Is that in the Bible?

[12strings]

Here's a few facts to make sure we are really getting the BIBLICAL Christmas Story: (See how many of these you already knew before reading this)

1. Only 2 out of 4 Gospels record the events of Jesus' Birth
2. There is no innkeeper in the biblical account.
3. There is no stable in the biblical account.
4. There were no animals at the birth scene, no sheep, goats, cows, or "lowing." The only sheep mentioned are those the shepherds were watching when the angles appeared.
5. In fact, there was no donkey in the biblical account for Mary to ride on to Bethlehem...it just says they "went."
6. There is no record of angles singing to shepherds, they SAID, "Glory to God in the highest." A "host" is usually an army, not a choir.
7. There are no "kings" in the bible, only Magi. This probably translates better as "astrologer" than "wise men"...but definitely not "king".


***If you are one of those people who can't simply enjoy the above tidbits, you can think deeply about how much traditions have added to our views of other events/doctrines in scriptures.*** :laugh:

 

[Cypress]

Cool, thanks brother!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Almost Scary....

Here's a few facts to make sure we are really getting the BIBLICAL Christmas Story: (See how many of these you already knew before reading this)

1. Only 2 out of 4 Gospels record the events of Jesus' Birth
2. There is no innkeeper in the biblical account.
3. There is no stable in the biblical account.
4. There were no animals at the birth scene, no sheep, goats, cows, or "lowing." The only sheep mentioned are those the shepherds were watching when the angles appeared.
5. In fact, there was no donkey in the biblical account for Mary to ride on to Bethlehem...it just says they "went."
6. There is no record of angles singing to shepherds, they SAID, "Glory to God in the highest." A "host" is usually an army, not a choir.
7. There are no "kings" in the bible, only Magi. This probably translates better as "astrologer" than "wise men"...but definitely not "king".


***If you are one of those people who can't simply enjoy the above tidbits, you can think deeply about how much traditions have added to our views of other events/doctrines in scriptures.*** :laugh:

After reading that I would almost have to conclude that it is truly scary how "loosely" we read/interpret the very scriptures that we say we believe. It would seem that our "traditions" are far more important to us than a strict adherence to the true account in the scriptures. 12Strings...I confess that I did know some of that but you just showed me (and rightly so) that at least some of what I have always adhered to has no Biblical support. The amazing thing is....I have NEVER even seen the true Biblical account RIGHTLY depicted in ANY church I have ever attended either. What is really disconcerting is the fact that we so loosely read and adhere to the very scriptures through which we declare to have eternal life. I think there is definitely a serious need to evaluate the traditions we hold to and at least try to make sure that we are being true to God and His Word in all we say, do, or think. Some would say that this would be "legalism" but I say no...It is not legalism to believe and obey (rightly) the Word of God....it is "legalism" if you somehow think that by so doing that you can attain salvation or improve your "status" with God by performing some series of "good works".
Anyway...as we approach our observance of Christmas...it is obvious that we all need to pay more attention to detail. Thank you for your attention to it.

Bro.Gregraying:

 

[Greektim]

Here's a few facts to make sure we are really getting the BIBLICAL Christmas Story: (See how many of these you already knew before reading this)

1. Only 2 out of 4 Gospels record the events of Jesus' Birth
2. There is no innkeeper in the biblical account.
3. There is no stable in the biblical account.
4. There were no animals at the birth scene, no sheep, goats, cows, or "lowing." The only sheep mentioned are those the shepherds were watching when the angles appeared.
5. In fact, there was no donkey in the biblical account for Mary to ride on to Bethlehem...it just says they "went."
6. There is no record of angles singing to shepherds, they SAID, "Glory to God in the highest." A "host" is usually an army, not a choir.
7. There are no "kings" in the bible, only Magi. This probably translates better as "astrologer" than "wise men"...but definitely not "king".


***If you are one of those people who can't simply enjoy the above tidbits, you can think deeply about how much traditions have added to our views of other events/doctrines in scriptures.*** :laugh:

I would even say that #1 is a bit loose. Yes Matthew records events related to and around his birth. But the birth itself is only 1 verse: "but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus." The actual story is found in Luke 2. But as far as the narrative around his birth, yes Matthew should also be included.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Here's a few facts to make sure we are really getting the BIBLICAL Christmas Story: (See how many of these you already knew before reading this)

1. Only 2 out of 4 Gospels record the events of Jesus' Birth
2. There is no innkeeper in the biblical account.
3. There is no stable in the biblical account.
4. There were no animals at the birth scene, no sheep, goats, cows, or "lowing." The only sheep mentioned are those the shepherds were watching when the angles appeared.
5. In fact, there was no donkey in the biblical account for Mary to ride on to Bethlehem...it just says they "went."
6. There is no record of angles singing to shepherds, they SAID, "Glory to God in the highest." A "host" is usually an army, not a choir.
7. There are no "kings" in the bible, only Magi. This probably translates better as "astrologer" than "wise men"...but definitely not "king".


***If you are one of those people who can't simply enjoy the above tidbits, you can think deeply about how much traditions have added to our views of other events/doctrines in scriptures.*** :laugh:

I bet you took the same online Christmas quiz that I did- :laugh:

 

[Deacon]

No innkeeper and no inn!

This article will blow your mind about what you think you know about the story.

The Story of Jesus Birth Luke 2:1-20 by Kenneth E. Bailey [link]

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

I think I'll get argumentative, okay? :tongue3:

Here's a few facts to make sure we are really getting the BIBLICAL Christmas Story: (See how many of these you already knew before reading this)

4. There were no animals at the birth scene, no sheep, goats, cows, or "lowing." The only sheep mentioned are those the shepherds were watching when the angles appeared.

To say "no animals" is also saying something the Scripture doesn't say. It doesn't say there were or there weren't. But it seems like in the stable of an inn with every room filled there would be lots of animals, mostly horses and donkeys and mules. :smilewinkgrin:

7. There are no "kings" in the bible, only Magi. This probably translates better as "astrologer" than "wise men"...but definitely not "king".

I wouldn't (and haven't) translated the Greek magos as "astrologer." In Japanese the usual translation is hakase, meaning scholar. In this case they were probably advisers to a king (maybe Persia), but certainly the ancient world's definition of a scholar--and astrology was usually a part of their knowledge, but they weren't always astrologers per se. Another usage of the word was sorcerer Simon in Acts 13:6-8. :type:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Do You Mean....?

I think I'll get argumentative, okay? :tongue3:
To say "no animals" is also saying something the Scripture doesn't say. It doesn't say there were or there weren't. But it seems like in the stable of an inn with every room filled there would be lots of animals, mostly horses and donkeys and mules. :smilewinkgrin:

I wouldn't (and haven't) translated the Greek magos as "astrologer." In Japanese the usual translation is hakase, meaning scholar. In this case they were probably advisers to a king (maybe Persia), but certainly the ancient world's definition of a scholar--and astrology was usually a part of their knowledge, but they weren't always astrologers per se. Another usage of the word was sorcerer Simon in Acts 13:6-8. :type:

John...do you mean Astrologers/astrology or AstromoMERs/astronomy....there is a big difference I think. I think there are some occultic overtones with the astrologers...are there not? I'd hate to think those were the "wise men" that came to visit...amen?

Bro.Greg

 

[Aaron]

Here's a few facts to make sure we are really getting the BIBLICAL Christmas Story: (See how many of these you already knew before reading this)

1. Only 2 out of 4 Gospels record the events of Jesus' Birth
2. There is no innkeeper in the biblical account.
3. There is no stable in the biblical account.
4. There were no animals at the birth scene, no sheep, goats, cows, or "lowing." The only sheep mentioned are those the shepherds were watching when the angles appeared.
5. In fact, there was no donkey in the biblical account for Mary to ride on to Bethlehem...it just says they "went."
6. There is no record of angles singing to shepherds, they SAID, "Glory to God in the highest." A "host" is usually an army, not a choir.
7. There are no "kings" in the bible, only Magi. This probably translates better as "astrologer" than "wise men"...but definitely not "king".


***If you are one of those people who can't simply enjoy the above tidbits, you can think deeply about how much traditions have added to our views of other events/doctrines in scriptures.*** :laugh:

It's stylish to deprecate traditions with fragmented and starved readings from the Scriptures.

3. There is no stable in the biblical account.

The word manger is translated as stall in Luke 13:15

5. In fact, there was no donkey in the biblical account for Mary to ride on to Bethlehem...it just says they "went."

It doesn't mention their clothes or provision either. So she walked the whole way being "great with child?"

6. There is no record of angles singing to shepherds, they SAID, "Glory to God in the highest." A "host" is usually an army, not a choir.

The angels praised God AND said, but "saying" does not rule out singing. We are commanded to "speak" to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. It is a stretch to think the heavenly hosts weren't singing as they did when the foundations of the old creature were being laid, Job 38:7.

 

[John of Japan]

John...do you mean Astrologers/astrology or AstromoMERs/astronomy....there is a big difference I think. I think there are some occultic overtones with the astrologers...are there not? I'd hate to think those were the "wise men" that came to visit...amen?

Bro.Greg

It is an archaism to read our current dichotomy of astronomy/astrology back into the 1st century AD. They made no such distinction. Being an astronomer/astrologer as a magos wise man in the 1st century AD may or may not have had the occultic overtones you are mentioning, depending on the individual.

For my part I like to believe that the wise men studied the stars with faith in the true God gained from studying Daniel, and did not swallow the occultic astrology of the day.

 

[DHK]

The angels praised God AND said, but "saying" does not rule out singing. We are commanded to "speak" to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. It is a stretch to think the heavenly hosts weren't singing as they did when the foundations of the old creature were being laid, Job 38:7.

Just to add, Here is what Lightfoot says about the same verse (Luke 2:13)

Lightfoot's From the Talmud and Hebraica
Luke 2:13
[A multitude of the heavenly host praising God.] The Targumist upon Eze 1:24, a host of angels from above. So in 1Ki 19:11-12, "A host of the angels of the wind. A host of the angels of commotion. A host of the angels of fire; and after the host of the angels of fire, the voice of the silent singers."



[Glory to God in the highest.] We may very well understand this angelic hymn, if good will towards men, be taken for the subject, and the rest of the words for the predicate. The good will of God towards men is glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth. And, is put between glory and peace; not between them and good will.

A hymn of praise and glory to God.

 

[12strings]

Just for the record, I was not saying the things we associate with the Christmas story were not present (animals, innkeepers, stables)...just that we have used our logic and common sense to fill in the gaps...The angles probalby sang, but we don't know it for sure.

 

[Van]

So a minimalist approach to scripture is best, rather than adding to ambiguous text. So the opposite of what was fashionable 400 years ago when great liberty was taken with the text. In John 6:44 it says everyone that comes to Jesus was drawn, but it does not say everyone that was drawn comes to Jesus. If we chip away at the Calvinistic story of salvation, we would end up with a house of cards collapsed on the ground.

Does Ephesians 1:4 says we were chosen individually before creation, or could the verse be understood to say we were chosen corporately before creation?

Does John 12:32 says if Jesus is high and lifted up, He will draw all kinds of men to Himself?

If "all" means whatever the author had in mind, rather than everything imaginable, in John 12:32, why not use the same limited view everywhere "all" appears in the text.

Does Romans 3:11 say no one seeks God at any time or just no one seeks God when they are sinning, thus using "no one seeks God" to prove everyone sins.

If Calvinists would view scripture with the same rigor used to remove the gloss from the muddled Christmas story, it would be a good thing.

To accept as doctrine what the Bible does not say, but simply does not rule out, is not a scripture alone derived doctrine. When we use are common sense to fill in the gaps are we not violating the admonition to not add to scripture?

 

[Mexdeaf]

So a minimalist approach to scripture is best, rather than adding to ambiguous text. So the opposite of what was fashionable 400 years ago when great liberty was taken with the text. In John 6:44 it says everyone that comes to Jesus was drawn, but it does not say everyone that was drawn comes to Jesus. If we chip away at the Calvinistic story of salvation, we would end up with a house of cards collapsed on the ground.

Does Ephesians 1:4 says we were chosen individually before creation, or could the verse be understood to say we were chosen corporately before creation?

Does John 12:32 says if Jesus is high and lifted up, He will draw all kinds of men to Himself?

If "all" means whatever the author had in mind, rather than everything imaginable, in John 12:32, why not use the same limited view everywhere "all" appears in the text.

Does Romans 3:11 say no one seeks God at any time or just no one seeks God when they are sinning, thus using "no one seeks God" to prove everyone sins.

If Calvinists would view scripture with the same rigor used to remove the gloss from the muddled Christmas story, it would be a good thing.

To accept as doctrine what the Bible does not say, but simply does not rule out, is not a scripture alone derived doctrine. When we use are common sense to full in the gaps are we not violating the admonition to not add to scripture?

Van, not every thread on here is a C/A thread. Don't go around seeing Calvinists under every rock.

 

[Van]

Yet another personal attack from Mexdeaf, devoid of content. This thread attempted to make a very important point about carefully considering what the Bible actually says, rather than the mythology, that has arisen from the inventions of men.

1) when studying a verse or passage, what is the least it is saying without taking anything away from what is actually said.

2) Are their ambiguous phrases, i.e. faith of Christ, that could be understood as His faith or as our faith?

3) Is "adoption" simply a synonym for rebirth or regeneration, or is the word which literally means "make son" referring always to our physical resurrection when Christ returns? Once a person gets serious about bible study, they soon discover the treasure God has given to us, food for spiritual growth.

 

[DiamondLady]

Here's a few facts to make sure we are really getting the BIBLICAL Christmas Story: (See how many of these you already knew before reading this)

2. There is no innkeeper in the biblical account.

You need to read the stories of Barzillai (II Sam 19) and his son Chimham (Jer 41) and you'll see there IS an innkeeper, although he may not be mentioned in the gospel accounts.