Don't understand the christmas story

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON

Moved from Christian Forums How-To.
MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[dannyz]

Thank you Ricardo for your beautiful letter. I do believe the story can be looked at allegorically. I would agree with your symbolism totally. I do think however, that it was meant to be an accurate historical account. It has certainly always been presented that way by the church. Allegorically it can be made to fit, but historically it cannot. I was not aware that there is no secular historical record of the slaughter of the innocent, but that lends credence to the two contradictory stories.

I do not believe the bible is totally inerrant, but that does not shake my faith in a Creator. I read the bible for insight but I am sure God is not falling off his throne because there are errors in the bible.

Your letter though was very well written, thank you.

 

[RickardoHolmes]

Thank you Ricardo for your beautiful letter. I do believe the story can be looked at allegorically. I would agree with your symbolism totally. I do think however, that it was meant to be an accurate historical account. It has certainly always been presented that way by the church. Allegorically it can be made to fit, but historically it cannot. I was not aware that there is no secular historical record of the slaughter of the innocent, but that lends credence to the two contradictory stories.

I do not believe the bible is totally inerrant, but that does not shake my faith in a Creator. I read the bible for insight but I am sure God is not falling off his throne because there are errors in the bible.

Your letter though was very well written, thank you.

THANK YOU!!

Keep in Mind, too that Luke was meant to be more of a historical account, while Matthew, written between 80 and 90 AD by an educated Jew, was written to incorporate more of the traditions of Scriptural Jewish writing (ie Herod's slaughter of the innocents vs the pharoah's slaughter of the innocents, casting Jesus as a leader on par with Moses ). The style of the more educated elite was to write with more allegory and symbolism, which is why the story and account (even the focus) of the two vary so much.
The Writer of Mark, the earliest Gospel did not see the account as being extraordinary enough to mention it. Certainly not did the writers of John, Jewish Mystics of the second century who reflected more what their aspect of the Christian movement had become.

The Educated Jewish individuals had a great resentment and hatred for Herod because Herod had no claim to the Jewish throne, it being handed to him by Rome instead. SO Matthew has a greater anti-Herod slant than the others. Perfect for the magi story.

Luke, (not actually written by Luke but probably the same wrter as the ACTS) was a more zealous convert who was probably less educated and less inclined (clearly) To write as symbolically as Matthew

I do enjoy the account of Luke, although virtually all scholars point to it as an embellishment. Still, the symbolism is most inspiration and it remains one of the most beautiful stories in the Gospels
Esp Luke 2:14


δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ
καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη
ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.
Doxa en hypsistois Theo kai epi ges eirene en anthropois eudokais
Glory in Highest to God, and on Earth Peace among men, with whom he is pleased

 

[dannyz]

Wow! I just discovered something. All of you who have read this thread understand that I cannot harmonize the two birth accounts of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. I was reading them again to see if I missed something and I saw the verse in Matthew 2:15 saying He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” I thought that if the Old Testament prophets foretold the return from Egypt of Jesus maybe I should read it. It is Hosea 11:1 and it says When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called my son. The more they called them, The more they went from them; They kept sacrificing to the Baals And burning incense to idols. I read the preceding chapters and saw that this was not talking about Jesus but Israel. Jacob (Israel) went to Egypt and Moses led them out of Egypt. They later sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols. The verse Matthew tried to fit is talking about Israel and not Jesus.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I then tried to find the prophecy “in Matt 2: [/FONT]23 23 and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.” I cannot find this anywhere. I do not think it is in the Old Testament. Can anyone help me find this prophecy?
I read about Rachael in Ramah weeping for her children and found the verse in Jeremiah 31:15. It seems to be talking about Israel too and is a stretch to make it fit Jesus. Who is Rachael and where is Ramah? I do not know.
I then wanted to find out what is known about King Herod. I discovered that there are very detailed roman records of the life of Herod and historians like Josephus give very detailed accounts of his reign. But there is no account of the slaughter of the innocents anywhere except in Matthews account. This makes it seem more like Luke’s account is more accurate and Matthews account is made up to make Jesus fit the pattern of Moses where the male children were killed. Luke did say that he studied many other accounts of Jesus life very carefully before he wrote his account (Luke 1:1) Matthew apparently did not.

 

[~Anastasia~]

So you are thinking that Matthew read the prophets, misunderstood what they were talking about, and then falsified his account of Jesus' life in order to make it fit? All presumably without any inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

One would begin to wonder if ANY Scripture could be trusted at this point.

However, one could also argue that if man put in his hand in an attempt to make it all "fit" there would presumably be none of the myriad contradictions supposedly found in Scripture.

This kind of reasoning will run you in circles.

I'm sure there are others who can address it better, but I have learned that there are often levels of meaning in Scripture. I believe the rabbinical tradition teaches that this is always the case. If so, do you not think that some prophecies may refer to Israel (the nation) on some levels, and to Jesus on another level?

I still really don't see the difficulty with the return of Jesus from Egypt, but I already explained my opinion on that.

 

[Willie T]

So you are thinking that Matthew read the prophets, misunderstood what they were talking about, and then falsified his account of Jesus' life in order to make it fit? All presumably without any inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

One would begin to wonder if ANY Scripture could be trusted at this point.

However, one could also argue that if man put in his hand in an attempt to make it all "fit" there would presumably be none of the myriad contradictions supposedly found in Scripture.

This kind of reasoning will run you in circles.

I'm sure there are others who can address it better, but I have learned that there are often levels of meaning in Scripture. I believe the rabbinical tradition teaches that this is always the case. If so, do you not think that some prophecies may refer to Israel (the nation) on some levels, and to Jesus on another level?

I still really don't see the difficulty with the return of Jesus from Egypt, but I already explained my opinion on that.

Yeah, I think he may believe that the old guys who compiled the Bible never bothered to read the various books to see if they "matched" or not. So, they managed to just clump together this convoluted miss-mash of writings that all say something different, thereby deliberately invalidating the whole book.

Poor old guys just must not have been smart enough to see that coming.

Or.......... perhaps we need to learn a little about how the whole Bible fits together, ourselves?

 

[dannyz]

When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called my son. The more they called them, The more they went from them; They kept sacrificing to the Baals And burning incense to idols. Hosea 11:1 The preceeding chapter was talking about Israel. This verse talks about Israel and then says I called my son out of Egypt. then it says they sacraficed to Baals and idols. This is Israel. Did Jesus sacrifice to Baal or burn incense to idols? How can you possibly say these seven words in the middle of Israel and worshiping Idols is about Jesus? I don't get it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

How can I say? Well ... It just seems an obvious parallel to me. I don't think it necessary that the entire passage parallel in every way in order for part of it to possibly be a reference to something God would do in future.

I do not normally read commentaries, but a quick search online of something like "Hosea 11 commentary Jesus" produces a number of commentaries that apparently read it with the same eye.

Hosea 11 Commentary - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (That one is apparently Jamieson-Faucett-Brown on BibleStudyTools.com - just the first to come up)

I can't bring them all easily to mind, but I am thinking I have often seen many phrases in the OT that are prophetic in nature and refer to Jesus. I'm sure such a list would be just as easy to search for online. As I said, I don't tend to read commentaries as I do better by praying and searching the Scriptures.

I'm more concerned at the charge that Matthew misinterpreted the prophets and falsified accounts of the Gospel in order to make it fit. If you believe that, there probably isn't much I can say that would be of interest to you.

I pray you find the answers you are seeking. A humble seeking heart tends to find truth. God does not despise those who seek Him. I hope that's what you are doing.

I would caution anyone against being too wise in their own eyes, to the point of trying to discredit Scripture. If I were asking these kinds of questions, I would hope to search my heart before God and be sure that wasn't my mindset.

 

[dannyz]

Kylissa,
Luke’s account: Jesus goes to live in Nazareth and Joseph, Mary (and probably Jesus too) comes to Jerusalem every year to celebrate Passover.


Matthew’s account: The family flees to Egypt and stays there till an Angel in a dream tells them of the death of Herod. Even then they are afraid to go to Jerusalem. So much for attending the Passover in Jerusalem every year, huh???


Although we have very detailed records of the acts of King Herod from Roman and secular historians there is no account of the slaughter of the innocents except in Matthews gospel.



The verse Matthew uses to try to fulfill prophecy is Hosea 11:1 which says “When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called my son. The more they called them, The more they went from them; They kept sacrificing to the Baals And burning incense to idols”. In context Hosea is speaking about Israel and not Jesus. Israel (Jacob) went to Egypt. Moses led them out. Later they did fall away and worship Baal and burn Incense to gods.



If you don’t see it you have on some funny glasses and I don’t have much else to say.
Merry Christmas

 

[~Anastasia~]

Perhaps we shall simply have to agree to disagree then. It wasn't my point to debate you. I only hoped to offer a point of view if you were sincerely struggling.

Matthew’s account: The family flees to Egypt and stays there till an Angel in a dream tells them of the death of Herod. Even then they are afraid to go to Jerusalem. So much for attending the Passover in Jerusalem every year, huh???

I've already addressed my take on this. I'm guessing you read it, but didn't respond. At the risk of being rude whether I repeat myself or don't repeat myself, for your convenience, what I said was this:

"From Luke 2
39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

There is obviously a break here, because we are moving from a newborn Jesus to a 12 year old Jesus. And the break is talked about in vs 40, because Jesus grew during that time.

Now, if I happened to say that some friends of mine had a baby, and they had a big party when they brought him from the hospital. And the baby grew and did well in school. Every year the family goes to the lake camping for their vacation. When the child was 12, thus and such happens ...

I'm not lying or deceiving anyone if the yearly camping trips began when the child was 5. No one would necessarily take it to mean that the baby went camping his first year, even while he was only a few months old. I just told you that he did well in school before I mentioned the yearly camping trips. And that's our understanding of how people speak today. I don't know the speech patterns used by the writers of the Bible, but no, I really don't see this as a problem. " (end paste)

I don't see a contradiction in Scripture when one writer gives us more detail than another, or covers a greater period of time, or whatever. If you interview siblings who grew up in the same home, you will get different points of view, even if everyone's recollection is accurate. I don't see why different writers of a coherent book couldn't have the same understanding extended to them. It's just really not a problem for me, but if it is for you, then I pray you find what you seek.

Although we have very detailed records of the acts of King Herod from Roman and secular historians there is no account of the slaughter of the innocents except in Matthews gospel.

OK, I guess that's just not a problem for me either. I'm happy when people find "proof" for the Bible in outside sources, but I don't depend on historians to tell me whether or not the Bible is accurate. For me it's a matter of faith. I could believe in the fall of Jericho before they found they found what they believed were the walls and proof. And I can believe in Noah's Ark though they have not yet identified that they found it, and will continue to believe whether they find it or not. It's just a difference in our approaches, I suppose. No offense.

The verse Matthew uses to try to fulfill prophecy is Hosea 11:1 which says “When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called my son. The more they called them, The more they went from them; They kept sacrificing to the Baals And burning incense to idols”. In context Hosea is speaking about Israel and not Jesus. Israel (Jacob) went to Egypt. Moses led them out. Later they did fall away and worship Baal and burn Incense to gods.

Again, I don't see it as a problem that part of a verse may be a bit of prophecy or foreshadowing. I often see the potential for different interpretations or layers of meaning in Scripture. I'm not saying that it DOESN'T refer to Israel the nation, because obviously it does, but I'm only allowing for the fact that it may ALSO refer to the Messiah. Writers of fiction today employ the same tactic to give greater meaning to their works. I certainly don't interpret the Bible according to today's literary devices, but I also don't discount the possibility. As I mentioned, I believe the rabbinical tradition of reading the OT strongly supports the idea of layers of meaning, and I don't presume to argue against a rabbi regarding the OT.

Also, the verses and chapter breaks are artificial constructs and can't be used to interpret Scripture. Again, just a different approach between us, I suppose.

If you don’t see it you have on some funny glasses and I don’t have much else to say.
Merry Christmas

As I said, perhaps we just have to agree to disagree. I have the feeling that my words won't have an impact on you either, since we seem to be coming from rather different places.

Merry Christmas to you as well.

 

[dannyz]

Thanks Kylissa. You may be correct that there is no contradiction and that the two accounts harmonize flawlessly. You surely can see, however, why I view them as two different accounts. If our eternal salvation is based on believing the bible as having no errors or contradictions then it would seem like God would have given us a book that would harmonize so perfectly that no one could even point out a supposed contradiction no matter how deeply they dug. Anyway I guess you are right that we will just have to agree to disagree.
Blessings to you!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks Kylissa. You may be correct that there is no contradiction and that the two accounts harmonize flawlessly. You surely can see, however, why I view them as two different accounts. If our eternal salvation is based on believing the bible as having no errors or contradictions then it would seem like God would have given us a book that would harmonize so perfectly that no one could even point out a supposed contradiction no matter how deeply they dug. Anyway I guess you are right that we will just have to agree to disagree.
Blessings to you!

We're fine.

By the way, I hope nothing I said suggests that I believe our salvation rests on believing the Bible has no errors or contradictions. I don't believe it is a matter of salvation. I believe that any errors it may contain are a matter of translation / interpretation and that God didn't make the mistake of huge contradictions, and that the Scriptures were inspired by God. I don't believe He set pen to paper and wrote it all in English Himself.

I do believe there are certain things that ARE essential to salvation, but those things are very few and simple. A child can be saved. As far as studying Scripture and arriving at truth, I've changed my mind on some things along the way. And I imagine I very likely will change my mind on some things again if I continue studying. I never mean to imply that I've arrived or have all the answers.

Most of my posts are typed one-finger on a mobile device and may not always say everything I'd like to convey if I were face to face.

Peace to you.

 

[dannyz]

Kylissa,
Peace to you too and Merry Christmas
danny