Comments for Dr. Platypus http://pursiful.com Darrell Pursiful's blog Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:53:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on The True Meaning of Groundhog Day by Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e206v4 http://pursiful.com/2012/02/the-true-meaning-of-groundhog-day/comment-page-1/#comment-6860 Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e206v4 Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:53:16 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=4366#comment-6860 [...] A spanking good movie … but origins of the day are noted in detail. [...] [...] A spanking good movie … but origins of the day are noted in detail. [...]

]]> Comment on The True Meaning of Groundhog Day by | Pseudo-Polymath http://pursiful.com/2012/02/the-true-meaning-of-groundhog-day/comment-page-1/#comment-6859 | Pseudo-Polymath Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:52:48 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=4366#comment-6859 [...] A spanking good movie … but origins of the day are noted in detail. [...] [...] A spanking good movie … but origins of the day are noted in detail. [...]

]]> Comment on When Was Jesus Born? Zechariah's Priestly Service by Kent Jacob http://pursiful.com/2006/12/when-was-jesus-born-zechariahs-priestly-service/comment-page-1/#comment-6843 Kent Jacob Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:18:23 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=180#comment-6843 Let me first of all state that I am in full agreement that Jesus was not born in December. All Scriptural and traditional evidence suggests otherwise. Your article has indeed done well in identifiying this. This is not the only site that has postulated the Feast of Tabanacles as the period for Birth of the Massiah. I have been exploring this concept and having been looking for the Biblical evidence that supports this claim. While this site have sited several credible inferences, to attest to this, I am still having some difficulty in accepting this. Unfortuntely, I am unable to propose an opposing view on the actual time of Christ's birth, but I can share some of my concerns with the position adopted. In fact it is just one major concern. The arguments expressed in this blog are basically identical to all others, that I have read, which hold this view of Christ birth being during the Feast of Tabnarcles. What is for sure, it seems that we all read the same Bible and recognise that there was no clear, unambiguous evidence to point to in this regard. And it is here that my concerns with the arguments exressed originate. The Feast of Tabanacles was a MAJOR feast within the the Jewish culture. It was one of the most important and one which was celebrated for 7 full days (this was highlighted in the text) with lots of pomp and splendor. I think it very strange that neither of the 2 Biblical narratives that expressly deals with the topic of the Birth of the "King of the Jews", the Massiah (HaMashiach), thought it fit to mention that there was a major Feast in progress at the time. No mention was made either of Mary and Joseph, who were Jewish, recognising the Feast of Tabanacles or making preparations in any way for this. There is Biblical precidence in acknowledging Feasts even in the New Testament and the Gospel writings. With reference to Jesus, Luke's conclusion of the Nativity story goes to Jesus at age twelve in the temple. At this time the Feast of Passover was celebrated and Luke did tell us this (Luke 2:41). Further, John recognizes the said Feast of Tabernacles in a seamingly insignificant way (Jn. 7:2), as well as the Feast of Dedication in John 10:22. The later also stated that it was winter and Jesus gives illustrations that expresses the sheep and the fold motif that the current in the thinking for that season. So the absence of any reference to this Feast, dispite the obvious logical inferences made by the calculations expressed herein, makes it difficult to accept that a national event of this nature was in progress. The only national events made mention of in the Scriptures, that occured during this period ,were the Census and the death of Herod (which preceeded the return of the family from Egypt). In conclusion let me borrow from the above text, "As tantalizing as this line of speculation is, without some firmer answers about how the courses were scheduled we are left with no strong conclusions. " AMEN Let me first of all state that I am in full agreement that Jesus was not born in December. All Scriptural and traditional evidence suggests otherwise. Your article has indeed done well in identifiying this. This is not the only site that has postulated the Feast of Tabanacles as the period for Birth of the Massiah. I have been exploring this concept and having been looking for the Biblical evidence that supports this claim. While this site have sited several credible inferences, to attest to this, I am still having some difficulty in accepting this. Unfortuntely, I am unable to propose an opposing view on the actual time of Christ’s birth, but I can share some of my concerns with the position adopted. In fact it is just one major concern. The arguments expressed in this blog are basically identical to all others, that I have read, which hold this view of Christ birth being during the Feast of Tabnarcles. What is for sure, it seems that we all read the same Bible and recognise that there was no clear, unambiguous evidence to point to in this regard. And it is here that my concerns with the arguments exressed originate.
The Feast of Tabanacles was a MAJOR feast within the the Jewish culture. It was one of the most important and one which was celebrated for 7 full days (this was highlighted in the text) with lots of pomp and splendor. I think it very strange that neither of the 2 Biblical narratives that expressly deals with the topic of the Birth of the “King of the Jews”, the Massiah (HaMashiach), thought it fit to mention that there was a major Feast in progress at the time. No mention was made either of Mary and Joseph, who were Jewish, recognising the Feast of Tabanacles or making preparations in any way for this. There is Biblical precidence in acknowledging Feasts even in the New Testament and the Gospel writings. With reference to Jesus, Luke’s conclusion of the Nativity story goes to Jesus at age twelve in the temple. At this time the Feast of Passover was celebrated and Luke did tell us this (Luke 2:41). Further, John recognizes the said Feast of Tabernacles in a seamingly insignificant way (Jn. 7:2), as well as the Feast of Dedication in John 10:22. The later also stated that it was winter and Jesus gives illustrations that expresses the sheep and the fold motif that the current in the thinking for that season. So the absence of any reference to this Feast, dispite the obvious logical inferences made by the calculations expressed herein, makes it difficult to accept that a national event of this nature was in progress. The only national events made mention of in the Scriptures, that occured during this period ,were the Census and the death of Herod (which preceeded the return of the family from Egypt).
In conclusion let me borrow from the above text, “As tantalizing as this line of speculation is, without some firmer answers about how the courses were scheduled we are left with no strong conclusions. ” AMEN

]]> Comment on Moses, John Tyler, and Skewed Generation Lengths by Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e205v4 http://pursiful.com/2012/01/moses-john-tyler-and-skewed-generation-lengths/comment-page-1/#comment-6842 Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e205v4 Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:45:40 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=4353#comment-6842 [...] the generations of men and the passage of tim [...] [...] the generations of men and the passage of tim [...]

]]> Comment on Moses, John Tyler, and Skewed Generation Lengths by Thursday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath http://pursiful.com/2012/01/moses-john-tyler-and-skewed-generation-lengths/comment-page-1/#comment-6841 Thursday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:43:16 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=4353#comment-6841 [...] Of the generations of men and the passage of time. [...] [...] Of the generations of men and the passage of time. [...]

]]> Comment on Basic Christian Decency 101 by Darrell Pursiful http://pursiful.com/2011/12/basic-christian-decency-101/comment-page-1/#comment-6833 Darrell Pursiful Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:00:51 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=4315#comment-6833 rey, This is a "Freewill Baptist Church," so not terribly Calvinist. Even the "Calvinist" Baptist churches I'm familiar with in rural KY are so only on a technicality. They tend to be full of people who've never even heard of John Calvin and are far more revivalistic than reformed. rey,

This is a “Freewill Baptist Church,” so not terribly Calvinist. Even the “Calvinist” Baptist churches I’m familiar with in rural KY are so only on a technicality. They tend to be full of people who’ve never even heard of John Calvin and are far more revivalistic than reformed.

]]> Comment on Earliest Manuscript of Romans? by Weekend Fisher http://pursiful.com/2012/01/earliest-manuscript-of-romans/comment-page-1/#comment-6831 Weekend Fisher Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:07:25 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=4349#comment-6831 How cool is that! I knew Hobby Lobby was run by Christians -- you can tell it in their stores pretty easily -- but I didn't know he was into the scholarship and philanthropy scene. Bonus rounds! How cool is that! I knew Hobby Lobby was run by Christians — you can tell it in their stores pretty easily — but I didn’t know he was into the scholarship and philanthropy scene. Bonus rounds!

]]> Comment on Basic Christian Decency 101 by rey http://pursiful.com/2011/12/basic-christian-decency-101/comment-page-1/#comment-6830 rey Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:56:09 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=4315#comment-6830 "Christian Decency" doesn't exist for Calvinists. After all, they know who's elect and who isn't, and if you isn't, then they aintn't. “Christian Decency” doesn’t exist for Calvinists. After all, they know who’s elect and who isn’t, and if you isn’t, then they aintn’t.

]]> Comment on Earliest Manuscript of Romans? by rey http://pursiful.com/2012/01/earliest-manuscript-of-romans/comment-page-1/#comment-6829 rey Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:52:32 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=4349#comment-6829 Curious that its only of Romans 9-10. Must be from before Romans 9-10 was added to Romans by some jackass liar. Curious that its only of Romans 9-10. Must be from before Romans 9-10 was added to Romans by some jackass liar.

]]> Comment on The Genealogy of Jesus 4 by Steve http://pursiful.com/2010/08/the-genealogy-of-jesus-4/comment-page-1/#comment-6819 Steve Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:43:52 +0000 http://pursiful.com/?p=2984#comment-6819 If you look in 1 Chron 3:15-16 you'll see that Jehoiakim was the second son of Josiah and Zedekiah was the third (his brother). Jehoiakim then had a son, Jehoiachin, whose had a son, also called Zedekiah. This would have made Jehoiakim's brother (Zedekiah) the uncle of Jehoiachin's son (Zedekiah). If you look in 1 Chron 3:15-16 you’ll see that Jehoiakim was the second son of Josiah and Zedekiah was the third (his brother). Jehoiakim then had a son, Jehoiachin, whose had a son, also called Zedekiah. This would have made Jehoiakim’s brother (Zedekiah) the uncle of Jehoiachin’s son (Zedekiah).

]]>