Discussion Bible question

[nowiz]

I have been reading a book by Kenneth Bailey called "Jesus as seen through Middle Eastern eyes". He seems to be a legitimate authority on Middle East customs and culture, but he wrote something that I have never heard before. He says that Jesus wasn't born in a manger in a cave as we have been told for ages. He says that the manger was actually in a person's home because they kept their livestock in their homes on a lower level. Anyone have information on this?
Nowiz

[Emanate]

I have been reading a book by Kenneth Bailey called "Jesus as seen through Middle Eastern eyes". He seems to be a legitimate authority on Middle East customs and culture, but he wrote something that I have never heard before. He says that Jesus wasn't born in a manger in a cave as we have been told for ages. He says that the manger was actually in a person's home because they kept their livestock in their homes on a lower level. Anyone have information on this?
Nowiz

The cave idea comes straight from Mithraism. Messiah was most likely born in a Sukkah during Sukkot.

[Literalist-Luke]

I have been reading a book by Kenneth Bailey called "Jesus as seen through Middle Eastern eyes". He seems to be a legitimate authority on Middle East customs and culture, but he wrote something that I have never heard before. He says that Jesus wasn't born in a manger in a cave as we have been told for ages. He says that the manger was actually in a person's home because they kept their livestock in their homes on a lower level. Anyone have information on this?
Nowiz

That's a new one. That makes no sense to me. Would you really want to be living upstairs from a bunch of livestock? Just imagine the 24/7 stench. Another reason that would make no sense is because the livestock's food source, grassland, would be outside the city, so the livestock would have to be led outside the city every single day just to feed. That sounds like a very foolish way of handling things. I'm thinking this "authority" doesn't know what he's talking about.

[divaD]

That's a new one. That makes no sense to me. Would you really want to be living upstairs from a bunch of livestock?

LOL. Then you haven't been in this part of Texas. I've seen many barn types of housing, where the occupants live upstairs, and their horses live dirctly below them. I'm not talking about shanty looking places, some of these barn type of homes are fairly new, some of them having 2000-4000 Sq Ft living area. But still, personally, I couldn't do it myself. I couldn't live in that type of an enviroment.

[Literalist-Luke]

LOL. Then you haven't been in this part of Texas. I've seen many barn types of housing, where the occupants live upstairs, and their horses live dirctly below them. I'm not talking about shanty looking places, some of these barn type of homes are fairly new, some of them having 2000-4000 Sq Ft living area. But still, personally, I couldn't do it myself. I couldn't live in that type of an enviroment.

Yeah, but the Jews in Bethlehem of Jesus' day didn't have nice homes like that. They were basically open air. So there would've been no escape from the smell.

[Teke]

I have been reading a book by Kenneth Bailey called "Jesus as seen through Middle Eastern eyes". He seems to be a legitimate authority on Middle East customs and culture, but he wrote something that I have never heard before. He says that Jesus wasn't born in a manger in a cave as we have been told for ages. He says that the manger was actually in a person's home because they kept their livestock in their homes on a lower level. Anyone have information on this?
Nowiz

I have heard what your talking about on the History channel. It wouldn't be unusual. Even in the US in it's beginnings, people kept livestock inside somewhere. They did this in all cultures. But that is not what the bible is relating.

The "manger" was a feeding trough for livestock. The hills around Bethlehem had many caves were animals were kept by night. In such a cave was Jesus born.

[Emanate]

from: http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0111/0111j.html

There are several clues that Yeshua was born at Sukkot:
1. Bethleham was "booked solid." This would not have been duecensus which would have taken place over the period of a year.Every Jew was required to come to Jerusalem for Sukkot (Dt. 16:16)this would have over run Jerusalem as well as Bethleham justfive miles away.
2. Yeshua was born in a stable. The Hebrew word for "stable"is "sukkah" (as in Gen. 33:17) so it is likely that Yeshua was bornin a Sukkah/booth.
3. If Yeshua was born on the first day of Sukkot then he wouldhave been circumcised on the "eigth great day" a festival followingSukkot. This day was the original "Simchat Torah" (Rejoicing inthe Torah) which is now held the following day in Rabbinic Judaism.So Yeshua would have entered the covenant on the day of "rejoicingin the Torah."
4. When the angels appeared to the shepherds they made a statementwhich closely echos the ancient Sukkot liturgy "...behold, we have cometo declare to you glad tidings of great joy." (Lk. 2:10-11)
5. Sukkot is symbolic of God dwelling in a "tabernacle" (body?)with us.

[markedward]

He says that Jesus wasn't born in a manger in a cave as we have been told for ages.

A) Luke says Jesus was laid in a manger, not born in it.

B) I can't find any Scripture that says Jesus was born inside of a cave. If anyone claims this, they first need to present historical evidence, and they then need to realize that since Scripture doesn't mention a cave (as far as I've been able to find), then they can't claim it as fact, only as a guess.

[valleybldr]

from: http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0111/0111j.html

There are several clues that Yeshua was born at Sukkot:
1. Bethleham was "booked solid." This would not have been duecensus which would have taken place over the period of a year.Every Jew was required to come to Jerusalem for Sukkot (Dt. 16:16)this would have over run Jerusalem as well as Bethleham justfive miles away.
2. Yeshua was born in a stable. The Hebrew word for "stable"is "sukkah" (as in Gen. 33:17) so it is likely that Yeshua was bornin a Sukkah/booth.
3. If Yeshua was born on the first day of Sukkot then he wouldhave been circumcised on the "eigth great day" a festival followingSukkot. This day was the original "Simchat Torah" (Rejoicing inthe Torah) which is now held the following day in Rabbinic Judaism.So Yeshua would have entered the covenant on the day of "rejoicingin the Torah."
4. When the angels appeared to the shepherds they made a statementwhich closely echos the ancient Sukkot liturgy "...behold, we have cometo declare to you glad tidings of great joy." (Lk. 2:10-11)
5. Sukkot is symbolic of God dwelling in a "tabernacle" (body?)with us.

I lean this direction but find it odd that none of the gospel writers make the connection. Their mission was to prove Yeshua was Messiah so why wouldn't they clearly state his connection to the Messianic Festival?

In all fairness, His "Living Waters" and "Light of the World" self proclaimations have Sukkot as their backdrop but the text doesn't tie either to the Water Libation or Temple Courtyard Lights that inspired the comments.

todd

[Teke]

A) Luke says Jesus was laid in a manger, not born in it.

B) I can't find any Scripture that says Jesus was born inside of a cave. If anyone claims this, they first need to present historical evidence, and they then need to realize that since Scripture doesn't mention a cave (as far as I've been able to find), then they can't claim it as fact, only as a guess.

The Church of the Nativity, built over the cave/grotto still stands. There are steps under the altar which lead to the place He was born.
The manger which He was laid in, historically, also stone, as the mangers for feeding livestock were and are to date.

Archeology is your historical proof, as well as the same practices going on to date. I gave the names of persons who gave historical reports. If you want to check the practice see history related to that land. ie. National Geographic

The Great Shepherd was born in the place of shepherds.