Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
24 online now:
AlexCaledin, AZPaul3, Dr Adequate, vimesey (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,769 Year: 16,805/19,786 Month: 930/2,598 Week: 176/251 Day: 5/59 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6568
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 4 of 156 (507822)
05-08-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by ochaye
05-08-2009 9:08 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ochaye, posted 05-08-2009 9:08 AM ochaye has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6568
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 30 of 156 (508305)
05-12-2009 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
05-12-2009 8:51 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 05-12-2009 8:51 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 05-12-2009 11:28 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6568
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 32 of 156 (508307)
05-12-2009 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
05-12-2009 11:28 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 05-12-2009 11:28 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6568
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 41 of 156 (508524)
05-14-2009 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ochaye
05-13-2009 10:52 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ochaye, posted 05-13-2009 10:52 PM ochaye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by bluescat48, posted 05-14-2009 8:46 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6568
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 47 of 156 (508637)
05-15-2009 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
05-15-2009 6:28 AM


it was actually Message 288


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 05-15-2009 6:28 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6568
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 49 of 156 (508672)
05-15-2009 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by ochaye
05-15-2009 12:23 PM


Re: Possibility vs Probability
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ochaye, posted 05-15-2009 12:23 PM ochaye has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6568
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 56 of 156 (508824)
05-16-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Asteragros
05-16-2009 10:25 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Asteragros, posted 05-16-2009 10:25 AM Asteragros has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6568
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 67 of 156 (509455)
05-21-2009 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by kbertsche
05-21-2009 10:19 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by kbertsche, posted 05-21-2009 10:19 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by kbertsche, posted 05-23-2009 12:44 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6568
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 79 of 156 (509662)
05-23-2009 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by kbertsche
05-23-2009 12:44 AM


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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by kbertsche, posted 05-23-2009 12:44 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019