the image below depicts the "manger scene".
if you look close, and use a little imagination, you can make out the "three wise men" there on the left, and joseph and mary on the right.
of course the brightest, pulsating "star" above them all is the "star of bethlehem".
Lady Lee,
Thank you. You supplied the correct answer.
I find it interesting that the shepherds learned of Jesus' birth by means of an angelic announcement, whereas the "Magi" learned of it by means of the "star" that appeared to them. What do you make of this? Care to speculate?
.
the image below depicts the "manger scene".
if you look close, and use a little imagination, you can make out the "three wise men" there on the left, and joseph and mary on the right.
of course the brightest, pulsating "star" above them all is the "star of bethlehem".
The image below depicts the "manger scene". If you look close, and use a little imagination, you can make out the "three wise men" there on the left, and Joseph and Mary on the right. Of course the brightest, pulsating "star" above them all is the "star of Bethlehem". Now the question is: Can you identify what it is about this image that isn't in keeping with the Biblical account regarding the birth of Jesus?
its my departments christmas party tonight, and i can't wait!
we're going to a party night at a local hotel, with a meal and a disco.
and i'm meeting some of the lads at 2pm for a few drinks before we meet everyone else, so i'm going to make sure i have a good night.
I think the comments made up above betray what "Christmas" is REALLY all about. It's about the same thing it was when the pagan Romans first originated it, then known as the "Saturnalia". It was just a huge celebration, a time of merrymaking. You people were once JWs. Now you've chosen to ignore the counsel given at Ecclesiastes 7:2-4. The fact that within a few decades at most you are due to die no longer affects you to the extent it should. You've chosen to "go to the banquet house" (party) NOW rather than remain sober by keeping your "heart in the house of mourning" in recognition of the poor state of dying mankind who is in need of a savior. Your sort of revelry is not appropriate at a time when the human family is still afflicted with death. Christendom has attempted to replace the Saturnalia with CHRISTmas, but have failed miserably. It's quite obvious that the pagans aren't about to let go of their Saturnalia, not even if the name of it has been changed to "Christmas".
Ecclesiastes 7:2-4 says:
2 Better is it to go to the house of mourning than to go to the banquet house, because that is the end of all mankind; and the one alive should take [it] to his heart. 3 Better is vexation than laughter, for by the crossness of the face the heart becomes better. 4 The heart of the wise ones is in the house of mourning, but the heart of the stupid ones is in the house of rejoicing.
are we beginning to see that the argument of wether or not we should have gone to war is starting to get a little circular.. there are points to be made on both sides.
in my mind it comes down to wether or not you think that the us should be the policeman for the rest of the world.. i personally still don't think we needed to go to war, even though we did capture saddam, i know, i know, hard to believe.. just think, if i had my way, saddam would still be in power!!!!
is a wmd incarnate.
If I had MY way: |
dupe defined:
a person who functions as the tool of another person or power.
the scene in the image below is a most popular one during the month of december.
You had said:
1) Just remember such stories were not made for scholars, but for simple people. What people get from simple reading is usually just the point the author wants to make.
2) Their joy at seeing the star again when they left Herod was naturally understood as the joy of the Gospel.
To which I simply said:
their "joy" (excitement) was apparently the result of having gotten a glimpse of this mysterious "star" for a second time ("again").
Now you say:
Skiz: I must be dumb, coz I don't get the point. Could you be a little more explicit?
Does it really take a scholar to understand "the point"?
You argued that the "joy" the Magi felt was "the joy of the Gospel". I say that's not true. My point is simply that the Magi felt very elated over the fact that the "star" they originally sighted had reappeared after having disappeared.
Skiz
dupe defined:
a person who functions as the tool of another person or power.
the scene in the image below is a most popular one during the month of december.
Schiz, our discussion was not about the number of Magi but about the main thrust of the story.
the supposed number of the Magi is very relevant to the "story". the point had to do with the Magi, didn't it? and if you would care to look back at my initial comments you'll find that I made reference to "the three Magi".
Their joy at seeing the star again when they left Herod was naturally understood as the joy of the Gospel.
I think you're seriously mistaken, but I like your choice of words. their "joy" (excitement) was apparently the result of having gotten a glimpse of this mysterious "star" for a second time ("again").
Skiz
dupe defined:
a person who functions as the tool of another person or power.
the scene in the image below is a most popular one during the month of december.
City Fan:
Should I replace the star on my tree with a fairy??
I hope that you're not thinking of impaling Gretchen. Why not just let her alone, particularly since she decided to be a nice little fairy by going elsewhere.
Skiz
dupe defined:
a person who functions as the tool of another person or power.
the scene in the image below is a most popular one during the month of december.
As a matter of fact, the Matthean narrative does not directly say there were three Magi. The number is instead implicit in the three gifts presented to the child in v. 11: "gifts of gold and frankencense and myrrh."
oh really? what if there had instead been ten gifts presented to the child, would you then say that ten Magi was implied? obviously, you would. but who's to know but what there were only two Magi, with one of them having two gifts for Jesus and the other only one gift? or, for that matter, could there possibly have only been one Magi who brought ALL three of the gifts mentioned? if you were to find ten gifts underneath the Christmas Tree, all with your name on them, would they necessarily have had to come from ten different persons? perhaps your mother decided she wanted you to have three gifts, and so that would account for three of the ten. why does the fact that the account says that gifts of "gold and frankencense and myrrh" were given necessarily imply that the bearers of those gifts numbered three?
Skiz
dupe defined:
a person who functions as the tool of another person or power.
the scene in the image below is a most popular one during the month of december.
Only Herod and the three Magi are mentioned because these are the only figures relevant to the story. It makes no claim whatsoever that Herod and the three Magi were the only people able to see the star. --Leolaia
you imply that there were a total of "three Magi". can you document this?
Skiz
dupe defined:
a person who functions as the tool of another person or power.
the scene in the image below is a most popular one during the month of december.
It makes no claim whatsoever that Herod and the three Magi were the only people able to see the star. --Leolaia
You imply that Herod also saw the "star". Can you document this?
Skiz
