And while, they were there, the time came for her(Mary) delivery. And she gave birth to her son(Jesus), her firstborn; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn(hotel) - Luke 2:6-7(AMP)
Joseph and his pregnant wife, Mary, first went to the inn or hotel, before going to the manger. The inn or hotel was their first choice. Infact, the Joseph family never expected to wind up in the manger. The family had the resources, to pay for better accomodation at the inn or hotel. But there was a problem. There was no room at the inn or hotel, even though they had the means to pay for it.
So, contrary to popular belief, Jesus was not born in a manger, because he was poor or homeless. The Joseph family was not destitute. And in those days, just as in our times, not everyone could afford to stay at the inn or hotel, but the parents of Jesus could. They were probably middle class or above.
Is not this(Jesus) the carpenter's son? - Matthew 13:55(AMP)
Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus was a carpenter by trade, a prestigious profession in those days. He was gainfully employed. And from the above scripture, we can safely conclude, that Joseph was a well known carpenter in his community.
So, they(the shepherds) went with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby(Jesus) lying in the manger - Luke 2:15-16(AMP)
Only the shepherds visited Jesus as a baby in the manger. The wisemen never came to the manger. And the shepherd and the wisemen never met. There is no record of the wisemen ever visiting the manger or the shepherds and the wisemen ever meeting, at anytime or location.
Christmas cards, plays and nativity scenes, famously depict both the shepherds and the wisemen, together visiting Jesus in the manger. This is not factual nor biblical. There is no record to support it.
Only the shepherds, came to the manger, when Jesus was a newly born baby.
And(the wisemen) on going into the house(not manger), they saw the child(not baby) with Mary, his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him(Jesus) - Matthew 2:11(AMP)
The wisemen visited Jesus as a child, not as a baby and at the house, not the manger. Time had passed. The wisemen traveled a long distance for many months from the east to visit Jesus. So, Jesus was no longer in the manger, when the wisemen showed up. He was a child and no longer a baby, living in a house with his family.
The shepherds and the wisemen visited Jesus, at different stages in his life and at different locations.
As for the number of wisemen, that visited Jesus, the bible does not give us a figure. But, it has been popularly assumed, that there were three wisemen, because they brought three kinds of gifts? Any number of wisemen could have brought three kinds of gifts. Two wisemen or ten wisemen could have brought three kinds of gifts -
Salvation
Xmas?
Xmas?
eword;1346776 wrote:
Joseph and his pregnant wife, Mary, first went to the inn or hotel, before going to the manger. The inn or hotel was their first choice. Infact, the Joseph family never expected to wind up in the manger. The family had the resources, to pay for better accomodation at the inn or hotel. But there was a problem. There was no room at the inn or hotel, even though they had the means to pay for it.
So, contrary to popular belief, Jesus was not born in a manger, because he was poor or homeless. The Joseph family was not destitute. And in those days, just as in our times, not everyone could afford to stay at the inn or hotel, but the parents of Jesus could. They were probably middle class or above.
There was no middle class. There were the rich, and there were the rest, artisans who lived in houses of a single room, with little privacy. There was even less privacy in an 'inn', a mostly uncovered corral in which travellers and pack animals rested overnight together, no doubt for only a small fee- if there was any fee at all for such rude accommodation. The seclusion of a cave (as was probably the eventual stopping place) was no doubt much more suitable for a birth than the inn.
Is not this(Jesus) the carpenter's son? - Matthew 13:55(AMP)
Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus was a carpenter by trade, a prestigious profession in those days.
But the context of the quote shows that profession in antithesis with Jesus' attainments. The point made here is "He's only the carpenter's lad. What's all the fuss about?"
Christmas cards, plays and nativity scenes, famously depict both the shepherds and the wisemen, together visiting Jesus in the manger. This is not factual nor biblical. There is no record to support it.
But then Christmas itself is not biblical, so there is no reason to suppose that cards and plays will be accurate. (In fact, the New Testament is opposed to any supposedly special occasion, so if one wants to be truly biblical, one will ignore the goings on of this time of year as far as is practical.) Scholars and other students of the Bible are quite aware that there were significant time and place differences between the visits of the shepherds and the seers (or 'wise men', as is more common). And again, the idea that there were three of them is probably mostly due to a popular 'carol' that gives that number in its opening line. It should be remembered that the great majority of those who celebrate Christmas seldom if ever open a Bible, and probably don't even own one.
Joseph and his pregnant wife, Mary, first went to the inn or hotel, before going to the manger. The inn or hotel was their first choice. Infact, the Joseph family never expected to wind up in the manger. The family had the resources, to pay for better accomodation at the inn or hotel. But there was a problem. There was no room at the inn or hotel, even though they had the means to pay for it.
So, contrary to popular belief, Jesus was not born in a manger, because he was poor or homeless. The Joseph family was not destitute. And in those days, just as in our times, not everyone could afford to stay at the inn or hotel, but the parents of Jesus could. They were probably middle class or above.
There was no middle class. There were the rich, and there were the rest, artisans who lived in houses of a single room, with little privacy. There was even less privacy in an 'inn', a mostly uncovered corral in which travellers and pack animals rested overnight together, no doubt for only a small fee- if there was any fee at all for such rude accommodation. The seclusion of a cave (as was probably the eventual stopping place) was no doubt much more suitable for a birth than the inn.
Is not this(Jesus) the carpenter's son? - Matthew 13:55(AMP)
Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus was a carpenter by trade, a prestigious profession in those days.
But the context of the quote shows that profession in antithesis with Jesus' attainments. The point made here is "He's only the carpenter's lad. What's all the fuss about?"
Christmas cards, plays and nativity scenes, famously depict both the shepherds and the wisemen, together visiting Jesus in the manger. This is not factual nor biblical. There is no record to support it.
But then Christmas itself is not biblical, so there is no reason to suppose that cards and plays will be accurate. (In fact, the New Testament is opposed to any supposedly special occasion, so if one wants to be truly biblical, one will ignore the goings on of this time of year as far as is practical.) Scholars and other students of the Bible are quite aware that there were significant time and place differences between the visits of the shepherds and the seers (or 'wise men', as is more common). And again, the idea that there were three of them is probably mostly due to a popular 'carol' that gives that number in its opening line. It should be remembered that the great majority of those who celebrate Christmas seldom if ever open a Bible, and probably don't even own one.
Xmas?
To begin with I think the Christmas story is a beautiful and wonderful story. I would not change it for anything. The question of "Is the story historical?" can be responded to in one little word; No. The story is an ancient Jewish midrash designed to enhance the story of Jesus. The desire to do this resulted from their experience of this man. Among the top recognized scholars on this topic, while some question the historicity of Jesus, they are convinced of the historical reality of this man. It was decided after their experience that this man was a special man: a prophet, a spirit person, a healer etc. He was seen as something extraordinary in many ways and thus he is remembered.
Nothing is known of his early life, other than he was probably born in a house in Nazareth.
Midrash was an ancient style of both writing and interpretation designed to present an interpretation of an event. Today modern midrash is a style of interpretation only.
This all leads to the question as to what kind of person was this man that he should still be remembered 2ooo years later. My own personal belief is that he was the Messiah. The issues with his life are interpretations of their experiences of this man's life. Some will be historical and some will be interpretations of events in his life.
Shalom
Ted
Nothing is known of his early life, other than he was probably born in a house in Nazareth.
Midrash was an ancient style of both writing and interpretation designed to present an interpretation of an event. Today modern midrash is a style of interpretation only.
This all leads to the question as to what kind of person was this man that he should still be remembered 2ooo years later. My own personal belief is that he was the Messiah. The issues with his life are interpretations of their experiences of this man's life. Some will be historical and some will be interpretations of events in his life.
Shalom
Ted
Xmas?
Att: Xyz
Thanks for taking the time to comment on my post. I used the term 'middle class' for lack of a better word. The Joseph family may not have been rich, but they certainly weren't at the very bottom of society.
Is not this(Jesus) the carpenter's son? - Matthew 13:55(AMP)
I beg to differ. The above scripture is a rhetorical question. It implies, that the people present, when the above stament was made, should have known, who Jesus was, because his father was well known as a carpenter, in the community.
In those days, a carpenter wasn't just a carpenter. Carpenters built ships as well as chariots and wagons, which were like cars in those times. They were part of the highly skilled class.
Att: Ted
Thanks for shading more light to a story, that will always be surrounded by controversy.
Thanks for taking the time to comment on my post. I used the term 'middle class' for lack of a better word. The Joseph family may not have been rich, but they certainly weren't at the very bottom of society.
Is not this(Jesus) the carpenter's son? - Matthew 13:55(AMP)
I beg to differ. The above scripture is a rhetorical question. It implies, that the people present, when the above stament was made, should have known, who Jesus was, because his father was well known as a carpenter, in the community.
In those days, a carpenter wasn't just a carpenter. Carpenters built ships as well as chariots and wagons, which were like cars in those times. They were part of the highly skilled class.
Att: Ted
Thanks for shading more light to a story, that will always be surrounded by controversy.
Xmas?
eword;1346862 wrote:
Is not this(Jesus) the carpenter's son? - Matthew 13:55(AMP)
I beg to differ. The above scripture is a rhetorical question. It implies, that the people present, when the above stament was made, should have known, who Jesus was, because his father was well known as a carpenter, in the community.
'When Jesus finished telling these parables, he left that place and went back to his hometown. He taught in the synagogue, and those who heard him were amazed. "Where did he get such wisdom?" they asked. "What about his miracles? Isn't he the carpenter's son? Isn't Mary his mother, and aren't James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas his brothers? Aren't all his sisters living here? Where did he get all this?" So they rejected him.
Jesus said to them, "A prophet is respected everywhere except in his hometown and by his own family." Because they did not have faith, he did not perform many miracles there.' Mt 13:53-58
Is not this(Jesus) the carpenter's son? - Matthew 13:55(AMP)
I beg to differ. The above scripture is a rhetorical question. It implies, that the people present, when the above stament was made, should have known, who Jesus was, because his father was well known as a carpenter, in the community.
'When Jesus finished telling these parables, he left that place and went back to his hometown. He taught in the synagogue, and those who heard him were amazed. "Where did he get such wisdom?" they asked. "What about his miracles? Isn't he the carpenter's son? Isn't Mary his mother, and aren't James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas his brothers? Aren't all his sisters living here? Where did he get all this?" So they rejected him.
Jesus said to them, "A prophet is respected everywhere except in his hometown and by his own family." Because they did not have faith, he did not perform many miracles there.' Mt 13:53-58
-
along-for-the-ride
- Posts: 11732
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:28 pm
Xmas?
Att: xyz
Genesis 13:55-57(AMP) - Is not this(Jesus) the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
And do not all his sisters live here among us? Where then did this man get all this? And they took offense at him.
Obviously, the people in the scripture, knew Jesus very well, including his family. Their problem with Jesus wasn't based on knowing his family, but the word of God, which he preached and the healing miracles he performed. And their disdain for him, had nothing to do with his economic status either.
If these people had read and knew, their own original Abrahamic or Old covenant, they wouldn't have had any issues with Jesus. By the time, Jesus arrived on the scene, people had forgotten details and provisions of their own covenant, because over the years people had added and distorted the original document. But Jesus knew what the original document said and what it did not say. Jesus knew that divine healing was a key part of that covenant. God had promised to heal Abraham and his descendants. With the passage of time people had lost this truth.
So, when Jesus started performing healing miracles and preaching a message they weren't familiar with, they wondered where he had gotten that from. They thought he was an extremist or crazy and they didn't like him. But Jesus was simply carrying out provisions of their own covenant.
In our time, there are people, who get very offended, when anyone dare talk about divine healing in our new covenant, even though their are many scriptures to support it. They reject divine healing in our time, without providing one scripture to support their case. They would rather die, than check out the facts for themselves. And many so-called christian churches will throw you out if you dare mention divine healing.
Hello: Along-for-the-ride
Ride along and hold on tight. You are very welcome.
Genesis 13:55-57(AMP) - Is not this(Jesus) the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
And do not all his sisters live here among us? Where then did this man get all this? And they took offense at him.
Obviously, the people in the scripture, knew Jesus very well, including his family. Their problem with Jesus wasn't based on knowing his family, but the word of God, which he preached and the healing miracles he performed. And their disdain for him, had nothing to do with his economic status either.
If these people had read and knew, their own original Abrahamic or Old covenant, they wouldn't have had any issues with Jesus. By the time, Jesus arrived on the scene, people had forgotten details and provisions of their own covenant, because over the years people had added and distorted the original document. But Jesus knew what the original document said and what it did not say. Jesus knew that divine healing was a key part of that covenant. God had promised to heal Abraham and his descendants. With the passage of time people had lost this truth.
So, when Jesus started performing healing miracles and preaching a message they weren't familiar with, they wondered where he had gotten that from. They thought he was an extremist or crazy and they didn't like him. But Jesus was simply carrying out provisions of their own covenant.
In our time, there are people, who get very offended, when anyone dare talk about divine healing in our new covenant, even though their are many scriptures to support it. They reject divine healing in our time, without providing one scripture to support their case. They would rather die, than check out the facts for themselves. And many so-called christian churches will throw you out if you dare mention divine healing.
Hello: Along-for-the-ride
Ride along and hold on tight. You are very welcome.
Xmas?
eword;1346947 wrote: many so-called christian churches will throw you out if you dare mention divine healing.
That's unsurprising, if that happens in discussions about other subjects.
That's unsurprising, if that happens in discussions about other subjects.
Xmas?
Att: xyz
I agree, people only want to hear, what they want hear. But in christianity, there is no reason for bitter controversy, because the whole issue can easily be settled, by reading the first four books in the New Testament, that cover the life and ministry of Jesus.
I agree, people only want to hear, what they want hear. But in christianity, there is no reason for bitter controversy, because the whole issue can easily be settled, by reading the first four books in the New Testament, that cover the life and ministry of Jesus.
Xmas?
eword
What you are saying is pure rubbish. It simply is not true.
Shalom
Ted
What you are saying is pure rubbish. It simply is not true.
Shalom
Ted
Xmas?
The New Testament was compiled long after Jesus death. Paul was the first writer, probably 45 to 55. Mark was the first gospel written sometime in the late 60s Matthew was the second in the 70s. Then came Luke in the late 70s to early 80s. John was written between 95 and 105. None of the writers of the gospels new Jesus personally. In fact scholars are not even sure who wrote Mark, Matt, or John. Some fellow named Luke probably wrote both Luke and Acts. Several of the letters attributed to Paul did not come from Paul but pseudo Paul
We do not have the original manuscripts. They have long been lost to history. However there were some 5000 manuscripts used to write the NT. Among those there were multiple copies of each of the "books". Among all of those copies there were some 400 000 variants. That is, say in Matt. there may have been dozens of copies and each of them was different in many places. Not only that but NT Greek used no punctuation marks or capital letters. A neat job for the scholars.
Over the centuries the texts were redacted, added to, subtracted from, changed for political reasons by the church etc. What the scholars did was to choose their best guess. Add to that the final copies were chosen by a vote in the church council. The final text was not put together until about 375 under the direct supervision of Constantine.
Some 80% of the words attributed to Jesus are words the evangelists put into his mouth at the time writing. Many of them in all likelihood reflect some of Jesus teachings. eword asked why God would stoop to myth. The fact is the parables are myth but were created to present a truth. Teachers have used such procedures for centuries. It is an excellent way to get a message across: like the boy who cried wolf once to often.
I have said it before the phrase "The Word of God" rightly belongs to the Risen One and not a book. For it to be appended to a book is a form of idolatry.
There is even a little history in the NT.
Shalom
Ted
We do not have the original manuscripts. They have long been lost to history. However there were some 5000 manuscripts used to write the NT. Among those there were multiple copies of each of the "books". Among all of those copies there were some 400 000 variants. That is, say in Matt. there may have been dozens of copies and each of them was different in many places. Not only that but NT Greek used no punctuation marks or capital letters. A neat job for the scholars.
Over the centuries the texts were redacted, added to, subtracted from, changed for political reasons by the church etc. What the scholars did was to choose their best guess. Add to that the final copies were chosen by a vote in the church council. The final text was not put together until about 375 under the direct supervision of Constantine.
Some 80% of the words attributed to Jesus are words the evangelists put into his mouth at the time writing. Many of them in all likelihood reflect some of Jesus teachings. eword asked why God would stoop to myth. The fact is the parables are myth but were created to present a truth. Teachers have used such procedures for centuries. It is an excellent way to get a message across: like the boy who cried wolf once to often.
I have said it before the phrase "The Word of God" rightly belongs to the Risen One and not a book. For it to be appended to a book is a form of idolatry.
There is even a little history in the NT.
Shalom
Ted
Xmas?
Att:
What exactly is rubbish? Can you be more specific? Point out, whatever you think is not true, according to you. Just because you claim, something is a myth without explaining why, does not make it so. And there is a difference between a biblical account backed by scripture and the parables Jesus used to explain truths.
Your historical analysis of the bible, taken from various sources is a whole different debate, that could last, until the second coming of Jesus.
What exactly is rubbish? Can you be more specific? Point out, whatever you think is not true, according to you. Just because you claim, something is a myth without explaining why, does not make it so. And there is a difference between a biblical account backed by scripture and the parables Jesus used to explain truths.
Your historical analysis of the bible, taken from various sources is a whole different debate, that could last, until the second coming of Jesus.
Xmas?
None of it is true, eword, it's fiction.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Xmas?
eword
The literal reading of the Bible leads to all kinds of absurdities. Placing the Bible in the position and giving it the status you have leads to idolatry. The Jews who wrote the Bible never intended it to be read literally. It was intended to be reinterpreted in each new era or it becomes a dead issue. To quote theologian Hans Kung "The Bible is not in and of itself the word of God. The Bible testifies to the "Word of God" the Risen One." (Para) It becomes for Christians the "Word of God" because God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible.
What is rubbish? The literal interpretation. Whether or not you believe me is immaterial. The historical accuracy of the Bible is not supported by either history or archaeology. Literalism of the Bible asks folks to believe, in its true sense" many things that are absurd and this becomes a stumbling block to those who might otherwise take a second look. Paul was adamant that this not occur. Fundamentalism was a human invention of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and does not reflect the church of the apostles or their faith. In fact it is in opposition to their faith. Any good history book will confirm this. Crossan, Borg, Brueggemann , Cox, and a host of dozens of others.
Shalom
Ted
The literal reading of the Bible leads to all kinds of absurdities. Placing the Bible in the position and giving it the status you have leads to idolatry. The Jews who wrote the Bible never intended it to be read literally. It was intended to be reinterpreted in each new era or it becomes a dead issue. To quote theologian Hans Kung "The Bible is not in and of itself the word of God. The Bible testifies to the "Word of God" the Risen One." (Para) It becomes for Christians the "Word of God" because God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible.
What is rubbish? The literal interpretation. Whether or not you believe me is immaterial. The historical accuracy of the Bible is not supported by either history or archaeology. Literalism of the Bible asks folks to believe, in its true sense" many things that are absurd and this becomes a stumbling block to those who might otherwise take a second look. Paul was adamant that this not occur. Fundamentalism was a human invention of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and does not reflect the church of the apostles or their faith. In fact it is in opposition to their faith. Any good history book will confirm this. Crossan, Borg, Brueggemann , Cox, and a host of dozens of others.
Shalom
Ted
Xmas?
Att: Ahso!
If you really contend, that the bible is fiction, then you should take the trouble to demostrate or explain, why you hold that view. Because why should anyone accept your opinion of the bible?
Att: Ted
How is everyone supposed to know, what the Jews intended the bible to be? Why would the bible be a mysterious book, if it was intended for every tom, dick and harry? Why have this kind of secrecy? Why would the bible, that is intended for all, be designed to be understood by the select few?
And my understanding of christianity or the bible is, that it is not theology, science or philosophy, but a 'how to manual' for mankind to guide them, in confronting the situations and circumstances of life on earth and envetually depart for heaven.
Jesus told us clearly, which parts of his sermon were parables. If other parts of the bible are supposed to be myths or fables, why weren't we told so? Why didn't God give us a guide, to identify myths or fables in the bible? Why would God create a situation, that will open the door to endless speculation? Who did God give the guide to understanding the bible? Why would there be other books to explain the bible? Why can't the bible explain itself? Isn't the bible big enough to make it's case clear? And if God did not make it clear, as to who he is or what he meant, how can he honestly hold us accountable, if we are confused as to his message?
I will take a look at the sources you have listed.
If you really contend, that the bible is fiction, then you should take the trouble to demostrate or explain, why you hold that view. Because why should anyone accept your opinion of the bible?
Att: Ted
How is everyone supposed to know, what the Jews intended the bible to be? Why would the bible be a mysterious book, if it was intended for every tom, dick and harry? Why have this kind of secrecy? Why would the bible, that is intended for all, be designed to be understood by the select few?
And my understanding of christianity or the bible is, that it is not theology, science or philosophy, but a 'how to manual' for mankind to guide them, in confronting the situations and circumstances of life on earth and envetually depart for heaven.
Jesus told us clearly, which parts of his sermon were parables. If other parts of the bible are supposed to be myths or fables, why weren't we told so? Why didn't God give us a guide, to identify myths or fables in the bible? Why would God create a situation, that will open the door to endless speculation? Who did God give the guide to understanding the bible? Why would there be other books to explain the bible? Why can't the bible explain itself? Isn't the bible big enough to make it's case clear? And if God did not make it clear, as to who he is or what he meant, how can he honestly hold us accountable, if we are confused as to his message?
I will take a look at the sources you have listed.
Xmas?
eword
The Bible was meant for everyone. The birth midrash is quite clear on that when it says it was for all people. Do you need a definition for "all". Try looking up myth and add to that the ancient practice of writing midrash.
How do I know. It is the only thing that makes sense and I have gone so far as to study under a Jewish biblical scholar The Rev. Dr. Rabbi Robert Daum and other rabbis.
In a recent conversation with a scholar we came to the conclusion that if original sin does exist it can only be the sin of exclusivism.
I have given you scholars' names. If you need book titles and are serious about that I can give a list of hundreds of scholarly writings. I am certainly not interested in wasting my time or yours. If you are truly interested then study and do research. If not remain where you are. I am not here to proselytize but to pass on information.
Shalom
Ted
The Bible was meant for everyone. The birth midrash is quite clear on that when it says it was for all people. Do you need a definition for "all". Try looking up myth and add to that the ancient practice of writing midrash.
How do I know. It is the only thing that makes sense and I have gone so far as to study under a Jewish biblical scholar The Rev. Dr. Rabbi Robert Daum and other rabbis.
In a recent conversation with a scholar we came to the conclusion that if original sin does exist it can only be the sin of exclusivism.
I have given you scholars' names. If you need book titles and are serious about that I can give a list of hundreds of scholarly writings. I am certainly not interested in wasting my time or yours. If you are truly interested then study and do research. If not remain where you are. I am not here to proselytize but to pass on information.
Shalom
Ted
Xmas?
Att: Ted
I will be examining the sources you have referenced.
I will be examining the sources you have referenced.