Where was Jesus born?

Most Primary children would tell you that Jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem. Both Matthew and Luke tell us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Luke tells the story of traveling from Nazareth to Bethlehem and of the birth there.

Micah 5:2: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

Micah wrote from 722-696 BC, before Lehi was born. One would think that Laban's brass plates would have included him so that Lehi and his kin would have Micah's words in Zarahemla.

Alma 7:10 "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God."

So, why does Alma predict Jesus would be born "at" Jerusalem? Does he know something that Matthew and Luke didn't know? Should the Church of the Nativity be in Jerusalem? Why did Luke not tell us they got lost and mistook the little town of Bethlehem for the capital of Judea? That's like mistaking Schenectady for New York City.

Or maybe this is just another brain fart by JS as he's spinning his fable to Oliver Cowdery.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2015 07:18AM by axeldc.

Chalk it up to a brain fart of gargantuan proportions by Joe Smith and his posse of yarn spinning.

Smith was illustrious, but Jerusalem and Bethlehem while in the same country born, even he should have known the difference. But he was writing a book he thought would sell, before he concocted the idea he could attach a religion to go with it, and pronounce it was all revelation from God.

Jesus traveled to Jerusalem, as a Jewish itinerant preacher man.

It is considered the capitol of Israel among the Jewish nation.

Joe Smith must've just liked the way Jerusalem sounded in his narrative story, better than had he chosen Bethlehem. Not as catchy, in his mind for his story telling. Or he just didn't care to correct it once he realized he got it wrong.

Plus, if there's a difference between Joe Smith's yarn called the BoM, remember, that is the only true and authenticated scriptural work on the face of the earth today. So that version trumps whatever the bible has to say about it.

Therefore, Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Not.) ;)

I just noted there is an Alma, NY, near where Joe Smith lived and spent much of his youth and early adulthood. It became settled around 1832, during Smith's time in the Southern Tier of New York. Fancy his picking a name that was at that time known among local Western New Yorkers?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2015 08:28AM by amyjo.

Alma means "soul" in Latin, Spanish and Italian. It means "apple" in Turkish". It means "young girl" in Hebrew and "beautiful woman" in Arabic.

It's hardly surprising that such a common word for soul, apple, or girl would pop up in people and place names. I grew up in a subdivision where the nearest main city street was "Alma Road". Since it was in Texas, they probably took it from the Spanish word for "soul".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2015 08:43AM by axeldc.

Many academic Bible scholars today believe that accounts of Jesus being born in Bethlehem are not historically accurate. They believe he was likely born in Nazareth.

Also, many critical scholars today believe that the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament that Christians interpreted as predicting Jesus, cannot be seen as literally doing that when read in their original context.

Confusing Jerusalem with Nazareth is like confusing Pittsburgh with New York City.

It would make sense that Jesus would be born in Nazareth. The Bethlehem tale was probably made up to fulfill Micah's prophecy and tie Jesus into the Messiah myth.

What Alma/Joseph Smith said was that he would be born in Jerusalem. There is no evidence he went to Jerusalem before his last week on Earth.

http://www.distancefromto.net/between/Jerusalem/Bethlehem

5.5 miles

Many consider the town of Bethlehem as being included in the "land" of Jerusalem. Smith read the Bible and knew from there that jesus was born in bethlehem. I don't think he would have missed such an obvious mistake without correcting it.

Yeah I think of it being like metropolitan areas. If somebody lives in a suburb of LA they most likely will tell people not from LA they live in LA and not the city they actually live in.

In Roman times, it would take a full day to get to Jerusalem from Bethlehem. The land in between would have been mostly rural farms and tiny villages.

Metropolitan areas did not exist back then, except perhaps Rome itself.

We don't sing "O Little Suburb of Jerusalem" at Christmas time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2015 12:53PM by axeldc.

They are only 7 km apart or almost 5 miles.https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1RNVH_enUS579US579&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=distance%20from%20bethlehem%20to%20jerusalem

The point is that Smith knew Jesus was born in Bethlehem so he said Jerusalem for some other reason .

axeldc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In Roman times, it would take a full day to get to
> Jerusalem from Bethlehem. The land in between
> would have been mostly rural farms and tiny
> villages.
>
> Metropolitan areas did not exist back then, except
> perhaps Rome itself.
>
> We don't sing "O Little Suburb of Jerusalem" at
> Christmas time.

Depends on how fast you walk.

Jerusalem is five-and-a-half miles uphill from Bethlehem...and there has "always" (since before Roman times) been a road in between.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2015 02:00PM by tevai.

the average person walks a flat road at 3 miles per hour - to walk 5 miles would take less than 2 hours, probably a little more than 2 hours if it is uphill.

I thought that "land of Jerusalem" was another smithism. I know that hebrew bible talks about the land of Israel as distinct from the people of Israel. And it talks about the "land of Egypt" etc. But I think "land of Jerusalem" just sounded good to old Joe. But I could be wrong. I'm not really a bible scholar.

What Joseph meant was that the birthplace of Jesus was Jerusalemish ;)

Bethlehem is 5.52 miles from what is considered the "city limits" (more or less, and these have changed through the millennia) of Jerusalem.

More important than the actual miles, though, is that Jerusalem is "high," on the extended summit of mountains...while Bethlehem is in clear view, directly "below" (at a somewhat lower elevation on the mountains)...

...which means that if you are standing above, "in" Jerusalem, and you are looking directly "down" "at" Bethlehem, it sure doesn't SEEM to be in a "different" place!!!

It is clearly contiguous to Jerusalem, even if it is not within the city walls.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2015 01:01PM by tevai.

Interesting. I hope to travel to Israel someday. I'd like to see that for myself.

axeldc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Micah wrote from 722-696 BC, before Lehi was born.
> One would think that Laban's brass plates would
> have included him so that Lehi and his kin would
> have Micah's words in Zarahemla.

Since we don't have the original writings of the "Micah" character, or in fact any copies of them prior to around 400-300BC, we cannot say for certain when he wrote, if "he" indeed wrote anything. His book could just as well have been written by "learned Jews" after the return of the Babylonian captives to Jerusalem.

Since the origins and dates of the writings of the Old Testament are still obscure, we have no idea what "books" would have been included on the "Brass Plates of Laban" at the supposed time of "Lehi" (600BC).

jesus was born in the same place as bugs bunny .....
in your imagination.

Thank heavens for imagination: it gives flight to fancy. Bugs Bunny is as real as cartoons have made him.

There is consensus that Jesus did really exist, even among Jewish scholars.

They don't accept him as the Messiah, but a teacher.

King David and Solomon existed. History supports their having lived.

And so too, Jesus. Just because you don't believe he was the Messiah doesn't mean he didn't live.

"There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[8][9][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.[nb 5][14][nb 6][2]:168-173 While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

There is consensus that Jesus is pretend.

That's only in your imagination lol.

Chuck Jones, meet Dave the Atheist.

amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> King David and Solomon existed. History supports
> their having lived.

Please cite historical and archaeological records that are NOT based on the Hebrew Bible that support the existence of David and Solomon.

Besides the Hebrew bible being a historical account and record of Jewish history, archeological finds exist proving the historicity that King David lived and ruled the House of Israel.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Culture/Ancient-rock-adds-evidence-of-King-Davids-existence-384826

Proof of King Solomon's Wall
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100226-king-solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible/

City of David historicity
http://www.cityofdavid.org.il/en?gclid=CjwKEAjw9uypBRD5pMDYtsKxvXcSJACcb9AY-1VKkt40vsnehFx6zpECo6IS0dFQqLp-_OpG1lxfnRoCpSrw_wcB

From Science/Archeology News, proof that King David and Solomon lived
http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/science-biblical-kings-david-solomon-02371.html

Unlike the Book of Mormon, that was based on complete fiction and folklore, Jewish life has been around for thousands of years. The history is there and found in archeological finds, as well as the documented history by the Jews, who are very detail oriented as to keeping their history alive. It's what keeps them connected to their past; and why they're still a viable force today as they were 3,000 years ago.

amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Besides the Hebrew bible being a historical
> account and record of Jewish history,
> archeological finds exist proving the historicity
> that King David lived and ruled the House of
> Israel.

Your cites seem to be limited to Pop magazines and newspapers, and websites, all controlled by Israelis.

> http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Culture/Ancient-r
> ock-adds-evidence-of-King-Davids-existence-384826

I note this quote from this "Jerusalem Post" article:

"Despite its “extraordinary inscription,” the rock, a seventh century BCE “Annals of Sennacherib” that tells of a siege of Jerusalem mentioned in the Bible, and a 10th-century BCE “Taanach Cult Stand” that may feature a depiction of the Jewish God, have been “curiously” ignored in reviews of the Met’s exhibit, notes the Biblical Archaeology Society website.

Steven Fine, a professor of Jewish history and director of the Center for Israel Studies at Yeshiva University, agrees that the lack of attention is curious.

“It’s astonishing how little the Jewish press has noticed it,” he said."

Could it be that American Jews are less than eager to support the Israeli archaeologist's speculations because they have been disappointed so many times in the past by "evidences" that later proved to be frauds?

Israeli archaeology has been contaminated with many intrigues and agenda-driven espionage. They are not above seeking out evidence of Egyptian rulership of Palestine, simply to destroy it, just as LDSInc. sought to buy Hoffman's forgeries in order to "secrete them away". They have also destroyed and pillaged in Syria and Iraq, while at the same time creating forgeries to bolster their claims of historical rights to ownership of Palestine.

From Wikipedia, Tel Dan Stele:

"Cryer and Lemche analyzed the cracks and chisel marks around the fragment, and the lettering towards the edges of the fragments. They noted that if their observations were correct, the stele would most likely have been a modern forgery.[13]House of David, Lemche, 2004, p.61"

" Lemche 1998, p. 46, 62: “ No other inscription from Palestine, or from Transjordan in the Iron Age, has so far provided any specific reference to Israel... The name of Israel was found in only a very limited number of inscriptions, one from Egypt, another separated by at least 250 years from the first, in Transjordan. A third reference is found in the stele from Tel Dan - if it is genuine, a question not yet settled. The Assyrian and Mesopotamian sources only once mentioned a king of Israel, Ahab, in a spurious rendering of the name.”

Actually, some Assyrian stelae mention the kingdom of Omri, or the lands of Samaria, which Israeli Biblicists insist on conflating with Israel.

"Lemche 1998, p. 41: “The inscription is kept in a kind of “pidgin” Aramaic, sometimes looking more like a kind of mixed language in which Aramaic and Phoenician linguistic elements are jumbled together, in its phraseology nevertheless closely resembling especially the Mesha inscription and the Aramaic Zakkur inscription from Aphis near Aleppo. The narrow links between the Tel Dan inscription and these two inscriptions are of a kind that has persuaded at least one major specialist into believing that the inscription is a forgery. This cannot be left out of consideration in advance, because some of the circumstances surrounding its discovery may speak against its being genuine. Other examples of forgeries of this kind are well known, and clever forgers have cheated even respectable scholars into accepting something that is obviously false.”

If this is the case, it would only be in the grand tradition of King Josiah, who sought to rebuild a Hebrew kingdom in Jerusalem after the destruction of the much larger, much more prosperous Northern Kingdom of Israel, which was destroyed by the Assyrians. To do so, he invented the Jerusalem-based Davidic Kingdom, and then claimed to be restoring it! Shades of Joe Smith, who invented an American Hebrew civilization based on Christ, and then claimed to be authorized to restore it! And like Joe, Josiah invented a lot of "new" scripture to support his claims, even including prophecies about himself and the exploits he would accomplish, just like Joe did.

I tend to think that the Tel Dan stele is a fake simply because there is no other evidence to support such a Davidic kingdom of grand scale and wealth. The fact that there is no other evidence is highlighted by the Tel Dan stele, similar to how the lack of evidence for the Nephite kingdoms is highlighted by the so-called discovery of Nahom in Arabia. And of course, there is the fact that most everything in the OT is a fiction created by the ambitious Josiah.

But even if the Tel Dan stele is a real artifact of 750BC, it does not prove the existence of the great King David as portrayed in the OT. As Finkelstein points out in "The Bible Unearthed", Jerusalem in those days was a small town, not the seat of a great empire stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates.

> Proof of King Solomon's Wall
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/10
> 0226-king-solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible/

This is not proof of "King Solomon's Wall". It is proof that there is a wall. The rest is pure speculation, which could even contain elements of fraud, something not unknown in the field of Israeli archaeology. This wall claim is not unlike the claim that the famous "western wall" is an actual part of the foundation of the sacred and famous "Solomon's Temple", in spite of the fact that there is not the slightest evidence of such a temple's actual existence. "It's a wall, which we proclaim dates to Solomon's time, therefore it is Solomon's wall!!!"

> City of David historicity
> http://www.cityofdavid.org.il/en?gclid=CjwKEAjw9uy
> pBRD5pMDYtsKxvXcSJACcb9AY-1VKkt40vsnehFx6zpECo6IS0
> dFQqLp-_OpG1lxfnRoCpSrw_wcB

This is a website for a well-known Jerusalem tourist site. There is no evidence that this archaeological site is actually the site of "The City of David". This is an example of "We say so!". The Israelis have a clear agenda here to make a claim for possession of the whole city of Jerusalem, so they can expel all other peoples.

> From Science/Archeology News, proof that King
> David and Solomon lived
> http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/science-biblic
> al-kings-david-solomon-02371.html

This cite starts with a falsehood in the title, as the article contains no proof of this claim. The article cited from this cyber-publication website goes on to say that this new find "suggests the possibility" that the Kingdom of David could have existed. It starts with a straw man, stating that many current archaeologists say that no kingdom could have existed in the region of south Israel. In fact, many archaeologists simply say that existing evidence fails to support the idea that there was a "Kingdom of Israel", or of "Judah", in the region, as Jerusalem shows no sign of being the high seat of such a kingdom at the time the Bible identifies as "David's" or "Solomon's" life period. I doubt many archaeologists would dispute that there could have been other kingdoms in the region, as it is well known that the area was under Egyptian rule for a very long time. Further, the "bullae", or clay seals, discovered in this village bear no reference to any kingdom, they merely demonstrate some administrative activity at the time in a town on a known trade route, which is hardly surprising.

> Unlike the Book of Mormon, that was based on
> complete fiction and folklore, Jewish life has
> been around for thousands of years.

Yes, there seems to have been Judaism for approx. the last 2700 years. Outside of the Bible, there is no evidence that there was any "Jewish religion" until the times of possibly King Josiah. Prior to this, the people of Palestine, including those who later identified as "Hebrews", practiced polytheism and Mother worship. This is why Josiah ("re")-established Judaism, to "restore the purity of the true religion among the chosen of Abraham". To do so, he had to destroy the existing religions of the Canaanite peoples in the surrounding villages.

The history is
> there and found in archeological finds, as well as
> the documented history by the Jews, who are very
> detail oriented as to keeping their history alive.
> It's what keeps them connected to their past; and
> why they're still a viable force today as they
> were 3,000 years ago.

Much of their "documented history" is created myth. Not unlike the Book of Mormon. Please note that their history is mostly contained in the books of the Old Testament, which were scarcely found as single books or a compilation until the intellectual class of Jerusalemites returned from the Babylonian captivity. Where are all the precious copies of the Torah from before 500BC? Lehi didn't steal them all, did he? King Josiah would seem to be the force behind the creation of the OT, from his "discovery" (gold plates, anyone?) of Deuteronomy, to the whole-cloth creation of many more books to be forced upon his subjects as God's word.

Such a grand deception, and it's worked very well. Mormons are following Josiah's example too. And there are many in Jerusalem today who willingly repeat the model, if it will establish (and "restore" :)) today's Jews to full ownership of Jerusalem and Palestine. But why stop there-dream big, Eretz Israel anyone? Or even, one earth, ruled from Jerusalem?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2015 05:55AM by hello.

You just dismiss the outright news and scientific sources because they don't agree with your assumptions. Can't help your closed mind. Don't know why you ask for any validity when you've built an insurmountable wall. Besides, you can find the same proof from archeology if you wanted to. All you do is diss what doesn't fit inside your worldview of Jewish existence.

amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is consensus that Jesus did really exist,
> even among Jewish scholars.

This is not a factual statement. On the contrary, the prevailing Jewish view (among academics, rabbis, and at least a good chunk of the Jewish people who have ever thought about this), is that there was NO single person historical "Jesus." A conflation of several different Jewish guys---perhaps. But definitely not a single person "Jesus."

>
> "There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus
> existed historically,[8][9] although biblical
> scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of
> Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of
> his life that have been described in the
> Gospels.[14][2]:168-173 While scholars have
> sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for
> religious bias and lack of methodological
> soundness, with very few exceptions, such critics
> do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject
> the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the
> Christ myth theory."

This is, at best, partially true...assuming that Jewish academics, rabbis, etc. are not included in this group.

Jews who have studied this nearly universally reject the single person, historical Jesus theory.

("Jews for Jesus," and other "Jewish/Christian" groups are also obvious exceptions to what I have just said.
>

From the Jews I've met and worship with, it isn't discussed a whole lot, because they reject that Jesus is the Messiah for the Jews.

What they seem to concur based on my experience is that he was a person who lived, and an itinerant preacher among his people.

They reject his claims, but not that he existed.

It may be controversial in some places; the Wiki link I provided basically concurs he existed too, and among scholars.

I find this to be a fantastically unconvincing argument.

King Benjamin and Alma or whoever Mormons claim wrote the verses cited wouldn't be familiar with the names of various cities on the other side of the world.

However, they would certainly know about Jerusalem - The home town of Lehi and Nephi which several BOM writers prattle on about.

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers"

Makes sense to me. And as already pointed out Jerusalem was a City-State with multiple dependent suburbs like Bethlehem. It's like saying "the kid will be born in Los Angeles, which you all know about" when he was actually born in that Chinese hot sauce factory in Alhambra.

No offense to axeldc, after all I appreciate the attempt. However, the Book of Mormon is such a target rich environment for criticism and ridicule that there's no reason to be grasping at something as weak as this.

This argument seems as likely to convince someone of the books veracity as it is to dissuade them from that belief.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2015 09:26PM by rj.