• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Which Navity Story is Correct and Why?

Which Nativity Story is True?


  • Total voters
    23

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
In Alexandria, by the second century, ‘Docetism,’ the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out. But still, there persisted the belief that their Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and excretion, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.” Satan must have had some trouble trying to tempt this false Jesus of theirs into turning stones into bread.

Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the authorities of Emperor Constantine’s universal church, used as one of their authorities when trying to defend their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, (Non-biblical) told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Clement was accepted as a saint in the universal church, which was established by King Constantine, Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clements life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," they certainly got that right, but by then the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth had become firmly established.

As to those poor gullible souls who have been deceived by those false teachings and whose heads are so mixed up and set as hard as concrete, one would need a sledge hammer to crack that concrete and let the light of truth shine in.

I don't believe in gnosticism. I can appreciate why you don't believe in the virgin birth. I'm sure you appreciate the argument for the Virgin birth based on the acoounts in Matthew and Luke along with a God that can perform miracles. There's not really too much more to be said as the virgin birth is much more a matter of faith than reason and science.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Matthew 1:18-25....

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “ Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “ Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “ God with us .” And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. (NASB)

I can see no leeway in this scripture to assume that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. To suggest such a thing is to deny the mechanics of the ransom. Jesus had to be the sinless equivalent of Adam in order to redeem his children. Only a perfect sinless life could balance the scales of God's perfect justice. A life was given for the lives taken by Adam's disobedience. (Romans 5:12)
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Based on whether they record factual history, none of these are likely to be true.

I also don't believe their purpose lies in being akin to modern academic history though so this isn't of great importance.

It is interesting to contrast the gospel nativity narratives with the gospel narratives regarding the crucifixion.

The virgin birth and the appearance of an angel to Joseph is an extraordinary supernatural phenomenon. The crucifixion is not. You can not prove a virgin birth (at least back then) whereas a crucifixion was a public event. There is no historic evidence that can support a virgin birth. All we have to support the virgin birth are a literal belief in the gospel accounts and faith in a God that can perform miracles. It is only logical for a non-Theist to disbelieve. In fact I can't see how one who doesn't believe in the God of Abraham could entertain the possibility of a virgin birth as recorded in the Gospels, even for a fleeting moment.

Thanks for posting.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't see how anyone can actually witness a virgin birth. Do you? Presumably we have stories passed down through oral traditions whose origins will most likely never be clear.

There is but one possible avenue for the transmission of this oral tradition, if it wasn't a theological construction.

Professor Larry Hurtado noted in a 2006 study that most scholars had reached the conclusion that the nativity narratives arose in first century Jewish-Christian circles. If you read Luke's gospel, you may even notice in English translation that his nativity narrative has a much more 'Semitic', Old Testament-like character to it. The Greek is in a different style to the rest of his gospel account, with lots of hebraicisms and aramaicisms.

It's plausible, therefore, that Luke didn't write the nativity story but incorporated it from an earlier Jewish source.

The leader of the early Jewish Christians - the "circumcision faction" as St. Paul labelled them - was James the Just, the brother of Jesus. Hegesippus reports that he was executed by the Sanhedrin in 62 and Josephus, the Roman historian, was alive at this time in Jerusalem and corroborates this. So he was around until the 60s to provide information about Jesus's upbringing and domestic life.

Jesus, in fact, had many brothers and sisters (James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, and at least two unnamed sisters), who exercised authority in the movement prior to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. and perhaps even up until the emperor Hadrian built Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem and banished all Jews from there (c. 135).

The early Jerusalem church has been described as more a "caliphate" under Jesus's family than a papacy under Peter, despite the latter's recognition as Jesus's most important disciple.

Eusebius has also preserved an extract from a work by Hegesippus (c.110–c.180), who wrote five books (now lost except for some quotations by Eusebius) of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church. The extract refers to the period from the reign of Domitian (81–96) to that of Trajan (98–117), and includes the statement that two Desposyni (the special name reserved for 'blood relatives of Jesus', in this case his nephews by his brother Judas) brought before Domitian later became leaders of the remaining Jewish churches:


There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar...

So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work...

Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church.

When they were released they became leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trajan.


— Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiae, 3:20​


If some kind of supernatural event was reputed to have occurred to Jesus's mother Mary at his conception, the oral knowledge of it could have been preserved and passed down from Jesus's siblings to his nephews and nieces (alive until the very end of the first century or start of the second century, at the latest, if Hegesippus is correct).

Thus, we would expect this tradition to feature not in the churches founded by Paul, or those founded by Peter that led to the Gospel of Mark, or those founded by any other disciple - but by the Jewish-Christians under the keep of the Desposyni (family of Christ) and this is indeed what seems to be the case given the stark Hebraic character of the nativity accounts, even in Gentile Luke.
 
Last edited:

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Neither. Looks like were back to talking about literalism again. Why does it have to be correct, why can't it just be a story and you take out of it what speaks to you.

Please dont tell me "Because it's true"
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
This question was raised recently during a discussion with a Muslim on RF. I found the question intriguing so thought I'd open it up for anyone interested.

We have two gospel accounts of the birth of Christ and one in the Quran.

Matthew 1:18-25 and Matthew 2:1-14 records to the virgin Mary Jesus becoming pregnant through the Holy spirit and an angel of the Lord appearing to Joseph. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judaea. Wise men were called to meet with King Herod in Jerusalem after hearing how the King of the Jews was to be born. Herod commands them to go find the child, and to report back to him. These wise men then follow a star in the East until it stood over the place where Jesus lay. They enter a house and see Jesus with his mother. They rejoice and fall down worshipping Him. They offer gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh and return home having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod.

Luke 2:7-16 writes of Jesus being wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger because there was no room at the inn. Shepherds take it in turn to watch their flocks in the fields during the night; and an angel of the Lord having frightened the shepherds by his appearance speaks words of comfort. "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." The shepherds hurrying off and find Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the manger.

The Quran (Maryam: 22-27) records And so it was ordained: she conceived him. She withdrew to a distant place and, when the pains of childbirth drove her to (cling to) the trunk of a palm tree, she exclaimed, ‘I wish I had been dead and forgotten long before all this!’ but a voice cried to her from below, ‘Do not worry: your Lord has provided a stream at your feet and, if you shake the trunk of the palm tree towards you, it will deliver fresh ripe dates for you, so eat, drink, be glad, and say to anyone you may see: “I have vowed to the Lord of Mercy to abstain from conversation, and I will not talk to anyone today.” She went back to her people carrying the child.

So three different accounts with significantly differences.

Which account(s) are true if any and why?

For what its worth I believe they are all theological narratives as opposed to strictly historic and all three are correct in essence.

Baha'is like Christians and Muslims uphold the mystery of the virgin birth.
Are there any contradictions between Lucke and Mathew? As far as I know each author focses on different details, but I don’t see any contradictions.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Matthew 1:18-25 and Matthew 2:1-14 records to the virgin Mary Jesus becoming pregnant through the Holy spirit and an angel of the Lord appearing to Joseph. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judaea. Wise men were called to meet with King Herod in Jerusalem after hearing how the King of the Jews was to be born. Herod commands them to go find the child, and to report back to him. These wise men then follow a star in the East until it stood over the place where Jesus lay. They enter a house and see Jesus with his mother. They rejoice and fall down worshipping Him. They offer gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh and return home having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod.

Luke 2:7-16 writes of Jesus being wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger because there was no room at the inn. Shepherds take it in turn to watch their flocks in the fields during the night; and an angel of the Lord having frightened the shepherds by his appearance speaks words of comfort. "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." The shepherds hurrying off and find Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the manger.

Our understanding is that Luke is how he was born. In Matthew, he is now a child and thus Herod killed all male children of 3 years old and younger. So no contradictions. Certainly to add Maryam would make it an impossibility for all three to be correct IMO.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Are there any contradictions between Lucke and Mathew? As far as I know each author focses on different details, but I don’t see any contradictions.

Our understanding is that Luke is how he was born. In Matthew, he is now a child and thus Herod killed all male children of 3 years old and younger. So no contradictions. Certainly to add Maryam would make it an impossibility for all three to be correct IMO.

Thank you both for your responses.

I think its reasonable to take the perspective of the Gospel accounts not being contradictory. As far as I can see, the main problems with these narratives not being literally true are:

1/ There is no evidence other than the gospel accounts to support the slaughter of the innocents, which is unique to the Gospelof Matthew. Historians are agreed about this. Instead the narrative appears to have been based on the story of Moses as a baby.

Massacre of the Innocents - Wikipedia

2/ Stars due to the lack of proxomity to the earth and size do not behave in the manner outlined

Star of Bethlehem - Wikipedia

In regards the Quranic account why could it not be focusing on further diferences of details as Luke and Matthew do?

What do you consider the most important omission(s) of the nativity story the Quran?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Neither. Looks like were back to talking about literalism again. Why does it have to be correct, why can't it just be a story and you take out of it what speaks to you.

Please dont tell me "Because it's true"

The OP question is open ended. I'm inviting participants to reflect on the most plausible explanations for these verses and why. No one here is insisting everyone else believe as they do. Believing none of them is literally true was an option I made provision for in the poll.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Are there any contradictions between Lucke and Mathew? As far as I know each author focses on different details, but I don’t see any contradictions.
They are 'contradictory', because they are not the same, which suggests, different occurences. For example, there is no flight to egypt, at the beginning, of Luke. There is no circumcision, at the beginning of the book of Matthew. If the two stories were vague, one might conclude they are the same story, however, they aren't vague. It isn't just that there isn't a flight to egypt, in the book of Luke, the story reads as if there wasn't such an occurence. The same could be said, of the circumcision, not being present, in the book of Matthew. This matches the 'gospel of the uncircumcision', in Scripture. It matches, the tradition of non'circumcision, in the Christian church.

I would say they do contradict, because of this.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
They are 'contradictory', because they are not the same, which suggests, different occurences. For example, there is no flight to egypt, at the beginning, of Luke. There is no circumcision, at the beginning of the book of Matthew. If the two stories were vague, one might conclude they are the same story, however, they aren't vague. It isn't just that there isn't a flight go egypt, in the book of Luke, the story reads as if there wasn't such an occurence. The same could be said, of the circumcision, not being present, in the book of Matthew. This matches the 'gospel of the uncircumcision', in Scripture. It matches, the tradition of non'circumcision, in the Christian church.

I would say they do contradict, because of this.
Well if you ask 2 individuals about the party last night, each of them would focus on different details, and each would omit the details that they considered irrelevant. … this is exactly what we would expect to have if these sources where truly independent.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I'm ok with saying the stories are different. Doesn't affect my religious beliefs.:shrug:

I personally just defer to the story that correlates to other verses, texts, what have you. As a matter of conciseness, & expediancy.
Sure they are different, but not contradictory.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
The three nativity narratives shouldn't be read as history.

St. Paul and Mark, our earliest sources, evidence no awareness of an extended narrative about Jesus's birth involving Bethlehem and a virginal conception.

That said, one of the few things all three stories agree on is the virginity of Mary. The fact that Matthew and Luke arrived at this, we presume, independently of one another from their sources may suggest that an earlier non-Markan, non-Pauline Christian tradition of a miraculous conception of Christ existed in earliest Christianity.

But the frame narratives of each are clearly apologetical and theological in nature.

Scholars believe Jesus was born in Nazareth. No star of Bethlehem, no shepherds, no Magi, no Massacre of the Innocents as in the New Testament; no talking palm tree or miraculous baby Jesus speaking as in the Qur'an.

These are spiritually edifying reflections on the significance of Christ and his coming, not history in the sense of, say, the crucifixion.

Good post. I'd bow to your knowledge on scripture over mine, but it gels with my broad understanding in this case anyway.

But...if I stick my tongue in my cheek...this struck me...

The fact that Matthew and Luke arrived at this, we presume, independently of one another from their sources may suggest that an earlier non-Markan, non-Pauline Christian tradition of a miraculous conception of Christ existed in earliest Christianity.

Could be even be a pre-Christian tradition, right?
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Thank you both for your responses.

I think its reasonable to take the perspective of the Gospel accounts not being contradictory. As far as I can see, the main problems with these narratives not being literally true are:

1/ There is no evidence other than the gospel accounts to support the slaughter of the innocents, which is unique to the Gospelof Matthew. Historians are agreed about this. Instead the narrative appears to have been based on the story of Moses as a baby.

Massacre of the Innocents - Wikipedia

2/ Stars due to the lack of proxomity to the earth and size do not behave in the manner outlined

Star of Bethlehem - Wikipedia

In regards the Quranic account why could it not be focusing on further diferences of details as Luke and Matthew do?

What do you consider the most important omission(s) of the nativity story the Quran?

The Anointed……..I could use any of a number of authorities to supply evidence of the 6 BC triple conjunction of the "King Planet" Jupiter, with Mars, the “God of War” and Saturn the “God of Time,” who brings the golden age of peace to the earth, which I believe was read by the wise men as the sign that was prophesied to herald the birth of the promised King, (Jupiter) who was to succeed to the throne of David the warrior king, (Mars) as the prophesied Messianic King of Israel, who is to come and subdue the surrounding Nations and bring in the golden Age of one thousand years of peace. Saturn.

The Chinese astronomical records which have proven very reliable reported a comet of 5 BC which was visible for 70 days, and was reported to have a tail. The Chinese also record a comet of 4 BC, which had no tail and whether it was a comet or a nova is unknown. If it was a nova in 4 BC, which is the death of a star, it would have coincided with the death of Herod the Great in that same year.

All short period comets which re-appear every two hundred years of less, have their aphelia in the orbit of Jupiter and even up until relatively recent times, those short period comets were thought to have been created from material ejected from the King Planet Jupiter and were called the family of Jupiter.

The comet of early 5 B.C., would have been captured by the gravitation pull of the triple conjunction, and IMO, who have been seen as the child born of the glorious expanded body of Jupiter, and it was this that set them on their Journey to Israel.

The Comet, or Hairy star as they were called in those days, would have first been seen low on the eastern horizon, having of itself no apparent movement other than being one among the background of star that appear to travel from the east to the west according to the rotation of the earth, and yet each night it would appear in a different heavenly position as it travelled toward the western horizon in it 70 days of visibility in the northern hemisphere.

How long was it before the wise men, after seeing the comet early in the spring of 5 BC, which is believed to have been the inspiration for them to travel to Jerusalem, decided that they should go to pay homage to the heir of that throne, and to organize that trip? And how long did it take them to travel from Mesopotamia to Jerusalem?

The only help that we receive from the Bible is found in Ezra 7: 8-9; "They (Ezra and his group) left Babylonia on the first day of the first month, and with God’s help they arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month."

Four months, it took them to travel to Jerusalem. Even if we halve that time and take into account that the comet which inspired them to travel to Jerusalem had not appeared until sometime after the triple conjunction of 6 BC, which had heralded the birth of Jesus, there is no possible way that the wise men could have seen the baby Jesus in the manger in Bethlehem of Judaea, as the family (According to Luke) had returned to Nazareth 2 months after the birth of the child in Bethlehem.

On bright moonlit or cloudy nights or dust storms, the comet would be hidden from view, and apparently this was what had happened before they reached Jerusalem and went to the Palace of Herod and asked; “Where is the baby born to be the king of the Jews?”

They believed that the child had been already been born.

After revealing to Herod in 4 B.C., that they had seen the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of the promised Messiah almost two years previously, and it was in accordance to this information that Herod determined the age of the children who were to be slaughtered, all those who had been born in 6 B.C., or after.

Having been told that the child was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem of Judaea, (But we know from Luke that the family had left Bethlehem 41 days after the child had been born) the wise men Left the palace of Herod, and behold, there in the north west of Jerusalem the star that they had seen in the east, was visible once again, and Oh what joy was theirs.

Traveling north in the direction of the hairy star we can almost picture the scene, the wise men with their entourage travelling along the dusty roads of northern Israel, it’s late in the day and as they come to a rise, there, just above the distant horizon, in the deepening darkness of the evening sky, is the star with its tail streaming up into the heavens and appearing to stand over the small and insignificant hamlet of "Nazareth," as it slowly followed the setting sun.

After entering the house of Joseph and Mary, the wise men paid homage to the child Jesus, That night, after paying homage to the child Jesus, the wise men, who would presumably have travelled to Jerusalem across the Kings Highway, were warned in a dream not to reveal to Herod the child’s whereabouts, and they returned home by a different route from which they had come, which would, more than likely, have been up through the northern route of Damascus, and Joseph was also warned to get out of bed immediately and take the child and his mother and flee into Egypt.

Herod’s secret police had eyes and ears throughout the entire land, and when he realised that he had been tricked and the wise men were not going to return and reveal the child’s location as promised, he was furious and gave the order to kill all the male children in the district that Herod's spies had confirmed that the wise men with their entourage had travelled to, which was around Bethlehem of Galilee, who were two years and below according to the time that he learned from the wise men about when they had first sighted the star that had heralded the birth of the promised king and savour.

According to Josephus the historian, Sepphoris, which is only about 4 miles from Bethlehem of Galilee, which town is now called Beitlahm, and a few kilometres from Nazareth, had a population of around thirty thousand and he called it, "The Ornament of Galilee."

Around the time of Herod’s death in the spring of 4BC, just after he had ordered the slaughter of the innocents around the district of Bethlehem of Galilee, who were two years and below, according to the time that the wise men had seen the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of Jesus in 6 B.C. there were riots among the peasants of the area in Galilee of which Sepphoris was the centre. Judas, the son of Hezekias attacked the arsenal of Herod in the city of Sepphoris in order to arm the peasants.

The Romans under Quintillius Varus of Syria, attacked and burnt the city, putting down the uprising in which many families died and others were taken prisoner and transported to Rome, where they were sold as slaves. But Joseph, with his wife and her child had escaped the slaughter by fleeing into Egypt.

After a failed suicide attempt, which I believe may have been an option given to him by Caesar Augustus, in the spring of 4 BC, Herod the Great died, then in the spring of 3 B.C., after the death of Herod his father, when Antipas returned from Rome where his father’s will had been ratified by Augustus, he chose and rebuilt the magnificent city of Sepphoris as his capital city for ruling over Galilee.

upload_2019-1-30_10-24-5.png


This gives some idea of how a comet could be seen to stand over a house as it slowly follows the setting sun. Of course the comet that led the wise men to Nazareth would have been nowhere near as big and bright as the McNaught comet seen here.

The McNaught comet will probably never be seen again. Its current orbit is hyperbolic which means the comet will be ejected from the inner Solar System never to return. After it leaves the influence of the planets and it will remain bound to the outermost dome of our Solar System as an Oort Cloud comet
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
The OP question is open ended. I'm inviting participants to reflect on the most plausible explanations for these verses and why. No one here is insisting everyone else believe as they do. Believing none of them is literally true was an option I made provision for in the poll.

Yes I noticed that and voted accordingly. I guess I've never considered which one is more plausible, when as far as I'm concerned the story is a myth, so gave it no more thought
 

Trackdayguy

Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
The Anointed……..I could use any of a number of authorities to supply evidence of the 6 BC triple conjunction of the "King Planet" Jupiter, with Mars, the “God of War” and Saturn the “God of Time,” who brings the golden age of peace to the earth, which I believe was read by the wise men as the sign that was prophesied to herald the birth of the promised King, (Jupiter) who was to succeed to the throne of David the warrior king, (Mars) as the prophesied Messianic King of Israel, who is to come and subdue the surrounding Nations and bring in the golden Age of one thousand years of peace. Saturn.

Nice pic

The Chinese astronomical records which have proven very reliable reported a comet of 5 BC which was visible for 70 days, and was reported to have a tail. The Chinese also record a comet of 4 BC, which had no tail and whether it was a comet or a nova is unknown. If it was a nova in 4 BC, which is the death of a star, it would have coincided with the death of Herod the Great in that same year.

All short period comets which re-appear every two hundred years of less, have their aphelia in the orbit of Jupiter and even up until relatively recent times, those short period comets were thought to have been created from material ejected from the King Planet Jupiter and were called the family of Jupiter.

The comet of early 5 B.C., would have been captured by the gravitation pull of the triple conjunction, and IMO, who have been seen as the child born of the glorious expanded body of Jupiter, and it was this that set them on their Journey to Israel.

The Comet, or Hairy star as they were called in those days, would have first been seen low on the eastern horizon, having of itself no apparent movement other than being one among the background of star that appear to travel from the east to the west according to the rotation of the earth, and yet each night it would appear in a different heavenly position as it travelled toward the western horizon in it 70 days of visibility in the northern hemisphere.

How long was it before the wise men, after seeing the comet early in the spring of 5 BC, which is believed to have been the inspiration for them to travel to Jerusalem, decided that they should go to pay homage to the heir of that throne, and to organize that trip? And how long did it take them to travel from Mesopotamia to Jerusalem?

The only help that we receive from the Bible is found in Ezra 7: 8-9; "They (Ezra and his group) left Babylonia on the first day of the first month, and with God’s help they arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month."

Four months, it took them to travel to Jerusalem. Even if we halve that time and take into account that the comet which inspired them to travel to Jerusalem had not appeared until sometime after the triple conjunction of 6 BC, which had heralded the birth of Jesus, there is no possible way that the wise men could have seen the baby Jesus in the manger in Bethlehem of Judaea, as the family (According to Luke) had returned to Nazareth 2 months after the birth of the child in Bethlehem.

On bright moonlit or cloudy nights or dust storms, the comet would be hidden from view, and apparently this was what had happened before they reached Jerusalem and went to the Palace of Herod and asked; “Where is the baby born to be the king of the Jews?”

They believed that the child had been already been born.

After revealing to Herod in 4 B.C., that they had seen the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of the promised Messiah almost two years previously, and it was in accordance to this information that Herod determined the age of the children who were to be slaughtered, all those who had been born in 6 B.C., or after.

Having been told that the child was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem of Judaea, (But we know from Luke that the family had left Bethlehem 41 days after the child had been born) the wise men Left the palace of Herod, and behold, there in the north west of Jerusalem the star that they had seen in the east, was visible once again, and Oh what joy was theirs.

Traveling north in the direction of the hairy star we can almost picture the scene, the wise men with their entourage travelling along the dusty roads of northern Israel, it’s late in the day and as they come to a rise, there, just above the distant horizon, in the deepening darkness of the evening sky, is the star with its tail streaming up into the heavens and appearing to stand over the small and insignificant hamlet of "Nazareth," as it slowly followed the setting sun.

After entering the house of Joseph and Mary, the wise men paid homage to the child Jesus, That night, after paying homage to the child Jesus, the wise men, who would presumably have travelled to Jerusalem across the Kings Highway, were warned in a dream not to reveal to Herod the child’s whereabouts, and they returned home by a different route from which they had come, which would, more than likely, have been up through the northern route of Damascus, and Joseph was also warned to get out of bed immediately and take the child and his mother and flee into Egypt.

Herod’s secret police had eyes and ears throughout the entire land, and when he realised that he had been tricked and the wise men were not going to return and reveal the child’s location as promised, he was furious and gave the order to kill all the male children in the district that Herod's spies had confirmed that the wise men with their entourage had travelled to, which was around Bethlehem of Galilee, who were two years and below according to the time that he learned from the wise men about when they had first sighted the star that had heralded the birth of the promised king and savour.

According to Josephus the historian, Sepphoris, which is only about 4 miles from Bethlehem of Galilee, which town is now called Beitlahm, and a few kilometres from Nazareth, had a population of around thirty thousand and he called it, "The Ornament of Galilee."

Around the time of Herod’s death in the spring of 4BC, just after he had ordered the slaughter of the innocents around the district of Bethlehem of Galilee, who were two years and below, according to the time that the wise men had seen the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of Jesus in 6 B.C. there were riots among the peasants of the area in Galilee of which Sepphoris was the centre. Judas, the son of Hezekias attacked the arsenal of Herod in the city of Sepphoris in order to arm the peasants.

The Romans under Quintillius Varus of Syria, attacked and burnt the city, putting down the uprising in which many families died and others were taken prisoner and transported to Rome, where they were sold as slaves. But Joseph, with his wife and her child had escaped the slaughter by fleeing into Egypt.

After a failed suicide attempt, which I believe may have been an option given to him by Caesar Augustus, in the spring of 4 BC, Herod the Great died, then in the spring of 3 B.C., after the death of Herod his father, when Antipas returned from Rome where his father’s will had been ratified by Augustus, he chose and rebuilt the magnificent city of Sepphoris as his capital city for ruling over Galilee.

View attachment 26748

This gives some idea of how a comet could be seen to stand over a house as it slowly follows the setting sun. Of course the comet that led the wise men to Nazareth would have been nowhere near as big and bright as the McNaught comet seen here.

The McNaught comet will probably never be seen again. Its current orbit is hyperbolic which means the comet will be ejected from the inner Solar System never to return. After it leaves the influence of the planets and it will remain bound to the outermost dome of our Solar System as an Oort Cloud comet
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
This question was raised recently during a discussion with a Muslim on RF. I found the question intriguing so thought I'd open it up for anyone interested.

We have two gospel accounts of the birth of Christ and one in the Quran.

Matthew 1:18-25 and Matthew 2:1-14 records to the virgin Mary Jesus becoming pregnant through the Holy spirit and an angel of the Lord appearing to Joseph. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judaea. Wise men were called to meet with King Herod in Jerusalem after hearing how the King of the Jews was to be born. Herod commands them to go find the child, and to report back to him. These wise men then follow a star in the East until it stood over the place where Jesus lay. They enter a house and see Jesus with his mother. They rejoice and fall down worshipping Him. They offer gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh and return home having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod.

Luke 2:7-16 writes of Jesus being wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger because there was no room at the inn. Shepherds take it in turn to watch their flocks in the fields during the night; and an angel of the Lord having frightened the shepherds by his appearance speaks words of comfort. "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." The shepherds hurry off and find Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the manger.

The Quran (Maryam: 22-27) records And so it was ordained: she conceived him. She withdrew to a distant place and, when the pains of childbirth drove her to (cling to) the trunk of a palm tree, she exclaimed, ‘I wish I had been dead and forgotten long before all this!’ but a voice cried to her from below, ‘Do not worry: your Lord has provided a stream at your feet and, if you shake the trunk of the palm tree towards you, it will deliver fresh ripe dates for you, so eat, drink, be glad, and say to anyone you may see: “I have vowed to the Lord of Mercy to abstain from conversation, and I will not talk to anyone today.” She went back to her people carrying the child.

So three different accounts with significantly differences.

Which account(s) are true if any and why?

For what its worth I believe they are all theological narratives as opposed to strictly historic and all three are correct in essence.

Baha'is like Christians and Muslims uphold the mystery of the virgin birth.
This is like making up a story to fit prophecy. Matthew and Luke knew where the story was heading. They needed a miraculous beginning to a miraculous life. Most of the prophecies that are fulfilled are very much out of context. Since Luke and Matthew weren't there, then where did these stories come from? From traditions? From Mary? Since the two gospel stories vary so much, were there multiple traditions? But, Christianity needed a great story and, I think, invented one. And, this is one case where I wish the Baha'is would say that the Virgin Birth didn't happen... that it was only symbolic.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
This is like making up a story to fit prophecy. Matthew and Luke knew where the story was heading. They needed a miraculous beginning to a miraculous life. Most of the prophecies that are fulfilled are very much out of context. Since Luke and Matthew weren't there, then where did these stories come from? From traditions? From Mary? Since the two gospel stories vary so much, were there multiple traditions? But, Christianity needed a great story and, I think, invented one.

Isaiah 7:14 certainly appears out of context. Matthew was more Jewish and Luke more Greek.

The origins of the virgin birth if not theological have been explored by a Christian contributor to this thread.

Which Navity Story is Correct and Why?

And, this is one case where I wish the Baha'is would say that the Virgin Birth didn't happen... that it was only symbolic.

Whether or not it was literally true or symbolic makes little difference to Baha'i theology. However when someone comes along and claims Baha'is don't believe in miracles, clearly we do.

Do Baha'i believe Jesus or the Holy Spirit can cure the Leper?
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
This question was raised recently during a discussion with a Muslim on RF. I found the question intriguing so thought I'd open it up for anyone interested.

We have two gospel accounts of the birth of Christ and one in the Quran.

Matthew 1:18-25 and Matthew 2:1-14 records to the virgin Mary Jesus becoming pregnant through the Holy spirit and an angel of the Lord appearing to Joseph. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judaea. Wise men were called to meet with King Herod in Jerusalem after hearing how the King of the Jews was to be born. Herod commands them to go find the child, and to report back to him. These wise men then follow a star in the East until it stood over the place where Jesus lay. They enter a house and see Jesus with his mother. They rejoice and fall down worshipping Him. They offer gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh and return home having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod.

Luke 2:7-16 writes of Jesus being wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger because there was no room at the inn. Shepherds take it in turn to watch their flocks in the fields during the night; and an angel of the Lord having frightened the shepherds by his appearance speaks words of comfort. "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." The shepherds hurry off and find Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the manger.

The Quran (Maryam: 22-27) records And so it was ordained: she conceived him. She withdrew to a distant place and, when the pains of childbirth drove her to (cling to) the trunk of a palm tree, she exclaimed, ‘I wish I had been dead and forgotten long before all this!’ but a voice cried to her from below, ‘Do not worry: your Lord has provided a stream at your feet and, if you shake the trunk of the palm tree towards you, it will deliver fresh ripe dates for you, so eat, drink, be glad, and say to anyone you may see: “I have vowed to the Lord of Mercy to abstain from conversation, and I will not talk to anyone today.” She went back to her people carrying the child.

So three different accounts with significantly differences.

Which account(s) are true if any and why?

For what its worth I believe they are all theological narratives as opposed to strictly historic and all three are correct in essence.

Baha'is like Christians and Muslims uphold the mystery of the virgin birth.


It's amazing how people look at Muhammad as a prophet, But Muhammad can not even keep the stories straight as for the one Muhammad speaks about in the Qu'ran (Maryam: 22-27) is about Ha-gar the Egyptian that was Abraham's wife Sarah handmaiden.

All I had to do is read the first sentence of what you posted, and knew right off that the story Muhammad written about in the Qu'ran
( Maryam: 22-27) was not about Mary the mother of Jesus, But about Har-gar the Egyptian woman that was Abraham's wife Sarah's handmaiden. This is what happens when you have people like Muhammad that can not read or write and people like this only repeat's what they heard from others but gets the stories all mix up.
See the book of Genesis 21:9-17, and compare what is written here in the bible and compare to the Qu'ran ( Maryam: 22-27), That it's about
Ha-gar the Egyptian woman the handmaiden of Sarah Abraham's wife.

But then Muhammad does this throughout the Qu'ran.
Seeing people haven't a clue or idea about the bible or the Qu'ran, people are easy to be deceived by Muhammad the false prophet

Just another failed attempt by the false prophet Muhammad.
 
Last edited:
Top