Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem?

quote:

---

Why did nobody say any of this at the time?

---

At what time?
The time of it supposedly happening? The time of the writing?I am not sure what you are asking.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

The historical arguments seem much stronger.

---

What historical arguments? Arguments for pregnant women traveling? Or historical arguments for Mary in particular?I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say in your post.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Ok gotcha. Just wasn't sure what you meant, but now that I reread the thread it all makes sense to me.I totally agree that the historical argument is very convincing on its own. The ability of a pregnant woman to travel in that time period is not an argument that needs to be made. The hard, verifiable historic facts alone make the story untenable.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

In any case, Egyptian records show that registration took place where property was owned, and Joseph presumably owned property in the Bethlehem area.

---

Source please. These Egyptian are from the time period of the Roman Empire? Presume??? Because this is the only way you can make it make sense? There are no records of any Roman census that required people to go to where ever they had property. Can you imagine the chaos if a person had property in multiple places.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

it was actually Message 288

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

because lore was usually passed on orally at that time

---

Oral traditions are notorious for being changed through time.

quote:

---

If the Jews were as antagonistic as it seems they were, they would have made the greatest objection possible, if the journey to Bethlehem was either impossible or had not actually happened, because this alleged visit was all about their own religion, which they jealously regarded as their own, as secular history makes abundantly clear.In order to accept him, Jesus' disciples must have known where Jesus was born very soon after he started his ministry, and the Jews' leaders must have known soon afterwards, otherwise that ministry would have been cut short.

---

The vast majority of what came to become christians were not jews. Christianity made little or no inroads into judaism, its followers were primarily gentiles. I don't think the jews were much interested in following someone that was supposedly an executed criminal.The Jews didn't really have much of an opinion either way. There is nothing about your Jesus in the Jewish tradition. SO they didn't make a fuss because it didn't impact them. Maybe because he never existed. The Talmud has him all over the place with in about a 300 year period.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

Then, there wasn't any roaming of people throughout the Roman Empire.

---

So only Jewish people were counted and taxed?Weird. I never knew that.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

Jesus was born while Herod I was king of Galilee as well as Judah.

---

So you know when Jesus was born?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

Almost certainly between 2 BC and 7 BC. Many make a strong case for about 4 BC, which is perhaps the most likely date.
  —kbertsche

---

But you have no evidence. Just attempts to shoehorn stories from the bible into known historical facts. Everyone of these attempts runs into multiple inconsistencies. Most importantly you have no outside evidence. The only evidence at all are the gospel stories and these have multiple inconsistencies between them and within each. They are obviously not historical and should not be taken as historical documents

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts