Comments on: People Believe the Weirdest Things, Especially About the Bible

By: John Mica

John Mica — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:06:51 +0000

Some very good points here! However, you are a bit off on the one about Jesus’ feet not being pierced. Altho you are correct that it does not specifically say so in the NT, yet the Messianic prophecy in Ps.22:16 (referred to & quoted in the Gospel accounts) cannot be thus overlooked, not to mention the historic fact that Roman crucifixion did normally include a nail thru the feet.
Likewise, a very interesting point that nowhere in the Bible does it say that angels sing. However, this is actually not even a Christian invention, rather, an ancient Jewish tradition.
Thirdly, bravo for the truth that the Bible is actually a sexy book, inspired by a sexy God, Who did NOT make a mistake when He created naked people with their sexual organs, & the reproductive process, AND the all-consuming pleasure that it gives.
–a Missionary

By: shawneepaints

shawneepaints — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:30:11 +0000

Thanks for the interesting food for thought! It is certainly plenty to think over. It’s also the exact reason I have always hesitated to believe any one religion completely, but choose to follow what God leads in my heart.

By: Arie Uittenbogaard

Arie Uittenbogaard — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:20:55 +0000

Gerald, the shepherds were locals and knew the place; the magi were a foreign delegation who paid homage to Herod for good form. I’m guessing that the mentioning of the manger is a reference to the passover lamb.

And I’ll show you something else: The masculine Hebrew word ‘dabar’ means Word. Its feminine counterpart, ‘deborah,’ means honeybee. The masculine word ‘ary’ (my name) means lion and its feminine counterpart, ‘aryeh,’ means manger. Hence the Samsonian riddle of Judges 14:14 (bees in the lion) is a gender inverted representation of the Word in the crib. A gender inversion also occurs when Jesus (masculine) evolves into the Body of Christ (feminine).

By: Gerald

Gerald — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:16:08 +0000

Matthew 2 was about the Magi, not the shepherds, even by your admission. It would make sense that the shepherds came immediately, and of course the shepherds already knew where Jesus was — in a manger, not in a house (Luke 2:7), unless this house also housed the animals that needed a manger. Then Jesus was moved and apparently there had to be a big search to find him again when the magi started looking for him, according to Matthew 2. Do you have an alternate explanation why shepherds can find Jesus immediately and the wise men can’t? I have one: it took the wise men longer than a week to get to the child.

As well, it seems that Joseph and Mary did move immediately after the visit.

By: Arie Uittenbogaard

Arie Uittenbogaard — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:52:50 +0000

Hi Anne,

What a wonderful surprise. Thanks for commenting.

The shepherds travel from the fields into town on the day that Jesus was born (Luke 2:8, 11 & 16). I doubt that Joseph had moved Mary. Also compare Lev 12:1 to Lev 15:19-23.

The painting you refer to depicts Ruth and Boaz. It was made by an artist named Chris Higham. I retrieved the picture from his website:
http://www.2thessalonians.co.uk/index.html

By: Anne Lyken-Garner

Anne Lyken-Garner — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:04:02 +0000

A good list, although Jesus WAS born in a stable. He just wasn't STILL there when the wise men came to see him. By that time Joseph had moved Mary and the baby to a house.

I've got to check out that first one about the angels and get back to you.

Lovely pictures, where did you get that one with the couple?