Nativity scene

[JustaServant]

This is only a suprise to those who have never been to a farm!

I think the answer is the same as why we celebrate the Nativity on Dec 25th.

That would be me…a city boy.

But as a Catholic now, and understanding the significance of the Eucharist, it sheds a new light on the fact our Lord was born in a “feeding trough.”

 

[rev_kevin]

I think the most important thing here is not producing Nativity scenes of textbook historical accuracy, but instead making art which depicts the realities of the faith in such a way as to inspire devotion. When the average person looks at a Nativity, they don’t whip out their Bible and go “hmm this isn’t EXACTLY how the Gospels depict this, is it?” Rather, most are inclined to reflect upon the poverty into which the King of Glory was born, the reverence shown by all peoples–from the highest state to the lowest–and of the beauty of the love of the Holy Family. The question should not be “how exactly correct is my Nativity scene when it comes to history,” but “does this art inspire me to lift my thoughts toward God?”

-ACEGC

That could be that they were taught or seen it to be true, accurate in the way Jesus was born. Shouldn’t we teach and show the right correct teaching of how our King was born?

Why is it that we non-Catholics are told that we are following false teachings when the Nativity Scene is teaching something false, something that didn’t happen the way it is protrayed. If it is not accurate wouldn’t that be a false teaching?

 

[JustaServant]

That is also what I have come up with in my study of the Nativity.

But, and I asked myself this as a Baptist preacher, how are these facts helpful to us in understanding the Gospel and our response to it?

 

[rev_kevin]

As a former Catholic, you should know that January 6th in the liturgical year is celebrated as the Epiphany.

Of course this happened later, but we DO have a liturgical calendar. If we celebrated it in spring, for example, it would conflict with Lent, and we DO know when Easter Sunday is celebrated.

You might want to go back and read the Church Fathers to get what their opinion is, but we also know that Herod killed the innocent babies 2 and below, so we also know that they couldn’t have come after that time.

Ok it just has to do with timming.

 

[jmcrae]

That could be that they were taught or seen it to be true, accurate in the way Jesus was born. Shouldn’t we teach and show the right correct teaching of how our King was born?

Why is it that we non-Catholics are told that we are following false teachings when the Nativity Scene is teaching something false, something that didn’t happen the way it is protrayed. If it is not accurate wouldn’t that be a false teaching?

It’s not “false” because the point of the Nativity Scene is that Jesus came for the whole world - rich, poor, women, men, Jews, and Gentiles of every race. It’s not meant to be a diary of historical events, but a portrayal of why Jesus came to us.

 

[jmcrae]

That could be that they were taught or seen it to be true, accurate in the way Jesus was born. Shouldn’t we teach and show the right correct teaching of how our King was born?

Catholics do that in Catechism classes. I assume most Protestants teach their kids these things in Sunday School.

 

[Nicea325]

It’s not “false” because the point of the Nativity Scene is that Jesus came for the whole world - rich, poor, women, men, Jews, and Gentiles of every race. It’s not meant to be a diary of historical events, but a portrayal of why Jesus came to us.

Amen! Exactly! People get to caught up in details,which can totally overlook at the main message. The Bible was not written as a history book per se or as a diary.

 

[edward_george]

That could be that they were taught or seen it to be true, accurate in the way Jesus was born. Shouldn’t we teach and show the right correct teaching of how our King was born?

Why is it that we non-Catholics are told that we are following false teachings when the Nativity Scene is teaching something false, something that didn’t happen the way it is protrayed. If it is not accurate wouldn’t that be a false teaching?

That all depends upon the level at which we are looking at Scripture. St. Thomas Aquinas identifies five senses in which Scripture may be read: the historical, the spiritual, the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical. Is the historical sense necessary to convey the others? In some ways, yes. But I think that in this case that a representation of the Nativity of Christ which reflects Scripture at the spiritual and allegorical levels is certainly appropriate. Something can be historically “false” (rather, less than true–the Nativity as it is presented in most contemporary representations does not represent an outright, total falsehood, but perhaps lacking some degree of historical truth), but still true on other levels. Jesus’ parables are a good example of this. While they were morally and spiritually very true, they were not historically true–they did not correspond necessarily to actual events that had happened. Does this mean Jesus was teaching falsehood? No. He was simply using a representation to explain a truth. This is what is happening in the Nativity.

For more on Aquinas’ reckoning of the five senses of Scripture, see these links:
newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm#article10

marikablogs.blogspot.com/2009/05/aquinas-on-four-senses-of-scripture.html

-ACEGC

 

[patrick457]

Why do we not portray the Nativity Scene accuratly?

You want details, I’ll give you one. If you’ll ask me how we’re going to portray the Nativity Scene accurately, here’s my suggestions.

(1) No wooden barns. People in those days the kept animals in or near homes at night, which protected them from elements and theft. In one possible scenario, the animals as well as the family stayed under one large enclosed space that was divided so that the animals would usually be on the lower level, while the family would sleep on an upper level. Another possibility was that the house would have been built in front of, over, or next to a cave (either natural or man-made), which would serve as the holding place for animals.
(2) Stone feeding troughs. Well, it’s possible that wooden ones existed, but surviving examples we have of mangers are all made of durable materials such as stone.
(3) No inns or rude innkeepers. All this is based on the (mis)translation of a single word.
(4) Other people present. Aside from the shepherds and/or the Magi, since it could be possible that Mary and Joseph stayed in someone’s house, the owner of the house and his family would obviously be there. As well as the midwife and assistants (childbirth was the province of women; men did not usually take part in it in those days).
(5) As mentioned, delivering babies was women’s job. Men who never participated in it usually waited outside (which would have included Joseph, who probably just stood by the door of the house in case the midwife needed something).
(6) We don’t really know whether Jesus was born at the same night Mary and Joseph arrived at Bethlehem - this idea I believe stems from the fact that the Nativity account is read at Midnight Mass in Christmas (one of three Masses: the other two being traditionally held at dawn, and at daytime). All Luke says is that it happened “while they were there.” It could have been days, or even weeks later after they arrived; heck, the actual birth could have occured in daytime!

BTW, here’s an icon of the Nativity. This doesn’t pretend to be historically accurate, as icons emphasize the spiritual reality more than the historical reality. You’ve got Mary, Joseph, the Infant, the Magi, the shepherds, the magi, the angels, and even the midwife all in one picture!

http://new.rejesus.co.uk/images/area_uploads/nativity_icon/icon_whole.jpg

 

[LilyM]

When I was an “independent Baptist minister” I did an in-depth study of the nativity. And yes, it does destroy our ‘romantic’ view of what is currently sitting under my tree. If I remember correctly (the notes are long gone) in all likelihood:

1. The ‘Inn’ was a large cave with separate crevices that were the ‘rooms’.
2. The animals would have been donkeys, no cudley sheep or cows.
3. A ‘manger’ is actually a feeding trough for animals.
4. The Wise Men came much later and probably numbered more than three. I think the legend of “three” came from Lew Wallace’s classic book Ben Hur.

Now, I might be all wet with all this…I mean none of us were there and the Gospels only give us info on a ‘need to know’ basis.
But ah…the Navity under my tree ain’t goin’ anywhere soon.

Of course there were cuddly sheep - there were shepherds, fer crying out loud! Can’t vouch for the cattle, of course, but then as you say I wasn’t there.

But surely, rev kevin, if you celebrate Christmas on December 25 then you’re already exercising a bit of religious licence - for that almost certainly is an incorrect date for the Nativity.

 

[JustaServant]

You want details, I’ll give you one. If you’ll ask me how we’re going to portray the Nativity Scene accurately, here’s my suggestions.

(1) No wooden barns. People in those days the kept animals in or near homes at night, which protected them from elements and theft. In one possible scenario, the animals as well as the family stayed under one large enclosed space that was divided so that the animals would usually be on the lower level, while the family would sleep on an upper level. Another possibility was that the house would have been built in front of, over, or next to a cave (either natural or man-made), which would serve as the holding place for animals.
(2) Stone feeding troughs. Well, it’s possible that wooden ones existed, but surviving examples we have of mangers are all made of durable materials such as stone.
(3) No inns or rude innkeepers. All this is based on the (mis)translation of a single word.
(4) Other people present. Aside from the shepherds and/or the Magi, since it could be possible that Mary and Joseph stayed in someone’s house, the owner of the house and his family would obviously be there. As well as the midwife and assistants (childbirth was the province of women; men did not usually take part in it in those days).
(5) As mentioned, delivering babies was women’s job. Men who never participated in it usually waited outside (which would have included Joseph, who probably just stood by the door of the house in case the midwife needed something).
(6) We don’t really know whether Jesus was born at the same night Mary and Joseph arrived at Bethlehem - this idea I believe stems from the fact that the Nativity account is read at Midnight Mass in Christmas (one of three Masses: the other two being traditionally held at dawn, and at daytime). All Luke says is that it happened “while they were there.” It could have been days, or even weeks later after they arrived; heck, the actual birth could have occured in daytime!

But what about the Little Drummer Boy?

 

[LilyM]

You want details, I’ll give you one. If you’ll ask me how we’re going to portray the Nativity Scene accurately, here’s my suggestions.

(1) No wooden barns. People in those days the kept animals in or near homes at night, which protected them from elements and theft. In one possible scenario, the animals as well as the family stayed under one large enclosed space that was divided so that the animals would usually be on the lower level, while the family would sleep on an upper level. Another possibility was that the house would have been built in front of, over, or next to a cave (either natural or man-made), which would serve as the holding place for animals.
(2) Stone feeding troughs. Well, it’s possible that wooden ones existed, but surviving examples we have of mangers are all made of durable materials such as stone.
(3) No inns or rude innkeepers. All this is based on the (mis)translation of a single word.
(4) Other people present. Aside from the shepherds and/or the Magi, since it could be possible that Mary and Joseph stayed in someone’s house, the owner of the house and his family would obviously be there. As well as the midwife and assistants (childbirth was the province of women; men did not usually take part in it in those days).
(5) As mentioned, delivering babies was women’s job. Men who never participated in it usually waited outside (which would have included Joseph, who probably just stood by the door of the house in case the midwife needed something).
(6) We don’t really know whether Jesus was born at the same night Mary and Joseph arrived at Bethlehem - this idea I believe stems from the fact that the Nativity account is read at Midnight Mass in Christmas (one of three Masses: the other two being traditionally held at dawn, and at daytime). All Luke says is that it happened “while they were there.” It could have been days, or even weeks later after they arrived; heck, the actual birth could have occured in daytime!

BTW, here’s an icon of the Nativity. This doesn’t pretend to be historically accurate, as icons emphasize the spiritual reality more than the historical reality. You’ve got Mary, Joseph, the Infant, the Magi, the shepherds, the magi, the angels, and even the midwife all in one picture!

http://new.rejesus.co.uk/images/area_uploads/nativity_icon/icon_whole.jpg

As for the time of birth - we know the angels appeared to the shepherds at night. I doubt they wasted any time once the event of Our Saviour’s birth had occurred.

In fact I find the idea that they appeared to shepherds in a field fascinating - as if the angels were bursting to tell someone and so rushed off to the first people they could find who were still awake - being shepherds in a nearby field.

 

[patrick457]

As for the time of birth - we know the angels appeared to the shepherds at night. I doubt they wasted any time once the event of Our Saviour’s birth had occurred.

In fact I find the idea that they appeared to shepherds in a field fascinating - as if the angels were bursting to tell someone and so rushed off to the first people they could find who were still awake - being shepherds in a nearby field.

Strange to me is the fact that the account with the shepherds visiting (post-angelic visitation; Luke 2:15-20) is read at the Dawn Mass.

I just noticed I repeated the word ‘magi’ twice there. D’oh!

 

[JustaServant]

As for the time of birth - we know the angels appeared to the shepherds at night. I doubt they wasted any time once the event of Our Saviour’s birth had occurred.

In fact I find the idea that they appeared to shepherds in a field fascinating - as if the angels were bursting to tell someone and so rushed off to the first people they could find who were still awake - being shepherds in a nearby field.

I heard a commentor (Protestant) suggest that these shepherds were tending sheep reserved for slaughter in the Temple. Interesting if true. They were guarding lambs meant for slaughter, while THE Lamb of God was being born.
Dang I wish I had those old notes.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Alright, So…were the Sheep there or not?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Hey, the creche in our church includes a red-headed, red-bearded Wise Man!!! Every year the kids and I joke about the “Irish” Middle Eastern Arab. LOL

If the nativity’s accuracy bothers you, what about all the art of Jesus, Joseph and Mary that turns them into Anglo-Saxons? They were Middle Eastern Jews! With Jewish features and the skin tone of the Middle East! Not lily white with light brown hair!

I actually wanted to do a historically accurate nativity scene. I doubt if anyone would want to buy it though.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hey, the creche in our church includes a red-headed, red-bearded Wise Man!!! Every year the kids and I joke about the “Irish” Middle Eastern Arab. LOL

If the nativity’s accuracy bothers you, what about all the art of Jesus, Joseph and Mary that turns them into Anglo-Saxons? They were Middle Eastern Jews! With Jewish features and the skin tone of the Middle East! Not lily white with light brown hair!

I actually wanted to do a historically accurate nativity scene. I doubt if anyone would want to buy it though.

So, I guess the Blonde haired Mary would be out:shrug:

 

[rev_kevin]

But, and I asked myself this as a Baptist preacher, how are these facts helpful to us in understanding the Gospel and our response to it?

Facts are always helpful in knowing the truth about anything. It helps tell the true story not some fictional one or one made up of different accounts. The Bible tells us the only ones present after Jesus was born was Mary, Joseph and the Shepherds. Not wise men.

 

[rev_kevin]

Hey, the creche in our church includes a red-headed, red-bearded Wise Man!!! Every year the kids and I joke about the “Irish” Middle Eastern Arab. LOL

If the nativity’s accuracy bothers you, what about all the art of Jesus, Joseph and Mary that turns them into Anglo-Saxons? They were Middle Eastern Jews! With Jewish features and the skin tone of the Middle East! Not lily white with light brown hair!

I actually wanted to do a historically accurate nativity scene. I doubt if anyone would want to buy it though.

Do we really know what they looked like?

 

[rev_kevin]

It’s not “false” because the point of the Nativity Scene is that Jesus came for the whole world - rich, poor, women, men, Jews, and Gentiles of every race. It’s not meant to be a diary of historical events, but a portrayal of why Jesus came to us.

Yes it is. The wise men were not there after Jesus was born, the Shepherds were. Its not a question of why Jesus came to us, its a question about why we portray it the way it didn’t happen.