Nativity scene

  • Thread starter Thread starter rev_kevin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rev_kevin said:
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.
Click to expand...
We are portraying it for children, to teach them that Jesus loves them, because Jesus loves everyone. We show them the shepherds, and Mary, and the Kings, and we say to our children, “Jesus loves the poor shepherds who lived outside with the animals, and the mighty, wise kings who came from a distant country, and Mary, and Joseph, and you.” Nativity scenes are not for adults. 🙂
 
LilyM said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course its not the correct date. But that is not the subject here. That is for another thread.
 
jmcrae said:
We are portraying it for children, to teach them that Jesus loves them, because Jesus loves everyone. We show them the shepherds, and Mary, and the Kings, and we say to our children, “Jesus loves the poor shepherds who lived outside with the animals, and the mighty, wise kings who came from a distant country, and Mary, and Joseph, and you.” Nativity scenes are not for adults. 🙂
Click to expand...
So teach the children the incorrect way it happened so when they grow up and find out they were taught wrong it would bring to question what else have I been taught wrong.
Thats news to me, I thought the Nativity was for children as well as adults. 🤷
 
JustaServant said:
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. 😃
Click to expand...
Didn’t the number 3 come from the kinds of gifts? People then assumed that its one gift per wise man.
 
rev_kevin said:
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.
Click to expand...
The nativity scene is a static depiction. The elements of the events are there, the angel, the shepherds from the field, the Holy Family, the manger, animals (because you wouldn’t have a manger if there were no animals to feed from it) and the three wise men. Chronological accuracy is not the point of such depictions. Even in Holy Icons, you will see more going on in the art than just one specific scene. Its not meant to tell the whole story, but get one inquisitive enough to find the real story. Or if one knows the store, be reminded of the entire story by all the elements presented.
 
rev_kevin said:
Its not a rant as you call it and its not advice because I’m not giving advice. Teach it the way you want to. As for me I will teach it the correct way.
Click to expand...
Did you read my post about the senses of Scripture? The Nativity scene may not be correct in the historical, literal sense. It does, however, convey the spiritual sense–it teaches us how the Lord entered into human history. Historical correctness in this case does not interfere with the message of the Gospels, and so you can hardly condemn someone who represents the Nativity according to how it has typically been.

-ACEGC
 
rev_kevin said:
Of course its not the correct date. But that is not the subject here. That is for another thread.
Click to expand...
Given that there’s no way of knowing for certain what the date was (and there are as many alternative years, let alone days, proposed as there are ‘experts’ examining the limited evidence about His birth) ANY date is likely to be incorrect, including whatever date you celebrate it on, regardless of whether it’s December 25 or some other date.

SO it’s incredibly relevant to the subject - you deliberately pick a date on such highly speculative evidence that it doesn’t really deserve to be called evidence at all, and knowing that celebrate His birth inaccurately.

We, as has been said, aren’t attempting to re-enact the events with scientific accuracy. Such is simply not remotely possible, for you or us.
 
rev_kevin said:
Its not a rant as you call it and its not advice because I’m not giving advice. Teach it the way you want to. As for me I will teach it the correct way.
Click to expand...
I only teach the way the Church teaches 😉

How do you know your way is the correct way?

Lets see: one hand, bible school and personal reading and interpretation of the bible only
Other hand, 2000 years of tradition and undreds of writings from Church fathers, saints, scholars

I don’t know…
 
ConstantineTG said:
I only teach the way the Church teaches 😉

How do you know your way is the correct way?

Lets see: one hand, bible school and personal reading and interpretation of the bible only
Other hand, 2000 years of tradition and undreds of writings from Church fathers, saints, scholars

I don’t know…
Click to expand...
Ok lets see how the Bible puts it and the way I teach it. Luke 2:6 says, “And while they were there, the time came for her baby to be born. She gave birth to her first child, a son. She wrapped him snugly in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the village inn. That night some shepherds were in the fields outside the village, guarding their flocks of sheep. Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared among them, and the radiance of the Lord’s glory surrounded them. They were terribly frightened, but the angel reasurred them…When the angels had returned to heaven, the shepherds said to eachother, ‘Come on, let’s go to Bethlehem! Let’s see this wonderful thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.’ They ran to the village and found Mary and Joseph. And there was the baby, lying in the manger…”

Then I go into Matthew 2 abolut the wise men. “Once again the star appeared to them, guiding them to Bethlehem. It went ahead of them and stopped over the place where the child was…They entered the house where the child and his mother, Mary, were, and they fell down before him and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasure chests and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.”

See Jesus is believed to be about one or two years old when the wise men found him. I teach it the way the Bible says it happened. Mary, Joseph, baby Jesus and the shepherds were present right after the birth and the wise men came a year or so later.
 
edward_george said:
Did you read my post about the senses of Scripture? The Nativity scene may not be correct in the historical, literal sense. It does, however, convey the spiritual sense–it teaches us how the Lord entered into human history. Historical correctness in this case does not interfere with the message of the Gospels, and so you can hardly condemn someone who represents the Nativity according to how it has typically been.

-ACEGC
Click to expand...
Yes I did but I’m not talking about the spiritual sense about it. I just talking about it not being accurate.
 
LilyM said:
Given that there’s no way of knowing for certain what the date was (and there are as many alternative years, let alone days, proposed as there are ‘experts’ examining the limited evidence about His birth) ANY date is likely to be incorrect, including whatever date you celebrate it on, regardless of whether it’s December 25 or some other date.

SO it’s incredibly relevant to the subject - you deliberately pick a date on such highly speculative evidence that it doesn’t really deserve to be called evidence at all, and knowing that celebrate His birth inaccurately.

We, as has been said, aren’t attempting to re-enact the events with scientific accuracy. Such is simply not remotely possible, for you or us.
Click to expand...
Once again, not talking about the date of his birth. Talking about the way the Nativity is portrayed. We can discuss the date of his birth on another thread.
 
rev_kevin said:
Yes I did but I’m not talking about the spiritual sense about it. I just talking about it not being accurate.
Click to expand...
My point is that historical accuracy does not have to interfere with spiritual benefits. The point of the Nativity is not to make us remember events as they occurred with exacting historical accuracy, but to inspire our devotion to the Lord.

-ACEGC
 
JustaServant said:
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. 😃
Click to expand...
This thread reminds me of a short book I read a few weeks ago, The Christmas Journey by Donna VanLiere. It’s a very quick read and a very good Christmas story to read for the holidays. It’s a less than sterilized version of the Nativity.
 
edward_george said:
My point is that historical accuracy does not have to interfere with spiritual benefits. The point of the Nativity is not to make us remember events as they occurred with exacting historical accuracy, but to inspire our devotion to the Lord.

-ACEGC
Click to expand...
So in order to inspire our devotion to the Lord we use something that is not correct. To put our own interpretation of what happened that night, something that the Bible says happened differently, going against what is in the Bible just to inspire our devotion. We have to use something that is incorrect to inspire us. 🤷
 
rev_kevin said:
Once again, not talking about the date of his birth. Talking about the way the Nativity is portrayed. We can discuss the date of his birth on another thread.
Click to expand...
The date of his birth, and the date on which we choose to celebrate that birth, ARE part of the way the Nativity is portrayed. We’re celebrating an event that occurred in time, after all. If historical accuracy is what you’re after then accuracy about the date is just as important as accuracy about the number of wise men or any other detail.

As for not being historically accurate - I don’t think I’ve ever seen a film about the life of Christ that was 100% absolutely true to the wording of the Gospels, let alone chronologically accurate, or historically accurate.

They don’t none of them take 30-some years to portray His life, for example. Mind you, if they did they’d have to leave about 10 years of blank film between the Flight into Egypt and the Finding of Jesus in the Temple, and then another 18 years of blank film between then and the start of His ministry.

Most don’t show Jesus or the Apostles as Semitic but instead as Caucasian. Most are incredibly light on the blood and gore as well - the Passion of the Christ was the only one to approach realism in that regard.

And I can bet you John the Baptist never looked anything like Charlton Heston, nor did the soldier at the Cross sound anything like John Wayne! And none of them spoke English.

Nonetheless, many of these films have been and are incredibly powerful and significant tools to teach people about the faith. They have done the job of bringing people to Christ. And you probably use inaccurate tools as well - do you use pictures of Our Lord that show Him as Caucasian?

Read out the Gospels to your congregation in English rather than Aramaic or Greek?

Celebrate His birth on December 25? Or any other day?

Then you too are guilty of doing things that you know to be historically inaccurate in the name of teaching people about Christ.
 
rev_kevin said:
So in order to inspire our devotion to the Lord we use something that is not correct. To put our own interpretation of what happened that night, something that the Bible says happened differently, going against what is in the Bible just to inspire our devotion. We have to use something that is incorrect to inspire us. 🤷
Click to expand...
I can see how you might say that a Nativity scene is an incomplete or differently juxtaposed version of the events of the Gospel, but you seem hung up on this idea that historical correctness is essential for inspiring our devotion. If this is the case, you need to promptly rid yourself of anything which doesn’t depict Jesus as a middle easterner, as he was not European in appearance. Must we use something “incorrect” to inspire our devotion? You must also rid yourself of any English Bibles you have in your possession and instead read the Bible from large vellum scrolls written in Hebrew (for the OT) or else papyrus written in Greek for the NT. There was not English at the time of Christ and the Apostles, so it is not correct to use it. Must we use things which are not correct to inspire our devotion?

-ACEGC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top