Christmas Before Christ? The Surprising Story

Christmas Before Christ?
The Surprising Story

Most people know the Bible doesn't mention - much less sanctify - Christmas. Does it make any difference as long as it's intended to honor God and bring families together?

by Jerold Aust

everal months ago the popular American comedic actor Drew Carey was interviewed on an equally popular television talk show, The View. Mr. Carey surprised the audience when he addressed the value of telling children the truth about Santa Claus.

"I don't think you should tell kids that there is a Santa Claus," he said. "That's the first lie you tell your children." Instead, "tell kids that Santa's a character we made up to celebrate a time of the season." Otherwise "when kids get to be 5 ... they realize their parents have been lying to them their whole life."

Earlier in the year the Arts & Entertainment cable television channel aired a program about Christmas titled Christmas Unwrapped: The History of Christmas. The promo for this program read:

"People all over the world celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25th. But why is the Savior's nativity marked by gift- giving, and was He really born on that day? And just where did the Christmas tree come from?

"Take an enchanting journey through the history of the world's favorite holiday to learn the origins of some of the Western world's most enduring traditions. Trace the emergence of Christmas from pagan festivals like the Roman Saturnalia, which celebrated the winter solstice."

These two programs addressed the fact that Santa Claus is fictitious and that Christmas and its trappings emanate from pagan Roman festivals. By no means are these the only sources of information about the background of Santa Claus and Christmas.

Is there more to these ancient traditions and practices than meets the eye? And, more important, does it make any difference whether we continue them?

Celebration of the sun god

It may sound odd that any religious celebration with Christ's name attached to it could predate Christianity. Yet the holiday we know as Christmas long predates Jesus Christ. Elements of the celebration can be traced to ancient Egypt, Babylon and Rome. This fact doesn't cast aspersions on Jesus; it does, however, call into question the understanding and wisdom of those who, over the millennia, have insisted on perpetuating an ancient pagan festival that has devolved through much of the world as Christmas.

Members of the early Church would have been astonished to think that the customs and practices we associate with Christmas would be incorporated into a celebration of Christ's birth. Not until several centuries had passed would Christ's name be attached to this popular Roman holiday.

As Alexander Hislop explains in his book The Two Babylons: "It is admitted by the most learned and candid writers of all parties that the day of our Lord's birth cannot be determined, and that within the Christian Church no such festival as Christmas was ever heard of till the third century, and that not till the fourth century was far advanced did it gain much observance" (1959, pp. 92-93).

As for how Dec. 25 became the date for Christmas day, virtually any book on the history of Christmas will explain that this day was celebrated in the Roman Empire as the birthday of the sun god. Explaining how Dec. 25 came to be selected as the supposed birthday of Jesus, the book 4000 Years of Christmas says: "For that day was sacred, not only to the pagan Romans but to a religion from Persia which, in those days, was one of Christianity's strongest rivals. This Persian religion was Mithraism, whose followers worshiped the sun, and celebrated its return to strength on that day" (Earl and Alice Count, 1997, p. 37).

Not only was Dec. 25 honored as the birthday of the sun, but a festival had long been observed among the heathen to celebrate the growing amount of daylight after the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. The precursor of Christmas was in fact an idolatrous midwinter festival characterized by excess and debauchery that predated Christianity by many centuries.

Pre-Christian practices incorporated

This ancient festival went by different names in various cultures. In Rome it was called the Saturnalia, in honor of Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture. The observance was adopted by early Roman church leaders and given the name of Christ ("Christ mass," or Christmas) to conciliate the heathen and swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity.

The tendency on the part of third-century Catholic leadership was to meet paganism halfway-a practice made clear in a bitter lament by the Carthaginian philosopher Tertullian.

In 230 he wrote of the inconsistency of professing Christians. He contrasted their lax and political practices with the strict fidelity of the pagans to their own beliefs: "By us who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals [the biblical festivals spelled out in Leviticus 23], once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia, are now frequented; gifts are carried to and fro, new year's day presents are made with din, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar; oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians" (Hislop, p. 93).

Failing to make much headway in converting the pagans, the religious leaders of the Roman church began compromising by dressing the heathen customs in Christian-looking garb. But, rather than converting them to the church's beliefs, the church became largely converted to non-Christian customs in its own religious practices.

Although at first the early Catholic Church censured this celebration, "the festival was far too strongly entrenched in popular favor to be abolished, and the Church finally granted the necessary recognition, believing that if Christmas could not be suppressed, it should be preserved in honor of the Christian God. Once given a Christian basis the festival became fully established in Europe with many of its pagan elements undisturbed" (Man, Myth & Magic: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Mythology, Religion, and the Unknown, Richard Cavendish, editor, 1983, Vol. 2, p. 480, "Christmas").

Celebration wins out over Scripture

Some resisted such spiritually poisonous compromises. "Upright men strove to stem the tide, but in spite of all their efforts, the apostasy went on, till the Church, with the exception of a small remnant, was submerged under Pagan superstition. That Christmas was originally a Pagan festival is beyond all doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin" (Hislop, p. 93).

The aforementioned Tertullian, for one, disassociated himself from the Roman church in an attempt to draw closer to the teachings of the Bible.

He wasn't alone in his disagreement with such trends. "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" (The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, Vol. 6, p. 293, "Christmas").

Christmas was not made a Roman holiday until 534 (ibid.). It took 300 years for the new name and symbols of Christmas to replace the old names and meaning of the midwinter festival, a pagan celebration that reaches back so many centuries.

No biblical support for Santa Claus

How did Santa Claus enter the picture? Why is this mythical figure so closely aligned with the Christmas holiday? Here, too, many books are available to shed light on the origins of this popular character.

"Santa Claus" is an American corruption of the Dutch form "San Nicolaas," a figure brought to America by the early Dutch colonists (The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, Vol. 19, p. 649, "Nicholas, St."). This name, in turn, stems from St. Nicholas, bishop of the city of Myra in southern Asia Minor, a Catholic saint honored by the Greeks and the Latins on Dec. 6.

He was bishop of Myra in the time of the Roman emperor Diocletian, was persecuted, tortured for the Catholic faith and kept in prison until the more tolerant reign of Constantine (ibid.). Various stories claim a link from Christmas to St. Nicholas, all of them having to do with gift-giving on the eve of St. Nicholas, subsequently transferred to Christmas Day (ibid.).

How, we might ask, did a bishop from the sunny Mediterranean coast of Turkey come to be associated with a red-suited man who lives at the north pole and rides in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer?

Knowing what we have already learned about the ancient pre-Christian origins of Christmas, we shouldn't be surprised to learn that Santa Claus, too, is nothing but a figure recycled from ancient pagan beliefs.

The trappings associated with Santa Claus-his fur-trimmed wardrobe, sleigh and reindeer-reveal his origin from the cold climates of the far North. Some sources trace him to the ancient Northern European gods Woden and Thor, from which the days of the week Wednesday (Woden's day) and Thursday (Thor's day) get their designations (Earl and Alice Count, pp. 56-64). Others trace him even farther back in time to the Roman god Saturn and the Greek god Silenus (William Walsh, The Story of Santa Klaus, pp. 70-71).

Was Jesus born in December?

Most Bible scholars who have written on the subject of Jesus' birth conclude that, based on evidence in the Bible itself, there is no possible way Christ could have been born anywhere near Dec. 25.

Again we turn to Alexander Hislop: "There is not a word in the Scriptures about the precise day of [Jesus'] birth, or the time of the year when He was born. What is recorded there, implies that at what time soever His birth took place, it could not have been on the 25th of December. At the time that the angel announced His birth to the shepherds of Bethlehem, they were feeding their flocks by night in the open fields ... The climate of Palestine ... from December to February, is very piercing, and it was not the custom for the shepherds of Judea to watch their flocks in the open fields later than about the end of October" (Hislop, p. 91, emphasis in original).

He goes on to explain that the autumn rains beginning in September or October in Judea would mean that the events surrounding Christ's birth recorded in the Scriptures could not have taken place later than mid-October, so Jesus' birth likely took place earlier in the fall (Hislop, p. 92).

Further evidence supporting Jesus' birth in the autumn is that the Romans were intelligent enough not to set the time for taxation and travel in the dead of winter, but during more-favorable conditions. Since Joseph's lineage was from Bethlehem, and since he had to travel from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem, and since his expectant wife Mary traveled with him, it would have been nearly impossible for Joseph and Mary to make the trip in the winter. As recorded by Luke, Mary delivered Jesus in Bethlehem during the time of census and taxation-which no rational official would have scheduled for December.

What difference does it make?

The Bible gives us no reason-and certainly no instruction-to support the myths and fables of Christmas and Santa Claus. They are tied to the ways of this world and contrary to the ways of Christ and His holy truth. "Do not learn the way of the Gentiles," God tells us (Jeremiah 10:2).

Professing Christians should examine the background of the Christmas holiday symbols and stop telling their children that Santa Claus and his elves, reindeer and Christmas gift-giving are connected with Jesus Christ. Emphatically they are not! God hates lying. "These six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren" (Proverbs 6:16-19).

Recommended Reading

Does it matter to God which days and customs we celebrate to honor Him? Why do so many of our holidays have strange customs sanctioned nowhere in the Bible?

Many people are shocked to discover the origins of most popular holidays. They're also surprised to find that the feast days God commands in the Bible-the same days kept by Jesus Christ and the apostles-are almost universally ignored.

Be sure to request your free copies of the booklets Holidays or Holy Days: Does It Matter Which Days We Keep? and God's Holy Day Plan: The Promise of Hope for All Mankind.

Christ reveals that Satan the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). Parents should tell their children the truth about God and this world's contrary and confusing ways. If we don't, we only perpetuate the notion that it is acceptable for parents to lie to their children.

Can a professing Christian promote a pagan holiday and its symbols as something that God or Christ has approved? Let's see what God thinks about people using customs and practices rooted in false religion to worship Him and His Son. We find His views clearly expressed in both the Old and New Testament.

God specifically commands His people not to do what early church leaders did when they incorporated idolatrous practices and relabeled them Christian. Before they entered the Promised Land, God gave the Israelites a stern warning: "Take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them [the inhabitants of the land],... and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.'

"You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods ... Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it" (Deuteronomy 12:30-32, emphasis added throughout).

Many centuries later the apostle Paul traveled to and raised up churches in many gentile cities. To the members of the Church of God in Corinth, a city steeped in idolatry, Paul wrote: "... What fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God ... Therefore 'Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.' ... Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God"
(2 Corinthians 6:14-17; 7:1).

Instead of allowing members to rename and celebrate customs associated with false gods, Paul's instructions were clear: They were to have nothing to do with them. He similarly told Athenians who were steeped in idolatry, "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30).

God alone has the right to decide the special days on which we should worship Him. Jesus Christ plainly tells us that "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). We cannot honor God in truth with false practices adopted from the worship of nonexistent gods.

Jesus said: "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:6-7). With God no substitutes are acceptable. It makes no difference that Christians mean well when they observe Christmas. God is not amused or pleased.

The knowledge of how to honor Almighty God, who made us, preserves us and gives us eternal life, has been made available to you. Will you honor God or follow the traditions of mankind?

To: Sir Francis Dashwood; DouglasKC; Eagle Eye; ALS

>Set, Satan, and Shaitan are the same. "Satan" is a Hebrew word for the pagan Egyptian Set. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seth ("Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim.)

I don't have time to get into this today, but will comment on just that one statement. It is not clear if you are lumping Judaism, Christian and Islam in one group as serving the same God. If you are, you err. Muslims, as evidenced by their "fruit" of suicide-bombing, murdering, gang-raping and lying their way into Islamizing the world, are of their father the devil, Satan. The Bible defines Satan as a being created by G~d as an adversary. In these endtimes Satan will be revealed in the body of a man whom G~d will destroy.

281 posted on 12/26/2002 2:13:39 PM PST by 2sheep

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

And the broad definition covers it.

I am a Pagan, what type is my business, NOT yours.

282 posted on 12/26/2002 2:21:59 PM PST by Aric2000

It is not clear if you are lumping Judaism, Christian and Islam in one group as serving the same God.

I am using the primary dictionary definition of "pagan." Islam is an idolatry that worships a rock. Another example of a contravention of fact in dictionaries. (I mentioned this with the word "typhoon.")

The Bible defines Satan as a being created by G~d as an adversary.

The Bible defines Satan in the original language as follows:

Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ. (Hobbes)

Also, Satan is first mentioned in the Book of Job (the only place you will find it in the Old Testament). What is the Hebrew translation, again?

283 posted on 12/26/2002 2:40:13 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood

I am a Pagan, what type is my business, NOT yours.

Question: Then why even say so, only to get offended when asked?

Answer: Because you know so little about what you claim to be.

A mask to hide your true self when looking in a mirror.

284 posted on 12/26/2002 2:48:56 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

I am a Pagan, what type is my business, NOT yours.

Question: Then why even say so, only to get offended when asked?

I was not offended by you asking, I was offended by your judgemental and holier then thou atitude, for an atheist, you sure sound like a fundamentalist.

Answer: Because you know so little about what you claim to be.

I know EXACTLY what I believe, it's history, etc, etc. I just do not care, it is NOT all that important to me, I am not a prostletizer, what is good for you, is fine with me. your criticism, save it for someone you can convert.

A mask to hide your true self when looking in a mirror.

I know my true self, that is why I am what I am. I have NO trouble looking in a mirror, but it looks like you are still searching for an answer. Good luck, hopefully your answer will bring you the happiness you seek. My answer is my own, it is NOT for you, it is NOT even for my wife and children, they must find their own path. I have chosen mine, it is only fair that I allow them to choose theirs, and you as well.

I hope you find your answers, but do not expect any help from me in that regard. You seem to know the history, and definitions etc, but that is not ALL there is, and until you realize that, you will NEVER find the answer to YOUR question.

285 posted on 12/26/2002 3:04:30 PM PST by Aric2000

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

>...is first mentioned in the Book of Job (the only place you will find it in the Old Testament). What is the Hebrew translation, again?

It is found 15 places in OT (55 times in 49 verses in whole Bible: Blue Letter Bible ): 1Ch 21:1; Job 1:6-9,12; 2:1-4,6-7; Ps 109:6; Zec 3:1-2.

Hebrew: - variously: an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed), the arch-enemy of good:--adversary, withstand. ... to attack, (figuratively) accuse:--(be an) adversary, resist. ... a traducer ... false accuser, devil, slanderer. ... dung.

Greek:
Abaddon = of Hebrew origin (11); a destroying angel:--Abaddon.
Apollyon = a destroyer (i.e. S___):--Apollyon.

BTW, your Greek logic came from Egyptian occult per a Derek Prince book we are reading, Ye Shall Expel Demons. He was a Greek and Latin scholar, became a minister and later learned Hebrew and Aramaic. He ministered in deliverance for over 50 years.

Our interests seem to be poles apart. I study G~d and you are fascinated with the enemy.

286 posted on 12/26/2002 3:34:58 PM PST by 2sheep

I study G~d and you are fascinated with the enemy.

And who would the enemy be?

I am not your enemy, I just choose not to believe what you do, I do not force my beliefs down anyones throat. I do not consider you an enemy, do you consider me one?

287 posted on 12/26/2002 3:42:23 PM PST by Aric2000

My post was directed to Sir Dashwood, not you. If you review his recent posts he is defining "the enemy" by name frequently. I am not forcing beliefs down your throat and leave you to worship what you choose. Moses, Elijah and Jesus all said, "pick sides" and you have, and that is a far sight better than the apostate church which has chosen the lukewarm middle and lately has been choosing regularly the occult in following Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Christmas.

288 posted on 12/26/2002 3:59:11 PM PST by 2sheep

I was just asking a question.

No need to get touchy...

289 posted on 12/26/2002 4:00:09 PM PST by Aric2000

I wasn't being touchy, even though you may have perceived it that way.

290 posted on 12/26/2002 4:04:17 PM PST by 2sheep

It is just as I had said, only in Job. You are again referring me to a translation, not the original language those books were written in. What was the language used in Job? Who wrote Job? (Now, that is a greatly disputed question among Biblical scholars, both Christian and Judaic).

I study G~d and you are fascinated with the enemy.

What enemy would that be? The Enemy of Israel? Yes. That is indeed one of my enemies...

Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.
Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption. [13]And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy... (Hobbes)

I trust Hobbes' interpretations in Leviathan more than any other. Not a single scholar of the Bible with any credibility in the Christian world will attempt to dispute Hobbes with direct Biblical reference. Not one. Find one for me, please...

291 posted on 12/26/2002 4:23:21 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood

Sorry, should have followed the conversation back a few, my fault.

My apologies...

292 posted on 12/26/2002 4:34:20 PM PST by Aric2000

On the contrary, I was not blessing someone that I saw as cursing me. I was blessing someone that I see acting out of the best intentions and out of a sincere love of Christ. However, I do believe you are quite mislead and very wrong on the matter about which you are arguing about. But, this does not mean that I believe you are my enemy in the slightest.

I have read this thread. I knew it would be wiser to stay away, not because I am wrong but rather because some on this thread are so convinced that Christmas is an evil thing and arguing in such a case is pointless. I know that this all seems very clear in your mind, but I assure you that to the casual observer what you are saying does not make much sense. The verses that are being quoted against Christmas are out of context. Christmas is an idolatrous holiday when it becomes a worship of material things. That it once had pagan connotations does not necessarily reflect on the holiday now, when it is properly celebrated.

Christ has a knack for taking the things of the world, transforming them, and making them holy. This is what he does with each and every one of us when we decide to follow Him. It is true that Christmas once was the celebration of winter solstice, a major pagan holiday. This does not make the day itself evil, but rather the celebrations that once took place upon it. What is wrong, though, with taking a day that once had evil connotations with it and instead giving it a positive meaning related to Christ? Certainly the 25th is not the actual date of birth for our Lord. However, this does not mean that we ought not celebrate the day upon which He was born! The Incarnation is among the greatest of events this world has seen! God has become man, to live among us, to suffer, and to ultimately die for us! This is certainly nothing small and insignificant. Certainly, we ought remember this event every day of our lives, but oftentimes it does help to have a specific day devoted to particular events such as this so that we may bring it before our minds and devote our attentions to it.

Certainly many will be deceived and fall to the deceptions of the evil one. However, it would be foolish of us to accuse every Christian who celebrates Christmas of partaking in this deception. To do so ignores the very nature of this great evil. The great deception involves things such as the denial of the Trinity, of salvation, and in embracing the world in ways which Christians are never permitted to do so. This great fall is taking place all around us. Look at the many people who call themselves "Christians" yet believe that abortion is acceptable before God! Look at the many churches that concern themselves more with "community" than with Christ! There are many who are "Christian" in name and yet certainly do not place their faith in Him throughout their daily lives. These are the deceived, not those who wish to maintain Christmas as a rememberance of the incarnation of Christ. Not everyone who participates in Christmas is a Secular Humanist or a worshipper of Mammon. What is essential, rather, is that we as Christians keep the holiday in its proper perspective. Certainly it is not wrong to be joyous and to celebrate.

Again, I emphasize that I certainly do not view you as an enemy but rather a friend in Christ who happens to be wrong on this matter. I really do wish the great blessings of Christ upon you.

293 posted on 12/26/2002 5:07:14 PM PST by MWS

To: MWS; DouglasKC; ALS; Eagle Eye; Sir Francis Dashwood; Aric2000; Captiva; skipjackcity; ...

It is a sad day in church history when wiccans, pagans and atheists have more light on this subject than Christians. The church has been given over to the occult line upon line, precept upon precept. It has relegated "Truth" to just a matter of anyone's opinion. It didn't beware. Jesus, said, "If you will, I will..." and "I would have gathered you, ... but ye would not." What a tragedy! He tries to restore Truth to the deceived Church but it just says, No. Paul said, Ac 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. The church gave the wolves pulpit time and voting rights and said all those who disagree with the majority opinion must be false. They point to how loving they can be because they have befriended wolves and sinners of every sort and are just tolerant of sinful behavior. They crucify afresh the Son of G~d and put him to an open shame.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Mt 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

294 posted on 12/26/2002 5:36:57 PM PST by 2sheep

You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Christmas did not become a Christian holiday because Christianity was infiltrated by wiccans, pagans, and atheists. In this case it was not society that infiltrated Christianity but rather Christianity that infiltrated society. The early Christians took a major festive holiday of the pagans, threw out all of its trappings, changed its meaning, and effectively made it into a Christian holiday for the sake of evangelization.

As I had shown, the Christmas Tree does not come from the ancient pagan tradition of worshipping trees, but rather as a refutation of that. The Christmas tree itself came to represent Christ Himself. It is true that certainly parts of the holiday have been re-paganized over the course of the last century. "Santa Claus", as we have him today, is not representative of the traditional observation of the holiday. Neither is the gross materialism that society tends to relish in at this time of year. However, as much as one may rightfully hate these corruptions, it cannot be denied that the birth of Christ (the very incarnation of God here on earth) ought to be celebrated and recognized. If you can recognize this fact, what does it matter upon which day it is done? It really ought to be done on a day that has been traditionally equated with reverence and festivities.

Christmas is not a sign of submission on the part of Christians to the powers of the occult. To say so is sadly misguided and it is my duty as your brother Christian to correct you for saying so. It is, rather, a celebration of something quite holy that truly ought to be celebrated. To deny this is to deny the significance of Christ's life here on earth and is ultimately to deny the importance of our very salvations. God has become man and has lived among us. If this is unimportant, what can be termed important?

295 posted on 12/26/2002 6:31:23 PM PST by MWS

To: MWS; DouglasKC; Eagle Eye; ALS; Zad; Thinkin' Gal; Prodigal Daughter; Crazymonarch; babylonian

>You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Christmas did not become a Christian holiday because Christianity was infiltrated by wiccans, pagans, and atheists. In this case it was not society that infiltrated Christianity but rather Christianity that infiltrated society.

G~d hates mixture! He calls people to come out and be holy, not to syncretize with the heathen and the unfruitful works of darkness. See Willow Creek link below.*** Christianity today has so infiltrated society that it has become like unto the heathen in most sinful respects. Syncretism is a tool of the devil to make the Church lukewarm. It is clear in the words of Jesus that He can tell who is true and who is false and one big way of doing that is looking at who keeps his commandments and who doesn't and makes up new rules, times and seasons.

>The early Christians took a major festive holiday of the pagans, threw out all of its trappings, changed its meaning, and effectively made it into a Christian holiday for the sake of evangelization.

"Evangelization" is a buzz word used by the globalist change agents in the seeker-sensitive apostate churches. In the days of Constantine the Romans took the Jewish faith as explained by Jesus Christ, changed it by eliminating the Jewish Feasts, all things Jewish and murdered the Jews who held to those beliefs. In their place and instead of the Torah which the L~rd told them to keep, they installed Satanic rites of Mithracism, mother and child worship from Nimrod and much more. It is set out here: Too Long in the Sun. (this was linked in #15 and #234 above but you must have missed it the first time you read the thread.) They changed what Jesus said and required instead that for Jews to convert to Christianity, they had to make this oath.

A Profession Of Faith From The Church Of Constantinople in the year 325 C.E.(A.D.) Under The Emperor Constantine

I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms. unleavened breads & sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants and observances and Synagogues, and the food and drink of The Hebrews; in one word, I renounce everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with The Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable. And may I be anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils.

Source: Parks, James The Conflict Of The Church And The Synagogue Atheneum, New York, 1974, pp. 397 - 398.

Jews were murdered by so-called Christians to fulfill the demands of false prophets and wolves in sheeps clothing. When a deceived Christian bows to demands of wolves and murders a Jew who is faithful to the Torah, it will obviously not be the "Christian" murderer "saved by grace" standing before the L~rd on Judgment Day being told, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." It is the antichrist who thought to change times and laws then to deceive the Church just as it is the same antichrist spirit who seeks to do it now.

You might also look at this one. Would Your Church Allow You To Be Like Jesus?

>As I had shown, the Christmas Tree does not come from the ancient pagan tradition...

You are incorrect in that assumption and shows you have done no research or just denied everything you don't like. Using your model, you could use this as one of the elves for your Christmas decor, as it suits the phallic nature of the tree and you can "spread the word" at the same time, enjoy your spiritual fornication and have the ultimate in Syncretization and feel safe while doing it.

>...it cannot be denied that the birth of Christ (the very incarnation of God here on earth) ought to be celebrated and recognized. If you can recognize this fact, what does it matter upon which day it is done?

It can be denied because it was not his birth that he wanted celebrated but his death and resurrection and the reasons for that, which was discussed on this thread but you missed that too. He was born in the fall and if one had to pick any date, why not pick Feast of Trumpets? Why pick the date most loved by Satanists of the whole year? Because it benefits the occult. If any date will do, if you call the shots and make the rules, and change dates and times, then perhaps you don't need a L~rd that speaks, because you deny what He has said to do and you do what is right in your own eyes.

Syncretization means to reconcile and unite (differing religious beliefs, for example), especially with partial success or a heterogeneous result. It just more paving for the broad way to destruction. It uses the propaganda technique called the Hegelian Dialiectic. They bring two sides in opposition (thesis and anti-thesis) and have trained people to accept the Synthesis or Consensus (which is what the globalists intended at the start). That Consensus has led to the exaltation of evil people and the murder of innocents. It promotes the lukewarm, middle of the road, broad way to destruction. For any who haven't done it, they should Google some of these terms for the propaganda techniques used for one world takeover: Hegelian Dialectic - Diaprax - Delphi Technique - Gramsci

Here's a start: 100 ~ 105 ~ 24 ~ 25 ~

The Hegelian Dialectic and The New World Order
Introduction - A Theory, and the Hegelian Dialectic
The Meaning of "Original Sin"
Toward the Total State by William Norman Grigg re Gramsci
Who is Antonio Gramsci? You Better Learn!!!

The intent is to destroy the nations, not unite them: Allah and the Real-World-Order

The Diabolical System of DIAPRAX
Online book: THE DIALECTIC & PRAXIS: DIAPRAX AND THE END OF THE AGES by Dean Gotcher
Paul Proctor -- Diaprax Goes To Seminary
Paul Proctor -- Archives
*** WILLOW CREEK... HEGELIAN DIALECTIC & THE NEW WORLD ORDER ***
Concerned Members - Links Library
A Complete Explanation Of Hegel from an Unbiased Viewpoint
Brainwashing in America - Berit Kjos
Conforming the Church to the New Millennium - Berit Kjos
The UN Plan for Your Mental Health
Local Agenda - The U.N. Plan for Your Community
How the Hegelian Dialectic is Transforming The World To Bring In The New World Order
MIND CONTROL

The Hegelian Dialectic
"The dialectical method of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) consists of two main steps: the invention of artificial extremes (``thesis'' and ``antithesis'') which superficially conflict with each other, and the synthesis from that conflict of a goal, which is made to appear to be the product of consensus. The artificial extremes are chosen and propagandized (marginalizing the population) in such a way that the goal is naturally synthesized from them. It is, essentially, a trick - a fraud. It is a strategy of ideological divide-and-conquer. The dialectic ruse dissipates the energy and coherency of its targets - unless they recognize the ruse as such.
Hegel was a fountain of awful ideas, liberally cribbed by Marx and Engels, by the sickly and neurologically defective Mary Baker Eddy (founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist, which - as evidenced by its concept of "Malicious Animal Magnetism" - is in fact similar to Scientology), and by the Unitarians (who are historical proponents of universal government schooling in pursuit of socialist indoctrination). Hegel was an influence on famed phenomenologist Martin Heidegger (1889-1978) (NSDAP#3125894, 1933-May-1) (author of Being and Time (1927) and a critic of Hegel's methods), on French existentialist phenomenologist and Marxist Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) (author of The Transcendence of the Ego (1937) and Being and Nothingness (1943)), and on "spiritualist" utopian Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch (Das Prinzip Hoffnung (The Principle of Hope)).
A central precept of the Hegelian ethic is that people are principally motivated by the desire to receive the approval and recognition of others, and to avoid their disapproval.*Since this motivation is not predicated on the reasonableness of that approval or disapproval, the principle is a mechanism by which an individual delegates arbitrary control to others. This is, obviously, an enabling principle of collectivism. By encouraging people to embrace this tendency, and amplify it into a preeminent mechanism of decision making, Hegelianism works directly to subvert the individual." ... Source ~ http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/intro2.html#theory

*People have been trained to be man-pleasers, not God pleasers.

Mt 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ;*** and shall deceive many.

Mt 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

*** or "I am a Christian..."

296 posted on 12/26/2002 8:49:59 PM PST by 2sheep

BTW, what is the steeple on most churches all about?

Depends on how Freudian one is.

I suspect you view it as a phallus.

I however view them as architectural features used primarily as landmarks. In former times, if you were new to an area or just turned around, steeples served as reference points, sort of a daylight beacon.

If you'll notice, few churches of recent construction have them. They're expensive to build, expensive to maintain and have lost most of their former landmark qualities.

I really don't view obelisks as phalluses either. I view them as geometric statuary. Builders, be they pagan, Jewish, Christian or whatever are all subject to the same laws of physics and materials. Certainly if the Egyptians were capable of building the Sphynx, they would have been able to erect a giant phallus whith more realistic appearance than the obelisks.

Of course when taking an ink spot test, I don't see sexual imagery in every spot either. Such can't be said of others.

Read #266

I did and don't know where he got his information from. Suspect he read Jeremiah 10 and thought it referred to Christmas Trees. He then heard someone say it was a phallus without knowing the person meant the Ashera Pole (maypole/totempole) the passage referenced. He then came to the erroneous conclusion ancient pagans viewed the Christmas tree as a phallus.

Do you have an alternate explanation for the tree and its symbolism?

My understanding is the Christmas Tree first appeared in literature about 500 years ago in Germany. Prior to that, Northern Europeans would bring evergreens into the home during the winter months believing the evergreen to have some extra "life force". Of course, all of us bring plants indoors now. Even realtors advise planting some evergreens around the home in order to present a live appearance if the house has to be listed in the winter months.

Hey, interesting thread we have here.

297 posted on 12/26/2002 9:16:41 PM PST by fso301

298 posted on 12/26/2002 11:33:06 PM PST by 2sheep

You are assuming what you are trying to prove.

It's called begging the question, an informal fallacy. Right on the money.

It is true that certainly parts of the holiday have been re-paganized over the course of the last century. "Santa Claus", as we have him today, is not representative of the traditional observation of the holiday. Neither is the gross materialism that society tends to relish in at this time of year.

Among a great number of other things. (I could make a rather lengthy list.) Idolatrous vanities, glamourous glorifications.

I have never spoken against the Christian celebration of Christmas, but I do question the modern incarnation of the idolatry and spiritism similar to Halloween... Question the Practice of Halloween... Or the Christian Practice of Satanism

The absolutism of sectarian dogma based upon personal interpretation of Scripture, in many cases, only serves to defeat the most valid arguments a lot of people can agree with or be amenable to a revealation concerning the ideas presented. Approaching a subject from a point of conviction rather than condemnation is a lesson that needs to learned.

299 posted on 12/27/2002 3:30:59 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood

Christmas as it exists today is not a syncretized version of the old pagan holiday. Syncretizing involves an attempt to unite and harmonize two things that would otherwise be opposed. I have put forward that what the early Christians did was not a case of syncretizing but rather a case of using a particular day to celebrate a Christian concept- the incarnation of Christ- in order to pull people away from the pagan celebration. This does not mean that the old trappings were retained, as you have been assuming throughout this thread. If the old trappings and meanings had been maintained, then you could make a case that syncretizing had occured. It is incumbent on you to show that this has taken place. This would be far more productive than simply throwing out accusations and claiming that all Christians who take part in Christmas are deceived and have fallen. You certainly are not convincing anyone but yourself of the worthiness of your cause, but rather pushing them away from your message. (And no, this is not because they are "deceived by the devil", but rather because you are speaking with the words of men expressing the ideas of men rather than by the guidance of God)

"Evangelization" is a buzz word used by the globalist change agents in the seeker-sensitive apostate churches.

On the contrary, evangelization is a real word with a real meaning that is at the very basis of what it means to be Christian. Evangelization means to go forth and spread the gospel of Christ. This is what we are commanded to do as Christians. If some have "hijacked" the meaning of true evangelization and perverted it, this does not reflect on "evangelization" itself but rather upon those who perverted it. It does not follow that suddenly we are no longer called to evangelize because some have perverted its meaning.

In the days of Constantine the Romans took the Jewish faith as explained by Jesus Christ, changed it by eliminating the Jewish Feasts, all things Jewish and murdered the Jews who held to those beliefs. In their place and instead of the Torah which the L~rd told them to keep, they installed Satanic rites of Mithracism, mother and child worship from Nimrod and much more. It is set out here: Too Long in the Sun. (this was linked in #15 and #234 above but you must have missed it the first time you read the thread.) They changed what Jesus said and required instead that for Jews to convert to Christianity, they had to make this oath.

I read it the first time, but I considered it to be a quite silly assertion not even worth the effort to refute. It revolves around a post hoc fallacy. The Jewish rites and customs were rejected not out of a desire to "pervert" Christianity so that they could be replaced by pagan rites, but rather because they were signs of the Old Covenant that were done away with the New. Christ had come in glory, had died, and had been resurrected. There was no more need to hope for a messiah, to make sacrifices in the temple, to maintain customs such as circumcision (one need only read Paul's Epistles in the New Testament to know this), or to abstain from certain foods. It was the apostles themselves that did away with the customs in the first place, not the government of Constantine. These latter Christians were merely enforcing what the apostles had set forward in the first place.

As for the so-called "introductions" from Mithracism, simple research into the works of the Church Fathers will show that many of the rites that are claimed to originate from there had existed prior to the legalization of Christianity. That there are parallels in the pagan cults is not proof that they were actually caused by those cults. It is very much akin to the assertions of some that Christianity itself has its roots in the "pagan mystery religions".

You are incorrect in that assumption and shows you have done no research or just denied everything you don't like.

I do hope that the irony here is not lost on you, my friend.

I am not incorrect in that statement. I had posted the story earlier in the thread. Simple research on your part would substantiate the story. A search on St. Boniface will show that this wasn't a story made up on the spot.

Using your model, you could use this as one of the elves for your Christmas decor, as it suits the phallic nature of the tree and you can "spread the word" at the same time, enjoy your spiritual fornication and have the ultimate in Syncretization and feel safe while doing it.

Yes, with this gross picture you have shown an example where Christianity has been syncretized with the world. However, you are now arguing by false analogy, because you have not shown that this has occurred with Christmas. The only arguments supporting your claims in this case have been post hoc arguments that necessitate substantiation that a true casual relationship exists.

It can be denied because it was not his birth that he wanted celebrated but his death and resurrection and the reasons for that, which was discussed on this thread but you missed that too.

Yes, it was discussed earlier, but you were still wrong! Simply because you argued something earlier does not mean that you really proved your point! And you are dead wrong with your statement here. For you to deny the importance of the incarnation of Christ and reduce the importance of his life on earth to his death and resurrection effectively places you outside the fold of Christianity. His death and resurrection were of the utmost importance, but His actual incarnation is every bit as important. Indeed, his death and resurrection have absolutely no meaning whatsoever if he had not come in the first place! There is far more to the Gospel than merely the death and resurrection. To downplay the importance of the fact that God became man to live and teach among us is gross heresy. The celebration of Christ's birth is a celebration of the fact that God saw fit to become one of us and to fulfill the redemption He had promised. This is an essential part of the Faith that saves us.

He was born in the fall and if one had to pick any date, why not pick Feast of Trumpets? Why pick the date most loved by Satanists of the whole year? Because it benefits the occult. If any date will do, if you call the shots and make the rules, and change dates and times, then perhaps you don't need a L~rd that speaks, because you deny what He has said to do and you do what is right in your own eyes.

Your pharisaism is most disturbing. Certainly it is not the day that is important, but rather the ideal and the concept expressed on that day. Secondly, I was under the impression that Halloween was the day most loved by Satanists- make up your minds. Thirdly, no one is picking up the benefits of the occult- the Christianization of the day effectively stomped out the pagan holiday, not syncretized it. Fourthly, if God did not set a specific date to celebrate his incarnation, then it was certainly something left to the liberty of those within the Church.

You still have yet to substantiate your claims that Christianity and Christmas was syncretized in a manner that does not rely on post hoc fallacies. I am not going to bother with this thread until this is done, as I have much more important things to turn my attention to than the claims of a pharisee.

(And yes, I still say these things in love out of a concern for your soul, because I see that you have strayed into several grave errors.)

300 posted on 12/27/2002 7:32:01 AM PST by MWS

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794