Can you explain your assertion that the Bible has Jesus born in multiple locations? As far as I’m aware, Matthew and Luke state He was born in Bethlehem. Mark doesn’t record a birth story, and neither does John. Since Jesus moved to Nazareth he is referred to as Jesus of Nazareth. I fail to see the inconsistency.
Inconsistencies regarding the date and location:
The two narratives given in Matthew and Luke are contrary to each other. Luke even contradicts itself.
Matthew states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, in a house. Matthew states that the wise men visited him in the house, and made no mention of the animal feeding trough (see below).
Luke states that he was born in a stable/barn - and he was put in a manger (feeding trough), "as there was no room in the Inn."
Luke states Cesar Augustus ordered an empire wide census to be taken for taxation purposes. Everyone was to be taxed in their own city. Joseph was in Nazareth, so had to get to Bethlehem (as he was of the house and lineage of David).
However there is no record, ever, of any such census having been taken. And think of the logistics of having to have everyone go back to their ancestral home across the whole entire Roman Empire, just to go through the census. Something like that would have been recorded, but it wasn't (however many other census's are recorded throughout these times and ages, so it can't be argued that they were not recorded in general). In reality Luke needed Joseph to be in Bethlehem for the sake of the 'prophecy.'
Luke states he "investigated this carefully." Which doesn't seem to be the case.
Note that Luke wrote this approx 80 years after the event too.
Natthew states that he was born during Herod's reign. Herod is noted to have died in March or April 4BC.
Matthew goes further to imply that he was born at least two years prior to that, as Herod: "sent and slew all males in Bethlehem (and all it's environs) from two years old and younger."
Luke suggests that Jesus was born 6CE. He states that he was born during a census whilst Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (also known as Cyrenius) was governor of Syria. The one recorded tenure of Quirinius confirms that the census was taken on A.D. 6 (Julius calendar), which was a decade after Herod the Great's death.
So both Luke and Matthew have him now born 12 years apart.
Luke states that Jesus's birth took place "in the days of Herod," and also, "while Quirinius was governor of Syria." That is at least 10 years apart.
Inconsistencies regarding the stories in general:
1). Luke states that Mary was visited by Gabriel and told of the pregnancy. Matthew states that Joseph was visited by an angel in his dream, and told of Mary's pregnancy. Now you could just argue that both stories are being told from either side.
2). How does a star point out a house? I know that the bible states that stars could come down and do battle with men ("the stars from their courses did battle with Sisera"), but that seems a little far-fetched to me.
3). Matthew tells of the wise men. Luke tells of an angel visiting some Shepherd, telling them of great joy and that they'd find the baby in a manger (which is not a house).
4). Luke states that Jesus got circumcised 8 days later, that they visited the lord in Jerusalem, and then went back to Nazareth. Whilst Matthew states that Joseph was visited by an Angel and told to flee to Egypt (and await further instructions) as Herod was going to order the death of him.
They fled, and Herod was mad and ordered the death of the babies aged two and younger. Then after Herod died Joseph was visited again, and told to go Nazareth, so Jesus could be called the Nazarene.
5). No recordings of this mass infanticide have ever been found. And similar to the blatant copying of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the stories of Atrahasis and Ziusudra - in relation to the Noah myth - the killing of babies when an important figue was born seemingly repeated itself, as it apparently happened when Moses was born too.
6). Matthew states, in relation to living in Nazareth, "that it might be fullfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene." However there is no mention anywhere of Nazareth in the old Testament.
Now there is an annotation in the King James version, referencing Judges 13:5 - "
for low, thou shall conceive and bear a son; and no razor shall come too his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto god from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hands of the Philistines."
However this is clearly a reference to Sampson. And a Nazarite is someone who takes as n aesthetic/lifestyle vow and will refrain from cutting their hair, wine and being around corpses.
Nazarite does not equal Nazarene. Seemingly this was originally a mistranslation from Matthew, or him trying to wedge a fulfilled prophecy in there.
To Recap:
Luke: An angel told Mary.
Matthew: An angel told Joseph.
Luke: Querinius held a census at this time.
Matthew: Herod sends out the (un-numbered) wise men to find Jesus.
Note that this would have had to have been about a dozen years apart.
Luke: They go to Bethlehem. The inn is booked, so they stay in the stable where he is born. He's put in a trough (manger) and an Angel tells some farmers to visit them.
Matthew: The wise men follow a star to a house, and find him in the nice and cosy home.
Luke: They leave for Nazareth.
Matthew: They escape to Egypt. Whilst Herod kills all the babies (which was never recorded anywhere). Eventually they go to Nazareth once another angel gives them the all clear, to 'fulfil the prophecy' - which was a mistranslation.
So yes, there are just far too many inconsistencies. Surely such an important story, arguably the most important story ever told, would be a whole lot more reliable? And surely it would appear in more than just two of the books in the bible - though I guess if they had just got it right one time That would have been better than having two completely contradictory tales.
