Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The Origins of Christianity

Page 4 of 4 [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Feb 2012, 11:28 am

MCalavera wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
But again, what's the point of Nazareth if God himself prophesied Bethlehem?

Why didn't God have him be from Bethlehem all the way and not cause so much confusion with his prophecies?


I always thought he only had to be born there to confirm prophesy, but otherwise he could live anyplace he wanted. But that's just me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Micah 5:2 says that he has to be from there. Not necessarily just be born there.


From there, born there. The biggest problem people have with trying to understand God is when they get overly literal.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

21 Feb 2012, 3:54 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
But again, what's the point of Nazareth if God himself prophesied Bethlehem?

Why didn't God have him be from Bethlehem all the way and not cause so much confusion with his prophecies?


I always thought he only had to be born there to confirm prophesy, but otherwise he could live anyplace he wanted. But that's just me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Micah 5:2 says that he has to be from there. Not necessarily just be born there.


From there, born there. The biggest problem people have with trying to understand God is when they get overly literal.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


What's overly literal about it? From there simply means from there. If it was just birth, I don't see why God couldn't have stated that he would then be raised and grow up in another town that had no identity at the moment of prophecy.

To complicate things in the NT with Nazareth and have Jesus be called Jesus of Nazareth if the prophecy states he should be of Bethlehem indicates that Jesus had a real history but that it didn't fit in well with the OT prophecies ... so the authors had to make things up to fix the contradictions.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Feb 2012, 4:03 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
But again, what's the point of Nazareth if God himself prophesied Bethlehem?

Why didn't God have him be from Bethlehem all the way and not cause so much confusion with his prophecies?


I always thought he only had to be born there to confirm prophesy, but otherwise he could live anyplace he wanted. But that's just me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Micah 5:2 says that he has to be from there. Not necessarily just be born there.


From there, born there. The biggest problem people have with trying to understand God is when they get overly literal.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


What's overly literal about it? From there simply means from there. If it was just birth, I don't see why God couldn't have stated that he would then be raised and grow up in another town that had no identity at the moment of prophecy.

To complicate things in the NT with Nazareth and have Jesus be called Jesus of Nazareth if the prophecy states he should be of Bethlehem indicates that Jesus had a real history but that it didn't fit in well with the OT prophecies ... so the authors had to make things up to fix the contradictions.


I'm sorry, but I still think that's a matter of reading the text too literally.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

21 Feb 2012, 4:09 pm

Well, why isn't Bethlehem ever mentioned in Mark and even in Matthew and Luke outside of the Nativity accounts?

Why does the author of John imply Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem?

Why is it never mentioned anywhere in the rest of the NT?

If we want to go with parsimony here, "Jesus born in Bethlehem" was made up to fix the historical contradictions of the OT prophecy without having to discard the historical fact he was from Nazareth.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Feb 2012, 4:22 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Well, why isn't Bethlehem ever mentioned in Mark and even in Matthew and Luke outside of the Nativity accounts?

Why does the author of John imply Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem?

Why is it never mentioned anywhere in the rest of the NT?

If we want to go with parsimony here, "Jesus born in Bethlehem" was made up to fix the historical contradictions of the OT prophecy without having to discard the historical fact he was from Nazareth.


Maybe, then again, maybe not. I think it's clear, I'm a believer. If you're not, I completely respect that. I will say this, though - I don't believe in Jesus Christ because of the New Testament, I believe in the New Testament because of Jesus Christ. So if he was born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, it's still not going to change my opinion.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

21 Feb 2012, 4:35 pm

Without the NT, you couldn't have known Jesus was very likely a real person. It's the main source for Jesus, the historical person.



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

21 Feb 2012, 5:10 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Well, why isn't Bethlehem ever mentioned in Mark and even in Matthew and Luke outside of the Nativity accounts?

Why does the author of John imply Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem?

Why is it never mentioned anywhere in the rest of the NT?

If we want to go with parsimony here, "Jesus born in Bethlehem" was made up to fix the historical contradictions of the OT prophecy without having to discard the historical fact he was from Nazareth.


Maybe, then again, maybe not. I think it's clear, I'm a believer. If you're not, I completely respect that. I will say this, though - I don't believe in Jesus Christ because of the New Testament, I believe in the New Testament because of Jesus Christ. So if he was born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, it's still not going to change my opinion.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Agreed



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Feb 2012, 7:58 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Without the NT, you couldn't have known Jesus was very likely a real person. It's the main source for Jesus, the historical person.


True enough. But in my religious tradition (Lutheran), the Bible is part of the means of grace - that is, the written and spoken word, and the two sacraments - by which God's grace is conveyed to us. But the source of grace - and thus faith - is still firstly God - and so, Christ.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer