|
Emphasis Mine In Bible Verses
ON THIS PAGE
Time and Newsweek
Unbiased and Objective? - Not So Much
Collected Traditions?
If one actually reads the Gospels it becomes very clear that of the four authors of the Gospels two were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry and the other two got all their information from eyewitnesses
The Authors of The Gospels Were Historians
In fact as all four of them lived at the same time as the events they wrote about
they were 'contemporaneous historians'.
Modern Vs. Ancient Biographers
One of our modern assumptions is that ancient recorded history has to be absolutely precise, ie. every single little detail had to be set down in exactly the order it occurred. The problem is no one told the Gospel authors that this is what they were supposed to do.
Did Matthew and Luke Contradict Each Other?
Although their perspectives are different and they have different emphases when it comes to some more minor points, Matthew and Luke never once contradicted each other. This clear if you think as well as read
Jesus' Family Thought He Was "Out of His Mind"
Did Mary Forget What Gabriel Told Her?
The Virgin Birth
Both Time and Newsweek devoted quite a bit of space to the virgin birth of Christ. This is hardly surprising because this is what establishes Jesus as both divine and human
Gullibility?
The claim that the people of earlier centuries were more 'gullible' than modern man is quite amusing.
Time and Newsweek
In today's world it seems to be a common occurrence for 'liberal' Christians to try and debunk the Bible's historical accuracy beginning with Christ's birth.
Time magazine's cover story on December 13, 2004 was entitled Secrets of the Nativity: Why the story of Jesus' birth inspires so much scholar interest - and faith. [01]
Newsweek's cover story the same week authored by Jon Meacham managing editor of the magazine, was entitled: The Birth of Jesus - Faith and History: How the Story of Christmas Came to Be. On December 12, the day before the magazine came out, Newsweek posted a similar article on their site called The Birth Of Jesus that is still available online [02].
What all three stories had in common was that much - if not all - of the story of the birth of Jesus was an invention of the early Christian church. After speaking about the "ongoing  scholarly debate" over the historical accuracy of the Nativity narratives, Meacham attempted to drive a wedge between faith and historical facts saying,
"The clash between literalism and a more historical view of faith is also playing out in theatres and bookstores."
The "scholarship vs. faith" theme of the Newsweek piece was evident from the subtitle "From Mary to the manger, how the Gospels mix faith and history to tell the Christmas story and make the case for Christ."
In other words, if you take the Biblical narratives at face value you are not being historical - if you doubt the Biblical narrative you are. Faith and history were placed in opposition to each other giving the impression that one has to choose one or the other . The fact is that faith and history are not necessarily in conflict.
Articles such as these with their shoddy research and their extremely biased conclusions can affect readers differently. For example,
Conservative Christians (especially those who are familiar with the evidence for Christianity) may find articles such as these infuriating, feel sorry for the authors and those they quote, or simply ignore the whole issue.
Believers who are not very familiar with said evidence may have a seed of doubt planted i.e. is it possible that the Nativity story was nothing more than pious legend invented by the early church.
Non-believers are quite likely to have their suspicions confirmed i.e. orthodox Christian doctrine has no grounding in actual historical events. It is simply one myth among many others.
Choose Life That You Might Live
It is often believed that Christianity is a "blind faith"... that Christians ignore reality and have unquestioning loyalty to a belief system that is based on myth/ wishful thinking / invention or any combination thereof. In fact, everything they hold to be true is easily disproved.
Much of the problem lies in the fact that many people are unwilling to accept things that not explainable by modern science. Even those that believe that God exists, seem not to realize how far His abilities lie far beyond our present knowledge and understanding - however advanced that may seem to be. There is no question that faith does play a major role. However, God has never asked us to accept anything on 'blind faith' but has provided evidence by the truckload.
Choose Life presents the evidence for the truth of the Scriptures including the Bible's humanly impossible authorship, it's candor about the faults and failings of it's main characters, fulfilled prophecy, and it's archaeological and scientific accuracy etc. - none of which are seen in the books of other religions. Hopefully it will give the first group additional confidence, reassure the second group that their fears are groundless and, at the very least, shake the third group's conviction that Christianity is based on nothing more than myth and fables.
Unbiased and Objective? - Not So Much
As I hope you will see the Time and Newsweek articles were anything but objective and unbiased.
There are plenty of conservative scholars who after devoting years of their lives to the study of these narratives have judged them to be accurate historical records. However not a single syllable of their conclusions was included nor was the reasons they arrived at those conclusion
Jason Engwer made some very valid points in the comment he posted on Newsweek's online article
Meacham could have discussed Ben Witherington, Craig Blomberg, Paul Maier and many other scholars who take a more conservative stance. But what's worse than Meacham's largely ignoring conservative scholarship is his ignoring the evidence that leads those scholars to their conclusions. [03]
All of which only serves to underscore how slanted and one-sided articles like these can be.
The only sources quoted were of the same opinion as the authors (Surprise! surprise!) who either knew nothing about the evidence that supports the Scriptures or chose to disregard it. For example, Newsweek quoted the book The Da Vinci Code and The Jesus Seminar - both of whose conclusions can easily be refuted by anyone with half a brain and an ounce of Biblical knowledge.
The Da Vinci Code
written by Dan Brown was partially built around the assertion that the early church covered up important facts about Jesus in order to manufacture Christian creeds.
Dan Brown opened his novel with the words "FACT" in bold, capital letters. However, what few it does contain require serious qualification.
In fact, it has been aptly described as a "cartoonish, illiterate, dishonest piece of hack drivel" which describes it very well.
See Section on The Da Vinci Code
The Jesus Seminar
Robert W. Funk (July 18, 1926 – September 3, 2005) was an American biblical 'scholar' who founded the Jesus Seminar and the nonprofit Westar Institute in Santa Rosa, California. Funk, an academic had a strongly skeptical view of orthodox Christian belief particularly concerning the historical Jesus. In fact, it would not be too much of a stretch to say he founded the Jesus seminar with a specific purpose in mind - to rewrite the story of Jesus.
A major presupposition of the Jesus Seminar is a philosophical naturalistic world view which categorically denies the supernatural. Therefore they say one must be wary of prophetic statements (because no one can predict the future), miracles (that are not possible), and the claims attributed to Jesus (but were actually later inventions of His devoted followers). More about the Jesus Seminar
Note Funk's opening remarks at the first meeting of the Jesus Seminar in 1985. (Also see quotes from his article The Coming Radical Reformation in Footnote I
"What we are about takes courage, as I said. We are probing what is most sacred to millions, and hence we will constantly border on blasphemy. We must be prepared to forebear the hostility we shall provoke."
Even before the Jesus Seminar examined a single thing Jesus said, Funk already knew that its findings would "border on blasphemy" and provoke hostility from believing Christians. How did Funk already know that the "objective" conclusions of the Seminar would be so hostile to traditional faith? Because he stacked the deck from the beginning. Funk filled the Seminar with hyper-skeptical scholars who shared both his scholarly and his theological biases. So even before the Seminar began its work, Funk was assured of the results he wanted". [04]
Like so many other liberals, Jon Meacham bought the Seminar's poppycock hook, line, and sinker, never bothering to investigate its true purpose. In other words, it wasn't quite an objective quest for the historical Jesus that many believe it to be.
And then there was
Celsus
Both Newsweek and Time quoted Celsus a 2nd-century Greek philosopher and opponent of early Christianity. Asking the question of whether the story of the virginal conception was told to hide Jesus' illegitimacy, Newsweek said the following..
"Celsus claimed Jesus himself fabricated the story that he had been born of a virgin. His mother was "a poor country woman who earned her living by spinning. She had been driven out by her carpenter-husband when she was convicted of adultery with a soldier named Panthera. She then wandered about and secretly gave birth to Jesus. Later, because he was poor, he hired himself out in Egypt where he became adept in magical powers. Puffed up by these, he claimed for himself the title of God." Second- and third-century Christian writers alleged that some Jews also suggested Jesus' birth was illicit.
This of course ignored the many Apostolic Father - Christian writers of the first and second centuries who are known, or are considered, to have had personal relations with some of the Apostles. [05] Clement (bishop of Rome in the late first century AD), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35 – c. 110), and Polycarp (c. 69 – c. 155) are considered the chief ones.
They also 'forgot' to mention the literally dozens of "Church Fathers" like Justin Martyr (c. AD 100 – AD 165), whose First Apology addressed to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius argued against the persecution of individuals solely for being Christian. It also provided the Emperor with a defense of Christian philosophy and a detailed explanation of its practices and rituals.
While I certainly do not agree with all they believed and thought (Catholicism was already creeping into the faith), I am simply making the point that there were literally hundreds of very early Christian writers who were devoted believers.
If the infancy narratives are to be interpreted as non literally as Meacham suggests, then why did Aristides, Ignatius and other Christians who lived around the time of the Apostles interpret the documents so literally? Aren't they likely to have known the intent of the authors? [06]
Collected Traditions?
One excerpt from the article shows how someone can unabashedly make an statement that doesn't have one scrap of evidence to support it.
To make their case in this congested theological universe, the Gospel writers collected traditions in circulation and told Jesus' story"
Much to the contrary if one actually reads the Gospels it becomes very clear that of the four authors of the Gospels two were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry and the other two got all their information from eyewitnesses.
1.) Matthew was personally chosen by Jesus as a disciple.
As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man called Matthew, sitting in the tax collector's booth; and He *said to him, "Follow Me!" And he got up and followed Him. (Matthew 9:9 NASB)
2.) John very clearly said they were testifying to what they had seen with their eyes, what they had looked at and touched with their hands. (1 John 1:1, 3).
3.) Luke, a Gentile physician was not a firsthand eyewitness to Jesus' ministry. However he said that after carefully investigating everything he compiled an account of things handed down by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning. And that it seemed fitting to him to write these accounts out in consecutive order (Luke 1:1-4).
In fact, Luke's Gospel is the only one of the four that tells of the events surrounding Jesus' birth from Mary's perspective. The only way Luke could have known what Mary was thinking and feeling was if he heard it directly from her or that Luke spoke to someone very close to Mary whom she had confided in.
4.) Mark: Although Mark was not a direct disciple of Christ, the early church believed this Gospel to have been written by John Mark the son of a woman named Mary whose house believers gathered in (Acts 12:12). Papias (c. a.d. 140) bishop of Hierapolis quoted a very early source that claimed Mark was a close associate of Peter from whom he learned what the Lord said and did.
Peter himself stated that they "did not follow cleverly devised tales" but were eyewitnesses of Christ's majesty. And that they themselves heard God's voice from heaven when they were with Jesus on the holy mountain. (2 Peter 1:16, 18)
The Authors of The Gospels Were Historians
David Van Biema the author of the Time magazine article wrote the following
"In the debates over the literal truth of the Gospels, just about everyone acknowledges that major conclusions about Jesus' life are not based on forensic clues. There is no specific physical evidence for the key points in the story."
It is true that there is no physical evidence for Jesus. He wasn't a king who erected monuments and obelisks with his name inscribed on each one. What we do have are the accounts written by the four authors of the Gospels.
Why exactly are we discounting their testimony?
When critics point out that no 'contemporaneous historian' said a single word about the event they seem to forget that "historian" is not a title bestowed on a person at birth nor is it an office one aspires to. A 'historian' is a person who simply records history - which is exactly what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did.
In fact all four of them lived at the same time as the events they wrote about they were 'contemporaneous historians'.
See Factors That Are Rarely Taken Into Consideration
Matthew
Here is an example of how the Gospel accounts are lopsidedly viewed by liberal critics. In regard to the Magi's visit to the infant Jesus (Matthew 2) Meacham stated that "There is no historical evidence of such a visit."
No historical evidence?
In other words, Matthew's testimony is not to be regarded as true history.
The problem is if someone hadn't written down what they said and did we wouldn't have known a thing that went on at any time in history between any individuals or groups. Cleopatra and her relationship with Caesar, Ptolemy or Mark Anthony - Alexander the Great's megalomania, policies, dress, or conquests - Hannibal's invasion of Italy. You name it. And, much closer to Jesus' time, we certainly wouldn't know a thing about Herod the Great and his tyrannical rule.
In fact, we would be forced to dismiss as myth every single thing we think we know about these people because everything we assume to be factual history is based (just as the Gospels are) on historians. Someone wrote down what Herod said and did, and someone else (in fact quite a few people) wrote down what Jesus and the Jews of His day said and did.
So why exactly is Matthew considered unreliable? Can any of these ‘scholars’ dredge up one shred of evidence to show that Matthew made it up as he went along - that he made any historical blunders?
Presumably one of the reasons critical scholars dismiss the Gospels as factual history is because they assumes the authors had a "theological agenda". However, as you will see from the article linked directly below, they wrote exactly what happened even when it was detrimental to their cause.
See The Impossible Faith
17 'wrong things' Christianity did in order to be a successful religion.
In any case, Matthew was not the only person to write about Jesus' birth. Mark and Luke did so as well. The vast majority of scholars, both conservative and liberal, believe that neither of these authors were familiar with each others work which means we have two independent accounts of the Nativity story.
Luke
The Newsweek article merely implied that Matthew is not a reliable historical source however, it bluntly stated that Luke was not. In Meacham's words
As asked by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts
What is Meacham's evidence for this claim? He cites a negative comment by the critical scholar Raymond Brown and then adds, "Augustus conducted no global census, and no more local one makes sense in Luke's time frame." Period. That's all the evidence against Luke's historical reliability that Meacham can muster. [07]
So lets take a closer look at how Luke rates as a historian.
The Three Missionary Journeys Described in The Book of Acts
Virtually everything we know about Paul's three missionary journeys comes from the book of Acts. However, I am not sure how many people realize how accurately Luke portrayed those journeys.
While I think we can safely assume that at least some people had knowledge of certain general details that Luke includes in his account such as the names and titles of governors, it is very difficult to believe that specific routes that extended all the way from Judea, into Asia and Europe were known to anyone other than a person who had actually traveled to those areas. However, Luke went even further, including some very precise details about the places they visited - the titles of various local authorities, the language spoken by the people there, the religious beliefs, customs and structures in those cities etc.
Not only were his names, titles, places, locations, customs, religious practices, and routes exceedingly accurate, but Luke takes us on a conducted tour of the Greco-Roman world, giving us a tremendous feel for the places and events he describes. One can walk the streets or saunter through the market places of Corinth, listen to the philosophical discussions in Athens, literally feel the pulse of Diana worship in Ephesus, and huddle in a boat as a gale threatened to blow one's sailing vessel to smithereens. [08]
In other words Luke has proved himself to be an extremely reliable and accurate historian. Much More on THIS Page
Quirinius
Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts went on to write that he would "freely admit"
that Luke's discussion in 2:1-2 of Augustus, Quirinius, and the worldwide registration does not obviously fit with what we know from other historical sources. There was a governor of Syria named Quirinius who conducted a census about a decade after the birth of Jesus. The historical record outside of Luke is silent about another census ten years earlier. Skeptical scholars are quick to accuse Luke of confusing the facts. But scholars who don't jump to negative conclusions have found several ways to make good historical sense of Luke's narrative. The original Greek of Luke 2:2 might very well mean that Jesus was born "before" Quirinius was governor of Syria, not "while" as it's often translated. There is also tantalizing but inconclusive evidence for an earlier governorship of Quirinius. [09]
In his book Nativity: The Christmas Story, Which You Have Never Heard Before, Richard R. Racy draws our attention to antedating which was one of the "quirks in ancient practices that would never be tolerated in modern scholarship". As He goes on to say, (Emphasis Mine)
It was extremely common for ancient rulers to date the beginning of their rule from the earliest date possible. Tiberius, for instance, dates the beginning of his emperor-ship from ten years before the death of Augustus because that was when Augustus designated him to be heir. Other rulers used all sorts of excuses to make their time of rule seem as long and as impressive as possible. If Quirinius did something similar, it is entirely possible that Luke unknowingly accepted the earlier date. [10]
The Quirinius issue is fairly complicated. Although some readers may want to investigate further, I myself think this is more trouble than it is worth. Luke's track record is such an impeccable one that it is highly implausible, even impossible, that he made a mistake of this magnitude.
Considering the extremely high stakes ignoring the mountain of evidence in favor of the Bible's accuracy and dismiss it as is being "in error" on the basis of one detail that so far does not agree with the archaeological evidence is the height of foolishness.
And yes, it is true that no one can prove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, was brought up in Nazareth, and ministered in Galilee. But here is food for thought. As said by thefamouspeople.com (Emphasis Mine)
Pontius Pilate was the fifth prefect of the Roman province of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumæa. He was appointed in his position by the Roman Emperor Tiberius. We know about his life from the four canonical gospels, Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, a brief mention by Tacitus, and an inscription known as the Pilate Stone, which authenticates his existence and ascertains his title as prefect. It is also mentioned that he was the judge at the trial of Jesus, and the leading man who ordered his crucifixion. [11]
Tacitus also unwittingly provided us with some significant corroboration to the Gospels. See The Non-Christian Authors That Confirmed New Testament Accounts HERE
In any case, as said by N.T. Wright the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, even if Matthew and Luke had
... invented material to fit Jesus into earlier templates, why would they have invented something like this? The only conceivable parallels are pagan ones, and these fiercely Jewish stories have certainly not been modeled on them. Luke at least must have known that telling this story ran the risk of making Jesus out to be a pagan demigod. Why, for the sake of an exalted metaphor, would they take this risk – unless they at least believed them to be literally true? [12].
Also see The Impossible Faith www.inplainsite.org/html/the_impossible_faith_.html
17 factors to be considered - places where Christianity "did the wrong thing" in order to be a successful religion.
The background here is certain skeptical claims that Christianity was a movement born of the adage that a sucker is born every minute, and Christianity collected about a year's worth of suckers to start with.
Besides which, stories are always made up and lies always told for a very specific, usually selfish reason. What exactly did the disciples gain by inventing the story of Jesus' birth and resurrection? Certainly no more than temporary notoriety.
However, they paid a terrible price for their five minutes of fame. Tradition tells us that virtually all the disciples died horrible deaths. For example, Peter was hanged upside down, Mark was dragged through the streets to his death, James was beheaded, and Thomas was pierced through with a lance. Yet not one of them ever recanted their story.
While many will die for what they believe to be the truth, who in the world would be willing to be martyred for what they know to be a lie. Martyrdom, one has to confess, is rather convincing proof that the disciples unwaveringly believed what they preached. Their claim that Christ had risen from the dead was not a story that they themselves had conjured up but was based on the fact that they had seen Him, spoken to Him, eaten with Him, and had even watched as He ascended into Heaven.
Many Christians accept and believe in the birth of Christ as told in the Gospels based on faith alone. However, many informed Christians accept the Christmas story as historical fact because they believe the Gospels to be reliable accounts. And so they are. The essential trustworthiness of the Scriptures are highlighted in the following articles...
God and His Bible - The Reliability of The Old Testament
The Reliability of The New Testament (Chapters 4 and Part 7 of Choose Life)
Section on The Resurrection
Alleged Discrepancies in The Resurrection Accounts
Modern Vs. Ancient Biographers
People still object to the fact that although Matthew and Luke largely agree there are differences between each of their narratives. The one thing that they do not take into account is that whenever two or more people relate the same event each one will recall or emphasize different details. Yet when it comes to the Gospel accounts differences of content and emphasis are being seen as disagreement which they are not.
Each author was narrating different aspects of the story from different perspectives.
One of our modern assumptions is that ancient recorded history has to be absolutely precise, ie. every single little detail had to be set down in exactly the order it occurred. The problem is that because no one told ancient historians that this was what they were supposed to do, they often just gave the gist of what took place.
The authors of the Gospel were no different.
Not only did Matthew tend to record events in topical rather than chronological order, but each of the authors wrote their accounts from different perspectives and stressed different things. They also sometimes included details that some or all of the others might have left out. For example, only Luke mentioned Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple in Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (Luke 2:22-38) and only Matthew recorded the flight into Egypt. Mark's Gospel is interesting inasmuch as he alone added some inconsequential, but interesting, details that none of the others did.
Accepted Discrepancies In Other Ancient Books
It is amazing how many people have little problem accepting other old documents as authentic history despite the fact that many of them contain many discrepancies and contradictions. Why then are different standards applied to the Bible and what is the excuse for the policy that what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander?
See Accepted Discrepancies In Other Ancient Books on THIS Page
See Differences and Discrepancies in the New Testament
Chapter 8 of Choose Life That You Might Live
Did Matthew and Luke Contradict Each Other?
David Van Biema, author of a Time magazine cover story, wrote,
"And despite agreeing on the big ideas, Matthew and Luke diverge in conspicuous ways on details of the event. In Matthew's Nativity, the angelic Annunciation is made to Joseph, while Luke's is to Mary. Matthew's offers wise men and a star and puts the baby Jesus in a house; Luke's prefers shepherds and a manger. Both place the birth in Bethlehem, but they disagree totally about how it came to be there. [13]
In other words, we have two early and independent accounts of the birth of Jesus in fundamental agreement. How telling is it that Van Biema passes this off as an aside saying - "despite agreeing on the big ideas". Apparently in his book agreeing on the main issues doesn't count for very much at all.
However, lets take a quick look at the examples David Van Biema gives of how "Matthew and Luke diverge in conspicuous ways on details of the event."
Who Did The Angel Announce Jesus' Birth To?
It seems not to have occurred to Van Biema that the angel could have spoken to both Joseph and Mary. We could only find fault if Matthew had said the angel spoke ONLY to Mary or ONLY to Joseph.
A House or a Manger?
It is extremely significant that the only time Matthew mentioned a house was in relation to the Magi's visit. He says nothing at all about the shepherds. On the other hand, Luke spoke about the shepherds visiting Jesus in the manger but made no mention of the Magi. See Modern Vs. Ancient Biographers Below
We have absolutely no idea exactly when the Magi showed up. All the Bible says is...
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, (Matthew 2:1 NASB)
However, if one avoids a superficial reading of the text it becomes quite clear that their visit occurred after the shepherds came and went.
How long after?
No one knows for sure .. Journeys in those days were long and difficult and we do not know exactly where they came from. However, one can be pretty certain that it was more than 40 days after Jesus was born
The Magi Arrived After Jesus Was Presented To God In The Temple
See Luke 2:22-39 for the actual presentation.
According to Old Testament law a mother was required to remain at home for about forty days after the birth of a male child during which time she was considered impure thus not permitted to go to the temple or to participate in religious services.
Then on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall stay at home in her condition of blood purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. (Leviticus 12:3-4 NASB)
Leviticus 12 also commands that when the days of the mother's purification were complete she was to bring a one-year-old lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin offering. (Leviticus 12:6 NASB). However, if the family could not afford a lamb they were allowed to substitute "two turtledoves or two young doves, the one as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering" (Leviticus 12:8 NASB)
This substitution of two pigeons was sometimes known as the 'offering of the poor' which is exactly what it was.
If Mary and Joseph had already received the gifts the magi brought (gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Matthew 2:11 NASB) they would have easily afforded the lamb
Two Different Greek Words
And then there is the fact that the two Gospel authors used two different Greek words when they spoke of the young Jesus
Luke - brephos
When Jesus' birth was announced to the shepherds the angels used the word brephos that can mean an unborn child or an infant. In this case it referred to the infant Jesus. (Luke 2: 8-12)
for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. "And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby ( Gk. brephos) wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” (Luke 2:11-12 NASB)
Matthew - paidion
However, in chapter 2, verses 9, 11,13-14 Matthew uses the Greek paidion . Ex.
After hearing the king, they went on their way; and behold, the star, which they had seen in the east, went on ahead of them until it came to a stop over the place where the Child (Gk. paidion ) was to be found. (Matthew 2:9 NASB)
He used the same word several other times. In the second example, the child was twelve years old.
And He called a child (Gk. paidion ) to Himself and set him among them, (Matthew 18:2 NASB)
And taking the child (Gk. paidion ) by the hand, He *said to her, “Talitha, kum!” (which translated means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). And immediately the girl got up and began to walk, for she was twelve years old. And immediately they were completely astonished. (Mark 5:41-42 NASB)
Not finished yet
The Magi initially arrived in Jerusalem to find out where the One who had been born the king of the Jews could be found. (Matthew 2:2)
Herod, obviously troubled by this, consulted the chief priests and scribes who told him that according to the Scriptures (Micah 5:2) the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5 NASB). The every devious Herod then sent the magi to Bethlehem telling them to "Go and search carefully for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, so that I too may come and worship Him.”
However, note carefully that Matthew does not say the magi went to Bethlehem, but after hearing the king, they went their way followed the star that went on ahead of them "until it came to a stop over the place where the Child was to be found". (Matthew 2:8-9 NASB)
It does not say the magi found Jesus in Bethlehem.
Additionally, Matthew tells us
"after being warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, the magi left for their own country by another way. Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent men and killed all the boys who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi. (Matthew 2:16 NASB)
Remember that King Herod had asked the Magi when they had first seen the star - this in order to ascertain when the child may have been born. The fact that he ordered the massacre of the baby boys in Bethlehem up to the age of two indicates that some time had passed - the Messiah was not necessarily a newborn at the time but could have been up to two years old
Summary and Conclusion
Matthew said Jesus was in a "house" when the magi visited and Luke said He was found in a "manger" by the shepherds is because the visits took place at different times. The shepherds visited soon after Jesus was born in a manger and the magi visited much later when Jesus and his family were living in a house.
As an aside the Bible neither tells us that the magi were kings not that there were three of them (which is assumed because they brought three gifts). It is likely that the Magi were Persian or Arabian astrologers who attached religious significance to the movements of the stars. Also note the Greek word translated 'inn' does not mean paid accommodation. The Greek oikodespotes is also used in Mark 14:14 NASB which is defined as master of the house, householder
Although their perspectives are different and they have different emphases when it comes to some more minor points, Matthew and Luke never once contradicted each other. In fact, so much so that one can come up with the entire Christmas story using only the facts common to both Gospel writers. Had they told identical stories, skeptical scholars would accuse them of collusion. See Seventeen common elements of Matthew and Luke's narratives In Footnote I
But here is a key question. Not only could the story be seen as scandalous but then as now many listeners would find the accounts implausible. If the church was really in the business of making up and editing stories one has to wonder why they didn't improve the birth narratives. The church could very well have edited the stories to harmonize a little better, added details that would make them seem more credible or even tone down the less believable details.
They did nothing of the kind but stuck to the record of events as told by Matthew and Luke
Why?
The only reason that makes any sense of because although the truth almost certainly hurt their cause, they believed it to be the truth and preserved it intact.
Also See Academia's Asinine Assault on the Bible
Jesus' Family Thought He Was "Out of His Mind"
Newsweek added that it is "striking" that in parts of the Gospels
... Mary herself appears unaware of her son's provenance and destiny. (In Mark, when Jesus is casting out devils at the beginning of his ministry, "his friends" - the sense of the Greek is "family," or "household," which would presumably include his mother - thought he was mentally disturbed and tried to stop him, saying, "He is beside himself."
If Mary had received Gabriel's message, then she should have known her son was not mad, but the Messiah. And even if she were not around in this story in Mark, had Jesus been born in such extraordinary circumstances, it is logical to assume that those closest to him would have known at least something of it - enough, anyway, to see Jesus as someone with a special role or destiny of which the exorcisms were a likely part. [14]
There is much to analyze in the above statement so lets break it down although not necessarily in the order it was written.
"Out of His mind" comes from the Greek root word existemi which primarily conveys a sense of amazement or astonishment, but can also indicate being out of one's normal state of mind.
There are many reasons that Jesus' kin could have thought something was very wrong with Him. Certainly His behavior was not anywhere near typical of the priests and Rabbis of the day.
He was a carpenter who forsook a stable livelihood to become an itinerant preacher picking a ragtag group of men to be His disciples. And His life was in danger.
The scribes were accusing Him of being "possessed by Beelzebul," - casting out the demons "by the ruler of the demons.” (Mark 3:22 ) The Pharisees were conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might put Him to death Mark 3:6) which didn't faze Him in the slightest.
Quite simply, it is likely that because Jesus' actions seemed so completely out of the norm that Jesus' friends/kin wished to 'restrain' or seize Him (which is what kratesai means) and take Him back to Nazareth allowing all the hoopla to blow over.
And when His own people heard about this, they came out to take custody of Him (Gr. kratesai); for they were saying, "He has lost His senses.” (Mark 3:21 NASB)
Which raises the question...
Did Mary Forget What Gabriel Told Her?
I very much doubt that it was at all possible for Mary and Joseph to forget that Jesus was someone special. After all one is not visited by angels everyday. What we do not know is whether they told the rest of the family what Gabriel had said. If one hadn't actually seen and heard Gabriel the listener might have been forgiven for calling for men in white coats. In any case that particular message would have been very difficult to swallow - The Messiah - born into OUR family!!!!
So what did Gabriel tell Mary?
In summary that she had found favor with God and would give birth to a Son who would be the Son of the Most High and was to be called Jesus. The Lord God would give Him the throne of His father David, He would reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom would have no end.” Luke 1:31-33
The problem being that Jesus didn't appear to be anywhere near the stuff one imagines Messiahs are made of. The Jews...
... had been expecting a Messiah who, as anointed king of Israel, would deliver God's people from the Roman oppressors, and make Jerusalem the center of the whole world.
Such expectations seemed to be set at naught by the Prophet of Nazareth. No kingly pomp surrounded him; he mingled freely with the common people; he lived in the utmost humility, having not even a place to lay his head. Political Messiahship he definitely refused. When, after the feeding of the five thousand, the people were about to come and make him a king-that is, the Messianic king-he left them and withdrew into the mountain. John 6 :15. It is no wonder that not even His brothers believed in him (John 7:5). Yet after His resurrection and ascension there they were in the upper room praying along with their mother and the disciples (Acts 1: 13-14) [15]
Additionally, when Newsweek says "had Jesus been born in such extraordinary circumstances, it is logical to assume that those closest to him would have known at least something of it"
Not exactly.
Had Mary and Joseph not told those closest to them about Gabriel's visit and message there was nothing about Jesus' birth that would have seemed extraordinary to them. But even if they had been aware that something about Jesus was 'different' they may have thought that He had gone off the rails - radically deviating from what He was supposed to be and do.
See If Jesus Didn't Fulfill all the Prophecies When He Was Here?
Why Should We Believe He Was the Messiah? HERE
The Virgin Birth
Both Time and Newsweek devoted quite a bit of space to the virgin birth of Christ. This is hardly surprising because this is what establishes Jesus as both divine and human - the "Word made flesh" as expressed by John (1:14). However, in his account of the angel's visit to Joseph, Matthew wrote,
Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Behold, the virgin shall be with Child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us." (Matthew 1:22-23 NASB)
Matthew was quoting Isaiah 7:14, obviously seeing in them a prophecy of the virginal conception of Jesus. in Isaiah's words
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin (Heb. almâh ) will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14 NASB)
Some critics believe that Matthew conveniently read Mary's virginal conception into the Isaiah's words when the ancient prophet intended no such thing.
Not so!
Although Isaiah 7:14 is generally held by Christians to be one of the greatest Messianic prophecies ever, this view fails to take the textual and historical context into account.
Quite simply, Isaiah didn't just wake up one morning and out of the blue prophesy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin some seven centuries later. Much to the contrary, anyone who reads the text without preconceived ideas should realize that the prophet was referring to a young woman living at the time, not one that would appear 600 plus years in the future.
However, this is one more example of typology. The immediate fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy was a 'type' - an actual historical thing or event that was a rough draft or glimpse of one or more actual events yet to come (the antitype). In other words, Isaiah's prophecy had more than one fulfillment - he was speaking about a young woman alive at the time, but the prophecy would be finally fulfilled many centuries in the future when the Messiah was born.
See The Virgin Shall Conceive
See The Fascinating Subject of Biblical Typology
Also Moses' Great Messianic Prophecy
Belief in the Virgin Birth
It should be noted that the virgin birth is fundamental to Christian theology. It emphasizes the fact that being both human and divine Jesus spanned the infinite divide between God and man.
However, dismissing the virginal conception is rejecting the fact that Jesus was God in human form - here to announce God's kingdom and tell us how we can get there which happens to be the whole point of the Scriptures.
See The Message of Jesus and The Message of the Bible
If Jesus was born of human parents like every other man who has ever lived why in the world would anyone bother to consider Him to be Lord as the early disciples and apostles did. What few realize is that of the twenty seven books of the New Testament, sixteen books (60 percent) do not refer to Jesus as Savior even once. In fact, the numbers are astonishing. Jesus is referred to as "Lord" over 600 times in the New Testament but the Greek word soter, that means deliverer or savior,is used a mere 24 times in the New Testament.
See The Lordship of Christ
Miracles
I suspect that the supernatural element in the stories is a major stumbling block for critics. Had Matthew and Luke told their stories sans angelic visitors, a star that guided the Magi and, above all minus a virgin birth, most people would have no issue with them.
If your world view does not include a God who brought this world into being and you are firmly convinced that miracles cannot possibly happen you have to make the attempt to try and discredit the Gospel narratives. On the other hand, if you believe that the Biblical God does exist you will see the Creator of being quite capable of overriding the natural laws that govern the physical world as completely plausible - especially since He was responsible for the laws in the first place.
For example, one argument is that Mary did not have the genetic material to produce a male child, therefore to conceive a child without having 'known' a man a Y chromosome would have had to have been created in her ovum.
So?
Just how difficult would it be for the God who spoke the universe into existence to create a Y chromosome? In fact all the supernatural elements in Scripture may be 'miraculous' to us but are probably 'all in a day's work' for the Father
See Are Miracles Possible?
The possibility of miracles is completely consistent with modern science and modern knowledge.
Gullibility?
The claim that the people of earlier centuries were more 'gullible' than modern man is quite amusing.
Modern mans often uncritical acceptance is mind boggling. Spin a good tale and it seems there will be no end of people flocking to your door.
Let us not forget the cult figures like Jim Jones, David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, David Berg and dozens more that have exploited thousands of followers often with disastrous consequences. And of course many a multi-billion dollar industry has been built by advertising that exploits people's credulousness. To say nothing of my personal favorites - 'clinically proven', fossil fuels and evolution.
And let me not get started on New Agers who are making every effort to shape the world on the words of spooks without credentials or any form of evidence that they are who they say they are. It is accepted that the particulars they provide are unreservedly true. No further proof or evidence asked for and none received.
And they call Christians fools? Seems to me the boot is on the other foot.
See The New Age Movement - Roots, Expansion & Diversification, Goals, and Dangers
Sadly, the Christian world is far from immune.
In spite of huge amounts of evidence to the contrary an enormous number of people believe in the word of faith/prosperity doctrine, tongues as a second blessing, contemplative prayer and labyrinths as a way to get closer to God.
See Doctrines of Demons
Conclusion
To paraphrase Rev. Roberts
Nobody can prove that the Incarnation really happened but it can be shown that it is reasonable to believe it. Ultimately, however, it is a matter of faith - not faith without reason or faith opposed to reason, but faith informed by reason. It wasn't just a nice story made up by some creative early Christians.
Because of Christmas, there will be Good Friday. And because of Good Friday, there will be Easter.
See Salvation
Footnote I
Quotes from Robert W. Funk's article The Coming Radical Reformation (And there is plenty more)
The God of the metaphysical age is dead. There is not a personal god out there external to human beings and the material world.
Prayer is meaningless when understood as requests addressed to an external God for favor or forgiveness and meaningless if God does not interfere with the laws of nature. Prayer as praise is a remnant of the age of kingship in the ancient Near East and is beneath the dignity of deity.
We should give Jesus a demotion. It is no longer credible to think of Jesus as divine. Jesus' divinity goes together with the old theistic way of thinking about God.
The plot early Christians invented for a divine redeemer figure is as archaic as the mythology in which it is framed. A Jesus who drops down out of heaven, performs some magical act that frees human beings from the power of sin, rises from the dead, and returns to heaven is simply no longer credible. The notion that he will return at the end of time and sit in cosmic judgment is equally incredible. We must find a new plot for a more credible Jesus.
The virgin birth of Jesus is an insult to modern intelligence and should be abandoned. In addition, it is a pernicious doctrine that denigrates women. [16] {PLACE IN TEXT}
Footnote II
Seventeen common elements of Matthew and Luke's narratives compiled by Rev. Mark Roberts [17]
1. Jesus had two human parents named Mary and Joseph (Matt 1:18; Luke 1:27).
2. Mary and Joseph were engaged (but not married) when Mary became pregnant with Jesus (Matt 1:18; Luke 1:27).
3. Joseph was a descendant of King David of Israel (Matt 1:20; Luke 2:4).
4. Mary conceived and became pregnant while she was still a virgin (Matt 1:18; Luke 1:27, 34).
5. The Holy Spirit of God was the cause of Mary's conception (Matt 1:18; Luke 1:35).
6. The news of Mary's pregnancy was initially unexpected and troublesome (to Joseph in Matthew; to Mary in Luke).
7. Mary and Joseph remained together in spite of her premarital pregnancy (Matt 1:24:25; Luke 2, where marriage is not mentioned, but is surely implied).
8. An angel visits Jesus' parents to reveal his divine origin (Matt 1:20-23; Luke 1:26-38).
9. An angel gives the baby the name "Jesus" (Matt 1:21; Luke 2:21).
10. Through angels Jesus is identified as the "savior" (Matt 1:21; Luke 2:11).
11. Jesus was born while Herod the Great was king of Judea (Matt 2:1; Luke 1:5).
12. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea (Matt 2:1; Luke 2:4).
13. Jesus will be the king of the Jews (Matt 2:2; Luke 1:32-33).
14. Jesus is the Messiah (Matt 2:4; Luke 2:11).
15. Jesus' birth is understood in light of Jewish prophecies (many times in Matthew and Luke).
16. Unexpected visitors are supernaturally summoned to visit Jesus (Matthew's magi and Luke's shepherds).
17. Jesus, though born in Bethlehem, was raised in Nazareth (Matt 2:23; Luke 2:39). [17] {PLACE IN TEXT}
End Notes
[01] http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20041213,00.html. (Link no longer valid)
[02] Newsweek Staff. The Birth Of Jesus. https://www.newsweek.com/birth-jesus-123591
[03] Jason Engwer. https://www.newsweek.com/nativity-narratives-and-birth-christ-116903
[04] Mark D. Roberts. The Birth of Jesus: Hype or History?
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/the-birth-of-jesus-hype-or-history/
[05] The Apostolic Fathers. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01637a.htm
[06] Jason Engwer. https://www.newsweek.com/nativity-narratives-and-birth-christ-116903
[07] Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts. The Birth of Jesus: Hype or History?
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/the-birth-of-jesus-hype-or-history/
[08] ibid.
[09] ibid.
[10] Richard R. Racy. Nativity: The Christmas Story, Which You Have Never Heard Before. Publisher: Authorhouse (November 1, 2007) Page 49
[11] Pontius Pilate. https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/pontius-pilate-5073.php
[12] The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. HarperOne; 2nd edition (September 7, 2007) Pg. 176
[13] http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20041213,00.html. (Link no longer valid)
[14] Newsweek Staff. The Birth Of Jesus. https://www.newsweek.com/birth-jesus-123591
[15] J. Gresham Machen. The Life of Christ: Chapter 8: Jesus as Messiah. http://articles.ochristian.com/article15469.shtml
[16] https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/the-coming-radical-reformation/
[17] Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts. The Birth of Jesus: Hype or History?
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/the-birth-of-jesus-hype-or-history/
|
