Can the Bible be in Error, Historically?

[AmbroseSJ]

It depends on what you mean by “body.” Jesus was certainly not resurrected in his earthly body like Lazarus. He was resurrected in his spiritual body, his glorified body. And theologians do disagree on this point as well.

That is both true and false.

You are correct in saying that Jesus was not resurrected in the way Lazarus was (only to die again.) But you are incorrect in saying it was not his earthly body. It was indeed His earthly body, which was laid in the tomb which was resurrected into a Glorified State, unlike Lazarus.

 

[adrift]

That is both true and false.

You are correct in saying that Jesus was not resurrected in the way Lazarus was (only to die again.) But you are incorrect in saying it was not his earthly body. It was indeed His earthly body, which was laid in the tomb which was resurrected into a Glorified State, unlike Lazarus.

Exactly as the Catechism states (emphasis mine)

The condition of Christ’s risen humanity

645 By means of touch and the sharing of a meal, the risen Jesus establishes direct contact with his disciples. He invites them in this way to recognize that he is not a ghost and above all to verify that the risen body in which he appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears the traces of his Passion.509 Yet at the same time this authentic, real body possesses the new properties of a glorious body: not limited by space and time but able to be present how and when he wills; for Christ’s humanity can no longer be confined to earth, and belongs henceforth only to the Father’s divine realm.510 For this reason too the risen Jesus enjoys the sovereign freedom of appearing as he wishes: in the guise of a gardener or in other forms familiar to his disciples, precisely to awaken their faith.511

646 Christ’s Resurrection was not a return to earthly life, as was the case with the raisings from the dead that he had performed before Easter: Jairus’ daughter, the young man of Naim, Lazarus. These actions were miraculous events, but the persons miraculously raised returned by Jesus’ power to ordinary earthly life. At some particular moment they would die again. Christ’s Resurrection is essentially different. In his risen body he passes from the state of death to another life beyond time and space. At Jesus’ Resurrection his body is filled with the power of the Holy Spirit: he shares the divine life in his glorious state, so that St. Paul can say that Christ is “the man of heaven”.512

Theologians are not infallible.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

That is both true and false.

You are correct in saying that Jesus was not resurrected in the way Lazarus was (only to die again.) But you are incorrect in saying it was not his earthly body. It was indeed His earthly body, which was laid in the tomb which was resurrected into a Glorified State, unlike Lazarus.

I can only say that none of us was there, so none of us knows. Paul was even reluctant to talk about it with the churches he established. It depends on what constitutes one’s version of reality. There are theologians out there who say yes, it was his earthly body, and there are theologians who say no, it was not. I can only say that I do not know. I did not see him. However, I can say that Bible mentions him frying fish and eating them with his disciples on the shores of Lake Tiberius, and it talks of Thomas, who was invited, and who accepted the invitation, to touch Christ’s wounds. So, it certainly seems it was his glorified earthly body. There is a discussion of this in an article by William Loewe, who taught at Catholic University of America. It’s called “The Appearances of the Risen Lord: Faith, Fact, and Objectivity.” It is very interesting and might be online. It explains things so much better than I ever could.

Edit: By “spiritual” I meant “glorified.” I use the words interchangeably, but granted, they are not.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Exactly as the Catechism states (emphasis mine)

Theologians are not infallible.

A theologian wrote what you are quoting! The Catechism is not a divinely inspired work, so I would agree, theologians are not infallible. Even the Holy Father rarely speaks from a position of infallibility. The Church used to teach that unbaptized babies go to Limbo, but it has abandoned that belief in favor of a more enlightened one. The Church’s teachings, with the exception of dogma, evolve as our knowledge of Christ evolves.

The other poster and I were not disputing the fact that theologians can and sometimes are, wrong. We were discussing what the glorified body consisted of and what reality meant to the disciples. St. Paul did say there was continuity, but discontinuity, and he compared the earthly body and the glorified body to a seed planted in the earth and the flower or plant that grows from that seed. Obviously, the two look very different, and it is true that Mary Magdalene, Salome, etc. and the disciples did not recognize the risen Lord when they first saw him. The disciples on the road to Emmaus walked with him for quite some way until they recognized the person they were talking to was the Jesus they had known so he must have looked quite different from the way he had looked prior to his crucifixion. But we don’t doubt that is was the same Jesus who was crucified, died, and was raised.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

That is both true and false.

You are correct in saying that Jesus was not resurrected in the way Lazarus was (only to die again.) But you are incorrect in saying it was not his earthly body. It was indeed His earthly body, which was laid in the tomb which was resurrected into a Glorified State, unlike Lazarus.

Sorry, a mistake in wording on my part. By “spiritual,” I meant “glorified.” When I said “his earthly body,” I meant his glorified body did not look exactly like his earthly body. However, I did not specify that, and after rereading my post, I can see where it could be taken to mean something different. I apologize. We do agree on what you wrote above. There are simply no descriptions of Jesus’ glorified body, so we are left not really knowing what it was like exactly. For that matter, we don’t even know what he looked liked during his earthly life. The writers of the time did not provide description of persons. It really doesn’t matter what he looked like, but it would be interesting to know. At least for me because I am one who always likes to put a face to a name, even Jesus’. Especially his.

 

[clem456]

A theologian wrote what you are quoting! The Catechism is not a divinely inspired work, so I would agree, theologians are not infallible. Even the Holy Father rarely speaks from a position of infallibility. The Church used to teach that unbaptized babies go to Limbo, but it has abandoned that belief in favor of a more enlightened one. The Church’s teachings, with the exception of dogma, evolve as our knowledge of Christ evolves.
…

We need to be careful here.
The Catechism is not promulgated as a specific infallible statement addressing a specific article of faith.

However, (and that’s a big however)
The CCC is a Magisterial document and so while is not the same thing as scripture, the action of the Holy Spirit is present to us in this teaching.
The Church asks for our assent of faith in this teaching.
So is it infallible? It’s not my business to determine the technicalities of infallibility. I try to give my full assent when the Magisterium speaks. It is a “sure norm” for our edification.

JOHN PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY

GUARDING THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH IS THE MISSION WHICH THE LORD ENTRUSTED TO HIS CHURCH, and which she fulfills in every age.
3. The Doctrinal Value of the Text

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!
The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8).

 

[adrift]

We need to be careful here.
The Catechism is not promulgated as a specific infallible statement addressing a specific article of faith.

However, (and that’s a big however)
The CCC is a Magisterial document and so while is not the same thing as scripture, the action of the Holy Spirit is present to us in this teaching.
The Church asks for our assent of faith in this teaching.
So is it infallible? It’s not my business to determine the technicalities of infallibility. I try to give my full assent when the Magisterium speaks. It is a “sure norm” for our edification.

Magisterial defined by the late Father Most

The Magisterium or Teaching Authority of the Church

by Fr. William G. Most

By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : “He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10. 16). Now of course the promise of Christ cannot fail: hence when the Church presents some doctrine as definitive or final, it comes under this protection, it cannot be in error; in other words, it is infallible. This is true even if the Church does not use the solemn ceremony of definition. The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when the Bishops are in union with each other and with the Pope, and present something as definitive, this is infallible. (Vatican II, Lumen gentium # 25). It was precisely by the use of that authority that Vatican I was able to define that the Pope alone, when speaking as such and making things definitive, is also infallible. Of course this infallibility covers also teaching on what morality requires, for that is needed for salvation.

A “theologian” who would claim he needs to be able to ignore the Magisterium in order to find the truth is strangely perverse: the teaching of the Magisterium is the prime, God-given means of finding the truth. Nor could he claim academic freedom lets him contradict the Church. In any field of knowledge, academic freedom belongs only to a properly qualified professor teaching in his own field. But one is not properly qualified if he does not use the correct method of working in his field, e.g., a science professor who would want to go back to medieval methods would be laughed off campus, not protected. Now in Catholic theology , the correct method is to study the sources of revelation, but then give the final word to the Church. He who does not follow that method is not a qualified Catholic theologian. Vatican II taught (Dei Verbum # 10): “The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”

The teaching office is the Pope and the Bishops. It does not include every theologian. We must pay attention and like you assent to the Magisterium but to theologians in general we may accept, accept some or ignore. They have no teaching authority.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

It’s not incorrect, it’s the way the Church reads Scripture.
To claim that God’s truth has no cultural or historical specificity is not correct. If you mean it is not locked in literalism, they yes. The historical critical method is not about literalism.
An historical/critical examination of the parable of the prodigal son can see the full meaning.

You are free to ignore me, but you can’t make a claim that the historical/critical examination of a parable shows the full meaning of any parable after I post an example of an allegorical exegesis of a parable by a Doctor of the Church.

Perhaps you have a completely different meaning of historical-critical method and/or “full meaning” than I do. So that we’re on the same page, you’re welcome to show me where in the online Catena Aurea the Church Fathers & Doctors are using the historical-critical method to draw out the meaning of Christ’s parable of the Prodigal Son.

If you find my tone somewhat brusque in this post, my apologies, I have become somewhat disturbed by the generally bad information being spread on this forum, and your “full meaning” comment, under the normal meaning of the word “full” is just that: bad information.

I will repeat (for the second and last time in this thread) what I wrote a while back: there are four different ways of reading the Bible: literally, allegorically/figuratively, prayerfully and mystically/meditatively. I will add that the historical-critical method can only aid you with the literal understanding, and even then it isn’t that helpful (see for example, the discussion just above this post about the nature of Christ’s resurrection).

 

[clem456]

You are free to ignore me, but you can’t make a claim that the historical/critical examination of a parable shows the full meaning of any parable after I post an example of an allegorical exegesis of a parable by a Doctor of the Church.

Perhaps you have a completely different meaning of historical-critical method and/or “full meaning” than I do. So that we’re on the same page, you’re welcome to show me where in the online Catena Aurea the Church Fathers & Doctors are using the historical-critical method to draw out the meaning of Christ’s parable of the Prodigal Son.

If you find my tone somewhat brusque in this post, my apologies, I have become somewhat disturbed by the generally bad information being spread on this forum, and your “full meaning” comment, under the normal meaning of the word “full” is just that: bad information.

I will repeat (for the second and last time in this thread) what I wrote a while back: there are four different ways of reading the Bible: literally, allegorically/figuratively, prayerfully and mystically/meditatively. I will add that the historical-critical method can only aid you with the literal understanding, and even then it isn’t that helpful (see for example, the discussion just above this post about the nature of Christ’s resurrection).

Just read the catechism Trevor. You are arguing with yourself here.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

It depends on what you mean by “body.” Jesus was certainly not resurrected in his earthly body like Lazarus. He was resurrected in his spiritual body, his glorified body. And theologians do disagree on this point as well.

I don’t believe Adam and Eve’s sin was one of lust, of a woman tempting a man. I think it was pride. Both of them wanted to be “as gods.” They wanted to know what God knows, but God had forbidden that. They, however, disobeyed.

1. Discussion of Christ’s resurrected body would require another thread, and I don’t want to investigate the distinctions you’re trying to make in this quote at this time, so I will only note that Christ was physically present on Earth after his resurrection and, as you noted, ate fish and bread and let the original doubting Thomas touch his physical wounds.
2. Per my comment on one of the never-ending Adam and Eve threads, I find the be “as gods” supposition unsupported. From a literal perspective: neither had any idea what being “as gods” meant and thus could not desire something they didn’t understand, and the plain text of the temptation (in the Douay) shows it is the succulent nature of the fruit that finally draws Eve to eat. And after Adam eats, the next event mentioned in Genesis is that Adam and Eve put on “aprons” to cover their nakedness, which implies that the first actual thing they did after Adam ate the fruit was engage in sex.

Allegorically then, it’s clearly about Lust and Sensual Desire. Pride is involved, as the CCC suggests: Adam and Eve prefer their desires over the commands of God, but it is not the origin or motivation of the Fall. As far as I can tell, this was the medieval understanding of the Fall and I’m not sure when it changed. The implications of the story are obvious: unchastity will lead to greater sins for the most ordinary or the most extraordinary person. It is not coincidental that abortion was legalized after contraceptive were legalized and as casual sex became more accepted in this country.

We can note that in addition to all the other evils associated with abortion (murder and sloth), abortion is a form of apostasy. it is an attempt to avoid the consequences of God’s curse on Eve, for Eve’s sin in eating the fruit first, and subsequently tempting Adam. Speaking mystically, to the Timelessness of the Bible, the Fall is not just an event that occurred in the past, it occurs anytime someone who was raised in the Catholic faith puts aside their beliefs to engage in casual sex for the first time instead of waiting for marriage to engage in sex with their lawfully wedded spouse: the moment when a man or woman prefers his or her sexual desire to God’s command and wish for them. That the story is true and timeless is evident from the many movies and TV shows that draw upon the mythology of the Fall to further their story, if the Fall wasn’t a current relatable event, it would have no emotional force (for some semi-recent examples see Futurama “In-a-Gadda-de-Leela”, Pleasantville).

Anyway, this is pretty far afield from the historicity of the Bible, though I supposed it shows how silly the subject title of this thread is - the Bible is not an historic sacred word, it is the timeless sacred word.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

Just read the catechism Trevor. You are arguing with yourself here.

Feel free to have the last word in this discussion between us as it’s clear we’ve reached an impasse and I obviously can’t convince you, and vice-versa, but your mention of the CCC reminded me that I haven’t posted my monthly the Catechism is a terrible document comment. For example, with respect to the section you cited, CCC 118 gets the medieval couplet wrong (the couplet is talking about content of the books of the bible not interpretative methodologies).

Not that the CCC is all bad: CCC 111 ‘But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”’ is one of the better written paragraphs. But the CCC was never meant to be used by posters in an internet forum arguing about Catholic theology. It was meant for Bishops and Priests who have had many years of schooling in Catholic theology and who needed a compact and concise synopsis they could turn to quickly. Their years of schooling allow them to expand and gloss on the CCC in ways posters on the internet who are not certified Apologists and who do not have their training can not.

Cheers

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Magisterial defined by the late Father Most

The teaching office is the Pope and the Bishops. It does not include every theologian. We must pay attention and like you assent to the Magisterium but to theologians in general we may accept, accept some or ignore. They have no teaching authority.

That is true.

But one of the theologians I was speaking of IS a bishop.and he IS a part of the magisterium. He DOES have teaching authority, given to him by the Holy Father. Not every one of theologians I mentioned, but one is a part of the magisterium. We couldn’t agree with every theologian; they hold divergent views, and that is not against Church teaching. But yes, I agree, we do not have to accept the teaching of every theologian. That would be impossible at any rate. But yes, I do agree with you. We are not bound to accept the teaching of any theologian unless he is a member of the magisterium as well.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Feel free to have the last word in this discussion between us as it’s clear we’ve reached an impasse and I obviously can’t convince you, and vice-versa, but your mention of the CCC reminded me that I haven’t posted my monthly the Catechism is a terrible document comment. For example, with respect to the section you cited, CCC 118 gets the medieval couplet wrong (the couplet is talking about content of the books of the bible not interpretative methodologies).

Not that the CCC is all bad: CCC 111 ‘But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”’ is one of the better written paragraphs. But the CCC was never meant to be used by posters in an internet forum arguing about Catholic theology. It was meant for Bishops and Priests who have had many years of schooling in Catholic theology and who needed a compact and concise synopsis they could turn to quickly. Their years of schooling allow them to expand and gloss on the CCC in ways posters on the internet who are not certified Apologists and who do not have their training can not.

Cheers

True. The Catechism was not meant for the everyday Catholic. It was meant for those who have studied and teach theology.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

1. Discussion of Christ’s resurrected body would require another thread, and I don’t want to investigate the distinctions you’re trying to make in this quote at this time, so I will only note that Christ was physically present on Earth after his resurrection and, as you noted, ate fish and bread and let the original doubting Thomas touch his physical wounds.
2. Per my comment on one of the never-ending Adam and Eve threads, I find the be “as gods” supposition unsupported. From a literal perspective: neither had any idea what being “as gods” meant and thus could not desire something they didn’t understand, and the plain text of the temptation (in the Douay) shows it is the succulent nature of the fruit that finally draws Eve to eat. And after Adam eats, the next event mentioned in Genesis is that Adam and Eve put on “aprons” to cover their nakedness, which implies that the first actual thing they did after Adam ate the fruit was engage in sex.

Allegorically then, it’s clearly about Lust and Sensual Desire. Pride is involved, as the CCC suggests: Adam and Eve prefer their desires over the commands of God, but it is not the origin or motivation of the Fall. As far as I can tell, this was the medieval understanding of the Fall and I’m not sure when it changed. The implications of the story are obvious: unchastity will lead to greater sins for the most ordinary or the most extraordinary person. It is not coincidental that abortion was legalized after contraceptive were legalized and as casual sex became more accepted in this country.

We can note that in addition to all the other evils associated with abortion (murder and sloth), abortion is a form of apostasy. it is an attempt to avoid the consequences of God’s curse on Eve, for Eve’s sin in eating the fruit first, and subsequently tempting Adam. Speaking mystically, to the Timelessness of the Bible, the Fall is not just an event that occurred in the past, it occurs anytime someone who was raised in the Catholic faith puts aside their beliefs to engage in casual sex for the first time instead of waiting for marriage to engage in sex with their lawfully wedded spouse: the moment when a man or woman prefers his or her sexual desire to God’s command and wish for them. That the story is true and timeless is evident from the many movies and TV shows that draw upon the mythology of the Fall to further their story, if the Fall wasn’t a current relatable event, it would have no emotional force (for some semi-recent examples see Futurama “In-a-Gadda-de-Leela”, Pleasantville).

Anyway, this is pretty far afield from the historicity of the Bible, though I supposed it shows how silly the subject title of this thread is - the Bible is not an historic sacred word, it is the timeless sacred word.

The following is a Catholic site:

uscatholic.org/articles/201211/what-original-sin-26603

Even the great St. Augustine said their sin was Pride. It had nothing at all to do with lust. After their fall, they were able to feel shame so they were ashamed of their nakedness. I can tell you if I found myself in public with no clothes, I would feel shame, and I am in very good physical shape. After the fall, certain things just became shameful to do, things that were not shameful prior, such as to walk around unclothed.

Now, as adrift pointed out, and she is right, we are not bound to accept the teaching of every theologian, however, I know I certainly would not want to go up against the great St. Augustine, who was one of the greatest theologians and also a Doctor of the Church, and Augustine says the sin of our first parents was Pride, the greatest of the seven deadly sins. That’s where that old phrase “Pride goeth before a fall comes from.”

 

[clem456]

Feel free to have the last word in this discussion between us as it’s clear we’ve reached an impasse and I obviously can’t convince you, and vice-versa, but your mention of the CCC reminded me that I haven’t posted my monthly the Catechism is a terrible document comment. For example, with respect to the section you cited, CCC 118 gets the medieval couplet wrong (the couplet is talking about content of the books of the bible not interpretative methodologies).

Not that the CCC is all bad: CCC 111 ‘But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”’ is one of the better written paragraphs. But the CCC was never meant to be used by posters in an internet forum arguing about Catholic theology. It was meant for Bishops and Priests who have had many years of schooling in Catholic theology and who needed a compact and concise synopsis they could turn to quickly. Their years of schooling allow them to expand and gloss on the CCC in ways posters on the internet who are not certified Apologists and who do not have their training can not.

Cheers

The relative coherence and reliability of your point of view speaks for itself.
As does that of the Catechism promulgated by the Magisterium.

Given the choice…

 

[Faith1960]

This type of question comes up frequently and personally I believe that the entire bible is the inerrant word of God down to the lay "jot and tittel’. And although there may appear to be errors to you, doe not mean there is really is an error. Most of those that come with errors are those trying to discredit the Bible and say that it does not state accurate truth. All the “so called” errors in the bible by these people have been debunked and there are websites galore that contain answers to these types of attacks.

I am a literalist in that if I can intepret the passages literally within the context of the text I will, but recognize that there are many forms of metaphor, simile, parables, symbols used with the context of various passages. The RCC approach to allegorize much of the Bible does not agree with me as the allegory makes you cut the teher you have with reality. I beleive God says what He menas and means what He says. And i take Acts 17-11 to heart.

On Quirinnus, here is my take:

Jesus had to be born between 5 - 6 BC as Herod died in 4 B.C. and the accounts say he killed all infants between 0 and 2 before he died. The first census could not have been after 6 AD as there is no way the Mary and Joseph would have traveled to Bethlehem or a census in after 6 BC. This is all verified outside of the what the Bible says based upon Roman Empire documents examined by scholars in the first century. One of those documents which is the Deeds of Augustus placing Quirinius, who eventually became, a consul and Roman Senator, in a political position in the region around 12 BC. From 12BC until 1 AD Quirinius was in charge of several magistracies, one of which was to oversee the task of assessing the property in Syria and Judea. In 2 BC, the census was used the order by Augustus in 2 BC in to enforce an oath of allegiance to Augustus upon the people in Israel. To enforce this oath the census had to be already completed. Because of his experience Quirinius was assigned to Caius in Armenia around 1 AD. Later on after Herod’s son was dethrone, he was promoted to consul and governor. Note that the text in Luke says that Quirinius was governing not the a governor (KJV and the original Greek). Here is one of the 5 different reputable sources I used to verify this history.

You can consult documents by scholars like Justin and Terullian among others who have an established reputation for scholarly research than to believe what people recite out

The other night I was reading an archaeology site and the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) found that Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem in Judea but Bethlehem in Galilee. Does the fact that the Bible is not a history book apply to this, too or does this discrepancy mean it can’t be trusted?

 

[ericc]

The other night I was reading an archaeology site and the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) found that Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem in Judea but Bethlehem in Galilee. Does the fact that the Bible is not a history book apply to this, too or does this discrepancy mean it can’t be trusted?

archive.archaeology.org/0511/abstracts/Jesus.html

They have proven nothing. Just because they have some artifacts found in Bethlehem of Galilee is a long way to prove that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem of Judea. A lot of people would love to prove the Bible wrong or that their pet theory would make them world famous.

 

[Faith1960]

They have proven nothing. Just because they have some artifacts found in Bethlehem of Galilee is a long way to prove that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem of Judea. A lot of people would love to prove the Bible wrong or that their pet theory would make them world famous.

For the sake of argument, what if they’re right?

 

[Faith1960]

I found a site CBN, that quotes Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land who says the Church of the Nativity is a place people remembered [at the time of Christ] and people were visiting the site 15 years after His birth.
So maybe the Bible is correct?

It also says that the identification of the site where Jesus was born traditionally goes back to the middle of the first century, at least.

In the fist century the Roman emperor Hadrian destroyed the town of Bethlehem. After he destroyed it he built a temple and grove of trees over the site where Christian pilgrims had come to honor where Jesus was born.

Question how old was Jesus in the first century?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

They have proven nothing. Just because they have some artifacts found in Bethlehem of Galilee is a long way to prove that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem of Judea. A lot of people would love to prove the Bible wrong or that their pet theory would make them world famous.

I can agree with you there. It’s like the biblical scholar, and she is a biblical scholar, who presented a paper saying Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. She offered as her “proof” a papyrus in which was written something like, “Jesus said, ‘So I said to my wife.’” It turns out the papyrus was a fake. She didn’t fake it, but she was so anxious to become “world famous” for her “amazing discovery” that she bought into it before any testing was done on it.