Have a Happy Day of Mithras !!! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Have a Happy Day of Mithras !!!


Brasso
11-27-2011, 17:04
Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once gentiles1 in the flesh, who are called ‘the uncircumcision’ by what is called ‘the circumcision’ made in the flesh by hands, Footnote: 11 Cor. 12:2.
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Messiah, excluded from the citizenship of Yisra’ĕl and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no expectation and without Elohim in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Messiah יהושע you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of the Messiah.
Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the set-apart ones and members of the household of Elohim,


Jer 10:1 Hear the word which יהוה speaks to you, O house of Yisra’ĕl.
Jer 10:2 Thus said יהוה, “Do not learn the way of the gentiles,1 and do not be awed by the signs of the heavens, for the gentiles are awed by them.2 Footnotes: 1Lev. 18:3, Dt. 12:30 & 18:9, Ezek. 11:12 & 20:32, Eph. 4:17, 1 Peter 4:3. 2Dt. 4:19 & 17:3.
Jer 10:3 “For the prescribed customs of these peoples are worthless, for one cuts a tree from the forest, work for the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool.
Jer 10:4 “They adorn it with silver and gold, they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it does not topple.
Jer 10:5 “They are like a rounded post, and they do not speak. They have to be carried, because they do not walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they do no evil, nor is it in them to do any good.”
Jer 10:6 There is none like You, O יהוה. You are great, and great is Your Name in might.
Jer 10:7 Who would not fear You, O Sovereign of the nations? For this is Your due, for among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their reigns, there is none like You.
Jer 10:8 They are both brutish and foolish, an instruction of worthlessness is the tree.


Happy Mithras Day.

rgregoryb
11-27-2011, 19:30
Thanks.............back at ya!!

Vic Hays
11-27-2011, 20:12
Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once gentiles1 in the flesh, who are called ‘the uncircumcision’ by what is called ‘the circumcision’ made in the flesh by hands, Footnote: 11 Cor. 12:2.
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Messiah, excluded from the citizenship of Yisra’ĕl and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no expectation and without Elohim in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Messiah יהושע you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of the Messiah.
Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the set-apart ones and members of the household of Elohim,


Jer 10:1 Hear the word which יהוה speaks to you, O house of Yisra’ĕl.
Jer 10:2 Thus said יהוה, “Do not learn the way of the gentiles,1 and do not be awed by the signs of the heavens, for the gentiles are awed by them.2 Footnotes: 1Lev. 18:3, Dt. 12:30 & 18:9, Ezek. 11:12 & 20:32, Eph. 4:17, 1 Peter 4:3. 2Dt. 4:19 & 17:3.
Jer 10:3 “For the prescribed customs of these peoples are worthless, for one cuts a tree from the forest, work for the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool.
Jer 10:4 “They adorn it with silver and gold, they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it does not topple.
Jer 10:5 “They are like a rounded post, and they do not speak. They have to be carried, because they do not walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they do no evil, nor is it in them to do any good.”
Jer 10:6 There is none like You, O יהוה. You are great, and great is Your Name in might.
Jer 10:7 Who would not fear You, O Sovereign of the nations? For this is Your due, for among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their reigns, there is none like You.
Jer 10:8 They are both brutish and foolish, an instruction of worthlessness is the tree.


Happy Mithras Day.

It is true that Christmas day and the Christmas tree have pagan origins, but going over the top and applying scripture that refers to idol worship is not accurate or a very Christian thing to do.

Brasso
11-27-2011, 21:32
Oh. So is Christmas of pagan origin or not? I always thought that if something was pagan it shouldn't be participated in by believers. I'm almost sure I read that somewhere. Oh yeah, it's in that passage I just posted. Besides, Dec. 25 is the birthday of the sun god. His symbol was the crux. His mother was a virgin. Isn't this what Christmas is about?

I guess I'm just in a sarcastic mood today.

achysklic
11-28-2011, 04:27
Oh. So is Christmas of pagan origin or not? I always thought that if something was pagan it shouldn't be participated in by believers. I'm almost sure I read that somewhere. Oh yeah, it's in that passage I just posted. Besides, Dec. 25 is the birthday of the sun god. His symbol was the crux. His mother was a virgin. Isn't this what Christmas is about?

I guess I'm just in a sarcastic mood today.

Jeremiah 10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen,(pagan)

It funny how so-called christians choose to ignore what God says so they can learn and practice pagan customs. Even those that admit christmas and the tree came from pagan customs continue to keep it.

What a slap in Gods face. Oh well it isn't the first time they have done it.

rgregoryb
11-28-2011, 07:20
Oh. So is Christmas of pagan origin or not? I always thought that if something was pagan it shouldn't be participated in by believers. I'm almost sure I read that somewhere. Oh yeah, it's in that passage I just posted. Besides, Dec. 25 is the birthday of the sun god. His symbol was the crux. His mother was a virgin. Isn't this what Christmas is about?

I guess I'm just in a sarcastic mood today.

TODAY? :wow:

rgregoryb
11-28-2011, 07:23
Jeremiah 10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen,(pagan)

It funny how so-called christians choose to ignore what God says so they can learn and practice pagan customs. Even those that admit christmas and the tree came from pagan customs continue to keep it.

What a slap in Gods face. Oh well it isn't the first time they have done it.

But, what if the pagans are right? There is just as much evidence to support the pagan view as their is to support your (whatever the heck you are) view.

achysklic
11-28-2011, 08:38
But, what if the pagans are right? There is just as much evidence to support the pagan view as their is to support your (whatever the heck you are) view.

That's fine, just don't slap Christ name on pagan days.

Schabesbert
11-28-2011, 10:54
Oh. So is Christmas of pagan origin or not? I always thought that if something was pagan it shouldn't be participated in by believers. I'm almost sure I read that somewhere. Oh yeah, it's in that passage I just posted. Besides, Dec. 25 is the birthday of the sun god. His symbol was the crux. His mother was a virgin. Isn't this what Christmas is about?

I guess I'm just in a sarcastic mood today.
Today??!?

Anyway, I just answered this on the other thread:
Sorry. That is urban legend.

Schabesbert
11-28-2011, 10:56
That's fine, just don't slap Christ name on pagan days.
Yeah, 'cause we wouldn't want to claim pagan things for Christ.
Pagan things like you & I. Right? (Not)

BTW, God claimed many formerly pagan things for Himself, such as animal sacrifice, baptism, temples, circumcision, etc., etc.

Vic Hays
11-28-2011, 11:19
Oh. So is Christmas of pagan origin or not? I always thought that if something was pagan it shouldn't be participated in by believers. I'm almost sure I read that somewhere. Oh yeah, it's in that passage I just posted. Besides, Dec. 25 is the birthday of the sun god. His symbol was the crux. His mother was a virgin. Isn't this what Christmas is about?

I guess I'm just in a sarcastic mood today.

Christmas is of both pagan and Christian origin. The Roman Empire was very good at syncretism. That is gluing things together. Wasn't Jesus mother a virgin? BTW there is no commandment against celebrating Jesus birth.

I don't have a tree, but I do acknowledge Jesus birth. I don't judge people for keeping the day to the Lord. This is what the Bible tells us to do. Don't be so sarcastic and judgmental.

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.
14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

achysklic
11-28-2011, 11:53
Yeah, 'cause we wouldn't want to claim pagan things for Christ.
Pagan things like you & I. Right? (Not)

BTW, God claimed many formerly pagan things for Himself, such as animal sacrifice, baptism, temples, circumcision, etc., etc.


God created all things, sorry Bert you don't see this. God created animal sac.,baptism,temples,circum. for Himself.. Man (just like the rcc today) took Gods created things and used it in worship of their own gods.

;)

achysklic
11-28-2011, 11:58
Christmas is of both pagan and Christian origin.
Are we not to walk as Jesus walked ? do as Jesus did? Christmas customs came into christianity much later than when Jesus lived. So He never done or approved them.

"I don't have a tree, but I do acknowledge Jesus birth."

In the Bible who were the only ones that acknowledged in a celebration ones birth?

If Jesus had wanted His birth kept why not give the date, since the Bible is very specific on dates God wants us to keep?

Jesus did however ask us to remember His death and gave us the date in which to do it. He did it as an example for us to keep.

After all Jesus died for our sins He wasn't born for them.

Schabesbert
11-28-2011, 13:45
God created all things, sorry Bert you don't see this.
Actually, I do see it. It's you who are denying it.

God created animal sac.,baptism,temples,circum. for Himself..
And He didn't create things like pine trees? :dunno:

Man (just like the rcc today) took Gods created things and used it in worship of their own gods.

;)
Ahh ... calumny. Didn't take too long for you to be bearing false witness.
You should think about actually following Christ some time.

achysklic
11-28-2011, 13:55
[QUOTE=Schabesbert;18216193]

And He didn't create things like pine trees? :dunno:

QUOTE]

He sure did and in Jere.10 He instructs us not to learn the practices of the pagans and cutting down the pine trees and decorating them with silver and gold during the winter solstice Of which the festival of Yule took place on dec. 21-22.

The roman cath. church later changed this celebration to dec. 25 and called it christmas.

;)

Schabesbert
11-28-2011, 14:01
And He didn't create things like pine trees? :dunno:



He sure did and in Jere.10 He instructs us not to learn the practices of the pagans and cutting down the pine trees and decorating them with silver and gold during the winter solstice Of which the festival of Yule took place on dec. 21-22.
He does?
Where?

I'm not sure if you really belive this, or if you're purposefully deceptive.



The roman cath. church later changed this celebration to dec. 25 and called it christmas.

;)

Really? You can cite this, I'm sure, even though the historian I quoted above disputes this. :popcorn:

Kingarthurhk
11-28-2011, 18:54
Are we not to walk as Jesus walked ? do as Jesus did? Christmas customs came into christianity much later than when Jesus lived. So He never done or approved them.

"I don't have a tree, but I do acknowledge Jesus birth."

In the Bible who were the only ones that acknowledged in a celebration ones birth?

If Jesus had wanted His birth kept why not give the date, since the Bible is very specific on dates God wants us to keep?

Jesus did however ask us to remember His death and gave us the date in which to do it. He did it as an example for us to keep.

After all Jesus died for our sins He wasn't born for them.

The irony of this is that you condemn others for not observing feasts that Jesus Himself fulfilled, and then you comdemn others for wanting to celebrate a day of giving and caring in honor of His birth. I would be inclined to celebrate another day other than December 25th if you could just prove to me on which day Jesus was born. I know it wasn't December, but I can't tell you the exact month or day. Can you?

Brasso
11-28-2011, 19:38
"Better is the day of one's death, than the day of one's birth."

All the clues point to Him being born at Succot. Doesn't really matter because we aren't told to celebrate His birth. If we were, He would have given us a Feast Day for it. We are told to keep Passover, Unleavened Bread, Pentacost, Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles,a nd the Last Great Day. None of which you seem to keep. So I find it even more ironic that you are condemning me for keeping Days He said to keep forever because I said you shouldn't keep a day that celebrates the sun god.

Kingarthurhk
11-28-2011, 19:53
"Better is the day of one's death, than the day of one's birth."

All the clues point to Him being born at Succot. Doesn't really matter because we aren't told to celebrate His birth. If we were, He would have given us a Feast Day for it. We are told to keep Passover, Unleavened Bread, Pentacost, Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles,a nd the Last Great Day. None of which you seem to keep. So I find it even more ironic that you are condemning me for keeping Days He said to keep forever because I said you shouldn't keep a day that celebrates the sun god.

Jesus fulfilled the Passover by showing us how to keep it in honor of Him, and when He died as the sacrifice without blemish on the Cross. Jesus fulfilled the feast of unlevened bread by being the Bread of Life. Jesus stood up in the Gospel of John and fufilled the Feast of Booths (Tabernacles) by declaring Himself the water of Life. Yet, you ignore Jesus, and look back toward the ceremonies that pointed to Him, and the same time declare no one should celebrate the birth of our Salvation. Very very strange.

Brasso
11-28-2011, 20:57
So He was the Passover Lamb, but no longer? He was the Bread of Life, but no longer? I'm not going to listen to you tell me I'm looking back at something. I'm not. You're the one who's screwed up. I celebrate Him in every one of those days that He said to keep forever and I'll listen to Him thankyou. Me strange?

.....wow I'm trying real hard to stay calm here...

He fulfilled them so we don't have to? Really? REALY??? Please tell me where this nugget of wisdom can be found. Apparently I'm still stuck on the part where He tells us they won't pass till heaven and earth do. Please, oh please, tell me where in the Bible I can find where He lied and changed His mind?

rgregoryb
11-28-2011, 21:02
So He was the Passover Lamb, but no longer? He was the Bread of Life, but no longer? I'm not going to listen to tell me I'm looking back at something. I'm not. You're the one who's screwed up. I celebrate Him in every one of those days that He said to keep forever and I'll listen to Him thankyou. Me strange?

.....wow I'm trying real hard to stay calm.

no one cares what you do rabbi...............blow up, show us YHWH's love that's dwelling in you

Brasso
11-28-2011, 22:41
Why are you interjecting? You don't believe. This conversation doesn't concern you.

It's frustrating because contrary to all the evidence and passages in the Bible, it's as if I'm trying to convince him there really is a God, and all the while he's denying while also claiming to believe.


It's nonsensical.

Schabesbert
11-29-2011, 09:04
I would be inclined to celebrate another day other than December 25th if you could just prove to me on which day Jesus was born. I know it wasn't December,
You do???
How do you know this?
Oh, I kinow: "they say." This is known as "pseudo-knowledge."

achysklic
11-29-2011, 09:24
You do???
How do you know this?
Oh, I kinow: "they say." This is known as "pseudo-knowledge."

Well the Bible gives us clear clues it could not have been in Dec.

First, we know that shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks at the time of Jesus birth (Luke:2:7-8). Shepherds were not in the fields during December. According to Celebrations: The Complete Book of American Holidays, Luke's account "suggests that Jesus may have been born in summer or early fall. Since December is cold and rainy in Judea, it is likely the shepherds would have sought shelter for their flocks at night"

Second, Jesus' parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census (Luke:2:1-4). Such censuses were not taken in winter, when temperatures often dropped below freezing and roads were in poor condition. Taking a census under such conditions would have been self-defeating.

Since Elizabeth (John's mother) was in her sixth month of pregnancy when Jesus was conceived (Luke:1:24-36), we can determine the approximate time of year Jesus was born if we know when John was born. John's father, Zacharias, was a priest serving in the Jerusalem temple during the course of Abijah (Luke:1:5). Historical calculations indicate this course of service corresponded to June 13-19 in that year..

It was during this time of temple service that Zacharias learned that he and his wife Elizabeth would have a child (Luke:1:8-13). After he completed his service and traveled home, Elizabeth conceived (verses 23-24). Assuming John's conception took place near the end of June, adding nine months brings us to the end of March as the most likely time for John's birth. Adding another six months (the difference in ages between John and Jesus) brings us to the end of September as the likely time of Jesus' birth.


So Bert do you deny Bible facts?

Schabesbert
11-29-2011, 13:46
Well the Bible gives us clear clues it could not have been in Dec.

First, we know that shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks at the time of Jesus birth (Luke:2:7-8). Shepherds were not in the fields during December. According to Celebrations: The Complete Book of American Holidays, Luke's account "suggests that Jesus may have been born in summer or early fall. Since December is cold and rainy in Judea, it is likely the shepherds would have sought shelter for their flocks at night"
First, that is not true. Shepherds, even today, field their flocks in December. Second, the climate is not stagnant, and we don't know what the average temperature was 2k years ago. Third, it could have been during a warm spell.

You're placing a lot of faith into speculation.

Second, Jesus' parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census (Luke:2:1-4). Such censuses were not taken in winter, when temperatures often dropped below freezing and roads were in poor condition. Taking a census under such conditions would have been self-defeating.
More speculation.
Yeah, the Romans were known for their compassionate dictates.

Since Elizabeth (John's mother) was in her sixth month of pregnancy when Jesus was conceived (Luke:1:24-36), we can determine the approximate time of year Jesus was born if we know when John was born. John's father, Zacharias, was a priest serving in the Jerusalem temple during the course of Abijah (Luke:1:5). Historical calculations indicate this course of service corresponded to June 13-19 in that year..

It was during this time of temple service that Zacharias learned that he and his wife Elizabeth would have a child (Luke:1:8-13). After he completed his service and traveled home, Elizabeth conceived (verses 23-24). Assuming John's conception took place near the end of June, adding nine months brings us to the end of March as the most likely time for John's birth. Adding another six months (the difference in ages between John and Jesus) brings us to the end of September as the likely time of Jesus' birth.
You obviously didn't read my cited article.

Historical calculations indicate that Zacharias would have been serving in the Temple in October.

Just so you don't have to work too hard, here's what was said in More Dating on Christmas - #2 (http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/31JdXn/Christnty/SpLf/ChYr/ChristmDat.htm#More_Dating_on_Christmas_-_2):
However, you can also calculate a Dec 25 date from Scripture.

Reading the first few chapters of Luke, we see that everything is timed from when Zacharias was in the temple, let's assume for the sake of argument that this was in early October. That would place the likely time of John the Baptist's conception toward the end of October or early November. This is based on his week of service, his ritual cleansing time, and assuming he got right down to business with Elisabeth (if an angel told me I was going to have a kid, I'd expect things to move right along).

So, Elisabeth then hid herself for five months. In the beginning of April, the angel appeared to Mary. Let's call the date April 1. A normal gestation period of 270 days puts the birth of Jesus on Dec. 25.

Obvious question: Was Zacharias serving in October?

The Mishnah indicates that each course served a week during the first half of the year, the three festival weeks, and a week during the last half of the year, for a total of five weeks during a normal year.

We start counting weeks on the first Sabbath of Nisan (approx. March), here's when Zacharias would have served:

Week 3 Feast of the Unleavened;
Week 9 Pentecost (65 days after Nisan 14);
Week 10 (2 festivals + 8 courses);
Week 29 Tishri festival of booths;
Week 35 (24 courses + 3 feasts + 8 courses)

Week 35 is going to be sometime in October or November. However, there are various problems with the calendar translation with extra months getting thrown in, arguments about when exactly new moons happen, etc etc. Fortunately, it seems that Zacharias was serving during the Day of Atonement, which is easier to peg to a date. The Day of Atonement is the nineteenth day of Tischri, which falls in September/October. After the dust settles, you get the first week in October as the most likely date that Zacharias had his visit.

Early church lore (John Chrysostom) has Zechariah's visit from the angel happening on the Day of Atonement.
...

So, this, taken with early Church's belief that Christ was born on December 25th (although the Eastern Church uses either Jan 1st or Jan 6th) seems to indicate that December 25th is the date.




So Bert do you deny Bible facts?
Not I. You?

achysklic
11-29-2011, 14:23
First, that is not true. Shepherds, even today, field their flocks in December. Second, the climate is not stagnant, and we don't know what the average temperature was 2k years ago. Third, it could have been during a warm spell.

You're placing a lot of faith into speculation.


More speculation.
Yeah, the Romans were known for their compassionate dictates.


You obviously didn't read my cited article.

Historical calculations indicate that Zacharias would have been serving in the Temple in October.

Just so you don't have to work too hard, here's what was said in More Dating on Christmas - #2 (http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/31JdXn/Christnty/SpLf/ChYr/ChristmDat.htm#More_Dating_on_Christmas_-_2):
However, you can also calculate a Dec 25 date from Scripture.

Reading the first few chapters of Luke, we see that everything is timed from when Zacharias was in the temple, let's assume for the sake of argument that this was in early October. That would place the likely time of John the Baptist's conception toward the end of October or early November. This is based on his week of service, his ritual cleansing time, and assuming he got right down to business with Elisabeth (if an angel told me I was going to have a kid, I'd expect things to move right along).

So, Elisabeth then hid herself for five months. In the beginning of April, the angel appeared to Mary. Let's call the date April 1. A normal gestation period of 270 days puts the birth of Jesus on Dec. 25.

Obvious question: Was Zacharias serving in October?

The Mishnah indicates that each course served a week during the first half of the year, the three festival weeks, and a week during the last half of the year, for a total of five weeks during a normal year.

We start counting weeks on the first Sabbath of Nisan (approx. March), here's when Zacharias would have served:

Week 3 Feast of the Unleavened;
Week 9 Pentecost (65 days after Nisan 14);
Week 10 (2 festivals + 8 courses);
Week 29 Tishri festival of booths;
Week 35 (24 courses + 3 feasts + 8 courses)

Week 35 is going to be sometime in October or November. However, there are various problems with the calendar translation with extra months getting thrown in, arguments about when exactly new moons happen, etc etc. Fortunately, it seems that Zacharias was serving during the Day of Atonement, which is easier to peg to a date. The Day of Atonement is the nineteenth day of Tischri, which falls in September/October. After the dust settles, you get the first week in October as the most likely date that Zacharias had his visit.

Early church lore (John Chrysostom) has Zechariah's visit from the angel happening on the Day of Atonement.
...

So, this, taken with early Church's belief that Christ was born on December 25th (although the Eastern Church uses either Jan 1st or Jan 6th) seems to indicate that December 25th is the date.


Not I. You?


Oh Bert your belief system was prophesied by Paul.

2Tim.4:<SUP>4</SUP>And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Now there is no way the shepherds were in the fields in the winter. The Bible teaches this.

Song of Solomon 2:11, and Ezra 10:9, and 13, that winter was a rainy season not permitting shepherds to abide in open fields at night.

It was an ancient custom among Jews of those days to send out their sheep to the fields and deserts about the Passover (early spring), and bring them home at commencement of the first rain, says the Adam Clarke Commentary, Vol. 5, page 386 (and 370).

Continuing, this authority states: "during the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As . . . the first rain began early in the month of Marchesvan, which answers to part of our October and November [begins mid-October], we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole summer. And, as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night.

Bert, guess what the Catholic Encyclopedia says?

"Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church . . . The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. . . . Pagan customs centering around the January calends gravitated to Christmas." And, further, we find this truth acknowledged: " . . . in the Scripture, sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday.

The real origin of Christmas goes back to the ancient Babylon.
So now you know why I refer to the pope as Nimrod!

Schabesbert
11-29-2011, 15:49
Oh Bert your belief system was prophesied by Paul.
No, it goes back to Jesus:
Mt 13:31 Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field;

Now there is no way the shepherds were in the fields in the winter. The Bible teaches this.

Song of Solomon 2:11, and Ezra 10:9, and 13, that winter was a rainy season not permitting shepherds to abide in open fields at night.
Song 2:11 for lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone.

Ezr 10:9 Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days; it was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. And all the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain.

Ezr 10:13 But the people are many, and it is a time of heavy rain; we cannot stand in the open. Nor is this a work for one day or for two; for we have greatly transgressed in this matter.

You're distorting scripture pretty heavily, even for you.
None of these verses even mentions sheep.

It was an ancient custom among Jews of those days to send out their sheep to the fields and deserts about the Passover (early spring), and bring them home at commencement of the first rain, says the Adam Clarke Commentary, Vol. 5, page 386 (and 370).
Continuing, this authority states: "during the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As . . . the first rain began early in the month of Marchesvan, which answers to part of our October and November [begins mid-October], we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole summer. And, as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night.
Sorry, but Mr. Clark is incorrect here, as are you.

Here's a picture, taken late in December in 2007:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dTSEBZ7tOe0/SysFt8NY3fI/AAAAAAAAAfc/_deaqdwIG5Q/s1600-h/shepherds.jpg


The picture is from an excellent series of articles on Was Jesus Born on Dec. 25th? (http://jesusisyhwh.blogspot.com/2008/12/was-jesus-born-on-december-25-1.html)

So now you know why I refer to the pope as Nimrod!
Oh, of course I know! It's because of your inherent dishonesty!

achysklic
11-29-2011, 16:03
what bert no response to what the cath. encl. says?

Schabesbert
11-29-2011, 16:10
what bert no response to what the cath. encl. says?

You quoted it entirely out of context, so no, I was giving you a pass on your dishonesty.

But I'll note that you didn't respond to the fact that your whole argument was blown out of the water.

Kingarthurhk
11-29-2011, 19:04
You do???
How do you know this?
Oh, I kinow: "they say." This is known as "pseudo-knowledge."

Shepherds aren't with their flocks in the field in late December, in winter, durring lambing season. So, logically, no, it was not December 25th.

Schabesbert
11-30-2011, 08:59
Shepherds aren't with their flocks in the field in late December, in winter, durring lambing season. So, logically, no, it was not December 25th.
Ahh, yes. Even though there's a picture of that very thing, taken in that very season, you don't believe it. Got it. :dunno:

You can lead a donkey to the truth, but you can't make it think.

achysklic
11-30-2011, 09:42
Ahh, yes. Even though there's a picture of that very thing, taken in that very season, you don't believe it. Got it. :dunno:

You can lead a donkey to the truth, but you can't make it think.


It's obvious Bert you will believe anything.

The pic you posted proves nothing.

The author has no credibility to me because here is a quote from him in that article the pic was taken from.

"The Bible gives few (if any) exact dates of events. But that does not mean they did not happen on an exact date."

Wow he knows nothing about the Bible. The Bible gives numerous dates and always gives the dates on a event God asks us to keep.

And dear Bert let me post your own words for you to chew on concerning that pic.

" Second, the climate is not stagnant, and we don't know what the average temperature was 2k years ago. Third, it could have been during a warm spell."

Have a blessed day sir.

achysklic
11-30-2011, 15:53
You quoted it entirely out of context, so no, I was giving you a pass on your dishonesty.

But I'll note that you didn't respond to the fact that your whole argument was blown out of the water.

well since your claim is I took it out of context, I say to you please show the correct context from the cath. encyclopedia.

Also why you are at it here is another little thing I pulled out, you may want to explain it too in correct context.

"in the scriptures sinners alone, NOT saints
celebrate their birthdays."
- the Catholic Encyclopedia

The Bible is pretty clear as well.

"...the day of one's death is better
than the day of one's birth.
The end of a matter is better
than its beginning..."
(Ecclesiastes 7:1,8)

Schabesbert
11-30-2011, 16:07
You must be correcting yourself as I write this. You had made the claim that the photo that I was referring to was "stolen and taken in the warm months", even though your very link (I'll post it here since you seem to be revising it) (http://christmasxmas.xanga.com/photos/4017a164147169) says:

From: ChristmasXmas
Taken 12/22/2007 7:28 AM
Posted: 12/22/2007 7:28 AM


:rofl:
You keep proving yourself wrong at every turn!

Roering
11-30-2011, 16:14
what bert no response to what the cath. encl. says?


I'm not sure where this is going but the Church does not assert definitively that Christ was born on Dec 25th. It is however the day the Church celebrates it.

Good advent to all.

Schabesbert
11-30-2011, 16:23
Silly non sequitor removed out of charity.

And dear Bert let me post your own words for you to chew on concerning that pic.

" Second, the climate is not stagnant, and we don't know what the average temperature was 2k years ago. Third, it could have been during a warm spell."

Have a blessed day sir.
Your point is?

It seems like you're saying that this picture wouldn't PROVE that shepherds could have fielded their sheep in December in the late 1st century BC. That's correct, but that isn't what I was saying. It's a shame that I have to explain this to you, but apparently I need to.

No, the picture shows that it's highly probable that they could have, since even today it's done.

Let's suppose that someone, say, "Simplicius," were to make the claim that people could not have swam in what is now Datona Beach 20 centuries ago in March.

My arguments would be:
1. I have swam in Datona Beach in March even today, and it's done regularly
2. Even if I hadn't, we don't know that it wasn't warmer 2k years ago in Datona beach (you'd have to supply evidence of this to prove your case)
3. Even if the AVERAGE temperature in March 2k years ago was too cool, that doesn't mean that it was ALWAYS too cold every year.

Thus, you have no proof that someone could not have swam in Datona Beach in March in the year 4BC.

Schabesbert
11-30-2011, 16:26
I'm not sure where this is going but the Church does not assert definitively that Christ was born on Dec 25th. It is however the day the Church celebrates it.

Good advent to all.
Absolutely true.

However, the claim is often bandied about that the Church decided to celebrate on this date for some sinister, pagan motive, which is absolutely untrue.

It was a good guess based on scriptural evidence and the Hebraic religious belief in the integral age of great prophets (i.e., that they were either born or conceived on the same date as the date of their death). NOT for any pagan beliefs.

Good advent to you, too, sir.

Schabesbert
11-30-2011, 16:29
The Bible is pretty clear as well.

"...the day of one's death is better
than the day of one's birth.
The end of a matter is better
than its beginning..."
(Ecclesiastes 7:1,8)
That is in line with the Church's teaching that the Pesach (Easter) Triduum is a greater Holiday than even that of the Incarnation (Christmas).

achysklic
11-30-2011, 17:05
You must be correcting yourself as I write this. You had made the claim that the photo that I was referring to was "stolen and taken in the warm months", even though your very link (I'll post it here since you seem to be revising it) (http://christmasxmas.xanga.com/photos/4017a164147169) says:

From: ChristmasXmas
Taken 12/22/2007 7:28 AM
Posted: 12/22/2007 7:28 AM


:rofl:
You keep proving yourself wrong at every turn!

I edited and removed the pic before you even posted, so I really don't see your point.

The reason I removed it was because I didnt approve of it having photoshop writing on it.

It still doesn't change the fact that the writer of the article you posted the pic originally on has no credibility since he thinbks the Bible seldom ever gives dates of events....Yeah right!

achysklic
11-30-2011, 17:10
Silly non sequitor removed out of charity.


Your point is?

It seems like you're saying that this picture wouldn't PROVE that shepherds could have fielded their sheep in December in the late 1st century BC. That's correct, but that isn't what I was saying. It's a shame that I have to explain this to you, but apparently I need to.

No, the picture shows that it's highly probable that they could have, since even today it's done.

Let's suppose that someone, say, "Simplicius," were to make the claim that people could not have swam in what is now Datona Beach 20 centuries ago in March.

My arguments would be:
1. I have swam in Datona Beach in March even today, and it's done regularly
2. Even if I hadn't, we don't know that it wasn't warmer 2k years ago in Datona beach (you'd have to supply evidence of this to prove your case)
3. Even if the AVERAGE temperature in March 2k years ago was too cool, that doesn't mean that it was ALWAYS too cold every year.

Thus, you have no proof that someone could not have swam in Datona Beach in March in the year 4BC.


My point is that over there winter is from Dec.-Feb. average temps are highs 60 low 40. It is also the rainy season.. The OT Bible verse I posted earlier show this is the case.

You are going to tell me sheep stay in the fields when it gets down in the average 40's at night with wind and rain?

So what if what you say is true that on dec. 25 that yr it warmed up. This doesn't mean the shephards took their flock back out in the fields after herding them up for winter.

Also do you see Mary traveling some 70 odd miles to get to Beth. during the winter rainy season?

Bert face facts not what the RCC has taught you.

achysklic
11-30-2011, 17:12
That is in line with the Church's teaching that the Pesach (Easter) Triduum is a greater Holiday than even that of the Incarnation (Christmas).

hmmmm ADDRESS this Bert I see as usual you skipped right over it.

"in the scriptures sinners alone, NOT saints
celebrate their birthdays."
- the Catholic Encyclopedia

Roering
11-30-2011, 17:19
hmmmm ADDRESS this Bert I see as usual you skipped right over it.

"in the scriptures sinners alone, NOT saints
celebrate their birthdays."
- the Catholic Encyclopedia

I celebrate birthdays........and I am a sinner.

Schabesbert
11-30-2011, 17:29
My point is that over there winter is from Dec.-Feb. average temps are highs 60 low 40. It is also the rainy season.. The OT Bible verse I posted earlier show this is the case.

You are going to tell me sheep stay in the fields when it gets down in the average 40's at night with wind and rain?
Are you so sure they would not?

The Bible (you know, the book you claim to believe) has Jacob telling Laban that he used to stay with his flocks during the frost:
Ge 31:40 Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep departed from mine eyes.

So what if what you say is true that on dec. 25 that yr it warmed up.
Right. Facts don't affect YOUR argument one iota.

This doesn't mean the shephards took their flock back out in the fields after herding them up for winter.
"herding them up for winter"? No, it's not like sheep are mobile or anything.

They'd still have to take them OUT to eat EACH AND EVERY DAY!

BTW, since Christ was born in a stable, if what you say is true, why weren't the sheep using it at that time?

Also do you see Mary traveling some 70 odd miles to get to Beth. during the winter rainy season?
Yeah, you might think it was a sacrifice or something!

Bert face facts not what the RCC has taught you.
Oh, I do, but I have to apologize since facing facts requires me to turn my back to you.

achysklic
11-30-2011, 17:41
Are you so sure they would not?

The Bible (you know, the book you claim to believe) has Jacob telling Laban that he used to stay with his flocks during the frost:
Ge 31:40 Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep departed from mine eyes.


Right. Facts don't affect YOUR argument one iota.


"herding them up for winter"? No, it's not like sheep are mobile or anything.

They'd still have to take them OUT to eat EACH AND EVERY DAY!

BTW, since Christ was born in a stable, if what you say is true, why weren't the sheep using it at that time?


Yeah, you might think it was a sacrifice or something!


Oh, I do, but I have to apologize since facing facts requires me to turn my back to you.


Oh Bert you make this too easy.

staying with sheep during a frost is far from the winter months of dec.-feb.

It frost in Ohio up to almost June thats late spring summer.

And "if" Jesus was born in a stable, the sheep would have been there.
You must in all your wisdom Bert know that in Jesus day peoples stables were the lower part of their house...if Jesus was born in such a place he would have been born in a stable "house" and animals would have been there.

As for Mary, yes she was a blessed woman, but no woman would or could travel by donkey for 70 miles in her late preg. with temp dropping as low as 40's at night and being the rainy season.......;)

achysklic
11-30-2011, 18:09
Now back to that pic bert that you are basing all this on.You do know I stated that in the winter high is 60 low 40 correct? Luke 2:8 tells us the shephards were in the fields with their flocks at NIGHT. your pic is of the day time when it can reach 60. show me pic proof of the shephards in the fields at night please or drop this debate now at the exspense of looking more foolish.

Roering
11-30-2011, 18:24
Here in Southern California by the beach I need nothing more than a pair of Jeans and a sweatshirt to be out at night in the winter months. Perhaps the climate was a mild as it is here? I doubt it but I also doubt that it is as harsh as Ohio/Minnesota/etc. etc.

achysklic
11-30-2011, 18:41
I celebrate birthdays........and I am a sinner.

true but since Jesus bday is topic to be celebrated. was Jesus a sinner or saint?

achysklic
11-30-2011, 18:44
Here in Southern California by the beach I need nothing more than a pair of Jeans and a sweatshirt to be out at night in the winter months. Perhaps the climate was a mild as it is here? I doubt it but I also doubt that it is as harsh as Ohio/Minnesota/etc. etc.

i agree their climate is not as extreme as mine or yours. i did a search on their regions weather throughout the yr. hence how i got it is winter from dec to feb and that it is the rainy season with highs 60 low 40

Kingarthurhk
11-30-2011, 18:47
i agree their climate is not as extreme as mine or yours. i did a search on their regions weather throughout the yr. hence how i got it is winter from dec to feb and that it is the rainy season with highs 60 low 40

Actually, it is a lot like New Mexico. It snows in New Mexico.

Kingarthurhk
11-30-2011, 19:07
Here are some irksome problems I have with everything and everyone in this thread.

1. Christmas is about remembering the Joy of Jesus stooping down as a King of all Creation to born in a cave in an animal food troph. To live in a blended family in the poorest most reviled section of Israel. To live as a humble craftsman until the age of 30 and then give himself to teaching and healing a world that hated him. To then be tortured and murdered, laying down His life that we might live.

It is about giving good gifts to others to show love. I am just not seeing any love at all in these forum posts on Christmas-zero.

2.The most ardent Christmas haters also want us to look away from Jesus. Jesus fulfilled the Passover at the Last Supper and then offered Himself as the lamb of sacrifice. They say, look away from Christ and back toward the ceremony pointing to this event. Jesus said He was the bread of life. They say look away from Jesus and the ceremony of unleavened bread. Jesus offered the water of Life and stood up durring the Palm celebration of the Feast of booths and declared Himself to be the water they were celebrating of the harvest. They say look away from Jesus and back to the ceremony. Jesus said He was the First Fruits of the dead because He rose again to give us eternal life. Once again they say, look away from Jesus and back to the ceremony. Now, we don't know when Jesus was born, but we want to celebrate it. Once again, they say don't honor Jesus' birth and point away from Him yet again.

3. Those that hold on to an imaginary date that is not proven to be the actual birth date either by scripture or by the activities of the shepherds. Ask any Shepherd even today, lambing season is not in dead winter. Yet, they are nasty to anyone who thinks otherwise.

So, in conclusion, stop, remember what we are thankful for and why. Our Savior was about other people and not about hateful nonsense. Think about it. How is all this nonsense remotely honoring Him?

Brasso
11-30-2011, 19:23
There are none so blind.....

Kingarthurhk
11-30-2011, 19:33
There are none so blind.....

I couldn't have put it more succinctly.

Roering
11-30-2011, 19:36
true but since Jesus bday is topic to be celebrated. was Jesus a sinner or saint?

Saint, if I had to chose among the two. But I'm speaking in context of the celebrator, not the celebratee if you will.

Unless you are asking me if Jesus celebrated His own birthday.

I suppose if He did, we would have better record of when it was.

achysklic
11-30-2011, 19:49
There are none so blind.....

alas brasso they are but sheeple

rgregoryb
11-30-2011, 19:50
proof:
shepherds in the cold and snow of December

http://www.vonlotta.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/snow13.jpg

rgregoryb
11-30-2011, 19:54
alas brasso they are but sheeple

thank goodness you two sanctimonious jewishtians are here to guide us into the truth as you perceive it.

Kingarthurhk
11-30-2011, 19:55
proof:
shepherds in the cold and snow of December

http://www.vonlotta.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/snow13.jpg

My two Shepherds don't like rain or snow. They tend to whine at the door until I let them inside. Then they track mess everywhere and get the wife upset. Great dogs though.

rgregoryb
11-30-2011, 20:06
My two Shepherds don't like rain or snow. They tend to whine at the door until I let them inside. Then they track mess everywhere and get the wife upset. Great dogs though.

Is a German Shepherd an Azzskillet approved K9?
He seems to have the final say on everything YHWH approves.
I have a MinPin she doesn't mind the rain...

achysklic
12-01-2011, 06:38
Is a German Shepherd an Azzskillet approved K9?
He seems to have the final say on everything YHWH approves.
I have a MinPin she doesn't mind the rain...

Actually it's achysklic sorry you are not able to pronounce it , or you can even call me achy...please show some respect. I don't call you names.

also I cat person.

Brasso
12-01-2011, 08:39
It's actually a bit funny, although frustrating too, that you guys claim not to follow "churchianity" as you say, but follow the traditions of your own church even to the point of denying Scripture to do so.

I see someone who is arguing to keep celebrating a man made holiday based on paganism because it makes you feel good, instead of the holidays God HImself gave us. I see someone offering strange fire.

You say I'm looking back. Never mind that Paul said "...therefore keep the Feast..". Messiah is the central theme of all the Feast Days. They are all about Him. The Spring Feasts celebrat His first coming. The Fall Days celebrate His second coming. That's how I see them.

I feel sorry for you. The Truth about these things is so clear to me. The veil is still over your eyes. I wish you would listen to Him.

Schabesbert
12-01-2011, 10:17
Oh Bert you make this too easy.

staying with sheep during a frost is far from the winter months of dec.-feb.

It frost in Ohio up to almost June thats late spring summer.
Are you that numerically challenged?

To have a frost, it needs to get to temperatures below the CURRENT average lows of somplace in the 40s in December in Bethlehem.


As for Mary, yes she was a blessed woman, but no woman would or could travel by donkey for 70 miles in her late preg. with temp dropping as low as 40's at night and being the rainy season.......;)
Could it be that, just possibly, they traveled during the day (temperatures in the 60s)?
:wavey: Hello, McFly?

Schabesbert
12-01-2011, 10:26
It's actually a bit funny, although frustrating too, that you guys claim not to follow "churchianity" as you say, but follow the traditions of your own church even to the point of denying Scripture to do so.

I see someone who is arguing to keep celebrating a man made holiday based on paganism because it makes you feel good, instead of the holidays God HImself gave us. I see someone offering strange fire.
See Roering? It's this persistent lie that needs to be combated. Yeah, I know that nearly nobody has respect for Brasso's opinions, but I just don't want to see them take root.

You say I'm looking back. Never mind that Paul said "...therefore keep the Feast..".
"The Feast" meaning that of the NEW TESTAMENT lamb.
In the OLD Passover, you had to eat the passover lamb.
In the NEW Passover, you need to partake of the Eucharist.
Paul is quite plain when, in this context, he says that JESUS is the new Passover Lamb slain for us.

1Co 5:7 ... For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, ...

That's why Paul uses "Therefore" to join those phrases.

Schabesbert
12-01-2011, 10:58
Here are some irksome problems I have with everything and everyone in this thread.

1. Christmas is about remembering the Joy of Jesus stooping down as a King of all Creation to born in a cave in an animal food troph. To live in a blended family in the poorest most reviled section of Israel. To live as a humble craftsman until the age of 30 and then give himself to teaching and healing a world that hated him. To then be tortured and murdered, laying down His life that we might live.

It is about giving good gifts to others to show love. I am just not seeing any love at all in these forum posts on Christmas-zero.

2.The most ardent Christmas haters also want us to look away from Jesus. Jesus fulfilled the Passover at the Last Supper and then offered Himself as the lamb of sacrifice. They say, look away from Christ and back toward the ceremony pointing to this event. Jesus said He was the bread of life. They say look away from Jesus and the ceremony of unleavened bread. Jesus offered the water of Life and stood up durring the Palm celebration of the Feast of booths and declared Himself to be the water they were celebrating of the harvest. They say look away from Jesus and back to the ceremony. Jesus said He was the First Fruits of the dead because He rose again to give us eternal life. Once again they say, look away from Jesus and back to the ceremony. Now, we don't know when Jesus was born, but we want to celebrate it. Once again, they say don't honor Jesus' birth and point away from Him yet again.

So far I agree with you.

Jesus, the Bread of Life, was born in "the house of bread" and laid in a serving trough for animals.

While there's no scriptural evidence for celebrating the anniversary of His birth, we can see that all of Heaven rejoiced AT His birth. We are simply commemorating the anniversary of that event: the incarnation of the God of the Universe for the redemption of mankind, an act even more momentous than the Creation of the Universe.

3. Those that hold on to an imaginary date that is not proven to be the actual birth date either by scripture or by the activities of the shepherds. Ask any Shepherd even today, lambing season is not in dead winter. Yet, they are nasty to anyone who thinks otherwise.
Actually, this is a pretty nasty thing for YOU to say.
I've not been nasty except to those who have first been extremely disrespectful, and even claim that "Christmas of pagan origin," and even then I've only been assertive with the Truth. Your statement above is, however, judgemental on its face.

I think Vic was correct in this regard:
It is true that Christmas day and the Christmas tree have pagan origins, but going over the top and applying scripture that refers to idol worship is not accurate or a very Christian thing to do.



I've nowhere claimed that Dec 25th is the actual date of His birth, only that 1) it was decided on by the Early Church based on anything BUT pagan notions, and 2) they had valid reasons for deeming it plausible.

Ask any Shepherd even today, lambing season is not in dead winter.
You ask. I don't know what "lambing season" exactly means, but as far as keeping watch over sheep in the fields, that goes on today in December. I've posted a picture of that very thing.

From that article:
"... the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem ... He was to be revealed from ... 'the tower of the flock.' ... which ... lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem. ... the flocks, which pastured there, were destined for Temple-sacrifices ... these flocks lay out all the year round ... It was, then, on that 'wintry night' of the 25th of December, that shepherds watched the flocks destined for sacrificial services ... There is no adequate reason for questioning the historical accuracy of this date." (Edersheim, 1886, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," p.i.187).

"... late December should not be ruled out in the belief that at that time of the year there could not have been `shepherds ... out in the field, keeping watch at night over their flock' (Luke 2:8) ... Dr. Harry Mulder ... writes `During the brief Christmas vacation my wife and I traveled ... to Jerusalem. ... I can also answer your question regarding the presence of sheep around Bethlehem in the month of December. On Christmas eve in Shepherd Field a crowd had gathered to sing Christmas carols. ... Right near us a few flocks of sheep were nestled. .... It is therefore definitely not impossible that the Lord Jesus was born in December." (Hendriksen, 1974, "The Gospel of Matthew," p.182).

"... [Lk ]2:8-20) 8. It is not unlikely that the shepherds were pasturing flocks destined for the temple sacrifices. ... a rabbinic rule provides that any animal found between Jerusalem and a spot near Bethlehem must be presumed to be a sacrificial victim ...The same rule speaks of finding Passover offerings within thirty days of that feast, i.e. in February. Since flocks might be thus in the fields in winter the traditional date for the birth of Jesus, December 25, is not ruled out." (Morris, 1974, "The Gospel According to Luke," p.84).



Think about this: people such as John Chrysostom, St. Hippolytus and Sextus Julius Africanus, who were both quite familiar with scripture AND the climate and culture of the area. These were men more learned than you & I (and far more than Brasso & achy). They didn't have this objection to a December birth date. Nor did anyone question it for this reason until many centuries later.


So, in conclusion, stop, remember what we are thankful for and why. Our Savior was about other people and not about hateful nonsense. Think about it. How is all this nonsense remotely honoring Him?
Correcting those who claim this "pagan origin" nonsense is actually an act of love for those who might otherwise be taken in by it.

Brasso
12-01-2011, 12:17
See Roering? It's this persistent lie that needs to be combated. Yeah, I know that nearly nobody has respect for Brasso's opinions, but I just don't want to see them take root.

You're such a liar.

Instead of posting articles ad nauseum about it's pagan origins I simply invite anyone who's interested to go to a website called "Google" and do a search for yourself on the origins of Christmas.

Brasso
12-01-2011, 12:19
Think about this: people such as John Chrysostom, St. Hippolytus and Sextus Julius Africanus, who were both quite familiar with scripture AND the climate and culture of the area. These were men more learned than you & I (and far more than Brasso & achy). They didn't have this objection to a December birth date. Nor did anyone question it for this reason until many centuries later.

Yeah, they weren't anti semetic racists at all.......

Brasso
12-01-2011, 12:23
"The Feast" meaning that of the NEW TESTAMENT lamb.
In the OLD Passover, you had to eat the passover lamb.
In the NEW Passover, you need to partake of the Eucharist.
Paul is quite plain when, in this context, he says that JESUS is the new Passover Lamb slain for us.

1Co 5:7 ... For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, ...

Did I just get done saying to keep the Feast in honor of Messiah? I think I did. And yet, you don't even do this much.

Is there any legitimate responses to your posts that won't get me banned? I think not.

Schabesbert
12-01-2011, 12:59
Did I just get done saying to keep the Feast in honor of Messiah? I think I did. And yet, you don't even do this much.

Oh, we certainly do! Just not the OLD feast, with the OLD sacrificial lamb, but the NEW feast. Like I said:
In the NEW Passover, you need to partake of the Eucharist.

Is there any legitimate responses to your posts that won't get me banned? I think not.
Probably not with your temperment.

Schabesbert
12-01-2011, 13:02
You're such a liar.

Instead of posting articles ad nauseum about it's pagan origins I simply invite anyone who's interested to go to a website called "Google" and do a search for yourself on the origins of Christmas.
Yeah, 'cause we all know that whatever is posted on the internet is true.
Oh, yeah, ONLY if it agrees with Brasso.

This is an example of "pseudo-knowledge." Things that have been propagandized about for so long that "everybody knows" they're true, even though they're not. (i.e., most of what Brasso posts)

Roering
12-01-2011, 14:41
See Roering? It's this persistent lie that needs to be combated. Yeah, I know that nearly nobody has respect for Brasso's opinions, but I just don't want to see them take root.

I haven't read one of his posts in a long time. He's not on ignore, I just kind of skip over them.

Brasso
12-01-2011, 15:30
I've noticed that there sure are a lot of coincidences of the RCC just happening to do the same things the sun worshippers of the Roman Empire did. So many coinky-dinks. It's a good thing that we have the writings of so many Jew haters to clear things up.


If it wasn't for them, we would have never know that the Apostles had no clue what they were doing by keeping Passover and going to the Temple. Offering sacrifices, etc. It's too bad the Pope wasn't around to correct them and show them the true path.

Schabesbert
12-01-2011, 16:16
I've noticed that there sure are a lot of coincidences of the RCC just happening to do the same things the sun worshippers of the Roman Empire did.
Seriously, it's more vice-versa. Like I posted on the other thread, and which you haven't responded to:
There's no actual historical evidence of such a think occurring prior to Christians claiming this as the day of Christ's birth.

So, it appears that you HAVEN'T read the cites I've been posting for a couple of years now. No surprise, there, I guess.

You can start with Calculating Christmas (http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/31JdXn/Christnty/SpLf/ChYr/ChristmDat.htm). But you probably won't, since you seem determined to stick to your beliefs, despite any facts to the contrary.

So many coinky-dinks. It's a good thing that we have the writings of so many Jew haters to clear things up.
Things then were quite contentious between the remaining Jews and the Christians. It's why the NT has been claimed to be anti-semitic, too. but you are only concerned by the one side (you're not concerned that the Jewish rhetoric was every bit as insulting, if not more), and only from those whom you exclude from your beliefs (i.e., those who were martyrs for the Faith that they received directly, in some instances, from the Apostles).

It's telling. You reject the very disciples of the Apostles, the ones who the Apostles commissioned to carry on the Faith; those who died horribly "rather than offer a pinch of incense to Caeser."

If it wasn't for them, we would have never know that the Apostles had no clue what they were doing by keeping Passover and going to the Temple. Offering sacrifices, etc.
Sorry, but if it wasn't for these newly-invented delusions, we wouldn't have these half-truths promulgated as if they were actually true.

Brasso
12-01-2011, 16:54
I know, I know. They only went to temple to preach to Jews. They only went to synagogue on the Sabbath to preach to Jews. Paul only hurried to continue and keep Passover and other Feasts so he could preach to Jews. The Jerusalem Council only told the new gentile believers to go to synagogue to preach to the Jews. Those stupid Jews.

If only they knew that the dna of pig was altered at the cross. If they only knew the days of the week skipped forward a day at the cross. If only they knew that forever really only meant for a little while. So many if's....

Kingarthurhk
12-01-2011, 17:24
It's actually a bit funny, although frustrating too, that you guys claim not to follow "churchianity" as you say, but follow the traditions of your own church even to the point of denying Scripture to do so.

I see someone who is arguing to keep celebrating a man made holiday based on paganism because it makes you feel good, instead of the holidays God HImself gave us. I see someone offering strange fire.

You say I'm looking back. Never mind that Paul said "...therefore keep the Feast..". Messiah is the central theme of all the Feast Days. They are all about Him. The Spring Feasts celebrat His first coming. The Fall Days celebrate His second coming. That's how I see them.

I feel sorry for you. The Truth about these things is so clear to me. The veil is still over your eyes. I wish you would listen to Him.

You have part of a phrase with no scriptural reference. I could do a similar thing, and bear in mind that I don't mean any ill will against you. However, fragments out of context can lead to trouble. For instance:

Matthew 27:5, "...Judas...went away and hanged himself."

Luke 10:37, "....Then said Jesus...Go, and do thou likewise."

Context is everything.

"Let's eat, Grandma!"

"Let's eat Grandma!"

Context and punctuation saves lives.

Schabesbert
12-01-2011, 17:29
I know, I know. They only went to temple to preach to Jews. They only went to synagogue on the Sabbath to preach to Jews. Paul only hurried to continue and keep Passover and other Feasts so he could preach to Jews. The Jerusalem Council only told the new gentile believers to go to synagogue to preach to the Jews.
If you actually believed this, then you'd actually be believing what Paul said.
But hey, YOU know better what Paul meant than Paul did, I guess. In your own mind, anyway.

1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law--though not being myself under the law--that I might win those under the law.
21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law--not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ--that I might win those outside the law.
22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Brasso
12-01-2011, 19:07
And so automatically, this means he only kept the Torah to save those foolish Jews. It couldn't possibly be that he was acting according to tradition to those who are still under the law. It couldn't possibly mean that he disregarded those traditions when not needed, as he once accused Peter of not doing. Of course it could never mean he kept the Torah because he knew it was the law of God.

Yeah, right.......keep dreaming.

Act 25:8 while Sha’ul said in his own defence, “Neither against the Torah of the Yehuḏim, nor against the Set-apart Place, nor against Caesar did I commit any sin.”

Kingarthurhk
12-01-2011, 19:10
Galations 4:21-31, "<SUP>21</SUP> Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? <SUP id=en-NIV-29154 class=versenum>22</SUP> For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. <SUP id=en-NIV-29155 class=versenum>23</SUP> His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

<SUP id=en-NIV-29156 class=versenum>24</SUP> These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. <SUP id=en-NIV-29157 class=versenum>25</SUP> Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. <SUP id=en-NIV-29158 class=versenum>26</SUP> But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. <SUP id=en-NIV-29159 class=versenum>27</SUP> For it is written:
“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”<SUP class=footnote value='[e (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-29159e)]'>[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+4&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29159e)]</SUP> <SUP id=en-NIV-29160 class=versenum>28</SUP> Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. <SUP id=en-NIV-29161 class=versenum>29</SUP> At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. <SUP id=en-NIV-29162 class=versenum>30</SUP> But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”<SUP class=footnote value='[f (http://glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-29162f)]'>[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+4&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29162f)]</SUP> <SUP id=en-NIV-29163 class=versenum>31</SUP> Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman."

Brasso
12-01-2011, 22:18
More faulty assumptions. Paul really is hard to understand. Remember that, please?

He does a much better job than i can, so:

http://www.wildbranch.org/teachings/lessons/lesson61.html

Surely you realize, that with the exception of the Sabbath Day, everything you believe came right out of the pits of pagan Rome and the RCC? Have you read what these "holy" fathers wrote? How can you follow them?

What did Daniel prophecy? Who changed the appointed times? It was more than just the Sabbath Day. Who wore down the saints?

Schabesbert
12-02-2011, 08:56
And so automatically, this means he only kept the Torah to save those foolish Jews. It couldn't possibly be that he was acting according to tradition to those who are still under the law. It couldn't possibly mean that he disregarded those traditions when not needed, as he once accused Peter of not doing. Of course it could never mean he kept the Torah because he knew it was the law of God.

Yeah, right.......keep dreaming.
I'm sorry -- I'm only taking Paul at his word. Since you are disputing with Paul's explicit statements, I've got to choose whether to believe Paul in inspired scripture, or you. I choose scripture. Sorry.

It couldn't possibly be that he was acting according to tradition to those who are still under the law.
He explicitely said that he wasn't under the law: "I became as one under the law--though not being myself under the law"

Again, this isn't meant for Brasso; the facts won't dissuade him at all. This is for others reading this.

Schabesbert
12-02-2011, 09:00
More faulty assumptions. Paul really is hard to understand. Remember that, please?
Yes. This explains how and why your links, and your beliefs, twist Paul's letters as they do other scriptures.

Surely you realize, that with the exception of the Sabbath Day, everything you believe came right out of the pits of pagan Rome and the RCC? Have you read what these "holy" fathers wrote? How can you follow them?
Many of those "fathers" wrote while Rome was actively hunting them down and killing them in horrendous ways. Your deception that they were somehow in collusion is not only dishonest and a-historical, it's rather stupid.

Brasso
12-02-2011, 09:11
Your lies are easily seen by googling any topic you bring up.

According to you Paul is easy to undestand. Simpy drag his writings out of context, take a cursory, surface understanding. Add some lies, twist till it rots, and teach it to others. Makes for a fresh baked RCC convert.

Schabesbert
12-02-2011, 11:31
Your lies are easily seen by googling any topic you bring up.
I've addressed this misstatement above.

According to you Paul is easy to undestand.
Please, show me where I ever said Paul is easy to understand.
Apparently, you can't even understand what I wrote. That, or you're being purposefully mistruthful. Which is it, Brasso?

Simpy drag his writings out of context, take a cursory, surface understanding. Add some lies, twist till it rots, and teach it to others.
Are you giving away your secret formula here?

Brasso
12-02-2011, 14:04
Well, despite the fact that he put in writing that he never violated the Torah, you seem to believe that he did in order to win souls. You posted as much. Either what you posted is a lie, or your interpretation of what he wrote is a lie.

Wanna know which one I'm betting on?

Schabesbert
12-02-2011, 14:09
Well, despite the fact that he put in writing that he never violated the Torah, you seem to believe that he did in order to win souls. You posted as much. Either what you posted is a lie, or your interpretation of what he wrote is a lie.
The third, and correct, choice is that YOUR interpretation is, as you put it, a lie.

Wanna know which one I'm betting on?
The wrong one, with absolutely no doubt.

Oh, and I'd like to note that you were unable to "show me where I ever said Paul is easy to understand", thus showing that you are posting things that quite obviously are untrue.

Brasso
12-02-2011, 14:12
You believe he is easy to understand because you believe the same superficial theology as the rest of your sect. And it is utterly wrong and contradictory to the rest of the Bible. In order to post something that shows you believe Paul is easy to understand, I would have to post everything you've ever wrote.

Schabesbert
12-02-2011, 14:18
You believe he is easy to understand because you believe the same superficial theology as the rest of your sect.
You're hilarious.

And it is utterly wrong and contradictory to the rest of the Bible.
And wrong.

Do you have anything other than obviously false, bald-faced assertions?
Something perhaps to back them up?

I can see why you wouldn't want to try, seeing as how every time you have in the past your "reasoning" has been shot down.

In order to post something that shows you believe Paul is easy to understand, I would have to post everything you've ever wrote.

But you said: "According to you Paul is easy to undestand". That means that you are asserting that I made a statement to that effect. Either I did, and you can show it, or I did not, and you either imagined it or you're lying.

So, can you show such a statement, are you delusional, or are you lying?

achysklic
12-02-2011, 16:06
You're hilarious.


And wrong.

Do you have anything other than obviously false, bald-faced assertions?
Something perhaps to back them up?

I can see why you wouldn't want to try, seeing as how every time you have in the past your "reasoning" has been shot down.



But you said: "According to you Paul is easy to undestand". That means that you are asserting that I made a statement to that effect. Either I did, and you can show it, or I did not, and you either imagined it or you're lying.

So, can you show such a statement, are you delusional, or are you lying?


Well since you want Brasso to answer everything you post how about doing the same big boy.

Show me a pic of shephards in the field at night.

also respond to this ..

"in the scriptures sinners alone, NOT saints
celebrate their birthdays."
- the Catholic Encyclopedia


Man I can go on and on how many times you,vic, and king avoid things asked of you.

Maybe I should start a thread title unanswered questions....You can be the star!

Schabesbert
12-02-2011, 16:40
Well since you want Brasso to answer everything you post how about doing the same big boy.

Show me a pic of shephards in the field at night.
Go to post 27. Click on the link.
Sheesh. I had hoped you were capabable of doing that much without an instruction manual.


also respond to this ..

"in the scriptures sinners alone, NOT saints
celebrate their birthdays."
- the Catholic Encyclopedia
This is what is known as taking something out of context.

Here's the whole quote:
Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts; Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday

So, the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't saying what you are dishonestly or ignorantly trying to make it say; rather it is saying that ORIGEN, perhaps using as his source "the discreditable imperial Natalitia", is saying this.

If you can't discern this, it's no wonder you come up with the wacky beliefs you have.

I really am embarassed for you , man.

Man I can go on and on how many times you,vic, and king avoid things asked of you.
I was trying to be charitable in merely pointing out that you might just want to look at the context of that particular quote, rather than showing everyone just what kind of reasoning ability you have --- or, rather, lack.

Maybe I should start a thread title unanswered questions....You can be the star!
Go ahead and embarass yourself as much as you think you need to.

achysklic
12-02-2011, 17:30
Go to post 27. Click on the link.
Sheesh. I had hoped you were capabable of doing that much without an instruction manual.

.

Here's the link to click on from post 27 Oh great Bert.

Guess what?

You avoided yet again what I asked, I asked for a pic of shephards in the fields in late Dec. at NIGHT. Your link is during the day when temps get up to 60 and is early Dec. not late...huge difference in winter time 3 weeks can make.

So Bert do I need to ask you where your instruction manual is for finding what I ask for?

Until you can do so everything you claim is rubbish!

Roering
12-02-2011, 17:32
Man I can go on and on how many times you,vic, and king avoid things asked of you.

What is the name of your Church/denomination?

I've asked that of you quite a few times. Seems like a simple enough question no?

Brasso
12-02-2011, 17:49
This is too easy. I can't believe you haven't just run away in shame.

The 4th commandment is the 7th Day Sabbath. You don't believe this. You don't keep it. You believe a superficial and twisted passage written by Paul to sustain this belief.

Brasso
12-02-2011, 17:51
What is the name of your Church/denomination?

Does anything more need to be said?

LOL

rgregoryb
12-02-2011, 17:53
What is the name of your Church/denomination?

I've asked that of you quite a few times. Seems like a simple enough question no?

she isn't going to answer

Schabesbert
12-02-2011, 17:57
Here's the link to click on from post 27 Oh great Bert.

Guess what?

You avoided yet again what I asked, I asked for a pic of shephards in the fields in late Dec. at NIGHT. Your link is during the day when temps get up to 60 and is early Dec. not late...huge difference in winter time 3 weeks can make.

So Bert do I need to ask you where your instruction manual is for finding what I ask for?

Until you can do so everything you claim is rubbish!
You've got chutzpa, I'll give you that.

After having been shown that your claim about the Catholic Encyclopedia was taken utterly and completely out of context to the point that even the main-stream media would be too embarassed to print something like that, and after talking about not addressing everything, you simply blithely ignore THAT and ask for a picture of something in the wilderness at night.

Do you NEED a PICTURE of something to believe it? Would you even believe it then?

Here's an interesting article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/23/bethlehem-shepherds-dying-breed). It talks about how shepherds watching over their sheep at night are a dying breed. Why? Not because it isn't what they'd normally do, but because of things like military checkpoints, etc. No mention of your crazy beliefs. Quoting from the article:
In Bethlehem, shepherds watching their flocks by night are a dying breed
Jewish settlements, Israeli army checkpoints, closed military zones and the separation wall make them an increasing rarity


If an "angel of the Lord" were to appear in the sky over Bethlehem today, there would be scarcely any shepherds keeping watch over their flocks to witness the scene.


What day is "today?" The by-line of the story is Thursday 23 December 2010!


You're a stitch. You don't believe the Bible when it talks about Jacob watching sheep AT NIGHT DURING A FROST, OFTEN. Being completely oblivious as you are to actual physics, you intimate that that isn't as cold as Bethlehem which goes down to the 40s!!!! (Hint for anyone who is severely logic-impaired: frost doesn't form when it's above 40 degrees).

You don't believe eyewitness testimony that such things occur.

You don't believe historians who say such things occur.

Why should I think you'd believe a picture?

Schabesbert
12-02-2011, 18:20
Here's a good article:
The Date of Christ's Birth
Originally Published in the Bible League Quarterly
October/December 1965 (http://nabataea.net/birthdate.html)

Quoting:
'While shepherds watched their flocks by night'
Years ago, in large volumes entitled Picturesque Palestine, the much-traveled Canon H. B. Tristram (died 1906), who had made frequent visits to Palestine, wrote as follows (Vol. I, page 124):

"A little knoll of olive trees surrounding a group of ruins marks the traditional site of the angels' appearance to the shepherds, Migdol Eder, 'the tower of the flock'. But the place where the first 'Gloria in excelsis' was sung was probably further east, where the bare hills of the wilderness begin, and a large tract is claimed by the Bethlehemites as a common pasturage. Here the sheep would be too far off to be led into the town at night; and exposed to the attacks of wild beasts from the eastern ravines, where the wolf and the jackal still prowl, and where of old the yet more formidable lion and bear had their covert, they needed the shepherds' watchful care during the winter and spring months, when alone pasturage is to be found on these bleak uplands". (Italics supplied).

Here an authority of no mean standing tells us that in the dry summer season the hills are well-nigh bare, affording insufficient pasture, so the shepherds then normally keep their sheep near the town and enfold them at night. But when the winter rains fall, the hills become clothed with grass, and the shepherds, knowing this, take their sheep further a field. Then, because it would make the sheep walk too far to reach the folds every evening, expending energy needlessly, they simply watch their flocks in the fields all night. This seems to be precisely what the evangelist Luke describes:

"And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night" (Luke 2:8). The shepherds were not in the town; the flock was not in a fold in or near the town. They were afar in 'the field' or common pasturage. The sheep were taken there only in the winter, when the winter rains brought forth grass on the hills.

Another authority of the highest rank, Dr. Alfred Edersheim, who considers it likely that the angel appeared to the shepherds at the traditional site, states:

"This Migdol Eder was not the watchtower for the ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep-ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to the town" (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah 1:186).

He surveys (in Appendix VII) all the evidences he is aware of, and while he admits that 'absolute certainty' is impossible as to the exact date of the Nativity, he shows that the known 'factors do not really conflict with the December dating. "There is no adequate reason," he wrote, "for questioning the historical accuracy of this date. The objections generally made rest on grounds which seem to me historically untenable."

Readers of Scripture who possess first-hand knowledge, or have acquaintance with authoritative works on the climate of Palestine, recognize that the arguments against the December date, based upon wintry and snowy conditions, are untenable. The facts have long been known.

As far back as 1863, Smith's Bible Dictionary, under the heading 'Palestine: the Climate', explained the rarity of snow in southern Palestine, while it conceded its more frequent occurrence in the northern parts of the land. The mean temperature at Jerusalem during December is said to run around 47 to 60 degrees F.

It certainly would not hurt sheep to be out at night in that sort of temperature. The Dictionary further states:

"As in the time of our Saviour (Luke 12: 54), the rains come chiefly from the S. or S.W. They commence at the end of October or beginning of November, and continue with greater or less constancy till the end of February or middle of March, and occasionally, though rarely, to the end of April. It is not a heavy continuous rain, so much as a succession of severe showers or storms with intervening periods of fine bright weather, permitting the grain crops to grow and ripen. And although the season is not divided by any entire cessation of rain for a lengthened interval, as some represent, yet there appears to be a diminution in the fall for a few weeks in December and January, after which it begins again, and continues during February and till the conclusion of the season."

It may be noted that the traditional date .for the birth of Christ falls in this period of the diminution of rainfall toward the end of December.

The former rains would have produced grass on the hills, and the fine bright weather intervening between the rains, with temperatures averaging 55 degrees F. would be excellent for sheep grazing on the hills east of David's royal city.

Kingarthurhk
12-02-2011, 18:45
Did you know the Gospel of John doesn't contain the birth story of Jesus? Rather John focuses on the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. Perhaps that is a good point to reflect on here.

Kingarthurhk
12-02-2011, 19:28
More faulty assumptions. Paul really is hard to understand. Remember that, please?

He does a much better job than i can, so:

http://www.wildbranch.org/teachings/lessons/lesson61.html

Surely you realize, that with the exception of the Sabbath Day, everything you believe came right out of the pits of pagan Rome and the RCC? Have you read what these "holy" fathers wrote? How can you follow them?

What did Daniel prophecy? Who changed the appointed times? It was more than just the Sabbath Day. Who wore down the saints?

What faulty assumption? Rather it points out that simply claiming to be a child of Abraham is not an automatic free pass to heaven. John the Baptist was rather blunt on this subject. That the Law does not save, but faith in Jesus is salvation. This does not negate the law, rather it underscores the arrogant attitude of Exodus 19:8. He points out the legalism is not the true heir of Abraham, but of the illegitimate son Ishmael.

Relying of the circumcision of your flesh and your works is the point of passage. This would also include the behavior of speaking with harsh words those that will not follow feasts fufilled in Christ. When you lose your focus on Christ you have nothing other than what Paul describes.

Paul is adamant also about maintaining our freedom in Christ.

Galatians 5:1-6, "<SUP>1</SUP> It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
<SUP id=en-NIV-29165 class=versenum>2</SUP> Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. <SUP id=en-NIV-29166 class=versenum>3</SUP> Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. <SUP id=en-NIV-29167 class=versenum>4</SUP> You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. <SUP id=en-NIV-29168 class=versenum>5</SUP> For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. <SUP id=en-NIV-29169 class=versenum>6</SUP> For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

Brasso
12-02-2011, 21:02
I know it's hard to wrap your mind around the ideas of salvation and sanctification, but try. Why do you think Abraham was given circumcision? He is the father of the faith. By your assumptions there was no reason to give him circumcision. He already had a relationship with God. He was already promised because of his faith. Why circimcision? And since circumcision was given long before Sinai why would it be gone just because of a new covenant?

You do not know what you're talking about. You do not understand the passages you just posted. As I keep saying....

Paul really is hard to understand. And you don't understand him at ALL.

Kingarthurhk
12-02-2011, 21:26
I know it's hard to wrap your mind around the ideas of salvation and sanctification, but try. Why do you think Abraham was given circumcision? He is the father of the faith. By your assumptions there was no reason to give him circumcision. He already had a relationship with God. He was already promised because of his faith. Why circimcision? And since circumcision was given long before Sinai why would it be gone just because of a new covenant?

You do not know what you're talking about. You do not understand the passages you just posted. As I keep saying....

Paul really is hard to understand. And you don't understand him at ALL.

Saying a thing and proving a thing are two different elements and aspects. I have seen no evidence from you other than bitterness and anger. Is this the fruit that you bear? If so, from what tree does it come?

Animal Mother
12-02-2011, 21:39
Saying a thing and proving a thing are two different elements and aspects. I have seen no evidence from you other than bitterness and anger. Is this the fruit that you bear? If so, from what tree does it come? I find Brasso's behavior odd also. In another thread he claimed: I have asked people on this forum time and time again to show me how anything I've posted isn't in line with the Bible. So far.....nothing. Maybe you're brilliant mind can do better?
Which has caused me to pay closer attention to his postings, and it seems that a number of people have shown interpretations of scripture which would contradict his positions, yet he simply ignores those he dislikes or attacks the poster. This despite the fact that he has no more, and often less, evidence to support his position than those opposing him.

rgregoryb
12-02-2011, 21:41
Saying a thing and proving a thing are two different elements and aspects. I have seen no evidence from you other than bitterness and anger. Is this the fruit that you bear? If so, from what tree does it come?

Isn't a tree known by it's fruit?

He must be a condescending tree..............

Brasso
12-02-2011, 22:26
You're asking me to prove a negative. The Bible does not say to stop circumcision. Even that passage you posted isn't about circumcision itself. It's about conversion and using works of the law for justification. Not about the commandment of circumcision itself. You keep posting the same false interpretations. Never mind that what you post contradicts the word in other places, which is NOT possible while still being true. Mathew 5:17 says explicitly that not one letter of the Torah will ever pass till heaven and earth pass away. Yet you do it based on a couple of poorly interpreted, out of context passages by one person. If circumcision is a ticket to hell then why circumcize timothy?

You DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I can't prove a negative when it comes to the stupid assumptions you make. Either you believe the Bible or you don't.

This despite the fact that he has no more, and often less, evidence to support his position than those opposing him

Surely you are smarter than that.

Do I really need to go back a post the passages that command all these things that these people think are gone? I can. But I think they already know them. That's not the question. The question is do what they believe jive with the rest of the Bible. And it doesn't. It's about them coming up with man made non-sensical arguments. No wonder the Jews don't ever bother to try and teach people. It's an excericise in insanity.

rgregoryb
12-02-2011, 22:48
No wonder the Jews don't ever bother to try and teach people. It's an excericise in insanity.

maybe what they are trying to teach is insane.....................sound familiar?

Kingarthurhk
12-03-2011, 04:07
You're asking me to prove a negative. The Bible does not say to stop circumcision. Even that passage you posted isn't about circumcision itself. It's about conversion and using works of the law for justification. Not about the commandment of circumcision itself. You keep posting the same false interpretations. Never mind that what you post contradicts the word in other places, which is NOT possible while still being true. Mathew 5:17 says explicitly that not one letter of the Torah will ever pass till heaven and earth pass away. Yet you do it based on a couple of poorly interpreted, out of context passages by one person. If circumcision is a ticket to hell then why circumcize timothy?

You DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I can't prove a negative when it comes to the stupid assumptions you make. Either you believe the Bible or you don't.



Surely you are smarter than that.

Do I really need to go back a post the passages that command all these things that these people think are gone? I can. But I think they already know them. That's not the question. The question is do what they believe jive with the rest of the Bible. And it doesn't. It's about them coming up with man made non-sensical arguments. No wonder the Jews don't ever bother to try and teach people. It's an excericise in insanity.

Like most things that pointed toward Christ, it has evolved from an outward display to its Spiritual component.

Romans 2:28-29, "<SUP>28</SUP> A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. <SUP id=en-NIV-27992 class=versenum>29</SUP> No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God."

Brasso
12-03-2011, 08:35
Yes. And that in no way implies we should stop keeping the commandments. Sigh.

achysklic
12-03-2011, 12:10
What is the name of your Church/denomination?

I've asked that of you quite a few times. Seems like a simple enough question no?


I have answered this every time someone has asked and yet you all ignore my answer. Ironic huh!

It seems hard for you too grasp I am non-denominational. My church is the church that was in the wilderness, the church that Jesus is head of , found on the day of Pentecost( One of Gods Holy Days commanded to be kept forever. Ironic the NT test Church was founded on a day you protestants claim Jesus fulfilled and done away with....lol)

The church I belong too is the bride awaiting her marriage to the Bridesgroom on the sea of glass. He is the head of the church ...NO man is.

I understand many are called few are chosen...God sends out a calling, you are hearing that calling in this forum. If you accept it and repent and Obey God and keep His commands you will become on the the few chosen.

I am not going to continue wasting my time on those that ignore and reject Gods words. for those that are truely responding to the calling you can PM me anytime and I will help all I can. The rest of you I will continue daily to pray for your calling.

Have a blessed and Happy Sabbath all

Skykings2
12-06-2011, 17:03
If your easily offended brother or sister ,please beware

JOIN AMY AS SHE REPORTS ON THE FERTILITY FESTIVAL IN JAPAN, AND EXPOSES THE SAME IDOL WORSHIP GOING ON IN HOMES & CHURCHES TODAY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=GXVNHS6W_Ng&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXVNHS6W_Ng&feature=youtu.be)
Let's have a look at how our Creator feels about the popular
festival of Christmas, and the worship that it represents.
WARNING - SHOCKING SEXUAL MATERIAL.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=LklURcj4zOw&feature=mfu_in_<wbr>order&list=UL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LklURcj4zOw&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL)

I do not advocate that we pitch the scripture ,however there is truth in the reasoning behind it.

this is where the rubber meets the road{ no pun intended}:faint:

Skykings2
12-08-2011, 10:20
http://www.new2torah.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/charlie_brown_christmas.jpg

I have to admit this wasn’t my idea (http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=470). I found the cartoon, re-arranged some of the wording to make it more appropriate and more factual and include the Jer. 10:1-5 verse reference. I think its been a hit so far since it was first released on facebook. I’ve since seen it on friends feeds being shared by people I don’t even know.
Here you go. Copy the image and share it. Wake people up!
EDIT TO ADD: I’m getting a lot of email feedback from this. Mostly positive as so many people are waking up to these facts about Christmas and realize this pagan holiday in general was highjacked. You can’t take something that the Father calls profane and make it Holy. It’s not in our power to do that. We ourselves are profane, how are we going to take a pagan day and make it a Holy day especially when he has already anointed certain Holy days. We should go back and learn them.
http://www.new2torah.com/2011/12/thats-what-christmas-is-all-about-charlie-brown/

Schabesbert
12-08-2011, 10:30
http://www.new2torah.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/charlie_brown_christmas.jpg

I have to admit this wasn’t my idea (http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=470). I found the cartoon, re-arranged some of the wording to make it more appropriate and more factual and include the Jer. 10:1-5 verse reference. I think its been a hit so far since it was first released on facebook. I’ve since seen it on friends feeds being shared by people I don’t even know.
Here you go. Copy the image and share it. Wake people up!
EDIT TO ADD: I’m getting a lot of email feedback from this. Mostly positive as so many people are waking up to these facts about Christmas and realize this pagan holiday in general was highjacked. You can’t take something that the Father calls profane and make it Holy. It’s not in our power to do that. We ourselves are profane, how are we going to take a pagan day and make it a Holy day especially when he has already anointed certain Holy days. We should go back and learn them.
http://www.new2torah.com/2011/12/thats-what-christmas-is-all-about-charlie-brown/
I'm always amazed how people can blithely ignore facts in favor of "pseudo-knowledge". This post is a great example. It's become a popular myth that Christmas was chosen to be Dec 25th based on pagan beliefs, and it's a popular fallacy that, based on this false premise, celebrating Christmas is somehow worshiping a false god.

Given that this thread, and an associated one, presents strong, nearly incontrovertible evidence that the early Church chose that date without any consideration at all toward (or against) paganism, it is decidedly dishonest to push the idea shown in this cartoon.

December 25th may not be the date of Christ's birth, but:
a) the Early Church selected that day based on pious, plausible reasoning
b) it is a day chosen to glorify Jesus, and the incarnation of God, not for any sinister reason

Skykings2
12-08-2011, 10:47
When Christians Banned Christmas (http://missionarytoamerica.wordpress.com/articles/when-christians-banned-christmas/)

Schabesbert
12-08-2011, 12:04
When Christians Banned Christmas (http://missionarytoamerica.wordpress.com/articles/when-christians-banned-christmas/)
Yes. The Puritans held some mistaken notions about Christianity. They even believed in socialism. Is there some point in this?

Brasso
12-08-2011, 13:08
It had nothing to do with paganism. Just forget that that date is the birthdate of the sun god. Forget about Satrnalia. Forget that most Romans celebrated these days. Forget that the Christmas tree is a pagan fertility symbol. Forget that the wreaths represented the womb and the tree was a fallic symebol. Forget that mistletoe represented the male reproductive glands. Forget that the tradition of putting presents under the tree came from bowing to the tree. Forget all of that. They're all coinky-dinks. Nothing to see here. Forget that the Bible places His birth during the time of Tabernacles or Chanukah. The light of the world born during the festival of lights. A Feast Day given to us by YHWH.

Forget ALL of that. It's all myth. Trust the Roman Catholic church. Dec. 25th was picked purely by coincidence.

Schabesbert
12-08-2011, 13:53
It had nothing to do with paganism. Just forget that that date is the birthdate of the sun god. Forget about Satrnalia. Forget that most Romans celebrated these days. Forget that the Christmas tree is a pagan fertility symbol. Forget that the wreaths represented the womb and the tree was a fallic symebol. Forget that mistletoe represented the male reproductive glands. Forget that the tradition of putting presents under the tree came from bowing to the tree. Forget all of that. They're all coinky-dinks. Nothing to see here. Forget that the Bible places His birth during the time of Tabernacles or Chanukah. The light of the world born during the festival of lights. A Feast Day given to us by YHWH.

Forget ALL of that. It's all myth. Trust the Roman Catholic church. Dec. 25th was picked purely by coincidence.
OK, I'll forget that you're not telling the truth about the things above (at least the things that the Church endorses; I don't know why you want to lump in secular things that have nothing to do with the Church's feast day). For your sake. Since I have posted information showing that much of what you've listed above is untrue.

Because if I took it to mean that you were asserting these things after being shown that they WERE untrue, then I'd need to conclude that you have no regard whatever for the truth, and that your claim to follow Christ was also untrue.