How Do JWs Reconcile Contradictions Between Mt. and Lk. and Their Birth Stories?

by Saename 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Saename

  Hello everyone!

  Does anybody know how Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile the contradictions between the stories of Jesus' birth as found in Matthew and Luke? When I was a Jehovah's Witness, I wasn't even aware of this contradiction; I simply thought that all of it happen—namely that there was a census (Luke 2) and the Slaughter of the Innocents (Matthew 2) simultaneously. But at the time I didn't know that the census took place in 6 CE and that Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, thus placing those birth stories 10 years apart in time. Does anyone know if the Watchtower has ever produced any article on this subject?
• 

  Crazyguy

  Sorry they don't think that hard, "contradictions there ain't no contradictions in the Bible!!!!"
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  Also something interesting to ponder: Census would not require man to go back to town where they were born. Those were peasants with cattle to maintain. They could not leave behind their lands and animals to go travelling far away just to get registered. Also, the purpose of the census was for taxes. How could the tax man evaluate the belongings of someone when they are not at home, without their possessions?

  This passage doesn't make sense at all. It was made up solely for one purpose: Put the place of birth of Jesus in Bethlehem so as to fulfill a prophesy.
• 

  schnell

  Did he die at 9am or noon? Which day?
• 

  Half banana

  As far as I am aware (and I'm happy to be corrected) there was never a census in the Roman world at that time, before and after perhaps. The Romans kept very good records and there is none.

  Since the primary documentation of the Christ events were first written in the book called the Gospel of Mark, Luke and Matthew had been included as corroborative evidence although perversely as you point out they are much at odds with each other!

  Luke and Matthew seem to be incorporating their own independent threads of variations on the traditional virgin birth based on pre-christian stories of the "saviour figure". These include the Mithraic legends of Persian origin, based on ancient astrological lore of the birth of the Son of God in the East who were visited by the three wise men (magi or persian astrologers). May I add that the astrological basis for this was that the three stars on the belt of Orion (the three wise men) point down towards Sirius the brightest star, hovering just over the horizon in the east at the winter solstice. I checked the night sky at Christmas and happily confirm this is still the case!

  The "slaughter of the innocents" has no historical record or basis and not even the opponents of Herod subscribed to it. Josephus, a writer of Herod's life and would most certainly have spelled it out, never mentions it. There are however precedents in a number of the earlier saviour myths. Luke's account for example recalls (for a Roman audience) the legend of Romulus and Remus where their births were subject to a Herodian type of decree to slaughter all of the new-borns to deny the heroes a life.

  Whatever the biased Watchtower says in an attempt to synchronise these dubious events; do not believe the Bible as literal truth. It is myth layered upon myth.
• 

  tepidpoultry

  HI saename,

  I can only speak from my experience

  There are many problems in the Bible

  That are not addressed by a JW

  A good JW spends a lot of time fulfilling religious obligation

  Which involves a lot of personal and congregational study

  Of Watch Tower material

  Some will research questions such as you asked

  From Watch Tower publications

  Some are reviewed

  A publisher might then conclude

  I don't really get it but the Society knows so I'm cool,

  Or something's never really covered such as:

  Why did Thomas call Jesus God? ( JWs would disagree)

  But they go on believing the Society will bring them to paradise

  So they don't care

  Or they do

  And eventually leave
• 

  tepidpoultry

  
  
• 

  scratchme1010

  Does anybody know how Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile the contradictions between the stories of Jesus' birth as found in Matthew and Luke?
  

  My guess is that they have some silly simplistic explanation that makes them feel happy in their stupid little bubble. However, I wonder if there's a reason for looking at that particular discrepancy in the bible as opposed to the many others?
  
• 

  Saename

  StephaneLaliberte - Census would not require man to go back to town where they were born. [...] Also, the purpose of the census was for taxes. How could the tax man evaluate the belongings of someone when they are not at home, without their possessions?
  

  Ancient history 101.

  Half banana - As far as I am aware (and I'm happy to be corrected) there was never a census in the Roman world at that time, before and after perhaps. The Romans kept very good records and there is none.
  

  The census did happen in 6 CE. It's just that it was a local census—not a census that was carried out "in the whole world" as the Bible tells it. Quirinius became (legate) governor of Syria, and at the same time also Judea became a Roman province. It was a Roman custom to carry out a census in a new territory for tax purposes (assessment of the citizens' properties and their worth) to see how much money they can get from this new territory. Josephus mentions the census in Antiquities Book XVIII somewhere in chapter I (and it's hard to see how he would have a Christian agenda to pursue.)

  These include the Mithraic legends of Persian origin, based on ancient astrological lore of the birth of the Son of God in the East who were visited by the three wise men (magi or persian astrologers).
  

  Nope. That's a myth that originates from Gerald Massey's book from 1880s (if I were to place a bet—I'm not completely sure, but his book definitely focused on the false connection between Jesus and Horus, so it's not hard to see how he could also give rise to this false connection.) New Atheists on the Internet keep spreading this nonsense for some reason. They don't bother to check the facts. Mithra (the Persian god) didn't have any magi visit him. Mithras (the Roman god) didn't either. (For some other reason, those Internet naive "freethinking" individuals keep confusing the two gods even though they have nothing to do with each other.)

  Luke's account for example recalls (for a Roman audience) the legend of Romulus and Remus where their births were subject to a Herodian type of decree to slaughter all of the new-borns to deny the heroes a life.
  

  Another myth. Amulius wanted to have Romulus and Remus tossed into the Tiber after either killing Illa (otherwise known as Rea Silvia) or hiding her in a dungeon for the rest of her life. There was no decree because Amulius' guards already had Illa and her twin children. If anything, there's a similarity between Romulus and Remus, and Moses because the twins were put in a basket and then tossed into the river, only to be carried away by the waters. It's similar to Moses' birth, but not Luke's Jesus'.

  Anyway, Half banana, I must point out that you are confusing the reason as to why I asked this question. I am not interested in the Watchtower's apologetics. I never find it convincing. I am an agnostic atheist in regards to the belief in god in general, and when it comes to the Christian God, I am a strong atheist. The point of me asking this question on this forum was to find out how Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile the gospels just in case I would debate this point with a Jehovah's Witness in indefinite future. So I know the gospels are making up the story of Jesus' virgin birth to fit their beliefs about the Davidic messiah.

  scratchme1010 - I wonder if there's a reason for looking at that particular discrepancy in the bible as opposed to the many others?

  Right. No specific reason. Just somehow this question popped into my head, and I have a curious mind.
• 

  jwleaks

  It goes like this ... young unmarried JW girl, Mary, falls pregnant. Elder Matthew and Elder John, after consulting with Elder Mark, conduct initial judicial investigation.

  Young unmarried JW girl, Mary, denies having sex with her fiance, Joseph, who himself denies having sex with Mary.

  The elders convene and offer a prayer to jehovah for guidance so as to remove the unknown fornicator from the congregation.

  A short time later jehovah comes clean and says "It was me. I got Mary pregnant even though she was engaged to Joseph at the time. I wanted a son."

  The body of elders ring the Watchtower legal department to report the rape of Joseph's fiancee.

  Watchtower legal ask "Were there two witnesses?" The elders reply "Well jehovah admitted to impregnating the fiance of Joseph."

  Watchtower legal replies "Hmmm. Considering that Mary has denied committing fornication, then no sin has been committed as there are no two, or more, credible witnesses."

  As for Elder Luke, he's not credible as he was never there nor part of the judicial committee.

  Problem solved. And the rest is history...

  By the way, under the Mosaic law the punishment for getting Mary pregnant, while engaged to Joseph, was death. Remember, Joseph, after finding out that Mary was pregnant, went away to get a secret divorce.