Can the Bible be in Error, Historically?

[adrift]

How do you think she would travel 100 miles in 4 BCE? In a luxury sedan? She would have two choices: on foot or on a donkey and neither is feasible for a woman a few days or weeks from giving birth…

You are making the assumption that Mary was few days from giving birth. Even if she was that would not preclude her from traveling. Do you believe that woman are incapacitated when they are pregnant? The distance was 63.43 miles not 100 about a five day walk. This was not only feasible but it is what happened.

Quirinius held a local census, but not in the year Jesus was born. No one would have had to travel. People in that time in Palestine registered where they lived, not where they were from. The “beloved disciple,” John, knew Jesus was from Galilee, and he wrote it in his gospel.

If you are going to place so much emphasis on the prophecy in Micah, how then do you explain that Jesus was NOT, in ANY way, a warrior? Because that prophecy definitely says the messiah will be a warrior.

It doesn’t say that Joseph “had” to travel but that he went because that was where he was from. My speculation but there must have been a lot of gossip in town concerning Mary’s pregnancy. It is just possible he used the census as an excuse to take Mary away from the gossip. John never states that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Nowhere does the Church teach that Jesus was born in Nazareth but it does teach He was born in Bethlehem. It goes against Church teaching to say that Jesus was born in Nazareth.

Edit
Alysia Montano ran a 800m race while 34 weeks?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You are making the assumption that Mary was few days from giving birth. Even if she was that would not preclude her from traveling. Do you believe that woman are incapacitated when they are pregnant? The distance was 63.43 miles not 100 about a five day walk. This was not only feasible but it is what happened.

It doesn’t say that Joseph “had” to travel but that he went because that was where he was from. My speculation but there must have been a lot of gossip in town concerning Mary’s pregnancy. It is just possible he used the census as an excuse to take Mary away from the gossip. John never states that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Nowhere does the Church teach that Jesus was born in Nazareth but it does teach He was born in Bethlehem. It goes against Church teaching to say that Jesus was born in Nazareth.

Edit
Alysia Montano ran a 800m race while 34 weeks?

Why would there be any speculation over Mary’s pregnancy? She was a married woman. When women were “betrothed” in ancient Palestine, they were actually married even though they continued to live with their own family for a time. Even if she weren’t married, why go away to have her baby? She was so far along in her pregnancy that she gave birth a few days later; the people of Nazareth would have known she was going to have a child. What do you think going away would accomplish, other than put the child in danger? Okay, 70-80 miles:

google.com/search?q=how+far+is+bethlehem+from+nazareth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

No pregnant woman in her last month of pregnancy sets out on a journey of 70-80 miles across a desert that is scorching hot in the day and freezing by night with only her non-medical husband.

There was no census taken that required travel, and even if it had, none that required a wife to travel. Women had no legal standing in Palestine then. The husband was the head of the household in every way.

No, I’m not making the assumption that she was “a few days” from giving birth, but that she was in her last month, and no pregnant woman would have made an 80-mile journey on foot or on a donkey at that time. Surely Mary, who knew she was giving birth to the Son of God would not have endangered her pregnancy. Incapacitated and riding a donkey or walking 80 miles through the desert are two very different things. Bandits also roamed the desert at night. It is quite likely that had Joseph had to travel, which he didn’t, he would have traveled in a group of other men for reasons of safety.

Even Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI says the nativity stories are but interpretations of Christ’s birth made long after the fact:

newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/22/pope-benedict-disputes-jesus-date-of-birth/

In his writings, Benedict has gone into details of why the birthplace of Jesus cannot be known; in the article, the writer mentions only that Benedict says the date was not December 25th and there were no animals present.

It is not against Church teaching to say we do not know where Jesus was born. At any rate, I did say he was born in Nazareth. I said he was probably not born in Bethlehem of Judea and that Nazareth was more a probability. And it most certainly is.

I’ll ask you the same question: If you put faith in the prophecy of Micah, how then do you explain that the Messiah HAS to be warrior-ruler? Because the prophecy of Micah does say that.

I used to run a race of 100 km every year in Switzerland, but I don’t see what modern women do in races has to do with the birth of Jesus.

The Gospel of John quite clearly states that Jesus was born in “Galilee,” and John knew Jesus personally.

 

[adrift]

Why would there be any speculation over Mary’s pregnancy? She was a married woman. When women were “betrothed” in ancient Palestine, they were actually married even though they continued to live with their own family for a time. Even if she weren’t married, why go away to have her baby?

Joseph planned on divorcing her privately. How did he know about the pregnancy? The custom was not to have sex until the woman had been brought into the home which was the second part of marriage. To have been pregnant before that would have been cause for gossip. If Joseph was planning on divorcing her, there must have been gossip. As I said it is just speculation and has really nothing to do with facts. Just as your speculation that she wouldn’t have gone to Bethlehem is merely unfounded speculation.

She was so far along in her pregnancy that she gave birth a few days later; the people of Nazareth would have known she was going to have a child. What do you think going away would accomplish, other than put the child in danger? Okay, 70-80 miles:

Hence the gossip.

google.com/search?q=how+far+is+bethlehem+from+nazareth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I mistakenly figure it to Jerusalem. It was 80 miles but approximately a five day trip.
Although there are those who say it would take a week.

No pregnant woman in her last month of pregnancy sets out on a journey of 70-80 miles across a desert that is scorching hot in the day and freezing by night with only her non-medical husband.

It is an assumption to believe that she was in her last month of pregnancy. It is putting a 21 century reasoning in a first century culture. I doubt if any of the women of the day went to a doctor to have a baby. I guess you could also say that no pregnant woman would run a marathon 8 1/2 months pregnant but we know that too is untrue.

There was no census taken that required travel, and even if it had, none that required a wife to travel. Women had no legal standing in Palestine then. The husband was the head of the household in every way.

The Jewish tradition was for them to go to the home of their birth. It was not the custom for the wife to not go with her husband. Joseph did not return to Nazareth for at least two years. You suggest that he would leave his wife that long?

No, I’m not making the assumption that she was “a few days” from giving birth, but that she was in her last month, and no pregnant woman would have made an 80-mile journey on foot or on a donkey at that time. Surely Mary, who knew she was giving birth to the Son of God would not have endangered her pregnancy. **Incapacitated? **and riding a donkey or walking 80 miles through the desert are two very different things. Bandits also roamed the desert at night. It is quite likely that had Joseph had to travel, which he didn’t, he would have traveled in a group of other men for reasons of safety.

See above. So you do believe that a pregnant woman is incapacitated. Really?.:whacky:

Even Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI says the nativity stories are but interpretations of Christ’s birth made long after the fact:

Hmmmmm Can’t find this statement in the link you provided

newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/22/pope-benedict-disputes-jesus-date-of-birth/

In his writings, Benedict has gone into details of why the birthplace of Jesus cannot be known; in the article, the writer mentions only that Benedict says the date was not December 25th and there were no animals present.

What writing? In the article you linked it does not say that the birthplace is unknown but that the date is not known. Something which I have never claimed. More than likely it was summer when Jesus was born but that can be debated and is. Like Benedict says there are not animals mentioned but again I never said there were. What the article doesn’t say is that Benedict says the birth place cannot be known which if course would go against the gospel. Notice that Benedict refers to scripture.

It is not against Church teaching to say we do not know where Jesus was born. At any rate, I did say he was born in Nazareth. I said he was probably not born in Bethlehem of Judea and that Nazareth was more a probability. And it most certainly is.

It does go against what is taught by the Church. Can you provide a teaching that say we do not know where Jesus was born? I know you can’t. Read the catechism.

I’ll ask you the same question: If you put faith in the prophecy of Micah, how then do you explain that the Messiah HAS to be warrior-ruler? Because the prophecy of Micah does say that.

I answered this already post 227

I used to run a race of 100 km every year in Switzerland, but I don’t see what modern women do in races has to do with the birth of Jesus.

Were you pregnant? refer to above

The Gospel of John quite clearly states that Jesus was born in “Galilee,” and John knew Jesus personally.

John does no such thing. See Post 227 This answer made me smile as you seem to have a fondness for “modern scholarship” which hold that John was written by a pseudonymous author.

 

[adrift]

There has been an accusation that there is a conflict between Matthew and Luke. I found an article that explains what I believe to be the case.
When Did Jesus Go to Egypt?

Simply because Matthew or Luke or any other Bible writer does not mention everything that every other Bible writer mentions about the same general time or event, does not mean that someone has erred. Rather, just as we oftentimes tell stories today and include certain details that others omit, so did the inspired writers of Scripture. Honest truth-seekers (Proverbs 8:17) will come to the logical conclusion that the Bible writers supplemented (not contradicted) each others’ accounts of biblical events.

 

[adrift]

Why would there be any speculation over Mary’s pregnancy? She was a married woman. When women were “betrothed” in ancient Palestine, they were actually married even though they continued to live with their own family for a time. Even if she weren’t married, why go away to have her baby?

Joseph planned on divorcing her privately. How did he know about the pregnancy? The custom was not to have sex until the woman had been brought into the home which was the second part of marriage. To have been pregnant before that would have been cause for gossip. If Joseph was planning on divorcing her, there must have been gossip. As I said it is just speculation and has really nothing to do with facts. Just as your speculation that she wouldn’t have gone to Bethlehem is merely unfounded speculation.

She was so far along in her pregnancy that she gave birth a few days later; the people of Nazareth would have known she was going to have a child. What do you think going away would accomplish, other than put the child in danger? Okay, 70-80 miles:

Hence the gossip.

google.com/search?q=how+far+is+bethlehem+from+nazareth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I mistakenly figure it to Jerusalem. It was 80 miles but approximately a five day trip.
Although there are those who say it would take a week.

No pregnant woman in her last month of pregnancy sets out on a journey of 70-80 miles across a desert that is scorching hot in the day and freezing by night with only her non-medical husband.

It is an assumption to believe that she was in her last month of pregnancy. It is putting a 21 century reasoning in a first century culture. I doubt if any of the women of the day went to a doctor to have a baby. I guess you could also say that no pregnant woman would run a marathon 8 1/2 months pregnant but we know that too is untrue.

There was no census taken that required travel, and even if it had, none that required a wife to travel. Women had no legal standing in Palestine then. The husband was the head of the household in every way.

The Jewish tradition was for them to go to the home of their birth. It was not the custom for the wife to not go with her husband. Joseph did not return to Nazareth for at least two years. You suggest that he would leave his wife that long?

No, I’m not making the assumption that she was “a few days” from giving birth, but that she was in her last month, and no pregnant woman would have made an 80-mile journey on foot or on a donkey at that time. Surely Mary, who knew she was giving birth to the Son of God would not have endangered her pregnancy. **Incapacitated? **and riding a donkey or walking 80 miles through the desert are two very different things. Bandits also roamed the desert at night. It is quite likely that had Joseph had to travel, which he didn’t, he would have traveled in a group of other men for reasons of safety.

See above. So you do believe that a pregnant woman is incapacitated. Really?.:whacky:

Even Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI says the nativity stories are but interpretations of Christ’s birth made long after the fact:not quite what was said especially the long after part.

newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/22/pope-benedict-disputes-jesus-date-of-birth/

In his writings, Benedict has gone into details of why the birthplace of Jesus cannot be known; in the article, the writer mentions only that Benedict says the date was not December 25th and there were no animals present.

What writing? In the article you linked it does not say that the birthplace is unknown but that the date is not known. Something which I have never claimed. More than likely it was summer when Jesus was born but that can be debated and is. Like Benedict says there are no animals mentioned but again I never said there were. What the article doesn’t say is that Benedict says the birth place cannot be known which if course would go against the gospel. Notice that Benedict refers to scripture. Also this is a quote from the book of Pope Benedict

The evangelist is hinting at the root of his source material. Thus
Benedict writes: “To sum up: what Matthew and Luke set out to do, each in his
own way, was not to tell ‘stories’ but to write history, real history that actually
happened, admittedly interpreted and understood in the context of the Word of
God” (17). Much

It is not against Church teaching to say we do not know where Jesus was born. At any rate, I did say he was born in Nazareth. I said he was probably not born in Bethlehem of Judea and that Nazareth was more a probability. And it most certainly is.

It does go against what is taught by the Church. It goes against the Gospels. Can you provide a teaching that says we do not know where Jesus was born? I know you can’t. Read the catechism.

I’ll ask you the same question: If you put faith in the prophecy of Micah, how then do you explain that the Messiah HAS to be warrior-ruler? Because the prophecy of Micah does say that.

I answered this already post 227

I used to run a race of 100 km every year in Switzerland, but I don’t see what modern women do in races has to do with the birth of Jesus.

Were you pregnant? refer to above

The Gospel of John quite clearly states that Jesus was born in “Galilee,” and John knew Jesus personally.

John does no such thing. See Post 227 This answer made me smile as you seem to have a fondness for “modern scholarship” which hold that John was written by a pseudonymous author.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

All you did was go over what’s been gone over before.

Of course Mary was close to giving birth. She gave birth, didn’t she? If you believe the nativity stories, the child did not seem to be premature; he did not seem to suffer any of the problems the premature suffer from.

It was the custom of the Jews to register in the place where they lived, not where they were born, Joseph would have registered in Nazareth. Women were never required to register in person. Joseph would have left Mary with relatives, perhaps Elizabeth, who lived nearby so she could be well taken care of.

After the first Christian communities began to form, the members began to comb through the Hebrew Scriptures to see if Jesus did, indeed, fulfill the prophecies in them. The writers of Matthew and Luke came upon the prophecy in Micah and went through a barrage of literary acrobatics to place Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. Today, however, we study the Bible through a variety of methods, literary, historical, etc. The birth in Bethlehem makes no sense, especially when the two stories themselves are in conflict.

If you are referencing Mt. 1:19-21, way before the time of Jesus’ birth, Joseph knew what was going on:

And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”…

Most biblical scholars agree that Jesus was “probably” born in Nazareth. They agree it can’t be Bethlehem and that we’ll really never know. That is what I believe. That we cannot *really *know, and that it really doesn’t matter. What matters is that he was resurrected from the dead, not where he was born.

beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2000/12/O-Little-Town-Of-Nazareth-Scholars-Debate-Jesus-Birthplace.aspx?p=1

And, you failed to answer my question: If you believe in the prophecy of Micah, how then do you reconcile that with the fact that Jesus was not a warrior messiah?

I am not a progressive, but I am now halfway through in my seventh year of formal theological studies and teaching now as well. Biblical scholarship tells us the author of the Gospel of John was, indeed, John bar Zebedee. John states quite clearly that some people were confused by Jesus because he was born in Galilee. He was a Nazarene. I also take this seriously:

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

Catholicism is not a “religion of the book.” Some Protestant sects are, but Catholicism, no. I believe, with the Holy Father, that Holy Scripture is not a “dead letter.” I also believe, with the Holy Father, that the Holy Spirit will continue to enlighten those who keep an open mind. We are still learning the mysteries of the Holy Scripture and will continue to learn. However, to learn, one must keep an open mind just as one must keep an open heart to receive Christ. Why do you think he did not appear to Pilate or to those who wished him crucified? Because their minds were closed. That is one of the dangers of religion today, thinking we “know it all” and “understand it all,” when we’ve barely scratched the surface. JP II often commented on the necessity of keeping an open mind.

I’m not saying Jesus was born in Nazareth; I’m saying he almost certainly was not born in Bethlehem of Judea.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

John does no such thing. See Post 227 This answer made me smile as you seem to have a fondness for “modern scholarship” which hold that John was written by a pseudonymous author.

I guess this is a “progressive” site!

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-john-write-his-gospel

The facts are these: The Tradition of the Church, supported by the unbroken line of patristic testimony, as well as internal evidence from the text itself, is that the Gospel is rooted in the testimony of the apostle John, son of Zebedee…So all the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century.

I thought every Catholic knew the Gospels are now thought to have been written by those to whom they are attributed.

 

[clem456]

I’m not saying Jesus was born in Nazareth; I’m saying he almost certainly was not born in Bethlehem of Judea.

Can you give us a reference for this?
Please note, I am not disputing any of these details, I am simply asking the question:
Where does the Church say that “Jesus was almost certainly not born in Bethlehem”?

I guess this is a “progressive” site!

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-john-write-his-gospel

The facts are these: The Tradition of the Church, supported by the unbroken line of patristic testimony, as well as internal evidence from the text itself, is that the Gospel is rooted in the testimony of the apostle John, son of Zebedee…So all the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century.

I thought every Catholic knew the Gospels are now thought to have been written by those to whom they are attributed.

Not to debate any specific items here, but the how, when, and why of scripture authorship generates lots of discussion among biblical scholars. There is a lot of discussion about who wrote what, when they wrote it, and how it was done. The communities each author lived in is always taken into account.

In any case, biblical authorship is nothing like modern journalism, where specific pieces of work are easily dated and attributions are obvious by way of signed documents. For instance, the authorship of some of what is know as “Paul” is vague. Exegetes can discern different styles and other variances that can only point to “other” as author of some of the epistles. It is widely held that Paul employed a “secretary” who may have taken direct dictation, or may have compiled thoughts and’or papers.

The point is, scripture exegesis is as messy as any other endeavor with a human element. It seldom fits into neat little boxes. The OT is more difficult than the NT from the point of view of exegesis. It is hard to avoid the reality that much of the OT was passed down through generations either orally, or as collections of writing, before being what we would call “codified”.

The challenging thing for a Christian is to have a true sense of what inerrancy and inspiration mean, to read the Scriptures with the Church, and let God speak without limiting him. The Church has always done a lot of work in this area, to open the scriptures up for our edification and salvation. The fact that the Church does continue to do exegesis should give us an appreciation for the depth of the mysteries we are called to explore.

 

[ericc]

John does contradict the nativity stories found in Matthew and Luke. John 7:41-43:

Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” 43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.

People today automatically believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem, so they read the Johannine verses wrong. They feel John, who was an eyewitness to all of Jesus’ ministry, his crucifixion, and death, and Resurrection, is feeling pity for the people who don’t know Jesus is from Bethlehem. But such is not the case. John is saying they KNOW Jesus is from Galilee. Perhaps some of them even witnessed his birth.

1. It is a mistake to assume that a statement from the Jerusalem crowd is to be held as the author agreeing with it.
2. Jesus was in Jerusalem (Jn7:25) . The crowd knew he came from Galilee and assumed he was born there not knowing he was indeed born in Bethlehem.That is why they were confused as they expected the Messiah to be from Bethlehem. The Gospel did not say whether Jesus update them or not of his birth status.
3. It would be ridiculous for John to say that Jesus was born in Nazareth while knowing that Matthew and Luke indicated Bethlehem AND indicating that the crowd knew that the the prophecy was calling for Bethlehem. The Gospel of John was written much later , a 20-30 year gap from that of Luke/Matthew and there is no reason to believe he wanted to contradict them.
4. For John to write contrary to what Matthew/Luke had written would be to cast doubt on the truth of the Gospels. Who is right? If the error is apparent, the Jews and Romans would have seize upon this error and trumpet this error in order to snuff out this new sect. But either the Jews and Romans were too dumb to spot such an opportunity or perhaps we need to review what we thought John actually wrote.
5. John indicated that the crowd know Jesus is from Galilee. No argument there. But no where did he write that the the crowd knew that Jesus was born in Galilee. You can not read what is not there. Raised in a place, coming from a place is very different from being born in the place.
6. Where is the contradiction between John and Matthew/Luke? A contradiction is where 2 parties claim different things for the same event. That has yet to be proven. John did not claim Jesus is born in Nazareth. If the crowd did, the mistake lies with the crowd and not with John. John at the most would be held responsible for recording the mistake of the crowd.

John takes a different view of the Messiah than Matthew or Luke. The prophecy of a Davidic messiah born in Bethlehem also decrees that he will be a warrior-like messiah, who will restore Palestine to the Jewish people. However, we know this did not happen, and Jesus knew the Romans would destroy the temple. It was to the destruction of the temple, etc. that he was referring in Matthew 16:28, and John was still living when that occurred.

Can you point to which verse did John indicate that the Messiah will be a warrior -like messiah? I don’t think he did. If the Gospel writers did not identify which prophesies are fulfilled, it is not right to put words in their mouth. A sword in the hand is far from being a warrior and prophetic/poetic language need to be understood very carefully as they could have several meanings.

 

[ericc]

How do you think she would travel 100 miles in 4 BCE? In a luxury sedan? She would have two choices: on foot or on a donkey and neither is feasible for a woman a few days or weeks from giving birth.

The Bible did not say how pregnant Mary was. Luke 2:6 did not say how long they were in Bethlehem before Mary gave birth. Days, weeks , months?

She could take a caravan. Or a donkey/oxen pulled cart. It doesn’t matter because transportation means was not specified in the Bible. So there is no need to speculate.

Quirinius held a local census, but not in the year Jesus was born.

Interestingly Luke did distinguish between the first registration Luke 2:2 and the second registration Acts 5:37. It is the first registration that is in doubt. Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata also identified this registration as the year of the Lord’s birth. I gave additional information in post #35 as to a possible reason for the registration.

No one would have had to travel. People in that time in Palestine registered where they lived, not where they were from. The “beloved disciple,” John, knew Jesus was from Galilee, and he wrote it in his gospel.

Luke would disagree with you. Or you are claiming Luke lied. And Matthew too.

You are insistent that if a person is from a place it must automatically imply he was born there. It could easily be taken as being raised there after all Jesus spent most of his growing up years there. You need to have a very good reason to be so convinced that this can be the only interpretation. Which you have yet to prove.

If you are going to place so much emphasis on the prophecy in Micah, how then do you explain that Jesus was NOT, in ANY way, a warrior? Because that prophecy definitely says the messiah will be a warrior.

I never mentioned Micah. Neither did John or at least I don’t know whether John did mentioned Micah. You must have confused me with someone else.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Can you give us a reference for this?
Please note, I am not disputing any of these details, I am simply asking the question:
Where does the Church say that “Jesus was almost certainly not born in Bethlehem”?

Not to debate any specific items here, but the how, when, and why of scripture authorship generates lots of discussion among biblical scholars. There is a lot of discussion about who wrote what, when they wrote it, and how it was done. The communities each author lived in is always taken into account.

In any case, biblical authorship is nothing like modern journalism, where specific pieces of work are easily dated and attributions are obvious by way of signed documents. For instance, the authorship of some of what is know as “Paul” is vague. Exegetes can discern different styles and other variances that can only point to “other” as author of some of the epistles. It is widely held that Paul employed a “secretary” who may have taken direct dictation, or may have compiled thoughts and’or papers.

The point is, scripture exegesis is as messy as any other endeavor with a human element. It seldom fits into neat little boxes. The OT is more difficult than the NT from the point of view of exegesis. It is hard to avoid the reality that much of the OT was passed down through generations either orally, or as collections of writing, before being what we would call “codified”.

The challenging thing for a Christian is to have a true sense of what inerrancy and inspiration mean, to read the Scriptures with the Church, and let God speak without limiting him. The Church has always done a lot of work in this area, to open the scriptures up for our edification and salvation. The fact that the Church does continue to do exegesis should give us an appreciation for the depth of the mysteries we are called to explore.

I didn’t say the Church said Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. If it came out that way, it was poor wording on my part, and I apologize. I said Catholics are not required to believe he was born in Bethlehem, and most NT scholars today do not think he was. Many scholars believe he was born in Nazareth, but I’ll admit, there is no evidence to support that he was.

I agree completely with what you wrote, especially the last paragraph. That is why we are not a “religion of the book” and continually search for new ways of understanding the mysteries the Bible reveals, sometimes not so easily.

In the end, I don’t think it matters where Jesus was born. What matters is that he was resurrected and is truly the Son of God, the Christ. On that, all four gospels agree completely even though they do place different persons at the empty tomb (I don’t think that matters, either).

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The Bible did not say how pregnant Mary was. Luke 2:6 did not say how long they were in Bethlehem before Mary gave birth. Days, weeks , months?

She could take a caravan. Or a donkey/oxen pulled cart. It doesn’t matter because transportation means was not specified in the Bible. So there is no need to speculate.
Interestingly Luke did distinguish between the first registration Luke 2:2 and the second registration Acts 5:37. It is the first registration that is in doubt. Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata also identified this registration as the year of the Lord’s birth. I gave additional information in post #35 as to a possible reason for the registration.

Luke would disagree with you. Or you are claiming Luke lied. And Matthew too.

You are insistent that if a person is from a place it must automatically imply he was born there. It could easily be taken as being raised there after all Jesus spent most of his growing up years there. You need to have a very good reason to be so convinced that this can be the only interpretation. Which you have yet to prove.

I never mentioned Micah. Neither did John or at least I don’t know whether John did mentioned Micah. You must have confused me with someone else.

I’m not claiming he was born in Nazareth. I’m claiming no one really knows where he was born, and Bethlehem in Judea seems a stretch for the reasons I’ve given.

Why would Mary go at all? Women never had to go. She had to be close to giving birth because the gospels describe her as “heavily” pregnant and she did give birth. It seems more likely she would stay with Elizabeth or another female family member.

There is no record of a census requiring the Jews to return to the place where they were born to register.

Quirinius did call for a local census, but local is all.

It was the custom for Jews to register where they lived, not where they were born.

The birth narratives contradict each other on some points.

I brought up Micah because that is where the idea of “Bethlehem in Judea” came from:

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.

If that refers to Jesus, how then, does one reconcile the fact that he definitely did not rule Israel? I think this is one of the reasons the Jewish people do not believe Christ was the Messiah, but a Jewish person could give a more accurate answer as to this particular prophecy.

I think, after the establishment of the Church, the members combed through the Hebrew Scriptures, trying to find out if Jesus fulfilled all the messianic prophecies. I do think Luke and Matthew wrote the birth narratives to place Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem because of the prophecy in Micah. But that leaves us with a problem: Jesus was not a ruler of Israel.

In the end, I don’t think it matters where Jesus was born. What matters is that he was truly resurrected and is the Son of God. And I can cite about 400 OT messianic prophecies that Jesus did fulfill. If people believe he was born in Bethlehem, there’s no harm in that, and it may turn out to be true, and I don’t see the Church changing things no matter what biblical scholars and archaeologists find. If some want to believe Nazareth, or just “Bethlehem is unlikely” like I believe, I also don’t see the harm as long as they know Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. It’s kind of like the Shroud of Turin. If it is Jesus’ burial shroud, that would be a wonderful relic to have and would show his followers just how much he endured. If it is not his burial shroud, if it is a complete fake, the faith of a true believer won’t be affected.

I don’t care who believes he had to be born in Bethlehem of Judea, I just don’t want that belief forced on me is all. And that prophecy in Micah is at odds with the life of Jesus. I do believe he was and is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. No doubt about that.

 

[adrift]

All you did was go over what’s been gone over before.

I answered your post line by line. Your complaint that it was gone over before must fall in your court.

Of course Mary was close to giving birth. She gave birth, didn’t she? If you believe the nativity stories, the child did not seem to be premature; he did not seem to suffer any of the problems the premature suffer from.

 

[adrift]

Simply because Matthew or Luke or any other Bible writer does not mention everything that every other Bible writer mentions about the same general time or event, does not mean that someone has erred. Rather, just as we oftentimes tell stories today and include certain details that others omit, so did the inspired writers of Scripture. Honest truth-seekers (Proverbs 8:17) will come to the logical conclusion that the Bible writers supplemented (not contradicted) each others’ accounts of biblical events.

If you are referencing Mt. 1:19-21, way before the time of Jesus’ birth, Joseph knew what was going on:

And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”…

But he didn’t know from the beginning what was going on or he wouldn’t have planned to divorce her.

Most biblical scholars agree that Jesus was “probably” born in Nazareth. They agree it can’t be Bethlehem and that we’ll really never know. That is what I believe. That we cannot *really *know, and that it really doesn’t matter. What matters is that he was resurrected from the dead, not where he was born.

I don’t care how many scholars agree it is obvious that the Pope doesn’t agree nor does the Church. I guess you didn’t read the catechism:shrug: If it didn’t matter it wouldn’t have been put in scripture.

beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2000/12/O-Little-Town-Of-Nazareth-Scholars-Debate-Jesus-Birthplace.aspx?p=1

This is only an article that does not support your belief. Did you read it? Is that where you got the false more than a 100 miles No matter they have no teaching authority.

And, you failed to answer my question: If you believe in the prophecy of Micah, how then do you reconcile that with the fact that Jesus was not a warrior messiah?

I did not fail to answer. You failed to read my answer which is in post 227

I am not a progressive, but I am now halfway through in my seventh year of formal theological studies and teaching now as well. Biblical scholarship tells us the author of the Gospel of John was, indeed, John bar Zebedee. John states quite clearly that some people were confused by Jesus because he was born in Galilee. He was a Nazarene. I also take this seriously:

Interesting in a Jun 18th 2015 post you stated you were in your fifth year.

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

Catholicism is not a “religion of the book.” Some Protestant sects are, but Catholicism, no. I believe, with the Holy Father, that Holy Scripture is not a “dead letter.” I also believe, with the Holy Father, that the Holy Spirit will continue to enlighten those who keep an open mind. We are still learning the mysteries of the Holy Scripture and will continue to learn. However, to learn, one must keep an open mind just as one must keep an open heart to receive Christ. Why do you think he did not appear to Pilate or to those who wished him crucified? Because their minds were closed. That is one of the dangers of religion today, thinking we “know it all” and “understand it all,” when we’ve barely scratched the surface. JP II often commented on the necessity of keeping an open mind.

I’m not saying Jesus was born in Nazareth; I’m saying he almost certainly was not born in Bethlehem of Judea.

This is not an open mind it is the brain falling out. I noticed that you ignored what was posted as a quote from the Pope

Benedict writes: “To sum up: what Matthew and Luke set out to do, each in his
own way, was not to tell ‘stories’ but to write history, real history that actually
happened, admittedly interpreted and understood in the context of the Word of
God” (17). Much

 

[adrift]

I guess this is a “progressive” site!

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-john-write-his-gospel

The facts are these: The Tradition of the Church, supported by the unbroken line of patristic testimony, as well as internal evidence from the text itself, is that the Gospel is rooted in the testimony of the apostle John, son of Zebedee…So all the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century.

I thought every Catholic knew the Gospels are now thought to have been written by those to whom they are attributed.

That is not what your beloved biblical scholars believe

Many scholars today, however, argue that the original authors were “anonymous,” and that the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were only later connected with these four books

.

 

[adrift]

Why would Mary go at all? Women never had to go. She had to be close to giving birth because the gospels describe her as “heavily” pregnant and she did give birth. It seems more likely she would stay with Elizabeth or another female family member.

The gospel does not describe her as being “heavily” pregnant.

There is no record of a census requiring the Jews to return to the place where they were born to register.

Quirinius did call for a local census, but local is all.

It was the custom for Jews to register where they lived, not where they were born.

documentation?

The birth narratives contradict each other on some points.

There are no contradictions.

I brought up Micah because that is where the idea of “Bethlehem in Judea” came from:…

No it came from Matthew

I think, after the establishment of the Church, the members combed through the Hebrew Scriptures, trying to find out if Jesus fulfilled all the messianic prophecies. I do think Luke and Matthew wrote the birth narratives to place Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem because of the prophecy in Micah. But that leaves us with a problem: Jesus was not a ruler of Israel.

What you think is not fact.

36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants (would) be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here.”

 

[Lily_Bernans]

That is not what your beloved biblical scholars believe .

You called me a “progressive” because I believe the names on the gospels indicate the original writers. I said that is what THIS site believes, so IT must be progressive, and it is.

*I guess this is a “progressive” site!

catholic.com/magazine/art…ite-his-gospel*

The facts are these: The Tradition of the Church, supported by the unbroken line of patristic testimony, as well as internal evidence from the text itself, is that the Gospel is rooted in the testimony of the apostle John, son of Zebedee…So all the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century.

*I thought every Catholic knew the Gospels are now thought to have been written by those to whom they are attributed.
*
I am not a progressive. I have no “beloveds” among biblical scholars, but I do know many personally. That is what 7 1/2 years of formal theological training will introduce one to, among other things. And, I am still working on finishing my PhD while I teach.

I’m not going to keep going back-and-forth ad nauseum.

As I responded to ericc, who was extremely polite, by the way, I don’t happen to believe myself that Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea. The Gospel of John states otherwise and so does plain common sense. However, as I told him, I don’t think it makes a whit of difference where Jesus was born. If people want to believe he was born in Bethlehem of Judea, that’s fine. If they want to believe he was born in Bethlehem of Galilee, that’s fine. If they want to believe he was born in Nazareth, that’s fine. If they want to believe he was born in Egypt, that’s fine, too. What matters is their belief in his resurrection, not where he was born. I say it’s highly unlikely he was born in Bethlehem of Judea, but other than that, I don’t know where he was born. I don’t think people will ever know with certainty.

But thank you for keeping this going so long. You have proven that the Bible can, and is, in error on some points, which, according to our Holy Father does not make the inspired Word of God in error. And, like the Vatican suggests, I keep an open mind.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

No it came from Matthew

What you think is not fact.

Adrift, Matthew was written AFTER Christ’s death. Matthew did not make prophecies about where the Messiah would be born. The messianic prophecies are confined to the Hebrew Scriptures. That is fact.

 

[adrift]

You called me a “progressive” because I believe the names on the gospels indicate the original writers. I said that is what THIS site believes, so IT must be progressive, and it is.

*I guess this is a “progressive” site!

catholic.com/magazine/art…ite-his-gospel*

I never called you a progressive. I wondered why you went off on that tangent:shrug:

The facts are these: The Tradition of the Church, supported by the unbroken line of patristic testimony, as well as internal evidence from the text itself, is that the Gospel is rooted in the testimony of the apostle John, son of Zebedee…So all the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century.

 

[adrift]

Adrift, Matthew was written AFTER Christ’s death. Matthew did not make prophecies about where the Messiah would be born. The messianic prophecies are confined to the Hebrew Scriptures. That is fact.

Your point?

What I said is that we know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because Matthew said He was as did Luke. No you read into John something that he did not intend but because of your fixation that we don’t know where Jesus was born you latch on to in order to booster the untenable position that goes against the traditional teachings of the Church.