| Date: 2006-05-22 |
Username: william |
Helpful: 0 of 0 |
| Was he born in a stable or a cave? |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
  |
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-05-23 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 5 of 5 |
| Constantine's mother believed he was born in a cave and built a basilica over it in 327 AD. Early Christian texts claim that he was born in a cave (e.g., Protoevangelium of James, Origen’s Against Celsus, Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr). In fact, the word “katalemna” which is usually translated as “stable” can also be translated as a “temporary shelter” or a “cave”. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-07-27 |
Username: thebigrabbit |
Helpful: 1 of 1 |
| Dr James Tabor claims in his book The Jesus Dynasty that Jesus was born in Nazareth and that the village was a place where Davidic descendants lived. What's your opinion about this claim? |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-08-09 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 3 of 3 |
| Hi Big Rabbit. It's possible that Jesus was born in Nazareth, but the Nazareth described in the gospels (containing a synagogue) didn't exist at the time of Jesus' birth. Dr. Tabor's theory rests on the assumption that "netzer" (branch) is the origins of the word Nazareth, and I'm not convinced of that fact. Although he is far more qualified than I am to comment on such things, I take my authorities here from others who are equally qualified as Dr. Tabor in this regard. I'd certainly encourage anyone to read his book and judge for themselves. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2006-09-06 |
Username: drj |
Helpful: 3 of 4 |
| Hi. There is a debate going on now about the historicity of the Quirinius visit, but in any event, it appears that it was not associated with a census even if the visit itself is confirmed. And the census spoken about in Luke (2:1) is a broader census than merely a Judean census (ie., "...there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled...). Many scholars believe that the census idea is merely Luke copying some details from Josephus to add color to his gospel. As to your point about Jesus avoiding prophetic beliefs, how would you explain the donkey and the palm branches upon his entrance into Jerusalem. Here he very consciously orchestrates his behavior to fulfill OT prophesy? |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-09-13 |
Username: rambux |
Helpful: 3 of 4 |
| The Birth Narratives (Matthew and Luke) are later additions. As correctly suggested, they are a very articifial attempt to link Jesus with Bethlehem, and hence strengthen the Church's claim that Jesus was Israel's Messiah.
But in Mark, Jesus himself criticises the notion that the Messiah is a decendant of David, thereby lending strong weight to the suggestion that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem.
|
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2007-10-12 |
Username: anorak |
Helpful: 1 of 4 |
| Of course Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Just not the Bethlehem on Earth. Bethlehem translates to "House of Bread". The constellaton of Virgo is always depicted as carrying a chaff of wheat. What do you make with wheat? Bread of course! This is why Virgo is referred to as the "House of Bread" also. On December 25th The Sun rises in the constellation of Virgo. Hence born of a virgin in Bethlehem. The Bible was NEVER meant to be taken as literal truth, but rather allegory to greater knowlege. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-01-20 |
Username: DavidGibbs |
Helpful: 1 of 3 |
| "There is no evidence outside the Bible that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem at all..."
In point of fact, outside of the Bible, there is no evidence that Jesus was born....at all.
|
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-01-21 |
Username: hanzo |
Helpful: 2 of 2 |
| In Micha 5:2; it says "You, Bethlehem Ephrathah, are too small to be included among Judah's cities. Yet, from you Israel's future ruler will come for me" If we look at the meaning of Ephra Thah, it means "20 miles along the road from" So in essence, Bethlehem Ephra thah would mean 20 miles along the road from Bethlehem. If we look at the map of old palestine; we find that this would lead us to a small town in the mountian reagon called hebron (the original city given to david) #please note that david was not given Jebus and Salam (or jerusalem ) as a gift from GOD, he invaded these cities after 7 yrs of hebron.
So if the Lord was to be born in the "true" city of david, it would now be in the small city of hebron. King Herod also had reference to the scriptures, but he missed the fact that Davids original city was Hebron, hence why jesus was not killed by herod. (also, hebron was outside the jurestriction of control of Herod at the time.) BTW, this is all referenced from the bible |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-01-25 |
Username: boblackey |
Helpful: 2 of 2 |
| David Gibbs. What do you mean there is no evidence that Jesus was ever born? If He was never born, then how was he crucified? How could he have had the few sayings that the Jesus Seminar attribute to him as recorded in "Q"?
Tacitus and Josephus both are outside the Bible and both indicate Jesus was crucified under the authority of Pilate.
What are your credentials? How can you make such a statement? Are you a histortian or a Bible scholar? Well if you are, you are certainly in a very small minority. I've been wondering about this Jesus was never born/Jesus was a myth theory for three years now and I can't find but ONE Bible scholar who supports such a view and that is Robert Price. All the rest are ameture voices crying out that Jesus never existed.
I've written and Emailed many scholars over the last few years and EVERYONE except Price rejects the Jesus myth position as folly. I thought it might be THE shocker of the last 2,000 years but nobody who is an expert/authority in the field, and that is what it would take to get the mainstream media to buy into Jesus as myth as a possiblility, to give the myth position any chance of being correct.
Last summer I Emailed Louis Feldman, PhD who is Jewish and NOT a Christian about Josephus. Feldman is considered among the best scholars and authorities on Josephus living today and I find out that he and most of the other scholars believe the FT is original to Josephus but that it was probably embellished by a Christian copyist well after Josephus' death and that the passage concerning James "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ" is accepted by the vast majority of Josephus scholars including Louis Feldman as genuine.
So there is NO doubt Jesus was born and was crucified under Pilate. Indeed, recently scholars James Tabor and John Dominique Corrson wrote that Jesus' crucifixion is a historical FACT. And this from men who do NOT accept the Roman Catholic and protestant doctrine on the person of Jesus. Not only did Tabor inform me that he didn't believe in Jesus' virgin birth and that he was born in Bethlehem but that he is an agnostic concerning God's existence.
The Jesus myth position is without support from the vast majority of scholars and historians who have no religious ax to grind.
To me, the positon of the guy who runs this site, that the gospel stories involve more then one man named Jesus is far more likely to be correct IF it's not one man name Jesus then the Jesus myth positon.
Recently someone sent me a paper written by a couple of guys who argue that the Jesus myth is just another version of the dying/rising virgin born diety who was born on December 25th story told so often in the mystery religions. That sounded interesting until the scholars who wrote me back indicated many of the mystery religions not only come after the gospel story but differ in many ways and that the NT actually indicates that Jesus was born in the fall of the year and some scholars see the spring of the year as indicated by the NT. So it seems the December 25th birth date was an invention by the Roman Catholic Church well after the gospels were written. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-01-26 |
Username: SplPio |
Helpful: 0 of 3 |
| the decree of Caesar Augustus, compelling everyone to register in the town of his origin, proved providential in its timing, for the prophecy concerning Jesus’ birthplace had to be fulfilled. (Mic 5:2) Accordingly, Joseph took Mary, who was “heavy with child,” on the strenuous journey of about 150 km (93 mi) from their home in Nazareth in the N to Bethlehem in the S. Because there was no place for them in the lodging room, the birth of the child took place under most humble conditions, with the newborn babe being laid in a manger. This occurred probably about October 1 of the year 2 B.C.E.—Lu 2:1-7;
It was highly unlikely that Caesar would make the volatile Jews trek in the dead cold of winter to register. Also, the bible does say the shepard's were living outside with there flocks. Thus, you can safely determine, he was not born in winter, and yes, they migrated back to the vicinity of Bethlehem. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-02-03 |
Username: DavidGibbs |
Helpful: 4 of 4 |
| What one must look for, as proof of anything historical, is first hand evidence. If there is no first hand evidence, all that we are left with are assumptions, conjectures and speculations. There is not one shred of first hand evidence from any source of the existence of Jesus of the New Testament…not even in the New Testament itself. All the books of the New Testament were written in Greek. The disciples would have spoken backwoods Aramaic, and according to the New Testament itself, the disciples “were illiterate and uneducated men.” They, obviously, did not write the four Gospels. Paul does not tell us anything about a flesh-and-blood Jesus living and preaching on earth, and states emphatically that he never knew any such person.
The First Century, Middle East is the best-documented period in all of ancient history, and in spite of dozens of prolific writers, and a massive volume of literature, outside of the Gospels, no contemporary person wrote one single word about the most monumental happening since the world began; the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus, spanning a period of around 33 years. How could such a thing happen? The obvious deduction is that there was no Jesus of the New Testament to write about.
The two passages in the work of Josephus, “The Antiquities of the Jews,” have been repeatedly and clearly shown to be interpolations. The FT, as you call it, was obviously written by a Christian. Flavius Josephus was a staunch Jew, and a prolific writer. If the New Testament story was true, it is absurd to think that he would have devoted only about six lines to this subject. Regarding the second passage in question, “James, the brother of Jesus,” is referring to another James and another Jesus. The name Jesus was a very common name in Judea in the first century as was James, and Josephus, in his massive 30-volume work, wrote about no less than 16 Jesuses. The entire passage from the writings of Josephus can be found on the Web at “Jesus Myth- The case against Historical Christ.” If you take the trouble to read it, you will see for yourself that the passage has nothing to do with the Jesus of the New Testament. Kings, rulers and important political figures often had the title, Messiah (English) or Christ (Greek) attached to their names.
The early Roman Church, desperate for evidence of Jesus outside the New Testament, held on, tenaciously, to the works of Josephus, as the only proof that they could muster from the huge volume of literature of the period. But many historians and theologians now believe that their own Roman Catholic, Bishop Eusebius, who lived in the 4th century, was responsible for the interpolations, as there is evidence from other sources that the works of Josephus did not contain the passages in question before the 4th century. However, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Roman Church for the preservation of these valuable works.
Even if these passages were not interpolations, it is not first hand evidence of the existence of Jesus, written some 60 years after the alleged crucifixion, and after the legend was beginning to gathered momentum and spreading abroad. Josephus makes no claim to have met Jesus, and would only have heard of him from a second, third or fourth hand source. No first hand evidence.
Tacitus was a second century historian, who wrote long after the myth of Jesus had evolved and by that time was erroneously regarded by some as factual. How could he know for certain about what supposedly happened eighty years previously unless he heard it from others…second, third or fourth hand?
No first hand evidence.
|
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-02-09 |
Username: anorak |
Helpful: 3 of 3 |
| What most people fail to recognize is that the four gospels (if they happened at all) were written AFTER Paul's letters (mostly all of the rest of the NT). The priests decided to place the gospels at the BEGING of the NT to set up the whole lie. Everything in Paul's letters seem to elaborate on what the gospels say. Paul was supposedly alive at the time Jesus was crucified. He mentions the fall of the temple wich occured arround 70CE. Paul never mentions ANYTHING about Jesus' life except he was born and died on a cross. Why didn't he mention anything abou the miracles or being born of a virgin? Paul's letters were describing the fictional CHRIST and not the supposed JESUS. No historian of the time mentions a JESUS, but rather a Christ. Christianity actually begain about 1000 years BEFORE this Jesus guy. The four gospels were written (some say) no sooner than 100CE. So where was "Jesus" for those (at least 30 years?)
And just an FYI: Under Jewish law at the time the punishment for blasphemy (what Jesus was accused of) is actually STONING and not crucifixion. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-02-09 |
Username: wltucker |
Helpful: 3 of 3 |
| David Gibbs, there may be no known first century documented evidence outside of the NT that some are willing to accept as authentic. Yet, you did mention Paul as if he was a real person who wrote at least a good portion of the epistles attributed to him. He was well aware of Peter, James, and etc. Papias and Polycarp were disciples of the apostle John. The point being that the apostles were real people. The apostles are about as first hand evidence as you can get. In addition, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that many of the eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus were still alive. So, either Paul is the biggest fraud of all history, or Jesus was a real historical person, who at least taught as a Rabi around the Galilee area if nothing else.
That the disciples weren't scholars who knew more than Aramaic is a mute point since at least Dr. Luke was more than a dumb Galilean, and it was not uncommon to have someone who knew how to write, and who likely knew Greek, to write the gospels under their supervision. Even Paul had someone else write many of his letters.
As to why there appeared to be silence, I don't know. But, to say there was no first hand evidence, while denying the evidence, is a leap of faith. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-02-12 |
Username: DavidGibbs |
Helpful: 2 of 2 |
| Wltuckur, regarding Jesus born in Bethlehem, you write about my denying the evidence, but what evidence have you shown me? By no means are most of Paul's writings considered by Scholars to be genuine; only four of them are so considered, and even these have been tampered with over the centuries by the "Holy Roman Church" to bring them in line with party policies of the moment, as has every single one of the books of the New Testament. If there were actually any disciples, contemporaneous with the supposed life of Jesus, they would have been all dead when the Gospels were written. The passage you refer to (1 Cor. 15:6) is not a first hand account. Paul is relating what someone else, or other people told him. There is NO FIRST HAND EVIDENCE anywhere, either inside or outside of the New Testament. There may have been an itinerant preacher called Jesus who lived in first century Middle East, who was the inspiration for the original story, but there is no first hand evidence of such a person. All of Jesus' supposed sayings and parables can be shown to originate from sources that predate his existence. If there was such a person, he was not born of a virgin, he did not perform miracles and did not rise from the dead, because miracles, simply, do not happen. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-02-14 |
Username: boblackey |
Helpful: 2 of 2 |
| David Gibbs. Again I wonder where you get your information. Most conservative scholars doubt Paul wrote Hebrews. Most liberal scholars accept SEVEN, NOT FOUR, letters to be genuine with Paul. Most liberal scholars view 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus to be bogus and forged under Paul's name, but the Roman Catholic Church has a website and there are several conservative protestant scholars on the web that take shape exception to that position and hold that Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.
And WHO says the genunie letters of Paul have suffered tampering????? WHO? What scholars?
This is just like your claim that most scholars say Josephus wrote nothing about Jesus. This is NOT TRUE. Most scholars doing work on Josephus believe the "James, the brother of Jesus" passage is original and contrary to what you write, IS about the brother of Jesus, James, who was the head of the early Christian church at Jerusalem.
As to the FT, the MAJORITY of scholars today believe there is a CORE message about the Jesus of the gospels that even mentions him being crucified by orders of Pilate, but that the passage was not favorable to Jesus and offensive to a Christian, so someone tampered with it and added and changed words to it so it would be supportive of the Christian view of Jesus.
Without exception, everytime I investigate someone who claims Josephus never wrote about Jesus or the Jesus was NOT a historical person, they always turn out to be an amature (without a PhD or major earned degree in the proper fields of study) or someone who has a degree outside NT and early Christian scholarship. Like a biologist who is without an advanced education in astromony writing on astromony.
Just the other day I received an Email from one of the best known liberal NT scholars here in North Carolina, Bart Ehrman, PhD who is the James A. Gray professor of NT studies and early Christianity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, N. C. and Dr. Ehrman informed me is either knows or knows of around 100 scholars working today in his field and NOT ONE...NOT ONE!!!! holds the Jesus myth position. Another top liberal NT scholar here in North Carolina is James Tabor, PhD. Dr. Tabor is an agnostic and rejects the virgin birth etc. but he also wrote me that the Jesus myth position is not possible and he rejects it and KNOWS OF NO SCHOLARS IN HIS FIELD OF STUDY WHO HOLDS THE POSITION.
The Jesus myth theory is only advanced by atheist zealots who do not have the credentials to do advanced scholarly work in the fields. There are several athesits who ARE holders of advanced degrees in the field at they to reject the Jesus myth. So the Jesus myth theory is DEAD and is without traction in the scholarly world. How many shows on the Discover or History Channel or ABC, NBC or CBS present experts in the fields of NT study and early Christianity who hold that Jesus never existed? NONE!!!!!
Several of the Jesus myth sites I've visted all make claims that professional scholars reject. Such as Christianity is similar to the mystery religions of 2,000 years ago that have a dying savious born on December 25th. Modern liberal scholars usually take the position that the virgin birth passages are later additions to the original and even if that were not the case, the NT NEVER says Jesus was born on December 25th. Never. Indeed, scholars say it gives hints that he was probably born in the fall and some think the spring of the year. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-02-14 |
Username: RDOnsted |
Helpful: 2 of 3 |
| Re: DavidGibbs' comment <>
Although a momentary departure from the original thread, my comment on this statement may merely be an exercise in semantics. However, one cannot deny that unexplainable spontaneous healings and/or recoveries from serious illnesses happen quite often in the annals of medicine. Whether or not we call them "miracles" depends on one's basic world view. The person of religious persuasion will call them "miracles; one of a more secular bent will call them spontaneous healings.
So called "miracles" over psychologically induced illnesses, as performed by traveling faith healers and tent show preachers even today, are reasonable in cases where the mind produced the illness to begin with. It is well known that the mind--or ones belief system-- is a powerful force that can both hurt and heal. Hysteria is known to produce both illness AND cure, both of which have been termed "psycho-somatic," so it does not trouble me to believe that a faith healer or itinerant preacher, as was Jesus, could have produced what might otherwise have been called "miracles." Dire diagnoses have often made abrupt about-faces in the medical literature, defying any logical explanation, so whether or not we call them "miracles" is really a mute point. The real fact is that unexplained reversals do happen, regardless of our choice of words used to describe the effects, is what should be remembered.
Now, on to the actual thread of Jesus having been born in Bethlehem of Judea... It is indeed highly unlikely that Joseph traveled from Nazareth of Galilee in the north, to Bethlehem of Judea in the south-- a distance of some 75-80 miles-- with his nine-month pregnant wife in tow, seated on a donkey, over treacherous rocky terrain, to register in some highly questionable census. Consider, however, the possibility that Joseph may have been an itinerant worker, carpenter, stone mason or other skilled tradesman ("tekton," in the original Greek) who was already living in Bethlehem in Galilee because work was plentiful there, given the enormous amount of building, by the Romans, in cities like Tiberias, Caesarea Philippi, etc. in the northern provinces.
It is no new theory that Matthew bent and twisted his birth narrative to force compliance with ancient Hebrew prophecies about a messiah being born of the house and family of David. But this, too, hinges on Matthew's alignment with Paul's misuse of the word "messiah," which-- in its original Hebrew-- had no spiritual significance whatsoever. Recall that the Jewish peoples, having been oppressed many times in their difficult history, had been long awaiting the arrival of a physical, earthly conqueror to overthrow their oppressors and re-establish the kingdom of David and Solomon under independent Jewish rule, NOT some mystical, mythological redeemer of the world's sins, a theme borrowed from pre-Christian pagan sources.
So I posit that Jesus may well have been born in "a" Bethlehem, but most likely the Bethlehem of Galilee, NOT the Bethlehem of Judea, as the gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke have claimed. |
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
| Date: 2008-02-26 |
Username: tall |
Helpful: 2 of 2 |
| David Gibbs thank you for your second longer comment. I couldn’t find “Jesus Myth- The case against Historical Christ.” on the Internet, but I found the following site, http://members.tripod.com/rationalrevolution0/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm, which was useful. I also looked at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/earliest.html that has an article by G A Wells.
I am happy that a case can be made that Matthew for theological reasons that is Jesus is the Second Moses has Jesus come out of Egypt, has the massacre of the innocents, and has Jesus give a sermon on the mount. Matthew uses Old Testament scripture Hosea 11:1 and Exodus 1:22 as part of his story concerning Jesus. I am happy to believe that one of the reasons Matthew has Jesus born of a virgin is to fulfil the Greek Old Testament version of Isaiah 7:14, or that Matthew has Jesus get two donkeys for his entry into Jerusalem is because of his understanding of Zechariah 9:9.
When reading CH Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel I was struck by the use of Old Testament scripture to build the story of Jesus. However I am not convinced that the Wisdom of Solomon 2:17-20
“17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
18 For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
19 With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." is the basis for the passion of Jesus.
Also it is stated that Paul does not have an earthly Jesus, which I disagree with. In Romans 1:3 Paul wrote, “the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh”. In 1 Corinthians 15: 4 Paul, wrote “that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day …” Also in 1 Corinthians 7: 10-12 he wrote, “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) - and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
“To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.” It seems to me that Paul is aware of the teaching of the earthy Jesus.
I think you have missed a step out when discussing Josephus and James the brother of Jesus. The step is that this passage makes more sense if the reference to the Messiah is removed and then the Jesus referred to is most likely to be the son of Damneus who king Agrippa made high priest. However you might be suggesting that as Jesus was high priest he was anointed and that explained the use of the Messiah (the Anointed) here?
David Gibbs you raise some interesting points in your third comment. On the issues of Paul’s letters I am not aware that it is generally accepted that only four are genuine. Which four? I have read that nine are generally accepted as genuine. Paul’s letters are not an area I have looked at and so was surprised that there is general agreement that 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 is an addition.
I think I have to agree with you there is no first hand evidence, but there is lack of first hand evidence for lots of things that did happen. Second hand witnesses wrote chronicles. The gospels are evidence but it is the nature of this evidence that has to be questioned.
I am not sure that a case has been made out for all of Jesus’ supposed sayings and parables to originate from sources that predate his existence. I think that when the criterion of dissimilarity is applied there is still something left. Also I think the criterion of multiple attestation might leave some thing behind.
|
| Was this comment helpful to you? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
