Is there any convincing reason to believe that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem?
Or was this supposed biographical detail merely an embellishment ~ albeit an important one, ideologically speaking ~ added to the Jesus story out of necessity decades after his death by people creating the nuts and bolts of a new religion?
24 Dec 18
@fmf saidThere's no ability to argue this convincingly without assumed reliability of the Gospels as there's no other sources.
Is there any convincing reason to believe that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem?
Or was this supposed biographical detail merely an embellishment ~ albeit an important one, ideologically speaking ~ added to the Jesus story out of necessity decades after his death by people creating the nuts and bolts of a new religion?
There's no basis to argue against this that isn't already just amounting to the more basic line of disbelief.
No real point in discussing it because it's not like there's an alternative hypothesis or series of original sources that provide more insight into this.
It's like asking whether or not Buddha was really a from the Shakyas or whether or not Ali or Zayd were the first converts to Islam after Mohammed...
Why should anyone discuss a specific article of faith when you don't accept the general article of faith, and there's nothing else relevant to the talk?
24 Dec 18
@fmf saidThe Roman census at that time only applied to Judea, Samaria and Idumea and not to Galilee where Jesus’ mother and father lived. Then you have the fact that the purpose of having the census was for taxation and Roman law assessed an individual’s property where they resided and not in their birthplace.
Is there any convincing reason to believe that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem?
24 Dec 18
@fmf saidThe "necessity " would have been created by the words of Micah the prophet which required the "messiah" to be a descendant of King David and to be born in Bethlehem.
Or was this supposed biographical detail merely an embellishment ~ albeit an important one, ideologically speaking ~ added to the Jesus story out of necessity decades after his death by people creating the nuts and bolts of a new religion?
24 Dec 18
@fmf saidI am giving you constructive feedback on how to become a better thread starter and top knotch thinker.
Philokalia, you do not have to discuss it if you don't want to.
I'm helping you become a better version of yourself.
And i am clarifying the reality here for others.
24 Dec 18
@fmf saidThe Wikipedia lists even more reasons as to why the Gospel of Luke account could be erroneous, while some Biblical literalists list some other possibilities, e. G., an unrecorded earlier census.
The Roman census at that time only applied to Judea, Samaria and Idumea and not to Galilee where Jesus’ mother and father lived. Then you have the fact that the purpose of having the census was for taxation and Roman law assessed an individual’s property where they resided and not in their birthplace.
24 Dec 18
@fmf saidJerusalem was more commonly recognized as the City of David and would have been a more logical choice.
The "necessity " would have been created by the words of Micah the prophet which required the "messiah" to be a descendant of King David and to be born in Bethlehem.
24 Dec 18
@fmf saidYou do this a lot fmf you have rejected the main articles of faith then go about
Philokalia, you do not have to discuss it if you don't want to.
critiquing a lot of little things that could only come about if the major points were
true. If you are missing the great truths about God, faith, scriptures what do you
think is going to occur when you look at little things like this, just more of the
same nothing new here.
24 Dec 18
@philokalia saidIf you believe he was born in Bethlehem because you believe he was born in Bethlehem because the Bible mentions Bethlehem and you believe the Bible, then you should not feel any onus to discuss the question the OP poses..
I am giving you constructive feedback on how to become a better thread starter and top knotch thinker.
I'm helping you become a better version of yourself.
And i am clarifying the reality here for others.
24 Dec 18
@kellyjay saidMy loss of faith in the credibility of the Bible was not a matter of "little things". It was a big thing. You see, if the Bible is not credible - if it is concocted and contrived - then it does not inform us about "the great truths about God". If it is a not-credible revelation, then the "the main articles of faith" that it contains are neither her nor there.
You do this a lot fmf you have rejected the main articles of faith then go about
critiquing a lot of little things that could only come about if the major points were
true. If you are missing the great truths about God, faith, scriptures what do you
think is going to occur when you look at little things like this, just more of the
same nothing new here.
24 Dec 18
@fmf saidIf you do not accept the Gospels as accurate, is there any other source of information by which there would be an accurate or alternative account of Christ?
My loss of faith in the credibility of the Bible was not a matter of "little things". It was a big thing. You see, if the Bible is not credible - if it is concocted and contrived - then it does not inform us about "the great truths about God". If it is a not-credible revelation, then the "the main articles of faith" that it contains are neither her nor there.
No.
So why question this individual point?
As Kelly noted.
It doesn't make sense to reject an account and then to dwell on further rejecting aspects within the account when these are literally only relevant if the account is accepted.
It's just beating a dead horse now, isn't it?
Is that how you like to spend your time?
24 Dec 18
@philokalia saidI 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".
Jerusalem was more commonly recognized as the City of David and would have been a more logical choice.
24 Dec 18
@fmf saidJerusalem is ubiquitously known as the city of David.
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".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_David