Isaiah 9:2-7 New International Version (NIV)
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of deep darkness
a light has dawned.
3 You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy;
they rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest,
as warriors rejoice
when dividing the plunder.
4 For as in the day of Midian’s defeat,
you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders,
the rod of their oppressor.
5 Every warrior’s boot used in battle
and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning,
will be fuel for the fire.
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of deep darkness
a light has dawned.
3 You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy;
they rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest,
as warriors rejoice
when dividing the plunder.
4 For as in the day of Midian’s defeat,
you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders,
the rod of their oppressor.
5 Every warrior’s boot used in battle
and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning,
will be fuel for the fire.
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.
Luke 2:1-14 The Message (MSG)
The Birth of Jesus
2 1-5 About that time Caesar Augustus ordered a census to be taken throughout the Empire. This was the first census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Everyone had to travel to his own ancestral hometown to be accounted for. So Joseph went from the Galilean town of Nazareth up to Bethlehem in Judah, David’s town, for the census. As a descendant of David, he had to go there. He went with Mary, his fiancée, who was pregnant.
6-7 While they were there, the time came for her to give birth. She gave birth to a son, her firstborn. She wrapped him in a blanket and laid him in a manger, because there was no room in the hostel.
An Event for Everyone
8-12 There were sheepherders camping in the neighborhood. They had set night watches over their sheep. Suddenly, God’s angel stood among them and God’s glory blazed around them. They were terrified. The angel said, “Don’t be afraid. I’m here to announce a great and joyful event that is meant for everybody, worldwide: A Savior has just been born in David’s town, a Savior who is Messiah and Master. This is what you’re to look for: a baby wrapped in a blanket and lying in a manger.”
13-14 At once the angel was joined by a huge angelic choir singing God’s praises:
Glory to God in the heavenly heights,
Peace to all men and women on earth who please him.
Peace to all men and women on earth who please him.
35 comments:
As I was reading this, on this blog, I kid you not, the exact scripture was being read at exactly the same time on the television. That! Was just awesome.
A Savior has been born to us. His name is Jesus. He is Lord. To this, we give God thanksgiving and praise.
Really now? This is an ancient myth that goes all the way back to at least Egyptian Horus and includes several other gods, included Mithra. It never happened. It's all a farce. The Catholics made it all up at the "or else" command of Constantine. How long will people continue to wallow in such ignorance?
12:38 AM, You may not celebrate Christmas, but for my family we WILL BE observing Christmas with all the love & family togetherness that this holiday holds. I don't give a hoot if it is of "pagan" origin or if the Catholic church invented it! People who are close-minded, intolerant bigots always want to take the fun out of life.
The story of Jesus as well as many mythical Gods is based on sun worship. Jesus is just the latest mythical sun-God.
Wow! 12:38 is a party pooper.
Dexter,
Christmas is like the biblical holy days. Both are of pagan origin adopted by ancient people and adopted to their religion.
Once again these pagan days have found a home among modern day man. No big deal seeing how there are no holy days of God. Those too are of pagan origin.
It is what people do. Adopt something from the past and assign it value to the present. Frankly I could give two shits what people do or think. Do what makes you happy.
The Church of God/Origins Dilemma
Growing up Presbyterian was great! Every Easter was a celebration of Spring and the Resurrection of Jesus complete with Bunnies and teary and deeply spiritual hymns. Christmas was a combo of the celebration of snow and winter (In NY) cookies, egg nog , goodies and deeply spiritual hymns about the birth of baby Jesus. In church plays of the times one could end up a Wiseman or if lucky, an angel! Great memories.
In time, and with growth, it was obvious there actually was no Easter Bunny or Santa but who cared. No one I knew. As adults the holidays shifted to the "meaning". Jesus was born in an amazing way and was the son of a God, no really... Jesus rose from the dead, literally and the rest is history.
Most Christians stop right there. Others go yet another step and ask questions about the stories. Are they literally true? Did it really happen? Do stars move and stop over stables? How could this be if that was? Why does Matthew so badly contradict Luke and Luke Matthew? You can't have both. Why are each Resurrection account so different from the others? There are many questions one can raise about the stories and they are good questions and can lead to the conclusion that these things did not actually happen. These things could not or did not happen that way? Or maybe the main character either was not as the texts grew him to be and in some cases, the main character may only be a literary construct of the Gospels and, more like Paul's Christ, was a heavenly being who lived, died and was raised in the heavens having been crucified not by the Romans, but by the Archons or "wicked spirits in high places" All fascinating, all possible, all confusing to the believer.
It's the stuff of argument, resentment towards others, name calling, labeling and generally unpleasant exchanges as the various levels of study or no study at all, rather simple faith in it all, clash.
Continue....
con't
Those attracted to the COGs were more those inclined to know the "truth" of all things and thus the hook could be set on a journey from the ocean of Christians who don't care about it and just enjoy their faith and upbringing to the boat where only the true fish get caught by the true fisherman. You know, called out fish who could ask each other "So..how did you come into the boat?" In the COG experience, and in hindsite, we can see that while sincere, the true fish simply get flayed, sautéed and are a tasty treat for the fisherman who actually turns out to be less than one having the best interests of the fish in mind. The crew on the boat either goes home or get their own boat and give it a go themselves. Some few are so confused by it all they jump into the sea, and not being fish, drown.
Those like myself, Alan and others are evidence based when it comes right down to it. "If you can't show it, you don't know it," comes to mind. I thought I could prove all things and show it, the "it" being the truth of WCG. I thought I did prove it. As I matured an knew what the Book said, the contradictions, the apologetic for those contradictions and how they might be less than pleasing, I had to face the story from my own way of understanding it. FOR ME, I found it not literally true, the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts of anything and don't agree on what each thought happened. I found that the Jesus of the Gospels, at least the birth and death stories of Jesus were based on OT scriptures and not history. I found out that Matthew copies 94% of Mark and Luke, 54% thus making them hardly eyewitness accounts. I learned that the names affixed to each Gospel were done so to originally anonmymous Gospels. What do you do with that? Ignore it? Pretend it isn't so?
What does the hopeful yet naïve Child in me, concerning religion, do with the fact that Paul never met Jesus nor does he quote him when it would really help his cause? What does one do with the less than "all one body we" conflicts between the Apostles who neither like each other or agree on what is truth? (Galatians) Yet Paul tells me all about the reason for Jesus, or Christ as he is wont to call him.
What does one do, if they care and I do, that without the Bible, no Jesus was known or talked much about in real history. Yes, I know all about the few obtuse comments about Jesus outside the Gospels. Few and obtuse they are for the one who, in the Gospels, was so well known. What does one do with the fact that no writers we know of well, alive at the time of Jesus etc, mentions him. What do we do with the fact that some references are inserted to give the story credibility and some of the books of the NT are outright forgeries? Yes they are...
Con't
con't
Add to all this many many more theological and historical problems with the text and "Houston, we got a problem" comes to mind.
Add as well, my own love of science, archaeology, paleontology, geology and cosmology all of which contradict the simple stores and myths of the Bible and the problem grows.
In my world, evolution is absolutely true and I can't imagine how others can't see it save for the fact that it crushes the literalism of the Bible. I understand how it makes them uncomfortable.Being faith based, which is the skill of hoping that what we believe is true, based on absolutely no verifiable evidence that it is true, is something I simply cannot live my life by. It's not fair to be told to just believe or as the book says, "He that comes to God MUST BELIEVE He is and the rewarder of those who diligently seek him." In WCG and now the splinters, that diligence is on display and sincerely so but in my view sincerely misguided and mistaken. (Not to mention the narcissists who have risen to the top to declare it all to the faithful). I am simply evidence based and cannot apologize for that. It is evidence based information that provides us with answers to our life questions, not faith based, Bronze and Iron Age ignorance.
Con't
con't
But, and too...there is our emotions and desire for things to be different than they actually are. I can listen to these hymns, and do. They stir every hope and good feeling I had as a kid. I get tears in my eyes. I find myself thinking, "I wish it was true..BUT……' I can't unring the bell of what I know. I can't unsee what I do see. I am evidence based.
So, each to their own obviously. IT can be no other way. Ask yourself, how many have said here on Banned EVER said, "thank you for that. I see what you are saying. I will change my mind"? LOL, never! We just express our views and wait for the fall out.
So much to say I guess and we all have our version of it based on our personalities, interests, open mindedness and fears or no fear.
To many, Christmas (Easter) Feast of Tabernacles (Passover) are the drivers of literal truth and are accepted as a part of a genuine faith. To others, the questions they raise about being literally true and factual are suspect.
Most here would are argue that science and religion are compatible. I say they are not, but I spare you and we can have that posting and argument another day.
So Merry Christmas, Xmas, Solstice to all. Some would quip, Merry Mithras. The point is, they can't help it. It is a function of where they are in their sincere desire to know the "truth" and the fact that being faith based vs evidence based is always going to cause a problem in discussing anything much less coming to any "present truth" which is a phrase Paul used wisely and most missed.
Sorry, the comment on the present truth is in 2 Peter 1:12 and was said by "Peter". However, most theologians agree that 2 Peter is too advanced and in too good a Greek to have been written by Peter the fisherman. It is a forgery written in the name of and as if Peter would have or could have said it. :) However the concept of "the PRESENT TRUTH" is safer than "The ALL TIME TRUTH forever and never questioned or updated by reality
Dennis - have you considered that our origins may not be evolution or as recorded in the Bible?
Life seems too complex to have evolved with all its different systems.
We also live in a 4 dimensional world, but science has theorized there may be 10 or more dimensions. If this theory is right - what is in the other dimensions?
Besides religion and evolution, we have theories about intelligent design, and that we are in a computer simulation.
Maybe we are not the first intelligent life on this planet. Maybe it dies out or maybe it evolved to a higher plane of existence, and is watching to see if we do the same or destroy ourselves.
8:44 said "the PRESENT TRUTH"
That was the name of Robert Brinsmead's magazine!
Brinsmead was the intellectual who felled the WCG!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Brinsmead
Dennis - have you considered that our origins may not be evolution or as recorded in the Bible?
Dennis just parrots what he reads in the "accepted" literature or watches on the "accepted" documentaries from the "accepted" sources. Dennis is not capable of truly independent thought. But even if he were, it wouldn't make a difference. His goal is just to get people away from Armstrongism. He doesn't really care if his alternative views are correct, as long as they get people away from Armstrongism. And the Bible.
TLA,
Excellent.
There is more to this world than we think. If a certain religious group never burned down the library of Alexandria, I wonder what we would find...
TLA
have considered it all and always will go where the evidence leads
TLA
Am home now at computer where I can post myself and not wait so this may be a duplicate when Gary posts my original comment to you.
I have considered all that. The idea of being a simulation is compelling depending. Parallel worlds and other dimensions are, of course, plausible and possible. No problem with an intelligent design but all we see also seems possible without it when considered. Higher planes can exist. There is room in good science for that. My disbelief comes I suppose with the limited Hebrew Mountain God, crazy priesthoods and the need to be worshipped by animal sacrifices and blood etc and all that goes with what seems to me to be a petty god and with a very suspect humanly devised fable to back it up. Somehow the 24 Elders or whoever in Revelation was sentenced to sing "Holy, Holy, Holy...." day and night forever I believe it says does not inspire. If "he that is greatest among you, let him be your servant" is good enough for humans, why not God? Instead we have something to be feared, adored, worshipped and propped up with praise and adoration. Almost creepy to me.
I will follow the evidence wherever it goes. All else is insanity.
But for NOW, the evidence points to our evolultion from ape ancestors with a touch of consciousness that came to the full when writing showed up etc. Long story. For now, all you speak of is possible I believe, but not yet proven to be so. But it sure is fascinating.
10:46, what do you mean, "accepted". And, by whom? Do you mean accepted by everyone who is not in an ACOG? Or, are you creating a generalization for the opinions of thousands of scientists or historians, many of whom in reality constantly challenge one another? Your neighbors? The teachers in your kids' school? The media? These are plainly not monolithic in their thinking and publications. Many of the issues presented by all are very much in play, and even controversial.
I find it hilarious when people who are still enmeshed in a philosophy accuse those who are not of being closed minded because they will no longer consider the materials presented by that philosophy. Once you prove that the philosophy's research methodology is flawed, that leaps were made, that context was ignored, that the research was based on someone starting with conclusions and then searching out proof texts from various sources to prove those conclusions, and that this goes back for decades, that tightly-controlled group would not be a reliable single-source for your information. In fact, you should never single source. We all need checks and balances to retain our objectivity.
When we speak of scientists, historians, the media, these are categories which describe a collection of basically independent researchers and free thinkers, not monoliths. There is some contamination introduced by people who are co-opted by those who fund their research, like oil company climate "scientists", as an example, but peer review over time eliminates the self-serving contamination which they introduce. We have regular anonymous posters here who actually believe that tin-foil resources are more reliable than serious individuals whose works have been rigorously peer reviewed.
We seem to get comments such as yours every time there is a "Dennis's Greatest Hits" post. I frequently disagree with Dennis and his conclusions, but the questions raised by him often track with those raised by what used to be called the higher critics (now called historical critics), and the textual critics. They give pause to ponder, and there will be a wide variety of conclusions on the part of various individual readers. The problem I see is that a group that expects you to single-source "truth" exclusively to them does not allow you to indulge in pondering. So the question becomes, who is really open minded, and who is closed minded? It is not a bad thing to be closed to obvious error.
BB
This is an ancient myth that goes all the way back to at least Egyptian Horus and includes several other gods, included Mithra.
"Few of us know that the Mithraic religion identified their saviour with Love. As in the gospels we read: God is love, so in Mithraic worship, or in at least one praise of Mithra, we find the same words: is Love; Mithra is love."
-- Ezra Pound radio Broadcast.
"Wow! 12:38 is a party pooper."
Not really. I still celebrate the solstice, but it's kind of bummer for the people "down under" to have all the northern hemisphere symbols while they're broiling in summer heat. I'm not as much of a sore head as you might think. I just think it would be best if everyone knew what they're really doing -- brightening an otherwise dreary part of the year for us "up north."
Thanks, Dennis, for laying it all out so well! You have a gift.
James. Didn't Rachel Weisz save some of that stuff?
Or at least Rachel did teach the later bishop of Lybia.(Irrenaus?)
Anyway I did not get to enjoy the new library due to a sunstroke. Had to stop my driver from taking me to El Alamein and drop me of at the fish market instead, before some tea in an old british colonial brothel, sparking todays worldwide wave of terrorism. (at least at one level of analysis). Ah well empires come and go. And tbe residu thereof is always an interesting amalgemate, the French, Christianity, globalism.
Nck
It is not a bad thing to be closed to obvious error.
Like some of your favourite sources which are proven liars.
"If a certain religious group never burned down the library of Alexandria, I wonder what we would find..."
More religious literature.
Like many other things, peer review is not what it's cracked up to be. Often all it does is keep alternative views out of journals for reasons of career politics and establishment agendas. It is also done hastily in most cases. Further, a lot can be hidden from the reviewer. Entire books could be written on how bad it really works. It's funny how people who know nothing about science are so easily deluded and gullible and ignorant and think they know how it works.
"rigorously peer reviewed"
Oxymoron alert.
“Favourite”? That paints you as a Lime. Aside from that, what else can I deduce from one of the many anonymous posters? I rarely cite sources, so how can you say they are proven liars? Many of the anonymous posters are obvious tin foil people and of low mentality. They are too embarrassed to even use a screen name! On the other hand, long term bloggers know what town I live in, what vehicles I drive, and pretty much what I look like.
BB
I rarely cite sources ...
Because you just make stuff up? Because they embarrass you?
No, doof. They’re real and authentic. Nobody reads them anyway. Their minds are already made up, kind of like yours is.
BB
No, doof. They’re real and authentic. Nobody reads them anyway. Their minds are already made up, kind of like yours is.
BB
Their minds are already made up, kind of like yours is.
And this is coming from the guy who says its good to be closed minded? Nice one.
Since you are not capable of logic the only way to keep from falling into another cult is to keep your mind closed. Too bad you don't realize how ignorant your current views are.
Higher planes, other dimensions, and parallel universes are not science but philosophy and metaphysics because they can't, even in principle, be proven by experiment. Believe it if you want to, but don't call it science. It is speculation and opinion, nothing more.
.... the evidence points to our evolultion from ape ancestors with a touch of consciousness that came to the full when writing showed up etc.
So, until people learn to write, they are barely conscious? Don't you need to be conscious to learn to write? You can't do it in your sleep. Were native Americans and Negros barely conscious before Europeans showed up and taught them to read?
I see you have a reading comprehension problem. At 1:14, I said “closed to obvious error”. Obvious error is what’s known as a qualifier. And of course I had all of your idiocy in mind when I used the phrase obvious error. You are probably our old pest the holocaust denier. Same style, same mentality.
BB
Man became conscious in conjunction with "speech".
In the bible this is recorded in typical fashion. "In the beginning was the "word".
All matter is formed and shaped by waves. And sound = waves.
Since you mention the black man. Rge black man became conscious through rap.
For those of an older generation, both rappers or dr martin luther king followed in the tradition of "the man of words", who are traditional leaders.
Also the poets of the bible, the odysee, gilgamesh and the quran ALL follow ORAL tradition, UNTIL the writers, accountants, scribes and attorneys messed man up completely. Pharisees were writers most probably, whereas jesus was a speaker.
I stopped attending jwtkach's church after the decision that the wtm tv program became scripted through teleprompter. It is no coincidence that a man with limited vocabulary sits n the white house without friends.
Nck
Post a Comment