Micah 5:1

[metis]

… very mature. :yes:

You forgot "also great looking".

 

[RabbiO]

Why should I trust your intentions for saying it? Do you admit that you forgive the Catholics for killing lots of Jews and possibly threatening indirectly your own life? If not, then doesn't it mean you have a bias against everything that is Catholic? I don't see how you can claim to approach the subject without some anger. What about the fact that there are missions to steal Jews and turn them into Catholics? Are you really going to tell me that doesn't upset your consideration of Catholic texts?

I wrote what I thought was a fairly reasoned, rather mild response/objection to a part of a post. You fired back with a post that begins by basically impugning my honor and questioning my integrity. If you cannot take me at my word so be it.

From there it is all down hill. I cannot even begin to relate to the rest of your post. You go on to make assumptions about how I must think and feel as a Jew. To put it bluntly, your assumptions are wrong.

Metis and Jay are retired folk. They have the time, if they are so inclined, to deal with your meshugaas, your craziness. I have neither.

 

[metis]

First of all it isn't condemnation. Jews have been harmed by Catholicism in the past, and they have not said that they forgive what was done. Do I expect them to forgive it? No, I'm not saying that.

There is a book I used to own which I found titled Pope Pius XII and the Third Reich. It has photographs of Catholic involvement in WWII. I've also seen reproductions of old Catholic propaganda calling for Catholics to answer the call to arms on the Axis side. I've read a book printed in 1910 by the "Fellowship Forum" that talked about the Catholic church and its plans to influence governments and to re-establish ownership of in the place that is now called The Vatican. Yes, the Vatican was obtained by supporting the beginning of WWII and Mussolini by a pope who was very fond of Germany. So I have seen books printed before and after WWII about the Catholic desire to retake the Vatican and confirming its cooperation with Mussolini in order to obtain the Vatican.

None of this is a secret. Its not like I'm dipping the world in hate paint. Did the popes not conspire to convert Jews? Yes they did. Its an open thing not a secret. Was there an Inquisition? Were there pogroms? Yes. Where they performed in the name of Catholicism? Sometimes they were. Do I need to write the entire history of the world before you will acknowledge it?

You actually might check out the extensive Protestant cooperation with the NAZI's whereas they were actually more cooperative with them than were the Catholics. In his last two years of power, Hitler refused to go to Catholic Bavaria.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I've run across many Jewish conspiracy theories in my lifetime but I think the above must be the mother-lode. We had no control over what the Romans did, and as a matter of fact it was almost always the other way around. It is the Roman historians who tell us there's no record of such a census, nor were Roman censuses conducted in the fashion you envision.

Please, Metis. I'm not into conspiracy theories, and the Jews in the area might well have been able to petition for their records to be removed after their taxes had been paid. There could have been a census that was erased, neatly explaining why the historians never recorded it.

There are theologians, and then there are theologians, and Brown and Crossan are considered to be top shelf. Just because you may not agree with them doesn't diminish the respect these guys have gotten over their many years of work. Does that mean they must be right on everything? Of course not.

I see so we are talking about top shelf Christian theologians who discard their own scriptures, and that is OK with you?

That's simply not true. The word "parable" means:

par·a·ble [par-uh-buhl]

noun

1.a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

2.a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

Origin: 1275&#8211;1325; Middle English parabil < Late Latin parabola comparison, parable, word < Greek parabol&#7703; comparison, equivalent to para- para-1 + bol&#7703; a throwing. -- Parable | Define Parable at Dictionary.com

I tracked down the source of my comment. Its Easton's Bible Dictionary. Plus its how many Sunday school teachers define it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Unless you intend to impugn my honor and my integrity - and should that be your intent then there really is no purpose in my paying any attention to you or anything you might say in the future - then I expect you to take me at my word.

No, I do not.

As for the rest of your post, I cannot even begin to relate to it. You make assumptions about how I must think and feel as a Jew. To put it bluntly, your assumptions are wrong, always a possibility when you don't really know the person you're making the assumptions about.

Well, I am glad you cannot relate to someone like me who has a sense of vengeance.

(Having seen some other posts that have made it onto the thread while I was typing this, I realize that I really see no useful purpose in future conversations with you. In that regard, then, it doesn't really matter to me whether you trust my word or not.)

That is ok. It has been my honour to talk with you this one time, and just so you know I do believe you and take you at your word.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You actually might check out the extensive Protestant cooperation with the NAZI's whereas they were actually more cooperative with them than were the Catholics. In his last two years of power, Hitler refused to go to Catholic Bavaria.

I know its awful isn't it.

 

[Prophet]

Dear "stoned being",
Yeshua taught "the kingdom of heaven", which was a personal relationship between God and his sons, who do the will of God. (Mt 6:32-33 & John 1:13)

John 1:13 NAS Who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God

I'm not disagreeing with you that the Kingdom of God/heaven (the difference is semantics in my opinion) has the inner component of a relationship of sons to Father in heaven, but this does not preclude the outer component of how these sons are to treat one another in a perfect society (or kingdom as societies were called back then), and the vast majority of Jesus' teachings covered exactly that. He said things like "love your enemies and wish good upon those who wish harm upon you" in a plea that we clear our vision to allow the Kingdom of God to come alive inside us or, in Jesus' words, "so that you might be children of your Father in heaven". (Mt 6)

He taught that the "kingdom of God" would not be instituted until the "Day of the Lord", which was in the future. (Rev 19:15 & Rev 12:10 & Mt 24:29-32)

I grew up with people around me reading the Left Behind series of Evangelical fiction regarding an interpretation of the Book of Revelation as a prediction of the "end times", "rapture" or "Day of the Lord". This view of Revelation ignores the cultural contexts of the time and misses some pretty obvious clues about what was really going on.

Let's try a little historical context on the times that gave rise to Revelation. Jesus was dead for at least a few decades. The Christians had become a nuisance to the Roman Empire and as such they were routinely massacred for entertainment and profit. As far as Christians were concerned, they WERE in the end times. At the pinnacle of this persecution sat Nero Caesar who hated the Christians famously. Christianity was forced underground.

Clues are scattered throughout. The most telling clues are regarding the Mark of the Beast and the Whore of Babylon chapter, the Mark directly pointing at Nero Caesar, and the Whore representing the Roman Empire. Revelation was a political document written in code to protect it and its carrier from the empire it denounced.

I feel attempts made by the writer of Revelation to reimagine Jesus as the warrior king messiah who would deliver Israel from its enemies ruling with an iron scepter and getting even with all of God's enemies fall flat when compared with a Jesus who preached to turn the other cheek.

Relevant evidence on the Mark of the Beast:
The Mark of the Beast - 666 or 616? - The American Vision

As for prophets, David of Bethlehem, was a "peasant living in a backwater country on the fringe of the Roman Empire" before being chosen by God, and he was but a child, and not as impressive as his brothers who were of military age. David did not prevail by size or strength, but by his faith in God, who had always protected David, even while herding sheep.

Be careful what you believe about people who had the power to write their own history. After taking the throne by force (you know, the way thrones are always usurped?), David was easily in a position to make up legends about his life that legitimized his rule and destroyed the claims of his competition. Yeah, he killed a giant at some distant past battle because God was on his side, and was anointed to be king by a prophet when he was young because David was soooo pure of heart. Why not write some pure horsecrap into history about how he was best friends with Saul's son, Jonathan, a man whose murder he was almost certainly at least complicit with if not directly responsible for, too? The only story that says anything bad about David is there to legitimize the king that followed him, Solomon, who apparently learned his tricks from dad, as he crowns himself "wisest on earth" in the pages of the Bible.

 

[metis]

Please, Metis. I'm not into conspiracy theories, and the Jews in the area might well have been able to petition for their records to be removed after their taxes had been paid. There could have been a census that was erased, neatly explaining why the historians never recorded it.

Can you provide one shred of evidence from any source that suggests as such? And why would we Jews want the records removed anyway? The local Roman authorities were responsible to send the records and much of the monies collected to Rome, so even if local records were removed, what about the records kept in Rome? There's simply no logic behind your conspiracy proposal, and that's exactly what it is.

I see so we are talking about top shelf Christian theologians who discard their own scriptures, and that is OK with you?

You really believe they "discard their own scriptures"? OK, so anyone who apparently disagrees with a literal interpretation that you have is bogus?

What you don't quite seem to understand is that theologians often try to connect the dots to make sense of certain verses and/or narratives that don't either fit together too well or that seemingly defy reason. In this process they essentially brainstorm possibilities, but generally avoiding absolutes.

The idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem has long raised eyebrows because it wasn't the Roman practice, there is no record of a Roman census then in eretz Israel, and it really defies logic if taken literally. OTOH, it definitely has a symbolic interpretation that makes sense, and since this was a common practice with the authors, many theologians drift in this direction.

I tracked down the source of my comment. Its Easton's Bible Dictionary. Plus its how many Sunday school teachers define it.

Well, "Easton's Bible Dictionary" is using their interpretation that goes beyond the actual meaning of the word and how it's used in a variety of writings.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Can you provide one shred of evidence from any source that suggests as such? And why would we Jews want the records removed anyway? The local Roman authorities were responsible to send the records and much of the monies collected to Rome, so even if local records were removed, what about the records kept in Rome? There's simply no logic behind your conspiracy proposal, and that's exactly what it is.

You are making me feel like it really is a conspiracy theory, but it is only fair to present the sources of my supposition don't you think? I'm willing to put up. (It is horrible when a conspiracy theorist will only suggest that they think such & such without presenting their reasons, and then when you ask them for any real information and threaten to bring their suppositions to light they run.) Ok, here is the source of my mini-conspiracy no laughing... Its a quote from the NIV 2 Samuel 24:10 "David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the LORD, &#8220;I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, LORD, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.&#8221;

There, you see? David for some reason wasn't allowed to count his fighting men. Proving myself to be better than the average conspiracy theorist I have given you the source of my conspiracy. So now the theory is that not wanting their fighting men to be counted the Jews petitioned the Roman government to remove all trace of their census, hence the census taken at the time of Jesus birth would not be present for the historians to record!

You really believe they "discard their own scriptures"? OK, so anyone who apparently disagrees with a literal interpretation that you have is bogus?

I am arguing out of character, but to a seriously fundamentalist student of the Bible with my background they are just discarding their scriptures. Think about all the miracles that happen on Sunday morning in church that bear witness to the inerrant word of God and the thousands of ministers who bear witness. These duplicitous liberal theologians impugne the honour of such men and even of God and Jesus. A lot of them don't even believe miracles happen yet call themselves theologians!

What you don't quite seem to understand is that theologians often try to connect the dots to make sense of certain verses and/or narratives that don't either fit together too well or that seemingly defy reason. In this process they essentially brainstorm possibilities, but generally avoiding absolutes.

Well why don't they stick to their guns? Do they believe in God or not? (This charge would be laid to myself by many and even by myself.)

The idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem has long raised eyebrows because it wasn't the Roman practice, there is no record of a Roman census then in eretz Israel, and it really defies logic if taken literally. OTOH, it definitely has a symbolic interpretation that makes sense, and since this was a common practice with the authors, many theologians drift in this direction.

The classic argument is that the Bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers, Metis. I could read you a list of ten or twenty famous Bible critics all of whose writings now serve merely to support the substance of the Bible! In fact it is the ancient critics who show us that the scriptures are unchanged. We are getting off topic though.

 

[Prophet]

Is it really a conspiracy theory to assume a Bible canonized by Rome for inwardly political reasons would attempt to kill two birds with one stone? They assimilated Christianity into Catholicism, why not try for the Jews by matching Jesus up with messianic prophecy, too? I guess I'd not make a foregone conclusion that the census story was a fabrication, but the possible motivation for that fabrication is clear. Rome acting in Rome's best interest, to me, seems more logical than crazy conspiracy theory.

 

[2ndpillar]

I'm not disagreeing with you that the Kingdom of God/heaven (the difference is semantics in my opinion) has the inner component of a relationship of sons to Father in heaven, but this does not preclude the outer component of how these sons are to treat one another in a perfect society (or kingdom as societies were called back then), and the vast majority of Jesus' teachings covered exactly that. He said things like "love your enemies and wish good upon those who wish harm upon you" in a plea that we clear our vision to allow the Kingdom of God to come alive inside us or, in Jesus' words, "so that you might be children of your Father in heaven". (Mt 6)

Dear prophet,
As for "love" your neighbor, that is the summation of the Law and the Prophets (Rabbi Hillel) (Mt 7:12), by which means you keep the Commandments.(John 14:15 & Mt 19:18 & Mt 22:37 & Ecc 12:13) As for Yeshua coddling the keepers of the traditions of man, it "will be like the days of Noah,... and shall cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, weeping shall be there and the gnashing of teeth." (Mt 24:37-51) If "those days had not been cut short........no life would have been saved". (Mt 24:22 & Joel 2:32) Unless you were marked by the angel of God (Rev 7 & Ez 9:4), things will get a little rough. The angels of Ez 9:5 where told to show "no pity, and do not spare".

I grew up with people around me reading the Left Behind series of Evangelical fiction regarding an interpretation of the Book of Revelation as a prediction of the "end times", "rapture" or "Day of the Lord". This view of Revelation ignores the cultural contexts of the time and misses some pretty obvious clues about what was really going on.

Let's try a little historical context on the times that gave rise to Revelation. Jesus was dead for at least a few decades. The Christians had become a nuisance to the Roman Empire and as such they were routinely massacred for entertainment and profit. As far as Christians were concerned, they WERE in the end times. At the pinnacle of this persecution sat Nero Caesar who hated the Christians famously. Christianity was forced underground.

Clues are scattered throughout. The most telling clues are regarding the Mark of the Beast and the Whore of Babylon chapter, the Mark directly pointing at Nero Caesar, and the Whore representing the Roman Empire. Revelation was a political document written in code to protect it and its carrier from the empire it denounced.

I feel attempts made by the writer of Revelation to reimagine Jesus as the warrior king messiah who would deliver Israel from its enemies ruling with an iron scepter and getting even with all of God's enemies fall flat when compared with a Jesus who preached to turn the other cheek

.

The writer of Revelation is giving the light in which to interpret the O.T., in which it parallels the prophets, but gives missing details. The Revelation "Day of the Lord", is paralleled by Ze 14, whereas "the Lord will be king over all the earth", and the nations will gathered around Jerusalem (Ze 14:2 & Joel 3:2), and they will be judged. (Ze 14:12 & Joel 3:2) Ze 14:12,"their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, and their eyes will rot in their sockets,.." The rod of iron of Revelation parallels Psalms 2:6-9,"I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain."....Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron".

Be careful what you believe about people who had the power to write their own history. After taking the throne by force (you know, the way thrones are always usurped?), David was easily in a position to make up legends about his life that legitimized his rule and destroyed the claims of his competition. Yeah, he killed a giant at some distant past battle because God was on his side, and was anointed to be king by a prophet when he was young because David was soooo pure of heart. Why not write some pure horsecrap into history about how he was best friends with Saul's son, Jonathan, a man whose murder he was almost certainly at least complicit with if not directly responsible for, too? The only story that says anything bad about David is there to legitimize the king that followed him, Solomon, who apparently learned his tricks from dad, as he crowns himself "wisest on earth" in the pages of the Bible.

I do not believe the harlots which wrote their own history, nor the governments on which they sat, and still sits. (Rev 17:3). It was the "dragon" which gave its authority to the beast with 7 heads, of which the 7 heads were "kings", of which 5 have fallen as of the writing of the book of Revelation, and 3 were to come, as the 8th will be one of the 7. (Rev 17:10-11) These "kings" all relate to the empires of Daniel 2.

Yeshua was quite specific in that he said that the tares would be mixed with the wheat (Mt 13:30), and the tares are the ones who put together the church canon, and whose message is included in that canon.

 

[Prophet]

Yeah, I'm not replying to that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There, you see? David for some reason wasn't allowed to count his fighting men. Proving myself to be better than the average conspiracy theorist I have given you the source of my conspiracy. So now the theory is that not wanting their fighting men to be counted the Jews petitioned the Roman government to remove all trace of their census, hence the census taken at the time of Jesus birth would not be present for the historians to record!

And you are oblivious as to reason. Your 'theory' is laughable.

For others interested in I & II Samuel in general and/or the relationship between census and plague in particular, &#8230;

the P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. commentaries in the Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries I Samuel & II Samuel are worth investigating.​

 

[Brickjectivity]

And you are oblivious as to reason. Your 'theory' is laughable.

While we are calling names, you are a great big kissyfaced hugger, like a big teddy bear. You can't hide it with your little quips and prickly posts.

For others interested in I & II Samuel in general and/or the relationship between census and plague in particular, &#8230;

the P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. commentaries in the Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries I Samuel & II Samuel are worth investigating.​

Hey, I'm not above reading.

 

[metis]

Ok, here is the source of my mini-conspiracy no laughing... Its a quote from the NIV 2 Samuel 24:10 "David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the LORD, &#8220;I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, LORD, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.&#8221;

So now the theory is that not wanting their fighting men to be counted the Jews petitioned the Roman government to remove all trace of their census, hence the census taken at the time of Jesus birth would not be present for the historians to record!

Do you know why David was not supposed to count the men? It was actually for the reason that it was believed back then that only God needed to know the numbers, so that was considered His domain-- not ours. However, that same rule didn't apply to the Romans.

I am arguing out of character, but to a seriously fundamentalist student of the Bible with my background they are just discarding their scriptures. Think about all the miracles that happen on Sunday morning in church that bear witness to the inerrant word of God and the thousands of ministers who bear witness. These duplicitous liberal theologians impugne the honour of such men and even of God and Jesus. A lot of them don't even believe miracles happen yet call themselves theologians!

I have literally read several hundred theology books (no exaggeration), with probably about half of them being Christian theologians (I used to teach Christian theology), and there's only a small handful even of "liberal" theologians that didn't believe in miracles or in God. Why would they stay as theologians if they didn't believe in God, and who would hire them in the first place?

Well why don't they stick to their guns? Do they believe in God or not? (This charge would be laid to myself by many and even by myself.)
The classic argument is that the Bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers, Metis. I could read you a list of ten or twenty famous Bible critics all of whose writings now serve merely to support the substance of the Bible! In fact it is the ancient critics who show us that the scriptures are unchanged. We are getting off topic though.

Actually there has been some change in the scriptures over the years, but most of these changes are relatively minor in character. What is much more variable are the interpretations of scripture, which has always been quite contentious.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do you know why David was not supposed to count the men? It was actually for the reason that it was believed back then that only God needed to know the numbers, so that was considered His domain-- not ours. However, that same rule didn't apply to the Romans.

What? Well why don't I have any basic information like that? Well thank you for informing me!

I have literally read several hundred theology books (no exaggeration), with probably about half of them being Christian theologians (I used to teach Christian theology), and there's only a small handful even of "liberal" theologians that didn't believe in miracles or in God. Why would they stay as theologians if they didn't believe in God, and who would hire them in the first place?

Harvard and Yale might hire them. I've been told that Harvard and Yale started out as Bible colleges but have since deteriorated into very liberal unbelieving schools. You may disagree but that is what I heard from some very sincere and intelligent people. Apparently wolves crept into the schools pretending to be real believers and transformed those schools into machines that pump out liberals. Now if you want a quality seminary as a reference you could consider Liberty U. or maybe Regent U. Those are serious schools with real believers in charge.

Actually there has been some change in the scriptures over the years, but most of these changes are relatively minor in character. What is much more variable are the interpretations of scripture, which has always been quite contentious.

I respect that you have read hundreds of books, but what does that prove? There is a scripture verse in Ecclesiastes 12:12 which says "...Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body." Shouldn't we instead keep the Bible without trying to change it and only read that?

 

[metis]

What? Well why don't I have any basic information like that? Well thank you for informing me!

You're welcome.

Harvard and Yale might hire them. I've been told that Harvard and Yale started out as Bible colleges but have since deteriorated into very liberal unbelieving schools. You may disagree but that is what I heard from some very sincere and intelligent people. Apparently wolves crept into the schools pretending to be real believers and transformed those schools into machines that pump out liberals. Now if you want a quality seminary as a reference you could consider Liberty U. or maybe Regent U. Those are serious schools with real believers in charge.

Generally speaking, the more "liberal" theologians often drift in the direction of looking for natural causes whereas God isn't necessarily involved directly in every little activity. However, most that I have run across don't deny there's a God nor deny that God can perform miracles, but they tend to think that some of what we find in the scriptures that's attributed to God may well have been from some other cause(s).

However, when they do that, most tend to cloak their terms, not in absolutes, but more in terms of maybes, even though there are some, like Crossan, who's an excellent theologian but who sometimes goes overboard with his theories by stating them as if they were accepted facts.

BTW, I'm somewhat familiar with Liberty U., but I have never been impressed since they work from a given paradigm, which has the effect of coloring their conclusions. I know a woman who was a niece of Falwell (she was an aid for me in my summer program for a couple of years back in the early 1980's), and even though she's a Christian and had lived with them at times during the summers, she didn't have too many nice things to say about him. OTOH, she said his wife was just a terrific person.

As for Regent U., that place I know literally nothing about.

I respect that you have read hundreds of books, but what does that prove? There is a scripture verse in Ecclesiastes 12:12 which says "...Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body." Shouldn't we instead keep the Bible without trying to change it and only read that?

First of all, who's supposedly changing it? Not I, nor any theologian I've read. There's a vast difference between changing it and the imprecise art of interpreting it, and with the latter there's always going to be questions and different takes.

Secondly, avoiding studying something is hardly a way to learn more. Also, many people who are not well-trained theologically often fail to take other factors into consideration, such as the culture of eretz Israel 2000 years ago, problems with putting ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek into the proper modern English, a lack of historical knowledge of the time period, a lack of understanding of the various traditional Jewish writing styles, etc. It's much more difficult than so many imagine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And you are oblivious as to reason. Your 'theory' is laughable.

While we are calling names, you are a great big kissyfaced hugger, like a big teddy bear.

I called you no name. As for the rest, you've obviously been talking to my grandkids.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you know why David was not supposed to count the men?

From P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.:

It is widely acknowledged that "the major purpose of the census in the ancient world was always to lay the basis for levying taxes and registering men for military service" (Bright 1976:198; cf. Mendenhall 1958:53-54). The biblical materials show clearly that the census was expected to provide an estimation of available military manpower. According to Num 1:2-3 (cf. Exod 30:14) the Israelites to be enrolled in the census were males twenty years old or older, "everyone able to march with the army." In David's census, duty was a sanctified occupation involving a complex set of laws of purity: A soldier was consecrated before battle (Josh 3:5), the battle camp was kept ritually clean (Deut 23:10-15 [23:9-14]), etc. Once enrolled in a census, therefore, an Israelite was subject to military rules of purity. Any infraction could lead to disastrous results. This is the reason that David's census order put Israel in jeopardy. The onset of the plague suggests that taboos were violated, as would be almost inevitable in a general enrollment. Was the precautionary half-shekel kopek paid? If such a provision was in effect in the time of David, it must have been neglected, as Speiser supposes (1958:22). [ibid]

Of course absolutely none of this is relevant to a Palestine under Roman rule, but I doubt that Brickjectivity allows relevance to get in the way of nonsensical theories.

 

[CG Didymus]

It's time for another one of those threads.

David is the start of the Davidic line. The messiah, will be the end of the Davidic line. David was from Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:1, 1 Samuel 17:58). Therefor the messiah, as a descendant of David, already comes from Bethlehem.

He doesn't need to be born there.

He did need to be born there to fulfill the rest of the well known prophecies of his coming. Who would Rachel be weeping over if Jesus hadn't been in Bethlehem to cause Herod to send his men there to kill all the male babies? Because Herod was going to do that another well known prophecy was fulfilled. Jesus was taken to Egypt to hide which fulfilled the "out of Egypt I will call my son" prophecy. After that, because Mary and Joseph weren't from Bethlehem, they returned to their home, thus fulfilling yet another prophecy, "He will be called a Nazarene."

All this is so clear to all Christians. Why is it so hard for you Jews to see this? What excuse do you have for not believing? I suppose you think that someone could possibly have made it all up. Not likely. Too many provable facts, like the census, Herod killing the babies, Jesus being in Egypt. I'll bet you if we look hard enough we can find prophecies that have the three wise men and the star they followed and that Jesus was born on December 25th and we should decorate a tree in his honor like the good book says or should say. Anyway, if we can't find it, maybe we can write it in somewhere or maybe take two or three obscure passages and put them together to make it fulfill what we need. What's the Jewish word for December? or at least word that's close?