Born in Nazareth?

[josh987654321]

.

Don’t worry Faith1960, the Bible is not wrong, Jesus was born in Bethlehem and not Nazareth. If it’s not “Jesus was actually born in Nazareth!, not Bethlehem!” this week, it will be “Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had four children!” next week.

I try to give them the attention they deserve … e.g. none.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

So Jesus COULD have been born in Nazareth and it wouldn’t matter?

No it would matter, but there is no need to worry because He was not born in Nazareth. I think I will take the 2000 years of history over the recent scholar who thinks he knows history better than those who lived it.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[clem456]

I think it would bother me because I was brought up believing the Bible was true, factual…whatever word you want to use.

Well, you need to read the materials people give you as references then, if you want to know what Catholics believe.

If you don’t want to know, then what’s the point in discussing it???

 

[Faith1960]

Don’t worry Faith1960, the Bible is not wrong, Jesus was born in Bethlehem and not Nazareth. If it’s not “Jesus was actually born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem” this week, it will be “Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had four children” next week.

I try to give them the attention they deserve … e.g. none.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

If my scholar/archaeologist correspondent hadn’t said she believes He was born in Nazareth, I wouldn’t be so worried.

 

[Faith1960]

Well, you need to read the materials people give you as references then, if you want to know what Catholics believe.

If you don’t want to know, then what’s the point in discussing it???

Again, I am looking for information from people quoting scholars which is what I wrote in my OP, not just opinions from people who haven’t had the training. Sorry.

 

[clem456]

Again, I am looking for information from people quoting scholars which is what I wrote in my OP, not just opinions from people who haven’t had the training. Sorry.

I posted a link to the catechism section in the other thread. That’s not my opinion And has nothing to do with my training. The ccc is for your edification. You’re getting good advice from posters it’s your choice to accept it or not.

Proper understanding of what inerrant and inspired actually mean is really important.
Here is what the Church teaches in 2015 (the living Magisterium)
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[Faith1960]

All one has to do to find Bethlehem of Galilee is Google it.

 

[pianistclare]

Again, I am looking for information from people quoting scholars which is what I wrote in my OP, not just opinions from people who haven’t had the training. Sorry.

Scripture is your source!!!Not random people who “come up” with notions that conflict with 2000 years of scholarship. Is your friend published by a reputable Catholic publishing house?
Look to catholic authors for catholic answers.
Do you want to be Catholic? Or do you seriously believe that you, singly and uniquely have info that invalidates the faith???

I, like some other posters tire of the same questions over and over without any consideration or reading of good scholarship.
I’m out.

 

[Faith1960]

Scripture is your source!!!Not random people who “come up” with notions that conflict with 2000 years of scholarship. Is your friend published by a reputable Catholic publishing house?
Look to catholic authors for catholic answers.
Do you want to be Catholic? Or do you seriously believe that you, singly and uniquely have info that invalidates the faith???

I, like some other posters tire of the same questions over and over without any consideration or reading of good scholarship.
I’m out.

What good scholarship, other than the CCC , if you want to call that scholarship? I’m asking for names of scholars Catholic or otherwise who say Jesus wasn’t born in Nazareth. Why is that so difficult if it’s all really so obvious? Mostly all I’ve gotten is opinions. Is it really so hard to list a few names of reputable scholars who believe Jesus wasnt born in Nazareth?

 

[pianistclare]

What good scholarship, other than the CCC , if you want to call that scholarship? I’m asking for names of scholars Catholic or otherwise who say Jesus wasn’t born in Nazareth. Why is that so difficult if it’s all really so obvious? Mostly all I’ve gotten is opinions. Is it really so hard to list a few names of reputable scholars who believe Jesus wasnt born in Nazareth?

Maybe there aren’t any???

 

[Faith1960]

Maybe there aren’t any???

Don’t you think that with so many scholars believing He was born there, there’d be some reputable scholars that would feel the need to correct it? I mean look how strongly people HERE feel about Jesus’ birthplace .

 

[Thorolfr]

Historical and Inspired (by the Holy Spirit) documents from Matthew and Luke…and the constant Tradition of the Church that Jesus founded…

Luke’s inspiration from the Holy Spirit seems to be kind of faulty sometimes. According to him (2:1-2), Jesus was born during the days when Quirinius carried out a census. But Luke also indicates that this was when Herod the Great was King of Judea. But Herod the Great died in 4 BC whereas the census of Quirinius took place in 6 AD.

 

[Piney_Woods]

Don’t you think that with so many scholars believing He was born there, there’d be some reputable scholars that would feel the need to correct it? I mean look how strongly people HERE feel about Jesus’ birthplace .

I’m curious why you would trust an opinion from a random scholar (or group of scholars) over the testimony of St. Luke; he was a lot closer to the situation than any of them have every been. I’ve been to graduate school, and I know professors; plenty of them believe all sorts of things that I think are plainly wrong.
For that matter, before I came back to the Church about a decade ago, I was searching for reasons to not return to Christianity. I turned to Bart Ehrman and the other “Jesus Seminar” people, and the hogwash they were peddling helped drive me back to Jesus.
I would suggest that you believe the testimony of St. Luke, rest easy, and have a blessed Christmas season.

 

[Faith1960]

I’m curious why you would trust an opinion from a random scholar (or group of scholars) over the testimony of St. Luke; he was a lot closer to the situation than any of them have every been. I’ve been to graduate school, and I know professors; plenty of them believe all sorts of things that I think are plainly wrong.
For that matter, before I came back to the Church about a decade ago, I was searching for reasons to not return to Christianity. I turned to Bart Ehrman and the other “Jesus Seminar” people, and the hogwash they were peddling helped drive me back to Jesus.
I would suggest that you believe the testimony of St. Luke, rest easy, and have a blessed Christmas season.

I’m still upset but thank you for your kind words. I hope yo have a blessed Christmas season too.

 

[Gorgias]

Back on topic, can anyone give me some scholarly sources to debunk this?

Well, it’s difficult to debunk non-scholarly claims.

But, let’s look at the article itself. First, it’s an op-ed piece. Second, it’s Reza Aslan, whose main scholarly claims in the field are an MTS he earned at Harvard after re-converting back to Islam (after converting to Evangelical Christianity upon emigrating from Iran). Third, his claims are hardly iron-clad.

He claims that there are no instances in the New Testament in which ‘adelphos’ is used in a context that doesn’t mean ‘brother’. Since he’s attempting to discredit the assertion that Jesus has no full brothers, one can only presume he means that there are no instances in the NT in which ‘adelphos’ is used to mean anything other than ‘blood brother’; after all, any other usage would weaken his argument. As an exercise left to the reader, it’s not very difficult to find references in the NT in which ‘adelphos’ means something other than ‘full blood brother’. Aslan’s claim falls flat on its face.

Moreover, he claims that the assertions of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is merely an attempt by the Christian community to create a fictional story that aligns Jesus with Jewish scripture. That’s quite the claim to make! And, of course… no evidence for that claim is forthcoming. It’s one thing to say “Jewish prophecies predict ‘Bethlehem’”… and quite another to demonstrate “Bethlehem is a falsification.” He can claim the latter; but no evidence is forthcoming. It’s his claim – he must provide the proof, not anyone else.

Aslan’s article is long on conjecture and short on evidence. Rather than presuming it’s true, you would be well advised to look to him for supporting evidence…

 

[Eliza10]

Can you give me some names of reputable mystics?

I’ll tell you one - Maria Valtorta. Her Bethlehem story, The Adoration of the Shepherds is one of my very many treasured favorites. I don’t see how its plausible anyone can make anything up this beautiful and perfect. The work is well defended from its detractors on the internet, but I am in agreement with what Pope Pius XII is recorded to have said: "There is no need to give an opinion about its origin, whether it be extraordinary or not. Who reads it will understand."

I won’t say anything else on it, in order not to turn a mention of private revelation on the forum to an actual discussion. I mention it since you asked. It may help to know that Valtorta’s cause for Beatification was accepted in the Congregation of Saints. A champion of her cause was Venerable Gabriel Allegra, O.F.M. who was beatified on September 29, 2012. Fr. Allegra is* the only biblical scholar of the 20th century who has been beatified.* Now that’s an eminently reliable authority!

 

[Faith1960]

Yo all might want to GOogle. History and the New Testament by Jack Kilmon.
He says the overwhelming majority of scholars believe Jesus was born in Nazaraeth.

 

[Sirach2]

Luke’s inspiration from the Holy Spirit seems to be kind of faulty sometimes. According to him (2:1-2), Jesus was born during the days when Quirinius carried out a census. But Luke also indicates that this was when Herod the Great was King of Judea. But Herod the Great died in 4 BC whereas the census of Quirinius took place in 6 AD.

Regarding Luke 3:1, "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar–when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod** Tetrarch of Galilee … "
This link lists the many “Herods” in the bible … there were other successors of Herod the Great, so it does not disprove Luke’s account, which is still true.
thegoodbookblog.com/2014/mar/03/how-many-herods-are-there-in-the-bible/
Herod, Tetrarch of Galilee, ruled from 4 BC to 39 AD. It would seem to me that Jesus was therefore born during the reign of Herod , as scripture records. Let’s not confuse the Tetrarch with Herod the Great, his father, who died in 4 BC.

The OP has seen this post in her other thread, but still insists that her ‘scholar’ is more correct than history. It’s a losing battle to try to change her wrong thinking.

 

[Piney_Woods]

I’m still upset but thank you for your kind words. I hope yo have a blessed Christmas season too.

Perhaps I should have phrased what I wrote as a question: why do you prefer the opinion of a random scholar, whose writings will most likely be largely forgotten in the not too distant future, over the testimony of St. Luke which has endured for so many hundreds of years? For that matter, you can, without too much difficulty, find plenty of “scholars” who will tell you that our Lord never existed and all the other blather that the “new” atheists like to go on about. With equal ease, you can find Catholic scholars who can debunk their false claims without breaking a sweat.

 

[clem456]

Yo all might want to GOogle. History and the New Testament by Jack Kilmon.
He says the overwhelming majority of scholars believe Jesus was born in Nazaraeth.

You’ve made a conclusion.
What are we doing here?