Evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem?

[Martyro]

Hey guys and girls I was wondering if someone could provide evidence that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem?

Some skeptic arguments against this are as follows.

- Why would Joseph and his family have to travel 70 miles to go to his ancestral home?
- Why would Joseph take his heavily pregnant wife with him?
- The gospel accounts don't seem to agree either.
- Jesus being born in Bethlehem was added later so that it could be claimed that he fulfilled the messianic prophecy in Micah 5:3.
- Was Jesus born in a stable or a house?

Just wondering what some responses to these would be?

Thanks

[spitndirt]

Well....if the skeptics are right then Jesus was a fraud and we are still dead in our sins.

Sooo......the skeptics, walking corpses that they are, can all eat pooh and give up the ghost.

That's Allstate's stand....and even if it isn't it ought to be.

[Captain America]

I know that these answers will not be "proof" or even convincing to skeptics (That's the reason they're called "skeptics"!) but here goes. . .

- Why would Joseph and his family have to travel 70 miles to go to his ancestral home?

Evidently this was a condition set forth in the rules of Augustus' census. Joseph returned to his ancestral home for the same reason you and I pay thousands in taxes. It is required.

- Why would Joseph take his heavily pregnant wife with him?

I think since Joseph was being coerced legally, he decided that he was moving permanently and wasn't planning to return to Galilee, so he naturally wanted to take his wife with him.

- The gospel accounts don't seem to agree either.
The nativity scenes showing Matthew's wise men and Luke's shepherds all gathered together around the manger is probably just not accurate. The events with the wise men probably happened some time after Jesus was born, possibly as long as two years after, based on what the wise men told Herod about when they first saw the star announcing his birth and Herod's decision to kill all the children under two years of age. The stories in the two gospels do not conflict, they just tell different events surrounding Jesus birth and infancy.

- Jesus being born in Bethlehem was added later so that it could be claimed that he fulfilled the messianic prophecy in Micah 5:3.

If this was selected just to show that Jesus fulfilled this particular prophecy, what about the over 100 other messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. The odds that one man could fulfill them all, many which he would have no control over whatsoever, such as the manner that he would be executed, the soldiers not breaking his bones as they did the criminals crucified with him, being betrayed by one of his friends, are just astronomical.

- Was Jesus born in a stable or a house?

Because of the time difference between the events of Matthew and Luke mentioned earlier, Jesus was born in a stable but the wise men visited the house that he lived in with his parents later. I just saw an Discovery channel depiction of Jesus birth that speculated that Jesus could have been born in home that housed the animals on the ground floor with the people living on an upper story, so it could been both, but I suspect the time difference accounts adequately for the seeming discrepancy.

[John Powell]

I know that these answers will not be "proof" or even convincing to skeptics (That's the reason they're called "skeptics"!) but here goes. . .

- Why would Joseph and his family have to travel 70 miles to go to his ancestral home?

Evidently this was a condition set forth in the rules of Augustus' census. Joseph returned to his ancestral home for the same reason you and I pay thousands in taxes. It is required.

POWELL:
Do you have to go to your birth home to pay your taxes or can you do it in whatever city you currently live? Were the Romans so dumb they couldn't figure that out?

It looks to me that Luke made up a reason for Joseph to go from his home in Nazareth to happen to be in Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus. He figured a census tax was a good enough reason. On the other hand, Matthew had no need for such a plot element because in his version, Joseph already lived in Bethlehem.

Captain America:
- Why would Joseph take his heavily pregnant wife with him?

I think since Joseph was being coerced legally, he decided that he was moving permanently and wasn't planning to return to Galilee, so he naturally wanted to take his wife with him.

POWELL:
But he wasn't moving permanently. He moved back to Nazareth. Why didn't he just leave her with family in Nazareth? It's obvious to me because her presence in Bethlehem was in the script.

Captain America:
- The gospel accounts don't seem to agree either.


The nativity scenes showing Matthew's wise men and Luke's shepherds all gathered together around the manger is probably just not accurate. The events with the wise men probably happened some time after Jesus was born, possibly as long as two years after, based on what the wise men told Herod about when they first saw the star announcing his birth and Herod's decision to kill all the children under two years of age.

POWELL:
On the contrary, probably none of it happened. Probably Matthew and Luke made it up. Otherwise, probably Mark would have said something about his virgin birth.

Captain America:
The stories in the two gospels do not conflict, they just tell different events surrounding Jesus birth and infancy.

POWELL:
According to my reading, Luke has Joseph living in Nazareth and visiting Bethlehem to deal with the census tax and then returning to his home in Nazareth without special concern for any Herod plot to kill the boy. Matthew, on the other hand, has Joseph already living in Bethlehem, then fleeing to Egypt to avoid Herod's plot, returning later to the area but deciding to relocate somewhere else, Nazareth.

Captain America:
- Jesus being born in Bethlehem was added later so that it could be claimed that he fulfilled the messianic prophecy in Micah 5:3.

If this was selected just to show that Jesus fulfilled this particular prophecy, what about the over 100 other messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.

POWELL:
Many of them follow the same pattern. Somebody said something about the messiah and one or more Gospel writers added it to their plot.

Captain America:
The odds that one man could fulfill them all, many which he would have no control over whatsoever, such as the manner that he would be executed, the soldiers not breaking his bones as they did the criminals crucified with him, being betrayed by one of his friends, are just astronomical.

POWELL:
The odds become better than even Steven for the character when his life is fictional.

Captain America:
- Was Jesus born in a stable or a house?


Because of the time difference between the events of Matthew and Luke mentioned earlier, Jesus was born in a stable but the wise men visited the house that he lived in with his parents later.

POWELL:
According to my reading, Luke's Jesus was born in a stable while Matthew's Jesus was born in his father's house.

Captain America:
I just saw an Discovery channel depiction of Jesus birth that speculated that Jesus could have been born in home that housed the animals on the ground floor with the people living on an upper story, so it could been both, but I suspect the time difference accounts adequately for the seeming discrepancy.

POWELL:
I suspect the depiction is displaying creativity in trying to harmonize discrepant accounts. I bet if you had asked Matthew where Jesus was born he would have said in his father's house in Bethlehem while Luke would have said in a rented animal area in Bethlehem. But who am I? Just a skeptic who can read English. What do I know?

John Powell

[Captain America]

As I said, "That's why they call them skeptics."

[seanD]

- Why would Joseph take his heavily pregnant wife with him?

I'm not gonna get into the whole Bethlehem issue, but everyone thinks the story of Joseph and Mary was a nice and tiding little warm Christmas story. One thing no one seems to do is put flesh and blood on these people and view it from a first century perspective of a Judaic culture (which is usually the case when these issues and subjects are being debated and questioned).

1. If Joseph thought Mary had been unfaithful, it's highly probable others did as well.
2. Not everyone would buy into the miraculous virgin birth claim, whether it happened or not, particularly Jews, and Joseph, being a Jewish man, would have been given the benefit of the doubt in this case.
3. Joseph would have had to claim Jesus as his adoptive son, unless he simply claimed Jesus as his own. Yet not only would the latter be an outright lie, as well as defamation of the divine annunciation, and a denouncement of faith in the God of Israel, but shaming himself as a sexual deviant who couldn't control his urges, which is unlikely something he would have considered in light of the formality and conduct in this culture. So since Mary and Joseph were not yet married, in the context of Judaic culture, the situation would have been difficult and awkward.
4. If Celsus and the rumors about Mary's infidelity in the Talmud have any credence (as far as the circulation of the rumors, not the validity of the rumors themselves), then the rumors probably started for these possible misconceptions.

Considering those 4 points, and considering that Mary may have been ostracized and considered an adulteress by some, wouldn't it make sense for Joseph to take Mary along to protect her?

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

Hey guys and girls I was wondering if someone could provide evidence that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem?

Some skeptic arguments against this are as follows.

- Why would Joseph and his family have to travel 70 miles to go to his ancestral home?
- Why would Joseph take his heavily pregnant wife with him?
- The gospel accounts don't seem to agree either.
- Jesus being born in Bethlehem was added later so that it could be claimed that he fulfilled the messianic prophecy in Micah 5:3.
- Was Jesus born in a stable or a house?

Just wondering what some responses to these would be?

Thanks

My response is simple. Ask Jesus. If you are not comfortable doing that then your stated thirst for evidence is silly.

[seanD]

POWELL:
It looks to me that Luke made up a reason for Joseph to go from his home in Nazareth to happen to be in Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus. He figured a census tax was a good enough reason. On the other hand, Matthew had no need for such a plot element because in his version, Joseph already lived in Bethlehem.

So you're saying Luke was dumb enough to fudge facts and figures that anyone could have verified as either true or false (such a census would have been significant enough to have been recalled for at least a few generations), because he couldn't think of a better reason to get them Bethlehem? Celsus, who knew the story all too well, certainly never questioned it's validity, something he certainly would have done had he even had the slightest inkling it was false, or even implausible.

But he wasn't moving permanently. He moved back to Nazareth. Why didn't he just leave her with family in Nazareth?

Because it's possible Jesus' origins became questionable to skeptics, and she may have been labeled an adulteress by some -- and I think we know what they did with adulteresses back then.

Otherwise, probably Mark would have said something about his virgin birth.

Inability to read between the lines. Mark did mention it indirectly. He's the only author to directly refer to Jesus as Son of God. He does not mention Joseph, yet identifies Jesus as "son of Mary," an entitlement that was usually identified through the father. This suggests that he either didn't want to give the impression to his readers that Joseph was the biological father, or the tradition was so well known, that he took it for granted. Had his readers not known it, Mark risked giving the impression that Jesus was illegitimate, something that would have contradicted Mark 10:47, 10:48, 12:35.

According to my reading, Luke's Jesus was born in a stable while Matthew's Jesus was born in his father's house.

Wrong.

Matthew doesn't say he was born in a house. The shepherds visited him in a manger. The magi visited him in a house, after he had already been born, and doesn't indicate who's house it was.

[John Powell]

So you're saying Luke was dumb enough to fudge facts and figures that anyone could have verified as either true or false (such a census would have been significant enough to have been recalled for at least a few generations), because he couldn't think of a better reason to get them Bethlehem?

POWELL:
Let's say brazen. What word would you use to characterize Joseph Smith? Use a similar word to characterize the Gospel writers.

Well, if Luke was written 90 A.D. or later it would have become increasingly difficult to disconfirm such things which were supposed to have happened a hundred years earlier.

seanD:
Celsus, who knew the story all too well, certainly never questioned it's [its] validity, something he certainly would have done had he even had the slightest inkling it was false, or even implausible.

POWELL:
Did Celsus agree with Matthew's version or Luke's?

seanD:
Because it's possible Jesus' origins became questionable to skeptics, and she may have been labeled an adulteress by some -- and I think we know what they did with adulteresses back then.

POWELL:
So you think Joseph would have been better able to protect her while traveling than his family and friends while hiding her at home?

seanD:
Inability to read between the lines. Mark did mention it indirectly. He's the only author to directly refer to Jesus as Son of God.

POWELL:
But when did God declare Jesus his son? At baptism. AFAICT, Paul thought Jesus became the son of God at resurrection, Mark thought it occurred at baptism, Matthew and Luke taught it occurred at birth, and John even before the Earth was created. It looks like a legend seen in the process.

seanD:
He does not mention Joseph, yet identifies Jesus as "son of Mary," an entitlement that was usually identified through the father.

POWELL:
So, Mark hadn't come up with a name for the father. Paul didn't even have a name for the mother. I can see Matthew and Luke figuring out how Mark played the game and then played along. Joseph Smith also figured out how to play the game. Assuming that Matthew and Luke both relied on Mark but worked independently it's not so surprising they both had Jesus born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth assuming they both wanted him to fulfil their misunderstanding of Micah as well as Mark's claim he was of Nazareth, but that they agreed the name of her fiance' was Joseph is a bit surprising. Perhaps the Q document they were also assumed to be using had something which mentioned a Joseph that they both jumped on. I bet if they had come up with different names for Mary's fiance' then modern apologists would argue the guy had both names. Although they came up with the same name for her fiance' they came up with different names for her fiance's father.

seanD:
This suggests that he either didn't want to give the impression to his readers that Joseph was the biological father, or the tradition was so well known, that he took it for granted.

POWELL:
Or that it didn't matter to his story except that the Jews expected him to be a son of David.

seanD:
Had his readers not known it, Mark risked giving the impression that Jesus was illegitimate, something that would have contradicted Mark 10:47, 10:48, 12:35.

POWELL:
That only indicates the Jews expected the Messiah to be a descendant of David. I guess Mark figured the father was a descendant of David. However, couldn't Mary give that to Jesus or did Jesus have to have a father who was a descendant of David for it to count? Couldn't God make Jesus a son of David or is that something too difficult for God? Mark 12:35 could be read to indicate that Mark thought the son of David thing was part of a mystery. The Messiah was supposed to be the Lord of David, so how was he a son? That Matthew and Luke provided Davidic lines for Joseph would go along with the mystery, see, the alleged father was a descendant of David, but the father was really God.

seanD:
Wrong.

Matthew doesn't say he was born in a house. The shepherds visited him in a manger.

POWELL:
Well that's where Luke had the baby.

seanD:
The magi visited him in a house, after he had already been born, and doesn't indicate who's house it was.

POWELL:
Matthew's narration suggests it was Joseph's house.

My guess is Matthew read something in the O.T. about some star and made up this yarn about astrologers coming to see the boy and the star behaving like an angel in the heavens able to remain fixed over some house. Oddly though, I'm not sure Matthew realized he was making it up rather than that it was information inspired in him by an outside source. I don't know how self deluded he was. I have a similar problem with Joseph Smith, but I'm more inclined to think Joseph Smith knew he was making stuff up.

John Powell

[chunky_fungus]

POWELL:
Well that's where Luke had the baby.

Luke had the baby?

Now that would be a miracle (albeit a painful one).

[John Powell]

Luke had the baby?

Now that would be a miracle (albeit a painful one).

POWELL:
No, silly. The baby was fictional. The writer of the Gospel of Luke was a real person, whatever his / her name was. What I meant is in the manger is where the writer of Luke had the baby situated in his fictional story.

John Powell

[chunky_fungus]

POWELL:
No, silly. The baby was fictional. The writer of the Gospel of Luke was a real person, whatever his / her name was. What I meant is in the manger is where the writer of Luke had the baby situated in his fictional story.

Thank you for the clarification.

Virgin births I can deal with, but that almost turned my worldview on it's head

[seanD]

What word would you use to characterize Joseph Smith?

20 generations removed from the culture and history? In a word -- insignificant.

Well, if Luke was written 90 A.D. or later it would have become increasingly difficult to disconfirm such things which were supposed to have happened a hundred years earlier.

If Luke was written that late. Others argue he was written pre-70. Where did Josephus get his information? Where did Tacitus get his information? Where did Eusebius get his information? A lot of records got destroyed either by the church, or simply lost, or simply disintegrated into dust. The records we have today is by no means the pool of information they had access to.

Did Celsus agree with Matthew's version or Luke's?

Don't know. But Celsus apparently had a lot of secondhand anti-Christian information about Christianity. Had the census been a Lukan farce, you would think he would have acquired such information. Trypho would have certainly had access to Luke. Porphyry probably would have had that info. The church fathers, who didn't hold anything back in the way of contentions and attacks against Christianity, would have addressed the census issue had this been brought up by a skeptic. Apparently the silence is the best attestation to its legitimacy, and isn't any less evidenced than skeptics 2,000 years removed from the history and data doubting its historic accuracy.

So you think Joseph would have been better able to protect her while traveling than his family and friends while hiding her at home?

Why not? We don't know the situation enough to make that assessment about his family and friends. Perhaps his family and friends were just as skeptical. Perhaps he wasn't planning to come back.

Mark thought it occurred at baptism

What makes you think that? Matthew and Luke repeat the same thing Mark states, and all use the word agapētos Matthew/Luke - "beloved" Mark - "begotten"

Paul thought Jesus became the son of God at resurrection

Paul:

Phil. 2:5-6 "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

1 Cor. 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

Col. 1:15-16 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"

I know. These are interpolations, right?

Although they came up with the same name for her fiance' they came up with different names for her fiance's father.

Jacob was Joseph's father. Eli/Heli was Mary's father.

However, couldn't Mary give that to Jesus

It wasn't a name, it was an birth entitlement.

did Jesus have to have a father who was a descendant of David for it to count?

Yes. Joseph was his father by adoption. Assuming Mary had no brothers, Jesus would have also been a descendant through Mary according to the Levirate inheritance clause (Numbers 27:1-11)

The Messiah was supposed to be the Lord of David, so how was he a son?

You just answered your own question in regards to the virgin birth, and something that even confounded the Pharisees in his day.

That Matthew and Luke provided Davidic lines for Joseph would go along with the mystery,

Matthew's line was Joseph. Luke's line was Mary's

[Doug Shaver]

I was wondering if someone could provide evidence that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem?

That depends on what you're willing to call evidence.

Two of the gospels say he was born there. For lots of people, that's all the evidence they care about.

One can also argue,on the assumption of Jesus' historicity, that the earliest (and only) references to his birthplace put it in Bethlehem. Absent good reason to doubt the claim, it should be accepted. Whether your questions raise good enough reasons is something about which reasonable people can disagree.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
What word would you use to characterize Joseph Smith?

seanD:
20 generations removed from the culture and history? In a word -- insignificant.

POWELL:
Well, there was a time when there were only millions of Christians. They've grown since then. Perhaps the Mormon community will too.

POWELL:
Well, if Luke was written 90 A.D. or later it would have become increasingly difficult to disconfirm such things which were supposed to have happened a hundred years earlier.

seanD:
If Luke was written that late. Others argue he was written pre-70.

POWELL:
That's unlikely if Mark were written about 70 A.D.

seanD:
Where did Josephus get his information?

POWELL:
You mean the interpolation? No where. He didn't write it. Well, Josephus may have written about some totally different Jesus that Eusebius altered to refer to the Christian Jesus.

seanD:
Where did Tacitus get his information?

POWELL:
His information about the founder of Christians? My guess is ultimately from Christian tradition. His immediate source may have been a nonChristian who got it from a Christian.

seanD:
Where did Eusebius get his information?

POWELL:
Probably from the Gospels and the writings of earlier church fathers and his own fertile imagination.

seanD:
A lot of records got destroyed either by the church, or simply lost, or simply disintegrated into dust. The records we have today is by no means the pool of information they had access to.

POWELL:
I see.

POWELL:
Did Celsus agree with Matthew's version or Luke's?

seanD:
Don't know. But Celsus apparently had a lot of secondhand anti-Christian information about Christianity. Had the census been a Lukan farce, you would think he would have acquired such information.

POWELL:
Maybe he never heard that version of the story.

seanD:
Trypho would have certainly had access to Luke. Porphyry probably would have had that info. The church fathers, who didn't hold anything back in the way of contentions and attacks against Christianity, would have addressed the census issue had this been brought up by a skeptic.

POWELL:
Perhaps nobody brought it up.

seanD:
Apparently the silence is the best attestation to its legitimacy, and isn't any less evidenced than skeptics 2,000 years removed from the history and data doubting its historic accuracy.

POWELL:
So it sounded reasonable to the ancient skeptics who might have been inclined to have a dialogue with Christians about their origins. That doesn't mean it sounds reasonable to me or to everyone of that time period.

POWELL:
So you think Joseph would have been better able to protect her while traveling than his family and friends while hiding her at home?

seanD:
Why not?

POWELL:
Because he was only one man and vulnerable while traveling?

seanD:
We don't know the situation enough to make that assessment about his family and friends. Perhaps his family and friends were just as skeptical. Perhaps he wasn't planning to come back.

POWELL:
Why shouldn't he return home? He was only going to take care of the census tax. He didn't have a house in Bethlehem.

POWELL:
Mark thought it occurred at baptism

seanD:
What makes you think that?

POWELL:
Because that's when Mark has God declare Jesus to be his son.

seanD:
Matthew and Luke repeat the same thing Mark states, and all use the word agapētos Matthew/Luke - "beloved" Mark - "begotten"

POWELL:
Yes, but they provide a story which assigns sonhood at birth.

POWELL:
Paul thought Jesus became the son of God at resurrection

seanD:
Paul:

Phil. 2:5-6 "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

POWELL:
So what? That you have the form of God doesn't make you the son of God.

seanD:
1 Cor. 8:6"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

Col. 1:15-16"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"

I know. These are interpolations, right?

POWELL:
Could be. Is every creature a son of God in your book? The earliest Paul has God declare Jesus to be his son is at resurrection. Of course Jesus was supposed to have existed before that event. Just because he existed earlier doesn't mean he was God's son if he BECAME God's son by virtue of something he did.

POWELL:
Although they came up with the same name for her fiance' they came up with different names for her fiance's father.

seanD:
Jacob was Joseph's father. Eli/Heli was Mary's father.

POWELL:
The name of Joseph is listed in both geneologies.

POWELL:
However, couldn't Mary give that to Jesus

seanD:
It wasn't a name, it was an birth entitlement.

POWELL:
Yes, but if she were a descendant of David then wouldn't her son be a descendant of David?

POWELL:
did Jesus have to have a father who was a descendant of David for it to count?

seand:
Yes. Joseph was his father by adoption. Assuming Mary had no brothers, Jesus would have also been a descendant through Mary according to the Levirate inheritance clause (Numbers 27:1-11)

POWELL:
So Jesus didn't need Joseph to be a son of David to be a "son of David" all that was needed was for Mary to be a descendant and for her to marry somebody who didn't need to be a descendant of David?

POWELL:
The Messiah was supposed to be the Lord of David, so how was he a son?

seanD:
You just answered your own question in regards to the virgin birth, and something that even confounded the Pharisees in his day.

POWELL:
What was the answer?

POWELL:
That Matthew and Luke provided Davidic lines for Joseph would go along with the mystery,

seanD:
Matthew's line was Joseph. Luke's line was Mary's

POWELL:
Luke listed Joseph in his geneology.

John Powell