Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 02-24-2012, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

what does that verse have to do with Jesus? He wasn't born in Bethlehem.

We know this because...

For a variety of reasons, starting with the fact that there was no Bethlehem at the time

We know this because...

Quote:

but also because the Gospel nativities making that claim are not only clear fabrications

We know this because...

Quote:

but aren't even the same fabrications,

They are not the same accounts, admittedly.

Quote:

and aren't even compatible fabrications.

We know this because...

Quote:

There is also no early tradition of Jesus being born in Bethlehem (something GJohn even recognizes as a problem).

Really?

Quote:

Quite. With the popular market flooded by the likes of Ehrman, Pagels and Dawkins, no guesswork is required.

Quote:

i don't see any archaeologists on that list

But we do see employees.

Quote:

So Oshri paid out of his own pocket. Amazing.

Quote:

Paid for what? Avirim Oshri works for the IAA.

Not himself.

Toto · 02-24-2012, 11:29 AM

There was a big todo in the late 1990's about the joint evangelical-Israeli effort to breed a "red heifer" - the sacrifice which is required for the ritual purity needed to build the Third Temple in Jerusalem. (It was part of the Y2K pre-millenial frenzy.)

But red heifers are exceedingly rare. An unblemished lamb would have to be rather commonplace.

There are numerous sources on the web that claim that the Temple authorities maintained flocks of sheep in Bethlehem that produced unblemished lambs, or even that the unblemished lambs had to have come from Bethlehem, but I have yet to find a footnote or a source for this.

Bethlehem would not need to be inhabited for it to be a site for shepherds to maintain flocks, I would think.

Toto · 02-24-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

...
We know this because...

Because we can read.

Quote:

Really?

Yes really.

sotto voce · 02-24-2012, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

...
We know this because...

Because we can read.

Read what? So-called scholarship?

Toto · 02-24-2012, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Because we can read.

Read what? So-called scholarship?

You can read the Bible and see the blatant contradictions.

I would advise you to also read the rules for this board and stop trying to hijack threads.

arnoldo · 02-24-2012, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

. . .Do we have any data on what kind of system was in place for producing sacrificial lambs. It seems to me that the production of thousands (tens of thousands?) of unblemished lambs was no small process. More than one small village could accommodate. What do we know, if anything,about how they did it?

Tens of thousands of lambs may've not been required for the passover at Jerusalem. The following source states that one lamb could've been adequate for up to 10 persons for passover. Therefore 1000 lambs could've provided for 10,000 persons having passover in Jersualem. Everyone else outside of Jerusalem wanting to keep passover would have to settle for a shankbone of a lamb. (Source: The Seven Festivals of the Messiah (pg. 41).

cornbread_r2 · 02-24-2012, 06:07 PM

When I was a wee Catholic, lamb-shaped cakes with shredded coconut wool were all the rage at Easter time. The only, inevitable downside was that someone always got stuck eating lamb's ass. :frown:

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-24-2012, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

. . .Do we have any data on what kind of system was in place for producing sacrificial lambs. It seems to me that the production of thousands (tens of thousands?) of unblemished lambs was no small process. More than one small village could accommodate. What do we know, if anything,about how they did it?

Tens of thousands of lambs may've not been required for the passover at Jerusalem. The following source states that one lamb could've been adequate for up to 10 persons for passover. Therefore 1000 lambs could've provided for 10,000 persons having passover in Jersualem. Everyone else outside of Jerusalem wanting to keep passover would have to settle for a shankbone of a lamb. (Source: The Seven Festivals of the Messiah (pg. 41).

Thanks for the link. That helps.

arnoldo · 02-25-2012, 08:35 AM

Josephus writes in War 6.9.3 422-427 that over 200,000 lambs were sacrificed in Jerusalem during passover.

Quote:

War 6.9.3 422-427
The Numbers that Gathered in Jerusalem for the Passover

Cestius, desiring to inform Nero, who was inclined to condemn the nation, of the power of the city, requested the high priests to take a count, if possible, of the entire population. So these high priests did so upon the arrival of their feast which is called the Passover. On this day they slay their sacrifices from the ninth hour until the eleventh, with a company [phatria] of not less than ten belonging to every sacrifice -- for it is not lawful for them to have the feast singly by themselves -- and many of us are twenty in a company. These priests found the number of the sacrifices was two hundred and fifty-six thousand five hundred; which, if we assume no more than ten feasted together, amounts to two million seven hundred thousand and two hundred persons; but this counted only those that were pure and holy, for as to those that have leprosy, or gonorrhea, or women that have their monthly periods, or persons that are otherwise polluted, it is not lawful to be partakers of the sacrifice, nor indeed for any foreigners either who come here to worship.

http://www.josephus.org/Passover.htm#archelaus

Of those possible 200,000 lambs which were slain it wouldn't be surprising if one or two with an itsy bitsy spot or blemish managed to get sacrificed. The Passover Lamb for the entire nation slain directly by the High Priest himself probably got a closer inspection than the other lambs.

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-25-2012, 09:16 AM

I always figured they were probably a little lax on the "unblemished" part.

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

02-24-2012, 11:29 AM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There was a big todo in the late 1990's about the joint evangelical-Israeli effort to breed a "red heifer" - the sacrifice which is required for the ritual purity needed to build the Third Temple in Jerusalem. (It was part of the Y2K pre-millenial frenzy.) But red heifers are exceedingly rare. An unblemished lamb would have to be rather commonplace. There are numerous sources on the web that claim that the Temple authorities maintained flocks of sheep in Bethlehem that produced unblemished lambs, or even that the unblemished lambs had to have come from Bethlehem, but I have yet to find a footnote or a source for this. Bethlehem would not need to be inhabited for it to be a site for shepherds to maintain flocks, I would think.

02-24-2012, 06:07 PM	#17
cornbread_r2 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: West Virginia, USA Posts: 166	When I was a wee Catholic, lamb-shaped cakes with shredded coconut wool were all the rage at Easter time. The only, inevitable downside was that someone always got stuck eating lamb's ass. :frown:

02-25-2012, 09:16 AM	#20
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I always figured they were probably a little lax on the "unblemished" part.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.