Oh Little Town of Bethlehem...

@fmf said
So is your answer to my question 'Yes' or 'No'? I wasn't asking about your belief with regard to Bethlehem, or Revelation, or the authorship of the Bible. I asked you a specific question.

Did you see a word, "yes" in my response or are you just looking to for a way to
suggest I didn't answer you again?

@FMF

I had Micah 5:2 and Luke 2:11 in mind. If the writer of "Luke" had chosen Jerusalem, then, if his objective was to make his account fulfil Micah's prophesy, then it would not "have been a more logical choice".

This amounts to mounting a conspiracy theory. You presuppose the sneakiness, the cleverness, the conniving trickery of Luke for no good reason.

Maybe you're describing your own way of thinking more than anything else. The investigative journalistic writing of Luke, to you, MUST be the deceptive contriving of a LIE to control, to deceive, to take advantage.

Maybe you're projecting a lot of your own state of mind in weaving your conspiracy theory that Luke is trying to "get one over" on us.

"As face answers to face in water, so the mind of a man reflects the man." Proverbs 27:19

I'm going to leave some room for that possibility. The time for giving you a benefit of a doubt has long, LONG, passed with many of your skeptical ideas.

So you inform us of Luke's sneaky conspiracy. But we should trust in YOUR objectivity because of ....... ??

@sonship said
This amounts to mounting a conspiracy theory. You presuppose the sneakiness, the cleverness, the conniving trickery of Luke for no good reason.

Maybe you're describing your own way of thinking more than anything else. The investigative journalistic writing of Luke, to you, MUST be the deceptive contriving of a LIE to control, to deceive, to take advantage.

Mayb ...[text shortened]... ]Luke's[/b] sneaky conspiracy. But we should trust in YOUR objectivity because of ....... ??

I am not claiming to be objective. I am being subjective. And you don't need to "trust" me as I share my perspective. I lost my faith in the credibility of the Bible and no longer self-identify as a Christian. I do not want or require you to do the same thing.

@kellyjay said
It is a nasty habit of yours if you think about it, I think you'd agree.

No, I don't agree that I have any "nasty" habits in my posting here. I don't think I do.

@kellyjay said
Did you see a word, "yes" in my response or are you just looking to for a way to
suggest I didn't answer you again?

If your answer to this...

If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem and that particular claim was added to the text decades after Jesus' death in order that the prophecy of Micah could be said to have been fulfilled - to be clear: I am NOT asking you to subscribe to this view, I am saying IF it was so - then would that not be significant and would it not raise a question mark over the authorship and content of the text?

... is "Yes", then good. We agree on it.

@kellyjay said
How many people here drag other's names into discussions
that have nothing to do with them just illustrate a point by smearing them?

sonship and Suzianne do it more than anyone else here. My name - "FMF" - is mentioned as a reference to something "nasty" about the discourse. It doesn't bother me. But it seems to bother you. You have now tackled me on it. I can't remember you tackling them. Maybe you will. Or maybe you are sending them a message about your disapproval through me?

@sonship said
This amounts to mounting a conspiracy theory.

Decades and decades of 'Chinese whispers' passed on by all manner of people and groups, and sub-groups, all in many respects in competition with each other; dozens of other supposedly 'eyewitness accounts' rejected; nothing finalized until literally hundreds of years later, when corporate Christianity had finally finessed its fastidiously assembled text.

I have no doubt that all manner of emotions and elements were in play: earnestness, hysteria, ambition, good-intentions, fervour, imagination, conjecture, melodrama, faulty memory, errors, omissions, assumptions, embellishments, fascination, zealotry, creativity and, yes, most likely deceit as well. Countless people, over many, many years.

What's the upshot of 'survival of the fittest' when accounts of magical things are competing for the hearts and minds of potential subscribers?

I think the mention of Bethlehem is credible 'evidence' of the NT being composed quite consciously to align the Jesus story with ancient Hebrew mythology (i.e. Micah) by people who were conversant in that mythology but who were committed to setting up the new religion.

From a Christian point of view, the Micah prophesy is 'evidence' that leads them to believe that Jesus was a supernatural being around whom all manner of magical things happened. I suppose you find my deductions far-fetched. But I feel the same way about your deductions.

@sonship said
Maybe you're projecting a lot of your own state of mind in weaving your conspiracy theory that Luke is trying to "get one over" on us.

Trying to "get one over on" you? No, I am just sharing my perspective, sonship. I am an atheist. That's the viewpoint I bring to this community. If this was a Christian website, I wouldn't be here and you wouldn't hear a word from me.

@fmf said
I am not claiming to be objective. I am being subjective. And you don't need to "trust" me as I share my perspective. I lost my faith in the credibility of the Bible and no longer self-identify as a Christian. I do not want or require you to do the same thing.

Jesus wants you back, bro.

You are a very tenacious and consistent poster, and your attention to detail is very good. I think that, one day, you will come back to our community and you will be an excellent Christian with a great testimony.

I look forward to do that day and I'm sorry that I am hard on you but I think that it is actually going to help you question the way that you are behaving. If it can do that, great. If not, I guess I'll have to modify my means later.

@philokalia said
Jesus wants you back, bro.

Obviously, I don't believe this.

@philokalia said
I look forward to do that day and I'm sorry that I am hard on you but I think that it is actually going to help you question the way that you are behaving. If it can do that, great. If not, I guess I'll have to modify my means later.

I don't think you are "hard" on me. Instead, I think you just make a bit of a fool of yourself most times when you engage with me.

@philokalia said
I think that, one day, you will come back to our community and you will be an excellent Christian with a great testimony.

No. Once again, you are misreading the situation. I am getting the definite impression that you don't read people well in cyberspace ~ and that you don't realize how you come across either.

@fmf said
If your answer to this...

If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem and that particular claim was added to the text decades after Jesus' death in order that the prophecy of Micah could be said to have been fulfilled - to be clear: I am NOT asking you to subscribe to this view, I am saying IF it was so - then would that not be significant and would it not raise a question mark over the authorship and content of the text?

... is "Yes", then good. We agree on it.

Sorry I just woke up, you didn't do what I thought when I first read this.

@fmf said
No, I don't agree that I have any "nasty" habits in my posting here. I don't think I do.

You may not agree you have nasty habits, but I treated you like you treat others here
you'd hate it.

@kellyjay said
You are twisting my answer, another nasty habit of yours. I said, "yes" with why
I said it. you took the word and turned into something else. Very nasty habit!

As I thought. You were trying to obfuscate. That's why I repeated the question.

Well, let's try again. Remember, I am not asking you to adopt my point of view.

Be very clear: I am not asking you to agree with the substance of the opinions or scepticism that I espouse. I am simply asking this:

SUPPOSING Jesus was not born in Bethlehem and SUPPOSING that particular claim was added to the text decades after Jesus' death in order that the prophecy of Micah could be said to have been fulfilled - SUPPOSING those two things are true - then would they not be significant and would it not raise a question mark over the authorship and content of the text?

I am not asking you to agree that what I believe is true.

I am asking you whether your answer is "Yes" or "No".