LOL i suspect you do not realise what the thread is about (or perhaps you missed what i had written previously)... So, yes, we all agree that gospel says Bethlehem. But, i`ll rephrase the question for you; the question is where was Bethlehem?
************* M*W: In Jesus in the House of the Pharaohs: The Essene Revelations on the Historical Jesus, Ahmed Osman states: "Naming Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus was the result of a desire to demonstrate fulfillment of one of the Old Testament prophecies. There was a strong Jewish tradition that the Christ would be born as a descendant of King David, who was known to have been born at Bethlehem in Judea. Therefore, both Matthew and Luke, who provide accounts of the nativity of Jesus, place his birth in Bethlehem and Matthew (2:5) cites the account in Micah (5:2) in support of his statement. Here again we also find another example of the extent to which the Gospels rely on the Old Testament for their content. The Old Testament does not provide any details of the birth of Jesus: Matthew therefore adapted the Old Testament account of events surrounding the birth of Moses, with Herod instead of Pharaoh ordering the death "of all children from two years old and under." Bethlehem was just southwest of Jerusalem in what is known as the West Bank north and west of the Dead Sea in Judea in Christ's time. As I understand it, there were two Bethlehems, but unfortunately I cannot find my map of the Holy Land. I really don't think there was significant difference in the locations, only through the different names/titles of Bethlehem. In any case, Bethlehem translates to the House of Bread (i.e. Virgo). Let me be clear on this... Bethlehem, the House of Bread, is a reference to the Constellation Virgo who has been known by most all cultures as a representative of motherhood. In some ancient cultures, Virgo was also representative of a barren woman such as Sarai, Elizabeth, and Ann, Mary's mother. That's where the myth of the three Marys at the cross came from. Isis as well was an allegory of the Constellation Virgo. It's all myth. Jesus was never born to a woman, only a figurative son of the Constellation Virgo.
Yes, there were two Bethlehems. The one next to Jerusalem, according to the archaeology, seems to have been uninhabited. While, the Bethlehem beside Nazareth was flourishing at the time of the biblical Jesus. i posted an image link to show the location.
I thought you said he was born in a house, the link says a barn. Other than that i am not sure what this is about except the title asks where was Jesus born. If i were to play along i would ask which time? [Flames Deleted]
@John99 Tnx for your input, but this thread is about/asking if or why people have been deceived about the real location of Bethlehem. (i would remind others that common net courtesy is usually to read the previous posts and not just wade in ).
I have pondered what you said. Yes, the story could be a retelling of much older mythology. If i were to choose between the many possibilities, i think the Assyrian cultural influence is the earliest recorded. Interestingly, then Virgo was known as Baalita, wife of the God Baal. And who seems to be (mostly negatively) mentioned in the old testament (say, 1000 BC).
Dah, i don't think BlueMoose realised what i was saying? i am not going to say (It does not matter) if he was right or wrong, the original question i asked was that according to the Gospels, Bethlehem is the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth. However, archaeological evidence indicates that that Bethlehem in Judea did not exist as a functioning town when Jesus is believed to have been born. According to a growing number of Bible scholars and archaeologists, the location of the biblical Bethlehem is at a place identified as Bethlehem Hagalilit, near Nazareth. Yes, two different places.
************* M*W: It is my understanding that the town of Nazareth did not exist during Jesus's time (assuming he existed at all). In Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion, Ahmed Osman states: "The Talmud also contradicts the gospels in some essential points concerning Jesus. For instance, it never mentions that he was a Galilean or came from the cith of Nazareth. Although it refers to him as being a Nazarene, this is a word (Greek, Nazoraios) used to indicate a religious sect, not a geographical location. This meaning is clear from Acts 24:5 where the Jews address Felix, the Roman procurator, accusing Paul of stirring up trouble among the Jews throughout the world and describing him as "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." In fact, Paul himself always referred to Jesus as "the Nazarene" and never mentions that he came from Nazareth. Yet, elsewhere in Acts, Nazarene is always translated in the English version of the New Testament as "of Nazareth," which is incorrect and has become a cause of misunderstanding among English readers. The Nazarenes were one of a number of secret Judaeo-Christian sects like the Essenes, and the term "Nazarene" is still the designation given to Christians both by Hebrew Jews and by Muslims to this day. The Semitic word is derived from the root nsr, to "which means to "guard" or "protect" and indicates "devotee." The existence of the Nazarene sect is confirmed by both classical and Christian historians."
I’m curious as to how they prove that Jesus was born on Dec 25th? I don’t have time to read the site enough to find the answer, although, I did find this~ “The favorite rationale for why Jesus' birthday is celebrated on December 25th is that the early Christian fathers chose that date as a way of attracting pagan followers. That's bull. The entire nativity legend can be seen played out in the sky.” I always thought it was a pagan winter God (for fear of spelling his name wrong, I will not try) born on Dec 25th. As to a play being played out in the sky, very interesting, but fail to see that as an “absolute” proof that Jesus was born on Dec 25th. Maybe I just need to read the site more.
No, it seems that the archaeological evidence say that Nazareth and Bethlehem_Galilee, at the time, were growing satellite towns of a major Roman construction project in the nearby Caesarea. (The Bethlehem just outside Jerusalem was being flattened to make way for a Roman water way, during the same period)
Jesus was born in a cave after Joself could not find any lodgings. Does that sound as though Bethlahem was SUPPOSED to be a functioning town? Mary had been educated by the Priests to know every word of Prophecy regarding the Messiah. So it was her decision to get her pregnant butt to Bethlehem in order to support the contention that she would be Mother to the Messiah. it wouldn't have mattered whether Bethlehem was great or small at the time. It only mattered that it had been once home to King David and that it had been mentioned in Prophecy.
************* M*W: Mary is the Constellation Virgo. Jesus is the Infant Horus in Mary's arms. Joseph is an Egyptian name for "mayor" or something like that. Jesus, Mary and Joseph existed only in myth. "Lodgings" refer to houses of the zodiac. J,M,J found "no room in the inn--zodiac," in other words, they were outcasts of the zodiac. "Bethlehem didn't exist at the time of the alleged Jesus. Nazareth (Nzr) didn't exist either. Your assumption is clearly wrong. You believe that these people existed when they did not. I follow the truth of the matter. Apparently, you do not. You believe in the reality of the BVM, and I see her as the Constellation Virgo. You have a warped sense of Marian worship when all it is is astro-theology. But you are not alone. Some two billion people believe the same thing that you believe. That's called indoctrination. You believe a myth... simple as that.
Even if the story of the story of three wise men from the east, the birth from a virgin and the crucifixion on a cross is a Constellation play pre-dating the bible, how does that prove that some man by the name of Jesus didn't walked around that time as a teacher, or wise man?
I perhaps wasn't too clear about what i meant. No. Joseph did find lodging, probably with relatives. (However we cant be sure about the nativity stories as we cant treat them as historical records.) Indeed, the birthplace of King David was supposed to be Bethlehem Ephratah, and the prophesy was that a Messiah will come from the House of David. However, in Mark 6:1 Nazareth is given as Jesus' birthplace and as his "hometown." This is right next to Bethlehem Hagalilit. (see previous map). The two Bethlehems are separated by about 100 kms. So it seems that Matthew just swapped locations. Again - If we assume this is correct - why this deception? (i have my own hunches as to why Matthew would want to reinforce the his claims)
Then, beyond the play, the possibility that a man walking around with, perhaps, a life that doesn’t match the biblical story exactly, but yet had influence on the writing of the bible at the time is plausible.
So it is the Obvious Truth of Astrology versus the all the dubious documentation concerning the hundreds of Miraculous Marian Saints that have come down to us from History, as well as the great many Marian Apparitions, also widely reported, if we can believe it. But why is it that Marianism takes a back seat to Astrology of all things? When has Astrology ever been right about anything? Besides, wouldn't this absolute Faith in the stars lead us into just another blind form of Determinism, with all Human Will helpless before the All Powerful Influence of the Fermaments? Oh, yeah, but then there's the part about Gypsy Readers (not unlike yourself) making more money if people were to stop laughing at it.
