Does The Bible Really Say....

[mountainrun]

For the second time today I have heard that the Bible says we will cast our crowns at the feet of Jesus.
But it doesn't actually say that, does it?

Anybody have anything else that people think is in the Bible but really isn't.

How about the "Three" Wise Men?
There are several misconceptions about these fellows.

MR

 

[Alcott]

No. But Revelation 4:10 does say the 24 elders "will cast their crowns before the throne..."

The magi brought gifts-- 3 gifts are mentioned-- but we are not given the specific quantity of magi, nor are they called "wise men" in that story; though twice elsewhere "wise men" is a term in the NT.

 

[mountainrun]

Yes, I'm aware of what the Bible DOES say about the crowns.
I pointing out what it DOESN'T say.

It also doesn't say that the magi followed the star to Jerusalem after seeing it in the East, but that they followed it from Jerusalem.

Nor did they see Jesus in the stable but in a house quite some time after His birth.

Aah, the theology we learn from Christmas cards and hymns.

Not to mention from people who got it from people who got it from people who got it wrong because they didn't actually read the Bible.

MR

 

[Alcott]

Nor did they see Jesus in the stable but in a house quite some time after His birth.

If your intention is to get technical about what scripture does not say, it does not say the magi did not see Jesus in the stable, nor does it say they saw him in a house some time after his birth.

 

[FERRON BRIMSTONE]

Mathew 2:11 And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12 And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.

It can be assumed that it was some time later since they were in a house, the magi needed travel time and had to search, and Herod had all male children under 2 put to death.

Mathew 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.(esv)

 

[mountainrun]

Brother Alcott, my intention is not to get technical but to encourage people not to go "beyond what is written" as Paul told the Corinthians.

Ferron has obviously studied the Christmas story in both Luke and Matthew but some people put things in the Bible that aren't in it and some take out things that are.

I'm just encouraging posters here to follow the advise of Paul to Timothy

2:14. Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
15. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
16. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.

MR

 

[Alcott]

my intention is not to get technical but to encourage people not to go "beyond what is written" ... but some people put things in the Bible that aren't in it and some take out things that are.

Then why did you "go beyond what is written" by saying "Nor did they see Jesus in the stable but in a house quite some time after His birth"? As has been pointed out, "it can be assumed...", but scripture does not SAY that. If you take issue with it being pointed out that a statement you made was an assumption from scripture, and not what scripture says, then why begin such a topic?

 

[Pipedude]

Nor did they see Jesus in the stable

*Ahem* What stable are you referring to? I see a feed trough in the narrative, but I see no stable.

but in a house quite some time after His birth

Quite some time, you say? Reckoning like Herod, who timed the birth of Christ from the Wise Men's viewing of the star? But where does the Bible say that God did not show them the star months or years in advance of the birth of Jesus?

It doesn't say that. Folks just assume it. I happen to think that he started the Wise Men early so that they could get there on Christmas night. In fact, I saw a picture of it in my Bible when I was little.

 

[mountainrun]

Alcott, I was referring more to statements that have no basis in scripture at all.
An assumption that a manger is found in a stable is not too far out of line.
But you are correct that a stable is not mentioned.

Pipedude, however is woefully wrong in thinking that the magi were present on Christmas.

The Lord had already been born when they entered Jerusalem.
Notice several points.
The magi, inquiring about Him, said "Where is the one who has been born King of the Jews?"

Jesus had already been presented in the temple and they returned to Nazarath according to Luke.

It was probably on their next annual passover visit {Luke 2:41} that the magi visited Jesus after which Joseph was warned in a dream to flee to Egypt.

Obviously, if they fled to Egypt on the night of His birth after the magi left they could not have circumcised Him 8 days later in the temple.

Your thoughts?

MR

 

[Alcott]

Alcott, I was referring more to statements that have no basis in scripture at all.
An assumption that a manger is found in a stable is not too far out of line.
But you are correct that a stable is not mentioned.

Maybe you can see how these assumptions and conclusions arise-- I said nothing at all about a stable in any of my posts in this thread; it was Pipedude that said there was no stable mentioned.

Pipedude, however is woefully wrong in thinking that the magi were present on Christmas

.

Not absolutely positively so. We have no idea what day [or days] the magi were in the same house with the "young child." So there is a probability of 0.00274 that that day was (by our calendar) Decembler 25. If they were there as long as a week, the probability is 0.019. If this mutual visit was a month (30days), the probability is 0.0822. So-- to state definitively that "is...wrong in thinking that the magi were present on Christmas" is anohter reasonable assumption, but it cannot be stated as logical truth. The only thing that can change these probabilities would be if evidence can be shown that a certain day, month, or season was more or less likely for the event to have occured therein.

The Lord had already been born when they entered Jerusalem.
Notice several points.

Alright-- this the correct approach, since Matthew 2:1 denotatively states that after Jesus was born the magi arrived. Right idea!

Jesus had already been presented in the temple and they returned to Nazarath according to Luke.
It was probably on their next annual passover visit {Luke 2:41} that the magi visited Jesus after which Joseph was warned in a dream to flee to Egypt.

You are back to assumptions. All we know is that Jesus was born in Bethelehem. Matthew does not say where the magi found Jesus, other than the star "stood over the place where the child was." Perhaps this one is a surprise to many, but no scripture says the magi found Jesus at Bethelehem, no matter how old he was when they found him; nor is any location given as to the place in which Joseph had the dream and from which he took Mary and Jesus and fled to Egypt.

Obviously, if they fled to Egypt on the night of His birth after the magi left they could not have circumcised Him 8 days later in the temple.
Your thoughts?

It's not absolutely true that they were not that fast :laugh: .

 

[Pipedude]

Pipedude, however is woefully wrong in thinking that the magi were present on Christmas.

How could they put the picture it in my Bible if it weren't true?

Matthew 2:1 denotatively states that after Jesus was born the magi arrived.

Rats! You got me.

I can't even put them in Bethlehem on Christmas Day, since they came to Jerusalem after Jesus' birth and they followed a star from there to Bethlehem, which implies a dark sky.

So the best I can do is to put them in Jerusalem on Christmas Day and then they made the short trip to Bethlehem that evening and found the Holy Family in the "chamber" (oikos) they made for themselves in the stable. And the shepherds came back for the group photo.

It's in the Greek.

 

[mountainrun]

I don't believe we can place the Magi in Bethlehem at all any time around the birth.
Since our discussion began, I reread the account of the birth in Luke and the visit of the Magi in Matthew.

Joseph and Mary left for Nazareth after the birth of Jesus.
They fled to Egypt after the visit of the Magi.

There had to have been two separate trips to Bethlehem.
Luke states that Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem every year for the Passover, so it is possible that the Magi arrived and met them at the next Passover.

In order, here's how it seems to have played out.
Acc. to Luke, Jesus was born, taken to the temple and the family went back to Nazareth, returning for Passover.
Acc. to Matthew, the Magi found Jesus and his family in Bethlehem, gave the gifts and Joseph fled in the night with his family to Egypt.

{And Alcott, Matthew does say that Herod sent the Magi to Bethlehem and that Joseph was told to flee because Herod was trying to kill the child. If Joseph was not in Bethlehem where all the male children were killed he would have had nothing to worry about. Assumptions are proper if they line up with scripture.}

I had never noticed the two different destinations after each story before, though.
What do you gentlemen think?


MR

 

[Alcott]

Matthew does say that Herod sent the Magi to Bethlehem and that Joseph was told to flee because Herod was trying to kill the child. If Joseph was not in Bethlehem where all the male children were killed he would have had nothing to worry about. Assumptions are proper if they line up with scripture.}

That does not line up with the premise of this -- your-- thread here, which you entitled "Does The Bible Really Say...." You wish to begin this, and then go to assumptions anyway. That's a reason for denominationalism, disagreement as to what can be assumed or concluded from scripture [though not as much of a reason than as to how 'seriously' scripture should be taken].

I had never noticed the two different destinations after each story before, though.
What do you gentlemen think?

I think that I had.

 

[mountainrun]

I am apparently unable to get through to you concerning the premise of my thread, Alcott. I should have stated it more slowly.
Fortunately, I was at least able to educate you a bit on the "wise" men so this has not been a total loss.

Since the Bible warns about disputes over words I will move on and you can get in the last word and go play "gotcha" with someone else.

MR

 

[Alcott]

..Gotcha..