Jesus Was Born In Bethlehem, Not Jerusalem....duh!

[Scott Lloyd]

Could be any number of deduced reasons. This thread presents one deduction. Could be Smith, or other co-authors, read the term in another book, or heard it used, and borrowed it for their own novel.

 

 

"Could be" is an attempt to explain something away without evidence.

You're relying upon unsupported mind-reading.

As such, you've provided reluctant support for Bernard's argument in the OP: Nephite prophets describing Jesus being born in the "Land of Jerusalem" is evidence of authenticity. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have to scramble so hard to find a reason to dismiss it.

Thank you.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

 

Just curious: Are you actually aware of such a book or source that would have been available at that time?

 

 

Fox's Book of Martyrs

The Monthly Review

The Works of Hugh Latimer

Sermons (by Latimer and George Elwes Corrie)

An Historical Essay on the Magna Carta of King John

 

 

I expect an apology is forthcoming. Or maybe, do your own research before inserting foot in mouth?

Before demanding an apology, could you provide direct quotes from these sources?

 

Specifically, I'm wondering whether they merely use the phrase "land of Jerusalem" or whether they refer to Bethlehem as being in the land of Jerusalem or perhaps Jesus being born in the land of Jerusalem -- which is more to the point of Pahoran's argument, as I see it.

[saemo]

(Emphasis added.)

This comment deserves a revisit, if only for this one reason: You do realise, don't you, that there is not one shred of evidence that even one of the people involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon ever, for a nanosecond, though of it as a "novel?"

And yet, the entire absence of evidence for that accusation (because, let's be honest here, that's exactly what it is) doesn't stop you from oh so casually throwing it out there as if it was some kind of accepted fact, does it?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

 

Is there not, among Mormon scholars today, those who view the Book of Mormon as a divinely Inspired Fiction.

 

"Some may ask: Why resist applying the Inspired Fiction theory to the Book of Mormon? Why resist the idea that God inspired Joseph Smith to dictate the Book of Mormon to teach us divine truths through the medium of divinely-inspired stories that are equally fictional but no less valuable than the parables of Jesus? Why resist the idea that Lehi, Nephi and others were divinely-inspired characters in a grand divine novel rather than real persons who actually lived in the ancient Americas? Why resist the idea that Joseph mistakenly thought the Book of Mormon was a “translation” of an ancient record written by actual ancient prophets, similar to his mistakenly thinking he was translating the Egyptian papyri in his possession when he received the revelation that is the Book of Abraham?" (from mormonmatters.org)

 

So, I use "novel" and it is unacceptable unless I qualify my usage with "grand divine"?

 

Your complaint is irrelevant.

[wenglund]

Also, thanks for the link, but I find Lindsay's arguments unconvincing.

 

This is as it should be. Persuasive arguments and evidence of Godly things ought to come from God rather than man.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Hi TSM,

 

You are ever the gentleman, and I thank you for that.

 

Also, thanks for the link, but I find Lindsay's arguments unconvincing.

 

Thanx to you.

 

Evidence is just evidence. I didn't say they were convincing.  For myself I not convinced by the evidence either. Though it is interesting. I've had my own personal testimony of the Truth Claims of the Book of Mormon for 43 years, and counting. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Is there not, among Mormon scholars today, those who view the Book of Mormon as a divinely Inspired Fiction.

 

"Some may ask: Why resist applying the Inspired Fiction theory to the Book of Mormon? Why resist the idea that God inspired Joseph Smith to dictate the Book of Mormon to teach us divine truths through the medium of divinely-inspired stories that are equally fictional but no less valuable than the parables of Jesus? Why resist the idea that Lehi, Nephi and others were divinely-inspired characters in a grand divine novel rather than real persons who actually lived in the ancient Americas? Why resist the idea that Joseph mistakenly thought the Book of Mormon was a “translation” of an ancient record written by actual ancient prophets, similar to his mistakenly thinking he was translating the Egyptian papyri in his possession when he received the revelation that is the Book of Abraham?" (from mormonmatters.org)

 

So, I use "novel" and it is unacceptable unless I qualify my usage with "grand divine"?

 

Your complaint is irrelevant.

What is irrelevant is the ruminations of fringers. They do not, nor will they ever reflect authoritative teaching or belief.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi TSM,

 

You are ever the gentleman, and I thank you for that.

 

Also, thanks for the link, but I find Lindsay's arguments unconvincing.

Whether you find them convincing or not, thesometimesaint was correct in saying it is wrong to state there is no evidence.

[saemo]

Before demanding an apology, could you provide direct quotes from these sources?

 

Specifically, I'm wondering whether they merely use the phrase "land of Jerusalem" or whether they refer to Bethlehem as being in the land of Jerusalem or perhaps Jesus being born in the land of Jerusalem -- which is more to the point of Pahoran's argument, as I see it.

In relation to the OP, who's argument is that Bethlehem is in the land of Jerusalem, as a point of reference to an area rather than an actual reference to the birth-city of Jesus. My argument is that "land of Jerusalem" was already in use to describe the area, in Smith's time (and before). And is therefore not a unique. In essence, I agree with the OP! I disagree that the usage is divinely inspired but rather the usage is something familiar to the time the Book of Mormon was written.

 

Bethlehem falls in this area, as is the argument of the OP. When these sources reference land of Jerusalem, they too are not referencing the city itself but the area, which Bethlehem falls in. So it is irrelevant whether or not Bethlehem is named specifically. Which has also been pointed out in several posts by people who say they live in a suburb of a city, but will say they are from the city itself. You're asking for something that makes no sense in the context of the OP or those who have responded.

 

But, for your satisfaction, here are the quotes. For the sake of brevity, I'm not attempting to keep them in the context of the publication topic. The topics are wide. I'm just quoting directly. My sources all come from a search, within a date range, of Google Books. Easily available for anyone to verify.

 

"Foxes Book of Martyrs"

The twentieth day of July King Richard, speaking with the French king, desired him that [text is garbled] with their armies would bind themselves by [garbled text] to remain in the land of Jerusalem [garbled text] space of three years, for the winning and recovering again of those countries."

 

"The Monthly Review"

He then asked if he would promise to God and Mary, our dear Lady, obedience, as long as he lived, to the Master of the Temple, and the prior who should be set over him; chastity of his body; compliance with the laudable manners and customs of the Order then in force, and such as the Master and Knights might hereafter add; fight for and defend, with all his might, the holy land of Jerusalem; never quit the Order but with consent of the Master and the Chapter; never see a Christian unjustly deprived of his inheritance, or be aiding in such deed.

 

"The Works of Hugh Latimer"

Same quote as below (Sermons).

 

"Sermons"

This seditious man reproveth this honourable city, and saith, Prinicpes tui infideles; "Thou land of Jerusalem, thy magistrates, thy judges are unfaithful:" they keep no touch, they will talk of many gay things, they will pretend this and that, but they keep no promise."

 

"An Historical Essay on the Magna Charta of King John"

"I, John, by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Earl of Anjou, being prevented by grievous sickness, and having not sufficient space in this time of my weakness, now hastily passing away, that my Testament should be adapted to every one and for all my affairs; the ordering and disposition of my Will, of my faith and lawful disposal, I commit to my faithful subjects underwritten; without whose counsel, they being appointed when in healthful state, these presents may in no wise be ordered: that what they shall faithfully ordain and dispose concerning my affairs, as well as in making satisfaction to God and the Holy Church for damages and injuries brought upon them; as in their giving aid to the land of Jerusalem; and in providing of the support to be enquired after for the inheritance and defence of my sons; and in making recompense to those who have served us faithfully; and in making distribution of alms to the poor and Religious Houses, for the health of my soul; shall be established and made sure."

 

 

(I'll just note that in aiding the land of Jerusalem, Bethlehem was protected from the encroachment of Islam as well as the city of Jerusalem itself.)

[saemo]

What is irrelevant is the ruminations of fringers. They do not, nor will they ever reflect authoritative teaching or belief.

 

"Finges" is subjective. A very devout LDS woman, who I admire, once told me that FARMs was "fringey".

[Scott Lloyd]

In relation to the OP, who's argument is that Bethlehem is in the land of Jerusalem, as a point of reference to an area rather than an actual reference to the birth-city of Jesus. My argument is that "land of Jerusalem" was already in use to describe the area, in Smith's time (and before). And is therefore not a unique. In essence, I agree with the OP! I disagree that the usage is divinely inspired but rather the usage is something familiar to the time the Book of Mormon was written.

 

Thank you.

 

So I guess I'm still unclear what it is that you are demanding Pahoran apologize for.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Finges" is subjective. A very devout LDS woman, who I admire, once told me that FARMs was "fringey".

The notion that the Book of Mormon is not authentic but merely "inspired fiction" is definitely on the fringe. Teaching such a thing would not be tolerated in Church worship services or classes.

[thesometimesaint]

In relation to the OP, who's argument is that Bethlehem is in the land of Jerusalem, as a point of reference to an area rather than an actual reference to the birth-city of Jesus. My argument is that "land of Jerusalem" was already in use to describe the area, in Smith's time (and before). And is therefore not a unique. In essence, I agree with the OP! I disagree that the usage is divinely inspired but rather the usage is something familiar to the time the Book of Mormon was written.

 

Bethlehem falls in this area, as is the argument of the OP. When these sources reference land of Jerusalem, they too are not referencing the city itself but the area, which Bethlehem falls in. So it is irrelevant whether or not Bethlehem is named specifically. Which has also been pointed out in several posts by people who say they live in a suburb of a city, but will say they are from the city itself. You're asking for something that makes no sense in the context of the OP or those who have responded.

 

But, for your satisfaction, here are the quotes. For the sake of brevity, I'm not attempting to keep them in the context of the publication topic. The topics are wide. I'm just quoting directly. My sources all come from a search, within a date range, of Google Books. Easily available for anyone to verify.

 

"Foxes Book of Martyrs"

The twentieth day of July King Richard, speaking with the French king, desired him that [text is garbled] with their armies would bind themselves by [garbled text] to remain in the land of Jerusalem [garbled text] space of three years, for the winning and recovering again of those countries."

 

"The Monthly Review"

He then asked if he would promise to God and Mary, our dear Lady, obedience, as long as he lived, to the Master of the Temple, and the prior who should be set over him; chastity of his body; compliance with the laudable manners and customs of the Order then in force, and such as the Master and Knights might hereafter add; fight for and defend, with all his might, the holy land of Jerusalem; never quit the Order but with consent of the Master and the Chapter; never see a Christian unjustly deprived of his inheritance, or be aiding in such deed.

 

"The Works of Hugh Latimer"

Same quote as below (Sermons).

 

"Sermons"

This seditious man reproveth this honourable city, and saith, Prinicpes tui infideles; "Thou land of Jerusalem, thy magistrates, thy judges are unfaithful:" they keep no touch, they will talk of many gay things, they will pretend this and that, but they keep no promise."

 

"An Historical Essay on the Magna Charta of King John"

"I, John, by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Earl of Anjou, being prevented by grievous sickness, and having not sufficient space in this time of my weakness, now hastily passing away, that my Testament should be adapted to every one and for all my affairs; the ordering and disposition of my Will, of my faith and lawful disposal, I commit to my faithful subjects underwritten; without whose counsel, they being appointed when in healthful state, these presents may in no wise be ordered: that what they shall faithfully ordain and dispose concerning my affairs, as well as in making satisfaction to God and the Holy Church for damages and injuries brought upon them; as in their giving aid to the land of Jerusalem; and in providing of the support to be enquired after for the inheritance and defence of my sons; and in making recompense to those who have served us faithfully; and in making distribution of alms to the poor and Religious Houses, for the health of my soul; shall be established and made sure."

 

 

(I'll just note that in aiding the land of Jerusalem, Bethlehem was protected from the encroachment of Islam as well as the city of Jerusalem itself.)

 

Ahh the ever expanding Palmyra public library that JS apparently spent long hours in.

Edited August 20, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Scott Lloyd]

Ahh the ever expanding Palmyra public library that JS apparently spent long hours in.

Must have been a real drag back then not to have Google Books to rely on.

 

Edited to add:

 

But I'm glad to learn saemo more or less agrees with us on the stupidity of the argument that the Book of Mormon can be dismissed on the grounds of Joseph Smith having made a blunder in saying Jesus was born "at [not "in"] Jerusalem, the land of our fathers."

Edited August 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[saemo]

Did I say he had access to these books, no. And that was never my argument. My argument is, the phrase was in use. OBVIOUSLY, Joseph Smith used it. But apparently he must have lived in a remote cave and never ever heard anyone else speak.

 

Google books is for your benefit, not Joseph Smith's, who I have no contact with.

 

Done being silly yet?

Edited August 20, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

Must have been a real drag back then not to have Google Books to rely on.

 

Edited to add:

 

But I'm glad to learn saemo more or less agrees with us on the stupidity of the argument that the Book of Mormon can be dismissed on the grounds of Joseph Smith having made a blunder in saying Jesus was born "in Jerusalem, the land of our fathers."

I never said it was stupid argument.

[saemo]

The notion that the Book of Mormon is not authentic but merely "inspired fiction" is definitely on the fringe. Teaching such a thing would not be tolerated in Church worship services or classes.

 

 

If you say so.

[Scott Lloyd]

If you say so.

I submit I'm in a better position to determine that than you.

[Scott Lloyd]

I never said it was stupid argument.

But you've pretty much dismissed it.

[saemo]

I submit I'm in a better position to determine that than you.

Sure.

 

I just go by what I read here and other LDS online source, by people who profess to be active, believing, LDS. Sometimes I think to myself, that can't really be the majority belief of LDS. Sometimes I discern by LDS responses that it is a majority belief, sometimes I see that it isn't.

 

But who cares? I was criticized for using the word "novel", which I showed is not my novelty.

[Scott Lloyd]

Did I say he had access to these books, no. And that was never my argument. My argument is, the phrase was in use. OBVIOUSLY, Joseph Smith used it. But apparently he must have lived in a remote cave and never ever heard anyone else speak.

 

Showing that it was "in use" is one thing; demonstrating that it was common vernacular in Joseph's learning environment is quite another.

[thesometimesaint]

Did I say he had access to these books, no. And that was never my argument. My argument is, the phrase was in use. OBVIOUSLY, Joseph Smith used it. But apparently he must have lived in a remote cave and never ever heard anyone else speak.

 

I don't know of any knowledge Saint that claims JS lived in a remote cave, and never heard anyone else speak. Upstate New York/Pennsylvania of the 1830's could best be described as rural agriculture, dotted with small towns. Lucy Mack Smith claims that Joseph was not well read even by the standards of that day.

[saemo]

But you've pretty much dismissed it.

Yeah, there are arguments against the Book of Mormon I don't agree with. This is one of them. Another is the "cement" argument, though I disagree with it for other reasons than I see in Mormon apologetics.

[saemo]

I don't know of any knowledge Saint that claims JS lived in a remote cave, and never heard anyone else speak. Upstate New York/Pennsylvania of the 1830's could best be described as rural agriculture, dotted with small towns. Lucy Mack Smith claims that Joseph was not well read even by the standards of that day.

But attended sermons of many denominations.  I don't know why it would be an issue that Joseph Smith used the phrase, because he heard it somewhere else. He also heard the word "adieu", and used it. So what?

Edited August 20, 2014 by saemo

[thesometimesaint]

But attended sermons of many denominations.

 

I don't know what you mean by many denominations. Probably no more than half a dozen different denominations. But still enough for the young Joseph to be confused by the conflicting claims. It is one thing to listen to conflicting claims and quite another to be well read from many different books.

[saemo]

I don't know what you mean by many denominations. Probably no more than half a dozen different denominations. But still enough for the young Joseph to be confused by the conflicting claims. It is one thing to listen to conflicting claims and quite another to be well read from many different books.

TSM, my religious tradition is one of hearing the Word, so I have a sense of learning by hearing.  I don't hold to an idea that knowledge is only gained from books, and never have.

[Scott Lloyd]

But attended sermons of many denominations.  I don't know why it would be an issue that Joseph Smith used the phrase, because he heard it somewhere else. He also heard the word "adieu", and used it. So what?

Adieu was in common use among English speakers of the early 1800s, as Bernard Gui, has amply demonstrated elsewhere.