Perhaps someone can elaborate for me where I miss the mark.
https://theconversation.com/what-histor ... esus-89444
What history really tells us about the birth of Jesus
I might be about to ruin your Christmas. Sorry. But the reality is those nativity plays in which your adorable children wear tinsel and angel wings bear little resemblance to what actually happened.
Neither does your average Christmas card featuring a peaceful nativity scene. These are traditions, compilations of different accounts that reflect a later Christian piety. So what really happened at that so-called “first Christmas”?
Firstly, the actual birth day of Jesus was not December 25. The date we celebrate was adopted by the Christian church as the birthday of Christ in the fourth century. Prior to this period, different Christians celebrated Christmas on different dates.
Contrary to popular belief that Christians simply adapted a pagan festival, historian Andrew McGowan argues the date had more to do with Jesus’s crucifixion in the minds of ancient theologians. For them, linking Jesus’s conception with his death nine months prior to December 25 was important for underscoring salvation.
So what really happened....? Why would someone believe this obvious mythical themed account of something can be rationalized to actual historical event.?
I mean, different Christians celebrated Christmas on different dates is to be expected because of the differences. Becoming the Imperial standard gave it uniformity. The idea of ancient symbolic festivals/celebrations relating to dates are just funny. They are based on observations of the divine order in the heavens. I wonder how many who actually knows why the death of Jesus keeps changing dates
Not that this date issue bothers me. What really got me was this section.
If I would say the birth of Jesus is loaded with mythical images more than some documented actual event; Astrologers, signs in the heavens, divine kingship, miracle birth. It would be called fringe theory.The inn
Only two of the four gospels in the Bible discuss Jesus’s birth. Luke recounts the story of the angel Gabriel appearing to Mary, the couple’s journey to Bethlehem because of a census and the visit of the shepherds. It features Mary’s famous song of praise (Magnificat), her visit to her cousin Elizabeth, her own reflection on the events, lots of angels and the famous inn with no room.
The matter of the inn with “no room” is one of the most historically misunderstood aspects of the Christmas story. ACU scholar Stephen Carlson writes that the word “kataluma” (often translated “inn”) refers to guest quarters. Most likely, Joseph and Mary stayed with family but the guest room was too small for childbirth and hence Mary gave birth in the main room of the house where animal mangers could also be found.
Hence Luke 2:7 could be translated “she gave birth to her firstborn son, she swaddled him and laid him in the feeding trough because there was no space for them in their guest room.”
One biblical scholar quoting another saying Mary gave birth in the main room of a house...because the guest room was too small...
When Eusebius says birth of Jesus was in a cave/rock/grotto, as those before and after him. I imagined it corresponded with accepted scripture.
Why would Stephen Carlson say this? And why is it quoted by another scholar?
You see, I feel there is something obvious I am missing?