U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 12-19-2010, 07:13 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,425,536 times
Reputation: 989

Advertisements

If you read the gospels you will note something different than what many nativities show.

Normally nativities show the shepherds and the wise men at the same time at Jesus' birth.

But in the Bible, the shepherds go to the stable when Jesus is born. The wise men go to Jesus' house after He came back from Egypt when He is a young boy.



Notice the wise men on the left and shepherds on the right?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2010, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Somewhere
6,370 posts, read 5,626,466 times
Reputation: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
If you read the gospels you will note something different than what many nativities show.

Normally nativities show the shepherds and the wise men at the same time at Jesus' birth.

But in the Bible, the shepherds go to the stable when Jesus is born. The wise men go to Jesus' house after He came back from Egypt when He is a young boy.



Notice the wise men on the left and shepherds on the right?
That is because the Christmas tradition has distorted the events. Many think the Bible mentions three wise men.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2010, 08:00 PM
 
Location: East Coast
30,126 posts, read 19,958,111 times
Reputation: 2104
Quote:
Originally Posted by trettep View Post
That is because the Christmas tradition has distorted the events. Many think the Bible mentions three wise men.
I have never understood the 3 wise men scenario.

1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

I am pretty sure it took more than 3 men to cause such a disturbance in all of Jerusalem.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2010, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Somewhere
6,370 posts, read 5,626,466 times
Reputation: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcamps View Post
I have never understood the 3 wise men scenario.

1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

I am pretty sure it took more than 3 men to cause such a disturbance in all of Jerusalem.

I think it is because three gifts are mentioned and nativity scenes depict this as three wise men.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2010, 08:36 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,935,861 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by trettep View Post
I think it is because three gifts are mentioned and nativity scenes depict this as three wise men.
RESPONSE:

You're mingling two different accounts.

Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of King Herod who died in 4 BC.

Luke has Jesus born ten years later during the 6 AD census of Judea by Quirinius. Herod had been dead a long time making Matthew's events chronologically impossible. Hence there is no "consternation" in Judea, no slaughter of the innocent, no flight into Egypt, and no Wise Men in Luke's account.

(Incidently the number of the Wise Men isn't given in the New Testament, nor their names. That's just another story).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 06:37 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,425,536 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE:

You're mingling two different accounts.

Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of King Herod who died in 4 BC.

Luke has Jesus born ten years later during the 6 AD census of Judea by Quirinius. Herod had been dead a long time making Matthew's events chronologically impossible. Hence there is no "consternation" in Judea, no slaughter of the innocent, no flight into Egypt, and no Wise Men in Luke's account.

(Incidently the number of the Wise Men isn't given in the New Testament, nor their names. That's just another story).
That is not correct.

Here is what Adam Clark's Commentary on the Bible says:

Luk 2:2 -
This taxing was first made when Cyrenius, etc. - The next difficulty in this text is found in this verse, which may be translated, Now this first enrolment was made when Quirinus was governor of Syria.

It is easily proved, and has been proved often, that Caius Sulpicius Quirinus, the person mentioned in the text, was not governor of Syria, till ten or twelve years after the birth of our Lord.

St. Matthew says that our Lord was born in the reign of Herod, Luk_2:1, at which time Quintilius Varus was president of Syria, (Joseph. Ant. book xvii. c. 5, sect. 2), who was preceded in that office by Sentius Saturninus. Cyrenius, or Quirinus, was not sent into Syria till Archelaus was removed from the government of Judea; and Archelaus had reigned there between nine and ten years after the death of Herod; so that it is impossible that the census mentioned by the evangelist could have been made in the presidency of Quirinus.

Several learned men have produced solutions of this difficulty; and, indeed, there are various ways of solving it, which may be seen at length in Lardner, vol. i. p. 248-329. One or other of the two following appears to me to be the true meaning of the text.

1. When Augustus published this decree, it is supposed that Quirinus, who was a very active man, and a person in whom the emperor confided, was sent into Syria and Judea with extraordinary powers, to make the census here mentioned; though, at that time, he was not governor of Syria, for Quintilius Varus was then president; and that when he came, ten or twelve years after, into the presidency of Syria, there was another census made, to both of which St. Luke alludes, when he says, This was the first assessment of Cyrenius, governor of Syria; for so Dr. Lardner translates the words. The passage, thus translated, does not say that this assessment was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, which would not have been the truth, but that this was the first assessment which Cyrenius, who was (i.e. afterwards) governor of Syria, made; for after he became governor, he made a second. Lardner defends this opinion in a very satisfactory and masterly manner. See vol. i. p. 317. etc.

2. The second way of solving this difficulty is by translating the words thus: This enrolment was made Before Cyrenius was governor of Syria; or, before that of Cyrenius. This sense the word πρωτος appears to have, Joh_1:30 : ὁτι πρωτος μου ην, for he was Before me. Joh_15:18 : The world hated me Before (πρωτον) it hated you. See also 2Sa_19:43. Instead of πρωτη, some critics read προ της, This enrolment was made Before That of Cyrenius. Michaelis; and some other eminent and learned men, have been of this opinion: but their conjecture is not supported by any MS. yet discovered; nor, indeed, is there any occasion for it. As the words in the evangelist are very ambiguous, the second solution appears to me to be the best.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,935,861 times
Reputation: 255
Eusebius posted:

>>Here is what Adam Clark's Commentary on the Bible says:

Luk 2:2 -
This taxing was first made when Cyrenius, etc. - The next difficulty in this text is found in this verse, which may be translated, Now this first enrolment was made when Quirinus was governor of Syria.

It is easily proved, and has been proved often, that Caius Sulpicius Quirinus, the person mentioned in the text, was not governor of Syria, till ten or twelve years after the birth of our Lord.<<

RESPONSE:


Really?

Please present your evidence for your claim.


Quirinius was sent to govern Syria and Judea after Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, was exiled in 6 AD. This was ten years after Herod’s death in 4 BC. Quirinius conducted a census of Judea (but not Galilee) for tax purposes.

Josephus, Antiquities 17.342-344, 355

"In the tenth year of Archelaus’ rule……… Now the territory subject to Archelaus was added to (the province of) Syria, and Quirinius, a man of consular rank, was sent by Caesar to take a census of property in Syria and to sell the estate of Archelaus."

And

Josephus, Antiquities 18.1-4

"Quirinius also visited Judaea, which had been annexed to Syria, in order to
make an assessment of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus."

Perhaps you should read the historical references yourself rather than simply believing Adam Clark's Commentary.


I look forward to your providing real evidence to dispute Josephus' and Luke's reports.

Last edited by ancient warrior; 12-20-2010 at 08:28 AM.. Reason: remove "size"
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Wilkes-Barre,Pa
272 posts, read 848,564 times
Reputation: 132
Ok im probably going to open a can of worms on this one.What Sort of Star Led the Astrologers? Clues are provided by what the star actually did. For one thing, it did not lead the men directly to Bethlehem, but to Jerusalem, where their inquiries about Jesus reached King herod. Herod then secretly summoned the astrologers, who told him about the newbown. he thin said, Make a careful search for the young child, and when you have found it report back to me. Herod was resolved to put Jesus to death Matthew 2:9-10.

This was no ordinary star. And why would God, who had used angels to inform shepherds of Jesus birth, now employ a star to guide pagan astrologers first to Jesus, ememy and then to to the child himself? The ony reasonable conclusion is that the star was a sinister device of Satan, who is capable of such manifestations. Ironically, an ornament called the star of Bethlehem is usually seen at the top of the Christmas tree.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,935,861 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by TransAm View Post
Ok im probably going to open a can of worms on this one.What Sort of Star Led the Astrologers? Clues are provided by what the star actually did. For one thing, it did not lead the men directly to Bethlehem, but to Jerusalem, where their inquiries about Jesus reached King herod. Herod then secretly summoned the astrologers, who told him about the newbown. he thin said, Make a careful search for the young child, and when you have found it report back to me. Herod was resolved to put Jesus to death Matthew 2:9-10.

This was no ordinary star. And why would God, who had used angels to inform shepherds of Jesus birth, now employ a star to guide pagan astrologers first to Jesus, ememy and then to to the child himself? The ony reasonable conclusion is that the star was a sinister device of Satan, who is capable of such manifestations. Ironically, an ornament called the star of Bethlehem is usually seen at the top of the Christmas tree.
RESPONSE:

You don't really belief this actually happened, do you?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2010, 08:08 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,425,536 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
Eusebius posted:

>>Here is what Adam Clark's Commentary on the Bible says:

Luk 2:2 -
This taxing was first made when Cyrenius, etc. - The next difficulty in this text is found in this verse, which may be translated, Now this first enrolment was made when Quirinus was governor of Syria.

It is easily proved, and has been proved often, that Caius Sulpicius Quirinus, the person mentioned in the text, was not governor of Syria, till ten or twelve years after the birth of our Lord.<<

RESPONSE:


Really?

Please present your evidence for your claim.


Quirinius was sent to govern Syria and Judea after Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, was exiled in 6 AD. This was ten years after Herod’s death in 4 BC. Quirinius conducted a census of Judea (but not Galilee) for tax purposes.

Josephus, Antiquities 17.342-344, 355

"In the tenth year of Archelaus’ rule……… Now the territory subject to Archelaus was added to (the province of) Syria, and Quirinius, a man of consular rank, was sent by Caesar to take a census of property in Syria and to sell the estate of Archelaus."

And

Josephus, Antiquities 18.1-4

"Quirinius also visited Judaea, which had been annexed to Syria, in order to
make an assessment of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus."

Perhaps you should read the historical references yourself rather than simply believing Adam Clark's Commentary.


I look forward to your providing real evidence to dispute Josephus' and Luke's reports.
re-read post #6
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top