Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She didn't walk, she rode on a donkey. Maybe she didn't go for the fun of it, but instead did not want to be without Joseph in case she gave birth or for other reasons.
No, if you are accustomed to doing something than it is not such a big deal.
I should have remembered that but can say, from experience, I'd rather be walking than riding a donkey at that point!
That's even harder to believe.
Is it likely that a poor working family like Mary and Joseph would have packed up all their belongings and property to travel for days to another city, just to report to the government census?
Would long genealogies have been kept for such people?
From what I understand a census was done every 7 or so years and was very important. Joseph planned on going by himself but Mary insisted that she go with him. I don't think he packed all his belongings, just a few things he needed for the trip. The town they had to go to was not that far, and traveling 4 or 5 days was not a big deal for people during that time. I think the reason all the inns were full was because other people were in town for the census as well.
A census may have been done every seven years, but this (if the indications of history are to be trusted) was the first held in Judea because the Romans had just (1) taken over Judea. It was done when Quirinus was governor of Syria, and that is what Luke is evidently saying, for all that some try to make it refer to an unknown and secret census carried out for Herod before Quirinus became governor, which is as daft as saying that there was a battle of Gettysburg in 1776 which was before Lincoln became president. You simply wouldn't describe an event of the revolutionary war in that way.
Whether or not one regards Bethlehem as being far to go or not is irrelevant. It was absurd that Joseph should go to an ancestral city where he didn't live in order to register for a tax that would be collected in Sepphoris or Capernaum. There was no reason for his near term wife to go with him and your glib assertion that she insisted is simply a far -fetched invention to explain whey she went along at all. Joseph was the head of the house and even if he had reason to register in Bethlehem for the tax (he didn't; it was a Judean provincial tax and didn't apply to Galilee, which was a client kingdom under Antipas) he would have her stay in Galilee and she would see the sense in it. The only reason she goes along on this absurd and pointless sojourn is that it necessary that Jesus be wangled out of Nazareth into Bethlehem to be born because that is what the scripture seems to say the messiah must do.
Quote:
I find this part of the story believable.
I find this part of the story quite unbelievable and once explained as I have above, anyone who considers it credible must be determined to believe it, no matter what the facts of the matter.
I haven't even mentioned Matthew whose story is even worse and it gets worse than that, when you compare the two.
Jesus was not born in Bethlehem and the two contradictory stories invented to get him there are not credible.
(1) after the death of Herod and the removal of Archelaus.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-02-2014 at 12:48 PM..
The "miraculous conception/birth" story of Christ is a literary technique used in antiquity to display the "greatness" or divinity of a person. Pagan writers used this technique frequently to grand-ize their subjects, often rulers, emperors, etc, to a very faithful, illiterate, and relatively uneducated population of ancient times. Biblical authors were no different. It is an allegorical story to introduce Christ and set him up as a figure of great, divine importance in the same way as any of the other figures written about in this fashion. The literal historical truth of what the story says was certainly not the point of the authors at the time, much less now looking back.
The virgin birth only teaches everyone that they must be considered to be pure as a virgin, betrothed to Christ, and they themselves become pregnant with the seed of God as a virgin, and as virgins, when the die, they give birth to sons.
Jesus of Nazareth was likely born in Nazareth. The only reason Bethlehem is in the narrative is because it was the birthplace of King David. That was important to the later tellers of Jesus' story because Jesus was held (among others) to be the messiah. In 1st century Palestine the Jewish messiah was defined as the liberator of the Jews and the bringer of the "Kingdom of God" to Earth. That didn't mean a messiah was some heavenly deity ... The Kingdom of God meant the establishment on Earth of an independent Jewish state where God could was freely worshipped according to Jewish law. King David was held to be the previous messiah because he liberated the Jews and created a state governed by Jewish law. Associating Jesus story line with that of King David gave him more of the look and feel of a messiah.
Historical record? Very little. I think the only real non-biblical reference to Jesus appears in the historian Josephus' writings where he refers to Jesus' brother James as the brother of the messiah. As accurate historical records, the canonical gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke and John should probably be taken with a huge grain of salt as they were very likely not written by the people they were attributed to (with the possible exception of Mark). Mathew, Luke and John were written 80-120 yrs after Jesus' death. That's a long time for an oral history to get distorted before it's finally written down.
I agree. Good post. I'd just comment that there doubts that Nazareth even existed as a town at that time and 'Nazarene' either means that Jesus took a Nazirite vow (1) or it might be that he did come from Nazareth, but the district of Nazareth (Gen-nessaret) rather than the town that was built later and took the same name.
And, while the Flavian testament was doubtful from the start and because increasingly suspect as study went on, I always took the 'James, brother of Jesus' reference as prime proof of a historical Jesus whose brother became head of the Nazarenes after Jesus' death. However, that reference also looks doubtful. The story doesn't seem to fit James ("the Just", brother of Jesus) and his story and it suggested that it isn't the same man at all, but a Christian editor added that reference because he thought it was and needed to be made clear.
(1) an objection to this is based on his apparent fondness for wine. If one supposed that the bulk of the Gospel narrative was invented by Greek Christians, that does not cause a problem for Jesus being a Nazirite
It is absurd to suggest that wise men spottting a new star, configuration or stars and/or planets or a comet should immediately think 'Jewish king born', let alone pack their bags and travel to Judea to 'worship' him as though they knew (and Matthew already did, of course ) that it was a divine being.
Nor is it credible that it travelled ahead of them, waited outside while they pointlessly asked Herod where the king of the Jews would be born while the star hovered outside the Herodian palace waiting to lead the 'Wise' men on to Bethlehem. Nor is it credible that 9unless it was about fifty feet or so above ground that it could indicate any particular dwelling.
Even without reiterating the absurdity of Herod getting scriptural advice as though he Knew (as Matthew did, of course ) that it was a divine messiah rather than the political threat that Matthew suggests bothered Herod, nor the silly idea that the canny Herod would blandly ask the wise guys to send Jesus' address back so that he could also pay his respects (he'd simply say 'Bethlehem' and send his men to shadow them or get ahead and nab Jesus as soon as they unwrapped their prezzies and entered), Matthew's story is not unbelievable; it is unbelievable silly.
And we haven't even got on that trip to Egypt - as daft as anything in Matthew's narrative, let alone the car -crash of comparison with Luke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
yes, yes, and yes.
If I may quote Tove Johannson in Moominsummer Madness "No. Nono. No and no again".
Is it likely that a poor working family like Mary and Joseph would have packed up all their belongings and property to travel for days to another city, just to report to the government census?
Would long genealogies have been kept for such people?
Is there any literal truth to the story of Jesus?
Does the Bible say Joseph and Mary "packed up all their belongings"?
Since they traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem, it would have been approximately 63 miles. That distance is doable in about 5 days depending on road conditions and how fast a donkey can travel.
The Jews were very careful about their genealogies, so, yes, long genealogies would have been kept for such people.
The accounts of their travels and birth are actually historic records. Yes, of course they are literal truth.
It is absurd to suggest that wise men spottting a new star, configuration or stars and/or planets or a comet should immediately think 'Jewish king born', let alone pack their bags and travel to Judea to 'worship' him as though they knew (and Matthew already did, of course ) that it was a divine being.
Only absurd to people like you.
But suppose the wise men knew of the Daniel prophecy of exactly when to expect the Messiah down to the year?
Quote:
Nor is it credible that it travelled ahead of them, waited outside while they pointlessly asked Herod where the king of the Jews would be born while the star hovered outside the Herodian palace waiting to lead the 'Wise' men on to Bethlehem. Nor is it credible that 9unless it was about fifty feet or so above ground that it could indicate any particular dwelling.
Could it be the "star" was of angelic origin? In the Bible certain people are called stars.
Quote:
Even without reiterating the absurdity of Herod getting scriptural advice as though he Knew (as Matthew did, of course ) that it was a divine messiah rather than the political threat that Matthew suggests bothered Herod, nor the silly idea that the canny Herod would blandly ask the wise guys to send Jesus' address back so that he could also pay his respects (he'd simply say 'Bethlehem' and send his men to shadow them or get ahead and nab Jesus as soon as they unwrapped their prezzies and entered), Matthew's story is not unbelievable; it is unbelievable silly.
Absurd to you, but not to people really in the know.
Quote:
And we haven't even got on that trip to Egypt - as daft as anything in Matthew's narrative, let alone the car -crash of comparison with Luke.
Daft to you but not daft to those who really know what they are talking about.
Quote:
If I may quote Tove Johannson in Moominsummer Madness "No. Nono. No and no again".
If I may quote myself: "Yes, yes and yes and yes again.
I should have remembered that but can say, from experience, I'd rather be walking than riding a donkey at that point!
That's even harder to believe.
Maybe if you learned to ride one properly . . .
Maybe I missed it, but where in the New Testament does it say Mary rode a donkey to Bethlehem?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) that it was a divine being.
