Thursday, December 25, 2025

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...."

                       The Annunciation Painting at PaintingValley.com | Explore collection of The Annunciation Painting


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."


The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and ...

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"





Wednesday, December 24, 2025

Merry Christmas!!!!!!!

 

Beware of Nimrod's Testicles, Satan's Snake and Santa!


NOTE: It's that time of year again in Church of God land and the anti-Christmas crowd is spewing its hilarious venom.  Bob Thiel has doubled down on his yearly childish melt-down.

So, it's time for a rerun:


As Christmas approaches, the Armstrongism crowd is out in full force, frothing at the mouth and spewing their annual tirade about how utterly demonic the holiday is.

Classic Armstrongite rants are designed purely to belittle anyone who dares celebrate Christmas:

Christmas trees symbolize Nimrod sprouting from his grave:




Nimrod, the mighty hunter against God!!! (Because apparently he was the original rebel without a cause.) He married his own mother, got himself killed, and—poof!—an evergreen tree miraculously sprouted from his grave. 

VoilĂ , the world's first Christmas tree. How festive.



Got angels on your tree? Congratulations, you're dangling dead babies in honor of Nimrod!

Nimrod was depicted as a baby (naturally), alongside the pine tree representing his reborn self. Babies were allegedly burned alive as offerings to him. So those cute little angel ornaments? They're supposedly murdered infants. Charming.


Tinsel on the tree? Oh honey, you're literally draping Satan's snake all over it.

Those shiny strings of tinsel symbolize the serpent/Satan slithering around. (And knowing Armstrongites' bizarre obsession with sexual innuendo, I won't even speculate on what else that "snake" might imply. Use your imagination—it's probably worse.)



Hanging ball ornaments? Bold move—you're adorning your tree with Nimrod's testicles!

Legend has it Nimrod was chopped into pieces after death, and his... ahem... family jewels were never found. Hence, we hang balls on evergreens to commemorate the missing parts. (Nimrod must've had some seriously massive ones to inspire an entire global tradition.)


 Nimrod certainly had some big balls!

Dare to plop your kid on Santa's lap?

Back in the day, they supposedly fed babies into fires to celebrate Nimrod's birthday. Angels = dead babies, red suit = fire (obviously). So putting your child on a jolly fat man's lap in red is basically ritually passing them through the flames. 

And Santa? Just an anagram for Satan. Mind. Blown.




The hilarious irony? When these Armstrongites unleash this avalanche of unhinged nonsense, they somehow think it's "witnessing" for their god. Newsflash: it converts exactly zero people. It just repels everyone and makes them look like conspiracy theorists who flunked history class. They're not drawing anyone closer to Jesus Christ—they're just embarrassing themselves spectacularly.

But hey, maybe that's par for the course in Armstrongism? After all, who needs facts when you've got Nimrod's imaginary gonads to rally around? Merry Christmas, folks—may your trees be ball-free and your holidays blissfully snake-less.



Dave Pack Newsflash: The Kingdom Comes on December 29, 2025 (Tevet 10)


Newsflash: The Kingdom Comes on December 29, 2025 (Tevet 10)

David C. Pack of The Restored Church of God dropped December 5 and 19 like hot potatoes when he post-retroactively touted Tevet 10 as the real day that cannot tarry that he had been stewing on for a year.

During “The Greatest Untold Story! (Part 612)” on December 13, 2025, the Pastor General hinted that Tevet 10 had been on his mind for twelve months, but he uncharacteristically kept his mouth shut about it. The following week, during Part 613, he unleashed “only about half” of the proofs proving the Father will bring the Kingdom to Israel at sunset in Jerusalem on December 29, 2025.

The present truth of Tevet 10’s significance is so convincing that Dave held up three single-spaced legal-sized pages that contained over 100 proofs he did not have to the time to go through.


Part 612 – December 13, 2025
@ 13:46
 And I'm really not gonna talk about it today. But I added and added and added to this list of things, single-spaced, things that related to this day. And it's almost infinitely more important than we ever realize. There's a there's 64 things on one page. Here's another 40-some and more. And I kept adding to it for now a year and three days. I waited to see if it would mature.

More like Dave waited to see his other doctrines fail due to the sheer pressure of time.

@ 14:21 So I'm today planting a seed. I hope it's THE seed of what might be. This year, Tevet 10 is December 29th.

December 29 is only a few days away, folks. Please plan accordingly.

@ 45:44 I've never heard anybody, for regardless of what Tevet 10 means …ever talk about a day that has a name that's to be engraved in our minds and is written five times in the Bible, and it's Tevet 10. Nobody. Took me a long time to figure out what I thought I was seeing.

Dave has not figured anything out. But that did not stop him from donning his Inspector Clouseau garb during Part 613 on December 20. His timidity was peppered throughout the two-hour message.

Part 613 – December 20, 2025
@ 01:02 My task is to be God's detective. His, well, shall we say, private investigator. And, I I think I've been trained enough by this time in such things to hopefully get it right.

David C. Pack is a blaspheming, hypocritical liar, false apostle, false teacher, and false prophet. He will never "get it right." That is, unless the coincidences keep stacking up.

@ 25:59 The month of Tevet began in Jerusalem at about 9:30 this morning. So, is it a coincidence that I'm talking about it right as we're coming into this date at the end of 614 sermons and ten years and three months length?

It is not a coincidence that he planned and prepared to speak about a date that was about to happen. This is not magic or a divine fiat. Dave made it happen.

Part 613 was a "greatest hits" of Dave's terrible traits: Pointless lists, non-coincidences, manufactured math, timid caveats carefully worded to avoid the responsibility of future failure, and putting the burden on the brethren to “prove” his nonsense.

The topper was his “my job” declaration, designed to remove accountability for when brethren have to avoid another round of New Year's Eve party invitations.

@ 1:39:37 My job is not to declare Tevet 10. My job is to declare the facts without bias. I've been wrong before. So if you if you're sitting out there, “Mr. Pack says Tevet 10,” well, you don't need to worry about it, because that's all you're counting on. You don't need to worry about salvation.

The most sinister part of Dave's tactic is the "If you don't believe me, you will not get salvation" play that he has used many times before.

@ 1:39:56 You’ve gotta you lock in. Now, if I'm wrong, then I'll come back [chuckles] and I'll tell you I'm wrong. There are other candidates out there beyond Tevet 10 that are that are, I'll I’ll just say, enticing.

Dave chuckled because he already knew he was wrong. But he is just playing the game. He sprinkled breadcrumbs for brethren who still bother to pay attention. The All-Believing Zealots ignore those flags.

I suspect the waffling wiggle room will fully manifest during Part 614 this Sabbath if there is not a preemptive, dream-crushing CAD email to soften the embarrassment of retiring all those single-spaced pages.

The last few sentences of his two-hour message had the intent of sounding confident, but screamed that Dave knew the brethren were not buying it.

@ 1:57:27 While you are probably certainly possibly totally convicted, consider one more time that you've heard a bit over half the case for Tevet 10. Some of the biggest and most powerful proofs of Tevet 10 I haven't even hinted at.

Please write in the comments if you have ever been “probably certainly possibly totally” about anything. Bonus points if it relates to a biblical doctrine.

With Tevet 10 looming on the horizon, here is one hilarious example of what passes for inspired, apostolic knowledge in The Restored Church of God.


@ 35:11 Now I want to take you to a certain formula. We're gonna put some verses together. I call it “A, You Know, It's Kinda in a in a Way, it's a Form of of Math, I Guess. Um. Is it Algebra?” You know, I've explained in the past, if A equals B and B equals C, then C equals A. A equals B and B equals C. They're the same thing. Then, C equals A. And you could keep going. If A equals B, B equals C, C equals D, D equals E, E equals F. Then, F equals A.

Prepare for nothing prophetic to happen on December 29 and for David C. Pack to dissolve that doctrine before the date comes. Tevet 10 will be his 138th failure since August 30, 2013.


Mark Cebrian

See: News Flash: The Kingdom Comes on December 29, 2025