Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
07-19-2011, 06:38 AM | #41 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Hi neilgodfrey,
With respect to the OP .... "Why was Jesus' birth placed in Bethlehem? " I dont think that any other evidence needs to be considered once it is understood that the authors of the Greek new testament sought to flesh out the historical details of the historical jesus by data-mining the Greek LXX. The authors of the Greek New Testament found that Bethlehem was auspiciously appointed in terms of scriptural (i.e. Greek LXX) prophecies to be fullfilled. The classic instance is found in Jhn 7:42 Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
07-19-2011, 07:46 AM | #42 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Can't you see that you appear to be unreasonable? Can't you see your OWN subjectivity? Can't you see your OWN SUBJECTIVE corroboration? All I need from your are CREDIBLE sources of antiquity that show an ordinary man was BORN in Nazareth, was BAPTIZED by John and was CRUCIFIED under Pilate. The character who did those things in the NT was a Child of a Holy Ghost and was God, the Creator. 1. You should know that it is NOT subjective but found in the Pauline writings that "Paul" claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man in Galatians 1.1 and that he WITNESSES the resurrected Jesus in I Cor. 15 so why are you wasting your time telling me about "Paul". 2. You should know that it is NOT subjective but found in "Against Celsus" that Origen claimed Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost while claiming that "Antiquities of the Jews" was authentic. 3. You should know it is NOT subjective that the authenticity or non-authenticity of "Antiquities of the Jews" was IRRELEVANT to Christian writers. They simultaneously claimed Jesus was BORN in BETHLEHEM of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin and that "Antiquities of the Jews" was authentic. 4. This is NOT subjective:The authenticity or non-authenticity of "Antiquities of the Jews" cannot corroborate that an ordinary man or ordinary woman was BORN in Nazareth, was Baptized by John and CRUCIFIED under Pilate. |
|
07-19-2011, 10:09 AM | #43 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
aa in order to stay on topic I have decided to not respond any more on this.
take care, Ted |
07-19-2011, 04:30 PM | #44 |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
|
07-19-2011, 06:02 PM | #45 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
Quote:
And the thread has yet to reply to my post regarding the Messiac expectations in the 1st century. That writer obviously did a tremendous amount of study and knows a lot more about the subject than 99% of us here..yet, not a peep from anyone here. For the record, it provides yet more support for the idea that Bethlehem was considered to be the birthplace of the coming Messiah. It also can be used to support many of Doherty's arguments about the Messiac expectations. |
|
07-19-2011, 06:35 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
|
Quote:
"Later, as Jesus was teaching the people in the Temple, he asked, “Why do the teachers of religious law claim that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 For David himself, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.’[i] 37 Since David himself called the Messiah ‘my Lord,’ how can the Messiah be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with great delight." Apparently the gospel writers were split on this question. |
|
07-19-2011, 07:05 PM | #47 | ||
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
Quote:
|
||
07-19-2011, 07:18 PM | #48 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
|
Quote:
|
||
07-19-2011, 07:48 PM | #49 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
I find it quite astonishing that people here seem to completely ignore the writings of Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus when dealing with the expectations of the a Jewish Messiah.
Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus all wrote that the Jews expected Jewish Messianic rulers at around the time of the Jewish War c 70 CE and that the expectation was BASED on Scripture. And further, this expectation was WELL-KNOWN by the Jews. We have Multiple Attestation of the time the Jews expected the Christ or Messiah. Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4 Quote:
Quote:
Both Suetonius and Tacitus CORROBORATED Josephus. They do NOT corroborate the Jesus story in the Gospels. But, not only was there NO sacred writings to support the Gospels but the very stories show that the Messiah in the NT was UNKNOWN to the Jews from BIRTH to Ascension. They did NOT know that the NT Messiah was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth and incredibly, even Jesus did not want the Jews to know he was the Messiah. So, up to the day Jesus died in gMatthew and gMark the Jews did NOT know of a Messiah called Jesus and Jesus did NOT want his disciples to tell anyone of him. |
||
07-19-2011, 08:54 PM | #50 | |||
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
Quote:
|
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|