Samhain Was Not On October 31

One thing As Bereans Did has never put through the patented gauntlet is Halloween. I personally am not all too interested in researching Halloween. Well, until recently, that is.

Two things have changed my mind somewhat.
The first is, when the God Cannot Be contained blog put up their post "Samhain and Halloween", I found a small desire to comment on a few points. It's a good post! Check it out.
The second is, last evening I decided to sneak around the internet for Armstrongist material against holidays. (I sometimes wonder if I do this to punish myself.) I started at COGWA's "Life, Hope, and Truth" blog, where they currently have a couple articles on Halloween highlighted. I wasn't looking for a Halloween post. I was hoping for a Christmas one. But, ya work with what ya got, I suppose. I poked around in the one titled "Answering Four Excuses To Celebrate Halloween". It has some terrible information. Surprise! Bet you didn't see that coming.

Here is a quote from the article:

"Both Halloween and All Saints’ Day originate from the ancient pagan Celtic festival of Samhain. Notice what History.com writes about this pagan festival (still celebrated by many Wiccans today):

'This day marked the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter, a time of year that was often associated with human death. Celts believed that on the night before the new year, the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead became blurred. On the night of October 31 they celebrated Samhain, when it was believed that the ghosts of the dead returned to earth' (History of Halloween). 

The Catholics changed the celebration of the dead to the celebration of dead saints in heaven. But, as we see on Halloween, many of the dark themes have remained.'"

-Eddie Foster. (10-8-2024) "Answering Four Excuses To Celebrate Halloween". Life Hope and Truth. 

Here are two points of many that I didn't agree with:

• "Both Halloween and All Saints’ Day originate from the ancient pagan Celtic festival of Samhain."
  False!
  Halloween comes from All Saints Day, and All Saints has nothing to do with Samhain.
• "On the night of October 31 they celebrated Samhain."
  False!
  The Celts did not use the Roman calendar. No one knows how they calculated Samhain, but it was according to their own methods not the Roman.

As you can see, the blog post references History.com article "Halloween 2024", which used to bear the title "History of Halloween". https://www.history.com/topics/halloween/history-of-halloween
I like it that they at least cited something. Problem is, that article has some terrible information. We have seen that from History before.

Let's dig down into those points.

ALL HALLOWS

Point #1 was: "Both Halloween and All Saints’ Day originate from the ancient pagan Celtic festival of Samhain." This is false. Let's explore.

Halloween comes from the Catholic holy day called All Saints Day. All Saints is also known as All Hallows and Hallowmas (hallow is an old word meaning holy). Halloween is the Eve of All Hallows. That is what Halloween means - All Hallows Eve. Halloween does not come from Samhain, it comes from All Saints Day. All Saints and All Souls together became known as Hallowtide and Allhallowtide.

All Saints Day shares absolutely no origins whatsoever with Samhain. All Saints has roots in the Jewish practice of honoring martyrs. (For more, read "Martyrdom in Jewish Tradition" at Boston College.) From the start, Christian martyrs were honored on the date they were killed. (For more, read "How the Early Church Viewed Martyrs" on Christianity Today.) Open persecution by the Romans made more martyrs than was reasonable to honor on their individual death-dates. So, various areas decided to create a single day to honor all their martyrs. Different areas, different days, same goal.
All Saints unified those various traditions and was enlarged to honor all the dead in Heaven. And that is why the day after All Saints is All Souls. Due to the doctrine of Purgatory, All Souls is dedicated to all faithful departed who have not yet entered Heaven.

Now that you have the summary, let's look at the details.

Pope Boniface IV consecrated the Pantheon in Rome (yes that Pantheon) to Mary and all martyrs on May 13 in 609 AD (Bede, "Ecclesiastical History of England", book II, chapter IV). That memorial was for the area of Rome only, and did not apply to the entire church. Various areas still held their own memorials. You can read about celebrations for all martyrs on days like April 20, or the first Sunday after Pentecost in Orthodox areas.

We can be confident Boniface IV did not do this to coopt Samhain, because 1) it was a church dedication, 2) to Christian martyrs, 3) it was half a year off, and 4) it was a local event to the region of Rome and had nothing to do with other areas.

The first time November 1st enters the equation is when Pope Gregory III dedicated an altar in a chapel in St. Peter’s Basilica to all saints on November 1, 735 AD. This changed the focus from martyrs to all saints in heaven. This is where the name All Hallows ultimately originates, because this dedication was not just about martyrs only but all saints -- all holies. And it still did not apply to the entire church. Notice that this did not necessarily "move" anything. The Pantheon is still dedicated to Mary and all martyrs to this day. If anything, all it did was duplicate days. There were two memorials in Rome now, one to martyrs and one to saints in Heaven, in addition to memorials in other areas.
We can be confident Gregory III did not do this to coopt Samhain, because 1) it was an altar dedication, 2) to Christian departed in Heaven, 3) he seems to have done it in protest to Emperor Leo III's iconoclasm, and 4) it was a local event to the region of Rome and had nothing to do with other areas.
(For more, read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pope St. Gregory III. Also see Horace K. Mann "The Lives of the Popes" volume 1 part 1 p. 205.)

Finally, Pope Gregory IV made November 1 the official date for the Feast of All Saints for the entire western church. Applying the feast to the whole church is what he did differently than his predecessors. He didn't do it coopt anything. He did it for uniformity. He was merging multiple scattered but related traditions into one.
We can be confident Gregory IV did not do this to coopt Samhain, because 1) all he did was unify all western traditions into one, and 2) he chose a day that already had this significance in his area.
(For more, see Horace K. Mann "The Lives of the Popes" volume 2 p. 230.)

That is how All Saints began. Notice how I said nothing about Samhain. It did not factor in.

A popular claim on the internet is that one or the other Pope Gregory moved the date to November 1 specifically to counter the popularity of Samhain. That seems to come from Sir James Frazer, author of "The Golden Bough". We talk about him in our Christmas articles. He was in the German History of Religions School, whose ideas are now all but rejected by modern researchers. For an example of the counter-argument, the most popular choice for this topic seems to be Ronald Hutton and his book "Stations of the Sun".

As you can see, there are several problems with claiming All Saints comes from Samhain. Add to that, the Druids were practically extinct by that time.

The Celtic religion was heavily persecuted by the Roman Empire (itself extinct in the west by that time). The Romans were against the Celtic practice of human sacrifice. The Celtic native religion was in a state of heavy decline in areas of Roman control. It was becoming Roman. When Christian evangelists arrived in Britain, it was to a people generally in a state of religious confusion. Converting them wasn't "easy" per se, but it was successful. By the time the Pope created All Saints on November 1, the Druids were all but gone, the Celts were being conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, and the Christians had real structure.

OCTOBER 31

Point #2 was: "On the night of October 31 they celebrated Samhain." This is false. Let's dig into why.

Samhain was not on November 1. Samhain was not on October 31 either. Hard to coopt a festival by getting the date wrong.

We can say Samhain was not on these dates because the luni-solar calendar the Celts used did not line up to the Roman calendar. I've said this so very many times in other articles, but here we go again. The Celts did not have an October or a November. The Celts had a luni-solar calendar that did not align to any of the Roman calendars. Nothing the Celts did was always on any particular Roman date. Judging from the only Celtic calendar we have, the Coligny Calendar, we can see their calendar was more like the old Jewish calendar than the Roman. No one knows exactly how the Druids determined when Samhain was to occur, but we don't have to know that. All we need is their calendar. We can be completely confident they didn't use the Roman calendar, ergo we can be completely confident nothing they did was always on such and such a Roman date. We will expand on this idea later on. But the point here is - that the Pope set a fixed date at all demonstrates he wasn't coopting Samhain. Some people look at the claims against Christmas, where they say Christmas coopted Natalis Invicti, and then they try to repeat that claim elsewhere, like Halloween coopted Samhain. But in the case of Christmas, we are talking about one holiday that used the Roman calendar supposedly coopting another holiday that used the Roman calendar. Samhain was not determined by the Roman calendar. So, setting a Roman date is not going to coopt anything from another culture that didn't use Roman dates.

CELTIC CALENDAR vs JULIAN vs GREGORIAN

I promised to come back to the calendar issue. We need to talk about this.

The popular claim is that Samhain was always on October 31, and that forced Pope Gregory III to move All Saints to November 1 to coopt it, and therefore Halloween/All Saints is really Samhain. None of that is true. Let's think about why not.

Before we do, I want to warn you that this is going to be a bit technical. I apologize in advance. To summarize what we will do next - I am going to walk you through three Roman calendars. The point is, no foreign calendar matched any one Roman calendar, let alone all three. This is the most important point in my entire article. This proves no Druidic festival was always on such and such a date.

Roman Republic Period

Imagine yourself going back in time. Back, back, way back. The year is 100 BC (a date I chose completely at random). The Druids are in their heyday. Celts populate central and western Europe and the British isles. They were also pushing southeast, to the Mediterranean and into Turkey (think Galatians). It is October 31 on the calendar of the Roman Republic.
Now I ask you - what calendar are the Romans using?
Answer: the pre-Julian calendar.

Why is that important? Because, as I've discussed in many other posts, that Roman calendar was a hot mess.

I will quote from my article "Quotes Before Christmas":

"Rome was founded in the 700's BC. For the first few centuries they had no winter months at all. In the 500's BC, February was in the place of December. Around 450 BC they moved December to the end of the year. After that, the calendar was regularly manipulated for political purposes. In 46 BC, Julius Caesar completely revamped the calendar. In 8 BC Augustus corrected the calendar."

Do you see how the Celtic calendar could not match up with the mess of a calendar used in the Roman Republic in such a way that we can say Samhain was always on such and such a date? You couldn't rely on the Roman calendar to be the same year to year. Samhain was not always on October 31 in this period. The farther back in time you go, the worse it gets. If it was, it was only in some years, only because of sheer dumb luck, and we can never know which years. We cannot be sure Samhain was ever on October 31. We cannot claim it never was, but we can be sure "Samhain was always on October 31" is not an option.

Julian Period

Now, we move forward in time. The year is 735 AD. Imagine yourself in that time. Pope Gregory III just dedicated a chapel in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome to all saints. The western Roman Empire has come and gone. Gregory III is in a dangerous struggle with Byzantine Emperor Leo III regarding icons. He has called a conclave from all areas of the west to protest the Emperors iconoclasm. The Celts in the British isles have been pushed north and west by the Anglo-Saxons. The Druids are practically extinct, except possibly in quite remote areas. It is 550 years since the first Christian King in Britain (Bede, "Ecclesiastical History of England", book I, chapter IV). The Venerable Bede is said to have just died. Charlemagne won't be born for 12 more years. Vikings will be coming to raid Britain in the next few years. It is November 1 on your Roman calendar.

Now, I ask you - what calendar are you using?
Answer: the Julian calendar.

Why is that important? Because you are now on your second Roman calendar system, and it loses time. 

The Julian calendar is not like the pre-Julian calendar. Dates on the Roman calendar have moved because the whole system was replaced. The entire math behind it is new, days were added, months were rearranged, whole months were added. Did that move Samhain? No. The Romans changing their calendar wouldn't affect any other calendar at all, including the Celts'. If there was any alignment between Samhain and October 31 before the Julian calendar, that alignment is now even harder to achieve. Not only that, but due to a flaw in the Julian calendar, the dates slip by one day every 130 years. November 1 to Pope Gregory is 5 days off from that of Julius Caesar. But dates are not moving around on the Celtic calendar. The farther forward in time you go, the farther apart they get.
Given these conditions, how can anyone say Samhain was always on such and such a date? They cannot.

Set calendars aside for a second and consider the claim that Samhain was so popular that Pope Gregory moved All Saints Day to coopt it. Not only is that unfounded, but it makes no sense. The Druids were extinct, so far as we know. There might be a few in outlying areas, maybe in Ireland or up north with the Picts. The Celts, who had been fighting among themselves for years, were pushed by war into Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. Without the Druids, it was unlikely there was uniform tradition among the various Celtic tribes (which was never guaranteed in the first place), so there likely could not be a single, large Samhain. There is no possibility Samhain was so popular that the Pope needed to coopt it. If anyone stood a chance of having their day coopted, it would be the Germans, not the Celts. That didn't happen. So, the claim makes no sense. And there is no proof at all. Just empty, unfounded claims. We know why All Saints is on November 1 - the Pope dedicated a chapel.

Gregorian Period

Now, we move forward in time again. The year is 1582. Pope Gregory XIII has just implemented a correction to the Julian calendar that fixed its math problem and will stop the time drift the west has endured since 46AD. Most pagan groups in Europe are long gone. No one observes Samhain anymore. Chris Columbus has sailed the ocean blue. Martin Luther and King Henry VIII are dead, and the Protestant Reformation is in full swing. The date is Friday, October 15. And yesterday was October 4. (No, not 14th. Fourth.)
Now, I ask you - what calendar are you using?
Answer: The Gregorian calendar.

Why is that important? Because you are now on your third Roman calendar system, and this one is ten days off from the last. 

If Samhain could not match up to the first or the second periods, how much less the third? By 1582, the Julian calendar had lost almost 13 days. This was seriously affecting Easter. The Gregorian reform advanced the calendar by 10 days. The position of the year was reset back to the way it was in 325 AD, the year of the Council of Nicaea. Samhain didn't move, but October 31 and November 1 did. By ten days! Thursday October 4, 1582, was followed by Friday October 15. There was no October 5 through 14 that year. Not on the Gregorian calendar, anyway.

And the Gregorian calendar did not catch on all at once because the Protestants and Orthodox didn't care much for the Pope. It took centuries. People used the Gregorian or the Julian, depending on where you were. And they still do! The Orthodox Church still uses the Julian. Two October 31sts.

The Samhain was always on such and such a date crowd are now faced with a terrible problem. If Samhain is on October 31 today, then it wasn't on October 31 when All Saints Day was established on November 1 in 735 AD. And if Samhain was on October 31 in 735 AD, then it isn't anymore today. Pick your fail.

Your only other alternative is to say Samhain was changed to match the Roman calendar, like Germanic days were (ie. Yule), which completely undermines the claim that All Saints was changed to coopt Samhain. It's literally the opposite. It also screams out loud that the original details of Samhain are unknown (which is true), and people should really stop making unfounded claims.

CELTIC CALENDAR

We have looked at the Roman calendars, now let's look at the Celtic.

In 1897, in Coligny, France, a bronze calendar was found. It is now called the Coligny Calendar. (I mentioned this earlier.) It was in pieces, apparently purposefully destroyed. The chief suspect in its destruction is Rome. As it turns out, this is the only known example of a Celtic calendar.

Coligny Calendar

I have done some reading on this calendar and I would like to give you some details on how it worked.

It seems to have been made in the second century AD. It is a luni-solar calendar that attempts to marry the lunar year with the solar. It is a peg calendar, much like the kind used in Rome around that time. It has roman numerals, so it is influenced by Rome. It has several measurements of time, including days and nights. It has 5-day weeks, six weeks in a month with either 29 or 30-day months (as any lunar calendar will), 12 months in a year, a 5-year annual cycle with leap-months every 2 1/2 years, and a 30-year great cycle. It has names for the months. The month names have meanings, somewhat similar to the German calendar. It does list some festivals.

Some problems include, several pieces are missing, no one knows when the new year was (all claims are speculation only), and no one knows how the names of the months line up in the year (e.g., is the month of Samonios in the spring or the fall).

And let us not overlook the fact that the Celtic calendar was luni-solar. That means leap-months. All lunar calendars need leap-months or they cannot stay in synch with the solar calendar. Just like our calendar has leap-days, and just like the Jewish calendar has leap-months, the Celtic calendar did too. Leap months change dates. That's the whole point! That means the Celtic calendar was out of synch with the Roman solar calendars regularly.

You have a choice here. If Samhain was based on the Celtic calendar, then it was often a day out of synch with solar events like the equinox and the solstice. But if Samhain was based on solar events, then it was often a day out of synch with their own calendar. Pick your fail.

19-YEAR TIME CYCLES

You can tell from some of these details that the Coligny Calendar behaves similarly to the Jewish calendar. It also has the amazing ability to work in more than one way. If you work the calendar just so, it can count the nineteen-year time cycles necessary to keep the lunar year in alignment with the solar.

Does that phrase "nineteen-year time cycles" seem familiar to you? It was a favorite phrase of Herbert Armstrong's. He said understanding those time cycles was key to understanding prophecy. (For an example, read our post "All Systems Are Go!".) Yet, here we have the pagan Druids using nineteen-year time cycles. Doesn't that make it ... "once pagan, always pagan"?? So, the Worldwide Church of God went around promoting paganism?

I wonder how many people are trying to excuse away their belief in "once pagan, always pagan" right now. Well, welcome to the club! I've rejected it years ago.

UNBROKEN

I have one more small bone to pick with the "Answering Four Excuses" article.

In his article, Eddie Foster said, "Wiccans still celebrate Halloween today," as if to say it's an unbroken continuation. Not so. Wicca was invented in the mid-1900s. They take upon themselves old pagan practices from various cultures that they've read about in history books.
Some pagans in the United States and Europe have read through histories and decided to celebrate Samhain. Because they didn't think about the prior calendar changes (along with most everyone else), and because they didn't know much about the calendar the Druids used, they decide to just go with the current thing and put Samhain on October 31. They start spreading the idea that Halloween is Samhain. Armstrongists come along and say, "Hey! We don't like Halloween anyway. This explanation affirms what we want to hear! Let's publish it like it's true." So, they sell you this story about how it was always like that. But it wasn't always like that. Because it couldn't be! So much for Life, Hope, and Truth.

SAMHAIN AND ETC.

If we are going to be on the subject of Samhain, we might as well hit a few of the highlights for good measure. My main point being demonstrated to death, I will give you a rapid-fire bunch of interesting facts and observations.

Samhain was a harvest festival at summer's end. Samhain was not a "celebration of the dead" as Eddie Foster quipped. They didn't celebrate the dead, they celebrated the harvest. Exactly when that was to those people, no one knows for certain. Could be based on a calendar, or maybe moon phases, or maybe the mid-point between the autumnal equinox and the winter solstice, or even all of the above. Who knows! We know roughly, but not specifically.

I have read countless articles how Imbolc was February 1, Beltane was May 1, Lughnasa was August 1, and Samhain was ... October 31?? Why is that one always on the 31, but the rest were on the 1st? Bias. Fact is, none of them were always on any of those dates.

I've heard the festivals were calculated based on solar events. Even though it was a lunar culture? Well, let's go with that. The equinox is on September 22 and the solstice is on December 21. Those are the wrong dates for sure. So, what is the mid-point between the autumnal equinox and the winter solstice? That's 90 days. Well, what is 45 days after September 22? November 6. Why, that's the wrong date, too! Do you see how this game is played?

I have read some articles that speculate if Samhain was coopted by Catholics at all, it wasn't All Saints Day that replaced it, but Saint Martin's Day (aka Martinmas). Saint Martin's Day, now abandoned, was once the largest festival in that corner of the year. Some sources say it was as big before the Protestant Reformation as Christmas is to us now. It was the Protestant Reformation that killed it. An interesting proposition! But equally difficult to prove out.

Samhain might have had religious overtones, but its primary focus was harvest. It is possible to have a harvest festival with religious overtones and still say it was not a religious day. We do as much every year at Thanksgiving.

Some people say Samhain was a three-day festival. It takes time to kill animals, burn them, feast, and make textiles. No one knows this for sure, however. Perhaps in some areas it was and others it wasn't. Or, perhaps, people today are looking at Halloween, All Saints, and All Souls and using that to make unfounded assumptions that Samhain was three-days long.

You've no doubt heard about the bonfires. Do you know why bonfires are called bonfires? The word means "bone fires". They were large fires where animal bones were burned. Bone ash was used to make all sorts of useful things, including soap. Amos 2: 1 mentions the bones of a king being burned into lime. I want to point out that bone fires were not typically lit at night. They were daytime fires that might last into the night. It does not have to be nighttime to have a fire (have you ever camped?). The word bonfire did not come to mean a large celebratory fire until the 16th century. That is well after Druidic paganism was eliminated. These weren't party fires nor purely religious rituals. They were farming necessities. I am not saying there were no large celebratory fires before the 16th century. I am just saying people need to drop the notion that the word bonfire is always synonymous with a pagan ritual. Also, drop the idea that just because they had a large fire it had to be about fires and had to be at night.
This all reminds me of the Yule Log, which turns out to be a Christian tradition. (For more, see our post "Christmas FAQ" in the section "Does the Yule Log come from pagan Yule traditions?".)

There was no demon/deity named Samhain at all. That is completely false. Yet another example of something everybody needed to know that wasn't true at all. For example, take this quote from the Plain Truth Magazine:

"'The earliest Halloween celebrations were held' - not by the inspired early church, but - 'by the Druids in honor of Samhain, Lord of the Dead, whose festival fell on November 1.' (From Halloween Through Twenty Centuries by Ralph Linton, p. 4)"
-Herman Hoeh, "Halloween Where Did It Come From?", Plain Truth Magazine, Oct 1955, p. 7

Herman Hoeh, "the most accurately informed man in the world". Plain truth, they called it. Mind your sources!

Some people say Halloween is Samhain because of costumes, trick-or-treating, and jack-o'-lanterns. Well, about that....
I will leave some links at the end of this post to some websites that discuss Souling. That will help you understand that dressing up and going door-to-door is quite Christian. Could that have been a Christian thing and a pagan thing? Sure. But my point is costumes and trick-or-treats are not prima fascia evidence that Halloween is from Samhain.
And you should know something about jack-o'-lanterns. Some people say they were pagan, and some people say they started with guy Fawkes, and some people say they started in the 1700s. I don't know. But I do know this: it was not exclusively a Samhain custom. In the United States in the 1800s, people carved pumpkins for all Fall holidays - Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Halloween. Only later did the custom migrate to Halloween only. You can see this in old cookbooks that tell us how to decorate for the holidays. For example, take the following quote from the New York Times November 24, 1895 edition, titled "The Day We Celebrate; Thanksgiving Treated Gastronomically and Socially". The article is about how to host a good Thanksgiving. In a section about how to entertain the children, it suggests a scavenger hunt for nuts, then it says:

"A 'booby' prize, that never fails to please the children, is an old-fashioned jack o' lantern, made from a small pumpkin, and brought in lighted, on a salver, to be presented to the luckless nut hunter."

So, jack-o'-lanterns were ubiquitous in the Fall, therefore they are not evidence Halloween came from Samhain any more than Thanksgiving did. Pagan, maybe. Exclusive to Samhain, no.

Some people say Samhain incorporated elements from the Roman festival of Pomona, the fruit nymph, in November. There is no evidence at all for such a festival for such an obscure nymph. Yet, it circulates in some history books. I dismiss it. Others say Samhain incorporated the Roman festival Feralia, the Roman festival for the dead. However, Feralia was in February. I dismiss this, too.

Regarding the idea that during Samhain the dead walked among the living - it is definitely something the Irish really did believe, but probably not the Druidic pagans, because it looks like it might be a later development.

The Druids, you may have heard, did not write anything down. They passed on most of their traditions orally. The only written traditions we have about the ancient Druids come from the Greeks and Romans. When we read what the Greeks and Romans wrote, we see they were under the impression the Druids believed in reincarnation. This leads people to speculate the Druidic religion and the Hindu religion are cousins, from a time when all people lived in deep-ancient Mesopotamia. After death, a soul could take on a new body, either of a human or an animal. I would say it is unlikely anyone would believe the dead walk among the living during a few days each year when they believe in reincarnation. (For more, read "Passing Through the Middle: Death and Reincarnation Amongst the Celts" on Owlcation. I don't usually link to sites like this, but I don't feel like digging up all the quotes for Julius Caesar, and this site seems to have a decent collection already in place.)

The tradition about the closeness of the worlds of the living and the dead come to us in pieces from the British isles, mainly Ireland, and from quite recently. Does that mean it is fake history? No. It just seems to indicate it could be a much later development. No one knows for sure. It might not even be Druidic. Remember, the Druids were Celts, but not all Celts were Druids. The Druids ended, but the Celts continue on to this day. Apparently, I am part Celt myself (if the ever-shifting claims from Ancestry.com can be believed). And most Celts became Christians a millennia ago. It is sometimes difficult to piece together what is later Celtic folklore and what is original Druidic belief. Am I speculating that the formerly reincarnationist Celts could have picked up this otherworldly closeness after converting to Christianity? Yes.

Samhain was not the only festival where the veil between the worlds of the living and the dead is thinned. Beltane, on the opposite side of the year around early May, also had this tradition. If anyone gives you the impression that Samhain was unique in its otherworldly closeness, that person is mistaken. Remember when we said Christians had memorials for martyrs in late April to mid-May? Am I speculating that the formerly reincarnationist Celts could have picked up this otherworldly closeness after converting to Christianity? Yes.

You can be certain of one thing: precisely as people do with Nimrod, people make up definite claims based on imagination, speculation, and a bare minimum of information.

CONCLUSION

"Samhain was always on October 31" is not an option, so choose only one:
A) Samhain was never on October 31.
B) Samhain was accidentally on October 31 anciently, only sometimes, only before 46 BC.
C) Samhain was accidentally on October 31 in the past, only sometimes, for less than 130 years, only somewhere between 46 BC and 1582 AD.
D) Samhain is accidentally on October 31 today, but not every year, only since 1582, but nobody celebrated it during this period until recently.

With your choice, you automagically get these two bonus choices:
E) No one really knows how Samhain worked, so we all should stop making unfounded claims.
F) All Saints Day has nothing to do with a Celtic harvest festival.

I declare the whole claim of Samhain always being on October 31, or November 1, or any day on our calendar for that matter, as well as the claim All Saints Day is a continuation of Samhain, did not survive the patented As Bereans Did gauntlet. It simply is not possible, given the details of the Celtic calendar and the three Roman calendars used in the past 2,700 years.

Once again, we see false history being passed off as true in Armstrongism. Once again, we see confirmation bias in place of responsible research. Once again, we see reliance on the un-biblical notion of "once pagan, always pagan". Once again, we see the people who say "the TEN COMMANDMENTS, God's great SPIRITUAL LAW" are bearing false witness against their neighbor. I think it is safe to say COGWA might want to rename their website to 'Life, Hope, and Fiction", or else actually start insisting on truth. Either way is fine with me.

Notice how this post relies mainly on simple logic and math - if one culture's calendar keeps changing, another culture's calendar cannot align with it. Simple. We didn't need to know lost details about Druids and their practices. All we needed was a teensy bit of common sense. Common sense also tells us that people are taking conditions as they see them now and applying them backwards in time thousands of years. We don't agree that's a good idea.

And, yet again, I am supremely disappointed with History (aka the History Channel). *facepalm*

I hope today's post helped you in some way. This is our first post about the whole Halloween thing. You may have noticed this post is not really defending modern Halloween. I spent time defending All Saints instead. Well, that's because I think secular Halloween decorations are disturbing, and I don't agree with them. Remember in my posts like "Where Do We Draw The Line?", I say things like, "If you want to know what my own personal line is, knowing what I know and having experienced what I have experienced, I draw the line at well-informed conscience. Not scrupulosity, but scruples. If I feel guilty about it, I don't do it. Easy peasy. But then I research it. I need to know if I feel guilty reasonably or unreasonably; rightfully or mistakenly." Well, truth is, parts of Halloween make me feel guilty. The bloody, demonic, frightening imagery of secular Halloween is not something I am comfortable with. I don't mind cute little comic book heroes and pretty princesses going trick-or-treating. I don't even mind the vampires and mummies. That doesn't bother me at all. I even read Washington Irving's "Legend of Sleepy Hollow" every year. I am not entirely against Halloween because I don't believe in "once pagan, always pagan". But the winged demons and axe murderers and bloody offal and such turn me off. I do not tend to defend Halloween because of all that. Today is the exception. I need to research and ensure I have a well-formed conscience. When I do, I inevitably find some Armstrongist peddler of paganism is out there making a mockery of the truth. For Eddie Foster to denounce it as dark, he had to first invent a way for it to be dark. Then he had to do something dark with it, by which I mean falsely accuse people of paganism. Seriously though, are you really going to go around calling people pagan for made up nonsense while you fail your own definition of paganism for talking about how great 19-year time cycles are? Pot, meet kettle. (Not just Eddie Foster, though, I mean all Armstrongist peddlers of paganism.)
My advice to you, dear reader, beloved of God, is to not offend your conscience. To the Lord do, or to the Lord do not do. But do not judge and condemn your fellow Christians who disagree with your choices. Have a happy Halloween if that's your custom, but I advise avoiding that dark stuff. No, you are not a pagan for keeping Halloween. Dedicate your celebration to Jesus and seek His glory, and it will be well with your soul.

I might as well toss in some helpful links as a parting gift:

"Is Halloween Pagan In Origin And Evil?" on Crosswalk.

"Halloween Hysteria" at Life After WCG blog.

"Halloween - Sifting Historical Facts vs 'Christian' Myths" at God of Green Hope blog.

"Samhain and Halloween" at God Cannot Be Contained blog.

"It's Time For Catholics To Embrace Halloween" on Word On Fire.

"The Origins of Halloween: A Catholic Celebration Rediscovered" on EWTN.

"Souling" on Medieval Histories.

"Souling for Cakes and Beer: The Catholic Tradition of Trick-Or-Treating" on Aleteia.

"Why Christians Can & Should Celebrate Halloween" from InspiringPhilosophy on YouTube. Thanks to ericsjca for this one.

"Is Halloween A Pagan Holiday (And Should We Celebrate It?)" from ShamelessPopery on YouTube.

"Ecclesiastical History of England" by Bede. Available on Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

"The Ancient Irish Get Far Too Much Credit For Halloween" on Ancient Origins.

"Samhain Is Not A God" on Learn Religions.

"'It’s all just a big joke': Halloween, Samhain, and Moral Panics in the 1980s" on Dig Podcast.

"Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages" volume 1 part 1, book by Horace K Mann, on Archive.

************

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

************

Covenant Loyalty, Righteousness In Faith

I have stumbled across an idea that interests me. I was listening to a podcast during my commute. For whatever reason, when the podcast ended, I decided I wanted to listen to it again from the middle. Something told me I had not paid sufficient attention to it. I did that again two more times. I was certain I'd missed something good, I just didn't know what it was. (Obviously! Because I'd missed it.) On the fourth go around, I finally caught on.

Today, I want to investigate the relationship between covenant, loyalty, obedience, disloyalty, transgression, righteousness, and faith. They are interwoven. Is that a lot? Let me simplify. I want to look at how our righteousness can be from faith in the New Covenant. Righteousness from faith is a difficult concept for people like me, from legalist backgrounds. I think it's important for any Christian from any system to understand.

When you think of righteousness, what comes to mind?
I would guess you are saying to me, "Moral behavior, right thinking, obeying God's laws etc." You wouldn't be far from what most readers of this blog would say.
When you think of transgression, what comes to mind?
I would guess opposite things from righteousness, "Breaking God's laws, sinful thinking, immoral behavior, etc."
No doubt you have at least one Bible verse in mind. So would I!

I am going to ask you to consider tweaking your response just a bit, by being acutely aware of the concept of a covenant at the center of your responses. In our responses above, we never mentioned faith. We should have started with that. This is a post about how righteousness and faith are linked.

Funny how this all ties in so well with my post "Are The Ten Commandments Removed?".

THE MISSING DIMENSION IN LAW

In Armstrongism, the system I was once in, we were taught the way to follow God is to keep His laws. That seems reasonable enough. You want to be a good Christian, right? Of course you do! How? If you want to know how to live rightly, why not turn to the Old Testament and ask the law what to do?

(DEU. 7: 9, 11) 9 “Therefore know that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments; ... 11 Therefore you shall keep the commandment, the statutes, and the judgments which I command you today, to observe them.

(JON. 14: 15) If you love Me, keep My commandments.

See? Not only is Jesus blatantly insinuating that He is God, but He says if you love God, you will do what He commands. Seems reasonable that this refers to the law.
Well, you know, 2% of the law, anyway. Most of the time.

But there's something missing here: the Covenant.
The missing dimension is the commandments, statutes, and judgments - in other words, the law - are the Covenant. Along with the promises; the blessings and cursings. The law is the Covenant and the Covenant is the law.

Look at how God speaks to Abraham (this is not the Old Covenant but the Abrahamic):

(GEN. 17: 9) This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised...

Covenants are contracts, and they have terms. Terms are things you have to do to satisfy the covenant. For man's side of the Abrahamic Covenant, circumcision is the only term. The rest was up to God.
The terms are the covenant and the covenant is its terms. Because it is. Because that is the nature of covenants.

This same thing happens with the Old Covenant:

(DEU. 4: 13) So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

Here that same peculiar language is. The terms are the covenant and the covenant is its terms. For the Old Covenant, those terms are called "laws", because they apply to a nation - the nation of Israel.

The same thing happens in the opposite direction, from the perspective of breaking the terms.

If you did not keep the term, then you broke the Abrahamic Covenant:

(GEN. 17: 14) And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.

And if you did not keep the terms, then you broke the Old Covenant:

(JER. 11: 10) They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers who refused to hear My words, and they have gone after other gods to serve them; the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken My covenant which I made with their fathers.

Keeping the terms is keeping the covenant; breaking the terms is breaking the covenant. Because the terms are the covenant and the covenant is its terms.

When an Israelite broke a law, did they break a law only or did they violate the Old Covenant? They violated the Covenant! That is how James was able to say if you've stumbled in anything, you've broken everything (JAS. 2: 10). Transgressing a term defaults the entire agreement. You've been disloyal.
Or, think of it in marital terms. If you commit adultery, did you transgress the adultery rule only, or did you violate the entire marriage covenant? You violated it all! Only an idiot would say, "All I did was commit adultery. I kept most of the marriage covenant. It's just one rule out of many. It's not so bad in the grand scheme." You were disloyal to the marriage covenant as a whole.

Failing the outward signs, transgressing the laws, changing ordinances, committing idolatry - it is all breaking the covenant. Because the law does not exist apart from the covenant. The covenant is the law and the law is the covenant.

Do you see how obedience, loyalty, transgression, disloyalty, and covenant are all related? They are covenant words. Loyalty to God is through loyalty to the covenant God made with you. You want to be considered righteous? Then be loyal to your covenant. Don't want to be loyal to your covenant? That's considered wickedness. Do you see how it all relates?

It all comes back to covenant. Covenant is the missing dimension in law.

WHICH COVENANT?

People in our time - who are not Israelites and not party to the Old Covenant - will take those covenant terms (the laws) and remove them from their covenant context (the Old Covenant). Then they claim the laws continue forever, apart from the covenant. Laws just leap like a deer from covenant to covenant, all on their own. Then they divide the laws up, throw most of them out, and claim they are keeping the law.
But that is not how any of this works.

"The seventh-day Sabbath is a sign between God and His people," the Sabbatarians say. The Sabbath was a sign, yes, but a sign of what? Of loyalty to a covenant. If you kept the Sabbath, it was an outward sign that you were loyal to that covenant. "It shows we are God's people," they say. Yes, a sign does identify loyal people. That was it's purpose. But not apart from the covenant. The sign shows you are loyal to God by being loyal to the covenant. It was a sign of covenant loyalty.
But you aren't a part of that Old Covenant. No one is.

Tell me, which books of the Bible did you read about the Sabbath being a sign of the covenant? Exodus and Ezekiel. Those books were part of what Testament? The Old Testament. And which covenant was in effect then? The Old Covenant.

Loyalty to terms of a covenant identifies which people are members of the Covenant. The weekly Sabbath was one of the two outward signs of the Old Covenant. It is difficult to know who is coveting, but it is easy to know who is circumcised or resting on the seventh day. If you are keeping the Sabbath as a sign of loyalty, and using proof-texts from Exodus and Ezekiel to back it up, then what covenant are you showing loyalty to? The Old Covenant! Of course you are using Old Covenant dialogue to back it up, because it is an Old Covenant sign.

But which Covenant are we supposed to be loyal to? We are supposed to be loyal to the covenant we are in: the New Covenant! The weekly Sabbath is never once at any point made a term of the New Covenant, by anyone, ever. It is not the sign of the New Covenant. What is?

(JON. 13: 35) By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.

Love is the New Covenant sign of loyalty.

I had to speak about covenant in this article because it is critical. I hoped to take your mind off of "The law! The law! The law!" and refocus it on "The covenant! The covenant! The covenant!"
I want you to keep in mind this phrase: covenant loyalty.

RIGHTEOUSNESS IS IMPUTED

We've talked about covenants. We've talked about loyalty to your covenant. Now let's talk a little about the nature of righteousness. There is something critical we need to be very much aware of. Righteousness does not come from what you do. It is always imputed.

You already know about the "faith chapter", Hebrews 11. People were heroes for having faith. You already know that righteousness was imputed to Abraham because he believed. But you might not know the same happened to Israel because they were loyal to their covenant.

(DEU. 6: 25) 24 And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day. 25 Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us.’

That doesn't say they will become righteous. As if to say their fallen nature will be changed. It says it will be their righteousness. As if to say righteousness will be imputed. Sacrificing and resting and blue thread in your clothes does not make you a good person. But if that is your covenant loyalty, then righteousness is imputed to you for those things.

Some tried to keep the covenant and some did not. Altogether, however, the law did nothing for what they were inside.

(PSA. 14: 2-3) 2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. 3 They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one.

Psalm 54 repeats this. No, they did not become righteous.

So, how does the Bible say out of one side of its mouth that some people were righteous, and out of the other side of its mouth that no one is? It says none are righteous because none of us are righteous, it's true! We tend towards wickedness by nature. God alone is righteous by nature. But to those with covenant loyalty, righteousness was imputed. You never really deserve it. It's given to you. It is given even though you don't really deserve it.

Why is this so important to understand? Because the question shouldn't be about how we become righteous, but how we get that righteousness imputed to us. The way to imputed righteousness is loyalty to the covenant you are in. It is not through some covenant you are not in. You want righteousness? Be loyal to the covenant you are in. God is not going to impute righteousness to you for things He didn't ask you to do.
"God, I didn't really do what you asked me to do, but I did like 2% of those things you told those people to do. I knocked it out of the park, too. I went above and beyond. Now, give my my inheritance." How about no.

Back when I was an Armstrongist, I tried to be right with God by keeping the law (some of it ... some of the time). I had such good intentions! I only wanted to be a good and faithful person. I went about it all wrong. I listened to people who told me to get righteousness by keeping Old Covenant laws; terms of a covenant none of us were in. I was doomed to fail before I even started. The very base assumption - that God wants us to obtain righteousness from the Old Covenant law - is not correct under the New Covenant.

The people I was listening to told me the terms of the Old Covenant pretty much were the terms of the New. "The laws are brought forward into the New Covenant unless otherwise stated," they said. That was simply not correct. If you want more about why not, please read our post "Confusing the Covenants". Since that post explains this, I will skip it here. Suffice it to say, that is not at all how covenants work. Terms do not jump from covenant to covenant all on their own. Two different covenants, two different sets of terms, two different sets of promises.

In the Old Covenant, Torah was the means to covenant loyalty. So long as they also had faith, that is. But there were issues. Law-keeping was insufficient to please God (LUK. 17: 10). The law does not justify us (GAL. 2: 16). The law made nothing perfect (HEB. 7: 18-19a). The law made no one truly righteous (ROM. 8: 3). The law wasn't enough for the Rich Young Ruler, it wasn't enough for the Pharisees, it wasn't enough for Israel, and it isn't enough for us. Is that the law's fault? No! The law is good and just. It's our fault. The law from outside of us could not change our sinful nature. That is why we need a Savior.

(GAL. 2: 21) I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.

Do you understand the magnitude of what this verse says? It means if we could accomplish our goal of pleasing God through the law, then Jesus died in vain! That means the law only ever showed us our own inability to obtain righteousness by our own efforts. It also means Jesus' death fundamentally altered the entire landscape.

I was proving God right. "O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (ROM. 7: 24). Where is the solution??

FAITH!

RIGHTEOUSNESS IN FAITH

'What?! xHWA, do you mean to tell me, this whole time, I just do nothing and believe, then I will be right with God?"
No.
I mean to tell you that this whole time if you are loyal to your covenant, then you would have been right with God.

Faith is not about doing nothing. That is something legalists say to make faith look bad. "Greasy grace" and other slanders. Everyone needs faith, even a legalist. A law-centered person looks at a grace-centered person and says they aren't doing anything because they don't keep the law. But they are doing something -- they are being loyal to the covenant they are in.

We are saved by our faith. We are called to love. Do you think love is easy??

Hebrews 11, "the faith chapter", talks about a lot of people who had faith and were right with God, but none of them did nothing. Even some people who kept the law are listed, but not because of law-keeping, rather because of their faith. None of them did nothing. Some of them, like Rahab, did quite risky things. All of them let their faith manifest as action. But what action is expected of us? The action required by our Covenant. We must follow the Holy Spirit into works of charity and love, that's what we do (GAL. 5: whole chapter). But it starts with faith.

Righteousness is loyalty. Transgression is disloyalty. Loyalty or disloyalty to what? To God, via His covenant. Which covenant? It depends on who you are and when you lived. For us today, it's the New Covenant. What are the terms of the New Covenant? Faith and love! Loyalty to God via loyalty to His New Covenant means having faith in God and following the Holy Spirit into acts of love to one another. We are saved by faith, we are called to love. That is our covenant loyalty. Not Sabbath. Not circumcision. Covenant loyalty in the New Covenant is faith and love.

This is why the New Testament talks about obedience to the faith (ACT. 6: 7; ROM. 1: 5-6). This is also why the New Testament talks about judgment for those who do not "obey the Gospel" (ROM. 10: 6; II THS. 1: 8; I PET. 4: 17 ). What do you mean "obey the Gospel"? It means believing Jesus is who He said He is and will do what He said He will do, and then becoming His disciple. Not Moses' disciple but Jesus'. Obeying the Gospel does not even factor in under the Old Covenant system, but it factors heavily into New Covenant system and only makes sense under that system. (Are you sure the Gospel isn't for today? Not even a little?)

I think some people have an issue with righteousness imputed for faith because in their minds they see righteousness being directly related to things we do. In other words, works. We do good works, and that makes us good people. Like I said at the very start of this post,

When you think of righteousness, what comes to mind? I would guess you are saying to me, "Moral behavior, right thinking, obeying God's laws etc."

But here is the thing -- righteousness is not caused by things we do. The things we do are a result of the righteousness imputed to us by faith. More specifically, works are a result of us following the guidance of the Holy Spirit in-dwelling.

The focus is backwards in some people. They think faith → works (in other words law) → righteousness, when it really is faith → righteousness → works (in other words love).

That is why I want to impress upon you the idea of covenant loyalty so much. Righteousness is always imputed. God alone is good. Righteousness is not imputed for law-keeping, but for covenant loyalty. Your covenant loyalty is faith and love. Faith IS our obedience, and it is expressed in love. That will be righteousness to us.

For people in the New Covenant, to try and obtain our righteousness from law is to stumble at the stumbling stone (ROM. 9: 30-33). That stumbling stone is Jesus Christ - the guy you're tying to please by failing at keeping the law you weren't asked to keep.

So, to summarize --
Righteousness is imputed to us by faith, and that faith is expressed in works of love as we follow the direction of the Holy Spirit. That is our New Covenant loyalty.

CONCLUSION

What was the idea that interested me? Righteousness is imputed to us for covenant loyalty. Our way to be loyal to the New Covenant is faith. Our visible sign is love.

At the start, I said, "Today, I want to investigate the relationship between covenant, loyalty, obedience, disloyalty, transgression, righteousness, and faith. They are interwoven."

Do you see how this all comes together? Do you see how this all relates?

Covenant loyalty. Imputed righteousness in faith. Evidenced in love.
Before, it was by law. Now, it is by faith. Righteousness and faith are linked in the New Covenant. Our righteousness in our covenant is from faith.

Do you want to be a good Christian? The trick is to be mindful of what Covenant you are in. The Bible was not written directly to us, but it was written for us. The wise know the difference. There are so many lessons in the Old Covenant for us, but it was not given to us. It was given to Israel. We were given the New Covenant. Faith is how you remain loyal to the covenant you are in. The outward sign of your faith is love. I hope the phrase "covenant loyalty" helps you to understand.

"Covenant! Covenant! Covenant!" not "Law! Law! Law!"

Good thing I listened to that podcast the fourth time! Or I would have missed it.

Do you know what the truly mind-bending thing in all of this is? If you follow the Holy Spirit, and pursue covenant loyalty through faith and love, you will end up fulfilling the whole law - the very thing the legalists hoped to do in the first place (ROM. 3: 31; GAL. 5: 14).
Like I said in the post "Are The Ten Commandments Removed?":

"Am I throwing Matthew 5: 19 out the window? No. I am not telling you to break the commandments. I am telling you the only way you can possibly hope to keep them as expected."

No doubt many will have lingering questions. If you have questions about the law being eternal, we have two posts for that: "Common Legalist Arguments - Part V" and "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI". If you have questions about moral laws continuing into the New Covenant, we have posts for that: "Are The Ten Commandments Removed?" and "What Use Is The Old Law?". If you have questions about the sabbath rest that remains, we have a post for that: "The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4". And don't forget we have a general FAQ Page where we answer some standard questions.

This post is dedicated to Angela. God bless you.

************

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

************

Where Do We Draw The Line?

Greetings, dear readers. It's your punctilious proliferator of peeves and profundities, presenting a post about paganism and principles. Today, I would like to talk about where to draw the line with people of weak conscience who take issue with holidays and birthdays. Also, there is something you should know about the people who peddle these message about holidays being evil.
Yes, it is that time of year.

I was reading through my old 2018 article "Three Reasons Why I Stopped Keeping Christmas - Part II", because I honestly could not remember what it was about, and in the comments I noticed a small mention of scruples. To refresh your memory, scruples are, "An uneasy feeling arising from conscience or principle that tends to hinder action" (from the American Heritage Dictionary).
I said in a comment:

"I can promise you that once you start down that road to scrupulosity, there is virtually no end to that road. There is practically no limit to the things a person can question and worry about. You can become a slave to it. Trust me on this one, I have seen some seriously enslaved people who worry about the smallest little things and constantly need reassurance. Their lives are beset by it."
-Me, back then.

Nothing has changed my mind about that statement.
But the reason I said that was in response to a request for more holiday articles on things even like the Fourth of July or Thanksgiving. I never did write those articles. It's not that I thought it was an unreasonable request. I thought at the time it would be more efficient to get directly to the heart of the matter - which I think is scrupulosity.

Scruples are good. Scrupulosity is not. Scrupulosity takes our good conscience and twists it into fear and doubt. It can paralyze us with questions and worries. It can take over our lives. It can negatively affect our relationship with our Savior. Not good!

It can be beneficial to go away from your own posts for a while then visit back again after forgetting all about them. When I am thinking about what to write, I know just what I mean. When I write, that doesn't always come across as I'd thought. Coming back later erases all those thoughts and gives me the perspective of a first-time reader. Many times I say to myself, "I think I know what I was getting at, but it could have been stated so much clearer." This is one of those times.

I had hoped it would be more efficient to comment on scrupulosity rather than write more articles. But I never really explained what I meant by scrupulosity nor gave any advice at all on what to do about it. I was asked about holidays and responded with scrupulosity, and that was that. It all made sense to me back then, but now it seems I sidestepped the request without heeding it at all. Not what I intended!
You know what they say about good intentions.
Maybe I can make amends six years later?

As I discussed in my post "Peddlers of Paganism", there are people out there who make their living off exploiting people's fears and scrupulosity. They twist good things, things created to be received with thanksgiving, into doubtful things. They tell you God cannot save you if you enjoy pine trees or lights or candy or various mundane things, even when God Himself used these items in His worship in the Bible. They use shifting definitions they themselves don't meet. They tell you once a thing is tinged with paganism it remains pagan forever. They tell you that you can secretly contract paganism without even being aware of it. They tell you that you are headed for condemnation if you celebrate God's own miracles. And it doesn't matter at all how terribly false their claims are, so long as the end result affirms what they want to hear. How preposterous!
I disagree with all of these things, and ABD has several articles that explain why.

I also said in that same post:

"The question is - how far do we take this? Do we let people of weak conscience control our lives and our homes and our churches? No. Their weak conscience is not a license for manipulation."

Much of this discussion on drawing a line rests on good taste and Christian charity. Paul is clear, in I Corinthians 8 and 10, that a good Christian bears those of weak conscience with patience and charity. Sometimes, doing the right thing means avoiding what we fully believe is perfectly acceptable if that thing upsets our brethren of weak conscience. We bear it until they mature in the faith.
But that has to have its limits.

We cannot let people of scrupulosity and superstition take over our churches, our faith, and our good conscience. To bear with a brother or sister in Christ with patience and understanding is good! It's the loving thing. It's the Christian thing. But not when it ends up making people feel terrible about themselves and causes division.

The anonymous commentor on my Christmas post said:

"If there is truly a pagan holiday out there then I'll give it up for God. No pagan holiday is worth participating in if it risks our relationship with God."

That is noble! There is a very commendable spirit at work in this heart. Look at how they are willing to repent and change anything they feel comes between them and their Savior. Well done!

But!

That good intention is easily taken advantage of by people of weak conscience and ignoble motives who peddle paganism. The comment started, "If there is truly a pagan holiday..." Therein lies the rub. The holidays are most often not pagan. The claims most often false.
The good intention of avoiding paganism is taken advantage of. That particular commentor might not be easily taken advantage of, but I have had several other readers over the years who were/are.

Do pay attention to your conscience. Do not violate it! But at the same time, do not base your conscience and decisions on the questionable information you get from peddlers of paganism. Test the spirits!

I want you to know something else, most esteemed reader. The story you are being told about pagan holidays, from many sources but not all, is not really about informing you. What it is really about is uplifting themselves in their own eyes by putting you down.
Those are not informative messages you are reading. Those are accusations.

In Armstrongism, the system the As Bereans Did blog is mainly about, my former church system, we did not tell people about their pagan ways to educate and reform them. That would be a misunderstanding. We were told the rest of the world is not being called by God right now. We literally were told that to help the world is to fight against God. We were even discouraged from giving to charity because of this. Those messages about paganism were never intended to bring the world to repentance. Then why did we put out so much material about pagan holidays and etc? We did it for us! We preached about the world's pagan ways so we could feel superior! That message isn't for you, it's for them. And it goes far beyond holidays.

Herbert Armstrong's Church of God movement is a branch of Seventh Day Adventism. They preach seventh-day Sabbath, Old Covenant holy days, meats laws, tithing, and various other Old Covenant traditions. They are anti-Trinitarian, and believe the Holy Spirit is not a person. They are iconoclasts, and believe the image of the Cross of Christ is a pagan symbol of Tammuz. They used to believe (and some still do) whites are a superior race descended from Noah's son Shem, and other races are cursed. They believe British-Israelism (aka. Anglo-Israelism) which says God secretly preserved people of Israelite descent who populate western Europe, America, and Australia in this modern day, to be His only called people. They believe all Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and almost every other Christian tradition besides (sometimes including other Armstrongist churches) are all condemned, deceived followers of Satan the devil, who have all been purposefully relegated by God Himself into the system of "Babylon the Great and her Harlot daughters". They believe that grace is a very different thing than how mainstream Christians understand it, and grace is only for those who keep the things they keep and don't keep the things they don't keep. They believe if you do not join them in ALL of their beliefs, then you are doomed in this life, and only in your next life will you be given an opportunity to repent, and then you will live in eternity under their rulership and benevolent guidance.

This is not just about holidays, dear reader. Not by a long shot.

These people who accuse you of paganism are not calling you pagan just because of holidays, and they are not going to stop calling you a pagan just because you stop keeping holidays. Holidays are but the tip of the iceberg. This was never really about Christmas or Easter or birthdays. You don't keep Christmas? OK. But you're still a pagan to them for so many other reasons.
None of their annual messages about pagan holidays are to help you stop being a pagan. There are two very real reasons for it: 1) to accuse you of being a pagan, and 2) to reassure themselves of their superiority. They put you down to lift themselves up.

You cannot challenge them. You cannot reason with them. You cannot plead. This isn't about facts and truth, it's about reaffirmation. Do you understand now why the accuracy of their source material does not matter to them? Do you understand now why they will not listen to anyone no matter what evidence is offered? It was never about accuracy. It was always about affirmation. You need to be aware of this so you can truly be informed about what this message about pagan holidays really is. 

They might not post their content for your good, but I hope As Bereans Did does. That is my sincere hope in every post. That you are helped, and God is glorified.

Now, we go back to Paul's advice.

In I Corinthians, Paul said to be aware of your fellow Christian's weak conscience. But Paul also said to Timothy (in the context of bondservants, but I believe the lesson applies here):

(I TIM. 6: 3-5) 3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.

This very same Paul who was very conciliatory in I Corinthians has clearly drawn a line in I Timothy. A line must be drawn at some point. We cannot infinitely give way to our brethren of weak conscience. We cannot treat them poorly, because that is uncharitable and un-Christian, but we cannot allow people of weak conscience to stay immature in the faith forever, and we cannot allow ourselves to be led by those who are immature in the faith.

If people will not listen to what the Bible unambiguously says in Esther and John, that celebrating man-made holidays is completely acceptable - something even Jesus Himself participated in - but instead continue to dispute and argue and accuse, from such withdraw yourself.
If people will not listen to what history says, that Saturnalia and Brumalia were not on December 25th - to name just one of many examples where the claims are false - but instead continue to intentionally promote incorrect information, from such withdraw yourself.
If people will not listen to Ralph Woodrow or countless other researches besides, that Alexander Hislop was wrong and his claims were unfounded and conjured from his own imagination, but instead falsely accuse their fellow Christians of Nimrod worship and paganism based on known lies, from such withdraw yourself.
If people will not learn what makes for good research even though the Internet has made good research not only possible but easily obtainable, but instead persist in quoting nonsense, misrepresenting their sources, and presenting confirmation bias and century-old encyclopedias as "God's truth", from such withdraw yourself.
If people are "Refusing To Understand", but are willfully ignorant, from such turn away.

Before you who are new to this blog get too upset with me, I wrote this post assuming most people who will read it are already familiar with this ABD's extensive catalog of material on holidays, "once pagan, always pagan", and etc. Please do read our posts. I cannot expand on them all here.

If you want to know what my own personal line is, knowing what I know and having experienced what I have experienced, I draw the line at well-informed conscience. Not scrupulosity, but scruples. If I feel guilty about it, I don't do it. Easy peasy.
But then I research it. I need to know if I feel guilty reasonably or unreasonably; rightfully or mistakenly.

Scrupulosity. Superstition. Bad information. Hidden motives. Fear. Pride. Willful ignorance. Legalism. I definitely feel guilty about those things, and I won't have anything to do with them.

I also said in my Peddlers of Paganism post:

"If you really feel that badly about a holiday or a decoration, don't do it!! There is freedom in Christ. Do, or do not - it's the same. So long as it is to Christ that you do or do not do. I am not here to convince you to keep holidays. I am merely telling you that you are being falsely accused and there is no valid reason for you to feel like a pagan. Yet, if you do feel badly about something, then don't violate your conscience.
But ask yourself - do you feel badly because it is bad, or because peddlers of paganism made you think it is bad, falsely? Our articles are here to help you decide that. Test the spirits."

So, where are you going to draw the line?

************

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

************