On Nimrod and Christmas Trees - part III

This is part three of a series where we have been investigating Nimrod and Christmas trees. I apologize that these posts are so academic and dry. There’s only so much a person can do with this topic. If you can stand it, they’re really informative! (If you can’t, then just absorb the summary.) But I intend for this last post to be different than the two previous.

This all started when we got an anonymous comment back on December 28 asking, “I am wondering where the information came from then, about Nimrod dying on Dec.25th, and he announced that people would put up a tree and decorate it every year on the day he died.” So that’s what we’ve been investigating.

In part 1, we learned that there was a tree involved in the annual festival honoring Cybele and Attis – but this was a funeral in March, not a birth-celebration in December. The tree was a pine, but that is where the similarities end.

In part 2, we learned that there was a tree mentioned in the ancient myth of Osiris, but determining what kind of tree that was is quite difficult. The leading contenders are Heather and Sycamore. The tree wasn't decorated; it held up a palace roof for the king of Phoenicia. Also, neither the birthday nor date of death involved were in December. Not by a long shot.

In this post, I would like to do a little textual criticism on Herbert Armstrong’s “The Plain Truth About Christmas” and Alexander Hislop’s “The Two Babylons.”

We were led to a quote from Armstrong’s “The Plain Truth About Christmas” which says this:

“After Nimrod’s untimely death, his so-called mother-wife, Semiramis, propagated the evil doctrine of the survival of Nimrod as a spirit being. She claimed a full-grown evergreen tree sprang overnight from a dead tree stump, which symbolized the springing forth unto new life of the dead Nimrod. On each anniversary of his birth, she claimed, Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts upon it. December 25th was the birth of Nimrod. This is the real origin of the Christmas tree.”

-Herbert Armstrong, “The Plain Truth About Christmas”, 1970, p. 10

But this isn't true. None of it is.
Though we have every opportunity to find the truth and correct this error (the truth of these things is several hundreds of years old and should be no surprise), the errors are still quoted to this day among various Armstrongist splinter groups. Truth? I think not. God’s truth? God forbid a lie should be called after God’s name!

This supposedly “real origin of the Christmas tree” is fake; it’s made up… but not by HWA. It wasn’t even honestly quoted. HWA took it without reference from page 98 of Alexander Hislop’s book “The Two Babylons.”

Even so, HWA misquoted Hislop (purposely or not, I do not know) because HWA says an evergreen tree springs up from the stump while Hislop says a palm tree springs up beside the stump. Hislop provides a hand-drawn illustration supposedly of a coin from Tyre which he used to manufacture this story (see figure 27 on p. 98.)

This drawing is supposedly the proof. One cannot claim accuracy of the supposed proof then deviate from the supposed proof. If the supposed proof says "palm tree next to stump" then that is the only way the story can possibly go. One cannot base everything they have off of this drawing then not agree with the drawing. Pine tree is not part of this drawing, therefore either palm tree is the only possible correct option or the entire thing is wrong.
I say the entire thing is wrong because this proof is no proof. But either way, Armstrong loses.

Hislop attempts to escape this reality. Palm tree, fir tree, it’s all the same to Hislop. Throughout the book he ties every tree to the Christmas tree. He goes on to claim it’s the idea that matters, not the species of the tree.

“The Christmas tree, as has been stated, was generally at Rome a different tree, even the fir; but the very same idea as was implied in the palm-tree was implied in the Christmas-fir; for that covertly symbolized the new-born god as Baal-berith, ‘Lord of the Covenant,’ and thus shadowed forth the perpetuity and everlasting nature of his power, now that after having fallen before his enemies he had risen triumphant over them all.”

-Alexander Hislop, "The Two Babylons", 1858, p. 98

This is an outrageous claim so large that every tree on earth is now a Christmas tree! Notice how he leads the reader by calling the tree a Christmas tree. This is no proof, but an assertion.
And what of the trees used at the Feast of Booths (NEH. 8: 14-17)? They also contrast the temporary nature of this life with the eternal nature of God. They fit Hislop’s description of a Christmas tree. Are they a Christmas tree too, then? Ridiculous!

Hislop thinks any tree is a Christmas tree. Palm, pine… it’s all the same. And no one has a problem with this?

“The Christmas tree, now so common among us, was equally common in Pagan Rome and Pagan Egypt. In Egypt that tree was the palm tree; in Rome it was the fir; the palm-tree denoting the Pagan Messiah, as Baal-Tamar, the fir referring to him as Baal-Berith.”

-Alexander Hislop, "The Two Babylons", 1858, p. 97

Are we seriously to believe that the Egyptians cut down palm trees and brought them into their mud-brick homes to decorate them like Christmas trees? I can find no corroborating evidence of this claim anywhere. Nor will I. It doesn't exist because this never happened.

How can I be so bold? Just look at the details! Hislop didn’t get the details right.

He doesn’t get the name of the god right - Egyptians didn’t worship Baal-Tamar, which is the name of a place in Benjamin not a god, nor did they worship Baal-Berith, who is a Canaanite god. He doesn’t even match the correct language with the correct nation - Egyptians did not speak Hebrew or Canaanite.
Evidence for this will never be found because it never happened. He made this all up.

Do you realize how convoluted this is? He uses a drawing allegedly of a coin from Tyre to turn all trees into the Christmas tree because a Greek man's mother was a Myrrh tree and an Egyptian god was cut to pieces then a palm tree grew next to a stump which supposedly was a Caananite god. 
It's barely even comprehensible. But that didn’t stop him or HWA from proclaiming it to be God’s truth.

“Shocking as these facts are, they are the plain facts of history and the Bible!”

-Herbert Armstrong, “The Plain Truth About Christmas”, 1970, p. 13

So HWA, plagiarizing (sometimes incorrectly) from the oft maddeningly confused Alexander Hislop, would tell us that the Christmas tree came from this story conjured from a coin, and anyone with a Christmas tree is now a pagan - a pagan Nimrod-worshiper specifically. From what I’ve seen, I must totally reject this.

So far, I’ve given you what proof we have, and it doesn’t match what Hislop and Armstrong said. Has anyone thought to demand proof from the ministers that parrot such things? Why is it that this always comes back to Hislop? I’ll tell you, it’s because Hislop made these things up. He is the source!

When a minister preaches Nimrod and Semiramis, ask for his sources. Don’t even let them tell you about the trees used in the worship of Attis or Adonis or Horus. You should know better than that! If he gives you Herbert Armstrong, you know Armstrong’s source is Hislop. If he gives you another name from someone else in one of the COGs, get their sources. No doubt you will see a chain back to Armstrong and Hislop. Perhaps they give you another name, like Ralph Woodrow who wrote “Babylon Mystery Religion.” Check Ralph Woodrow’s sources for that book; they’re all Hislop. Ralph Woodrow has since disavowed that book and refuted his own material! Maybe your minister will give you a name you’ve never heard of who is preaching Nimrod and Semiramis. Check their sources! I bet I know what you’ll come up with.

If there are 50,000 people all saying Nimrod is this or that thing, it doesn’t make it so. Either it is so, or it is not. Relying on the logical fallacy of Argumentum Ad Populum doesn’t make it any more or any less true. But if there are 50,000 “experts” all claiming Nimrod is this or that thing, and they can all be traced back to this one source – Alexander Hislop – then Hislop is really the one by which the idea stands or falls. If Hislop falls, then all of these “experts” who rely on him fall with him.

He has fallen!

But most Armstrongists don’t check. They won’t check! 
You might think I'm being outrageous, but I talk to people regularly about this stuff. There are people who would rather die than give up this most beloved lie about Nimrod. It lifts a person up in their own eyes. It’s far too convenient a club to bash others with. It’s too easy an excuse for too many other things. The implications of rejecting Hislop are too scary. It’s easier to call someone a Nimrod-worshipper than to answer their hard questions. It is easier to respond with venomous attack than to accept that we were wrong. “You’re a pagan, I’m one of the elect, and I’m done with this conversation.” [Yes, someone said that to me. I paraphrase, but that is the gist of what was said.]

If you really are after the truth – God’s truth – then you know as well as I do this is not the kind of person you must be.

This, I hope, will be the last I have to worry about this topic. Oh, this isn’t the end of it. Not by a long shot. But I hope it is the end of it for me... and for you.

I know that I will not convince everyone. I have met several people who let truth slide off like water from a duck’s back. They believe a lie as if it was the truth, and anything that contradicts the lie is explained away. There are two ways to be fooled: one can accept a lie or one can reject the truth. The truth is right under their nose and they toss it aside because they love the lie. They say that history is unreliable, that it was altered by Satan to hide “the truth,” and that the real “truth” is something God doesn’t want the world to know. We discuss this sort of attitude in the article "Pattern of Dishonest Documentation".
And no one has a problem with this? God wants people to be deceived?? I can’t accept that. There is one who wants people to be deceived, but that isn’t God.

How can we say history is unreliable, and then reinterpret history? Isn’t that also unreliable? Isn't that... hypocritical? 
How can we use an “unreliable” history book to look up a name like Osiris or a Christmas tree in the first place, then immediately turn right around and say that history was a lie? How can we believe history books enough to say there really was an Osiris myth, but not enough to believe what they say about Osiris?

Do we say, “God simply revealed the truth to Herbert Armstrong’s mind”? Then why did HWA take his information from Alexander Hislop (without reference)? Herbert Armstrong’s information isn’t his – he plagiarized it. A guy draws a coin and makes up a story – a story contradicted by every available scrap of information we have – and we call it “truth.” Another man plagiarizes this and we call it “inspired.” And no one has a problem with this? Forgive me, but I cannot in good conscience proceed on this type of information.

Are we not implored to prove all things? How do we prove that Alexander Hislop was correct when it goes against absolutely every record on earth? It cannot be done. What we can prove is that Hislop was dreadfully wrong. People just need to be honest enough with themselves to accept it. Would we rather make up facts than face facts?

So I know this study isn’t the end of it, but please excuse me if I find this 'Nimrod and Christmas trees' thing to be something I can no longer participate in.

A very dear and highly treasured friend of mine made this comment in response to our research on Christmas, “What you've done by the grace of God has truly inspired me to embrace Christmas without an ounce of guilt anymore, ever. It’s gone.” Praise the Lord!

Let me tell you how high an honor this is for me. I deserve none of it, and pass the credit and praise to the One to whom all praise and credit is due, but this is what I think it is all about. This comment is the very definition of grace.

Do you think I write this because I want to champion a holiday? No! My goal is not to get people to start keeping Christmas. My goal is to free people from the shackles of the lies so they can have an unencumbered relationship with the Lord. 
If the truth makes one feel free to observe Christmas after that, that’s their business. And if one does not want to keep Christmas, that's their business too. But please, there is no reason to use falsehoods to justify your choice or to attack faithful Christians. If you keep it, keep it. If not, then not. Either way, just do it in faith with thanks to God.

(ROM. 14: 5-6a, 10) 5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.
10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

People who have the misfortune of falling under the influence of the “truth” of Armstrongism have lasting issues with guilt. Even when they step into to the New Covenant many of the past errors still need to be un-learned and the guilt remains.

There are two kinds of guilt: the kind that leads to repentance, and the kind that leads to beating ourselves up (and others, and God.) This guilt that causes us to hide from God, distance ourselves from our family, point the finger and judge other faithful Christians, look for excuses, bite and devour one another, propagate falsehoods in the name of “truth” - this guilt is not from God. Jesus removes guilt through truth. His word is truth, and the truth will remove the unnecessary guilt.
Freedom - this is from God.

Here in this study we have seen and proven that certain men have been very, very wrong for a very long time. They have spread guilt and fear, often on purpose as a means of control. Do we honestly think the things we’ve learned in this study were hidden from such men? Do we honestly think they’ve done the research yet didn’t see what we’ve seen here? 
If they didn’t do the research, then they are ignorant and have no business talking about what they do not know. But if they did the research, then they saw. They saw and still they chose to copy a man who copied a man who didn’t do honest research. The truth is… they were wrong. For all their bluster and all their great swelling words, they were wrong. For all their threats and their fiery indignation, they were wrong. 
There is nothing to their stories. The guilt is all imaginary, in their minds and in ours. Let it go.

I beg you, in truth, prayerfully go before God and ask Him to lift this needless guilt from your shoulders. Be free of these unnecessary burdens imposed on you wrongfully so that you can run the race unencumbered.

Embrace the truth, dearly loved by Christ, and be truly free.

(JON. 8: 31-32, 36) 31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

36 "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; ) Acts 17:11
************