Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Shamash View Post

    Why does the term "pagan" only extend to Rome and Greek? You do realize that Christianity adopts from these, such as Moses seeing only the backside of Yahweh, because a mortal cannot look at Yahweh. In Greek mythology Semele see's the bolts of Zeus and dies. Christianity fundamentally has its roots in Ancient Near Eastern occultism; even the Hittites are Indo-Euro, it's no coincidence that Moses can only see the backside of Yahweh. Also, the term "pagan" was an insult, and Christian's killed pagans.
    The reason the invisible God cant be seen is He is Spirit. Moses or any other can only see where God has been, His backside. He leaves a path in His wake.

    AW but when one does see Him as He is, ye shall be like Him 1 John 3, as Moses became, as Jesus became, as Adam became and we all become who has seen Him as He is. Want to know what that is we see? Simply Love. God is Love. The Spirit of and who we become.
    The human side is to claim the promises of God. The divine side is to receive them.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by A child of Christ View Post

      Are you saying I should enjoy the victory of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny?
      You? No....

      For the rest of us? We see beyond what you can only see. I was born a Jew. Yes, I saw Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Simply made no sense.
      But, along with them? I also saw the birth of Christ, and the death burial, and resurrection of Christ.

      It did not stop me from getting saved.

      But, people who think like you? They made me want to have nothing to do with what you present as Christianity. No grace. Legalism.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

        I just thought of something....some posters here seem to think anything that smacks of "paganism" is wrong, in the church. Well, what about Apollos? HE was a Jew, from Alexandria, Egypt, if I remember right--yet he had a name derived from the pagan god, Apollo (and yes it is, I looked it up). Yet, no one told him to change his name to something more Hebrew or Christian.

        And then there are the names of the days of the week...all of which, except maybe Sunday and Monday (and they are named in honor of the sun and moon, which were gods in some ancient civilizations), are named after pagan gods, mostly Norse. Saturday is named after the Roman god Saturn. So, if Christians meet together to worship on those days of the week, does that make their worship services "pagan"--because the names of the days of the week derive from pagan gods/goddesses?

        I mean, how far do we want to take this?

        I maintain that what makes a service or holiday "pagan" is what is being observed and celebrated and HOW it is celebrated. NOT the day of the year or week it is celebrated upon! If that were true, then any day of the week Christians meet to worship would be rendered "pagan" by the name of the day of the week they meet together to worship!

        Absurd!
        Absurd is the key.

        Peter warned about the absurd Bible thumpers.

        Like here: (2 Peter 3:16)

        He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.
        His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and
        unstable people distor
        t, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."


        As Jesus told us., The poor we will always have amongst us.


        grace and peace...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GaryMac View Post

          The reason the invisible God cant be seen is He is Spirit. Moses or any other can only see where God has been, His backside. He leaves a path in His wake.

          AW but when one does see Him as He is, ye shall be like Him 1 John 3, as Moses became, as Jesus became, as Adam became and we all become who has seen Him as He is. Want to know what that is we see? Simply Love. God is Love. The Spirit of and who we become.
          The belief the Hittites carried and the same as the Greeks is that no mortal human could see their God or Gods, at one point in time Hittite's did not have statues built to their Gods, because it would offend them. The same concept is seen in early Old Testament (Shekinah) texts.

          1 John 3 essentially conflicts with the concept of divine fiat in the Old Testament, since we are discussing "being like him" and the creation of mankind "in his image":

          Divine image and representation as the creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple ... Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act. With justification, then:

          The man and the woman in Gen. I ... are ... created ... by God’s own personal decision (v. 26)—a decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account.

          Similarly, God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, P’s God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As P tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.

          V. 27 will corroborate and will execute this vision. Its first clause names the creator, the human creature, and the divine image that God invests in human beings (v. 27aα ). Overlapping with the first, the second clause identifies the divine possessor of the image (v. 27aâ ). The third clause deletes reference to the image yet describes the human creature as a constituent pair (v. 27b). V. 27 therefore will reiterate the unique relationship between God and humanity, explains the relationship, and tracks it from its source to its individual heirs. So, the interpretive details of Gen :26–27 are unclear at best.

          To be sure, the characteristics uniquely shared by creator and creature assert “the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God.”

          But when its two nominal components—‘image’and ‘likeness’—are queried, the assertion of incomparability is quickly qualified.
          For example, what does the ‘image’ of God signify, and how does the human race reflect it? Or, what is a divine ‘likeness’, how does it compare to the divine ‘image’, and how is the ‘likeness’ reflected in humankind? The responses are often unsatisfying. Very little distinction can be made between the two words. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and one has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are, like “prototype” and “original,” essentially equivalent expressions. They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one; the second member of the word-pair does not seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it. That is to say, it seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that, in all circumstances, the uniqueness of God will be guarded. These statements, then, testify to the problem.

          The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. For in most of its occurrences, íěö ‘image’ is a concrete noun. And as such, it refers to a representation of form, figure, or physical appearance.

          Thus if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid. Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: ).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Shamash View Post

            The belief the Hittites carried and the same as the Greeks is that no mortal human could see their God or Gods, at one point in time Hittite's did not have statues built to their Gods, because it would offend them. The same concept is seen in early Old Testament (Shekinah) texts.

            1 John 3 essentially conflicts with the concept of divine fiat in the Old Testament, since we are discussing "being like him" and the creation of mankind "in his image":

            Divine image and representation as the creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple ... Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act. With justification, then:

            The man and the woman in Gen. I ... are ... created ... by God’s own personal decision (v. 26)—a decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account.

            Similarly, God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, P’s God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As P tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.

            V. 27 will corroborate and will execute this vision. Its first clause names the creator, the human creature, and the divine image that God invests in human beings (v. 27aα ). Overlapping with the first, the second clause identifies the divine possessor of the image (v. 27aâ ). The third clause deletes reference to the image yet describes the human creature as a constituent pair (v. 27b). V. 27 therefore will reiterate the unique relationship between God and humanity, explains the relationship, and tracks it from its source to its individual heirs. So, the interpretive details of Gen :26–27 are unclear at best.

            To be sure, the characteristics uniquely shared by creator and creature assert “the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God.”

            But when its two nominal components—‘image’and ‘likeness’—are queried, the assertion of incomparability is quickly qualified.
            For example, what does the ‘image’ of God signify, and how does the human race reflect it? Or, what is a divine ‘likeness’, how does it compare to the divine ‘image’, and how is the ‘likeness’ reflected in humankind? The responses are often unsatisfying. Very little distinction can be made between the two words. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and one has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are, like “prototype” and “original,” essentially equivalent expressions. They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one; the second member of the word-pair does not seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it. That is to say, it seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that, in all circumstances, the uniqueness of God will be guarded. These statements, then, testify to the problem.

            The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. For in most of its occurrences, íěö ‘image’ is a concrete noun. And as such, it refers to a representation of form, figure, or physical appearance.

            Thus if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid. Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: ).
            God is not human at all. He is Spirit. there is no flesh in His kingdom for it is Spirit. You cant see Love, all you can see of it is where it has been. like most claiming to be Christian, they has made their gods in the image of man for flesh is all they can relate to in a god.
            The human side is to claim the promises of God. The divine side is to receive them.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GaryMac View Post

              God is not human at all. He is Spirit. there is no flesh in His kingdom for it is Spirit. You cant see Love, all you can see of it is where it has been. like most claiming to be Christian, they has made their gods in the image of man for flesh is all they can relate to in a god.
              That is my point, in the posting we see that the Hebrew myth hero "God" is not a human, but a spirit. Yet makes mankind "in his image" which essentially violates the 2nd commandment due to the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: ). Because 'image' and 'likeness' attribute "Godly" characteristics to non-God beings (humans).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Shamash View Post

                That is my point, in the posting we see that the Hebrew myth hero "God" is not a human, but a spirit. Yet makes mankind "in his image" which essentially violates the 2nd commandment due to the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: ). Because 'image' and 'likeness' attribute "Godly" characteristics to non-God beings (humans).
                Being made in the image of God doesn't mean we look physically like God, since He is spirit. It means being holy and pure as God is, and having some of His attributes--like having an active will, being able to make choices, having, intellect, and being capable of self-sacrificing love.
                Last edited by Bonnie; 02-17-19, 03:26 PM.
                "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
                "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
                "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
                "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous
                "If Jesus isn't THE WAY, then there is nothing else."--Bob

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

                  Bei g made in the image of God doesn't mean we look physically like God, since He is spirit. It means being holy and pure as God is, and having some of His attributes--like having an active will, being able to make choices, having, intellect, and being capable of self-sacrificing love.
                  I was discussing creation, the context which you are describing all indicates attributes.

                  Divine image and representation as the creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple ... Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act. With justification, then:

                  The man and the woman in Gen. I ... are ... created ... by God’s own personal decision (v. 26)—a decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account.

                  Similarly, God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, P’s God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As P tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.

                  V. 27 will corroborate and will execute this vision. Its first clause names the creator, the human creature, and the divine image that God invests in human beings (v. 27aα ). Overlapping with the first, the second clause identifies the divine possessor of the image (v. 27aâ ). The third clause deletes reference to the image yet describes the human creature as a constituent pair (v. 27b). V. 27 therefore will reiterate the unique relationship between God and humanity, explains the relationship, and tracks it from its source to its individual heirs. So, the interpretive details of Gen :26–27 are unclear at best.

                  To be sure, the characteristics uniquely shared by creator and creature assert “the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God.”

                  But when its two nominal components—‘image’and ‘likeness’—are queried, the assertion of incomparability is quickly qualified.
                  For example, what does the ‘image’ of God signify, and how does the human race reflect it? Or, what is a divine ‘likeness’, how does it compare to the divine ‘image’, and how is the ‘likeness’ reflected in humankind? The responses are often unsatisfying. Very little distinction can be made between the two words. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and one has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are, like “prototype” and “original,” essentially equivalent expressions. They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one; the second member of the word-pair does not seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it. That is to say, it seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that, in all circumstances, the uniqueness of God will be guarded. These statements, then, testify to the problem.

                  The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. For in most of its occurrences, íěö ‘image’ is a concrete noun. And as such, it refers to a representation of form, figure, or physical appearance.

                  Thus if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid. Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: ).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Shamash View Post

                    Why does the term "pagan" only extend to Rome and Greek? You do realize that Christianity adopts from these, such as Moses seeing only the backside of Yahweh, because a mortal cannot look at Yahweh. In Greek mythology Semele see's the bolts of Zeus and dies. Christianity fundamentally has its roots in Ancient Near Eastern occultism; even the Hittites are Indo-Euro, it's no coincidence that Moses can only see the backside of Yahweh. Also, the term "pagan" was an insult, and Christian's killed pagans.
                    True Christians do not murder others because of their beliefs. People have twisted and perverted God's holy word for many centuries in order to justify their actions. But nowhere are Christians commamded to kill dissenters, or kill pagans. Those that claim to be Christians and justify these things may be sincere in their beliefs, but they are sincerely wrong.

                    What Moses saw was basically God's reflected glory, i.e., "backside." Moses could not bear the full brunt of God's holy "Face" and glory and live.

                    "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
                    "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
                    "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
                    "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous
                    "If Jesus isn't THE WAY, then there is nothing else."--Bob

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Shamash View Post

                      I was discussing creation, the context which you are describing all indicates attributes.

                      Divine image and representation as the creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple ... Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act. With justification, then:

                      The man and the woman in Gen. I ... are ... created ... by God’s own personal decision (v. 26)—a decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account.

                      Similarly, God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, P’s God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As P tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.

                      V. 27 will corroborate and will execute this vision. Its first clause names the creator, the human creature, and the divine image that God invests in human beings (v. 27aα ). Overlapping with the first, the second clause identifies the divine possessor of the image (v. 27aâ ). The third clause deletes reference to the image yet describes the human creature as a constituent pair (v. 27b). V. 27 therefore will reiterate the unique relationship between God and humanity, explains the relationship, and tracks it from its source to its individual heirs. So, the interpretive details of Gen :26–27 are unclear at best.

                      To be sure, the characteristics uniquely shared by creator and creature assert “the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God.”

                      But when its two nominal components—‘image’and ‘likeness’—are queried, the assertion of incomparability is quickly qualified.
                      For example, what does the ‘image’ of God signify, and how does the human race reflect it? Or, what is a divine ‘likeness’, how does it compare to the divine ‘image’, and how is the ‘likeness’ reflected in humankind? The responses are often unsatisfying. Very little distinction can be made between the two words. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and one has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are, like “prototype” and “original,” essentially equivalent expressions. They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one; the second member of the word-pair does not seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it. That is to say, it seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that, in all circumstances, the uniqueness of God will be guarded. These statements, then, testify to the problem.

                      The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. For in most of its occurrences, íěö ‘image’ is a concrete noun. And as such, it refers to a representation of form, figure, or physical appearance.

                      Thus if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid. Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: ).
                      I am just telling you how the BIBLE uses the word, in regard to man being created in God's image. One must take all of the Biblical record into consideration, and not bits and pieces.

                      And I never mentioned pagan extending only to Greek and Roman. I also brought in Norse, remember?

                      And this has nothing to do with Chriistmas or Easter, which is what we were discussing. Maybe you can start your own thread about this image thing.
                      "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
                      "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
                      "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
                      "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous
                      "If Jesus isn't THE WAY, then there is nothing else."--Bob

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                        True Christians do not murder others because of their beliefs. People have twisted and perverted God's holy word for many centuries in order to justify their actions. But nowhere are Christians commamded to kill dissenters, or kill pagans. Those that claim to be Christians and justify these things may be sincere in their beliefs, but they are sincerely wrong.

                        What Moses saw was basically God's reflected glory, i.e., "backside." Moses could not bear the full brunt of God's holy "Face" and glory and live.
                        "True Christians" did kill pagans in Rome, that isn't a disputable fact, why would you think it is? I mean historically that is what happened, if someone didn't convert to Christianity in Rome they were labeled or killed.



                        Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                        am just telling you how the BIBLE uses the word, in regard to man being created in God's image. One must take all of the Biblical record into consideration, and not bits and pieces.

                        And this has nothing to do with Chriistmas or Easter, which is what we were discussing. Maybe you can start your own thread about this image thing.
                        That isn't clear and is vague "how the BIBLE uses the word", what translation are you using? And from what translation does that translation come from? It isn't a surprise that jussive terms are used etymologically for Biblical terms.

                        Christmas and Easter has its roots in Sumerian occult calendars.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Shamash View Post
                          Christmas and Easter has its roots in Sumerian occult calendars.
                          And, many towns in the USA still have their Indian names. That does not mean they are still Indian's land.

                          Names of holidays are not what we celebrate. Its their content. Can you not see that?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GeneZ View Post

                            And, many towns in the USA still have their Indian names. That does not mean they are still Indian's land.

                            Names of holidays are not what we celebrate. Its their content. Can you not see that?
                            You know many of the states in the US names come from Indian names.

                            Their content??? So what is widely accepted then means that it had no origin? Not sure what you mean?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

                              I have given YOU scripture, too....but you ignore it or tell me I don't get it or it doesn't mean what I think it does...like Romans 14.
                              because It doesn't mean what you think...
                              ..and yes, I know Paul could have been talking about the Jewish festivals, but he didn't say so
                              so you think that he was talking about Christmas which was not invented yet ???

                              ...he simply mentions "days." One person esteems one day above another; another esteems all days alike.
                              so exactly what one day was Paul talking about...???
                              Neither is wrong.
                              So it was not wrong to esteem the 'one day" that Paul was referring to...Clearly the "one day" would have been any of the Jewish holy days...not christmas or any made up holy days

                              One observes the day to the Lord; the other does NOT observe the day to the Lord. It is between them and the Lord. Neither is to judge the other.
                              Concerning the "one day" .It had nothing to do with Christmas and Easter....
                              But you keep quoting these verses but they have zero to do with having special holy days in which to celebrate Jesus' birth, death,and Resurrection.
                              absolutely nothing to do with it so why do you use it to support your made up holy days???

                              Observing them does NOT set aside any of God's commandments.
                              but obsrobser them is not one of Jesus teaching...Jesus told the apostles to teach the believers to observe whatsoever he commanded them.....show me where Jesus taught the apostles to observe Christmas...
                              NOR does it prevent us from taking care of our parents.
                              that is just one example...you are just being dogmatic
                              So, you are comparing apples to kumquats. And we DO worship God in spirit and in truth at Christmastime and Easter for it is the TRUTH that Jesus was born for us in Bethlehem, born under the Law, to redeem us from the curse of the Law. And it is the TRUTH that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after His crucifixion. We celebrate BOTH of those are great Truths! And give thanks to God in Christ Jesus for His wondrous love for us, that "He who was rich became poor for our sakes."

                              And we do so TO THE LORD.
                              and we have established that as vain worship..... you are teaching for doctrine the commandments of men...
                              Tell me, is it EVER a sin for Christians to gather together to worship God in Christ Jesus on ANY day of the week, for ANY reason?
                              yep...I showed you when you teach for doctrine the commandments of men it is vain worship... you can't get around that... the scribes and Pharisees tried it and failed...


                              To give Him prayers, praise, and thanks--on any day of the week, at any time of the year?
                              Not everyone who say Lord Lord will enter the kingdom....

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GeneZ View Post

                                And, many towns in the USA still have their Indian names. That does not mean they are still Indian's land.

                                Names of holidays are not what we celebrate. Its their content. Can you not see that?
                                The name of something is the content from a spiritual point of view, it’s etymology etc. but that has to do with context. For example, if I had a dream of a town, the meaning of that town in the dream would be linked to its name, which provides the role of that name in the dream and contributes to understanding the context. Or avatars people use, same thing.

                                the Statue of Liberty for instance is the god Apollo in female form. that is what America represented during the ritual of gifting her that statue under the auspices of that god, and indeed American concepts of liberty are often based on the good and evil tree version of liberty, the pagan version.

                                Thats not good at all.
                                Last edited by e v e; 02-18-19, 08:56 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X