

TexasScientist said:

---

8. Matthew misquotes Isa. 7:14 saying a "virgin" will conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. (For some reason they don't call him that and instead use Jesus.) Matthew quotes from a Greek OT text translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translated Greek text contains a mistranslation/understanding of the word young woman (Alma) from Hebrew to erroneously mean "virgin. "

---

Valid arguments can be made on both sides about the two terms in what I have read.

For the sake of the argument, let's say it was just 'young woman'. Tradition (Protoevangelium of James) and scripture both tell us that Mary was a virgin and planned on serving her life for the Temple. This is why she states that she 'has no relations with man.' She's betrothed but has no intentions of sexual intimacy. The Orthodox position was that Joseph was an older widower that was going to care for Mary.

---

The writer of Matthew's focus is that everything that happened was a "fulfillment" of Scripture.
1 In Matthew's view, Jesus' mother was a virgin to fulfill what the prophet said, and he quotes Isaiah 7:14: "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son."
2 Why was he born in Bethlehem? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Micah 5:2: "And you, Bethlehemfrom you shall come a ruler"
3 Why did Joseph and the family escape to Egypt? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Hosea 11:1: "Out of Egypt I have called my son")
4 Why did Herod have the boys two years and under killed? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Jeremiah 31.15 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation")
5 Why did Joseph and family relocate to Nazareth? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes well what does he quote, exactly? "He will be called a Nazarene." Huh?)
Matthew is the only canonical source for these fulfillment references. Clearly Matthew wants us to see Jesus as the fulfillment scriptural prophecy and a divine plan. Opening with Jesus' genealogy underscores this point. Matthew wants to show Joseph's genealogy depicts a divinely inspired pattern. Abraham to David, there are fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian Captivity there are fourteen generations, and from Babylonian Captivity to Jesus are fourteen generations according to plan. Matthew depicts Jesus as both fulfillment of scriptural prophecy and as fulfilling events described by a prophet i.e. Micah predicting a savior from Bethlehem, and using a mis-translation, Isaiah prophesying a virgin birth as fulfilling prophesy. And, fulfilling an event described by a prophet using Hosea 11:1 as an example where it says "Out of Egypt I have called my son" (son = Israel) to correspondingly show that Jesus also comes out of Egypt. God is bringing salvation again analogously.
There are several problems with these fulfillment inferences. One of the biggest problems is the quotation of Isaiah 7:14. For various reasons, Isaiah does not predict a future messiah will be born of a virgin. If you read all of Isaiah 7, it clearly is not talking about a future messiah. The word messiah does not occur anywhere in this passage. The context of Isaiah is not about a future savior. The king of Judea, Ahaz, is under siege from the kings of Syria and Israel. Ahaz asks Isaiah what to do, who tells him to do nothing. Isaiah tells him that a young woman has become pregnant, and before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, there will be prosperity in the kingdom, and the two kings will be dispersed. In the original context "a virgin will conceive and bear a son" but instead "a young woman is with child and will bear a son." Isaiah uses is "ALMA," a word that means young woman, with no reference to if she has ever had sex. He didn't use the Hebrew word "BETHULAH" which means a virgin. Further, Isaiah says the woman is already pregnant. Isaiah does not say she will become pregnant. Matthew did not read Isaiah in Hebrew, but instead read it in Greek. It is my understanding that the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (Septuagint) translates ALMA to the Greek word PARTHENOS, which also meant at the time "young maiden"- but later also became used to mean a virgin or "young maiden who has not yet had sex." Matthew misread or misconstrued the passage to refer to something in the future about a messiah, as opposed to Isaiah's time. Or Matthew is simply misinterpreting Isaiah to fill his theological narrative

---

This is the exegetical equivalent of a 9/11 conspiracy theory. You start with the unshakeable conviction that Matthew is trying to deceive you, and any evidence to the contrary only proves how deceptive he is.

---

Any objective reading of his story reveals he knows the Messiah has to come from Bethlehem. Jesus is from Nazareth, so the two have to be reconciled. It's not so much that he is trying to deceive, but to advance a theological view that Jesus must also be from Bethlehem. Deception may go too far. I don't know how he came to believe that. Maybe he wants to deceive, or maybe he just wants to advance hearsay that is in circulation with other believers with who he is associated.

---

You've emphasized that when Matthew and Luke disagree, they can't both be right. Now it appears that even when they do agree, they still can't both be right.

This raises the suspicion that your reading may not be completely objective.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

6. Mathew begins with genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, which differs from Luke's genealogy.

---

As you know (I'm sure) that Matthew was written for a Hebrew audience. That's we he put some much emphasis on the number 14 (which implies a double measure of spiritual perfection) three times in order to show that Jesus was a son of David. Most scholars agree that many generations were skipped.

TexasScientist said:

---

8. Matthew misquotes Isa. 7:14 saying a "virgin" will conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. (For some reason they don't call him that and instead use Jesus.) Matthew quotes from a Greek OT text translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translated Greek text contains a mistranslation/understanding of the word young woman (Alma) from Hebrew to erroneously mean "virgin. "

---

Valid arguments can be made on both sides about the two terms in what I have read.

For the sake of the argument, let's say it was just 'young woman'. Tradition (Protoevangelium of James) and scripture both tell us that Mary was a virgin and planned on serving her life for the Temple. This is why she states that she 'has no relations with man.' She's betrothed but has no intentions of sexual intimacy. The Orthodox position was that Joseph was an older widower that was going to care for Mary.

---

The writer of Matthew's focus is that everything that happened was a "fulfillment" of Scripture.
1 In Matthew's view, Jesus' mother was a virgin to fulfill what the prophet said, and he quotes Isaiah 7:14: "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son."
2 Why was he born in Bethlehem? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Micah 5:2: "And you, Bethlehemfrom you shall come a ruler"
3 Why did Joseph and the family escape to Egypt? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Hosea 11:1: "Out of Egypt I have called my son")
4 Why did Herod have the boys two years and under killed? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Jeremiah 31.15 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation")
5 Why did Joseph and family relocate to Nazareth? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes well what does he quote, exactly? "He will be called a Nazarene." Huh?)
Matthew is the only canonical source for these fulfillment references. Clearly Matthew wants us to see Jesus as the fulfillment scriptural prophecy and a divine plan. Opening with Jesus' genealogy underscores this point. Matthew wants to show Joseph's genealogy depicts a divinely inspired pattern. Abraham to David, there are fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian Captivity there are fourteen generations, and from Babylonian Captivity to Jesus are fourteen generations according to plan. Matthew depicts Jesus as both fulfillment of scriptural prophecy and as fulfilling events described by a prophet i.e. Micah predicting a savior from Bethlehem, and using a mis-translation, Isaiah prophesying a virgin birth as fulfilling prophesy. And, fulfilling an event described by a prophet using Hosea 11:1 as an example where it says "Out of Egypt I have called my son" (son = Israel) to correspondingly show that Jesus also comes out of Egypt. God is bringing salvation again analogously.
There are several problems with these fulfillment inferences. One of the biggest problems is the quotation of Isaiah 7:14. For various reasons, Isaiah does not predict a future messiah will be born of a virgin. If you read all of Isaiah 7, it clearly is not talking about a future messiah. The word messiah does not occur anywhere in this passage. The context of Isaiah is not about a future savior. The king of Judea, Ahaz, is under siege from the kings of Syria and Israel. Ahaz asks Isaiah what to do, who tells him to do nothing. Isaiah tells him that a young woman has become pregnant, and before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, there will be prosperity in the kingdom, and the two kings will be dispersed. In the original context "a virgin will conceive and bear a son" but instead "a young woman is with child and will bear a son." Isaiah uses is "ALMA," a word that means young woman, with no reference to if she has ever had sex. He didn't use the Hebrew word "BETHULAH" which means a virgin. Further, Isaiah says the woman is already pregnant. Isaiah does not say she will become pregnant. Matthew did not read Isaiah in Hebrew, but instead read it in Greek. It is my understanding that the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (Septuagint) translates ALMA to the Greek word PARTHENOS, which also meant at the time "young maiden"- but later also became used to mean a virgin or "young maiden who has not yet had sex." Matthew misread or misconstrued the passage to refer to something in the future about a messiah, as opposed to Isaiah's time. Or Matthew is simply misinterpreting Isaiah to fill his theological narrative

---

This is the exegetical equivalent of a 9/11 conspiracy theory. You start with the unshakeable conviction that Matthew is trying to deceive you, and any evidence to the contrary only proves how deceptive he is.

---

Any objective reading of his story reveals he knows the Messiah has to come from Bethlehem. Jesus is from Nazareth, so the two have to be reconciled. It's not so much that he is trying to deceive, but to advance a theological view that Jesus must also be from Bethlehem. Deception may go too far. I don't know how he came to believe that. Maybe he wants to deceive, or maybe he just wants to advance hearsay that is in circulation with other believers with who he is associated.

---

You've emphasized that when Matthew and Luke disagree, they can't both be right. Now it appears that even when they do agree, they still can't both be right.

This raises the suspicion that your reading may not be completely objective.

---

Not sure what you are saying here. I think you misread what I am saying. I'm saying that the two concepts must be reconciled, not Matthew's and Luke's stories. The concept that apparently everyone knew Jesus was from Nazareth, yet the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem.

Sam Lowry said:

---

This is the exegetical equivalent of a 9/11 conspiracy theory. You start with the unshakeable conviction that Matthew is trying to deceive you, and any evidence to the contrary only proves how deceptive he is.

---

Brilliant, well done.

Otherwise known as "begging the question", but yours is more artfully stated.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

TexasScientist

---

---

This is the exegetical equivalent of a 9/11 conspiracy theory. You start with the unshakeable conviction that Matthew is trying to deceive you, and any evidence to the contrary only proves how deceptive he is.

---

---

Any objective reading of his story reveals he knows the Messiah has to come from Bethlehem. Jesus is from Nazareth, so the two have to be reconciled. It's not so much that he is trying to deceive, but to advance a theological view that Jesus must also be from Bethlehem. Deception may go too far. I don't know how he came to believe that. Maybe he wants to deceive, or maybe he just wants to advance hearsay that is in circulation with other believers with who he is associated.

---

Or, maybe he wanted to tell ..... what actually happened.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

6. Mathew begins with genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham, which differs from Luke's genealogy.

---

As you know (I'm sure) that Matthew was written for a Hebrew audience. That's we he put some much emphasis on the number 14 (which implies a double measure of spiritual perfection) three times in order to show that Jesus was a son of David. Most scholars agree that many generations were skipped.

TexasScientist said:

---

8. Matthew misquotes Isa. 7:14 saying a "virgin" will conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel. (For some reason they don't call him that and instead use Jesus.) Matthew quotes from a Greek OT text translated from Hebrew into Greek. The translated Greek text contains a mistranslation/understanding of the word young woman (Alma) from Hebrew to erroneously mean "virgin. "

---

Valid arguments can be made on both sides about the two terms in what I have read.

For the sake of the argument, let's say it was just 'young woman'. Tradition (Protoevangelium of James) and scripture both tell us that Mary was a virgin and planned on serving her life for the Temple. This is why she states that she 'has no relations with man.' She's betrothed but has no intentions of sexual intimacy. The Orthodox position was that Joseph was an older widower that was going to care for Mary.

---

The writer of Matthew's focus is that everything that happened was a "fulfillment" of Scripture.
1 In Matthew's view, Jesus' mother was a virgin to fulfill what the prophet said, and he quotes Isaiah 7:14: "A virgin shall conceive and bear a son."
2 Why was he born in Bethlehem? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Micah 5:2: "And you, Bethlehemfrom you shall come a ruler"
3 Why did Joseph and the family escape to Egypt? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Hosea 11:1: "Out of Egypt I have called my son")
4 Why did Herod have the boys two years and under killed? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes Jeremiah 31.15 "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation")
5 Why did Joseph and family relocate to Nazareth? To fulfill what the prophet said (he quotes well what does he quote, exactly? "He will be called a Nazarene." Huh?)
Matthew is the only canonical source for these fulfillment references. Clearly Matthew wants us to see Jesus as the fulfillment scriptural prophecy and a divine plan. Opening with Jesus' genealogy underscores this point. Matthew wants to show Joseph's genealogy depicts a divinely inspired pattern. Abraham to David, there are fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian Captivity there are fourteen generations, and from Babylonian Captivity to Jesus are fourteen generations according to plan. Matthew depicts Jesus as both fulfillment of scriptural prophecy and as fulfilling events described by a prophet i.e. Micah predicting a savior from Bethlehem, and using a mis-translation, Isaiah prophesying a virgin birth as fulfilling prophesy. And, fulfilling an event described by a prophet using Hosea 11:1 as an example where it says "Out of Egypt I have called my son" (son = Israel) to correspondingly show that Jesus also comes out of Egypt. God is bringing salvation again analogously.
There are several problems with these fulfillment inferences. One of the biggest problems is the quotation of Isaiah 7:14. For various reasons, Isaiah does not predict a future messiah will be born of a virgin. If you read all of Isaiah 7, it clearly is not talking about a future messiah. The word messiah does not occur anywhere in this passage. The context of Isaiah is not about a future savior. The king of Judea, Ahaz, is under siege from the kings of Syria and Israel. Ahaz asks Isaiah what to do, who tells him to do nothing. Isaiah tells him that a young woman has become pregnant, and before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, there will be prosperity in the kingdom, and the two kings will be dispersed. In the original context "a virgin will conceive and bear a son" but instead "a young woman is with child and will bear a son." Isaiah uses is "ALMA," a word that means young woman, with no reference to if she has ever had sex. He didn't use the Hebrew word "BETHULAH" which means a virgin. Further, Isaiah says the woman is already pregnant. Isaiah does not say she will become pregnant. Matthew did not read Isaiah in Hebrew, but instead read it in Greek. It is my understanding that the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (Septuagint) translates ALMA to the Greek word PARTHENOS, which also meant at the time "young maiden"- but later also became used to mean a virgin or "young maiden who has not yet had sex." Matthew misread or misconstrued the passage to refer to something in the future about a messiah, as opposed to Isaiah's time. Or Matthew is simply misinterpreting Isaiah to fill his theological narrative

---

This is the exegetical equivalent of a 9/11 conspiracy theory. You start with the unshakeable conviction that Matthew is trying to deceive you, and any evidence to the contrary only proves how deceptive he is.

---

Any objective reading of his story reveals he knows the Messiah has to come from Bethlehem. Jesus is from Nazareth, so the two have to be reconciled. It's not so much that he is trying to deceive, but to advance a theological view that Jesus must also be from Bethlehem. Deception may go too far. I don't know how he came to believe that. Maybe he wants to deceive, or maybe he just wants to advance hearsay that is in circulation with other believers with who he is associated.

---

You've emphasized that when Matthew and Luke disagree, they can't both be right. Now it appears that even when they do agree, they still can't both be right.

This raises the suspicion that your reading may not be completely objective.

---

Not sure what you are saying here. I think you misread what I am saying. I'm saying that the two concepts must be reconciled, not Matthew's and Luke's stories. The concept that apparently everyone knew Jesus was from Nazareth, yet the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem.

---

I'm saying you've failed to consider the simplest and most obvious possibility: that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, just like Matthew and Luke (and Justin, and Origen, and everyone else) said he was.

Possibly, but not likely. It's clear that Luke has a completely different account from Matthew of how it happened. In Matthew it is apparent that they already live in Bethlehem and try to return home later. In Luke Bethlehem is not their hometown, and a main point of Luke's story is that they are from Nazareth. There are numerous glaring historical errors and problems with their accounts, that either are irreconcilable, or simply implausible. Why is this? The answer is Matthew and Luke want Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though they both know he came from Nazareth, which agrees with the other Gospels. Both have an agenda and objective to explain how Jesus can be the Messiah, since it was well known he was from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. They want to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Micah 5:2, as clearly stated in Matthew. Either Luke and Matthew, or the sources they relied upon, created the stories in order to have him born in Bethlehem. It's apparent neither story is historical, but each have similar agendas. Most likely, Jesus was not really born in Bethlehem, but was instead from Nazareth, and most likely born there.

TexasScientist said:

---

Possibly, but not likely. It's clear that Luke has a completely different account from Matthew of how it happened. In Matthew it is apparent that they already live in Bethlehem and try to return home later. In Luke Bethlehem is not their hometown, and a main point of Luke's story is that they are from Nazareth. There are numerous glaring historical errors and problems with their accounts, that either are irreconcilable, or simply implausible. Why is this? The answer is Matthew and Luke want Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though they both know he came from Nazareth, which agrees with the other Gospels. Both have an agenda and objective to explain how Jesus can be the Messiah, since it was well known he was from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. They want to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Micah 5:2, as clearly stated in Matthew. Either Luke and Matthew, or the sources they relied upon, created the stories in order to have him born in Bethlehem. It's apparent neither story is historical, but each have similar agendas. Most likely, Jesus was not really born in Bethlehem, but was instead from Nazareth, and most likely born there.

---

And all of this is "clear" by whose standards? Yours, or a 1st-century reader's?