J
joseie
Guest
Calm mate…Did I appear to be crude if I say that your opinion is wrong in the light of the Scriptures?
What was the timeline of Jesus' birth and when the Magi showed up?
- Status
B
Bruce_Killian
Guest
They were sent to Bethlehem, but they could not find Jesus because He like Moses was in hiding until he went to Egypt. For a timeline of Jesus’ entire life see my article http://www.scripturescholar.com/ChronologyJesus.pdf the calendar for Jesus’ early life is on page 88. For a short description of the Star of Bethlehem and how it led the magi to Jesus’ house in Bethlehem see http://www.scripturescholar.com/StarOfBethlehem.pdf
Grace and peace,
Bruce
J
joseie
Guest
Article Ok.But 90% imagination,1%truth,9% against Bible description.
B
Bruce_Killian
Guest
I assert it is 100% Bible and Truth, possibly you don’t know the Bible very well. What do you mean by against Bible description?
Grace and peace,
Bruce
H
HeDa
Guest
OP You have to read all the Gospels to get the fuller picture of the events taking place around the birth of Jesus Christ. And learn the Jewish traditions with how a child was welcomed into the community.
This is also so when reading about Mary and the “brothers of the Lord” coming to visit him. The brothers are relatives as the Mary is the Mary who is married to Clophas.
This is also so when reading about Mary and the “brothers of the Lord” coming to visit him. The brothers are relatives as the Mary is the Mary who is married to Clophas.
T
tweedlealice
Guest
This make sense.
Matthew, Mark, John walked w Jesus. Luke kept trying to see Him, but Jesus just left, when Luke got there. He was a Doctor. His gospel is written by WORD OF MOUTH report or hearsay. Higher possibility of an error??
Matthew, Mark, John walked w Jesus. Luke kept trying to see Him, but Jesus just left, when Luke got there. He was a Doctor. His gospel is written by WORD OF MOUTH report or hearsay. Higher possibility of an error??
U
Usagi
Guest
I don’t think Luke is mentioned until the Book of Acts, so he (like Paul) may in fact never have known Jesus in the flesh. His Gospel is explicitly based on research rather than personal experience (which doesn’t necessarily make it less accurate but does mean he was reliant on other people’s accounts).
On the other hand, it is commonly suggested that the reason he offers the most complete account of the events surrounding Jesus’ conception and birth is that one of the sources he interviewed was Mary herself, so there’s also the possibility that his gathering of available information gave him access to more perspectives than Matthew or Mark had.
Also, Matthew and John (if they were truly the Apostles of those names) had extended contact with Jesus, but I think Mark only shows up in one of the Last Supper accounts (and maybe in the Garden of Gethsemane, if he’s supposed to be the unnamed naked guy mentioned only in his own Gospel). It’s traditionally thought that his information came primarily from Peter, later on.
On the other hand, it is commonly suggested that the reason he offers the most complete account of the events surrounding Jesus’ conception and birth is that one of the sources he interviewed was Mary herself, so there’s also the possibility that his gathering of available information gave him access to more perspectives than Matthew or Mark had.
Also, Matthew and John (if they were truly the Apostles of those names) had extended contact with Jesus, but I think Mark only shows up in one of the Last Supper accounts (and maybe in the Garden of Gethsemane, if he’s supposed to be the unnamed naked guy mentioned only in his own Gospel). It’s traditionally thought that his information came primarily from Peter, later on.
M
midori
Guest
Yes, but look at the differences between Luke and the other synoptics.
What does Luke have? He has the genealogy of Mary, not Joseph.
He has the narrative of Jesus’ birth— it’s from Mary’s perspective.
He has the narrative of St. John the Baptist’s birth-- from Elizabeth and Zechariah’s perspective.
It’s got the Road to Emmaus— who would have told that? (One hypothesis is that Luke himself was the unnamed traveler.)
You’ve got stuff like the Census, the Presentation, the Finding in the Temple, and so on.
Rather than calling it “word of mouth” or “hearsay”, there’s enough elements in common that indicates much of it’s from a very specific source. Rather than him being a random educated guy who happened to get sucked into early Christianity and thought it would be nice to write this stuff down before everyone forgot it, it seems more likely that he was a disciple during Jesus’ life, and inner circle enough to interview some very key players in Jesus’ early life/childhood years. Who might that have been?
What does Luke have? He has the genealogy of Mary, not Joseph.
He has the narrative of Jesus’ birth— it’s from Mary’s perspective.
He has the narrative of St. John the Baptist’s birth-- from Elizabeth and Zechariah’s perspective.
It’s got the Road to Emmaus— who would have told that? (One hypothesis is that Luke himself was the unnamed traveler.)
You’ve got stuff like the Census, the Presentation, the Finding in the Temple, and so on.
Rather than calling it “word of mouth” or “hearsay”, there’s enough elements in common that indicates much of it’s from a very specific source. Rather than him being a random educated guy who happened to get sucked into early Christianity and thought it would be nice to write this stuff down before everyone forgot it, it seems more likely that he was a disciple during Jesus’ life, and inner circle enough to interview some very key players in Jesus’ early life/childhood years. Who might that have been?
T
tweedlealice
Guest
He was a disciple. He still missed seeing Jesus. His gospel can be from a hearsay follower. Most Bolks of writers or secretaries. Even Moses w the Pentateuch. They report different handwritings seen…
He was always JUST MISSING HIM
He was always JUST MISSING HIM
J
joseie
Guest
This is the problem I find in many Bible interpretors.That is, twisting the simple,plain and straightforward meaning of the verses, which a normal reader is meant to get,into someother meanings never imagined by original the writers!
"7.Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route."
When Mathew so clearly and plainly say this,how can you twist and interpret this and say that magi could not find Jesus as they were hiding in some cave and such nonsenses? Don’t think that believers are to accept your cock and bull story which you would have fabricated based on your imagination and which does not have any connection with what is said in the Gospel.As for me and many ,we believe what is said in the Gospel about this and not what is said by X or Y be whatever great and famous they are.
"7.Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route."
When Mathew so clearly and plainly say this,how can you twist and interpret this and say that magi could not find Jesus as they were hiding in some cave and such nonsenses? Don’t think that believers are to accept your cock and bull story which you would have fabricated based on your imagination and which does not have any connection with what is said in the Gospel.As for me and many ,we believe what is said in the Gospel about this and not what is said by X or Y be whatever great and famous they are.
Last edited:
B
Bruce_Killian
Guest
If finding Jesus was so easy why did the magi need a star to guide them? Answer, it was not easy, the star was important.
Why did King Herod send them to Bethlehem if they needed a star to guide them to Bethlehem? Answer they did not need to be guided to Bethlehem, they needed guidance to find Jesus’ house!
Why did Herod search diligently? Answer he heard the report of the shepherds and had searched Bethlehem, but found nothing! If Herod thought Jesus was still in Bethlehem, he would have just sent soldiers and killed Him.
Matthew’s account is very brief and I believe every word of it. It is in someways clear and plain, but if the story was so clear and Jesus was so easily found by so many why did the Herod have to kill all those boys?
Answer they were not easily found. It appears that we will have to agree to disagree, but let it be known I have diligently studied the Bible and this story and have answered many questions you don’t think even need to be asked.
Grace and peace,
Bruce
J
joseie
Guest
Sorry if my response provoked you unnecessarily.
My reply to the points now raised by you .This is based on the plain and direct meaning of the Scriptures .
My reply to the points now raised by you .This is based on the plain and direct meaning of the Scriptures .
- Magi came to Jerusalem not guided by the star on the way.They saw this unusual star while at their place and based on their calculations and intuitions knew that it is the sign of a King born for Jews and the place will be ideally at Jerusalem.So they went to Jerusalem.No record of their seeing the star again or guided by it during the Jerusalem journey.
2.Herod came to know about the birth of the king only from Magi and not before that.Means he was not searching to kill Jesus nor therefore was any necessity for Joseph to hide away Jesus in any cave etc. Moreover if it were the shepherds who had told him ,first of all he won’t have given any weight to that and secondly he would have known the exact time and it was not required to order killing of all children below 2 years.
3.The star appeared to Magi to their surprise ,on their leaving to Bethlehem.Helped to locate the exact place.After their leaving only Joseph got the warning in sleep and fled to Egypt and later came back and settled in Nazareth.
4.Since Luke says that they went to and settled in Nazareth after the purification ceremony at Jerusalem (which was done on 40th day of birth-Rosary mystery) we are thus guided to understand that Magi’s visit,Joseph’s escape and return to Jerusalem,purification, starting their life at Nazareth ,all happened within 40 days of Jesus’s birth.Any other time line will be more convenient to assume but will contradict the Scriptures.Who are we to dare that,whatever be the exigency ?
Last edited:
T
thebible
Guest
Jesus was about two years old when the wisemen came.
J
joseie
Guest
You appear to have reached this conclusion as Herod ordered killing of all children below 2 years.But the fact as revealed by the Scriptures as already mentioned by me is that by the time they started living in Nazareth immediately after the purification which is on 40th day,escape to and return from Egypt was already over.Magy could not know the exact time of birth except that it can be any period upto 2 years .This they told Herod and that is the reason he ordered killing of all children below 2 years.Only on seeing the child as the star helped them to locate the house,Magi knew the child’s condition. The traditional Magy scenes where they see the newborn Jesus and not a two year boy may also be a hint.
A
AIR
Guest
. I agree. You write:
. And now I don’t agree. You reproduce a traditional misinterpretation which has originated from a mistranslation. The correct translation is
Note well:“saw his star when it rose” and not "at their place ". Further you write:
I agree: only one sighting of an unusual " star when it rose". And this means the magi had that sighting near Jerusalem. They came to the capital the same day in the late morning or early afternoon and the star was not visible in daylight. For further explanation, see my site “On possible historical origins of the Nativity legends” http://www.nativity.reznikova.ru/ .
Last edited:
D
Dakota111
Guest
Can you quote the silver bullet verse?
D
Dakota111
Guest
Correct. The reason he sent them to Bethlehem was because of the Biblical prophecy.
The text does not say the star took them to Bethlehem but rather to Jesus…who may have well left by that time.
PS Stars dont tend to have GPS 5 metre accuracy
Last edited:
J
joseie
Guest
True,it does not say that the star took them to Bethlehem.But where is the scope for any other meaning? What should be the normal,plain meaning otherwise in the given circumstances?This is what I said-unnecessary complicating the plain meaning of the Scriptures to put a different
meaning to stress some wrong conclusions.Just like saying that the 6 days so clearly mentioned in the Genesis for creation of world is not the normal 6 days as understood to humans!
meaning to stress some wrong conclusions.Just like saying that the 6 days so clearly mentioned in the Genesis for creation of world is not the normal 6 days as understood to humans!
A
AIR
Guest
. I agree. It’s not the star, but the winding road through the hills which guided the magi to Bethlehem.
Top-notch. Use Occam’s razor. Only two sightings of the star by the magi: the first one near Jerusalem, the second one near the house. For other details see my site.
Last edited:
D
Dakota111
Guest
J if you are suggesting it should be a scholarly principle of literary interpretation that the “true” meaning of a literal text is the one that is simplest to the readers ears that makes full sense I dont think there are any scholars who would join you.
If you want real raw truth here then we have to accept that the gospels are intentionally vague on these trivial historical points and we simply dont know.
That is not acceptable for many enquiring young minds so we fill in the dots on the basis of our own modern thinking and assumptions.
Because I have sung O Little Town of Bethlehem every Christmas and other poetically licensed carols since the age of 5, as well as setting up the Xmas crib complete with star, I too want it to be true that there was one over the stable in Bethlenem.
But those carols were invented but a few hundred years ago. The church crib invented in medieval times. Its all poetic licence.
Christians of the first 500 years would not have our modern need to read into the text things about that star that are not actually stated. Yes it could be true…but we will never know.
However the gospel writers are not interested in such a triviality. What they themselves felt important to theologically communicate was that Jesus did come from Bethlehem (though we all know its really Nazareth) because Scripture allegedly said the Messiah comes from there.
- Status