YO mentir...? No, amigo, y vos lo sabés, aunque parece que lo sabés bien dentro de vos...
Tus palabras no tienen apoyo científico, son tu opinión, opinión que no es nada mas ni menos fundada en el fanatismo religioso típico al catolicismo y sus sectas.
Con decirte, amigo, que hoy, gracias a la ciencia, nisiquiera el lugar exacto del nacimiento de Cristo, que por tantos siglos se creía saber, se conoce... Bueno, se conoce, pero, aparentemente no es el que se veneraba, echando po rtierra lo enseñado en la Biblia. Ya había puesto un lik al National Geographic que trata el tema. Obviamente NO lo viste...
El artículo dice :
" Bethlehem of Judaea—or of Galilee?
By Marisa Larsonver. 3 - Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 9:15:53 PMThe “little town of Bethlehem” may not actually be where Jesus was born. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written at least 50 years after Jesus’ death, and some religious scholars believe the writers set their stories in Bethlehem of Judaea to associate Jesus with the House of David. This was to reinforce Jesus’ status as the Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures in order to attract early Jewish converts to Christianity.
Many archaeologists and theological scholars believe Jesus was actually born in either Nazareth or Bethlehem of Galilee, a town just outside Nazareth, citing biblical references and archaeological evidence to support their conclusion. Throughout the Bible, Jesus is referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth,” not “Jesus of Bethlehem.” In fact, in John (7:41- 43) there is a passage questioning Jesus’ legitimacy because he’s from Galilee and not Judaea, as the Hebrew Scriptures say the Messiah must be. Archaeological excavations have shown that Bethlehem in Judaea likely did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 B.C., when Jesus is believed to have been born. Studies of the town have turned up a great deal of Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 B.C. as well as material from the sixth century A.D., but nothing from the first century B.C. or the first century A.D. Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority, says, “There is surprisingly no archaeological evidence that ties Bethlehem in Judaea to the period in which Jesus would have been born.
“If the historical Jesus were truly born in Bethlehem,” Oshri adds, “it was most likely the Bethlehem of Galilee, not that in Judaea. The archaeological evidence certainly seems to favor the former, a busy center [of Jewish life] a few miles from the home of Joseph and Mary, as opposed to an unpopulated spot almost a hundred miles from home.” In this Bethlehem, Oshri and his team have uncovered the remains of a later monastery and the largest Byzantine church in Israel, which raises the question of why such a huge house of Christian worship was built in the heart of a Jewish area. The Israeli archaeologist believes that it’s because early Christians revered Bethlehem of Galilee as the birthplace of Jesus. “There is no doubt in my mind that these are impressive and important evidence of a strong Christian community established in Bethlehem [of Galilee] a short time after Jesus’ death,” he says. Oshri, however, doubts that Bethlehem of Galilee will be recognized as the birthplace of Jesus any time soon. “Business interests are too important,” he says. “After all this time, the churches do not have a strong interest in changing the Nativity story.”
Y el Link al National Geographic está aquí : http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Bethlehem
Cuando escribo en estos lados, YO no miento amigo, ni me dejo llevar por el fanatismo que tanto a usted y a sus colegionarios parece nublarles la visión. Comprendo que defiendan muchos de ustedes sus trabajos, pero, la verdad es mucho más importante que el lucro, según lo dicho y hecho por Cristo. Nosotros los Cristianos eso creemos.
Entiendo tu animadversión contra la Biblia, pero el libro que se discute aqui es el libro de Mormón, te lo recuerdo porque cada que puedes cambias el tema