Where was Jesus born?

[Green Gaia]

Most scholars today accept the Gospel of Thomas to be the more accurate work of the Jesus story

More accurate? I don't think anyone can make that claim. It's a different take on the teachings of Jesus, and it's not much a story at all, it's basically a list of, "Jesus said..." statements. Interesting.... but you can't know if they are more accurate or not.

 

[Kowalski]

More accurate? I don't think anyone can make that claim. It's a different take on the teachings of Jesus, and it's not much a story at all, it's basically a list of, "Jesus said..." statements. Interesting.... but you can't know if they are more accurate or not.

By the same token then, you can't say that any of the NT is accurate, and that also goes for the prophecy of the OT.

Cheers

K

 

[Green Gaia]

By the same token then, you can't say that any of the NT is accurate, and that also goes for the prophecy of the OT.

Cheers

K

You won't get any argument out of me on that.

 

[Kowalski]

You won't get any argument out of me on that.

Ok, that's fine, we are in agreement.

Cheers

K

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By the same token then, you can't say that any of the NT is accurate, and that also goes for the prophecy of the OT.

You have yet to substantiate your comment/fabrication about 'most scholars'.

 

[joeboonda]

Well, you all can argue about it all you want, I believe the Bible is God's word to us and that if it says Jesus was born in Bethlehem, then I believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I don't reckon I can change your minds on it nor can you change my mind on it. I believe it and base my life and after-life on it. The Lord has been good to me thus far, and I'm sure He will lead me home. Amen.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, you all can argue about it all you want, ...

You can 'amen' all you want. What you seem incapable of doing is backing up claims with evidence.

 

[dan]

The American scholar Robert Thompson. Besides how do you know Moses ever existed ? Egyptian records have no reference to anything like the Exodus story, and if no copies exist from the oldest times, how do you know they were any ? Seems to me, you put a lot of store on hearsay.

K

And you deny centuries of truth based on the opinions of a few rogue scholars.

Manetho, a 3rd century B.C. priest from Heliopolis, tells the story of the exodus from an Egyptian point of view, claiming the Egyptians forced the Hebrews out. The account is only found in indirect quotations from other historians, as the original (along with most of ancient Egypt's records) is lost. There is evidence, but most people who enter investigations harboring foregone conclusions don't pay attention to them.

And my faith in the veracity of the scriptures transcends mere a priori evidence. Please don't make assumptions about what I know and don't know.

And DEUT., what is wrong about what I said?

 

[Kowalski]

The Eygyptaians told manetho many things, which were patently invented.Herodotus, at least was sceptical about all he heard.

Cheers

K

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Dead Sea scrolls are copies made from copies of copies. They are the sacred writings of an apostate group of Jews known as the Essenes.They are no more original than the masoretic texts. The Gospel of Thomas from Egypt is only one of over five thousand gospels that are known as "apocryphal," or of doubtful origin. It may surprise you that surprise is actually spelled with an "r" preceding the "p." It may also surprise you to know that the scriptures contained in the Bible have been around since the days of Moses (and long before). ... Several hundred years before Christ, in Alexandria, a Greek copy of the Old Testament was made using original manuscripts. Several decades after Christ another Hebrew copy was made from original manuscripts. The originals were then destroyed so a better translation could not be made. These two copies, the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts are the oldest known manuscripts in existence.

Not really.

And DEUT., what is wrong about what I said?

If you insist ..

The Dead Sea scrolls are ... the sacred writings of an apostate group of Jews known as the Essenes.

(1) The Biblical writings that comprise the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect a pluriformity of textual variants rather than a sectarian redaction.
(2) Because of this, the current consensus (led by Tov) is that the Qumran cave findings represented a general repository rather than a sectarian library.
(3) The term 'Dead Sea Scrolls' is used for manuscripts from a fairly large geographical area including both Qumran and Masada.
(4) No one would suggest Masada as an Essene site.
(5) The pluriformity of texts is one of many pieces of evidence leading manny current scholars to challenge Qumran as an Essene site. ​

They are no more original than the masoretic texts.

Without access to 'original' texts, the claim of being "more original" is simply vapid. That said, the Masoretic Text is clearly a redaction and harmonization of earlier manuscripts. To equate the 7th-10th century CE MT with the BCE documents of the DSS is absurd.​

It may surprise you that surprise is actually spelled with an "r" preceding the "p."

Here you've managed to be accurate at the cost of being petty.​

It may also surprise you to know that the scriptures contained in the Bible have been around since the days of Moses (and long before).

That is a faith-based statement devoid of evidence and at odds with current scholarship. Preach elsewhere.​

Several hundred years before Christ, in Alexandria, a Greek copy of the Old Testament was made using original manuscripts.

Nonsense. There is no evidence of an 'original' urtext.​

Several decades after Christ another Hebrew copy was made from original manuscripts.

Nonsense. There is no evidence of an 'original' urtext.​

The originals were then destroyed so a better translation could not be made.

More baseless fable.​

These two copies, the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts are the oldest known manuscripts in existence.

See above. Furthermore, it is interesting that you speak of the LXX being produced "several hundred years before Christ" while you speak of the MT being produced "several decades after Christ". The counterposition of 'several centuries before' and 'several decades after' strongly suggests an embarrassing ignorance with regards to the MT.​

So, "surprise" (spelled with an "r" preceding the "p"): other than a pretentious spelling lesson, was there anything of worth in your post? Not really.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And my faith in the veracity of the scriptures transcends mere a priori evidence.

That much is very evident. :biglaugh:

 

[Colorado]

That much is very evident. :biglaugh:

Dude, you at least managed to get that one right. Well, now take this Exodus, if such a big thing really occured, there would of been evidence, there isn't any, either physical ot textural other than the BIble. Therfor, the Bible, having nothing to which to be compared with, must be excluded from fatcual history.Knockout

Colorado Springs

 

[dan]

Dude, you at least managed to get that one right. Well, now take this Exodus, if such a big thing really occured, there would of been evidence, there isn't any, either physical ot textural other than the BIble. Therfor, the Bible, having nothing to which to be compared with, must be excluded from fatcual history.Knockout

Colorado Springs

Lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself of anything. You can't make up criteria for arriving at a conclusion and call it scientific. There is plenty of evidence for everything else in the Bible. The Exodus just happens to not. And poking fun at something you don't understand is the antithesis of objectiveness and intelligence, so pick one or the other.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself of anything.

That is nonsense. You continue to make a fool of yourself.

 

[JAHLion]

Dude, you at least managed to get that one right. Well, now take this Exodus, if such a big thing really occured, there would of been evidence, there isn't any, either physical ot textural other than the BIble. Therfor, the Bible, having nothing to which to be compared with, must be excluded from fatcual history.Knockout

Colorado Springs

There is actually more scriptural evidence than the Bible, what I know is The Kebra Nagast and The Holy Piby.

Bless.

Ras Evan

 

[dan]

That is nonsense. You continue to make a fool of yourself.

Only in the eyes of people who think I'm a fool merely because I have faith. Calling me a fool does nothing to corroborate what you've claimed. Show me evidence that the Bible is false (and saying there's not enough evidence for it is not evidence against it) or shut your cake-hole.

 

[michel]

Critics of the Book of Mormon have often seized upon Alma 7:10 as evidence that the book was a fraud. Joseph Smith, they say, made the mistake of placing Jesus' birthplace as Jerusalem when he was born in Bethlehem. Can this disagreement possibly be reconciled?

It can, with the help of some historical background. An especially important cache of letters found at Amarna--known as the "tel-el-Amarna" letters--contain references to "the land of Jerusalem" as an area larger than the city itself (Nibley 5). This comes from the Palestinian tradition--also found in Syria--that the area around a city would be called by the name of the city. This tradition was a holdover from the period when the city and surrounding lands comprised a single polity: a city-state. Bethlehem, barely six miles from Jerusalem proper, would naturally be part of "the land of Jerusalem."

This might be a pretty flimsy excuse if this was the only part of the Book of Mormon which used these city-state references, but it's not. Lehi is said to have "dwelt at Jerusalem all his days," yet his sons have to journey from Jerusalem to the land of their inheritance. The terms "go down unto the land of our inheritence" and "go up unto Jerusalem" are also consistent with how Hebrews and Egyptians spoke of the city and its surrounding regions (Nibley 6).

That this system of reference survived the trip into the New World is evident from many references in the Book of Mormon. A simple search of the scriptures at www.lds.org yields some choice references:

Mosiah 23: 20
20 And it came to pass that they did multiply and prosper exceedingly in the land of Helam; and they built a city, which they called the city of Helam.

Alma 47: 20
20 And it came to pass that Amalickiah marched with his armies (for he had gained his desires) to the land of Nephi, to the city of Nephi, which was the chief city.

Alma 62: 18
18 And it came to pass that when they had sent them away they pursued their march towards the land of Nephihah. And it came to pass that when they had come to the city of Nephihah, they did pitch their tents in the plains of Nephihah, which is near the city of Nephihah.

Strangely, some of the best evidence in favor of this interpretation of Alma 7:10 comes from the Bible itself (emphasis mine):

2 Kgs. 14: 20
20 And they brought him on horses: and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David.

Luke 2: 4
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

So if the city of David is found "at Jerusalem," then Alma was not incorrect to say that the Savior would be born "at Jerusalem."

This is incredibly coincidental; ( I have not seen this thread before)

William Blake wrote this Hymn (one of my favourites). I don't know if any of you are classical music buffs, but it was the last night of the promenade Concerts here, in England (an anual event); Blake's hymn is always sung by the choir, and the crowd of people fortunate enough to have managed to get a ticket join in with this; they often demand an Encore............

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountain green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among those dark satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.
​

I was thinking; surely Blake wasn't implying..............?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Only in the eyes of people who think I'm a fool merely because I have faith.

You diminish the respectability of your faith by making statements of fact (e.g., re the DSS) which are ignorant and statements on method (e.g., re the absence of evidence) which are simply dumb. That you take no resposibility for the nonsense of your post #38 - steadfastly avoiding the criticisms raised, further speaks to the extent to which your stance and your approach are worthy of respect.

Show me evidence that the Bible is false (and saying there's not enough evidence for it is not evidence against it) or shut your cake-hole.

All archaeological evidence points to the gradual ethnogenesis of the Israelites. All archaeological evidence points to a dynamic and successful Egypt during precisely the two standard periods suggested for its devastation. All textual evidence points to multiple anachronisms in the Exodus/Conquest narrative, so much so in fact that apologists are willing to distort whole chronologies in a failing effort to make the narrative make sense.

============​

Now, stop the irresponsible evasions and respond to the criticisms raised against your post #38.​

 

[Malus 12:9]

There is plenty of evidence for everything else in the Bible. .

May I ask what this evidence is?

( am not poking "fun", just curious.)

 

[dan]

#38? What was the criticism? That the Essenes were not an apostate Jewish group? Do you want to get into how apostate it was for a Jewish community to forbid marriage? How about their attitudes towards the Romans? They were broken off from the rest of the community and followed the rantings of some mysterious leader that promised they would meet the messiah and destroy the Romans. Didn't happen that way, so they were obviously not following the right guide. Was there another criticism raised that I haven't already addressed? Am I to back up the claim that their scriptures were therefore not "originals" as had been asserted?

Thanks for bringing a real argument to the table, by the way. I shall respond.