91Èȱ¬

I adore recreations like this, it gives a chance to immerse yourself into a culture and time utterly different to what most of us experience today, even if you have to suspend disbelief a little over the usual historical inaccuracies that are bound to crop up (even if it's just to meet H+S regulations).

I wonder if, to give a more accurate portrayal, the streets will be full of animal manure. Or if it's just the basis upon which the story is told? ;-) (sorry! I couldn't resist!)

"the puppet ruler"...who according to all historical records had been dead for four years at the time of this recreation. A world wide census that is not recorded anywhere else and a baby thats indistinguishable from a two year old. Thats entertainment for you!

Oh goody another pioneer, fancy dress, imaginary village. How touristic!

I have been to plenty of contemporary places around the globe in which women give birth in huts with mud floors. Even today in India and other parts of the world umbilical cords are cut with sharp rocks.

This mythical tale has grown out of proportion. Anyone that truly cares about the poor around the planet would help support Planned Parenthood to ensure that no more unplanned, unwanted pregnancies happen and of course giving a monthly donation to Doctors Without Borders is very helpful too.



Romancing the peasant past of North African desert dwellers has contributed to ongoing social strife for too long.

We have to solve contemporary social problems.

That is so kitsch

I'm a crusty old cynic of course. The *real* Bethlehem (nowadays) is a bit of a dump, and the "real" stable a gaudified icon trap, staffed by dirty warring monks and plastered in kitschy icons that even Chris McC would regard as in somewhat bad taste.
The historical Bethlehem (as part of Judea) in 6BCE was certainly not under Roman occupation as such - Herod was a vassal king - not quite a "puppet". And he was, for the time and place, an immensely powerful and wily ruler, as well as a remarkable builder. Of course, that's why he's called "Herod the Great". He was also a complete paranoid fruitcake, and even now, over 2 millennia later, his cruelty, as reported by Josephus and others, puts a chill up the old spine. There is not a shred of evidence for the "Massacre of the Innocents" tale spun by the Matthew Author, but I wouldn't be *surprised* if he did carry out something like that.

The Matthew and Luke stories of the nativity may be fictional, and the innkeeper, donkey, stable and oxen may be complete unbiblical extrapolation, but I love the Christmas story, and Christmas time itself. It is the very epitome of myth, and wonderful for all that. If I get a chance, I'll try to call by to the King's Hall with the kids. It does sound lovely.

...and Lucy, while you have a point to a certain degree, a couple of things are worth pointing out. Palestine is certainly not a desert, nor is it North Africa. It is an amazing part of the world, filled with wonderful people (and a rather a lot of complete nutcases), and whatever the truth of the whole "god" thing (which I agree is minimal), it is part of the shared heritage of many of us in the Western world.

Of course, since I'm an Atheistic Christian, I would say that. I'm all for myths, so long as we realise that myths *are* myths, and not to take them too seriously.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

As Helio quite rightly points out you can't even go to Bethlehem (the real one, and I'm the only member of my family who hasn't been) and experience the 'Biblical Bethlehem', so I'm not sure what the point is.

I even agree with LucyQ's first 4 lines. (Sometimes I feel like I've so little in common with the church).

But here's the thing, Lucy's point, "I have been to plenty of contemporary places around the globe in which women give birth in huts with mud floors." kinda is the point of the nativity (God *with* us); if we miss that, yea, it is just a myth, worse still, it is one devised by ourselves.

It's called 'shooting yourself in the foot'.

Peter, you said it, dude. Even though we know the nativity stories are late made-up fictions, there is something there that connects with a very deep humanistic principle. God-made-flesh - it is a powerful metaphor, but the extra step that the Atheistic Christian makes is to realise that the process works both ways.

For me, I think shining the light of Jesus into the world is a very laudable aim - but let's make sure that we are shining the light of the *right* Jesus - not the mystical mumbo-jumbo "way, truth & life". And by the "right" Jesus, I do of course mean the sanitised humanist atheist Jesus that dispenses with all that goddy stuff and instead concentrates on loving thy neighbour as thyself.

Hosanna in the highest!

If there was charity working on a cure for LucyQ I'd give to that.

How come I'm getting attacked for my taste in kitchy icons when I'm not even here to defend myself?

Anyway, unlike my fellow commentators, I'll wait till I've been to see the thing - maybe Saturday evening - before I comment further.

If any of you are ever in Washington DC I recommend a visit to the Franciscan monastery - America's Holy Land, where they've recreated some of the highlights of the Holy Land within one church and extensive grounds - you can visit the Holy Sepulchre, church of the nativity, and even the roman catacombs

In 1986 I went on a pilgrimage at Easter to Isreal and was privilaged to see the real thing in Bethlehem. I had a couple of friends who went on a pilgrimage to Israel in November and unfortunately their tour party weren't allowed into it.For me the Christmas story isn't mumbo jumbo or fiction, it is historically correct, though the way some churches presented is in some parts misleading.

But Bertie dear, "historically" Herod died in 4BC, so how did he order the slaughter of the innocents

Tullycarnetbertie,

I'm sure you have independant and verifiable historical sources to back up that claim, I'd hate to think you're basing it all on just the two gospels in the bible. Most historians would be balk at the concept of calling something 'correct' based on only two sources, neither of which are primary (direct first-hand account, written by the witness), or even secondary (recounting of event by witness to another). Tertiary at the best, and even that's suspect (as they've been translated and modified many times).

Oh, leave Bertie alone, will yiz! Which one is historically correct - the Matthew version or the Luke version?

The answer of course is that *both* are "correct" - they allow our imaginations to run riot with this lovely little myth, and give us excuses to get everyone around to focus on family and the kids and extending good will to each other.

Perhaps the real tragedy is that we need a specific excuse and time of year to do this, rather than it being a natural part of our lives all year round. But whatever the reason, the myth of the Christ Child is worth it, even though it is not "historical" in any rigid sense.

Helio,

As said by Terry Pratchett (may his brain cells live forever); "all tribal myths are true, for a given value of 'true'."

Yup. It's just that theists play a bit fast and loose with that, and like Bertie they repeat laughable contentions based on what they have been told from some other punter, rather than anything reliable.

nobledeebee

#12

I'd hazard a guess and say he gave the order before he died. :-)

Helio - # 15

What is wrong? (Or right). Why do I seem to be agreeing with you substantially lately?!

In this case couldn't agree more.

peterm2 #18 and well before Jesus was born by the looks of it.

nobledeebee

Well, that would depend...

Parrh, don't fight it - you know it makes sense :-)

Peter, yes - it would depend on whether Quirinius was governor of Syria, I suppose, which would put us at 4CE... But in reality these little wrinkles are only problematic for those of us (poor dears) who feel that the Bible has to be historically accurate. The rest of us have accepted that there is a huge amount of myth and even contradiction woven in there. It's a human document, and when we come to that realisation (and I think some day you will - you are showing encouraging signs), you will understand how the divine emerges from its interaction with us as a hologram. The object behind the illusion is not really there, but the illusion remains. Some day your Necker cube will flip, and you'll be much happier than you are now.

:-)

-H (walking in a winter wonderland)

So did any of you get off your 'enlightened' asses and actually go to the event?

paramedimark

I'm sure it was a rather good event, but no, I didn't go. To be honest I've been to countless numbers of Christian events over the years and sometimes you just loose heart at the thought of another one.

But I hope you enjoyed it, and have a great Christmas.

No - I didn't get the chance at the end of the day. So would an "enlightened" ass be the mythical beast that carried Jesus's ma to Bethlehem?

Helio,

The enlightened ass was that donkey that carried Balaam, you know, the one that talked and could see invisible angels and got beaten for its troubles.

What I find hilarious is that most of our theist pals is that they are quite happy to assign the myth and legend tag to the Baalam episode, yet they maintain that the whole virgin birth nonsense, which didn't rear its head until Jesus was well cold and dead is somehow "historically accurate" LOL!!

[Ditto for the "resurrection" fables of course]

Bump... and a question - why do any of the stories in the bible *have* to be true? If I were to prove that the authors of the bible made mistakes (and they did), how precisely does that undermine Christianity? I can understand that it might undermine a very particular knuckle-dragging version, but since most Christians now accept that the bible contains inaccuracies and mistakes, what harm does it do to extend that to the nativity stories, the virginity of his ma, and the resurrection myths? Does not compute.

Helio,

Because if some of it made up, all of it is. Or at least that's what the likes of Henry Morris

So for those hard liners who refuse to compromise, they have to accept that all of the bible is true, even the nonsensical bits, and try to force reality to accept it. Hense crazy ideas like the Grand Canyon being formed in a few days, the speed of light slowing down really fast and so on.

Yet no serious theologians hold to this crazy view, which makes me wonder why the likes of Benny and Alister McGrath and John Lennox spend their time attacking sincere humanists, often (as in the case if Benny) being quite rude and offensive (but we're tough, we can take it), rather than tackling the literalists, whose toxic brand of Christianism does such a massive disservice to the bible and to Jesus the Nazarene himself. Or perhaps they regard people like Morris or Ken Ham or Eric Hovind or Billy Graham as being "on their side". Let's see some integrity from these people (he repeated)...