Which two gospels mention the Christmas story?

Matthew and Luke both mention the Christmas story. They each give different details because their books are intended for different audiences.

Matthew contains 90 different references to Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled by the birth of Jesus. Since one of the prophecies was that Jesus be "of the house and lineage of David", Matthew gives the details of Joseph. He shows that Jesus would have been the heir to the throne of Israel had they not been under Roman rule. Matthew also tells of the Wise Men (or magi) who visited Jesus shortly after his birth, because that was a fulfillment of prophecies given in Number 24. He does not mention the angels, shepherds and census because they were not prophesied in the Old Testament.

Luke give the details of Jesus' birth through the eyes of his mother, Mary. That is why he includes the genealogy of Mary, not Joseph in chapter 3. You can see the "female" point of view, because Luke is considered with relationships and emotions, not fulfilled prophecy. So he gives us the singing angels, the wide eyed shepherds, and the innocent young woman who dedicated herself to the service of God.

Matthew was written by one of Jesus' 12 disciples. While Luke did not know Jesus personally. In the open verses of Luke, it says that what he records as what he personally researched out, and that he talked to the actual witnesses involved before writing the book. You can see that he most have gotten the story of the birth of Jesus from Mary herself. It is too intimate, detailed, and "feminine" in its perspective to have come from the pen of a male. Matthew, on the other hand, has "male" all over it. Big, important, and full of facts and prophecies, rather then details and relationships.

The two story do not contradict each other. They do not have Jesus born in two different cities, or to different times in history, or to different parents. They merely focus in on different details of the event. Kind of like the coverage you get of events today where one reporter focuses on what was said and done, while another focuses on who were there, what they wore, and what couples were together at the event.

Matthew and Luke

Wise Men - Matthew = Yes / Luke = No

Shepherds - Matthew = No / Luke = Yes

Star in the East - Matthew = Yes / Luke = No

Slaughter of the male children - Matthew = Yes / Luke = No

Before the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary live in - Matthew = Bethlehem / Luke = Nazareth

Matthew vs. Luke: Disentangling the Gospel Contradictions

December is a time of the year when many people think about the nativity stories about Jesus - but do they think very closely and carefully? If they do, they will notice that only two of the four gospels say anything about the nativity (odd, if it's really important) and those two accounts are very different. The popular nativity scenes most people think of are a blend of the two gospel stories.

In the December 2004 / January 2005 issue of Free Inquiry, Tom Flynn describes some of the basic differences:

The popular image of shepherds and wise men side by side before the cradle? Matthew says wise men. Luke says shepherds. Neither says both. The star in the East? Only in Matthew. “Hark, the herald angels sing” ... but only in Luke. Matthew never heard of them.

But then, only Matthew heard of Herod’s slaughter of the innocents ... That’s right, the indiscriminate killing of every male baby in Judea — with one significant exception — did not merit Luke’s attention. On the other hand, no Roman historian chronicles this atrocity either, not even Flavius Josephus. Josephus reviled Herod and took care to lay at his feet every crime for which even a shred of evidence existed. Had Herod really slaughtered those innocents, it is almost unimaginable that Josephus would have failed to chronicle it.

Matthew says Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, moving to Nazareth after their flight into Egypt ... But Luke says Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth all along; Jesus was born in Bethlehem only because Joseph and Mary had traveled there to enroll in the census... Roman records mention no such census; in fact, Roman history records no census in which each man was required to return to the city where his ancestral line originated. That’s not how the Romans did things.

It’s not possible for both accounts of the nativity to be right. At least some important details of one or the other must be incorrect — and if such important details are mistaken, the rest of that account must be treated more skeptically as well. More serious, however, is the fact that so few people even recognize these problems. They combine elements of both stories into a single narrative as if they were all fully compatible. No one pays serious attention to just one account or the other. There’s something very wrong when defenders of Christmas fail to take their own stories very seriously.

The Gospel of St. Matthew.... the Tax collector and the Gospel of St. Luke the Physician... the Gospels or the Bible as a hold does not contradicts, however we know the understanding of men, differs according to the spiritual strength of the individual...however please note.... the biggest lie of this story is Jesus being born on the 25th of December.... never the less we should thank the High Priest Simeon, who went to the cave and offer Jesus up to God and then to the world.... saying this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Isreal.

Christmas has for thousands of years been a celebration, that is why there was no room at the inn for jesus to have been born, everyone was trading holiday gifts with family. It was a different type of celebration but was a massive holiday, all across the known world. Today's Bethlehem is NOT the bible Bethlehem, which is funny as Christians around the globe never questioned it and built a temple where Jesus NEVER could of been. Bethleham judea in 1st century was Abandonded, was not re-occupied till 2nd century. The bible says Nazareth Bethlehem which is near Galilee, which would have been a DANGEROUS place to be, as THUGGIE operated there. History is amazing when you know the REAL history, shame the bible didnt.

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/axtWq

The fact that Herod had male children under the age of 2 slaughtered means that a considerable time had elapsed since the visit of the wise men to him. There was plenty of time, even allowing the time for Mary's purification, as someone has well pointed out. John was in a different part of the country - not Bethlehem. Most of the other "contradictions" can be "explained" by simply reading the text for what it says, and not according to some atheist talking points. edit: well, here's a start 1. There were 28 generations from David to Jesus. Mt.1:17. There were 43 generations from David to Jesus. Lk.3:23-31. Matthew’s account is clearly designed to fit in with the “14 generations from” motif. Further, the genealogies diverge with the sons of David. Matthew lists Solomon, Luke lists Nathan. The reason for this is that Joseph’s line was cursed with Jeconiah or Coniah being excluded from the line of Messiah. Since Mary was also of the line of David, the Lord derives His Messiahship from her, not from Joseph. The case of Zelophehad’s daughters bears here. 2. Jacob was Joseph's father. Mt.1:16. Heli was Joseph's father. Lk.3:2. Jacob was Joseph’s father. Heli was the father of Mary. The words “the son” being supplied, it could just as well be understood as “the son-in-law of”. 5 is easy. Luke gives the story of Mary's being told she will become pregnant. Matthew gives the account of Joseph being told why his wife to be is pregnant. Probably 3 or 4 months difference. edit 2: As for the rest from 6 on, as well as 3, without having closely examined the various texts, I can say that a lot of the apparent difficulties lie in the fact that none of the Gospels intend to give us a strictly chronological account. They were all written for different audiences, with different purposes in mind. Besides, if every Gospel "agreed" in every single detail, isn't it likely that the authors would be accused of "collusion?" I will look at the rest of your list - it's almost midnight here. I see you have email. Would it be ok if I contact you that way? edit 3: If anyone's interested in my answers, email me.

Matthew and Luke. In Matthew's version, the protagonist is Joseph; in Luke's, it is Mary.

There are not "logical contradictions," although there are somewhat different factual records. For example, Jesus' genealogy is quite different in each case, since the genealogies are provided to serve different theological agendas in each case. There are primarily differences in emphasis or narrative intent. Matthew is principally concerned in his birth narrative with Jesus' place in the tradition of Jewish prophetic and messianic writing. Luke is principally interested in linking Jesus to issues of women and oppressed groups, and has a more universalistic emphasis. These are really perspectival differences rather than contradictions.

Mathew, mark, Luke and john

there is no contradictions more like watching the news on one channel then seeing it on another channel

the saints above were also called eye witness,s why not read the Christmas story yourself.

new testament bibles are free from most places or Gideons will send you out one full bible free so will the bible society

good question

Matthew and Luke

Matthew and Luke

1