Showing posts with label Christmas Tree. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christmas Tree. Show all posts

Friday, December 16, 2016

The Spirit World's Dangerous Dark Side

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about evil spirits. This follows this post about the Federal Reserve and the U.S. dollar. This follows this post about Jesus Christ and Christmas. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

As traditional Christianity has lost its appeal for many people, growing numbers have sought to fill that vacuum in their lives in other ways. Some turn to alternate religions popular in other parts of the world. Some turn to witchcraft and pre-Christian paganism. Some seek answers in the occult. A few even knowingly turn to Satanism and evil spirits.
Some are simply curious; others are very serious. But whether they recognize it or not, all are dabbling in dangers that likely are well beyond their limited comprehension. That's why these dangers are often referred to as the occult—things that are secretive, mysterious and concealed.
Maybe you've never directly seen Satan or his demons, but certainly those familiar with the Bible recognize their influence in this rapidly degenerating world. No wonder the Scriptures describe Satan as “the god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4).
His influence is not new, but its prevalence in modern society certainly is. What was once banned or very limited in dealing with the dark spirit realm is now mostly out in the open. Satanism is rampant in movies, and movements based on it, such as Wicca, Santeria, voodoo and consultation with mediums, are thriving, especially with the young.
The apostle Paul tells us we should be wary of such practices, “lest Satan should take advantage of us, for we are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Corinthians 2:11).

Wicca, Santeria and voodoo

One of the fastest growing movements in Western nations is Wicca, a modern version of witchcraft. Part of its popularity is due to American TV programs such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Charmed. Wicca is so popular that the United States, Great Britain and many other nations now recognize it as a legitimate religion with legal rights.
The term Wicca was popularized in 1954 by the British leader of the movement, Gerald Gardner, who described it as a return to the “Old Religion” popular in Europe before Christianity.
Wicca, from on an Old English word for “witch,” incorporates many of the trappings of ancient British witchcraft practices. The satanic pentagram is used as its symbol, and one of its main tenets is adoring nature through different rituals and deities. Some, but not all, covens, or groups, practice casting spells, divination and magic. Wicca is an umbrella group or movement that gathers under its fold very different beliefs and practices—but is at its core a thinly disguised type of old-fashioned witchcraft.
Santeria is a Caribbean religion based on mixing African witchcraft with Roman Catholic beliefs—similar in many ways to voodoo or pure African witchcraft. Its followers practice animal sacrifices and perform feverish dancing during Santerian rituals that can lead to possession of a person by an orisha or “saint” being invoked. The individual then is said to speak and act as that saint. If this is an actual spiritual experience, however, it is nothing more than demonic possession.
All of these practices have this in common: Satan is their originator and they should be absolutely avoided. God, who knows exactly how Satan and his demons work, emphatically warns us not to have anything to do with them. He tells us to not “give the devil a foothold” (Ephesians 4:27, New International Version).
We should not consult with people associated with these practices, in spite of what they claim are good intentions to help us. God says: “There shall not be found among you anyone who . . . practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:10-12, emphasis added throughout).

What are mediums and familiar spirits?

What about mediums and people who use such things as tarot cards and Ouija boards to consult with the spirits?
Mediums—also sometimes called “seers” or “clairvoyants”—are people who may be used by the fallen angels the Bible calls demons. They might appear normal and helpful, but those who are not fakes (and many are) can genuinely have contact with deceitful spirits who seek to attract and use human beings for their own evil purposes. For this reason these evil angelic beings are called in the Bible “deceiving spirits” (1 Timothy 4:1).
A true medium has a “familiar spirit” in him, and the term comes from the Hebrew word obh, meaning “a leather bottle.” To the ancient Hebrews, the hollow sound of the voice of a familiar spirit, speaking through a medium, sounded as if it came out of a skin bottle. Just as a skin bottle is a type of vessel, so a person who has a familiar spirit serves as a vessel or a “medium” that contains the spirit.
Familiar spirits, in reality disguised demons, can have an intimate knowledge of people, alive or dead. They have at their disposal an extensive network of information from fellow demons who are more than willing to share their knowledge with the deceived “host.” In this way, they will entice many more people to be deceived and hooked—ending sometimes as pawns to these spirits.
This is the grave danger of participating in any of these practices—at first these spirits appear as willing servants, but inevitably they end up as harsh taskmasters.
That is why we should avoid coming into any contact with people who claim they can communicate with the dead. God, who is intimately familiar with this spirit world, warns us that “the person who turns to mediums and familiar spirits, to prostitute himself with them, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from his people” (Leviticus 20:6).
The Scriptures candidly admit that legitimate mediums do exist and can establish contact with demons, who disguise themselves as departed loved ones, to attract the unsuspecting into their dark spirit world.

Tarot cards and Ouija boards

Some use manual devices such as tarot cards or Ouija boards to consult directly with these familiar spirits. These objects should be avoided at all costs—they are not innocent “games” but ancient ways of attracting these familiar spirits.
Think of these instruments as potential passports into your mind—possibly opening an entry to the zone that should only be inhabited by your own thoughts and God's Holy Spirit. If you do not invite these evil spirits, they cannot enter. Yet sometimes even an unsuspecting invitation through these devices can give demons a green light! Sadly, many people have unknowingly invited evil spirits into their minds—never to be quite the same again.
As the Scriptures reveal, these spirits need to be cast out by genuine ministers of God. Acts 19 records an instance where some would-be exorcists tried to cast a demon out of a person and the demon turned on them, saying, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?” Much to their surprise, “the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered them and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded” (verses 15-16).
This is therefore no laughing matter or cute entertainment—it is deadly serious! Scripture records several instances of people falling into such forbidden practices with disastrous results.

Saul and the medium of En Dor

In the Old Testament, we find the tragic example of King Saul going to a medium. He had first tried to consult with God, but because of his multiple sins, especially his slaughter of 85 priests and an untold number of innocent inhabitants of the town of Nob, he did not receive any answers (1 Samuel 22:18-19).
Saul then broke God's law and consulted with a medium at En Dor (1 Sam- uel 28:7). She invoked a figure of one appearing as the prophet Samuel. Yet Saul never saw him; he only heard a voice. This is one reason why God prohibits such consultations—demons are very clever and can impersonate the person being summoned. Notice the Bible had said God would not answer Saul's inquiries “either by dreams or by Urim or by the prophets” (verse 6). This clearly was not the prophet Samuel!
The spirit the medium saw ascending out of the earth (verse 13) was in fact a demon. Saul only thought it was Samuel, but this demon had tricked him. As the apostle Paul explains: “For Satan himself transforms himself into [or disguises himself as] an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into [or impersonate] ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works” (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).
It was not unusual, therefore, for a demon to have impersonated the dead prophet Samuel. The Scriptures clearly tell us Samuel was dead, buried and unconscious: “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing” (Ecclesiastes 9:5).
Saul was left with the dire prediction that he would die the next day. He never did turn back to God. That is one of the reasons he is such a tragic figure in the Scriptures.

Paul confronts a spirit of divination

Another case of a medium is found in the New Testament, and it is quite instructive.
We read in Acts 16:16-19: “Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, 'These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.'
“And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, 'I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.' And he came out that very hour. But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities” (emphasis added throughout).
This passage tells us quite a bit about the dark side of the spirit world. First, it reveals there are some cases where people actually do have the spirit of divination and are quite economically successful at what they do. Nowhere does this section deny the fact that people can tap into this source for valuable information. Also, it shows there are others willing to promote such a business, which can be quite profitable. Today, millions if not billions of dollars are made from this ancient and harmful practice.
One can find many programs on radio or TV, backed by successful businessmen, where people with a spirit of divination can greatly impress audiences with their apparent intimate knowledge of those they interview. Most of the time these persons openly call themselves channelers, psychics or mediums. Of course, not all who practice this profession are genuine mediums, for there are many clever charlatans as well, but some are authentic!
As the biblical case in Acts 16 shows, the slave girl with the spirit of divination was a real medium. We know this because when the demon left her, she could no longer reveal intimate details of a person's life or predict the future.
Another insight from this account is that the message from a spirit can be positive and true. After all, the Bible plainly says the young girl used by the spirit of divination announced that Paul and his companions came from God and preached the way of salvation. This was true, so what was the problem?
The problem wasn't the message itself, but the source of the information. We see here the subtle element of deceit. Many times, the initial message of a spirit of divination, or a demon, can seem positive, harmless and helpful. Just as a fisherman entices fish with succulent bait, so these spirits know they must attract innocent victims with something useful and agreeable. They know, once their victims are hooked, there will be plenty of time later for them to change their message.

Simply say “No!”

We must simply say “No!” when enticed to play with this dark spirit world. Don't fold under pressure from friends, family or anyone else. Put God and His Word first! Literally, your life and your mental welfare could depend on it!
God, who knows exactly how Satan and his demons work, emphatically warns us not to have anything to do with them. We should not consult with people associated with these spirits in spite of any stated intentions to help us. God's Word is clear: “Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:31).
Ask, “Would Christ approve of this?” Certainly He would not! So we should avoid all contact with mediums, fortune-tellers, witches and their devices—and not be fooled by whatever means they might use to try to entice us. GN

You might also be interested in...

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

How Authentic Is the Christmas Portrayal of Christ's Birth?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Jesus Christ and Christmas. This follows this post about slavery. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

This holiday season here in the Philippines consumes one third of each year. The Philippines has the fourth largest Christian population on earth. With over 80 million of its people professing to be Christian (mostly Catholic), the “Spirit of Christmas” begins as early as September 1 and doesn’t end until January 6 each year. During this four-month season Christmas carols are played in public and pervade the airwaves. In an effort to authentically portray the birth of Christ, a new movie titled The Nativity Story was released on December 1 for showing in theatres during this year’s Christmas season. Starring Keisha Castle-Hughes as Mary and Oscar Isaac as Joseph with Shohreh Aghdashloo as Elizabeth, movie director Catherine Hardwicke sought to achieve authenticity in the movie’s depiction of the birth of Christ. The shooting location for Bethlehem was done in the village of Matera in Italy (the same location used in filming The Passion of the Christ), while the set for Herod’s castle and the Jerusalem temple was filmed at Ouarzazate in Morocco (the same filming location as The Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven). While the effort to authentically portray Christ’s birth is commendable, the influence of tradition has caused it to stray somewhat from the true biblical account. The movie depicts His birth occurring in a shivering cold, windy and wintry season where fires were essential for keeping people warm. When compared to the carefully detailed account of the gospel writer Luke at least three very important deviations from Scripture stand out. The Roman decree for census and taxation . Let’s remember that with the collective wisdom of Roman tax officials, local Roman administrators made sure their tax collections would occur at the best of times—right after the main fall harvest with still good weather to minimize the potential problems stemming from lack of money or difficulty of travel due to winter conditions (Luke 2:1-5). There was no room in the inn. Why? Lodging at that time was likely filled because of the Jews’ custom to attend the annual fall festivals commanded by God. The Romans would have probably timed such taxation to coincide with the Jews’ annual travel to Jerusalem to observe these festivals (Luke 2:7). Shepherds were out in the fields that night. The weather was still warm enough for shepherds to keep their flock out in the fields at night (Luke 2:8). The Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Abingdon Press, Nashville) notes concerning Luke 2:8, “As these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields … On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up.” Alexander Hislop’s book, The Two Babylons,explains: “In that region, from December to February … the cold of the night was piercing. Thus the shepherds never kept their flocks and herds out in the open country from December through February—it was simply too cold” (p. 2, 1959). Most encyclopedias and similar historical references document that the December 25 nativity tradition is associated with the ancient Saturnalia celebration (for worshipping the pagan god Saturn). All such references (including the Catholic Encyclopedia) admit that Christ was not born on or even near December 25 in the middle of winter! Yet this ancient custom, even if celebrated in gross ignorance of its true pagan origin, refuses to die. Other aspects of Christmas’ celebrations also oppose biblical teachings. Regarding adapting pagan celebrations for the worship of the true God the Bible commands, “… do not inquire … ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise’ … You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way … Whatever I command you be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:30-32) . Jesus Christ also spoke out against seeking to worship God by incorporating pagan customs, “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men …” (Mark 7:7-9). For more informative details on this important subject, just request, read online or download our free booklets: Holidays or Holy Days: Does It Matter Which Days We Keep? and Jesus Christ: The Real Story.

You might also be interested in...

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Peace on Earth?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Pearl Harbor. This follows this post about bankruptcy. This follows this post about Jesus Christ and Christmas. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.


A few years back I called several newspapers on December 7, and asked if they knew what day it was. The reporters didn't know it was Pearl Harbor Day. Of course, even fewer remember Victory in Europe (VE) Day or VJ Day or other days of remembrance.
How contradictory that the world seeks peace by waging war. The horrors of war were made painfully clear with World War I and World War II. But the world continues to seek peace through conflicts and armed battles. Aren't we all looking for the day when the whole world will have a truly peaceful environment in which to live a happy, enjoyable life?
Rather than relying on peace treaties, what if all the world followed the Golden Rule? It certainly appears there would be a much, much more peaceful world if all the “war lords” would use the Golden Rule as a daily guide and settle their differences in more peaceful ways.
General Douglas MacArthur understood the answers to these questions at the end of World War II when he spoke aboard the USS Missouri September 2, 1945: “Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.”
He declared: “We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, our Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence, an improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.”
In all, we need to honor God on these days of remembrance—Pearl Harbor Day, VE Day, VJ Day, Memorial Day, Veteran's Day and Armistice Day—because of His giving us victory. We also honor the tremendous sacrifices Americans have made to try to bring about peace and keep America and the rest of the world free. Each time we remember these days of war and victory, we can remember the words of General MacArthur and the fact that war doesn't really make a peaceful world. More than that, we can look to the Book that teaches the Golden Rule and the true way to peace.
Dean Rammelsberg served aboard the USS Goshen in the Pacific from December 13, 1944, until the end of the war.

You might also be interested in...

Friday, December 2, 2016

World News and Trends Huge bankruptcy rise among seniors

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about bankruptcy. This follows this post about Jesus Christ and Christmas. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

From 1991 to 2007, the rate of personal bankruptcy among those ages 65 or older jumped by 150%, according to AARP [the American Association of Retired Persons]. The most startling rise occurred among those ages 75 to 84, whose rates soared 433%” ( USA Today, June 18, 2008). Medical bills are a huge factor. Experts believe that health care is the biggest factor in increasing bankruptcies among elderly Americans. A major health problem in old age can wipe out a person's savings and put one deeply in debt.
Many senior citizens, instead of entering retirement in good financial shape, are loaded with debt. Social security payments often are simply not high enough to meet rising costs of food, medicine and housing.
It's never too late to begin to get your personal finances back on track. If you do your part, according to the financial principles laid down in the Bible, God will help! He has resources at His fingertips that we cannot even imagine. (To see how, request our free booklet Making Life Work .) (Source: USA Today. )

You might also be interested in...

Thursday, December 17, 2015

When people say, "Have a merry Christmas," how should you respond?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Merry Christmas. This follows this post about Star Wars. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.



For those of us who do not celebrate Christmas, knowing how to respond to someone who might be sincerely wishing us well is difficult. Here are a few principles that are important to keep in mind:
1) Most people wishing us well about Christmas have no idea that Christmas is pagan in its origin, and are often unaware that we do not celebrate it.
2) There is usually not enough time to respond to that person by giving a short explanation of either the origin of Christmas or the fact that you don't celebrate it for reasons of conscience.
3) To most, saying “Merry Christmas” or “Have a happy Christmas” becomes so commonplace, it is very similar to saying “Have a good day.” Most people say it out of obligation or common courtesy.
4) To simply say “Thank you” to someone who has wished you such would not be wrong—given the circumstances. It thanks them for the sentiment, but is not responding “in kind” by implying you observe Christmas.
As for the similar spelling of the words Santa and Satan , this is purely a coincidence, as these words originate in different languages and are wholly unrelated. Santa is a Latin word meaning “saint” or “holy.” Satan , on the other hand, is a Hebrew word which means “Adversary” or “Accuser.”

You might also be interested in...

Something critical is missing in the story of Easter and it has everything...
The Bible opens with a dark planet where humans will live their lives in...

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Who were the wise men ("Magi," New International Version) of Matthew 2:1?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the Wise men of the bible. This follows this post about police. This follows this post about the Vatican synod. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.




Who were the wise men ("Magi," New International Version) of Matthew 2:1?



Many people have heard of the Magi in association with the birth of Jesus Christ. But who were they, and why would they be interested in the King of the Jews?


Answer: Matthew:2:1-2 says, "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.'"
Matthew uses two Greek expressions for areas east of Palestine. First, Matthew says the Magi are from "the East" (or "eastern parts"—Greek, ton anatolon ), or the distant East. Second, the Magi saw the star in "the East" (Greek, te anatole )—west of the Magi's home, but east from Palestine's viewpoint, in the near East.
It seems probable that they came from Parthia. Parthia was a great empire east of the Euphrates—biblically "the distant east." This empire conquered the lands east of the Euphrates area, had Babylon as its capital and included the areas of Persia, Bactria, etc. It ruled the whole area and was the empire of the East—the land of the Magi.
The Parthians rose to power around 250 B.C. in and around the southern shores of the Caspian Sea. That was the very land into which the house of Israel—not Judah—had been taken captive by the Assyrians (2 Kings:15:29; 17:23; 18:11; 1 Chronicles:5:26).
The Parthian Empire and surrounding areas included exiles from the lost 10 tribes of Israel—many of whom remained in the land of their captivity until about A.D. 226. It seems that certain of the ancient Magi could claim Abraham as their father (see McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia , article "Magi"). If so, they may have had a particular interest in the prophesied King of the Jews.
For more information, please read our booklet Jesus Christ: The Real Story .

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Was There Really "No Room in the Inn"?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the birth of Jesus. This follows this previous post about it. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.


Was There Really "No Room in the Inn"?





Most have taken for granted Jesus' nativity story as commonly related - that when Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem there was no room in an inn so Mary ended up giving birth to Jesus in a stable. But is this the true account in Scripture? See for yourself!

Was There Really "No Room in the Inn"?
The Greek word translated "inn" in Luke 2:7 refers to a guest room.

Source: Scott Ashley/Explorations in Antiquity Center, LaGrange, GA.
A typical translation of Luke:2:7 says about Mary giving birth to Jesus, "And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn" (New King James Version).
We've grown up hearing the account that the "inn" in Bethlehem was full, with no "room" available, so Joseph and Mary ended up in a stable, with Jesus Christ born and laid in a manger there. This image has been used to promote the typical Christmas nativity scene for generations. Yet a careful analysis of the biblical text reveals quite a different story!

Not an inn but a guest room

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the Greek word translated "inn" here is kataluma. It means a place of rest, usually a guest room. In fact, the same writer Luke uses this very word later where it clearly refers to a guest room and not an inn. Notice Luke:22:11, where Jesus said to His disciples, "Then you shall say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "'Where is the guest room [ kataluma ] where I may eat the Passover with My disciples?"'" (emphasis added throughout).
Furthermore, Luke elsewhere in his Gospel uses a different Greek word when he writes about an actual inn— not the word kataluma. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus mentions that the injured man in the story was taken to an inn—and here Luke translates using the Greek word pandokheion, the normal word for an inn. We read this in Luke:10:34, where the kind Samaritan set the injured man "on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him."
Interestingly, the Arabic and Syriac versions of the New Testament, which reflect more of a Middle Eastern context, have never translated kataluma as meaning an inn, but instead as a guest room. As Kenneth Bailey, a Middle Eastern and New Testament scholar points out, "This translation [of the word as 'inn'] is a product of our Western heritage" ("The Manger and the Inn: The Cultural Background of Luke:2:7," Bible and Spade, Fall 2007, p. 103).
In addition, Young's Literal Translation uses the term "guest-chamber" instead of an inn. It says: "And she brought forth her son—the first-born, and wrapped him up, and laid him down in the manger, because there was not for them a place in the guest-chamber ."
Note also the word here translated "place" or "room." In the context of "inn," most assume this is referring to an individual room ("no room in the inn"), yet even inns of that time did not often have individual rooms. The reference is simply to space. What Luke is telling us is that there was not enough room, or enough space, for them in the guest room.
The linguistic evidence shows that Luke used the term kataluma to mean not an inn, but the guest room— indeed, "the" guest room (the definite article is used) of a particular house.

Historical factors

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, after pointing out that the word kataluma is used elsewhere in the Gospels for the guest chamber of a private home, comments: "Was the 'inn' at Bethlehem, where Joseph and Mary sought a night's lodging, an upper guest room in a private home or some kind of public place for travelers? The question cannot be answered with certainty. It is thought by some that it may have been a guest chamber provided by the community. We know that visitors to the annual feasts in Jerusalem were entertained in the guest rooms of private homes" (1982, Vol. 2, "Inn," p. 826).
Another factor that powerfully argues against this term meaning an inn is that these places were not appropriate to giving birth to a child. Inns at that time were far from anything like typical motels or hotels we might think of today. "Generally speaking, inns had a bad reputation . . . This ill repute of public inns, together with the Semitic spirit of hospitality, led the Jews and the early Christians to recommend the keeping of an open house for the benefit of strangers" (ibid.).
Besides, for commercial reasons inns were usually found along the major roads. Yet Bethlehem was a small town in the upper mountains of Judea, and no major Roman road is known to have passed through it. Since it seems to have been an insignificant village at the time, it's doubtful that an inn even existed there then.
This gives yet more reason to realize that what Luke really wrote is that there was no room in the guest chamber. Certainly, due to the Roman census being taken at the time and the huge number of people traveling to their birthplaces, available space in the guest quarters was scarce.
So the question then becomes: Does that mean Joseph and Mary aimed to stay in someone's home but, since the guest room was full, were turned out into the night to a stable? When Mary was in labor? That might seem worse than being turned away from an inn. Of course, both scenarios seem rather terrible—certainly downright inhospitable, which is far out of line from the way things were at that time.

A culture of hospitality and honoring kinship

In Christ's day, hospitality to visitors among the Jews was essential, based on biblical example and law. In Deuteronomy:10:19, God told the Israelites to "love the stranger." And Leviticus:19:33 stated, "If a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him." Denial of hospitality was shown throughout Scripture to be an outrage. Hospitality toward visitors is still important throughout the Middle East.
Moreover, since Bethlehem was Joseph's ancestral home, he probably had relatives there. And being a descendant of King David, whose hometown this was, he would have been highly respected upon his arrival. Think of a descendant of George Washington coming to his hometown of Alexandria, Virginia, after a long lapse of time. The townspeople would've shown him respect.
As Bailey explains: "[My] thirty-year experience with villagers in the Middle East is that the intensity of honor shown to the passing guest is still very much in force, especially when it is a returning son of the village who is seeking shelter. We have observed cases where a complete village has turned out in a great celebration to greet a young man who has suddenly arrived unannounced in the village, which his grandfather had left many years before" (p. 103).
It should also be pointed out that childbirth was a major event at that time. In a small village like Bethlehem, many neighboring women would have come to help in the birth. Bailey states: "In the case of a birth, the men will sit apart with the neighbors, but the room will be full of women assisting the midwife. A private home would have bedding, facilities for heating water and all that is required for any peasant birth" (p. 102).
What this all means is that it would have been unthinkable and an unimaginable insult and affront to societal decency for Joseph, a returning village son, and his laboring wife to need to seek shelter in an unsavory inn to have a baby of Davidic descent—and then, even worse, to be sent out to have the birth in a stable. This simply cannot be what happened. Nor can it be that they were sent out into the night from a private home.
So what actually happened? 

Reading the text carefully

Regrettably, the birth of Christ is later overlaid with so much tradition and legend about Christmas that it's hard to let the biblical text speak for itself.
The common assumption is that Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem and, being hastened by her labor pains, rushed to an inn only to find it full with no vacancies, so they ended up in a stable where she gave birth.
However, a careful reading of the text shows us they had already been in Bethlehem for some days when she went into labor. Notice carefully Luke:2:4-6: "Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered."
Consequently, they must have already been lodging somewhere in Bethlehem when her birth pangs began—and this was surely not a stable for a period of days. Could not Joseph have found a more suitable lodging place for his pregnant wife in that amount of time? Of course.
In fact, we should realize that not far from here dwelt Mary's cousin Elizabeth, whom Mary had lived with for a while during her pregnancy (Luke:1:39-40). If they were seeking a place to stay for days, why didn't they go to Elizabeth's house? The answer is simple. They found a house in which to stay in Bethlehem—probably that of Joseph's relatives.
And being in these accommodations already, it makes no sense for them to suddenly be out seeking a room in an inn or anywhere else at the time of Mary's labor.
Yet we might still be asking: So why were they sent out to a stable? The answer is, they weren't.

Birth in a house, not a stable

The Archaeological Study Bible offers some helpful background: "The 'manger' was the feeding trough of the animals. This is the only indication that Jesus was born in a stable. Very early tradition suggests that his birthplace was a cave, perhaps being used as a stable.
" Justin Martyr in the second century A.D. stated that Jesus' birth took place in a cave close to the village. Over this traditional manger site the emperor Constantine (A.D. 330) and his mother, Helena, constructed the Church of the Nativity" (2005, p. 1669).
Note that it is only the manger, an animal food or water trough, that gives any indication of a stable. And indeed a manger might well have been found in a stable. But it's important to realize that they were also to be found within first-century homes!
A typical Judean house of that day consisted of an area near the door, often with a dirt floor, where the family's animals were kept at night—so they wouldn't be stolen or preyed upon and so their body heat could help warm the home on cool nights. The family lived and slept in a raised part of the same room set back from the door. There was also usually a guest room either upstairs on a second floor or adjoining the family common room on the lower floor. Typically the lower area near the door had a manger for food and/or water for the animals.
Eric F.F. Bishop, an expert in Middle East culture, noted that the birth of Christ probably took place in "one of the Bethlehem houses with the lower section provided for the animals, with mangers 'hollowed in stone,' the dais [or raised area] being reserved for the family. Such a manger being immovable, filled with crushed straw, would do duty for a cradle. An infant might even be left in safety, especially if swaddled, when the mother was absent on temporary business" ( Jesus of Palestine, 1955, p. 42).
Yet another authority on Middle Eastern life, Gustaf Dalmann, stated: "In the East today the dwelling-place of man and beast is often in one and the same room. It is quite the usual thing among the peasants for the family to live, eat, and sleep on a kind of raised terrace . . . in the one room of the house, while the cattle, particularly donkeys and oxen, have their place below on the actual floor . . . near the door; this part sometimes is continued along under the terrace as a kind of low vault. On this floor the mangers are fixed, either to the floor, or to the wall, or at the edge of the terrace" ( Sacred Sites and Ways, 1935, p. 41).
This scene of an ox or donkey in the house at night might go against our Western sensibilities. Yet, as Bailey comments: "It is we in the West who have decided that life with these great gentle beasts is culturally unacceptable. The raised terrace on which the family ate, slept and lived was unsoiled by the animals, which were taken out each day and during which time the lower level was cleaned. Their presence was in no way offensive" (p. 105). Of course, the animals could have been taken outside when the actual birth was occurring.
Consider that the medium of En Dor whom King Saul sinfully consulted with "had a fatted calf in the house," which she killed to prepare a meal for Saul and his men (1 Samuel:28:24). It was more often the wealthy who had stables for their animals apart from the house.
Thus, a more realistic view of what occurred with Christ's birth according to the customs of the time is that the manger was in a house and not in a stable. It should be stated that this could conceivably have involved a cave, but that's only because some houses were built over caves. Yet this was not the norm. And the cave imagery may come from pagan myth about the Persian sun-god Mithras, who was supposedly born in a cave—along with the belief of some that Christ's birth had to have been in seclusion, as we will see.

The pieces fall into place

What we've seen so far explains a great deal.
Some might object that Mary and Joseph being accommodated in the family common room of a house instead of the guest room is itself inhospitable. But as Bailey points out: "No unkindness or lack of hospitality is implied when the Holy Family is taken into the main family room of the home in which they are entertained. The guest room is full. The host is not expected to ask prior guests . . . to leave. Such would be quite unthinkable and, in any case, unnecessary. The large family room is more appropriate in any case" (p. 104).
Indeed, considering all the women that would be going in and out of the room during the birth, having Mary stay in the main room would probably have seemed the wisest choice to everyone concerned. In fact, it's possible that Luke's mention of there being no room or space meant that this particular guest room was too small for all the birth activity. 
Bailey continues in regard to understanding kataluma as meaning the guest room: "This option admirably fulfills both the linguistic requirements of the text and the cultural requirements of the village scene. This translation gives new understanding to the story of Jesus' birth. Joseph and Mary arrive in Bethlehem. They find shelter with a family whose separate guest room is full [or too small], and are accommodated among the family in acceptable village style. The birth takes place there on the raised terrace of the family home, and the baby is laid in a manger . . .
"The (Palestinian) reader [of Luke's account] instinctively thinks, 'Manger—oh—they are in the main family room. Why not the guest room?' The author instinctively replies, 'Because there was no place for them in the guest room.' The reader concludes, 'Ah, yes—well, the family room is more appropriate anyway.' Thus, with the translation 'guest room,' all of the cultural, historical and linguistic pieces fall into place" (p. 104).

The reaction of the shepherds

Another element of the story that reinforces the picture here is that of the shepherds who received the announcement of the birth of the Savior, the Lord Messiah, and where to find Him that night from an angel (Luke:2:8-11). As men of the lower ranks of society, they may not have felt they would be received well in visiting a king, but the angel told them that as a sign they would find the child lying in a manger (verse 12).
"That is," says Bailey in an insightful book he has written, "they would find the Christ child in an ordinary peasant home such as theirs. He was not in a governor's mansion or a wealthy merchant's guest room but in a simple two-room home like theirs" ( Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, 2008, p. 35).
Luke's account further states that the shepherds "came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger" (verse 16). On arriving they made "widely known" what had been announced to them (verse 17)—showing that there were many people there. And when they left, they went out "praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen" (verse 20).
Bailey points out: "The word all obviously included the quality of the hospitality that they witnessed on arrival. Clearly, they found the holy family in perfectly adequate accommodations, not in a dirty stable. If, on arrival, they had found a smelly stable, a frightened young mother and a desperate Joseph, they would have said, 'This is outrageous! Come home with us! Our women will take care of you!'
"Within five minutes the shepherds would have moved the little family to their own homes. The honor of the entire village would rest on their shoulders and they would have sensed their responsibility to do their duty. The fact that they walked out, without moving the young family, means that the shepherds felt they could not offer better hospitality than what had already been extended to them" (pp. 35-36, emphasis in original).   

Where does this leave us?

So what are the implications of upending the traditional view of the Christmas nativity scene?
We should first ask, given the facts we've seen, why has there been such an insistence since early centuries that the birth setting of Christ was a stable or cave with no one around—perhaps even outside the town, as some have even contended?
Bailey reveals: "After reading a number of Arabic and Syriac fathers' writings on the question, one has the distinct feeling there is an unspoken subjective pressure to understand the birth as having taken place without witnesses because of the sacred nature of the 'mother of God' giving birth to the 'Son of God.'
"Even as the sacraments are consecrated in utter seclusion behind an altar screen, so the eyes of even the faithful might not look on the holy event, even so Middle Eastern Christology, Mariology and piety seem to combine to insist that the birth took place where no eye beheld the divine mystery" ("The Manger and the Inn," p. 105).
Yet this is a fiction straight out of ancient pagan mystery religion. The reality is quite different, as we've seen. While Jesus was conceived of God the Father through the Holy Spirit, His was nonetheless a typical birth for the common man of His day. Though begotten of God, He truly came as one of us.
As for the common tradition, Kenneth Bailey concludes: "We all face the enormous weight of church tradition which surrounds us with the 'no room at the inn' mythology. If our conclusions are valid, thousands of good Christmas sermons, plays, filmstrips, films, poems, songs and books will have to be discarded.
"But is the traditional myth of a lonely birth in a stable a help or a hindrance to the reality the text proclaims? Surely a more authentic cultural understanding enhances the meaning of the story, rather than diminishing it.
"Jesus was rejected at His birth by Herod, but the Bethlehem shepherds welcomed Him with great joy, as did the common people in later years. The city of David was true to its own, and the village community provided for Him. He was born among them, in the natural setting of the birth of any village boy, surrounded by helping hands and encouraging women's voices.
"For centuries Palestinian peasants have been born on the raised terraces of the one-room family homes. The birth of Jesus was no different. His incarnation was authentic. His birth most likely took place in the natural place for a peasant to be born—in a peasant home" (pp. 105-106).
Let's be thankful that we can examine the biblical text without the hidden biases of religious tradition—and that we don't have to prop up a wrong meaning of a term in order to keep alive the religious myths of Christmas.
The Bereans left us with a wonderful example on how we should base our faith. Luke commended them by saying in Acts:17:11, "These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."
May we all do the same!