Values controversy in Christmas gospel

[scavok]

Here's are the verses from the Christmas Gospel in Luke from NIV.

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

The common interpretation that is taught about these verses is that Mary and Joseph had to take shelter in a stable because all of the rooms in the inn were taken. They were simply late-comers for the census and had to take whatever lodgings were left.

However, I believe that what actually happened was a little more complicated. I think Mary and Joseph were turned away because an unmarried pregnant girl and her live-in fiance were unwelcome in any 'decent' lodgings.

And I find it a little strange that they are looking for room at an inn to begin with. Joseph has to travel to Bethlehem because he is of the 'house and line' of David. In short, his family is from the area and certainly should have relatives nearby. Are the local boy and his pregnant girlfriend unwelcome in their homes?

What do you think?

[tanyev]

1. Why did you leave out verse 1

which explains the shortage of rooms? "In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that ALL the world shoud be enrolled." Everybody who was descended from David had to go to Bethlehem.

[DenverDem]

3. That doesn't explain why the family wouldn't take them in.

The OP makes an interesting point.

[tanyev]

4. It just says that he was of the lineage of David,

not that he grew up in Bethlehem and still had immediate family living there. His great great great great grandfather could have been the last person in his direct line who actually lived in Bethlehem.

If all the descendants of my great great grandfather, Julius Hemmann, who came over here from Saxony on a ship 150 years ago, had to go back there all at the same time, the town would be very crowded and I certainly wouldn't have anyone to stay with.

[scavok]

8. Which is a real problem if you want to run an accurate census

and/or create some sort of meaningful tax roll.

In a census it doesn't matter so much where you are from as where you are now.

However, if you are taking a census of a semi-nomadic people, it does make sense to have them gather in a common ancestral location.

Does anyone have a problem with the 'house and line' of David being the decision point for where to go for the census? It seems a little, well, arbitrary.

[DenverDem]

2. One of the many holes in the fundigellical's fantasy myth.

You are right on track. This is a hugely significant part of the birth story, Jesus' was illegitimate in the eyes of religious society, but to those who had eyes to see, he was divine.

Exactly the same scenario is being played out, today, where those who are dispised by the world (the least of these) are really the most important to Prime Creator, and the world is flunking the test of morality completely.

This is what the Old Testament is about, how the "chosen people", no matter how many times they are told how to live correctly, continue cycles of screwing up morally. This is why judgemental legalistic ideologies are destined to fail. Only through agape love can a society continue.

amerikkka is replaying the Old Testament cycle again, with their hypocritical hubristic immorality that they tout as fundigellical sanctity. If Jesus were born 12/24/04, the anti-Christ (busholini) would have him killed immediately. If he escaped infanticide, the anti-Christ's brain dead (im)morality police would kill him around the time he got his message going, in 2037. Those incapable of learning from history are cursed to repeat its horror.

[starroute]

5. There was no Roman census around that time

And when the Romans did hold censuses, they never called for people to return to their birth places.

This part of the Jesus story was clearlly invented to "fulfill" varous prophecies about the messiah by explaining how someone from Nazareth might have happened to have been born in Bethlehem. As I recall, it isn't even compatible with the birth story in one of the other gospels.

[scavok]

10. One of the points I hope to make

Is to tie the Christmas narrative into the ongoing values debate.

Those people who would deny Mary and Joseph lodging based on what they know, or think they know, about the situation also miss the opportunity to know and share Christ.

They let their superficial 'values' take the place of genuine compassion.

[vixengrl]

6. Jesus a momzer?

Sorry, with the language--but there's the idea. Time magazine actually hit this one recently, of all people. The trip to Bethlehem may have been a way for the gospel story to work its way to the ancestral home of David, since the Messiah was supposed to be an offshoot of the house of Jesse. A plot device, really.

As to "local boy"--well, my understanding was that Joseph was a bit older than Mary. He'd even had previous children--it was kind of a May-December. And in the Graves version (from his novel, "King Jesus") it was speculated that he was really a beard to distract people from knowing the boy's true father. It could be, if we consider the story to be truthful, that his family in the old hometown was decayed root and branch. Or, since there weren't any telephones in those days--how the heck are you going to tell uncle Mordecai you're bringing the family?

[scavok]

9. I saw the time magazine article when I went to the store tonight

Didn't have time to read it though. Perhaps it touches on this point. Hope they post the article on line.

I can see where you are headed with the plot device comment. This may be Luke's way of getting to the same point in the story as Matthew.

Of course, the genealogy in Matthew is problematic too. I can see the value of tracing Christ's family tree. However, Matthew ends with Joseph who we contend (through the Virgin birth) is NOT a parent of Jesus. Matthew even admits as much in verses 18-21.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Since, as far as I know, people didn't wear wedding rings in those days,

or even register their marriages, how would anyone have known whether Mary and Joseph were married or not?

It could have been that the innkeeper just didn't want someone giving birth in his inn.

[Tafiti]

11. I remember seeing a Discovery special on this...

...last year. And, I suspect, they'll play similar ones this year around Christmas time. One thing I do remember on this subject is that the word "inn" was not the correct translation of the original text. Can't remember what conclusions or re-translations they draw from it, but the story didn't look much like it is popularly understood.