No Bethlehem Judea in JC's time

So where was the supposed JC born? Or was he born at all?
Two NT gospels differ markedly in crucial areas.
Matthew places Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, when Herod was still king ~ Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king...
Luke places Jesus' birth in a different time period. According to Luke 2, Jesus was born during the first census under Cyrenius, governor of Syria ~ Luke 2:1,2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
However, there was no Bethlehem in Judea in the time of Jesus!
The town of Bethlehem in the West Bank, some six miles south of Jerusalem, is revered by millions as the birthplace of Jesus. According to the New Testament account of the apostle Matthew, Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem in the southern region of Judea at the time of Jesus' birth and later moved to Nazareth in the northern Galilee region. In the more popular account of the apostle Luke, Joseph and a very pregnant Mary traveled more than 90 miles from their residence in Nazareth to Joseph's Judean hometown of Bethlehem to be counted in a Roman census. Regardless of the variation, both apostles agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, the city where King David had been born a thousand years earlier. The Christian Messiah could thereby be considered a descendant of the House of David--a requirement for followers of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

But while Luke and Matthew describe Bethlehem in Judea as the birthplace of Jesus, "Menorah," the vast database of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), describes Bethlehem as an "ancient site" with Iron Age material and the fourth-century Church of the Nativity and associated Byzantine and medieval buildings. But there is a complete absence of information for antiquities from the Herodian period--that is, from the time around the birth of Jesus.

I had never before questioned the assumption that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea. But in the early 1990s, as an archaeologist working for the IAA, I was contracted to perform some salvage excavations around building and infrastructure projects in a small rural community in the Galilee. When I started work, some of the people who lived around the site told me how Jesus was really born there, not in the south. Intrigued, I researched the archaeological evidence for Bethlehem in Judea at the time of Jesus and found nothing. This was very surprising, as Herodian remains should be the first thing one should find. What was even more surprising is what archaeologists had already uncovered and what I was to discover over the next 11 years of excavation at the small rural site-- Bethlehem of Galilee.
Source ~
http://www.archaeology.org/0511/abstracts/jesus.html

 

Yeah, that's just a little tweak the writers did to make sure Jesus was born in Bethelehem, same as David was. The messiah was prophesized to be born where David was. Jesus was probably born in Nazareth. Or maybe this Bethlehem of Galilee you speak of. I do know the whole bit about the census was a lie, the Romans have no record of any census in the area, and even if there was, no respectable man would drag his extremely pregnant wife along, since only the head of the household had to report anyways. Mary would have been left at home in the care of her mother and other women who would be able to assist in the childbirth.

 

I was reading a book by a pastor ('walking on water - biblical images and their secret') the same thing. So I suppose it could be true, there's not much extra 'value' in Jesus being born in Bethlehem. But I suppose it's just an image, there are so many things in the bible that should not be taken literally.

 

literally , i'll just take a few words of love .

 

That's the point kiss_the_sky ~ when a religion maintains it's standing by asserting that it's fictions are fact, it is crucifying truth in the same way that the supposed jesus was crucified. And by doing so, the religion is an instrument of evil as it has proven throughout history, right up to the present.
Know the truth and the truth will set you free....

 

This is why you cannot trust prophecy that is spoken and fulfilled in the same book.

And this obviously doesn't fit in with biblical inerrancy.

 

you're right. And you put that down very well.

 

You know Sera Michele, I often wondered how it was ever determined that there was such a thing as biblical inerrancy. It seems to me that if biblical inerrancy were factual, it could be found in book so and so, chapter xyz, verse 16 or such of the bible. But it aint anywhere except in the minds of those who wish it were true, which makes it a fabrication along with all other religious presumptions and beliefs that post rationalize prophecy to fit religious need.
I also know that the wise man builds his house upon the rock, but the more you look at it, the more you see christianity is built upon very shifty sand.

 

A quick web search brought up this info:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran2.htm

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (KJV)

That's pretty much the verse they use to say the bible is telling us it is inerrant.

I just don't see it, however...

 

Timothy is but another example of christian deceit ~ "Their attribution to Paul is clearly fictional, for their language, style, and thought are thoroughly un-Pauline, and the "personal" references to particular occasions in the lives of Timothy, Titus, and Paul, do not fit with recinstructions of that history taken from the authentic letters of Paul." MacDonald 1989 The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon.
As well, if christianity relies upon Timothy for authentication, the question arises as to why one part is deemed valid and others invalid vis-a-vis 1 Timothy2:9-15

 

Thank you kiss_the_sky
know the truth and the truth will set you free.....

 

Thing is, this quote ^ is from an epistle that was written a good bit before any of the canonised gospels were.
So what scripture was he talking about?

 

And I just don't see how inspired by god means infallible or inerrant (especially since it mentions 'for correction' in the same verse) . I think that the people who want to believe this way are really pulling at strings when they use 2Timothy3:16 as proof of inerrancy.

And I have to mention that most the christians I know that think the bible is inerrant also think that the KJV is the exact language and original version of the biblical texts. They wouldn't know inerrancy if it bit them in the ass.


I would like to see more christian responses to this thread, to get a little of their POV on the whole Bethlehem thing, since it is their bible claiming that is where christ was born. I'm suprised the more active one's on this board haven't responded yet. Christ's birth in Bethlehem is one of the main pillar's on the religion - all denominations believe christ was born there.

 

The reason christians don't answer posts such as this is that they have no counter argument for truth. All of their arguments are based upon guesswork, imagination, supposition and speculation. Also notice that the apologist christians have avoided my "Truth ~ christianities worst nightmare" thread that exposes their "East Gate" lie. But they continue to argue in their own "east gate" thread. That way they avoid both the truth as well as scrutinity of their deceitful ways.
Know the truth and the truth will set you free.
But christians think that an imprisoned immobilized mind is sacred.

 

Nazereth didnt exist either. go to http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

its a good read

 

Nice one Heron, thanks mate.
PS ~ congrats on the little miracle. Love, Peace, Happiness, to all.

 

Seriously dude, you have one guy posting an abstract and from that you are dogmatically asserting that it is the truth that Bethlehem isn't where Jesus was born. Where is the research? What is the reaction of the experts in the field? What has been the reaction of the archaeological community? Shoot, we don't even know this guy's credentials.

If you want Christians to respond, start posting some substance, stop dogmatically asserting your positions with contempt, and stop using the fallacious arguments from silence ("Christians don't respond because they have no answer").

 

1 ~ a typical hypocritcally biggotted dissemblement that refers best to your own techniques.
2 ~ the article is published in the archeological community magazine for referential consideration.
3 ~ no Bethlehem Judea existed in the time of JC - period.

 

Even if it is, you are not excused from answering. Oh yeah, its ad hominem too. Nice dodge!

Yes, I realize that. What was the reaction of the archeological community? (This is called research.)

Ahhh... I love dogmatic assertions. Could you please provide documentation from people qualified to make such assertions?

 

Even if it is, you are not excused from answering. Oh yeah, its ad hominem too. Nice dodge!
As with your first dissembling attempt, you accuse me of doing exactly what you do.
Could you please provide documentation from people qualified to make such assertions?]
The article is available on the public record by the author, and the link is provided. Do it yourself. (That's the way to learn, you know!)
What was the reaction of the archeological community?
Find out ~ that's called acquisition of knowledge