Posted on 12/06/2004 1:45:03 AM PST by kattracks
Just in time for Christmas, America's two largest news magazines devote this week's cover stories to debunking the story of Jesus' birth.Among the conclusions in Time and Newsweek: Jesus was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem; there is little evidence of three kings following a star, and the story of the virgin birth may have been borrowed.
"The Nativity saga is neither fully fanciful nor fully factual but a layered narrative of early tradition and enduring theology," Newsweek writes in examining the Sunday-school version of the birth of Christ.
This may be unwelcome "news" to most Americans. A Newsweek poll found that 55% of Americans believe every word in the Bible is literally true, 67% believe the entire Christmas story is literally true and 79% believe Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary with no human father.
"In the debates over the literal truth of the Gospels, just about everyone acknowledges that major conclusions about Jesus' life are not based on forensic clues," Time notes. "There is no specific physical evidence for the key points of the story."
Quoting esteemed religious scholars, the mags poke holes in New Testament scribes Matthew and Luke's divergent explanations of how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem, with Time asserting that most scholars now place his birth in Nazareth.
Both mags point out that the star in the East might be a literary embellishment by Matthew, perhaps inspired by accounts of Halley's comet appearing 12 years before Christ's birth.
Even the Virgin Mary's conception, a cornerstone of Christian theology, is fodder for skeptics, who say the story was a possible blend of Jewish theology with Greek and Roman myths.
Originally published on December 6, 2004
"We walk by faith, not by sight." It makes all the difference.
It will be interesting to read what letters to the editor they post in their next edition.
These stories have been rehashed so many times. How can a "news" magazine run something so "old"? All of these stories have been debunked years ago.
""There is no specific physical evidence for the key points of the story.""
Nor is there any evidence to support their debunking theories.
It's called Faith. No amount of reading or research or forensics can damage it. Faith lives in the hearts and minds and souls of those who believe.
It's amazing how these magazines don't get it. At heart, they are so disturbed that most Americans have faith, that they actually feel it necessary to disprove the articles of faith. Meanwhile, their own institutions are crashing down around their ears.
Interesting that they'd do this at all. Any other general interest magazine would fear the loss of their readership by publishing such a front-page article. It goes to prove my point that the people who subscribe to these magazines aren't the ones who read them. They're just fodder for doctors' offices.
I Don't buy them, don't read them.
I suspect numerous others will quit soon enough as well.
The decline of the MSM continues.
Nowhere does Scripture indicate the Wise Men were kings. Many scholars believe they were Zoroastrian astrologers from Persia. Nowhere is their number given, only that they presented three gifts.
They're not even trying to debunk the correct story!
Try the Shroud of Turin as just one example of the historicity of Christ. Other miracles associated with Christ and his Church still observable today:
Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
The Tilma of Guadalupe
Incorrupt bodies of the saints
Fatima
Sudarium of Oviedo
With so many miracles associated with Christ still observable today, why should we be skeptical of the Biblical account of Christ's birth, attested to by Christ's Church?
I missed the stories where the mags give similar critical scrutiny to Islam.
My kids have brought up this point. The elites work overtime constantly to attack Christianity. Why?
Are they afraid it is true?
Since Christ is Truth itself, opposition to Him has to be irrational by nature. It's hard to account for irrationality, except to say that people tend to rationalize their sins. If you know that Christ condemned your sins, you can either repent of your sins or cling to them and repudiate Christ.
While there is very little in the historical record to verify Jesus other than the Gospels, there is abundant historical proof which corroborates the other parts of the Gospels, such as places, people, events, etc. No archeological find in the middle east has produced evidence conflicting with the Gospels and many discoveries serve to confirm them. For years people said the lack of any historical evidence that a Roman named Pontius Pilate was in the middle east proved the Gospels were inaccurate. Then, a coin with the name and picture of Pilate was found in that area. I will stick with the Gospels and leave the "Jesus Seminar" to others.
Good point. Can these writers distinguish tradition, e.g., Santa Claus, from Scripture? I doubt it.
This is the most Anti-Christ-mas Christmas season in America, in my lifetime. Everywhere I turn, a new blasphemy, a new insult, a new derisive bigot blathering away. Can't you just feel the hate?
There isn't much in the traditional Christmas story that is Biblically accurate.
Jesus wasn't born in December; there is no mention of three anything, Magi or "Wise Men"; and when they did arrive, they didn't find a newborne baby, they found a child because they weren't there moments after the birth, but later.
Jeez, what an amazing coincidence.
I wonder when they'll run a piece criticizing the holey Koran?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.