Remember Revelation 3:16, “So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth!” Also remember  that Yahweh, the creator of the universe, the heavens, humans and angels, requires blood sacrifices that as Yahweh considers burning meat to have a "pleasing odor," and of course, priests who recorded the scriptures, like the taste of meat, too. An elder-third of Yahweh then impregnated a young human woman so that another third of Yahweh could come to Earth in human form together with a reincarnation of Elijah. When the later baptizes the former, another third of Yahweh descends on that human third of Yahweh in the form of a dove. That dove-like third of Yahweh then drives the human third of Yahweh into the wilderness to be tested by one of the angels he created, offering Yahweh the world that he created and requiring Yahweh to test himself. The human-third of Yahweh then completely fails at delivering any message, leaving his disciples who follow him for at least a year completely confused as to his purpose, and failing to convert into followers those around whom he spent the most time: the unrepentant people of Nazareth, Capernaum, Bethsaida and Chorazin. Finally, the human third of Yahweh has himself anointed and executed in a manner that, according to the scriptures he himself authored, causes himself to be cursed, but just before he dies, the dove-like third of Yahweh leaves the human-third of Yahweh. He then descends into Hell for a few days and then resurrects the human body he inhabited for thirty years. He visits his disciples either in Galilee or in the vicinity of Jerusalem and tells them to wait for the dove-like third to come. The human-third of Yahweh then ascends into heaven, leaving the disciples, even though Yahweh is everywhere, and the dove-like third of Yahweh, despite being everywhere, only bothers to come about a month later. One wonders whether or not elder Yahweh was disappointed that human Yahweh was not burned at the stake, as execution by having himself nailed to a tree did not produce the odor that Yahweh finds so pleasing. However, this execution was sufficient to atone for the sins of all humans everywhere on Earth, so why did he not just do this two thousand years ago when he had Abraham try to sacrifice his son?

​

The birth narrative as told

The clearest demonstration of the validity of the claim of the inerrancy of the gospels and other Christian scriptures comes in the form of the birth narratives. Many who grew up in Christian communities know the story: Mary gets pregnant, but by Yahweh and not Joseph. Mary and Joseph travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem for a census, there Jesus (Yeshua) is born, Jesus is visited first by shepherds who were tending their flocks by night, and then a star leads Wise Men who present the family with gold, frankincense and myrrh. They then flee to Egypt while King Herod kills all male infants of age two or younger, and the family does not return until King Herod dies. The family then makes their way back home to Nazareth.

​

Let us do a deeper dive into the actual birth narratives recorded in the various gospels. We will proceed as follows:

1. We will start by looking at all references to both Bethlehem and Nazareth in the Christian scriptures.

2. We will outline the two scenarios.

3. Next, we cover the necessary background material by discussing both King Herod the Great and the purpose of a census.

4. We will then look first at the similarities between the narratives, then the more serious differences, and some less serious differences. For completeness, we'll review the one component that does not actually cause any issues: the shepherds.

5. Next, we will look at various apologies for the state of the birth narratives, and we will then focus on what appears to be the most common mantra: "There are no contradictions." 

6. I then add a personal solution to the issues with the narratives, and also give a more likely explanation for the differences when so much of the balance of the gospels are either identical or very similar.

7. We will finish by looking at that which is similar, and note that these are all related to doctrine, and examine the need for these.

8. We then summarize.

​

1.1 References to Bethlehem

The gospel of Mark does not even mention Bethlehem, and does not seem to have any interest in the life of Yeshua (Jesus) prior to his baptism.

​

The gospel of John only mentions Bethlehem in the context of the problem at hand: it seems that it was understood that Yeshua was not born in Bethlehem:​

​

When they heard these words, some in the crowd said, “This is really the prophet.” Others said, “This is the Messiah.” But some asked, “Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?” So there was a division in the crowd because of him.​​

​

Only the gospels of Matthew and Luke speak of Bethlehem, and then only in the context of the place of Yeshua's birth.

​

1.2 References to Nazareth

Let us contrast this references to Nazareth: Matthew has the family moving to Nazareth and Yeshua is described as begin from Nazareth, including being titled “the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee” and “Jesus the Nazarene”. In Mark and Luke (as well as Acts), Yeshua is ubiquitously referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth” and Luke has the family including the parents of John the Baptist originating from Nazareth. The author of John adds a little more in a dialog between Philip and Nathanial:

 

“We have found him about whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.”

Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”

​

Now, the absence of a reference to Yeshua being born in Bethlehem in John could be explained away as a mystery presented in the text: while the congregation was well aware that Yeshua was indeed born in Bethlehem, the text merely shows the confusion of the unbelievers and allows the readers within the congregation to self-congratulate themselves knowing that they are in on the “secret” that Yeshua was really born in Bethlehem.

​

The absence of Bethlehem in Mark indicates the author had no need for Yeshua to be born in Bethlehem: Yeshua was adopted the son of Yahweh at his baptism, and there was no significance to where he was born. Like other adopted sons at that time, including Augustus Caesar, the adoption was sufficient to confer on Yeshua all the rights and privileges of being the son of Yahweh; all the kings of Judea were similarly adopted the “Son of God”. Most modern Christians will argue against the point that the author of Mark is adoptionist, but it is clear that Mark refers neither to Yeshua preexisting his birth, nor does it represent Yeshua as being the actual son of Yahweh. The Ebionites from the first centuries after Yeshua did not and the Jehovah Witnesses today do not believe that Yeshua was anything more than a human born to human parents. 

​

2. Possible scenarios

Thus, we are left with two birth narratives, and there are two possibilities:

​

1. Yeshua was born in Bethlehem, in which case, both narratives should be at least similar in some of the more important points.

2. Yeshua was born in Nazareth or, more correctly, not in Bethlehem; however, the authors of Matthew and Luke felt that they needed to have Yeshua born in Bethlehem. In this case, if the authors of Matthew and Luke did not have access to each other's writings, it is more likely than not that they would come up with significantly different, and possibly contradictory, narratives.

​

Now, the authors of Matthew and Luke did have access to (and copied from) the gospel of Mark, but it is almost certain that they did not have access to each others writings (see here for more details). Even if you do not understand that the authors of Matthew and Luke had access to and copied from the gospel of Mark, you must realize that there is an incredible overlap in the stories that are told: 64% of Luke are narratives told in Matthew, and 70% of Matthew are narratives found in Luke. Given such an incredible overlap, one would expect there to be a modicum of overlap in the birth narratives found in these two gospels. Unfortunately, we will see that the authors of Matthew and Luke have, instead, essentially no overlap and are in fact contradictory.

​

3.1 Who was King Herod the Great?

Before we begin, we must understand King Herod and his precarious position as king of Judea, at least with-respect-to those he ruled. By Judean scripture, the king must be of the line of David. This ended when the neo-Babylonian empire conquered Judea and exiled its political elite and intelligentsia to Babylon. The Jews returned from Babylon, but with Alexander the Great, Judea was incorporated into the Greek world and became part of the Seleucid Empire. With the power vacuum left by the dissolution of the Seleucid Empire, a Jewish kingdom once again sprung up following the Maccabean revolt (167–160 BCE), but this Hasmonean dynasty was not from the line of David (Judas Maccabeus was in fact a priest, and thus he and his offspring were not even acceptable as a High Priest, let alone King). These rulers expanded the Judean kingdom to include Edom (Idumaea) in the south, a people “understood” to be descendants of Esau (just as the Moabites and Ammonites were “understood” to be descendants of Lot), the brother of Jacob who lost out on his “birthright.” The Edomites were forcibly converted to Judaism, but being converts, their actual faith to the Judean religion was suspect. When the machinations of King Herod's father, Antipater the Idumaean, who saved the life of Julius Caesar, placed Herod on the throne, it was with the consent of the Romans that King Herod ruled over Judea. Thus, not only was King Herod not of the line of David, but he wasn't even a Judean: he was an Edomite whose family was forcibly converted to Judaism. Thus, regardless of what he achieved, he was always suspect and despised by most of those whom he ruled. Thus, any action King Herod took would be viewed with suspicion. If King Herod was to either kill all infants younger than two years old in a town eight kilometers (five miles) from his palace in Jerusalem, you'd think someone else other than the author of a gospel written 80 years after the fact would have noted this massacre. Dozens if not hundreds of families would have had their infant sons slaughtered by King Herod's soldiers: Did no one mention or remember any of this? Did everyone who hated having this Roman-imposed descendant-of-the-hairy-Esau rule the holy land simply forget about this incident until finally some author decided to write it down almost a century later? More importantly, had King Herod held a census---an action that is explicitly forbidden by Judean scripture (see 2 Samuel 24)---he would have had most certainly had a revolt on his hands, and we know this, because when the Romans did impose a census on Judea when Judea was made into a Roman Province in 6 CE, there was indeed a revolt by zealots led by Judas of Gamala.

​

3.2 The purpose of a census

Also, before we begin, we must understand the purpose of a census: to impose taxes. To levy taxes fairly, one must understand who lives where and what they are doing. The soils in the Judean Mountains are much less fertile than the Samarian highlands, which is in turn less fertile than the Shephelah and the Jordan Rift Valley, which in turn are again less fertile than the coastal regions. The products of such regions also differ (some regions produce grapes and wine, others olives and olive oil, and others grains and other foodstuffs), as do the numbers of denizens (the highlands and mountainous regions being much more sparsely populated). When the Roman province of Iudaea was established in 6 CE, a local census was held specifically for the purpose of the direct imposition of taxes on the denizens of this new province. Prior to this, Judea was a client state and, before the death of King Herod, a client kingdom. The rulers of such lands paid tribute and support to Rome, but collected revenue however they saw fit. When the Romans took direct control, they were now responsible for raising revenue. The census in 6 CE was a local census, and not one that was held throughout the empire. Thus, everything that is stated in the first few verses of Luke 2 can reasonably be considered to be embellishments or pure fiction:

​

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David.

​

The greatest fiction is, of course, the requirement of this census that each returns to “their own towns to be registered.” The author of Luke needed to get the family to Bethlehem, and while the author of Matthew simply has the family starting there, the author of Luke has the family travel to Bethlehem nominally to satisfy the requirements of this fictional census. I describe this census as fictional, as there was no empire-wide census held at that time, and the requirement would lead to an empire-wide economic disruption.

1. For example, the settlement of Nazareth itself was relatively young, perhaps a hundred years old. Not one family would have been from Nazareth, and thus, every denizen of that settlement would abandon it for weeks as they travelled throughout the Levant to be registered: who maintained the fields and the livestock, and who prevented the houses from being plundered? Who fed all these wanderers on the roads, for most of those providing shelter and food would likely also be headed to their ancestral homes.

2. Given that Solomon allegedly had hundreds of concubines and wives, did all their descendants after almost a millennia also travel to Bethlehem to be registered? Where did they all stay?

3. What happened to all the denizens of Bethlehem who were not ancestrally from there? Did they leave for other towns and cities in Judea and Samaria? Were they not worried that their homes and places of work might be robbed in their absence?

4. Did every non-Jew living in Judea, Samaria and Galilee leave, perhaps for weeks, perhaps for months, to travel to other places throughout the empire to be registered? There were likely more than 50 million people living in the Roman Empire at the time, and while there was a significant navy and merchant fleet, most of those 50 million who did not live in their ancestral home would therefore be travelling by foot.

5. Did every descendant of Rome return to that city? What if you could not afford to return to Rome from Caesarea Maritima?

6. What about anyone who did not know who their great-great-great-great-great-...-great-great-great-grand father was? Where did orphans who did not even know their parents go to be registered? What if your great-great-great-great-great-...-great-great-great-grand father was from a city that was now in ruins? For example, Megiddo (the name's sake of Armageddon) was a significant city up until it was razed in 609 BCE, and it was abandoned three decades later. Did any family that traced their roots back to that city return to those ruins and did the Romans set up a registry there?

7. Also, why stop at David? Was not Nahshon the ancestor of David who first settled in Judea? Would not that that person's city be the appropriate place to go, wherever that was? Or, why stop there? Are not all Judeans descendants of Abraham, so should not all descendants of Abraham head to Hebron?

8. Did most blacksmiths stop working to travel? If you needed something repaired, good luck finding a blacksmith whose ancestor was from the place he was currently inhabiting. Even if a blacksmith was able to stay put, how many of his assistants were not busily making their way across the empire? Now, consider the same for all other industries: mining, shipbuilding, construction, agriculture, minting, etc. would be, at best, disrupted.

9. Such a census would have put the Roman Empire into an economic depression. Did Augustus order such a census and then ban all records of it when it brought the empire to the brink of collapse in 6 CE? Oh wait...the empire was doing fine at that point.

10. Today, we have no records of such a census having taken place, but one may argue that our current records from the Roman Empire may be missing key records. However, note that when the Roman Empire transitioned to adopting Christianity, even then, when Christians had access to all historical records, there is no record anywhere of anyone finding evidence of such a world-wide census with such absurd requirements on registration. Would not Saint Augustine have proclaimed such a finding his copious letters and other writings? Recall that Rome was sacked in 410 CE and by then, Saint Augustine was 56 years old, so there was significant opportunity for any Christian within the Roman bureaucracy to find such evidence in the intervening 97 years since the empire adopted Christianity.

11. What about the poor? Sure, many of the destitute of Jerusalem who were descendants of David could make the trip to Bethlehem to be counted, but what if you needed to travel back to Alexandria?

12. What about the old or the sick? They'd have to find porters to carry them, but they'd have to find porters who were also from their home town; otherwise, those porters would need to go elsewhere in the empire.

13. Finally, did those collecting the census data then send out letters to every single city, town, and settlement of the names that they collected to let the tax collectors there know how much to collect from each individual? What happens if any of these letters got lost?

The entire idea behind such a census is an absurdity, and is only plausible if one is told from birth that such a census did indeed take place. It's so easy to say “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered... All went to their own towns to be registered.” However, it makes no sense at all.

​

Here is an idea for an analogous census in North America. It would be no different than holding a census in Canada or the United States where all non-native denizens had to return to the port of entry of their ancestor on the male line who first immigrated to the continent, while allFirst Nations members would be required to register in Prince Rupert, British Columbia. In Canada, cities like Montreal, Halifax, Vancouver, and other ports would be inundated with millions of Canadians attempting to register, and apart from those cities that have airports or border crossings with the United States, most of Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Yukon, Manitoba as well as most of Ontario and Quebec would be emptied. Waterloo would be reduced to a small fraction of its population, and for what benefit? And how many people can even determine which place was the port of entry (be it a naval port, an airport or a border crossing) of their great-great-great-...-great-grandfather? Remember, New France was founded five hundred years ago, so that is nothing compared to King David who lived a full millennium prior to the birth of Yeshua. Then, once all this data is collected, it would be mailed back to the federal and provincial tax authorities so that it can be determined who pays what.

​

To be fair, it says that “All went to their own towns to be registered.” If Joseph was only temporarily in Nazareth and was actually from Bethlehem, one may have an argument for Joseph travelling to Bethlehem; however, this is not supported by the subsequent statements: the justification for Joseph going to Bethlehem is not that that was his actual home, but he headed there “because he was descended from the house and family of David.” Additionally, when they were finished, “they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.”

​

Question: Would Nazareth even have been included in the census, as Nazareth was under the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas. It is true that Judas of Gamala was from Galilee, but he may have simply led the revolt against the Roman occupation of Judea. The region Galilee remained part of a client state of Rome, and Galilee was only incorporated into the Roman province of Syria Palaestina in 132 CE. If you have a response, please contact me.

​

4.1 What is similar between the birth narratives?

Returning now to the two birth narratives, as for what is similar, they are mostly doctrinal: Yeshua is born to Mary (a virgin) in Bethlehem to a descendant of the line of David and the family ends up in Nazareth. That's it. Really, that's all.

​

4.2 The more serious differences between the birth narratives

Let us now look at the serious differences and difficulties that cause issues or contradictions between the two narratives:

​

1. The overall tone: The story in Matthew is one of fear and death, while the story in Luke is one of Gemütlichkeit.

2. The timing of the birth: The author of Matthew has Yeshua born during the reign of King Herod: “In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, …” so before King Herod's death in 4 BCE, while the author of Luke has Yeshua born in Bethlehem as a consequence of the census held in 6 CE, a decade later. Some claim that there is evidence that King Herod died in 1 BCE, but this doesn't solve the problem. 1 BCE is still years before 6 CE.

3. A bizarre obligation of a census not recorded in Matthew: The justification for the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem is a 
   census that, as described above, makes no sense, and is recorded nowhere else: “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David.” Would there not have been outrage if a census on this scale was held under King Herod? Would this not have completely disrupted the financial stability of this client kingdom of Rome? How did the millions of Judean diaspora throughout the Roman Empire make their way back to Judea to be registered? Would Matthew not mention anything about this?

4. Where did Mary and Joseph live before the birth? The author of Matthew has the family living in Bethlehem and they only arrive in Nazareth almost by chance as they wanted to return from Egypt to Bethlehem, but fear King Herod's son Herod Archelaus: “And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth.” Note the wording: “they went to Galilee and he made his home in Nazareth.” This was not a return to a home in Nazareth, but rather they are settling themselves in Nazareth. The author of Luke, however, has the family starting in Nazareth, and only making the journey to Bethlehem to satisfy an absurd census. Indeed, the author of Luke specifically identifies Nazareth as the family's home: “they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.”

5. No journey recorded in Matthew: According to Luke, Mary was pregnant prior to the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem (“He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child.”), and thus the order of events is: Mary is found to be pregnant, and yet Joseph stays with her, they make the journey to Bethlehem, and then Yeshua is born. In Matthew, all the events in this period are summarized in Matthew as “Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to divorce her quietly.” An angel the visits Joseph in his sleep and “[w]hen Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took [Mary] as his wife but had no marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Jesus.” Was there no opportunity to mention that a potentially arduous journey for a pregnant Mary between finding out she was pregnant and Yeshua being born?

6. Was it a stable or barn, or was it a home? The author of Luke describes how, when the family arrived in Bethlehem, “she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no place in the guest room.”  The author of Matthew has no mention of a journey to Bethlehem, nor does that author speak of any of the difficulties in finding a place to stay; however, the author of Matthew does mention the arrival of the Magi, and “[o]n entering the house, [the Magi] saw the child with Mary his mother.” Was the family in a stable or a house? The word οἰκίαν does not suggest a stable or barn, but rather a house or a dwelling place. Would the Magi not have been disgusted to find the future king in a manger in a stable or barn? 

7. A fantastic and yet otherwise unreported star--not even Luke: The author of Matthew introduces a star that does not seem to move naturally in the sky, but rather, stays moves south and becomes stationary over one point, something that indeed would be miraculous, and yet is not recorded anywhere else, not in the records of Alexandria or of Baghdad, or Rome, or China. All other stars and planets and comets generally follow a circular path in the skies revolving around the North Pole, so such an odd behavior would almost certainly have stood out, and would merited some mention; however, such a miracle is not even mentioned in the gospel of Luke, let alone any other source.

8. Bethlehem is only 8 km away: you cannot follow a caravan? The author of Matthew has Magi visit King Herod to find where this child is born, only to be told that the child would be born in Bethlehem, a village less than eight kilometers (five miles) from the palace in Jerusalem. For some reason, King Herod  desperately wants to find this child, but does not dispatch even one individual to follow these Magi on their perhaps three-hour trip to Bethlehem. The gospel of Luke makes no mention of this animosity of King Herod, what-so-ever.

9. How long did they family stay in Bethlehem after Yeshua's birth? The author of Matthew indicates that the family lived in Bethlehem for at least two years after Yeshua was born, for King Herod asked when the “star” first appeared, and when the Magi did not return, “he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the magi.” The author of Luke, however, simply has the family visit Bethlehem for a patently absurd census and “[w]hen the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses [forty days], they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.” After this, the family leaves Jerusalem to return to Nazareth. Thus, did they stay in Bethlehem for little more than one month after the birth of Yeshua or for almost two years?

   • To be fair, the star may have appeared before the birth of Yeshua, allowing the Magi the time to get to Bethlehem. The Magi and King Herod may have simply misinterpreted the appearance of the star as coinciding with the birth of Yeshua.​

10. The journey from Bethlehem to Nazareth: In Luke, the family travels directly to Jerusalem for the ritual of purification at the temple one month after the child's birth. No such mention is made of such a visit in Matthew, for they are not returning to Nazareth from Bethlehem, but rather returning to Bethlehem from Egypt; however, it is the rule of Herod Archelaus that has the family fear returning to Bethlehem, and they instead headed to Galilee. Had they been returning from Egypt, they would have almost certainly returned along the Via Maris, a road that follows a coastal route from Egypt through Galilee and beyond, so why would they make a significant detour from this road to visit Jerusalem: the city where Herod Archelaus has his seat of power?

11. Would a family avoiding Herod Archelaus visit Jerusalem? As mentioned, in Luke the family visits Jerusalem on the journey back to Nazareth, and yet, the author of Matthew makes no mention of such a journey, and instead suggests that the family would not want to even want to come close to Jerusalem: After staying in Egypt until the death of King Herod, “Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there.” Herod Archelaus was King Herod's eldest but also more volatile son, a son who the Romans refused to give the kingship, instead preferring to divide King Herod's kingdom into three regions, one for each of three sons, making each a ruler, but none were crowned king. If the narrative in Luke is correct, the family would not have even been in Bethlehem two years after Yeshua's birth: they were already back in Nazareth.

12. No mention of King Herod or even Herod Archelaus in Luke: Indeed, King Herod died in 4 BCE, and thus, Yeshua was born in either 6 or 5 BCE if the two-year window is to be believed; however, even if that window is off, Yeshua must still be born prior to King Herod's death. The author of Luke makes no mention of King Herod's death. In Luke, Yeshua is born in or after 6 CE (after a local census was held), so almost a full decade after the alleged birth of Yeshua as described in Matthew.

​

These are the critical differences, ones that highlight contradictions (some major, others more minor). Next we will look at other issues.

​

4.3 Less serious differences between the birth narratives

There are also other aspects between the two narratives that only lead to more questions:

1. Yeshua and John the Baptist are related? The birth narrative recorded in Luke has the angel say to Mary, “your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren.” That child is revealed to be John the Baptist. The exact relationship is not specified, so Elizabeth may have been an aunt or great aunt, given the age difference, making them cousins either once or twice removed; however, given that this woman lived closer to Jerusalem in the Judean hills, she must have been close to Mary, as she immediately made the 150 km (almost 100 miles) journey by foot or animal to visit her. No other gospel nor letter identifies such a relationship between these two figures. If John and Yeshua were indeed related, and born only six months apart, would Mary have never visited Elizabeth again? After all, when John was in the womb, and Mary greeted her, “the child leaped in her womb.” If this is the case, why is John, in the same gospel, unable to recognize Yeshua? After all, as is recorded in Matthew, John said to Yeshua “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” This was before any dove descended on Yeshua after his baptism. After the baptism, Yahweh addressed the crowd, which included John, saying “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” Why then, when John the Baptist is in prison would he send a message to Yeshua asking “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to expect someone else?” If John was so aware of Mary that he leapt in the womb, if he recognized Yeshua before he was baptized, if he heard the voice of Yahweh say that this was his son, why is there any question as to who Yeshua is? Also, if Yeshua and John were known to be related (these gospels were written 50 years after the execution of Yeshua), would the author of Matthew not have preferred to write something like “In those days John the Baptist, the cousin of Mary, appeared in the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming, ...” or “In those days John the Baptist, the son of Mary's great aunt, ...” Additionally, as noted by this author, the author of John explicitly says that John the Baptist did not know Yeshua: “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but ...” Did John recognize Yeshua before the baptism or not, and why did he forget the miracle of the dove when he was in prison? Given how close Mary and Elizabeth were, did the two children never meet? To be fair, perhaps no.

2. Mary is descended from Aaron: Mary is related to Elizabeth, and Elizabeth was said explicitly said to be “descended from the daughters of Aaron,” and there is no mention that they are descendant also from David (countering claims that one of the genealogies was Joseph's while the other was Mary's.) To be fair, it only mentions that Elizabeth (and therefore her relative Mary) was descended from the daughters of Aaron, someone who allegedly lived 1500 years before, so it does not deny the possibility that she was also a of the line of David.

3. Who is told what and when? In Matthew, Mary apparently finds herself pregnant without any foreshadowing or apparent foreknowledge, and Joseph's first reaction is to divorce her, but it is Joseph who is first recorded as being told by an angel in a dream regarding the details of Mary's miraculous pregnancy (an event described as the enunciation). In Luke, Mary and her relative Elizabeth both have visits from angels, and in person and not just in a dream, and Mary is told that she is going to be pregnant before that event actually occurred. Recall that if these enunciation stories were being told since possibly before the execution of Yeshua, and certainly soon thereafter, as Mary was present at the execution of her son, and these stories would have been circulating for fifty years, and yet, while approximately two thirds of both Matthew and Luke appear in the other gospel, neither heard or recorded the enunciation recorded in the other?

4. No reaction regarding the pregnancy from Joseph is recorded in Luke: The author of Matthew describes Joseph's reaction to finding out Mary was pregnant: “When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be pregnant from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to divorce her quietly.” The pregnancy had been discovered before their marriage, which is necessary, as they would have had sexual intercourse that first night. In Luke, we have that “Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem... He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child.” Thus, Mary and Joseph appear to be aware of her pregnancy prior to leaving Nazareth, and yet, none of the events in Matthew are described as occurring in Nazareth, and no mention is made of what would have been at least a difficult journey for Mary. Similarly, the author of Luke, despite significant elaboration on aspects such as the angel's discussion with Mary, as well as other speeches and discussions, fails to record any reaction of Joseph on finding out Mary was pregnant. Did Mary and Elizabeth say nothing to Joseph about the angel's visit prior to the angel appearing to Joseph in a dream (apparently in Bethlehem)?

5. Luke describes angels talking to Mary, Matthew describes Joseph's dreams: No meeting with Mary and her angels is mentioned in Matthew, and no dreams of Joseph are mentioned in Luke. Both these figures would have been long dead prior to when these gospels were written, so where did these details come from? If they had been recorded, would they not have been well known throughout the Christian community, and thus to the authors of both gospels?

6. What was the purpose of the Magi visiting Jerusalem? The star led them to Bethlehem: The author of Matthew has the Magi first visit King Herod (they must have been quite significant figures, for otherwise they would not have received such an audience with Herod). However, the advise given to the Magi as to where to search is based on the passage “But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel...” Note that this does not refer to the town of Bethlehem, but rather the clan of Bethlehem of Ephrathah. It is interesting that the priests were able to misinterpret this correctly to guide the Magi to Bethlehem. However, the Magi did not even need this information, as the star led them the eight kilometers to Yeshua.

7. That is one bizarre star, or was it a drone? Even the full description of the star is odd, as Bethlehem is only eight kilometers (five miles) from Jerusalem:

   • According to subsequent verses, the star appeared approximately two years prior, the appearance of this star spurred the Magi to visit Jerusalem. For some reason, they had a deep understanding of the Judean scriptures and were aware that in 538 BCE, the Jews returned from Babylon, and that the building of the temple occurred in 516 BCE. In Daniel, there is a prophesy concerning 70 weeks, but 490 years only puts us 26 BCE, putting us ten years into the rule of King Herod. Additionally, the prophesy in Daniel has this anointed one doing something in the last week only, so that anointed one should be an adult by then, but it doesn't say how old that adult is, so how did the Magi know when Yeshua was to be born?

   • That the star that appeared foretold the birth of “the child who has been born king of the Jews,” although this is never explained. It may refer to a passage in Numbers: “I see him but not now; I behold him but not near---a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the foreheads of Moab and the heads of all the Shethites.  Edom will become a possession, Seir a possession of its enemies, while Israel does valiantly.  One out of Jacob shall rule and destroy the survivors of Ir.” This makes little sense, however, as all Shethites died in the flood, and Edom (the land of the descendants of Esau) had already been incorporated into the Hasmonean kingdom in 124 BCE, and continued to be part of Herod's kingdom and the Roman Province of Iudaea. If this is indeed the star referred to in Matthew, it would be amazing that these Magi knew about the star, but did not know where to find the infant. If they only saw the star, how did they know that it meant Jerusalem? Assuming it rose like all other stars, perhaps they determined that the star was rising in the direction of Jerusalem, but they did not have accurate maps and compasses will not be invented for another millennium: for example, from Baghdad, Ammon, Jerusalem and the lower Nile delta are all in the same direction. ​

   • These Magi came from the east and took two years to get to Jerusalem. It does not say the star guided them to Jerusalem, but for some reason, once they got to Jerusalem, they had to stop and ask directions, and they're asking the current king about the birth of a future king.

   • Once King Herod tells them to go to Bethlehem, suddenly the star reappears: “they set out, and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen in the east, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy.” This is not the behavior of any known star, and no one else seems to have noticed this star. Also, how did they know it was the same star they saw before? How does a star “stop” in the sky, did the star guide them south to Bethlehem? Did none of King Herod's servants see this same star travelling south?

   • Remember that a new star that is seen in, for example, Bagdad, will also be seen in Jerusalem, and vice versa. Why did these Magi see this new star, but none of the astrologers or learned individuals of Jerusalem see this star? The author of Matthew seems to have a horrible understanding of astronomy, not knowing that stars seen in Baghdad will also be seen in Jerusalem, and also in Rome, and that stars do not move south, but rather east-to-west along great arcs.

   • Actually, if the star reappeared just at the time the Magi were leaving Jerusalem, would not everyone else who was up or out at the time have seen that same star? If the Magi saw this star suddenly appear and move perpendicular to the movement of all other stars (south), did no one else notice?

   • The star was supposed to stop over the location where Yeshua was: “When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. On entering the house, they...” What is the point on the Earth that is directly below a star? For a star like Sirius, if it was directly above you, and you then moved one kilometer, it would once again appear to be directly above you: the curvature of the Earth over a distance of only one kilometer is negligible: little more than half a minute of arc, or 111th of one degree. This star, however, was supposed to identify the exact “house” in which Yeshua was born. According to the National Institute of Health, “[a] person of normal sight can differentiate two objects casting a visual angle of 1 minute... This ability is determined the spacing of cones in the retina.” To identify a specific building, the star must be much closer to the Earth than the average star at infinity (well, 8.611 light years, but for all intents and purposes, we may assume it is a source at an infinite distance). Assuming that the source of light could identify a spot on the ground within 50 meters, then the  specifically “star” could be no higher up than 50 meters divided by the tangent of one minute, or approximately 171887.333 meters or 172 km. Any higher and it could not be used to identify a specific house in a town. The “star” was not a star, and not a meteor, and not a comet. It would have had to be something moving and then hovering not much higher than the lowest possible low-Earth orbit, which is at about 160 km; however, it could not even be on a polar orbit which would allow it to travel in a north-to-south direction, for if it stopped, gravity would bring it back to Earth in three minutes and seven seconds. Whatever this “star” was, it was not a celestial object. On the other hand, to be fair, while the interpretation is often that the start stopped “above” the place where Yeshua lay, the text simply says that the star “stopped.”

   • What is most humorous is that the behavior of this “star” is actually closer to the behavior of something that is quite common today: a quadcopter drone. Maybe Yahweh likes playing with toys, too.

8. Did the star disappear simply to have infants killed? It seems odd that a star spurs the Magi to begin their journey to Bethlehem, only to stop guiding them once they reach Jerusalem (was it overcast that day?), only to reappear immediately after King Herod tells them to go to Bethlehem. The instructions from King Herod to seek this infant seem to have been completely unnecessary, as the star immediately continues to guide the Magi as soon as they left Jerusalem. The only consequence of the Magi visiting King Herod was the subsequent death of all male children under the age of two. Could Yahweh not have simply guided the Magi straight to Bethlehem and the exact location of Yeshua without stopping at King Herod's palace? It appears the only reason to stop was to give King Herod the opportunity to give Herod a justification for killing all those babies. If Yahweh wanted to call his child from Egypt, could he not have just told Joseph to go to Egypt?​

9. What was the mood as the family left Bethlehelm? As for leaving Bethlehem, the author of Matthew has a dire situation thrust upon the family: “the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.’ Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod.” In Luke, the passage about the family leaving Bethlehem is much more tranquil: “When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.” In Luke, there is no rush, no night flight, no cause for any fear, and instead of fleeing to Egypt, they are headed to Jerusalem, the capitol of Judea and the seat of power.

10. A perfect record of doctrinally-inspired speeches, but no mention of what Yeshua says: In Luke, the author records verbatim the words spoken at the temple that support the doctrinal theses of the author regarding the character of Yeshua; and yet, a few verses later, when the young Yeshua visits the temple and amazes those listening to him with respect to his command and understanding of Judean scriptures and the interpretation thereof, not one word that Yeshua said that was so amazing is recorded. All it says is that “[a]nd all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.” Why not also record the question and the corresponding “amazing” answer? Indeed, every time the gospels indicate that Yeshua “amazed” his listeners with his deep understanding of Judean scripture and law, no record is every made of what he actually said to inspire such wonderment. The author of Matthew makes no mention of Yeshua being presented at the temple, let alone speeches from Simeon and Anna.

11. What happened to the expensive gifts, and why only two doves? In Matthew, the Magi present significant gifts of immense value, and yet, in Luke, the offering made at the temple is the poor offering: “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” In Leviticus 12, it says that the offering should be “a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering and a pigeon or a turtledove” and later it says that “[i]f she cannot afford a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons.” With gifts such as gold, frankincense, and myrrh, could the family not afford a lamb?

12. When was Yeshua's ministry if he was born in 6-4 BCE versus 6 CE? In Luke, it gives the age when Yeshua started his ministry as “about thirty years old.” Consequently, if born in 6 CE, the start of his ministry would therefore be approximately 36 CE, so his death would be a number of years later, and yet, Pontius Pilate was prefect from 26 CE to approximately 36 CE. Given that it is estimated that Yeshua was more likely crucified between 30 CE and 33 CE, using the later date, Yeshua started his ministry when he was around 25 years old. If Yeshua was born in 6 BCE, then he would have started his ministry in his early-to-mid thirties.

​

4.4 The one story not causing issues

There is exactly one non-doctrinal narrative that does not cause any real issue, and that is the story about the shepherds, which, while not mentioned in Matthew, is not in any way significant. Angels appear to shepherds who then go to travel to Bethlehem to visit the infant Yeshua, although it must have been awkward having a whole bunch of shepherds searching throughout the town trying to find one house that had an infant in a manger. Did they knock at every house and barn and stable and every other building to find the family? At the very least, however, this narrative emphasizes that Yeshua could not have been born in December: it is far too cold for shepherds to be “living in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night.” Christ’s Mass was established on December 25th as an alternative celebration to the Winter Solstice which usually occurs either on the 21st or 22nd of December.

​

​