The Magi's

[FHII]

Justaname wrote:

"Honestly I am in the dark on this matter. Why do you say two years after?
If I may also, it is thought that Matthew is the gospel that was written before Mark and Luke and those gospels were thought to be written from Matthew. Also the gospel of Matthew was written to a Hebrew audience where as the two were written for others (gentiles). "

Wierd things are happening with my viewing of this board. But I want to answer this question.

The Wisemen visited Jesus two years after he was born. Here is my proof:

Mat 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.

 

[justaname]

Ok in Mat 2:16
I see Herod waiting two years before he sent the decree to kill the children.

Wierd things are happening with my viewing of this board. But I want to answer this question.
Can you please expound upon this statement?

 

[FHII]

Ok in Mat 2:16
I see Herod waiting two years before he sent the decree to kill the children.

Wierd things are happening with my viewing of this board. But I want to answer this question.
Can you please expound upon this statement?

No.

It won't matter if I do. Will it?

 

[Comm.Arnold]

It could have been two years or less though right FHII ?

 

[FHII]

It could have been two years or less though right FHII ?

Arnold, I suppose by now you've reviewed the text of Mattthew Chapter 2. I generally don't like to play the "what if" game. But I suppose he was just being sure when he ordered all the young killed he was making sure that he got the right one. I could stand for a year and a half, reluctantly.... But the Bible does say, 2 years.

 

[Comm.Arnold]

Arnold, I suppose by now you've reviewed the text of Mattthew Chapter 2. I generally don't like to play the "what if" game. But I suppose he was just being sure when he ordered all the young killed he was making sure that he got the right one. I could stand for a year and a half, reluctantly.... But the Bible does say, 2 years.

Yeah Herod seems pretty crazy in these verses he probably wouldn't chance it seems like the kind of guy that would over shoot by a year to be safe. Did they have birth certificates in those days ?

 

[FHII]

Yeah Herod seems pretty crazy in these verses he probably wouldn't chance it seems like the kind of guy that would over shoot by a year to be safe. Did they have birth certificates in those days ?

Well, this is just speculation on my part, but He picked 2 years and under for some reason. I don't know if they had birth certificates, but certainly they did have some form of a census for tax purposes. We know that Joseph returned to Bethlehem for that reason.

 

[Nomad]

I think Matthew 2:11 is helpful here. Notice that when the wise men find Jesus he is no longer in a manger outside of the inn. He is now in a house. Obviously some time had passed between the when the wise men first saw the star and when they finally found Jesus. This would have been how Herod determined the age range of the children he would have killed.

The journey of the wise men reaches its climax in verse 11. Having entered the house they saw the little child with Mary his mother, and they cast themselves to the ground and worshiped him. Nativity scenes depict the arrival of the wise men. Often, however, they are shown standing, or kneeling down, in the company of the shepherds, and in a stable. This is obviously incorrect. According to the evangelist Luke, when the shepherds arrive the babe is still “lying in the manger” (Luke 2:16). They come at once, that very night (Luke 2:8, 15). The little family, Joseph, Mary, and the child, continues to live in relative poverty for at least forty days, as is evident from Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:2–8. If the wise men from the east, bringing precious gifts, had arrived within this period of forty days, then, on the fortieth day Mary’s purification offering would probably have been something better than “a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons.” It is clear that Joseph and his family had left the inn stable, perhaps very soon after the child’s birth, certainly before the arrival of the wise men. They are now no longer staying in an animal shelter but living in a building for human beings (with some relatives?). With well-nigh unanimity translators agree with the rendering, (the wise men) “having entered the house,”174 or something similar.175
Hendriksen, William ; Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 9), S. 169

 

[justaname]

I understand the magi were not present at the point of birth, but Joseph was not present at conception. Should we exclude him from the nativity also? Fact is they are both included in the story of the earliest times of Christ's life, and I do not see why our nativity scene should not reflect that. If it was included in the bible that is good enough for me.

 

[Nomad]

I understand the magi were not present at the point of birth, but Joseph was not present at conception. Should we exclude him from the nativity also?

You might want to rethink such an argument. There's no connection or comparison here at all. One has nothing to do with the other. They are two separate events and Joseph was, in fact, present at Jesus' birth.

Fact is they are both included in the story of the earliest times of Christ's life, and I do not see why our nativity scene should not reflect that. If it was included in the bible that is good enough for me.

I do think it's important for Christians to know the truth of the matter whether they feel compelled to reflect that in their manger scenes or not. The reason I think it's important is simple. The traditional manger scene is a product of not reading Scripture carefully enough. Knowing this should compel us to be more careful so as to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

 

[aspen]

fear and literalism go hand in hand.......

 

[justaname]

My point is the magi were thought important enough to write about by the author of Matthew. Do we feel ourselves to be more educated at this point in time to think we should not acknowledge them?
I believe the nativity tells a rounded story about the events around Christ's birth. It is not to give an exact detail of every moment of the life of Jesus. As a picture tells a thousand words, so does the nativity bring to remembrance the events that surrounded the birth.

 

[Nomad]

Who said anything about not acknowledging the magi? Acknowledging their role in the Biblical narrative of Christ's advent is proper and according to the truth of the matter. Placing them in a time and place where they never were while insisting that we bury our heads in the proverbial sand is to do a disservice to the perspicuity of God's word.

 

[justaname]

Remember the authors of the gospels chose events they felt pertinent to the audience they were writing to. Not every detail was written about the birth, down to the second. The inclusion of the magi is accepted because they help depict the overall story. If you seek truth, look to the bible, not to a few arranged statues.