And now a little fun with conservative christian delusion, in this case from Thomas Lindaman.
This is regarding the birth of Christ:
Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel" The prophecy given in Isaiah 7:14 referred not to a virgin but to a young woman, living at the time of the prophecy. And Jesus, of course, was called Jesus and was NEVER called Emmanuel in any other verse in the New Testament. Either Isaiah was wrong (failed Hebrew prophesy) or Jesus wasn't the savior (failed Christianity).
Oh, and the Wise Men following a star? Everyone at the time thought that stars were just little points of light a short distance above the earth. So it'd be no problem to have one hover above a particular place for a while, would it? In one story Mary and Joseph go directly to Egypt. In the other story they go to Jerusalem and then to Nazareth. Oops. Herod kills all boys in and around Bethlehem that are two years old and under. Such a massacre would certainly have been noted by contemporary historians. Yet not even Josephus, who documented Herod's life in detail, mentioned this event.
What about Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem for the census? At the time of Jesus's alleged birth (4-6 BC), Judea was independent. It did not form part of the Roman empire. Hence, the emperor could not give the order for a census. Even assuming that a census was ordered: one would have to register in the place of residence, or nearest administrative center. NOT in the place of ancestral origin. Anything else would simply not make any sense. Now, Herod was not a Jew, but a Nabatean. He wasn't very popular, if only because he wasn't a proper Jew. Add that he had fought a war to gain & keep his throne. The very last thing on his mind would be ordering a census.
What about Jesus being from Nazareth? Matthew 2:23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene."" "He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew claims this was a fulfillment of prophecy, yet such a prophecy is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. "Nazarene" actually referred to a sect of Jews that was later identified with the Ebionites. The writers misunderstood the term "Nazarene." They thought it meant someone from a city called Nazareth. Pretty funny.
And here's the biggest problem: Nazareth did not exist! The evidence for a 1st century town of Nazareth does not exist - not literary, not archaeological, and not historical. It is an imaginary city for an imaginary god-man. Nazareth wasn't founded until long after Jesus was written as dead. Basically the writers had to figure out a way to make Jesus a "Nazarene" (mistakenly thinking it meant "a person from Nazareth"), yet somehow make him born in Bethlehem. That's why they created that ridiculous census story. The fact that the story of a census requiring Joseph to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to be counted was just a silly, clumsy device to get the family from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the birth.
It didn't happen. None of it happened.
You're basing your entire lives on this. And it's what shapes your political views, as well.
Which is funny considering how you guys treat the last real Christian President the White House ever had. Here's a hint: It wasn't Obama, the Bushes, Clinton, or Reagan.