Why multiple interpretations?

[visionary]

After all, not all these differing approaches, many of them contradictory, can be correct, so why does God allow this confusion and contradiction, which in many cases weakens the 'case' of Christianity to non-believers, to continue?

Freedom of choice... is the reason why God allows all these confusing statements to exist.

Your approach to God should not be influences by outward appearances. If your quest is to know God.. Then have a one on one with Him... He will deal with those who claim to know Him.

 

[chosenpath]

No problem.

So when was Jesus born according to your timeline?

Jesus Christ was born in 2 BCE. There are several events that are used to derive this conclusion.
1) The census issued by Quirinius during his Syrian Governorship.
(I know, I know theres much speculation over this event)

2) During the Roman Rule of Caeser Augustus and toward the close of the reign of Herod the Great.

3) In relation to John the baptist. This is one aspect rarely covered, but if we look at the information provided in scripture compared to documented history it is relevant.
a) Luke chapter one (1:26 and 1:36) mentions twice the six month age difference between Jesus Christ and John the baptist.
b) The beginning of John the baptists ministry began in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caeser(28-29 CE). John was a Levite and the son of Zacharias who was a priest. According to Numbers 4:3,23,30 those going into sancturary started serving 30 years old and upward. Since Gabriel was specific in Luke 1:15-17 as to what type of priestly ministry John would serve he most likely started that service at age 30 according to the law of the covenant. On this basis John's birth occurred 30 years prior to his ministry which would be approximately 3 BCE to 2 BCE. According to Luke 3:23 Jesus began his ministry at age 30, therefore Jesus Christ was born approximately 2 BCE six monrhs after John.


How do you think Joseph (from Bethlehem) got hooked up with Mary (from Nazareth)? Do you realize how improbable that is?

It is not explained how Joseph and Mary met, however why is this improbable? One way they may have met is during passover in Jerusalem.

Only a man would write a story about hauling a pregnant woman on a donkey (there is no donkey in the story, BTW) or walking the 90 miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem. We are talking about a 4 or 5 day journey, at the very least.
http://www.geocities.com/glory_ark/springbirth.html
I like the suggestion that they were in Jerusalem already for the Passover.

Also, there is no mention in ANY history of Herod's slaughter of the innocents... that certainly would have been noteworthy for both the Jews and the Romans.


True, however it did hold true to Herod's wicked dispostion after all he had his own first born son killed.


Did you think that maybe Matthew was trying to bring up memories of Joseph and Jacob, and the final plague and exodus from Egypt with Moses? He certainly was wrong about his reference to the Isaiah 7:14 prophesy, although that made perfect sense to him, I'm sure. Matthew is constantly trying to find tie ins with Jesus to Jewish history and mythology.

What Matthew received was the fulfillment of prophecy which Isaiah 7:14 depicts. Jesus Christ himself said these sacred mysteries would be revealed to the apostles.

Matthew 13:11
He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

Luke 8:10
And He said, "To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest [it is given] in parables, that 'Seeing they may not see, And hearing they may not understand.'*

Luke 24:44
Then He said to them, "These [are] the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and [the] Prophets and [the] Psalms concerning Me."

John 13:18
"I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me

 

[KCDAD]

chosenpath;50212966]True, however it did hold true to Herod's wicked dispostion after all he had his own first born son killed.

Brilliant! There you have the origin of the slaughter of the innocents.. he killed his own son, not all of Israel's...

What Matthew received was the fulfillment of prophecy which Isaiah 7:14 depicts. Jesus Christ himself said these sacred mysteries would be revealed to the apostles.

Isaiah was speaking directly to King Ahaz about the Assyrian invasion... the word used in verse 14 is Almah , not Bethulah. It means young woman, the female form of lad or young man. Bethulah means a chaste female and Isaiah uses this word elsewhere in book.

Isaiah 7:14 has NOTHING to do with Jesus. NOTHING. The prophesy has nothing to do with a messiah. It is about the King relying on God and not forming an alliance with gentiles. Not ethe name of the boy to be born: GOD WITH US. Isaiah is telling the king of he, through the naming of this child declares that God is with Judah, then God will be all the protection they need. Instead, Ahaz forms an alliance with Assyria, gives his son another name and Judah is overrun and sent to Babylon.

Matthew was fishing for ways to make Jesus acceptable to the Jews. Matthew "received" nothing.