AS BEREANS DID

As Bereans Did - Signing Off

2011-02-07T19:24:00.000-08:00

Seeker of Truth started As Bereans Did in April, 2008. Boy, what a journey this has been! Walk with us down memory lane a while and reminisce of a more innocent age.

Our first post was published by Seeker of Truth on April 17^th, 2008. The blog was started to refute the teachings of Ronald Weinland, but grew into a full-blown investigation into the doctrines and teachings of Armstrongism. xHWA shut down his old blog, Escaping Armstrongism, and joined ABD in March, 2009. Luc and Bill Hohmann joined in April, 2009. We’ve had a few guest writers as well, from time to time.

The point of the site was never to prove anyone wrong, as if to say that we had a pre-determined conclusion in mind and we worked to prove that out. Trust us, when we started, we were very much Armstrongists in most respects. Rather, the point of the site was to investigate matters and find the truth. If the truth was one thing or the other, we didn’t care. We just wanted to cut out all of the doctrinal bull, and get the story straight. All we knew at the beginning was that Ron Weinland did not have the truth. Now, three years later, we have investigated and written 229 posts and several pages touching on everything from HWA’s plagiarism, to his falsification of history, to his failed prophecies, to his perversion of Biblical doctrines that are numerous beyond counting.

While other sites focus on HWA’s personal flaws, we went for the meat and investigated the doctrine. The things we have learned in such a short time have utterly astounded us. Some of the things we learned we were not prepared for. As a collective work we believe that we have demonstrated to much more than just our satisfaction the Biblical illiteracy and outright heresy that is the false gospel of Armstrongism. Harsh criticism? Perhaps. But not undeserved in our opinion. Please do us the favor of walking in our shoes – shoes we’ve left right here for you to walk in – and see what we’ve seen before you dismiss us. Even if you go away in disagreement, we assure you the challenge our material offers will be a blessing to you. Go away unconvinced if you must, but go away stronger. Peace to you.

People do come and go. Until recently, we had not taken any real interest in the scale of the site. We didn’t know and we didn’t really care to know. We knew we were small and that was fine. But we would like to share with you that in the past year alone, As Bereans Did has had 5,400 unique visitors and 22,000 page views from no less than 89 countries or territories on all five continents around the globe (including every one of what HWA defined as the “modern-day” “Lost Ten Tribes” of Israel.) Small potatoes? We’re perfectly content being small. This isn't about us anyway. We are small so that Jesus can be large. We did what we could with what was given to us. But we can still say As Bereans Did is truly a global outreach.

At times the stress of a project like this was overwhelming. There were days when we threw up our hands in frustration and quit – only to think of the people who might need what we were producing, and we would slowly come back to study and write a little more. We’ve had to lean on our friends so many times because, trust us, this kind of thing will drain the very life from a person’s spirit. Our focus on the worst days was you, our invaluable and indispensable reader. We thought, “If only this helps one person – just one person somewhere – even if we don’t ever know about it… it was all worth it.” That is why we are proud to share with you that since Seeker of Truth started As Bereans Did in 2008, we have been both blessed and privileged to see God move several people to cast off the shackles of Old Covenant legalism and step boldly into the New Covenant in the finished work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Praise God!

Even so, what excites us most is what we don’t know. We don’t know how many more people have learned something here and paid it forward to others. We know that it is happening, but we have no idea to what scale or degree. Perhaps that’s for the best.

We have insisted that we get our praise from God. We have insisted that the glory go to Him, as it should. We are just people who studied something and wrote about it. Hey, we learned an incredible amount of things, too, as we went along! We are no better or worse than anyone else out there. We were given something to share, and we were given a venue to share through, and we were given an audience to share with. What did we really do but take what was given to us and hand it to those to whom it was meant to go? Not anything grand on our part, but amazing on God’s part. That’s the essence of the New Covenant – it’s not what we do, but what He does in us all. Amazing!

As Bereans Did is completely free to you. It is a gift. This gift comes to you in the name of Jesus Christ. Take it or leave it – your choice.

As we said earlier, we learned a lot these past two years. Our chains fell off; the veil removed indeed, and genuine faith came in. We’ve made new friends. We’ve seen people come to grace and flourish. We’ve watched in joy as people made the life-changing realizations that come with the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit. We have been truly blessed beyond measure. And now, as it was so eloquently said, it is “Time to throw the torch to others, from our falling hands, I think.”

It is with bittersweet irony - a tear and a smile - that we announce this is the last regular post we will be sharing with you, dear friends. We have come into grace and it is time to push ahead. We have fought in this arena long enough. We have done what we can do. We have answered the challenge as best as we were able. We have preached the Gospel of grace and truth in the blood of Jesus Christ. We have praised God.

We wish to stop looking back and head into that brighter day. We have been planning this for months, and now it is time to say “enough is enough.” On to new and different challenges! We do not leave you with nothing; the site will stay up for what it’s worth.

We would each individually like to take the opportunity to write a little something in closing.

-------

-------Seeker of Truth-------

TIME TO LET GO

Wow. It seems like another life when I started ABD back in April 2008. I'm not the same person.

I was introduced to Weinland's book Gods Final Witness 2008 by my Mother. I read the book with an open mind, I had no reason to doubt. But as I read, I found things that contradicted scripture.

I listened to his sermons & attended FOT 2005. The people were wonderful. The deal-breaker was during one of the sermons. He was beating around the bush about something. I strained to figure out what he was trying to say... Where he was going. when it dawned on me. He was testing the water. He was trying to tell us that Jesus was created! That ended it for me. Scripture clearly refutes that.

When I got home from FOT I launched a full-scale, 10 month investigation into whether or not Jesus had a beginning and into the Old vs. New Covenant. I continued listening to his sermons in the mean time.

I've always wanted to be the best 'me' I could be - in every way - as a person. So I do my best not to lie to myself. Otherwise, how can I grow?

I wanted to know the TRUTH - regardless of WHAT it was. I asked for my spouses' views. I asked for my mothers views. They both seemed to make perfect sense. I became so frustrated. I was getting absolutely nowhere. I stopped. I told God I had no preferences, that I just wanted His truth. For ten long months, night & day, I studied, I prayed. And when I emerged, I was walking in the New Covenant Grace of God.

However, I remained concerned for my family members who were followers of RW & for every other person in the world, hurting & hoping, who might discover him & believe he held the answers they needed. I was so worried, so concerned, I decided to step out of my comfort zone - out on a limb - & do something I'd never done before.

That was the birth of ABD, April 17, 2008. (Coincidentally the very day Ron Weinland said was the Sounding of the 1ST Trumpet - beginning the Great Tribulation, to which he was the Spokesperson (not mentioned in the Bible, btw) for, and one of, the Two Witnesses.

I grew up with Armstrongism etched into my brain. It wasn't an easy task to rewrite all that & replace it with truth.

ABD was an overwhelming project, and like xHWA said, it "will drain the very life from a person’s spirit." But we so longed to get others to dig, to investigate thoroughly, to not just take a person at their word but, to do As Bereans Did & search the scriptures daily to find out if what they were being told was truth or not. (Something RW condemned). ALWAYS question someone who challenges you NOT to question or doubt them! Keeping people ignorant is how they remain in power. (Ignorant, meaning: Unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge).

So we stressed to you, the readers, the importance of following the example of the Bereans with the reminder that we cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. (Which you see at the end of the majority of all posts). No one wants to stand before Jesus saying, "But Lord, I thought they were telling the truth. It made sense."

We can't pick what "sounds" good, like shopping in the Religious Doctrine Store picking, sorting & choosing. There is only one truth. God's Truth. Want that.

As we wrote and posted, you, our readers helped by showing us, with challenges, things we'd neglected to investigate and a new study would ensue, and thus we were on a continuous path of learning. We never claimed to have all the answers and insisted the reader understand that what we wrote was based on our current understanding, and to fully investigate and find even more scriptures of their own on the subject.

We wanted - we want - you to be honest with yourself and truly, in your heart, want God's Truth and not just what sounds good, and then investigate like your salvation depends on it... (moment of silence)... We want you to ask yourself, "Did I give it my all? Was I honest with myself? Do I really want the Truth... or am I just trying to prove what I want the truth to be?"

FAR DISTANT HILLS

How far over the far and distant hills is that place where my journey began. I stand here, on this hill, taking one last look, a smile on my face and a tug on my heart. For where I am, in the Grace of God is a sunny place, where I am led by an internal governor... love. - Where no police are needed because you police yourself. - No longer walking in single-file to the crack of the whip, where my body is forced to acquiesce but my heart is not. I shudder just remembering that way of life. How'd that nasty, black cloud get into my beautiful picture of green hills and sunshine? :\

FOCUSING ON THE GOOD, NOT THE BAD ANYMORE

It's been a long while since I last wrote an article here at ABD. My heart just couldn't take dwelling on the Old Covenant any longer. It was engulfing the goodness of the New Covenant, and that's what I wanted to finally focus on - the good.

Php 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things.

Prov 23:7 For as he thinks in his heart, so he is... The Armstrongism issue was depressing me.

I don't like a half empty glass. I prefer a half full glass. It puts a smile on my face & a spring in my step. It chases away those dark clouds & reveals the bright, warm sunshine. -Can you feel it? Toasty warm... Okay, so everything's not perfect. That's not how God designed it. We must be refined, after all. That's how we learn, grow & prepare for the next phase in our life. We have to gain experience. It's a necessary part of our growth journey.

NEW BLOG?

It's possible, that at some time in the future, there may come a new blog related to ABD that focuses on Grace/NC. It's just the seed of an idea at this point, mind you. If it sprouts into something, we'll let you know with a post and a link here at ABD.

THANK YOU

Readers, thank you for your comments & thoughts that challenged & pushed us to keep learning.

I'm so grateful for new friends made - fellow travelers on a quest for Gods Truth.

I'm grateful for those who linked to us, those who, in their own ways, fought for truth - it was a pleasure (and in some cases a challenge, lol). I'm a better person for having shared a part of this journey with you.

I look at where I started, and where I am today... What a difference.

Thank you all/ fellow bloggers - our dear readers - and ABD Co-Writers/friends.

I could never have dreamed what God was working out through us all, His tools, or the friends he would bring us in the process. Just knowing someone was helped and had their burden lifted makes my heart swell with happiness.

Peace, joy & happiness to you.

~Seeker of Truth

-------

-------Luc-------

Thinking about my past in Armstrongism is not conducive to the mindset of looking forward to the future. Personally, I want to be looking forward to that future and not bogged down in my my former bondage. And what a beautiful future it is. In the midst of dark clouds of trouble and distress the almighty has sent us a message of certain victory because the Lord of all, Jesus, has finished his work and is just waiting for his fields to ripen and for the harvest to be brought in.

We are his harvest, and as the grain doesn't strive to be what the designer creates it to be, we need not struggle to make ourselves into the children of God. God alone creates, we simply allow him to do so. This is the one crucial choice the eternal Lord has given us to make. In Armstrongism it depended on our own struggle. However the issue was spun, and lip service given to God fighting our battles, there was uncertainty as the Old covenant rules were still required. The good news is that God creates his law of love in the hearts of his children and it becomes the law that determines their desires and the source of their actions. The Ten Commandments are part of the Old covenant as Deut 4:13-14 states, and however good such rules are for civil society, the child of God will be beyond needing these crutches.

It's been wonderful to see a few people discover that there is indeed freedom in Christ, and reasons for their hearts to be lifted with joy at the certainty of living with the King of Kings for eternity with no cause for fear or tears ever again. This blog has dealt with the issues of the past. For those who have not understood the simple truth of Deut 4:13, and are still in the quagmire of " 'but' some other verse seems to contradict this," I am sorry. Freedom is so near, yet so far. This blog has sufficient resources to address the issues that keep you in bondage. I pray that you will understand the heighth and breadth of the goodness of God and comprehend the freedom he provides. When you understand this then praises will spring up out of your heart as naturally as the rain falls and the sun shines. It will not be somber and done out of duty or fear, and not in the attitude of the Pharisee who feels he's in with God because of his own actions (keeping of laws). For the ones who have been aided by this blog to find freedom in the promise of Jesus, who have believed and have crossed from death unto life, I am so very glad to have been able to contribute some small offering towards that end. I hope that such understanding of the completeness of the Lords work will be passed on and freedom spreads virally.

-------

-------xHWA-------

All glory and honor is to God alone, forever.

I would like to thank everyone who reached down to pull me up when I could not help myself. Seeker and Luk and Bill, obviously. My dearest friends, you can never know how much you’ve helped me, and I can never in a hundred lifetimes repay what God has given me through you. Well done, good and faithful servants! Enter into Jesus’ rest.

The exCOG bloggers – you have all helped me. To each of you who I cannot name for the sake of space, peace and overflowing blessings to you! It has been my honor to fight this fight alongside you, each of us in our own way.

To all of the people who have written to me, and even contributed your stories here - nothing made me more excited than you all. All the best to you!

And to my personal friends and family behind the scenes - couldn't have done any of this without your tireless support. You're my lifeline.

To the people who have read my posts and loved them, hated them, or just had a new thought for the day… you were always the reason. This experience has healed me, I hope it heals you, and I hope it heals all who come to this fountain and drink. May you learn to be more than satisfied in Jesus Christ.

Now, a blessing on whoever takes up this torch. From those who have gone before I received this opportunity. They laid the foundation on which I built. Hopefully I have built something of value. (God knows and time will tell.) To those who come after I pass this opportunity “from our falling hands.” It will hurt you some days, it will leave you in tears some days, it will exhaust you beyond your ability to cope some days, but as God as my witness it is worth it. Do your very best for those who come after you, and may the joy that exceeds all explanation fill you to overflowing, be pressed down, and fill you again! This I pray for you and for the people you serve. This is an act of worship to God. The fruits of the Spirit are not for you, they are for others. God bless you and keep you and His face shine upon you and may you guide many into the New Covenant in the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now a word to our readers.

Ask the tough questions! Do the research! Try to prove yourself wrong. The truth will stand whatever you throw at it. Then bring it up with your leadership and watch their reaction.
You are a branch attached directly to the Vine. You do not receive the Holy Spirit "through" any man. You are never in any danger with God for investigating and proving all things. Over and over and over again, Jesus tells us not to fear. So why do you fear? Because men have dangled the "carrot" of the first resurrection in front of you, and you are afraid to lose that? Or because men have waved the "stick" of the second resurrection in front of you, and you are afraid to get that? I have news for you, it's not their decision. Your eternity is Jesus' decision. Do not be afraid! TRUST HIM!

Finally, all thanks be to God.

(ROM. 11: 36) For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

If you need wisdom, ask, and Jesus will be your Wisdom. If you need faith, ask, and Jesus will be your faith. If you need hope, ask, and Jesus will be your living hope. If you need love, ask, and Jesus, who is love, will be your love. If you need rest, ask, and Jesus will be your rest – even your Sabbath rest. If you need strength, ask, and Jesus, who never tires and never fails, will be your strength. If you need righteousness, ask, and Jesus will be your righteousness - in matchless excess of the Pharisees. Jesus is perfect as the Father is perfect, and if Jesus is in you, the fullness of the Godhead living in you, then He is your perfection. If you need forgiveness, ask, and He will rush to forgive you to the uttermost! Ask, and rivers of living water will flow from you. These rivers are God Himself, to whom be all thanks and honor and glory. He Himself will give to you what the law never could. He took your sin on Himself so that He Himself can be these things in you. Make every effort to understand what He did for you. It’s not about us and our meager efforts, it was always about Him. Hide your life in Him and let go of your fears and illusions; trust Him. This is faith. This is the New Covenant.

Now, off! Not into that good night, but into that brighter day. I will see you there!

"It's a far, far better thing I do than I have ever done before. A far better resting place I go to than I have ever known.”

–Charles Dickens, “A Tale of Two Cities”

"So long, and thanks for all the fish!"

-Douglas Adams, "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy"

COG Worldwide Association Claims False Roots (long version)

2011-01-29T13:49:00.000-08:00

The FAQ on the Church of God A Worldwide Association website makes this claim: “We trace our history back to the first-century Church of God.” Oh no, they most certainly do not! They do not trace back at all. Rather, they presume. I would like to look in to this and why it is dead, dead wrong.

To make this easier on people who can't stand history, I’ll split this article up into two posts - the short version, and the long version. This post is...

THE LONG VERSION:

Look for yourself:

“We trace our history back to the first-century Church of God. Jesus promised that from the time He founded the Church onward through His second coming to the earth there would always be believers who understood and held to the truth.

"‘I will build My church,’ Jesus said, ‘and the gates of Hades [the grave] shall not prevail against it’ (Matthew 16:18). In other words, He promised that His Church would never die out."

“The Church of God has always remained small in comparison to others, but Christ has kept His promise, His Church has survived, and it continues today.”

Here is their logic and their presumption:

Jesus promised that His church would never end, and we are the “true” church, therefore, we must have always existed since the time of Jesus.

It is easy for a person within the organization to accept this. They accept without question that they are the “true” church. The fact of the matter is all Adventist organizations believe this about themselves. They cannot all be the “one true church.” Nor are they alone in this regard. There are many, many organizations who claim to be “the one true church.”

Allow me to demonstrate my claim that they believe they are the “true” church. This can be proved from the FAQ itself.

“However, He also prophesied the rise of counterfeit churches throughout the ages (2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Acts 20:29-30).

“Secular history is not always helpful in tracing the history of the Church of God because it focuses principally upon churches that preach ‘another Jesus’ and a ‘different gospel’ (2 Corinthians 11:4).”

Do you see? They have set themselves up as the “true” church by tearing other churches down as “counterfeit” and anti-Christ, most especially the Catholic Church. But if the history of the Catholic Church is so very false, then by extension so are all Protestant Churches. And if we ignore all groups and cults and what-not which are neither Catholic nor Protestant (for example the Coptics, the Orthodox church, and the Gnostics), that leaves whom? Why, them, of course!

But is this any proof, or just baseless accusation?

How do we know for sure that the COGWA is the “true” church? Two distinguishing marks are given.

GOSPEL MESSAGE

The lesser of the two marks (I say lesser because it is barely mentioned in comparison to the first mark) is the gospel that they preach.

Do not be fooled, valued reader. The gospel which Herbert Armstrong taught is a false gospel. The gospel preached to this hour by the COG splinter groups is the counterfeit.

We have a whole section in the Categories page about the gospel which Armstrongism teaches. If you would like specific suggestions, then please read “What Is the Gospel?” or “The Gospel In Detail”. Or if you just want a quick overview, look up the section on the Gospel in our FAQ page. This is a massive subject, so please excuse me if I take the easy way out and just quote a section of our FAQ.

HWA taught “Kingdom of God” means the second coming of Christ and the rule of God on Earth. The second coming is a portion of the Gospel, but not the most important portion. More important is our redemption, salvation, and glorification through the life, death, and life of Christ. The phrase “gospel of the Kingdom of God” is mostly used in Matthew. But we also see “gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (MARK. 1: 1), “gospel of the grace of God” (ACT. 20: 24), “gospel of God” (ROM. 1: 1; 15: 16; II COR. 11: 7; I THS. 2: 8-9; I PET. 4: 17), “gospel of the blessed God” (I TIM. 1: 11), “gospel of His Son” (ROM. 1: 9), “gospel of Christ” (ROM. 1: 16; 15: 19, 29; I COR. 9: 12, 18; II COR. 9: 13; 10: 14; GAL. 1: 7; PHP. 1: 27; I THS. 3: 2; ), “gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (II THS. 1: 8), “gospel of the glory of Christ” (II COR. 4: 4), and “gospel of peace” (ROM. 10: 15; EPH. 6: 15). Out of the 101 appearances of the word “gospel”, the phrase “gospel of the Kingdom” only appears 4 times. None of these include any indication that this phrase exclusively means the second coming. This understanding is read into the text because this is what HWA taught. For comparison, “gospel of Christ” appears over twice as often at 10 times. As a matter of fact, the oft-used phrase, “gospel of the coming Kingdom of God” appears nowhere in the Bible.

“Gospel” means “good news.” The following is the good news Paul preached. Paul recorded for us what is believed to be the oldest creed in Christianity:

(I COR. 15: 1-5) ¹ Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, ² by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. ³ For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴ and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵ and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

(I COR. 2: 2) For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Elsewhere, Paul calls the Gospel the “message of the cross” (I COR. 1: 17-18). Why would he do that if the Gospel was only about the future Kingdom? He would not.

So, I implore you, with the utmost sincerity and gravity, do not make assumptions about the Gospel. The Gospel of Christ “is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (ROM. 1: 16). You get this wrong, and salvation itself is at stake, unless you have believed in vain. Get this wrong, and you can build nothing of value on the Foundation. Get this wrong, and you may bring upon yourself the very wrath of God Himself.

(GAL. 1: 8-9) ⁸ But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

And what Gospel did you receive from Paul? That Jesus Christ came as a literal, physical, fleshly man, was crucified for our sins on the cross and literally died, and was raised to life again on the third day. There is no other Gospel than this. There is no other way to salvation other than through what Christ accomplished on the cross. This is the good news! Jesus accomplished what He came to do. "Telesteo!" There would be no second coming and no hope for mankind if it weren't for this.

A LITTLE FLOCK

The first mark that they are the true church is, oddly enough, the size of the organization.

“In comparison to these other churches, His description of the original group of disciples proved prophetic, for He called them a "little flock" (Luke 12:32). The Church of God has always remained small in comparison to others…”

“We find the origins of Sabbath-keeping in the colonies in a small group…”

“Although remaining relatively small, the Church of God grew in America.”

But this is no proof at all. All groups are small in comparison to the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is the largest single denomination of any religion on earth. Just recently, the sum total of all Muslims on earth has surpassed this one Christian denomination.

Protestants combined are estimated to make up roughly 40% of Christianity (but there is no way to accurately measure this, since massive underground churches exist in oppressed areas of the world.) If we compare the sizes of the major Protestant denominations, they are also comparatively small. This gets increasingly true when we factor in the minor Protestant groups, like the Church of Christ or the Amish for example.

Then we have the many fringe groups, like the Mormons or the Adventists or the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are also very small in comparison.

So the relative size is no proof at all. Jesus did say that He had a little flock. But what did He mean by that? He had 120 disciples; a very little flock. But did He intend that His church would be a little flock forever? The Bible doesn’t say. There were thousands of converts on the first Pentecost alone. In a single day the Church grew exponentially. So, we are only making assumptions when we claim that the church would always be little.

But notice how the Armstrongist groups have always played both ends of this. While claiming the little size is the sign, they also tout the growth and reach of their groups. Herbert Armstrong would often claim that his Worldwide Church of God grew at an annual rate of 33%.

The COGWA is no different in this:

“In 1931 this Conference ordained a man whom God would eventually use to do a powerful worldwide work, Herbert W. Armstrong (1892-1986).”

“Powerful, worldwide work,” eh? So the “true” church is a small group and a powerful, worldwide group at the same time. I call this playing both ends against the middle.

So we need a small group, but a large group. The Seventh-day Adventist church is the largest of all of the world’s Sabbatarian churches. They are small, yet large. They match the criteria. Why aren’t they the “true” church? So, I suppose we have to be very careful in our calculations on this.

Then, we have infighting between the various splinter groups that broke off of the Worldwide Church of God. Several of them claim to be the “one true church” to the exclusion of their own sister churches. The Philadelphia Church of God, for example, has made it a rule that its members cannot have anything to do with members of the other COG splinters.

And you just try to get the actual head-count in any Armstrongist splinter group. They won’t give it to you. Most of them don’t really know for sure. Some of them purposefully cook their books; counting only new members but never subtracting when members leave.

Think about it. If we calculate an annual growth of 33%, a church which starts with just one person will grow to over 1.5 million people in 50 years. The official number of members of the Worldwide Church of God never made it much past the mystical number of 144,000 people.

WikiPedia article on “Christian Denomination” has some fabulous charts to help you visualize the Christian denominations. Here is another resource on WikiPedia, “List of Christian denominations by number of members.”

WE TRACE OUR HISTORY

Like I said earlier – no they don’t.

Two things. First, they are a new denomination; they haven’t traced anything. They get their information from the United Church of God from whence they sprang, and the UCG in turn got its information from the Worldwide Church of God from whence they sprang. As we documented in our article “True History of the True Church?,” Herbert Armstrong and Herman Hoeh plagiarized information from a book written by A. N. Dugger and C. O. Dodd of the Church of God (Seventh Day). So, in fact, the WCG got its information from the COG7 from which it sprang. The COGWA has done nothing but perpetuate someone else’s body of work. Second, the information couldn’t possibly be more faulty and unreliable. There is little if any truth to it. Let’s look at the COGWA’s specific claims.

“Even so, we can find glimpses of the Church Jesus founded in Europe in the Middle Ages among the Waldensians and Anabaptists. The Church of God thrived for a time in England, but persecution eventually drove some believers to the American colonies in search of religious freedom.

We find the origins of Sabbath-keeping in the colonies in a small group led by Stephen Mumford in Rhode Island.

Here we see that three specific groups are mentioned: the Waldensians, the Anabaptists, and the Seventh Day Baptists [Stephen Mumford’s church.] Let’s look at them.

WALDENSIANS

It is a sad reality that almost every Christian-oriented cult with a bone to pick against the Catholics traces themselves back to the Waldensians. This is not something unique to Adventism/Armstrongism by any means. Who were they?

It depends on who you ask. Like I said, groups tend to trace themselves to the Waldensians, so you’ll get anything you want about this group, depending on who you ask. I strongly suggest that you ask them. They’re still around, you know. Wouldn’t they know best what their own history is? None the less, this is what the old Worldwide Church of God said about them:

“Their enemies admitted that these people proclaimed the gospel of the Kingdom of God, that they baptized repentant believers and obeyed the whole law of God.”

-Herman Hoeh, “True History of the True Church”, p. 23

When I checked Herman Hoeh’s source material, specifically Jones’ “Church History”, I found this to be an outright lie.

Jones specifically says, on p. 80 of his book, that the Waldensians did not tithe. In fact, Jones relates this to us on p. 82:

“An impartial review of the doctrinal sentiments maintained by the Waldenses; the discipline, order, and worship of their churches, as well as their general deportment and manner of life, not to mention their determined and uniform opposition to the church of Rome, affords abundant evidence of the similarity of their views and practices to those held by Luther, Calvin, and the other illustrious characters, whose labours, in the sixteenth century, contributed so eminently to effect the glorious Reformation.

I want you to know this - the Waldensians began as Catholics! One man who is credited with starting the Waldensian church, Peter Waldo, even went to Pope Alexander III and asked for permission to preach. Yes, they were Catholics in almost every way until they were anathematized in the Fourth Laterian Council. This made them for all practical purposes, Protestant. And they remain Protestant to this day. They have been members of the Presbyterian Church since 1895.

If the COG splinters trace themselves to the Waldensians, then they trace themselves to Protestantism and then ultimately to Catholicism, and that is inescapable fact.

ANABAPTISTS

I will not go into depth about the Anabaptists. Suffice it to say that the main groups who have come out of the Anabaptist movement are the Amish, Menonites, Brethren, and Friends movements. Do any of these groups match Armstrongism? No!

Herman Hoeh tied the Worldwide Church of God to the Anabaptists via a group called the “Peterobrussians”, which was started by a man named Peter de Bruys.

Philip Schaff, in the book “History of the Christian Church”, Vol. V: The Middle Ages A.D. 1049-1294, under section 81: “Peter de Bruys and Other Independent Leaders,” laid out the five main complaints against what Peter taught (which I paraphrase):
1) baptism of adults only, 2) church buildings and altars are useless, 3) crosses are idolatry, 4) the mass is useless, and the Eucharistic transubstantiation is not true, 5) prayers, alms, and good works for the dead are useless.

And that was really it. No Sabbath. No “correct church government.”

Once again, the Petrobrussians and related groups were Catholic reformers. Once again, if the COG splinters trace themselves to the Anabaptists, then they trace themselves to Protestantism and then ultimately to Catholicism, and that is inescapable fact.

SEVENTH DAY BAPTISTS

George Benjamin Utter, in his book, “Manual of the Seventh-Day Baptists”, p. 17, says this:

“In England, the controversy relative to the Sabbath commenced near the close of the sixteenth century. Nicholas Bound, D. D., of Norton, in Suffolk, published a book in 1595, in which he advanced the modern view concerning the ‘Christian Sabbath,’ that it is a perpetuation of the fourth commandment… Bound’s book was suppressed by order of Archbishop Whitgift in 1599. But its suppression was followed by the publication of numerous other works, in which every shade of opinion on the subject was expressed.

Groups of churches sprung up in various places. Mr. Utter counts eleven main groups, three of which survived into the 1800’s. It was a group in the London area that sent Steven Mumford to Rhode Island in 1664 where he preached the seventh day Sabbath to Baptists in the region.

The Newport Historical Society, in their online article “Welcome to the Seventh Day Baptist Meeting House”, says this:

“In the 1660s, seven members of the First Baptist Church of Newport became convinced that the Ten Commandments should be obeyed literally, and began to observe the Sabbath on Saturday, the seventh day of the week. In 1671, they withdrew, formed the Seventh Day Baptist Church, and chose William Hiscox as their first pastor."

Do not forget – these are Baptists. The Baptists are Protestants. In every way they are Baptists except they have adopted the seventh day Sabbath. They had no such Armstrongist views other than the Sabbath. It was this complete compatibility that allowed Mumford to be successful among Sunday observing Baptists.

For the third time, if the COG splinters trace themselves to the Baptists, then they trace themselves to Protestantism and then ultimately to Catholicism, and that is inescapable fact.

THE TRUE HISTORY

The three groups which were mentioned in the COGWA FAQ are not ancestors of the Armstrongist splinters. If these three groups were ancestors, then they should trace their own roots in the exact same way Hoeh did. Yet they do not. They all trace their history, in three different ways, to the Roman Catholic Church.
If the COGWA claims to come from these groups, and these groups claim to come from the Catholic Church, then how could the COGWA possibly come from anywhere else?

Just like they do with the Old Covenant law, the Armstrongist groups have cherry-picked history. A little from here, a little from there, none of it contiguous - so long as the road doesn't lead to Rome!

So, where does Armstrongism really come from? Answer: the Adventist movement.

Somewhere between 1818 and 1831, a man by the name of William Miller, a Deist and Freemason turned Baptist (not Seventh Day Baptist for he was never a Sabbatarian), thought he had calculated when Christ would return (the Second Advent). Through the 1830s he preached powerfully and drew quite a following. These dupes of Mr. Miller were called "Millerites" because they followed the teachings of Mr. Miller and "Adventists" because they preached the Second Advent of Christ. In 1843-1844 his prophecies fell through. Twice! (But this pails when compared to Herbert Armstrong’s 200+ failed prophecies.)

According to Absolute Astronomy article on “Rachel Oakes Preston”, it was Ms. Preston, a member of the Seventh Day Baptist congregation in Verona, New York, who first introduced the Sabbath doctrine to Adventism. According to the Washington, New Hampshire SDA website, Ms. Preston moved her family to Washington, New Hampshire where she met a group of William Miller’s Adventists. It was between March 1843 and the autumn of 1844, immediately after the “Great Disappointment,” that Rachel’s Sabbatarian influence bore its fruit.

There is also the influence of one Millerite preacher, Joseph Bates, who learned about the Sabbath in Washington, New Hampshire. According to the Ellen G. White official estate website, Joseph Bates wrote a tract on the Sabbath in 1846 which influenced John and Ellen G. White.

According to the Ellen G. White official estate website, in an article titled “Ellen G. White: A Brief Biography”, under section “Marriage of James White and Ellen Harmon”, John and Ellen White accepted the Saturday Sabbath in the latter half of 1846.

After years of disagreements with Ellen G. White’s prophecies, Gilbert Cranmer officially split from the Adventists in 1860 and proceeded to form what became the Church of God (Seventh Day). It was the COG7 which first awarded Herbert W Armstrong his ministerial credentials in 1931. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Armstrongism does not trace its history to the first century A.D. Their history stops at the false prophet William Miller who founded the Adventist movement in the late 1830's. And that is a fact.

So, the FAQ on the COGWA website is dead, dead wrong. Did they “trace their history?” If they didn’t, then why do they say they did? If they did, then they know about what I am telling you, yet they persist in claiming something that is not true.

I suspect they know good and well that their FAQ is wrong. Notice how they completely skipped over their Seventh-day Adventist history, and their roots in Millerism/Adventism. Both William Miller and Ellen G. White are considered false prophets to the very Armstrongists who came from them. Why would they skip that if it weren’t for how damaging it would be to them to admit it?

How can the “true” church come from such a background of false prophets? Would the “true” church lie about its history like this?

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

COG Worldwide Association Claims False Roots (short version)

2011-01-29T12:48:00.000-08:00

To make this easier on people who can't stand history, I’ll split this article up into two posts - the short version, and the long version. This post is...

THE SHORT VERSION:

This is what you'll see if you look at the first few paragraphs of their FAQ...

What is the origin of the Church of God, a Worldwide Association?

We trace our history back to the first-century Church of God. Jesus promised that from the time He founded the Church onward through His second coming to the earth there would always be believers who understood and held to the truth.

"I will build My church," Jesus said, "and the gates of Hades [the grave] shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). In other words, He promised that His Church would never die out. However, He also prophesied the rise of counterfeit churches throughout the ages (2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Acts 20:29-30). In comparison to these other churches, His description of the original group of disciples proved prophetic, for He called them a "little flock" (Luke 12:32). The Church of God has always remained small in comparison to others, but Christ has kept His promise, His Church has survived, and it continues today.

Secular history is not always helpful in tracing the history of the Church of God because it focuses principally upon churches that preach "another Jesus" and a "different gospel" (2 Corinthians 11:4). Even so, we can find glimpses of the Church Jesus founded in Europe in the Middle Ages among the Waldensians and Anabaptists. The Church of God thrived for a time in England, but persecution eventually drove some believers to the American colonies in search of religious freedom.

We find the origins of Sabbath-keeping in the colonies in a small group led by Stephen Mumford in Rhode Island. Henry Clarke wrote in A History of the Sabbatarians or Seventh Day Baptists in America: "Stephen Mumford came over from England in the year 1664; and brought the opinion with him, that the whole of the Ten Commands, as they were delivered from mount Sinai, were moral and immutable: and that it was the antichristian power which thought to change times and laws, that changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week" (1811, pp. 8-9).

Although remaining relatively small, the Church of God grew in America. A group of faithful believers in the state of Oregon incorporated in 1930 as the Oregon Conference of the Church of God (Seventh Day). In 1931 this Conference ordained a man whom God would eventually use to do a powerful worldwide work, Herbert W. Armstrong (1892-1986).

The FAQ is thoroughly wrong. They didn’t “trace” anything. They presume much.

They presume that since Jesus promised that His church would never end, and since they see themselves as the “true” church, therefore they must have always existed since the time of Jesus. Proof? None. Oh, they'll quote a book or two. But check into it and you'll see it isn't so.

They borrow their information from the Worldwide Church of God. The one who "traced the history" was Herman Hoeh. Hoeh wrote the definitive history of the WCG, entitled “True History of the True Church.” This was mostly plagiarized from the COG7 booklet, “A History of the True Religion Traced from 33 A.D. to Date”.
Funny, I didn't see that in the FAQ.

They do not come from the Waldensians.
The Waldensians were reformers of the Catholic Church. One man who is credited with forming the Waldensians, Peter Waldo, even asked Pope Alexander III for permission to preach. They were anathematized in the Fourth Laternian Council. If the COGWA trace themselves there, then they trace themselves to the Catholic Church.

They do not come from the Anabaptists.
The Amish, Menonites, Brethren, and Friends movements came from the Anabaptists. These groups bear very little resemblance to the Adventists/Armstrongists. Once again, they were reformers of the Catholic Church. Once again, if the COGWA trace themselves there, then they trace themselves to the Catholic Church.

They do not come from the Seventh Day Baptist church.
Well, not directly anyway. Their belief in the Sabbath doctrine does come from there, but not their church movement itself. The Adventist movement was never associated in any way with the Seventh Day Baptist church. They merely adopted one precept from the Seventh Day Baptist church.

According to the original idea, that the church would never die out, there has to be an unbroken line. Problem is, these groups do not trace themselves to each other. How can the COGWA trace themselves to these groups? They cannot. It isn't good enough to say, "This group separated from the Catholic Church, so we were them. And that group 500 years later, they baptized by immersion, so we were them. Oh, and that other group over there, they kept Saturday Sabbath, so we were them, too." That's not "tracing." That's "making it up as you go along." That must be why, "secular history is not always helpful."

So, where do they come from? Answer: Ellen G. White and the Adventist movement.

In the late 1830’s, William Miller thought he had calculated when Christ would return (the Second Advent). In 1843 his prophecies fell through. According to record, it was one member of the Seventh Day Baptist congregation in Verona, New York, by the name of Rachel Oakes Preston, that introduced the Sabbath doctrine to Adventism. She moved her family to Washington, New Hampshire where she met a group of William Miller’s Adventists. It was between March 1843 and the autumn of 1844, immediately after the “Great Disappointment,” that Rachel’s Sabbatarian influence bore its fruit. John and Ellen G. White accepted the Sabbath in 1946. After years of disagreements with Ellen G. White’s prophecies, Gilbert Cranmer officially split from the Adventists in 1860 and proceeded to form what became the Church of God (Seventh Day). It was this group which first awarded Herbert W Armstrong his ministerial credentials in 1931. And the rest, as they say, is history.

They do not trace their history to the first century A.D. Their history stops at the false prophet William Miller who founded the Adventist movement in the late 1830's. And that is a fact.

I suspect they know good and well that their FAQ is wrong. Notice how they completely skipped over their Seventh-day Adventist history, and their roots in Millerism. Both William Miller and Ellen G. White are considered false prophets. Why would they skip that if it weren’t for how damaging it would be to them to admit it?

How can the “true” church come from such a background of false prophets? Would the “true” church lie about its history like this?

Is Valentines Day the Lupercalia?

2011-01-26T18:28:00.000-08:00

Back in 2010 we found that the Adventist/Armstrongist teachings on Christmas are in error and the teachings on Easter couldn’t possibly be more wrong. While I was doing the recent series on Christmas, I began to wonder about other holidays. If we were taught so incorrectly on Easter and Christmas, what about the other holidays? Could I find one more where the church teachings were incorrect? You know, just to prove that this isn’t some fluke. So, Valentine’s Day sounded like a good choice.

A close friend of mine mentioned the word "Lerpercalia", and that’s what jarred my long-dormant synapses. Now I remember!
During my time in the old Worldwide Church of God, we were told that Valentine's Day (Feb. 14) came from the Lupercalia (Feb. 15). The game was afoot. I checked in to it and I have found something that I thought was incredibly interesting.

So, whadda ya say? Care to find out if this is true?

Here is the actual cave of the Lupercal, rediscovered recently, and brought to us by Bad Archaeology. Read the whole description; I'll quote the bits relevant to this study:

“From literary sources, we know the Lupercalia was celebrated on February 15. Priests, known as Luperci, would sacrifice two male goats and a dog, and two young patrician youths would be smeared with the blood, after which it would be wiped off with wool dipped in milk. Leather thongs would be cut from the skins of the sacrifices, and the priests would run around the Palatine, striking everybody they came upon. Girls who were struck were thought to become extra fertile. The ceremony lasted until the end of the 5th century, when it was outlawed by Pope Gelasius.”

Does sacrificing two goats and a dog, smearing a priest with the blood, cleaning him off with wool and milk, making sandals and running around the town slapping people sound like Valentine's Day to you?

I have read article after article that claims unequivocally that since young men would pair off with young women in Rome, then Valentine’s Day is certainly a pagan co-opt. I’m sorry, but these pairings were determined by lottery, lasted a year, and often resulted in marriage. Not what I would expect from a Valentine.
Oh, wait. What's this? "The ceremony ... was outlawed by Pope Gelasius"?? Now, isn't that interesting!

Pope Gelasius I sent a letter to Senator Andromechus, mocking him for wanting to legalize the pagan celebration. This letter was spared being lost to history, and was recorded for us in Dr. Andreas Thiel’s book “Epistolae Romanorum pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt A.S. Hilaro usque ad.” Did you get all that? Say that five times, fast. Have fun finding that fat little pumpkin in English, though. So to give us a better idea of what this letter contained, I will quote from Thomas Hodgkin’s book “Italy and Her Invaders” Volume 3, pages 443-445 instead:

“Happily, however, we may now turn from this monotonous controversy to behold the Pope trampling out the dying, but not quite dead, embers of Paganism. There was still a party at Rome, with the Senator Andromechus at their head, who wished to keep up the old heathen orgies of the Lupercalia, that strange rite made memorable by Mark Antony’s share in it, on the day when, after running naked through the Forum, he knelt down and offered the diadem to Caesar. This custom had not been suppressed along with the other heathen observances, and now Andromachus and his party wished to perpetuate it. They pleaded that none of the earlier Popes had objected to the rite. It used to be thought that the touch of the Lupercalian’s thong [sandal] falling on the shoulders of the Roman matrons brought with it a peculiar good fortune [fertility]. It could, at any rate, do no harm to keep alive so ancient a custom. Gelasius replied, with bitter scorn, that though earlier pontiffs might not have been strong enough to suppress the heathen observance, he was, and would exercise his power. If Andromachus and his party really believed the Lupercalis to be a religious act, let them take the shame of it on themselves, themselves rush about like naked madmen through the streets, and not, as was now the custom, put off the shame of it on others, their inferiors in rank. The observance of the Lupercalia had not brought luck to Rome in past times, had not saved her from the sword of Aleric or the ships of Gaiseric. Nay, even in later days, the terrible scenes which marked the strife between Anthemius and Ricimer had not been averted by this silly and licentious rite. He could not lay down the law for pagans, but to Christians he spoke in a voice to which they must hearken. No baptized person, no Christian, should dare to take part in the impious orgy: if he did, he should be without hesitation cut off from the communion of the faithful.
We know not the result, but it cannot be doubted that such a mandate, coming from such lips, was sufficient to destroy the Lupercalian festival.”

So - the Catholic Church officially outlawed the Lupercalia. They destroyed it. They did not absorb it. And anyone out there who says they did has only a broken leg to stand on.

Here is the essence of what I thought was incredibly interesting about this study.

Gelasius I was Pope from 492 to 496 AD. That is well past the time when the Armstrongist groups claim the Catholic Church had compromised with paganism. But here is Gelasius I, Bishop in Rome, telling the Roman Senate that had the Popes before him been influential enough, they would have ended pagan practices themselves. As it turns out, Gelasius I was the first to be powerful enough to do such a thing. Did he compromise and absorb paganism? No. He fought against it; exactly like his predecessors did for 400 years.

Interesting, no?
Now, allow your mind to wander a while and contemplate the many implications of this.

It is no secret that the Catholic Church institutes feasts for individual Saints on most days throughout the year, and all Saints on November 1st. It is believed that Valentine is the name of more than just one martyr. Perhaps there is only one St. Valentine, but more likely there could be as many as three. In the Catholic tradition, should this name not have a feast? Of course it should. Well, in 496 AD, this same Pope Gelasius who crushed Lupercalia also chose February 14th (not 15th) as the feast of the saint(s) named Valentine.

So, if I propose that this wasn’t another case of absorbing paganism, then one would ask - how did they get the pagan symbolism then?

Answer: Geoffrey Chaucer.

According to the Virtual Museum, Chaucer is “the Architecht of Valantine's Day". According to their article, Chaucer:

“brought together the imagery of blooming spring and the tradition that birds choose their mates in spring to describe the courtship of Richard II and Anne of Bohemia. In The Parliament of Fowles Chaucer also chose Saint Valentine as a patron for that marriage, which is the first mention of Saint Valentine in a love poem. Also in the poem are other symbols of love which came to be associated with Saint Valentine's Day: Cupid and Venus. Chaucer thus began a tradition of composing love poetry on Saint Valentine's Day.”

Once I was able to track this little factoid down, I began finding it confirmed in several other places.

For instance, Jack B Oruch in his book “St. Valentine, Chaucer, and Spring in February” p. 534, says:

“Although many critics speak of these two works as belonging to a “Valentine tradition,” and some even discuss ways in which Chaucer makes innovations in the “Valentine convention,” no evidence has been discovered of such a tradition, either literary or in social customs, before Chaucer.”

So, Chaucer really was the first to come up with this stuff.

For another perspective, read “Chaucer and the Cult of Saint Valentine” by Henry Ansgar Kelly. Or read the Infoplease.com, in their article “Valentine’s Day History”. I obviously don’t agree with everything in that article, but there is some good info there.

So, a lot of people say the Catholic Church co-opted Valentine’s Day from Lupercalia. Are they right? Here’s what I think happened --

Pope Gelasisus I effectively ended the practice of Lupercalia in Rome. He didn't absorb it. He didn't co-opt it. He instituted Valentine’s Day as a feast day for the saint(s) by that name. This feast had nothing at all to do with the practices of Lupercalia. It was nothing like we know it today, either. For one thousand years this day has been solely about the Saints’ feast. Along comes the English poet, Chauser, and now, for the first time, Valentine’s Day has romantic overtones and some pagan symbolism (Cupid, etc). That caught on, and here we are. From what I’m seeing, the Armstrongists are simply not in the right on this one.

There are a lot of ministers within Armstrongism who teach that history cannot be trusted. They claim all of the records were changed by the Catholics. They accuse the Catholics – without evidence, mind you - of being deceitful. They say it is a massive conspiracy by Satan to bury “the truth.” How does one prove this? If the entire historical record is so uselessly unreliable, how does anyone prove anything from history? It can’t be done!

And their solution to this dilemma is… to make up history. Yes, they turn right around and do the very thing they accuse the Catholics of doing! They make up another history, a history favorable to them, a history fabricated from nothing but ideology and imagination. Meanwhile they can neither prove the Catholics wrong nor themselves right.

Any reasonable person would have to disagree with this whole fiasco. Baseless claims on top of baseless claims. It’s patently ridiculous. I don’t accept, “We say they are wrong, and since they’re wrong, what we want to be true must be true.” I reject that.

They have never proven that history is unreliable. Meanwhile, we’ve shown here on this blog time after time that it is Herbert Armstrong and his ministers who have routinely changed history and distorted the record. That's not just an empty claim, or my opinion. We have proven this. One way we prove this is to go to their source material – if they have any. What have we found time and time and time again? They have misquoted, distorted, omitted, and lied. They say the source material says one thing, and we show you how that simply is not the case. There is no way to blame that on the Catholics!

I believe that history is plenty reliable. So long as we go in search of what actually is true, as opposed to going in search of what we wanted to find in the first place. Also, we need to use several of the best, most authoritative sources available. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that all sources are not equal.

I sincerely hope you have enjoyed our walks through the history of the holidays. I hope they have been beneficial and educational to you. This is going to be my last walk with you like this. I’ve seen enough, so far as it goes, and the truth has truly set me free.

I hope you are inspired to prove all things, just as the Bereans Did. I hope you are set free to walk with our Lord Jesus Christ unencumbered. May you be emboldened and empowered by the truth. I pray for you all to find joy and peace in this life and the next. For all of you who are still in the COG groups, loved by God and sought after, may our Lord Jesus Christ lead you into the New Covenant in His blood. Step into the New Covenant!

A Pattern of Dishonest Documentation

2011-01-24T14:24:00.000-08:00

I happened across an article on the Living Church of God website that I want to expound upon today. It's not the article in particular that I care about, rather I want to use it to point out something I see way too much of. I just get so very tired of blatant, willful adulteration of facts.

Here is the opening paragraph from the LCG article:

“In an article on syncretism in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, it says: ‘Its (syncretism) most frequent use, however, is in connexion with the religious development of antiquity, when it denotes the tendency, especially prominent from the 2nd to the 4th centuries of the Christian era, to simplify and unify the various pagan religions … Syncretism even went so far as to blend the deities of paganism and Christianity … The triumph of Christianity itself represented a result of syncretism, the Church being a blending of the beliefs and practices of both the new and old religions.”
-Roger Meyer, “Is Religious Syncretism A Good Thing?”, www.lcg.org, 12-28-2010

Just reading that paragraph alone, what does that lead you to believe? I don’t know about you, but it leads me to believe that the Christians in the 2^nd to the 4^th century were unifying pagan religions into Christianity. In fact, that is the very stated thrust of the entire article. It goes on to say, “A whole host of pagan practices and symbols were absorbed into Christianity.”
Funny - no mention of how paganism was literally outlawed in the Empire in the 390's AD.

We don’t deny that some pagan symbols were adopted into Christianity. It’s true! But it isn't nearly as wide-spread as the COGs would have us believe.

Sola scriptura!

What my article today is about is the way Armstrongist media outlets tend to do (or rather tend not to do) research.

Over the years I’ve seen grossly absurd examples of the butchering of source material by Armstrongists who want to turn something into a jab against their competition. It’s as if they feel no compunction whatsoever against selectively quoting a source and totally, completely changing its meaning into something entirely different.

One person butchers the facts, another quotes him, then another, then another, and before you know it you have a perfect example of the “lie told often enough.”

One day I happened across a man on the Internet who was trying to tell everyone that there was a rock carving depicting Assyrian King Shalmaneser capturing the leaders of the “lost ten tribes of Israel.” He had names and a whole back story to go with it. It seemed really, really well researched!

…Until I checked his facts.

Well, turns out the carving he showed us was the Behistun Inscription. It is not Assyrian whatsoever. It is in Iran and was carved by Darius the Mede around 500 BC. It includes an inscription written in Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian text. It has no mention of Assyria or the Israelites at all.

If WikiPedia can be believed [I know! I know.], the notion that it speaks of Israel apparently comes from a man by the name of Sir Robert Porter who originally made this claim around 1821.

So it has been known that this story is false for some time now. Did the guy I met care about the truth? No.

What was the man’s response when I told him the truth? He at first deleted my comments. When I put them back, he said this, “This had to be something God wanted to be forgotten, and then around the End of Man's rule on the Earth, all God would put into men's hearts to search, and discover our Ancient Roots.”

So God caused the rock to be changed because He wanted the truth to be hidden, but right before the Tribulation, He’s going to change it back? Well, alrighty then.

Is this man a lone nut? Nut, perhaps. Lone, no. He fell from the tree of Armstrong and didn’t roll far.

For example, read our article “True History of the True Church?”. For another example, read our article “Another True History?” Or for another example, read our article “Rome’s Challenge”. All fine examples of delusion vanquishing reality and a lie told often enough.

This pattern is just typical of how Armstrongists seem to not want to be forthcoming with the facts.

But just to drive the point home I want to ask you something.
The LCG article mentions the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition’s article on Syncretism, did you ever read it for yourself?
I did. Here’s what I found.

Sure, those words are right there in the encyclopedia as claimed. Not a word was changed. But Roger Meyer, the “Guest Columnist” who wrote the article for LCG, left something out – something important.

Do you see how Mr. Meyer breaks up the source quote into three sections by using ellipses (those three … dots)? Those three dots mean that something has been left out. Usually what is left out is unimportant filler info. But what I found is that there is critically important information skipped over inside those ellipses.

Let’s read what was passed over by the first set of ellipses, the part immediately after, “to simplify and unify the various pagan religions”. Here’s the part you didn’t get to see:

"During this period, as a result of the intimate knowledge of the world's religions made possible by the gathering of every known cult of importance into the religious system of the Roman Empire, belief in the identity of many deities which resembled each other, and indeed in the essential identity of all, received a special impulse. Not only were various forms of the same deity, such as, for example, Jupiter Capitolinus and Jupiter Latiaris, recognized as being really the same under different aspects, but even the gods of different nations were seen to be manifestations of a single great being. Roman Jupiter, Greek Zeus, Persian Mithras and Phrygian Attis were one. The Great Mother, Isis, Ceres, Demeter, Ops, Rhea, Tellus, were the same great mother deity under different masks (see Great Mother Of The Gods). Venus and Cupid, Aphrodite and Adonis, the Great Mother and Attis, Astarte and Baal, Demeter and Dionysus, Isis and Serapis, were essentially the same pair."

Well, isn’t that interesting! The quoted selection made me think the Catholics were being syncretistic, when it was the pagans of the Roman Empire who were being syncretistic.

Think about it. The second century is the 100’s AD, and the fourth century is the 300’s AD. What was happening for the majority of that time? Why, the Christians were being slaughtered for refusing to blend their faith with paganism in even the slightest way. Do you suppose it was the Encyclopedia Britanica that forgot about that? Hardly. Does what this LCG article claims make any sense, then? No. It does not.
These people are historically illiterate! Yet they claim this is God's truth.

What about the next set of elipses? The ones right after "Syncretism even went so far as to blend the deities of paganism and Christianity." This is an even better example than the last! Let’s read:

"Christ was compared with Attis and Mithras, Isis with the Virgin Mary, & Isis, perhaps more than any other deity, came to be regarded as the great maternal goddess of the universe whose essence was worshiped under many different names."

Was this the Christians doing this? No. This was the pagans!
The pagan syncretists were merging their many gods into one, therefore they claimed Jesus is Attis and Mithra and etc. But you wouldn’t have known that by reading the high-quality, “truthful” work posted on the LCG website.

Now we go to the last section of the source quote; the part that says this, "The triumph of Christianity itself represented a result of syncretism, the Church being a blending of the beliefs and practices of both the new and old religions.”

That happens to be the last sentence in the encyclopedia article. Do you know what comes immediately before it? This:

“Syncretic, being a movement toward monotheism, was the converse of the tendency, so prominent in the early history of Rome, to increase the number of deities by worshiping the same god under special aspects according to special activities. In the hands of the Neoplatonists it was instrumental in retarding somewhat the fall of paganism for the time, but in the end contributed to the success of Christianity by familiarizing men with the belief in one supreme deity.”

What this says is, before the Roman pagans started merging their gods, they had at first split and multiplied their gods. The syncretists therefore helped Christ to conquer paganism by preparing the Roman mind for monotheism. The Church triumphed with the help of syncretism.

Then this one last half-sentence comes, “the Church being a blending of the beliefs and practices of both the new and old religions.”

And this is the only part of the entire article that even begins to suggest that Christianity absorbed paganism. One part of one sentence.

Is it just me, or do you find the way the LCG massaged the facts to be deceitful too?

But there’s more!

Do you suppose the author of that article knew that when the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition was written, it was a generally accepted thing that Christianity absorbed paganism, but that is not generally accepted anymore? Did you know that?

This idea that Christianity absorbed paganism came mainly from a group of German religious historians called the “History of Religion School.” Here's a quote from Ronald Nash's book "The Gospel and the Greeks" page 1:

"During the period of time running roughly from 1890 to 1940, scholars often alleged that primitive Christianity had been heavily influenced by Platonism, Stoicism, the pagan mystery religions, or other movements in the Helenistic world [by this he means the entire Roman Empire]. ... Today most Bible scholars regard the question as a dead issue."

A dead issue.

But that doesn’t stop the Armstrongists from promoting it as “God’s truth” and condemning the remainder of Christendom with it.

Have you ever wondered why an organization in 2010 is using the 1911 version of an encyclopedia as his primary reference? Now you know why. Because it's more likely to say what they want.

Do you think they’ve read anything recent? I believe they will read about anything, so long as it says (or can be made to say) what they want it to say. Well, maybe not "read" so much as "selectively read and deceptively misquote." You've seen what they did to the encyclopedia. So check those sources!

This kind of manipulation happens far too often! And it makes me sick because people out there base their eternal lives on this stuff, and then they condemn people using articles like this as "proof." I find this to be completely unacceptable.

I suggest you read stop reading the articles on the LCG website and pick up a copy of Mr. Nash’s book. Read it for yourself. It’s quite interesting!

In closing, I would like to ask you one simple question: would the "one true church" really lie to people like this?

Reader Testimonials -- John of Ohio

2011-01-22T08:55:00.000-08:00

From time to time we get letters from our readers. I like to know how people were drawn in to Armstrongism and how they left. My favorites are the stories of challenges overcome and second chances. I think you’ll find that in this story today, but you’ll have to look hard for it. Because in today’s personal experience letter from our readers we’ll see how escaping Armstrongism is not always a bed of roses.

I know from personal experience that there are some callous and inconsiderate souls out there who deny that anyone had a bad experience in Armstrongism. I’m sorry, but that’s delusional. There is a very real, very serious reason why we have links to suicide hotline and help groups here on ABD.

I want everyone to know this: just because you leave Armstrongism, doesn’t mean Armstrongism has left you. Even if we come to grace and step into the New Covenant in the blood of our Lord Jesus, some wounds remain. Sometimes we have gotten ourselves into something and those situations have lasting effects. God isn’t going to whisk those things away. They have to be worked out. He will help us, but we have made our own bed.

Take me for example. Time was lost and loved ones have passed away while I was preoccupied with my splinter group. I will never get back that time nor my loved ones, who should have been my business all along. I have to deal with this for the rest of my life.

These are the hidden things, the damage we do that we don’t see until it’s too late. It is very real. It is very serious. And so far as I have control over it, I will not allow the first word from a person so cold and wretched as to deny that people have had their lives damaged and even ruined by Armstrongism.

But if you would allow me a bit of speculation, I have noticed that the most common problems for people leaving Armstrongism are marital problems. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but that’s what I’ve seen.

Marriages in Armstrongism are often a world apart from marriages in a grace-based system. Like all relationships in a legalistic system, they are conditional. The entire marriage could have rested entirely on conditions (of belief, action, submission, or whatever.) When the church changes, the conditions change, and the dynamic of the relationship either changes or disintegrates. Often there are scars left that need time to heal. Sometimes, one spouse cannot bring themselves to overcome those scars.

I wish I had better resources available for those of you who need marital counselling. I am working on it. Please contact me if you believe you can help people with this need! My email is listed in the menu to the right.

John from Ohio wants to share his experience with you, warts and all. He wants anyone who feels as he does to know they aren’t alone.

-------

My experiences in leaving the Worldwide Church of God, which happened in the autumn of 1995, a bit over 13 years after becoming a baptized member, are directly related to how I affiliated with the church. It was different, perhaps, than most.

As it happens, I left the church with no rancor, confrontation, or other immediate difficulties with former members. I simply walked away, with a single letter of “resignation” to the local fill-in pastor at the time, and that was it. I had no phone calls, no confrontations, no interpersonal matters of concern.

Why, then, was my leaving the church perhaps as significant as those who left behind now-contentious former friends, or had other unfortunate difficulties? For me, leaving the church physically was really quite easy, a welcome relief, in fact. But leaving it spiritually, morally, and thoughtfully was an entire other matter, one that hovers over me to this day. The mental impact of Herbert W. Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong, and the dozens of ministers who so forcefully espoused the doctrines of the Worldwide Church of God still affect me to this day, 15 years after I physically left. I continue to wrestle with all that happened before and during my membership. I am therefore still in the process of fully leaving the Worldwide Church of God. I deeply fear that its impress on my mind will not be fully cleared until I enter my grave or get taken up upon Christ’s return. Until then, as I continue to “leave,” I continue to live, sadly with so much of the effects of the fears and familial disruptions that were necessarily a part of my experiences in the church.

Again, what I’m about to recount is not, per se, matters of leaving the WCG. But in fact, because of their continuing blazes on my memory and thoughts, as I try to wrestle with them and put them out of my mind, they are a direct and continuing part of leaving Armstrongism---if that's even fully possible.

I was first deceived as a high school kid back in the mid-1960s, when I started to listen to the powerfully persuasive broadcast voice of Garner Ted Armstrong. The man had an imposing voice, and he said things that really caused me to think. I was ripe for the unique perspectives Armstrong presented. From my childhood, I had a scientific mind (I’m now a biologist), and searched for little-known or alternative explanations for otherwise difficult problems. Garner Ted had me in his hands from the start. I was a complete sucker for his authoritative-sounding pronouncements.

At college, when on my own, I could listen each night to The World Tomorrow, with the professional introductions of Art Gilmore, followed by Garner Ted holding forth. I become even more hooked and entranced.

I subscribed to the World Tomorrow, and started getting some of the church’s literature. I became further mired in the slick theological slime being offered as profoundly truthful, formerly-hidden doctrine, the New Truths, as it were.

But because of my strong Presbyterian upbringing, and the very clear objections my family would have were I ever to admit even listening to The World Tomorrow or reading The Plain Truth, I did all of this surreptitiously.

Like so many others in the late 60s, I was knocked over by the booklet, 1975 in Prophecy, which so very clearly said that the apocalypse would begin in 1972. There were to be just a few years of normal life left for me.

But all that while, I could never forsake my family and become a member. I was a secret, under the table “co-worker,” or something.

Then, 1972 and 1975 came and went, uneventfully. That should have been the tipoff. But it wasn’t. I was still deluded into believing the great men in Pasadena had the ear of God, and were the only humans in the modern era into whose ears God himself spoke, revealing astonishing things no one else could know or reveal. But I was learning of them by listening to Garner Ted and reading, when I could, church literature.

But I never revealed any of this to anyone, my family, my new wife—anyone. I was a closet believer of Herbert W. Armstrong and his cohorts, without ever giving even a dime to his operation.

Then, in 1982, while my wife was at church teaching Sunday school, as I was getting dressed for church, I heard Herbert Armstrong proclaim in a broadcast that the Pharisees of Christ’s time were simply going to be tossed into the Lake of Fire. I swallowed hard, realizing that that’s what was going to happen to me, too; as I had learned all of the truths, but was practicing none of them. I distinctly recall Armstrong saying earlier in my encounters with the WCG that “Jesus won’t save anyone who doesn’t obey the law.”

It was clear, if the Pharisees were going to be found guilty of the law, what chance did I have? The Pharisees kept the law to every minor point. I kept nothing of the law. I was doomed.

So, on the side, without consulting anyone, I contacted a WCG minister. My wife was furious, as she should have been. I had utterly betrayed her. She went to two WCG services, with my two pre-school children. That was enough. She instantly sensed her inappropriate, unbelieving presence among the True Believers, among the Elect. She never attended another service, and held a great many church-derived offenses against me, even to this day.

I can’t convey how utterly glad I was when Joseph Tkach, Sr. came down with his pronouncements negating the imperatives of the Sabbaths or tithings, and all the other reformations he generated. For the first time in 13 years of membership, I could see a way out, without eventually being slain by God in an excruciating cauldron of hot liquids and gases. For the very first time, I got a distant glimpse of Christian hope.

One Sabbath, I believe in the spring or summer of 1995, I went to services in the nearby high school, and as I walked in only about a third of the congregation was seated. No one said a thing to me, but I could feel the piercing eyes and questioning minds. Just before services began, under the leadership of a local elder, in the absence of the assigned minister, one of the members in attendance perceived my concerns and said, “Well, John, looks like you don’t know what happened, do you?” He went on to tell how about two-thirds of the congregation had taken offense at Tkach’s new teachings and had left to uphold Armstrong’s truths. I knew of none of this, and pondered how none of the departing “true members” had bothered to contact me and invite me to join them. Clearly, I wasn’t worthy of such consideration.

Here’s why. From day one it was always obvious that I was a non-typical, even questionable member. I was married, and had kids, but they never came or were invited to any church event. I’ll never forget a 70-minute sermon by the local pastor on the necessity of marrying only a church member, and how sinful, even damning, it would be to be married to a non-believing mate. The whole sermon was a condemnation of my so unfortunate situation. I left the service and wept for 20 minutes in the car as I drove back home alone. I was made to feel to be the lowest form of life ever allowed into a Worldwide Church of God hall. I was to be pitied, if not entirely looked down upon.

I have dozens of other, similar memories of utter insufficiencies, errors, and outright WCG sins I was responsible for. For 13 years in the church I never recall a single joyous moment. From the very start, up to the very end, fear pervaded my existence. Would I be disfellowshipped and thereby be irrevocably condemned? Would I be required to divorce my wife? Would she divorce me? How was I going to pay for my children’s college when I had to give 25% of my pay to Armstrong?

My marriage suffered terribly. My wife had every right to leave me, and almost did. You see, I could leave the church, and did. But how can I, today, leave searing memories of a marriage utterly disintegrated by the teachings and practices of God’s One True Church?

So, thankfully I have left the Worldwide Church of God? But the Armstrongs and the Worldwide Church of God have not left me. Their destructive imprints and mental scars still hover over my life. I live with my wonderful wife, and she still prepares my meals, cleans my clothes, and takes care of me. But she has no interest in touching me, allowing me to give her a hug or a kiss, or express in any normal way the affections that should be normally between a man and a wife. Her residual anger and resentment often are expressed in accusatory and angry episodes of verbal revenge. I have learned not to harbor any resentment against her because of all of this. But it’s been extremely hard.

Again, I left Armstrongism, but it has not left me. Me, my wife, and my marriage, are permanently scared and tattered. My wife and I get along as best we can, but the hurts and mental bruises have not healed. They cannot. In her eyes, I committed a form of adultery so much more egregious had it been with a real women, instead of a religious whore.

Tonight, as I have for the last quarter-century, I’ll go to bed alone. I’ll pray for my wife, and ask God’s forgiveness for all the terrors I worked on my wife and family as I so desperately tried to keep from being slain in the Lake of Fire.

For many who left the Worldwide Church of God, or any of the Armstrongist descendant churches, their difficulties, too, were hard and notable. Many lost close friends, endured harsh words, and left behind wonderful memories of mutual fellowship. But for most of those, learning to live a new life might be a bit easier than it is for me. I can have no new life. My marriage is damaged beyond repair. My sins, so understandably, are to my wife unforgivable. As I did while a fearful member of the Worldwide Church of God, I can only plug along, by myself, hoping someday to find real human happiness.

I left the WCG. It has not, and never will, leave me. What a fool I was.

–John of Ohio

-------

John, you are in our hearts and our prayers. Thank you for your bravery in sharing this with us. I can't imagine this was easy for you.

Valued reader, do me this favor, if you would be so kind - please note the faith displayed in this story. Please note that God is not blamed. Please note the acceptance of personal responsibility. Please note that patience and hope are having their good work. This is not the ideal ending by any means, but the attitude couldn't be on a more proper course. These things make this story a hopeful one for me.

But if you relate to this story, know that you are not alone. We are all damaged goods; some of us more than others. But you are not alone! We are praying for you, whomever you may be. Please pray for each other.

God allows bad things to happen to "good" people. But I believe that it is in these bad times that we see God so clearly in the words and deeds of others. Maybe it's a complete stranger who helps us. Maybe we will never know that we have helped someone. Maybe our pain is for the good of someone else who suffers. Regardless, shine that light of Jesus. Shine it brightly! Pay if forward. Because you never know.

Never give up hope! Never give up hope.

(REV. 21: 4) And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away

On Nimrod and Christmas Trees - part III

2011-01-16T18:04:00.000-08:00

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 spliter 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.)

But palm tree, fir tree, it’s all the same to Hislop. Throughout the book he calls every fir tree a 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?

But 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 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.

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 god’s mother was a 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 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. 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 looks at 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? That’s a cup of KoolAid I can’t swallow.

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, 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."

On Nimrod and Christmas Trees - part II

2011-01-14T08:36:00.000-08:00

In the previous post in this series we went over Cybele and Attis specifically to find evidence of Christmas trees. We found a pine tree, but the details surrounding it bore no resemblance to the Christmas tree whatsoever. Rather, we see the syncretism held by Alexander Hislop and Herbert Armstrong, regarding Nimrod and Christmas trees, was grossly erroneous.

This time I would like to turn our attention to the Egyptian gods. Mainly Horus, Isis, and Osiris.

MANY VERSIONS OF THE SAME GOD

Let’s get something straight here before we begin.

Just like with Cybele and Attis, there are many versions of these Egyptian myths.
These base myths are exceedingly old. The oldest religious documents in the world are the Pyramid Texts, dated to around 2300 BC, and there we see the names and details of the great Egyptian gods obviously already well-developed.

The mythical stories have been through much iteration. Versions of a myth from one area differed from versions in another. They were lost in war, they were merged together into new versions, they were changed in denominational feuding, they were rewritten for political expediency, they changed in response to Hellenization, and again in response to the popularity of Christ.

Take Horus for example.
Horus is one of the most ancient of Egyptian gods. Horus begins as the sky with the sun as his right eye and the moon as his left eye. Horus is a falcon. There is a different Horus for just about every locality where Horus was worshipped. Multiple Horuses were mentioned just in the Pyramid Texts. Then there is Horus the Elder and Horus the Younger. Horus is king of Lower Egypt, then the king over all Egypt, then a representation of all Pharaohs. Horus is an amalgam of many gods. At one time he is Re’s son, at another time he is merged with Re, at another time Osiris’ son, at another time Osiris’ brother, at another time an incarnation of Osiris, at another time created as a thought by Ptah - and so forth and so on.

How can Hislop or Armstrong possibly say, “such and such was always true since the time of Nimrod”? They cannot. What’s more, if the pyramid texts don’t predate Nimrod, then the myths they tell absolutely do. So the basis of the entire story, that Semiramis made it all up, is simply not possible.

But I digress.

See Sir Ernest Budge’s book “The Gods of the Egyptians”, especially chapter XV “The Horus Gods”, for more. I also found “Theology of Memphis” by Wim van den Dungen somewhat interesting.

INTRO

On page 98 of Alexander Hislop’s book we have a vague reference to the Egyptian gods Osiris and Horus.

“…it must be remembered that the divine child born at the winter solstice was born as a new incarnation of the great god (after that god had been cut in pieces), on purpose to revenge his death upon his murders. Now the great god, cut off in the midst of his power and glory, was symbolized as a huge tree, stripped of all its branches, and cut down almost to the ground.”
-Alexander Hislop, “The Two Babylons”, 1858, p.98

The great god who was cut in pieces can only be Osiris, and the divine child born as a new incarnation can only mean one of the more recent versions of Horus. We can confidently say this because these features are known to be in the stories of these two gods.

It's the other details that are wrong.

Hislop makes two claims that interest us. There is a winter solstice birth, and a tree.

Let’s start with the tree.

THE CHRISTMAS TREE? NO!

Any good text about ancient Egypt will mention Plutarch and his book “Moralia”. I will summarize since we’re only interested in the tree anyway.

Isis was Osiris’ sister. They fell in love. Their evil brother Set was jealous, so he locked Osiris in a box and threw him in the Nile. The box washed up in Byblos (Phoenecia) and a large clump of heather (some translations say an Erica tree) grew around it. The king of the land cut the heather down and made it into a pillar in his palace. Isis found it, but so did Set. Set cut Osiris’ dead body into fourteen pieces and hid them. Isis found all but one piece. Since the pieces were not all found, Osiris had to remain in the land of the dead, thus he became the god of the underworld. A tree was then used as a symbol of this event.

Certain of these details are ancient, but certain details are not.
For example the Pyramid Texts mention Osiris being drowned by Set and floated down the Nile. Osiris was the Nile god anciently, and he represented the Nile, its flooding, the life in the soil, and the vegetation that grew from it. Isis also represents the land that is nourished by the Nile and the vegetation that grows from it. It makes odd sense that Osiris would drown and float out to sea and be cut into pieces (like the Delta), only to return later, and Isis would be his wife, searching for him, and being impregnated by him.

On the other hand, James Henry Breasted, in his book “Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt” pages 25-28, says there is no record in Egypt of Set putting Osiris in a box.

What's more, I find no mention of the clump of Heather or an Erica tree anywhere else that I’ve looked (outside of Plutarch.) Ancient texts have Osiris floating dead across the sea to the Land of the Cedar (Phoenicia), but his body is found, embalmed, taken back to Egypt for burial, and a Sycamore tree grows up.

Hislop says the tree is a palm. Armstrong says the tree is an evergreen. Most of Plutarch’s translators I have read say the tree was heather. Heather can be a great number of shrubs or trees, none of which are evergreen. I found a few that translate it as an Erica tree. Erica is an evergreen, but it is a flowering tree and not a pine at all. Others claim it was a Tamarisk tree. Again, an evergreen, but it is a flowering tree and not a pine. WikiPedia has Cypress tree. Yet again, an evergreen, but yet again not a pine.

Hard to find sources outside of Plutarch? Not a pine - probably not even an evergreen? Made into a pillar? Symbol of a god’s death? Not exactly what one would expect as “the real origin of the Christmas tree.”

What then of the solstice birth?

SOLSTICE BIRTH? NO!

The ancient Egyptian calendars are an incredibly complex topic due to the exceeding age of Egypt. There were numerous changes over time. There are debates to this day among historians as to major details of the Egyptian calendar. Still, I will do my best to explain.

From what I can gather, Egypt had a 365 day year, which they divided into three four-month seasons (not four seasons like the Temperate Zones are used to), with twelve thirty-day months. Their three seasons were tied to the flooding of the Nile and the crop cycle. It was an inaccurate calendar that was apparently reset each year at their New Year. But they had an odd twist that we should know about which I will summarize.

You might have caught the part just now where twelve months with thirty days each does not add up to 365.
According to Plutarch, Egypt anciently had a 360 day year. Re, the chief god, forbade Nut from having children on any day of the year. Nut went to Thoth and asked for help. Thoth gambled with the moon and won her light. Thoth then used that light to create 5 additional days (the ‘heriu renpet’.) The calendar was now 365 days long, and Nut was free to have children on those additional days.

The birthday of Osiris was on the first of those days, Horus on the second day, Set on the third, Isis on the fourth, and Nepthys on the fifth.

Got that? There are five special days each year where the above-mentioned gods were born.

Please allow me to remind you that Hislop tells us, “it must be remembered that the divine child [Horus] born at the winter solstice,” (The Two Babylons p.98) and HWA tells us, “In Egypt, it was always believed that the son of Isis [Horus] … was born December 25^th” (Plain Truth About Christmas p. 13.)

I remind you of that because there are some serious problems you need to be aware of.

Those claims are bold! Considering the astronomical solstice changes over time, and December 25^th rarely if ever fell on it. For example, it hasn’t fallen on the solstice in 2,000 years.
For another example, the news is abuzz that the motion of the earth over time has moved the zodiac one full sign away from where they were when the zodiac was invented in ancient Babylon. Mind the details!
Also, December is a Roman month, not an Egyptian one. The ancient Egyptians wouldn’t know what a December is!
Not to mention that we need to know if Armstrong is referring to December 25^th as it was under the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar.
Also, the Egyptian calendar follows the Nile flooding so it can’t be exactly matched to our own that we can say, “such and such festival was always on December 25^th.” The very notion is laughable. Consider the debate among the historians who can’t even agree on when the Egyptian New Years was! If this is so debatable, there is no possibility that we can say, “such and such festival was always on December 25^th.”

But am I being too technical?

Fine, then. Do a Google search for “Horus born on solstice”. What do you find? Page after page of websites from people who have watched Zeitgeist, perhaps even know who Gerald Massey or Alvin Kuhn are, and zealously believe that Jesus is Horus. These are the sites that will tell you Horus was born on December 25^th. I prefer Roger Pearse's response to that.

Now am I being too simplistic?

We need to know when these five days are!

In reality these 5 additional days fell between the end of the old year and the New Year. A modern mind might conclude "winter." But not so fast!

When were these days?
As I mentioned, there’s a little confusion about this because the Egyptian calendar doesn’t equate to our calendar nicely, so whatever I say here about the months is but a very rough estimate, but as best I can determine from checking a great deal of sources this was late June or July.

What does this mean?
It means that Osiris and Horus were not considered born in December but on the opposite side of the year. Thus ends any possibility that Hislop or Armstrong were correct. Ouch!

WHAT OF OSIRIS' DEATH?

This makes me curious as to Osiris’ death.

According to Plutarch, Osiris died in the month of Athyr. Athyr is the third month and falls most likely in October.

Lists of Egyptian festivals mention Sokar, which is a somber, six-day festival remembering Osiris’ death. Sokar was the last six days of the month of Koiak. Koiak is the fourth month and falls most likely in late October or November.
Got that? Athyr is the third month, falls in October; Koiak is the fourth month, falls in October-November.

What does that mean?
That means that neither Osiris’ birth nor death were in December at all!

Why does that matter?
Remember the very first quote at the top of this post, Hislop mentions Horus' birth and Osiris' death. It's the death of Osiris where the tree comes into play. Osiris' death and the tree are inseparably linked. Much like when we learned the Attis tree was a spring funeral tree, the Osiris tree is a fall tree. Neither are in Winter. Both are related to death.
I wanted to make sure all the loose ends were tied up. The death of Osiris is no help to Hislop's dead theory.

Here are some links for source info:

The Egyptian Calendar System at Minnesota State.

Ancient Egyptian Calendars at AncientEgyptOnline.

Ancient Egyptian Festival Calendar at AncientEgyptOnline.

Grand Festivals In Ancient Egypt at TourEgypt.

CONCLUSION

What have we learned today?

We’ve learned that Osiris and Horus’ birthdays were in summer, Osiris died in the fall, the Egyptian calendar was a mess, their myths were constantly changing, their calendar doesn't tie into our calendar nicely at all, nothing was “always on December 25^th,” few things were “always true since the time of Nimrod,” and some of these things Nimrod or Semiramis supposedly invented actually predated them.

I highly recommend you read “The Babylon Connection” by Ralph Woodrow for more on this whole Nimrod/Semiramis thing.

But what I think is most important - we looked for a Christmas tree and found a clump of heather holding up a palace, or perhaps a sycamore. I can’t determine for certain what kind of tree it was, but, then again, Hislop and Armstrong couldn’t agree about it either. (More about that next time!) The tree is a death-related autumn tree not a birth-related winter tree.

In short, we have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hislop and Armstrong are in error. I’d say overall this has been a very productive study!

In the next and hopefully last post in this series, I would like to do one last bit of textual criticism on Hislop and Armstrong’s writings.

On Nimrod and Christmas Trees - part I

2011-01-08T21:03:00.000-08:00

“WHERE did we get CHRISTMAS? … From the Bible or from paganism?”

-Herbert Armstrong, “The Plain Truth About Christmas”, 1970, p. 5

A great question! But it's a false dilemma.
It suggests there are only two possibilities - Biblical or pagan. I suggest there is another possibility.

In my last post, The Plain Truth About December 25th, we saw that there is compelling evidence to believe that Christians did not co-opt the date of Christmas from the pagans but rather the early Christians calculated the day. (I also recommend you read our article "Jeremiah 10 and Christmas Trees".)
After that post, I started noticing people asking where the idea of Nimrod and Christmas trees came from. I decided it was worth a look. So that's what this post is going to be about. The answers were surprising to me. I’m definitely going to have to make this a two-parter.
Today, we are going to see that Nimrod is supposedly connected to Christmas trees by way of two other gods named Cybele and Attis. We're also going to see that this is bunk. But first we have to fish through a barrel of various gods to try and find what is actually being claimed.

MUSICAL GODS

To get answers I first needed to get specific details about the claims. Those had to come from Herbert Armstrong and Alexander Hislop. I started by opening Herbert Armstrong’s booklet “The Plain Truth About Christmas.”

Beginning on page 10 we are treated to a tale about Nimrod.

“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 25^th was the birth of Nimrod. This is the real origin of the Christmas tree.”
-Herbert Armstrong, “The Plain Truth About Christmas”, 1970, p. 10

Well, it turns out there is nothing to substantiate this. It is completely made up.

HWA took this without reference from Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" page 98.
Hislop produces an illustration of an old coin with a snake wrapped around a tree stump (see "figure 27" on p. 98 of Hislop's book), and then Hislop proceeds to manufacture a story from the illustration.

Ralph Woodrow, in his book "The Babylon Connection" (we've written about this several times in the past, see our article "The Babylon Connection"), reveals to us that Hislop regularly took illustrations and manufactured entire myths from them.

Was it Osiris?

Hislop seems to be referencing the myth of Osiris, since he mentions a god being chopped into pieces. But the details of the myth of Osiris do not match what Hislop has written here. (I will go over Osiris and Horus in part II.)

Was it Adonis?

Hislop could also have Adonis in mind, since he referenced Adonis on page 97.
Ovid, in "Metamorphoses" book ten, does say Adonis was born when his mother was transformed into a Myrrh tree as punishment for her sins, but that doesn't match what Hislop has written.
Ovid also says Adonis was gored by a boar and turned into windflowers, and neither an evergreen nor a tree stump are mentioned in his death at all, so that doesn't match what Hislop has written either.

These details are no details at all. So now what?

Back to Herbert Armstrong's booklet on Christmas...

On page 11, HWA mentions that Semiramis and Nimrod are known by other names. Listed among them are Cybele and Deoius (he takes this without reference from Hislop's "The Two Babylons" page 20.) Ah! That gives us something to go on.

Was it Deoius?

Do a Google search on Deoius. Why does this name only come matched with “the worship of Semiramis” and only as referenced by Alexander Hislop? This is made up, too.

“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

But Cybele, she’s legit... and there's a pine tree involved!

CYBELE

There was once an ancient goddess from Asia Minor whose name is most likely Kybele (Cybele is her Greek name). Philippe Borgeaud has much to say about Cybele in his book “Mother of the Gods”

Borgeaud believes the origins of the goddess are rather ancient, but the oldest remaining evidence we have comes from a rock carving in Phrygia from around the early 6^th century BC with the inscription “Mater Kubeleia” (Cybelian Mother).
Notice that this is some 1,500 years after Nimrod and nearly a thousand miles away. Liken that to finding graffiti spray-painted on a wall in Serbia and attributing it to Emperor Justinian's mother.

I should note that Borgeaud starts his book by denying the theory that all mother goddesses are interrelated (there may be many ancient mother goddesses from many ancient cultures, but that doesn’t mean they are all versions of the same goddess). Borgeaud also denies that Cybele is Mary the mother of Jesus. This is in line with what the current majority view among Biblical historians.

As we make our way down through history, across Greece and into Rome, into the second century AD, Cybele was then paired with a male god named Attis. This is where the plot starts to thicken.

ATTIS

There are many divergent stories about Attis, and compelling evidence that the Attis myth adopted various features of Christianity, but it’s the evergreen tree specifically that brings Attis to our attention.

Arnobius of Sicca, in his book “Against Pagans” book V chapter 7, tells one of the various tales where Attis castrates himself beneath an evergreen tree, bleeds to death, and violets spring up from his blood and grow up into the nearby tree.

Why does this interest us? Two reasons:

First, because of Hislop’s claims about Nimrod and the evergreen tree.
We can see that things are not as Hislop would lead us to believe. An evergreen is involved, but these rituals are uniquely about Cybele and Attis, uniquely Rome; not Nimrod, not Babylon – and not Catholic.
We can safely dismiss the supposed connection between Nimrod and Cybele/Attis. Therefore we can also dismiss the supposed connection between Nimrod and all evergreen trees. Especially this one.

Second, because of HWA’s claims about Cybele/Attis and the Christmas tree.
Even if we do dismiss the connection between Nimrod and Cybele/Attis, we should still ask, are there any similarities between Cybele's tree and the Christmas tree?
You might want to buckle up for this.

SIMILARITY TO CHRISTMAS TREE?

In ancient Rome there were festivals called “Hilaria.” There were many of these throughout the year, but we are interested in one particular Hilaria that honored Cybele. Again, “Against Pagans” book V gives a description of this particular festival:

“What mean the fleeces of wool with which you bind and surround the trunk of the tree? Is it not to recall the wools with which Ia covered the dying youth, and thought that she could procure some warmth for his limbs fast stiffening with cold? What mean the branches of the tree girt round and decked with wreaths of violets? Do they not mark this, how the Mother adorned with early flowers the pine which indicates and bears witness to the sad mishap?” (Chapter 16.)

“That pine which is regularly born into the sanctuary of the Great Mother, is it not in imitation of that tree beneath which Attis mutilated and unmanned himself, which also, they relate, the goddess consecrated to relieve her grief?” (Chapter 17.)

Roger Pearse has more in his articles “Attis – A Useful Dissertation” and “Festival of Cybele Today?”

So the cult of Cybele took an evergreen and decorated it with garlands of violet flowers specifically. The trunk was wrapped in wool. Are any of these things done to a Christmas tree? No.

People may stick on the point that garlands were used, but the garlands were violets specifically. Just like with the wool, the violets had a specific meaning and that is why they were used. This was not just decorating a tree; there were no bulbs, no ornaments, no lights, no tree skirt, no tinsel, no star on top.

Just so that you're aware, garlands in themselves aren’t uniquely pagan.
There were garlands of precious metals decorated with bulbs shaped like pomegranates on the Temple in Jerusalem (II. CHR. 3: 16).
Chains: Strong’s H8333 “shar-sher-aw' a chain; (architecturally) probably a garland: - chain.”
The NKJV even uses the word “wreaths.”

A FUNERAL?

But there’s more!
What was done with the evergreen tree after this?

It was put on a cart and taken by procession to the temple of Cybele on Palatine Hill in Rome. This from Roger Pearse’s article “Carmen Adversus Paganos”:

“We have seen lions bearing yokes wrought in silver, [10] when joined together they pulled creaking wooden wagons, and we have seen that man holding silver reins in both his hands. We have seen eminent senators following the chariot of Cybele which the hired band dragged at the Megalensian festival, carrying through the city a lopped-off tree trunk, and suddenly proclaiming that castrated Attis is the Sun.
[10] The lions of Cybele; see M. Vermaseren, Cybele and Attis, London 1977, pp. 96ff.”

Do we do this with Christmas trees? No.
Does anyone place it on a cart and walk it through town? No.

People may stick on the point that the tree was set up for display. Well, there is no evidence that it was "set up" for display. It probably just stayed on the cart. That is as superficial a similarity as I can think of.

But there’s more still!
What was done with the tree once it reached the temple?

First they would mourn for it, and then they would hold a funeral for it.
You see, the cart was a funerary procession, not a joyous parade. There are a good number of people who report that they would even bury it. That's right! They would hold a funeral for it, and then bury it.

Some people claim the funeral was only symbolic. Does it matter?

The last thing most people would think to do with their Christmas tree is to give it a funeral. Checking the facts about the story seems to be important, wouldn't you agree? I can't believe how we were told half-truths!

IN THE SPRING?

But there’s even more still!
Everyone knows that Christmas is on December 25^th. Do you know when the Hilaria took place?

On March 22^nd, in a festival called Arbor Intrat (the Tree Enters), the tree was cut down and taken in procession to the temple of Cybele.
The next day was a day of mourning.
The next day, Sanguis (the Day of Blood), is when they held the funeral.
The day after that, March 25^th, was the official Hilaria for Cybele where there was much rejoicing (you might say, it was hilarious.)

I try not to quote WikiPedia unless I'm making a point that the information is so available anyone can find it, but read the WikiPedia article on Hilaria.

SUMMARY

A funeral in March for a tree under which a man castrated himself and bled until violets sprung up is supposedly the same as a Christmas tree? These are "the plain facts of history and the Bible"?? I couldn't disagree more.
This was sold to us as truth - God's truth. God have mercy on the people who are so malicious against the truth and their fellow Christian!

HWA and Hislop have willfully distorted the facts. The only similarity here is that the trees are pine.

Evergreen trees were used in their pagan rituals, this is true, but this was a spring funeral ritual, not a winter birth celebration. If anything, we would expect to see "Easter trees" at Eastertide. But there are none.
And don’t forget that God also used evergreen trees - as palms are an evergreen - in His worship (NEH. 8: 14-17). Garlands with fruit-shaped bulbs were on His very temple (II. CHR. 3: 16).

If HWA’s point was to make Attis’ evergreen into one and the same as a Christmas tree, then why are we seeing these outrageous differences, distortions, and omissions?
Oh, how I wish I had the means and desire to check these details long ago.

In the next post, I will look into another story from Hislop with another pair of gods from Egypt.