That Herod Was Not a Nice Man
This part of the Christmas story has always astounded me (Mt 2: 1-18)
2 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, 2 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.”
3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.
5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:
6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;
For out of you shall come a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.’”[a]
7 Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also.”9 When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy. 11 And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
12 Then, being divinely warned in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed for their own country another way.
The Flight into Egypt
13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”
14 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”[b]
Massacre of the Innocents
16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying:
18 “A voice was heard in Ramah,
Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children,
Refusing to be comforted,
Because they are no more.” [Bold added.]
I’m trying to get inside the mind of a grown man who was so insecure that he would have a bunch of little children killed, lest one of them grow up and challenge him. I suppose intellectually I can talk about it, but I can’t really understand it. Then again, I wouldn’t want to be king in the first place.
Moses basically did the same thing to the jews after he saw the golden calf.
19 When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking them to pieces at the foot of the mountain…….27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
And by “basically” you mean, “Not at all the same thing.”
“I’m trying to get inside the mind of a grown man who was so insecure that he would have a bunch of little children killed, lest one of them grow up and challenge him.”
I think what trudat is saying is that if you just change “him” to “his God”, then the same question can be asked about Moses.
Still, the story of the golden calf does not reference the killing of babies. Nor does it seem centered around an individual fearing that a baby might overthrow him in a few decades.
So… not the same thing at all.
Because murdering adults and not babies makes it a completely different thing where any comparison is entirely inappropriate.
I’ve seen stretches, but come on..
“Because murdering adults and not babies makes it a completely different thing where any comparison is entirely inappropriate.”
Let’s not start the abortion debate here…
Murder is an unlawful act. If God, who is the highest law orders their killing for their idolatry then that’s not murder.
Good thing there is no God as highest law
Killing adults for committing a crime is not the same as murdering babies.
Any contention with the golden calf story must center around whether these individuals committed a crime, and whether that crime was worthy of death. The story of Herod’s actions has no potential for it to even be just action, from any rational viewpoint.
By crime you mean not being an observant Jew.
“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, 2 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.”
http://i.imgur.com/qjmjmb3.jpg
That doesn’t quite make sense. In the story, the magi aren’t kings, nor are they necessarily three. Also, the story doesn’t even describe their visit as taking place in winter. I guess Sirius could be the star ( http://what-if.xkcd.com/25/ ), but it doesn’t quite fit the description (the star was directly over where Mary&Joseph lived).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi
Sometimes you just have to be tough to do the work of God.
Just ask the Judas… he was misunderstood.
Just ask Gary North. Or you can have his father in law explain it to you in this video:
Moyers Moments (1987): R.J. Rushdoony
http://vimeo.com/48624417
The correct response is that Tel’s comment reminds you of a book written by Gary North called the Sinai Strategy.
Come on, get it together.
All part of the plan my friend. Don’t go arguing with omnipotence.
If you were omniscient you’d know better.
If I was omnipotent, first thing I would do is make myself omniscient.
What if you knew that was impossible?
I’d only know that after I’d done the deed.
Speaking of omniscience …
This is a cartoon. Please don’t riot.
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/12/22/all-the-presidents-amnesia/
“I’m trying to get inside the mind of a grown man who was so insecure that he would have a bunch of little children killed”
I know right? There was this one time, a grown God was so angry at the man whose heart he hardened that he killed a bunch of little children. That’s messed up too right?
I was about to type almost the exact same thing. You’d think that an all-powerful and benevolent being would seek a more peaceful solution.
Then you snap out of believing in ghosts and stuff and realize that it was written by the ancestors of the enslaved people who have an axe to grind and it makes a little more sense.
The religious position is, to paraphrase a ceratin president, “When God does it, that means its not immoral”
Came to the comments to make this point.
God is the alleged creator of the universe. He is the giver and sustainer of all life. How would it be immoral for him to take the life that he created? Even if you don’t believe in it I still can’t see how it is immoral to do so.
So parents, who are also the creators of babies, are justified in killing babies?
Negative, since they are not their creator in the same sense. They are not the ultimate creator and sustainer of the universe and therefore it is not their life to take,
OK, so partial creation entitles partial torture then.
No, I would not categorize it as “partial creation”, but its not creation in the same sense.
Not creation in the same sense.
So it’s creation in “a” sense.
So parents can murder in that sense their creations in that sense.
“So parents can murder in that sense their creations in that sense.”
No, that’s a non sequitur.
Who said it was a sequitur?
Just saying creators in a sense should be able to destroy their creations in that sense.
You know, because it’s not immoral for a creator in a sense to destroy their creations in that sense.
“Who said it was a sequitur?”
You did.
Just because parents are creators in one sense does not mean they have authority to end their children’s lives.
Because God would be the ultimate creator and law giver and has not granted them that authority.
The “sense” in which they are the creator makes a big difference.
“You did.”
I did? Where?
“Just because parents are creators in one sense does not mean they have authority to end their children’s lives.”
But they’re creators of their children in a sense. I declare that parents can destroy their creations in a sense.
What possible refutation can you give, that would not undercut the argument that God can kill his creations? It’s not enough to just say “but that’s different.” Yes, I admit they’re different. But why should that difference imply that God can kill his creations in that sense, but parents cannot kill their creations in another sense?
“Because God would be the ultimate creator and law giver and has not granted them that authority.”
Who cares about who is the “ultimate” creator? Why does the “ultimate” status allow for murder, but not “less than ultimate”?
“The “sense” in which they are the creator makes a big difference.”
Why? How so?
MF, I think it all boils down to God being the sovereign over all things.
If he is the ultimate sovereign over the universe and he has not given the authority of parents to take their children’s lives just because they want to.
So it’s not creation per se, it’s the fact that God has “authority”?
So if God has given his permission to someone to murder another, then it is justified?
“So if God has given his permission to someone to murder another, then it is justified?”
Well I don’t think it would be considered “murder” because murder is unlawful. But I believe if God ordered someone’s killing (for instance in case of the golden calf) then it wouldn’t be immoral.
Suppose a murderer said God told him to murder.
Justified?
Danger Will Robinson!
“Suppose a murderer said God told him to murder.
Justified?”
If God ordered someone to kill someone, then yes it would be justified. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be.
You don’t see how it wouldn’t be? The pain their family will suffer? Any children who will grow up without a parent? The possibility that maybe murder is wrong even if one is “ordered” to do it?
What if someone attempts to murder your family and they tell you they are doing so because God told them to do it? You would not feel any compulsion to stop that person? Better to let God do his good work, than to spend more time with those you love?
Matt S, please don’t tell me that you’re this heartless and dismissive of your fellow human beings. I don’t want to think you’re a raging psycho, but you’re making it very difficult.
“What if someone attempts to murder your family and they tell you they are doing so because God told them to do it? You would not feel any compulsion to stop that person? Better to let God do his good work, than to spend more time with those you love?”
Only if I had actual reason to believe this was true.
How would you know it is true, if someone said God told them?
“How would you know it is true, if someone said God told them?”
I’m not sure exactly, there may not be a way, in which case I would try to stop him.
You’d risk going against God’s will?
No, parents are not creators of babies. They do not create the matter if the babies bodies much less their souls.
Matt S, you wrote “How would it be immoral for him to take the life that he created?”
So you agree, that the religious position is “When God does it, that means it’s not immoral”
When God does what? End life? Yes, of course its not immoral for God to end life.
Why ask what? Is there something God could do which would be immoral?
Worship an idol.
I ask that because the discussion was about God ending life.
God doesn’t commit immoral acts. That would go against his nature.
God “could” lie, but he wouldn’t because that would go against his nature.
If God could lie, then God has the capacity to choose lying. If God has the capacity to choose lying, then lying would have to be a part of God’s nature.
MF, yeah, I think I agree with that.
lying would not part of God’s nature. So God could not lie.
If lying is not a part of God’s nature, then God cannot have the capacity to lie.
MF, yeah, I agree with you.
If God does not have the capacity to lie, but man does have the capacity to lie, does this not imply that God is not omnipotent?
“If God does not have the capacity to lie, but man does have the capacity to lie, does this not imply that God is not omnipotent?”
Well God cannot do anything that is contrary to his character. However, God can do anything that He determines to do. If you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything that one sets out to do.
So I guess it depends on how precisely define omnipotence.
For instance God doesn’t have the ability to create contradictions, another God like him etc
How is it a “contradiction” to do what is in one’s power to do?
That would only go against his nature if you assume that. This is one of the things that religious people always ignore.
God being good is not a consequence or a results, but an assumption. You don’t look around and say “See all he’s done? From this I can tell that God is good” Instead you assume he is good from the start, and then just filter all His actions through a prism of goodness.
“How is it a “contradiction” to do what is in one’s power to do?”
I never said it was. I said God doesn’t have the power to create contradictions…
I said:
“If God does not have the capacity to lie, but man does have the capacity to lie, does this not imply that God is not omnipotent?”
You replied:
“Well God cannot do anything that is contrary to his character.”
Can you see how your response would lead to my followup question of how it is a contradiction to do what is in God’s power to do?
If it’s not a response to my question, then I will ask again:
If God does not have the capacity to lie, but man does have the capacity to lie, does this not imply that God is not omnipotent?
Thought this would be a yes or no answer.
I think I see what you’re asking.
“If it’s not a response to my question, then I will ask again:”
If God does not have the capacity to lie, but man does have the capacity to lie, does this not imply that God is not omnipotent?”
God doesn’t have the power to do some things. Because that would go against his nature. And some things are not possible to do, like creating contradictions.
It depends on how exactly you are defining omnipotence. (which does not actually appear in the Bible I believe).
God has the power to do anything he sets out to do. But not the power to do “anything”. Because like I said, there are some “things” God cannot do.
Is lying one of them?
“Is lying one of them?”
One of what? Something God cannot do? Correct.
Why is lying not a part of God’s nature?
“Why is lying not a part of God’s nature?”
Because God is morally pure and perfect. Why is this so? That’s beyond my understanding.
Since when was refraining from lying absolutely “morally pure and perfect”? Would it not be moral to lie to a murderer who wants to know where your family is?
Also, why is the notion that there is a morally pure and perfect being who created the universe not beyond your understanding, but the reason why is beyond your understanding?
Should have asked
HOW is the notion that there is a morally pure and perfect being who created the universe not beyond your understanding, but the reason why is beyond your understanding?
Isn’t perfection beyond human understanding, due to the fact that perfection has no room for ignorance?
So there is no amount of suffering that God could inflict on his “creations” that would make you think he was a jerk? What about eternal punishment in hell based on something like suicide or not being baptized? Understanding why those things sends you to hell makes a lot more sense when you think about it from the perspective of humans who wrote it down. They wanted to encourage as many Christians to exist as possible. It has nothing to do with God.
I think this belief is derived from considering what kind of a God would “create” such suffering and destruction that we observe in the world. In order to reconcile God’s supreme goodness with the evil in the world, the thought arises that we should consider immoral behavior as really moral after all.
He did not “create suffering”. Human beings create suffering against each other. Also, humans do not like things to go against their wishes. Spoil brats. The Christian faith is about suffering. Redemption is through suffering. Christ was not a spoil brat. Father “Let there be thy will, not my will”
Are you men enough to say, mean and live that?
Christianity is for the strong, not the weak.
“He did not “create suffering”. Human beings create suffering against each other.”
God created humans, so God created what humans create.
If I create a biological entity, and that entity creates a machine, I am responsible for the creation of the machine.
Christianity is for the strong? Doubtful, considering how the doctrine is based on fear.
“God created humans, so God created what humans create.”
Humans do not create, appropriately speaking, we, rearrange matter given by God/Christ. Whatever humans do with matter is their responsibility. He will or did punish the evils that we humans beings did/do/will do.
“If I create a biological entity, and that entity creates a machine, I am responsible for the creation of the machine.”
Using yourself as an analogy to analyze God’s nature and expectations, presupposes he is a hyper-humanoid. A supercharge human being. Ancient Greek gods or Mormonism would be the topic. We are talking about Christianity. He is transcendent and personal, the ultimate reality and a mind. By giving us free will, we are not a machines, he makes us, and not him, responsible for what we do.
If you create a machine, you cannot give it free will. Do you start understanding the concept on God via negativa? It is helpful. In anyway, he will or did punish all of our wrong doings. Either on Christ or on us individually.
“Christianity is for the strong? Doubtful, considering how the doctrine is based on fear.”
Fear? I am not afraid of anything. I am not sure what you mean. But if people make a profession of faith in Christ base on fear of eternal punishment, then more than likely they are not Christians. I made my profession out of a moral quest for holiness. Repentance, not fear, is what Christianity is about in the human response category.
“God created humans, so God created what humans create.”
Humans do not create, appropriately speaking they rearrange matter given by God/Christ. Whatever humans do with matter is their responsibility. He will or did punish the evils that we humans beings did/do/will do.
“If I create a biological entity, and that entity creates a machine, I am responsible for the creation of the machine.”
Using yourself as an analogy to analyze God’s nature and expectations, presupposes he is a hyper-humanoid. A supercharge human being. Ancient Greek gods or Mormonism would be the topic. We are talking about Christianity. He is transcendent and personal, the ultimate reality and a mind. By giving us free will, we are not a machines, he makes us, and not him, responsible for what we do.
If you create a machine, you cannot give it free will. Do you start understanding the concept on God via negativa? It is helpful. In anyway, he will or did punish all of our wrong doings. Either on Christ or on us individually.
“Christianity is for the strong? Doubtful, considering how the doctrine is based on fear.”
Fear? I am not afraid of anything. I am not sure what you mean. But if people make a profession of faith in Christ base on fear of eternal punishment, then more than likely they are not Christians. I made my profession out of moral quest for holiness. Repentance, not fear, is what Christianity is about in the human response category.
JCNU: ” here Jesus, let me fix that for you:The last shall be last, and the first shall be first.”
“I’m trying to get inside the mind of a grown man who was so insecure that he would have a bunch of little children killed, lest one of them grow up and challenge him. I suppose intellectually I can talk about it, but I can’t really understand it. Then again, I wouldn’t want to be king in the first place.”
The Bible isn’t history. Herod was surely a tyrant, but none of the events described in the nativity actually happened. There was no little donkey, no schlep to Bethlehem, no manger and no wise men. Jesus was born, as his name so obviously tells us, in an inconsequential place called Nazareth. Even Herod wasn’t mad enough to conduct a census that forced everyone across the land to abandon their homes and return to the city of their birth. Much easier just to ask them where they were born.
However, God has few qualms about killing innocents. Remember, the Promised Land wasn’t empty before God’s lambs arrived there. First they had to slaughter the rightful owners of the land, as described so casually in Deuteronomy:
“In the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.”
God is more merciful when it comes to the inhabitants of newly conquered lands. They are simply forced into slavery.
Hard to know which bits of the Bible were meant as moral guidance and which are hideous descriptions of murderous barbarity.
Epistles and sermons are doctrinally prescriptive. The historical passages are descriptive.
Arguably Herod was just following an earlier example:
(2 Kings, ch. 2)
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
Assuming there a lot, aren’t you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgkMJhcTE1c&list=PL7914F98ABB09AFFF
You are not a nice man, Bob, for not letting me post truly vital information. I thought you care about truth. I know the blog is your exclusive ownership and you have every right to regulate it’s content. But it’s a performative contradiction on your part. You can bust Kruman et al all they long – how much impact do you think you’re going to get, compared to teaching people to think for themselves?
How about making them learn on the job, in practice, and shatter the government fallacy once and for all at the same time? Think about it:
http://www.drjudywood.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udDkMP4MF6A
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL199DDA6A5746CDFB
“I’m trying to get inside the mind of a grown man who was so insecure that he would have a bunch of little children killed”
1 Samuel 15 (King James Version)
Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.
Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015&version=KJV.
Fun little story
Once there was a man, his wife was an ardent believer in Christ and tried to teach their children about who God was and why he was so important. The man scoffed at the idea that a God would come to this world to be abused and killed by those who ‘worshiped him’. An atheist to the core he felt it was silly of his wife to believe in something so silly. He was a man of science, and saw no reason to follow something so fought with foolishness.
One night the woman took their children to a church function and left the man alone at home. A storm moved in on their farmstead and started to become a blizzard. It became almost impossible to see even a few feet away from the house. Suddenly the man heard a noise outside. Incapable of seeing what it was he dressed in warm clothes and went out to see what was making noise. He found a flock of geese that had gotten lost in the storm and were panicking. The man knew that they would freeze to death if he did nothing. He had a barn not far from where the flock had landed. He tried to shoo the flock into the barn, but they simply panicked and ran off in other direction, in fact every other direction but the barn. He went back inside and gathered bread in order to leave a trail toward the warmth of the barn, but to no avail.
Finally he went into his barn and picked up one of his own geese and took it out into the storm. He placed himself and his goose behind the flock with the barn on the other side of them and released the goose. It began to go on its way back to the barn and the rest of the geese followed it.
Suddenly the stories of Christ clicked. An example before the world to light its way back to Him.
This life is temporary. Ever so temporary. It can be gone any moment for any reason. Tyrants will rise, death a certainty, it matters little what form it finally takes. However coming to know God and who he is is worth it. The lessons that you can learn about your place in these eternities, as this life is but an instant. Is worth every moment you spend looking for Him.
I always felt like one of the underlying themes of Christianity was something like “Before Christ, there was no respect for human life on Earth,” even including the behavior of the ancient Israelites. That basically, the world was full of sin and death and Kings could regularly order the slaughter of innocents and everyone just sort of shrugged it off and said “Well, that’s just the way things are,” until this guy Jesus came along and started saying “No, we probably shouldn’t be doing that.”
Before people start to argue with me here: I’m not saying that’s a factually true statement, just that I feel as if the Bible tries to make that case, albeit in a subtle and roundabout sort of way.
well if that’s what you feel then it’s probably true, huh.
Yes there is definitely a before Christ and an after Christ although toady we try to gloss over this whenever possible…
Auden had an interesting take on Herod (recounted here).
BTW, when Bob’s canonization process begins and they ask me for evidence of his heroic virtue, I’m going to direct them to the comments section of these posts.
Yes, unlike his God, Bob is not smiting, slaughtering, or obliterating.
Well, most of time you’re at least tolerable, BA. But yeah…
Wow Bob, that is high praise coming form the Hero of Mboto Groge
There is no evidence outside of the Bible for the Census causing Mary and Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. There is no evidence outside of the Bible for Herod’s slaughter of male babies in Bethlehem.
Merry Christmas.
There is no evidence INSIDE the Bible either, unless you have a very loose notion of evidence. The accounts even conflict. Matthew has one elaborate absurdity to fulfill prophecy, and Luke quite another. They cannot be reconciled.
“Events documented by a small number of sources that occurred 2000 years ago may be somewhat exaggerated”
Film at 11.
I am not the biggest fan, but Bill O’ Reilly’s book “Killing Jesus’ is a solid historical narrative that gave me a better understanding into how these men lived, what they believed, etc.
“Every word she writes is a lie including ‘and’ and ‘the’.” — Mary McCarthy of Lilian Hellman.
Bob is doing better, but his first sentence still offends in this regard: ‘the’. There isn’t “the” Christmas story, there are several. I have hammered Bob on this before. Harmonizing the gospel accounts distorts and traduces them. This is part of Matthew’s tale, to serve Matthew’s purpose. Luke differs. Mark differs. John differs. Other gospels differ. Much less the really rather detailed non christian accounts.
Anyone in the mood for some good Christmas cheer?
Deck the Halls with Macro Follies!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uKnd6IEiO0
Bob,
One thing about the Bible that always stands out to me is the stories are eternal. Archetypes if you will.
There have been and still are many Herods today. Local government is a good place to see the Herod effect. Mayors and town board members seem like they are all about the people and local control until you really challenge their authority. Challenge and or dissent and the Herod will come out.
Of course the original United States Constitution aimed to abolish Kings of all types but power has crept back into our government, maybe power and kings were never eradicated as intended? Representative government, board of directors and the triangle model has not proven to be as it was intended. There has to be a better model. This is why I worship 1 King, 1 Hierarchy, 1 Leader, 1 Government. Jesus. We already know how He will behave when challenged, it has been written…
Ephesians 6:12
12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
“Of course the original United States Constitution aimed to abolish Kings of all types but power has crept back into our government, maybe power and kings were never eradicated as intended? Representative government, board of directors and the triangle model has not proven to be as it was intended. There has to be a better model. This is why I worship 1 King, 1 Hierarchy, 1 Leader, 1 Government. Jesus. We already know how He will behave when challenged, it has been written…”
So abolishing Kings in favor of obeying what you know isn’t much better, namely government, didn’t work, but obeying King Jesus is better,
The King is dead, long live the King.
King Herod acquired power by clawing up the political ranks during the war between Marc Antony and Octavian by bribing Roman officials and ruthless ‘taxation.’
He murdered his own son, Alexander, and his own wife Mariamne, and murdered even the high priest, his brother in law, Astrobulus. He was not a good guy. He ruled with an iron running a stasi style secret police and extracting in taxes all he could.
Murdering dozens of babies in Bethlehem, a town of hundreds, would not have been out of character in the least, and maybe not even notable considering the Romans around routinely left infants to die of exposure or deposed of them in sewers as shown from recent grotesque archeological evidence.
He dealt ruthlessly with all possible claimants to the throne, even in his own family, he would not hesitate to do likewise to one anointed and sought by magi from foreign lands.
For those wanting extra biblical sources concerning Herod the Great’s life I recommend Josephus’ Antiquities. It is difficult to read depending on the translation but valuable in showing how he came to power, what the Jews thought of him, and parts of his life.
*ruled with an iron fist,
Merry Xmas to all belivers. Merry Christmas to all unbelievers.
“Militants” http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAQ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-12-25-06-40-33
Mustn’t call militants by their real name.
It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if Kim Jong Un did the same thing.