I knew this already, but Taylor Marshall explains it well here:
[start 3 min. in to get right to the point]
I knew this already, but Taylor Marshall explains it well here:
[start 3 min. in to get right to the point]
Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 12-21-2019 at 05:36 AM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Fake news. You will end up in hell for spreading it!
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Christians don't know what year he was born in, nevermind what day.
His death and resurrection is supposed to be more important than his birth, but Christians don't know what year that happened either, nevermind the day. So why would they be expected to know when he was born?
That's true.
The birthday of Jesus was chosen by the Catholic curch, but that's a long story to tell. Mankind don't know either the exact date or year of the birthday of Jesus.
And there was a calender reform in 1582 (from Julian calender to Gregorian calender).
And having a christmas tree isn't a religious rite, it's a traditional event.
This is correct.
I'm on a computer without sound, so I didn't watch the video of the opening post. I know that one argument against His birth being in December is that the shepherds were out grazing their flocks that night, and they wouldn't do that in the winter. But my region is remarkably similar to Israel, and grass grows here in December and January moreso than in summer or autumn. So that's not a valid argument. But there may be valid arguments against that time of year based on timing of political events.
I don't think that culture put much importance on birthdays. Maybe they would say, "I was born in the summer of the second year of King Herod Antipas." And that would be their birthday. (Correct me if you know otherwise.)
Romans 14:5-6a says, "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it." This passage was referring to treating the Sabbath as holy, but it could be applied to other "holy days" (holidays) as well. So it's fine to treat a specific day as special unto God, but it isn't the day itself that's important.
Though I don't expect the Jews put much emphasis on their birthdays, they definitely treated their genealogy as important, and Paul said not to fuss about that either (1 Timothy 1:4).
No, because He wasn't born spiritually dead and thus didn't need a spiritual birth. He was never spiritually born, as He has no beginning and existed as spirit before being physically conceived. He enables our spiritual births.
Also John the Baptist's spiritual birth was before his physical birth, which is interesting.
From Wikipedia:
Although the month and date of Jesus' birth are unknown, the church in the early fourth century fixed the date as December 25.[24][25][26] This corresponds to the date of the solstice on the Roman calendar.[27] Most Christians celebrate on December 25 in the Gregorian calendar, which has been adopted almost universally in the civil calendars used in countries throughout the world. However, some Eastern Christian Churches celebrate Christmas on December 25 of the older Julian calendar, which currently corresponds to a January date in the Gregorian calendar. For Christians, believing that God came into the world in the form of man to atone for the sins of humanity, rather than knowing Jesus' exact birth date, is considered to be the primary purpose in celebrating Christmas.[28][29][30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
So, yeah, fake news.
LSE 'splaining.
Last edited by valhalla; 12-21-2019 at 07:02 PM.
Long before Europe was invaded by Christians, the Germanic peoples celebrated winter solstice in honour of Odin - the Pagan God of wisdom, around the same date as Christmas. In Sweden we still refer to Christmas as "jul", the old Germanic word used by our pre-Christian ancestors. In many ways, Christmas appropriated off of jul. I'd like to wish everyone a merry Christmas, and especially, a good jul!
jesus couldn't breathe when he was born because he was born in the void
I think it recently came out that most historians believe the man actually existed in some form.
Too bad he didn't destroy the roman empire even if he had no intention of doing so.
Last edited by Grendel; 12-22-2019 at 02:15 AM. Reason: tfw to unintelligent too post
I agree that the winter solstice is the correct birth time for Christ, symbolically speaking. Because the birth of Christ is an example of enantiodromia when psychological darkness has reached its peak and is suddenly reversed and a new spirit of light is born.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I'm sure it is. We used to have real lighted candles in the christmas tree when I was a kid. Then at some point my parents went over to electric lights. But candles are so much better, the whole tree becomes a spiritual experience. I wish people would use candles still. I tried candles again last year, and it was even better than I remembered.
Isn't Christmas the celebration of light, with all decorations and lights? The point when light and dark meets?
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I know real candles on tree from stories only. My parents uses electric candles on a xmas tree since 1970s or even earlier. I had to decorate the tree as a kid and I noticed the lenght of the electric wires were limited while looking for appropriate branches to attach the candles.
We had a real candle at our Christmas crib, however.
Yeah, I think so.
Where his grave at yo~
・゚*✧ 𝓘 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶 𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒 𝓘 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒 ✧*:・゚
I water my Christmas trees with the Blood of Christ. It's what Santa Claus wants.
maybe it's about his spiritual birth
Nothing makes the Holidays more exciting than placing a number of open flames next to a wood structure made of kindling soaked in turpentine. Preferably in your living room.
Yeah, you should comply a few security rules, having burning candles in your home.
Leave them unattended only for very short periods of time.
Don't light the candles when the branches (of the xmas tree) are already twiggy.
Have wet blankets within reach. A bucket full of water can also be useful.
You know. Germans take security rules very serious.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
It's the airport that has the highest safety level worldwide, most likely, because there wasn't even even a minor security risc or incident for planes taking off or landing there.
At least the WiFi and cell phone networks are of high service quality.
Long story short: The delay happend because some architects wanted to build some fancy building while neglecting functionality to a greater extent.
Last edited by WinnieW; 12-23-2019 at 05:27 PM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
My GF, who is in menopause right now, is constantly feeling cold. But she fixes this, especially now with XMas, by casting youtube fireplace videos to the TV set, and she is no longer cold! If this isn't Mobilizing-Ti at work.... When I tell her it doesn't work like that, it's received as a PoLR hit ;-)
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I'm trying to fathom why it would be important to anyone that the birthday celebrated is factually accurate. Does it have any bearing on important things? Can't his birth be celebrated even if it's not on the exact anniversary of his arrival?
Reminds me of when my son was going to Sunday school and asked how tall Jesus was, so I asked grandpa (my dad), who, without blinking, said "about six three. He was tall." (Maybe conceiving of him as tall increased his importance? Dunno if there's actual knowledge about this.)
Actually, I was inspired to Google: most common estimates seem to be about 5'5.
My father has always told me that I was born at the same time of Jesus (as you do) - that he had to have been born during the Feast of Tabernacles - late September or early October - because apparently (in his view) this fulfils various Old Testament prophecies and/or parallels with New Testament themes.
This page makes two points:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Pa...Jesus_was_Born
However...in the New Testament, the Pharisees disparaged Jesus by saying "You are not yet fifty", which would imply he was in his late 40s when most Christians believe he was in 30s. Christians just have no idea whatsoever what decade, year, or day he was born on, or when he died - which is a significant reason for me doubting he even existed.
The Star of Bethlehem is said to have appeared in the sky before Jesus' birth...but nothing especially remarkable has been attested for that time period. (It is similar to how in the earliest versions of the gospels, there was said to have been a three hour eclipse in Jerusalem during Jesus' death - the gospels also record an earthquake and mass resurrections that are not attested anywhere else).
Regarding Jesus' appearance, the gospels say nothing apart from during supernatural events.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Jesus would probably have been average height, not particularly tall. "He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him." (Isaiah 53:2)
On another note, I heard that the blood on the Shroud of Turin (which I'm inclined to believe is legitimate, though it's not a big deal if it's not) is AB.
Clearly you haven't read the book of Matthew. He filled it with quotes from the Old Testament that Jesus fulfilled. The book of John has several also.
But just off the top of my head, prophecies clearly about the messiah that Jesus clearly fulfilled:
Micah 5:2 (a ruler will be born in Bethlehem "whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting") [compare Matthew 1:4-5 & John 7:42]
Isaiah 7:14 ("Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name [God with us].")
Isaiah 9:6-7 (a son will be born, called God, and have an eternal kingdom)
Isaiah 53:7 (was silent before His accusers)
Isaiah 53:8 (died)
Isaiah 53:9 (died beside criminals; had an expensive tomb)
You say it refers to the nation of Israel. I don't see how, but I won't argue that point. One of the things I learned in my recent classes is that prophecies didn't always apply to a single event. Sometimes they applied both to the time of the prophet and to the coming Messiah. Which also makes a lot of sense considering that events of the Old Testament are also used to point to the Messiah (such as the unblemished Passover lamb).
Abbie, I'd wager I'm more familiar with the Bible than you are. Most "prophecies" Matthew lists either can't be found in the Hebrew Bible, or refer to something completely different.
Let's start with Micah 5:2. Traditionally the passage has been interpreted by Jews to refer to David, in the sense that the Messiah's ancestry will have come from there. Matthew, in his characteristic misuse and misunderstanding of the Hebrew Bible, reads this as a Messianic prophecy, and so he has to make Jesus come from there. Thus we get the fantastic story about Herod trying to kill an infant, having Jesus' family flee to Egypt, and only after that relocating to Nazareth, where Jesus was apparently known to actually have been from. It should be noted that Luke does not have this story; instead, we get Jesus' birth happening during the time of Quirinius' governorship. It should be noted that Quirinius was instated by Rome after Herod Archelaus (the son of Herod the Great, and the brother of Antipater, who had been exiled by Caligula by this time) was deposed from his rule, so it's impossible for both stories to be true. Personally I'd go for the story without Zoroastrian astrologers following a moving star.
Edit: Apparently scholars tend to think Luke chapters 1-2 are late additions. Make of that what you like.
But fine, you might say, Matthew's story is clearly unreliable, but Luke also has an explanation of Jesus being born in Bethlehem, and it's possible to read Micah 5 as saying the Messiah will come from Bethlehem. Besides the fact that Luke's account of having everyone go to their hometown to register is plainly insane, Jesus doesn't appear to have fulfilled the rest of Micah 5, which has to do with the Messiah destroying his foes, and the Lord smiting a lot of people in anger. Also, who are the Assyrians who are supposed to have ravaged Judea after Jesus' death? When did Jesus deliver anyone from these Assyrians?
Isaiah 7:14 also doesn't refer to the Messiah. From Jews For Judaism:
---
“And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz, king of Judah, …that, Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah, king of Israel, son of Remaliah, went up to attack Jerusalem, but they were not able to conquer it. When word came to the house of David that Aram was encamped in Ephraim, the heart of the king and heart of the people trembled, as the trees of the forest tremble in the wind. Then the LORD said to Isaiah: Go out to meet Ahaz…,say to him: Take care, remain tranquil and do not fear; let not your courage fail before these two stumps of smoldering brands…who are saying, "Let us go up and tear Judah asunder, make it our own by force."
Thus says the LORD: This shall not stand, it shall not be! …Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz: Ask for a sign from the LORD, your God; let it be deep as the depths below, or high as the sky! But Ahaz answered, "I will not ask! I will not tempt the LORD!" Then he said: "Listen, O house of David! Is it not enough for you to weary men, must you also weary God? Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the young woman is with child, and will bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall be living on butter and honey until the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good. Before the child learns to reject the bad and choose the good, the land of those two kings whom you dread shall be deserted.”
In context, we understand that the King of Judah, Ahaz, is in mortal fear of two armies – Aram and the Kingdom of Israel who have attacked. In order to placate his fears, God through His prophet Isaiah, reassures him that he and his kingdom will be safe. The sign of this will be that a woman (obviously known to Ahaz) will bear a child. The essence of this sign was that within a few years (the time the child will be able to discern between good and evil), Ahaz would experience the salvation from Above and be spared. If this passage was predicting the birth of Jesus, who lived 700 years after Ahaz, it makes little sense for God to comfort the poor King with tidings of his birth.
---
I'd also like to add the obvious: Jesus was not named Immanuel.
On to Isaiah 9, which is an outright and intentional mistranslation of the Hebrew. It actually says "For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." This also makes a lot more sense than Isaiah spouting what would have been considered heresy; that is, that God would have been a human. No Jew would have considered such writing prophecy, and the book of Isaiah would not have survived to this day if that were what it said.
Furthermore, even if that's what was actually said, consider that A) there's no record of anyone anywhere in the Bible calling Jesus "the prince of peace"; the only people to do so were Christians. B) Jesus himself said "I came not to bring peace, but a sword." He was right: given the conflicts and atrocities that have been inspired by Christianity, "prince of peace" is certainly a misnomer.
Again, Isaiah 53 is referring to the nation of Israel, i.e. the Jews. The reason you don't understand that is that you're taught to not read the book as a whole. The "suffering servant" is explicitly identified with "Jacob" in Isaiah 44: "And now, hearken, Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen...." It's quite clear, reading from 44 onwards, who the "suffering servant" is; that is, the people of Israel. But that's not what Christians are taught to do. They're taught to quote passages out of context, and respond to criticism of this practice by saying "prophecies don't always refer to a single event", despite the fact that a few verses before or after the ones they quote generally disqualify them from referring to Jesus. You could just as easily fabricate prophecies from Harry Potter that Donald Trump would be elected President by selectively quoting verses and ignoring all context.
Edit: You mentioned " Which also makes a lot of sense considering that events of the Old Testament are also used to point to the Messiah (such as the unblemished Passover lamb)." What specifically do you think the Passover lamb has to do with Jesus?
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 12-24-2019 at 03:03 PM.
Let's just hope and pray that Christ will be born inside ourselves to light up the mental darkness, just as he was born in the darkest time of year to bring light to the world.
Last edited by Tallmo; 12-23-2019 at 05:59 PM.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
lol @ this thread
・゚*✧ 𝓘 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶 𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒 𝓘 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒 ✧*:・゚
I think we should worship and talk about our ancestors this much instead. You know, the people who did all the hard work to get us here, and not the guy who has no formal burial ground and sparked endless wars over nothing.
・゚*✧ 𝓘 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶 𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒 𝓘 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒 ✧*:・゚
Can anyone imagine this: It is the Apocalypse. Jesus is riding around on a white horse with the angels of destruction behind him. The world is destroyed and now we will be in the Eternal Kingdom if we followed the true Messiah, and the pit of fire and brimstone where the worm dieth not and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth if we were astray. It turns out the new Paradise is filled with nothing but people who run around arguing for Christianity like @Director Abbie, and all the people who did not follow a puritanical code like @flames are getting boiled by Satan. What are all the "good Christians" going to do now, debate nuances of theology for unending aeons incomprehensible to average mortals? Do laps around their mansions with Jesus, Jewish Zeus God, and Red Flame Dove and mix it up with angels? Whenever a self-proclaimed Christian's (or anyone else's) main hobby seems to be debating religion with nearly everyone they meet, they lose credibility in my eyes, because I can't imagine a Paradise full of people like that even beginning to work. Adding unlimited free tours of Hell with Virgil where you can gloat at all the people you once beat in an argument while demons roast them and poke pitchforks into their buttocks does not seem to make it work, either.
@FreelancePoliceman
1. Most of these are variations on standard Christian arguments that have existed nearly unchanged for millennia. The exact problem is that there are variations, but poetic arguments are important even solely within the Old Testament.
2. The Jews do seem exalted, incidentally, based on how much hate they get for their achievements and for things like founding Israel, and I think many want to rebuild the Temple. Also, I wouldn't use the term Holocaust unironically since the Nazis called it that in the belief they were sacrificing Jews to pagan gods, and many Christian's belief the Jews were being sacrificed to the Abrahamic God. Even if you believe all the Jews who died somehow deserved or needed to die it seems to have rather Antisemitic implications. Summarized, equating 1. the actual event (industrial mass murder) 2. the planned event (genocide of Jews) 3. a sacrifice to a god/s unironically is factually and ethically problematic in various ways. The way it's a problem is basically Borromean rings, where if you remove one it can't be the Holocaust but all three did not factually happen or the Nazis would have proved their Aryan god. Nazis deny the Holocaust on point 2. and people referring to the Shoah could technically be considered denying the Holocaust for that reason, but that will never be prosecuted luckily even if that's the term Jews and firsthand spectators who were not Nazis used for the event 1. which was not 2. because lack of 3.
Your mom was born Dec 25 because I banged your mom's mom March 27
I didn't watch the video by the way.
but Huh, it's 2020 "since jesus was born", and that means if jesus was born before that even before 300 years jesus will still be born in the same time it just will make difference to know the time since he was born, it doesn't make difference, it doesn't make sense to argue on that.