Some of My Thoughts about Christmas

[Traveler]

Jesus and his family (Parents) were not poor nor homeless.  When the couple arrived in Bethlehem they intended to secure and pay for their stay at the Inn.  The reason they did not stay at the Inn was not because they could not pay for it.  In fact their rejection at the Inn may not have been according to the popular notion that there was “no room at the Inn”.  Luke says that “There was no room for them” at the Inn.  We see in other places that later in his life, Jesus was looked down upon with prejudice because he was from Nazareth.  

I have pondered that Joseph and Mary (despite her being “great with child”) were rejected from staying at the inn – not because there was no room available but because they were from Nazareth and not wanted or accepted by the more established in Bethlehem and nearby Jerusalem.  In other words they were scorned and rejected because of social prejudices among the elitists and want-to-be of that day.

There is no mention in any scripture or any other ancient writing that the Inn keeper took pity on Mary and offer a place in a stable in the back yard.  I believe the stable narrative to be a complete fabrication and I cannot for any logical reason understand why this myth has been perpetrated.  Other ancient documents of the time indicate that Jesus was born in a cave on the outskirts of Bethlehem.   These caves were often used by the lower social class and what the Jews call “Strangers”.  Jesus was placed in a manger but there is not mention in scripture or any other ancient record that they were sleeping with animals.  It is my speculation that a manger was a makeshift bed to keep the baby Jesus off the ground.

I mentioned the likelihood this weekend to a member friend that Jesus was born in a cave and not a stable and the friend reprimanded me for “teaching contrary to scripture”.  This surprised me a little so I asked where they thought Jesus was born and the response was a stable as the scriptures clearly indicate.  So I asked – Where in the scriptures they got that idea?  And why they believed such contrary to scripture stuff that Jesus was born in a stable. 

I believe we parted with the friend still believing that somewhere the scriptures specifically say Jesus was born in a stable that that I was an apostate believing otherwise.  Another member friend asked me the infamous question – What difference does it make?  Why stir the pot and create controversy?  Hmmmmmmm why is it controversial to understand what the scripture tells us and if we are to speculate to be educated concerning the ancient customs and conditions that actually apply to the time and place?  Why is being informed controversial?

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

Just wanna leave this here:

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/12/pope-christmas-reminds-us-that-jesus-was-a-migrant

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Jesus and his family (Parents) were not poor nor homeless. 

They may not have been homeless, but there was a sign that they were fairly poor at one highlighted point in their lives.  When Jesus was circumcised, they sacrificed a pair of pigeons.  The pigeons generally meant that the parents were poor as opposed to those who could sacrifice a pair of turtledoves.

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

They may not have been homeless, but there was a sign that they were fairly poor at one highlighted point in their lives.  When Jesus was circumcised, they sacrificed a pair of pigeons.  The pigeons generally meant that the parents were poor as opposed to those who could sacrifice a pair of turtledoves.

I agree.  Research leads us to believe that Jesus was middle class to slightly above middle class. Being a carpenter was a skilled job back then, so Joseph wasn't dirt poor. 

[Traveler]

From the 1st century of the Christian era there are writings that Mary was not the first marriage of Joseph.  There are indications that Joseph was previously married with children that were left home in Nazareth.  That the siblings of Jesus were older not younger siblings.  The assumption that Joseph was poor are in my thinking not accurate.  Joseph has been in Bethlehem for an extended period of time and it is possible that they were just running low on their budget when Jesus was circumcised.  They did not carrier credit cards and would have to pay cash.  I believe that Joseph paid what he could based on the cash he had with him at that moment of time.  I would point out that Jesus was educated and literate.  He could both read and write as well as his siblings – this would indicate that Joseph was upper middle class.  Only about 10% of the population was literate and Joseph’s family were part of that upper class

 

The Traveler

Edited December 19, 2016 by Traveler

[Vort]

22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

They may not have been homeless, but there was a sign that they were fairly poor at one highlighted point in their lives.  When Jesus was circumcised, they sacrificed a pair of pigeons.  The pigeons generally meant that the parents were poor as opposed to those who could sacrifice a pair of turtledoves.

That's a good point. My impression, though, is that by the time of the Roman occupation, the cultural expectation was that rich people who wanted to show off their wealth sacrificed a lamb for their firstborn, but the regular people sacrificed a turtledove or pigeon instead, as specified in Leviticus. Another possibility is that Mary's labor was a surprise, brought on by the 70-mile trip to Bethlehem, and that after staying the extra month to wait the requisite time for ritual purification, Joseph didn't have the resources on hand to buy a lamb. Not sure how convincing I find this idea, but it's a possibility.

EDIT: Note that the sacrifice of pigeons (or a lamb) was separate from the circumcision, which took place on the eighth day (i.e. at seven days old). The sacrifice for the firstborn was made after the time of purification was completed, which in the case of a male child was thirty-three days.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Vort

[Vort]

52 minutes ago, Traveler said:

From the 1st century of the Christian era there are writings that Mary was not the first marriage of Joseph.  There are indications that Joseph was previously married with children that were left home in Nazareth.  That the siblings of Jesus were older not younger siblings.

I have no problem with the idea that Joseph may have been significantly older than Mary, and perhaps even a widower. But I would note that the reason for these legends appears to be related to the Catholic idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary, an idea that I daresay most Latter-day Saints disbelieve.

[anatess2]

34 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have no problem with the idea that Joseph may have been significantly older than Mary, and perhaps even a widower. But I would note that the reason for these legends appears to be related to the Catholic idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary, an idea that I daresay most Latter-day Saints disbelieve.

Yes, a lot of the Christmas narrative is from Catholic interpretations - not necessarily from the magisterium but mostly from philosophers or artists passing the interpretative stories down through the generations.  A perfect example of this is the wings on the Angel.  This is not a Catholic teaching from the magisterium but rather from an artist's depiction of the angel visiting Mary and the Shepherds with wings drawn to illustrate a spiritual manifestation.  The image gets passed down as it gets used to design stained-glass windows, costumes on live nativity plays, etc.  This is also true for the Holy Family's depiction as poor and lowly people.

The Catholic magisterium does teach that Joseph the carpenter and Mary his cousin are of royal lineage.  If Rome didn't conquer the Jews leading Rome to appoint their ruler, Joseph would have been the King of the Jews.  So, Jesus would have been the literal earthly successor of the King of the Jews at his birth which is the reason the Romans mocked him with the crown of thorns and the sign on the cross.  This, of course, requires that Jesus is Joseph's first-born, so the magisterium does not teach that Joseph has older sons from a previous marriage.

Although Romans took rulership over the Jews, the royal descendants would not have descended to the level of the destitute poor... but, of course, that's just my assumption.

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I mentioned the likelihood this weekend to a member friend that Jesus was born in a cave and not a stable and the friend reprimanded me for “teaching contrary to scripture”.  This surprised me a little so I asked where they thought Jesus was born and the response was a stable as the scriptures clearly indicate.  So I asked – Where in the scriptures they got that idea?  And why they believed such contrary to scripture stuff that Jesus was born in a stable.

People ask me if I was born in a barn all the time...

But if He was laid in a manger, the manger must have been located in at least a functional stable, even if it was a cave or a sheep-cot.

Edited December 19, 2016 by CV75

[mrmarklin]

I was in Bethlehem last May (2016) and it's for sure Jesus was born in a cave, not a stable. I actually saw the place beneath a church. 

 

Its lined with marble and there is a 14 pointed gold star that marks the ACTUAL place of birth. 

 

Nothing like the the real thing to relieve speculation.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

the ACTUAL place of birth

Says who?

[mrmarklin]

24 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Says who?

Have you been there?

 

There was a church built on top centuries old. Was Jesus born in another town, not Bethlehem?

Edited December 20, 2016 by mrmarklin
Addl info

[Guest]

"Exact spot", though? According to whom?

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Eowyn said:

"Exact spot", though? According to whom?

Thie cave over which the Church of the Nativity is built by Helena (Constantinople's mother) is the birth place of Christ according to Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church as declared by Saint Justin Martyr and confirmed by Origen.

[anatess2]

6 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I was in Bethlehem last May (2016) and it's for sure Jesus was born in a cave, not a stable. I actually saw the place beneath a church. 

Just because the site is a cave doesn't mean it wasn't a stable.  We are talking about Bethlehem in approx 32 BC... it's a desert.  Trees are few and far between.  People built shelter around caves.  So, a house might be free standing or on a mountainside and built using rocks but stables are more likely to go the easier and simpler route of shallow caves... or just have the animals live on the lower room (as opposed to the more fancy upper room of Last Supper fame) of the house with the servants.

The thought that Jesus was born in a stable is, of course, derived from the Biblical narrative of the manger.

Edited December 20, 2016 by anatess2

[mrmarklin]

I agree. A cave can certainly be used as a stable.

 

i misstated and should been more exact in my comment.

Edited December 20, 2016 by mrmarklin

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

Joseph has been in Bethlehem for an extended period of time and it is possible that they were just running low on their budget when Jesus was circumcised.  They did not carrier credit cards and would have to pay cash.  I believe that Joseph paid what he could based on the cash he had with him at that moment of time. 

 

20 hours ago, Vort said:

after staying the extra month to wait the requisite time for ritual purification, Joseph didn't have the resources on hand to buy a lamb.

I certainly agree that is a possible alternate explanation.

[Traveler]

22 hours ago, Vort said:

I have no problem with the idea that Joseph may have been significantly older than Mary, and perhaps even a widower. But I would note that the reason for these legends appears to be related to the Catholic idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary, an idea that I daresay most Latter-day Saints disbelieve.

The idea that Joseph was older and a widower comes initially from an ancient document called “The Protevangelion”.  Historically this document was believed to have been written by James the brother of Jesus, Apostle and the first Bishop of Jerusalem.  From other early writings that reference this document we know it to have existed during the first century of the Christian era – which predates various “Catholic” ideas that were not officially debated until the Ecumenical Councils beginning in 325 AD.

This is considered the oldest reference that Jesus was born in a cave.  The problem with our modern era and this document is that it was not published until the 1500’s and the oldest current copies are dated in the Middle Ages – so we are left to speculate concerning the changes made deliberately or by human error over time.  I would point out that this document is the primary proof that Zachariah was murdered on the steps of the temple.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The idea that Joseph was older and a widower comes initially from an ancient document called “The Protevangelion”.

Or at least that's the oldest document we have for these ideas. And as you say, it predates the Roman Catholic Church by several centuries. But there were many such documents floating around that purported to be written by this or that apostle and that promulgated all sorts of strange doctrines. The Protevangelion of James put forth the perpetual virginity of Mary (as well as the idea that Joseph was an older widower). These particular ideas were adopted into Roman Catholicism, which was the point I intended to make. Other doctrines put forth in other letters and documents, such as the premortal existence of the human soul, were condemned and destroyed, and did not become a part of Roman Catholicism. Thus, we have no enduring legends related to premortal existence. Catholicism's acceptance of some doctrines and condemnation of others filtered what has come down to us.

[Traveler]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Or at least that's the oldest document we have for these ideas. And as you say, it predates the Roman Catholic Church by several centuries. But there were many such documents floating around that purported to be written by this or that apostle and that promulgated all sorts of strange doctrines. The Protevangelion of James put forth the perpetual virginity of Mary (as well as the idea that Joseph was an older widower). These particular ideas were adopted into Roman Catholicism, which was the point I intended to make. Other doctrines put forth in other letters and documents, such as the premortal existence of the human soul, were condemned and destroyed, and did not become a part of Roman Catholicism. Thus, we have no enduring legends related to premortal existence. Catholicism's acceptance of some doctrines and condemnation of others filtered what has come down to us.

Actually the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is more closely related to the Gospel of the birth of Mary.  However this document also gives fuel to the concept that the term “virgin” has a different meaning that attributed in our modern time.   According to the Gospel of the birth of Mary there was an angel that announced to Mary’s mother that Mary was an exceptional child.  Because of the visit of the angel Mary’s mother took the child as an infant to the temple.  A girl dedicated to G-d from birth to be raised and trained at the temple had the ancient title of virgin. 

It is interesting that according to this document Mary was given to a priest and his wife (that were childless) to raise the girl – the name of the priest was Zachariah.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

32 minutes ago, Vort said:

Or at least that's the oldest document we have for these ideas. And as you say, it predates the Roman Catholic Church by several centuries. But there were many such documents floating around that purported to be written by this or that apostle and that promulgated all sorts of strange doctrines. The Protevangelion of James put forth the perpetual virginity of Mary (as well as the idea that Joseph was an older widower). These particular ideas were adopted into Roman Catholicism, which was the point I intended to make. Other doctrines put forth in other letters and documents, such as the premortal existence of the human soul, were condemned and destroyed, and did not become a part of Roman Catholicism. Thus, we have no enduring legends related to premortal existence. Catholicism's acceptance of some doctrines and condemnation of others filtered what has come down to us.

Ahhhh.... actually..... there's some nuance to this as far as pre-mortal existence goes (which also applies to a lot of things including the exact site of Jesus' birth).

Okay, the Protestant's main beef with Catholicism is because of the authority of Sacred Tradition which is in addition to the Bible.  Sacred Tradition doesn't have to be documents or anything written.  It can be oral traditions handed down from the Apostles and Disciples in the age of the Acts.  Now, when the last Apostle died, the Catholics maintain that Apostolic Authority passed to the Bishops.  So Sacred Tradition flows through this authority.  Saints like Justin Martyr and Origen (technically not a Saint as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned due to some things he held on to that were considered apostate) held and taught the understanding of premortal existence.  It wasn't technically part of Sacred Tradition as the teaching did not originate from the Apostles as far as the early Fathers can find evidence but rather it came from pagan teaching.  Martyr believed that there are traces of Christian Truth in pagan writings. 

So then the gnostics came and added more confusion to the teachings as they introduce theologies from Greek bishops that contradicted the Roman bishops such as the confusion over the God of the OT versus the God of the NT so much so that the early Church Fathers had to step in and purify Sacred Tradition.  In this purification process, the teaching on pre-mortal existence was rejected mainly through bishop Irenaeous declaring the teaching as tainted with pagan Greek philosophies.  Bishop Irenaeous, along with the Roman bishops, taught that the God of the OT is the same God as the NT and that without God we are nothing.  This teaching got included into Sacred Tradition, the contradicting Greek teaching of pre-mortal existence advanced by the Greek bishops did not... and this is just another cog in the wheel that eventually led to the East-West schism.

Interestingly, the Protestants with the their sola scriptura position believes that the Bible teaches creatio ex nihilo...

Edited December 20, 2016 by anatess2

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ahhhh.... actually..... there's some nuance to this as far as pre-mortal existence goes (which also applies to a lot of things including the exact site of Jesus' birth).

Very interesting Catholic history. But the bottom line seems to be as I wrote: Doctrines that were accepted and promoted by early Catholicism became the standard of belief (including such falsehoods as the "perpetual virginity" of Mary), and doctrines that were rejected by early Catholicism became the standard of heresy (including such truths as the premortal existence of human spirits).

Do you agree with this? Was I missing something in what you wrote?

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Very interesting Catholic history. But the bottom line seems to be as I wrote: Doctrines that were accepted and promoted by early Catholicism became the standard of belief (including such falsehoods as the "perpetual virginity" of Mary), and doctrines that were rejected by early Catholicism became the standard of heresy (including such truths as the premortal existence of human spirits).

Do you agree with this? Was I missing something in what you wrote?

The nuance is that before Joseph Smith restored the teaching under the proper authority, pre-mortal existence was a pagan teaching that got adopted by Greek bishops outside of Apostolic teaching... so yes, the Catholic Church rejected it - for good reason.  I mean - it was the best they could do with the authority they had at the time.

Edited December 20, 2016 by anatess2

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The nuance is that before Joseph Smith restored the teaching under the proper authority, pre-mortal existence was a pagan teaching that got adopted by Greek bishops... so yes, the Catholic Church rejected it - for good reason.  I mean - it was the best they could do with the authority they had at the time.

My original point was not that the Roman Catholic Church is a hive of scum and villany and that we should reject out of hand anything tainted by Catholicism. Rather, it was that Catholic teachings have conditioned our beliefs, and we as Latter-day Saints ought to be aware of that conditioning and not allow ourselves to accept some tradition just because that's what "they" say. Mary was not perpetually a virgin, even though many people like to think so. Joseph may or may not have been significantly older than Mary, and may or may not have been a widower, but there is no internal evidence for either of those ideas in the scripture. (Well, the fact that Joseph appears to have died before Jesus might point toward an older Joseph who died of old age when Jesus was only 30 or so, but that's speculation. He may have died of disease, or of a work-related accident, or of a middle-age heart attack, or something else.) Jesus may or may not have been born in a stable; we know only that, after his birth, he was laid in a manger.

Last Sunday at Church we sang "Far, Far Away on Judea's Plain". But Judea is a mountainous area; there are no plains anywhere near Bethlehem. But English and other European shepherds raised their flocks on open plains, so when a Mormon Saint wrote the hymn in the late 19th century, he just naturally assumed that the "fields" mentioned in the Bible (where the shepherds watched over their flocks by night) were plains near Bethlehem. And for the sake of the hymn, that's fine. But we should not therefore believe that there must be extensive plains near Bethlehem.

[anatess2]

59 minutes ago, Vort said:

My original point was not that the Roman Catholic Church is a hive of scum and villany and that we should reject out of hand anything tainted by Catholicism. Rather, it was that Catholic teachings have conditioned our beliefs, and we as Latter-day Saints ought to be aware of that conditioning and not allow ourselves to accept some tradition just because that's what "they" say. Mary was not perpetually a virgin, even though many people like to think so. Joseph may or may not have been significantly older than Mary, and may or may not have been a widower, but there is no internal evidence for either of those ideas in the scripture. (Well, the fact that Joseph appears to have died before Jesus might point toward an older Joseph who died of old age when Jesus was only 30 or so, but that's speculation. He may have died of disease, or of a work-related accident, or of a middle-age heart attack, or something else.) Jesus may or may not have been born in a stable; we know only that, after his birth, he was laid in a manger.

Last Sunday at Church we sang "Far, Far Away on Judea's Plain". But Judea is a mountainous area; there are no plains anywhere near Bethlehem. But English and other European shepherds raised their flocks on open plains, so when a Mormon Saint wrote the hymn in the late 19th century, he just naturally assumed that the "fields" mentioned in the Bible (where the shepherds watched over their flocks by night) were plains near Bethlehem. And for the sake of the hymn, that's fine. But we should not therefore believe that there must be extensive plains near Bethlehem.

Yes, I understand what you are saying (or I think I do) and no, I don't believe you intended to paint the Catholic include/reject process as villainy.  My point that I did not succeed in expressing is that we can't put pre-mortal existence in the same bucket as other "traditions".  The only reason pre-mortal existence is gospel truth is because of Joseph Smith.  Even Protestants who are sola scriptura interpreted the Biblical teaching as creatio ex nihilo.  So, if Joseph Smith did not restore that particular truth we would be thinking it strange doctrine today as its source is not Apostolic but pagan.  It isn't lost (even without LDS) as it is in Greek philosophy.

This specific teaching is different from others like... perpetual virginity, for example... as perpetual virginity is not definitively contradicted by Joseph Smith and other latter-day prophets, so it remains speculative for the LDS even as it is gospel truth to Catholics with its roots in Sacred Tradition.  Or say, the teaching that Jesus is married to Mary Magdalene which is rejected by both LDS and Catholics but still have documents that survived through today.

And yes, this has gotten far removed from the original subject of the Protevangelion.  I was simply commenting that pre-mortal existence can't be put in the same light as the Protevangelion because of Joseph Smith's restoration.  Everything else we get to speculate if they could be true or not as long as they remain compatible with LDS teaching.

Did that make sense?

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by anatess2