.......There are differences in the nativity story which serve to lessen its credibility. As an example, in an attempt to parallel the importance of Jesus' birth with that of Moses, Matthew describes the massacre of the children of Bethlehem by king Herod as he attempts to kill the infant messiah.<quoted text>
Define "Declared" Please post his exact words in context and his reasoning. Please do not post what some article posted. Show us the page number. Also show us where the Pope said everyone should get rid of nativity scenes. Could it be he offered a scholarly and balanced view? Could it be that based on his research it his opinion? Did he say it was a fact that must be believed? You would think most Protestants would be happy with no images of any kind.
The reality is Mikey is yet again you are inserting inflammatory nonsense. Do you know his sources for his research? Do you have access to all the writings in the Vatican Archives? No, Mikey you just want to throw out a Canard card to stir up more nonsense.
This extraordinary event is not attested to by any SECULAR SOURCE from that period, nor even referred to by Luke. Indeed, Luke has the family return peacefully, to Nazareth after Jesus' birth in Bethlehem (Luke 2:22,39).
If the massacre did take place, it does not make sense that Herod's son later on does not recall the event by his father about Jesus nor his importance (Matt. 14:1-2). Moreover, if Herod and all the people of Jerusalem knew of the messiah's birth (Matt. 2:3), why is it that later in Jesus' life, the "same" author claims that people had not heard of his miraculous origin and still questioned his miracles and his teachings (Matt. 13:54-56)?
.....conflicting information or what!
....something is wrong DustStorm...