Christmas 2014: Jesus Was Not Born in a Stable, Says Theologian?

It’s the story that everyone knows: Jesus was born in a barn, surrounded by farm animals and shepherds, because there was no room at the inn.

But now, a British biblical scholar is challenging the nativity tale, and insists that a closer reading of the Gospel of Luke demonstrates that Mary is more likely to have given birth from the comfort of a family’s upper room.

“I am sorry to spoil your preparations for Christmas,” wrote Reverend Ian Paul on his blog, an evangelical scholar at the University of Nottingham, “but Jesus wasn’t born in a stable, and, curiously, the New Testament hardly even hints that this might have been the case.”

This misconception hinges, he claims, on the mistranslation of the Greek word “kataluma”, which has historically been taken to mean inn.

The word is used elsewhere in the bible as a word to mean “private upper room” where Jesus and his disciples ate the Last Supper in the Gospel of Mark. Meanwhile, Luke uses another word – “pandocheion”, meaning a gathering place for travellers – to refer to an inn.

There’s a social context Rev Paul believes modern readers are missing, too.

He writes: “In the first place, it would be unthinkable that Joseph, returning to his place of ancestral origins, would not have been received by family members, even if they were not close relatives.”

Taking into account the fact that most people’s homes at the time would have had one room for family, and either a second room for guests and animals, or a space on the roof, it seems, he says, much more likely that there would have been no space in the guestroom.

“The family guest room is already full, probably with other relatives who arrived earlier,” he argues. “So Joseph and Mary must stay with the family itself, in the main room of the house, and there Mary gives birth.”

The manger aspect of the story is easily explained too. “The most natural place to lay the baby” would have been “in the straw-filled depressions at the lower end of the house where the animals are fed”, says Rev Paul.

So what does this mean for our religious understanding of the story? Some scholars, including Rev Paul, believe that the story as we have it today promotes the idea that Christ is somehow ostracised from society, rejected by his people and forced into a lowly cattleshed. Instead, he says, we should be seeing the newborn Jesus as arriving in a busy, loving and welcoming family home – and not distanced from humanity.

Original Article:  http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/jesus-was-not-born-in-a-stable-says-theologian-9944254.html

With almost 3 billion people online now, we have never been so connected. So as followers of Christ, now is our chance to reach out to the online mission field that is at our finger tips. At Godinterest our desire is that this generation would be bold enough to stand up and make the most of what God has placed in our hands, literally, to make sure that no person journeys through their life without hearing what Jesus has done for them.

 

 

When Technology Gets Too Smart?

We cannot quite know what will happen if a machine exceeds our own intelligence, so we can’t know if we’ll be infinitely helped by it, or ignored by it and sidelined, or conceivably destroyed by it.  — Stephen Hawking

Are we in love with how smart we are? Today, there are technology companies that have a much larger “cult following” than any religious organization. And there are millions upon millions of Americans that freely confess that they “believe in science” instead of God.

So what does this say about us? Does it say that we have discarded ancient “superstitions” and instead have embraced logic and reason?

Sadly, in most cases the truth is that we have simply traded one form of religion for another. Scientists and technology gurus have become most peoples new high priests, and most of us blindly follow whatever they tell us. But in the end, just like with so many   organizations, it is all about the money. Those with the money determine what the science is going to say, who the high priests are going to be, and what messages are conveyed to the public. For example, once upon a time the big tobacco companies had armies of doctors and scientists that swore up and down that smoking cigarettes was not harmful. In fact, many doctors and dentists in America once personally endorsed specific brands of cigarettes. Of course millions of Americans were getting sick and dying, but this was dismissed as “anecdotal evidence”. And over in Germany, “science” was once used to prove that the Germans were the master race.

We look back in horror now, but at the time the best “science” in the world was used as justification to promote some horrible untruths. And of course the same thing is happening today. We are told over and over that “the  science  is settled” regarding genetically-modified food, climate change and vaccine safety, and yet those of us that think for ourselves know that isn’t the case at all. But if you do not believe in the “official story”, you don’t get to be part of the “scientific establishment”. By definition, the only people that get to be “scientific experts” are the ones that embrace the “doctrine” of those that control the big corporations, that fund the research studies at the major universities and that own the big media outlets.

Everyone else is not permitted to be part of the discussion. (Story by Michael Snyder, republished from  EndOftheAmericanDream.com.)

 

As seen on