wise men of Matthew 2

[Ray Brock]

Tradition says their were three wise men
Tradition says they saw the baby Jesus in a manger
Tradition says they rode Camels
But what does the scripture say according to the Greek - which is the inspired word - not the english translations.
Bethlehem is not located in an arrid place, it is located in the mountainous regions of Judea. The wise men from the east were Persian Jews who had the word of God and probably teachers of Gods word. On the roads to Bethlehem bandits would hide and rob people. Their were probably more then 3 men maybe upwards to 30, safety in numbers. These men knew the scriptures, old testament, and knew where to look for their Messiah. Persia, Iran today, were breeders of fine horses, not camels, so the probably rode on their horses. Matthew 2:11 says and when they were come into the house, not manger, and saw the young child, not baby, with Mary his mother. They rode a long way on horse back and took months to get their not one day. Would make sense if it happened today and they could drive their cars over night. I know everyone loves tradition better but truth is so much better. Two great books to read if truth is seeked after is The Apostasy of the Christian Church by R. Dawson Barlow and The Mystery by Joel Finck. I do not recommend these books for those who only hold to traditions of men

[Eric Frey]

according to the Greek - which is the inspired word - not the english translations.


That's an impressive assumption isn't it? Why start with that premise?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

It is thought that it could have taken a couple of years for the wise men to arrive at where Jesus was. Do you think they may have been in Bethlehem, Egypt, or Nazareth by then?
Were the wise men astrologers, that studied the stars, and learned that Christ had been born?
It wasn't as if they were shepherds out on a hillside nearby, as the shepherds were who came to the manger.

[Ray Brock]

Couldn't have been astrologers - God does not reveal through astrology. Daniel 2:27

[Ian Gentles]

Course, also, Jesus birth wasnt on 25th December or anywhere near it!

[Tami Martin]

I always found it funny that Herod - and all Jerusalem with him - were troubled at the coming of the Magi...if it was only three guys.

[Billie Goodson]

Couldn't have been astrologers - God does not reveal through astrology. Daniel 2:27

Actually Ray, that verse does not say that God does not reveal through astrology. The verse simply says:

"Daniel replied, "No wise man, enchanter, magician or diviner can explain to the king the mystery he has asked about,"

If you take the interpretation in the way you read it, then you would also be declaring that God does not make revelation through a wise man. That would toss out at least a huge chunk of the old testament prophets.

While I am in agreement with you that sometimes we hold to traditions over scripture in some small forms (the classical nativity scene is one), I don't think it represents a great apostasy in the church. One would first have to differentiate biblical teachings and applications and probably further differentiate between essentials and non-essentials. So, it is a little difficult to designate the attendance of the wise men at the birth as an essential, then you would have to determine if it was in fact being taught as biblical truth.

By the way, your explanation of the wise men is also based heavily on tradition. The entirety of the text concerning the wise men is contained in Matthew 2:1, 7-12 -- After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the time of King Herod, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem... Then Herod privately summoned the wise men and determined from them when the star had appeared. 2:8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and look carefully for the child. When you find him, inform me so that I can go and worship him as well.” 2:9 After listening to the king they left, and once again the star they saw when it rose led them until it stopped above the place where the child was. 2:10 When they saw the star they shouted joyfully. 2:11 As they came into the house and saw the child with Mary his mother, they bowed down and worshiped him. They opened their treasure boxes and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 2:12 After being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they went back by another route to their own country.

There is no mention of the number, it is assumed three because of the number of gifts. Magi (from magos) is the name given by the Babylonians (Chaldeans), Medes, Persians, and others, to the wise men, teachers, priests, physicians, astrologers, seers, interpreters of dreams, augers, soothsayers, sorcerers etc. So the implication extends far past astrologers -- so "wise men" is a fairly good interpretation. You even make the assumption that they travelled by horseback -- but, alas, it is not known, they could have walked, or bought more suitable animals for the region which would have put them back on camels. Regardless, it is not important or even frankly relevant to the story.

It is possible that these men were descendants of the Babylonian magi (in position/teaching if not lineage). This is made likely because remember, Daniel was the leader of the wise men of his day (Daniel 2:48).

[Dennis Bratcher]

I am always concerned when I see titles like The Apostasy of the Christian Church. That usually means there is someone with an agenda who will most likely be very biased and probably argumentative in their approach to the Faith, and will most likely take more delight in negative attacks than in seeking Truth.

Barlow was a Catholic who became a Christian (his description), and is now a strong dispensationalist who thinks that nothing of the OT is valid for Christians; he is also a very legalistic charismatic. That does not mean he is any less Christian, something he hesitates to allow others; but it does mean that it seriously slants his views. And while he is a missionary, that alone does not make him an expert in Church history or theology.

I assume that much of the following is from this book, so I will respond to his perspectives.

Tradition says their were three wise men
Tradition says they saw the baby Jesus in a manger
Tradition says they rode Camels

Yes, these are all traditions. There are a variety of other traditions besides these. But just because something is not specifically mentioned in Scripture does not make it false.

1) We do not know how many wise men there were since Matthew never says. The assumption of three comes from the three gifts. We probably should not make theological dogma out of that conclusion. But then it is not a destructive conclusion either, and helps us, who are very pictorially oriented, to visualize the event.

2) This tradition comes largely from Christmas pageants as we try to combine the two quite different nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke. Most biblical scholars conclude that Jesus would have been about two years old by the time the Magi arrived, especially since Matthew tells us that he was in a “house.”

3) We do not know what they rode. But since camels were the primary means of long distance transportation at that time in that part of the world, this is a perfectly logical and probably accurate conclusion.

But what does the scripture say according to the Greek - which is the inspired word - not the english translations.

This assumes that only the words themselves are inspired, which would mean that only the original manuscripts are inspired, none of which exist. That is a very narrow definition of biblical inspiration, one which the C of N does not hold.

Bethlehem is not located in an arrid place, it is located in the mountainous regions of Judea.

That depends on what you mean by “arid.” It is certainly not a desert or barren, but it is very rocky with meager rainfall, not the same kind of fertile land as the Esdraelon Plain in northern Israel. And the “mountains” are really part of the central highlands, not mountains like the Rockies or even the Smokies. They are more like the Wichitas in Oklahoma, or like the canyon country of the Texas Panhandle. (see Shepherd (http://www.crivoice.org/phototour/pshepherd.html))

The wise men from the east were Persian Jews who had the word of God and probably teachers of Gods word. . . .

I am curious why the “traditions” above are dismissed as “traditions of men,” and all these speculations about the wise men are presentd as something more accurate. There is no basis in Scripture for any of these. In fact, most of them are not sound speculations.

There is absolutely no indication that the Magi were Jews, knew anything about the “word of God,” let alone were teachers of it. The only reason Matthew gives us for their coming is that they are attracted to an unusual event in the sky, the appearance of a “star.”

On the roads to Bethlehem bandits would hide and rob people.

The road south to Bethlehem from Jerusalem, which is only a few miles (you can see the hills and taller buildings of Jerusalem from Bethlehem), is through relatively open country. We have no indication that there were any more robbers here than anywhere else. It is the road from Jericho to Jerusalem that had a reputation for being very dangerous, since it passes through a whole series of deep canyons as it climbs out of Jericho toward the central highlands.

Their were probably more then 3 men maybe upwards to 30, safety in numbers.

This is a safe assumption, since long journeys in the ancient world were almost always done in caravans.

These men knew the scriptures, old testament, and knew where to look for their Messiah.

Nothing in Matthew hints at this. They did not know where to look, which is why they went looking in the only palace around where they thought a king might be, the palace of the Roman appointed King Herod. It is the “star” that directed them to Bethlehem, perhaps aided by Herod after consulting with religious advisors.

Persia, Iran today, were breeders of fine horses, not camels, so the probably rode on their horses.

This is only partially true. They were known for horses, but that does not mean they did not have camels as well. Horses are not really suited to long journeys in the desert or in very rocky terrain, as in central and southern Judea. Horses were valued by the Persians, Arabs, and Bedouin for war, not for long journeys.

Matthew 2:11 says and when they were come into the house, not manger, and saw the young child, not baby, with Mary his mother. They rode a long way on horse back and took months to get their not one day. Would make sense if it happened today and they could drive their cars over night.

All true, as noted above.

I know everyone loves tradition better but truth is so much better. Two great books to read if truth is seeked after is The Apostasy of the Christian Church by R. Dawson Barlow and The Mystery by Joel Finck. I do not recommend these books for those who only hold to traditions of men

The problem is that there is very little truth here at all. It is only one set of speculations replacing tradition. This seems to be aimed at somehow debunking tradition in order to offer a far less credible set of speculations. I have no desire to replace one set of “traditions of men” with another set of “speculations of men,” especially when the traditions at least have some logic to them based directly on Scripture (see Voice Bible Study: Matthew 1:1-2:23 (http://www.crivoice.org/biblestudy/bbmatt2.html); for the visit of the Magi to the Manger, see A Service of the Nativity (http://www.crivoice.org/nativity.html)under “Liturgy and Theology”).

The fact is, none of these are really important issues one way or the other, as long as we realize that the truth of Jesus and the Incarnation does not depend on whether the Magi rode camels or horses.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I know everyone loves tradition better but truth is so much better....

By a coincidence of timing with regards to this thread , my church bulletin this past week included:

Christmas Trivia

Three wise men? Actually, the Bible does not give a number. The Bible lists three gifts and it is often assumed that there was one wise man per gift. There are early legends that aren’t in the Bible. A 6th century Greek manuscript translated into Latin from Alexandria names the men as Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar.

I placed this little tid-bit not because I thought it urgently important but because I needed some filler and thought there is at least some value in reminding people that not all of our "traditions" (and assumptions) are absolutely accurate. Perhaps someone might even ask themself, "What else do I believe that might not be so?"

Wilson

[Ray Brock]

As to the author of the Apostasy of the Christian Church. He is not a legalistic charismatic. He was a Catholic as was a lot of great christians of the faith. He shows you how to rightly divide the word and you can accept it or reject it. No one religion has a road only to salvation, only what Jesus says counts. Consider why God allows so many religions. The main problem with religion is it keeps you from God. The difference of religion and real christianity is religion is trying to reach God, as in the tower of Babel and christianity is God reaching down to man. When Adam and Eve sinned they tried to hide from God, man is still doing it today. Instead of animal skins covering him he uses religion to hide behind. The old testament is not to the christian of the age of grace but some of it is for him or her. If you think all of the old testament is for christians, do we just pick and choose what fits us best or is the easiest. Most of the old testament is a literal history of Israel and how that nation continually rejected Gods word and decided they knew best. The Torah was the inspired word for Israel but rejected it for the Talmud, which was written by the "religious leaders of that day" and is what they use today. They reject the word of God that was given them for the word of men just like todays christians who reject the word of God, the Greek, for the word of man because it paints a rosey picture. God is love but also their is a wrath of God. you will find it many places in the old testament and in the book of revelation for the future. The Bible will never make sense to anyone, unless you happen to be one of those who consider themselves to be the authority for God, until you rightly divide the word of truth, 11 Timothy 2:15

[Ray Brock]

I am amazed at how people know everything about a book but yet have never read it. Kind of reminds me of people about the Bible. Not one word of 3 wise men is mentioned in The Apostasy of the Christian Church. It will either open your eyes or you will hate it and continue on as is. You were given the right, by God, to have a free will to choose what you want about anything. God will never interfere with your right to choose.

[Hans Deventer]

The old testament is not to the christian of the age of grace but some of it is for him or her. If you think all of the old testament is for christians, do we just pick and choose what fits us best or is the easiest. Most of the old testament is a literal history of Israel and how that nation continually rejected Gods word and decided they knew best.

Ray, it might not be a very good idea to try and explain to Dennis what the Old Testament is. As an OT professor, he already has some ideas about it.

[Billie Goodson]

I am amazed at how people know everything about a book but yet have never read it. Kind of reminds me of people about the Bible. Not one word of 3 wise men is mentioned in The Apostasy of the Christian Church. It will either open your eyes or you will hate it and continue on as is. You were given the right, by God, to have a free will to choose what you want about anything. God will never interfere with your right to choose.

Ray, you mentioned the book, and Dennis gave some background about the author. I don't think anyone else even talked about the specifics of the book, just your post. Were you asking for opinion about the issue of the three wise men tradition? You said that this issue is not even addressed in the book, so why would any of the other comments about the issue be addressed at the book? Its a little confusing to discern what you are trying to point us toward. I do agree, many claim to be a Christian and do not have a thorough knowledge of the bible. Some even read it and don't understand it. So are you wanting to talk about the book, or what you entitled this post -- the wise men of Matthew 2. I read the title, and it kind of gears me toward one type of response.

[Charles W Christian]

As to the author of the Apostasy of the Christian Church. He is not a legalistic charismatic. He was a Catholic as was a lot of great christians of the faith. He shows you how to rightly divide the word and you can accept it or reject it. No one religion has a road only to salvation, only what Jesus says counts. Consider why God allows so many religions. The main problem with religion is it keeps you from God. The difference of religion and real christianity is religion is trying to reach God, as in the tower of Babel and christianity is God reaching down to man. When Adam and Eve sinned they tried to hide from God, man is still doing it today. Instead of animal skins covering him he uses religion to hide behind. The old testament is not to the christian of the age of grace but some of it is for him or her. If you think all of the old testament is for christians, do we just pick and choose what fits us best or is the easiest. Most of the old testament is a literal history of Israel and how that nation continually rejected Gods word and decided they knew best. The Torah was the inspired word for Israel but rejected it for the Talmud, which was written by the "religious leaders of that day" and is what they use today. They reject the word of God that was given them for the word of men just like todays christians who reject the word of God, the Greek, for the word of man because it paints a rosey picture. God is love but also their is a wrath of God. you will find it many places in the old testament and in the book of revelation for the future. The Bible will never make sense to anyone, unless you happen to be one of those who consider themselves to be the authority for God, until you rightly divide the word of truth, 11 Timothy 2:15


Wow, Ray. I don't know you, but from what you write, I see YOU as the one setting yourself up to be "the authority for God." Pride comes before a fall, my friend....

I know you're excited about the two books you're read recently. It's fun to get what sounds like "new revelation" from such works, but alas, as Scripture says, "there is nothing new under the sun," and countless Christians before us have speculated on these things for centuries. And, after we're gone, if the Lord tarries, I'm sure thousands more will speculate.

For what it's worth: It could be that the Magi were not "Jewish scholars" as you assert, given that the Gospel of Matthew ends with a call toward the Gentiles (although it is a very "Jewish" sounding Gospel). It could be that the (Gentile?) Magi coming to Jesus provide the first of two "bookends," literarily speaking, for the Gospel, which ends with the other bookend of Jesus sending the disciples "to all the world" (to the ethncities in the Greek, since you seem to be a big fan of Greek -- it's a phrase commonly reserved for (but not limited to) "the Gentiles")....

Blessings,
Charles

[Billie Goodson]

Ray, it might not be a very good idea to try and explain to Dennis what the Old Testament is. As an OT professor, he already has some ideas about it.

Would that be like an OT prophet? Hans, I did not think Dennis was that old?... :basic02

Once again, I could have resisted, but, it was too hard....

[Joe Hittle]

Let's me do a check off here:

a) If I celebrate Christmas and sing "We Three Kings", I'm ignorant of the Word of God
b) If my Christmas celebration includes camels, my faith is worthless
c) If I celebrate the coming of the Magi and don't understand that this happened someplace other than at the stable or that their interest was sparked by a star, but also allow that they were probably astrologers, I am a heretic.
d) If I don't believe they were Jewish scholars of the Diaspora or some other after-effect of one of the Jewish captivities, I will have trouble understanding that even they needed the Jewish scripture scholars of Herod's court to explain where the King was to be born.

I can then only conclude that:

a) "Magi" being referred to as "kings" is only a Christian error of reference
b) 60+ references to camels in the Old and New Testaments surely must have indicated that someone had a hard time distinguishing them from horses as there are many more references to horses than there are to camels throughout scripture
c) biblical references (all 9 of them, 8 in Daniel where the king was looking to trusted advisors) to astrologers could never have referred to star-studiers for agricultural purposes typical to agrarian societies worldwide, and only could refer to the same definition that became vogue in the Western World with the advent of Galileo, who advocated that the science (astronomers) be removed from the circle of the sooth-sayers (astrologers of the newspaper ilk even today).
d) Divine revelation of God must somehow be incomplete otherwise the gentlemen would never had to have sought Herod's counsel anyway.

Hey, I like this "being enlightened" thing. It makes so much more sense this way.

Joe

[Steven Martinez]

:M)My favorite part of the tradition is that Balthasar is supposed to be of dark complection. As long as my Balthasar is darker than the rest everything is gravy. Considering that my wife has about 10,000 nativity scenes I would hate to replace every single Balthasar. :M)

[Ray Brock]

Gee I didn't know I was going to stir up a hornets nest. No one, especially the theologians on this forum, have answered 11 Timothy 2:15. I do not set myself up as the authority for God. I have studied the word of God for many years and found how to rightly divide. Most people do not have a clue. They hear about it, as it is mentioned several times in the word, the bible, but they can't find anyone who can explain how to do it. Maybe some of you can enlighten them how to do it. I'm glad too hear someone has studied the OT so they should be able to answer that question easily. Most topics that are started always go into other subjects. Thats why we have intelligent discussions about them without getting hot under the collar.

[Ray Brock]

The middle verse of the Bible is Psalm 118:8. (I use the KJV that was given to me 35 years ago in a Nazerene Church in Ohio) It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. Wow God surely knew what he was saying. Most men hate that passage as they put themselves above God. Amazing the middle word is Lord.

[Billie Goodson]

Gee I didn't know I was going to stir up a hornets nest. No one, especially the theologians on this forum, have answered 11 Timothy 2:15. I do not set myself up as the authority for God. I have studied the word of God for many years and found how to rightly divide. Most people do not have a clue. They hear about it, as it is mentioned several times in the word, the bible, but they can't find anyone who can explain how to do it. Maybe some of you can enlighten them how to do it. I'm glad too hear someone has studied the OT so they should be able to answer that question easily. Most topics that are started always go into other subjects. Thats why we have intelligent discussions about them without getting hot under the collar.

Ray, I am not sure what the question in regards to 2 Timothy 2:15 is? The verse seems pretty clear:

2 Timothy 2:15 -- Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

I don't herald myself as any form of theologian, I am simply a member of the church who finds great interest in studying the bible and related topics. I think the answers on here in regards to your original post demonstrate that many are aware of the differences between tradition and scripture. No one has argued that the wise men at the manger is a scriptural truth, far from it.

I asked what the intent of your posting was -- to discuss the topic you used in the title (wise men of Matthew 2) or the books you mentioned in the first post. You have not chosen to answer that question, but, instead to frame a response that seems to attack everyone else for not understanding what you want to discuss.

I will present another verse to you and ask you how your responses show you are in accordance with scripture

"....but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Pet. 3:15, NASB)

You seem to have started a topic about a particular tradition that no one has defended as necessarily scriptural, yet, in no particular way really violates any tenet of the Christmas story. You posted some opinions within that post that even you may hold as traditions (horses) that frankly have no scriptural background. You mentioned an author and his work, yet presented no information about the author or even from his work -- then seem to get upset that Dennis provided some background on the author -- background that is easily obtainable on the internet and should be considered prior to reading his work. Then you seem to be upset that people want to be diligent in selecting authors who critique the faith -- then say that we should be diligent.

Ray, please understand, I don't think anyone on here says you are wrong, or that the author may not have some valid points. The only way we know is to discuss and then if we find enough merit in the book, maybe read it. There are several things on my reading list, so I would really need have a reason to put this book anywhere but at the bottom of my list -- and that really means it might take a while to get to it.

I urge you Ray, study the verse from 1 Peter I gave you.

[Ray Brock]

You are using the NASB version which is from Wescott & Hort. I use King James version which is the Received Text.

1 Peter 3:15 says Lord God not Christ as Lord. Christ means Messiah. Jesus Christ was the messiah to the Jews not the Gentiles. Peter is addressing the Jews who believe in The Kingdom of God message. Thats what Jesus is talking about in the Sermon on the Mount when he says the Meek shall inherit the earth. Are you looking forward to a Heavenly hope or an earthly hope. If its earthly then you would have too be Jewish and listen to the 12 Apostles. The books that Peter wrote are addressed to the Jew.

11 Timothy 2:15 - Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

This verse says handling the truth is by dividing the word of truth.

If you go to the Greek, you will see where most versions are inaccurate and will cause the believer to be totally confused.

I have studied, for years, the Bible and can accurately divide the word to where it will answer your questions even before you ask them. Jesus hates religion, as proved by when he talked to the religious leaders of his day telling them their father was the devil. Pretty harsh words if you ask me.

The book I refer too is a book that can answer or create a lot of questions. The only book I get excited about is the Bible. However this book can help new believers or old believers understand the bible better

What about 11 Corinthians 5:16-17. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.

In otherwords we are living in a new time in Gods calendar of events. Thank God I do not live under the 613 laws.

[Jon Twitchell]

The middle verse of the Bible is Psalm 118:8. (I use the KJV that was given to me 35 years ago in a Nazerene Church in Ohio) It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. Wow God surely knew what he was saying. Most men hate that passage as they put themselves above God. Amazing the middle word is Lord.

Interesting to note that those chapter/verse markings weren't part of the original Greek or Hebrew. Do you suppose God inspired the chapter/verse markings, but not the efforts of the translators?

[Kevin Rector]

Ray, I have to be honest. I've been following this thread and I have absolutely no idea what your point is. What is it that you are trying to communicate?

[Dennis Bratcher]

You are using the NASB version which is from Wescott & Hort. I use King James version which is the Received Text. . .

If you go to the Greek, you will see where most versions are inaccurate and will cause the believer to be totally confused.

Neither of these statements is accurate.

Are you actually reading the Greek text, or just reading what someone says the Greek text says? I would be happy to discuss the Greek of this passage, as well as issues of translation for any other biblical passage in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. But to simply make sweeping statements based on something you read from someone who may or may not know what they are talking about is not helpful.

I have studied, for years, the Bible and can accurately divide the word to where it will answer your questions even before you ask them.

Why would you assume that you are the only one who studies Scripture? And why would you assume that only you have the answers and that they are all the correct ones?

Jesus hates religion, as proved by when he talked to the religious leaders of his day telling them their father was the devil.

If you go back and read that passage Jesus is not speaking to “religious leaders of his day” in this text, but simply to “the Jews who had believed in him.” If this is an example of “rightly dividing the word of truth,” I think I’ll pass.

Perhaps a good start to understanding the Bible is to admit that there is still something to learn.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Ray Brock]

That is not a very good answer to the statement Jesus saying to the religious leaders you are of your father the Devil. Why in the world would Jesus say to the believing Jews you are of your father the devil. He wasn't speaking to believers but to the Pharisees and Sadduccees, UNBELIEVERS. Good reason to read and understand what is being said.

No reason to say I believe I am the only one who studies the Bible. I would hope that some people who go to this thread would check for themselves what I am saying. I check out what I hear to see if it can be proven by the scriptures. Is it talking to me, a Gentile, or to a Jew. Don't understand why people get up tight about why they should check things out.

Since you do not believe Psalm 118:8 I should rip that passage out of the Bible?

I guess I am wrong about this thread. Its not to open your mind to possibilities but take what others say as Gospel and not the word of God who is the final authority ONLY.

Its no wonder Christianity is in the mess we be in.

Churches today are nothing like they used to be but God hasn't changed. When you attend Cementery I mean Seminary its taught as my way or the highway. As for me and my house I will stick to the word of God.

[John Kennedy]

Sorry to say, the above is kind of the type of response I expected.

[Billie Goodson]

You are using the NASB version which is from Wescott & Hort. I use King James version which is the Received Text.


Actually Ray, the King James Version is not the Received Text. It is more accurately referred to as a variety of the Greek Textus Receptus. As Dennis pointed out, unless you are reading in the Greek, you are reading a translation, therefor to say you are reading the "Received Text" is misleading. I will defer to Dennis in total on his ability to translate Greek. My ability stops as logos and maybe 3 or four other words, and it is purely recognition, not translation.

Edward F. Hills (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whichtr.htm), who had a doctorate in modern textual criticism from Harvard, made the following important statement in regard to the KJV and the Received Text:

“The King James Version is a variety of the Textus Receptus. The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. HENCE THE KING JAMES VERSION OUGHT TO BE REGARDED NOT MERELY AS A TRANSLATION OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS BUT ALSO AS AN INDEPENDENT VARIETY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS....


1 Peter 3:15 says Lord God not Christ as Lord. Christ means Messiah. Jesus Christ was the messiah to the Jews not the Gentiles. Peter is addressing the Jews who believe in The Kingdom of God message. Thats what Jesus is talking about in the Sermon on the Mount when he says the Meek shall inherit the earth. Are you looking forward to a Heavenly hope or an earthly hope. If its earthly then you would have too be Jewish and listen to the 12 Apostles. The books that Peter wrote are addressed to the Jew.


So, if I understand you correctly -- as a Christian, and specifically, not a Christian Jew, the books of Peter do not apply to me because they were not addressed to me? By that assumption, then 2 Timothy is also not applicable to me, it was addressed to Timothy -- so I would not have to reconcile that book in any form in my theology. I hope you see where this is going Ray -- I don't think you really mean to go down that road. Consider this verse Ray:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


11 Timothy 2:15 - Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

This verse says handling the truth is by dividing the word of truth.

If you go to the Greek, you will see where most versions are inaccurate and will cause the believer to be totally confused.


I am not sure where you see the great error? Are you saying that attacking brothers in Christ is showing no shame? You conveniently side-stepped 1 Peter, but you seem to apply 2 Timothy to your theology. So here is a reference from there:

2 Timothy 2:24 -- And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient,


I have studied, for years, the Bible and can accurately divide the word to where it will answer your questions even before you ask them. Jesus hates religion, as proved by when he talked to the religious leaders of his day telling them their father was the devil. Pretty harsh words if you ask me.

Ray, we find in the bible that Jesus continued to attend synagogue. That seems to indicate that his problem was not with all religious leaders, but specifically the Sanhedrin and the pharisees. His statements to them seemed to deal with them placing themselves above scripture and being overly prideful of their practice of religion. I agree his words were harsh, to those he was speaking.


The book I refer too is a book that can answer or create a lot of questions. The only book I get excited about is the Bible. However this book can help new believers or old believers understand the bible better


While what you say may be true, you still have not really provided anything about the book that allows us to make an objective evaluation. The scarcity of reviews on this book also speaks against really promoting it on my list -- others may be more inclined -- but, I think they would still like a reason to read it other than "it is good."



What about 11 Corinthians 5:16-17. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.

In otherwords we are living in a new time in Gods calendar of events. Thank God I do not live under the 613 laws.

Not necessarily a new time, but definitely a new covenent. And, I am thankful for that as well. Here is another verse for you:

1 Corinthians 8:1-3 -- Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

Pretty powerful words Ray. Dialogue with us Ray -- but, if you really want to just shout us down and condemn us -- frankly I see little value in corresponding with you. By the way, I have been to several cemeteries, but no seminaries.

[Shellie Stephens]

Jesus hates religion, as proved by when he talked to the religious leaders of his day telling them their father was the devil.

I have no idea why people continue to speak derogatorily of "religion." One of my favorite verses of Sacred Scripture is James 1:27:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

[Barbara Moulton]

When I read these kind of posts I just praise God for His love and grace.

I am not even tempted to enter into the discussion. I have a feeling that I would be frustrated and anything I would say would probably be given little (if any real consideration).

So..isn't it great that God's grace is big enough for all of us...even when some take positions that others find unfathomable.

Blessings,
Barnara


That is not a very good answer to the statement Jesus saying to the religious leaders you are of your father the Devil. Why in the world would Jesus say to the believing Jews you are of your father the devil. He wasn't speaking to believers but to the Pharisees and Sadduccees, UNBELIEVERS. Good reason to read and understand what is being said.

No reason to say I believe I am the only one who studies the Bible. I would hope that some people who go to this thread would check for themselves what I am saying. I check out what I hear to see if it can be proven by the scriptures. Is it talking to me, a Gentile, or to a Jew. Don't understand why people get up tight about why they should check things out.

Since you do not believe Psalm 118:8 I should rip that passage out of the Bible?

I guess I am wrong about this thread. Its not to open your mind to possibilities but take what others say as Gospel and not the word of God who is the final authority ONLY.

Its no wonder Christianity is in the mess we be in.

Churches today are nothing like they used to be but God hasn't changed. When you attend Cementery I mean Seminary its taught as my way or the highway. As for me and my house I will stick to the word of God.

[Dennis Bratcher]

That is not a very good answer to the statement Jesus saying to the religious leaders you are of your father the Devil. Why in the world would Jesus say to the believing Jews you are of your father the devil. He wasn't speaking to believers but to the Pharisees and Sadduccees, UNBELIEVERS. Good reason to read and understand what is being said.

Then read it:

John 8:31 Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him . . .
8:33 They answered him. . .
8:34 Jesus answered them. . .
8:39 They answered him . . . Jesus said to them . . .
8:41 . . . They said to him . . .
8:42 Jesus said to them . . .
8:44 You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. . . .
8:48 The Jews answered him . . .
8:49 Jesus answered . . .
8:52 The Jews said to him. . .
8:54 Jesus answered. . .
8:57 Then the Jews said to him. . .
8:58 Jesus said to them . . .
8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him . . .

There is nothing ambiguous here. The conversation in this entire section is between Jesus and “the Jews who had believed in him,” with no mention of Sadducees, Pharisees, High Priests, scribes, teachers of the law, or any other religious leader.

You claim to want the truth of the Bible. But you are not willing to read a single passage for what it actually says. "There is none so blind as he who will not see.

I agree with Barbara; this discussion is pointless. Thanks anyway.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis Bratcher

[Dennis Bratcher]

Sorry to say, the above is kind of the type of response I expected.

Yes, but some of us remain eternal optimists about God and his ability to work with people. But then, we’re also Wesleyans and believe in human freedom. :)

Dennis B.

[Hans Deventer]

I have no idea why people continue to speak derogatorily of "religion."

It depends on the definition of religion, Shellie. Sometimes it is seen as merely all the human stuff people do to make themselves acceptable to God, or even worse, try to manipulate Him into doing what they'd like Him to do.

Of course that has nothing to do with what James is talking about.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Ray, I am speaking from a heart of love. but, what you need to do, is be quiet, and let some that know what they are talking about, help you gain some truthful knowledge concerning God's word.
I dearly love the King James version, of the Bible, but I am also, aware, that it was not translated from the orignal texts. It does have some mistakes in it, but still has guided many a pilgrim into Heaven.
I have a letter written by a man, that was extremely godly, well versed in the scriptures, and taught greek for 50 years. He helped with NIV version of the Bible. I treasure this letter, that was written by Dr. Ralph Earle. He knew what he was talking about, and could also read it in the original Greek.
You jumped right into here, with a judgemental attitude. There are some young and some elderly Christians on this board, that know what they are posting, by experiences they have had in their years of serving God. A Christian should be humble, and godly acting when the "Word" is discussed.
Now, you are wlecome to begin over a new, and I will speak for these people. They will show love and kindness to you, if you approach them in a Christlike spirit, that does not seem that you think you already know it all.
I would rather discuss salvation, than Religion. Our sallvation is what Christ paid the price for. Religion, can be all kinds of things.
God Bless You, as you learn to do His wiill, and communicate with others about our Saviour.
Anyway, what does it matter how many wise men there were, and when they arrived?
That has absolutely nothing to do with our redemption.
I did not spell check.

[Ray Brock]

I am not attacking anyone but I am being attacked. May I suggest you go this web site for 2200 Grace Age messages by many different pastor-teachers. www.bibleunderstanding.com/allen.htm. Most of you probably will not but maybe someone wants to know more about what God has for us, Gentiles, in this age of Grace, which is the greatest age to be living in. God has been silent since he raised up the Apostle Paul, who was given all his writtings from the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul is really not well liked, for reasons I don't understand, by most theologians and bible teachers. Teachers today mostly want their flocks to stay prisoners to the law that was nailed to the cross with Jesus. People can spiritualize all they want but it still does not alternate the fact. The idea of studying the bible is to put the ages in the place where they belong and to find out what God is saying to us in this age of Grace. Grace means Grace with nothing added to it. When Jesus was hanging on the cross he said IT IS FINISHED. Its pretty simple to realize what he meant. Because of his mercy he has allowed us to live in this age, but most want to go back to the previous age. People refuse to believe their were different ages over the last 6000 years that does not pertain to this age just as this age does not pertain to them. People in previous ages, including the age when the 12 Apostles lived, knew absolutely nothing about the Church age as we know it today. The mystery, which was hidden by God before the foundation of the world, was revealed to the Apostle Paul. The word church means a calling assembly out, which means the first church in the Bible was when Israel was called out of Egypt by God through Moses. The Church today is a much different Church as their are no written laws on tablets but written in your hearts to know right from wrong. Todays Church is the Body of Christ with Jesus as the head. The previous ages all the people who were alive in them and those who will go through the Great Tribulation God mentions, they are the Bride of Christ with Jesus as the Bridegroom and King, to be fulfilled in the 1000 year reign of Christ their Messiah. My prayer is that God will richly bless you and reveal his word to a heart that is open to HIS revealing.

[Ian Gentles]

I think you will find here many hearts that are open, and minds that study deeply.

[Joe Hittle]

I am not attacking anyone but I am being attacked.

Ray,

EVERY post you have offered to this point has been submitted from the position that we are apostates if we don't see things your way. How is that NOT an attack?

Frankly, I've seen your position held by people who I knew cared about me deeply. My own father could outperform anyone else I've ever met in regard to genuinely believing that the KJV was the only version God ever authorised. He believed that to his dying day. Your arguments don't even begin to hold a candle to his. Neither does the book you're quoting.

Please do NOT continue your accusations toward any of us. You simply do not know enough about us to cavalierly suggest that you have a better handle on scripture than we do. And yet, nearly every post you've submitted in this thread makes or at least infers that you do.

I think you need to follow your own advice here. Go back and read the second chapter of II Timothy, in context.

Paul is imploring his young follower, and person who he loves like a son not to fall into doctrinal error. He gives, as example, two others whose doctrinal error is being taught as if it were scripture. His entire point of "studying" was a matter of lifestyle, not of interpretative prowess.

Paul is not imploring his student to sit down and read a book. He is imploring Timothy not to assume that his own thoughts, no matter how well based he might want to think them, were as significant as the Word. That assumption, as Paul plainly states, has caused the shipwreck of faith in those these 2 had somehow convinced of "their gospel."

There is a conjunction immediately following the verse you're holding near and dear. That means that Paul wasn't quite done with his line of thought yet. What follows that conjunction pretty well would be his admonition to you, especially if he heard your accusation of us somehow attacking you here.

Jesus himself pretty well put "we're so attacked" theology and positioning to rest in Matthew 26:50-51.

Remember, even Paul does not say to wield scripture as a sword. His admonition about swords and scripture is that it is the Spirit's right to possess that, not ours. (Ephesians 6:17). The word is only effective in and through us as we let the Spirit use us. That hardly includes a phrase like: "I have studied, for years, the Bible and can accurately divide the word to where it will answer your questions even before you ask them." As Charles pointed out very early on, this sounds like you setting yourself up as the authority. It's also very interesting that you'd even suggest this given your professed aversion to sooth-sayers. That's not an attack my friend, simply an observation.

Whoever wrote Hebrews 4:12 tells us that the word of God is effective enough to do its own work in His way.

"Dividing the truth" doesn't mean lifting a verse, or even multiple verses out of context and then drawing one's own conclusion. The very context of the verse you've challenged us with makes that VERY clear.

"Dividing the truth" also doesn't mean tearing it apart and then reassembling it as fits one's inner convictions. The very context of the verse you've challenged us with makes that clear as well.

As Paul used it in II Timothy 2:15 it means to carefully understand the word to the point where one can classify it as being the only pertinent authority by which to decide a doctrinal issue. For Paul, in that verse, the focus at hand was specifically a bad doctrine which had destroyed fellow Christians. A bad doctrine which was allowed to take the place of what the word said about issues that mattered.

Do you really want to put whether or not we celebrate the coming of the wise men into that classification?

If that really is what your study has brought you to, you truly do need the gift of Christmas. I hope you find Him somewhere this year. He truly is the Word.

Joe

[Ray Brock]

Jesus

He came to earth and in a manger he lay
We celebrate his birth on a special day

The star was bright as it shined that night
It gave the angels such delight

He became a young boy with much to say
The doctors were astonished at him that day

His parents understood not the saying he spake
He was doing his Fathers business for his sake

He became a man hated and despised
He loved the people no matter what size

He glorified his Father and knew he must die
On an old rugged cross he said goodbye

He left the Comforter to guide us on our way
His light shines brighter than on that special day

He is coming again some day we know
For in the Bible he tells us so

Just to think of what we see
God did it all for you and me

[Billie Goodson]

Jesus

God did it all for you and me

Could not agree more Ray -- somehow God saw fit to extend his hand to us -- for that we should all say a special prayer in this season.

Ray, to you and those you love in this season, May the Spirit richly Bless You, May the Father's love envelop you, and may the joy of the season fill your home. Merry Christmas Ray, and to all others -- may the wishes of our hearts be for the world to know, and for us to be able to share in their experience!

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Very good rhyming poetry. God Bless you and yours.

Hip, Hip. hooray, Our son is coming in today.
Do not know, how long he'll stay-
But, on his face, will be a ray-
of love that shines for our Savior's WAY.

What about that?
I just wrote this rhyming poem,
for every creature to see, accept the cat.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

What about that?
I just wrote this rhyming poem,
for every creature to see, accept the cat.

Roses are red,
violets are blue,
Some poems rhyme,
this one doesn't.

Wilson

[David Pettigrew]

Don't have much to add to this thread, but wanted to remind everyone that this Sunday is Epiphany. One of the ways we commemorate this day is to remember and celebrate the Magi who brought gifts to the Christ child.

"O God, by the leading of a star you manifested your only Son to the Peoples of the earth: Lead us, who know you now by faith, to your presence, where we may see your glory face to face; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen." - Collect of the Day for The Epiphany of our Lord, BCP

By the way, "Magi" is both a latin and a persian word referring to a sorcerer, and is the same root word for "magic".

[Edith K. Thurmond]

... wanted to remind everyone that this Sunday is Epiphany. One of the ways we commemorate this day is to remember and celebrate the Magi who brought gifts to the Christ child.



* Ephiphany (holiday), January 6, the Christian feast commemorating the revelation of Jesus to humanity, specifically the visit of the Magi (see The Holy Bible, The Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 2, verses 1-12)
* Ephiphany (feeling), a realization or comprehension of the essence or meaning of something or someone. An inspired understanding arising from connecting with profound insight, awareness, or enlightened truth.

Hymn for Epiphany

Words by: William Dix, 1860 - Music by: Conrad Kocher, 1838

1. As with gladness men of old Did the guiding star behold;
As with joy they hailed its light, Leading onward, beaming bright;
So, most gracious Lord, may we Evermore be led to thee.

2. As with joyful steps they sped To that lowly manger-bed;
There to bend the knee before Him whom heav'n and earth adore;
So may we with willing feet Ever seek the mercy seat.

3. As they offer'd gifts most rare At that manger rude and bare;
So may we with holy joy, Pure and free from sin's alloy,
All our costliest treasures bring, Christ! to thee, our heav'nly King.

4. Holy Jesus! every day Keep us in the narrow way;
And, when earthly things are past, Bring our ransomed souls at last
Where they need no star to guide, Where no clouds thy glory hide.

5. In the heav'nly country bright, Need thy no created light;
Thou its light, its joy, its crown, Thou its sun which goes not down:
There for ever may we sing Alleluias to our King. Amen.

* Excellent site for learning about Ephiphany: http://www.cresourcei.org/cyepiph.html

Blessings,

[Kevin Rector]

For what they are worth, my thoughts on Epiphany for this year:

http://kevinrector.com/?p=15

[Edith K. Thurmond]

For what they are worth, my thoughts on Epiphany for this year:

http://kevinrector.com/?p=15

Kevin,

* Your thoughts were excellent and will continue to provoke serious reflection. Thank much for sharing with us!

*Side note: We had an Epiphany cake served between services today but the Epiphany bonfires for last night were cancelled because of high winds. Any wind is too much for an Epiphany bonfire.

Blessings on this special day,