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

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

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?


Feel free to assume anything you like about me, i couldn't care less...

I didn't ask why he was in Bethleham, all anyone has to do is read the chapter to find that out... i just didn't feel it was necessary to state the obvious like you seem to want to

Take care

edit on 6-8-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Just keep doing your research like you've been doing and you'll get the answers.

Yeah, sometimes the Gospels don't mention ever little detail the others will but that doesn't mean they necessarily contradict.

It's like you have four movie-goers. They all give you a synopsis of the movie they just saw. One reviewer may focus on the emotional aspects on the film. Another may dwell on the character development. They might not all cover the exact same thing but it all blends in together.

Best I can explain it.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Actually i have all the answers i'll ever need... I never refer to paul, its simply unnecessary... and luke is always questionable and needs to be referenced with the other 3 accounts of his life

I appreciate the advice though

edit on 6-8-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
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...


Something "outside their traditional train of thought"?

Seriously?

You have spent at least three threads going off on how Paul is to be doubted, then you posit this little nugget, based on an absolute misreading of the text by you, and it's "outside of traditional"?

No, it's outside of the evidence.

Let's get something clear here, so that there is no question as to your position:

Do you believe that the Magi were present at Christ's birth, and, if so, upon what do you base that belief?

If you don't believe it, or you can't show reasonable evidence to support such a belief, this bizarre thread can be transferred over to the "Hoax Forum," where it, along with the rest of your unsupported "Paul hating", belongs.


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


I give your posts the respect that they deserve. I give people the benefit of the doubt, but when they lie, take things out of context, ignore contradictory evidence and insult Christianity and Christians for no reason apart from their own pettiness, I don't hesitate to call people on it.

As I have said, many times, if you don't want to have to defend lies, don't lie.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


More like you jump on anyone that presents something that is not within your own belief system just like your typical Christian does around this and many other forums on the web.

Where exactly was the lie?

I presented a question, that being "is it possible Paul might have influenced Lukes writing"... And offered some things that are only mentioned in Luke, not matthew... ie. The inn / the manger...

and sadly all i see from you is assumptions about me... and a holier then thou/smartass attitude...

IF you don't like my threads, don't reply... its as simple as that... i didn't insult Christianity or christians... You are the one tossing insults here...

You call that respect?

I call it typical of your average Christian...

Call it whatever you like... but either way im pretty much done with you in this thread... see you in the next one

edit on 6-8-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Not so fast. I asked you a direct question, which speaks to the credibility of your claims.

Do you believe that the Magi were present at Christ's birth, and, if so, upon what do you base that belief?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


And i told you since you feel the need to insult me and my character, call me a liar, toss assumptions around...

Im done with you in this thread...




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





Do you believe that the Magi were present at Christ's birth, and, if so, upon what do you base that belief?





Matthew 2
King James Version (KJV)
2 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

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.

12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.


I don't think anyone, including Akragon, is asserting that the Magi were present for labor pains and birthing.

The questions goes to Luke's assertion that Jesus was born under dire circumstances. The trouble being that Mary and Joseph supposedly endured hardship in finding a place in which she could give birth, and forced into a barn or manger, as they were turned away from the inn. Supposedly there was a census, making it hard to find shelter. This story doesn't add up to Matthews account and may, therefore, be another exaggeration on the part of Paul and his influence over the supposed writings of Luke., See?

It doesn't add up. There was no census in the times of Herod, therefore, no crowds of people flocking to their hometowns for said census. According to Matthew, Mary and Joseph were found to be staying in a house, when the Magi arrived, not in a manger.

Matthew makes no mention of a census or an inn rejecting the "holy family." Someone, it seems, was trying to dramatize and embellish the story!



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen
 


And i told you since you feel the need to insult me and my character, call me a liar, toss assumptions around...

Im done with you in this thread...


... and so the thread ends, with you unwilling to answer a simple question to vindicate your claim, which may now be relegated to the trash bin.

For the record, here is the complete passage in Matthew:


After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:

“‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 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.”

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. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 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. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route. (Matthew 2:1-12 NIV)


Here, in the bolded passages, we can see that not only does the passage not say that the Magi were present at the birth, it explicitly says that they came AFTER the birth. How long, it doesn't say, but, as Christ is referred to as a "child", rather than an infant or baby, it is fairly likely that he wasn't a week old.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



and so the thread ends, with you unwilling to answer a simple question to vindicate your claim, which may now be relegated to the trash bin.


The thread ends by me ingoring your replies?

Ok... make sure you send me a PM when you're a mod... I'll resign my membership...




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Your original claim has been shown to be untrue, and you refuse to defend it, so what is left to discuss?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

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?



Because of the census. Both Joseph and Mary were of the house of David and had to register at Bethlehem.

edit on 6-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Actually i have all the answers i'll ever need... I never refer to paul, its simply unnecessary... and luke is always questionable and needs to be referenced with the other 3 accounts of his life

I appreciate the advice though

edit on 6-8-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)


I do like you. I really do. Very funny.

Unfortunately however, Paul is bar-none-without-a-doubt the most influential aspect within modern Christianity; the reasons for that are mostly arguable, and variable, but there it is none the less. If you are going to argue biblical texts and discount Paul you are discounting most interpretations of the new testament, as his influence upon those interpretations has become intrinsic throughout the various re-writings of the Bible... With the possible exception of John, (it's rather difficult to reconcile the two).

Someone once said (paraphrasing here) that it would be perhaps more accurate to simply call a spade a spade and instead of Christianity we should simply call it Paulianity. It is what it is. "Damascus Road Conversion" and all. Come to think of it, that says it all really... Although I'm sure he was sincere in his belief... Deluded, one way or another, but sincere.

When The Council of Nicea decided to gravitate toward the interpretations of a man that was at best spinning a questionable tale to give himself credibility, and at worst simply prone to hallucinations to help an already tough sell for a new State Religion seems an ironic quirk of history to me.

Prickly, defensive, sexually repressed Paul. Who'da thunk?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

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)



There is also a place named Bethlehem in Nazareth on the coast of Galilee, as well as just outside of Jerusalem. Perhaps it was this other place? Although I have never heard the Bethlehem in Nazareth being called "Of David".



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by redhorse
 


Im glad you enjoy.... myself?



Unfortunately however, Paul is bar-none-without-a-doubt the most influential aspect within modern Christianity; the reasons for that are mostly arguable, and variable, but there it is none the less. If you are going to argue biblical texts and discount Paul you are discounting most interpretations of the new testament, as his influence upon those interpretations has become intrinsic throughout the various re-writings of the Bible... With the possible exception of John


You only need the 4 gospels to understand the son of God my friend


But...

Have you considered Matthew or Mark?

Thomas perhaps? Or Philip?

Even Mary?

Paul had nothing to do with any of them... of course some arn't found in the bible, but believe it or not Truth can be found outside of Christianity... Though no christian will tell you that...

..........

Well im sure some might... "christian" is such a subjective term, and it has more flavors then Ben and Jerry's!




it would be perhaps more accurate to simply call a spade a spade and instead of Christianity we should simply call it Paulianity.




edit on 6-8-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Come on, how is that fair considering the church was not born until 50 days after the crucifixion and 10 days after the ascension?? Not to mention for the majority if people for the majority of the past 2000 years Christians were Gentiles not Jews. The church and pastoral epistles were not needed until the church was born, then they were needed for correction, reproof, and new covenant doctrine. There was no Christianity or new covenant to write about before then.

edit on 6-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Strange there was no room in Bethlehem when it was Joseph's home town. He must have had friends and relatives to stay with. Was there trouble because they weren't married!



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vespa51
reply to post by Akragon
 


Strange there was no room in Bethlehem when it was Joseph's home town. He must have had friends and relatives to stay with. Was there trouble because they weren't married!


Perhaps. But according to the narrative they arrived in town late. But that could be a possibility that he was shunned by relatives.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Come on, how is that fair considering the church was not born until 50 days after the crucifixion and 10 days after the ascension?? Not to mention for the majority if people for the majority of the past 2000 years Christians were Gentiles not Jews.


I don't see your point... perhaps im missing something...


The church and pastoral epistles were not needed until the church was born, then they were needed for correction, reproof, and new covenant doctrine. There was no Christianity or new covenant to write about before then.


And even then no one seemed to think it was necessary to write anything about a man that healed people, was resurected apparently, walked on water and all that neat stuff... Until thirty some odd years later... And even that is an assumption, considering we have no original texts from within that century...

Of course the dating will always be up for debate... but why would no one write about him whilest he was around?

Perhaps they were still in shock, and it just skipped their minds?

edit on 6-8-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
Of course the dating will always be up for debate... but why would no one write about him whilest he was around?


Because they thought that he was coming back within their own lifetimes, so there wasn't a huge need to have a bunch of documentation, and writing was neither as common, nor as inexpensive, as it is today.

That said, there is the mysterious "Q" document that is supposed to have preceded the existing Gospels and was used as a source, and the theory that I personally agree with -- that there was a now missing "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" which preceded them, and the Matthew that we have now is a translation of that.





top topics
 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join