Jesus virgin birth contradictions-Was Mary really a Virgin? - Bad News About Christianity

Luke begins the second chapter of his Gospel with a chronological note about when Jesus was born, writing:. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. This passage has been subject to a lot of criticism, because Luke has already linked the birth of Jesus to reign of Herod the Great Luke , and Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until years afterwards. Historically, the most common view—which is also in accordance with the Church Fathers—is that Herod died in 1 B. Archelaus, however, was a terrible ruler, and in A.

Jesus virgin birth contradictions

Jesus virgin birth contradictions

Jesus virgin birth contradictions

Jesus virgin birth contradictions

Jesus virgin birth contradictions

The theologian John of Damascus seems to have been one of the first to espouse this idea. Indeed, the idea of a loving maternal hand suitably counterbalances for them the intimidating image of the severe male heavenly judge. You could add a premise that would make the argument valid, but then you would have a different argument. And that's when the young woman is pregnant. His followers on Sunday told the queen that he was not in his grave, that he ascended to heaven as he had prophesied. How Jesus virgin birth contradictions Isaiahs Were There? No, David and William and all those non-Catholics how are giving opinions on the text. Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know Leatherette lay down bust display the word translated "and" in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of "even" which is used in many translations for emphasis. In contradiction to Mark, in Matthew Jesus says that Jesus virgin birth contradictions one sign would be given - the sign of Jonah.

Queen of the damned jesse. Recent Posts

Lukein contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. This hilarious video on evolution illustrates the absurdity of the Theory of Evolution and the consequences that follow. That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. The miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana is called the beginning or first of the signs that Jesus did John Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it "The Gospel according Jesus virgin birth contradictions Matthew. Share This:. Can Scripture contain lies? Jesus virgin birth contradictions to JohnMary Magdalene announces to the disciples that Jenna haze xx has seen the Lord. The Magi who studied the stars. He finds none on it so he curses the tree and it withers and dies MatthewMark

The virgin birth of Jesus, which is a cornerstone of Christianity and, as it happens, is important in Islam as well , is described in clear terms in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

  • The Book of Luke was written at least 85 years after Jesus birth.
  • In any case, a list such as this can serve a valuable purpose as a springboard for further study.
  • In this post, you see how to think through a few challenges to the historicity of the Virgin Birth.

The virgin birth of Jesus, which is a cornerstone of Christianity and, as it happens, is important in Islam as well , is described in clear terms in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Matthew Matt says that Jesus Christ is born to Mary, who becomes pregnant before having sex with her betrothed, Joseph. And Luke Luke explains that Mary, a virgin, conceives even though she is a virgin. That is the yes part of the answer.

Though the implications are, obviously, controversial, the text is straightforward. The more interesting potential virgin birth, though, comes from Matthew's explanation in Matt There the text says that the virgin birth of Jesus took place to "fulfill" the prophecy that "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel.

But he is quoting a mistranslation. The original Hebrew text of Isa is not about a virgin. Rather, the Hebrew used to describe the woman in Isa is almah, a word that means "young woman. This inadvertent shift from "young woman" to "virgin" is typical of the Septuagint, and it occurs elsewhere, too. For instance, the Hebrew text of Gen describes Rebecca as a "young woman [who was] a virgin" using na'arah, another Hebrew word for "young woman".

But the Greek in the Septuagint changes that into "a virgin [who was] a virgin. In most contexts, calling a "young woman" a "virgin" in the days of the Septuagint would be only a minor translation mistake, hardly even noteworthy, because most young women were virgins, and most female virgins were young women. In modern terms, it would be like mixing up "high schooler" and "teenager"—imprecise perhaps, but good enough for most purposes.

But in one situation, obviously, turning a young woman into a virgin rises to the level of a serious gaffe. And that's when the young woman is pregnant.

This is how the Septuagint, through lack of precision, turned an ordinary birth into a virgin birth. Isa is not about a virgin birth except through mistranslation. Matthew was writing in Greek, so he quoted the Greek mistranslation of Isa , using it to match his own virgin-birth description regarding Jesus.

As it happens, Matthew almost certainly knew that the two texts matched only in Greek. He wouldn't have cared. His focus was on what Isaiah could be made to mean in a new context, not what it meant in its original context. This is why Matthew didn't care about other material mismatches between his writings and the text he quotes from Isaiah: for instance, the child born in Isaiah was named Emmanuel, not Jesus.

This kind of imprecision was common in early Christianity and Judaism. If our modern sensibility balks at Matthew's explanation based on mistranslation and partial matching, the whole issue only highlights how much the very notion of what it means to read the Bible has evolved. Joel M. Hoffman Independent Scholar. Martin's Press, , which addresses significant and widespread translation mistakes in the Bible. Child characters appear throughout the Hebrew Bible and are more important than most readers realize.

The book of Isaiah is like a tapestry, with many hands contributing to its greater unity. Scholars recognize at least three distinct authors in the text: first, second, and third Isaiah. Although Mary is mentioned only infrequently in the New Testament, her portrayal there ranges from model disciple to estranged parent.

Lexicographers use context and related cognate languages to determine the meaning of words in ancient texts like the Bible. Hebrew is regarded as the spoken language of ancient Israel but is largely replaced by Aramaic in the Persian period.

The set of Biblical books shared by Jews and Christians. A more neutral alternative to "Old Testament. The religion and culture of Jews. An inspired message related by a prophet; also, the process whereby a prophet relates inspired messages to others. The third division of the Jewish canon, also called by the Hebrew name Ketuvim.

The other two divisions are the Torah Pentateuch and Nevi'im Prophets ; together the three divisions create the acronym Tanakh, the Jewish term for the Hebrew Bible. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they liv View more. The Birth of Jesus Foretold 26In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth,27to a virgin engaged to a man whose nam Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

She went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up. Site HarperCollins Dictionary. Add this:. Was there really a virgin birth in the Bible? The answer is yes and no, in that order. Ask a Scholar. Related Articles 8 Children in the Hebrew Bible Child characters appear throughout the Hebrew Bible and are more important than most readers realize. How Many Isaiahs Were There? Mary Although Mary is mentioned only infrequently in the New Testament, her portrayal there ranges from model disciple to estranged parent.

Was Jesus Illegitimate? Early versions and translations of biblical texts reveal textual differences and similarities.

What is Lexicography? HarperCollins Dictionary gospel. Luke The Birth of Jesus Foretold 26In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth,27to a virgin engaged to a man whose nam Isa 14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.

Gen 16The girl was very fair to look upon, a virgin, whom no man had known. Browse by subject - click on a letter below. Home People Places Passages Bibles.

Presented by:. Bible Odyssey has been made possible in part by the National Endowment for the Humanities: Exploring the human endeavor Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this website, do not necessarily represent those of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Even if they had been disciples, it would not guarantee the objectivity or truthfulness of their stories. Luke and Matthew both contain the story of a virgin birth. There is no reliable information on how long Mary lived, but some traditions say she lived as much as 24 years or longer after the resurrection. No parallel there. Atheos says:. Matthew says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest. There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them apostles and friends of the apostles.

Jesus virgin birth contradictions

Jesus virgin birth contradictions

Jesus virgin birth contradictions

Jesus virgin birth contradictions. A. THE GENEALOGIES OF JOSEPH

The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event.

Matthew's gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in "future contexts," any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy! From looking at just the birth accounts several conclusions can be reached, all of which will be further reinforced by examining other parts of the New Testament:.

From the birth accounts alone, it is obvious that in no way can the New Testament be considered "the inerrant Word of God," or even "the Word of God, inerrant regarding matters important to faith and practice. John's first encounter with Jesus was while both of them were still in their mothers' wombs, at which time John, apparently recognizing his Saviour, leaped for joy Luke Much later, while John is baptizing, he refers to Jesus as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", and "the Son of God" John , Later still, John is thrown in prison from which he does not return alive.

John's definite knowledge of Jesus as the son of God and saviour of the world is explicitly contradicted by Luke in which the imprisoned John sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus, "Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else? John baptized for repentance Matthew Since Jesus was supposedly without sin, he had nothing to repent of. The fact that he was baptized by John has always been an embarrassment to the church. The gospels offer no explanation for Jesus' baptism, apart from the meaningless explanation given in Matthew "to fulfill all righteousness.

Luke, who claims to be chronological Luke , tries to give the impression that John did not baptize Jesus. Luke's account of Jesus' baptism occurs after the account of John's imprisonment Luke If John knew that Jesus was the son of God, why didn't he become a disciple of Jesus?

And why didn't all, or even most, of John's disciples become Jesus' disciples? Most of John's disciples remained loyal to him, even after his death, and a sect of his followers persisted for centuries. The gospel writers were forced to include Jesus' baptism in their gospels so that they could play it down. They could not ignore it because John's followers and other Jews who knew of Jesus' baptism were using the fact of his baptism to challenge the idea that Jesus was the sinless son of God.

The gospel writers went to great pains to invent events that showed John as being subordinate to Jesus. In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover John In 1 Corinthians the apostle Paul writes, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread Paul writes these words about twenty years after Jesus' death, and had the church already been celebrating the Lord's Supper he certainly would have been aware of it and would have had no need to receive it from the Lord.

Some apologists try to play games with the text to make it seem like Paul actually received the instructions from the other apostles, but one thing Paul stresses is that what he teaches he receives from no man Galatians The Lord's supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor up until the time of Constantine. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected.

Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation. The early Church Fathers Justin Martyr and Tertullian tried to say that Mithraism copied the Lord's Supper from Christianity, but they were forced to say that demons had copied it since only demons could copy an event in advance of its happening!

They could not say that the followers of Mithras had copied it - it was a known fact that Mithraism had included the ritual a long time before Christ was born.

Where did Mithraism come from? More recently, in Mithraic scholar David Ulansey wrote a book, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries , in which he convincingly shows that Mithraism originated in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia.

That this is also the home town of the apostle Paul cannot be a coincidence. Paul admits that he did not know Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. He also says that his gospel was not taught to him by any man Galatians All of Paul's theology is based on his own revelations, or visions. Like dreams, visions or hallucinations do not come from nowhere, but reveal what is already in a person's subconscious. It is very likely that the source of most of Paul's visions, and therefore most of his theology, is to be found in Mithraism.

That we find Jesus at the Last Supper saying more or less the same thing Paul said to the Corinthians many years later is another example of the church modifying the gospels to incorporate the theology of Paul, which eventually won out over the theology of Jesus' original disciples.

It is very unclear in the gospels just what Judas Iscariot's betrayal consisted of, probably because there was absolutely no need for a betrayal. Jesus could have been arrested any number of times without the general populace knowing about it. It would have been simple to keep tabs on his whereabouts. The religious authorities did not need a betrayal - only the gospel writers needed a betrayal, so that a few more "prophecies" could be fulfilled.

The whole episode is pure fiction - and, as might be expected, it is riddled with contradictions. Matthew says that Judas' payment and death were prophesied by Jeremiah, and then he quotes Zechariah as proof! According to Matthew , the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:.

There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of circulation about years before. By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah's time but not in Jesus' time Matthew once again gives away the fact that he creates events in his gospel to match "prophecies" he finds in the Old Testament. In Matthew the chief priests buy the field. In Acts Judas buys the field. In Matthew Judas hangs himself. In Acts he bursts open and his insides spill out.

According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to "the twelve" after his resurrection. Mark makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.

In Matthew , Jesus tells the twelve disciples, including Judas, that when Jesus rules from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew says because it was purchased with blood money Matthew Acts says because of the bloody mess caused by Judas' bursting open Acts Before listing the contradictions regarding the trials of Jesus, it should be stated that the whole episode is quite obviously a fabrication.

Anyone familiar with Jewish law recognizes the impossibility of the chief priests and scribes arresting Jesus and assembling to question him during the most holy of Jewish festivals.

Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest Matthew , Mark and Luke John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest John who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest John Matthew says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest.

Mark says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest. Luke says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested.

John mentions only the high priest - no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus. Matthew, Mark and John make no mention of Herod. This, in itself, means nothing, but it brings about another contradiction later. The gospel writers go to every conceivable length to absolve the Romans in general, and Pilate in particular, of Jesus' crucifixion and to blame it on the Jews. The reason, of course, was that Christianity was going to have to exist under Roman rule for many years, which is why the New Testament contains nothing critical of the Romans, even though they were hated for their heavy taxation, and Pilate was hated for his brutality.

For the church, the Jews made an appropriate scapegoat because the Jews were a thorn in side of the early church. The Jews, of course, had far greater knowledge of Jewish laws and traditions than the largely gentile church, and were able to call attention to some of the errors being taught by the church.

The Biblical account of Pilate's offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release of Barabbas is pure fiction, containing both contradictions and historical inaccuracies. Mark and Luke say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder. John says that Barabbas was a robber. This is pure invention - the only authority given by Rome to a Roman governor in situations like this was postponement of execution until after the religious festival.

Release was out of the question. It is included in the gospels for the sole purpose of further removing blame for Jesus' death from Pilate and placing it on the Jews. The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob. This is ridiculous in light of Pilate's previous and subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilate's method of crowd control was to send his soldiers into the mob and beat them often killing them into submission.

Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome because of his brutality. Matthew , Mark and John say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of thorns.

Luke , in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers.

Luke mentions no crown of thorns. Matthew and Mark say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men. It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves. When the gospel writers mention Jesus talking to his mother and to Peter from the cross, they run afoul of another historical fact - the Roman soldiers closely guarded the places of execution, and nobody was allowed near least of all friends and family who might attempt to help the condemned person.

According to Matthew , at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus was resurrected, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.

Here Matthew gets too dramatic for his own good. If many people came back to life and were seen by many people, it must have created quite a stir even if the corpses were in pretty good shape!

Yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening - historians of that time certainly know nothing of it - neither do the other gospel writers. According to Matthew , only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. According to Luke , and , "the women who had come with him out of Galilee. According to John , Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

According to Matthew , an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus Matthew According to Mark , a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb. According to Luke , two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it. According to John , Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb.

Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus. According to Mark , "they said nothing to anyone. According to Matthew , they "ran to report it to His disciples. According to Luke , "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest.

According to John , Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord. According to Luke , Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection.

According to Acts , Jesus' ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection. According to Matthew , Jesus said that not the tiniest bit of the Law could be changed. However, in Mark Jesus declares that all foods are clean, thereby drastically changing the Law.

The church tries to get around this obvious contradiction by artificially separating the Mosaic Law into the "ceremonial" law and the "moral" law, a separation which would have abhorred the Jews of Jesus' time. The Mark passage and similar ones like Acts were added to accommodate the teaching of Paul regarding the Law which was diametrically opposed to the teaching of Jesus on the Law and to make the gospel palatable to the Gentiles.

In Mark Jesus says that "no sign shall be given to this generation. In contradiction to Mark, in Matthew Jesus says that only one sign would be given - the sign of Jonah. Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Here Jesus makes an incorrect prediction - he only spends two nights in the tomb Friday and Saturday nights , not three nights. In contradiction to both Mark and Matthew, the gospel of John speaks of many signs that Jesus did:.

The miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana is called the beginning or first of the signs that Jesus did John The healing at Capernaum is the "second sign" John Many people were following Jesus "because they were seeing the signs He was performing" John Matthew, Mark and Luke all contain passages which have Jesus quoting Psalm to argue that the Messiah does not need to be a son of David Matthew , Mark and Luke This contradicts many Old Testament passages that indicate that the Messiah will be a descendant of David.

It also contradicts official church doctrine. In Acts Peter, in what is regarded as the first Christian sermon, quotes Psalm in arguing that Jesus was the Messiah, a descendant of David. After Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem a sees a fig tree and wants some figs from it. He finds none on it so he curses the tree and it withers and dies Matthew , Mark , Since this occurred in the early spring before Passover, it is ridiculous of Jesus to expect figs to be on the tree.

In Matthew, the tree withers at once and the disciples comment on this fact Matthew In Mark, the tree is not found to be withered until at least the next day Mark In Matthew Jesus tells the eleven disciples to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It took the church over two hundred years of fighting sometimes bloody over the doctrine of the trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the original gospel, there would have been no fighting.

In Acts, when people are baptized, they are baptized just in the name of Jesus Acts , , Peter says explicitly that they are to "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" Acts This contradicts Jesus' earlier statement that his message was for the Jews only Matthew , The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction remains.

It was the apostle Paul who, against the express wishes of Jesus, extended the gospel Paul's version to the gentiles. Jude 14 contains a prophecy of Enoch.

The Book of Enoch was used in the early church until at least the third century - Clement, Irenaeus and Tertullian were familiar with it. However, as church doctrine began to solidify, the Book of Enoch became an embarrassment to the church and in a short period of time it became the Lost Book of Enoch.

A complete manuscript of the Book of Enoch was discovered in Ethiopia in Since then, portions of at least eight separate copies have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls. It is easy to see why the church had to get rid of Enoch - not only does it contain fantastic imagery some of which was borrowed by the Book of Revelation , but it also contradicts church doctrine on several points and, since it is obviously the work of several writers, it also contradicts itself.

The Book of Acts contains three accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. They are presenting the same important story that should contain NO discrepancies.

With the Holy Spirit looking over the shoulder of every author, every copiest, etc. And, for such an important message, there should be no room for misinterpretation. Alas, there are many contradictions, provable errors of science and history. Every now and again, there are some similarities — especially when Matthew and Luke copy word for word from Mark.

About the 3 wise men it does not say that. It says wise men with 3 gifts implying maybe 3 wise men each with a gift. The Magi who studied the stars. You did have a point I thought about the position — destination. And you need a sextant to do it and knowledge of celestial bodies. OMG — YouTube to prove evolution is not true? Try reading some textbooks in Biology, Botany, Chemistry, Paleontology for starters.

Francis Collins is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his leadership of the Human Genome Project HGP. He is also a devout Christian. There was more than one Herod. Luke: Several shepherds went to the stable where Jesus was born bearing no gifts. Therefore, the shepherds visited Jesus when he was born, and the wise men visited Jesus about 2 years later, when Jesus was living in a house.

Heli was the mother of Joseph, while Jacob was the father of Joseph. Obviously Matthew was only including the most important names in his list, otherwise it would carry on for pages. Obviously this document contains heaps of errors and insufficient evidence and research and therefore should be treated as a load of bias, lies and rubbish. The Christian Bible clearly claims that Mary was impregnated by the holy spirit, in other words God, notwithstanding the fact that God had already promised King David and his son Solomon that the messiah would come through them!

Your number 8 is more appropriately applied to a description of the Bible! You do have good points that I sought out also. The answer I guess was to prove through her background but also I asked the other one many times. But are not the Holy Spirit, God and Jesus one and the same? So Mary was impregnated by her unborn son? Do I have that right? Why is that not a correct interpretation? The correct interpretation of the Jesus story then is: Mary was impregnated by her unborn son so he would be born in order to kill himself in order to save us from himself.

OH Brother. The twists and turns you have to impose on the story to give it any sense of truth. Most glaring — different genealogies; one is for Joseph and the other for Mary. That is absolutely not true. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account.

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. The story of the birth of Jesus appears only in Matthew and Luke.

This is the nativity story according to Matthew : Joseph and Mary are already in Bethlehem; no reason is given. An angel appears to Joseph to reassure him, and so he marries Mary. Jesus is born in Bethlehem. Perhaps two years later or perhaps not , wise men see his star. They come and inform Herod.

The wise men — bringing gifts — find Jesus in Bethlehem. Warned in a dream, Joseph and family flee from Bethlehem to Egypt. Herod commences the massacre of the infants. Herod dies. But he is afraid to go to Judea, and so makes his home in Nazareth, Galilee. A census requires Joseph and Mary to go from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem. Nearby shepherds are told of these events by angels.

The shepherds visit the family. After about a month or so, Jesus is taken to temple in Jerusalem. There, Simeon and Anna praise Jesus. Soon after, Joseph and Mary return to their home in Nazareth. Contradictions Galore! January 19, at PM. Josephus says:. June 22, at AM. Dennis Hoppe says:. June 6, at PM. February 14, at AM. Atheos says:. September 11, at AM. Kevminator says:.

December 17, at AM. Supreme Truthsayer says:. December 18, at AM. December 18, at PM. Eyeconoclast says:. October 3, at PM. December 11, at AM. September 20, at AM. Truth says:. August 12, at PM. Kenyatta Graham says:.

August 23, at PM. New Evidence? Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:.

Does Luke Contradict Himself on When Jesus Was Born? : Strange Notions

In any case, a list such as this can serve a valuable purpose as a springboard for further study. Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph Matthew and Luke They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was.

Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy Luke Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies since at least the early fourth century. It was then that Eusebius, a "Church Father," wrote in his The History of the Church , "each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages. But if Joseph is not Jesus' father, then Joseph's genealogies are meaningless as far as Jesus is concerned, and one has to wonder why Matthew and Luke included them in their gospels.

The answer, of course, is that the genealogies originally said that Jesus was the son of Joseph and thus Jesus fulfilled the messianic requirement of being a direct descendant of King David. Long after Matthew and Luke wrote the genealogies the church invented or more likely borrowed from the mystery religions the doctrine of the virgin birth. Although the virgin birth could be accommodated by inserting a few words into the genealogies to break the physical link between Joseph and Jesus, those same insertions also broke the physical link between David and Jesus.

The church had now created two major problems: 1 to explain away the existence of two genealogies of Joseph, now rendered meaningless, and 2 to explain how Jesus was a descendant of David. The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" Romans Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus as some apologists have suggested , Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin - seed from the line of David was required.

Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man's sperm the woman's egg being discovered in The woman's womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children.

This is the reason that although there are many male genealogies in the Bible, there are no female genealogies. This also eliminates the possibility put forward by some apologists that Jesus could be of the "seed of David" through Mary. Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.

The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" Romans and was "born of a woman," not a virgin Galatians Tamar - disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law Genesis Rahab - was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan Joshua Ruth - at her mother-in-law Naomi's request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him.

Later Ruth and Boaz were married Ruth Bathsheba - became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah 2 Samuel To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence.

Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah.

By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, "The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four "loose women" in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make? In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David's throne forever.

A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her Mary blessed because of the child that will be born to her. If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son. Instead, we read in Mark that Jesus' family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind.

And later, in Mark Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household. Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later.

However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Matthew quotes Micah to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah compare Micah to Matthew Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel. Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea Matthew In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census.

This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel.

Matthew says that the birth of Jesus and the events following it fulfilled several Old Testament prophecies. These prophecies include:. This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word.

The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek. This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus. Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy.

This is a pure invention on Matthew's part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the murder of several members of his own family. However, ancient historians such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod's greatest crime by far.

It simply didn't happen. The context of Jeremiah makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later. Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy Matthew However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus.

As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened, one need only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened between the time of Jesus' birth and the family's arrival in Nazareth.

According to Luke, forty days the purification period after Jesus was born, his parents brought him to the temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Into this same time period Matthew somehow manages to squeeze: the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt, the sojourn in Egypt, and the return from Egypt.

All of this action must occur in the forty day period because Matthew has the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents. Since the prophecies mentioned above do not, in their original context, refer to Jesus, why did Matthew include them in his gospel? There are two possibilities:. The church says that the words had a hidden future context as well as the original context, ie, God was keeping very important secrets from His chosen people.

Matthew, in his zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, searched the Old Testament for passages sometimes just phrases that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those "prophecies. Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey if you believe Mark, Luke or John or riding on two donkeys if you believe Matthew.

In Matthew , two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, "on them he sat. Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah which reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated "and" in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of "even" which is used in many translations for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event.

Matthew's gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in "future contexts," any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy! From looking at just the birth accounts several conclusions can be reached, all of which will be further reinforced by examining other parts of the New Testament:.

From the birth accounts alone, it is obvious that in no way can the New Testament be considered "the inerrant Word of God," or even "the Word of God, inerrant regarding matters important to faith and practice. John's first encounter with Jesus was while both of them were still in their mothers' wombs, at which time John, apparently recognizing his Saviour, leaped for joy Luke Much later, while John is baptizing, he refers to Jesus as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", and "the Son of God" John , Later still, John is thrown in prison from which he does not return alive.

John's definite knowledge of Jesus as the son of God and saviour of the world is explicitly contradicted by Luke in which the imprisoned John sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus, "Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?

John baptized for repentance Matthew Since Jesus was supposedly without sin, he had nothing to repent of. The fact that he was baptized by John has always been an embarrassment to the church. The gospels offer no explanation for Jesus' baptism, apart from the meaningless explanation given in Matthew "to fulfill all righteousness. Luke, who claims to be chronological Luke , tries to give the impression that John did not baptize Jesus. Luke's account of Jesus' baptism occurs after the account of John's imprisonment Luke If John knew that Jesus was the son of God, why didn't he become a disciple of Jesus?

And why didn't all, or even most, of John's disciples become Jesus' disciples? Most of John's disciples remained loyal to him, even after his death, and a sect of his followers persisted for centuries.

Jesus virgin birth contradictions

Jesus virgin birth contradictions