Nativity - Tumblr Posts
I found a nativity my mother does not have.
I've had a nativity scene tradition that I started with my family about 4 years ago, here's what this year's looks like so far
Every day or so, I add a new figurine to the scene lol
A list of the figures below the cut
Gojo Satoru
Inosuke sitting big hed thing idk lol
Inkling amibo
Spider-Man hanging from a street lamp
Pikachu
Bonnie's head
Spring trap (on his way to get his first kill)
A mermaid D&D minifigure
And last but not least:
Star platinum fist (from Jotaro part 6 nendoroid)
Opening credits from The Small One (1978)
A Holiday Greeting
May the joy of the season envelop you and your loved ones with smiles and treasured memories as the holidays progress. I hope you have a joyous and festive Christmas.
Thank you for all your support this past year.
“It is Christmas every time you let God love others through you.”—Saint Teresa of Calcutta.
What the Gospels Are, and What they are Not
By Author Eli of Kittim
Some of my readers have not fully understood my position regarding the gospels because they have not read my book, and therefore do not know the extent of these teachings. As a result, they have voiced their disagreement with my position. But in order to conclusively reject my view on the grounds that it fails to be supported by scripture, certain criteria must be met. However, based on some of my debates, their initial grounds for dismissal are often based on erroneous premises, such as tradition or dogma, conjecture and hearsay. At any rate, whatever it is that they think of my view is patently wrong because they haven’t yet grasped the gist of it. For example, I never said or implied that the gospels are made up stories, or that they were invented or manufactured by the writers themselves. Never was I so bold as to say that the gospels are superstitious myths, or the work of pure fiction with no basis in reality. If this is what some of my readers think, they couldn’t be further from the truth.
So, in my defense, let me explain what the gospels are, and what they are not.
1) I believe that the Gospels were verbally inspired by God (known as “Verbal Plenary Inspiration”). This means that every word of the gospels is God-given (“Plenary” means that the gospels are therefore fully authoritative). A side note: This means that it's not just the gospels, but scripture as a whole is authoritative over tradition or dogma. It means that all church tradition must be subordinated to the authority of Scripture. One of those dogmas that we inherited from the church was that the story of Christ happened in history (presumably from their literal interpretation of the gospels). But unless we check it against scripture, we will never know the validity of this dogma.
2) I also believe that in order to form valid conclusions, we must cross-reference between the gospels and the epistles to make sure that the account of Jesus is the same in all these texts and does not vary or present any major problems, especially with regard to chronology (i.e. the timing of his coming). A side note: When we engage in this type of study, certain things become immediately evident:
a) the authors of the Epistles do not mention a lot of the gospel material. For instance, they never once mention the birth narrative of Jesus, the virgin birth, the Flight into Egypt, the Star of Bethlehem, the magi, or even the city of Bethlehem as Jesus’ birth place. Now, that should raise some red flags.
b) In some cases, the authors of the Epistles seemingly contradict the gospels (I say “seemingly” because they don’t really contradict them, it only appears as such from our particular viewpoint) because they allude to Christ’s revelation as occurring “once at the consummation of the ages” (Heb.9:26), or in the “last days” (Heb. 1:1-2), so that the correct timing of Christ’s coming suddenly becomes an open question!
3) Even within the gospel texts themselves, we find language that seems more consistent with the epistles than with the church’s dogma (remember that in all of this, our dispute is not with the gospels per se, but rather with the “interpretation” of the gospels as put forth by church tradition). In the gospel of Luke, there is some indication that the suffering and rejection of Christ is ascribed not to the present, but to a future generation:
“Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He [Jesus] answered them and said, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; … The days shall come [centuries will pass] when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man and you will not see it. … For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day. BUT FIRST HE MUST SUFFER MANY THINGS AND BE REJECTED BY THIS [implied, future] GENERATION. And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it shall be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, … until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all’” (17:20-27, emphasis added).
During his discourse on the end of days, Jesus promulgates a prophecy which most scholars attribute to his second coming: “For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day” (Luke 17:24). What is surprising, however, is that this prophecy is then expanded by a most intriguing appendage to the previous verse: “But first He must suffer many things” (17:25). In other words, while “the literary Jesus” is predicting his supposed second coming, according to the common view, this terse statement shockingly reveals that his incarnation must necessarily precede his coming from the sky! And since the entire prophecy is set in the future, the sentence pertaining to Christ’s suffering and rejection “by this [chronologically implied] generation” cannot possibly be understood in any other context except as a reference to a future event. Otherwise we would be dislocating this sentence from the end times setting of the prophecy, thus creating a bizarre anachronism. After all, Jesus prophesies that a long time will pass before we behold “the Son of Man” (Luke 17:22), an idiomatic phrase that is deeply tied to his incarnation (Ps. 8:4; Matt. 9:6; 17:9; 24:44; Gal. 4:4). In fact, Luke goes on to say that Jesus will be initially revealed ("ἀποκαλύπτεται" in Greek) in the last days:
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. ... It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed" (Luke 17:26-30).
Now, let’s compare that passage with one from the epistles. Notice that 1 Peter 1:7 exhorts us to have faith so that we are ready “at the revelation of Jesus Christ,” which is “revealed in the last days” (1 Peter 1:5), and then Peter declares categorically and unequivocally that “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories” that would follow are really prophecies or “predictions”:
“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he PREDICTED the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.” (1 Peter 1:10-11, emphasis added, ESV).
4) To shed some light to this apparent controversy, we must also consult the Old Testament. But wherever we look there, we find one prophecy after another that seems to support the epistolary view of Jesus rather than the historical view of the gospels. Zephaniah 1:7, Daniel 12:1-2, Zechariah 12:9-10, and Isaiah 2:19 all place the death and resurrection of the Messiah at “the end of time” (Dan. 12:4). It is not a coincidence that Rabbinical scholars, steeped in Hebrew Scripture, also conclude that, according to their writings, the Messiah will appear once in the last days!
5) There are also literary and historical considerations. We now know that the gospels were written approximately 40-70 years after the purported events, which would indicate that they do not contain eyewitness reports, something the early church was not privy to during the formation of their dogma. Therefore, most of the evidence seems to confirm the epistolary view of Jesus, and the only thing standing in its way from being unanimous is the church’s dogma, which is a thorn in its side because it also creates all of the apparent biblical confusion that is expressed through various diametrically opposed views, such as Preterism versus Futurism, and the like.
Conclusion
Therefore, based on these findings, we must rightly conclude that although the gospels are the word of God, nevertheless, their purpose and function within the New Testament cannot be to give us a literal interpretation of history. After all, the Bible is not a book on science or history, but a book of faith! And if the gospels are the word of God—giving us an outline of the life of Christ within the context of the entire history of mankind, not just past history—then they must be theological documents that give us a glimpse of Jesus’ future history through theological language that imparts instruction into the meanings of salvation, the Messiah, and the nature of God. In other words, the gospels are a mixed bag of theology, history (history written in advance; cf. Isa. 46:10), and prophecy!
Is There Really a Virgin Birth?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The Hebrew word “almah” means “young woman,” but the Septuagint translated it as “virgin” (ἡ παρθένος). Since the New Testament writers usually quote from the Greek Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Bible, Matthew 1.23 follows suit and uses the word “virgin” (παρθένος) in quoting Isaiah 7.14:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm
So, that’s how we got the word “virgin” in our New Testament. Henceforth, Marian theology emerges. From here begins Mariolatry, the worship of Mary as a Goddess, otherwise known as the “Theotokos” (God-bearer) in the Greek Orthodox Church. And although it is true that Luke praises Mary for being chosen as the mother of God, in time, however, Mary’s status is elevated, so much so that she becomes almost the fourth person of the Trinity, as the dogmas of Mary gradually become intertwined with doctrines of the faith with regard to redemption, intercession, and grace. Christian Mariology became an integral part of the Catholic church as the faithful began to pray to Mary for intercession and help, such as praying the rosary or glorifying Mary as part of their daily prayer. She became like a Goddess. Of course, there is no Biblical support for these Marian dogmas, prayers, devotions, and exultations.
——-
If that’s not enough, the Catholic church then went on to devise the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the idea that Mary was like a divine being who was born without sin. This Catholic dogma was created in 1854, declaring that Mary was conceived free from original sin, which was then followed by the doctrine regarding the Assumption of Mary, the notion that Mary was taken up or raptured into heaven like Elijah. The dogma is unclear as to whether Mary died or not, only that she was taken up into heaven, perhaps imitating the ascension of Jesus.
——-
The earliest writings of Christianity are Paul’s letters, written between 48-60 AD. Paul does not mention the nativity (the birth of Jesus), or the magi, or the star of Bethlehem, or the massacre of the innocents, or the flight to Egypt, or the virgin birth! These embellishments come much later (between 70-100 AD) with the writings of the gospels, and even then the virgin birth is only recorded in Matthew and Luke. So, it appears that Paul doesn’t know anything about a virgin birth. Otherwise, he would have told us about it!
——-
Conclusion
The Greek term παρθένος can be masculine or feminine. The definite article (“the”), which precedes it, tells us the gender, whether it is male (o/ho) or female (eta/η). At any rate, the point of the Septuagint’s translation, regarding the Messianic birth, is to show that the male child (cf. Rev. 12.5) is special. He is holy: a virgin, so to speak. He is monogenēs (“the only one"; cf. Heb. 11:17-19). That’s what the Bible is trying to depict. Not that he simply appeared out of nowhere, defying the laws of nature. His birth is natural. But he himself is more than human (cf. Isa. 9.6). That’s the point! The reason Joseph is depicted as Jesus’ nonbiological father has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with THEOLOGY! The gospels are theological narratives which are trying to show that Jesus is not simply a descendant of Adam, but of God. That’s the reasoning behind the theology of the virgin birth! So, the so-called “virgin birth” has been blown out of proportion to the point that even Muslims are talking about a literal, miraculous virgin birth. This is utter nonsense. In his book “miracles,” CS Lewis says that God never breaks the laws of nature; he only transcends them. That’s why Paul tells us nothing about the virgin birth. That’s also why Galatians 4.4 doesn’t say that Jesus is *born* of a virgin but rather “of a woman” (ἐκ γυναικός). Yes, Jesus is God and he certainly has the power to do miracles. But his birth doesn’t break the laws of nature. He is born naturally, like every other human being!
Hebrews 2.17:
For this reason he [Jesus] had to be made
like them, fully human in every way.
——-
7:30 pm. -3°C. Ontario.
Getting paid to sit next to gear while a bunch of middle class white people present the story of a teen-pregnant Jewish middle-eastern refugee family.
By singing to synth music tracks.
But there's a real donkey and horse.
My current icon with an angelic character of mine, Tzadkiel, that I made in mind for a Christmas card for last year.
My current icon with an angelic character of mine, Tzadkiel, that I made in mind for a Christmas card for last year.
My Christmas Story
Hey Cortana,
It’s been a while. Writing has not exactly been my strongest trait and yes, I postpone any bulb that lights up in my head to write about something (a terrible habit) and after typing it out, it sounds shameful so I will strive to be better. So yes, oh la la, Christmas is a few days away I believe and the conventional harmattan hasn’t set in yet, but we will certainly chop the Bronya, Africa winter or not.
About a week ago, my quiet time was centered on Gabriel’s visit to Joseph and how prior to the visit, Joseph had made up his mind to divorce Mary quietly although the law insisted it should be done publicly which was accompanied with stoning. I have always questioned why Mary and Joseph were chosen, why them? Mary was said to be highly favoured when Gabriel visited. What do I have to do to be considered favoured and noticed by God? That must be a Wowza experience but daily in my walk with God, it is my request that as He sits on His throne above, may He consider me favoured. Yes, those are questions I asked and this is where it sunk in with regards to Joseph, “Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and YET (that word won the day for me) did not want to expose her to public disgrace.” (Matthew 1:19)
Everyone needs a companion and a buddy. It is needed and although we have a friend in Jesus, people here on earth help direct our life path and life decisions. Your companion can make or unmake you. They help in your growth or fasten your death process and in our bid to find such a person is very difficult and confusing as we are fenced with individuals who are constantly in a haste to please the world, share in your happy moments and privately loathe your development in whatever path you have chosen to tread. With Joseph, what hit me was his sincere love, respect and, care for Mary. He was a friend. Just put yourself in Joseph’s shoes. The angel had not visited him then and your fiancé tells you a “bogus” story of how she is pregnant when you haven’t slept with her yet. His most valued jewel, the apple of his eyes. Ah, Mary, you are mean! And all I can think of is, not only do you lie to me, but you must think I am stupid as well. What makes this story beautiful for me is the fact that Joseph seemed to know his fiancé. I am definite Joseph believed Mary. Trust was central in their relationship. He was “faithful to the law” yet he thought of Mary and how the public disgrace of being stoned to death was going to be for her. It was a tough decision for him to do the right thing, choosing between the law and his fiancé. When I was done reading the passage, I felt Joseph was wrong. He should have let Mary pay the price. It was the law after all.
We all need that one friend who is not in a rush to hang us to dry (Don’t get me wrong, I am not in any way asking us to compromise on sin and not do the right thing. He was doing the right thing ultimately because he sought to divorce Mary just not with the public ridicule). May we find companions who will not want us to go through extreme pain than we already might be going through because of decisions we made or wrong choices. May we find partners who will carefully examine their options and do the right thing and minimally ease the pain and sentence. Mary was already going through a lot, I believe. Feeling down and ashamed and even confused about what was happening. God, Love, Respect, Trust and, Care are the most important traits I look for in a relationship (at least for me). A man who respects you is vital. He considers all his decisions towards you and how you might be affected. He doesn’t pursue without you in mind and vice versa.
I guess I know why Mary and Joseph were chosen then to bring forth our Saviour. It takes a wise woman to be able to sell that story to her fiancé and an equally wise enduring man to understand it. Jesus is the reason for the season. Let us ALWAYS remember the Christ in Christmas. Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, goodwill toward men. Merry Christmas!
