Chili

Of course it does because Beth-le-hem is a 'state of mind' and 'a place' if life is a journey. If you object to that don't call life a journey and if life is not a journey don't ask any questions. The rest of the answer may be found in "Elsewhere."

Chili

That the magi arrived and entered after seeing what they saw (= the absense of Joseph) is evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (cf with what the shepherds saw in Luke who did not enter).

But as I told you before, only Mary knows where Bethlehem is but that is a little to complicated for you Johnny.

Johnny Skeptic

The magi arrived in Bethlehem? Now please, Chili, there is not any evidence at all that those magi even existed, much less that they went to Bethlehem.

I was not aware that you knew Mary. You probably look quite well for your age of 2,000 years. What is your secret? May I ask if you limit your uncorroborated speculations to the Bible, or do you bother to comment on other religious books?

You are not a Christian. You are well aware that we are all quite limited regarding finding out what the tangible secrets of the universe are. You are not in the least bit interested in facts. All that you are interested in is what Christians believe are the facts, and you reject much of what they believe are facts. You have admitted that the only reason that you make posts is for entertainment. You are well aware that you don't have a clue whether or not the magi existed, or whether they travelled to Bethlehem, or whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Chili

Johnny is venting and we must be nice to him. He was Christian for 35 years and has become a doubter.

He doesn't know what "through Mary to Jesus" means and is left wondering what Beth-le-hem is all about.

Johnny Skeptic

But this forum is largely about Christians trying to "eliminate" a solely Christian perspective. Many Christians tell non-Christians "you don't have to shelve your intellect in order to become a Christian," in other words, that logic and reason can be used to reasonably verify much of the Bible. For purposes of this thread, a sizeable percentage of Christians, particularly fundamentalist Christians, believe that through logic and reason it can reasonably be proven that 1) Micah 5:2 refers to Jesus, and that 2) Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Even if skeptics concede item 1 to Christians, reasonably proving item 2 presents Christians with an insurmountable problem. At the Theology Web I had a long debate with a Christian who used an entirely secular approach to trying to prove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I hope that some Christians at this forum will use a secular approach as well.

I do not oppose religion in general, or Christianity in particular. I oppose fundamentalist Christianity in particular, primarily because of social issues, mostly physician assisted suicide, homosexuality, and same sex marriage. Fundamentalist Christians are the chief opponents of those practices, and they use the Bible as the basis of their opposition. I believe in "live and let live" within reasonable parameters, but a sizeable majority of fundamentalist Christians do not. Wherever you go in the world, no matter what the religion, fundamentalist are usually trouble.

In typical fashion, you do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Whether Adam through Mary, Adam through Joseph, David through Mary, or David through Joseph, genetics is the sole issue. Old Testament Jews believed that they were God's chosen people, and as such they placed great emphasis upon genetics. Using Micah 5:2 as a basis, Matthew, in Matthew 2:1-6, attempted to make a genetic connection between Jesus and someone who 1) would come from Bethlehem Ephratah, 2) would become ruler in Israel, and 3) is eternal. None of those claims is reasonably provable. Even if skeptics concede item 1, Christians cannot reasonably prove items 2 and 3. From a Christian perspective, including Matthew's perspective, the main issue is not where Jesus was born, but that Jesus being born in Bethlehem was a fulfillment of prophecy. Otherwise, it wouldn't have made any difference where Jesus was born. Matthew dreamed up the fairy tale of the story of the Magi specifically to try to establish a fulfilled prophecy. Rational minded people know that the story is a fairly tale because the magi's visit to Herod needlessly resulted in the deaths of babies of two years and under who lived in and in the vicinity of Bethlehem. God could just as easily have led the magi directly to Bethlehem, so why did Herod have to become involved? Well, if God had led the magi directly to Bethlehem from their homes in the east, Matthew wouldn't have been able to claim that Herod and thousands of other people knew that they were travelling to Bethlehem.

As I said in one on my previous posts, apologist Glenn Miller says that even without Micah 5:2, there are other references in the Old Testament that say that a messiah will come from Bethlehem. However, even if Miller is correct, he cannot reasonably prove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

There is not any evidence that the magi even existed, let alone that they travelled to Bethlehem.

By the way, Chili, lot's of people were born in Bethelem, and as I told you before, even if the magi visited Jesus in Bethlehem, he might have been born in a nearby town and transferred there.

Chili

But they are Gods favorite people and have given two complimentary lineages to prover their worth that you can't figure our and that in itself is sufficient evidence that they are Gods favorite people. In my view Johnny you might be able to beat up a Jew but you'll never beat their theology.Bethlehem is where the dowry is at that was taken from man before he left Eden when the "woman was first taken from man" to be his dowry in betrothal should he ever find the need to return for it. This passage spells the wherewithal of redemption without which there would be no redemption possible. It actually makes man "basically good" but that would be taking a detour to answer your question.

In other words, Mary is the genetic make-up of Joseph that makes Bethlehem the only place where the son of man can be reborn. Any other place he would be a second impostor in the promised land where the bread of life will not be first hand to him from God but will be second hand to him such as from Moses or from bible passages.

2) Israel is a state of mind wherein intuition has become solid as rock

3) eternal is beyond reason when intuition is solid as rock.The prophet knew what Bethlehem entails so it is an easy prophesy to make. IOW it is a necessary condition that they "mingle dust" with the arrival of the magi so that there is a salvation to work out and that, finally, "Mary can be assumed into heaven" in our tradition where she is crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth. They just call her "the bride of the lamb" in the marriage of true minds because at this time in history the messiah is just arriving to be in our midst and dwell among men of good will (those are the Catholics of Rome in case you missed that).That was the Inquisition to prevent a new empowered impostor to take charge who was not born in Bethlehem (such as Luther, Billy Graham and Bush in our days).

The reason why Herod became involved is to show that far too many 'Billy Grahams' were infecting the area in those days and that it was against their popularity that this savior was born.

In the metaphysical the involvement of Herod, who at that time was not a friend of Pilate (involutional turmoil prevailed), suggests that a great upheaval in authority was to take place which is justified by the wrath of Herod.As you said elsewhere, "the proof is in the pudding."We all have a birth right. The trick is to claim it as our own with the question: who am I? .Bethlehem is just as metaphysical as the magi themselves. So to be born in Bethlehem, if it existed, means nothing or it can be said that God does have grandchildren.

Johnny Skeptic

Then what in the world are you arguing about? What I want is for Christians to try to use secular evidence to try to reasonably prove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I started this thread to debate Christians, not non-Christians.

Chili

Is there something wrong with believing the bible in faith because it testifies to truth that can be brought to understanding as an end in itself so that religion can be left behind as a means to the end? No, there is nothing wrong with that.

You might want to sharpen you pencil and address those who mislead the flock instead of trying to slaughter the flock. Religion is good but bad religion is worse than bad because it is just evil to destroy that which is good.

Just as you demand respect for homosexuals religion should be given respect and if you do not see it that way you do not know the similarity between these two. Both are intuit except that one is constructive and the other is destructive, yet, or perhaps therefore, it deserves our consideration.

Johnny Skeptic

It is precisely and only bad religion that I oppose. In one of my previous posts I said:

Please be advised that I oppose anyone who opposes physician assisted suicide, homosexuality, or physician assisted suicide regardless of their world view.

What do you care about what Christians believe, or what anybody believes for that matter? Are you trying to convince anyone of anything? What are you trying to accomplish at this forum? Aren't you here solely for entertainment? By what means do you suggest that people search for the truth, or is it your position that we cannot find the truth?

Chili

So do I and these are the evangelicals. I usually call them protestants in one swipe but I realize that they are good people who mean well. The problem is that meaning well is not good enough when the distant consequences of their actions are not known to them.I don't oppose anything but I admire those who do.Everybody can find truth one candle light at the time. It is the Ultimate Truth that religion is after and here Catholism is the only religion that can do this in Christendom.