Posted on 05/17/2008 2:52:18 PM PDT by NYer
The world has endured an almost mind-numbing series of shocks in recent weeks, from the unprecedented swarm of tornadoes across the American Midwest to the death and destruction wrought by Cyclone Nargis as it tore a path through Myanmar, better known as Burma.
There were 368 documented tornadoes in the U.S. in January and February of this year, shattering the previous record of 243 over that two-month period, set in 1999. February's total of 232 tornadoes also shattered previous records.
Cyclone Nargis ripped Burma apart, killing at least 128,000, according to Red Cross estimates, and creating some 2.5 million refugees.
Al Gore was quick to blame global warming. In an interview on NPR to plug his appropriately named book on global warming, "Assault on Reason," he told host Terry Gross: "And as we're talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated. . … And last year a catastrophic storm last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."
Maybe. But Germany's Institute of Marine Scientists says we're in for a 10-year period of global cooling. There sure seems to be a lot of opposition to what is supposed to be "settled science."
Global warming can't explain away the devastating earthquake that all but flattened a huge portion of western China. The death toll from Monday's quake is approaching 20,000, with twice that number still listed as missing. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, Monday's earthquake was the 25th "significant" earthquake registered so far this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Setting dates is kind of foolish. There will be signs and indications we can follow, but not a date. As the time approaches, we should be able to ascertain perhaps a general time period and I still maintain that the Holy Spirit will warn true believers.
That could well be, too. I really don’t know for certain. I know something began in 1948. That was a turning point.
There is no question about the miracle of the return to the land of the Jews in 1948.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
I was blessed by it and it’s the first time I ever heard about it...neat!!!
Amen chuckles!!!
I’m certainly looking forward to Jesus soon return. To get to see Him face to face and thank Him for everything He does for a lost sinner like me.
What a awesome day that will be.
Thank you Jesus!!!
I just heard of it this week in email and it meant a lot to me.
Bumping the youtube link for laminin,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e4zgJXPpI4
True, but those who seem to be wrapped around the axle of "Israel in 1948 fulfills the prophecy of God" really can't help themselves. They are so desperate to prove 1948 is significant, they will twist any text of the Bible to make it fit with current events. Lots of men have fallen into the trap. Some theologies are more prone to that error.
If you need a surrogate to show that Jesus returning on an old covenant feast day is not a "Jewish fable" then perhaps your position is not that plain from the Bible. The pharisees were very good at clouding the plain Word of God with their traditions and superstitions. Sadly some in own Christ's body, the Christian church, have fallen prey to similar false suggestions.
Yes it does.
Insisting it is so does not make it so. Give us the plain Scripture that teaches Jesus would be born on a Jewish feast day, any Jewish feast day.
It's interesting the we have a long accounts in both Matthew and Luke about the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth, such as the story of the coming of the wise men from the East to Herod with news of the impending birth, and not one word about any of this happening on a Jewish feast day. Rather, we are told that it was the appearance of a star that indicated the timing of His birth.
Given the care with which Matthew uses the OT to confirm the messiahship of Jesus, surely he would have quoted from the OT to demonstrate something as significant as the feast day theory if any such passage existed.
But it does not.
It's irrational to wish the Bible to say something it does not clearly say. And so tell us all how is this theory not a fable of men?
I only heard of it last week-end Joya.
For more blessings go here:
http://www.prophecyinthenews.net/index.asp
Then go down to this & listen to this:
Interview with Mark Biltz on Solar and Lunar Eclipses in 2014/15 (Pt. 1) & Pt 2
We won’t know the day or the hour, but God want’s us to know the general time frame.
There’s a very good chance the Rapture will happen this year on Rosh HaShanah. Yippee!!!!
As always I’m ready2go. :)
Never said He would. All I said was "If He did....it would be very logical" (post #94 & #96)......not faddish as you put it.
The pharisees were very good at clouding the plain Word of God with their traditions and superstitions.
We agree!
Sadly some in own Christ's body, the Christian church, have fallen prey to similar false suggestions.
[Luke 6:42]
I only heard of it last week-end Joya.
For more blessings go here:
http://www.prophecyinthenews.net/index.asp
Then go down to & listen to this:
Interview with Mark Biltz on the Solar and Lunar Eclipses in 2014/15 Pt. 1 & Pt 2
As always I’m ready2go. :)
Thanks, will look forward to visiting the link when I have time.
Happy Memorial Day.
God bless.
NYer said:
Then the sign of the cross will be seen in the sky, and from the openings where the hands and the feet of the Saviour were nailed will come forth great lights which will light up the earth for a period of time. This will take place shortly before the last day. (83)
Here below is a compendium of the messages given to St. Faustina
Check this out:
http://www.mychurch.org/blog/30320/Hubble-Found-a-Cross-in-Outer-Space—Check-it-out
There is no plain scripture that says Our Lord was born on Sukkot. There is plain scripture that allows you to deduce that He was.
To begin with....we know the date of the birth of John the Baptist by knowing the date of the service of Zechariah in the temple [Luke 1:5]. His division [I Chronicles 24:10] would have occurred the week before Shavuot and he would have served another week during the Festival. His service would have been from the 27th of Ayyar through the 11th of Sivan. Shavuot (Pentecost) falls on Sivan 6. John would have been conceived shortly thereafter [Luke 1:24] (mid June our time) and nine months later born on Passover. The Angel Gabriel had told Zechariah that John would come in the spirit of Elijah [Luke 1:17][Malachi 4:5]. A place is always set for Elijah and a cup of wine is poured for him at Pesach because of this prophecy.
Our Lord was conceived during Chanukah (Feast of Lights) [Luke 1:26] 6 months from Shavuot and born on Sukkot....nine months later.
It's interesting the we have a long accounts in both Matthew and Luke about the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth, such as the story of the coming of the wise men from the East to Herod with news of the impending birth, and not one word about any of this happening on a Jewish feast day.
If you check your sources you'll find that the wise men came about two years later [Matthew 2:7] Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.. [Matthew 2:16] Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. In fact Our Lord was now living in a house.....not a booth (sukkah) [Matthew 2:11] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshiped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. House: #3614. oikia (oy-kee'-ah)properly, residence (abstractly), but usually (concretely) an abode (literally or figuratively); by implication, a family (especially domestics) home, house(-hold). Luke doesn't mention the Wise Men.
Given the care with which Matthew uses the OT to confirm the Messiah ship of Jesus, surely he would have quoted from the OT to demonstrate something as significant as the feast day theory if any such passage existed.
One of the problems we have always had is the fact that Matthew was written in the Hebrew.....of which no original text exists.....only Greek copies. We're not sure if what we have......is the entire story.
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, c. 150 A.D. said: "Matthew put down the words of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and others have translated them, each as best he could." Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.) Bishop of Lions, France, wrote: "Matthew, indeed, produced his Gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect." Origen (c. 225 A.D.) said: "The first Gospel composed in the Hebrew language, was written by Matthew..for those who came to faith from Judaism." Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (c. 325 A.D.), wrote: "Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews, and when he was about to go to others also, he transmitted his Gospel in writing in his native language" (Ecclesiastical History III 24, 6). And Jerome, translator of the Scripture into Latin (the Vulgata or Vulgate version), says the same.
For Our Lord to have been crucified on Passover, Nissan/Abib 14; For the Ekklessia to have been formed on Shavuot; For The Baptist to have been born on Passover; For Our lord to have been conceived on Chanukah; For the Baptist to have been conceived right after Shavuot with the Angelic vision given to Zechariah during the Feast, it is silly to say there is no scripture identifying Sukkot as the birth season of Our Lord. God's Feast Days took on some importance according to scripture ( both Old and New) so why would not the Feast of Tabernacles be significant as a beginning as to when Our Lord came to Tabernacle with us......in a human body?
A much better explanation can be found looking at Xenia's post #107 and clicking the link at the end.
So you claim.
To begin with....we know the date of the birth of John the Baptist by knowing the date of the service of Zechariah in the temple [Luke 1:5]. His division [I Chronicles 24:10] would have occurred the week before Shavuot and he would have served another week during the Festival. …
Interesting theory, unfortunately the Scripture is not definite as to when John was conceived.
"And so it was, as soon as the days of his service were completed, that he departed to his own house. Now after those days his wife Elizabeth conceived; and she hid herself five months, saying," (Luke 1:23,24)
Where does it say how long “after those days” it was that John was conceived? Your theory is that it was immediately after, but it does not say anything like that. It could have been several weeks. Your theory only works if it was immediately after that. But you must admit the text does not force us to that conclusion.
In addition, where are we forced to conclude that this was Zechariah’s first shift on the course of Abijah? Suppose it was his second?
One of the problems we have always had is the fact that Matthew was written in the Hebrew.....of which no original text exists.....only Greek copies. We're not sure if what we have......is the entire story.
Are you saying that God is incapable of preserving the text He wanted His church to have? I find this line of speculation very unsatisfying.
This seems to only be a problem for those who are trying to build doctrines not explicitly found in the Bible that God providentially preserved for His Church.
"As soon as the days were over" is the subject of the sentence. "After those days" is the subject of the next sentence. "Young's Literal Translation" (verses 23-24) And it came to pass, when the days of his service were fulfilled, he went away to his house. And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying........ Sounds to me like the conception would have been quite soon.
Interesting theory, unfortunately the Scripture is not definite as to when John was conceived.
You can believe there is a greater separation of time between these events if you desire......but it would be only because you wish to deny that the Baptist's birth was at Passover. The people have always been taught that during the Seder.....at some time....to go to the door looking for Elijah, as the understanding is.....he will precede the coming of the Messiah. That is why the question in [Matthew 17:10-13] was asked: And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
Here are some other indications that Sukkot was the time of the Birth of Our Lord:
[Luke 2:10] And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. Sukkot is also called the "Season of Our Joy" and the "Feast of The Nations".
[Luke 2:12] And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. Swaddling "cloths" were also used to light the wicks of the vats of oil within the court of the women during Sukkot.
In addition, where are we forced to conclude that this was Zechariah’s first shift on the course of Abijah? Suppose it was his second?
The reason it was his first was because it then allowed John to be born at Passover.....and Our Lord to be born at Sukkot......6 months later.
Wise men coming from the east [Matthew 2:1] would probably indicate they were Rabbis. In Hebrew they were also called "Chakamim"......meaning wise men. Directly east of Judea lies Babylon which contained the largest Jewish population in the world at that time. Not everyone came back with Ezra and Nehemiah. Only about 44,000 returned to rebuild the temple 500 years earlier and the descendants of these folks were the inhabitants of Judea during the first century. Josephus, during the first century said the Israelites still living beyond the Euphrates were of such numbers.....they were uncountable. [Antiquities Book XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2].
The word in [Matthew 2:1] in Greek is "magos" and it is the translation of the Hebrew word "ravmag" which comes from "rav" which means "rabbi". It can also mean teacher, counselor, scholar or scientist. The rabbis were all teachers and scholars of the Law. A prophecy in [Numbers 24:17] states that "A star shall come forth from Jacob" and this was always considered Messianic. So....why would the rabbis make this journey from Babylon to Judea? [Matthew 2:2] Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him
It would be unlikely that pagan Babylonians would be willing to make that long arduous trip just to worship a Jewish baby.....but rabbis on the other..... hand reading prophecy? During Sukkot it was required to live part of the time in a sukkah....a temporary shelter with an opening to view the stars when they appeared. The Babylonian Jews also celebrated the Festivals of Our Lord.....and the prophecy from [Micah 5:2] indicated that The Saviour would be born in Bethlehem. [Matthew 2:6] is identical and the rabbis would have known this.....because they were teachers and scholars (ravmag).
No.....Our Lord tabernacled with us, became like us and died for us. He entered this existence on Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) and departed on Passover (Feast of Unleavened Bread). I cannot tell you for sure if He will return on trumpets.....but I wouldn't be surprised if He did.
Well, it doesn't sound like it to me necessarily. I would not try to build a theory on that text.
Again, Matthew had a perfect opportunity to teach his congregation how Jesus was born on a Jewish holy day if that were in fact the case. That would have been one more authenticating claim for Jesus' messiahship. But he clearly did not do so. Do you think he was ignorant of the significance you seem to make of this theory?
You can believe there is a greater separation of time between these events if you desire......but it would be only because you wish to deny that the Baptist's birth was at Passover.
Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that. The burden is on you to prove conclusively. All I have done is point out the circumstances that don't necessarily fit the model you are espousing.
The reason it was his first was because it then allowed John to be born at Passover.....and Our Lord to be born at Sukkot......6 months later.
IOW, we have to assume your theory is correct in order to understand the texts as you see them. That sounds like eisigesis to me.
No.....Our Lord tabernacled with us, became like us and died for us.
Absolutely correct. However, that just shows that He was the antitype of all these OT types, like the feast days of Israel. It does not require us to believe He was born on the Jewish feast day. Again, I hate to beat a dead horse, but Matthew would have had a field day with the theory if it were the case. God would not have left it to our imagination to put some puzzle together in order to get to the truth that He wanted us to know.
The reason you are trying to convince yourself the conception took place long after Zechariah's return home is because you don't want to admit that John was born at Passover. This is obvious. You want it to be some other time....perhaps much later....and this way you can continue to speak of Jewish fables and faddish theories.
There is no theory that John was the "Elijah" the folks were looking for each Passover [Matthew 17:10-13]. There is no theory about the time of Zechariah's service in the temple [Luke 1:5-8][I Chronicles 24:10]. There is no theory that Our Lord was 6 months younger than John [Luke 1:26] thereby placing His birth on a Sacred Feast Day (Sukkot) also.
As others have pointed out earlier, when Caesar Augustus ordered the census [Luke 2:1] everyone had a year (historical fact) to appear in their own town to register. A large gathering at one time would be a threat to Roman security. So.....why would Jerusalem and Bethlehem be full of "No Vacancy" signs when Joseph and Mary appeared to register? It is estimated that the population of Jerusalem grew to well over two million folks during these commanded festivals [Exodus 23:14] Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Our Lord's people were in Jerusalem....and Bethlehem during a festival. To deny this is so....is simply to be clinging to the "anything Jewish is bad" syndrome.
When the King James people translated their Bible they were not familiar with Hebrew terminology to any great degree and this is why they translated "food Tray" in the Greek to manger in the English. The food tray was a shelf in the sukka (temporary shelter during Sukkot) where food was stocked for overnight visitors. The English had no idea what this was and came up with the quaint theory it was a manger for feeding cattle. And another myth was born and Our Saviour was now born in a stable.....instead of a sukka...on Sukkot.
Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that. The burden is on you to prove conclusively. All I have done is point out the circumstances that don't necessarily fit the model you are espousing.
I don't have to prove a thing. Common sense and scripture does that for me. Scripture tells us the time of year would be no later than fall [Luke 2:8]. We know that the typical Christmas story is full of error and pagan tradition. Why shouldn't we look for the truth? When a person finally clears their head of all "mainstream Christian" tradition about the birth of Our Lord...... the scriptures began to really make sense.
IOW, we have to assume your theory is correct in order to understand the texts as you see them. That sounds like eisigesis to me.
[Luke 6:42]
However, that just shows that He was the antitype of all these OT types, like the feast days of Israel. It does not require us to believe He was born on the Jewish feast day.
Well.....is that why the Apostles were gathered on Shavuot [Acts 2:1]? Is that why Luke and Paul were still observing Pesach and Shavuot thirty years after the crucifixion [Acts 20:6-16]? Is that why Paul is marking time by "Yom Kippur" [Acts 27:9].....shortly before his trip to Rome?
C'mon....you know very well He was not an Antitype! Our Lord celebrated the Sabbaths and Festivals....teaching His Apostles to do the same. History records the continued celebration of Passover by Christian communities that had been taught by the Apostle John....well into the second and third centuries. Why would John continue to observe these "Jewish" things....if he had not been taught to do so?
Matthew would have had a field day with the theory if it were the case. God would not have left it to our imagination to put some puzzle together in order to get to the truth that He wanted us to know.
Matthew....as well as the others...had no idea that the Sabbaths and Feast Days would be attacked and vilified later on by the "Imperial Church of Rome" in its zeal to erase anything "Jewish" from its liturgy. The early Christian Church was considered a sect of Judaism [Acts 28:22] the same as the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes. Why do you suppose a Jewish sect would not want to continue observing God's Holy Sabbaths and festivals? This is why Matthew thought it unimportant to stress these things.
I’m not trying to convince myself of anything. I’m just trying to be as faithful as possible in interpreting the text as it is given to us without bringing the imaginations of men and giving life to Jewish fables.
I have no axe to grind.
Matthew....as well as the others...had no idea that the Sabbaths and Feast Days would be attacked and vilified later on by the "Imperial Church of Rome" in its zeal to erase anything "Jewish" from its liturgy.
Well, it is part of your theory that the old covenant feast days are still appropriative for the Christ’s body, the Church, and that therefore they have been "attacked and vilified". You are the one the needs to enforce this theory and so you go looking for the most obscure, debatable points to try and make it.
You even go so far as to say that Matthew didn’t tell us all he needed to tell us.
I happen to believe that Matthew (actually God) was not being short-sighted when he wrote what he did in the gospel that bears His name. I believe that God has providentially preserved the text for us exactly as we need it to be preserved. I don’t believe we need to invent theories of a Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew with lost/silent teachings in order to make theological points.
IOW, I don’t need to go down the tenuous route that you seem is necessary to follow in order to come to your preconceived conclusions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.