This was sent in by a credible source.
Six-pack Gerry seems to have gotten off easy in his divorce settlement. Lil'Stevie won't have to compete with Vicki after his daddy dies and the organization transfers to his sweaty hands.
Thursday, December 25, 2025
The Incarnation and Our Restlessness
One of the profound concepts of Christian theology that Armstrongism tended to overlook, or even mock at times, is the concept of the incarnation, failing to realize that it was the divine response to a deep, universal human longing.
The Incarnation is the hypostatic union—the permanent, personal union of the divine nature and a human nature in the one person of Jesus Christ, "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." Jesus is thus truly God and truly man, one person with two natures.
At its core is the idea of a mystical longing—the creature's ache for the Creator, the finite reaching toward the infinite, humanity's innate desire for the divine. This isn't merely a Christian concept but a transcendent reality evident across cultures, religions, and eras. Philosophers, poets, and mystics have described it as an inner restlessness, a sense that earthly joys, achievements, and relationships ultimately fall short, leaving the soul yearning for something more eternal and fulfilling.
St. Augustine of Hippo articulated this most famously in his Confessions:
You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.
This restlessness arises because humans are created in God's image (imago Dei), imprinted with a capacity for the infinite that no finite thing can satisfy. It's a longing woven into our very being—a homesickness for the divine source from which we came.
For Christians, this universal ache finds its ultimate answer in the Incarnation: God becoming human in Jesus Christ. The baby in the manger is not just a sentimental image but the staggering fulfillment of that longing. The eternal Word "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), bridging the chasm between the infinite God and finite humanity. As theologians like Athanasius and Irenaeus emphasized, God took on our humanity to restore what was lost—to make us partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).
This is grace unimaginable: not a distant deity demanding we climb to the divine, but God descending to us in vulnerability and love. Born in a humble stable, among animals, to a young virgin and her faithful spouse, Jesus enters our world as one of us—experiencing hunger, joy, sorrow, and temptation—yet without sin. He does this, as the comment notes, "to show us how to love one another." The Incarnation reveals God's love as self-giving (kenosis, or emptying, as in Philippians 2:6-8), modeling perfect humility, compassion, and sacrifice. It teaches that true love isn't power imposed from above but presence shared in weakness.
The nativity scene powerfully symbolizes this. The shepherds—ordinary workers, many tiems the outcasts of society—represent humanity's humble longing answered first by angels' announcement of "good news of great joy." The Magi, wise seekers from afar, embody that cross-cultural yearning for truth, guided by a star to worship the King. Animals surround the manger, evoking Isaiah's peaceable kingdom where creation itself participates in redemption. Under a starry night, the infinite enters the finite, heaven touches earth.
In this child, the mystical longing is met with divine initiative. God doesn't wait for us to perfect our search; He comes to us, loves us into wholeness, and invites us to love as He loves. As we gaze on the manger today—especially on this Christmas Day—we're reminded that our restlessness has a resting place: in the God who became one of us.
Calculating the Date of the Messiah's Birth
Calculating the Date of the Messiah's Birth
For almost two millennia, Christians have celebrated the events of their Savior's life. To be clear, there are only two events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth which can be associated with a particular date on the calendar based on the scriptural evidence alone. They are his death just before Passover, and his resurrection which occurred on the following Sunday. Indeed, even in this instance, we find much to debate and haggle over! Moreover, Jesus himself only left instructions for his disciples to commemorate his death (the Eucharist). Even so, Christians have persisted in celebrating their Lord's birth, dedication, baptism, death, and resurrection.
There are a number of very good reasons for all of this. For Christians, the appearance and work of Jesus Christ is the most important occurrence in the history of humankind. For his disciples, his sacrifice for the sins of humankind means salvation and life. For them, his teachings and example underscore love, compassion, empathy, kindness, forgiveness, mercy, and peace. For Christians, Jesus is the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures - the culmination of God's plans for all of us. In short, Jesus is everything to his followers, and anything associated with him is worthy of celebration and remembrance.
That this impulse to celebrate their Messiah has been present from the beginning of the movement is beyond all question. Two of the Gospel accounts (Matthew and Luke) contain elaborate narratives associated with his birth. The Gospel of John celebrates Christ's existence prior to his human birth and Divine nature. Three of the Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) relate events surrounding his baptism, and all four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) have detailed accounts of the events surrounding his death and resurrection. In other words, the foundations for these celebrations of the life of Christ were laid by the authors of the canonical Gospels themselves!
We would also be remiss not to mention the fact that Christ himself said that he came to this earth to fulfill the Law and the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible! Indeed, the Gospels are literally full of passages from the Hebrew Bible which it is claimed that Jesus fulfilled. Moreover, in numerous of his epistles, Paul suggests that things in Torah pointed to Jesus Christ, and that he constituted the reality which they symbolically portrayed. And, finally, in the anonymously authored epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus is quite explicitly tied to the temple, priesthood, sacrificial system, and Sabbaths of the collection of writings known to us as the Old Testament.
Now, the rites of Baptism and the Eucharist are undoubtedly the oldest celebrations of the Christian Church (ekklesia). However, we know that the celebration of Christ's resurrection began almost immediately after that event. Indeed, in other posts on this blog, we have demonstrated that Christian worship on the first day of the week was well-entrenched by the conclusion of the First Century. Likewise, from the writings of a Christian Bishop named Hippolytus, we know that Christians had already begun giving serious consideration to fixing a date to celebrate Christ's birth.
According to the Biblical Archaeology Society, Hippolytus based his calculations on the widespread belief that God organized events throughout the cosmos to happen in conjunction with seasonal and celestial events. In this case, the calculation was that the date of Christ's conception had occurred on the vernal equinox of that year (March 25). Hence, nine months later would make December 25 the date of his birth! Moreover, as no one actually knew the precise date of Christ's birth by that time (early in the Third Century), the bishop's calculations seemed like a reasonable estimation to many within the Church (the Eastern Church made a similar calculation, but their starting point was in early April). At any rate, the date eventually caught on, and the rest is history.
Personally, I wish to make clear that I believe that it is completely appropriate to celebrate any and all of the events surrounding the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Moreover, I believe that Bishop Hippolytus of Rome's calculations regarding the date of Christ's birth were sincere and are fine (especially from the vantage point of longstanding tradition). Nevertheless, as I have already indicated here and elsewhere, I believe that Jesus was the fulfillment of Torah - including all things relative to the festivals which the ancient Israelites were commanded to keep.
Hence, while I agree with the presumption that God has organized significant events in "His" plans along a spiritual timeline, I now believe it is more likely that Christ's birth occurred sometime during the festival which portrayed him tabernacling in the flesh. The current celebrations are fine, and I participate in them. However, if we're taking an objective look at the available evidence, I would say that it is more likely that Jesus was born at the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles/Booths/Temporary Dwellings. Anyway, that's my two cents.
A Contextual Christmas Bible Study: From Insane to the Annunciation
“The accounts of Jesus’s birth haven’t ever been that influential in how people actually celebrate Christmas”
In Mark: Mary Would Have Said: "An Annunciation of What? By who? When?..I don't think so...."
To be fair, there doesn't seem to be any memory or celebration of Jesus birthdays years 1-30-ish in the New Testament. It's like they never even heard of it.
In Mark, which has no birth story of Jesus at all (and no resurrection story either) we just have Mary, who apparently knew nothing of or forgot everything about Jesus miraculous birth circumstances, and brothers coming down to Jerusalem to take Jesus home before he got himself into real trouble.
"Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat.
When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him away. “He’s out of his mind,” they said."
31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”
33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.
34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
Mark 3:20-21, 31-35
(Note: Apologetics can and are made for just who the "they" of the text is. Mary and Jesus brothers, or the crowd. In my mind and the mind of scholars, they are Mary and his brothers. No one doubts they came down to retrieve Jesus)
HOWEVER...
This embarrassing bit of scripture was removed by he authors of Matthew and Luke as the story evolved over time.
In Matthew 12 we have we have the same story but without the "for they thought he was insane" part.
Mary and Jesus' brothers just show up and wish to speak to him but why is not stated.
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
LUKE takes the clean up one step further yet.
Jesus Mother and Brothers merely try unsuccessfully to see Jesus. Jesus disavows them and does not find it necessary to even bother seeing them.
19 Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”
21 He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”
=======================
Paul only notes Jesus was born of a woman and a regular Jewish baby.
"But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law"
Galatians 4:4
Matthew and Luke had yet to written. In my mind and in the minds of other Church historians, the Birth Narratives of Jesus were inserted later in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. If excised from the texts we see, in their opinion, and stitched back together, they read just fine without the Birth Narratives.
Example from Matthew
Matthew 1:17
17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.
REMOVE THE BIRTH NARRATIVE FROM 1:18-2:23 and go right to
Matthew 3:1
3 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” 3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:
Flows just fine without the birth story.
==================
Some feel the Birth Narratives were inserted to oppose the rumors that Jesus was "born of fornication" try to show he was really born as a God-Man like the Caesars.
The Rumors
John 8:42
"We weren't born of fornication"
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/62763/meaning-of-the-jews-response-in-john-841
"Yeshua ben Panthera - Yeshua (Jesus) son of Panthera, Panthera is a Roman soldier, this is how Jesus is named in the Talmud. The Pharisees do not believe in a virgin conception of Jesus but call Mariam a whore among the Roman soldiers.
I believe that it is him they refer to as being born of fornication when the father to them was not know nor no proper registration of birth and father certificate which they the Pharisees would hold in the temple.
Commentaries hold the believe that they refer to the surrounding nations and their idoltery as to mean being born under fornication."
This is what the Pharisees penned down about Jesus;
Sanhedrin 106a, Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters."
Shabbat 104b it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men. "Jesus was a bastard born of adultery."
(Yebamoth 49b, p.324). "Mary was a whore: Jesus (Balaam) was an evil man." (Sanhedrin 106a &b, p.725). "Jesus was a magician and a fool. Mary was an adulteress". (Shabbath 104b, p.504).
I hold the believe that John 8.41, "We be not born of fornication", was in fact a slanted suggestion that the legitimacy of His birth was in question."
Raymond Brown’s book is great because it is the only full-length scholarly commentary on the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke.
For somebody who has grown up listening to the Christmas stories, or has made the effort to read the Gospel stories of Jesus’s birth in Matthew and Luke, but has questions about any of the particular things that are said, questions of historicity, all of that can be found in Brown’s book.
Not only is there detailed word-by-word explanation of what every single verse means, but there are also a number of helpful appendices that deal with specific issues that come up in the study of the infancy narratives. For example, the disagreements between Luke and Matthew in terms of Jesus’s genealogy.
“The accounts of Jesus’s birth haven’t ever been that influential in how people actually celebrate Christmas”
There’s also the question of the historicity of the census that Luke says was taken while Quirinius was Governor: Luke doesn’t quite seem to be getting his historical information correctly.
Also, the question of whether or not Jesus was born in Bethlehem and what the historical arguments for that are. They’re really not very good. Most biblical scholars believe that Jesus was born in Nazareth, in Galilee, and that he was later said to have been born in Bethlehem because that was where the Messiah was believed to have to come from.
But it all worked out and, over time, with tweaks and edits, Jesus became, theologically, "Fully God and Fully Man"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)