[DouglasKC]

There’s so much wrong in that article one doesn’t know where to start. The author uses more speculation than evolutionists. Quibbling about whether it was a stable or a house then stating it was part of the house where the animals were kept. What does he think a stable is? Either way Jesus was born where the animals where normally kept and placed in a trough where animals ate.

I think it did a good job making it's points based on scripture, word usage and middle eastern custom and traditions. If it were a case being built on circumstantial evidence it would be pretty strong. What the traditional view has going for it is that mostly it's a strong tradition.

A stupid article that adds nothing and quibbles over semantics.

I think it fleshes out the origins of Jesus and makes him more real but I see where you're coming from.

[GeronL]

Joseph and Mary were probably not much poorer than anyone else in those days, because almost everyone was.

[CynicalBear]

I could add to the error in the article. The whole section “A culture of hospitality and honoring kinship” is really based on conjecture and extrapolation. Then in the next section he uses Luke 2:4-6 to somehow indicate they had been there “for days”. Again conjecture with no solid evidence. Not that it matters but the entire article is evidence for a slippery slide into error. While I do agree that tradition can slip in non biblical truth but this article doesn’t add anything.