Away in a manger... The Influence of Paul?

Away in a manger, no crib for a bed... the little lord Jesus lay down his sweet head...

I was taught this song as a child... it comes from a verse in the gospel of luke...

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a Manger ...because there was no room for them in the inn.


Now its well known that luke was a follower of Paul... And theres quite a bit of debate about Paul being a "False apostle"... Is it possible this verse in luke was influenced by Paul to show Jesus having a more humble upbringing then he actually did?

IF one reads the gospel of Matthew there is no manger... no Non Vacant rooms at an inn, and in fact it says Jesus was born in their house...

9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

Another interesting discrepancy between the two books is the fact that in Matthew, Joseph is told of Jesus' birth in a dream... yet in Luke there is no dream... The angel Gabriel comes directly to mary

I believe its possible that Paul had an influence on the writing of Luke... And though its not much of a conspiracy, its always interesting to see the discrepancies that most overlook in the so called "infalliable" book

The gospel of Matthew never claims Jesus was born at their home. It just mentions the magi going there. Most Christians believe the magi were not there immediately at the birth like you see in Christmas pageants.

I had people come and visit us at home after having my son. Doesn't mean I gave birth there. Lol

a manger was a room joined to the house where the animals were kept not some sort of trough.it was the warmest room in the house and were guests were kept.I watched a programme on the history channel a while ago about it,they were digging up dwellings from the time of Jesus and explained this.can't remember it's name but it was about the new testimony accounts of jesus` birth.

ok,heres an experiment.
translate aramaic to ancient hebrew to greek to latin to old german to old french to old english to modern english and see what the word manger actually means!!!
this is why the bible is full of discrepancies!
paul did not teach what jesus taught,and was brought back to jeruselem by james for 'punishment' for teaching against the law - (Acts 21:28)
i remind people jesus did not start christianity
"i have not come to change the law (of moses) not one letter."
" i have come to fulfill it"
jesus was jewish, paul was roman (pagan/gentile) before he went 'blind'

manger (n.) Look up manger at Dictionary.com early 14c., from O.Fr. mangeoire "crib, manger,"

peace

reply to post by glen200376


I saw that doc too. It was a kind of common household floor plan, where the living/sleeping quarters were just above a sort of barn/ garage/ storage area. It was common to keep animals and large jars of grains and such, under the same roof as the rest of the household.

But, I still agree with Arkagon, and think anything influenced by Paul is pure manipulation and should be suspect to scrutiny.

It always cracks me up, the way that some people find some "inconsistency" in the Bible and figure that they're the only genius to sort it out, and all through the centuries, no one was smart enough to notice the error.

Here is your inconstancy -- your claim that the Magi visited Jesus at his birth. There is nothing in Matthew that says the Magi were present at his birth.

Stop getting your insights from Hallmark Christmas cards, m-kay?

The wise men clearly did not visit Jesus when he was still lying in the manger, as is commonly shown on greeting cards and in plays. The magi did not arrive until sometime after Christ’s presentation in the Temple in Jerusalem (Luke 2:22-39).

At this time, Scripture calls Jesus a “child,” not a “baby.” It is possible that little Jesus was walking and talking by then. Based on the calculations of King Herod and the magi (Matthew 2:16), Jesus could been two years old or under.

(Source)

reply to post by reficul


Read Acts. ch 22 and 23 answers are there.
Paul was a Jew that had Roman citizenship. He clearly states in the bible he is a Pharisee. Which was one of the religious, rulind councils of that time for the jews. He was highly educated for his time.
He was a jew that persecuted Jewish converts of Christ.

Jesus did say he "did not come to change the law." But he was refering to a dispensation of time that was just about over. When he said on the cross "it is finished," vail in the temple was torn/rent in two. That dispensation of time, under the law was finished.

Paul was sent to the gentiles to preach the gospel of Christ. So that gentiles could be "grafted" into the plan of salvation. Because under the old law they were not called to be saved.
The arguement about requiring gentiles to fallow the old Jewish law is covered in the book. The Jews and the Gentiles biblically must come to Christ for salvation.

There is much more to write on the sublect, but that book has already been writen. One merely has to read it and pray for understanding.

Originally posted by reficul
ok,heres an experiment.
translate aramaic to ancient hebrew to greek to latin to old german to old french to old english to modern english and see what the word manger actually means!!!
this is why the bible is full of discrepancies!
paul did not teach what jesus taught,and was brought back to jeruselem by james for 'punishment' for teaching against the law - (Acts 21:28)
i remind people jesus did not start christianity
"i have not come to change the law (of moses) not one letter."
" i have come to fulfill it"
jesus was jewish, paul was roman (pagan/gentile) before he went 'blind'

manger (n.) Look up manger at Dictionary.com early 14c., from O.Fr. mangeoire "crib, manger,"

peace

1. Jesus was born to the tribe of Judah. He was a Judahite and a Judean. The word "Jewish" never existed before a handful of centuries ago.
2. Paul was born to the tribe of Benjamin. He was an Israelite just like the Judahites, and a practicing Pharisee, which means that he was not a "pagan". And yes, he was also a Roman citizen.
3. The NT was first translated from Greek to Latin, and the Greek word ethnos was translated as 'Gentiles" from the Latin word meaning "race, family, clan group". Therefore, the original Greek word ethnos should be translated as NATION in our English bibles. Once you understand who the nations are, you then understand how and why the House of Israel lost their identity in the world. You then begin to understand that the "Gentiles" aren't some pagan non-Israelites but rather the lost sheep of Israel who had been scattered around the world.
4. The tribe of Ephraim was prophecied to become a "multitude of nations". Paul dealt with the "fullness of the Gentiles (nations).....Paul's "Gentiles" were the dispersed Israelites, Jesus' appointed means of reconciling both houses of Israel to God under one stick - Christ Jesus. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob promised repeatedly to bring both houses together, and Christ Jesus was the way.
5. May the Lord God confirm these words to you.

reply to post by murphy22


Acts Ch. 22 and 23

Romans Ch. 11

Romans Ch. 1, 2 and 3

reply to post by adjensen

It always cracks me up, the way that some people find some "inconsistency" in the Bible and figure that they're the only genius to sort it out, and all through the centuries, no one was smart enough to notice the error.

Here is your inconstancy -- your claim that the Magi visited Jesus at his birth. There is nothing in Matthew that says the Magi were present at his birth.

Stop getting your insights from Hallmark Christmas cards, m-kay?

It always cracks me up that Christians wonder why they're hated all over the world, yet can still offer a reply like this when someone presents something outside of their traditional train of thought...

Do you think the smugness is necessary or do just prefer to be dickish in your replies?

Originally posted by AshleyD
The gospel of Matthew never claims Jesus was born at their home. It just mentions the magi going there. Most Christians believe the magi were not there immediately at the birth like you see in Christmas pageants.

I had people come and visit us at home after having my son. Doesn't mean I gave birth there. Lol

edit on 8/6/2012 by AshleyD because: (no reason given)

Are you suggesting they went to an inn, had a baby, then returned home?

I don't see the point of the extra travel honestly... why not just have the child at home?

reply to post by Akragon


Here's why they traveled to Bethlehem:

Luke 2

1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

They were in the middle of a government census at the time and had to travel for it.

The town was packed with citizens having to take the census, hence them getting stuck in a manger after the inns were full from other travelers.

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by reficul

 

Paul was sent to the gentiles to preach the gospel of Christ. So that gentiles could be "grafted" into the plan of salvation. Because under the old law they were not called to be saved.
The arguement about requiring gentiles to fallow the old Jewish law is covered in the book. The Jews and the Gentiles biblically must come to Christ for salvation.

"For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea." 1 Corinthians 10:1

Wild OLIVE trees were/are grafted into cultivated OLIVE trees, all of whose forefathers passed through the sea and all of whose forefathers were under the cloud ...... Israelites.

reply to post by AshleyD


You might notice there is no census mentioned in Matthew either actually...

Theres actually a number of discrepancies between the two books, for instance... Joseph and Mary's home is in Bethlehem in Matt 2:11, yet in Luke its in Nazareth (luke 2:4-7) with no home in Bethlehem.

after the birth of Jesus... they travel to Egypt in Matt 2:14.. . yet in luke they travel to Jerusalem and Nazareth (Luke 2:22, 39)

reply to post by Akragon


Yep, here's a little more on that:

In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus to a census of the entire Roman world in which individuals had to return to the birthplace of their ancestors. It describes how Jesus' parents, Joseph and Mary, travel from their home in Nazareth, in Galilee, to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born. This explains how Jesus, a Galilean, could have been born in Bethlehem in Judea, the city of King David.

There is no evidence of the Romans requiring people to return to their ancestral homes for a census and there is skepticism among scholars that such a custom existed or would have been practicable.[3][4][5][6] The Gospel of Matthew, which has a different birth narrative, describes Jesus' birth taking place during the life of Herod the Great, who died ten years earlier, in the spring of 4 BC. Biblical scholars, troubled by the apparent contradiction in Scripture,[7] have traditionally sought to harmonise these accounts, while most critical scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by AshleyD

 

You might notice there is no census mentioned in Matthew either actually...

Theres actually a number of discrepancies between the two books, for instance... Joseph and Mary's home is in Bethlehem in Matt 2:11, yet in Luke its in Nazareth (luke 2:4-7) with no home in Bethlehem.

after the birth of Jesus... they travel to Egypt in Matt 2:14.. . yet in luke they travel to Jerusalem and Nazareth (Luke 2:22, 39)

I think you'll find all of your answers in this Wikipedia link on the "Nativity of Jesus" as it shows both accounts from Matthew and Luke with explanations for differences, however, I question your intentions for answers, so I'm going to make an exit. It's kind of hard to overlook the fact that you quoted Luke 2:6-7 in your original post but hadn't read verses 1-5 enough to know why Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem to begin with?

Good luck with your thread. Here's a link if anyone is really interested in comparing the two.

Nativity of Jesus

en.wikipedia.org...