Encyclopedia Britannica’s entry for Christmas

“There were, however, many speculations in the 2nd century about the date of Christ’s birth. Clement of Alexandria, towards its close, mentions several such, and condemns them as superstitions.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, entry for Christmas)

“Lupi has shown that there is no month in the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned Christ’s birth.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, entry for Christmas)

“As late as 245 Origen, in his eighth homily on Leviticus, repudiates as sinful the very idea of keeping the birthday of Christ ‘as if he were a king Pharaoh.’” (Encyclopedia Britannica, entry for Christmas)

And according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Origen said, “of all the holy people in the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day on which they were born into this world below” (Catholic Encyclopedia, entry for Natal Day)

“No evidence remains about the exact date of the birth of Christ. The December 25 date was chosen as much for practical reasons as for theological ones. Throughout the Roman Empire, various festivals were held in conjunction with the winter solstice. In Rome, the Feast of the Unconquerable Sun celebrated the beginning of the return of the sun. When Christianity became the religion of the Empire, the church either had to suppress the festivals or transform them. The winter solstice seemed an appropriate time to celebrate Christ’s birth. Thus, the festival of the sun became a festival of the Son” (Holman Bible Dictionary, entry for Christmas)

“We have no superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas. First because we do not believe in any mass at all, but abhor it, whether it be sung in Latin or in English: Secondly, because we find no scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Savior; and consequently, its observance is a superstition, because not of divine authority. Superstition has fixed most positively the day of our Savior’s birth, although there in no possibility of discovering when it occurred. It was not till the middle of the third century that any part of the church celebrated the birth of our Lord; and it was not till long after the western Church had set the example, that the eastern adopted it. Because the day is not known. Probably the fact is that the “holy” days were arranged to fit in with the heathen festivals. We venture to assert that if there be any day in the year of which we may be pretty sure that it was not the day on which our Savior was born it is the 25th of December. Regarding not the day, let us give God thanks for the gift of His dear Son.” —C. H. Spurgeon Dec. 24, 1871 (Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, p. 697)

be-separate

Advertisements

Science now confirms the Sabbath

science-sabbath

The original Jews were not white!

Warning! The following author of the video below does not believe in Yahushua (Jesus) BUT does a great job at proving how the original Hebrews were not white. Therefore, Torahis4Today does not support the end of this video where the author states that Judaism and not Yahushua is the Way.

More Lies of the Black Hebrew Israelites

Lies of the Black Hebrew Israelites

A Jew proves how the original Hebrews were not Black.

Warning! The following author of the video below does not believe in Yahushua BUT does a great job at proving how the original Hebrews were not Black. Therefore, Torahis4Today does not support the end of this video where the author states that Judaism and not Yahushua is the Way.

The Scriptures 2009 edition

“The ISR Scriptures is a good version. And yes, it has done a great job with restoring the Names of our Creator, His Son, and most others found in the Scriptures. It has amended the English text to conform to a more Hebraic writing style, which is always nice. It also handles translated words and phrases better than most English Bibles out there. However, there are some notable differences. Primarily the differences being the base. The ISR Scriptures is essentially an extensive revision of the KJV. It retains some British English word order and spelling, and has a similar flow to the NKJV. It claims to use Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica as the source for the Tanakh (OT) and the Textus Receptus as the source for the NT. This is the major point of diversion. The largest disagreement [for some is] with this translation is its arbitrary use of source texts.

We say arbitrary because when a translation is being made, a source texts must be selected. ISR chose to use the Textus Receptus. They did this because, as they state in the Preface of the ISR Scriptures, “As a modus operandi then, we have started out using the Textus Receptus, modifying our rendering as seemed appropriate in light of those other texts which we consulted, such as the Nestle-Aland text and the Shem Tob text, noting certain differences in the footnotes, where necessary.” [emphasis added]

The major issue here is that these texts are not consistent on a Text-Critical level, nor are they consistent on a historical level. What the statement above essentially means is that readings were cherry picked from different source texts. Why would they do this? And at what point would they choose one reading over another? This shows that bias and personally-held theology drove the selection, and therefore influenced the translation. This is not consistent. They have created an eclectic text, with readings chosen from here and there. This is not uncommon, as the NIV translators did the same. However, one must wonder what lead the translators of ISR to choose one reading over another. If you are familiar with the translator and/or the organization, then you may already know the biases held by those individuals. And if you do, you can clearly see WHY these different readings were selected.

Another alarming fact about the ISR Scriptures is that, for the book of Matthew, they diverged yet again from both the Textus Receptus AND the Nestle-Aland, in that they translated it from the Hebrew Shem Tob Matthew. This book has been proven, rather easily and numerous times, to be a late translation of the Gospel of Matthew, made from Greek and Latin sources. In fact, contained within the publication which was published alongside the Shem Tob Matthew is an appendix which lists numerous objections to ישוע being the Messiah. Yet again we found it strikingly odd that ISR would diverge so far from their otherwise textually consistent translation. Even in this, ISR has not been completely faithful in their translation in sticking with their source texts when it comes to the New Testament” (http://literalenglishversion.weebly.com/faq.html).

Undeniable Biblical Proof That The Apostle Paul Was NOT just a “New Testament” Christian

pauls-example.jpg

Easter: Is it even in the Bible?

afraid-for-yoube-separateeaster-calledeaster-eggseaster-okayfalse-religionfollowing-man-or-messiahone-signpesach-lamb-easter-hamscience-swineunleavened-bread-bitter-herbswhy-lie

The most important video ever on Islam!

 

“Most important video I have ever seen about Islam … thanks whoever made it. Every non-muslim should know these facts before they begin to know about it — at least the first one. You will never able to find out two Islamic clerics simultaneously explaining Qur’an same way. There is no authentic translated version of Qur’an — because these are all the part of their strategy or treachery to hide the facts. The truth is Qur’an is the most heinous ideological book ever written on this planet — at least for a non-muslim.”