Be sure to Click LIKE at the bottom of this commentary, and share it everywhere!! By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots – Commentary
Christian or not, we all know the story of the first Christmas, or more accurately, the story of the birth of Jesus. What we “KNOW” has been related to us from the biblical accounts, and Christians take those as the gospel truth.
But is the GOSPEL truth REALLY the truth?
Probably not, and there are political reasons for that. What we read in the Bible was related orally for years, decades and in some cases centuries before being written down by mere men, later translated by mere men, and perhaps most importantly, later edited by not-so-mere-men, as in Kings to be used for more political purposes.
Common sense dictates that stories told orally over any period of time change, or become embellished and often bear elements of bias related to the perspective of the story teller. Translations often alter such stories as well, and ultimately, political rulers of the day edit such stories in whatever way suits their needs.
There is a good deal of evidence even in the biblical texts that would lead us to believe that the birth of Jesus most likely took place in mid-September, yet we celebrate it in late December. Why? Because early Christians were trying to convert the pagans, and the pagans celebrated the winter solstice in late December. In order to extend the celebration of Saturnalia, and hopefully win over the pagans, early Christian leaders invented a late December birthday for Jesus.
Celebrating Christmas, on December 25th, was a political move first made by Roman Emperor Constantine in 336AD. Constantine, the Emperor of Rome and a political figure also plays a key role in yet another aspect of the gospel truth that is most likely at odds with HISTORICAL truth in the story of the birth of Jesus related to where the event took place.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke, the only two to relate the story of the birth of Jesus tell 
us that Joseph, and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the purpose of paying taxes and being counted in the census and that Mary gave birth while in Bethlehem. Constantine, the Emperor of Rome sent his mother, Helena to the Holy Land in 325-326A.D. to search for relics and sites related to the birth of Jesus and other places related to the life and eventual death of Jesus.
It was Helena who marked what she was led to believe was the exact spot where the birth of Jesus took place, and the Emperor, Constantine commissioned a church to be built on that spot to mark it for all time. The Church of the Nativity was built in 330A.D. some 300 years after the event and is now considered one of the holiest sites in all of Christianity. But did Helena choose the correct spot?
Probably not.
From Nazareth to Bethlehem, where the Church of the Nativity is located would have been an arduous journey of nearly 90 miles. At best, traveling at 2.5 miles per hour across tough terrain, Mary and Joseph could have made the journey in roughly 4 days, but remember, Mary was reportedly nearly nine months pregnant and such a journey, including several overnight stays in outdoor conditions in just four days would have been brutal. Moving slower would have required more wilderness overnights but would have been less stressful on a woman in that condition.
Any way you cut it, such a long trip would have been very hard indeed.
Remember the reason for the journey to begin with – taxes and a census? While there is historical reference for such things, history doesn’t match the story’s timeline very well. Galilee was the domain of King Herod, and prior to 4B.C.E. nobody had to make a journey to Bethlehem for the purpose of paying taxes as everybody in Herod’s kingdom would have been taxed equally, regardless of where they lived within that kingdom.
The census under Quirinius, historically did not take place until 6A.D. and those who lived in Galilee, where we find Nazareth, the home of Mary and Joseph, were only subject to the taxes imposed by Herod Antipas. BETHLEHEM was under Roman rule and thus, Joseph would NOT have been subject to Roman taxes.
Given the historical evidence, how do we explain the story of Joseph and Mary traveling to Bethlehem to pay taxes, be counted and the eventual building of the Church of the Nativity some 300 years later in Bethlehem?
Helena most likely chose the wrong Bethlehem.
There were TWO Bethlehems, and still are.
There is the one where we find the Church of the Nativity, some 90 miles from the home of Joseph and Mary in Nazareth, and the OTHER Bethlehem…in GALILEE…less than 4.5 miles from Nazareth.
Think about that for a moment. It makes MUCH more sense for Joseph and Mary, with Mary being 9 months pregnant, to travel a scant 4.5 miles than to journey nearly 90 miles, and Joseph would NOT have been subject to ROMAN taxes in the Bethlehem where we find the Church of the Nativity. He WOULD have been subject to taxes in Herod’s kingdom of Galilee where we find both Nazareth, where Joseph and Mary lived, and the OTHER Bethlehem.
So, how did Helena get it so wrong? Well, Rome was the first political entity to convert to Christianity, and Constantine, being the Emperor of Rome 300 years after the birth of Jesus needed to make ROME an integral part of the story in order to truly lay claim to being central to the story, made sure that the birth took place under Roman rule.
While the timing of the birth of Jesus and the location problems can be attributed to intentional manipulation for political purposes, can we say the gospel truth of the stories told in Matthew and Luke are the actual truth? In a word…no.
In the gospel of Luke, the assertion is that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem upon an imperial command that all individuals return to their ancestral towns “that all the world should be taxed,” thus linking the location to the Roman Empire, which as I already explained, simply was not the case. Adding to the REAL truth rather than the GOSPEL truth is the fact that, despite being ardent keepers of records, there is NO historical evidence OR record indicating Emperor Augustus EVER ordered that individuals return to their ancestral towns for taxation OR census purposes.
Further, there is no historical record for Quirinius (Cyrenius) ever issued such an order, and he was not even the Governor of the region at the time of the birth of Jesus. The book of Matthew however, doesn’t bring up the taxes or census.
The book of Luke tells of Mary, Joseph and the baby Jesus fleeing to Egypt to avoid 
Herod’s decree to kill all male children under the age of two due to fearing a new King being born in his kingdom while Matthew leaves all of that out.
There are important differences which render the stories suspect in that they don’t even come close to matching regarding such important events. But there’s more…Only Matthew mentions a special star supposedly guiding the wise men. Luke makes no mention of that. Matthew says shepherds rejoiced and brought gifts to the baby, but Luke makes no mention of shepherds at all.
The only two accounts in the gospels regarding the birth of Jesus are contrary to each other and it is impossible to reconcile the stark differences. What we can say is that they can’t BOTH be correct. And to be perfectly honest, we don’t really know who the authors of Matthew and Luke really were, but scholars, both historical and biblical agree that neither were actual witnesses to the birth of Jesus.
Neither original manuscripts exist, and what we have are translations produced by the 
Greeks written in the 2nd or 3rd century which means the stories has been passed down by generations for at least 200 years before being translated either from earlier written manuscripts, or orally leaving the exact words a historical mystery. One thing widely agreed upon by scholars is that the Greek translations clearly read like Greek originals, not translations from other languages.
What we DO know is that whoever the original authors were, they had a biased bent to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah foretold in ancient Jewish stories and texts which helps to explain why it was important to have the birth of Jesus take place in the Roman controlled Bethlehem rather than the Bethlehem of Galilee, as Joseph needed to be a descendent of King David to fulfill the scriptures account of the Messiah being born in the City of King David’s birth.
Finally, let’s examine the gospel truth vs the real truth regarding the magi.
Matthew goes into detail regarding the traveling magi and their meeting with Herod who would then order the murder of all male children up to two years of age so as to prevent a rival to his power. The book of Matthew says, ”Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.”
The book of Matthew goes on to state, “And when they [the wise men] had come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down and worshipped him.”
According to Matthew’s account regarding the decree of Herod, Jesus could well have been two years old before the Magi ever set eyes upon him, and when they did, again according to the book of Matthew, they did so in a house…not in a stable or a grotto. If you hold with Matthew’s version of the story, that would set the meeting between the Magi and Jesus in Egypt. On the other hand, if you hold with Luke’s version of the story, that meeting would have taken place in Nazareth.
But there is yet another glaring disconnect between the two versions of the story – Matthew goes into great detail regarding the part that the Magi played in the story of the birth of Jesus, but Luke never once even mentions the Magi at all.
So, where does that leave us in the search for the real truth of the birth of Jesus?
Two Bethlehems. Tax and census or no historical record of any such mandate by meticulous record keepers. An unusual star to be followed, or no star to be followed. A Church of the Nativity location most likely chosen for political reasons by the Emperor of Rome some 300 years after the fact. A version of the story manipulated for religious purposes to fit an ancient narrative. Shepherds, or no shepherds. Flight to Egypt or a simple return home to Nazareth. Magi, or no Magi. Undetermined authors, and the earliest manuscripts which read like Greek originals rather than translations.
If you go to a Christmas Eve church service, you will be told the GOSPEL truth, not the 
REAL truth, and the HONEST truth is that by the time the only two versions of the story to appear in the Bible were authored some 40–50 years later, two vastly conflicting accounts of the event, the REALITY of it, most likely a rather unremarkable event had been lost.
Understand that belief is defined as the acceptance of a thing or alleged thing without proof or evidence of it. What we actually KNOW of the birth of Jesus is severely limited, but what we BELIEVE, without proof or evidence is most likely a wildly embellished narrative crafted to fit a specific religious bias and then tweeked for political purposes.
After all, a mundane birth in a stable with no fanfare would not have been anything out of the ordinary some 2,000 years ago and would have been lost to the ages rather quickly, but add in the embellishments, the intrigue, the hardships, the mystical and the political bias…well, now you have a story that people will tell for thousands of years.
Simply put, where gospel truth is concerned, the honest truth is never enough.
Copyright © 2023 Craig Andresen / thenationalpatriot.com all rights reserved
Be sure to Click LIKE below, and share it everywhere!!
************************************************************************************************
For more on the debate, visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Diane Sori’s blog The Patriot Factor to read her latest article: Upsetting The Convention Apple Cart…Maybe
*************************************************************************************************
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS…LIVE!
