agrees with one of my long-held beliefs, that the story of Jesus' birth, in a manger in Bethlehem, is an obvious fabrication. The early writers were faced with a quandary, knowing Jesus of Nazareth, (referred to often as 'the Nazarean') needed to be from the House of David to fulfill Biblical prophecy, SO, they came up with a story. His (not really?) father Joseph, supposedly had to return to 'the city of his birth', Bethlehem, (the nearest town with actual descendants of David), because of a census. BUT, the census of the time was only to count residents of an area to give an estimate of taxes to be extracted. The Romans couldn't have cared less where they were originally from, and certainly a pregnant woman wouldn't travel 60 miles on the back of a donkey, (are you KIDDING?) just to be counted, BUT, the story was necessary to match the Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah was from the house of David.
Another 'fact' that had to be fudged, for the prophecies to be true, was that the messiah had to come out of Egypt, SO, Matthew, (and only Matthew), concocted a story about Herod killing all the firstborn male babies, to get rid of the future' King of the Jews', sending Jesus into hiding in Egypt. BUT, there is not a shred of corroborating evidence of the heinous 'baby killing' in any Jewish, Christian, Roman, or other, chronicle or history of the time. Made a good story, though, and fulfilled another prophecy that was well known to the 'scholars' of the time. But, one prophecy they couldn't deal with, was the Messiah uniting and freeing the tribes of Israel. Hmmm..
Comments