Bring Back the Wise Men

[crossnote]

it gets a little silly because in the end what exactly are you defending anyway?

If you had read the OP, I realize the whole 'when' issue is secondary to Christians checking with Scripture when hearing certain claims such as 'two years' or whatever the issue may be.

BTW, I do take historical biblical accounts literal. If we can't then much of Scripture goes up for wild interpretations, revisions and strange redactions.

Re: your subtitle below your avatar...
In Islam, Isa al-Masih (عيسى المسي usually translated as Jesus Christ) is not believed to be the Son of God, but simply a messenger who is inferior in status to Muhammad.

 

[timothyu]

If we can't then much of Scripture goes up for wild interpretations, revisions and strange redactions.

Which would account for parables

 

[crossnote]

Which would account for parables

Parables were intended to have ONE interpretation not a mish mash of interpretations. They normally took earthly elements to express Kingdom truths. The truths behind the parables were literal, not symbolic or figurative.

 

[timothyu]

The truths behind the parables were literal, not symbolic or figurative.

Yes symbolic or figurative stories about a literal truth.

 

[prodromos]

The Eastern commemorates the Magi as being present at the Nativity.

That is not true. I think you are confusing the non chronological depiction of events in the icon of the Nativity with what is actually taught. For example, the Apostle Paul is depicted on the icon for Pentecost, but we do not believe he was there at the time because his conversion came much later.

 

[prodromos]

Re: your subtitle below your avatar...
In Islam, Isa al-Masih (عيسى المسي usually translated as Jesus Christ) is not believed to be the Son of God, but simply a messenger who is inferior in status to Muhammad.

You do realise that there are many Arabic Christians, and that is how Jesus Christ is written in their language?

 

[FenderTL5]

That is not true. I think you are confusing the non chronological depiction of events in the icon of the Nativity with what is actually taught. For example, the Apostle Paul is depicted on the icon for Pentecost, but we do not believe he was there at the time because his conversion came much later.

Agree and further, the Icon of the Nativity includes far more symbolism and teaching than is generally part of the western view of the Nativity. As example, the three Magi represent more than just the three gifts offered.

 

[DamianWarS]

Re: your subtitle below your avatar...
In Islam, Isa al-Masih (عيسى المسي usually translated as Jesus Christ) is not believed to be the Son of God, but simply a messenger who is inferior in

That's true, but since I'm not a Muslim how does that apply to me? Is this some sort of ad hominem argument trying to discredit me or something? Why digress so much off you own OP?

 

[crossnote]

You do realise that there are many Arabic Christians, and that is how Jesus Christ is written in their language?

I know, but my quote pertained to Islam's take on the name. I wasn't assuming DW was Islamic..just clarifying.

 

[crossnote]

That's true, but since I'm not a Muslim how does that apply to me? Is this some sort of ad hominem argument trying to discredit me or something? Why digress so much off you own OP?

See above.

 

[DamianWarS]

See above.

You have a funny way of clarifying something. It would have been easier to look at the faith I publicly identify with even further below my avatar which is Christian. You also realize that although this is the controversial section it is still a Christian only forum and all participates implicitly agree with the Nicene creed. I don't ask or "clarify" if you follow another faith because I assume you are a Nicene Christian and Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think it brings a sufficient amount of doubt on your claim, and since the traditional view is that the wise men came when Jesus was closer to 2 and tends to support that view. The wise men I might add went to a house not a staple so at the very least it shows that Mary and Joseph seemed to be established enough in Bethlehem that they moved out of the stable. How long exactly is too long in your view anyway? it gets a little silly because in the end what exactly are you defending anyway?

Matthew's account is the only account that brings the wise men up so should we not look to Matthew's account to ascertain when they arrived and how old Jesus was? So what is Mathew saying? Luke may very well be telling the same account but simply skipped over the wise men and said they went home but an exact timeline is not really what the point, he's just picking and choosing the moments he wants to tell.

If you want to look at the modern scholarly view the wise men and subsequent Herod's killing on the children under 2 is a myth to prop up Christ as the true Messiah. These sort of posthumous accounts are actually common in Eastern thinking as the value is not about if it's true or not but rather how well does it tell the truth. If the truth is Jesus is God's son then, of course, wise men came to visit him, and of course, he is a typology of Moses as these things declare the truth with stronger notes. If it really happened or not is the point, the point is Jesus is important and we should stop and take notice.

Take a look at the Catholic church, Peter is declared the first Pope, but is he actually functioning as the Pope? no of course not, nor was that his role, but it doesn't matter, he is posthumously given the title of Pope so that the office of the Pope has a single line of succession and is given more authority. Those outside the Catholic church disagree but those inside it vehemently defend it. We, however, all agree with the account of the wise men (at least that they came) regardless of what evidence seems to suggest because we believe in its goal that Jesus is the Son of God. Since the wise men account agrees with this we accept it as fact and don't care about others information says. It is a religious blindness and you're taking the account too literal with information that really can't be reconciled.

Interesting that the story is embellished with another OT prophecy concerning "Rachel weeping for her children". Of course her children at that time and place were of Benjamin, not Judah, although all were considered "Jews". Of course the prophecy intimates a 'mass slaughter' when in reality only a handful of children would have been killed; enough to satisfy the prophecy...and Herod.

 

[DamianWarS]

Interesting that the story is embellished with another OT prophecy concerning "Rachel weeping for her children". Of course her children at that time and place were of Benjamin, not Judah, although all were considered "Jews". Of course the prophecy intimates a 'mass slaughter' when in reality only a handful of children would have been killed; enough to satisfy the prophecy...and Herod.

i really don't know if the account happened or not and unfortunately I know too much about eastern thinking to know it is perfectly acceptable to embellish accounts and give them their best version because if it is really truth it's worth telling the "right" way. But it does seem the children who would have been targeted was small in number so perhaps not enough for it to hit Herod's top 10 lists of exploits and maybe that's why he did it too because it was an insignificant number that would have no consequence or covered up easily.

There are however some unanswered questions in the account like what did Mary and Joesph do with gifts which would actually made them quite wealthy. I have read claims that there was not 3 magi but hundreds and the gifts were escorted by a Persian army which is why Herod was alarmed by them at first. Apparently Persian documents also support this but if true it's odd why the bible downplays it so much and Luke, known for his detail, just left it out.

 

[DamianWarS]

Interesting that the story is embellished with another OT prophecy concerning "Rachel weeping for her children". Of course her children at that time and place were of Benjamin, not Judah, although all were considered "Jews". Of course the prophecy intimates a 'mass slaughter' when in reality only a handful of children would have been killed; enough to satisfy the prophecy...and Herod.

i really don't know if the account happened or not and unfortunately I know too much about eastern thinking to know it is perfectly acceptable to embellish accounts and give them their best version because if it is really truth it's worth telling the "right" way. But it does seem the children who would have been targeted was small in number so perhaps not enough for it to hit Herod's top 10 lists of exploits and maybe that's why he did it too because it was an insignificant number that would have no consequence or covered up easily.

There are however some unanswered questions in the account like what did Mary and Joesph do with gifts which would actually made them quite wealthy. I have read claims that there was not 3 magi but hundreds and the gifts were escorted by a Persian army which is why Herod was alarmed by them at first. Apparently Persian documents also support this but if true it's odd why the bible downplays it so much and Luke, known for his detail, just left it out.

 

[crossnote]

You have a funny way of clarifying something. It would have been easier to look at the faith I publicly identify with even further below my avatar which is Christian. You also realize that although this is the controversial section it is still a Christian only forum and all participates implicitly agree with the Nicene creed. I don't ask or "clarify" if you follow another faith because I assume you are a Nicene Christian and Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.

I've seen many 'types' of 'professing' Christians on this board, so nothing surprises me here. No need to get in a huff, I wasn't implying you were not a Christian, but for some reason your conscience got bothered because I posted a Wiki definition of Isa Al Masih.

 

[crossnote]

i really don't know if the account happened or not and unfortunately I know too much about eastern thinking to know it is perfectly acceptable to embellish accounts and give them their best version because if it is really truth it's worth telling the "right" way.

?? I don't understand. Aren't the Scriptures inspired by God? Of course the account happened or are we now judges of God's Word deciding what happened and didn't happen?

 

[timothyu]

Aren't the Scriptures inspired by God?

Inspired by God yet written later or translated from existing stories by those who had to carefully weave a book palpable to both Jew and Gentile.

 

[crossnote]

Inspired by God yet written later or translated from existing stories by those who had to carefully weave a book palpable to both Jew and Gentile.

Sounds like you have a strange definition of Divine inspiration. By your account, what good is Divine Inspiration and why trust the Bible since it is a compendium of legends, carefully embellished for Jew and Gentile consumption?

 

[prodromos]

No need to get in a huff, I wasn't implying you were not a Christian, but for some reason your conscience got bothered because I posted a Wiki definition of Isa Al Masih.

The only one who seems to be getting their knickers in a knot over this is you.
One wonders how you might have responded if someone's profile stated "God is Awesome" in Arabic?

 

[crossnote]

The only one who seems to be getting their knickers in a knot over this is you.
One wonders how you might have responded if someone's profile stated "God is Awesome" in Arabic?

LOL, Out of 6500 languages in the world is Arabic any special than the others?