Documentary said that the story about Herod killing the babies is a legend

xdisciplex · Dec 24, 2006

I just watched something on the discovery channel about Herod and they said that the story with the killing of the babies is a legend and it can only be found in Matthew and in no other historical book. They said that Herod was simply the perfect person for this legend because he was famous for being violent and mad.

Pete · Dec 24, 2006

Oh for a $ every time I saw a "what really happened where the Bible says....." documentalry.....

Claudia_T · Dec 24, 2006

they do that all the time. to try to undermine the Bible

El_Guero · Dec 24, 2006

xdx:

And a 'disciple' of Christ spreads the 'news' to everyone in hopes for what?

I pray that you have a Merry Christmas!

Wayne

Claudia_T said:

they do that all the time. to try to undermine the Bible
Click to expand...

xdisciplex · Dec 24, 2006

But they also cannot simply lie, can they?
Are there other historical documents which prove this story?

I mean what if these people have no secret agenda against the bible? What if we are too paranoid about this?
For example if a historian says something about the quran being wrong then most likely muslims say that this historian is simply trying to undermine Islam. Can not everybody say that? Or when you say something against the Scientology beliefs then the Scientologians can say the same and even feel good about it as if this proves that they are right.

SBCPreacher · Dec 24, 2006

Who are you going to believe? Secular "historians" or the Bible? Time to make a choice!

El_Guero · Dec 24, 2006

Preacher

I reckon that depends upon who we really are . . .

A disciple of Christ will follow God and His Word.

A pretender will . . . . follow every wind that blows.

Merry Christmas!

Wayne

SBCPreacher said:

Who are you going to believe? Secular "historians" or the Bible? Time to make a choice!
Click to expand...

Dustin · Dec 24, 2006

I'll believe the bible on this one since it's God's Word and all. The discovery channel and the history channel aren't really all that credible since as far as Christianity goes, they like to cater to the beliefs of the secular geeks. Richard Dawkins and his toadies, etc. Once the guy on the Digging for the Truth show was investigating the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and he asked the Israeli gude and I quote, "So the these towns might actually have really existed and been destroyed as the Bible says so?" Israeli guide: "Yes, they certainly could have." The also had one on the Ten Commandments and the Reformation of all things. You should have seen the Protestant mobs, it was scary! "Down with the Pope! Down with your idols!" with pitchforks and torches no less. A real knee slapper there!

Gershom · Dec 24, 2006

xdisciplex said:

But they also cannot simply lie, can they?
Are there other historical documents which prove this story?

I mean what if these people have no secret agenda against the bible? What if we are too paranoid about this?
For example if a historian says something about the quran being wrong then most likely muslims say that this historian is simply trying to undermine Islam. Can not everybody say that? Or when you say something against the Scientology beliefs then the Scientologians can say the same and even feel good about it as if this proves that they are right.
Click to expand...

What is your authority xdisciplex? Do you believe the Word of God? Is it your source?

tragic_pizza · Dec 24, 2006

xdisciplex said:

I just watched something on the discovery channel about Herod and they said that the story with the killing of the babies is a legend and it can only be found in Matthew and in no other historical book. They said that Herod was simply the perfect person for this legend because he was famous for being violent and mad.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that the slaughter wouldn't have been as huge an event as we might think. "Only" a dozen or so children were likely murdered.

It wouldn't, then, have been written down because (a) Herod wouldn't have wanted this to get back to the Caesar, and (b) to the Romans, it was only a few infants in a Judean backwash.

Remember that when Matthew wrote his Gospel, there were still people around who would have heard about the event. Certainly, people would have been around to refute it if it handn't occurred, and the Gospel would have thus been discredited.

The History Channel's interesting, and it provokes thought... but I wouldn't rely on it for deep spiritual insight.

El_Guero · Dec 24, 2006

If that is so, then what do you rely upon "for deep spiritual insight?"

tragic_pizza said:

Part of the problem is that the slaughter wouldn't have been as huge an event as we might think. "Only" a dozen or so children were likely murdered.

It wouldn't, then, have been written down because (a) Herod wouldn't have wanted this to get back to the Caesar, and (b) to the Romans, it was only a few infants in a Judean backwash.

Remember that when Matthew wrote his Gospel, there were still people around who would have heard about the event. Certainly, people would have been around to refute it if it handn't occurred, and the Gospel would have thus been discredited.

The History Channel's interesting, and it provokes thought... but I wouldn't rely on it for deep spiritual insight.
Click to expand...

tragic_pizza · Dec 24, 2006

El_Guero said:

If that is so, then what do you rely upon "for deep spiritual insight?"
Click to expand...

Um, is that a serious question?

El_Guero · Dec 24, 2006

ummmm

Since the thread is placing the history channel out there in a serious light . . .

and ummmm . . .

You wrote as if the history channel might actually contain serious history . . .

then . . . ummmm . . . yes. I would consider that one of the more serious questions in this thread (IMHO).

tragic_pizza said:

Um, is that a serious question?
Click to expand...

JamieinNH · Dec 24, 2006

SBCPreacher said:

Who are you going to believe? Secular "historians" or the Bible? Time to make a choice!
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this post!

X, It's time to make a choice. Do you believe the Bible or not?

Jamie

tragic_pizza · Dec 24, 2006

El_Guero said:

ummmm

Since the thread is placing the history channel out there in a serious light . . .

and ummmm . . .

You wrote as if the history channel might actually contain serious history . . .

then . . . ummmm . . . yes. I would consider that one of the more serious questions in this thread (IMHO).
Click to expand...

Niether history or archaeology offer spiritual instruction; that isn't their job.

History and archaeology can corroborate Biblical texts, it cannot prove their spiritual veracity.

Spiritual insight is given by the Holy Spirit, not the History Channel.

Ed Edwards · Dec 24, 2006

tragic_pizza said:

Part of the problem is that the slaughter wouldn't have been as huge an event as we might think. "Only" a dozen or so children were likely murdered.

It wouldn't, then, have been written down because (a) Herod wouldn't have wanted this to get back to the Caesar, and (b) to the Romans, it was only a few infants in a Judean backwash.

Remember that when Matthew wrote his Gospel, there were still people around who would have heard about the event. Certainly, people would have been around to refute it if it handn't occurred, and the Gospel would have thus been discredited.

The History Channel's interesting, and it provokes thought... but I wouldn't rely on it for deep spiritual insight.
Click to expand...

This is the best answer to the Opening Post (OP) so far.

According to secular historians, the Herod mentioned in the Matthew
account was Herod the Great who, according to them, died in
4BC. Because 'up to two years' was the death sentence, that means
the birth of Jesus had to be sometime 6BC to 5BC.
The fact it was a local (maybe this Herod was boss in Bethelhem
only?) Harod seems beyond the alleged 'historians' grasp.
That would make the Bible right and the alleged 'historians' can't
wrap their mind around that :BangHead:

LeBuick · Dec 24, 2006

Ed Edwards said:

This is the best answer to the Opening Post (OP) so far.

According to secular historians, the Herod mentioned in the Matthew
account was Herod the Great who, according to them, died in
4BC. Because 'up to two years' was the death sentence, that means
the birth of Jesus had to be sometime 6BC to 5BC.
The fact it was a local (maybe this Herod was boss in Bethelhem
only?) Harod seems beyond the alleged 'historians' grasp.
That would make the Bible right and the alleged 'historians' can't
wrap their mind around that :BangHead:
Click to expand...

I thought Josephus also confirmed the story.

El_Guero · Dec 24, 2006

And all this time . . . I tho't the Bible confirmed it.

:saint:

LeBuick said:

I thought Josephus also confirmed the story.
Click to expand...

xdisciplex · Dec 24, 2006

I just found an interesting topic at a forum.

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=951

What do you say about this reply here? Is this really possible? This sounds scary.

You say -- One cannot even make a case that Jesus was a non-entity, and some individual or small group just made up the story about him.

Nonsense. Many have done so.

You say -- In order to make that fly, one must explain why said individual or group would make up such an elaborate and blasphemous story, and then meet the even greater challenge of explaining how he/they could have been so successful in such a short time as to convince everyone, friend and foe alike, of the historicity of the basic facts, in spite of the fact that there were many people still alive who were in Galilee and Jerusalem at the very times Jesus was supposedly doing all those incredible and news-worthy things. We do, after all, live in a world in which human beings live for a number of decades, and are endowed with this faculty called "memory".

For that argument to have much weight or merit, It must have been likely that some residents of Jerusalem or Galilee in around the year 30 may have both witnessed the events in the gospels as well as actually being exposed to those gospels.

For that to have happened, first one would have to have been in Jerusalem or Galilee and witnessed some of the alleged events of Jesus. Though the gospels give the impression that those events were "news-worthy" of the time, the actual historical records don't support that. There is scant mention of Jesus in one controversial paragraph of Josephus, and no mention of any church that grew up around his teachings. Yet, a number of historians have described many Jewish sects of the time. The monastic, reclusive Essenes were described at length by Josephus, Philo of Alexandria and Pliny the Elder. Philo called the Essenes, "athletes of virtue" and Josephus referred to them as "saintly". Yet, no mention is made of the followers of Jesus and the 12 apostles. One must assume that they "flew under the radar." So, unless someone was actually present and at the same time where and when Jesus supposdly was present, that resident would have little reason to doubt the story, since he was not there.

Thus, a Jerusalem or Judaean resident, to dispute the gospels, would have had to likely personally been able to witness one of the events of the gospel, such as being at the temple at the time before Passover during Jesus's alleged scene with the money changers, or along the road or at golgatha when he was crucified, and even then, would have had to inquire the name of that person.

He would also then have had to been exposed to the gospel story about Jesus. Now, if there were in fact no Jesus, then the earliest known stories of what Jesus allegedly did in Galilee and Jerusalem didn't appear until Mark's gospel, which was written most likly in Rome. From Paul's letters and the other NT epistles, there is no hint that they claimed or believed Jesus had just walked the earth, that he did anything related in the gospels, or that he was crucified under Pilate.

Thus, for this argument to fly, a person would have had to both personally been at the temple, or at golgatha, or somewhere else Jesus allegedly was, then would have to been exposed to Mark's gospel. Now, tradition holds that Mark's gospel was written in Rome, sometime after Peter's death, putting it around 68 AD. This means that someone who was at the temple or at golgatha, and saw nothing out the ordinary happen that particular day, would have to remember that ordinary day for 40 years. He would have had to then have survived the Jewish War. In that war, Jerusalem was seiged and then sacked, and its residents either slaughtered or scattered. Estimates of the deaths in Jerusalem were between 2/3 and 1-1/2 million. Outside of Jerusalem, there was extreme carnage as well. The Jewish residents of 9 of the 10 cities of the Decapolis were slaughtered -- only in Gesera were they allowed to flee. Josephus relates an account of a major battle between soldiers of the Roman X legion and rebels in Capernaum, Peter's hometown, in which the number of Jews killed was estimated at 6,300. There were a number of battles in Samaria, again with large losses of life among the Jews.

So, the few who may have been in some certain spots around the year 30, would have to remember for 40 years that it was an ordinary day, and then survive the Jewish War. If they were of the lucky ones who did, they then would somehow made their way to Rome (when they were at least in their late 50's). There, they would have to somehow become involved in or exposed to a little-known Jewish sect called christians, and been exposed to their gospel.

Even then, they would have had to write to somebody about it. This in itself is problematic, since most people of the time were illiterate, and papyrus was relatively expensive. And who would he write to? Even if that person did remember what little happened that passover 40 or so years earlier, the folks back in Judaea had much bigger problems to worry about than some claims about some obscure messiah character worshipped from 40 years earlier in some sect in Rome. But even if he did write about it, that letter then would have survived 2000 years, or at least made its way to some rabbi in the diaspora to comment upon, and then that rabbi's account to have survived until today.

Thus, if Jesus didn't exist, there is little surprise that no letter or account of a Jewish resident of Judaea disputed the gospels. Someone would have had to been at one of the biblical scenes, and then remember for 40 years that nothing out of the ordinary happened that day, then survived the carnage of the Jewish War, then found their way to Rome, been exposed to an obscure sect, been exposed to their gospel, have written to someone about it, and that letter to have survived, directly or indirectly, up to today.
Click to expand...

LeBuick · Dec 24, 2006

El_Guero said:

And all this time . . . I tho't the Bible confirmed it.

:saint:
Click to expand...

:applause: :applause: :tonofbricks:

You SO RIGHT!

Documentary said that the story about Herod killing the babies is a legend

xdisciplex New Member

Pete New Member

Claudia_T New Member

El_Guero New Member

xdisciplex New Member

SBCPreacher Active Member
Site Supporter

El_Guero New Member

Dustin New Member

Gershom Active Member

tragic_pizza New Member

El_Guero New Member

tragic_pizza New Member

El_Guero New Member

JamieinNH New Member

tragic_pizza New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

LeBuick New Member

El_Guero New Member

xdisciplex New Member

LeBuick New Member

Useful Searches

Documentary said that the story about Herod killing the babies is a legend

xdisciplex New Member

Pete New Member

Claudia_T New Member

El_Guero New Member

xdisciplex New Member

SBCPreacher Active Member Site Supporter

El_Guero New Member

Dustin New Member

Gershom Active Member

tragic_pizza New Member

El_Guero New Member

tragic_pizza New Member

El_Guero New Member

JamieinNH New Member

tragic_pizza New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

LeBuick New Member

El_Guero New Member

xdisciplex New Member

LeBuick New Member

SBCPreacher Active Member
Site Supporter