There is no conflict on that in the bible. Both nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke place his birth in Bethlehem as Joseph and Mary are on the road to the census. They were leaving from their hometown of Nazareth to which they returned and raised Jesus after his birth. Jesus is called Jesus of Nazareth because people were called by their hometown not where they were technically born
Not for anyone who Believes (specifically Christians, because other Abrahamic religions do not adhere to that specific dogma). That doesn't mean there isn't plenty of controversy. You have rectified the two stories. That's great. Not everyone agrees. Here is just one example, but there are thousands.
The thing about "controversy" is that different people havesomelevel of justification for their different beliefs. If it is a wide scale controversy (like this one), pretty much always there is some supporting, unanswered evidence for it.
You believe you have it all worked out. Have you actually listened to the dissenting opinions? Have you really listened to why there are so many people who believe otherwise? Can you offer a reasonable rebuttal for all of the dissentions?
It's controversial BECAUSE there are good arguments to the contrary. Your statements of "what really happened" all have such arguments against (with good evidence).
What do you mean rectified the two stories. Both stories say Bethlehem. There is no conflict in the Bible. Thats my only point. People can say “well i dont believe the Bible and I think he was born somewhere else” but thats based on speculation. Im basing my belief on two accounts written in historical narrative that have other aspects of their account proven true by archeology.
There is no conflict on that in the bible. Both nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke place his birth in Bethlehem as Joseph and Mary are on the road to the census. They were leaving from their hometown of Nazareth to which they returned and raised Jesus after his birth. Jesus is called Jesus of Nazareth because people were called by their hometown not where they were technically born
very clear. Many here have never read the Gospels.
Not for anyone who Believes (specifically Christians, because other Abrahamic religions do not adhere to that specific dogma). That doesn't mean there isn't plenty of controversy. You have rectified the two stories. That's great. Not everyone agrees. Here is just one example, but there are thousands.
The thing about "controversy" is that different people have some level of justification for their different beliefs. If it is a wide scale controversy (like this one), pretty much always there is some supporting, unanswered evidence for it.
You believe you have it all worked out. Have you actually listened to the dissenting opinions? Have you really listened to why there are so many people who believe otherwise? Can you offer a reasonable rebuttal for all of the dissentions?
It's controversial BECAUSE there are good arguments to the contrary. Your statements of "what really happened" all have such arguments against (with good evidence).
What do you mean rectified the two stories. Both stories say Bethlehem. There is no conflict in the Bible. Thats my only point. People can say “well i dont believe the Bible and I think he was born somewhere else” but thats based on speculation. Im basing my belief on two accounts written in historical narrative that have other aspects of their account proven true by archeology.