Super Ramon
Banned
Grow up nikka
People who hate Christmas are a$$holes.
- Thread starter BelowTheMasonDixon
- Start date
Supercoolmayo
Superstar
What does a homeless man get for Christmas?
Nothing
Nothing
Gift giving is a pagan ritual
Programming successful.
Ultimate Warrior
All Star
**snorts 49seconds***
Its funny to see Christians celebrate it.
In the last book of the New Testament (dated by some as early as 70-95 AD) , the "Christmas" movement is actually mentioned by name. Though, like the "Yalda" Evergreen Tree practice, part of the Solstice observance for thousands of years before Christianity, condemned by Jeremiah, the polemicists of the Nicholaitan doctrine work very hard at creating plausible denials. These DENIALS are transparent in that the identity of the "Nicholaitans" is fairly easy to establish from the text and some very simple historical reconstruction. The fact we actually still have followers of "Saint Nicholas" and his Saturnalia feast in Christ's name, is all the more illustrative.
In the New Testament, the "Nicholaitans" are identified by their patron "Saint", "Saint Nicholas" whom, they are said to follow and teach a particular "doctrine" that the risen Christ actually says he "Hates" (hate is obviously as strong a term you can actually use). But if one understands the real nature of the "Doctrine of the Nicholaitans", one could easily see why the risen Christ would have been said to have "hated" it. Most Jews, or even monotheists for that matter, or anyone with any sentimental connection to the scriptures, would have hated it as well, completely aside from having ever heard of Christ. Just in terms of pure psychology, mixing the subconscious polar archetypes of survival and suicide, benevolence and personal evil, the demonic and the divine, could explain a lot of irrational subconscious self-destructive behavior in minors. Parents will often be heard saying to their children "why are you acting this way, we didn't raise you like that?". Well, sometimes they did, and just didn't realize it.
The "Doctrine" of the "Nicholaitans" consisted of "mixing" the normative concepts of the worship of God as reflected in the New Testament community and ideology, with the worship of the head of the pagan pantheon, the sun-god, particularly in the observance of the pagan Roman festivals, such as the Saturnalia festival. Since in the New Testament, this deity is the Hebrew "Ha Satawn", referred to as well in the teaching of the Prophets from the Septuagint, the "Doctrine of the Nicholaitans" is actually a teaching which mixes the worship of God and Satan together, equating both as the same. Thus why the first Roman Pope directly after Augustine (who pointed Caesar to this teaching at Nag Hammadi), was named literally 666. When this page was first composed, it was assumed the ancient practice of taking a papal name accounted for the embarrassing behavior. After all, if Rome's Papal electors had no control over the man's name after he became Pope, they would certainly be exhonorated from any personal or collective responsibility for the strange behavior. Unfortunately, according to Rome's own claims, they elected him Pope AS Sixtus III (Literally 666), with no name change. So in other words, in wasn't an accident. They were not "tricked". They fully participated in this choice, and elected Pope with the name of 3 sixes, fully knowing the prophecy, and fully knowing his name.
This Pope bearing the known name of the Antichrist, established the worship of the Roman Solar-deity as "Christ" on December 25th at the Lupercale (Wolf-Shrine), along with the creation of "Christian idols", merging the definitions of God and Satan together into one. As strange as this sounds today, they were attempting to become both "Christ" and the "Antichrist" at the same time, as a form a gnostic occultism which can be traced directly to Saint Pachomos monastery, and Rome's consultation of these ascetic heretic gnostics as "prophets of God".
Nicholaitan clergy, either refuse to acknowledge the significance of this action by the Roman Papacy because they are dishonest, or they are simply ignorant due to poor theological education or perhaps they have deceived themselves . But to any neutral objective observer, the spectacle of having a world religious leader (much less a government enforced head of all Christendom), intentionally bear the name of the Antichrist (and be chosen as such), could simply not be missed? Even today, if the Roman Pontiff named himself SIX III, who could possibly think sincere "believers" (of any sort) would be expected to simply shrug their shoulders and pretend not to see anything strange? It would be the equivalent of the Chief Rabbi changing his name "Hitler" and "celebrating" the Holocaust? And this is suppose to "mean nothing"? If nothing else, at the very least, it reveals the spiritual philosophy of the founders of this Roman solar-mass as a "Christ" mass.
Eusebius attempts to rewrite history to cover something on behalf of Rome, and in so doing exposes the very thing he is attempting to hide; Nicolaitanism. Eusebuis who lives long after Irenaeus by a century or more, recites Irenaeus, Rome's own source material, and attempts to create a definition of "The Nicolaitans" that is precisely the OPPOSITE of what is recorded in Rome's own material from their own "Latin Fathers". This "flip of the script" was motivated by an attempt to distance an action in Eusebius day, from an association that was obviously being made to "The Nicolaitans". Otherwise there would have been no need for the revisionism. Since Eusebius lived long after Irenaeus who was much closer in time to what had happened, Eusebius had even less authentic information about the events in question than even Irenaeus, yet that does not stop Eusebius in his incredulous attempts at creating a cover story.
You ever notice how toddlers who have yet been brainwashed by the tale of St Nick/ Santa Claus, seem to be frighten?
Most Americans are not aware of the history of this "Saint Nicholas" associated with CHRIST-MASS due to the fact that in America, our version has been culturally "sanitized" for public consumption and mass media advertising. But in Roman Catholic Europe, where the Saint Nicholas of CHRIST-MASS originated, older observances of him were true to their religious nature. Saint Nicholas was a character which was often "feared" by children.
Because Saint Nicholas brought with him his "friends", and unlike the American version of cute little green elves, his "friends" were in charge of "punishing" as well. While the characters which comprised Saint Nicholas's "friends" varied from country to country in Europe, they all shared one function. That of inflicting fear and punishment on children who failed to "conform" to the religious regiment of the Catholic Church. This "punishment" ranged from getting sticks and coal for presents to more the more severe expressions of physical beatings.
Knecht Ruprecht would beat the children for being 'bad" and would threaten to "eat them". Knecht Ruprecht while claiming by some to be associated with a Roman bishop, is often depicted with goat legs. In Switzerland, called Schmutzlie, he would threaten to put children into a sack and take them back to the Black Forest. In other accounts he would threaten to throw the sack in the river and drown the children.
In highly Catholic regions, the local priest would be informed by the parents about their children's behavior and visit the homes in person to beat the child with a rod. In parts of Austria local tradition involves "Krampus runs" (Krampuslaufe) where Nikolaus's helpers roamed the streets during the festival wearing demonic masks and dragging chains behind them, occasionally throwing them at children in their way.
Innocent toddlers can be fine all day around other strangers people speak to them and everything, but walk by "Saint Nick", watch how they act, they know something is wrong, and it has always been something wrong, from him being a pedo that ran with the devil to other stuff.
My family never beated around the bush with it, and my pops refused to let a pedo take credit for shyt he worked hard for, he explain to us a little bit about the whole thing about Santa, as we got older and made us do research too, and we notice we could goto any mall, and see little 2-4 year olds crying hard in Santa's prescence.
I dont hate Christmas, but I was taught to hate the idea of Santa/ St Nick/ Kris Kringle
Its funny to see Christians celebrate it.
In the last book of the New Testament (dated by some as early as 70-95 AD) , the "Christmas" movement is actually mentioned by name. Though, like the "Yalda" Evergreen Tree practice, part of the Solstice observance for thousands of years before Christianity, condemned by Jeremiah, the polemicists of the Nicholaitan doctrine work very hard at creating plausible denials. These DENIALS are transparent in that the identity of the "Nicholaitans" is fairly easy to establish from the text and some very simple historical reconstruction. The fact we actually still have followers of "Saint Nicholas" and his Saturnalia feast in Christ's name, is all the more illustrative.
In the New Testament, the "Nicholaitans" are identified by their patron "Saint", "Saint Nicholas" whom, they are said to follow and teach a particular "doctrine" that the risen Christ actually says he "Hates" (hate is obviously as strong a term you can actually use). But if one understands the real nature of the "Doctrine of the Nicholaitans", one could easily see why the risen Christ would have been said to have "hated" it. Most Jews, or even monotheists for that matter, or anyone with any sentimental connection to the scriptures, would have hated it as well, completely aside from having ever heard of Christ. Just in terms of pure psychology, mixing the subconscious polar archetypes of survival and suicide, benevolence and personal evil, the demonic and the divine, could explain a lot of irrational subconscious self-destructive behavior in minors. Parents will often be heard saying to their children "why are you acting this way, we didn't raise you like that?". Well, sometimes they did, and just didn't realize it.
The "Doctrine" of the "Nicholaitans" consisted of "mixing" the normative concepts of the worship of God as reflected in the New Testament community and ideology, with the worship of the head of the pagan pantheon, the sun-god, particularly in the observance of the pagan Roman festivals, such as the Saturnalia festival. Since in the New Testament, this deity is the Hebrew "Ha Satawn", referred to as well in the teaching of the Prophets from the Septuagint, the "Doctrine of the Nicholaitans" is actually a teaching which mixes the worship of God and Satan together, equating both as the same. Thus why the first Roman Pope directly after Augustine (who pointed Caesar to this teaching at Nag Hammadi), was named literally 666. When this page was first composed, it was assumed the ancient practice of taking a papal name accounted for the embarrassing behavior. After all, if Rome's Papal electors had no control over the man's name after he became Pope, they would certainly be exhonorated from any personal or collective responsibility for the strange behavior. Unfortunately, according to Rome's own claims, they elected him Pope AS Sixtus III (Literally 666), with no name change. So in other words, in wasn't an accident. They were not "tricked". They fully participated in this choice, and elected Pope with the name of 3 sixes, fully knowing the prophecy, and fully knowing his name.
This Pope bearing the known name of the Antichrist, established the worship of the Roman Solar-deity as "Christ" on December 25th at the Lupercale (Wolf-Shrine), along with the creation of "Christian idols", merging the definitions of God and Satan together into one. As strange as this sounds today, they were attempting to become both "Christ" and the "Antichrist" at the same time, as a form a gnostic occultism which can be traced directly to Saint Pachomos monastery, and Rome's consultation of these ascetic heretic gnostics as "prophets of God".
Nicholaitan clergy, either refuse to acknowledge the significance of this action by the Roman Papacy because they are dishonest, or they are simply ignorant due to poor theological education or perhaps they have deceived themselves . But to any neutral objective observer, the spectacle of having a world religious leader (much less a government enforced head of all Christendom), intentionally bear the name of the Antichrist (and be chosen as such), could simply not be missed? Even today, if the Roman Pontiff named himself SIX III, who could possibly think sincere "believers" (of any sort) would be expected to simply shrug their shoulders and pretend not to see anything strange? It would be the equivalent of the Chief Rabbi changing his name "Hitler" and "celebrating" the Holocaust? And this is suppose to "mean nothing"? If nothing else, at the very least, it reveals the spiritual philosophy of the founders of this Roman solar-mass as a "Christ" mass.
Eusebius attempts to rewrite history to cover something on behalf of Rome, and in so doing exposes the very thing he is attempting to hide; Nicolaitanism. Eusebuis who lives long after Irenaeus by a century or more, recites Irenaeus, Rome's own source material, and attempts to create a definition of "The Nicolaitans" that is precisely the OPPOSITE of what is recorded in Rome's own material from their own "Latin Fathers". This "flip of the script" was motivated by an attempt to distance an action in Eusebius day, from an association that was obviously being made to "The Nicolaitans". Otherwise there would have been no need for the revisionism. Since Eusebius lived long after Irenaeus who was much closer in time to what had happened, Eusebius had even less authentic information about the events in question than even Irenaeus, yet that does not stop Eusebius in his incredulous attempts at creating a cover story.
You ever notice how toddlers who have yet been brainwashed by the tale of St Nick/ Santa Claus, seem to be frighten?
Most Americans are not aware of the history of this "Saint Nicholas" associated with CHRIST-MASS due to the fact that in America, our version has been culturally "sanitized" for public consumption and mass media advertising. But in Roman Catholic Europe, where the Saint Nicholas of CHRIST-MASS originated, older observances of him were true to their religious nature. Saint Nicholas was a character which was often "feared" by children.
Because Saint Nicholas brought with him his "friends", and unlike the American version of cute little green elves, his "friends" were in charge of "punishing" as well. While the characters which comprised Saint Nicholas's "friends" varied from country to country in Europe, they all shared one function. That of inflicting fear and punishment on children who failed to "conform" to the religious regiment of the Catholic Church. This "punishment" ranged from getting sticks and coal for presents to more the more severe expressions of physical beatings.
Knecht Ruprecht would beat the children for being 'bad" and would threaten to "eat them". Knecht Ruprecht while claiming by some to be associated with a Roman bishop, is often depicted with goat legs. In Switzerland, called Schmutzlie, he would threaten to put children into a sack and take them back to the Black Forest. In other accounts he would threaten to throw the sack in the river and drown the children.
In highly Catholic regions, the local priest would be informed by the parents about their children's behavior and visit the homes in person to beat the child with a rod. In parts of Austria local tradition involves "Krampus runs" (Krampuslaufe) where Nikolaus's helpers roamed the streets during the festival wearing demonic masks and dragging chains behind them, occasionally throwing them at children in their way.
Innocent toddlers can be fine all day around other strangers people speak to them and everything, but walk by "Saint Nick", watch how they act, they know something is wrong, and it has always been something wrong, from him being a pedo that ran with the devil to other stuff.
My family never beated around the bush with it, and my pops refused to let a pedo take credit for shyt he worked hard for, he explain to us a little bit about the whole thing about Santa, as we got older and made us do research too, and we notice we could goto any mall, and see little 2-4 year olds crying hard in Santa's prescence.
I dont hate Christmas, but I was taught to hate the idea of Santa/ St Nick/ Kris Kringle
Past few years this time of year usually doesn't get me going like it used to, until I recently started watching the TV and saw some commercials for ABC Family's Christmas shows that they televise; that's when I started to remember how much I liked the whole "feeling" of it. Probably gonna buy a little tree for room since my grandmother (not from America) doesn't celebrate it.
Gonna watch some Charlie Brown and stack up on some Eggnog and hot chocolate.
Gonna watch some Charlie Brown and stack up on some Eggnog and hot chocolate.
I can understand why people don't like it because of all the unnecessary stress.
people who hate thanksgivin are worse
its always dat one person on fb or twitter
"yall only show thanks on this day but no other day!!"
bytch
shut yo dumb ass up
its always dat one person on fb or twitter
"yall only show thanks on this day but no other day!!"
bytch
shut yo dumb ass up
**snorts 49seconds***
Its funny to see Christians celebrate it.
In the last book of the New Testament (dated by some as early as 70-95 AD) , the "Christmas" movement is actually mentioned by name. Though, like the "Yalda" Evergreen Tree practice, part of the Solstice observance for thousands of years before Christianity, condemned by Jeremiah, the polemicists of the Nicholaitan doctrine work very hard at creating plausible denials. These DENIALS are transparent in that the identity of the "Nicholaitans" is fairly easy to establish from the text and some very simple historical reconstruction. The fact we actually still have followers of "Saint Nicholas" and his Saturnalia feast in Christ's name, is all the more illustrative.
In the New Testament, the "Nicholaitans" are identified by their patron "Saint", "Saint Nicholas" whom, they are said to follow and teach a particular "doctrine" that the risen Christ actually says he "Hates" (hate is obviously as strong a term you can actually use). But if one understands the real nature of the "Doctrine of the Nicholaitans", one could easily see why the risen Christ would have been said to have "hated" it. Most Jews, or even monotheists for that matter, or anyone with any sentimental connection to the scriptures, would have hated it as well, completely aside from having ever heard of Christ. Just in terms of pure psychology, mixing the subconscious polar archetypes of survival and suicide, benevolence and personal evil, the demonic and the divine, could explain a lot of irrational subconscious self-destructive behavior in minors. Parents will often be heard saying to their children "why are you acting this way, we didn't raise you like that?". Well, sometimes they did, and just didn't realize it.
The "Doctrine" of the "Nicholaitans" consisted of "mixing" the normative concepts of the worship of God as reflected in the New Testament community and ideology, with the worship of the head of the pagan pantheon, the sun-god, particularly in the observance of the pagan Roman festivals, such as the Saturnalia festival. Since in the New Testament, this deity is the Hebrew "Ha Satawn", referred to as well in the teaching of the Prophets from the Septuagint, the "Doctrine of the Nicholaitans" is actually a teaching which mixes the worship of God and Satan together, equating both as the same. Thus why the first Roman Pope directly after Augustine (who pointed Caesar to this teaching at Nag Hammadi), was named literally 666. When this page was first composed, it was assumed the ancient practice of taking a papal name accounted for the embarrassing behavior. After all, if Rome's Papal electors had no control over the man's name after he became Pope, they would certainly be exhonorated from any personal or collective responsibility for the strange behavior. Unfortunately, according to Rome's own claims, they elected him Pope AS Sixtus III (Literally 666), with no name change. So in other words, in wasn't an accident. They were not "tricked". They fully participated in this choice, and elected Pope with the name of 3 sixes, fully knowing the prophecy, and fully knowing his name.
This Pope bearing the known name of the Antichrist, established the worship of the Roman Solar-deity as "Christ" on December 25th at the Lupercale (Wolf-Shrine), along with the creation of "Christian idols", merging the definitions of God and Satan together into one. As strange as this sounds today, they were attempting to become both "Christ" and the "Antichrist" at the same time, as a form a gnostic occultism which can be traced directly to Saint Pachomos monastery, and Rome's consultation of these ascetic heretic gnostics as "prophets of God".
Nicholaitan clergy, either refuse to acknowledge the significance of this action by the Roman Papacy because they are dishonest, or they are simply ignorant due to poor theological education or perhaps they have deceived themselves . But to any neutral objective observer, the spectacle of having a world religious leader (much less a government enforced head of all Christendom), intentionally bear the name of the Antichrist (and be chosen as such), could simply not be missed? Even today, if the Roman Pontiff named himself SIX III, who could possibly think sincere "believers" (of any sort) would be expected to simply shrug their shoulders and pretend not to see anything strange? It would be the equivalent of the Chief Rabbi changing his name "Hitler" and "celebrating" the Holocaust? And this is suppose to "mean nothing"? If nothing else, at the very least, it reveals the spiritual philosophy of the founders of this Roman solar-mass as a "Christ" mass.
Eusebius attempts to rewrite history to cover something on behalf of Rome, and in so doing exposes the very thing he is attempting to hide; Nicolaitanism. Eusebuis who lives long after Irenaeus by a century or more, recites Irenaeus, Rome's own source material, and attempts to create a definition of "The Nicolaitans" that is precisely the OPPOSITE of what is recorded in Rome's own material from their own "Latin Fathers". This "flip of the script" was motivated by an attempt to distance an action in Eusebius day, from an association that was obviously being made to "The Nicolaitans". Otherwise there would have been no need for the revisionism. Since Eusebius lived long after Irenaeus who was much closer in time to what had happened, Eusebius had even less authentic information about the events in question than even Irenaeus, yet that does not stop Eusebius in his incredulous attempts at creating a cover story.
You ever notice how toddlers who have yet been brainwashed by the tale of St Nick/ Santa Claus, seem to be frighten?
Most Americans are not aware of the history of this "Saint Nicholas" associated with CHRIST-MASS due to the fact that in America, our version has been culturally "sanitized" for public consumption and mass media advertising. But in Roman Catholic Europe, where the Saint Nicholas of CHRIST-MASS originated, older observances of him were true to their religious nature. Saint Nicholas was a character which was often "feared" by children.
Because Saint Nicholas brought with him his "friends", and unlike the American version of cute little green elves, his "friends" were in charge of "punishing" as well. While the characters which comprised Saint Nicholas's "friends" varied from country to country in Europe, they all shared one function. That of inflicting fear and punishment on children who failed to "conform" to the religious regiment of the Catholic Church. This "punishment" ranged from getting sticks and coal for presents to more the more severe expressions of physical beatings.
Knecht Ruprecht would beat the children for being 'bad" and would threaten to "eat them". Knecht Ruprecht while claiming by some to be associated with a Roman bishop, is often depicted with goat legs. In Switzerland, called Schmutzlie, he would threaten to put children into a sack and take them back to the Black Forest. In other accounts he would threaten to throw the sack in the river and drown the children.
In highly Catholic regions, the local priest would be informed by the parents about their children's behavior and visit the homes in person to beat the child with a rod. In parts of Austria local tradition involves "Krampus runs" (Krampuslaufe) where Nikolaus's helpers roamed the streets during the festival wearing demonic masks and dragging chains behind them, occasionally throwing them at children in their way.
Innocent toddlers can be fine all day around other strangers people speak to them and everything, but walk by "Saint Nick", watch how they act, they know something is wrong, and it has always been something wrong, from him being a pedo that ran with the devil to other stuff.
My family never beated around the bush with it, and my pops refused to let a pedo take credit for shyt he worked hard for, he explain to us a little bit about the whole thing about Santa, as we got older and made us do research too, and we notice we could goto any mall, and see little 2-4 year olds crying hard in Santa's prescence.
I dont hate Christmas, but I was taught to hate the idea of Santa/ St Nick/ Kris Kringle
I really hope you didn't take the time to type all that
Elle Driver
Veteran
I like the whole atmosphere of Christmas, seeing all my bruvas and nieces/nephews and buying em toys and shyt. It's fun. Plus I'm from the Northeast so going to the South especially during Christmas and Thanksgiving is great.
I grew up and dont care about it anymore