If Wise men searched for Jesus Christ why do scientists spend their time denying Jesus Christ?

The birth stories in Matthew and Luke are fabrications and contradict each other.

According to Matthew the family of Jesus lived in Bethlehem when Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Herod died in 4 B.C.). Matthew relates of a threat to Jesus and a trip to Egypt and that, when they returned to Palestine after the death of Herod, the family of Jesus bypassed their original home in Bethlehem and settled in Nazareth so that Jesus would fulfill a prophecy (a prophecy that is non-existent in the Old Testament, by the way).

According to Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth before the birth of Jesus and went to Bethlehem during the Syrian governorship of Cyrenus (that's the Greek spelling; Quirinius is the Latin, and he began his governorship in 6 A.D.) because of an enrollment for taxes that required that everyone had to go to the city of their ancestors. Not long after the birth of Jesus the family returned to their home in Nazareth.

In attempting to reconcile the two accounts, apologists try to place the enrollment for taxation mentioned in Luke to the time of Herod the Great's reign. However, there was no such enrollment during that time. The Romans taxed only the provinces they had direct control of, such as Egypt and Syria. They did not tax the provinces controlled by client rulers such as Herod the Great.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that there was a Roman enrollment for taxation in Judea during Herod's reign, and attempts to prove otherwise are without basis. In addition, Saturninus was Governor of Syria from 9 BC to 6 BC, and Varus from 6 BC until after the death of Herod. Again, Quirinius was not governor of Syria until 6 A.D.

When Herod died in 4 BC, the Romans divided up his territory of Palestine and gave Judea, Idumea, and Samaria to his son Archelaus to rule, and the other parts of Palestine to his other two sons. Archelaus was brutal as ruler and his subjects appealed to Rome. As a result, Rome deposed Archelaus in 6 AD and took over direct rule of Archelaus's territory. In so doing they instituted taxation of that territory, and Quirinius, as the newly installed governor of Syria, was tasked to oversee the taxation, hence the enrollment. This taxation did not include Galilee, which was ruled by Herod's son Antipas, so Joseph, as a resident of Galilee (according to Luke's story) would not have been required to go to Bethlehem for the enrollment. (Contrary to Luke's exaggeration, the taxation was not world wide and did not require everyone to return to the city of their ancestors. The practical Romans would never have required such a return because there would have been absolutely no reason for it, and it would have disrupted commerce. The Romans taxed on the basis of residency, not ancestry).

In Matthew's story, Joseph originally lived in Bethlehem, and that some time after the birth of Jesus, Herod posed a threat to Jesus. Joseph and his family therefore went to Egypt (which Matthew made up to appear to fulfill prophecy), returning after the death of Herod. Using the brutal reign of Archelaus as an excuse, Matthew had Joseph and his family bypass their home in Bethlehem and instead settle in Nazareth. As the KJ Bible says, "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." That indicates that Joseph was making a new home for himself and his family there. Again, there was no such prophecy. Matthew just made it up to give a reason for Joseph to settle in Nazareth.

Near the beginning of his story, Luke refers to "Herod King of Judea" (Luke 1:5), which would have been Herod Archelaus, not Herod the Great (upon their father's death, both Archelaus and Antipas took on their father's name as a title for themselves). Herod the Great, referred to in Matthew, was king of all of Palestine, not just Judea.

If the events described in Luke chapter one were supposed to have occurred near the end of Herod Archelaus's reign (which I described above), the beginning of chapter two would be referring to events just after Archelaus was deposed and the Romans took direct rule over Judea and initiated the enrollment for taxation. The time frame of Luke's story is therefore self-consistent, and the attempts by apologists to place Luke's story during Herod the Great's reign are without foundation. Thus the contradiction with Matthew still exists.

Luke continues his story in chapter two by relating that Joseph and Mary traveled from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem because of the enrollment for taxation. Not long after their arrival in Bethlehem, Jesus was born, and after performing the ritual requirements according to the law of Moses, which was forty days, Joseph and his family returned to their home in Nazareth.

Added

To go along with that, the virgin birth was also fabricated.

The belief in the virgin birth was one of the myths that developed about Jesus after his death on the cross. And it was a relatively late one at that, because it is not known in the earlier Christian documents.

When Matthew wrote his gospel he tried to find something in the scriptures to support the idea of a virgin birth. As a Greek speaker, he used the Septuagint translation of the scriptures, but that translation often did not convey the sense of the original Hebrew. Furthermore, the idea of a virgin birth would have been foreign to the Hebrews of the Old Testament time (it was essentially a pagan concept), and the only passage Matthew could come up with was Isaiah 7:14.

The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-16 was about an event that would take place in the near future from the time it was given, not hundreds of years in the future. Furthermore, the woman spoken of was not referred to as a virgin (which is bethuwlah in the original Hebrew), but rather a young woman (almah in the original Hebrew) and there was nothing unusual about the birth. As the prophecy said, by the time the child who was to be born would be able to refuse evil and choose the good, the land would be forsaken of both of its kings--again, an event that would take place in the near future.

But the point that needs to be emphasized is that Isaiah used the Hebrew word for virgin (bethuwlah) in several other places in his book (23:12, 37:22, 47:1, and 62:5), so why didn't he use it in 7:14 if the woman was supposed to be a virgin? The answer is that the young woman was not supposed to be a virgin as is clear from the context.

Also, Jesus was not called Immanuel, which is what Isaiah said the child would be called.

What it all boils down to is that Matthew was trying to fabricate a prophecy about the virgin birth (which, again, was itself just a myth that arose in the years after the death of Jesus) from the Hebrew Scriptures. But He got tripped up by the Septuagint translation, for in that translation the Hebrew word for young woman got translated into Greek with a word that was more ambiguous and could have been taken as meaning virgin.

Also, in several other places in the New Testament, the idea of a virgin birth is negated. In Romans 1:3 and Acts 2:30, for example, Jesus is described as being of the seed of David "according to the flesh," which would rule out the idea of a virgin birth.

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are also fabrications. Both of those writers wanted to show that Jesus was descended from David, so they separately made up the respective genealogies. That is why they contradict each other.

They each provided their fabricated genealogies as showing the descent from David through Joseph, which would have been according to the legal descent, since Joseph was the husband of Mary.

Since the genealogies are contradictory, some Bible apologists try to say that the genealogy in Luke is actually that of Mary. However, Mary is not even mentioned in that genealogy. If that genealogy was that of Mary, why doesn't her name appear in it?

In any case, according to Luke, Mary was Elizabeth's cousin (suggenes in the original Greek, which indicates a blood relative). Since Elizabeth was of the priestly tribe of Levi, Mary would also have been of that descent and could therefore not have been a descendant of David. That is, if you believe what Luke says.

That is especially relevant because Luke mentions Mary in the birth stories much more than Matthew does. For example, instead of Joseph, it is Mary who the angel appears to concerning the coming birth of Jesus. There are also several other narratives about Mary, indicating the importance that Luke gave her. In that case, why wouldn't he have mentioned Mary in the genealogy if he intended it to be hers?

It should be noted that Mary's name does appear in Joseph's genealogy in Matthew, where it states that Joseph was the husband of Mary.

Those who say that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's therefore have no basis for saying that other than wishful thinking.

***If Wise men searched for Jesus Christ why do scientists spend their time denying Jesus Christ?***

Sorry you do know many scientists.

Did you know intelligent people make comparisons instead of trying to hide their foolish beliefs and hope their own stupidity is accepted by default instead of merit? I mean if After all, you can't have much faith in your own beliefs when all you can do is attack others.

What you don't recognize is that this is an eyewitness account which is why you can't find articles written to go against it like you can people, like yourself, who stand against the concept of God. How sad.

Two thoughts for you,

1. When God creates you He is obligated to tell you what He made you to do. So while you may not like the narrative, being made to do something and doing it is the very definition of right...something evolution can never grasp.

2. Godless science has never equated to right or good anymore than you can call gunpowder good or evil. In case you didn't know, the reason for the meaningless Nobel peace prize is because the inventor invented dynamite. Dynamite blows stuff up. Some call that good. Some call that bad. Science and scientist will never help you label good or bad what is because data can never be sorted a good or bad.

Yet you hold the Christian belief as wrong...what a hypocrite

The bible is what is called "Faction" A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!

There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?

Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!

At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!

The Roman Emperor Constantine produced the bible and he was a pagan not god! He took the Jewish religion, organized it into Christianity and then into the Holly Roman Catholic Church!! Not in Israel or any of the countries of supposed origin but entirely ITALIAN!

Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?

The first person to provide a shred of verifiable evidence for Jesus will become world famous and mega rich!

Ain't happened yet and it never will!

Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!

Josephus AD 37 – AD 100

Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120

Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD

Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD

Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD

Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.

Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD

Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD

Photius AD 877 – 886 AD

Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.

Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!

Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.

Those wise men were also astrologers. It is kind of like asking why chemists do not just read alchemists like Aristotle to learn all they need to about chemistry. We learned a whole lot since then. A wise man would have many more wrong beliefs than we do today and far less knowledge about any specific field.

The wise men left a hidden note. They were Asian scientists from the future and it said to keep working at it.

Wise =/= Scientist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx9WMbCljdo

A myth is still a myth.

so they can keep sinning. period.