re: Reverend Al Sharpton makes up religious lie about Jesus being a refugee

That's not up for debate. People are being nitpicky as far as what defines a refugee.

Actually Jesus hated refugees and he was always bitching about how they were taking over his temple and how they wouldn't do work on sunday

quote:

---

I don't think we need an example like that to justify wanting to help the less fortunate. That's the staple of being a good human being. How we do that is certainly up for debate.

---

The problem I have with your statement is who should be helping the less fortunate.
When you push your responsibilities off to Government you are not being altruistic yourself.

It is easy to say what other people should be doing when you don't have skin in the game yourself.

What a racist bigot POS, race baiting in the name of Jesus.

quote:

---

We know there was never a Roman census requiring men to return to their place of birth (an idea completely absurd on its face, especially in the first century) and we know Herod never had every male child in a given city or municipality killed. Both events would be of huge historical significance and neither is so much as mentioned in passing despite supposedly occurring in the occupied territory of the greatest record keepers of the ancient world.

---

This is true.

I do believe that Herod Antipas was trying to extinguish the lineage of David, whom the Jews believed to be the rightful heirs to the thrown of Judea. That would not have been historically significant relative to all the other lineage killings of the time.

It's quite possible that Jesus (who was likely black) was a potential heir to the throne.

The more likely scenario is that after Joseph hit it a little too early and knocked up Mary, they were shamed and embarrassed, so they headed to Bethlehem to avoid ridicule.

They later moved to Egypt as shame intensified all throughout Judea, and probably parts of the South Kingdom (Israel).




But, Jesus was probably black.

The most likely scenario is the writers of the gospels, in an effort to make Jesus fit into OT prophecy, fabricated a story that allowed for Jesus (a known Nazarene) to be born in Bethlehem as prophecy predicted.

It's one of the many reasons I believe Jesus was a real person, had he been made up the writers would have just had him be from Bethlehem. Only because he wasn't did an absurd story have to be developed to fit the narrative.

quote:

---

The most likely scenario is the writers of the gospels, in an effort to make Jesus fit into OT prophecy, fabricated a story that allowed for Jesus (a known Nazarene) to be born in Bethlehem as prophecy predicted.

---

I think this is quite likely. Much of the New Testament was written this way, in Midrash, a technique where older prophesy was wound into contemporary story-telling to lend credence to the point the author was trying to make. Most of the Old Testament was written 60 years after the events described, during the Great Jewish Revolt. At that time, a Jewish man, Bar Kokhba, who's name translates to "son of the star", led a temporarily successful revolt against Rome, establishing a free Jewish state in Israel. The writers of the New Testament were trying to dissuade Bar Kokhba, and his followers, from believing that Bar Kokhba was their promised savior, rather than Jesus, so they tried to make sure that Jesus's claim to the prophesy was more legitimate.

The opinion is that once Bar Kokhba succumbed to the conceit that he was the savior, that it was he, not God, that was responsible for the success of the revolt, that the Lord's grace abandoned him, and the Roman's crushed his revolt completely (although that likely had far more to do with Rome bringing in a massive army to stamp out dissent forever).

The other possibility is that since Herod ruled Judea as a client Kingdom, not as a governor, he had a little more leeway in how he conducted businesses. The Roman's mandated a census, but it was up to Herod to administer it in his lands. During the Bar Kohkba revolt, most of the documents from Herod's time were destroyed along with Herod's palace and the Great Temple.

Your argument is one from absence or silence. We don't "know" those things didn't happen simply because we don't have a record of them confirmed by a non-biblical sources other than the likes of Josephus. It's assumed that they didn't happen by those who disregard the Bible because there isn't corroborating evidence to support it.

quote:

---

Your argument is one from absence or silence. We don't "know" those things didn't happen simply because we don't have a record of them confirmed by a non-biblical sources other than the likes of Josephus. It's assumed that they didn't happen by those who disregard the Bible because there isn't corroborating evidence to support it.

---

We don't "know" aliens didn't build the pyramids, but we can assume it didn't from the lack of historical evidence and because it's an absurd claim.

The onus of proof is not on those denying that a fantastic and unlikely event occurred. It is you who is required to provide the evidence, evidence which in this case is COMPLETELY absent.

I have no more logical reason to believe your claim than I do any other unlikely religious event.