In the Christian world, the cross is the most prominent religious object. One can see it in churches, schools, funeral parlors, cemeteries, sarcophagi, some Christian houses, and even on necklaces of some women. Christians believe it is the symbol of Christianity. There is no Christianity with that ubiquitous cross.
In Islam, the religion of the Muslims, there is no cross. Muslims do not believe Jesus died on the cross. When the Jews arrested Jesus and wanted to kill him, Allah (God) miraculously intervened and saved him. Jesus was raised to heaven without passing death. So no one can see a cross in the mosques as he can see in Christian churches. Instead, one can see the crescent on the domes and minarets of almost all mosques around the world.
Most Muslims believe the crescent is the symbol of Islam . But why the crescent? Muslim scholars are not unanimous in explaining the meaning of the crescent. Some say it represents the crescent of the Islamic month of Ramadan, the month in which Muslims fast. If a month has such importance as to represent Islam, why chose Ramadan? Why not Rabee-ul-Awwal, the Islamic month in which the Prophet Muhammad was born? Or why not Safar the Islamic month in which the Prophet Muhammad died? So many Muslim scholars disagree with this Ramadan explanation.
Some scholars explain that the crescent means that Islam is a growing religion just like the crescent moon which becomes bigger and bigger until it becomes full moon. But why start with the crescent? The new moon is much appropriate. Islam started with one man, the Prophet Muhammad himself. Then it grows until it is embraced now by more than ¼ of the whole world population. Islam is indeed a fast growing religion. So with this explanation, Islam cannot be represented by a crescent. Can we change the crescent to a new moon?
Another Muslim scholar has a different version. He said the crescent represents the so-called fertile crescent in the Middle East, starting from Egypt, passing the western part of Saudi then to Iraq. But why this region only? Muslims say Islam is a universal religion; it cannot be isolated to the fertile crescent only. Furthermore, when Islam was first revealed to the Prophet, this region was immersed in paganism.
Until now the correct meaning of this crescent on the mosques is unknown. If Muslim scholars are not sure, how can the ordinary Muslims know? And to complicate matters, nobody knows for sure when the crescent was first used as a symbol of Islam, and who introduced it . Some Muslim scholars say it was during the Abbasid caliphate. Some, however, disagreed.. They claim it started during the time of the Ottoman empire of the Turks in 1300 – 1916 C.E. Of course, all these are wild guesses.
Prophet Muhammad did not use the crescent as a symbol of Islam. When he built the first mosque in a place called Quba, he did not install any crescent. Later when he built another mosque in Medina, now known as the Mosque of the Prophet, he did not install any crescent; neither did he teach that it was the symbol of Islam. In other words, using the crescent as the symbol of Islam is an innovation of the Muslims themselves.
When Prophet Muhammad received the first revelation of Islam sometime in 610 C.E., the Middle East and the whole known world were already immersed in paganism. Christianity has already absorbed many pagan beliefs and rites like the trinity doctrine, the god-eating- rite now known as the Holy Eucharist, Christmas, Crucifixion and Easter, and many others. Islam is a purely monotheistic religion that tried to destroy these pagan beliefs and rites.
The worship of the triune god first started in ancient Babylon which is now in modern Iraq, a Muslim country. The first trinity started with Nimrod the son, his father Cush and his wife . Though worshiped in different names, this trinity spread to other countries like Egypt, Turkey and other Mediterranean countries.
After the passage of time, the gods of Babylon begun to multiply and other triune gods came like Sin the moon god, Shamash the sun god and Ishtar the fertility goddess.In Christianity Sin the moon god became the father, Shamash the sun god became the son Jesus, and Ishtar the wife of Sin became Mary the mother of Jesus.
Archaeological findings in the ruins of Babylon showed a stone tablet depicting the shrine and emblem of the trinity Sin, Shamash and Ishtar. The emblem of Ishtar is the eight-pointed star; that of Shamash , the sun god or the son, is the sun; and that of Sin, the moon god or the father, is the crescent.
In 1300 C.E. when Turkey, a former pagan country but now Muslim, rose to power, it preserved the crescent as its emblem , and it was also at this time that the crescent became prominent in almost all mosque throughout the empire. Saudi Arabia and all Muslim countries in the Middle East became part of the empire, so all the mosques there displayed the crescent emblem. And from the Middle East, it spread throughout the world.
The Ottoman Empire fell in 1916. Although the empire was gone, the crescent remains until now. The Muslims love it although it was an emblem of the pagan god Sin.Is Islam purely monotheist? One should think hard on the origin of the crescent he sees on the mosques before he answers, yes.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
the crescent of islam
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
SAUDI ARABIA: ISLAMIC COUNTRY?
Saudi Arabia to many people is a land of opportunity. Coming from diverse cultures like Egypt, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Philippines, and other poor countries , many people go there to work hoping for a better future. Though many failed, many did find their pot of gold. The most important contribution of Saudi Arabia to the world, however, is not only job opportunities, oil, and an excellent military base for the U.S.A., but Islam, the religion embraced by about ¼ of the whole world population.
The birth place of Islam and its prophet, the Prophet Muhammad, is Saudi Arabia. Because of this, most Muslims consider it as the sole authority in the teaching and practices of Islam. In the Philippines when a dispute on Islamic law crops up among the Muslims, the one who could present practices in Saudi Arabia settles it. That is how high the esteem of Saudi Arabia in the minds of Filipino Muslims. Muslims are made to believe that Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country, that its system of government and practices are patterned after Islam, and that its people , the Arabsare model Muslims.
This is of course wild imagination and false; the opposite is true.Arab muslim scholars know this, only that they are afraid to speak out in public, knowing well that anybody proven to speak against the government or Islam, the consequence is imprisonment or expulsion from the kingdom. That is the justice of Saudi Arabia. But that justice in the light of Islam that it purports to follow is injustice.
Islam is theocracy. It is a government of God (Allah), by a representative of God, and for God. Everything that the Muslims do is for the pleasure of God . And the earthly representative of God that runs this government is the Prophet who was also appointed by God, not appointed or elected by the people. The successor of the prophet called the Imam was also appointed by God through the Prophet. The Prophet said there will be twelve Imams after him. The laws of Islam are not man made, but by God and promulgated by the Prophet by the command of God. People have no say in legislation; they are required to follow.
Saudi Arabia, however, is opposite this as it is a monarchy called Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is run and governed by a king from the Saud family. That is why it is called Saudi, meaning, Arabia of the family of Saud. Everything that the subjects do is for the pleasure of the king. One may do something in the name of God and Islam, but if it will cause displeasure of the king, he is in trouble as mentioned earlier. In order to ensure the perpetuation of the Saud family as rulers, the government made a very strong tie with the West especially the United States up to the point of being subservient to it. It put up a strong military machine with the backing of its western master, the United States.
In addition to that, in order to have eyes and ears inside the kingdom itself, a unique intelligence system was established- the motawa or the religious police in plain clothe sin order to hide his presence among the masses. The title, religious police, is of course deceiving as he is not only concerned with religious matters, but of anything else that tends to shake the acceptance of the people of the anti-Islamic monarchy.
How the motawa treats people, especially the foreign workers, is dreadful. This writer had an unforgettable experience with him. After we finished praying the Isha prayer orthe night prayer in a big mosque, while waiting for a drugstore to open, there was a hard knock on our car's window. When I opened, the big, fat man and his companion staring at us shouted at the top of his voice: "Iqamah, iqamah, iqamah." (The iqamah is a sort of residence certificate showing ones entry into the kingdom.)
Then he pulled my hands and pushed me into his car. In their headquarter, they pushed me into a detention cell. There, much to my surprise, I learned they were the ones who did not pray in the mosque during the time of prayer; they were just roaming around looking for their victims. They should be the one who should be arrested – not me. But maybe they are exempted from obeying Islamic laws because they are part of the establishment and because the government authorized them to do so.
Many more instances of Saudi injustices could be told. These injustices are done in the name of Islam; Islam that prohibits injustice in the first place. What an irony! Now Muslims should open their eyes to the true nature of Saudi Arabia. We love Saudi Arabia but hate its anti-Islamic foolishness.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The Crescent Moon - Is it a symbol of Islam?
for hundreds of years, the ottoman empire ruled over the muslim world. after centuries of battle with christian europe, it is understandable how the symbols of this empire became linked in people's minds with the faith of islam as a whole. in short, it is a non-islamic tradition.
Monday, June 2, 2008
THE IMAMS OF THE MOSQUE – CORRUPT OR UPRIGHT?
One of the teachings of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, as shown by his deeds, is the perfection of morality. Muslims who seriously follow such morality as set by Muhammad, indeed, stand on a higher plane of character and behavior. Such are the Imams of the mosques who in reality are representatives of the Prophet. These Imams not only lead in the daily worship in the mosque but also in other aspects of the muslims' life like marriage, death burial, honesty in business, education of the muslims, and politics. In any problem arising in the daily affairs of the muslims, the Imam is consulted. To be effective, the Imam should be models of wisdom and morality. But the Imam of Mansilingan, Bacolod City, Philippines is an exception!
Commonly known as Omar Betita, a former christian who newly embraced Islam. Before his conversion his name was Bebot Tanis, a Christian who worked in Mindanao.
But because he was involved in some sort of financial malversation in his company he escaped to Negros Occidental where he converted to Islam in one of the Islamic Organizations in Bacolod City, Philippines in order to work in Saudi Arabia as an auto painter. In order to learn Islam while he was working in Saudi Arabia, he would take clippings about Islam from The Arab News every Friday. And this became his only Islamic education.
Muslims in the Philippines always looked up to Muslims who worked in Saudi Arabia thinking that these Muslims are learned in Islam. So after a few years stint in Saudi Arabia, when he abruptly returned to Bacolod City, some Muslims requested him to be their Imam which he readily accepted despite his meager knowledge of Islam and zero knowledge of Arabic.
What kind of a man is Omar Betita? Did he really absorbed the morality of Islam? To say, yes, is hypocrisy, why? First of all he was involved in financial malversation, that is why from Tanis, he changed his family name to Betita in order to hide his identity. While in Saudi Arabia, he caused his wife to write a letter that she needed to be operated of her goiter and she needed cash. Of course that was a lie; there was no goiter. Betita needed the letter to solicit for cash donations, and the gimmick was successful. As Imam, he required cash payment from people who accepted Islam and for officiating in marriages.
Worst of all, he called muslims who do not belong to his group as non-muslims; only they are the true muslims, so says Omar Betita.
Is this Islam? Is Omar Betita a true muslim? Does he deserve to be an Imam? We cannot really open what's in his heart; but his un-Islamic deeds
reveal it. Action speaks louder than words, so the saying goes.
This is not a personal vendetta against Omar, rather an eye-opener, a warning to all.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
THE CROSS – PAGANISM IN CHRISTIANITY
Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism, is build on paganism in its beliefs and practices. This seems unbelievable, but records of history speak the truth. Take the case of the most revered cross. Most Christians want to believe it originated with Jesus; nothing is further from the truth. What is the truth behind the cross?
One can see the ubiquitous cross in the churches, on the doors of houses, inside offices, and on the chests of ladies in the form of necklaces. Catholics also make the sign of the cross by first touching the forehead, then the chest, the left shoulder, then the right, and finally the chin together with saying, “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” They also make the same sign on leaving their houses, when starting to travel, and before doing anything. They said this is for protection against evil spirits and failure. These are they who have been duped not knowing or refusing the know how their cross came into the Church. Where do they get this kind of belief? Nothing has been said in the Bible about it.
Before the advent of the Christian era, the pagans of Babylonia, Syria, Persian, Egypt and other nations in the Mediterranean area already used the cross as a religious symbol. False pagan gods like Bacchus, Tammuz, Bel of Chaldea, and the Norse Odin were known to their followers by the symbol of the cross.
In Egypt the priests and the Pharaohs are depicted as holding a cross called the “Crux Ansata,” a cross with a circle on the crossbeam, as the symbol of authority as priests of the Sun God(Horus). This cross was called the Sign of Life and was sacred to their phallic worship. The vertical staff of the cross represents the male phallic organ and the horizontal crossbeam the female sex organ; these two organs perpetuate life. This phallic worship was also prevalent in other Middle East nations.
Some Christians argue that their use of the cross is in honor of Jesus who died on the cross. Why, what was the so-called cross of Jesus? Was that a crossbeam as popularly depicted by artists in their paintings and sculptures? The New Testament original Greek is stauros, which was wrongly translated by Jerome “cross” in his Latin Vulgate because he himself was influenced by the cross syndrome prevalent during his time. Stauros according to modern scholars is nothing more than a straight pole, not a cross, used as a torture stake to punish criminals.
But why did the Christian Church adopt the pagan cross and the practices associated with it and call it Christian? This was just to make the conversion from paganism to Christianity as easy as possible as those pagan converts would still continue practicing their paganism though in the new brand called “Christianity.”
Does it make any difference if one practices paganism in the name of Christianity as what most people are doing now? Any false worship and honoring false gods is detestable and opposed to the true worship of God (Jer. 50:29). Also Bible commentators explain that Eze. 8:17 refers to the detestable and offensive phallic worship. And the cross symbolizes phallic worship. Does it make any difference? Maybe not to most ignorant false worshipers, but to God there is much difference, and this is not just a simple difference; it's a matter of life or death in the hereafter.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Is prayer to saints / Mary Biblical?
The issue of Catholics praying to saints is one that is full of confusion. It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. However, the practice of many Catholics diverges from official Roman Catholic teaching. Many Catholics do in fact pray directly to saints and/or Mary, asking them for help – instead of asking the saints and/or Mary to intercede with God for help. Whatever the case, whether a saint or Mary is being prayed to, or asked to pray, neither practice has any Biblical basis.
The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in Heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholic pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request their prayers? Catholics view Mary and saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "...approach the throne of grace with confidence..."
Catholics argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. Let us examine that claim. (1) The Apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in Heaven to pray for them. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in Heaven praying for anyone on earth. (2) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers.
How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination - activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). The one instance when a "saint" is spoken to, Samuel in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, Samuel was not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is plainly clear that praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray for you. One has a strong Biblical basis, the other has no Biblical basis whatsoever.
God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14-15). There is absolutely no basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. No one in Heaven has any greater access to God's throne that we do through prayer (Hebrews 4:16).
What does the Bible say about confession of sin to a priest?
The concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. First, the New Testament does not teach that there are to be priests in the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament teaches that all believers are priests. 1 Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a “holy priesthood” and a “royal priesthood.” Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 both describe believers as “a kingdom and priests.”
When it comes to confession of sin, believers are told in 1 John 1:9 to confess their sins to God. God is faithful and just to forgive our sins as we confess them to Him. James 5:16 speaks of confessing our trespasses “to one another,” but this is not the same as confessing sins to a priest as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Priests / church leaders are nowhere mentioned in the context of James 5:16. Further, James 5:16 does not link forgiveness of sins with the confession of sins “to one another.”
The Roman Catholic Church bases their practice of confession to a priest primarily on Catholic tradition. Catholic do point to John 20:23, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." From this verse, Catholics claim that God gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins, and that authority was passed on to the successors of the apostles, e.g. the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church. There are several problems with this interpretation. (1) John 20:23 nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 nowhere promises, or even hints, that the authority to forgive sins would be passed on to the successors of the apostles. Jesus’ promise was specifically directed to the apostles. (3) The New Testament nowhere states that the apostles would even have successors to their apostolic authority. Similarly, Catholics point to Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 (binding and loosing) as evidence for the Catholic Church’s authority to forgive sins. The same three above points apply equally to these Scriptures.
Again, the concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. We are to confess our sins to God (1 John 1:9).
Does the Bible teach the celibacy of priests?
This is an interesting question to answer, as the Bible does not even teach that there are to be “priests” in the New Covenant established by Christ.
Why, then, does the Roman Catholic Church (and a few other Christian denominations) require celibacy of its church leaders / priests? The celibacy of priests has an interesting history. The first official church statements requiring celibacy appeared at the councils of Elvira (A.D. 306) and Carthage (A.D. 390), although clerical celibacy, to a lesser degree, definitely predated these councils. Ultimately, though, celibacy became the official requirement of the Roman Catholic Church due to the practice of nepotism. Church leaders were giving their children positions in the church, despite a lack of any qualifications or training. Further, church leaders were giving church property to their descendants. As a result, the Roman Catholic Church mandated celibacy in order to keep its priests from having familial attachments which made nepotism attractive.
Again, the Bible does not demand celibacy. In fact, Paul recognizes that most church leader will be married. The Roman Catholic requirement of celibacy is a sad example of the Church transforming it into a requirement, in order to protect its own interests. Sadder, still, is the damage that has been done as a result of the Roman Catholic Church’s anti-biblical requirement. Men whom God has not gifted or called to be celibate (1 Corinthians 7:7), are being required to be celibate, and the result is tremendous failures in the areas of adultery, fornication, and the sexual abuse of children.
Is the Pope the Vicar of Christ?
The term "vicar" comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means "instead of." In the Catholic Church, the vicar is the representative of a higher ranking official, with all of the same authority and power that that official has. In calling the Pope the "Vicar of Christ," this implies that he has the same power and authority that Christ had over the Church. The title is derived from Jesus' words in John 21:16-17 to Peter, "Feed my lambs . . . Take care of my sheep." This, according to Catholic reasoning, defines Peter as the Prince of the Apostles, the first Pope, and fulfills the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:18-19 (calling Peter the rock upon which Jesus will build His church).
Jesus does indeed predict a “vicar” in the sense of a “replacement” for His physical presence here on earth. However, this “vicar of Christ” is not a priest, high priest, bishop, or pope. The only Biblical “vicar of Christ” is the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 declares, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” John 14:16-18 proclaims, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever — the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” The Holy Spirit is Christ’s “replacement” on the earth. The Holy Spirit is our Counselor, Teacher (John 14:26), and guide into all truth (John 16:13).
In claiming that the pope is the “vicar of Christ,” the Catholic church rejects the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ’s priesthood, and grants to the pope roles that Christ Himself declared would belong to the Holy Spirit. It is therefore blasphemy to ascribe to the Pope the title of “vicar of Christ.”
Did Jesus Have Long Hair?
Almost every artist’s rendering of Christ portrays Him with long hair. But is this accurate? Can we know? The answers to these questions, and to those concerning acceptable hair lengths and styles for men and women, are found in God’s Word.
Many have been taught that Jesus had long hair. Does the Bible say this? Some men try to justify having long hair by saying, “It’s okay for my hair to be long because Christ’s was.” Others contend that Christ had long hair because he was a “Nazarite.”
Both are false! History shows that short hair on men has been around for a long time—much longer than many realize. At the time Jesus lived, it was the accepted and general custom. For proof, all one need do is pick up any illustrated history book relating to the period. You will find pictures of busts and statues of famous Greeks and Romans of Christ’s time. In every case, the men are portrayed with short hair similar to what we find today.
Two excellent books that one may reference are A History of the Holy Land (Michael Avi-Yonah, editor) and Daniel to Paul (Gaalyahu Cornfeld, editor). On pages 126 to 127 of the former, you will find pictures of the busts of Roman leaders, such as Augustus, Pompey, and one believed to be Herod. Each one has short hair. As a matter of fact, all the carvings and statues of the Roman legionnaires show them as having closely cropped hair. Motion pictures involving stories of this time period always portray men with short hair. It would have been quite an oddity for a Roman man to wear his hair long. It used to be the same for all men in our society. The reality is that before, during and after the time of Christ, every Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to Trajan had short hair. And it was the emperor who set the pattern in style and mode of dress for the entire empire.
The Hellenistic Greek culture dominated the Eastern Mediterranean area, influencing Judea before the Romans came on the scene. Quite a large segment of the Jewish population spoke the Greek language and had a Hellenistic view in the time of Christ. (Notice John 12:20; Acts 6:1.) The style of hair for men of this culture was to wear it short. (Cornfeld, pp.15, 146). You will find on page 146 of the book Daniel to Paul a picture showing a “marble statuette of an unidentified man of the Hellenistic period—a time of close contacts between the Jewish and Hellenistic civilizations in thought, art, and everyday life. Whether Jewish or Gentile, he evokes his age and environment.” The man shown in the picture of this statuette had short hair. From the comment made by the author, a learned historian and archaeologist, it is clear that he could not tell if the man was a Jew or a Gentile. Why? Because throughout the Near-Eastern region, the styles were the same—including short hair on men.
Some argue that those Jews who did not have a Hellenistic view may have worn their hair long. However, in the anti-Hellenistic Jewish Talmud is the instruction that every thirty days, all the priests should cut their hair. Why this instruction if they grew their hair long? These priests were well aware of Ezekiel 44:20: “Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long.” God intended that the priests set the example for the rest of the community. (Mal. 2:7). Further examination of the Talmud reveals that the hairstyle was “Julian,” or what would be called “a Caesar cut” (Sanhedrin 22b).
Was Christ Under a Nazarite Vow?
Erroneously assuming that Jesus was under a Nazarite vow, some may further argue that although the hairstyle for men of Christ’s time was short, He wore His hair long. But Christ was never under such a vow. He did grow up in Nazareth, fulfilling a prophecy that He would be called a Nazarene (Matt. 2:23; Mark 1:9; Luke 1:26; John 1:45). This is why early Christians were sometimes referred to as Nazarenes. However, neither of these words has anything whatsoever to do with a Nazarite vow. Those under a Nazarite vow could not drink wine or touch a dead body.
Notice: “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord: He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. All the days that he separates himself unto the Lord he shall come at [touch] no dead body” (Num. 6:2-3, 6).
Christ drank wine (Matt. 11:19) and, on occasion, touched a dead body (Matt. 9:25). Had He been under a Nazarite vow, He would not have done either of these things. Those under this vow grew their hair long as a sign of humiliation. Men who wear their hair long today are anything but humble. Rather, they are very proud of their long locks and go to great lengths to show them off. It is a sign of pride. It is also a sign of defiance against traditional values.
Also notice that when the time of the vow was over, the person under the vow was to shave his head (Num. 6:18)—ending this shameful period!
How do we know it was a shameful time? I Corinthians states, “Does not even nature [the inborn quality of a man as contrasted to that of a woman] itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” (11:14).
It is a shame for a man to have his hair long. Apart from God’s Word, even nature shows this. A man should not look like a woman! For one thing, long hair is not manageable and would just get in his way. A man’s hair was never intended to grow long. Long hair on a man interferes with the duties and responsibilities that are part of the male role.
Christ simply would not have grown His hair long. To do so would have contradicted His Word. Remember, it was Christ—the Word (John 1:1)—who inspired the Bible. II Timothy tells us, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (3:16). And since Jesus Christ also inspired I Corinthians 11:14, He would have been true to His word. And that Word guides and instructs us on the matter of hair lengths and styles for men and women.
What Christ Did Look Like
The Second Commandment clearly prohibits any artist’s rendering of what Christ may have looked like: “You shall not make unto yourself any graven image or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Ex. 20:4).
Almost all artists’ renderings portray Jesus with long hair, soft, feminine—if not effeminate—features, and a sentimental, sanctimonious look in His eyes. They bear no similarity in any way to what Christ really looked like.
The Christ of your Bible did not look like this! If it were important for us to know exactly what He looked like as a man, it would have been recorded.
In fact, nowhere in God’s Word are we told to be concerned with what Christ looked like as a human being. The only description we are given is this: “For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: He has no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him” (Isa. 53:2).
Jesus would have looked like any other Jewish man of His time. He would have been a normal, healthy, masculine-looking man. As a carpenter, He spent most of His life working outdoors (Mark 6:3). He did not look like an effeminate weakling—with long hair!
Christ had short hair, like a man should have. And it would have been neatly trimmed and kept. As the Son of God, Jesus always set the right example.
On a number of occasions, He was able to blend into a crowd because He looked just like everyone else (Luke 4:30; John 8:59; 10:39). Think! If Jesus had had long hair, contrary to the accepted style of the time, it would not have been necessary for Judas to use a special sign—a kiss—to point Him out to His enemies. Christ would have stood out from the crowd!
Ultimately, if we think about Christ’s appearance at all, we ought to think, in general terms, about how He looks today. Inspired by God, the apostle John described Jesus’ present appearance: “His head and His hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and His eyes were as a flame of fire” (Rev. 1:14).
What About Leviticus 19:27 and 21:5?
Still, some may ask about two passages in the book of Leviticus that seem to prohibit the cutting of one’s hair. They read, “You shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shall you mar the corners of your beard” (Lev. 19:27); and “They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh” (21:5).
A casual reading of these passages seems to imply that it is wrong to shave or cut one’s hair. However, this is not the case. Reading from the American Translation by Goodspeed helps one to understand the true meaning of these verses: “You must not shave around your temple, nor do away with the corners of your beard” and “They must not shave part of their heads bald, nor shave off the corners of their beards, nor make incisions in their bodies.” Recognize that this was instruction to the nation of Israel after they had come out of Egypt. For centuries, they had not known the true God or His ways. The only way of life they had been exposed to was the pagan culture of Egypt, with its multitude of false gods.
Notice this admonition in Jeremiah 10:2: “Thus says the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen.” The ancient Israelites had undoubtedly learned some of Egypt’s ways, necessitating that God instruct them in His ways.
It was a ceremonial custom of the heathen to cut and trim beards and hair into special shapes that would honor a particular pagan deity—often the sun god. The Egyptians of old cropped their dark locks very short. Or they shaved it precisely, leaving the remaining hair on the crown, forming a circle that surrounded the head (the halo has been borrowed from this practice), while they dressed their beards in a square form. Conversely, a round bald spot may have been shaved on the head. (This is one reason that a male should not shave off his sideburns. Doing this also makes him appear feminine).
Again, this practice was intended to honor a pagan god. Doing these things does not honor the true God. The Bible forbids this kind of worship.
Many males (and some females) today are adopting hairstyles borrowed from: Pagan cultures; rebellious skinhead movements (shaving their heads bald); modern religious/cultural movements (such as Rastafarian); famous rock groups and other artists; and any number of other shocking, outlandish styles and fashions.
Those in God’s Church must not copy the ways of this world. We are to “come out from among them, and be… separate” (II Cor. 6:17). Christ left His people an example to follow (I Pet. 2:21). This rules out worldly hairstyles for men, such as braids, ponytails and dreadlocks.
Certainly, shaving one’s beard and cutting one’s hair for normal good grooming, in a way that honors God and is acceptable to Him, is something entirely different. This is not condemned but rather enforced by the scriptures. In general terms, a male’s hair should not cover his ears or reach to the shirt collar. It should be worn in a clean, well-kept way.
A Woman’s Hair Is Her Covering
The Bible states that “If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” (I Cor. 11:15). Two points emerge from this verse.
first, something that is a “glory” should be given special attention and care. A woman’s hair ought to be well groomed and worn in a clean, tasteful, attractive manner. If neglected, hair will quickly become a matted, tangled, unattractive mess!
Yet, a woman should be mindful of modesty and tastefulness. She should not draw undue attention to herself. Vanity will lead some to extremes, which is certainly not the will of God.
We find these instructions in I Timothy: “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array. But (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works” (2:9-10).
Also read I Peter 3:3-5: “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands.”
The “braided hair, or gold or pearls” that Paul refers to was a popular style of his day. Women piled their hair in an overdone, immodest, flashy, sometimes outlandish set of braids interwoven with expensive jewelry. Often, it included wreaths woven in. This was obviously a showy display, motivated by vanity. Women in God’s Church must avoid these kinds of extremes. God’s Word teaches that a Christian must exemplify modesty and discretion. God’s principle is that real beauty comes from within.
second, a woman’s hair is her “covering.” It can only be considered a covering if it is long enough to do this. In I Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul is primarily explaining the hair lengths for women. He describes four different lengths: Covered (long hair); not covered (short hair); shorn (very short hair); and shaved (bald).
Notice verses 5 and 6: “But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” Paul is saying that if a woman’s hair is not long enough to cover her head, it is the same as if her hair was cut very short or if she was shaved bald! For women, there is no difference between uncovered, shorn and shaven!
So if a woman wears her hair in any of these ways, it is shameful and a dishonor to her, and unacceptable to God. And because it is shameful for a woman to have short or shaved hair, it needs to be long enough to be a covering.
There is another reason a woman’s hair should be long: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head [have long hair], forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power [long hair showing she is under authority] on her head because of the angels” (I Cor. 11:7-10).
When a woman has long hair, it shows that she is under authority and in submission to her husband. The phrase “because of the angels” shows that when a woman “uncovers” her head, she loses angelic protection. That is serious!
Then comes verse 15: “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”
But how long does a woman’s hair need to be in order for it to be a “covering”? The word cover provides the answer. A woman’s hair must cover her ears and neck to be considered a “covering.” (However, this is not to say that it cannot be worn up in a way that does not always cover her ears and neck.) This is because these are the first two features of the head to be covered as hair grows significantly longer.
Most lengths are appropriate if long enough to be a covering and if the way one’s hair grows is taken into consideration. Most styles are acceptable as long as they are clean-looking, in good taste, modest and feminine-looking.
What is the origin of the Catholic Church?
The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately 30 A.D. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the Church that Jesus Christ died for, the Church that was established and built by the Apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.
Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse – not everyone would agree to forsake their religious beliefs and instead embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:
(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and “theotokos” (God-bearer) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.
(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman empire, it was the de-facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in concept of the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the Biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass / Eucharist, complete.
(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primary on one particular god, or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.
(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course it is best for the unity of the Roman empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.
Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the true origin of the Catholic Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
Is prayer to saints / Mary Biblical?
The issue of Catholics praying to saints is one that is full of confusion. It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. However, the practice of many Catholics diverges from official Roman Catholic teaching. Many Catholics do in fact pray directly to saints and/or Mary, asking them for help – instead of asking the saints and/or Mary to intercede with God for help. Whatever the case, whether a saint or Mary is being prayed to, or asked to pray, neither practice has any Biblical basis.
The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in Heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholic pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request their prayers? Catholics view Mary and saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "...approach the throne of grace with confidence..."
1 Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father, "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Who would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in Heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?
Catholics argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. Let us examine that claim. (1) The Apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in Heaven to pray for them. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in Heaven praying for anyone on earth. (2) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in Heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination - activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). The one instance when a "saint" is spoken to, Samuel in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, Samuel was not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is plainly clear that praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray for you. One has a strong Biblical basis, the other has no Biblical basis whatsoever.
God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14-15). There is absolutely no basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no basis for asking those who are in Heaven to pray for us. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. No one in Heaven has any greater access to God's throne that we do through prayer (Hebrews 4:16).
The True Origin of CHRISTMAS
Where did Christmas originate? From the Bible or paganism? What is the real origin of Santa Claus—mistletoe—Christmas trees—holly wreaths—and the custom of exchanging gifts? Many are concerned about putting “Christ back into Christmas.” Was He ever there? Here are the stunning answers!
Every year after Thanksgiving, most people’s thoughts turn to Christmas. It is the time when professing Christians are supposed to focus on Jesus Christ. After all, it is the “Christ-mass” season!
Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, holly wreaths, decorated trees, mistletoe, season’s greetings, seasonal music, “chestnuts roasting on an open fire” and Santa Claus are all associated with this holiday. These all bring warm feelings to those who celebrate it.
I grew up in a family that kept Christmas, and it was a very big event in our household every year. We left out none of the usual trimmings of this occasion. On December 24th, excitement grew with every passing minute. My parents even brewed black coffee for Santa just before sending us off to bed. I always wondered how they knew Santa liked his coffee black—just like my parents liked theirs. After going to bed on Christmas Eve, I could neither sleep nor wait to get up in the morning to see all that “Santa” had brought me.
Christmas is thought by most to be a wonderful time, focusing the participants on giving, family togetherness, beautiful music and decorations, feasting on special foods and singing Christmas carols throughout the neighborhood (as my family did every year). All of this is supposedly centered around the worship of Christ. Surely the Bible instructs us to do all this—right?
The answers will shock you!
Why do people think that Christmas is wonderful? It certainly felt wonderful to me. I trusted what my parents told me. I had no reason to doubt them. They were merely teaching me what their parents had taught them. I never questioned the true origin of Christmas!
Most never reflect on why they believe what they believe or do what they do. We live in a world filled with customs, but few ever seek to understand their origin. We generally accept them without question. Most people basically do what everyone else does—because it is easy and natural!
Let’s carefully examine the roots of Christmas. Let’s look at why people follow the customs associated with it. Why is it kept on December 25th? Did the early New Testament Church keep it? This booklet is filled with facts from history that, when placed together, paint a complete picture. Let’s avoid all assumptions and only accept what can be proven!
Pagan Origin
In 1990, the Solon, Ohio (a Cleveland suburb) school board banned all nativity and other Christmas scenes on any school property because they felt it violated the separation of church and state. They were challenged in court when outraged parents opposed them, feeling that Christmas was being stolen from their children and the community. The board lost the case! The citizenry had contended that Christmas was a worldwide tradition that was not part of, and transcended, religion. It was deemed to be secular—a part of virtually all cultures worldwide.
The court decision affirmed that Christmas has no Christian roots! However, the court’s opinion also noted that Bible reading and prayer obviously are associated with Christianity—a remarkable admission! The court concluded that Christmas-keeping and manger scenes could remain because they are not really part of either Christianity or religion—but prayer and Bible reading, which are, must remain excluded from schools!
Nearly all aspects of Christmas observance have their roots in Roman custom and religion. Consider the following admission from a large American newspaper (The Buffalo News, Nov. 22, 1984): “The earliest reference to Christmas being marked on Dec. 25 comes from the second century after Jesus’ birth. It is considered likely the first Christmas celebrations were in reaction to the Roman Saturnalia, a harvest festival that marked the winter solstice—the return of the sun—and honored Saturn, the god of sowing. Saturnalia was a rowdy time, much opposed by the more austere leaders among the still-minority Christian sect. Christmas developed, one scholar says, as a means of replacing worship of the sun with worship of the Son. By 529 A.D., after Christianity had become the official state religion of the Roman Empire, Emperor Justinian made Christmas a civic holiday. The celebration of Christmas reached its peak—some would say its worst moments—in the medieval period when it became a time for conspicuous consumption and unequaled revelry.”
Consider these quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition, under “Christmas”: “Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church…the first evidence of the feast is from Egypt.” Further, “Pagan customs centering around the January calends gravitated to Christmas.” Under “Natal Day,” Origen, an early Catholic writer, admitted, “…In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world” (emphasis mine).
The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956 edition, adds, “Christmas…was not observed in the first centuries of the Christian church, since the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth…a feast was established in memory of this event [Christ’s birth] in the fourth century. In the fifth century the Western Church ordered the feast to be celebrated forever on the day of the Mithraic rites of the birth of the sun and at the close of the Saturnalia, as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ’s birth existed.”
There is no mistaking the origin of the modern Christmas celebration. Many additional sources could be cited and we will return to this later. Let’s begin to tie some other facts together.
It was 300 years after Christ before the Roman church kept Christmas, and not until the fifth century that it was mandated to be kept throughout the empire as an official festival honoring “Christ.”
Can Christ be Honored by Christmas?
The most common justification that one will hear regarding Christmas is that people have replaced old pagan customs and intents by asserting that they are now “focusing on Christ.” I have heard many say that they are “honoring Christ” in their Christmas-keeping. The problem is that God does not say this is acceptable to Him! Actually, He plainly commands against it! Keeping Christmas dishonors Christ! He considers everything about it to be an abomination! We will soon see why.
Christ said, “But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9). Christmas is not a command of God—it is a tradition of men. Christ continued, “Full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition” (Mark 7:9). Every year, throughout the world, on December 25th, hundreds of millions do just that!
We will see that God plainly commands, “Follow not the way of the heathen.” But most people do not fear God, and He allows them to make their own decisions. Human beings are free moral agents—free to obey or disobey God! But woe to those who ignore the plain Word of God!
Was Christ Born on December 25th?
Christ was born in the fall of the year. Many have mistakenly believed He was born around the beginning of winter—December 25th! They are wrong! Notice the Adam Clarke Commentary, volume 5, page 370, New York edition: “It was custom among Jews to send out their sheep to the deserts about the Passover [early spring], and bring them home at the commencement of the first rain.” The first rains began in early-to-mid fall. Continuing with this same quote: “During the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As…the first rain began early in the month of March-esvan, which answers to part of our October and November [begins sometime in October], we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole summer. And as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground, the nativity in December should be given up. The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact…See the quotations from the Talmudists in Lightfoot.”
Luke 2:8 explains that when Christ was born, “And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.” Note that they were “abiding” in the field. This never happened in December. Both Ezra 10:9-13 and the Song of Solomon 2:11 show that winter was the rainy season and shepherds could not stay on cold, open fields at night.
Numerous encyclopedias plainly state that Christ was not born on December 25th! The Catholic Encyclopedia directly confirms this. In all likelihood, Christ was born in the fall! A lengthy technical explanation would prove this point.
Since we now know that December 25th was nowhere near Christ’s actual birthdate, where did the festival associated with this date come from?
Now read this quote under “Christmas”: “In the Roman world, the Saturnalia (December 17) was a time of merrymaking and exchanging of gifts. December 25 was also regarded as the birthdate of the Iranian mystery god Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness. On the Roman New Year (January 1), houses were decorated with greenery and lights, and gifts were given to children and the poor. To these observances were added the German and Celtic Yule rites when the Teutonic tribes penetrated into Gaul, Britain and central Europe. Food and good fellowship, the Yule log and Yule cakes, greenery and fir trees, gifts and greetings all commemorated different aspects of this festive season. Fires and lights, symbols of warmth and lasting life, have always been associated with the winter festival, both pagan and Christian” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edit. Vol. II, p. 903).
A final quote about the selection of December 25th as the birthdate of Christ is necessary. Note an article in The Toronto Star, December 1984, by Alan Edmonds, entitled, “We owe a lot to Druids, Dutch”: “The Reformation cast a blight on Christmas. By then, of course, clever ecclesiastical politicians had adopted the Pagan mid-winter festival as the alleged birthdate of Jesus, of Nazareth, and thrown in a few other Pagan goodies to make their takeover more palatable.”
December 25th was not selected because it was the birth of Christ or because it was even near it. It was selected because it coincided with the idolatrous pagan festival Saturnalia—and this celebration must be carefully examined. In any event, we do not know the exact date of Christ’s birth. While God certainly could have made it known, He chose to hide it from the world’s eyes!
Who Was Saturn?
Previous quotes introduced the subject of the Saturnalia. Let’s carefully study just exactly who Saturn was. Consider the following quote from another large American newspaper, The Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, December 1984: “The Roman festival of Saturnalia, Dec. 17-24, moved citizens to decorate their homes with greens and lights and give gifts to children and the poor. The Dec. 25 festival of natalis solis invicti, the birth of the unconquered sun, was decreed by the emperor Aurelian in A.D. 274 as a Winter Solstice celebration, and sometime (later)…was Christianized as a date to celebrate the birth of the Son of Light.”
Dr. William Gutsch, chairman of the American Museum of Natural History—Hayden Planetarium, further confirmed the original name of Christmas with this quote on December 18, 1989, in a Westchester, New York, newspaper, The Reporter Dispatch:
“The early Romans were not celebrating Christmas but rather a pagan feast called the Saturnalia. It occurred each year around the beginning of winter, or the winter solstice. This was the time when the sun had taken its lowest path across the sky and the days were beginning to lengthen, thus assuring another season of growth.
“If many of the trappings of the Saturnalia, however, seem to parallel what so many of us do today, we can see where we borrowed…our holiday traditions. And indeed, it has been suggested that while Christ was most likely not born in late December, the early Christians—then still an outlawed sect—moved Christmas to the time of the Saturnalia to draw as little attention as possible to themselves while they celebrated their own holiday.”
The Saturnalia, of course, celebrated Saturn—the fire god. Saturn was the god of sowing (planting) because heat from the sun was required to allow for planting and growth of crops. He was also worshipped in this dead-of-winter festival so that he would come back (he was the “sun”) and warm the earth again so that spring planting could occur. The planet Saturn was later named after him because, among all of the planets, with its rings and bright red color, it best represented the god of fire!
Virtually every civilization has a fire/sun god. The Egyptians (and sometimes Romans) called him Vulcan. The Greeks named him Kronos, as did the Phoenicians—but they also called him Saturn. The Babylonians called him Tammuz (as Nimrod, resurrected in the person of his son), Molech or Baal (as did the Druids). These were all simply the various names for Nimrod. Nimrod was considered the father of all the Babylonian gods.
Child Sacrifice
Notice this horrible practice associated with the worship of the fire god (Nimrod, Saturn, Kronos, Molech and Baal) in the following quote from The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop, page 231:
“Now, this is in exact accordance with the character of the Great Head of the system of fire-worship. Nimrod, as the representative of the devouring fire to which human victims, and especially children, were offered in sacrifice, was regarded as the great child-devourer…he was, of course, the actual father of all the Babylonian gods; and, therefore, in that character he was afterwards universally regarded. As the Father of the gods, he was, as we have seen, called Kronos; and every one knows that the classical story of Kronos was just this, that, ‘he devoured his sons as soon as they were born.’ (Lempriere Classical Dictionary, ‘Saturn.’)…This legend has a further and deeper meaning; but, as applied to Nimrod, or ‘The Horned One,’ it just refers to the fact, that, as the representative of Moloch or Baal, infants were the most acceptable offerings at his altar. We have ample and melancholy evidence on this subject from the records of antiquity. ‘The Phoenicians,’ says Eusebius, ‘every year sacrificed their beloved and only-begotten children to Kronos or Saturn.’”
But why was human sacrifice such a key to the worship of this terrible god? What possible good could human beings think they saw in slaughtering their own children? Continuing: “…he who approached the fire would receive a light from divinity” and “through divine fire all the stains produced by generations could be purged away.” Therefore, “children were made to pass through the fire unto Molech” (Jer. 32:35).
As incredible as it seems, deceived human beings actually believed they were pleasing their “god” by sacrificing their own innocent little children to him. They believed fire purified them from original sin. The pagan doctrine of spending time in purgatory to purge the soul from all sin derives from this belief!
Who Was Nimrod?
We must now look more closely at who this biblical figure, Nimrod, was. We have already seen him as one of history’s original false gods, but what else can be learned?
Genesis 10:9 says of Nimrod, “He was a mighty hunter before [in place of] the Lord.” He actually tried to replace God.
The famous Jewish historian, Josephus, records in Josephus Antiquities important evidence of Nimrod’s role in the post-flood world. Notice: “He also gradually changed the government into tyranny…He [Nimrod] also said he would be revenged on God, if He should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach…Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God” (Bk. I, Ch. IV, sec. 2, 3).
Under many names, mankind’s earliest and perhaps greatest rebel has been worshipped throughout false religion. Ancient Israel kept falling into serving the many false gods that Nimrod represented.
Ezekiel 8:13-14 records a picture of the women of Israel “weeping for Tammuz.” This Tammuz (the god of fire) was considered to be Nimrod and the etymology of the word itself is fascinating. Tam means “to make perfect” and muz “fire.” The meaning is clear in light of what we have already learned. Incidentally, in the Iraqi-Kuwaiti Desert Storm War, Saddam Hussein even named one of his missiles the “Tammuz.” He certainly understood that its meaning included fire.
Burned to Molech
Let’s see how God’s people, Israel, worshipped Baal/Molech once they had departed from the true God: “And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into My mind, that they should do this abomination…” (Jer. 32:35).
Notice that God Himself says that such horrible abominations never even entered His mind: “They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, says the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter” (Jer. 19:5). Verse 6 ties the valley of Tophet or Hinnom to this practice. Jeremiah 7:31 connects Tophet and Hinnom to child sacrifice. Tophet means “the drum.” Drums were played to drown the screams of victims in the flames.
Notice this quote from Paradise Lost, by John Milton, about the terrible god Molech: “First Moloch, horrid king besmear’d with blood Of human sacrifice, and parents tears, Though, for the noyse of Drums and Timbrels loud Their children’s cries unheard, that passed through fire To his grim Idol.” Of course, everyone will say that they do not sacrifice their children to Molech today, but read on.
In the New Testament, the martyr Stephen was stoned to death, at least partly, because he indicted his listeners for the worship of this evil idol (Acts 7:43).
When righteous King Josiah came to the throne, as king of Judah, he destroyed the altars in the Valley of Tophet (or Hinnom—the very same valley Christ likened to “gehenna” fire in Mark 9:43-49) soon after coming to power. He realized the great evil of the practices taking place there.
The Druids and Human Sacrifice
Many people have heard of the Druids. Few know who and what they were. We will refer to them later and tie them to other well-known Christmas practices. We must first establish their historic role in human sacrifice.
Julius Caesar is the best-known source of information about the Druids. This comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica. This quote, under “Druids,” clearly explains who they were: “Druids, the learned class among the ancient Celts, whose name means Knowing (or Finding) the Oak Tree. They seem to have frequented Oak forests and acted as priests, teachers and judges. The earliest known records of the Druids come from the 3rd century [B.C.]…Druids took charge of public and private sacrifices, and many young men went to them for instruction. They judged all public and private quarrels and decreed the penalty…The Druids principle doctrine was that the soul was immortal…(they) offered human victims for those who were gravely sick or in danger of death in battle. Huge wickerwork images were filled with living men and then burned; although the Druids chose criminals by preference, they sacrificed innocent victims if necessary.”
The Old Testament is filled with God’s condemnation of Israel for practicing the customs of the nations around them—and we are gathering important facts revealing a shocking picture.
The Role of Cannibalism
Another truth about the origin of Christmas springs from the modern word cannibal. This practice has its roots in a prime function of all priests of Baal. Keep in mind that the Hebrew word for priest is Cahn.
Consider the following quote from The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop, page 232: “And it was a principle of the Mosaic law, a principle no doubt derived from the patriarchal faith, that the priest must partake of whatever was offered as a sin-offering (Numbers xviii. 9, 10). Hence, the priests of Nimrod or Baal were necessarily required to eat of the human sacrifices; and thus it has come to pass that ‘Cahna-Bal,’ the ‘Priest of Baal,’ is the established word in our own tongue for a devourer of human flesh.”
The reality of this can be lost on no one! It is also true that most civilizations have a tradition that has involved cannibalism. Notice this statement from The New York Times, “What Is the Meaning of Cannibalism?” by Erik Eckholm: “Cannibalism has once fascinated and repelled virtually every known society, including those said to have practiced it.”
This same article went on to show that most civilizations also attached divine significance to its practice.
What About the Santa Myth?
Have you considered that you could also be burning, even sacrificing, your children today (though in a different way) in your practice of Christmas, while you may be trying to sincerely “focus on Christ”?
Parents reason that they owe the whole Christmas myth to their children! Christmas traditions are focused primarily on kids, and they are certainly the center of most of what happens. I know because I kept seventeen Christmases. My older sister and younger brother and I were the recipients of much and the givers of very little on that day—and it all started with the Santa Claus lie.
Some years ago, a priest in New Jersey told his Sunday school class that Santa was a myth. The outrage from parents and his supervisors was swift. He had “killed Santa!” He had “destroyed family tradition!” He had “usurped family authority,” the article continued. He was officially censored by his superiors for being “overzealous and insensitive.”
His crime? He told the truth!
According to Langer’s Encyclopedia of World History, (article “Santa”), “Santa” was a common name for Nimrod throughout Asia Minor. This was also the same fire god who came down the chimneys of the ancient pagans and the same fire god to whom infants were burned and eaten in human sacrifice among those who were once God’s people.
Today Santa Claus comes from “Saint Nicholas.” Washington Irving, in 1809, is responsible for remaking the original old, stern bishop of this same name into the new “jolly St. Nick” in his Knickerbocker History of New York. (Most of the rest of America’s Christmas traditions are even more recent than this.) “Old Nick” has long been recognized as a term for the devil.
In Revelation 2:6 and 15, we read about a “doctrine of the Nicolaitanes,” which Christ twice tells His Church “[He] hates.” Let’s analyze the word Nicolaitane. It means “follower of Nicholas.” Nikos means “conqueror, destroyer.” Laos means, “people.” Nicolaitanes, then, are people who follow the conqueror or destroyer—Nimrod. If you have believed that following Christmas is an innocent Christian custom, let this truth sink in!
Is It Scriptural to Exchange Gifts?
Merchants regularly report that over 60% of their annual retail sales occur during the Christmas shopping season. This represents a tremendous amount of gift buying. Most today believe that gift-giving comes from the Bible example of the “three wise men” (the Bible gives no number) presenting gifts to Christ. Is this true? Where did exchanging gifts come from, and what does God’s Word say about it?
The Bibliotheca Sacra states, “The interchange of presents between friends is a like characteristic of Christmas and the Saturnalia, and must have been adopted by Christians from the pagans, as the admonition of Tertullian plainly shows” (Vol. 12, pp. 153-155).
Like every other aspect of Christmas, the shocking truth is that even this supposed Christian custom does not come from the Bible. It is an irony that people love to believe they are following the custom of the wise men giving to Christ, when actually they are giving almost exclusively to each other! What hypocrisy! Christ is completely forgotten.
The Bible actually teaches that Christians should not keep birthdays. Numerous scriptures make this principle clear. (Read our article “Are Birthday Celebrations Christian?”) However, what if you went to a birthday party that had been prepared for you and everybody gave gifts to each other and you were left out? The idea is ridiculous! If this happened, you would say that people were being selfish and forgetting you. In fact, most people give to others on Christmas merely because they expect to receive gifts themselves!
Let’s briefly return to the “wise men” who gave gifts to Christ. The scripture describing this is Matthew 2:1-11: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born King of the Jews?…And when they were come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down, and worshipped Him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto Him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.”
It is commonly supposed that these were birthday presents for “baby Jesus.” But is this what the Bible actually says? Absolutely not! First, it is important to note that they did give the gifts to Jesus. They did not stand in His presence and exchange gifts among themselves or give them to others. The gifts were “presented unto Him.” Also, they arrived well after His “birthday.” This is another reason these could not have been “birthday presents.”
A long-standing, ancient custom of the East was to present gifts when coming before a king. These men understood they were in the presence of the “King of the Jews.” The Bible carries many examples of people sending gifts to kings or presenting them upon arrival into their presence. This custom is common today when ambassadors or others come into the presence of a world leader.
Finally, notice what the Adam Clarke Commentary, volume 5, page 46, states about what really happened on this occasion: “Verse 11. They presented unto him gifts. The people of the east never approach the presence of kings and great personages, without a present in their hands. This custom is often noticed in the Old Testament, and still prevails in the east, and in some of the newly discovered South Seas Islands.” Gifts were customarily presented to kings.
What could be more plain?
The Origin of the Christmas Tree
No booklet about Christmas is complete without some explanation of the “Christmas tree.” We have touched on it without directly focusing on it. The modern Christmas tree originated in Germany. But the Germans got it from the Romans, who got it from the Babylonians and the Egyptians.
The following demonstrates what the Babylonians believe about the origin of the Christmas tree: “An old Babylonish fable told of an evergreen tree which sprang out of a dead tree stump. The old stump symbolized the dead Nimrod, the new evergreen tree symbolized that Nimrod had come to life again in Tammuz! Among the Druids the oak was sacred, among the Egyptians it was the palm, and in Rome it was the fir, which was decorated with red berries during the Saturnalia!” (Walsh, Curiosities of Popular Customs, p. 242).
Frederick J. Haskin’s Answers to Questions states, “The Christmas tree is from Egypt, and its origin dates from a period long anterior to the Christmas Era.” Did you know this—that the Christmas tree long preceded Christianity?
Most aspects of Christmas are not referred to in the Bible. Of course, the reason is that they are not from God—they are not part of the way He wants people to worship Him. The Christmas tree, however, is directly mentioned in the Bible! Turn to Jeremiah 10:2-5, “Thus says the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen…For the customs of the people are vain: for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.”
This plain description of the modern Christmas tree is clear. God directly refers to it as “the way of the heathen.” Just as directly, He commands His people to “learn not the way of the heathen,” calling these customs “vain.” Verse 23 adds a remarkable and powerful statement: “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walks to direct his [own] steps.” God must teach people how to live. Man simply cannot figure out God’s ways for himself.
There is no room in Jeremiah 10 to believe, as some have tried to suggest, that because these trees are powerless of themselves, it is not really forbidden to have a Christmas tree. God condemns the putting up of pagan (Christmas) trees with this plain Bible command!
The Source of Holly Wreaths, Yule Logs and Mistletoe
The Encyclopedia Americana states, “The holly, the mistletoe, the Yule log…are relics of pre-Christian time.” In other words, paganism! The Yule log was commonly used in a rite of Teutonic nature worship.
Frederick Haskin further states, “The use of Christmas wreaths is believed by authorities to be traceable to the pagan customs of decorating buildings and places of worship at the feast which took place at the same time as Christmas.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica, under “Celastrales,” exposes the origin of the holly wreath: “European pagans brought holly sprays into their homes, offering them to the fairy people of the forests as refuge from the harsh winter weather. During the Saturnalia, the Roman winter festival, branches of holly were exchanged as tokens of friendship. The earliest Roman Christians apparently used holly as a decoration at the Christmas season.”
There are dozens of different types of holly. Virtually all of them come in male and female varieties—such as “Blue Prince and Blue Princess” or “Blue Boy and Blue Girl” or “China Boy and China Girl.” Female holly plants cannot have berries unless a nearby male plant pollinates them. It is easy to see why the holly wreath found its way into pagan rituals as a token of friendship and fertility!
Christmas is incomplete to many unless it involves “kissing under the mistletoe.” This pagan custom was natural on a night that involved much revelry done in the spirit of drunken orgies. Just like today, this “kissing” usually occurred at the beginning of any modern Saturnalia/Christmas celebration. I will never forget having to always kiss my friends’ mothers upon entering each of their houses every Christmas. It was the first thing that we did. I hated it—but it was something I “had to do”! Mistletoe was considered to have special powers of healing for those who “reveled” under it.
The Encyclopedia Britannica, under “Santalales,” states, “The European mistletoe is thought to have had special ritual significance in Druidical ceremonies and lives in folklore today, its special status as the Christmas mistletoe having come from Anglo-Saxon times.” Mistletoe is a parasite that lives on oak trees. (Recall that the Druids worshipped in oak tree groves.) The ancient Celtics (associated with the Druids) used to give mistletoe as an herbal remedy to barren animals to make them fertile. It is still referred to as “all healer” in Celtic.
Like mistletoe, holly berries were also thought to be sacred to the sun god. The original “sun log” came to be called the yule log. “Yule” simply means “wheel,” which has long been a pagan representation of the sun. No wonder people today commonly speak of the “sacred yule-tide season.”
Worship of the True God Mixed with False Practices
The modern term for merging false pagan customs with the worship of the true God is called syncretism. Anyone who did this in ancient Israel was put to death (Lev. 18:21, 29)! It was that serious!
A fascinating look into how Israel thought and believed, in their own minds, that they were worshipping God as an entire nation, comes from II Kings 17:33: “They feared the Lord, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from there.”
Did you grasp this? Yes, they feared the true God while serving other gods. No wonder the very next verse (34) states that they really “fear NOT the Lord” according to the way God commanded. This is how God views what people are doing today—no matter what these people copying ancient pagan practices might think of their own actions!
Verse 30 says that all this had been learned from contact with “the men of Babylon” (among others), whose chief god, we will recall, was Nimrod (Baal or Molech)—who we now know were one and the same.
Notice how specific was God’s warning to Israel in Deuteronomy 12:29-31, and why He warned them! “When the Lord your God shall cut off the nations from before you…and you succeed them, and dwell in their land; Take heed to yourself that you be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before you; and that you enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? Even so will I do likewise. You shall not do so unto the Lord your God: for every abomination to the Lord, which He hates, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters have they burnt in the fire to their gods.”
Many verses, similar to Deuteronomy 12, should be carefully studied. (See Exodus 34:10-17; 23:28-33; Leviticus 20:22-26; Deuteronomy 20:13-18, etc.) The true God knew that serving other gods always led to sacrificing children to them!
Deuteronomy 12:32 made clear that God does not want us to mix His ways with any false ways: “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”
These are God’s plain words to all who say that they can mix the horrible customs of outright paganism with a supposed “focus on Christ.”
Ancient Israel’s Pagan Practices in Modern Customs
Deuteronomy 12:2-4 establishes an important context. God plainly says, “You shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which you shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And you shall overthrow their altars…and burn their groves with fire…you shall not do so unto the Lord your God.”
Notice God’s references to “every green tree” and “their groves.” There are at least ten similar verses throughout the Old Testament referring to “green trees” and their association with idolatry. Historians hold that the reference to the term “green” refers to green year-round—evergreen trees!
Once again, let’s more closely examine the actual history and origins of some of the Saturnalia customs still practiced today. Notice the following chilling quote from the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, “Oscilla” 3rd edition, volume II: “…all ranks devoted themselves to feasting and mirth, presents were exchanged among friends, and crowds thronged the streets, shouting ‘Lo Saturnalia.’ An offering was made beneath a decorated evergreen tree, according to the pagan poet, Virgil. Figurines and masks—called ‘oscilla’—were hung on the tree, as are Christmas decorations today. History admits…there can be no doubt that we have in these ‘oscilla’ a relic of human sacrifice…”
Doesn’t all of this sound familiar? Presents, singing in the streets, evergreen trees, decorations, offerings under the tree, merrymaking, feasting? They may sound wonderful, but they represent things that are truly abominable.
Modern oscilla look like chubby little “angels” when hanging on a tree. I placed these little “angel babies” on our tree, myself, as a small child. At least I thought they were angel babies. How wrong I was! Do you think any of your friends realize what they really represent? Of course not—but that does not make it any less serious or less wrong in God’s eyes!
Outright Paganism Blended into the Church
One additional source demonstrates how this all came to be a heritage practiced so “innocently” by millions—yet far from innocent in God’s sight. Now read the following quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, volume 10, pages 1062-3: “Christianity…by a complex and gradual process…became the official religion of the [Roman] empire.
“For a time, coins and other monuments continued to link Christian doctrines with worship of the sun, to which Constantine had been addicted previously. But even when this phase came to an end, Roman paganism continued to exert other, permanent influences, great and small…The ecclesiastical calendar retains numerous remnants of pre-Christian festivals, notably Christmas, which blends elements including both the feast of the Saturnalia and the birthday of Mithra. But, most of all, the mainstream of Western Christianity owed ancient Rome the firm discipline that gave it stability and shape.”
An authority as reputable as the Encyclopedia Britannica actually acknowledges, for any willing to see, that the Saturnalia and ancient Rome are what defined the “discipline…stability and shape” of Western Christianity!
This is a truly stunning admission!
The next powerful quote reveals how this idolatrous, pagan festival slipped into the “Christian” world. It is from the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, under “Christmas”:
“How much the date of the festival depended upon the pagan Brumalia (December 25) following the Saturnalia (Dec. 17-24), and celebrating the shortest day of the year and the ‘new sun’…cannot be accurately determined. The pagan Saturnalia and Brumalia were too deeply entrenched in popular custom to be set aside by Christian influence…The pagan festival with its riot and merry-making was so popular that Christians were glad of an excuse to continue its celebration with little change in spirit and in manner. Christian preachers of the West and the Near East protested against the unseemly frivolity with which Christ’s birthday was celebrated, while Christians of Mesopotamia accused their Western brethren of idolatry and sun worship for adopting as Christian this pagan festival.”
One additional source reveals how the Roman church absorbed Christmas into an official celebration. The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 edition, states, “Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the church…Certain Latins, as early as 354, may have transferred the birthday from January 6th to December 25, which was then a Mithraic feast…or birthday of the unconquered SUN…The Syrians and Armenians, who clung to January 6th, accused the Romans of sun worship and idolatry, contending…that the feast of December 25th, had been invented by disciples of Cerinthus…”
Thus, a pagan festival, celebrated long before Christ’s birth, found its way into recognized Christianity.
Did you know that even the seventeenth century Puritans of New England understood how wrong Christmas was? They actually banned its observance by law, in 1659, throughout the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Fines and imprisonment could result from being found keeping it. It was almost 200 years (1856) before people stopped working on Christmas in Boston. The Puritans knew its roots and labeled it “heathen, papist idolatry.”
Those Who “Change Times and Laws”
The prophet Daniel (7:8) speaks of a “little horn,” which (7:25) “shall speak great words against the Most High…and think to change times and laws.” This little horn is a great religious authority that attempts to superimpose its own view of dates and celebrations, on an unsuspecting world, in place of God’s plain instruction.
The Hebrew word translated “change” means to “transform, alter or set.” The word translated “times” means “appointed occasions, seasons or times.” The Hebrew word translated “laws” means “decrees or laws of God.” When put together, this phrase refers to an authority that attempts to “transform appointed occasions and seasons within the Law of God.” Certainly, Christmas is a great example of how this has been done. God’s instructions have been replaced with religious traditions of men.
The following quote reveals how this has happened. It also comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica, under “Christianity”: “Thus, the Easter liturgy has been developed more highly in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Christmas liturgy more highly in the Roman Catholic Church…The Christian calendar is the most widely disseminated Christian institution. The seven-day week and the rhythm of the Christian festivals have been accepted even by most of the non-Christian countries. Despite energetic attempts at the introduction of a sliding work week, the seven-day week with work-free Sunday could not be eliminated even in Communist states with an Atheist world view. Even in Atheistic circles and organizations throughout the world, Christian holidays enjoy an undisputed popularity as work-free days…especially Christmas.”
Truly, it has been the “ecclesiastical politicians,” referred to earlier, who have sought to impose the modern “Christian” calendar on an unknowing world. It is these leaders who have “thought to change times and laws.”
The Dangerous Power of Lies
One of Satan’s names is Destroyer (Rev. 9:11). Nimrod/Saturn/Molech/Baal, like Satan, is the fire god who destroys and devours little children.
The real Jesus Christ was never in and never will be in Christmas! He cannot be put back into where He has never been. But the “god of this world,” Satan (II Cor. 4:4), has always been in Christmas. He is its author!
The true God commands that we “must worship Him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24). This does not mesh with the great Christmas and Santa Claus lies that all children so willingly believe.
I Timothy 4:2 warns of those “speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” Parents can “burn” their own children, to the point of searing them, with the Christmas deception and lie!
There is no “safety in numbers” in this world for those who keep Christmas, because Satan, who is called “the father of lies” and “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44), has “deceived the whole world” (Rev. 12:9)! Turn to this verse and read it. Then recognize that Christmas is certainly a testimony to that great deception.
But Christ refers to His Church as a “little flock” (Luke 12:32). Many other verses show this. This Church does not have the large numbers of the respected, established brands of the Christianity of this world.
“Another Jesus”
There is another problem with the idea of “putting Christ back in Christmas”—and it is big! The “Jesus” that is the focus of this season is not the true Jesus Christ of the Bible!
Most have been taught that there is only one Jesus Christ. But God’s Word speaks of a counterfeit, and this substitute Christ is identifiable in history. The proof? The apostle Paul warned of “another Jesus.”
Grasp what is at stake here!
First, consider Paul’s entire introduction as he sets the stage for the warning that follows: “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent [Satan] beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (II Cor. 11:3).
Now for the actual warning in the next verse: “For if he that comes preaches another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if you receive another spirit, which you have not received, or another gospel, which you have not accepted, you might well bear with him” (II Cor. 11:4). The Corinthians seemed to “bear with this” without much resistance.
Paul, under inspiration of the true Jesus Christ of the Bible, was moved to record the peril of unwittingly following “another Jesus.” Consider. Most have probably never remotely considered the idea of a false Jesus for even a moment—that there is such a thing as a wrong, different and “false Christ” (Matt. 24:23-24)— called “another Jesus.” In the past, this “Jesus” has even corrupted the thinking of true Christians. This much is plain. But the “subtilty” of how this can happen, and how it has occurred in history, is so deceptive— so seductive— that even true Christians can unknowingly slip into worshipping this so- called Jesus. This is what was happening to the Corinthians.
People can worship in ways that represent things that are far different than what they sincerely believe or intend. Bible “believers” today can think that they are worshipping the true Savior when they are really worshipping a false savior—another Jesus! The entirety of traditional Christianity is actually worshipping Nimrod/Saturn/Molech/Baal. The modern mother/child “Mary/Jesus” emphasis, including the worshipful adoration of Mary by millions, is a parallel with Nimrod and his mother, Semiramis, that cannot be missed.
Here is the point of what is being explained. Many speak of “putting Christ back into Christmas.” This is heard every year from thousands of pulpits and elsewhere. But the true Christ was never there! Just as a person cannot go back into a room that he had never entered, Jesus Christ cannot be “put back” into an event that He has never been in, and that He in fact hates! (Again, see Mark 7:7.) The Jesus that these preachers and religionists have in mind is another Christ, one with another gospel, another spirit—the Christmas spirit!—bringing totally different doctrines and teachings.
Can you see the connection?
