Saturday, December 7, 2013

Nimrod's Birthday Was January 6?

Everyone who attends a Church of God splinter group knows the teaching that Christmas is nothing but a modern celebration of Nimrod's birthday. Year after year this claim is taught throughout the Churches of God, and sent out into the wide world by print, television, and Internet. But I'll bet you didn't know that the Church of God has two completely different dates for the birth of Nimrod. It's true!

Today I want to dive into this and show you, dear reader, how the Church of God undoes its own teachings. Some parts of this post are going to be difficult to wade through, but I found it was necessary to approach it as I did or we wouldn't see how the COGs got their doctrines in the first place. My apologies in advance.
"December 25th was the birthday of Nimrod."
Herbert Armstrong, Plain Truth magazine, December 1957, p.7
Herbert Armstrong, the “founder, Pastor General, and spiritual and temporal leader” of the Churches of God, tells us December 25th originated as the birthday of Nimrod.

This is interesting considering the Babylonians had no month of December. December is a Roman month. Rome didn't exist in Nimrod's time. December is an English translation of a Latin word. Neither of these languages existed in Nimrod's time. It is impossible for the Babylonians to believe Nimrod was born on December 25th.
"In Egypt, it was always believed that the son of Isis (Egyptian name for “Queen of Heaven”) was born December 25th. Paganism celebrated this famous birthday over most of the known world for centuries before the birth of Christ."
Herbert Armstrong, Plain Truth magazine, December 1956, pp.8-9
Egypt didn't have a "December" either, let alone most of the known world.
As for the Egyptians always believing the son of Isis was born on December 25th, we deal with that in detail in our article “On Nimrod and Christmas Trees part2”. In short – this claim is simply not true.

Still, Herbert Armstrong seemed to very much believe any December 25th holiday ultimately came from Nimrod. That is what he taught, and that is what his church believes.
"The Romans used to celebrate December 25 as the Saturnalia birthday of Saturn or Nimrod.”
Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth magazine, December 1958, p.6
Saturnalia was never on December 24th or 25th. It was never once celebrated on either of those dates. We deal with that in detail in our article "The Plain Truth About December 25". But more to the point, when you read that quote above would you believe Herman Hoeh agrees with Herbert Armstrong?
It would only be proper to agree with the founder of your church while writing in the church magazine he started. Herbert Armstrong claimed to be an Apostle inspired directly by God, after all. Armstrong's approval does make the claim official church doctrine. Herman Hoeh appears to be saying that December 25th was Nimrod's birthday.
But there's something important you should know:
     Herman Hoeh didn't believe December 25th was Nimrod's birthday.

You read that correctly. Herman Hoeh, the official historian of the Worldwide Church of God, believed that Nimrod was born on January 6 ...and it was printed in not just one but three separate editions of the Plain Truth magazine. This makes it an official church teaching as well.
The Churches of God have two official dates for the birth of Nimrod. And if Herman Hoeh was any kind of historian at all, as Herbert Armstrong said he was, that means December 25 was the wrong one.

Just listen to how Herbert Armstrong lauds Hoeh's work:
"Studying, delving into intricate research from the vantage-point of THIS BASIC KNOWLEDGE, Mr. Hoeh has made vitally important discoveries. It is my personal opinion that he is today the most accurately informed historian in the world."
Herbert Armstrong, Plain Truth magazine, Aug. 1956, p.4
Hoeh did base his claims from actual evidence, right? He didn't just make this up, right?

I want to go over this January 6 date with you today because this says quite a lot about the way Armstrongism treats history in order to achieve the goal of demonizing mainstream Christianity; Christmas is merely a tool in this larger game.
If you're not from an Armstrongist background, don't worry. Enjoy the read anyway! You'll see how "research" is done by those church groups who tell you Christmas is pagan.

The quote above from Herman Hoeh is taken from a larger article that was run in the Plain Truth magazine in 1958, 1960, and 1962 (with heavy edits). What I would like to do here is quote for you from the version of Hoeh's article that ran in the December 1958 edition of the Plain Truth magazine. I want to give you some of what Hoeh wrote, then I will insert some of my own commentary to point some important things out to you.

"In the western and especially the eastern parts of the Roman Empire, many sects were beginning to follow a false tradition that Jesus was born on January 6.”
Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth magazine, December 1958, p.6
Hoeh is describing the early adoption of Nimrod's birthday into the pagan Roman culture long prior to the birth of Jesus. He claims that tradition was given to Rome while it was yet a Republic and was kept through the centuries. Then this tradition was handed unchanged to the early church. They began to follow it on January 6 because the tradition had been this way for centuries.
This claim has no basis in fact. It is simply untrue. But it is noteworthy.

Why is this important to point out? Because he is saying that the entire world adopted Nimrod's birthday on January 6, not December 25!
Hoeh claims the entire world, for centuries and centuries, celebrated January 6th with no regard to December 25. This length of time is important to point out because just imagine how hard it would be to change the traditions of the whole world after centuries of unaltered observation.
It is also important to point out because it demonstrates that even though the date of the solstice was supposedly moving, no one on earth cared. They maintained January 6th regardless.
It is also important to point out because it undoes Herbert Armstrong's claims that from the beginning it was December 25th that was observed. Hoeh says no!

Just think of the implications of this, and how deeply it contradicts Herbert Armstrong and the church's claims on December 25th over the years. If Nimrod wasn't born on December 25th and if the entire world wasn't celebrating December 25th from time immemorial, then the whole foundation of Armstrongism's claims about Christmas is destroyed.
“Even the church at Rome for nearly two centuries OBSERVED THIS FALSE DATE FOR CHRIST'S BIRTH ON JANUARY 6. This festival was called Epiphany. (Bingham’s Antiquities, Book xx, chapter iv.)”
Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth magazine, December 1958, p.6
Notice how Hoeh says "the church at Rome". Keep this in mind for later. It will be important.
Hoeh tells us that the entire church – the Catholic Church - did not celebrate anything on December 25th for over two centuries.
In other words, Hoeh claims January 6th was being observed from the start, down through 2,000 years of time, and well into the first two centuries after Christ.

Just think of the implications and contradictions in this! If  Romans weren't celebrating anything on December 25th, then they couldn't force it on the Catholics. And if the Catholics weren't celebrating on December 25th, then there couldn't have been any pressure on anyone else. Everything the Churches of God teach against December 25 is vaporized.
Yet there is the claim, right there in the Plain Truth.
“The celebration of January 6 was anciently introduced in Babylon as the birthday of Nimrod at the time when the winter solstice occurred on that date-before 1900 B.C. (See page 35 of The Evolution of the Christian Year by A. Allan McArthur.)”
Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth magazine, December 1958, p.6
To seal the deal, Hoeh now un-does everything Herbert Armstrong claimed about Nimrod's birthday. Hoeh makes it absolutely clear that Nimrod was not born on or near December 25th.

Consider the implications and contradictions in this! Yet, there it is, in print, written by the official church historian and published thrice in the Plain Truth magazine for the entire world to read.

We are about to get into some confusing territory. I'll try to guide you through it gently.
“The introduction of the birthday of Nimrod among the Romans occurred when the winter solstice on their religious calendar occurred on December 25! That occurred about 300 B.C., shortly after Alexander the Great conquered the Persian empire and introduced the Mystery Cult of Babylon into the West.”
Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth magazine, December 1958, p.6
Hoeh is saying that in Nimrod's time, 2000 BC, the winter solstice was January 6. Hoeh says that over the next 1,700 years the date of the solstice slowly crept back. Hoeh says by 300 BC the solstice was on December 25.

Hoeh just got done saying that everyone in the world was observing January 6th even two centuries into the Christian era, regardless of when the solstice fell on the calendar. No one on earth cared when the solstice was on January 5th, or 4th, or 3rd, or 2nd, or 1st. No one cared when the solstice crept into December. According to Hoeh, they observed January 6 regardless.
But now Hoeh is changing his tune. Now he wants the solstice to become important, so he mentions it on December 25th. These things can't both be true.

What Hoeh is really doing is this: Hoeh is trying to tie Nimrod's birthday both to Christmas and to Epiphany, and the way he hopes to pull this off is by making both dates into solstice festivals.

Hoeh is saying that Nimrod was born on the winter solstice. He says in extreme antiquity, the solstice fell on January 6. He says when the tradition came to Italy in 300 BC, the solstice fell on December 25, so the Romans decided for no reason to change the date. He's trying to kill two birds with one stone. He's just making a terrible mess of it.


There are several problems with Hoeh's claims. For instance, they contradict. How can Rome celebrate January 6th even two centuries into the Christian era when the December 25th tradition came to them three centuries before the Christian era? This is a contradiction. Or for another example, Hoeh's accusation against the holidays is that they are supposedly unchanged traditions from Nimrod's day. But Hoeh claims the dates did change with the solstice. He says in 2,000 years it slowly moved from January 6 to December 25th. This is a contradiction. The solstice cannot both be ignored and observed. Or for another, Epiphany on January 6th does not honor the birth but the baptism and the visit by the Magi. Celebrating a birthday without a birth? This is a contradiction. There are plenty more! But there are bigger issues we should focus on.

The three big problems with Hoeh's claims are, 1) he has to keep saying that the solstice occurred on dates when it did not, 2) he has to say the solstice was generally ignored even though it was supposedly the truly important factor in his equation, and 3) his math is all wrong.

It is a crude fact of history that the solstice was most likely not on December 25th in 300 BC. In order to understand this, I need to bore you with a little history about the Roman calendar. I will try to make this as painless as I can. Please, don't skip past this, though. It's important to know for later on.


In deep antiquity, from around 700 BC, Rome used a lunar calendar. Their calendar was originally only 304 days long and had ten months, with a huge month-less winter gap. There were no months in winter at all. The first month was March, and the last month was December, but December was in autumn. It was the tenth month. For centuries, the winter solstice was in no month whatsoever.

The calendar was so confusing that in the 500's BC they added two months – January at the start of the year and February at the end of the year. You read that right; February used to come at the other end of the year from January. For several centuries the winter solstice should have been in February. Problem was, due to a superstition against even numbers they only allowed 355 days in their year, so their calendar was still horribly inaccurate. Every once in a while they would add an extra month to correct the year.

Around 450 BC or so, February was moved from the end of the year to where we know it now; between January and March. Now December was the last month again, and now it generally fell in winter.

What this means is that only after 450 BC did the winter solstice have any chance of falling in December. Any claim about December and the solstice prior to 450 BC are absolutely impossible! But this still doesn't mean the solstice fell on December 25th. (Just because December is a winter month doesn't mean the solstice is on December 25th. December is our winter month now, as you read this, yet the solstice is not on December 25th, and hasn't been for almost 1,900 years.) Their calendar was often months out of sync. The Roman officials who were in charge of the calendar would often purposely manipulate it for political ends. Almost nothing was reliably on a given date. There is almost no way for Herman Hoeh to know when the solstice was in the Roman calendar in 300AD.

Now, here comes the truly important part. -- In 46 BC, Julius Caesar reformed the calendar and set it up with 365¼ days, and leap years. He also added two days to December. December used to only have 29 days; now it has 31. He also set it up so that the solstice was on December 25th. This is the calendar system that we know as the Julian calendar.

To reiterate:
Only after 46 BC did December have 31 days. Only after 46 BC was the solstice more or less reliably on December 25th. Only after 46 BC did anyone have a year that was 365¼ days long.

Except, the year isn't exactly 365¼ days long, so the Julian calendar was wrong by 11 minutes a year or roughly a day every 130 years. The solstice was only reliably on December 25th only for a little more than one century. By the second century AD, December 25 was no longer the date of the solstice.

You still with me? Hoeh claimed the solstice fell on days it didn't -- days that it couldn't. Remember, Hoeh inadvertently claims no one cared when the all important solstice was anyhow.

I told you all of that so you could know for certain that Hoeh's claims are built on how things work today. He attacks holidays as we see them today. He failed to adjust his claims for how things worked anciently. When we think it through, everything falls to pieces.

And it's about to get worse! I haven't yet explained why Hoeh's math is wrong.

“Alexander wanted to found one world and one religion - AND THE ONE RELIGION TO WHICH ALL COULD TRACE BACK THEIR ORIGIN WAS THE BABYLONIAN MYSTERY CULT! It claimed to be a universal or catholic form of religion in which all peoples could find unity! According to the religious calendar maintained by the priests of the mystery cults, each year averaged 365 1/4 days.”
Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth magazine, December 1958, p.6
As we just saw, this claim is utterly false. This claim is inexcusably false. Every one of those claims are wrong. But just take a look at the calendar problem. Hoeh is crediting the calendar of Julius Caesar (ca. 46 BC) to Alexander the Great (ca. 300 BC). In fact, Hoeh is crediting the calendar of Julius Caesar to Nimrod (ca. 2000 BC)!

Alexander died some 223 years before Caesar was even born! Hoeh knew good and well the Romans, let alone the Greeks, did not have a 365¼-day solar year in 300 BC. No one did!

Keep in mind that Alexander never conquered Rome. Alexander had no say in the Roman calendar or their religion. Alexander was a Greek emperor. He spent most of his time in Asia. The Greeks, Medo-Persians, and Egyptians – among whom Alexander spent most of his time - had no December nor did their calendar years average 365¼ days.

So why did Hoeh mention Alexander the Great at all? It all has to do with math ...wrong math.

The foundational claim in this entire article is that in 2000 BC the solstice was on January 6. This is the cornerstone. Everything hinges on this.

Next, Hoeh needs to get the solstice from January 6th to December 25th. It has to move to December 25th. Hoeh must demonize both Epiphany and Christmas or he betrays his ideology. He can't simply say January 6 is the right date or he calls his Apostle a liar! He must move that solstice date. So Hoeh did a little math.

January 6 is how many days from December 25? If you count it out, chances are you'll count 12 days. The 12 days of Christmas! Except the Romans counted inclusively, which includes both the start day and the end day, so ancient Romans would have counted 13 days. Hoeh needs to move the solstice 13 days. How?

Hoeh employs the error of the 365¼-day Julian calendar created in 46 BC. That calendar loses one day roughly every 130 years because the solar year is not 365¼ days long exactly (it's about 11 minutes and 14 seconds shy of that). Hoeh says it loses a day every 133, but let's not squabble over the minutiae. I will use his numbers to recreate what he did. We need to multiply 133 years by the number of days Hoeh wants the calendar to move. If we take 133 years and multiply that by 13 (the number of days Hoeh needs to move the calendar) we get 1,729 years. It would take 1,729 years to move the solstice the 13 days from January 6 to December 25. Just round that off to 1,700 because we are only talking rough numbers anyway. Now, if the solstice was on January 6 in 2000 BC, 1700 years later it should be on December 25th. ... That equates to 300 AD.

It was this bad math, not any historical truth, that causes Hoeh to claim the solstice was on December 25th in 300 BC, in Alexander the Great's day. He admits as much!
“This made the year a fraction too long. It caused the winter solstice to drop back over the centuries about the rate of one day in about 133 years. In Rome the winter solstice - “Christmas” - had gradually dropped back to December 25, beginning 300 years before Christ.”
Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth magazine, December 1958, p.6
It was math that got him to 300 BC; but it was bad math!
It was bad math because the 365¼-day calendar didn't exist in Nimrod's time. It didn't exist in Alexander's time either. It first existed in Julius Caesar's time - 46 BC. You cannot use the error of this calendar in years before the calendar ever existed!

But not only that, Hoeh counted 13 days from January 6 to December 25. Except, until 46 BC December wasn't 13 days from January 6. December only had 29 days, not 31. In 300 BC, December 25 was 11 days from January 1. Hoeh's math is off by two whole days - which means his math is off by 266 years! If Hoeh had thought through what he was doing, he would have ended up in the 500's BC, not the 300's. And, as we saw earlier, in the 500's BC the solstice wasn't in a month named December, it should have been in a month named February!

Truth be told, the real number by which Hoeh's math was off is incalculable.

If Hoeh was the great historian he was held to be, then he knew this without a doubt. Did he get this so very wrong because he didn't know, or because he was deliberately passing on false information? You decide! But the fact remains -- this is official COG doctrine, written by the church historian, published in the flagship church magazine.

“The early Babylonian date of January 6 as the birthday of the pagan savior Nimrod was first applied to Jesus by the apostatizing Eastern Christians.”
Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth magazine, December 1958, p.6
Keep that sentence in mind as we read this next part.
“But this date for the birth of Christ was not universally accepted. In 245 A.D., Origen, like numerous other Catholic leaders, still repudiated the idea of observing any day as Christ’s birthday. The traditional date of January 6 therefore did not gain a very strong foothold in the western parts of the Roman Empire because certain heretical sects were also following the same tradition."
Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth magazine, December 1958, p.6-17
At first, Hoeh said that the West kept the January 6 tradition alive. Remember when he said this, "Even the church at Rome for nearly two centuries OBSERVED THIS FALSE DATE"?
Now Hoeh says the East kept the January 6 tradition alive, and it didn't really catch on in the West.

The West observed the date since the time of Alexander, but it never caught on? Contradiction!

Then, for some unknowable reason, despite the January 6th date being continually observed since 2000 BC, and despite it being in Rome for 600 years, and despite it being church tradition for 200 years, now certain Romans in the west suddenly decided December 25th would be a better day. Even though December 25th was supposedly the date they received from Alexander the Great. Contradiction!

Why? Why would anyone trash 2,300 years of tradition and suddenly assume December 25th was important? Hoeh says January 6th was the accepted date in that place and time. Then why the sudden change?

The main reason the Armstrongist COGs say Christmas is on December 25th is because that date was supposedly Nimrod's birthday. But Nimrod wasn't born on that day! He was supposedly born on January 6th according to the "most accurately informed historian in the world". So why change?
Hoeh says Nimrod's birthday followed the solstice, but then he amply demonstrates no one seemed to care about the solstice. If it was tied to the solstice, why did no one celebrate it that way? Know this: December 25 wasn't the literal solstice beyond the first century AD! So why change?
If the solstice is so important, and for 2,300 years no one cared about the solstice, and December 25th wasn't the solstice -- then why change from January 6 to December 25? Hoeh never really tells us why.

I'll tell you why. He has to smear both Christmas and Epiphany, and he has to point a finger at Constantine the Great, and that's all that matters. In short --- there was no change. Hoeh made it all up!

Lest you think perhaps there is some misunderstanding on my part, here's a quote from this article in its edited form run in the Plain Truth 1962:
"The celebration of January 6 was anciently introduced in Babylon as the birthday of Nimrod before 2000 B.C, when the winter solstice-the shortest day of the year-occurred on that date. (See page 35 of The Evolution of the Christian Year by A. Allan McArthur.) But the winter solstice did not continue to fall on January 6 because the pagan calendar was not accurate. When the birthday of Nimrod was first celebrated in Rome, the winter solstice had dropped back to December 25. But the Babylonian priests in Rome continued to celebrate January 6."
Herman Hoeh, Plain Truth magazine, December 1962, p.29
There was no misunderstanding.
Hoeh said plainly that the Romans ignored the solstice and just celebrated January 6th. Then, for no real reason, a date that wasn't the solstice is suddenly important.

Why? How is that even possible? In one place, Armstrongism teaches the Catholic Church had no choice but to adopt a pagan date because the Romans were so adamant that they celebrate a certain traditional date, but in another place, Armstrongism teaches that Romans didn't care much for 600 years of unbroken tradition.

We know from history that in the fourth and fifth centuries AD the solstice was not on December 25th. But according to Hoeh, it should have been roughly three more days farther away than it actually was. Hoeh's timeline is worse for his explanation than actual history. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever, according to Hoeh's claims, to change from the ancient tradition of January 6th to December 25th. December 25th wasn't the solstice in Constantine's time.


The Worldwide Church of God had two different, irreconcilable dates for the birthday of Nimrod. If this is so true, and so plain, then why the discrepancy?

Today we've seen many contradictions.
Herman Hoeh claimed January 6 was the real date of Nimrod's birthday, but if January 6 is the right day then December 25 cannot be. He claimed the whole world observed January 6 for over 2,000 years, but if the whole world was observing January 6 then no one could be observing December 25. At the same time, he said the Romans first received the tradition when the solstice was on the 25th. If that's the case, then no one in Rome should be celebrating January 6. He claimed, starting in 2,000 BC, the solstice crept backwards from January 6, but if that's true then every day the solstice touched is Nimrod's birthday. Nimrod went from one, to two, and now has dozens of birthdays! He tried to claim that both January 6th and December 25th were days for traditional solstice celebrations, but he ended demonstrating no one cared about the solstice. In one place he said the Italian pagans and then the church in Rome observed the January 6 date. In another place he said the Greek east preserved the date, because it never caught on in the west. Assumptions were made about ancient cultures that are based on modern circumstances. Features unique to the Latin calendar were ascribed to Babylon and Egypt and Greece. He said Alexander the Great and even Nimrod had access to a calendar that wasn't invented yet. Then, because he had the wrong number of days in December, he miscalculated his conclusion by over 250 years.
This is the plain truth??

In short - in one article Herman Hoeh managed to destroy the Church of God's teachings regarding Christmas on December 25th.

I bet you didn't know about Nimrod's January 6th birthday, did you? What I'm telling you today shouldn't be a surprise to you. It was printed in the Plain Truth magazine three times!

Hoeh says Nimrod was born on January 6th, then Hoeh says the celebration was moved to December 25th by Constantine. But why? How? Hoeh never says. The truth is there was no change!! No one ever celebrated Nimrod on January 6th or December 25th. January 6th celebrated events in Jesus' life like His baptism and the visit of the Magi; December 25th celebrated Jesus' birth. Never did January 6th "change" to December 25th. Every stitch of it is made up using terrible pseudo-history.

In its zeal to trash mainstream Christianity, the Worldwide Church of God simply couldn't pass up on the temptation to connect Epiphany (January 6) to Nimrod. It was unfortunate that Hoeh was not creative enough to invent some other explanation. Nimrod's birthday was already taken! No one seemed to care. After all, why should they? The Church of God leadership knew the regulars wouldn't notice. And if they did notice, they would be called "demon influenced" and put out of the church.

They call it "God's truth", but it isn't true. They knew it then, and they know it now.

Are you surprised? I sure was! For thirty years of my life I followed Armstrongism. That is, until I began fact-checking the material.

But this January 6 business isn't sitting well with you, is it? You've seen too much before now that supposedly proved December 25th was always the date, haven't you? Yet, there January 6 is, in print, in the church's flagship magazine, from the most accurately informed historian in the world. Don't think that the solution is simply to disregard the Plain Truth magazine's articles about January 6. This is the Plain Truth we're talking about. They wouldn't put anything untrue in the Plain Truth, would they? That date is official church teaching. You know, in your heart of hearts, that something is wrong with the official church teaching that Nimrod was born on January 6 and December 25, don't you? You automatically know one birthday cannot be on two different dates. Hoeh did read some history, didn't he? He cited some sources, didn't he? Herbert Armstrong read history and cited sources, didn't he? How can both claims be right? They are mutually exclusive. How can both January 6 -and- December 25 be the original date of Nimrod's birth? They can't! How can the whole world celebrate December 25 -and- the whole world celebrate January 6? They can't!
What do you propose to do about that?

As Bereans Did has many articles showing why you should give a second look at the facts about Christmas. In my next article, I hope to demonstrate several more contradictions in the claims about Christmas printed in the Plain Truth magazine from the 1950's through the 1970's. 

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


xHWA said...

My apologies. I had a few AD's where BC's should have been. That's been corrected.

Byker Bob said...

Excellent article! I've long said that the WCG was influenced not only by the material contained in The Two Babylons, but worse yet, Alexander Hislop's methodology served as a blueprint amongst WCG senior management as to how research should be conducted. It was hardly the unbiased and objective following of an evidentiary trail. Like Hislop, they cherrypicked their "facts" in such a way as to support a foregone conclusion.

Most of us, because of the ways in which we were indoctrinated and brainwashed, would have considered it as "blaspheming God's Apostle" to have done the fact checking which we should have done. I assumed that The Plain Truth told the truth. As it turns out, that magazine was more akin to the old Police Gazette or National Enquirer.


xHWA said...

Thanks, Bob! Totally agreed.

Ya know, as I was talking to a few friends this morning, something popped into my head.

According to Hoeh, Nimrod's birthday originally was January 6. But more correctly, Nimrod's birthday was the winter solstice.
This means wherever the winter solstice is, there is Nimrod's birthday.

Nimrod therefore has multiple birthdays! January 6 was Nimrod's birthday. January 5 was Nimrod's birthday. January 4 was Nimrod's birthday - and the 3rd, the 2nd, the 1st, and half of December as well. All of these are every bit as much Nimrod's birthday as December 25th ever was.

Now.. one absolutely universal claim in Armstrongism is "once pagan; always pagan". This is the very reason anyone makes any to-do about Christmas at all. How often have I heard (and used to say), "You know, Christmas is just Deis Natalis Solis Invicti." Therefore, all of these dates should forever be every bit as much "pagan" as December 25th is accused of being. Anything that happens on any of these dates should be every bit as much "pagan" as Christmas is accused of being.
Add to that the fact that Saturnalia ended December 21st, and Divalia was on the 21st and Lorentalia was on the 23rd.

When is the United Church of God Winter Family Weekend again?

Penny said...

This really exposes the depth to which thought reform takes place in the splinters. The flawed and incorrect use of determining a fact by assuming a conclusion is signature Church of God methodology, as taught and perpetuated by Ambassador College and it's graduates. Teaching people how to think and what to think. Anything outside of it is satanic. This article exposes the subtleties of thought reform very well, convicting themselves by their own words. I hope this breaks through the bonds of fear.

Byker Bob said...

Can't help but agree, xHWA, especially about Nimrod's alleged birthday, and the winter solstice. Since the calendar has been more or less stabilized through the Julian calendar, the winter solstice has remained as December 21. Even if we accept the winter solstice as having been Nimrod's birthday, one can't assume the entire end of December should be labeled as "pagan", since scripture tells us that Jesus was in temple for the Festival of Lights (Hannukah).

The Bible doesn't tell us when Nimrod was born, in fact it tells us very little about the man. It doesn't even tell us that he had a female consort, let alone providing her name. Most of what we "know" about him is based on the guesswork of those presenting themselves as authorities (led by Hislop), who connected the dots between a brief scriptural description, assorted myths, and some obscure historical figures. There is nothing really substantive to this speculation, as compared let's say, to what we know about Julius Caesar, Plato, or Confucius.

I am constantly amazed that twenty years of my life were based on theories and guesswork, authoritatively presented as "the truth", and that members of my family are not only still deeply committed to this, but also preach it!


Dillon said...

The Babylonians used a lunar calendar, which means that if they celebrated Nimrod's birthday, it would shift every year on the Gregorian calendar. But it still wouldn't be on two dates. Hoeh must have wanted to make a connection between Zagmuk and the 12 days of Christmas but Zagmuk is a harvest celebration.

xHWA said...

Hoeh was saying that the Babylonians celebrated the solstice, which he later demonstrated that no one cared about. His goal was to "paganize" Christmas and Epiphany.

You are absolutely correct, Dillon, that under a lunar calendar the solstice would move around each year and never become associated with any single calendar date regardless of what calendar we tie it to. (Not just the winter solstice, but any single event on a lunar calendar would be this way. Yule, Samhain, Eostremonath, etc.) UNLESS that calendar was purposefully adjusted to guarantee that the solstice (or whatever event have you) did fall on one particular calendar date every year. Problem is, there is absolutely no evidence that the Babylonians did this.
I'll go one more and say there is absolutely no evidence for the overwhelming majority of what Hoeh wrote in his article.

There is evidence that the Egyptians adjusted their calendar to try and get their New Year to coincide with the rising of the star Sirius in the summer.
There is evidence that the Jews adjusted their calendar to get the Passover to begin on the 15th of Nissan, and that also had to be after the spring equinox.
There is evidence the Romans and Babylonians adjusted their calendars to start their New Year at the spring equinox.
The Greeks, what can we say about them? They had many, many calendars; each region had their own.

What do we see? All of the cultures in that area had different criteria on how to adjust their calendars. The very basis of Hoeh's claim, of some sort of universal practice tying the winter solstice to a particular date, is pure bunk!

Hoeh just ignored that altogether, and tried to apply our modern calendar to the ancient Near East. His notion was that, according to our Gregorian calendar, the winter solstice was on January 6 in Nimrod's time. But tying something 4,000 years ago to our calendar today leaps over that 4,000 years. You cannot tie things together, then assume the middle. It's anachronistic.

Free Dictionary definition of "anachronism":
The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.

It makes sense if you have no idea how things actually happened.

InHocSignoVinces said...

Now I have no doubt that the Armweakists will try to explain your article away by saying,"different cultures celebrated Nimrod's birth on different days." The solstice lasts on one day only so how can the Armweakists say that Nimrod's birth is the solstice and then claim that Nimrod's birth was celebrated on January 6th? Isn't that anachronistic?! January 6th was never, at any point in time, the solstice. In the end they will whine something like this,"Okay, I give up. Nimrod's birthday always lasted for a week and 5 days." Once again we see the Armweakist tactic, that is, moving the goalposts.

Anonymous said...

UHM My guess is they took what they know of what both the Egyptians and Babylonians used as a calendar and their days and then translated those days into the Gregorian calendar. It's not rocket science to know that. Same as using the dates given in the old Testament and cross referencing that with our modern calendar. Duh!

xHWA said...

Except that's not at all what they did, and we demonstrated that.

The events they speak about are not in the Babylonian or Egyptian calendars to begin with. They weren't applying old calendars forward to the Gregorian; they were applying Julian backwards to the old calendars. The Babylonian and Egyptian calendars do not suffer from the mathematical error of the Julian calendar, plus they predate it by hundreds if not thousands of years, so what they were doing is literally impossible.

They took what they wasn't in the Babylonian and Egyptian calendars, applied the error of a future calendar to them, and called it truth.

Larry said...

If anyone believes that Christmas, Easter, etc. Are not pagan look up where there orgin comes from. Question. Do Rabbits lay eggs. Is there a deer that fly threw air. These things are all based on a lie for little children to believe and once they even understand it they grow up believing that is ok too tell a lie. Then by doing this you only get closer thinking well its ok to tell a little white lie. Does God say it anywhere in the Bible it's ok to tell a white lie. What does this tell are children can you blame them for telling you a lie sine you teach them several every year. And all these things have a Pagan orgin. Think about it.

xHWA said...

Hello Larry. We don't think Christmas, Easter, etc are pagan because we have looked up where their origin comes from. We didn't take anyone's word for it. We didn't just go to Wicca website and take what they said for truth. We went to the oldest, most reliable sources we could find, and we went to the newest most reliable experts the world has to offer, and in every instance we found that Christmas, Easter, etc are not pagan at all in their origins.

You mention the Easter Bunny. That has nothing to do with the origins of Easter, and can be safely left out without any effect on the day whatsoever. The Easter Bunny appears quite recently as the first known mention comes from Georg Franck von Frankenau in his writing “De Ovis Paschalibus” [“On Easter Eggs”] in 1682. 1682 is about 1682 years too late to have anything to do with the origins of Easter. Easter is the most well documented of all the holidays.

If you want to ask if it's OK to tell a lie, then let us all apply the same standard to your comments here. You are telling a lie about the pagan origins of Easter. Does God say it anywhere in the Bible it's ok to tell a white lie? Then you must stop telling this lie. A lie it is, no matter how strongly you are attached to it.

To help you better understand the origin of Easter, we have compiled these articles:
Easter FAQ
Easter History Part I
Easter History Part II
The History Channel Flubs Easter

We have many more, of course, so please check them all out. God bless you in your pursuit of truth, and peace to you.