Johnny Skeptic

According to the texts, the only people who knew that Jesus was born in Bethlehem were Joseph, Mary, and the magi. Joseph and the magi were never mentioned again. Did Mary ever tell anyone that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? No one knows.

Thomas II

The innkeeper and his family knew...

Chris Weimer

Sorry Johnny, but I can't grasp at what you're trying to say...?

Johnny Skeptic

What I want to know is why Christians believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem other than "the Bible says so."

Johnny Skeptic

But how does that help Christians?

Tigers!

For much the same reason that we believe that any given historical figure was born where the written records say they were and if the actual birth place (i.e. site within location rather than the location itself) is unsure or destroyed.
We have no reason to doubt the the written record.

Djugashvillain

You just answered your own question.

Jack the Bodiless

It is unlikely that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Both nativity stories are obviously fictional, and are late additions to the Jesus story (and, of course, they contradict each other: the genealogies, the Herod/Quirinius contradiction, and so forth). Apparently, there was an expectation that the messiah WOULD be born in Bethlehem: but, according to John, he was inconveniently born elsewhere.

God Fearing Atheist

John 7 has sometimes been read in another way: the irony is not that Jesus is who he says he is despite the expectation about being born and Bethlehem and actually being born outside Judea, but that he was actually born in Bethlehem and everyone thinks he's Galilean.

I dont agree, but its worth noting.

Amaleq13

Sure we do. The stories are incompatible in their explanation of Bethlehem as his actual birthplace but being known as coming from Galilee (Nazareth) and appear motived not by a desire to record history but to show that a prophecy was fulfilled. Matthew appears to be retelling the story of the birth of Moses rather than relating history and Luke clearly fabricates the most ridiculous census imaginable. That they created apparently fictitious "explanations" is clearly a good reason to doubt the reliability of the stories.

If that wasn't enough reason to doubt the reliability of these stories, there is some problematic archaeological evidence that provides more than enough reason to doubt.