BKFraiders7 wrote:So you dont believe in astrology in yet your quoting from it? Doesn't make since.
Well Astronomers still refer to Aquarius as a constellation, that doesn't mean they believe in the horoscope. I don't believe in the bible but frequently find myself referencing it to make a point.
Example: Matthew 2:1 "
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 in the east and have come to worship him."
You can't come from the east and follow a star in the east traveling by land because that actually puts you to the West. Jerusalem is north of Bethlehem so what gives? However, from the sky you can look east and follow a star to the east.
BKFraiders7 wrote:You say you know the story..then you ask why she was traveling when pregnant. I guess you didnt read the whole thing.
Heres the verse:
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed... 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with Child" (Luke 2:1, 4-5).
Right. How much sense does it make to have Joseph move from where he is to where he was born just to pay a tax? Why didn't Mary have to go to her home town? We don't even know Mary's lineage, only Joseph's. Did Caesar not count women? All I am saying is that Mary should have stayed with someone in her condition or given birth first then traveled.
The tax would be a pretty relevant event but it is only mentioned by Luke not Mathew. Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt because of Herod and yet there is no mention of Herod in the book of Luke the way that it's mentioned in Mathew. Was this not relevant enough to write about?
None of this makes sense from a historical view but if it is all nothing more than a story then the I guess the details really don't matter.
BKFraiders7 wrote:And last, why are you showing me pictures not even from that time? rofl.
Because there
ARE NO pictures or even manuscripts from that time. The first nativity painting known is from they year 1223 The gospels we are debating are known to be from roughly 120AD. Maybe 70AD at the earliest but this is yet
unconfirmed. So no one bothered to write down anything about Jesus for over 30 years after his crucifiction? No one bothered painting a picture of his birth for another 1200 years?
BKFraiders7 wrote:Each person has their own account for what happened. Thats one way we have a broader view.
There is what we think happened and what actually happened. You know how rumor works.
TheTyler0013 wrote:Que I see no goat. only lambs. Which represents Christ.
It can represent whatever you like however goats and lambs are VERY closely related creatures.
The programmers you will one day be looking to hire are the ones reading the tech news sites right now.
And they will remember...
~George Hotz @ $ony