It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

[Video] The Cradle, The Cross and The Crown

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Recently I've been preaching a series in the book of Revelation in my church.
I haven't shared any of the videos from this series here yet (though only three of my sermons have been recorded for technical reasons - and while this one is up, I still need to work to improve the audio), but I thought I might share this one.

This sermon is from Revelation chapter 5; a chapter set in the throne room of God, wherein the entire scope of humanity is searched for one who is worthy to open a scroll held in the hand of God. What is this scroll? What's its significance? Who is worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals? Well, I'll give you a hint: this is also a Christmas sermon. It's all about Jesus Christ.

For more detail, you'll just have to watch. Hope you enjoy it.


edit on 21-12-2015 by Awen24 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Christmas may be about Jesus, but yuletide celebrates Jul/jolner/odin. This is where we get Christmas from.
edit on 21-12-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Indeed.
I actually didn't address the origin of Christmas (in pagan terms) at all in this sermon.
I think the Bible is fairly clear in terms of the evidence that it provides that Jesus was not born on December 25th (or in December at all) - but that's another topic for another day



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Winter solctice. In old Norse (Scandinavia) it was celebrated from 21 December to end of the January and there comes the name Yule, same time of the year ( not in same century ) in Rome they were celebrating god Saturnalia- god of agriculture. Also in Rome they had a celebration of Juvenalia ( Children) . There were many different celebrations at that time so christians started to celebrate Christmas on those days. Anyway i doubt that Yule was any reason to that as you should know Yule was only celebrated in Scandinavia and first babtised Viking King was First King of Norway Harald I Halvdansson «Fairhair» Hårfagre who was born about 850 BC and died 932 BC.
edit on 21-12-2015 by dollukka because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Awen24
I'll give you a hint: this is also a Christmas sermon. It's all about Jesus Christ.

Who, but another believer, would willingly sit through Xtian propaganda?

Merry Xmas! *__-
edit on 21-12-2015 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Awen24
I'll give you a hint: this is also a Christmas sermon. It's all about Jesus Christ.

Who, but another believer, would willingly sit through Xtian propaganda?

Merry Xmas! *__-


You're playing a little fast and loose with the word 'propaganda' there, but regardless...
I don't expect anyone to sit through me talking for 40 odd minutes, unless they're actually interested in the topic - and that's fine!

The whole idea behind this sermon, however, is to strip away a lot of that traditional sentimentality that we attach to Christmas, and get back to the reality of it all - and by that, I don't mean Santa and Christmas trees, but the very Christian sentimentality of 'silent nights' and babies that don't cry in mangers. The reality of the story of Jesus' birth is far less glamorous and much more gritty and earthy than we usually give it credit for.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Awen24
The whole idea behind this sermon, however, is to strip away a lot of that traditional sentimentality that we attach to Christmas, and get back to the reality of it all - and by that, I don't mean Santa and Christmas trees, but the very Christian sentimentality of 'silent nights' and babies that don't cry in mangers. The reality of the story of Jesus' birth is far less glamorous and much more gritty and earthy than we usually give it credit for.

Are you saying that true Xtianity, as defined by Jesus, doesn't have anything to do with 'Xmas'?
I would surely agree, if...

And I think that you are playing fast and loose with the term "reality" (of Jesus' birth)! *__-

I just noticed that you consider yourself to be "sarcasm incarnate".
How does that fit in with your sermons?



edit on 22-12-2015 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: dollukka
a reply to: TzarChasm

Winter solctice. In old Norse (Scandinavia) it was celebrated from 21 December to end of the January and there comes the name Yule, same time of the year ( not in same century ) in Rome they were celebrating god Saturnalia- god of agriculture. Also in Rome they had a celebration of Juvenalia ( Children) . There were many different celebrations at that time so christians started to celebrate Christmas on those days. Anyway i doubt that Yule was any reason to that as you should know Yule was only celebrated in Scandinavia and first babtised Viking King was First King of Norway Harald I Halvdansson «Fairhair» Hårfagre who was born about 850 BC and died 932 BC.


You are welcome to your opinion.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss
Are you saying that true Xtianity, as defined by Jesus, doesn't have anything to do with 'Xmas'?
I would surely agree, if...

And I think that you are playing fast and loose with the term "reality" (of Jesus' birth)! *__-

I just noticed that you consider yourself to be "sarcasm incarnate".
How does that fit in with your sermons?


There is a time and place for sarcasm - my sermons are rarely one of them, though I have had moments.
As far as the reality of the birth of Jesus Christ - you'll struggle to find a decent historian to agree with you... the existence of Jesus (and let's just set aside other issues like his deity and the resurrection for a moment) is widely accepted even by those who hate Christianity.

...and in answer to your question, yes, I think it's fair to say that Christianity and Christmas have little to nothing to do with each other. That's not to suggest that the gospel accounts are inaccurate, but all of the trappings and even many of our fundamental beliefs about the birth of Jesus are just flat wrong. Examples? Well, three wise men, for example. They weren't "wise men", they were Magi - and if there were only three of them, they'd have been robbed and left for dead long before they ever reached Jerusalem, particularly if they were carrying gold, frankincense and myrrh.

...oh, and they weren't present at Jesus' birth.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Awen24

originally posted by: namelesss
Are you saying that true Xtianity, as defined by Jesus, doesn't have anything to do with 'Xmas'?
I would surely agree, if...

And I think that you are playing fast and loose with the term "reality" (of Jesus' birth)! *__-

I just noticed that you consider yourself to be "sarcasm incarnate".
How does that fit in with your sermons?

As far as the reality of the birth of Jesus Christ - you'll struggle to find a decent historian to agree with you... the existence of Jesus (and let's just set aside other issues like his deity and the resurrection for a moment) is widely accepted even by those who hate Christianity.

Sorry, people lie for many reasons;
1) It's dangerous to pisss off the 'big boys' on the block.
Xtian persecution is legendary, and people 'confess' often from fear and in self-defense!
2) Much money for research comes from Xtian sources, and they MUST keep being fed!
And, again, refer to #1!

So, to sum up so far;
There is no credible independent eyewitnesses, in a time and an area RIPE with reporters and historians an other scholars, but not a single peep!
Nor is there any credible archaeological evidence (some fossilized fence post from wherever with "Jesus was Here!" ... ith a halo over it!)!
You show me anything other than the 'book', as 'evidence', and I'll be happy to evaluate it.
It makes no difference at all to me whether he lived or not; he exists Here! Now! in the imaginations of the believers, and in the book and in artworks and his teachings...
Everything exists! *__-

So, with no credible evidence, hard or soft, you people continue the Polly-wanna-crackerish "you'll struggle to find a decent historian to agree with you.." nonsense? Shall I assume that any 'decent' 'historian', is any 'historian' who agrees with the 'beliefs' that you need to feed?
An 'atheist' for instance, self-funded, unbiased, unattached, fearless, would not be 'descent', if he didn't follow the 'belief party' line'?
Sorry, but that statement is no more than another desperate Faithless Xtian lie, and an appeal to authority fallacy!
Like the Western 'date' is proof of Jesus, when all educated know that it was rammed down many throats by the power and money of the Catholic church!
And, I repeat, the historicity of Jesus is completely irrelevant to his teaching/example!
'Beliefs' are (conditional) imagination, ego, vanity; He taught unconditional Love!


...and in answer to your question, yes, I think it's fair to say that Christianity and Christmas have little to nothing to do with each other. That's not to suggest that the gospel accounts are inaccurate, but all of the trappings and even many of our fundamental beliefs about the birth of Jesus are just flat wrong. Examples? Well, three wise men, for example. They weren't "wise men", they were Magi - and if there were only three of them, they'd have been robbed and left for dead long before they ever reached Jerusalem, particularly if they were carrying gold, frankincense and myrrh.

All metaphor!
Literalists remain ever clueless, without the ability to read past the words, between the lines, to hear that "wee small voice"!


...oh, and they weren't present at Jesus' birth.

Yeah, probably not... considering...
But, looking at the whole tale as 'metaphor', what can be gained? Therein lies the Key! *__-
edit on 23-12-2015 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

I could go into detail on why your post is incorrect, but it's not my intention to have a huge debate here.
What I will say, though, is that when studying any text (and this is my background, FYI - textual analysis), the text and the context are your evidence for interpretation; that is, the specific devices used by the text indicate to you what TYPE of text you're working with.

Does the Bible contain metaphor? Absolutely.
Is the Bible a metaphor? No, it is not. It contains historical texts, poetry, philosophy, parables, apocalyptic texts, and numerous other genres. The idea that you can just "look at the whole tale as metaphor" is a genuinely poor approach to any text, let alone one so varied and sophisticated as the Bible.
edit on 23-12-2015 by Awen24 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Awen24
a reply to: namelesss
I could go into detail on why your post is incorrect, but it's not my intention to have a huge debate here.

Riiight...
Whatever...
Have a nice day.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Awen24
a reply to: namelesss
I could go into detail on why your post is incorrect, but it's not my intention to have a huge debate here.

Riiight...
Whatever...
Have a nice day.


I mean it. I could defend Jesus Christ until the cows come home - but it's not going to change your opinion, and it's not going to keep either of us on the topic this thread started with. I'll continue to maintain my position, that the historicity of Jesus is as close to indisputable as you'll find in the historical record, and you'll continue to argue yours - and at the end of the day, neither of us will come out of it any better - because I suspect that even if I were to categorically prove my case, it wouldn't affect your feelings on the subject. ...and I don't mean that rudely, that's just human nature.



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Awen24

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Awen24
a reply to: namelesss
I could go into detail on why your post is incorrect, but it's not my intention to have a huge debate here.

Riiight...
Whatever...
Have a nice day.


I mean it. I could defend Jesus Christ until the cows come home - but it's not going to change your opinion, and it's not going to keep either of us on the topic this thread started with. I'll continue to maintain my position, that the historicity of Jesus is as close to indisputable as you'll find in the historical record, and you'll continue to argue yours - and at the end of the day, neither of us will come out of it any better - because I suspect that even if I were to categorically prove my case, it wouldn't affect your feelings on the subject. ...and I don't mean that rudely, that's just human nature.

And, as valid as your point, it is equally valid when turned in 180 degrees! *__-
One does not so easily 'change' a belief (infection)!
One can easily change a simple tentative theory with the advent of new info; I couldn't really care less whether he was actual or not, as I have stated.
I have no iron in the fire, no 'belief' to emotionally defend and validate/feed and spread!

I asked for your real evidence, and still see none.
I see a lot of obfuscatory blah, blah, blah... (as always, when a 'belief' feels threatened), but still no evidence...
Point successfully evaded!
I'm quite used to this scenario, in my studies in the pathological morphology of a 'belief' infection.



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

It's always interesting to me that people clamour for "evidence", and yet the gospels, which are historical documents, are not permitted into the conversation. Are they a biased source? Absolutely! ...but part of the work of engaging with history is in engaging with primary documents and both working with, and seeing past that bias - because every single document has one.

Now, to talk about external evidence: yes, I can point you to first and second-century sources that talk about Jesus - and yes, we could look at the historicity of the Bible as a whole, and examine it point-by-point... but if we're honest, it's not the historicity of the Bible that people (or you) actually take issue with; it's the idea that you're accountable to God, and that you should be expected to live your life by His standards.

You can correct me if I'm wrong on that, and I suspect that you will - but as we've agreed, all the evidence in the world isn't going to change minds on these topics.

But, given that you've contested that, let me indulge you. I could give you my own breakdown on these things, but others (who specialize in this field) have done so better than I would, so I'll rely on them instead.


One of the better articles on the topic is this:
www.abc.net.au...

...while BiblicalArchaeology's breakdown on the topic is likewise worth reading:
www.biblicalarchaeology.org...


...the fundamental point being that if you're to start arguing against the historicity of Jesus, you'll immediately be forced to eliminate every single other historical figure that went before Him - because there is far more evidence in support of the life and work of Jesus Christ than any other historical figure in history.



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Awen24
a reply to: namelesss

It's always interesting to me that people clamour for "evidence", and yet the gospels, which are historical documents,

And with that bit of imaginary nonsense, the conversation degrades into an "I believe" fest.



are not permitted into the conversation. Are they a biased source? Absolutely! ...but part of the work of engaging with history is in engaging with primary documents and both working with, and seeing past that bias - because every single document has one.

The New Testament can only be considered as 'evidence' IF there were independent eyewitnesses to corroborate.
If such corroboration is unnecessary, the Cat in the Hat book would be sufficient evidence for the ... Cat!


Now, to talk about external evidence: yes, I can point you to first and second-century sources that talk about Jesus

People talk about Jesus all the time, and it means nothing regarding his historicity!
THERE ARE NO INDEPENDENT EYEWITNESSES!
I couldn't care less who talks about Jesus, with no experience/knowledge!
He said and she said and thats all!
Not one "I witnessed!"



- and yes, we could look at the historicity of the Bible as a whole, and examine it point-by-point... but if we're honest, it's not the historicity of the Bible that people (or you) actually take issue with; it's the idea that you're accountable to God, and that you should be expected to live your life by His standards.

According to your 'beliefs' and your personal 'scripture/rules'.
There are many scriptures, full of myths/rules, and there is someone to claim that any one is the True one!
Emotional, vain, egotistical...


You can correct me if I'm wrong on that, and I suspect that you will - but as we've agreed, all the evidence in the world isn't going to change minds on these topics.

That is only if you are infected with beliefs!
As I am not, as I already said, which you apparently missed, I am very willing to alter or discard any theories with the advent of new evidence!
If you don't hear the first time, what's the point of repeating myself.
That is why a philosophical discussion is not possible with a 'believer' (on the subject (strain) of his 'belief'.
One is intellect and the other is emotional vanity needing to survive!


But, given that you've contested that, let me indulge you. I could give you my own breakdown on these things, but others (who specialize in this field) have done so better than I would, so I'll rely on them instead.

One of the better articles on the topic is this:
www.abc.net.au...

...while BiblicalArchaeology's breakdown on the topic is likewise worth reading:
www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

More of the same, no doubt.
If you had evidence, you'd present it, rather than dumping websites in my lap.
I don't mind a website to illustrate what you are saying, but other than "I believe!", you haven't said anything!


...the fundamental point being that if you're to start arguing against the historicity of Jesus, you'll immediately be forced to eliminate every single other historical figure that went before Him - because there is far more evidence in support of the life and work of Jesus Christ than any other historical figure in history.

And with that ignorant lie, I cannot play this silly pointless game any longer!
I said all I need to say, you have said nothing, offered nothing to refute anything that I said, so, not needing to 'change your mind' or 'convince you of anything' (unlike 'beliefs' which constantly require 'defense' and 'validation/feeding' and 'spreading), I bid you adieu!

You remind me of the chess playing pigeon; it knocks over the pieces, poops on the board, and returns to the flock claiming victory!
I gave you your chance to offer anything at all, and you failed.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

People talk about Jesus all the time, and it means nothing regarding his historicity!
THERE ARE NO INDEPENDENT EYEWITNESSES!
I couldn't care less who talks about Jesus, with no experience/knowledge!
He said and she said and thats all!
Not one "I witnessed!"



This, really, is the crux.
There are in fact four eyewitnesses. These books, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were included in the Bible for this very reason. They were all written in the first century, and were attested to and highly valued by those who knew Jesus and the apostles.

Discounting them, simply because they are written by people who loved Jesus, is foolish.




top topics



 
4

log in

join