wow - the Pope kills Christmas?? Seriously wrong

charlieparker said:

Just read this and am shaking my head in disbelief. Just WHY would you say that:???


Look at wownews.co.uk - story about the Pope's new pronouncement about there being no angels or animals at the Nativity.

Way to kill Christmas Benedict....

Click to expand...

Hopefully you are making a joke out of this.

Yeah. The busiest time ever for the inn (they had no room left), and the stable out back (or wherever) is going to be vacant? The visitors staying there didn't ride in on animals that needed a place to be kept? And Mary didn't ride? This eight month + pregnant woman walked all that way? Vendors didn't have hundreds of animals to sell for sacrifices? And there weren't food animals all over the town?

The RCC really needs to retire these guys when they begin to get so out of touch with reality, if indeed this story is true.

I think the point is that most of us know what transubstantation is - and we reject it.

Anyway, back to the subject of the thread .. um, I don't think I'm even going to risk opening a website called "wownews". Is this story repeated in any legitimate news outlet?

Hetta said:

and we reject it.

Click to expand...

Then you reject the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you."

Yes, you are right, Hetta, thinking there were no animals in the stable at the birth is a little dense.

wordsoflife said:

Then you reject the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you."

Click to expand...

I thought I asked for verses where it happened?

He also said "Unless a men dies, he cannot live". You're breathing, aren't you?

Hetta said:

I think the point is that most of us know what transubstantation is - and we reject it.

Anyway, back to the subject of the thread .. um, I don't think I'm even going to risk opening a website called "wownews". Is this story repeated in any legitimate news outlet?

Click to expand...

I don't think they're listening...

K guys, let's try not to forget that one of Jesus' last prayers (apart from "Forgive them father) was that his body would be unified...and arguing about whether the Eucarist turns into literal flesh and blood or not at communion is probably not a good thing...

Anyway I went to the URL and it looks like a hoax sight. I was immediately assaulted visually with large breasted women and something that looked like a badly photoshopped dog/tiger thing.

Willie T said:

Yes, you are right, Hetta, thinking there were no animals in the stable at the birth is a little dense.

Click to expand...

There are two accounts of Jesus' birth and only Luke gives the impression that he was born in what may have a stable like structure. Matthew says that he was in a house when the Magi came while Luke says that he was laying in a manger, or a feeding box for livestock but doesn't say where that box was at.

Matthew doesn't say anything about shepherds and Luke doesn't say anything about any animals being in the site where Jesus was sleeping. Neither say that an angel was present.

The popular Nativity scene became popularized by St. Francis of Assisi around 1223. Prior to that, little attention was paid to the birth scene.

Hetta said:

I think the point is that most of us know what transubstantation is - and we reject it.

Anyway, back to the subject of the thread .. um, I don't think I'm even going to risk opening a website called "wownews". Is this story repeated in any legitimate news outlet?

Click to expand...

I heard that the UK has some great sensational journalism going on over there. They make ours seem mild in comparison.

If the Pope wishes to be accurate about the Nativity, then I suppose he will change the date of Christmas to sometime in the Spring.

Yarddog said:

There are two accounts of Jesus' birth and only Luke gives the impression that he was born in what may have a stable like structure. Matthew says that he was in a house when the Magi came while Luke says that he was laying in a manger, or a feeding box for livestock but doesn't say where that box was at.

Matthew doesn't say anything about shepherds and Luke doesn't say anything about any animals being in the site where Jesus was sleeping. Neither say that an angel was present.

The popular Nativity scene became popularized by St. Francis of Assisi around 1223. Prior to that, little attention was paid to the birth scene.

Click to expand...

Let's see.... Luke has us in a "stable-like" structure.

Well, we know it was not a regular sleeping quarters because this was offered as a poor second choice. Yeah, just maybe a stable sort of place.... I think the manger (feeding trough) might be a bit of a give-away, too.

A house? A whole house to themselves? In this strange, overcrowded town where they were only visiting for a few days because of a census that was required?

That's one problem.

Then there is the problem of Joseph taking off with the family that very night. Ya see the Jews had this ceremonial thing (40 days, I think it was) where Mary was NOT going to be running off to Egypt. The "child" had to be presented to the temple, too.

Besides, the term used for Jesus by that date in time did not indicate an infant.

I think we've really got an honest to goodness stable thing going on here. And there is a "remote" possibility that there were animals around. Like about a 99.99% chance of it.

Willie T said:

Let's see.... Luke has us in a "stable-like" structure.

Click to expand...

Luke says nothing about a stable like structure. A manger is a box which feed is placed in and what he says the baby Jesus was placed in.

Willie T said:

Well, we know it was not a regular sleeping quarters because this was offered as a poor second choice.

Click to expand...

Matthew, the Apostle says that it was a house. Luke, a disciple of Paul, who never saw Jesus says that there was no room in the Inn but doesn't say where Mary and Joseph went.

Willie T said:

Yeah, just maybe a stable sort of place.... I think the manger (feeding trough) might be a bit of a give-away, too.

Click to expand...

So is the house which Matthew said Jesus was.

Willie T said:

A house? A whole house to themselves? In this strange, overcrowded town where they were only visiting for a few days because of a census that was required?

Click to expand...

Who said that they were in the house by themselves. I guess that you make up things like the people who said that angels, donkeys, or other beasts were there.

Willie T said:

That's one problem.

Click to expand...

You mean that you made this up?

Willie T said:

Then there is the problem of Joseph taking off with the family that very night. Ya see the Jews had this ceremonial thing (40 days, I think it was) where Mary was NOT going to be running off to Egypt. The "child" had to be presented to the temple, too.

Click to expand...

Matthew doesn't say how long after the birth of Jesus that the Magi came to pay homage. Luke says that they didn't go to Egypt but went back to Jerusalem.

Willie T said:

Besides, the term used for Jesus by that date in time did not indicate an infant.

Click to expand...

Then why did you spout all of the useless info in your last few lines? There was a reason why Herod had all the boys 2 yrs old or younger. That was to cover all of possible kids which fit into the information that he got from the Magi.

Willie T said:

I think we've really got an honest to goodness stable thing going on here. And there is a "remote" possibility that there were animals around. Like about a 99.99% chance of it.

Click to expand...

If you actually read those scriptures you'd stop making yourself look bad and you'd know a little bit about what the stories actually say.

Hey, from the git go, I've said it was stupid to say animals were not present at Christ's birth. That's all I've been trying to show. Yes, there were animals where an animal feeding box was used for a bed... in a town so crowded that it was the only place left for them to bed down.

Willie T said:

Hey, from the git go, I've said it was stupid to say animals were not present at Christ's birth.

Click to expand...

And you've proved that it is stupid to say that it is stupid to say that.

Willie T said:

That's all I've been trying to show. Yes, there were animals where an animal feeding box was used for a bed... in a town so crowded that it was the only place left for them to bed down.

Click to expand...

Bethlehem was not a large city. Even today there are only about 25,000 people there. Historians put the population at about 100 during the time of Jesus so any Inn would fill up quickly. Joseph may have known relatives which lived there and may have stayed in their house.

Hetta said:

I think the point is that most of us know what transubstantation is - and we reject it.

Anyway, back to the subject of the thread .. um, I don't think I'm even going to risk opening a website called "wownews". Is this story repeated in any legitimate news outlet?

Click to expand...

Here is a link to UPI:

Pope Benedict XVI: ‘There is no mention of animals in the Gospels’ - UPI.com

It really seems overblown. Many links to UK sights may indicate the sensationalist news business in UK as someone has stated.

In reality, Pope Benedict is just stating something akin to what we often here in this country as how the wisemen were not there till later. Just from the statements of Benedict, he just is trying to keep the focus on the reality of Jesus Incarnation through the virgin birth. He has not gone loopy.

Willie T said:

You got me there. We don't have any smoke, or bells, or statues, or robes, or shawls, or gold cups, or embroidered napkins..... shall I go on?

And I would bet that the Vineyards that do use little wafers (we happen to use bread we bake), buy them from the same factories that all the other denominations do. But we do share the juice. A lot of local churches have quit that.

Oh, I'd post some of the doctrine for you, but it's too long... this forum won't accept the length.

Nope, all we have is Jesus and healing. Kind of plain when compared to the trappings of others.

Click to expand...

That sounds sad, honestly. But then again, I myself don't see the appeal of stripping down my religion until it is emaciated and frail and weak.

Hetta said:

I think the point is that most of us know what transubstantation is - and we reject it.

Click to expand...

This is actually statistically untrue. The clear majority of Christians actually believe in transubstantiation or a basically similar theology in which Christ is literally present in the Eucharist and the litany transforms the wine and bread into His holy flesh and blood.

wordsoflife said:

Then you reject the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you."

Click to expand...

I guess you are not a fan of Luther and Zwingli then! I think we have to be mature enough to recognise our different views rather than start re-enacting Middle Ages disputes - I know Baptists who on the whole view the vast majority of Catholics as not being Christians - I don't agree with their pov just as I don't agree with saying that someone who has a different view on Communion is rejecting Christ's words

Bethesda said:

I guess you are not a fan of Luther and Zwingli then! I think we have to be mature enough to recognise our different views rather than start re-enacting Middle Ages disputes - I know Baptists who on the whole view the vast majority of Catholics as not being Christians - I don't agree with their pov just as I don't agree with saying that someone who has a different view on Communion is rejecting Christ's words

Click to expand...

IIRC Zwingli taught a memorial view-put him at odds with Luther...something similar to a Baptist view?