Ajankohtainen ilmoitus

EclipsE kirjoitti:

Shalom alekhem; hyvää ja siunattua joulunaikaa.

Jeesuksen syntymä neitseestä, ja toisena Adamina tulemisen juhlahan tämä joulu on.

Nimittäin, kun aikoinaan Adam syntyi myös
neitseellisestä maasta ja hengestä. (Maa edustaa mikrokosmoksessa lihaa, mikä on vastaavuus makrokosmoksen "maalle" josta on kaikki liha luotu.)
Jumala puhalsi neitseellisestä maasta muokattuun golemniin, hengen, jolloin tuosta tuli elävä, eli Adam.
Mutta hän lankesi, joten siksi tarvittiin Lunastaja.

Siten tuli Yeshua Messias, Jeesus Kristus, joka sovitti ja päivitti lain täydellisyyden tasolle. Kirjaimesta henkiseen, kun hän tuli toisena Adamina. Joka häneen uskoo, on löytänyt Tien, Totuuden ja Elämän.
Myöskin hän syntyi neitseestä, kuten edeltäjänsä.
Joskaan ei neitseellisestä makrokosmoksesta kuten Adam, vaan neitseellisestä mikrokosmoksesta.
Kuolimme lankeemuksessa, tämä mitä nyt kutsumme "elämäksi" onkin kuolemaa!
(Kuolema on jaettavissa femiiniseen ja maskuliiniseen)
Tämä "elämä" on "kuoleman varjon maa" ja kuoleminen on itse "kuoleman enkeli"
Siten todellinen elämä on ikuinen, täydellinen.

Kristuksen synnyn aikoihin, tuon valitun kansan ja pakanoiden pelastajan aikoihin, oli juutalaisten saturnus ja pakanoiden jupiter konjunktiossa. Joka sai liikkeelle Zarahustralaiset, joista eräät uskovat suuren pelastajan, ja viimeisen ajan käynnistäjän nousevan Abrahamista.
Ja miten oikeassa nämä itämaan viisaina tunnetut miehet olivatkaan..


Lisäksi lahjoitain jokaiselle jouluista mietittävää, joka on ikävä kyllä tällä hetkellä saatavissa vain englanniksi.

(Itse en ota suuntaan tai toiseen kantaa ko. tekstiin, mutta te voitte kyllä. Nimittäin minulle on sama vietetäänkö nyt siirettyjä Vapahtajan synttäreitä, vaiko päivälleen olevia.)

"Sometimes it takes years to either learn or unlearn something. Most
Christians, even though they observe the birth of Jesus on December 25th,
nevertheless have been taught and have thus believed that Jesus was not born
"on or anywhere near December 25th." Most just take that statement for
granted. After all, the shepherds "would not keep their sheep out in the
cold weather" we are told.
I wonder if anyone ever stopped to think about just where the sheep went to
the 'restroom'? Just because the winter would be colder than the summer does
not mean that the sheep would not be out in the fields some nights. The
below information also addresses this question. The shepherds were probably
poor.
Many have thought that Jesus was born on the Feast of Trumpets in the Fall
or at the Feast of Tabernacles, also in the Fall. However, it is strange
that the Gospel writers would not have mentioned that. Besides, those Feasts
had to be kept in Jerusalem and Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem. Even
though the distance is not great, it is for traveling daily to a Feast site
a few miles away and returning to Bethlehem in those days. Donkey's went
kind of slow.
The scriptures only indicate it was to fulfill the registration for the
census that they traveled at all.
Personally I take exception to those who are ignorant of this subject and
hence relegate the birth of Jesus to some day other than December 25th. That
is the the Darkest time of the year, if not The day of the greatest darkness
re how long the nights are. What a contrast to have the "Light of the World"
born at that time!!
The scholars quoted below lend strong support to Jesus being born on
December 25th. As a general rule, those who were closest to the event and
had access to the census records are more credible than our current day
"scholars."
Also, notice this historical information: Quoted from "Secrets of Time"
"The Gospel writers use two different terms for the baby Jesus in telling
the stories surrounding his birth. The Greek words used to describe Him are
brephos and paidion. When the shepherds came to Jesus the same night that He
was born, Luke says He was a brephos, an infant "babe" (Luke 2:16). When the
Magi came and they found a paidion (Matt. 2:9). Many have argued that the
difference between these two words is the difference between an infant and a
toddler. This, along with the fact that Herod ordered all the children of
Bethlehem who were two years old or less to be killed, leads people to
believe that Jesus was about two years old when the Magi arrived. However,
we should be careful not to try to read too much into these words.
The shepherds, after seeing Jesus, told everyone about the paidion (KJV
'child') that they had seen (Luke 2:17). But this does not necessarily mean
that Jesus was a two-year-old toddler. When Jesus was circumcised on the
eighth day, Luke describes Him at that time as a paidion (Luke 2:21). It is
therefore apparent that the Greek word paidion could be used to describe a
baby who was just eight days old."---end of quote
Again, in case you missed this notice that in 2 verses in Luke, chapter
2:16,17 that the first word used for "babe" was brephos and that in the very
next verse that the shepherds "when they had seen it, they made known the
saying that was told them concerning this "child"--the Greek word is paidon.
It is clear from the immediacy of this context that there was no time delay.
The shepherds saw the babe (brephos) in verse 16 and immediately went and
told what they had heard concerning the child (paidon.)
Thus the argument that the wise men came much later to see the "paidon"
just is not accurate and is based on false understanding of the Greek words
involved.
Why is this important? Because Herod tried to kill Jesus as soon as He was b
orn!!
Notice this story flow.
Herod sent the Magi to Bethlehem to find the King they sought (Matt. 2:8).
Matthew certainly would have told us if they had found Jesus in another
city, after Herod had told them to go to Bethlehem. The baby was born in
Bethlehem and that is where the scripture says that the Magi saw Him. Also,
from the overview of this story it is evident that Mary and Joseph would not
have been in Bethlehem for a very long time because Herod was actively
looking for the child. It is therefore evident that the child had just been
born when the Magi came to see him in Bethlehem. After all, the timing of
God is exact and He had led the Magi to this point and time in history. Do
you think God would have caused them to be late??
Thus, it appears that they arrived on December 25, to present the Messiah
with their gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. This appears to be the
origin of the tradition of giving gifts on December 25th.
Here is WHY the December 25th date is the birth date: This quote again is
from "Secrets of Time"
" The Greek Orthodox Church has long commemorated the Slaughter of
the Bethlehem Innocents on December 29. The Church of England commemorates
the day on December 28. They are probably very close to the truth of the
matter." end of quote
This historical evidence coincides EXACTLY with a birth on December 25th
since Herod did not give the order for execution of the infants until after
he had sent the Magi to Bethlehem!!!! He wanted to give them time to report
back to him. When he found out he had been deceived he then ordered the
execution, just days after the birth.
The slaughter of these infants just a 3-4 days after the time Herod had sent
the Magi to Bethlehem is very strong evidence that the Birth of Jesus was
indeed on December 25th!!
It is my opinion that the cults and Satan himself have caused ridicule and
doubt about this important date. Why is it so important regarding the exact
day of the birth of Jesus?
Here is why:
Luke 2:11 says this:
"For unto you is born THIS DAY in the city of David a Savior, which is
Christ the Lord!!" Clearly the scriptures emphasize "this day."
The so-called arguments about shepherds not having sheep in the field at
night in December is the biggest lie that has ever been told about the Birth
of Jesus.
Here is additional historical information:
A noted advocate of the December 25th date was John Chrysostom (c. 347-407),
a humble and caring man, perhaps best known for his writings on the Bible
and
the Christian faith. He was also an eloquent preacher in the city of
Constantinople, where his sermons became a stronger attraction for people
than the
shows of the amphitheater. Through his ministry many souls came to
Christ-from
among heretics, pagans, and Jews.

He was not without his enemies, however, and suffered times of persecution,
including his church being burned down. Ultimately the Emperor Arcadius
ordered his banishment to an inhospitable region, the desert of Pityos. But
while
being taken there, Chrysostom died in his 60th year. It is reported that
with
his last words he was praising the Lord!
Chrysostom claimed the December 25th date was supported by the actual
census/tax records of the Holy Family when they registered in Bethlehem. We
have no
way to prove if those records were still in existence, or were authentic,
but
Chrysostom was not the only one who referred to them.

Justin Martyr (100-165), in his noted Apology-a detailed explanation of the
Christian faith addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius-stated that Jesus
was
born at Bethlehem ''as you can ascertain also from the registers of the
taxing" (Apol. I, 34).

Tertullian (160-250) spoke of "the census of Augustus-that most faithful
witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome" (Against
Marcion,
Bk. 4, 7).

When Cyril of Jerusalem (348- 386) asked Julius to assign the true date of
Christ's birth "from census documents brought by Titus to Rome," Julius
assigned
December 25th.

Chrysostom taught that it was on the day of Atonement that Zacharias
received
the angelic announcement that he would have a son. This would place the
conception of John in late September, and so the conception of Christ (which
was
six months later) in March, leading to a December birth!

According to rabbinical tradition, when the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.,
the priestly course of Jehoiarib was serving. If the order of priestly
service
was unbroken through all those 70 years, it has been calculated that the
course of Abijah, to which Zacharias belonged, would have been serving
during the
first week of October. This would be only slightly later than Chrysostom's
position, but one which would still allow for Christ's conception to have
been in
March and his birth in December.

It should be carefully noted, however, that numerous arguments have been
based on when Zacharias served. None are conclusive, since all must assume
certain
things:
Did the priestly courses start at the beginning of each year, or did they
function as a continuous week by week cycle? Was this cycle interrupted
during
the annual feasts? Did all priests serve then, with the order of courses
continuing thereafter? When the Jews added a month, every three years or so
(to bring
their lunar calendar into alignment with the solar year), how did this
affect
the timing of the courses? Did they always follow a totally uniform and
unchanging policy from generation to generation, or were there variables?
Our
purpose here is not to argue for one date over another, so we need not get
hung up
on details.

THE CHRIST FROM BIRTH
There was a sect, the Gnostics, who believed Jesus of Nazareth became the
"Christ" at his baptism, that this was when God was "manifested" in the
flesh.
Eventually, through the influence of Valentinus, January 6 was set aside to
honor this event, called "Epiphany" (from the Greek epiphaneia, meaning
manifestation).

There were others who began to observe Epiphany
on this date also, but they believed (correctly) that Jesus was the Christ
from his birth. However, since Jesus' baptism occurred on or near the
anniversary of his birth (Lk. 3:23), it seemed more fitting for them to
observe January
6th in honor of his birth. This may have even served to counter the false
teaching of the Gnostics, emphasizing by this observance, that he had an
actual
birth as the Christ. If so, setting aside a day to honor his birth did not
stem
from some ulterior motive. The Armenian Church still observes January 6th.

Was there a feasible basis for January 6th as the date of Christ's birth,
and
subsequent baptism 30 years later on this date? Was this based on some
then-extant records? I don't know. Centuries ago there were disputes as to
whether
January 6th or December 25th was the correct date, with large groups of
people
favoring one or the other. But in either case, these two dates only a few
days
apart are both in winter!

Would winter be a feasible time for the baptism of Jesus? I know of no
reason
why not at least the winter weather would not have interfered. The very low
elevation of the Jordan where Jesus was baptized-near the Dead Sea, which is
the lowest spot on earth-enjoys a very mild winter climate.
What about travel for Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem in winter?
It is very possible they would have chosen the route through the Jordan
Valley.
If so, a large percentage of the trip would have been below sea level, thus
providing protection from cold weather, even in December. (The Jordan Valley
runs between the Sea of Galilee at 689 feet below sea level, to the Dead Sea
at
1,306 feet below sea level.)

Would winter have been the time for people like Joseph and Mary to be taxed?
It must have been in winter, for only then was field labor suspended!
Shepherds in the field at winter, yes. It has been often stated that
shepherds in
that, part of the world did not abide in the field during the middle of
winter,
that by October 15th they would have brought their flocks home-thus ruling
out
December as the time of Christ's birth. But this is far from conclusive.
There
may have been exceptions. That some shepherds did face cold weather may be
seen in Jacob's complaint to Laban, that he had suffered from frost by night
(Gen. 31:40).

In his highly regarded and scholarly volumes, The Life and Times of Jesus
the
Messiah, Alfred Edersheim says about December 25th: "There is no adequate
reason for questioning the historical accuracy of this date. The objections
generally made rest on grounds, which seem to me historically untenable."
Though
various writers have quoted Lightfoot about flocks not lying out during the
winter months, this was not true of all flocks. He cites ancient Jewish
sources to
the effect that there are flocks that "remain in the open alike in the
hottest days and in the rainy season i.e. all the year round" (The Life and
Times of
Jesus the Messiah, Bk.2, p.186),

When Luke mentioned shepherds abiding in the field, did he seek to convey
what time of year it was, was not or might these words suggest something
different: that these shepherds were very poor, living in the field with
their flock?
They may have been without shelter for their flock or houses for themselves
regardless of what season it was.

It is very possible they were this poor. If so, there is a beautiful
contrast
between the shepherds and the wise men who were, apparently, very rich. Both
groups came to worship Jesus while he was an infant, a lovely example of how
the message of Christ is for all people, rich or poor.
Therfore we have strong historical and biblical evidence that December 25 is
THE correct day that a Savior was born on."

kirjoitti:

Anonyymi

Kirjoita kommentti

5000

Lähetä