Nativity narratives

[Pillar_of_truth]

The details are given.

1. Forty days after Jesus’s birth they return to Nazareth.
2. Every year they go to Jerusalem for the Passover. They do not omit a year to flee to Egypt.
3. Omission of significant details strongly suggests that there are no such details, or they’d be mentioned. Luke doesn’t mention anything about the Slaughter of the Innocent or traveling to Egypt.

Nor does Josephus, the meticulous chronicler of King Herod’s misdeeds, say anything about a slaughter of the innocent.

Perhaps, as I said earlier, they were only in Egypt for a short time period, and never missed a Passover. Maybe Luke didn’t mention anything about those details because Matthew already mentioned it and he didn’t feel any particular need to repeat it for the audience he was writing to.

As to why Josephus didn’t mention it, who knows? It would be nice if he had for our case, but absence of proof doesn’t mean proof of absence.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

Perhaps the biggest contradiction in the nativity narratives is trying to combine a virgin birth while maintaining that Jesus was of the “seed” of David.

Paul, writings 25 years earlier than Matthew, says that Jesus had a normal birth. Romans 1: 3 " Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh," (NAB) ie a natural birth.

The embryology at that time (and in fact up until the 1800’s when the ova was discovered) maintained that the entire offspring was contained in miniture form in the male seed. (Later called the homunculus or little man). The women supplied the nutrients if she was “fertile” or not if she was “barren” but never the “seed.”

So there are two alternatives: a virginal conception with Joseph not the biological father, or a natural conception with Joseph providing the “seed of David.”

It would seem that Matthew and Luke, after constructing a genealogy to prove that Jesus was indeed of the seed of David, would not have then had Jesus not be of the seed of David.(This suggests later interpolations).

To all appearances, he was of the house of David. Tradition also holds (and it is very likely) that Mary was also of the house of David. If it comes down to it, I think that God probably would be powerful enough to use a “seed” from the House of David to cause the miraculous pregnancy. Come to think of it, He created the whole universe, so it probably wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for Him to do that.

 

[RyanL]

Perhaps the biggest contradiction in the nativity narratives is trying to combine a virgin birth while maintaining that Jesus was of the “seed” of David.

You really are new at this, aren’t you?
Little Les:

Paul, writings 25 years earlier than Matthew, says that Jesus had a normal birth. Romans 1: 3 " Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh," (NAB) ie a natural birth.

I would agree that the birth was a natural, uterine birth. I’m pretty sure most Catholics would.
Little Les:

The embryology at that time (and in fact up until the 1800’s when the ova was discovered) maintained that the entire offspring was contained in miniture form in the male seed. (Later called the homunculus or little man). The women supplied the nutrients if she was “fertile” or not if she was “barren” but never the “seed.”

Right. The man supplies the “seed”. But let’s look at something else…

• Gen 3:*15 And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The seed of the woman. Right there in Genesis, and in the context of predicting the coming of the One who would crush the serpent. No where else does Scripture talk about the seed of the woman. Interesting, no?
Little Les:

So there are two alternatives: a virginal conception with Joseph not the biological father, or a natural conception with Joseph providing the “seed of David.”

Or you could try reading the Bible and get yet another alternative - the virgin conception and the seed of David.
Little Les:

It would seem that Matthew and Luke, after constructing a genealogy to prove that Jesus was indeed of the seed of David, would not have then had Jesus not be of the seed of David.(This suggests later interpolations).

If you’re adopted by a man, who’s your father? What’s your lineage? If a king adopted a son, would that son stand in line for the throne? What’s a covenant, and is adoption a form of covenant?

Also, your previous post manifested some measure of ignorance concerning the Gen 3:15 prophesy (a.k.a., “protoevangelion” for those who are familiar with this topic) concerning the seed of the woman. Want to reassess?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Little_Les]

Perhaps, as I said earlier, they were only in Egypt for a short time period, and never missed a Passover. Maybe Luke didn’t mention anything about those details because Matthew already mentioned it and he didn’t feel any particular need to repeat it for the audience he was writing to.

As to why Josephus didn’t mention it, who knows? It would be nice if he had for our case, but absence of proof doesn’t mean proof of absence.

RESPONSE:

Hardly. Considering the vast differences between Luke and Matthew’s gospels, it whould be highly improbable that either knew of the other’s.

If they had, perhaps they’d have gotten their stories straight.

Ah yes, Carl Sagan’s old absence of proof argument. But its somewhat flawed. May I intelligently argue that St.Peter had a halo because there is no evidence to the contrary?

I’d prefer to seek such certitude as the nature of the thing allows.

 

[Little_Les]

Right. The man supplies the “seed”. But let’s look at something else…

• Gen 3:*15 And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The seed of the woman. Right there in Genesis, and in the context of predicting the coming of the One who would crush the serpent. No where else does Scripture talk about the seed of the woman. Interesting, no?

God Bless,
RyanL

RESPONSE:

It’s necessary to recognize that when used collectively “seed” refers to a people not an individual. In the case of Genesis, the “seed” is Israel.

But when speaking of the procreation of a specific human person, “seed” is always from the male.

Elsewhere the term son of “your loins” is used.

In the case of the Messiah, the specific promise made in 2 Sam 7:12-13:

"And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm.

It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever. "

 

[Little_Les]

If you’re adopted by a man, who’s your father? What’s your lineage? If a king adopted a son, would that son stand in line for the throne? What’s a covenant, and is adoption a form of covenant?

Also, your previous post manifested some measure of ignorance concerning the Gen 3:15 prophesy (a.k.a., “protoevangelion” for those who are familiar with this topic) concerning the seed of the woman. Want to reassess?

God Bless,
RyanL

Sorry again, Ryan,

Under Mosaic law both the priesthood and kingship had to be passed from father to son. A son could be adopted, but he could not inherit the priesthood or kingship.

Gen 3:15 " I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

Yes, Israel vs satan.

 

[RyanL]

RESPONSE:

It’s necessary to recognize that when used collectively “seed” refers to a people not an individual. In the case of Genesis, the “seed” is Israel.

Lulz. It’s also necessary to recognize when someone is claiming an infallible interpretation of Scripture. Tell me – do you happen to refer to yourself as Pope Les the First?

But when speaking of the procreation of a specific human person, “seed” is always from the male.

Begging the question - that’s precisely the point at issue. Poor way to reason, mon frere.

Elsewhere the term son of “your loins” is used.

In the case of the Messiah, the specific promise made in 2 Sam 7:12-13:

"And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm.

It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever. "

And?

Gen 3:15 " I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

Yes, Israel vs satan.

Yes. AND Jesus vs. Satan. AND Christians vs. Satan. Scripture is polyvalent, amigo – you’d do a bit better to recognize this rather than stick with your odd form of dichotomy-only fundamentalism. The fact remains that the woman’s seed in Gen 3:15 can quite easily (and with much historical accord) be construed in reference to the virgin birth.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Little_Les]

It is probably a waste of time to deal with littleles. These so called contradictions have been thoroughly dealt with so many times. It seems this is a trial run for him. Perhaps he is a newbie.

He will wear you out with the vast list he is using. If you want to continue to engage deal with only one at a time.

Perhaps we can help him by pointing to some resources he can truly learn from.

RESPONSE:

Yes. Apologists have tried unsuccessfully to explain them away for years. They have had generatioins to develop counterarguments. But their arguments still fail.

Thus these facts remain as evidence that scripture is frequently in error and contradictory.

The belief systems of some demand that they accept the most unlikely arguments, even the absurd ones.

Unless one is willing to accept that God is responsible for the errors, they are not divinely inspired.

 

[Little_Les]

I’m going to assume that I’ve been doing a bad job of explaining my position.

What I am saying is that the census Luke is referring to in his Gospel is NOT the one that took place in 6 AD…it is the same one described by Matthew, and took place somewhere between 6 and 3 BC. If it WERE the one in 6 AD, that would indeed be a contradiction.

There is no contradiction because:
a) the Greek term in Luke 2 (“hegemon”) which is translated “governor” is, in the Greek, a more general term, equating more to our English “ruler”.
b) Justin Martyr said that Quirinius was procurator, NOT governor, at the time Luke’s census was undertaken.
QUOTE]

Please present your evidence that Justin Martyr said that Quirinius was NOT governor.

As I pointed out before the word “governor” didn’t exist when the Gospels were written. It the word came into common use, it was used in the translation.

 

[Little_Les]

Lulz. It’s also necessary to recognize when someone is claiming an infallible interpretation of Scripture. Tell me – do you happen to refer to yourself as Pope Les the First?

Begging the question - that’s precisely the point at issue. Poor way to reason, mon frere.

And?

Yes. AND Jesus vs. Satan. AND Christians vs. Satan. Scripture is polyvalent, amigo – you’d do a bit better to recognize this rather than stick with your odd form of dichotomy-only fundamentalism. The fact remains that the woman’s seed in Gen 3:15 can quite easily (and with much historical accord) be construed in reference to the virgin birth.

God Bless,
RyanL

RESPONSE:

Only by the most distorted of reasoning. Genesis 3:15 in no way states or even implies a virgin birth.

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”

How do you propose to get a virgin birth out of that?

 

[Little_Les]

The divine promise made to David 2 Sam 7:12-13:

"And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. ’

Thus the Messiah will biologically come from the “seed” of David
(Note: The Hebrew generation is exclusively through the male)

(Paul) Romans 1:3 “Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh,” (DR)

 

[agangbern]

If Matthew states Jesus was a descendant of Solomon and Luke claims that Jesus was a descentant of Nathan, one is clearly in error. That was PROVEN.

No, there is no error if one would take into account the fact that the man Jesus was a son of Joseph and Mary. Mathew could be looking at the line of Joseph being the father of Jesus while Luke could be looking at the line of Mary being the mother Jesus. There is no error there. Try studying the phenomena further.

 

[Little_Les]

No, there is no error if one would take into account the fact that the man Jesus was a son of Joseph and Mary. Mathew could be looking at the line of Joseph being the father of Jesus while Luke could be looking at the line of Mary being the mother Jesus. There is no error there. Try studying the phenomena further.

Once again, recognize that Hebrew lineage passed exclusively through male seed (which was thought to contain the entire offspring, latter called the homoculus or little man). Never the woman’s.

Apologists attempt this argument to try to reconcile the virgin birth with Jesus’ supposed Davidic origin.

Look closely at God’s primise in II Samuel::

"And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm.

It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever.

I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. And if he does wrong, I will correct him with the rod of men and with human chastisements;

but I will not withdraw my favor from him as I withdrew it from your predecessor Saul, whom I removed from my presence.

Your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before me; your throne shall stand firm forever.’"

Note also that Luke has his geneaology pass through Nathan who never sat on the throne of Israel.

But it was Solomon’s (seed) line that was to produce the Messiah, not Nathan’s.

“Royal throne firm forever.” Sometimes translated “His kingdom endurath forever.”

 

[agangbern]

But it was Solomon’s (seed) line that was to produce the Messiah, not Nathan’s.

Where is that in the bible?

 

[Little_Les]

Where is that in the bible?

2 Sam 7: 12-13:
“And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever.” (NAB)

Note: Solomon, not David nor Nathan, built the Temple.

And,

1 Chron 22:9-10:
" However, a son is to be born to you. He will be a peaceful man, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. For Solomon shall be his name, and in his time I will bestow peace and tranquillity on Israel.

It is he who shall build a house in my honor; he shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish the throne of his kingship over Israel forever." (NAB)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

2 Sam 7: 12-13:
“And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever.” (NAB)

Note: Solomon, not David nor Nathan, built the Temple.

And,

1 Chron 22:9-10:
" However, a son is to be born to you. He will be a peaceful man, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. For Solomon shall be his name, and in his time I will bestow peace and tranquillity on Israel.

It is he who shall build a house in my honor; he shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish the throne of his kingship over Israel forever." (NAB)

OTOH, “for ever” may not mean what a modern reader might take it to mean - phrases like that crop up a good deal in the literatures of Israel’s neigbours, as well as in her own. In those contexts, they mean no more than “a long time”. If we were not use to reading the Bible out of its ancient context, we would probably have no trouble in understanding the OT in that sense too.​

Which is not to say that the NT writers did not see in those texts as applied to Christ a depth of of meaning that of themselves those texts do not have, when applied to a mere man. Psalm 72 is not unremarkable as applied to a mortal king, if hyperbolic - but the kingdom of Christ really will outlast the sun & moon.

FWIW - the promise to David here is conditional.

 

[agangbern]

2 Sam 7: 12-13:
“And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever.” (NAB)

And,

1 Chron 22:9-10:
" However, a son is to be born to you. He will be a peaceful man, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. For Solomon shall be his name, and in his time I will bestow peace and tranquillity on Israel.

It is he who shall build a house in my honor; he shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish the throne of his kingship over Israel forever." (NAB)

Both prophecies refer to Jesus Christ. It is Christ’s “royal throne that is firm forever”, not of King Solomon. Jesus Christ Himself is the fulfillment of those prophecies in the bible.

 

[Little_Les]

Both prophecies refer to Jesus Christ. It is Christ’s “royal throne that is firm forever”, not of King Solomon. Jesus Christ Himself is the fulfillment of those prophecies in the bible.

Lets look closely at what is precisely prophecised.

“2 Sam 7: 12-13:
“And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever.” (NAB)”

If Joesph is not Jesus’s biological father - Jesus is not of his actual seed (NOT “sprung from your loins”) - then Jesus does NOT fulfil this prophecy.

A virginal conception does NOT fulfill this prophecy.

 

[agangbern]

Lets look closely at what is precisely prophecised.

“2 Sam 7: 12-13:
“And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, and I will make his kingdom firm. It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever.” (NAB)”

If Joesph is not Jesus’s biological father - Jesus is not of his actual seed (NOT “sprung from your loins”) - then Jesus does NOT fulfil this prophecy.

A virginal conception does NOT fulfill this prophecy.

Why would it not fulfill the prophecy? God willed that Joseph be recognized as His human father, so be it! Since God willed it, all the privileges accompanying that human fatherhood is vested in it. That is indicated in the narrative in Mathew.

Now, the narrative in Luke emphasized the “supposedness” of Joseph’s fatherhood. That indicates that Luke narrated the genealogy of Jesus in the line of Mary, not of Joseph. But Luke had to choose the name of Joseph in the narrative instead of that of Mary because Mary was a woman. To choose Mary’s name in the narrative instead of Joseph would be inconsistent with their practice of having the genealogy narrated along male lines only.The narrative in Luke would lead us to the truth that Mary is a direct descendant of David, Nathan being David’s seed.

 

[Little_Les]

Why would it not fulfill the prophecy? God willed that Joseph be recognized as His human father, so be it! Since God willed it, all the privileges accompanying that human fatherhood is vested in it. That is indicated in the narrative in Mathew.

Now, the narrative in Luke emphasized the “supposedness” of Joseph’s fatherhood. That indicates that Luke narrated the genealogy of Jesus in the line of Mary, not of Joseph. But Luke had to choose the name of Joseph in the narrative instead of that of Mary because Mary was a woman. To choose Mary’s name in the narrative instead of Joseph would be inconsistent with their practice of having the genealogy narrated along male lines only.The narrative in Luke would lead us to the truth that Mary is a direct descendant of David, Nathan being David’s seed.

God’s promise was very specific that the genealogy of Jesus would be through King Solomon’s offspring. Not Nathan’s. He was never a king of Israel.

1 Chron 22:9-10:
" However, a son is to be born to you. He will be a peaceful man, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. For Solomon shall be his name, and in his time I will bestow peace and tranquillity on Israel.

It is he who shall build a house in my honor; he shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish the throne of his kingship over Israel forever." (NAB)

And, as I have pointed out, in Hebrew embroyology, geneaology was exclusively male, never female.

“2 Sam 7: 12-13:
“And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, SPRUNG FROM YOUR LOINS , and I will make his kingdom firm. It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever.” (NAB)”

Romans 1:3:
“Concerning his Son, who was made to him OF THE SEED OF DAVID, according to the flesh…” (DR)

Key concepts: “Solomon” “seed” “from your loins” “royal throne forever.”

Not Nathan or Mary.