The Gift

**allodial** · 03-15-15, 06:04 AM

Thanks for sharing. What of the Pentecost mentioned in Acts in the upper room shortly after the kingdom was formally conferred and then the same was conferred upon the saints? That event is encoded at Ephesians 1 and 2 (the word sit is translated from Greek 'kathizo' or the like and means to confer a kingdom upon). Maybe I might be reading it wrong because it seems to not be mentioned. Very interesting stuff though.

**doug555** · 03-15-15, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by allodial View Post

Thanks for sharing. What of the Pentecost mentioned in Acts in the upper room shortly after the kingdom was formally conferred and then the same was conferred upon the saints? That event is encoded at Ephesians 1 and 2 (the word sit is translated from Greek 'kathizo' or the like and means to confer a kingdom upon). Maybe I might be reading it wrong because it seems to not be mentioned. Very interesting stuff though.

Good question! I think you are referring to Eph 1:20 and 2:6. The NAS says "seated". This same word is used in Col 3:1. See its Greek meaning at: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexic...ugkathizo.html

Now contrast your view with the question raised in Acts 1:6-7. If the kingdom was already "conferred", why did the Apostles ask this question? (BTW: the word "conferred" does not appear in the NT in the context you cite.)

I believe your view may be best explained by Rev 3:5, where our names as converted begotten saints and citizens of the Kingdom are written in the book of life, and they will stay there unless we fail to overcome, upon which such names will be erased from the book of life.

Mt 25:31,34 shows when the saints inherit the kingdom. It occurs after we are born as literal spirit beings, and are no longer flesh and blood (Jn 3:5; 1 Cor 15:50)

IMO, right now, our status is only son and heir (Gal 4:7) - not inheritor and possessor - of the LITERAL Divine Family Kingdom.

Beware of the "kingdom is within you" doctrine, which may have prompted your view above, which aligns with Gnosticim.

The word "within" in Lk 17:21 could just as legitimately be translated "in the midst of", which has an entirely different connotation in the context of that Scripture.

Notice that these Pharisees had this very same question that the Apostles had in Acts 1:6, namely, "when the Kingdom of God was coming".

Notice that Christ said it was NOT coming with "signs to be observed". Yet , then in Lk 17:24, just a few verses later, He says the Son on Man will come as lightning in the sky in His day (referring to Holyday #4), and in Mt 24:30, He refers to this same event, saying "then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky".

Is this not an apparent contradiction? Indeed it is!

Unless Lk 17:20 has an entirely different meaning than is commonly assumed.

Let's see if this explanation fits better, and resolves this apparent contradiction...

Christ is saying in Lk 17:20 that to the Pharisees the kingdom will not come into their awareness and belief by signs, or by any miraculous physical event that they could see and observe. It can only come by revelation from the Father. And this principle and truth is clearly illustrated in Mt 16:15-17.

Now, notice that Mt 16:15-17 had to do with recognizing the man named Jesus as The Christ, the very Son of God, in the flesh. They also recognized Him as "the King of Israel" (Jn 1:49).

Then notice that the Pharisees did NOT recognize Jesus as the Christ, the King of the coming Kingdom of God, who was literally standing there "in the midst of" them - "For behold, the Kingdom of God is in your midst (Lk 17:21 NAS). The Kindgom of God, in the literal person of its King, Jesus Christ, was right there standing in front of them, and they could not see it/Him!

Now, does not this translation of the Greek word "entos" (Strong's 1787) as "in the midst of" make more sense, in this context, and resolve the apparent contradiction?

And then notice that Christ actually did answer the Pharisses' question about "when" by stating in Lk 17:25, which refers to the Passover, which is Holyday #1. Amazing! If they had eyes to see and ears to hear, the Pharisees, who supposedly were experts in the Scriptures should have seen this connection, and then should have been able to extrapolate that the Kingdom would NOT come until Holyday #4. And, obviously, after the Passover, Holyday #1, there would have to occur in history TWO MORE HOLYDAYS before the kingdom would come on Holyday #4.

This is the same mistake that is blinding almost all people on earth to this very day!

This is the blindness that http://pentcostnation.wordpress.com is dedicated to exposing and expunging from those who are being called to partake in the Spring Harvest Phase of the literal Kingdom of God on earth!

BTW: The Acts 2 Pentecost event is NOT a fulfillment of Holyday #3. It is only a TYPE of what will literally happen at the true literal fulfillent of Holyday #3 that MUST occur AFTER Holyday #2 occurs. Nothing happened in Scripture between Jn 19 (Passover) and Acts 2 that records the fulfillment of Holyday #2. This oversight is also a major cause of the blindness about Holydays #2 and #3!

This Petition will help remove this blindness.

**BLBereans** · 03-15-15, 07:41 PM

Here is a most interesting study and treatise relating specifically to the "Kingdom".

Attached Files

Kingdom of God Kingdom of Heaven.pdf (0, 110 views)

**David Merrill** · 03-15-15, 08:28 PM

I just began an eleven-week course Kingdom Builders.

**doug555** · 03-15-15, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by BLBereans View Post

Here is a most interesting study and treatise relating specifically to the "Kingdom".

[ATTACH]2366[/ATTACH]

Thanks for this cite.

Searching for "entos greek meaning" led me to this work at: http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MarcinR01.pdf

It focuses on this exact issue, as stated on page 3:

... the question of whether 'entos' truly is an ambiguous word. The purpose of this article is to explore the meaning of the Greek preposition 'entos' primarily from a semantic vantage point. The exploration will necessarily involve some theological inference, but it is hoped that theological preference is avoided.

Notice on page 2, footnote 3 (bold added):

This connotation is somewhat problematic, however, in that Jesus has just told His audience that the Kingdom of God does not come with observation, and He (Jesus) was certainly observable to His listeners.

Then on page 6 (bold added):

The question, of course,remains whether there are .

The Revised Standard Versionin the midst of

Counterarguments, of course, have been made tend, to some extent at least, to be based more on theological preference than on semantic analysis. 5 Theological preference aside, analyses of the simple meanings of the preposition 'entos', its adverbial counterparts, its antonym, and its Septuagint usages in the Old Testament

Notice especially the phrase "Theological preference aside" in the above cite. Can this exclusion be justified, especially in light of what the Scriptures say about how we are to arrive at the truth in Isa 28:10, 13 which shows that the context from the entire Bible is very important in order to understand any particular verse?

Now notice the footnote #5 referenced in this cite. It states this (bold added):

"Jesus was telling the Pharisees where, i.e., in what locale, the Kingdom can be found."

Please notice that this statement in footnote #5 ignores an important aspect about what is actually stated in the Lk 17:20, which is:

"20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;".

Notice that the Pharisees' question was about when - not where!

Now the heart of this issue becomes this:

Is this when aspect in this exchange a significant enough of a "connotation" that it can justifiably invoke a "theological preference" that overrides the "simple semantic analysis" to support the "in the midst of" translation over the "within" translation" in Lk 17:21?

I believe my previous post sufficiently answers that question, especially in view of the apparent contradiction regarding the "signs" issue, which both of these studies completely ignore, but which, however, is very relevant to this exchange and to the truth about the intended meaning of this Greek preposition "entos" in Lk 17:21.

BTW, this "kingdom is within you" issue stems from the Gnosticism that both John and Paul had to deal with in their days.

Let me be clear.

The position that the real truth is only allegorical is the "spirit of the antichrist" and the "spirit of error".

How can I say that?

Because the Apostle John clearly states that in 2 Jn 7 and 1 Jn 4:2-3,6!

7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Be advised, this spirit is an even greater threat today (1 Tim 4:1).

Lk 17:21 is a perfect illustration of how diabolical and insidious this doctrine is.

Both 1 Jn and 2 Jn have the theme and focus of knowing the truth.

The real and whole truth is both allegorical and literal. The Christ literally came in the flesh! Likewise will the kingdom literally be established on this earth - on Holydays 3 and 6!

One must wonder what is so wrong about having a literal kingdom of God governing this earth?

Nothing that I can see... unless one wants to remain as god in his own imagination.

But that is the very mistake Adam made in the Garden of Eden, and which we are living under to this very day... justified under the doctrine of Pantheism... another great lie.

The Apostle John ends with this warning to us, which we would do well to take very seriously:

"Little children, guard yourselves from idols." (1 Jn 5.21)

The most subtle idol is ourselves - becoming god in our own allegorical reality, and denying the real literal world of the Eternal God's creation!

Now can you see why the "kingdom is within YOU" doctrine is so dangerous?

**allodial** · 03-16-15, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by doug555 View Post

Good question! I think you are referring to Eph 1:20 and 2:6. The NAS says "seated".... Now contrast your view with the question raised in Acts 1:6-7. If the kingdom was already "conferred", why did the Apostles ask this question? (BTW: the word "conferred" does not appear in the NT in the context you cite.)

Good question but Acts 1 might be a bit too early (Luke 24:49 probably relates to your question). Instead of Acts 1, look at the events of Acts 2 (i.e. post ascension 'kathizo' event). As for the significance of Pentecost, I have found that: helpful is comprehending the mystery of the shofar.

**doug555** · 03-16-15, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by allodial View Post

Acts 2 is the written record of the conferring (i.e. the 'kathizo' event). Acts 1 is too early. As for the original significance of Petencost, comprehension of the usefuless and mystery of the shofar might be greatly helpful.

The only thing conferred by that event was the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is what the Father had promised to give them (Acts 1:4; 2:4, 33, 38).

May I ask where are you getting this idea of "conferring the kingdom"?

**allodial** · 03-16-15, 01:51 AM

And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Ephesians 1 and 2 + Luke 24:49. What had to happen before they would be endue them with power from on high? Ephesians 1 & 2 seem to clearly lucidate what happened post ascension and why they said to tarry.

Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places...

Seat as in like "seat of government" or "county seat" rather than as in "comfy chair". This significance is profoundly lucidated:

Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come (Ephesians 1:21)

And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus... (Ephesians 2:26)

My kingdom is not of this world John 18:36

But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)

**David Merrill** · 03-16-15, 08:36 AM

I just began an eleven-week course Kingdom Builders.

The Father was very careful about whom He selected to become the Mother of His Son.

Auspicious.

Pragmatist revelation leads me to believe that Archelaus HEROD was likely bedding Levite maidens when afforded the opportunity, as a mentally ill King of Israel. (I remind the reader that Herod THE GREAT's three sons were Archelaus (KING), Antipas (TETRARCH) and Philip (TETRARCH). Somebody blurted out in a Bible Study that Christmas (December 25) was Jesus' "conception birthday". I did not inquire how but being born September 11, 3 BC, December 25, 4 BC would put Mary about two weeks overdue - which is entirely possible.

This indicates the timeline to be that pregnant Mary was dumped on Joseph ARIMATHEA*, a wealthy and politically active silver miner to raise the unwanted bastard. During Jesus' birth Jupiter went into retrograde motion and in conjunction with Regulus not only caused the brightest star the people had ever seen in their lifetimes, caused it to linger for several nights that way. Then fifteen months later a delegation of three dignitaries traveled to Jerusalem from Babylon during the retrograde motion of Venus moving backward in the sky and alerted Archelaus that the next King of Israel would be that toddler he had sired from the virgin priest-maiden from a few years earlier.

In a rage Archelaus began a campaign of infanticide that got him exiled by 6 AD and so we find him thirty years later still King of Israel but living in the wilderness with John BAPTIST as his Prophet (channeling the Spirit of Elijah) and finally accepting Jesus' coronation as King of Israel.

Regards,

David Merrill.

* Albeit there are degrees of freedom unmentioned, the strict reading indicates that Joseph, Jesus' adopted father was Joseph of Arimathea on the premise that parents would not name two of their sons by the same name Joseph.

**doug555** · 03-16-15, 10:42 PM

Rev 5:9-10

9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. 10 "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

Zech 14:4, 9, 16

4 In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.

9 And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one.

16 Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths.

Rev 20:6

6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Rev 3:21

21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

These Scriptures indicate to me that the "overcomers", the "Firstfruits", the "Bride", will sit on Christ's throne on the earth, and reign with Him on the earth for 1000 years, the Millenium, on the earth, and all nations on earth will keep the Feast of Booths, Holyday #6, at Jerusalem on the earth, so that all people on the earth will understand that they comprise the generations that are literally fulfilling that Holyday #6 event in the Creator's 2-Phase Harvest Plan to transform man-kind into the God-kind through 7 BIG EVENTS - the 7 ANNUAL HOLYDAYS of Lev 23.

So again, I ask...

What is so wrong about having a literal kingdom of God governing this earth for 1000 years?

And what greater Gift could be granted than to be part of The Bride that is literally sitting with Christ on His Throne on the earth!?

This is incomprehensibly AWESOME!!!

Why are we not rejoicing as Mary did in her "Magnificat"?

And humbly, in faith accepting this Gift, and responding with "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; be it done to me according to your word."?

**doug555** · 03-18-15, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by David Merrill View Post

I just began an eleven-week course Kingdom Builders.

Auspicious.

Pragmatist revelation leads me to believe that Archelaus HEROD was likely bedding Levite maidens when afforded the opportunity, as a mentally ill King of Israel. (I remind the reader that Herod THE GREAT's three sons were Archelaus (KING), Antipas (TETRARCH) and Philip (TETRARCH). Somebody blurted out in a Bible Study that Christmas (December 25) was Jesus' "conception birthday". I did not inquire how but being born September 11, 3 BC, December 25, 4 BC would put Mary about two weeks overdue - which is entirely possible.

This indicates the timeline to be that pregnant Mary was dumped on Joseph ARIMATHEA*, a wealthy and politically active silver miner to raise the unwanted bastard. During Jesus' birth Jupiter went into retrograde motion and in conjunction with Regulus not only caused the brightest star the people had ever seen in their lifetimes, caused it to linger for several nights that way. Then fifteen months later a delegation of three dignitaries traveled to Jerusalem from Babylon during the retrograde motion of Venus moving backward in the sky and alerted Archelaus that the next King of Israel would be that toddler he had sired from the virgin priest-maiden from a few years earlier.

In a rage Archelaus began a campaign of infanticide that got him exiled by 6 AD and so we find him thirty years later still King of Israel but living in the wilderness with John BAPTIST as his Prophet (channeling the Spirit of Elijah) and finally accepting Jesus' coronation as King of Israel.

Regards,
David Merrill.

* Albeit there are degrees of freedom unmentioned, the strict reading indicates that Joseph, Jesus' adopted father was Joseph of Arimathea on the premise that parents would not name two of their sons by the same name Joseph.

Hi David,

First, some GOOD NEWS about lawful money refunds working for me for now the past 4 years, both State and Federal! How's that for LITERAL PROOF about the Federal Reserve Act Remedy! At least the way that I am doing it! (P.S. For you skeptics out there, David has proof of my past refunds in hand... so you are going to have to just take our "Word" for it that this is true. The only way YOU skeptics will have proof is to DO IT YOURSELVES! Hmmm... that sounds familiar doesn't it... see Jn 7:17)

Now, about your secular historical commentary above...

The December 25 date for Jesus Christ's birthday is a MYTH. Just Google "december 25 birthday" to see where that date originally came from... it goes way back to sun worship. The RCC merged that paganism with "Christianity" for political purposes.

But I am glad you posted the above commentary. It will help expose the real issue at work here.

Let me explain...

The "story" above sure makes true Christians look foolish and gullible for believing the literal Biblical account of these events.

And the Apostle Paul even agrees that Christians certainly are "...of most men most to be pitied" if theses events aren't really true, especially if the BIGGEST EVENT, Christ's resurrection, was a mere fabrication (1 Cor 15:1-19).

But isn't it interesting that this exact same charge about us being gullible to believe "God's" Word goes way back to the story about the Garden of Eden in Genesis 1.

"Adam" certainly was made to feel gullible, ashamed and naked, both physically and existentially, for taking "God" at His Word... literally.

But then how can any of us, even now, prove "God" is telling us the truth?

Doesn't our very attempt at "proving" presuppose that we must occupy the position of a "God", having an absolute frame of reference and all knowledge of eternity and infinity from which to determine and declare absolute truth?

NOW who is the one that is more foolish and gullible - the one believing, or the one proving?

Quite a dilemma, isn't it?

For us, both positions require trust, don't they?

Either we trust "God's" Word or we trust we can be "God" and determine absolute truth, "reality", by ourselves.

I choose to believe "God's" Word, because:

1. It is NOT reasonable to believe in evolution without the fossil record being completely reversed, with imperfect creatures in abundance everywhere, and very few perfect interdependent creatures, that is, IF everything is solely a matter of time, chance, and probability without any outside intelligent intervention. (BTW: Evolution is about God - NOT nature)

2. It is reasonable to believe that intelligent life could exist in outer space.

3. There is no reason to dismiss the possibility that such an intelligence could be of a nature and magnitude that it far surpasses our wildest imagination.

4. There is no reason to dismiss the possibility that such an intelligence could not have created the earth, the galaxies, even the entire universe.

5. It is reasonable to believe that the witnesses of Christ's resurrection were so certain that it was a fact that they were willing to die for it.

6. It is reasonable to believe that Christ in fact did rise from the dead because it fits with the Holyday Plan declared in Lev 23 dealing with the Passover as Holyday 1.

7. Given #6, it is then just as reasonable to expect that Holyday 2 will be just as literal and dramatic.

8. Given #7, it then becomes reasonable to believe that a pattern is emerging that indicates that this 7-Step Holyday Plan is indeed being implemented by a supernatural intelligence who can declare and then perform events over thousands of years in time.

9. Given #8, then it becomes reasonable and imperative that we respond as Mary did to "The Gift" - this "once-in-an-Eternity" of becoming "The Bride" that marries Christ on Holyday 3, Pentecost, and then sit with Christ on His Throne as "His Wife" - FOREVER! (Notice that those who live during the Millenium and Last Great Day periods do not have this special position offered to them.)

10. Given #9, then it is more reasonable to believe than to prove. If one reads between the lines in the account in Mt 4:1-11 about Christ's temptation, one can see that this was the real issue - believing vs proving. Christ reversed the mistake Adam made in the Garden of Eden. Let us do the same today. The time is short and the reward is incomprehensibly AWESOME.

**Michael Joseph** · 03-18-15, 04:49 AM

Awesome regarding your returns.

Regarding the latter: We know that Wisdom is known of her children. Now once one comes to a face to face relationship with Christ is there any need for faith? No. So then, we now understand that St. Paul writes LEAVING the principle doctrines let us push on now towards perfection. Hebrews 6:1-3.

Now if you believe the literal word, then you cannot deny that Jacob had a face to face relationship as did Moses. And since God is not a respecter of persons, what is given to one man is available to any other! Therefore I too can have a face to face relationship. Can't have that one both ways!

Therefore there is no need to prove God - there is however a response in Trust to follow The Way that Jesus made so plain. For instance, my friend told me the other day that Jesus came to show the Kingdom was one of consciousness and that the blood sacrifices were no longer required. I rebutted with I don't agree. I believe that the blood sacrifices were NEVER required. But that the Church in its vain religion got it wrong. Along comes Jesus to set it right. Is it no wonder those holy rollers killed him? Is it? These are the first to hurl accusation of antichrist upon anyone or anything they don't understand within the scope and concepts of their own reasonings [religion].

Once hope is realized, there is no need for faith. Therefore once one has been baptized with fire and tasted of the power of the Holy Spirit as all of his five senses come alive to the realms of the Spirit - yes in this life - then if that one chooses another direction - then Hebrews 6:4-6 kicks in.

Most in modern religion can't even vaguely grasp what it means to be baptized by fire in the higher realms of consciousness so it is impossible for them to quench the Holy Spirit for they were baptized with H20 and lucky they did not catch a cold - but they lack the baptism by Fire. For the Shulamite woman said "our bed is green" - and this is totally unknown to religion.

Therefore if you are bent to a literal understanding then you cannot deny that we all have the same opportunity Jacob or Moses had. The Scriptures I read tell me that Christ is in EVERYONE. Immanuel - God with us. Interesting. Interesting indeed. How most are looking for an abomination that causes desolation to stand in some physical temple. Absurd.

The abomination is the horror that my carnal mind has been ruling in the temple of my conscious mind and that me, my self, has stood in the way of the Higher Mind. I have showed myself to be God by undertaking my entire life under the will of my carnal mind. It must be put to death! That is the sacrifice acceptable to God. It takes discipline.

Daniel prayed three times a day - Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. All three can be celebrated within my consciousness. And yet men are content to never look to the how - they await a "some day" this will happen. Armageddon is the war fought between my Carnal Mind and my Higher Mind. The blood is the death to my Carnal Mind. Nevertheless religion has their bloodthirsty God seeking revenge on the ignorant. Kill em all I say - those ignorant fools should have known better.

Of course, I write in jest. Where is Love, Mercy, Charity? Since Jesus showed us God - I never saw Jesus kill anyone. I never saw Jesus putting down the ignorant. I never saw Jesus angry - save once the driving out of the money changers - which ALLEGORICALLY stand for the Carnal Thoughts of the Lower Mind. Nevertheless, let religion have their angry Jesus. So be it.

I can tell you for a fact that I did not write the Bible so it is an impossibility for me to understand any of it. And it is even a greater foolishness to sit at the feet of other men to hear/read what they think - even this man [me - Michael Joseph]. I trust only what is granted to me by the Holy Spirit to know. This is The Way of God - Wisdom She has built herself a House. Therefore, why does religion seek its own? Same reason the State seeks it own? SELF PRESERVATION and CONTROL.

This is against the Way of God - we are to be a kingdom of Priests. Why wait? Christ told Martha we have no need to wait!

The Gate Keepers bar the way. They do not enter in - if they would they would not be talking about some future event! Attached find a bit of a study I did a few weeks back. Enjoy.

Shalom,
MJ

Attached Files

The Gatekeepers Part VIII and IX.pdf (0, 65 views)

**David Merrill** · 03-18-15, 02:45 PM

I believe it is obvious by rules of evidence that I am not asserting Jesus' conception date was December 25. I did not even ask the woman her source for believing so. My studied belief is that Archelaus laid with Mary, Jesus' mother but I was thinking it more likely on a cold January night, 3 BC.

**doug555** · 03-18-15, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by David Merrill View Post

I believe it is obvious by rules of evidence that I am not asserting Jesus' conception date was December 25. I did not even ask the woman her source for believing so. My studied belief is that Archelaus laid with Mary, Jesus' mother but I was thinking it more likely on a cold January night, 3 BC.

Yep, my mistake, I did not read that closely enough. I should have known that you do know about the Dec 25 error. Forgive me. I am glad you think Christ's birth was sometime in September. That agrees with the time that shepherds could still be in the fields with their sheep - December would be too cold.

Of course, if Jesus was the son of Archelaus, then the whole Bible is a fraud isn't it, since its foundation is that there is a God who claims to be the literal Father of the man Jesus, who was the Christ. But it is hard to believe that this scandal was not known by the people in that area who later became martyrs for a "fraud".

I can respect your choice to believe secular sources over the Bible, but I hope the literal fulfillment of Holyday #2 in the near future will lead you to reconsider that choice.

The Gift

The Gift

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment