Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

On the news tonight I heard an Israeli say (regarding the fire and shooting of the church in Bethlehem), "It is 'only' a church; better a building than people.

Of course, it is better a building than people, but this is not 'just a building' it is the spot where Our Lord Jesus Christ was born.

How do you feel about what is going on there? I don't understand why more Christians are not saying anything about this situation. If it was a Jewish Temple or a Mosque, there would be protests all over the place..How come no one is protesting this atrocity? MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 02, 2002

Answers

Mary Lu, Here is an article I recently received which touches your topic and you might find interesting. Also I believe the latest reporting places the fire in a nearby building not the Church. And just a few minutes ago there was a debate on Crossfire about the using of the Church by armed gunmen. James Carville made the point that if a Mosque was used by armed gunmen there would be outrage at such.(similar to your point) It is certainly a difficult situation. Here is the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/28/weekinreview/28KINZ.html

April 28, 2002 A Clash of Symbols: Defining Holy Sites on Faith By STEPHEN KINZER

HATRED and violence are hardly new in the Holy Land, but the battle raging around the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is especially heart- rending for many religious believers. Few events symbolize the tragedy of the current conflict more poignantly than the military siege at the place where the Prince of Peace was born. But was he?

"It's very doubtful that Jesus was born in Bethlehem," said Hershel Shanks, editor of the magazine Biblical Archaeology Review. "He's always referred to as the Nazarene, not the Bethlehemite. But there were very clear reasons for putting him in Bethlehem. He was supposed to be the scion of David who came back and gave us salvation, and since David was born in Bethlehem there was a desire to put Jesus there. This doesn't reduce the power of symbolic stories, but it's not historic reality."

The Middle East conflict is in part about conflicting narratives. Some of these narratives are as current as today's news, pitting the rage of a nation that views itself as occupied against that of another that sees itself under mortal threat. Others are historical, encompassing questions like whether Palestinians were pushed off their land when Israel was founded in 1947 or left of their own accord. But it is the clash of religious narratives that can arouse the most passionate emotion and controversy, and sacred places are at their heart.

History and religious tradition clash not just at the Church of the Nativity, but at many other sites in the Holy Land. One is the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, from which, according to Muslim tradition, Muhammad ascended to Heaven. It is considered the third holiest site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina.

"The Koran says Muhammad traveled to `the farthest mosque' and ascended from there to Heaven," said Mr. Shanks. "The fact is that when he died, there was no mosque at that site in Jerusalem. It was built 50 years after he died. It's filled with elaborate inscriptions in beautiful Arabic script, but there's no mention of Muhammad's ascension because the tradition had not yet arisen. It emerged later because of a political fight the Muslims had. The Jerusalem cadre wanted to denigrate Mecca, so they said the `farthest mosque' was in their town."

Archaeologists have made discoveries that challenge fundamental traditions of Judaism as well as those of Christianity and Islam. One who teaches at Tel Aviv University, Ze'ev Herzog, published an article in 1999 asserting that historical evidence about the emergence of the Jewish people tells a story "radically different" from what most Jews are taught to believe.

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Israel] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel," Mr. Herzog wrote. "Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

NONE of these iconoclastic assertions is universally accepted. They do, however, offer a new sort of challenge to religious belief. In the past, secularists sought to challenge dogma by the use of rational argument, claiming, for example, that miracles described in the Bible are scientifically impossible. These arguments, a staple of philosophical discourse at least since the Enlightenment, provoke an obvious response. Believers say they are motivated by faith, and faith is more powerful than any argument devised by mortals.

No one will presumably ever be able to prove or disprove such fundamental religious principles as the existence of God. Questions about the historical accuracy of scripture, however, can be answered with greater certainty today than a century ago, when the science of archaeology was in its infancy. It is likely that, in years to come, new techniques and excavations will add considerably to the body of evidence that archaeologists have now assembled.

This trend is important beyond the boundaries of science because of the power these questions have to inflame emotions and motivate warring powers in the Middle East. The conflict there is about many things, but some of the most resonant have to do with the rights of various religions to control their sacred sites. The provocative questions that archaeologists have raised about these sites are in some ways comparable to the challenge that Darwinism posed to religious beliefs about creation.

Religious scholars and theologians have reacted in various ways to the discoveries of Biblical archaeologists. Some reject them out of hand. Others accept them but insist that they do not require any revision of religious belief.

One problem these discoveries pose is that, like many scientific discoveries, they are still subject to dispute. J. Rufus Fears, a professor of classics at the University of Oklahoma, said he is not convinced by assertions that Jesus could not have been born in Bethlehem. He asserted that even discoveries that contradict ancient tradition are not of shattering importance.

"There is certainly a tremendous gap between archaeological knowledge and what people want to believe from tradition," Professor Fears said, "but there are also gaps in what archaeologists think they can prove. Even when they can prove something or make it more likely, that does not in any way undermine the deep attachment that people have to these places."

Professor Fears said he did not believe that fighting in the Middle East was truly motivated by the desire to control holy sites, or by any other religious motive. If that is true, then no amount of discovery or proof will affect the course of the conflict.

"These arguments over protecting sites are used as excuses," Professor Fears said. "They're symptoms of much deeper problems. But the religious overlay does point up an inherent contradiction that's obvious and very disturbing. You have war raging in the places where Jesus and other great religious figures preached their message of peace. You can hardly imagine a greater contradiction than that."

--- "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." Martin Luther King, Jr.

-- Joan (godessss@mindspring.com), May 02, 2002.


Thank you, Joan, for the article. I also like the last line....

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." Martin Luther King, Jr.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 03, 2002.


Marylu

If you believe this rubbish Paste on by Joan then you are a greater fool than I thought. It HAS absolutely nothing to do with supporting our faith. I will support any effort to have this article and ALL articles by Joan and Dennis removed promptly. It does not belong here.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 03, 2002.


I agree that Dennis and his soul-sister, Joan, have merited a permanent ban.
Can you believe this -- her coming in and pasting yet another article that denigrates religion in general (and Christianity in particular), but trying to appear to be a legitimate contributor to the forum?
MaryLu, please do not be taken in by Mrs. Storey the "goddess worshipper," a former Catholic, excommunicated because she works for an abortion mill, helping expectant mothers to have their babies murdered. She quotes from an author (J. Carville) and newspaper (New York Slimes) that are notoriously pro-abortion, ultra-liberal, and anti-Catholic. Rubbish!

MaryLu, please take another look at the article for which you thanked JS. No thanks were appropriate. The article states the following, which Catholicism rejects, since it upholds the historical truthfulness of the scriptures:
---- ... the military siege at the place where the Prince of Peace was born. But was he? "It's very doubtful that Jesus was born in Bethlehem," said Hershel Shanks, editor of the magazine Biblical Archaeology Review. ... "it's not historic reality."
---- One who teaches at Tel Aviv University, Ze'ev Herzog, published an article in 1999 asserting ... "The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Israel] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel," Mr. Herzog wrote. "Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."
---- No one will presumably ever be able to prove or disprove such fundamental religious principles as the existence of God. Questions about the historical accuracy of scripture, however, can be answered with greater certainty today than a century ago, when the science of archaeology was in its infancy.

JS, therefore, is here to sow doubt and discord. Her actions are very pleasing to the "father of lies."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 04, 2002.


Surely, you are all mistaken.

Jesus was born in North America, and gave the Native Americans the plates from which Joseph Smith was able to found the Mormon Church.

Get real, Joan.

-- Melissa (holy_rhodes@earthlink.net), May 04, 2002.



Oh, my goodness, Melissa!
Are you saying that the true Church of the Nativity is in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania?
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.

That's what I always wonder about:

''Questions about the historical accuracy of scripture, however, can be answered with greater certainty today than a century ago, when the science of archaeology was in its infancy.''

These eggheads seem so sure the particular science they espouse is better able than the last science they used to espouse, to understand what was always understood in the past! Their ''science'', after all, was in its infancy. Now it's a Teenage science; or a ''Boomer'' science; all set for discovering the real truth !

With teenagers, be sure to consult them in time, while they still know everything. You could wait too long, and then they become Geezers and fools like you and me. Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 05, 2002.


JFG,

Yes, and it appears Mr. Smith is still having trouble with his Egyptian translations, as he apparently called Joseph a carpenter when what he Meant to say was "steelworker". Oh well, something we'll just have to live with.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 06, 2002.


I always find it rightly comical, the offerings of the LDS Mormons. One of the books in their "other testament" is called Moroni. If one were to lift the "m" from Mormon, and the "i" from Moroni, said editor could conclude the moronic nature of the LDS.

-- Melissa (holy_rhodes@earthlink.net), May 06, 2002.

Oh, yeah. What about the magic spectacles he gave Joseph by which to see the ancient language translated into English? Pretty neat!

You could maybe sell 10,000 of these on EBay, at a nice auction price. ''Translating specs. Get yours today !''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 06, 2002.



What's more interesting is Joseph Smith himself, in that in his younger days he charged people to look for buried treasure (and water I think) with a divining rod and later was involved in a bank scam. Heck of a prophet, was he.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 06, 2002.


You gotta hand it to Joe Smith. He saw what one guy got away with on the other side of the "big pond" (Moe and the Koran), so he gave it a whirl over here and got away with it. Not very original, but effective.

(Thanks, Frank, for that constructive comment.)
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.


Joseph Smith copied most of he rituals from the Masons to be used in the Mormon religion. DUMB if you ask me.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 10, 2002.

The only thing you gotta hand Joseph Smith is his creativity. Imagine creating an entire religion for the express purpose of taking other people's wives and turning them collectively into your private harem. He probably never dreamed he could lead millions into destruction with his religious concoction. Mormonism pefectly fits my definition of a cult; i.e. any polytheistic, monotheistic, or atheistic teaching that denies the deity of Jesus Christ. Next time a Mormon missionary knocks on your door, press them to state Jesus Christ the man has been fully God from eternity past. I've done it to 3 different pairs of missionaries. They won't concede that basic tenet of orthodox, biblical Christianity. That should be an even bigger red flag than poligamy.

-- Greg Laffin (glaffin@ou.edu), April 03, 2003.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves for your criticism of other religions. True followers of Jesus would not debase themselves in such a manner.

Peace.

David

-- David Parsons (lupinman@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.



Really? What did Jesus have to say about other religions? What does the Word of God have to say about other religions?

"Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! " (Gal 1:8-9)

Does that sound like religious tolerance to you? Jesus described other religions in this way ...

"False prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves". - (2 Pet 2:1)

Jesus taught that (1) anyone preaching a message contrary to His message is accursed; (2) He Himself is the only way to the Father, that is, to God; (3) Following any other religion brings destruction. Does this sound like religious tolerance? Jesus did not tolerate untruth, because He knew it was only the truth that could set people free, and setting people free was his purpose in coming to earth. Jesus did teach that we are to love those who are in error or heresy, who follow false religions, and who are thereby on the road to destruction. But we are NOT to tolerate their false beliefs, any more than He did. On the contrary, if we love them we are morally bound to share the truth of Jesus Christ with them.

Recognizing a false religion as false is not a judgment nor is it a condemnation. It is simply acknowledgement of the truth. Satanism (to take the most obvious and extreme example) is a false religion. Am I being judgemental in saying so? Treating a false religion as acceptable is rejection of the truth. Truth is what sets us free. Acceptance of false religions therefore places us in the same spiritual bondage (perhaps to a lesser degree) as those who practice that false religion. We do not hate or despise or reject the persons who are trapped in such false beliefs. But we do hate the false beliefs themselves, for they are barriers to the salvation of people we are called to love.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 30, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ