Born in Nazareth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faith1960 said:
History and the New Testament by Jack Kilmon.
He says the overwhelming majority of scholars believe Jesus was born in Nazaraeth.
Click to expand...
So? Never heard of him. So he thinks that.

Pope Benedict XVI - certainly a Scholar…and one of the greatest minds of the 20th -21th centuries- noted that he does not see how such a theory can be gleaned from the actual sources…

Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
 
Faith1960 said:
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.
Click to expand...
And as a side note, there’s too much “he says” and " I think" in the Church and too little “what does the Church say?”. Reading, listening, and praying.

There would be many fewer arguments on CAF for sure, if posters would just the read the CCC and try to absorb it.
 
Faith1960 said:
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.
Click to expand...
And YOU might want to note the constant teaching of the Church as witnessed on this page at the Vatican website.
gsearch.vatican.va/search?client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entsp=a__policy_documenti&wc=200&wc_mc=1&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&filter=0&q=Jesus+born+in+bethlehem

And while you’re at it, note well that Pope Francis celebrated Mass in this holy place just a year ago.
news.va/en/news/popes-homily-at-bethlehems-church-of-the-nativity

ROME has spoken, case closed!

When the Magisterium has spoken, it is considered a serious breach of infidelity not to adhere to its teachings, and even a further problem to scandalize Christ’s little ones. “It would be better if they tied a millstone around their neck, and throw them into the sea.” Lk. 17:2
 
Faith1960 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well then, it must be so, if this is the opinion of the majority of the scholars.

Also, if we Google opinions on whether abortion is okay, or birth control is okay, the vast majority of educated writers will tell us that is is all fine. So, it must be!

Good thing we have Google! 🤷
 
eliza10 said:
well then, it must be so, if this is the opinion of the majority of the scholars.

Also, if we google opinions on whether abortion is okay, or birth control is okay, the vast majority of educated writers will tell us that is is all fine. So, it must be!

Good thing we have google! 🤷
Click to expand...
:rotfl:Good one Eliza!
 
Sirach2 said:
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. :rolleyes: It’s a losing battle to try to change her wrong thinking.
Click to expand...
I don’t know of their reasons, but most scholars, even Catholic scholars such as Raymond Brown, believe that the Herod referred to in Luke was Herod the Great:
This appears to give a precise date, but elsewhere Luke has placed the nativity “in the days of Herod” (Luke 1:5 - “In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah…”); as Herod died in 4 BCE and the census was in 6 CE, this means that the gospel is not consistent with the historical evidence.[13] The scenario of Luke 2:1-7 is unrealistic in other ways as well: almost all scholars agree that people would not be required to travel in order to register for tax purposes (it would be the taxation officials who would travel, as they had to link property to its owners), and Joseph, as a resident of Galilee rather than Judaea, would not have been affected by the census in any case.
Click to expand...
Various proposals have been made to resolve the problem - the Gospel text has been mistranslated, the census has been misdated, there were two censuses – but these are rejected by most scholars for reasons set out by Raymond E. Brown in The Birth of the Messiah (1977, pp.546-555) and in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, “Chronology”.[15] The evangelists were ignorant on many points about the early life of Jesus, as can be seen in the contradictory accounts of Luke and Matthew (Matthew says that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, returned to their home in Bethlehem, and finally fled again to Galilee; according to Luke they lived in Galilee, went to Bethlehem only because of the census, and returned immediately to Nazareth). They both place Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem because, according to a prophecy in Micah 5:2, the messiah was to come from that town (Matthew quotes Micah, and Luke refers to the birth of the messiah in the “city of David”): “theological needs here create biographical ‘facts’.”
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

Also in the same article:
The Roman general Pompey sacked Jerusalem in 63 BCE. In the closing years of the 1st century BCE the Romans placed Judaea under the control of Herod the Great, a client king who could be relied on to serve their interests. When Herod died in 4 BCE the kingdom was split among his three sons, but Archelaus, the son who received the Tetrarchy of Judea, proved a brutal and unpopular ruler. In 6 CE he was removed and Judea was declared a province of the Empire, and Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (51 BCE-21 CE), the governor of Roman Syria, was sent to carry out a census for tax purposes.[5] Quirinius is known from a number of sources, including Josephus, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Suetonius and Florus. As a soldier he distinguished himself in Roman North Africa and in 12 BCE was made Consul, the highest honour available. In 3 CE he married into the Imperial family, and from 6-9 CE he was Imperial Legate for the province of Syria-Cilicia
Click to expand...
 
Thorolfr said:
I don’t know of their reasons, but most scholars, even Catholic scholars such as Raymond Brown, believe that the tHerod referred to in Luke was Herod the Great:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
Click to expand...
You’re free to believe that, if you like. Jimmy Akin gave an equally scholarly presentation about this, if you wish to compare notes. ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-year-was-jesus-born-the-answer-may-surprise-you

“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” and believe His Church. I don’t give a schtick what scholars have to say, when they contradict the Magisterium. 😉

If the Church deems it important for us to change our 2000-year history of this belief, we will be duly informed. Until then, no dice.
 
The source for the nativity narratives can only be from either St. Joseph, our Blessed Mother, or both. I put more stock in testimony closest to the source rather than scholars over 2,000 years after the fact.

Now if these scholars can present hotel receipts, a signed guest register or even a donkey parking stable validation from anywhere in Nazareth then I might be inclined to change my mind, but until then I’ll stick with Bethlehem.
 
Sirach2 said:
You’re free to believe that, if you like. Jimmy Akin gave an equally scholarly presentation about this, if you wish to compare notes. ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-year-was-jesus-born-the-answer-may-surprise-you

“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” and believe His Church. I don’t give a schtick what scholars have to say, when they contradict the Magisterium. 😉

If the Church deems it important for us to change our 2000-year history of this belief, we will be duly informed. Until then, no dice.
Click to expand...
Jimmy Akin doesn’t even bother in his chronology to explain the problem with Quirinius who didn’t become governor over Syria to which the Province of Judea was added for the census, until 6 AD.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius
 
I’ve gotten a variety of replies, so again, let’s just say for the sakes of argument, He was born in Nazareth, what does that say about our faith? Is it still ok?
 
Gorgias said:
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… 😉
Click to expand...
This is well said. And Faith1960, I think you have your answer here.

"…* it’s difficult to debunk non-scholarly claims**."* Yes. That is why scholars aren’t taking on this question about Jesus not being born in Nazareth. How can you make a scholarly argument of a non-scholarly claim? The scholars are applying their minds to real questions, not this.

" 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."
This is the truth. But what you are trying to do instead is find someone to prove his claim wrong - when he has not provided proof. Its HIM who has to provide the proof. Then that “proof” can be examined. But you have given us nothing, as he has given scholars nothing. Its just an empty claim. That is why this thread is going on for pages and you have not found what you are looking for. It goes back to this: the *claimant *must provide the proof. Not you, or anyone else.
 
Wildgraywolf said:
The source for the nativity narratives can only be from either St. Joseph, our Blessed Mother, or both. I put more stock in testimony closest to the source rather than scholars over 2,000 years after the fact.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Faith1960 said:
I’ve gotten a variety of replies, so again, let’s just say for the sakes of argument, He was born in Nazareth, what does that say about our faith? Is it still ok?
Click to expand...
There is no point to such…

tis like saying ‘just for the sake of argument Catholic Answers is not Catholic’…

or

‘just for the sake of argument I was born on Mars…’

You need to simply resist these thoughts - dismiss them.

Do not argue with them.

Accept the reality that he was born in Bethlehem and dismiss the rest as nonsense…
 
Faith1960 said:
I’ve gotten a variety of replies, so again, let’s just say for the sakes of argument, He was born in Nazareth, what does that say about our faith? Is it still ok?
Click to expand...
Can you tell us something about the credentials of your scholar/archaeologist correspondent/friend, and her relation to you, that has you in a bunch over this Nazareth question? Its quite a limb you are asking people to go out on in order to entertain an idea for argument. Most people don’t want to hang out on limbs without some good reason. (Maybe with more info you’ll get someone to join you on that limb).
 
Faith1960 said:
I’ve gotten a variety of replies, so again, let’s just say for the sakes of argument, He was born in Nazareth, what does that say about our faith? Is it still ok?
Click to expand...
One of the signs prophesying the messiah is that he would be born in Bethlehem so Jesus being born anywhere else undermines the claim Jesus is the messiah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top