Bethlehem

[dad]

Yes dad, that is entirely what they are basing their conclusion on. C'mon. Read the freaking article.

That would make it worthless then.

 

[46AND2]

That would make it worthless then.

 

[dad]

Y'know, it's amazing how people can close their minds to things right in front of their eyes. I mean, Dad here HAD to read at least part of the article to get to those quotes, yes? Yet he cannot read the ones directly after or before it?

Here's a bullet list of why they think this may be the correct Bethlehem.

We shall see if it be bullets or if it be something less.

-Artifacts show it was a Jewish community inhabited during the correct time period, rendering it possible

Worthless. It has to be the city of David in Judea to be in the running. Having Jews live somewhere just doesn't cut it.

-Evidence that before the 4th century, it was actively celebrated as the birthplace of Christ by early christians

Right...what evidence!!?? You think just saying it makes it so?

-Only 7 km away from Nazareth instead of 150 km, which would have been a difficult trip for a nine-months-pregnant woman on a donkey, and also there is no fathomable reason why a census would require people to travel that far.

Proof she rode it all on a donkey? And proof that people of that day had real trouble going more than 20 yards?? Ever hear of camels? Walking? Etc....

-Evidence that the town of Bethlehem in Judea was not inhabited during the period when Christ is supposed to have been born.

Let's see that? Why talk as if you have something when you can't produce the goods?

Another article about it, which gets more specific about said evidence: National Geographic Magazine - NGM.com

Quote: “If the historical Jesus were truly born in Bethlehem,” Oshri adds, “it was most likely the Bethlehem of Galilee, not that in Judaea. The archaeological evidence certainly seems to favor the former, a busy center [of Jewish life] a few miles from the home of Joseph and Mary, as opposed to an unpopulated spot almost a hundred miles from home.”

More empty blab. Says who based on what exactly???

Also amusing that the last quote in that particular article is:

"Oshri, however, doubts that Bethlehem of Galilee will be recognized as the birthplace of Jesus any time soon. “Business interests are too important,” he says. “After all this time, the churches do not have a strong interest in changing the Nativity story.”"

Worthless strawman wagging of the tongue. The city of David was not there. Was it?

Considering this was written four years ago, I'd tend to agree. Yup, who cares about truth when you've built your business on falsehoods? Just let the sheep keep worshiping the wrong place, it's not like it -matters- where they go. One town is a good as the next if you can convince enough people to believe you.

Try facing reality before spouting unsupported conspiracy theories that are out of sync with Scripture and for which you cannot provide the slightest proof.

 

[dad]

If basing it on what I quoted was the entire basis, worthless is too good a word.

 

[46AND2]

We shall see if it be bullets or if it be something less.
Worthless. It has to be the city of David in Judea to be in the running. Having Jews live somewhere just doesn't cut it.


Right...what evidence!!?? You think just saying it makes it so?


Proof she rode it all on a donkey? And proof that people of that day had real trouble going more than 20 yards?? Ever hear of camels? Walking? Etc....
Let's see that? Why talk as if you have something when you can't produce the goods?

More empty blab. Says who based on what exactly???




Worthless strawman wagging of the tongue. The city of David was not there. Was it?
Try facing reality before spouting unsupported conspiracy theories that are out of sync with Scripture and for which you cannot provide the slightest proof.

Amazing! It's like you didn't even read the article from which you quoted.

 

[dad]

Amazing! It's like you didn't even read the article from which you quoted.

No idea why you cannot offer any prooof from the article or elsewhere. A bunch of empty conjecture. Worse actually, open blasphemy as the National Geographic article is.

"The “little town of Bethlehem” may not actually be where Jesus was born. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written at least 50 years after Jesus’ death, and some religious scholars believe the writers set their stories in Bethlehem of Judaea to associate Jesus with the House of David. This was to reinforce Jesus’ status as the Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures in order to attract early Jewish converts to Christianity. "

That is slander and blood libel that is totally speculation.


Then it shows the real basis...some guy "believes" it to be true. Whoopee do.

"Oshri and his team have uncovered the remains of a later monastery and the largest Byzantine church in Israel, which raises the question of why such a huge house of Christian worship was built in the heart of a Jewish area. The Israeli archaeologist believes that it’s because early Christians revered Bethlehem of Galilee as the birthplace of Jesus. "

 

[46AND2]

No idea why you cannot offer any prooof from the article or elsewhere. A bunch of empty conjecture. Worse actually, open blasphemy as the National Geographic article is.

"The “little town of Bethlehem” may not actually be where Jesus was born. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written at least 50 years after Jesus’ death, and some religious scholars believe the writers set their stories in Bethlehem of Judaea to associate Jesus with the House of David. This was to reinforce Jesus’ status as the Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures in order to attract early Jewish converts to Christianity. "

That is slander and blood libel that is totally speculation.

No amount of evidence would overcome your devotion to your traditions/superstitions. Just like the man said in the article. Facts don't matter to you. Only faith.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How about Joseph attending one of the three pilgrimage festivals? Bethlehem in Judea is only a few miles from Jerusalem.

How about Luke giving that as the reason instead of concocting a completely absurd one?

 

[TLK Valentine]

That would make it worthless then.

The article would be worthless because you read it?

You know, I think I can actually follow the logic on that one...

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

Would this make Jesus Greek?

 

[AV1611VET]

From the article:

But Israeli archaeologists now say there is strong evidence that Christ was born in a different Bethlehem, a small village in the Galilee.

Hey, Israeli archaeologists!

You were there [then]?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No amount of evidence would overcome your devotion to your traditions/superstitions. Just like the man said in the article. Facts don't matter to you. Only faith.

It's not even "faith" so much as it is insecurity and desperation.

In any case, ignore him --let's save our efforts for things that actually add to the discussion.

Bethlehem of Galilee would be a far more plausible location, going by the historical facts as we currently know them. It still raises the question as to what Joseph and Mary were doing there in the first place, but it's not nearly as far off the beaten path as Judea -- where Joseph had a thousand reasons not to go.

 

[AV1611VET]

It still raises the question as to what Joseph and Mary were doing there in the first place, but it's not nearly as far off the beaten path as Judea -- where Joseph had a thousand reasons not to go.

You mean, like this one?

Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; ( because he was of the house and lineage of David: )

 

[dad]

No amount of evidence would overcome your devotion to your traditions/superstitions. Just like the man said in the article. Facts don't matter to you. Only faith.

You have facts on some Bethlehem that Jesus was born in that was not the city of David? Guess the angels should stand corrected?


Lu 2:4 -And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

Lu 2:11 -For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

 

[dad]

The article would be worthless because you read it?

You know, I think I can actually follow the logic on that one...

No, if the quoted line was the big reason, it is worthless. Let's face it all smoke no fire here.

 

[Jade Margery]

Wow, again, you manage to read only the parts of the article that you like.

We shall see if it be bullets or if it be something less.
Worthless. It has to be the city of David in Judea to be in the running. Having Jews live somewhere just doesn't cut it.

Not worthless. True, the presence of Jews at that time period does not prove it to be the right place, but it makes it a *possible* place. Evidence is not all about single facts that prove the whole, it's building a case using various facts that are related to each other. For instance, if you wanted to prove that a guy murdered someone in a particular house, you have to start by showing that it's *possible*, by showing he has no alibi and was seen by no one else anywhere else at the time of the crime.

Also, it amuses me that you are calling all other evidence worthless, but the only thing you are basing your opinion on is a book you have read. Fun fact: the writers of the bible weren't there at the birth of christ either.

Right...what evidence!!?? You think just saying it makes it so?

Of course not. And obviously, a bunch of people worshiping a place doesn't necessarily mean it's the right place (see: Bethlehem of Judea). However, what we have is one of the largest and earliest christian churches built right in the middle of a small jewish community that just happens to be named Bethlehem. If nothing else, it shows that the site was very important to early christians. Can you think of another reason for that?

Proof she rode it all on a donkey? And proof that people of that day had real trouble going more than 20 yards?? Ever hear of camels? Walking? Etc....

Camels would be much the same as a donkey, and walking would take even longer. Seven kilometers is a little less than five miles -- a day trip if you were riding or walking. 150 km is about 93 miles.

A camel caravan (probably the fastest option) can generally travel 25 miles in a day. That's a four day trip to B.o.T, and then another four days back. Would the Romans really run a census that required everyone to lose a week or more of productive work time in order to return to the cities of their great-great-somethingths ancestors? Or, does it make more sense that each region would have its own census center, probably within a day's journey of the towns surrounding it?

And why would a man drag his nine-months-pregnant wife on a week long camel/donkey trek when she could have just stayed at home?

Let's see that? Why talk as if you have something when you can't produce the goods?

"Studies of the town [Bethlehem of Judea] have turned up a great deal of Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 B.C. as well as material from the sixth century A.D., but nothing from the first century B.C. or the first century A.D."

This is probably the most damning evidence. Archaeologists have gotten pretty good at pinpointing layers of habitation throughout time. Each generation leaves their own mark on an area. The evidence shows that B.o.T. was inhabited up to five hundred years before Jesus's supposed birth, and as soon as six hundred years after, but that's a pretty huge gap of over a thousand years without any evidence of anybody living there.

More empty blab. Says who based on what exactly???

Says this scientist, based on all of the above. Granted, most of this evidence is circumstantial--you certainly couldn't convict on it--but the only thing you have to argue against it is 'Well someone else several hundred years ago said this city was the right one!'

Try facing reality before spouting unsupported conspiracy theories that are out of sync with Scripture and for which you cannot provide the slightest proof.

Do tell me which is more plausible: The romans require a bunch of jewish families to travel up to a hundred miles away from where they live to an uninhabited place for a census, or some guy who was writing a story fudged the facts to make it fit better into an existing prophecy?

Just because it's blasphemy doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, it amuses me that you are calling all other evidence worthless, but the only thing you are basing your opinion on is a book you have read. Fun fact: the writers of the bible weren't there at the birth of christ either.

Then what's the big deal about it being Bethlehem at all? if the Bible doesn't have any data points, then it could have been any city.

Question: Of the two Bethlehems in question, which one does the Bible say it is? (please answer this, thank you)

 

[46AND2]

Wow, again, you manage to read only the parts of the article that you like.



Not worthless. True, the presence of Jews at that time period does not prove it to be the right place, but it makes it a *possible* place. Evidence is not all about single facts that prove the whole, it's building a case using various facts that are related to each other. For instance, if you wanted to prove that a guy murdered someone in a particular house, you have to start by showing that it's *possible*, by showing he has no alibi and was seen by no one else anywhere else at the time of the crime.

Also, it amuses me that you are calling all other evidence worthless, but the only thing you are basing your opinion on is a book you have read. Fun fact: the writers of the bible weren't there at the birth of christ either.



Of course not. And obviously, a bunch of people worshiping a place doesn't necessarily mean it's the right place (see: Bethlehem of Judea). However, what we have is one of the largest and earliest christian churches built right in the middle of a small jewish community that just happens to be named Bethlehem. If nothing else, it shows that the site was very important to early christians. Can you think of another reason for that?



Camels would be much the same as a donkey, and walking would take even longer. Seven kilometers is a little less than five miles -- a day trip if you were riding or walking. 150 km is about 93 miles.

A camel caravan (probably the fastest option) can generally travel 25 miles in a day. That's a four day trip to B.o.T, and then another four days back. Would the Romans really run a census that required everyone to lose a week or more of productive work time in order to return to the cities of their great-great-somethingths ancestors? Or, does it make more sense that each region would have its own census center, probably within a day's journey of the towns surrounding it?

And why would a man drag his nine-months-pregnant wife on a week long camel/donkey trek when she could have just stayed at home?



"Studies of the town [Bethlehem of Judea] have turned up a great deal of Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 B.C. as well as material from the sixth century A.D., but nothing from the first century B.C. or the first century A.D."

This is probably the most damning evidence. Archaeologists have gotten pretty good at pinpointing layers of habitation throughout time. Each generation leaves their own mark on an area. The evidence shows that B.o.T. was inhabited up to five hundred years before Jesus's supposed birth, and as soon as six hundred years after, but that's a pretty huge gap of over a thousand years without any evidence of anybody living there.



Says this scientist, based on all of the above. Granted, most of this evidence is circumstantial--you certainly couldn't convict on it--but the only thing you have to argue against it is 'Well someone else several hundred years ago said this city was the right one!'



Do tell me which is more plausible: The romans require a bunch of jewish families to travel up to a hundred miles away from where they live to an uninhabited place for a census, or some guy who was writing a story fudged the facts to make it fit better into an existing prophecy?

Just because it's blasphemy doesn't mean it isn't true.

See, I don't buy the uninhabited Bethlehem of Judea bit, though. The Bible authors may have changed the city in which Jesus was born, but I highly doubt they did so with an area that was uninhabited.

 

[Papias]

AV wrote:

You mean, like this one?

Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; ( because he was of the house and lineage of David: )

Luke's "census" is obviously an inspired fabrication for a number of reasons.

1. First, Romans record censuses. That's why they have them. There is no census recorded when Herod was king near the proposed time.
2. Second, Roman censuses simply count people - we have tons of them recorded, and every time, they simply count the men. They don't require you to travel to former home of your father, grandfather, or g^40th grandfather.
3. third, a little math shows how silly such an idea is in the first place. You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, etc, or 2^(#generations) ancestors. Taking 25 years as a generation, 1000/25 = ~40 generations. Now, 2^40 = 1,000,000,000,000 people. Since that's more than the whole world population in 1,000 BC (or even today), we can conclude that Joseph was a descendant of most of the people living anywhere near Israel in 1,000 BC, in addition to many others in Babylon, Egypt, and so on. So which of the hundreds of cities should he go to? If that were held today, where would you go?
4. Forth- faced with the above, if everyone had to travel to the city of one of their ancestors, then imagine the huge mass migrations as everyone tried to travel to another city at the same time. Such bedlam would provide a bonanza to thieves and highway robbers, who could alternatively sack people's abandoned houses or the travelers themselves.
5. Fifth - faced with #4, the regional economy would be devasted as everyone stopped working for weeks or months so they could travel. There wouldn't be sufficient travel related supplies, and many people would die of food shortages as everyone who made food was out traveling.
6. Sixth - if such an armageddon as #4 and #5 above (plus all the problems I didn't mention, like disease from travel and conditions, and more) occurred, why do we see nary a peep about it in the normally very meticulous Roman records? If nothing else, we'd certainly see the resulting crash in tax revenues show up, since that was the emperor's main concern anyway, and like other disturbances, would no doubt cause the army to be sent out there.

Anyone who thinks about this for a moment could come up with more reasons. It makes the Holy Word of God look silly to pretend that Luke's story here is in any literal way a real event. God's point - that Jesus was Royalty like David, is clear.

Since the story is obviously an inspired fabrication, arguing about which Bethelhem he went to is like trying to have a serious argument over whether humpty dumpty broke into 362 pieces, 219 pieces or 527 pieces - it misses the whole point of the story and is oblivious to reality. A poll between the literal # of pieces is even more senseless than the literalism itself.

Papias

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Luke's "census" obviously an inspired fabrication for a number of reasons.


[*]First, Romans record censuses. That's why they have them. There is no census recorded when Herod was king near the proposed time.
[*]Second, Roman censuses simply count people. They don't require you to travel to former home of your father, grandfather, or g^40th grandfather.
[*]third, a little math shows how silly such an idea is in the first place. You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, etc, or 2^(#generations) ancestors. Taking 25 years as a generation, 1000/25 = ~40 generations. Now, 2^40 = 1,000,000,000,000 people. Since that's more than the whole world population in 1,000 BC (or even today), we can conclude that Joseph was a descendant of most of the people living anywhere near Israel in 1,000 BC, in addition to many others in Babylon, Egypt, and so on. So which of the hundreds of cities should he go to? If that were held today, where would you go?
[*]Forth- faced with the above, if everyone had to travel to the city of one of their ancestors, then imagine the huge mass migrations as everyone tried to travel to another city at the same time. Such bedlam would provide a bonanza to thieves and highway robbers, who could alternatively sack people's abandoned houses or the travelers themselves.
[*]Fifth - if such an armageddon as #4 above occurred, why do we see nary a peep about it in the normally very meticulous Roman records?

Anyone who thinks about this for a moment could come up with more reasons. It makes the Holy Word of God look silly to pretend that Luke's story here is in any literal way a real event.

Papias

Correct. It's clearly a fabrication added to connect Jesus to David and claim Jesus fulfilled prophecy. After the fact, of course.

Mark probably has the best line on what those at the time knew of Jesus' ancestry: nothing.