Twitter Tales: The Gospel of Matthew and the “Massacre of the Innocents”

In this thread, I show why the Matthew’s story of Herod’s massacre of male children ages 2 years and younger is a pious fiction. Three reasons demonstrate conclusively that the story is just a myth.

10 thoughts on “Twitter Tales: The Gospel of Matthew and the “Massacre of the Innocents”

  1. Caliph ibn mumthaz

    I mean Tbh it wouldn’t be out of character for herod to do considering his deteriorating mental state and his irratic behaviour. But still, you would think there’d be more sources for this tragedy and it’d be strange that the other gospels didn’t even imply that it happened.


  2. Caliph ibn mumthaz

    I have a theory that this story was probably fabricated in order to try to paint ‘eesa alaiyhissalaam as figure similar to musa alaiyhissalaam. I also guess this is to paint herod as a sort of fir’ aun like figure to ‘eesa alaiyhissalaam in order to cement the parallels to musa peace be upon him. I know this might be obvious but it’s still fascinating. Also I suspect the writers of Matthew also added the story in so that ‘ eesa pbuh would have a more intimidating antagonist to his story other than a bunch of hypocrite Jews and literally the devil.


  3. Caliph ibn mumthaz

    About the devil, what I meant is that he sort of played a trickster role and a nuisance than anything else.


  4. mr.heathcliff

    one wonders, if jesus was half naked or completely naked and left the tomb with big holes in his side which housed a dead fish, how is it that the saints roamed the cities clothed ? r u raised clothed or naked?

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Caliph ibn mumthaz

    Hey idk if the authors themselves named the story the massacre of the innocents but doesn’t the name of the massacre itself disprove the idea of original sin. According to it’s adherents, everyone bore the sin of Aadam alaiyhissalaam including children. But since the 2 year old are referred to as the innocents, its possible the authors are clearly not supporting the idea of original sin. Or at least made an exception to children but still, the doctrine is still problematic as hell.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. mr.heathcliff

    one problem i think requires attention is the mary madgalene problem.
    she runs from the tomb to peter and tells him that jesus’ body has been taken away.
    she comes BACK to the tomb and CLINGS to her belief that the body has been taken away. even after angels and the gardner speak to her, she clings to her belief about the body.

    matthew has her run from the tomb reporting to the 11 that the body has risen .
    luke does the same.

    now if you fuse these accounts together, you get the following problem

    1. mary heard the angel in matthew then reports to peter that body has been stolen .
    2. mary didnt hear the angel, ran off, returned and then is told about missing body (something she already knew when she went off to report to peter)
    3.peters like a clown runs to the tomb, learns nothing new and then runs back to the tomb again for second time and learns nothing new.
    4. if you say that mary did not go into the tomb initially, then why mary assumed an empty tomb and told peter that the body was missing?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s