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?

[marco]

"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."

It is quite amusing that celestial couriers seem to be well informed but are gloriously impotent. Given Jesus enjoyed divine protection until his 33rd birthday he presumably could have gone with his family past Herod's palace and waved with impunity. But we need a good story; a long arduous journey after nights spent in a barn makes for good reading. To think we feed children on this!

[Athetotheist]

"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."

It is quite amusing that celestial couriers seem to be well informed but are gloriously impotent. Given Jesus enjoyed divine protection until his 33rd birthday he presumably could have gone with his family past Herod's palace and waved with impunity. But we need a good story; a long arduous journey after nights spent in a barn makes for good reading. To think we feed children on this!

Matthew had to get them to Egypt because he was trying to make a messianic prophecy out of Hosea 11:1, which isn't a prophecy at all.

[marco]

Matthew had to get them to Egypt because he was trying to make a messianic prophecy out of Hosea 11:1, which isn't a prophecy at all.

Yes, Matthew according to tradition was dishonest as a tax gatherer and he has used his gift for making things up very well. It is of course hilarious that he traced Jesus back to caveman times but surprisingly some people accept this as "truth". Were he alive today he'd be a good fiction writer.

[1213]

…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?

I don’t know those things and I don’t think it is useful to make guesses.

Did God intentionally influence the narratives to create an apparent contradiction such that only a true believer would discern that it wasn't?

Maybe God didn’t want to make it clearer, because He knows that those who remain in truth, don’t have a problem, and those who hate truth would have a problem anyway.

Believe me, I understand the appeal of finding cracks in a proof, but do you think the result is what really happened?

My point is only to say that the scripture is not contradictory. The contradiction comes only if you make such interpretation that can’t fit to other interpretations. And I don’t see any reason to intentionally make contradictory interpretations so that it would seem Bible is wrong.

One thing that strengthens my belief to Bible is that atheist pretend to be scientific, logical and intelligent, but all they can come up with is bad interpretations, when they try to prove Bible wrong. If Bible is really wrong, there would be no need for such irrational thing.

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?

I only want to say, if one doesn’t have the desperate need to see contradictions, then it is possible to understand Matthew and Luke without contradiction for example by the way I showed. I believe it is possible that they both are correct as I have explained previously.

[Tcg]

Maybe God didn’t want to make it clearer, because He knows that those who remain in truth, don’t have a problem, and those who hate truth would have a problem anyway.

Then we'd have to wonder why he'd have the author of 1 Corinthians 14 write these words:

• 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps God is a God of confusion. If you are though, you've simply uncovered yet another biblical contradiction.


Tcg

[1213]

…Perhaps you are right. Perhaps God is a God of confusion…

Sorry, I don’t claim God is God of confusion.

[marco]

One thing that strengthens my belief to Bible is that atheist pretend to be scientific, logical and intelligent, but all they can come up with is bad interpretations, when they try to prove Bible wrong. If Bible is really wrong, there would be no need for such irrational thing.

I have no problem with emotional arguments, 1213 but it contradicts reason to say atheists "pretend" when many spend their entire careers doing the opposite. Einstein, whose mind was trained to avoid flaws and seek the truth even when it seemed to contradict common sense, made the point: "the Bible is a collection of honourable but primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

The bible is important to you and you do your best to defend it, even though much of it is embarrassing. I like Greek mythology; I can enjoy Ovid's Metamorphoses but there is no claim that these are true whereas some people want to accept that somewhere in a faraway bit of the Roman Empire a baby had angels singing to him and shepherds leaping from their flocks to adore a baby-god. Then a supernova is introduced guiding wise, but not famous, men to a barn in Bethlehem. Atheists do not "pretend"; they read this with a sense of sadness that a great portion of our civilised world still falls under the superstitious spell of ancient shamans.

It would be interesting if elves could spin straw into gold or with the wave of a wand frogs could be footmen. There is absolutely no difference between believing this and believing the events of the Nativity. When you solve a tough mathematical equation then turn to baby Jesus and his friends the cows you blush for humanity. We might as well believe the sun is a god and the moon can wrap beautiful youths in sleep so as to kiss them. I accept there is beauty in fiction but there is sadness when fiction claims our blood and our tears. Men walked on the moon but saw no seraphim. Those who wrote the Bible would have expected that they should.

[Tcg]

…Perhaps you are right. Perhaps God is a God of confusion…

Sorry, I don’t claim God is God of confusion.

You suggest that, "God didn’t want to make it clearer." The only result of such a motive would be confusion. If he did as you suggest, he would indeed be a God of confusion.


Tcg

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 44 by 1213]

Maybe God didn’t want to make it clearer, because He knows that those who remain in truth, don’t have a problem, and those who hate truth would have a problem anyway.

Is it necessary to demean those who do not believe as you do by suggesting that they hate the truth? I do not hate the truth. I hate lies and deception. If one searches for the truth in religion I believe that one is far more likely to encounter lies and deception.

[polonius]

Lets see. Matthew says Jesus was born during the life of King Herod who died in 4 BC. Luke says Jesus was born during the 6 AD Roman census of Jerusalem.

If both stories are really inspired by God then Mary must have had two sons named Jesus born ten years apart.

Do you think there is any fiction here?