News, Pope: There Were No Animals at Birth of Jesus. (Torah, Pentateuch)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
PTSUM The Pope is right Jesus wasn't born on December 25 as the church selected that
day to "represent" Christs birth in order to substitute Jesus birth for Saturnalia or the
pagan day set asside to worship the sun god at winter solstice. Jesus was apparently
either born in spring (1 Nisan) which would be April (Gregorian calendar) or as the
christian astronomer suggests Jesus was concevied in December of 4BC during hanukka with Mary in temple (perhaps) when the moon was at the head of virgo (conception.) Hebrews consider conception birth by the way. Jesus was then born 9 months later on September 11 3 BC on Rosh Hashanah when the moon now was at the foot of virgo (birth). There I go ranting again!
IM with you on that date. September 11 is more accurate than the 25th of december.
With just over a month to go before Christmas, the Pope has declared that the presence of animals like cattle and donkeys in traditional Nativity scenes is based on little more than a myth.
The Greek word for manger is the case of Luke 2:7, 12, 16 is phatne, which means "feeding place." At Luke 13:15 phatne is translated as stall, where animals are kept. The corresponding Hebrew word for manger is evus, which the Greek Septuagint translates as phatne, along with three other Hebrew words which are translated as "stalls" (2 Chronicles 32:28), "enclosures" (Habakkuk 3:17), and "fodder" (Job 6:5).
Throughout Palestine archaeologists have found large troughs which were cut out of single pieces of limestone. These stalls measured about 3 feet (0.9 m) in length, 1.5 feet (0.5 m) wide and 2 feet (0.6 m) deep. More recently mangers were cut in the rock of cave walls and used for sheltering animals.
Luk_2:7 And she brought forth her Son, the firstborn, and swaddles Him, and cradles Him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the caravansary."
In the verse above there was a building attached to the caravansary where people could stay. A "manger" is like a box of hewn stone in which food for animals was placed. Therefore, it only makes sense He was born amongst animals. Being born in a manger has dual significance: He was to be food for creation; life giving sustenance.
A caravansary is where the people stored their donkeys, camels etc. after travelling all day. It is where they let the load off their animals and bedded them down for the night. Mary and Joseph, if they rode to Jerusalem on a donkey, which they most likely rode on since Mary was parturient with Jesus Luk_2:5 "to register together with Miriam, his espoused wife, who is parturient," (or great with child) would not have walked the journey, put their donkey in the caravansary to bed it down for the night.
Since there was no room anywhere for them to sleep for the night, Mary and Joseph bedded down in the caravansary with the animals.
At the end of Jesus' life he ate His last supper in a room of a caravansary where He let off the load of His impending death:
Mar_14:14 And wheresoever he may be entering, say to the householder that 'The Teacher is saying, "Where is My caravansary, where I may be eating the passover with My disciples?'"
Luk_22:11 And you will be declaring to the householder of the house, saying, 'The Teacher is saying to you, "Where is My caravansary where I may be eating the passover with My disciples?'"
It is only fitting that the King of the universe would be born in such a humble setting amongst God's beloved animals and would end His career amongst God's beloved animals.
Though I agree with your conclusion, you seem to be confusing the text, which reads that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room in the caravansary. A caravansary was a resting place for travelers and their animals, or caravans. An inn, or guest room. Usually dirty squalid places, enclosed unfurnished rooms surrounding a courtyard.
Thanks, I appreciate your reply. But really, I don't have anything to fear.
Here is a question for you: If Jesus was born in a manger, why would there be no animals around Jesus since mangers are to, (drum roll) feed animals? They didn't put the manger in the front lobby of the Hilton Inn you know. The Pope was not there when Jesus was born so how could he possibly know there were no animals around Jesus when He was born? Why would you trust the head of one of the largest financial corporations to tell you the truth anyway?
Jesus having been born in a manger doesn't necessarily imply that there were animals present at that time, however, the fact that the inn was full does imply the presence of animals.
This is nothing new, it has long been pointed out that the general concept of the Nativity scene is in error. READ also READ
I think what are now seeing is it is becoming evident that many concepts about Jesus(as) are nothing more than stories by the early church fathers and not the words of eye witnesses. The Pope is trying to do damage control and sort of retroactively saying these were never the teachings of Catholicism.
Last edited by Woodrow LI; 11-26-2012 at 10:05 AM..
By foot was about the most common way of travel, even for very long distance. The native Americans of the Plains tribes until the arrival of the Spaniards traveled on foot thousands of miles each year following the Bison herds. The entire Holy Land region is smaller than the State of North Dakota.
While some probably did come on donkey or camel as this was a warm time of year the most probable way to keep the animals would have been to hobble or tie them out on the street. While none of that proves there were no animals in the stable, it was likely there would not be that time of year.
The journey was about 93 miles (150 km) distance in hilly terrain. Bethlehem has an altitude of over 2,500 feet (760 m). She would have most likely traveled on a donkey.
Luke 2:2 "This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3All went to their own towns to be registered. 4Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David"
Josephus. Jewish Antiquities, chap 18:1-4
"Quirinius also visited Judaea, which had been annexed to Syria, in order to make an assessment of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus".
Quirinius conducted a census of Judaea in 6 A.D. when Judaea came under direct Roman control following the exile of Archelaus, King Herod's son, and inheritor 10 years after Herod's death in 4 B.C.
But Nazareth was in Galilee, not Judea. Galilee remained under the rulership of Herod Antipas who conducted any census necessary and collected taxes. He ruled until about 37 A.D. Quirinius was never the governor of Galilee, hence, he didn't conduct a census nor collect any taxes in Galilee. This was under the contol of Antipas.
Hence, Joseph and Mary would not have traveled to Bethlehem at all.
But Luke had to find some way to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, so he developed this story.
The registration taken while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria in c. 6 C.E. (Acts 5:37) was the second registration under Quirinius.
Inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch reveal that years earlier Quirinius served as the emperor's legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291)
The Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) reads: "The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria."
His first governorship is often placed between the years of 4 and 1 B.C.E. and probably from 3 to 2 B.C.E.
Luke didn't develop the story, he gave an accurate historical account.
The journey was about 93 miles (150 km) distance in hilly terrain. Bethlehem has an altitude of over 2,500 feet (760 m). She would have most likely traveled on a donkey.
Since she was pregnant that is probable. But the donkey may have been hobbled or tied out on the street as the weather was warm based on the shepherds being out in the fields.That depends on the story about the census being true.
If it was true that means they travelled about 23 miles per day as it says it was a 4 day trip. That is not an insurmountable rate of walking. I know people on the Cheyenne River Rez who think nothing of walking 20 miles to buy groceries at Eagle Butte and return home on the same day, loaded down with groceries. The "famous" 50 mile hike during Army basic usually took 15 hours to complete that included a 15 minute smoke break ever 2 hours and a 30 minute lunch break.
Since she was pregnant that is probable. But the donkey may have been hobbled or tied out on the street as the weather was warm based on the shepherds being out in the fields.That depends on the story about the census being true.
If it was true that means they traveled about 23 miles per day as it says it was a 4 day trip. That is not an insurmountable rate of walking. I know people on the Cheyenne River Rez who think nothing of walking 20 miles to buy groceries at Eagle Butte and return home on the same day, loaded down with groceries. The "famous" 50 mile hike during Army basic usually took 15 hours to complete that included a 15 minute smoke break ever 2 hours and a 30 minute lunch break.
You bring up excellent points, but how different would you say that an estimation would be considering these people were, after all Jews. For example, they sacrificed animals, were they traveling with animals then? There are also some pretty strict regulations in the Mosaic law regarding residing with animals.
Personally, I think it most likely there were some animals nearby, but they weren't likely eating from the trough where Jesus was bundled. The traditional appearance of the nativity scene in the obviously pagan mythology of Christmas is more symbolic than anything. There are so few details regarding the birth because the apostles and Jesus himself saw them as insignificant.
You bring up excellent points, but how different would you say that an estimation would be considering these people were, after all Jews. For example, they sacrificed animals, were they traveling with animals then? There are also some pretty strict regulations in the Mosaic law regarding residing with animals.
Personally, I think it most likely there were some animals nearby, but they weren't likely eating from the trough where Jesus was bundled. The traditional appearance of the nativity scene in the obviously pagan mythology of Christmas is more symbolic than anything. There are so few details regarding the birth because the apostles and Jesus himself saw them as insignificant.
I am not Jewish and can not speak as a Jew. However as a Muslim I can give the Islamic view most of us are taught. Islam and Judaism often agree about restrictions placed on us. A Muslim can not sleep or pray in any room were and animal has defecated until after it has been cleaned in an approved manner. A Pious Muslim would sleep out in a field before sleeping in a structure or room that houses animals nor would they offer such a room/structure to another person. I suspect that would be similar for Pious Jews.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
