I came across this gem today:
This research suggests that the Bethlehem venerated by modern Christians today, is NOT the assumed Bethlehem that Jesus is believed to have been born in – an Israeli archaeologist suggests. What I find surprising is how eager the Zionist ideologues of modern Israel are to disprove Christian belief, whilst enforcing a rightwing (and generally ‘ahistorical’) version of Jewish religious history (which has seen Palestinians killed in the past, in its propagation and protection). As religions are mostly myth, there is no reason for any of them to possess an objective historicity such as that associated with the development of the water-wheel, or the combustion engine, for instance. Religions, at least in there original form, have been vehicles for the exploration of ‘inner’ space, an essentially psychological device that does not require historically observable markers in the materiality of the external world. It is only through the politicisation of religions, that sees a priestly-elite abandon the inner search, and replaced it with the grasping and wielding of external political power (such as in the case of various Jewish sects and the Church of Rome, etc), that a legitimising historicity in the external environment becomes important. Modern Zionist Israel, for example, possesses no historical legitimising in ancient Palestine, but tries to compensate for this lack of material presence through the brutal use of military arms in the area. All these issue must be taken into account when assessing the often bizarre world of Biblical ‘scholarship’. This is a netherworld where the usual standards of objective academia are viewed as being tainted by the ‘devil’ – but I say ‘no’ to this nonsense. The human intellect is more than capable of dealing with this subject and shining a rational light upon it.
Inconsistencies to watch-out for whilst reading this article:
a) Jesus is referred to as a ‘Nazarene’ in early Hebrew Biblical texts – meaning ‘healer’. This was incorrectly translated into Greek as ‘Nazareth’, and mistakenly interpreted to mean the birthplace of Jesus. However, modern archaeology has revealed that during the supposed life-time of Jesus, Nazareth either did not exist, or was a place of Jewish burial, and not a place of routine habitation. Conclusion – Jesus did not come from Nazareth.
b) There is no objective evidence that a man called ‘Yeshua Ben Yoseph’ (Joshua son of Joseph), was ‘born’ or ‘existed’. His Hebrew name has been rendered into Greek as ‘Jesus Christos’ – (Son of Zeus – the Anointed One). In other words, although discussed in this article as being proven to have existed, the historicity of Jesus remains highly suspect.
c) The ‘no hypothesis’. Rational academia (and science) works from the principle that ‘nothing is happening’, or has ‘been established’ as happening, (or has ‘happened’ in the past), until verified objective evidence has been gathered, assessed and agreed to be correct. Much paranormal and religious ‘scholarship’ is in fact, an exercise in pseudo-academia, where the subject matter is assumed to ‘exist’ and be ‘correct’ a priori. This is the inverse of the ‘no hypothesis’, and is nothing more than the attempted legitimisation of personal opinion and bias, and the twisting of objective facts to fit this imagined reality. This article assumes too much without prior proof. Jesus could not have been born in different Bethlehem – if he was not born at all!