Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kosh · 12-22-2006, 12:32 PM

According to a new "documentary" (term used loosely), "After Jesus" airing on TV and previewd on CNN.com (unable to link to videos), there is now research indicating that there is another Bethlehem, close to Nazareth. They claim that it would make more sense that this is where Joseph and Mary would have gone for the census, and that there is evidence that this site was venerated by early Christians.

I have no idea what they mean by "early Christians".

Anybody have more information on this?

The Evil One · 12-22-2006, 12:38 PM

How stupid.

If it was close to Nazareth, it wouldn't have been part of the census of Judaea.

If it was close to Nazareth, it wouldn't be the City of David, and Jesus being born there wouldn't indicate he was the Messiah.

John Kesler · 12-22-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kosh

According to a new "documentary" (term used loosely), "After Jesus" airing on TV and previewd on CNN.com

Transcript of the CNN Special "After Jesus."

Toto · 12-22-2006, 02:02 PM

There's no mention of Bethlehem in that transcript, but there is here:

The Mystery of Jesus

Quote:

NEESON: Sadly, the birthplace of the man Christians call the Prince of Peace is often a war zone, as it has been for centuries, from the Romans to the Crusaders to the present-day clash between Israelis and Palestinians.

But the manger that generations of pilgrims have sought out is a bit of a shock -- a stone grotto that doesn't look much like a cozy stable.

Caves like this one pockmark the region where Bethlehem lies. But one scholar suggests that we've got the wrong address. There is another Bethlehem, one that borders Joseph and Mary's home territory of Nazareth.

BRUCE CHILTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED THEOLOGY, BARD COLLEGE: That suggests to me that this is the Bethlehem that we ought to be looking at, instead of Bethlehem of Judea.

NEESON: It is unlikely that this argument is going to trump the centuries of tradition that point to the Bethlehem of faith.

REV. THOMAS FITZPATRICK, DIRECTOR, PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL INSTITUTE, JERUSALEM: It is a historical place, revered for centuries by the faithful. It is the place where it is celebrated Jesus was born.

That's enough for me in my devotion. It's not enough for me as a scientist.

There is a Bethlehem in Galilee, but the NT is clear that Bethlehem in Judea was meant. If the scriptures are inerrant, the Bethlehem in Galilee is out. If they are not, why pick on that Bethlehem? In any case, the early traditions relate to Bethlehem in Judea, not the one in Galilee.

There is a comment on this idea on the Real Clear Theology Blog, which claims "We do theology for you . . . so you don't hurt yourself" -- and I can't tell if that is ironic or not from a brief view. (Does Poe's law apply to theology?)

12-22-2006, 12:32 PM	#1
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	The wrong Bethlehem? According to a new "documentary" (term used loosely), "After Jesus" airing on TV and previewd on CNN.com (unable to link to videos), there is now research indicating that there is another Bethlehem, close to Nazareth. They claim that it would make more sense that this is where Joseph and Mary would have gone for the census, and that there is evidence that this site was venerated by early Christians. I have no idea what they mean by "early Christians". Anybody have more information on this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-22-2006, 12:38 PM	#2
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	How stupid. If it was close to Nazareth, it wouldn't have been part of the census of Judaea. If it was close to Nazareth, it wouldn't be the City of David, and Jesus being born there wouldn't indicate he was the Messiah.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.