It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

a challenge for bible believers and biblical literalists

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
now, i know there are many who don't take too much stock in the historical aspects of the bible and prefer to go in and look for a spiritual meaning behind the text that excludes historical aspects, but for those that dont':

the slaughter of the innocents. can you prove that it happened? writings, mass graves, evidence of a small rebellion?
i mean honestly, something that big couldn't have happened without people writing something about it for over 80 years.

so, does anyone have anything to support the historicity of this biblical event?




posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
First, what slaughter are you referring to.

Second, did the ones that performed the slaughter also control the writings of history?

Third, have you tried applying common sense and logic to your questions?



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
A Wiki Link to the Slaughter of the Innocents, for those who have never heard of it.

Google is your best friend.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
First, what slaughter are you referring to.


answered



Second, did the ones that performed the slaughter also control the writings of history?


it doesn't matter if they controlled the writing of history, there would be mass graves of infants.



Third, have you tried applying common sense and logic to your questions?


yes, i have.

and masqua is right, google is your bff



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
A Wiki Link to the Slaughter of the Innocents, for those who have never heard of it.



Never said I had never heard of it, I said what slaughter are you referring to. A similar event occured in Egypt. I wanted to know if the Egytians were supposed to write of this slaughter after they had their own first born killed.

Madness

Since you are referring to King Herod, are you expecting the historians of Herod the king to record these events. Please....Try logic.

Second why would you expect to find a mass grave with these bodies. The soldiers killed the newborns where they found them. Everyone likely buried there own children. Again.........try applying common sense and logic.




I was expecting some kind of challenge. Surely you can do better. You have the whole internet to gather false information from. This was a yawner.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by Sun Matrix]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Since you are referring to King Herod, are you expecting the historians of Herod the king to record these events. Please....Try logic.


no, i'd expect the rabbis that it would have pissed the F off to write about it. there was an entire class of literate people that would have been able to write about it, herod wasn't the only person with historians.

secondly, wouldn't this have caused a rebellion? any culture in the time would have gone off on a rage had this happened, not to mention the hebrew culture




Second why would you expect to find a mass grave with these bodies. The soldiers killed the newborns where they found them. Everyone likely buried there own children. Again.........try applying common sense and logic.


ok, then we'd find a disproportianate amount of graves with small children in them.




I was expecting some kind of challenge. Surely you can do better. You have the whole internet to gather false information from. This was a yawner.


you haven't even provided evidence. all you've shown is that their is an absence of evidence, therefore your side is true



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Quote from www.tektonics.org...

Although much has been made of the Slaughter of the Innocents - and indeed, any such event would be tragic - there is no reason to assume that it could be considered high on the list of Herod's atrocities in terms of scope or magnitude.

How many boys aged two and under could there have been in and around the tiny city of Bethlehem? Five? Ten? Matthew does not give a number. Josephus says that Herod murdered a vast number of people, and was so cruel to those he didn't kill that the living considered the dead to be fortunate. Thus, indirectly, Josephus tells us that there were many atrocities that Herod committed that he does not mention in his histories - and it is probable that authorizing the killing of the presumably few male infants in the vicinity of Bethlehem was a minuscule blot of the blackness that was the reign of Herod. Being that the events of the reign of Herod involved practically one atrocity after another - it is observed by one writer, with a minimum of hyperbole, that hardly a day in his 36-year reign passed when someone wasn't sentenced to death - why should any one event in particular have touched off a rebellion, when others in particular, including those recorded by Josephus, did not? Herod probably died in March or April of 4 BC; the Slaughter would therefore have occurred during one of his last two years on earth, and it is ridiculous to say that the things he did in the previous 34 years - equally, if not more so, a time of political unrest among the Jews - was insufficient to incite rebellion, whereas killing a few male infants in a backwater suburb would be sufficient in comparison.

Furthermore, a revolt would have been unlikely in any event. For all of his ruthlessness, Herod was nowhere near the monster the likes of, say, Caligula. More importantly, he was careful to not offend Jewish religious sensibilities; Josephus records only two instances where pious Jews questioned him on such matters. In Jewish eyes, Herod might have been a devil, but he was a nicer devil to have in charge than a Roman devil! The Slaughter of the Innocents, though, is something that fits in perfectly with the character of Herod. Also, is it perhaps not too far a reach to wonder whether Herod - who had his own son assassinated - hired vigilantes of some sort to perpetrate the Slaughter, and that it was not connected to him until his death which was shortly thereafter, when it was too late for anyone to vent their anger on him?



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I'd have to say it is certainly MORE possible than dubious...

simply because it is not the only travesty that could be defined in that certain phrase - it is a human tendency to slaughter the innocent in our midst - and truly, once something is defined as a 'slaughter' all those who rose up in violence against others become, by default, 'guilty' and therefore those who were victimized are automatically 'innocent'

No?

Examples:

the Salem Witch trials
the inquisition
ALL the crusades
WWI and WWII
the slavery of Africans on the North American continent
the decimation of Meso-american societies as well as that of the Native North Americans....

How many were justified, somehow, on the grounds of it being G.O.D.'s will and not man's?

All but the two World Wars....which I, personally, believe to be the only two incidents that were brought upon man by spirit - in order to teach us a lesson!

We kill each other over and over for the most preposterous reasons! If there is a G.O.D. who is both Truth and Love...then surely that G.O.D. would tire of seeing his progeny act so atrociously toward one another in his name!

If you want it like that - then LET'S DO IT! (that is what my mind's eye can imagine!)

surely mankind is to the point of being SICK TO DEATH of the killing that we will finally get beyond such irrational behavior! Time to become Vulcans and live long and prosper in a logical fashion! Not devoid of emotions but rather no longer DRIVEN by our emotions!

Empathy is the only way toward peace - we must all be victimized and also tyrants who slaughter - THEN we will all understand what it's like...to be the same.

Because, essentially, we are!



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
gionduu, bethlehem? that's not the only place that has been suggested in the bible as the supposed birthplace of the supposed character of jesus.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


gionduu, bethlehem? that's not the only place that has been suggested in the bible as the supposed birthplace of the supposed character of jesus


What are the other places our Saviour is said to be born in?



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by whirlwind
What are the other places our Saviour is said to be born in?


i think the other place is nazareth... it could be jerusalem... but the entire point of going back to bethleham (for a census that never happened) is also odd... since romans wouldn't give half a flying pig's tail where the family originated, only the hebrew tradition would mandate that... romans didn't really care for local tradition.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

i think the other place is nazareth... it could be jerusalem... but the entire point of going back to bethleham (for a census that never happened) is also odd... since romans wouldn't give half a flying pig's tail where the family originated, only the hebrew tradition would mandate that... romans didn't really care for local tradition


A footnote in my Companion bible, E.W. Bullinger states:

A Papyrus (in British Museum), being a rescript of the Prefect Gaius Vibius Maximus (A.D. 103-4), shows that Herod must have been acting under Roman orders. Vib.Max.was Praefect of Egypt, and wrote: "The enrolment by households being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause soever are outside their homes to return to their domestic hearths, that they may accomplish the customary dispensation of enrolment, and continue steadfastly in the husbandry that belongeth to them" There is a large number of Papyri relating to these enrolments. See Deissmann's Light from the Ancient east, pp.268,269."

So...It looks as if they did have to return to Bethlehem because Joseph "was of the house and lineage of David".

I have looked for other places that were named as a place of birth for Jesus but only found Bethlehem (House of Bread). The one that you mentioned, Nazareth, is just a misreading of scripture. Some read it to be speaking of Jesus when it was written, "He shall be called a Nazarene." but that scripture was speaking of Joseph, His step-father.

The subject is picked up in Matt.2:19 and continues through 23 - Joseph.

An angel of the Lord appeard to Joseph in Egypt....And he (Joseph) arose and took them to the land of Israel...When he (Joseph) heard about Herod...and he (Joseph) dwelt in a city called Nazareth "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene." That is about Joseph, not Christ.

Unless I'm mistaken the only place named as a birthplace for Christ is Bethlehem.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join