• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Jesus born on Christmas?

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Wasn't the Greek written without the letter ' a '
Doesn't the same Greek grammar rule apply at both Acts 28:6 B as at John 1:1
The English KJV Bible adds the letter ' a ' at Acts 28: 6 end line.
Then why wasn't this done with Romans 8:33?

Gospel writer John wrote at Revelation 1:5; 3:14 that Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God. According to Psalm 90:2 God had No beginning. So, only God was before the beginning.
Then, Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.
Revelation 1:5 states that Jesus is the firstborn of the dead. 3:14 says that Jesus is the arche of creation, which can either mean a beginning point, or an origin. And heck, it even means ruler in a couple places. Arche does not mean "the first in the line of something", but rather its starting point, from whence it comes. Genesis 1:1, for example, reads Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth." "The first in a line of something" would be something along the lines of protos, I imagine. For example, "firstborn" is prototokos.

Regarding Jesus as the source or beginning point of all creation makes more sense than the JW position, because it is said that without Jesus, nothing was made that has been made; Jesus is the arche, or origin, of creation. This makes sense when one learns what the word "Logos" meant to the Greeks and the Hellenic Jews from whom the idea of the Logos was taken when the Gospel of John was written. The Logos is the organizing and unifying principle behind all creation. The Stoics theorized that the Logos is in fact God Himself.
 
Last edited:

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
It seems pretty clear to me......

You will find "theos" applied to God without the definite article when there is reference to Jehovah alone. Context dictates who is being spoken about. In Rom 8: 33 there is no need to make the distinction.
Do you know of any examples outside of Romans 8:33 where the NWT takes this approach?

You have to understand that when the Christian scriptures were written, there was no trinity, so the need to make such a distinction in every case was unnecessary.
A certain well-known first-century Christian who learned personally from St. John and probably St. Peter would beg to differ.

In John 1:1 the definite article is used to distinguish the "theos" Jesus from "ho theos" the Almighty God.
So, there are multiple gods, one greater and one lesser?
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Do you know of any examples outside of Romans 8:33 where the NWT takes this approach?

What approach? If the definite article is used, it is to distinguish "theos" from "ho theos" so we would expect to find the definite article when it is required in the text. Feel free to find any others.

A certain well-known first-century Christian who learned personally from St. John and probably St. Peter would beg to differ.

I believe that there is a reason why nothing written by anyone after the canon closed is accepted as scripture. It was God's spirit that directed the compilation of the complete Bible, not the Catholic Church.

The "weeds" of false Christianity were already manifesting before the apostles died. So that when they passed off the earthly scene, apostasy swept through Christianity like "weeds" always do. The separation was not to take place till "the harvest time"....just ahead of us. Jesus said that the weeds are collected first.

Jews would not have accepted anyone who claimed to be God in the flesh. They were going to stone Jesus who only claimed to be God's son.

The apostles did not teach a trinity. It is missing from church doctrine for hundreds of years for a reason. It is an adoption, not a Christian teaching.

So, there are multiple gods, one greater and one lesser?

Paul clears that up....according to him, there are many who are called "gods" and "lords" but for Christians....there is just one God.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6...."For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

Paul clearly differentiates Jehovah as "one God the Father" from "one Lord Jesus Christ". So do JW's :)
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
What approach? If the definite article is used, it is to distinguish "theos" from "ho theos" so we would expect to find the definite article when it is required in the text. Feel free to find any others
So it's simply context that determines whether "theos" means "God" or "a god"? How can we know this distinction better than the Greeks who lived at the time and in the period shortly after the text was written?

I believe that there is a reason why nothing written by anyone after the canon closed is accepted as scripture. It was God's spirit that directed the compilation of the complete Bible, not the Catholic Church.
The canon wasn't "closed" for more than 500 years.

The "weeds" of false Christianity were already manifesting before the apostles died. So that when they passed off the earthly scene, apostasy swept through Christianity like "weeds" always do. The separation was not to take place till "the harvest time"....just ahead of us. Jesus said that the weeds are collected first.

Jews would not have accepted anyone who claimed to be God in the flesh. They were going to stone Jesus who only claimed to be God's son.
So the Church died, and the world was left without any truth for 1900 years until some random bunch of Americans created the Jehovah's Witnesses movement, started making a lot of guesses and changing their minds a lot? St. Paul said that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. By its very definition, it cannot fall into apostasy.

The apostles did not teach a trinity. It is missing from church doctrine for hundreds of years for a reason. It is an adoption, not a Christian teaching.
Actually no, we know for a fact that it existed, at the absolute latest, by the start of the second century AD--the 100's.

Paul clears that up....according to him, there are many who are called "gods" and "lords" but for Christians....there is just one God.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6...."For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

Paul clearly differentiates Jehovah as "one God the Father" from "one Lord Jesus Christ". So do JW's :)
So then why does the NWT render John 1:1c as "a god"? Why would they even consider that as any kind of valid translation?
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
So it's simply context that determines whether "theos" means "God" or "a god"? How can we know this distinction better than the Greeks who lived at the time and in the period shortly after the text was written?

Why do you think men were persuaded to remove the divine name from scripture? Who do you suppose was responsible for that? The Tetragrammaton was used freely in the OT by many of the writers without hesitation for centuries. In the Psalms alone we see it often. When God's name was used, no one doubted who was being spoken about. But a Jewish superstition resulted in titles being substituted for God's personal name. How very convenient for the devil to blur the identity of the true God and his divine son...both now known by the ambiguous title "Lord".
It was a perfect opportunity to introduce a triune deity and smuggle him into doctrine by stealth. This blasphemous doctrine has caused people to worship the wrong god ever since, breaking his law.

Just as a point of interest, the Israelites often fell away to Baal worship in their long and sorry history. "Baal" also means "Lord".

If the name of Jehovah (YHWH) was used to distinguish between "The Sovereign Lord Jehovah" and "The Lord Jesus Christ" there would be no doubt about their very separate identity.

The canon wasn't "closed" for more than 500 years.

Yes, it is claimed by some that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was chosen centuries after the fact by a church that was an established power under the direction of Roman Emperor Constantine. However, the facts show otherwise. The canon was essentially completed a long time before Constantine and a long time before his church had been established.

It was not any church council or religious leader, but rather, true Christians, under the guidance of God’s holy spirit, who recognized the writings that were truly inspired. This accords with the fact that one of the miraculous gifts of the spirit given in the early decades of the Christian congregation was “discernment of inspired utterances.” (1 Cor. 12:4, 10) So some of those Christians were given a superhuman ability to discern the difference between sayings that were truly inspired by God and those that were not.

The canon was established at an early stage under the guidance of holy spirit. Writers of the second century, however, did not establish the canon; they merely testified to what God had already accepted through his representatives, who were guided by his spirit.

St. Paul said that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
The church Jesus founded, yes...the Catholic Church? you must be kidding. There is no resemblance between Catholicism and Christianity. Can you name any similarities?

By its very definition, it cannot fall into apostasy.

It wasn't the canon that apostatized...it was the church.

Jesus and the apostles foretold it. The first apostate was the devil. (Prov 11:9) He has been leading men into apostasy ever since Eden.

An apostasy from Christianity was beginning in the first century and it was to grow like "weeds" until the harvest time. (Matt 13:24-30, 36-40; 1 Tim 4:1-3; 2 Pet 2:1-3; 2 Tim 2:16-19) Only then was a complete separation to take place.

Actually no, we know for a fact that it existed, at the absolute latest, by the start of the second century AD--the 100's.

Right about the time that the apostasy began. The trinity was talked about and some tried to introduce it but it met with much opposition at first. It did not become church doctrine till the 4th century. Over 300 years after Jesus died.

So then why does the NWT render John 1:1c as "a god"? Why would they even consider that as any kind of valid translation?

We have explained it quite clearly. "God" isn't a title exclusive to YHWH....even humans can be called "gods". So the absence of the definite article (the) often requires an indefinite article ("a" or an "an") for translation into languages like English which have an indefinite article. Greek has no indefinite article. That means that every "a" or "an" you see in English is put there to make the English translation understandable. It is therefore not a stretch of linguistics to add an indefinite article where one is indicated. John 1:1 is such a verse....unless of course one is trying to make the Word into God.
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
  • 1808 “and the Word was a god” - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London.
  • 1864 “and a god was the Word” (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.
  • 1935 “and the Word was divine” - The Bible—An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.
  • 1955 “so the Word was divine” - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
  • 1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
  • 1822 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);
  • 1863 "and the Word was a god." - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);
  • 1885 "and the Word was a god." - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);
  • 1879 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);
  • 1911 "and the Word was a god." - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);
  • 1958 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
  • 1829 "and the Word was a god." - The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829);
  • 1975 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
  • 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
New World Translation is not unique in this rendering, by a long shot.
I wonder why.
 

wgw

Member
You know what's funny wgw? Greek had no capital letters so the only way to indicate when they were speaking about the Almighty was to use the definite article "ho" (the). "God" (theos) in Greek means a "mighty one" or "powerful one" and can be used even with regard to humans. It isn't used exclusively for God or Christ. So your reference texts are not saying in Greek what your English Bible says at all. The NWT has not altered a thing. There is only one "ho theos" in that verse and he wasn't the Word. Look it up in an Interlinear.
John 1:18 simply says...."no man has ever seen God". So how is it that the churches teach than men have?

John 14:9, "He who has seen me has seen the Father."

What John 1:18 refers to according to Orthodox doctrine is that God in his Essence is unknowable, He can be perceived only according to His Energies. This differs from the Roman Catholic doctrine of Absolute Divine Aimplicity introduced by the Scholastics. Thus, the appearance of God through Jesus Christ in His Divine Nature is like the Rays of the Sun, the Sun itself remaining invisible.


Christianity does not have a nationality or a location. It isn't Greek or Russian or Eastern or Serbian or any other label you want to put on it.
Christianity is global and its sticks to the scriptures as closely as Jesus did.

It doesn't make the son equal to his superior Father nor does it make Mary into God's mother. It doesn't use idols and images in its worship and it doesn't make friends with the world by supporting its corrupt politics and bloodshed.

The Orthodox Church agrees that Orthodox Christianity is not specifically Eastern or Russian, Greek, Serbian, Finnish, Japanese or particular to any other nation with a national Orthodox Church, which includes countries ranging from India to Egypt to the United States. Orthodoxy is universal. The Eastern bit exists due to the schism with the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, nothing else. The Orthodox Church is the second largest denomination worldwide, consisting of two communions, the Eastern or Byzantine, and the smaller Oriental Orthodox. The national and regional churches are members of these communions. Collectively, the Russian Orthodox accounted for the most martyrs of the 20th century under Communism, the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks by the Turks faced near extinction in 1915, and now the remaining Orthodox in Syria and Iraq are once again facing a genocide, thousands having died and hundreds of thousands made refugees. Countries like Serbia, Russia and Greece were fortunate not to fall under Roman jurisdiction after the great schism, but since that time the Roman church has improved considerable, albeit alas not after causing the radical Redormation of which your church is ultimately a product. Indeed your doctrines on the Atonement, although you refuse to acknowledge as much, are heavily influenced by Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin; they were unknown to,the early Church and are alien to Orthodoxy.

Neither Jesus nor his apostles commanded that the disciples parade idols through the streets or burn incense or recite liturgy in ritualistic worship.

There is nothing Christian in Christendom. All its practices are adopted from outside of original Christianity.

The command to burn incense is found in the Old Testament, which were the Scriptures Paul and others instructed us to follow.

It is entirely untrue what you are saying because it would mean that every single successor of the Apostles: Clement, Ignatius the Martyr, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, most of whom died unpleasant deaths for their faith, got it wrong, and no one got it right until the founder of your religion in the 19th century, a religion which has been widely criticized for abusive practices and alleged by some to be a cult, and a religion that enjoys a much less favorable public image than the Mormons for example, who readily admit the contradictions in their faith, are good natured rather than belligerent, and do good charitable works. Show me a Jehovah's Witness Hospital. Oh snap, I guess the ban on blood transfusions would make such a facility rather difficult. In fact if it weren't for the invention of the Resting Heart system and comparable surgical blood recycling technologies, cardiac bypass surgery would still be impossible for you.

The Orthodox Church interprets Acts 15 correctly, as not eating the blood of an animal specifically or the flesh of anyrhing strangled or killed "in the blood of its soul". This is based on ancient Jewish purity laws later adopted also by Islam and indeed common to many Semitic religions; there was an ancient belief endorsed by some fathers that the blood is representative of the soul and should not properly be devoured along with the flesh of an animal. Thus the Orthodox abstain from Black Pudding, Polish "blood sausages" and related dishes, which I daresay as someone who enjoys tucking into a full English required some sacrifice from my part, until I realized that actually, black pudding tastes nasty anyways and its one of those British foods like Haggis and Bubble and Squeak we like to make pretend are edible. It would also be a violation of the Council of Jerusalem to engage in the rites of vampirism, but only the most absurdly literal translation of that verse would preclude blood transfusion, as the context was eating, not medical care. Your religion has caused preventable death with its absurd, arbitrary, unprecedented and unorthodox interpretation of Acts 15; when one considers the dame done by such Bible Scholarship one can sympathize with those Catholic theologians who argued the uneducated masses should not be allowed free access to the Bible in the vernacular, but that only those prepared to approach it through a course of proper study should be admitted.

This was interestingly always the case in the early church simply because Bibles were so scarce that only the wealthy could afford them and only the educated could read them. And they were not complete integral books usually, but rather individual manuscripts of specific books, lectionaries, Gospel books, and so on, and a distinction must be made between manuscripts prepared for private use and manuscripts arranged for liturgical service. There was not a situation comparable to that of today where the majority of people can read, can easily get a Bible, but are otherwise uneducated by classical standards.

Lastly, to be frank, who are you to know excrement from shinola when it comes to "original Christianity."? You reject all the testimony of those who knew the Apostles and were their immediate successors, you refuse to study ancient and relevant texts like the Didache, you ignore the work of academic scholarship into the Bible, philology, early Christianity, Patristics, the history of Christian dogma in general, and instead limit yourself to the intentionally mistranslated bible of your religion, and related propaganda.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
1808 “and the Word was a god” - Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text , London.

1864 “and a god was the Word” (left hand column interlinear reading) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1822 "and the Word was a god." - The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.);

1863 "and the Word was a god." - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863);

1885 "and the Word was a god." - Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885);
What did each of these people mean by this? How do we know they are reading into the verse the same thing you are?

1879 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979);
I couldn't find the original German for this, so unfortunately, I have no way of knowing if this is in fact what Becker rendered 1c as. Judging by the other German translations I've seen even on this list, I'm going to guess this is a misrepresentation of what Becker actually wrote.

1911 "and the Word was a god." - The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911);
And yet the Copts have always been staunchly Trinitarian. If their Bible read the same way, then you must conclude that either 1: Not a single one of the Copts was capable of properly reading one simple phrase in their own native language, or 2: this translation, or the source text itself, don't mean what you think it means.

1935 “and the Word was divine” - The Bible—An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1955 “so the Word was divine” - The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.
Neither of these two are problematic for Trinitarians.

1975 "and the Word was a god." - Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
I managed to find Siegfried Schulz's translation and commentary on John 1:1c in the original German, and he does not at all translate it as "and the Word was a god." Rather, he renders the verse as "and the Word was of divine nature/species/type." Schulz further goes on to say that the Word is consubstantial with God the Father--both of them have the same essence as being God. John 1:1c, according to Schulz, does not identify the Word with the God from 1:1b, as the God mentioned in 1:1b is the Father, not the Son. Schulz does, however, assign the same quality of being God to the Word as to the Father; in other words, the Word is just as much God as God Himself is, but they are not the same Person, which is exactly the Trinitarian position. Schulz defines the Word as the self-revealing God in Whom we come to God the Father. Schulz also states that there was never a time when the Word was not--another key Trinitarian belief.

New World Translation is not unique in this rendering, by a long shot.

I wonder why.
But can you be positive that other people intended their renderings to be interpreted in the same way as you intend your rendering to be interpreted?
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Thus the Orthodox abstain from Black Pudding, Polish "blood sausages" and related dishes, which I daresay as someone who enjoys tucking into a full English required some sacrifice from my part, until I realized that actually, black pudding tastes nasty anyways and its one of those British foods like Haggis and Bubble and Squeak we like to make pretend are edible.
Hey man, Haggis is delicious and you know it! D:

And wait, I have to abstain from eating haggis next time I go abroad? I just died to myself a little, like the Bible said I should, and it hurt right in the soul. ;-;
 

wgw

Member
Hey man, Haggis is delicious and you know it! D:

And wait, I have to abstain from eating haggis next time I go abroad? I just died to myself a little, like the Bible said I should, and it hurt right in the soul. ;-;

No, Haggis are acceptable on non-fasting days. It's just black pudding, which is pork intestines stuffed with dried clotted pigs blood, offal,and oatmeal, that is prohibited according to the Council of Jerusalem. And when you think about it...YUCK. I can't believe I ate that stuff. There is also blood-free black pudding that is like 93% less fattening, and at the same time the taste is supposed to be indistinguishable. So if you must have black pudding when you tuck into your full English along with beans, bacon, egg, toast and tomato, there are options.

The best breakfast in London though is Salmon Royale, which is Eggs Benedict with fine smoked salmon and a dash of caviar.

Also, fun fact, even on the strictest fasting days in Lent, the Orthodox allow shellfish and caviar. It is only during the absolute fast that the healthy are urged to keep for twelve hours before taking communion, and from Good Friday until Paschal Matins on Saturday Night, that you can't eat anything. The Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians also observe a difficult three day Fast of Nineveh in the weeks before Lent in which the healthy drink only water, but the Copts and Ethiopians aside, the fasting rules are otherwise less strict. So the Syriac Orthodox allow fish and dairy products and ban only land meat on days when the Byzantines require a vegan diet (Wednesday and Friday of every week). The Latin Rite of the Roman church sadly lost its fasting disciplines. These fasts have real spiritual and physical benefits; before I became Orthodox I weighed 300 lbs and now I weigh 200, give or take ten pounds, and feel better in many respects.

Alas I fear we are drifting on topic. So I'll quickly get us back on topic by saying the Orthodox on Christmas Eve fast until midnight, and feast on Christmas Day. Most Orthodox celebrate Christmas on January 7 (Gregorian) which is December 25 (Julian) but in America a narrow majority use the Revised Julian Calendar and celebrate Christmas on the 25th.
 

jeager106

Learning more about Jehovah.
Premium Member
No.Jesus was not born of December 25th.

Well there ya have it. Case closed.
Everything about Christ's Mass is rooted in paganism. Jews did not celebrate b-days.
Jesus was a Jew, why celebrate his birth? It's his death that was significant.
When was he born? Don't know but it was still warm enough the shepards were still tending sheep in the fields at night. Maybe August????
 

wgw

Member
There is nothing pagan about the fourth century church deciding in its wisdom to commemorate the incarnation of the divine Word, our Lord and Savior. If anyone's birth is worth commemorating, it is his. What is more, Dec 25 is close enough, based on dating from the vision of Zecariah at Yom Kippur through to the Visitation of Elizabeth, as a means of dating the Annunciation to around March 25 and thus the Nativity to around Dec 25.

Also Sol Invictus is a red herring given the ultra conservative Roman church was one of the last to celebrate Chrostmas apart from the Theophany, the Baptism of Christ, on January 6, which was the older third century tradition. The more liturgically innovative churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and the growing church at Constantinople and the equally waning church at Caesarea took this up first, as did the particularly theologically vigorous churches of Cappadocia, Ephesus, Cyprus and Edessa. By the time of the Council of Ephesus, the practice was universaly established, which is why all seven apostolic churches (the Roman church, the Greek church, the Syriac church, the Armenian Church, the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian Church and the Nestorian Church of the East) celebrated and continue to celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December. When the Portuguese Catholics arrived in Kerala, India, they found the St. Thomas Christians (at the time Nestorians) celebrating Christmas on Dec 25, according to the Julian calendar.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
The ' us ' at Genesis 1:26 is God talking to someone. That someone was the the one of Revelation 3 v 14 who is the beginning of the creation by God.
Through God's only-begotten heavenly Son comes all things.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
,
The ' us ' at Genesis 1:26 is God talking to someone. That someone was the the one of Revelation 3 v 14 who is the beginning of the creation by God.
Through God's only-begotten heavenly Son comes all things.
Theres no indication of how many ''us'' is signifying. I don't think it matters. The 'God' title doesn't seem to be limited. Incidentally, and I have not gotten a good 'answer' to this, it also means that this God title means JHVH, without being specified. The only arguments I've read that seem to propose this actually being a different Deity, is from people who don't use the Bible in its entire context theistically. Personally, whether 'Jesus' is there, in Genesis or not, is not important to me. I rather think He may or not be; however since the father manifested as Jesus, I'm not sure why God would be referring to Himself in a non-first person context. So, basically, I think it rather means the angels.
 

jeager106

Learning more about Jehovah.
Premium Member
"Nearly all aspects of Christmas observance have their roots in Roman custom and religion. Consider the following admission from a large American newspaper (The Buffalo News, Nov. 22, 1984): “The earliest reference to Christmas being marked on Dec. 25 comes from the second century after Jesus' birth. It is considered likely the first Christmas celebrations were in reaction to the Roman Saturnalia, a harvest festival that marked the winter solstice—the return of the sun—and honored Saturn, the god of sowing. Saturnalia was a rowdy time, much opposed by the more austere leaders among the still-minority Christian sect. Christmas developed, one scholar says, as a means of replacing worship of the sun with worship of the Son. By 529 A.D., after Christianity had become the official state religion of the Roman Empire, Emperor Justinian made Christmas a civic holiday. The celebration of Christmas reached its peak—some would say its worst moments—in the medieval period when it became a time for conspicuous consumption and unequaled revelry.”

Source:The True Origin of Christmas

There are many reliable trustworthy sources proving Christ's Mass was adopted from paganism.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
,
Theres no indication of how many ''us'' is signifying. I don't think it matters. The 'God' title doesn't seem to be limited. Incidentally, and I have not gotten a good 'answer' to this, it also means that this God title means JHVH, without being specified. The only arguments I've read that seem to propose this actually being a different Deity, is from people who don't use the Bible in its entire context theistically. Personally, whether 'Jesus' is there, in Genesis or not, is not important to me. I rather think He may or not be; however since the father manifested as Jesus, I'm not sure why God would be referring to Himself in a non-first person context. So, basically, I think it rather means the angels.

Since all things come though God's firstborn [ Colossians 1:15,16 ] who is the ' image ' of the invisible God, then the ' us ' or the who God was talking to would be the one of Rev. 3: 14 B.
What does 1st Corinthinas 8:6 say as to who is the one God, and who is the one Lord ?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
"Nearly all aspects of Christmas observance have their roots in Roman custom and religion. Consider the following admission from a large American newspaper (The Buffalo News, Nov. 22, 1984): “The earliest reference to Christmas being marked on Dec. 25 comes from the second century after Jesus' birth. It is considered likely the first Christmas celebrations were in reaction to the Roman Saturnalia, a harvest festival that marked the winter solstice—the return of the sun—and honored Saturn, the god of sowing. Saturnalia was a rowdy time, much opposed by the more austere leaders among the still-minority Christian sect. Christmas developed, one scholar says, as a means of replacing worship of the sun with worship of the Son. By 529 A.D., after Christianity had become the official state religion of the Roman Empire, Emperor Justinian made Christmas a civic holiday. The celebration of Christmas reached its peak—some would say its worst moments—in the medieval period when it became a time for conspicuous consumption and unequaled revelry.”
Source:The True Origin of Christmas

There are many reliable trustworthy sources proving Christ's Mass was adopted from paganism.

You can even source what gospel writer Luke wrote at Acts 20:29,30
The apostles knew that after their going away oppressive wolves would enter in among the flock and would not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among them yourselves men will rise up and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.
 
Well there ya have it. Case closed.
Everything about Christ's Mass is rooted in paganism. Jews did not celebrate b-days.
Jesus was a Jew, why celebrate his birth? It's his death that was significant.
When was he born? Don't know but it was still warm enough the shepards were still tending sheep in the fields at night. Maybe August????

Exactly! Also,at the time right before Jesus was born,Joseph and Mary were on their way to Bethlehem for the Census decreed by Caesar Augustus.Joseph was from the house line of David.He was on his way to his birth place.This would not have occurred during the winter.This would have taken place when it is warm.Many were traveling to their home lands to register.

Luke 2:1-3. 1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.2(This was the first census that took place while (Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to their own town to register.

Mary went into labor when they reached Bethlehem, 4 1/2 miles outside of Jerusalem.
8 days later Jesus was circumcised at the Temple in Jerusalem.All of this occurred before Winter.
 
Top