“No one defends Islam like Arab Christians,” said the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch, Gregory III Laham, a couple of months ago, and apparently his indefatigable defense of the religion whose adherents have destroyed his churches and decimated his people extends even to his rewriting history to further the “Palestinian” jihad narrative.
“Christ was born in Palestine!” exclaims the Patriarch here, joyfully heedless of the fact that Christ was born in Judea, around 134 years before the Romans expelled the Jews from Judea after the Bar Kokhba revolt and renamed Judea “Palestine,” a name they took from the Hebrew Scriptures as a further jab at the Jews, for it was a name derived from that of their ancient enemy, the Philistines, a long-vanished people.
Christ was not born in Palestine. Palestine did not exist when Christ was born. Patriarch Gregory decries the “way of the cross” being trod by people “in Iraq, in Syria, in Palestine, in Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Yemen.” Conspicuously omitted is Israel. The Patriarch has never deigned to say a word against the genocidal incitement of Muslim clerics and “Palestinian” media, which relentlessly exhort “Palestinian” Muslims to murder Jews. He has not deemed worthy of his attention the numerous stabbing attacks by “Palestinian” Muslims against Israeli civilians.
His charity, in other words, extends only to the perpetrators of jihad, and not to its victims: he never even dares to explain why his own people are suffering, or at whose hands, or why.
This is the Patriarch who blamed “Zionists” for jihad attacks on Middle Eastern Christians. This is the Patriarch who walked out of a Ted Cruz speech in a rage over Cruz saying he stood with Israel. He appears to have thoroughly imbibed the “Palestinian” jihadis’ hatred of and contempt for Israel, despite the fact that it is a more hospitable place for his own people than the Muslim countries he weeps over and offers a better life for Christians than the Islam he so ardently defends.
Patriarch Gregory III is not alone in selling out his people and aligning with jihad murderers. Much of his clergy in the U.S. as well as in the Middle East cowers before jihad killers and pretends their cowardice is “respect.” The contemporary Catholic hierarchy in general is making nice with the jihad force, and thereby enabling its advance. And it will reap what it is sowing.
From Patriarch Gregory’s 2016 Paschal Letter:
…Christ was on the road to Damascus to find Saul the persecutor, in order to change his mode of being and outlook, his vision and his life … and Saul met Christ risen from the dead, on the road to Damascus, just as the two disciples, Luke and Cleopas, met him on the way in Palestine. The Palestine Road goes to Damascus, and the Damascus Road is the way to Palestine, and the way to Jerusalem.
Jesus invites us to walk with him on every road, not only on the road to Emmaus, or Jerusalem or Palestine or Damascus.
Christian life is a journey, walking along the way! The Holy Bible beatifies the person who does not follow the path of sinners but the road of the saints, of righteousness and holiness.
God is going, and wants to go on the road of all persons, all people, and every human being, because he is the light that enlightens every human being who comes into the world. Even those who are not on the path of Jesus, and do not know Jesus, and do not know him to be the way – he goes to them to follow in their paths, to be on their way. As we read in the Akathist to the Mother of God (Oikos 22) “Wishing to forgive the ancient debts of all mankind, the Creditor himself [Jesus] came and dwelt among those who had departed from his grace, and tearing up the written charge he hears from all.”
Salvation on the way
Through the roads and paths of our lives, God is on the road! Jesus sent his apostles on the road, on the roads of the people, in order to meet people. The apostle Philip in the south of Palestine is told by the Spirit, “Go near to this chariot.” (Acts 8: 29)…Today, we feel that the way of the Resurrection passes via Damascus, Syria, and from there to the East, and to the whole world. With regret after five years of violence, war, destruction and bloodshed, the world discovers the road to Damascus, the Jerusalem road, and the road to Palestine….
“Come, O faithful, to receive the Resurrection,” as the liturgical prayer summons us. This is our hope for our suffering Eastern region as it emerges from the painfully long Way of the Cross – especially in Iraq, in Syria, in Palestine, in Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Yemen -for this whole wounded region, resurrection joy!
Christ was born in Palestine! Christianity was born in Syria, in our East….
No, it wasn’t. Christianity, like Christ himself, was born in Judea.

Theresa says
So he shows himself to be another NWO shill. Blame the victims but not the preps!
Sam says
Don’t worry about him his weird and Robert spencer there is no such thing as Arab Christians. All Arabs are Muslims from the Arabian peninsula, Syria and Iraq and North Africa but tribal in Iraq and North Africa besides Berbers and Coptic – Egyptian.
Rev g says
A good many Arab muslims have Arab Christian ancestors.
Charli Main says
Before the insanity of Islam took root in the Arabian Peninsula, the indigenous population of Arab tribes were a mixture of Jew, Christian and Pagan.
This all changed, when the insane psychopath Mohammed, launched his genocide against these people.
” it has been narrated by Umar b. Al Khattib, that he heard the messanger of Allah say “” I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims “”
Sahih Muslim 4366
Kepha says
Whagddaya mean? In pre-Islamic times, there were a number of Christianized Arab tribes in what are now Jordan and the Arabian Peninsula. Some were used by the Byzantines as border auxilllaries.
gravenimage says
Very true, Kepha. And most–not all, but most–of the Christians referred to in the Qur’an were local Arabs.
Christians in the region today are typically a genetic mix of Arab and other peoples.
While referring to all Christians in the Middle East and Mahgreb as Arab is lazy and inaccurate–especially when it comes to groups like the Assyrian Christians or the Copts–it is also inaccurate to claim, as some do, that no Christians in the region have any Arab heritage at all.
I can understand why some would make this claim–it separates indigenous Christians from the barbaric invading Arab Muslims.
But of course it does not matter what a person’s ethnic background is–but how they live their own life.
Greyhound Fancier says
There are thousands of Arab Christians, nearly all of whom live in western countries. When I lived near Detroit, 70% of the Arabs were Christians, many from Lebanon. There are Orthodox and other Arab Christian churches serving the Christians because the Muslims refuse to get along, Muslim supremacist notions preclude civil equality, and to save their lives Christians had to leave their homes (which they occupied many centuries prior the invasion of Islamic Arabs).
Not only do Muslims want us to respect their disgusting pig of a founder (I can’t apply the term “prophet” to this hideous man), but they want to rewrite history to further disrespect everyone else. Just like all authoritarian/fascist setups. The Soviets airbrushed history all the time.
Manuel Paleologus says
We all understand those who live side by side with the insanity of islam. God be with our brethren.
Sam says
Greyhound they are not Arab does not mean that they speak Arabic they are Arabic no. Look at the UK and Ireland they all speak English does that mean there English no.
brian464 says
@Theresa, you stated : ” So he shows himself to be another NWO shill. Blame the victims but not the preps! ”
Comment: You mean like how Truman blamed the Japanese victims, for the US government’s atom bombing of Japan, burning alive nuns and thousands of christian children in the center of Japanese christiantiy which was Nagasaki
Angemon says
Hi brian. I see you’re still trying to capitalize on victims of war, you soulless ghoul:
Mirren10 says
‘brian464’ is a troll who commented here a couple (?) of years ago, using the name ‘peter’.
His robotic style is the same, and his bathetic moral equivalencing, but he’s now pestering us with videos as well. I seem to remember he had a pathetic little website, full of the same rubbish.
Jay Boo says
Thanks for that useful info Mirren10
About those videos, I assume those were on another article.
brian464 says
@Angemon, you stated: ” Hi brian. I see you’re still trying to capitalize on victims of war”
Comment: If you read my post, I did not blame the victims of war who were Japanese nuns and christian children in the center of Japanese Christianity (NagasakiI) for Truman’s terror bomb. I blamed Truman
Angemon says
brian464 posted:
“Comment: If you read my post, I did not blame the victims of war”
If you read my post, I did not accuse you of blaming the victims of war, I accused you of capitalizing on them. As in, trying to profit from them. But what’s a little strawman after your display of soullessness?
You don’t give a rat’s ass about the collateral damage in Hiroshima, you’re just trying to wield them as a tool to shame Americans. Like I said, a soulless ghoul trying to profit from the dead.
brian464 says
Angemon, you stated : ” You don’t give a rat’s ass about the collateral damage in Hiroshima, you’re just trying to wield them as a tool to shame Americans.”
Comment: You used the word “shame” .
Should Truman be ashamed of his actions ?
10% of Americans are actually angels in my opinion who actually opposed the bombing of Japan in a Gallup poll,
Angemon says
brian464 posted:
“Comment: You used the word “shame” .”
I did, because that’s what you’re trying to do – trying to shame Americans by presenting a jaundiced, biased, devoid of facts version of what happened in WWII.
“Should Truman be ashamed of his actions ?”
Of course not, don’t be ridiculous.
“10% of Americans are actually angels in my opinion”
Your opinion and 3 bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks…
“who actually opposed the bombing of Japan in a Gallup poll,”
Did they? Were they even alive during WWII? What did they do to oppose the use of the atom bomb on Japanese military installations after Japan chose complete and total annihilation over unconditional surrender?
brian464 says
@Angemon, you stated: ” “Should Truman be ashamed of his actions ?”
Of course not, don’t be ridiculous.
Comment: What made Truman ( who went to church ) drop an atom bomb on the center of Japanese Christianity ( Nagasaki ) knowing that the bomb would burn alive nuns and thousands of Christian children ?
Angemon says
brian464 posted:
“Comment: What made Truman ( who went to church ) drop an atom bomb on the center of Japanese Christianity ( Nagasaki ) knowing that the bomb would burn alive nuns and thousands of Christian children ?”
First of all, stop exploiting the people killed in Nagasaki, you soulless ghoul. Second, that has already been addressed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmIBbcxseXM
Third, stop pretending you care about the well-being Christians. Many more Christians died at the hands of your coreligionists from the 7th century until today, and with no end in sight. Where’s your criticism of that? Fourth, while I’ve been more than kind enough to answer your questions, my questions to you remain unanswered. You wrote:
“who actually opposed the bombing of Japan in a Gallup poll,”
My questions are:
Did they? Were they even alive during WWII? What did they do to oppose the use of the atom bomb on Japanese military installations after Japan chose complete and total annihilation over unconditional surrender?
brian464 says
Angemon, you stated : ” Many more Christians died at the hands of your coreligionists from the 7th century until today, and with no end in sight. Where’s your criticism of that?
Comment: when you say coreligionists, are you implying that I am sympathetic towards people of other religions ?
Angemon says
brian464 posted:
“Angemon, you stated : ” Many more Christians died at the hands of your coreligionists from the 7th century until today, and with no end in sight. Where’s your criticism of that?”
I did, and I see no forthcoming criticism of you towards your coreliginists.
“Comment: when you say coreligionists, are you implying that I am sympathetic towards people of other religions ?”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coreligionist
brian464 says
@Angemon, you stated : ” First of all, stop exploiting the people killed in Nagasaki, ”
Comment: From all your postings, it’s clear that you do care about saving lives, so tell me how you would address the burning alive of nuns and thousands of Christian children in the center of Japanese Christianity which was Nagasaki
Angemon says
brian464 posted:
“@Angemon, you stated : ” First of all, stop exploiting the people killed in Nagasaki, ””
I did, and I see you don’t seem to be willing to do so. You’re a soulless ghoul, trying to profit from the dead and selling a false narrative. If you want to blame someone for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, blame the Japanese government. No one forced them to go to war. They were given a chance to surrender before Hiroshima. They were given another chance to surrender after Hiroshima. They preferred to keep fighting. Go ask the Chinese or the Korean what they have to say about the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Heck, go ask the Japanese – they seem to be non-chalant about it. They know what they did, they realize they had it coming, and they are well aware of what the alternative was – an invasion of Japan, which would cause much more casualties than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, especially among Shintoists. Of course, you don’t care about Shintoists – your goal is to browbeat Americans by saying that they killed Christians. Well, so did the Japanese. In much more barbaric, gory and sadistic fashion. The difference is, Americans inadvertently killed Christians to put an end to a war while the Japanese killed because of a sense of religious and racial supremacy. Where’s your empathy for Christian victims of Japanese imperialism? Or Atheists? Or polytheists? Or Buddhists? Or animists? Why, there isn’t any, of course – they don’t matter because they were not killed by Americans. Much like the Armenians killed by the Turks in the Armenian Genocide. Or the ~~200 million non-muslims killed in 1400 years of jihad.
As I said, you’re a soulless ghoul trying to profit from the dead.
brian464 says
@Angemon, you stated : ” If you want to blame someone for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, blame the Japanese government.”
Comment: Truman did blame the Japanese government for dropping the atom bomb which burned alive christian nuns and thousands of christian children.
In 1947 Theodor W. Adorno defined what would be later called “blaming the victim,” as “one of the most sinister features of the Fascist character” (end of quote)
Angemon says
brian464 posted:
“@Angemon, you stated : ” If you want to blame someone for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, blame the Japanese government.”
Comment: Truman did blame the Japanese government for dropping the atom bomb which burned alive christian nuns and thousands of christian children.”
Informative remark: Indeed. The Japanese government, who had rape, pillaged and murdered their way in Asia and the Pacific, was given the choice of surrendering or facing total annihilation. They refused to surrender – the Japanese government would rather have every single and last Japanese, Christian or otherwise, die while fighting than surrendering. The US dropped the first bomb and repeated the choice. Again, the Japanese government refused to surrender. The second bomb was dropped. Only then, and thanks to the intervention of the Emperor himself, they admitted defeat, and even then, a group or Army officers tried to stage a coup and prevent the message of surrender from being broadcast.
Query: Would you blame a policeman who shot, in the leg and without endangering his life, a criminal who repeatedly refused to drop his weapon and stand down and instead willingly opted to run towards the policeman firing his weapon?
“In 1947 Theodor W. Adorno defined what would be later called “blaming the victim,” as “one of the most sinister features of the Fascist character” (end of quote)”
Comment: That reminds me of the letter muhammad wrote to the leaders of his neighbouring nations telling them if they converted to islam and accepted him as a prophet, or instead paid the jizyah to him, their lives and property would be safe. If they didn’t, however, their lives and property would not be safe. Islam = fascism with a god.
brian464 says
@Angemon, you stated : ” No one forced them to go to war. ”
Comment: Here are 9 points regarding the war with Japan :
(1) In the past, Japan never once interfered with the US government’s extremely cruel occupation of the Philippines plus
the Japanese government never once encouraged world powers to stop the US government from cruelly expanding from the original 13 United States throughout North America, the Caribbean and the Pacific.
(2) At the start of the Japanese-Chinese conflict, the US government was not willing to be a Peacemaker between the two parties in conflict.
(3) the US government was the one who started the conflict with Japan when the US government contributed to the shedding of Japanese blood in the late 1930s by supplying weapons to the Chinese military in the Chinese-Japanese conflict.
(4) Japanese expansion beyond China/Korea was in direct response to the shedding of Japanese blood by the allied military supplies to the Chinese during the late 1930s, so
the Japanese government wanted to expand into Indo-China and beyond in order to cut off allied military supplies to the Chinese and to obtain vital resources due to embargoes imposed by the allies.
(5) Japan recognized the US government coveting Hawaii as a state of the US and not as a colonial possession and so Japan had no intention of occupying Hawaii, unlike the US government that wanted to occupy Japan.
(6) Western colonial possessions ( in South East Asia ) were coveted by the Japanese government in order to serve as bargaining chips in a future negotiated peace deal with the Allies.
(7) the US government could have settled for a cease fire since the Japanese government was already defeated as early as 1942 when the Japanese government was not able to take back territory lost to the US.
Since the US government was not interested in a cease fire but only interested in an unconditional surrender and the occupation of Japan, the Japanese government felt compelled to keep fighting to prevent the occupation of their homeland.
(8) removing Japan as a regional power created the dangerous conditions under which almost a hundred million civilians died in China, Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia under communism and nationalism.
(9) the Emperor was the one who authorized Japanese imperialism and after the end of WW2, the US government did not indict the Emperor for authorizing Japanese imperialism
but at the same time,
the US government was willing to burn alive hundreds of thousands of little kids during the war, for the wrongs done by the Emperor and his staff.
FOR DETAILS ABOUT NON-MILITANT INTERVENTIONIST POLICIES AS A MUCH BETTER ALTERNATIVE TO PROFIT DRIVEN WARS OR CONFLICTS:
http://worldpeacethroughworldwidedisarmament.blogspot.com/2013/07/911-attacks-could-have-been-prevented.html
Angemon says
brian464 posted:
“@Angemon, you stated : ” No one forced them to go to war. ”
Comment: Here are 9 points regarding the war with Japan :”
Query: does any of those points proves that Japan was forced to go to war and rape, pillage and murder their way in Asia and Pacific before attacking the US? If not, they don’t really rebut what I said, do they?
brian464 says
@Agemon, you stated : ” Were they even alive during WWII? What did they do to oppose the use of the atom bomb on Japanese military installations after Japan chose complete and total annihilation over unconditional surrender? ”
Comment: here is the link to the gallup poll : http://www.gallup.com/poll/17677/majority-supports-use-atomic-bomb-japan-wwii.aspx
Angemon says
brian464 posted:
“@Agemon, you stated : ” Were they even alive during WWII? What did they do to oppose the use of the atom bomb on Japanese military installations after Japan chose complete and total annihilation over unconditional surrender? ”
Comment: here is the link to the gallup poll : http://www.gallup.com/poll/17677/majority-supports-use-atomic-bomb-japan-wwii.aspx”
That doesn’t answer any of my questions, does it?
gravenimage says
“brian464” has flogged this moral idiocy here many times before–that the US should be excoriated for daring to stop Fascism during WWII–as though letting Hitler and Tojo to wreck havoc unopposed would have led to peace.
And his “solution” for the terrible Jihad threat we face today? That we should disarm and supinely roll over for the depredations of Islam.
Does anyone think this would usher in peace, any more than baring our throats to the Axis would have?
brian464 says
@gravenimage, you stated : ” “brian464” has flogged this moral idiocy here many times before–that the US should be excoriated for daring to stop Fascism during WWII–”
Comment: If you read the blog, it’s about how the US government could have stopped Hitler and Tojo and for those details, here is the link :
http://worldpeacethroughworldwidedisarmament.blogspot.com/2013/07/911-attacks-could-have-been-prevented.html
Pong says
“10% of Americans are actually angels in my opinion”
Brian, opinion breeds ignorance. You don’t have to work that hard to support this 2,500 years old statement, though you did quite a a good job of it.
brian464 says
@Pong, you stated : ” Brian, opinion breeds ignorance ”
Comment: You do not agree that 10% of Americans are angels ?
gravenimage says
The idea that a land invasion of Japan would have been more humane is absurd.
Of course, knowing “brian464”, he is probably actually advocating that we should have simply backed off and let Fascist Japan continue their rape of Asia unimpeded.
You always know you are dealing with a moral idiot when they start talking about how much better things would have been if only the US and Britain had allowed poor old Hitler and Tojo to continue their ‘benevolent’ policies unopposed.
brian464 says
@gravenimage, you stated : ” Of course, knowing “brian464”, he is probably actually advocating that we should have simply backed off and let Fascist Japan continue their rape of Asia unimpeded.”
Comment: Japan did not interfere with the US government’s cruel expansion beyond the 13 United States, across North America, the Caribbean and the Pacific ending in the extremely cruel occupation of the Philippines while enslaving poor blacks back home
Angemon says
brian464 posted:
“@gravenimage, you stated : ” Of course, knowing “brian464”, he is probably actually advocating that we should have simply backed off and let Fascist Japan continue their rape of Asia unimpeded.
Comment: Japan did not interfere with the US government’s cruel expansion beyond the 13 United States, across North America, the Caribbean and the Pacific ending in the extremely cruel occupation of the Philippines while enslaving poor blacks back home””
I see you don’t rebut what GI said – that your answer to Japanese Imperialism would be for us to roll over and die.
BTW, some quick pointers:
1 – Europeans didn’t interfere with muslims conquering, raping, pillaging, killing and enslaving their way from Saudi Arabia to Northern Africa from 632 to 711. How did that work out for them? Oh, yeah, muslims invaded Western Europe in 711 and were stopped in France in 732.
2 – The people who enslaved blacks on their own homes? Black and Arab muslims. Or do you want to argue that Americans launched slave raids on Africa? Of course, muslims were equal-opportunity slavers – they’d as easily raid an African village as an European one. Of course, being racists by religion, white slaves fetched higher prices. And why wouldn’t they? Black slaves were plentiful and easy to capture while European slaves required more work.
3 – You might want to look the history of slavery in America. You might be surprised by the number of Irish slaves – slavery in America, as opposed to slavery in the islamic world, was about money, not race.
Angemon says
GI, you know what really surprised the Japanese after WWII? That the winning side didn’t came to rape, pillage, enslave and murder them. Instead, they helped them rebuild Japan.
gravenimage says
brian464 appears to be unaware that we fought a war to free the slaves here in the US.
But why should that surprise, since Islam has never condemned slavery, and still imposes it today?
And note that by omission he confirms that as he sees it we should have done nothing to oppose the horrors of Fascism. In the same way he believes we should do nothing to defend against the depredations of Jihad.
And while I seldom cross-post, here’s the disturbing brian464 both ranting about how we should surrender to Islam and the “joys” of incest and pressuring women into sex. Deeply disturbing stuff.
https://www.reddit.com/user/brian464
Angemon says
gravenimage posted:
“brian464 appears to be unaware that we fought a war to free the slaves here in the US.”
He knows about that war, GI. He just refers to it as “christians during the civil war killed each other by the hundreds of thousands while singing the ” Battle Hymn of the Republic ”“.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/arizona-muslim-who-trained-and-armed-garland-jihadis-convicted#comment-1403925
Angemon says
“Deeply disturbing stuff.”
That’s an understatement…
brian464 says
@Angemon, in response to gravenimage who said : ” we fought a war to free the slaves ”
Comment: You do know that the US government was pro-slavery but was not wanting to expand slavery beyond the South due to economic disadvantages to the North.
The New Testament has a non-war approach to slavery and if the US government had followed the New Testament, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved
Angemon says
brian464 posted;
“@Angemon, in response to gravenimage who said : ” we fought a war to free the slaves ”
Comment: You do know that the US government was pro-slavery but was not wanting to expand slavery beyond the South due to economic disadvantages to the North.”
Query? Are you high? In which sort of bizarro-world the US government issuing the end of slavery makes it “pro-slavery”?
Remark: The North was mechanizing – machines worked faster and better than humans, so there was no economical advantage to using slaves. Much to the contrary.
Mirren10 says
”Deeply disturbing stuff.”
Dear God. I need a shower.
Mirren10 says
‘brian464’ is a vile paedophile.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/islamic-state-supporters-on-social-media-scream-allahu-akbar-celebrate-brussels-jihad-mass-murders/comment-page-1#comment-1404062
brian464 says
@Mirren10, you stated : “:‘brian464’ is a vile paedophile ”
Comment: If you are referring to the blog posting below, here it is again and do point out from the blog statements, why you define certain sentences as promoting pedophilia, thanks :
http://worldpeacethroughworldwidedisarmament.blogspot.com/2015/11/why-children-should-be-encouraged-to.html
Mirren10 says
I’d rather stick needles in my eyes, than go to your putrid blog, you vile, disgusting excuse for a human being. Go to hell.
Sandra Lee Smith says
Either that, orthe worst case of “Stockholm syndrome” on record! Even his message for this holy season is so watered down I almost wonder if he isn’t speaking of Isa, rather than Yeshua! Nothing at all about the real meaning of these holy days! How can he strengthen his congregants, when he has no strength in himself?
dan Jones says
I didn’t know Bethlehem was in Saudi…
More End Time News At:
http://www.shininginthedark.com/?page_id=6088
Champ says
Rewriting history seems to be a favorite pastime for some …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Question: “Where was Jesus born?”
Answer: The Bible chronicles Jesus Christ’s birth in Matthew 1:18–25; 2:1–12; Luke 1:26–38; and 2:1–20. At the time of Mary’s pregnancy, a decree by Caesar Augustus went out that “all the world should be registered” (Luke 2:1). This meant that every person in the Roman Territory was required to return to the city of their ancestors to be counted in a census.
Joseph lived in Nazareth at the time but needed to travel south to the region of Judea, “to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David” (Luke 2:4). Naturally, Joseph took his betrothed, Mary, to go with him to be counted as a member of his family. Thus, the young couple ended up in the small town of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth.
This location aligns with the prophecy foretold by Micah, proclaiming that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” (Micah 5:2).
Because so many had returned to Bethlehem for the census, the small city was overflowing with people. There was no room for Mary and Joseph in the inn, which forced them to take refuge in the only place available—a shelter for animals. (Although the Bible never mentions animals being present at the birth of Christ, Luke does say that the baby Jesus was laid in a manger—and the presence of a manger strongly implies the presence of animals.)
Traditionally, the “inn” referred to in Luke 2:7 is thought to be a kind of commercial hotel. And the place where Mary and Joseph took shelter was a stable somewhere in the vicinity. However, we don’t know for sure if that was the case, because the Greek word translated as “inn” (kataluma) can also be translated as “guest room.” This translation would lead us to envision more of a private home filled with guests, plus a separate area used to house the family’s animals.
Sometimes the place for animals was located on the lower level of a house, away from where the people lived. So, when Luke refers to “no room in the kataluma,” he could have meant there was no room on the upper level, which was already full of sleeping visitors or family. Archaeological findings have also revealed homes that merely had a wall separating the front of the house from the back, where animals were kept safe. Both of these floor plans imply an indoor animal shelter connected to the house in some way. Regardless, there was a manger or feeding trough in the place where Christ was born, and that was used as a resting place for the newborn Jesus, as stated in Luke 2:7.
There is also a theory that the shelter in which Jesus was born was a place in the northern part of Bethlehem called Migdol Eder. This was a watchtower with a place underneath that shepherds used during the lambing season to shelter the newborn lambs that would later be used as sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple. The prophet Micah, who foretold Bethlehem as the place of the Messiah’s birth, also mentions Migdol Eder: “As for you, watchtower of the flock [Hebrew, Migdol Eder], stronghold of Daughter Zion, the former dominion will be restored to you; kingship will come to Daughter Jerusalem” (Micah 4:8). This theory is used to explain why, when the heralding angels gave the sign that the baby would be “wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger,” the shepherds seemed to know exactly where to look. And it would be apropos for the Messiah to be born in the same place where the sacrificial lambs were born.
Whether the actual location of Jesus’ birth was an indoor animal shelter, a separate barn, or a tower used for lambing, the Bible is clear that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born in a humble setting in the town of Bethlehem.
Here:
http://www.gotquestions.org/where-was-Jesus-born.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This information from “Got Questions” is quite thorough and succinct–and most importantly, historically accurate! ..enjoy 🙂
Peter Charles says
He was born in Nazareth. The Bethlehem story was contrived tn order for Jesus to be related to King David and fulfill the prophecy. he only thing the really matters is that He was born, lived, suffered and died for our sins.
Rev g says
I am glad we have an eyewitness to set us straight! Sadly, at your age, your mind is untrustworthy.
I guess I will continue to rely on what was written.
Mo says
@ Peter Charles
“He was born in Nazareth. The Bethlehem story was contrived tn order for Jesus to be related to King David and fulfill the prophecy. he only thing the really matters is that He was born, lived, suffered and died for our sins.”
Says who? You?
Kepha says
Mo, Peter Charles thinks that a bunch of 19th century German critics (mental slaves to Georg Hegel) knew the “real” story better than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. He’s also never considered that none of the New Testament books notes the destruction of Jerusalem as a fait accompli; nor does he consider how the double narrative of Luke-Acts ends on a somewhat upbeat note (Paul teaching unmolested in Rome), meaning it probably was composed prior to 66 A.D.–which in turn throws Matthew and Mark further back into the first century.
Champ says
In the Bible, the answer is very straightforward: Bethlehem.
Both Matthew 2 and Luke 2 state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea. Later, Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus, traveled back to Nazareth. But Jesus’ birthplace was Bethlehem.
Wellington says
With respect, Champ, it is not clear Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The earliest of the Gospels is Mark and that was not written until some forty years after Jesus’s death. Matthew and Luke are indebted to Mark even though these two Gospels are the only two that deal with the early life of Jesus. It is quite arguable that in order to fulfill the Biblical prophecy about Bethlehem the writers of Matthew and Luke some fifty or more years after Jesus’s death very conveniently placed Jesus’s birth there. We not only don’t know where Jesus was born but we don’t even know for certain what year he was born, let alone the month and day, though the best guess is 4 B.C. Also, Matthew and Luke contradict one another here (and in other regards too, for instance the name of Jesus’s paternal grandfather—–Jacob v. Heli). Matthew has Jesus born when Herod the Great was still alive. Herod died in 4 B.C.. But Luke has Jesus born when Cyrinus (Quirinius) was Governor of Syria but Cyrinus only became Governor of this Roman province in 6 A.D., the same year Coponius became Prefect of Judea. Even the best of Biblical scholars (e.g., Father Joseph Grispino) acknowledge that squaring these two accounts presents, in the words of Father Grispino, “an unsolved historical problem.”
All this takes me to a much larger matter and one that the great Scottish philosopher, David Hume, brought up about two and a half centuries ago. Hume pointed out that the only way any miracle or prophecy in any religious literature can be accepted is if the non-miraculous, non-prophetic explanation would be even more incredible than the miraculous or prophetic explanation. No one to date has ever solidly refuted Hume’s point here. I certainly accept it. No matter what miracle or prophecy is put forward by the Bible or any other religious literature, in every single instance a non-miraculous or non-prophetic explanation can be given as well.
Take the resurrection of Jesus as another example in addition to that of the Bethlehem story. Several non-religious explanations can be given for what occurred, never mind that even Christian literature, i.e., the New Testament, does not have a single person actually witnessing the resurrection. All that is found is the empty tomb. Well, let’s see here, Jesus may have risen from the dead but then again perhaps the body was not put in the tomb in the first place, or there was a secret passage to the tomb, or the Roman guards were bribed or drunk (or both) and on and on and on like this. Now, it was not Hume’s point that this or that miracle, this or that prophecy, did not occur (though he didn’t personally believe any did being the complete skeptic that he was). It is POSSIBLE that they did occur but one cannot assert such as fact, only as a matter of faith. Ironically, those asserting miracles and prophecies as fact inadvertently undermine the whole point of faith because it does not take any faith to accept a fact, another one of the great Scottish philosopher’s points.
You are a believer. I am not. I respect your Christian belief and even admit the possibility that what you may believe in is true (God help us if Islam is the true faith, but I digress), but all religions rest ultimately upon faith and not fact and the whole endeavor of trying to show prophecies actually came true or that miracles occurred can always be countered by Hume’s objection, one that I personally think is irrefutable, though I outlined it here only in brief.
Champ ✞ says
Wellington, thank you for writing, and for sharing some of your doubts about where Jesus was born–along with some of your other doubts, as well. And where Jesus was born isn’t as important a matter–from a Christian point of view, as the other essentials of faith are; since believing where Jesus was born isn’t *that* important. So Peter Charles does make a good point, when he stated:
“The only thing that really matters is that He was born, lived, suffered and died for our sins.”
True.
But there are also other essentials to the Christian faith: deity of Christ, virgin birth, death, burial & resurrection, and His second coming. But for conversation sake, I only want to focus on Jesus’ Life, Death & His Resurrection, for now, and something that you wrote.
You stated:
“…but all religions rest ultimately upon faith and not fact and the whole endeavor of trying to show prophecies actually came true or that miracles occurred” etc …
Do you doubt that Jesus lived? Do you doubt that Jesus died on the cross? Do you doubt that Jesus rose from the dead?
You may doubt that Jesus lived, died, and rose–which is certainly your choice, but I do not.
I don’t simply have *blind* faith in Jesus, but real faith in the *fact* that Jesus DID live, die and He rose from the grave!
And if Jesus hadn’t lived, died, and conquered death–by rising from the dead, then I would agree that I have blind faith not based on any fact.
Curious thing to me, why do some people doubt historic events found in many other history books–crammed into countless history books and even encyclopediaa. But for some reason, the Bible is discounted outright and not taken as seriously as the historic document, that it is? That it deserves.
The ONLY reason I became a Christian is because I examined the evidence of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, and then later placed my ‘faith’ in Him based upon the evidence. And it makes me somewhat angry when people assume that Christians base their faith out of thin air. Not true. It’s based upon factual evidence.
And for some, no amount of evidence that Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead, will ever suffice.
Take care, and please consider this …
https://youtu.be/Tzu2ZUeZPjo
Champ says
ps …
The *fact* that Jesus rose from the dead sets him apart from all others, and His resurrection earned the right to say this:
“Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'” — John 14:6
Champ says
Correction …
I wrote:
“But for some reason, the Bible is discounted outright and not taken as seriously as the historic document, that it is?”
I didn’t intend to pose this as a question.
Champ says
Second correction …
“Curious thing to me, why do some people *never* doubt historic events found in many other history books” …
Greyhound Fancier says
The lack of any reference in the New Testament to the cataclysmic destruction of the Temple would indicate that it was more contemporary with the events described than the 19th century Germans would admit…
Golem2 says
Sorry but there really are no “facts” of Virgin Birth, Water into Wine, walking on Water and certainly not a return from death. For some it’s easier to believe the big lie.
Rev g says
So, you can disprove them?
Wellington says
Thank you for your reply, Champ. I don’t believe I have used the term “blind faith,” which has a somewhat derisive tone about it. I simply mentioned “faith,” which I don’t have though many others do. I have a theory, which I ran past Kepha some time ago here at JW, and that is that part of the reason why someone is religious or not may be rooted in biochemistry, the way our brains are configured or perhaps something in the genes. Just a theory but it would help to explain in part why some very good and smart people are religious and why some other good and smart people are not.
As for Jesus himself, I think it absurd to maintain that he did not exist. Of course he did. That theory of his non-existence was first bandied about in the 19th century and I know of no serious historian who today thinks Jesus did not exist (as for Mohammed, well that is another matter, now isn’t it?). Respecting the crucifixion, in all likelihood this occurred, almost certainly, but I am inclined to see it as Michael Grant and others have, to wit, as evidence of Jesus’s failure to see the end of the world in his own lifetime and his great humiliation, which, if I and others are right here, in the greatest irony in history was turned into his triumph by early Christians, especially by St. Paul. As for his resurrection, no, I don’t believe that for the reason I already stated when I referenced Hume.
You say you became a Christian after examining the evidence and then placing your faith in Jesus. Well, I have examined the same evidence, am not persuaded and have no faith. It is not in my make-up to have faith. But I admit you could be right and I wrong. I wonder if you would concede that to me. After all, and as David Hume also noted, the only true Christian is a skeptic. Having faith implies that some kind of doubt must exist, however little, since if no doubt exists, then what is the point of faith? Why is faith needed if doubt is not present?
I consider you a friend and Christianity an enlightened religion. I certainly don’t want to make enemies with Christians, all the more so because the broadest possible coalition is needed to combat Islam, which is the one major religion which is a menace to liberty. Here I think we have no quarrel or difference. Take care, my Christian friend and thank you for your many posts here.
Wellington says
Interesting, Champ, in this video you provided, that the narrator at the end makes the extraordinary statement that Jesus being more popular than ever two thousand years after his death is proof of his resurrection. Huh? How does that follow?
As for the rest of the video, it proves nothing that I see. It only confirms for me that belief in Jesus occurred not only in his lifetime but thereafter. I would reference Hume again to sustain my position here.
Champ says
Wellington wrote:
I don’t believe I have used the term “blind faith,” which has a somewhat derisive tone about it. I simply mentioned “faith,” which I don’t have though many others do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fair enough. But earlier you wrote this, Wellington:
“…but all religions rest ultimately upon faith and not fact and the whole endeavor of trying to show prophecies actually came true or that miracles occurred” etc …
Indeed, you did not specifically state “blind faith”, but this was implied when you made the above statement.
In fact, here’s one definition of what “blind faith” means:
“Blind faith is here defined as belief that is not BASED on reason or evidence.”
This is why I chose “blind faith” to describe what you were stating. But if that’s too derisive for you, then what would you call it? I guess you think I have faith not based on fact, right? Ok, but aren’t we getting back to “blind faith” then? I’m just calling it the way I see it. I didn’t make the claim, you did. I didn’t claim to have faith *not* based upon fact. That’s why I’m curious what else you would call it? Please offer a different explanation, then. Or, just own it ..yeah I think you have “blind faith”, and that’s how I see it. Believe me, I won’t be offended, not at all. You are the one stating that this term is derisive, not me.
And I don’t want to argue with you either, but you did challenge me first with some questions and doubts, didn’t you? And I don’t mind being challenged, not at all. I am merely addressing your doubts the best way I know how. And of course we are still friends, and we will remain friends. Nothing has changed.
Ok, as to the matter of Jesus living, dying on the cross, and then conquering death by being raised from the dead–thank you for clarifying your position.
I do find it interesting that you acknowledge that Jesus did exist, which is of course correct, but you go on to question the purpose and facts surrounding his death, and you even go so far to question His ressurection and the eye witness accounts regarding this event.
As a lawyer, you know, how powerful one, or even two, eye witness accounts are in a court of law in helping to settle a matter. So eye witnesses are powerful proof. And there were *many* eye witness accounts whom saw Jesus after He rose from the dead; and after His resurrection Jesus lived among His disciples for 40 days before His ascension into Heaven.
The Bible is a historical record, so why do you question the Biblical account? Why are relying on Hume’s work?
And here’s a quick read from CARM, a Christian apologist, Mark Slick, on the subject we’re disgussing:
https://carm.org/there-are-no-non-biblical-accounts-resurrection
Also, God wishes that “all would be saved”, so your lack of faith has nothing to do with how you were made. This is a *choice* you are making. And if you need extraordinary evidence, then look no further than the Bible. Or study human DNA, I have–talk about extraordinary evidence!!
The evidence that Jesus Christ is the ‘Way’ is out there. Will you find it? Yes! But are you looking? That’s the bigger question.
Take care, my friend 🙂
Champ says
Wellington wrote:
Interesting, Champ, in this video you provided, that the narrator at the end makes the extraordinary statement that Jesus being more popular than ever two thousand years after his death is proof of his resurrection. Huh? How does that follow?
As for the rest of the video, it proves nothing that I see. It only confirms for me that belief in Jesus occurred not only in his lifetime but thereafter. I would reference Hume again to sustain my position here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wellington, thank you for viewing the video. And your response comes as no surprise–due to all the doubts you’ve raised. So I apologize for offering it, as it wasn’t a good fit for you, at all. Now I realize that this video is probably better suited for a Christian, or perhaps for someone just seeking the truth about Jesus. Take care.
Wellington says
I meant nothing derisive, Champ, when I used the term “faith.” I will tell you now that I was not implying the term “blind faith.” As for the “eyewitnesses” you mentioned, many factors are involved here. For instance, in antiquity dreams were often considered as real or more real than real life. These people could have dreamed of Jesus and considered this reality. Also, it is quite telling that Jesus only “appears” to those who already believed in him in the first place. Why not Pilate? Caiaphas? Herod Antipas? And so on.
There is also the matter of Jesus not being recognized at first by some, such as the two travelers to Emmaus as mentioned in Luke, which does “muddy the waters” here, tending to point to what gnostic Christians thought of the resurrection, i.e., that it was spiritual only.
Look, if Jesus rising from the dead is a fact, then, as I asked before, what is the point of faith? If it’s a fact, then science and scientists would confirm it as they do that the earth revolves around the sun. Respecting the Bible as historical record, while it does contain a good bit of history, it was never meant to be an historical text but rather a theological tract. As an historical text it really doesn’t measure up many times, what with all its gaps and even contradictions. This doesn’t mean it isn’t true religiously speaking but, once again, the only way you can accept what it avers is on faith—–and I am not using faith here derisively.
Finally, no one can know that God exists or does not exist. There is no way of proving this one way or another. Kierkegaard was right. All that can be done is to take that “leap of faith.” You have. I haven’t. And I really do think my biochemical/gene idea has some merit but I can understand why you would dismiss it and I am not offended at all by your doing so. Take care.
Champ says
Wellington, thank you for your response …
And I did some more research, and I found a 5-part teaching series, in video format, that I’m hoping will be a better fit for you that addresses many of your doubts and objections.
This first video presentation (below) is only 28 minutes long, and the first in this 5-part series.
Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5, will automatically play once each video ends, and totals just under 2 hours. I encourage you to *please* view the entire 5-part series–and it give your complete and undivided attention–before responding to me. Thank you.
Take care, and I look forward to your response:
“Does God Exist?—Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 1)”
https://youtu.be/FbxD04LWW10
Champ says
Correction:
“and it give your complete and undivided attention” …
Should read: and give it your complete and undivided attention.
🙂
Wellington says
Thanks for this second video, Champ. I don’t have time tonight to go through it all but I will over the next few days and get back to you. Hope you had a nice day out there on the West Coast. It was a beautiful day here in Pennsylvania.
You’re a good person, Champ. I have no doubt of this. Take care, my friend.
Champ says
Wellington, thank you for your kind words, and I consider you a very nice, and good person, too. I admire your contributions and points of view on varying issues, here.
And I look forward to your thoughts on this 5-part video series; and I will also watch this entire series. So far I’ve only watched Part 1 (the video presented here), but I’m planning on watching the entire series myself. I like David C. Pack’s professional presentation, and the material hes covered, thus far, and I thought that you would too.
Yes–today the weather has been so nice here in SoCal, and I’m glad to hear the same report where you live in Pennsylvania. Today was spent indoors, as I worked on some meal preparations for Easter, being hosted by another family member this year. Generally we host all of the major holidays in our home, so this Easter I’m enjoying a much needed break from *all* of that.
Take care, my friend.
gravenimage says
Interesting and respectful exchange, Wellington and Champ.
Of course, whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem itself or somewhere else in the region would make no difference as to the lack of historicity in Gregory III Laham’s assertion about his being “Palestinian”.
Wellington says
Again with respect, Champ, this second video you provided me should be dismissed by all knowledgeable Christians. I’ve come across this man before and he uses scientific evidence to prove religious theses. For instance, his statements about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, where he takes the entropy aspect of it to ridicule and dismiss evolutionary theory. It’s rubbish what he states because, and as many scientists, including Christian scientists, have pointed out, the entropy theory applies to a closed system but life on earth does not exist in a closed system, principally because of the sun. I came across this bogus argument of his a while ago and what he proffers simply will not do.
Look, one can be a devout Christian and completely accept evolution. In fact, if a higher power exists it only adds to the magnificence of this entity when one takes into account the extraordinary phenomenon of evolution. Besides, the vast majority of major Christian sects have no problem with evolutionary contentions. And besides again, the evidence for evolution is OVERWHELMING. Might as well deny the earth revolves around the sun as deny evolution. We have over 80,000 skeletons of Neanderthal Man alone, never mind copious evidence of former Homo genera like erectus and habilis. Then too there are at least six species of Australopithecus, datable from 5 million to some 1 million years ago (seems part of the reason why the later Australopithecines died out is that Homo erectus dined on them, but I digress even though I have to wonder if erectus didn’t enjoy his meal with Stove Top Stuffing)
I started out as an anthropology major and then switched to history, but my interest in physical anthropology (as opposed to cultural anthropology where leftists have almost entirely taken over this field) remains to this day. That man evolved over millions of years is a fact, no longer just a theory. But this guy uses a bogus interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, long ago discredited, to advance not only proofs for God but proofs against evolution. Champ, it’s rot that he puts forward. And his use of the First Law of Thermodynamics to put forward he First Cause argument for the existence of God is not bogus per se but it ultimately proves nothing
Here is what I consider irrefutable: There is no way to prove the existence of God and there is no way to prove the non-existence of God. So, one, as Kierkegaard pointed out back in the 19th century, has to take that leap of faith. Trying to prove God exists, or that Jesus rose from the dead, or that Mohammed was the last and greatest of the prophets. etc., is futile. Completely. Totally.
As Immanuel Kant noted, and he believed in God, ALL intellectual proofs for the existence of God ultimately fail because, as I unsuccessfully tried to convey to that density who posts here at JW under the name of “Rev g,” existence is not necessarily a category of an idea (e.g., the idea of a square circle).
I respect you so much, Champ. You and I and gravenimage and so many more are simpatico where Islam is concerned. Though a non-religious man, I esteem Christianity for its ethical code (Judaism too). But, being true to myself, I have to conclude what my mind (and heart) tells me. I know you do the same. Besides, you could be right about Jesus and I could be wrong. If I am, I hope Jesus forgives me for being so invincibly ignorant. Take care, my Christian friend.
Champ says
Wellington, thank you for watching video #1 in this 5-part series, and for getting back to me so promptly.
I completely disagree that what he’s presenting here is “rubbish”, as I find everthing he stated very compelling and correct. And I am a very knowledgeable Christian, if I do say so myself.
Regarding evolution, David C. Pack doesn’t elaborate on the exact key differences between microevolution vs. macroevolution …
So as to microevolution, I do see variations occuring–for instance, in the different ‘kinds’ of dogs we’ve seen over the course of time (etc).
But as to macroevolution–this is wholly and utterly preposterous! And for evolutionists to propose that one ‘kind’ of creature comes from another ‘kind’ of creature, then one would need to turn off all reason to take such a mindless step.
For instance, evolutionists have long thought that mankind (one ‘kind’) came from apes (another ‘kind’). That said, I think that most evolutionists have abandoned this ridiculous theory; which only proves what Creationists already knew.
Overall, David C. Pack is right regarding evolution. And the Biblical account–of God creating everthing–is the only view that actually makes much more sense; compared to what the evolutionary theory puts forth, which requires an even *greater* stretch of ones own imagination. I state “an even greater stretch of ones own imagination”, since this is what non-religious folk level at Creationists.
So, we will just have to agree to disagree on what David C. Pack is teaching is this spot on series!
Take care, my friend, and I wish you and yours the very best during this Easter holiday. 🙂
Champ says
Wellington,
Perhaps a man who was once a evolutionist would be of interest to you:
https://youtu.be/rlJH7A5NHT8
Champ says
ps …
Prof. Walter J. Veith is a university lecturer with a background in zoology, biomedical sciences, and research in archeology and history. He was also a strong believer in evolution. However, through an amazing journey He is now believer in creation. How did this happen?
Wellington says
Just for the record. Champ, anthropologists, paleontologists, et al., HAVE NEVER contended that mankind came from the apes, as you erroneously asserted. This is a gross error put forward time and time again by those who quite ignorantly dispute evolution.
Rather, and as I myself stressed to more than a generation of students whom I taught, apes (of which only four remain, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and gibbons) and man came from the same common stock, sometime in the Miocene Epoch of the Cenozoic Era, which can be dated approximately from 25 million years ago to some 8 million years ago. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
At least those who dispute evolution (God knows why considering the copious amount of evidence we have which neither you nor Pack addressed, for instance at least six species of Australopithecus datable from 5 million to 1 million years ago, never mind earlier species of hominids like Orrorin tugenensis), could get at least this much right. After all, when disputing someone, it is imperative you state their position with accuracy, for instance with Muslims.
I would close here by mentioning just about the greatest Christian thinker of all time, Thomas Aquinas, who warned some seven hundred years ago against treating the Bible as a scientific treatise. Spot on I would say. As for Creationism, it discredits sophisticated religious belief, that is why the vast majority of Christians reject it. To its credit, the Roman Catholic Church, as far back as the pontificate of Leo XIII (1878-1903), subtly but clearly endorsed Darwin’s meticulously worked out concepts. After all, the Roman Catholic Church to its discredit got burned with Galileo. It didn’t want a repeat.
Champ says
Wellington wrote:
Just for the record. Champ, anthropologists, paleontologists, et al., HAVE NEVER contended that mankind came from the apes, as you erroneously asserted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erroneously asserted? Are you kidding?! Have you been living under a rock, or something, Wellington?
I recall coming home from school, when I was, I think, about 10 years, and showed my Dad the textbook that taught the evolutionary theory, that we evolved from apes. And as a child I remember thinking that this was such a ridiculous idea, and I clearly recall asking my Dad, “Dad, is it true that we evolved from apes?”
And my Father, not being a Christian, simply said, “Well, that’s what they say.”
I wasn’t raised in a Christian home, at all, and I later learned the truth about where we came from, that God created everything–on earth and in the heavens!
And you call yourself “my friend”, don’t even bother what that nonsense anymore, when now you’ve really shown your true colors, here.
I am NOT making up the evolutionary theory that mankind evolved from apes. I did NOT come up with this theory. And now you dismiss me as being “erroneous”? What nerve.
I’m done with you.
In fact, do me a favor, and do NOT address me anymore, or at any time. You have done *nothing* but insult me and my faith for far too long, and quite frankly, I am sick and tired of it.
Champ says
Wellington, you are an intellectual snob, and who knows, you may KNOW IT ALL. You and your snobby “Your turn, Champ”, you once wrote. Oh, get over yourself, snob.
But I will continue to share my faith in God, and if you don’t like it, then that’s YOUR PROBLEM.
Do not write my anymore, and I am dead serious about this. If you do, then I will breath fire down your soryy ass. You really piss me off, and I am NOT your friend. Not anymore.
Rev g says
The Quirinius issue is not nearly so problematic as you claim.
http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/cyrenius.htm
Of course, fulfilling a single prophecy may seem quite unremarkable, but when the prophecies are multiplied many times over, that changes.
Also, the two genealogies are different for a reason, one being His biological lineage, the other being the legal (stepfather’s) lineage.
Wellington says
I have come across both explanations (for Quirinius and the matter of Jesus’s paternal grandfather) and find each strained. Even many Biblical scholars and historians (e.g. , Father Joseph Grispino and Michael Grant) concede that such arguments are weak ones.
Rev g says
So you admit that they are valid explanations.. Facts don’t need to get your approval.
Wellington says
I don’t deny that these arguments COULD be true. All I maintained, as have many others, including some devout Christians, is that they are not strong or very convincing arguments. As for your sarcastic, “Facts don’t need to get your approval,” this remark is both not applicable to anything I have written on this thread and childish.
Rev g says
The 2 genealogies concept is hardly weak.
http://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/bible-basics/what-are-the-earliest-versions-and-translations-of-the-bible.aspx
Nor would I call Tacitus’ a weak source.
It is not childish to remind you that you are not the arbiter of fact. Sorry if it got your panties in a wad.
Wellington says
There you go again with insults when an argument of yours is countered. How pathetic. Why not just try arguing your points without insult?
Can you provide me with tendentious views of the 2 genealogies concept? Of course you can but it doesn’t negate the truth of what I stated before and that is that many, including Christians, consider them weak arguments. For example, in Father Joseph Grispino’s translation of the New Testament, he has a footnote about the genealogy problem, p. 33, dealing with its mention in Matthew 1:16: “”There is no satisfactory answer to explain the discrepancy between this text which make Jacob the father of Joseph and Luke 3:23 which makes Heli the father of Jospeh, except to postulate that one of them was Joseph’s stepfather.”
I have admitted the possibility that what you think is the case is the case, but I think it unlikely. BTW, what you have proposed is not a fact, but rather a hypothesis. Please learn the difference. Hell, what is the matter with you that you have to insult those who disagree with you? Grow up.
Rev g says
I did not insult you. I even apologized. Also, it is fact that regardless of Father Grispino’s opinion, many others have no problem with the the 2 genealogies.
Maybe you need to step back yourself.
Wellington says
You did insult me with such statements as, “Facts don’t need to get your approval” and
“Sorry if you got your panties in a wad.” And where the hell did you apologize?
Rev g says
Facts don’t need your approval, get over yourself, wellie.
And I am still sorry if that gets your panties in a bunch.
See, I apologized again. Maybe you should mull it over for a while, if you can.
Wellington says
You actually think that saying, “Sorry if it gets your panties in a wad” constitutes an apology? My God man, you really are pathetic. Even more than I first suspected. You’re a man-child—–adult form the neck down, a kid from the neck up.
You insult. You don’t concede you could be wrong about a certain matter even though I have provided you evidence that you MAY be wrong. You treat a hypothesis as fact.. You dismiss a great philosopher like Kant with no cogent argument whatsoever. And on and on and on along these lines.
So here is my resolution: I will no longer respond to you. You are beneath contempt and a sorry-ass excuse for a human being. I suspect you will go to your grave never getting any of this. So glad I don’t know you personally. Done here.
Rev g says
Poor wellie. I did comment on the juvenile nature of the bit of Kantian philosophy you offered up. If that is your take on deeply intellectual philosophical thought, I truly feel sorry for you.
Sounds like you are really having a bad go of it, bummer.
gravenimage says
Good grief, Rev G–Wellington is a staunch ally. Your gratuitously insulting him here is way off base.
Rev g says
Your opinion is noted. You are welcome to it.
Wellington says
Rev g, gravenimage, is incapable of true argument. If you disagree with him, you are simply wrong to the extent that you disagree with him (evidence of a petty control-freak, which I have concluded Rev g is).
Often, with his complete incapacity to argue cogently (e.g., dismissing Kant by way of a stunning and insupportable derision of this great philosopher rather than countering Kant in any kind of coherent and detailed manner ), comes an insult. This is man-child stuff, and evidence too of a superficial intellect.
And the fact that he could actually think an apology constitutes someone saying, as he posted, “Sorry if you get your panties in a wad,” reveals far more about this limited human being than he will almost certainly ever realize.
Rev g discredits the anti-jihad cause by way of his many limitations. I wish he would go away because he is no help in this great effort. But I highly doubt he will. After all, limited people tend overwhelmingly to remain limited people.
Rev g says
My assessment of the Kantian statement you offered up is spot on. It was juvenile reductionism.
Perhaps you should stop trying to project your attributes upon others.
More Ham Ed says
Wellington says
March 24, 2016 at 1:07 am
“You are a believer. I am not…but all religions rest ultimately upon faith and not fact and the whole endeavor of trying to show…”
Sounds like you may be atheist and proud_of_it. Here’s a fact, you’re going to breath your last breath some day, maybe next week, maybe in 30 years, who knows, but at that point you’re not going to even physically exist. Do you care that you’re not even going to exist? How may people born before 1900 are alive today? If you live to 90 what quality of life will you have? We live in a fallen world and you cannot earn a right standing with the Creator. You’re an educated man but you don’t appear acknowledge these basic facts or seek out the one true answer. Make your decision after reading all of the major accepted scriptures and texts.
Wellington says
I am not an atheist, More Ham Ed. I simply maintain that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is true though that I have no faith. None. I am not constructed in such a way as to have faith. But the matter of a higher power is not just an issue for religion but also for philosophy. My approach to the possibility of a higher power is philosophical, not religious. Respecting the reading of religious literature, while I could always read more, I believe I have read my share and then some, including all of the New Testament, a good bit of the Old Testament, the entire Koran (what drudge work that was) and a fair amount of other religious literature. I have also read in depth the works of many Christian thinkers, Augustine, Erigena, Anselm and Aquinas being some of these.
As for caring about no longer physically existing, this does not bother me that much. I just accept it as a fact and, besides, if there is no afterlife, and I don’ think there is, then, a la Marlene Dietrich, “when you’re dead, you’re dead, that’s it.” I think it highly unlikely that George Washington, Adolf Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, Joseph Stalin, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, all the Roman soldiers who manned Hadrian’s Wall in northern Britannia in the second, third and fourth centuries, the hundreds of millions of Chinese who have lived and died over the centuries, et al., exist now in any way whatsoever. Could I be wrong? Yes, theoretically I could. But I can detect nothing, discern nothing, that persuades me to this day to think other than I do.
As for miracles and prophecies, which is what began this thread for me, I accept David Hume’s assessment of them, as I outlined to Champ above. I will also mention here what I have noted several times before at JW and that is that I think it was almost inevitable that mankind would get a religion or two that would work wonderfully well with democratic tenets. Mankind did. Mankind got Judaism and Christianity. These two religions, because they place such an emphasis on the dignity and worth of the individual, are therefore quite compatible with democracy. Buddhism and Hinduism are subtle and have much that is admirable in them but they don’t prize the individual as greatly, what with the doctrine of multiple lives and all that (yet another article of faith which a faithless person like me simply can’t accept for exactly the reason Hume stated). As for Islam, well, I think it was almost inevitable as well that mankind would get a religion that was rotten to the core. Mankind did. Mankind got Islam. This is why I am ready to make alliances with virtually all religious people against the monstrosity which is Mo’s creed. Indeed, I have often said that if every Muslim would wake up tomorrow a devout Christian, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist, the world would be infinitely better off.
I hope this comment of mine further clears up where I stand on religion in general and Islam in particular. I would close here by asking you a question and it is this: Do you admit what you believe in may not be true or is that not a possibility? Take care.
Pong says
Wellington.
Enjoyed your exchange with Champ. The picture of Champ, blowing fire in your ass looked disgusting, but funny.
So, Champ took his toys and gone home. I owe him for the pleasure I had, but cannot thank him, as I am not in his good book. I knew it was going to happened. You, probably, knew it as well. All of his posts looked polite, but to me looked like he is trying to look polite. It was only a matter of time. He gave me even a smoler chance.
But I am here for a different reason.
“You know, I keep trying to cut Christians a break. I know that Christianity in its theological blueprint is not a mortal threat to liberty as Islam is,…”
I think you are too generous. Fundamentalists of all religions are a moral threat to liberty. For over 10 years I have been expressing skepticism (this blog included) about sincerity of fundamental christians in fight against Islam. Through all ritorics, I could feel that faith is the highest moral priority and it is possible that in some situation an enemy with faith could be preferable to a friend without. What has been happening in the churches and in Vatican supports my suspicions. I knew, the time come, when they stub us in the back. An atheist for them is worse then a moslem.
“Here is what I consider irrefutable: There is no way to prove the existence of God and there is no way to prove the non-existence of God. So, one, as Kierkegaard pointed out back in the 19th century, has to take that leap of faith.”
Correct me if I am wrong, especially that I have an impression from your other posts of your position being different. Here you seems to put equal emphasis on both sides. I think that if I tell you that I spent last weekend on Mars, it would not be your obligation to prove me wrong.
Be well. Thanks again for the lough.
Kepha says
@Wellington:
I’ve spent a little time dealing with biblical scholarship myself, and can assure you it’s a very contested field. Many of the assumptions that require a dating of the Gospels in the later first century are frankly assumptions; and much of the edifice of New Testament criticism ultimately rests on the work of an early 19th century German prof by the name of Ferdinand Christian Baur, who wanted to fit the composition of the NT into a tidy Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis scheme, in which you had a “Jewish Petrine” school at odds with a “Pauline Gentile” school, finally synthesized in a 2d century composition we call Luke-Acts. A further consideration is that the 19th century critics argued that a Jesus who was more than what a post-enlightenment “cultured despiser” would accept (i.e., Renan’s purely human ethical rebel against Judaism) had to be a later development.
This picture was itself heavily criticized by later 19th and early 20th century scholars, especially Adolf von Harnack and the British archaeologist William Ramsay. This forced the critics to push back the composition of most of the NT writings into the first century–although the current contested consensus is itself a shaky compromise between Baur’s Hegelianism and a concession that the evidence of the early fathers, the internal evidence of the NT, and the archaeological evidence that has John and Luke especially having a knowledge of pre-70 A.D. ‘Eretz Yisroel and Asia Minor that would be uncanny for late first century or second century writers.
Further, you have more recent scholars noting that the divinization of the Jewish Messiah goes back not to John, but to Daniel, with his vision of “the one like a Son of Man” receiving power and glory from the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7). Daniel Boyarin of on of the UCal branches is a recent propnent of this view in _Jewish Gospels_.
On the basis of internal evidence, I would put the Gospels way earlier; and the priority of Mark is based only on its being shortest. The internal evidence is that Luke-Acts (heavily dependent on Matthew and Mark) ends on an upbeat not with Paul teaching unmolested in Rome, possibly (in Luke’s mind) awaiting vindication by a young Nero Caesar rather than the martyrdom he met in 66 A.D. Further, none of the New Testament writings treats the destruction of Jerusalem as a fait accompli. This in itself prompted J.A.T. Robinson in the 1970’s (himself no friend to orthodoxy at the time; although late in life he moved in an orthodox direction) to write his _Redating the New Testament_, in which he argues that ALL of the NT predates 70 A.D.
I frankly feel that most of Robinson’s arguments are rather compelling, gel with conclusions I myself have reached after decades of familiarity with the New Testament, and agree; except that I would continue to date Revelation to Diocletian’s time, chiefly because I have no reason so far to doubt the witness of Irenaeus, who may actually have known people who knew John.or even have known John himself.
As for Bart Ehrman’s contention that the Galilean apostles couldn’t have known Greek, I dismiss that as the product of a provincial, 20th century Midwestern American mind. From what I’ve seen of the world, a bunch of men raised in a relatively small ethnos that was itself linguistically divided and living in a narrow area hard by areas that spoke Greek would’ve been prime candidates for bi- or multi-lingualism–to say nothing of their later positions as leaders of a movement which may well have provided them amanuenses.
There’s a lot more to say on this topic.
You may want to read not only Robinson, Ramsay, and Boyarin, but also F.F. Bruce, C. E. Hill, Richard Bauckham, and a few other more recent scholars (although I find something to respectfully criticize in all of these, too).
Kepha says
Correction: upbeat note, not upbeat not.
dumbledoresarmy says
Kepha
nice summary there.
Have you encountered a contemporary Australian scholar named Michael Bird? I have just begun working my way through his book “The Gospel of the Lord”.
HIs work essentially extends and confirms a good few of the points you make.
Wellington says
It is my understanding, Kepha, that most Biblical scholars to this day assert that Mark is the earliest Gospel, written around 70 A.D. and that the other three were written in the 80s or 90s, with perhaps John being composed after 100 A.D. Then there is the whole matter of the “Q” problem which I am sure you are familiar with. But, in a way, what real difference does it make when the Gospels were written? Ultimately what they claim must be accepted on faith since much that is in them record events that are not provable.
I do have to wonder, have wondered for a long time now about this, and that is why would any just God condemn a person for not accepting something on faith but rather require that proof be produced? What is so terrible about demanding proof, and yet virtually all religions threaten something dire if one does not accept certain extraordinary claims on faith. This has since my teens functioned as a huge red light for me that religion, unlike philosophy and science, is deficient in this regard.
Rev g says
It seems to me that proofs have been offered numerous times. God should reprove Himself every feneration?
I see that you brought up the concept of extraordinary claims and proofs. You are no doubt aware that since the earliest days of man, belief in a deity (or many) seems to be integral to the human experience. This of course means that the extraordinary claim is that there is no god. Good luck with making your extraordinary proof.
Wellington says
All intellectual proofs for the existence of God ultimately fail, Rev g, for the reason given by Immanuel Kant (d.1804), that being that existence is not necessarily a category of an idea. Mull that one over if you will, if you can.
Also, I have never denied God’s existence. I don’t know if a higher power exists or not. One thing seems pretty certain to me and that is either God created man or man created God. Now, we can all have hunches about many things, including God. My hunch about God is that this entity is a legend, that since life is so short and often times so very awful, man soothed his psyche about the many horrible exigencies of existence by establishing a deity or deities to comfort this tortured part of his being. As I said, just a hunch. I could of course be wrong.
Rev g says
Kantian wordplay does not impress.
Again, the ordinary, indeed near universal claim is for a deity.
To assert otherwise is the extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof.
Wellington says
No, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that Kant would not impress YOU. As for near universal claim for a deity, claims don’t equal fact or proof. And I have never asserted that God does not exist. All I have averred is that no intellectual proof for God ultimately proves God exists. Really, if you’re going to argue with me, at least accurately deal with what I have stated. Truly, you really do need to improve your arguing skills.
Rev g says
Kant trying to reduce God to an idea is hardly impressive, maybe you think otherwise.
Fessitude says
Nonsense. It’s more likely Jesus was born in Bethlehem, because no sources say he was born in Nazareth, while four sources say he was — Matthew and Luke, about whose infancy narratives, moreover, Bernard P. Robinson (taught Biblical studies at Ushaw College, Durham, UK) notes (in “Matthew’s Nativity Stories” chapter 8 in New Perspectives on the Nativity edited by Jeremy Corley, 2000, p. 111) that “The opinion favored by most scholars is that the two infancy accounts are independent of each other.” That two independent sources corroborate Bethlehem strengthens its likelihood. The other two sources Robinson cites are Justin Martyr (born 100 A.D.) and the Protoevangelium of James, a 2nd century text that preserves the tradition of Bethlehem being venerated by Christians as Jesus’s birthplace. And what do miracles have to do with where Jesus was born?
Wellington says
“And what to miracles have to do with where Jesus was born?”
Prophesying that an event will occur in the future is a subset of what is miraculous. That is why Jesus being born in Bethlehem is so important to Christians. As for the sources you named for Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem (the Gospels of Mathew and Luke, Justin Martyr and the Protoevangelium of James), surely you can see that all four of these sources are tendentious ones, very much committed to insuring that Old Testament prophecies come true. They could hardly be described as objective.
Angemon says
Head-up, Wellington: “Fessitude” is voegelinian. I called it here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/cruz-patrol-and-secure-muslim-neighborhoods-before-they-become-radicalized-hamas-linked-cair-outraged#comment-1402646
and Champ confirmed it here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/islamic-state-distributes-sweets-to-muslims-in-celebration-of-brussels-jihad-massacre#comment-1402698
Wellington says
Thanks for that heads-up, Angemon. Ah, looks like voegelinian has come back with his toys to play.
Lion of Judah's Cub says
Wellington, you stated:
“I do have to wonder, have wondered for a long time now about this, and that is why would any just God condemn a person for not accepting something on faith but rather require that proof be produced? What is so terrible about demanding proof, and yet virtually all religions threaten something dire if one does not accept certain extraordinary claims on faith. This has since my teens functioned as a huge red light for me that religion, unlike philosophy and science, is deficient in this regard.”
Christ’s response (therefore God’s response) to a person who does not accept something on faith but rather requires proof, is a loving response, not one of condemnation. It is His loving response to Thomas after His resurrection which instructs us.
Thomas states: “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25). A week later Jesus returns to the disciples and greets them: “Peace be with you!” He then says to Thomas “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Stop doubting and believe.” (John 20:26-27). Thomas then said to him, “My Lord and my God!” (verse 28).
Jesus provides us with the physical proof we demand. He created us and knows that we are material beings. If we ask Him, He will show us Himself.
Wellington says
Lion of Judah’s Cub: I find your assertion rather astonishing in light of the many condemnations found in the New Testament for not accepting Jesus as Lord. One example is Mark 16:16 where Jesus himself says that those who do not believe and are baptized are condemned. Another example is John 3:18 which says those who do not believe in Jesus as Lord are already judged. As for the Thomas story, my interpretation of this is that it was put in later to confirm the physical resurrection of Jesus which many gnostic Christians thought highly incorrect, believing as they did in a spiritual resurrection only.
Lion of Judah's Cub says
Wellington,
Thank you for your reply. My emphasis was on my last statement. If we have doubts, if we need something from God to address our doubts He will provide what we need if we ask Him directly.
With respect to physical proof of the resurrection, the latest scientific evidence on the Shroud of Turin confirms the crucifixion and resurrection of the man in the Shroud. It was the moment of resurrection which left the imprint on the Shroud. The imprint cannot be reproduced by known human activities according to the scientists who studied the Shroud. There are even pollens specific to the Jerusalem area at the time of Christ located on the Shroud corresponding to the placement of the crown of thorns.
With respect to condemnation for lack of belief in Christ as Lord, this references those who knowingly reject Christ and His gift of Himself in order to pursue a life of sin and darkness. (Eg, John 3:19-22).
Lion of Judah's Cub says
See e.g., Shroud of Turin Presentation March 2014 with Dr. Wayne Phillips on Youtube
Rev g says
The shroud is an interesting relic. It has been shown that the dating done on it was faulty, original fibers were interwoven with repair work in the test sample. This, as well as possible contamination from “plaque” build-up, certainly affected the testing, making it appear younger
The manner of implantation of the image is also still a mystery.
Wellington says
First of all, Lion of Judah’s Cub, I will gently but still firmly point out that when a person (in this case you) refutes what someone else has said (in this case me), as you did in your 4:47 P.M. post of today to the effect that Jesus did not condemn or threaten those who did not have faith in him by way of narrating the “Thomas story,” even though I gave you two examples (and I could have given many more) of such a threatening, including by Jesus himself, it was incumbent upon you to address this refutation of mine directly. Instead, you glossed over it by stating something to the effect that your “emphasis was on my last statement.” This will not do. Not at all. What about Mark 16:16 and John 3:18? Don’t dodge this here.
As for the shroud of Turin, it is a fake. It dates from no earlier than the 13th century. And the fact that folks have to resort to something like the shroud of Turin to prove Jesus’s resurrection is demonstrative to me of just how desperate religious people are to prove as fact something that can only be accepted on faith.
You know, I keep trying to cut Christians a break. I know that Christianity in its theological blueprint is not a mortal threat to liberty as Islam is, but I am getting tired of strained and highly hypothetical arguments posing as some kind of absolute truth. The resurrection of Jesus is not a fact. It is a belief. I concede the possibility of it having occurred but I have seen nothing to date in my life that even remotely makes me think that it did occur. Nothing.
Kepha says
Hear, hear, Champ.
Champ says
Thank you, Kepha! 🙂
balam says
Any one who hates Jews, also, hates Jesus who came to this world as a practising JEW,There is no difference between the Catholic Church and Islam .Both are political rather than spiritual and both are ANTI CHRIST.
Greyhound Fancier says
Any Christian who hates Jews is like a tree that hates its own roots.
Lion of Judah's Cub says
I am Catholic and I do not hate Jewish people, nor was I ever taught to do so in my Catholic schooling or religious instruction. Jesus and his mother and most of his early disciples were Jews.
By the way, all Protestant denominations, including those that consider themselves as non-church or non-religious Christians, are off shoots of the Catholic church — the one church that Jesus Himself instituted.
Islam is anti-christ, not the Catholic church. The anti-christ is identified by denial of the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22). The Catholic church does not deny the Father and the Son.
Keys says
Thank you, LOJC. Some otherwise thoughtful posters sometimes go off on an anti-Catholic track. “genetic Catholic hatred of Jews” and “There is no difference between the Catholic Church and Islam” are not credible. Robert Spencer is Catholic, I think; a present day Crusader.
There are some questions, though, about some Catholic leaders not speaking out enough or clearly; that could cause even more deaths, perhaps. Also, Catholc Charities continuing to take in refugees is troubling.
Interesting that your posting name is Lion of Judah Cub.
chanah says
JESUS CHRIST never instituted the RC or any other Catholic church for that matter the first Church where a mix Gentile Jewish Church the brother of CHRIST a Jew where the first Bishop of Jerusalem
topposter says
I don’t believe Palestine was derived from Philistine. Palestine was used by the Greeks since at least the time of Aristotle, and referred to a geographical area not consistent with Philistine. The Greeks had a separate term for Philistine that they used concurrently with Palestine.
Palestine is Greek for Israel.
http://cojs.org/when_palestine_meant_israel-_david_jacobson-_bar_27-03-_may-jun_2001/
topposter says
Back on topic, Jesus was born in Palestine, I don’t see a problem with that. Jesus was a Jew, the Jews are the real Palestinians. There’s your proof. 🙂
mortimer says
Not proof at all. You’re not a historian.
Kepha says
Actually, the derivation of “Palestine” from Philistine (peleshtim) is well documented. Philistia would’ve been the first part of the land reached by a Greek sailing down from the northwest. It’s similar to how “Syria” was derived from “Asshur” (assyria), even though the real Assyrian heartland was further to the east (the original Hebrew and native name for Syria being Aram, which you get in some more recent translations of the Old Testament).
gravenimage says
Actually, Jews in the late 19th and early 20th century themselves used the term “Palestine” for the Jewish Levant, before the state of Israel existed. “Next year in Palestine!” was a common yearning for Zionist Jews.
But no–since 1967, at least–“Palestinian” has been co-opted by the local Muslims and used to undermine the legitimacy of the state of Israel and is used to fuel the Jihad against her.
Brian Huggett says
He will fit in well with the Harlot religion of the end times. One can quite comfortably say he is not a Christian.
mortimer says
He is obviously a Christian…a sell-out Christian…a dhimmi.
Just so you know, bishops in the Near East have a habit of not living long because of disagreements with Muslims.
Bishop Gregory is obviously wedged between a rock and a hard place. It’s too easy for those in safe Western countries to criticize. Wait till you have Islamists making threatening phone calls.
gravenimage says
All this is true, Mortimer. I have enormous sympathy with Christians threatened in Dar-al-Islam.
It is also sadly true that some come to so identify with their dhimmitude that they actively enable it–that is, sadly, what the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch is doing here.
mortimer says
Where is the word ‘PALESTINE’ in the New Testament? Nowhere. Not once.
To refer to Israel as ‘Palestine’ is pure DHIMMITUDE.
The truth is that the term “Israel” is used a total of 73 times in the New Testament, but ‘Palestine’ is not used once. We are forced to conclude that ‘Israel’ is only term that refers to the Holy Land in the time of Jesus.
Jesus himself referred in the New Testament to ‘Israelites’ and ‘Israel’ many times, but never once to ‘Philistines’ or ‘Palestine’.
Patriarch, Gregory III Laham is making up his own version of history…he is rewriting history. He is a complete dhimmi.
Gregory doesn’t have the right to invent his own ‘facts’.
His distortions of history are obvious…just pick up a New Testament. Did Gregory hear about the New Testament?
somehistory says
From the Bible book of Micah:5:2
And you, O Bethʹle·hem Ephʹra·thah,+ The one too little to be among the thousands* of Judah, From you will come out for me the one to be ruler in Israel,+ Whose origin is from ancient times, from the days of long ago.
In ancient times, there were two cities called Bethlehem, so Micah states which Bethlehem will be the city where our Savior was to be born. And, He was born there as prophesied, in the City of David.
After He and his family had fled to Egypt to escape the murderer Herod, upon their return after Herod died, they settled in Nazareth where Jesus grew up. (Matthew and Luke 2).
What is so amazing, and yet not, is that these men purport to be *men of God,* who supposedly *teach* others about what is required to please God, and then they come out with such nonsense, wrong, incorrect, hurtful, speech that harms those over whom they hold authority. Better to be quiet than to say such things to support an evil empire from satan.
mortimer says
Hold it there, Mickey. Catholics have received the most ‘Righteous Gentile’ awards of any group. Pope Pius organized the biggest operation to save Jews from Hitler…saving 800,000 souls. (Yeah, ok, there are some bigots in RCC, but they don’t speak for the outfit, just for themselves. I deplore bigots and always speak out. Always.)
Please bear in mind that bishops in Arab countries have a habit of dying suddenly. Bishop Gregory is in a region that has a lot of fanatics on the loose. Nevertheless, he’s historically wrong. ‘Palestine’ is not found one time in the New Testament. Gregory is a dhimmi.
A more senior cleric should slap Gregory’s wrist. Muslims are only fair-weather friends.
Jay Boo says
Mickey Oberman is — a damn TROLL
He is deliberately trying to change the topic and you are feeding the TROLL
mortimer says
Mickey’s concern is valid. I share it. Anti-semites like Patriarch Gregory must be publicly critiqued. His views are not the official teaching of his church.
Peggy says
mortimer says
March 24, 2016 at 5:14 am
Mickey’s concern is valid. I share it. Anti-semites like Patriarch Gregory must be publicly critiqued. His views are not the official teaching of his church.
================
They are now.
Just ask the Pope.
AnneCrockett says
“A more senior cleric should slap Gregory’s wrist. ”
I think the only more senior cleric than the jackass Laham is the imbecile, Pope Francis.
Carl says
this is just one reason why I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ORGANIZE RELIGION..They’re are no different than Jimmy Jones,David Koresh etc etc. I left the church a long time ago..I deal with God and Christ my way not theirs
Greyhound Fancier says
There is strength in numbers. Christian organizations assist the persecuted Christians in the Middle East, by providing material aid. On your own it might be daunting to find a way to help.
You might also consider that “your own way” of “dealing” with God and Christ could benefit from hearing what others on the same road think and do.
Rev g says
Without organized religion, the scriptures may not have been collected and preserved so as to be available to us today.
somehistory says
Actually, single (as in lone) men translated and copied the Bible after it was fully given by God. Such men as Tyndlale took it upon themselves to translate the Bible so the ordinary man could read and understand it.
And if not for God preserving His Word, it would have been destroyed by His enemies long ago when Bibles were being burned and translators killed.
A person, whether Christian or not, needs other people for encouragement, companionship, etc. But when it comes to a relationship with God through Christ, each person must carry his own load and this may mean not belonging to an organized religion.
Of course, others may disagree with what I have written. To each his own.
Rev g says
Religious communities were key in recording, transmitting, and translating the Bible.
The correspondence between the 7 original churches alone provide enough references to reconstruct most of the NT. The translations into various languages are quite researchable, and we’re accomplished communally.
http://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/bible-basics/what-are-the-earliest-versions-and-translations-of-the-bible.aspx
Miao Zedong says
Never witnessed jew hatred amongst catholics in 50 years.
mortimer says
Miao Zedong: you didn’t witness any Jew hatred perhaps because you aren’t Jewish yourself? You will no doubt agree that you may not have seen prejudice, but others may have seen it. Patriarch Gregory is definitely an anti-Semite and we have the freedom of expression to criticize him and hopefully to correct him.
The thoughts he expresses have been condemned by previous popes, especially Pope John Paul II who visited Auschwitz, frequently condemned anti-Semitism and apologized for ill-treatment of Jews in the past.
Someone should send Pope Paul II’s speeches to Patriarch Gregory, but he probably didn’t like them 16 years ago either!
Quote from John Paul II: “…asking (God’s) forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.”
Rob says
One of Muhammad’s last directives to his followers, was that Arabia should contain only one religion – namely Islam.
Arabian Christians were deported mainly to what is now Iraq and Arabian Jews were deported to – wait for it – Palestine.
In other words Palestine was a dumping ground for undesireables – hardly the prime Muslim real estate that it is claimed to be now.
Another piece of history to back up the fact that Muslims was far from proprietorial towards Palestine, is the fact that the arrival of the Crusaders in Jerusalem was of scant interest to Muslims.
It was only when irregular Christian freebooters ventured into the Arabian Peninsula, that they reacted. Indeed Saladin personally beheaded the leader of those that ventured into Arabia.
Note I mean Arabia as a geographical region – not ethnicity.
Michael Dar says
I don’t think the name Palestine was commonly used to designate the area. It is not even mentioned in the Coran. Wasn’t used by the Crusaders nor during the 500 years of Ottoman rule. It is the British who commonly used or introduced it during their mandate. Even many Arabs said there never was such a thing as Palestine (invented by the Zionist..they said!) they even refused to be called Palestinians!
Rob says
The area that later became the British Mandate of Palestine.
My point was the inferior status ‘Palestine’ had in 700 compared to the status Muslims wish to give it now.
The Muslims didn’t call Crusaders, by that name either.
A variety of names including Franks were used largely depending what European group the Muslim had encountered previously.
mortimer says
Michael Dar wrote: “the name Palestine …is not even mentioned in the Coran”
It is not. All commands in the Koran: “Children of Israel, dwell in the Land (of Israel)”, thus legitimizing a Jewish presence in Israel, rather than supporting ‘Palestine’.
The Koran is therefore AGAINST the ‘Palestine’ theory many (but not all) Muslims are promoting. The Koran actually supports a Jewish Israel.
mortimer says
Correction: ALLAH commands in the Koran “Children of Israel, dwell in the Land (of Israel)”
gravenimage says
Yes–the Ottoman empire had completely neglected what is today Israel. It was sparsely populated and considered an unattractive backwater.
It was *only* after Jews took interest in the area for historical and religious reasons–and especially after the modern founding of Israel and its flourishing as a Jewish state–that Muslims became so focused on her destruction.
If–God forbid!–Islam is ever able to destroy Israel, it will become just another Islamic hell hole. Just look at the example of Gaza.
Michael Dar says
The name “Palestine” was only introduced by the Romans after they definitely defeated the Jews at the end of the second century.
Baucent says
Robert is correct. The word “Palestine” is a corrupted version of “Philistine” that the Roman’s did indeed rename the region after those troublesome Jews rebelled in AD70 and a second time around AD130. The region at the time of Jesus was under Roman rule. The Roman province of Judea is a historical fact. There are Roman coins with “Judea” on them. But Judea covered the southern half of “the Holy land” including Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The northern part, Galilee was ruled for the Romans by vassel kings, the Herods.
The Patriarch cannot utter the word Judea as his muslim overlords would wack him. The other reason is probably he is in the “replacement theology” school whereby he believes the Church is the New Israel and inherits all the promises of God to Israel. They having rejected the messiah. He’s wrong in both counts. But he might be a nice man.
Matthieu Baudin says
“No one defends Islam like Arab Christians,” said the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch…”
He’s like a snake with a broken back – utterly useless, but still has a poisonous bite.
citycat says
Maybe the patriarch is covering his fear of Islãm with bull.
Catholic- origin Greek- Katholikos “universal”
and Christ is the balancing “personal”?
Christians are apostate Jews, way back then, and Christ is also an apostate Jew?
“Jesus? He was a good Jewish boy” a Jewish human said.
So what sort of apostates are Jews, Pagan? And do Jews hate anyone, i wonder.
Muhammad was an apostate Pagan, i heard. Allah the top Pagan God. I guess that’s why Muslims hate Pagans to death, and why some Christians don’t like Jews.
Hate is waste
Infidels, who have converted to Islãm, hate Infidels
i think the same with Hindu and Sikh, way back
Dear God, so much hate
wot you say God?
It got outta hand?
You should have said
wot you say God?
You need a new messenger?
Better get creating quick.
It’s getting late in the hour, the place is a mess, the leaders have f—-d right up.
Eka says
Christ was born in judea? Isn’t christ born in Betlehem??
Robert Spencer says
‘Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea…” Matthew 2:1
R Russell says
I guess he hasn’t read the Old and New Testaments, and then he hasn’t read the history of the Roman conquest of the Middle East. Oh dear! It seems he wants to deceive as much as Islam does.
Kepha says
Even though I’ve taken to using ‘Eretz Yisroel out of spite for the PeeCeeEmCee crowd, I have no problems with the name “Palestine”. It’s what the Graeco-Roman world and its western successor called the land between the Jordan and the Med from roughly 70 A.D. onwards. And I’m old enough to remember late- 1940’s works that spoke of the Jewish Zionist settlers and their offspring as “Palestinians” (after what the British called their mandate).
R Russell says
Sorry. AD 70 was the destruction of the temple. Palestine, a corruption of Philistine, was the name given to the region when Rome overtook the Jews and sent them into exile. Not all of the Jews were rounded up and exiled. There have always been Jews in the land in spite of what the Arabs say. There is no such race as Palestinians and the Islamic revised history is everywhere.
Russell Kirk Was Right says
This priest is just another PC Papist of the “Spririt of Vatican II” stripe. Disgusting.
Dr. Gonzalo. de Porras says
Desgraciadamente la ignorancia sobre la historia del Islam, el Corán, los Hadices, la Sunna etc.etc. de la jerarquia y clero católico en general es pública y notoria. No solo este Patriarca sino también muchos sacerdotes católicios estan ciegos o asustados sobre el Islam.Hace algunos años personalmente hube de denunciar ante el arzobispado de Madrid a un Sacerdote Combiniano que en una conferencia en la Parroquia de San Manuel y san Benito de Madrid defendía a Mahoma como un enviado de Dios, por cierto que aún estoy esperando respuesta, al igual que las cartas que el Dr. Raad Salam envio a S.S. Francisco I, para que rectificase sobre su declaración de que el (sic) “El Islam es una religión de Paz” !!!!!!. Y no hay mas que ver las personas que le asesoran.
Kepha says
Gracias Dr. Gonzalo de Porras. Perdon mi Espanol. Empieso estudiar. Soy Norteamericano viejo, y no se como escriber los diacriticos Espanol cunada en mi computador.
gravenimage says
Kepha–I hadn’t realized that speaking Spanish was among your many accomplishments. I doubt you need to apologize for it.
Angemon says
¡Me encanta tu espíritu, Kepha – aprender hasta morir!
Translation: I love your spirit, Kepha – [keep]learn[ing] until you die!
You, like me, don’t have a Spanish keyboard, right? If you have a keyboard with a numpad on the right you can use ASCII codes to insert symbols – press the corresponding sequence of numbers on the numpad while pressing left alt button:
http://www.theasciicode.com.ar/
Won’t work with the number row over the letter rows or the alt gr (right alt) button – left alt and numpad only.
Also, you may have to select Spanish as the default language for non-english symbols in your system (I’m using Windows 10).
Walter Sieruk says
This Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch was exposing his own ignorance by making such an outlandish statement.. If he really believes in the Bible then he should use the words the the Bible and not the terms or words Muslims use. For example, Psalm 135:4. reads “For the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself. Israel for His special treasure.” [N.K.J.V.]
Golem2 says
Thank You Robert for keeping an eye on these liars and propagandists.
David Barrrett says
Patriarch Gregory is a born liar – not fit to lead anything religious.His black garb hides an antisemitic soul of the old detestable school. Catholic he is not – a shameful character – yes!
jewdog says
I’m glad that Christ was born in Palestine. At least that disqualifies him from running for President, and maybe spoiling it for Ted Cruz.
Kepha says
I don’t think that Mary or Joseph were ever US citizens, in which Jesus the Messiah differs radically from Ted Cruz, jewdog. 😉 Or, do you mean that Palestine down in East Texas?
Kepha says
Wellington, Champ, DDA, Rev. G, and others– many thanks for your comments. DDA, you have put Michael Bird on my “to read” list, and thanks again for alerting me to David Hart’s _Atheist Delusions_, which I’m thinking of buying for myself after getting it through interlibrary loan. I’ll throw back in your direction the work of C.E.Hill, whose _Who Chose the Gospels_ is good rejoinder to Dan Brown-edque narrative.
Wellington, I hope that some of my comments above may make you consider that the biblical scholars of today, especially those who get the best coverage from the MSM, may not be all that objective either, and work from a number of presuppositions which may also be highly questionable. I’d also like you to be aware that a number of scholars, including some who are no friends of Christian orthodoxy (Daniel Boyarin, for example), argue that John must be placed much earlier in the First Century because it is the one Gospel that gives a wealth of detail about places in Galilee, Judaea, and Jerusalem during the period when the Second Temple was still standing, and that these Johannine details seem to gel very closely with what archaeology had uncovered. As far as I can tell from my readings of critical scholarship, the foundations of the argument that John has to be late first or early 2d century are (a) the Christology is too high and (b) that he is too “anti-Jewish”.
To these foundations of the late dating of John, it may be observed that there are pre-Christian traditions in Israelite/Jewish religion that “divinize” the Wisdom of God (Prov. 8) and present the Messiah (Son of Man) in very glorious terms as well (Daniel 7)–and this argument is put forth rather persuasively by Daniel Boyarin, who is himself a rabbi rather than a Christian pastor. As for the “anti-Jewish polemic” in John, it strikes me that this is more in the character of the divine lawsuit we find in both the former and later prophets of the Old Testament, in which the opponents are described as Israelites, the people, or even the Jews (as in parts of Jeremiah). This polemic also needs to be read in a context which praises Nathaniel as “a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile” (Jn. 1:47) and Jesus’ conversation with a woman of Samaria (Jn. 4), in which Jesus is identified plainly as a Jew, and tells the Samaritan woman that “salvation [Jesus himself] is of the Jews.” Gentiles do not figure at all in John (except for Pilate and the soldiers, who come off badly); the “Greeks” mentioned in chapter 1, due to the character of their questions, best understood as Hellenistic diaspora Jews, Proselytes, or, possibly, God-fearers. Hence, I tend to agree with J.A.T. Robinson that John gives us an intramural Jewish argument over who Jesus is rather than with Raymond Brown, who sees it as evidence of a rupture between church and synagogue. So, please be aware my “skeptical” friend, that there are positions in “respectable” scholarship that question or challenge presuppositions in “established scholarship” that demand a Unitarian or pre-Arian primitive church or assume that the Gospels present a finalized breach between church and synagogue rather than an intramural Jewish tiff that spilled out as the church spread. I say this pleading with your own apparent faith in the expertise of “scholars”.
I’d also note that seizing on the late dating of the Gospels, resting as it does ultimately on Baur’s Hegelianism, may also have taken root in the academy simply because it supports relativizing the Gospels as something other than based on eyewitness reports (in more recent times, Bauckham has suggested that named persons in the Gospels may very well be the very witnesses with whom the authors consulted).
As for Justin Martyr and the Protevangelion of James, I am aware off both Justin’s writings and the latter. Justin is plainly aware of his dependence on Gospels written well before his time (Justin is a 2d century figure, likely writing in the days following the second Jewish revolt of 135 A.D.) and accepting them as Scripture. The Protevangelion is clearly dependent in part on the canonical Gospels, and written at a later date (probably 3d-4th century) that can read an order of sacred virgins back into the Jewish past–and it has never been recognized as canonical anywhere in Christendom. I’d treat it, at best, as a sort of early religious novel.
Sorry if I’ve gone on so long. By way of apologia for my behavior, it all started when someone gave me Pagels’ _Gnostic Gospels_ to “set me straight”, as it were, and I later got my hands on the Loeb Classical Library’s edition of the Apostolic Fathers and got PO’d at Ehrman’s PC intros. I not only reread the NT in Greek as well as my vernaculars, but also hunted down a few works of critical and orthodox scholarship.
Kasey says
What a load of CRAP, specifically and generally.
Pong says
No, It is different. Christian hatred of the jews has spiritual roots. Christianity came out of judaism and, especially at the beginning, could not offer anything, which wasn’t jewish. Even to become a christian one had to be a jew first. It took centuries to make christianity to look like something different and not like another “reformed” sect. Christianity has struggled with “all good was already in judaism and what wasn’t – is not good”. That is the reason for references to devil, sorcery and black magic. Jews were looked at as a sinister force, hated and feared at the same time.
Islam, on the other hand, didn’t have spiritual problems with Judaism (partly because islam is not very spiritual itself) and had no fear of Judaism (one cannot be scared of “apes and pigs”). Mostly it was contempt.
On the face of it, christianity had been more dangerous to the jews then islam. Physical treat to the jews, even in the islamic world, was coming mostly from blood liables, originated in christian communitis.
Zionism and Israel have changed the way moslems had been looking at the jews. Now they fear them and a result – hate them even more.
There is planty of anti-semitism in christianity. Gospels themselves (John in particular) are full of it (noticed that those following Jesus called the people and the rest called the jews?).
There have been decent christians during the history and our time. Unfortunatly not them, but the church leaders make the decisions about the church policies. Many clerics are openly anti-semitic and not one of them ever have been reprimanded for it (rare “slap on the wrist” when they go too far).
This patriarch is a scum. His anti-semitism is hurting his own people, not the jews (they can’t care less about him). As for our jewish friends on this blog, I would give you a small advice – there are much more important reason “to get hot under the collar”, than whatever this excuse of a man does or says.
Pong says
The story of Jesus’ birth is very unlikely to have any truth in it. Senses were carried out mainly for taxation, so registration in any place, except the residence doesn’t make any sense.
Piece of parchment with verses from Torah is attached to every door of a jewish house, except the rooms for the animals even if those rooms are attached to the main house. Joseph, being a religious jew would never accommodate himself and his family in a room without a Mezuzah.
NT is full of such blunders.
Champ, familiarize yourself with Judaism, before being so convinced by Christian texts.
Champ ✞ says
Pong wrote:
Champ, familiarize yourself with Judaism, before being so convinced by Christian texts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One notable Jewish prophet named Isaiah foretold the coming Messiah!
Question: “Where do the Hebrew Scriptures prophesy the death and resurrection of the Messiah?”
Answer: Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the promise of a Messiah is clearly given. These messianic prophecies were made hundreds, sometimes thousands of years before Jesus Christ was born, and clearly Jesus Christ is the only person who has ever walked this earth to fulfill them. In fact, from Genesis to Malachi, there are over 300 specific prophecies detailing the coming of this Anointed One. In addition to prophecies detailing His virgin birth, His birth in Bethlehem, His birth from the tribe of Judah, His lineage from King David, His sinless life, and His atoning work for the sins of His people,the death and resurrection of the Jewish Messiah was, likewise, well documented in the Hebrew prophetic Scriptures long before the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred in history.
Of the best-known prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures concerning the death of Messiah, Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 certainly stand out. Psalm 22 is especially amazing since it predicted numerous separate elements about Jesus’ crucifixion a thousand years before Jesus was crucified. Here are some examples. Messiah will have His hands and His feet “pierced” through (Psalm 22:16; John 20:25). The Messiah’s bones will not be broken (a person’s legs were usually broken after being crucified to speed up their death) (Psalm 22:17; John 19:33). Men will cast lots for Messiah’s clothing (Psalm 22:18; Matthew 27:35).
Isaiah 53, the classic messianic prophecy known as the “Suffering Servant” prophecy, also details the death of Messiah for the sins of His people. More than 700 years before Jesus was even born, Isaiah provides details of His life and death. The Messiah will be rejected (Isaiah 53:3; Luke 13:34). The Messiah will be killed as a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of His people (Isaiah 53:5–9; 2 Corinthians 5:21). The Messiah will be silent in front of His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; 1 Peter 2:23). The Messiah will be buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57–60). The Messiah will be with criminals in His death (Isaiah 53:12; Mark 15:27).
In addition to the death of the Jewish Messiah, His resurrection from the dead is also foretold. The clearest and best known of the resurrection prophecies is the one penned by Israel’s King David in Psalm 16:10, also written a millennium before the birth of Jesus: “For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.”
On the Jewish feast day of Shavuot (Weeks or Pentecost), when Peter preached the first gospel sermon, he boldly asserted that God had raised Jesus the Jewish Messiah from the dead (Acts 2:24). He then explained that God had performed this miraculous deed in fulfillment of David’s prophecy in Psalm 16. In fact, Peter quoted the words of David in detail as contained in Psalm 16:8–11. Some years later, Paul did the same thing when he spoke to the Jewish community in Antioch. Like Peter, Paul declared that God had raised Messiah Jesus from the dead in fulfillment of Psalm 16:10 (Acts 13:33–35).
The resurrection of the Messiah is strongly implied in another Davidic psalm. Again, this is Psalm 22. In verses 19–21, the suffering Savior prays for deliverance “from the lion’s mouth” (a metaphor for Satan). This desperate prayer is then followed immediately in verses 22–24 by a hymn of praise in which the Messiah thanks God for hearing His prayer and delivering Him. The resurrection of the Messiah is clearly implied between the ending of the prayer in verse 21 and the beginning of the praise song in verse 22.
And back again to Isaiah 53: after prophesying that the Suffering Servant of God would suffer for the sins of His people, the prophet says He would then be “cut off out of the land of the living.” But Isaiah then states that He (Messiah) “will see His offspring” and that God the Father will “prolong His days” (Isaiah 53:5, 8, 10). Isaiah proceeds to reaffirm the promise of the resurrection in different words: “As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see light and be satisfied” (Isaiah 53:11).
Every aspect of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah had been prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures long before the events ever unfolded in the timeline of human history. No wonder that Jesus the Messiah would say to the Jewish religious leaders of His day, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me” (John 5:39).
http://www.gotquestions.org/death-resurrection-Messiah.html
Champ ✞ says
Orthodox Jew becomes a Christian!!
https://youtu.be/FCDoM7DakwQ
Pong says
It might be very interesting for some people, but how does that relates to my post?
Jay Boo says
Pong wrote
“The story of Jesus’ birth is very unlikely to have any truth in it. Senses were carried out mainly for taxation, so registration in any place, except the residence doesn’t make any sense.
Piece of parchment with verses from Torah is attached to every door of a jewish house, except the rooms for the animals even if those rooms are attached to the main house. Joseph, being a religious jew would never accommodate himself and his family in a room without a Mezuzah.
NT is full of such blunders.”
————————————————-
Pong offers up a one-sided forgone conclusion based on his conspiracy theory supported by nothing but willful tidbits of wild conjecture, half baked assumptions and claims it — as PROOF.
Champ ✞ says
Pong, familiarize yourself with Christianity, before being so convinced that Christian texts are wrong.
Pong says
OK. I can accept my shortcomings, but could you or Jay Boo poit to one. My first point was that registration as describe, doesn’t make sense and the secon about a room without Mezuzah unstable for a religious jew.
The points I made have nothing to do with christianity, so how will any additional knowledge of christianity can help!
What conspiracy theories you guys are talking about?
Like Mortimer, I am not going to engage in the kind of “you stupid, not you are, no you are… It seems that both of you are good examples of what “faith” does to people.
Pong says
Correction: not unstable, unsuitable.
Champ says
Pong wrote:
It seems that both of you are good examples of what “faith” does to people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is Pong talking about? He addressed me first, and I answered his objections–and I was very polite, too. And in my second comment, I merely reversed him. How is this an ..’example of what “faith” does to people’? Pong doesn’t make any sense.
Have others had ‘odd’ experiences with Pong, too? I don’t read his comments, so I am not that familiar with him. I only responded to him since he had a question for me. Now I’m sorry that I even bothered helping him with his questions.
Champ says
Pong, don’t bother addressing me in the future, because I am going to ignore you from now on. I see that you’re incapable of having a normal, and an intelligent conversation.
Done with this clown.
Jay Boo says
On another related topic of historical significance
Did Muhammad even Exist? David Wood vs. Robert Spencer
Even though muhammad came on the scene centuries later JESUS the historical evidence for muhammad is very weak in contrast.
Robert Spencer in debate with David Wood offering a counterpoint.
Champ says
Thank you for posting this video, Jay Boo.
Yes–“Did Muhammad Exist?”, indeed!
Although muslims think so, as David Wood points out …
gravenimage says
Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch: “Christ was born in Palestine!”
………………….
This is, of course, doubly anachronistic. Firstly, as noted, Roman Palestine did not exist during Christ’s earthly life. Secondly, of course, when it did come into existence it was another name for the *Jewish* Levant.
The idea that it meant anything like the Arab–or especially Muslim–Middle East is utterly absurd. Judea was almost entirely Jewish. The Arabs were a distant tribal society who had little presence there at all. Islam, obviously, was centuries away from existence.
But this “Jesus was a Palestinian” has become a common trope, intended to delegitimize Israel and to empower the “Palestinian state”.
That Christians–who have been increasingly oppressed, brutalized, and driven out of Bethlehem and the rest of the “Palestinian territories” by violent supremacist Muslims only makes this the more perverse.
Here’s an article from ten years ago–the Christian population of Bethlehem went from 80% to a fraction of that since the “Palestinian” Authority took over:
“Last Christmas in Bethlehem?”
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2006/12/last-christmas-in-bethlehem.html
Things are even worse today.
gravenimage says
Those positing that Catholicism is intrinsically antisemitic must realize that Robert Spencer is himself a devout Catholic–in fact, he is a Melkite Greek Catholic.
No one could be a more stanch supporter of Israel and the Jewish people–especially against the threat to them from violent Islam.