the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
Technically one was administered by a Jewish puppet king, but Jesus didn't live there (except possibly for his birth but being born in Bethlehem is not consistent in the gospels)
This sounds interesting, I haven't heard it before or if I have I forgot about it. What are the differences?
So Mark and John don't really deal with the Nativity, and seem to assume Jesus had always lived in Nazareth.
Matthew thinks Joseph lived in Bethlehem, had to flee from Herod to Egypt, and came back to live in Nazereth.
Luke squares the circle by saying Joseph lived in Nazareth but had to travel to Bethlehem for a census, after which they just went home
On balance I'd say this means there is an early tradition of a Bethlehem nativity and Luke and Matthew obtained that from different sources. But then Mark is the earliest gospel and while John probably wasnt written by John the writers have a more direct apostolic connection.