1. It's not a firsthand account.2. The songwriter needed a rhyme.
3. It's not a typical child.
He wasn't hungry.
Profound topic..I will get back to you/sarcasm
1. It's not a firsthand account.2. The songwriter needed a rhyme.
3. It's not a typical child.
He didn't cry at the time the journalist was composing the song.
Or maybe had them and thought that Jesus being the sweetest baby wouldn't wail and keep his poor parents up all night going...
Is he hungry?
But we just fed him.
Maybe he's wet?
No the diaper is dry.
Maybe he has a fever. Does he feel a little warm to you?
Maybe he is too cold.
Oh I hope he is not sick...
Until five minutes before dawn when the little darling will give a belch that rattles the windows and promptly go to sleep. Leaving the parents to face the new day with no sleep....
But that is just a guess.
Oh my.
I can't remember the screen names of the others to ping
now that our posse has gained riders.
***But perhaps there is some theological point I have missed.***
IF you can find it in the Scriptures then there is a theological point.
If not then it's just some man's idea.
My baby didn't cry when he was born. He just looked around. Yes, he was/is healthy.
This has always perplexed me. But perhaps there is some point I have missed. Is it actually correct that Billy Mack knows exactly what the facts is rather than what the facts are? Is there some to pronounce "justice" such that it will remotely rhyme with either Texas, 'facts is' or taxes?
the hymn was written 1500 years after Christ was born...
However, I believe what it means is that he was an "easy" baby, not a colicy one...
There are also a number of Christmas songs which says the "Angels sang". Actually there are only two places in scripture where the angels sing. One is at creation and the second is at our Lord Jesus' return. They never sing at the birth of Chirst.
It doesn't matter. I still like the songs.
I'm real fuzzy, if I ever even knew something about this at all, but yes, I do believe there is a theological assertion being made.
I know that because Mary conceived without being defiled by the spiritual effects of Adam's sins (I'm wording that really carefully because from another thread it appears to me that he disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox over the Immaculate Conception is one over wording; the Orthodox believe Catholics' wording of "original sin" is misleading.) that Mary did not experience pain in giving birth. Likewise, it would make sense that the baby would experience neither the pain, nor would he experience birth as a loss.
But I'm getting way too wild, and I'm sure there's a theologically similar way of explaining it that doesn't alientate Protestants.
Dunno, but we do know the adult Jesus wept.