Spirituality
07 Jul 10
07 Jul 10
I am puzzled. In my youth I was taught that Mary went with Joseph to register for the census in Jerusalem. How come, then, the babe was born in Bethlehem? The map indicates that a journey beginning in Nazareth passes through Jerusalem before reaching Bethlehem. (Nazareth is north of Jerusalem. Bethlehem lies to the south of Jerusalem.) We are told the babe was born in a stable at Bethlehem because there was no room in the inn. We are not told Jerusalem was overcrowded. Why go the extra distance? Was it to fulfill an Old Testament prophesy? Or is the Birth in Bethlehem story simply a myth invented later to bolster up a developing theology?
07 Jul 10
Originally posted by MathurineThey just missed the freeway exit to Jerusalem South. Then the were confused...
I am puzzled. In my youth I was taught that Mary went with Joseph to register for the census in Jerusalem. How come, then, the babe was born in Bethlehem? The map indicates that a journey beginning in Nazareth passes through Jerusalem before reaching Bethlehem. (Nazareth is north of Jerusalem. Bethlehem lies to the south of Jerusalem.) We are told the babe ...[text shortened]... s the Birth in Bethlehem story simply a myth invented later to bolster up a developing theology?
07 Jul 10
Originally posted by Mathurine===============================
I am puzzled. In my youth I was taught that Mary went with Joseph to register for the census in Jerusalem. How come, then, the babe was born in Bethlehem? The map indicates that a journey beginning in Nazareth passes through Jerusalem before reaching Bethlehem. (Nazareth is north of Jerusalem. Bethlehem lies to the south of Jerusalem.) We are told the babe ...[text shortened]... s the Birth in Bethlehem story simply a myth invented later to bolster up a developing theology?
Or is the Birth in Bethlehem story simply a myth invented later to bolster up a developing theology?
==================================
That requires too much faith on my part to believe that.
I really don't think it is a simplier problem to concoct a senario in which the story was inserted into the New Testament text latter.
07 Jul 10
Originally posted by MathurineI don't understand your argument at all, the story says they had to go to Bethlehem (I think) what does Jerusalem being on the way have to do with it?
Was it to fulfill an Old Testament prophesy? Or is the Birth in Bethlehem story simply a myth invented later to bolster up a developing theology?
To answer your actual question: the story was made up to try and fulfill Old Testament prophesy.
07 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywillUnless you assume the gospels are inspired by God, then that the birth in Bethlehem story is made up remains the most plausible explanation.
That requires too much faith on my part to believe that.
I really don't think it is a simplier problem to concoct a senario in which the story was inserted into the New Testament text latter.
It wasn't inserted into the new Testament text, it was invented by the gospel writer or his source.
07 Jul 10
Originally posted by MathurineHey Mathurine,
I am puzzled. In my youth I was taught that Mary went with Joseph to register for the census in Jerusalem. How come, then, the babe was born in Bethlehem? The map indicates that a journey beginning in Nazareth passes through Jerusalem before reaching Bethlehem. (Nazareth is north of Jerusalem. Bethlehem lies to the south of Jerusalem.) We are told the babe ...[text shortened]... s the Birth in Bethlehem story simply a myth invented later to bolster up a developing theology?
It seems to me the whole thing was made up in order to fulfil not one, but two OT prophesies.
As you know, Luke states (2:1-7) that Jesus was born in the birthplace of David. David was the greatest king of Israel, and according to 2 Samuel 7:16 it is known that God had promised him almost a thousand years earlier than Jesus’ birth the following:
-- "Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever" (2 Samuel 7:16).
In addition there is another prophecy mentioned at Micah 5:2, and it goes like this:
-- “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of ancient times”.
Therefore the Jews were expecting David's successor, the so called "Messiah the Son of David".
So in my opinion Lukas tried to imply that Jesus, the “Son of David”, was indeed the promised King and that, since Joseph was “of the house and lineage of David”, he was born in Bethlehem according to a divine plan;
😵
07 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheada more accurate phrase would be "you (twhitehead) find insufficient evidence to prove the story is real so you think it is made up"
I don't understand your argument at all, the story says they had to go to Bethlehem (I think) what does Jerusalem being on the way have to do with it?
To answer your actual question: the story was made up to try and fulfill Old Testament prophesy.
07 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziNot only I, but anyone except those with religious reasons to believe otherwise. I must add that even some Christians accept that it is made up.
a more accurate phrase would be "you (twhitehead) find insufficient evidence to prove the story is real so you think it is made up"
07 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadthe fact that other people believe (with emphasis on believe) the same as you do isn't proof for the validity of your belief.
Not only I, but anyone except those with religious reasons to believe otherwise. I must add that even some Christians accept that it is made up.
jesus had to be born somewhere (assuming he is real of course). why is it certain he wasn't born in bethlehem?
07 Jul 10
Originally posted by MathurineFirst. here is the reason for the extra distance :
I am puzzled. In my youth I was taught that Mary went with Joseph to register for the census in Jerusalem. How come, then, the babe was born in Bethlehem? The map indicates that a journey beginning in Nazareth passes through Jerusalem before reaching Bethlehem. (Nazareth is north of Jerusalem. Bethlehem lies to the south of Jerusalem.) We are told the babe ...[text shortened]... s the Birth in Bethlehem story simply a myth invented later to bolster up a developing theology?
Matt 2:13 .. the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
Herod killed all the male babes in and around Bethlehem. I guess that could easily include Jerusalem, which is just a few miles away.
Secondly, they fled into Egypt, not Nazareth. They only returned to Nazareth from Egypt when Herod died.
In your youth you hear lots of stories. As a adult you probably should read the Bible for yourself. Its pretty simple to understand ...🙂 Try it.
07 Jul 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziQuite right. It is not certain where he was born nor whether he existed. I am sure the story was made up, but can't prove it, nor do I wish to.
the fact that other people believe (with emphasis on believe) the same as you do isn't proof for the validity of your belief.
jesus had to be born somewhere (assuming he is real of course). why is it certain he wasn't born in bethlehem?
07 Jul 10
6 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead
====================================
Quite right. It is not certain where he was born nor whether he existed. I am sure the story was made up, but can't prove it, nor do I wish to.
===========================================
Why is your default position that the Gospel writers were out to deceive you ?
You pre-suppose that guile and trickery are at play in the details of the birth of Jesus. Maybe you are just projecting yourself. Maybe you're simply reflecting to us your talents of manipulating people through your ideas.
"As a man thinks in his heart , so is he." Proverbs 23:7
07 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIt isn't. I don't think the gospel writer expected to be taken literally.
Why is your default position that the Gospel writers were out to deceive you ?
I think it was all about theology and fulfilling prophesy, and I think he expected his readers to understand that.
I think the idea of taking it all word for word is a more modern and rather naive position.
You pre-suppose that guile and trickery are at play in the details of the birth of Jesus.
Actually it is you that tends to pre-suppose that that is the only alternative to absolute truth. Why is it that so many literalists take such a black and white position ie its either all true or its all false - with malicious motives to boot.
Maybe you are just projecting yourself.
No, just stating the obvious. And as I already said it is hardly a unique opinion. I learnt about it from an Anglican priest and reading scholarly articles on the web. (quite a while back so I don't have any references I am afraid).
Maybe you're simply reflecting to us your talents of manipulating people through your ideas.
I wasn't aware I had any such talents. I always try to be honest and give my genuine opinion and have no intention of manipulating anyone. I only hope to share my knowledge, gain knowledge from others and enjoy a good debate sometimes too.
07 Jul 10
Unbelievers suffer from a mental disorder. They assume that because they lie and deceive so does everybody else.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem just like it says in the Bible. The men who wrote the books contained in the Bible weren't liars. The liars are those who say the men who wrote the books of Bible lied.
Now don't go getting all riled up because you think I called you a liar. None of us were even here when the liars said the Bible is wrong. You simply believe a lie. Quite a few of them in fact.