Was Our Lord born in a stable?

[ConvertChris]

The other day an atheist friend showed me a section in a book called “General Ignorance” which says that Jesus was probably not born in a stable because all Saint Luke’s Gospel says is:

“She wrapped him in stripps of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.”

It goes on to say that in those days mangers were often kept in the house, and also points out that no animals are mentioned.

It says that Saint Francis of Assisi came up with the nativity scene as we now know it. Fair enough, as Catholics we disagree with Sola Scripture, but he must have got it from somewhere. Does anyone have any insight on this.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Ask your friend if he even knows what a manger is. A manger is a box used to hold feed for livestock. They did not keep livestock in the house!!

Also, this from Isaias 1:3 is generally attributed to refer to Christ: The ox knoweth his owner, and the a*s his master’s crib: but Israel hath not known me, and my people hath not understood.

 

[LilyM]

If I were an innkeeper there’s no way I’d want the mess and headache of a woman giving birth in my own house! I’d almost certainly take one of the other guests into my house instead, and put her in their place in the inn. But it looks like the place was so crowded that even this wasn’t an option.

The other private houses would most certainly have been full up at this time too. Census, remember - they were all related, so each family would have all the cousins camping out with them.

So some sort of cave, stable, whatever - it’s still by far the most likely option.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

When I was small and the family all gathered at my grandparents farm, we often slept in the hay in the barn. It works fine - unless you have hayfever.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I think the important thing is this: Christ was born in a very humble setting, to underscore the lengths to which the Lord was humbling himself for our benefit.

Ask your atheist friend why his point should make any difference. Does he/she really think this allegation in any way discredits Christian theology?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hello,

Ask your friend if he even knows what a manger is. A manger is a box used to hold feed for livestock. They did not keep livestock in the house!!

Also, this from Isaias 1:3 is generally attributed to refer to Christ: The ox knoweth his owner, and the a*s his master’s crib: but Israel hath not known me, and my people hath not understood.

Isaiah 1.3 is applied to the Nativity - but that is not what Isaiah himself is talking about.​

The proper sense of the text is the basis for the applied sense of the text: which is how it happens that verses in the OT which are talking in their **proper sense **about something other than Jesus, are applied, either by the NT authors or by the Church (as in the Liturgy, for example) to something to do with Him. The
proper sense has to be found if the applied sense is not to replace the sense on which it is founded - they aren’t equally valid for exactly the same purposes; they are equally valid for different purposes. What we need to do is to avoid mistaking the one for the other. That is why in the Church there is not only a teaching authority, but also biblical scholarship.

Application of the text in an improper sense happens for a variety of reasons:

• an OT text is seen as in a sense even more fully applicable to Him than to its original subject - so Isaiah 6 is applied by Mark to the preaching of Jesus, in Mark 4.11, 12; in Isaiah it referred to the preaching of Isaiah to his fellow-countrymen in the 700s BC.
• Texts are used to hint at his identity & status - John uses Proverbs 30.4 in John 3.13 in this way; & Matthew does this all the time, as when he applies a verse from Hosea referring to Israel , to speak of the return from Egypt after the death of Herod the Great
• the Church uses Sirach (= Ecclesiasticus 24), which properly speaking is about the Torah as God’s Wisdom, to describe the BVM
  It is this constant & many-layered use of the OT in the NT that justifies the saying that the NT is concealed in the OT, & the OT revealed in the NT (it’s quoted in the CCC, IIRC)

I wonder if there is a possible hint that Jesus is food - a manger is a place for food, after all. If so, there may be a hint at the Passion:

• Psa 27:2 When the wicked, [even] mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.
  And see these two pages of references generally. ##