Spirituality
25 Dec 13
Originally posted by divegeesterThe gospel of Luke says that at the time he became twelve his family went up to Jerusalem for the Passover. Anyone that is capable of logic should realize that when a person became twelve, then that was on the twelfth birthday.
Btw the arguments you present here don't make sense. How the heck has Jesus attendance at Passover got anything to do with what's in the video? There is one Passover per year and Jesus could have had his birthday at any time in it. I don't know why I'm even bothering to discuss this with you actually.
Some translations attempt to obscure this meaning by translating what should be he became as he was because of the Christmas tradition. Notice that it does not say after he became twelve, but when he became twelve. When means at the time.
27 Dec 13
Originally posted by divegeesterYeah, his train of thought here never leaves the station.
Btw the arguments you present here don't make sense. How the heck has Jesus attendance at Passover got anything to do with what's in the video? There is one Passover per year and Jesus could have had his birthday at any time in it. I don't know why I'm even bothering to discuss this with you actually.
He and I have been over this many, many times.
Originally posted by RJHindsI just wonder why you bother to insert the word "became" five times in your post when it has nothing to do with the conversation.
The gospel of Luke says that at the time he [b]became twelve his family went up to Jerusalem for the Passover. Anyone that is capable of logic should realize that when a person became twelve, then that was on the twelfth birthday.
Some translations attempt to obscure this meaning by translating what should be he became as he was ...[text shortened]... t say after he became twelve, but when he became twelve. When means at the time.[/b]
"Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast." -- Luke 2:41-42, KJV
It clearly says "when he was twelve years old". Nothing here about Him "becoming" twelve.
As you say, some translations try to present things their own way for their own reasons. I know lots and lots of Christians who swear Jesus was born at Passover just so that they can have that "magical Passover connection", but it just ain't so.
Furthermore, the passage says they went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. If this is true, what were they doing in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth instead of in Jerusalem "at the feast of the passover"? Obviously, He wasn't born at Passover.
27 Dec 13
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, it doesn't mean that. The difference is between reading something into the text and pulling the facts out of the text.
The gospel of Luke says that at the time he [b]became twelve his family went up to Jerusalem for the Passover. Anyone that is capable of logic should realize that when a person became twelve, then that was on the twelfth birthday.
Some translations attempt to obscure this meaning by translating what should be he became as he was ...[text shortened]... t say after he became twelve, but when he became twelve. When means at the time.[/b]
27 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneIt's mostly irrelevant to the whole thread Susianne and besides it doesn't fit with Hinds' view of the OP and therefore he will find whatever spurious interpretation he can to maintain that view.
I just wonder why you bother to insert the word "became" five times in your post when it has nothing to do with the conversation.
"Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast." -- Luke 2:41-42, KJV
It clearly says "[i]when he was[/ ...[text shortened]... instead of in Jerusalem "at the feast of the passover"? Obviously, He wasn't born at Passover.
27 Dec 13
Originally posted by divegeesterI suppose next it'll be something like "well, tax time is in April, is it not?"
It's mostly irrelevant to the whole thread Susianne and besides it doesn't fit with Hinds' view of the OP and therefore he will find whatever spurious interpretation he can to maintain that view.
27 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneWhether or not the guy in the video has it right or not is not really important, but it is very interesting because what happened astronomically is a fact irrespective of what inferences are drawn from it. This is the difference between something being interesting but ultimately unimportant and the RJHinds view of the shroud, which he sees it as important, but to most people it's not even interesting, let alone important.
I suppose next it'll be something like "well, tax time is in April, is it not?"
27 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI point this out because the greek word means "he became" and is not accurately translated "he was" as is done by the King James Version, which also incorrectly translates "passover" as "Easter" at one point.
I just wonder why you bother to insert the word "became" five times in your post when it has nothing to do with the conversation.
"Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast." -- Luke 2:41-42, KJV
It clearly says "[i]when he was[/ ...[text shortened]... instead of in Jerusalem "at the feast of the passover"? Obviously, He wasn't born at Passover.
I just believe in being accurate if we are going to accept the scriptures as being inspired of God.
27 Dec 13
Originally posted by divegeesterDifferent things are interesting or uninteresting to different people. There are many people that do not find chess at all interesting. So what? We all have the choice to believe what we please.
Whether or not the guy in the video has it right or not is not really important, but it is very interesting because what happened astronomically is a fact irrespective of what inferences are drawn from it. This is the difference between something being interesting but ultimately unimportant and the RJHinds view of the shroud, which he sees it as important, but to most people it's not even interesting, let alone important.
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by menace71Well the Bible is clear on this star or what appears to be a star from a humans standpoint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem
So what say you ? In theory we can see what was in the sky from 7BC to 2BC
Manny
If one reads those scriptures "carefully" and without the fairytale story of Christmas involved, one will note that this star lead the magi "first" to Herod, not to the baby Jesus and his parents in the manger.
One would also read that Herod wanted to know where this "King to be" was at because he wanted to kill him out of jealousy.
So now this star was going to lead these Magi to Jesus and in turn they were supposed to report back to Herod to let him know where Jesus was at so Herod could have him killed.
But God no doubt had a hand in this as the Magi were fearful of Herod and did not follow the star and did not actully see Jesus until he as a young child in his parents home.
So the question about this star is who was behind it? God? Not at all. Why would God produce this star to have his only begotten son to be found by Herod?
Again this star was directing thoes Magi to Herod, not Jesus. Then once Herod demanded those Magi to find Jesus, convienently it was going to lead them to Jesus and then back to Herod.
Was God behind this plan? No it wasn't. It was satan who saw this as a chance to kill the son of God.
28 Dec 13
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75What utter nonsense, good grief Galveston, read the biblical accounts.
Well the Bible is clear on this star or what appears to be a star from a humans standpoint.
If one reads those scriptures "carefully" and without the fairytale story of Christmas involved, one will note that this star lead the magi "first" to Herod, not to the baby Jesus and his parents in the manger.
One would also read that Herod wanted to know whe ...[text shortened]... od behind this plan? No it wasn't. It was satan who saw this as a chance to kill the son of God.
They "worshipped the young child". Has this been removed from your translation? I bet it has as it people worshipping Jesus.
They brought and left expensive gifts
They were divinely warned not to return to Herod and so went home by another route.
These the the stated facts of the account Galveston. Nowhere does the scripture indicate what you are suggesting.
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by divegeesterWell yes it does sir and I did not say the Magi were against Jesus did I? You never read what I say but only want to argue like a fool.
What utter nonsense, good grief Galveston, read the biblical accounts.
They "worshipped the young child". Has this been removed from your translation? I bet it has as it people worshipping Jesus.
They brought and left expensive gifts
They were divinely warned not to return to Herod and so went home by another route.
These the the stated facts of the account Galveston. Nowhere does the scripture indicate what you are suggesting.
It is crystal clear that the star which is "what this thread is about" was not a good thing and never used by God as the fairytail story would suggest.
Common sense would conclude that it was something satan was behind........
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by galveston75UFO
Well yes it does sir and I did not say the Magi were against Jesus did I? You never read what I say but only want to argue like a fool.
It is crystal clear that the star which is "what this thread is about" was not a good thing and never used by God as the fairytail story would suggest.
Common sense would conclude that it was something satan was behind........