Can we deduce the nativity events are fiction?

[marco]

Rome built itself on logic, on a superb communication system. A census would give important details of population numbers, used for military purposes or taxation. The simplest way of obtaining information would be for a magistrate and his officers to set up stations and record information, then send it to the Emperor. Rome would have details of colonies thousands of miles away. Joseph would go to his nearest station wherever he lived and Rome would do the rest. Roman efficiency!

Luke's much debated census under Quirinius has people travelling vast distances to some supposed birth town, then back home again. If another census took place, the same wandering of nations would be involved. If a governor ordered such migrations he would possibly lose his head.

Given the importance Luke gives to the census, it is surprising that we are not told about Joseph performing the registration. And if Mary was incapacitated, she would not have been required to travel. One wonders how the hundreds of poor (always with us) managed to make similar journeys.

It is reasonable to assess Luke's tale as rubbish, without probing its supernatural elements.

Does this condemn his entire gospel? Is the explanation for Luke's Bethlehem location a case of fitting a tale to a name in Scripture?

[Athetotheist]

…If the family were already settled up north, up in the mountains of Nazareth, they would have already been out of Herods target zone…
…Further, if they wanted to flee Herods territory entirely from up North the logical things would be to go further north west to Phenecia or north east to Syria . To "flee" south to Egypt from Nazareth would have taken them right back through the heart of the danger zone and that for many days….

It could be said they were escaping Rome. Egypt would be the logical solution, if one wants away from Roman empire. If they would have gone deeper to territories that Rome controlled, it could have been worse.

Matthew doesn't have them fleeing the Romans; he has them fleeing Herod. But he doesn't have Herod threatening Nazareth, so the whole thing falls apart.

[marco]

Unicorns still exist, here are few images:

Unus in Latin means one, and cornu is a neuter noun meaning horn. The rhinoceros qualifies as being "one horned" but it would be extremely pedantic to call it a unicorn, a term reserved in English for an equine beast with a single protruding horn. The Elder Pliny, I believe, thought they might come from India.

But you make an excellent point, relevant to discussion of the gospels. When the OBVIOUS lets us down we can always find safety in the obscure, the fanciful and the absurd. You have given a fine demonstration of how, one way or another, to make sense of Scripture: just call a rhino a unicorn and the fictional becomes fact.

[Zzyzx]

.

to make sense of Scripture: just call a rhino a unicorn and the fictional becomes fact.

Exactly. Change the meaning of words in attempts to make sense of nonsense. Blame translators, copyists, editors for 'errors' in reproducing tall tales. Invent new 'meaning' with new words.

Evidently the Bible cannot be trusted to say what it means and mean what it says. It DOES tell of unicorns -- repeatedly

Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

Deuteronomy 33:17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Job 39:9-12 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?

Psalm 22:21 Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalm 29:6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Psalm 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Isaiah 34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

Those who try to make rhinoceros into unicorn might do well to research the behavior of the former.

Rhinoceroses have poor eyesight but acute senses of hearing and smell. Most prefer to avoid humans, but males, and females with calves, may charge with little provocation. The black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) is normally ill-tempered and unpredictable and may charge any unfamiliar sound or smell. Despite their bulk, rhinoceroses are remarkably agile; the black rhinoceros can attain a speed of about 45 km (30 miles) per hour, even in thick brush, and can turn around rapidly after missing a charge. https://www.britannica.com

[Avoice]

The story was a devise to get jesus to bethlehem so scripture would point to jesus.

This plot devise was a waste if time. . Its not that the messiah will be born in bethlehem. Its that the Messiah is from the one who was born in Bethlehem. And thats King David.

So being born in bethlehem means nothing. Right now Bethlehem is in the west bank beyong the green line - palestinian territory - in the hands of the Arabs. It has been for quite some time. And I mean Arabs nit Palestinians. Thats just what they decided to call thenself to lay claim to the land. They cant fight Israel militarily so Yassir Arafat the former PLO leader figured out a way to get the world to take the land. Theres no such people as Palestinians. No Palestinian Language. And no Palestine. That name was also invented. The Arabs have the world doing their dirty work fir them. They have no claim to the land.

So dont expect the Messiah coming out if Bethlehem

[marco]

It's not that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. It's that the Messiah is from the one who was born in Bethlehem. And that's King David.

So being born in Bethlehem means nothing. Right now Bethlehem is in the west bank beyong the green line - Palestinian territory - in the hands of the Arabs.

That's another interesting way of seeing things, not the only way of course. The Romans used to say: "quot homines, tot sententiae" - there are as many opinions as there are men. Of course you believe in what you say and so do Christians. That makes for debate. There's no way of ascertaining truth.

It is interesting that the baby Jesus who would bring light to the world has still not cleared up the mess in Bethlehem. It's as if he had never been born - as if the nativity was just a fiction and the wise men mistaken.

[1213]

…Matthew doesn't have them fleeing the Romans; he has them fleeing Herod. But he doesn't have Herod threatening Nazareth, so the whole thing falls apart.

And Herod represents Rome. It is possible that Jesus was in danger also in Nazareth.

[1213]

…Unus in Latin means one, and cornu is a neuter noun meaning horn. The rhinoceros qualifies as being "one horned" but it would be extremely pedantic to call it a unicorn, a term reserved in English for an equine beast ...

When we are speaking of ancient matter, before English was even born, I think we should use the definition the ancients had in mind. Biblical descriptions seem to fit well to rhinoceros and I really don’t have any reason to believe Bible is speaking of equine beast that modern people imagine.

[marco]

When we are speaking of ancient matter, before English was even born, I think we should use the definition the ancients had in mind. Biblical descriptions seem to fit well to rhinoceros and I really don’t have any reason to believe Bible is speaking of equine beast that modern people imagine.

Dear 1213, you are commenting on a very minor side issue. We're discussing the fictional nature of the events surrounding Christ's reported birth. The unicorn was brought in as a fabulous creature - if you wish to call a rhino a unicorn, I am happy to comply. It does not render the Nativity scene real.

Angels, wise men from nowhere, astronomical phenomena, slaughter of babies reminiscent of the Egyptian plague and Christ's birth certificate traced back to caveman times..... whether we introduce a mermaid or a unicorn seems to make little difference. We are living in the 21st century and though we can communicate instantly and globally, we still have no angels whirring round our houses.

[Difflugia]

And Herod represents Rome. It is possible that Jesus was in danger also in Nazareth.

Let's leave aside whether the language of the Gospels makes a combined narrative possible. Let's assume that it is.

Matthew doesn't mention the census at all. Matthew starts the narrative in Bethlehem and introduces Nazareth as though it's someplace new ("...went and lived in a city called Nazareth..."). There's no mention of a trip to Jerusalem.

Luke doesn't mention Egypt at all. If one only read Luke, there would be no reason to suspect that Herod knew or cared about Jesus.

If there was a census, do you think Matthew knew about it and considered it unimportant? If Joseph took his family to Egypt, do you think Luke knew about it? Did God intentionally influence the narratives to create an apparent contradiction such that only a true believer would discern that it wasn't?

Believe me, I understand the appeal of finding cracks in a proof, but do you think the result is what really happened? Matthew said Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth. Luke said Nazareth to Bethlehem to Jerusalem and back to Nazareth. Did Joseph and his family really start in Nazareth, go to Bethlehem, go to Jerusalem, go back to Nazareth, go to Egypt, and then go back to Nazareth in order to fit everything? Why did each evangelist leave out exactly half the details? Was it intentional?

In your mind, what is the relationship between what Matthew wrote, what Luke wrote, what really happened in a historical sense, and what God wants us to understand from the combination?

[Athetotheist]

…Matthew doesn't have them fleeing the Romans; he has them fleeing Herod. But he doesn't have Herod threatening Nazareth, so the whole thing falls apart.

And Herod represents Rome. It is possible that Jesus was in danger also in Nazareth.

"Arise, take the young child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for HEROD will seek the young child to destroy him."

Herod specifically targeted Bethlehem (Mt. 2:16). The text says nothing about anyone targeting Nazareth. In logic, what you're doing is known as "grasping at straws".