Common Anti-Christmas Arguments

Good [insert time of day here], students. My name is xHWA. I will be your defense against the dark arts teacher this term. Today, I have a super-concise article to help you defend yourself against the most popular anti-Christmas claims.

A friend sent a video made by some guys talking about origins of Christmas trees. The hosts mentioned a couple, like St. Boniface and Passion Plays. I didn't watch the full video (after so many years of doing this, I rarely watch long videos because they just review what I've already seen 1,000 times). Instead, I went to the comments section to see what flak they received. That's where I prefer to rut around. I get a kick out of seeing the objections roll in from back seat scholars. They're always the same. You can count on it. The top five are almost always these:

• Nimrod and Semiramis
• Jeremiah 10
• Saturnalia
• Solstice festivals
• Constantine

It's odd to me how many people fall for these. Everything you need has been available for decades now, or much longer. Yet, they still linger. The most difficult one to answer out of all of these is Saturnalia, and it's not really all that difficult to answer. How ironic that most of them say, "Look it up." Well, we did! And here's what we found. In short --
All of those are false. Fake. Fraudulent. Phony.

Nimrod and Semiramis - completely fictitious. Not a shred of evidence whatsoever in support, and every reason in the world to ignore it. All this Nimrod nonsense comes from Alexander Hislop. His material was demonstrated to be false the very decade he published it, over 170 years ago. He's been proven false again by Ralph Woodrow. You can't even find Nimrod's real name in history, let alone particular details of his life. There are multiple options for which person in history was the biblical Nimrod, but who can know? And Semiramis - she lived hundreds of years years after Nimrod. Depending on what identity you choose for Nimrod, it could be almost 2,000 years after. Awful hard to marry and have kids with those timeframes.
(See "Some Background On Hislop", "The Babylon Connection", "On Nimrod and Christmas Trees" and "Nimrod's Birthday Was January 6?" for more.)

Jeremiah 10 condemns Christmas trees - false. Jeremiah mentions trees and gold, and people conclude Christmas tree. But the context of Jeremiah, taken together with nearly identical depictions in Isaiah, show clearly the item in Jeremiah 10 is a carved idol god. An idol god, carved with tools, into a human form with a mouth and feet, overlayed in beaten gold, dressed, set up, carried around, prayed to and looked to for help, is not a Christmas tree by any stretch of the imagination. Can we find a tradition in the Middle East around 600BC that resembles the Christmas tree? No. So, it's bunk in imagery and from lack of evidence.
(See "Jeremiah 10 and Christmas Trees?" and "Jeremiah 10 Then and Again" and "A Dialogue on Jeremiah 10" for more.)

Saturnalia - fallacious. Christmas does not come from Saturnalia. Saturnalia was on December 17th. After Caesar's calendar reforms, it ran to the 19th. At its longest, and only for a short while, it lasted to the 23rd. At no time was Saturnalia ever on the 24th or 25th. Saturnalia did not merge with Christmas; it merged backwards in the month with Bruma, on November 24th. Only one tradition from Saturnalia made it into Christmas, but not on Christmas day, and that is the inversion of social order. The "Lord of Misrule" tradition, where a servant becomes the master for a day, was usually done on the 12th day of Christmas - January 5. Gift giving at Christmas does not come from Saturnalia, either. It comes from New Year. Gift giving wasn't done on Christmas day until the 1800s. Romans decorated with greenery swags at Saturnalia, sure enough. But Romans decorated with swags all the time. Decorating was not specific to Saturnalia. Google "Roman fresco" and see for yourself. Most of them have greenery swags of some kind; usually laurel. It was year-round. If anyone says, "I'm not honoring the nativity of our Lord and Savior, whose birth is the second greatest miracle in mankind's history, because of greenery," well then that's more of a matter of priorities.
(See "The Plain Truth About December 25" for more.)

Solstice festivals - fraudulent. Christmas is not nor was it ever on the actual solstice. December 25 was the traditional date of the solstice in Rome, but only because Julius Caesar set it that way when he reformed the calendar. Did you notice the solstice is on December 21? That's because Caesar's calendar lost a day every 130 years or so. Christmas is not a solstice festival. Rome had no solstice festival. There was no festival on December 25 until after it became associated with Jesus. December 25 was not chosen because of any festival. There was nothing for them to steal from. We have records from Hippolytus on why it was chosen - and it has to do with the crucifixion and "Integral Ages". Hippolytus was so important in Rome that they made a statue of him and carved his calculations into it.
(See "The Plain Truth About December 25" and "The Quartodecimans and Epiphany" for more.)

Constantine started Christmas - phony. December 25th was chosen as the date of the nativity in the western church 50+ years years before Constantine was born. If the scholarly consensus on the Donatists from north Africa is correct, then Christmas became a festival several years before Constantine became emperor. As for all the false claims about Nicaea - proof please. There is none. Constantine gets more hate than almost anyone else in history, but most of it is for things he never did. What ever happened to "you shall not bare false witness"?
(See "Christmas With The Donatists" for more.)

There are a handful of other silly excuses for Christmas.

Druids is one. Come on, people. The Druids? Seriously? Do people do any kind of actual research at all? The Druids were practically gone when Christmas was starting. They were 1,500 miles away. Christians hadn't set foot in Britain yet, so far as we know. Christmas has no connection to the Druids at all. Even mistletoe at Christmas does not come from the Druids. It came from being used medicinally for the 1,000 years from when the Druids disappeared to when mistletoe became a Christmas ornament after the British civil war. Usually, the claim is about Druid solstice festivals. They had no known solstice celebration. They had winter celebrations, yes, but in late October or early November, and again perhaps in January.
(See "Misinformed On Mistletoe" for more.)

Generic, nameless pagans is another. This one is just a desperate stretch. "It can be traced to pagans." Which pagans? They don't know. Name your pagan and then dig up the history, else why burden us with your miseducation. Just because some things are similar does not mean they are related. Correlation does not prove causation. Or, to put it another way, it isn't enough just to say something looks similar, you have to prove - from genuine evidence - that one thing actually comes from another thing. "I was a pagan and pagans like trees and winter festivals!" Which pagans, in which area, at which time, doing which specific thing? Pagans took quite a few things from Christians, don't you know. Wicca? Wicca was invented in the 1900s. Pretty sure I can show how Christmas is a little older than that. Not everything is pagan just because pagans do it. Pagans like worship ceremonies. Are worship ceremonies pagan? Better stop going to church! Pagans pray. Is praying pagan? Better stop praying! Pagans wear clothes. Are clothes pagan? Better sto... no, on second thought, please keep doing this one. If people actually stuck to the "pagans do it, so we can't" standard, they wouldn't be able to function.
(See "Everything I Don't Like Is Pagan", "Superstitions Be Gone!" and "Peddlers of Paganism" for more.)

I think this confusion can be laid at the feet of several things, but, in my opinion, the biggest culprits are 1) The Reformation, and 2) garbage "history" produced from 1600-1900 that's still being passed around on, 3) social media. You can trust everything you read on social media. (I read that on social media. It's a quote form Abraham Lincoln.)

The Reformation is when everything started coming apart. I'm not going to get into the details here, but in digging through various histories as long as I have, the pattern has become clear. In short, after the Reformation, no idea was too outrageous. 45k denominations later and it's still going.
The histories produced from the 1600s throughout the 1800s are a mixed bag. Some are of fantastic quality. Surprising, really, given what they had to work with back then. But many others are ridiculously poor quality. And it seems those are the ones that float around social media the most. It doesn't help that the many "one true church" -es out there promote the garbage heavily.

Lastly, there are the holier-than-thou type. They take personal offense, on God's behalf, that we are celebrating a day with no direct command to do so. Because they are offended it must mean God is, too. It doesn't seem to matter that there is no command against it. It doesn't seem to matter that the Bible shows not one but two holidays the Jews invented for themselves - Purim and Hanukkah. No command from God needed. And not only does the Bible give its full support, but Jesus Himself is seen observing Hanukkah at the Temple - which means Jesus, as a Jew, likely celebrated both. Lastly, it doesn't seem to matter that even going to synagogue on Saturday is a manmade tradition of the Jews, with no command or even mention of this in the Old Covenant. God Himself celebrated manmade holidays that He did not command. We see that establishing and imposing a new, un-commanded holiday to honor God is completely biblical in every way. I think people should be required to know what their Bibles actually say before they preach about it, let alone be taken seriously about that preaching. So, thanks but no thanks on this one.
(See "Established and Imposed" for more.)

And if there are any more things (and there are, but most of them are not so popular) then we have an article for that, too. Want to know the real history of Christmas? (See "Christmas Eras Tour" or "Christmas With The Donatists" or "The Quartodecimans and Epiphany".) Want to know the real history of Christmas trees? Hint: it wasn't Nimrod or St. Boniface or Martin Luther. (See "Falsely Accused?".) Have a more esoteric question? (See our most comprehensive Christmas article of all, "Christmas FAQ".)

So, there you have it. A handy little reference to help you defend yourself against anti-Christmas ridiculousness. Our articles come with references so you can trace our work. And our references are never, "I read it in an encyclopedia," or worse, "ChatGPT told me so". We insist on the oldest, most reliable material available. I hope this is useful to you.

God bless, and have a very Merry Christmas!

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

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

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

Jeremiah 10 Then and Again

It has been fifteen years since my Jeremiah 10 and Christmas Trees? post. Fifteen years since we dove into the context and exposed the blatant manipulation and abysmal eisegesis going on, the ignoring of context, the misleading commentary, the absolute disregard for history, the cherry-picking, the constantly shifting standards, the utter refusal to consider contradictory information, and the claiming, “I’m just reading God’s word straight from the Bible,” when that is the exact opposite of what's going on.
It takes an Olympic effort to wrestle Christmas trees into Jeremiah 10, but it only takes reading past verse 5 to get them out again.

The good news is that post has been popular, having been viewed 30k times, and it has helped a decent number of people to put away their worries, throw off the weight of false teaching, and move on with their lives, refreshed and renewed in the freedom we have in our Lord and Savior.
The bad news is, I am still seeing that old canard out there in the wild. People are still falling for the nonsense. Strangely, I see it less and less from Armstrongist resources but more and more from fringe Evangelical ones. I shudder for the sad state of Biblical literacy in some areas of Christendom presently.

Child Survivor, my friend and guest author here at ABD, reached out to me the other day because he had posted Isaiah 60: 13 "The glory of Lebanon shall come to you, the cypress, the pine, and the box tree together, to beautify the place of My sanctuary; and I will make the place of My feet glorious."

Some commenter popped in and responded about how angry God is with Christmas trees, and posted Jeremiah 10: 1-5, of course. They said, "I stopped putting a tree in my house because I want to hear what God says makes Him angry and try not to do it! It's what I do."

The guy meant well enough. No one should set out to make God angry. I don't fault anyone for that. But notice two things. First, he posted Jeremiah 10: 1-5 in opposition to Isaiah 60: 13. Is God divided against Himself? Does Isaiah get cancelled out somehow by Jeremiah? Of course not. They aren't in opposition. Second, the question becomes - are we really trying to listen to what makes God angry? Do trees really do that? Or are we telling God what makes Him angry?

Where in the Bible does God say He is angry at Christmas trees? Nowhere. In Isaiah 60: 13 - the verse CS posted at the outset - it clearly states that God wants trees in His house; some translations say pine trees specifically. This is a prophecy, by the way. This is what God wants in His church and in His Kingdom. He wants them. And why? To beautify! So, God is not against evergreen trees or decorating with evergreen trees.

If we cannot claim God is angry at evergreen trees in general, then we are obligated to give solid evidence of Christmas trees in specific. So, we see the accusation is really a truth claim. The claim says there genuinely was a tree tradition in history in Jeremiah's day, and that tree tradition eventually became Christmas trees. But as a truth claim, there must be evidence to support the accusation or the accusation is empty and void and false. If Jeremiah was speaking against these Jeremiah Trees, then we will find records of those in history. Let's look for that record, then.

HISTORY

The first records we have of Christmas trees come from Germany in the early 1500s. (Some dispute the exact date and location, but let’s not fret over those specifics right now.) There is nothing earlier. Not a single record, artifact, folk tale, stray mention, or other speck of evidence suggests a tradition in the Middle East in the 600s BC that resembled a Christmas tree.

Likewise, there is no evidence trail connecting Germany in the 1500s AD backwards in time to a non-existent Jeremiah Tree. This accusation is a bust. This story has no beginning and no middle.

Let's just go out on a limb here and speculate for the sake of argument that Jeremiah was speaking out against a tree tradition (I do not believe he was, but this is just for sake of argument). We still have to tie whatever Jeremiah was talking about to Christmas trees. There must be a trail of evidence connecting the two, or else all we have is a vague similarity. But as we all know, "commonality is not causality". Vague similarities won't cut it. Jeremiah could be talking about a long-dead tree tradition with no relation to Christmas trees whatsoever. There needs to be evidence connecting the two. But there is no such trail of evidence. Nothing ties Christmas trees to Europe in the 1300s AD, let alone to the Middle East in the 600s BC. And that is because there was no such tradition to begin with.

If we cannot find a tree tradition in Jeremiah’s place and time, and we cannot tie that to our modern traditions, then we have no case, no substance, nothing to stand on. The claim about Jeremiah 10 and Christmas trees is baseless. Jeremiah was railing against something non-existent? Rather unfair to accuse people of something that hadn't been invented yet. I highly doubt he did that.
(If you want to explore the real history of Christmas, we have several articles on that.)

So, God is not against decorating with trees in general, nor was Jeremiah railing against a tree decoration in specific. It's almost as if Jeremiah was talking about something else entirely.
And he was! An idol statue.

IDOLATRY

The object in Jeremiah 10 was not a mere tree, but a wooden idol god, carved to look like a human, with feet and a mouth, and overlaid with precious metals. That is the context of Jeremiah 10. There is a parallel in Isaiah chapters 40-44 that says the same thing as Jeremiah 10, but more clearly. No one says, "Isaiah talks about Christmas trees". Yet, they both talk about the same thing. The only things these idols have in common with a Christmas Tree are shallow, surface similarities like they are both made of wood. (Plastic and metal ones excepted.)

I’ve seen it claimed in some websites that the Hebrew word behind “wooden idol” in Jeremiah 10:8 (ʿēṣ, Strong’s H6086) could be translated “tree.” That is technically true. But should it be? Hebrew is a highly contextual language, and the deciding factor is always the immediate context. I've shown in the past how some people misuse Strong's concordance, treating it like a list of options, but that is not how Hebrew or Strong's works. We must let the context decide for us, or else we could just as easily translate the word as "gallows". Yes, the same Hebrew word is used for the 75-foot wooden gallows Haman built in Esther 7:9-10. Context matters!
In this case, every major English translation and every reputable commentary concludes that the finished object is not merely a tree. It starts as wood taken from a tree, but the end product is an idol statue of some kind. That’s why no standard Bible version or genuinely scholarly work treats Jeremiah 10 as a warning against trees (including the King James Version for all you KJV purists out there). Please, once again, refer back to Isaiah 60: 13.

A Christmas Tree can't walk or talk. It is not carried around. It is not shaped with a chisel nor an axe, and doesn't have any beaten plates of gold and silver covering it. People expect neither harm nor good from it. In fact, I've never heard of a Christmas Tree that even remotely fits that description.

So, it has been talking about an idol statue all along. It was never about trees. Then, what’s really going on here with these accusations about trees?

PSYCHOLOGY

People are taking something familiar to them, doing a shallow reading of Jeremiah 10:1–4, and then projecting the Christmas tree back into the time and text where it doesn’t belong. It’s an anachronism dressed up as exegesis. It didn't come from scripture. It didn't come from history. It's simply an opinion, and a poorly formed one at that.

To guard against this weakness, the conclusion is made untouchable - to disagree is to oppose God Himself. But as we've seen, it isn't God who is opposed, but the person's opinion which they have assigned to God. They tell the Bible what to say, history what to record, and God what to think, then tell you that to oppose their claim is to oppose God. That's not how any of this works. That isn’t a rational process; it’s an emotional one. The hope is to get you afraid enough to switch off your rational brain and not question it further.
We say question it further! It's necessary.

And the anxieties just keep coming.

"Pagans decorated with trees!" So did God.
"Pagans liked greenery!" So did God.
"God said 'learn not the way of the Gentile." You are a Gentile - in the New Covenant!
"God said not to worship in groves." A tree is not a grove, and we worship at all times.
"Christmas trees are idols." No one worships the tree.
"People sing to the tree." No, people sing about the tree. All songs are about something.
"God is against new traditions." Have you read Esther??

Most of the traditions associated with modern Christmas have parallels in the Bible. In addition to novel holidays (EST. 9: 20-28; JON. 10: 22-23), and gift-giving (EST. 9: 22), God also lists the use of statues in His worship (EXO. 25: 17-19), garland, bells and fruit (EXO. 28: 33-34; 39: 25-26; II CHR. 3: 16), lights, flowers and ornamentation (EXO. 25: 31-37), greenery (LEV. 23: 40; NEH. 8: 13-15), and other things I could list but won't. All of these things are Biblical. All of these things please God. Yet, somehow, all of these things are condemned as pagan. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

When I have discussions or witness discussions with the ones convinced of mythical Jeremiah trees, they usually resort to one of three responses: 1) they ignore the evidence and continue on (willful ignorance), 2) they attack the messenger rather than refute the evidence (logical fallacy of ad hominem), or 3) they cite good ol' Alexander Hislop (fake history). Do those sound like reasonable, well-formed conclusions to you?

We have multiple articles on Alexander Hislop. If you stumble upon claims about Nimrod and Semiramis, just walk away. Relying on Hislop is not the defense some people think it is. I've spent not a few words on Hislop in the past few months alone, anticipating a post just like this one. I suggest you read through everything I've written since "Some Background On Hislop". His work is not to be trusted. He was sincere, but sincerely wrong.

Alas! When we first encounter these protests they seem like legitimate concerns, but upon closer inspection we see these protests are red herrings. They are but distractions and excuses. Every objection has what I genuinely feel is a legitimate response. Some people just needed to hear a good response and have never gotten one. Hopefully we have helped with that!
However, for the truly determined, it doesn't matter. Sadly, it seems all some people want is to maintain the narrative of condemnation. Ulterior motives are at work here. There are larger conflicts going on - for most, the real war is law vs grace. Christmas is just a misunderstood weapon to fight that war with.

CONCLUSION

Fifteen years on, the Jeremiah 10 and Christmas Trees claim is getting weaker but it limps along. It is a claim made in a bygone era when good information was in short supply, now promoted on the Internet by partisans who feed on people's fears. But God in His limitless mercy has seen fit to provide on this same Internet a means to escape those false claims.
I can't say it surprises me that people fall for it. I did! People fall for scams all the time. But it saddens me. I am glad As Bereans Did and many other places have resources to shine light on it, though.

Dillon, my good friend and guest writer here, wrote an article called "Dialogue On Jeremiah 10". It's insightful. I highly recommend giving it a read!

Fifteen years later, the myth endures - but so does the truth!

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

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

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

Confusion the Great

(MIC. 7: 4) The best of them is like a thorn; their godly are like a thorn bush. Woe to your watchmen; your appointed punishment is on the way. The time of their confusion is now.

Oh man! Here we go. Politics and current events on As Bereans Did. Brace yourself. Run away while you can!

I usually avoid these things here, but every once in a while I find it too compelling to pass up. I did it once back in 2009 with my article "Cultism Abounds". I was reading that again recently and I still agree with it. If anything, it's even more applicable now. As Yoda said, "Now, matters are worse."

Today, I have something for everyone to dislike. I'm pretty good at that. Nobody loves a moderate. I feel the need to talk about a big problem I see in the world. I want to relate it to every sphere I can think of, because it applies to every sphere I can think of. My inspiration is the recent murder of a high-profile conservative in the U.S. and the ongoing battling that has come out of it. (Today's post isn't directly about this. The spectacle is what got me on the soap box.)
More specifically, I am referring to Confusion.

I pray about it almost daily, I've said it many times in other places, and it has been said here before - the main issue in the world today is confusion. I don't care if it's Left or Right, secular or religious, Armstrong or Mainstream, political or scientific or financial or or medical or otherwise, the prevailing condition infecting the world today is confusion. A blinding, debilitating confusion.

And what is another word for confusion? Babylon.

In the Bible and in the Ancient Near East, chaos was personified in the form of terrifying beasts, one of which was Leviathan. Chaos, like these multi-headed, slithering beasts, manifests itself in many ways. I want to highlight two ways: lack of standards and lack of self-awareness.

What do you expect to happen when you throw truth out the window, with some even denying it exists? Strict materialists deny we even have a mind in the traditional sense. Free will is an illusion, generated by colocation of atoms working by order of physics. Were we not warned, and by none other than Nietzsche of all people? "But xHWA!", one will plead, "You mean that 'God is dead' guy??" Yes! The "God is dead" guy. Have you ever actually read what he wrote and tried to understand it? Here read it: Nietzsche, Parable of the Madman.
But you won't, I suppose. Did you? Did you understand it? Did you not see how Nietzsche is desperately trying to find meaning and purpose and something of value in the void?

"What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder?"

Nietzsche didn't believe in God, but even he could see that without the idea of God, of something bigger than us, there is no anchor to stay us and no star by which to guide the ship. It drove him mad, you know.

Everyone doing everything that crosses their mind. All truth is subjective. All ethics situational. All morality relative. Do you know what happens when morality is relative? Tyranny! Yes. Without an objective standard of morality, and the only thing we have are our own opinions, there are two ways to enforce a standard - convincing people to agree with you, and forcing them to agree with you. Rational argumentation might work with some but not all, and should the movement grow it tends to degenerate into force. This is the tyranny of relativism - without objective moral truth, whoever has the most power to enforce their will upon others gets to define what is right and wrong. Instead of one God, we have eight billion gods, and growing. Try being a collectivist and then going against the collective? Why won't you? See my previous statement.

That is what we see today. Mob rule. Power. Tyranny. Chaos. Confusion.

In my observation, people are behaving like they have no standards. Oh, people talk a lot about standards, like justice and freedom and democracy and safety and equality and rights, but for the most part they don't genuinely mean any of it. People who cry loudest LOVE the things they cry about. They love it! They love injustice and tyranny and hate and fascism and danger and inequality and rights denied ... but only when it comes from their side. When others do these things - greatest evil ever seen in the history of evil!! But when their side does it - wunderbar!!
If you love it when it comes from your side and hate it when it comes from the other side, that has a definition: hypocrisy. "Do what I say, not what I do." Have you considered actually hating these things, no matter who does them?

I have written (to a resounding thud) many times about this. I've said if Armstrongists want to set a standard, then they need to stick to it.
Want to claim, "We only regard what's in the Bible"? Fine and well. Then put away all claims about Nimrod's influence, lost centuries, church eras, Constantine, Nicea, Rome's Challenge, the modern Jewish calendar, Hislop's nonsense, 19-year time cycles, British-Israelism, etc etc etc. None of those things are actually in the Bible. For anyone out there saying, "But the Bible does talk about some of these things," but not to anywhere near the degree they've been taken. Nimrod is in the Bible, but Nimrod starting Catholicism and then Alexander the Great taking it from the Babylonians and handing it to the Greeks is not in the Bible. It's not even in the history books. Yet, that has never stopped a single Hislop fan from repeating his non-Biblical claims as God's own truth.

Want to claim "we need to keep the Ten Commandments"? Fine and well. Then keep the one about Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (EXO. 20: 16; 23: 1). Stop promoting lies that have long since been proven lies. Stop quoting only the parts of a story that you prefer while leaving out the rest. Stop purposefully misrepresenting the beliefs of others. Stop falsely accusing your fellow Christians. Stop accusing faithful Christians of being pagan based on false information.
Those are just two examples of many!

And so it is in so many other arenas these days.

I was asked what I think about the entertainer Jimmy Kimmel being indefinitely removed from his television show. I responded, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If there is a standard, then have a standard. He should be treated the same as others should be. (This seemed to please some people.) Then I continued, if people should be cancelled then cancel him, but cancel everyone by the same measure. But if we complain when people we like are canceled, then he should not be. It shouldn't be one way for one group (Roseanne Barr and Dave Chappell) and another way for another group (Jimmy Kimmel and The View). Make the choice. (This seemed to displease those same people.)
If Donald Trump should order the FCC to revoke broadcast licenses for bias, then good and well. Revoke the license for Fox, too. Else, don't revoke at all. Find some other means to fix the issue. An equitable and fair means. Bias needs to be addressed when it gets out of hand, but don't address bias with another bias. Or worse, claim to be addressing bias but by halves. (Hypocrisy.)

And what is the other side always waiting for (regardless of whom 'the other side' is)? Vengeance. "You just wait until we are back in power!" See? Loves the things they say they hate. I jokingly describe it as, "I hate people who hate!" See the irony there? If you hate people who hate, then you are a person that hates.
Cue the excuses and self-justifications.

People are beyond my comprehension. I can't believe we survive as a species. There has to be a God or we'd have died out long ago. Problem is, I am a people.

This is why I try very hard never to pray for justice. All I am doing is praying for my own condemnation. I deserve justice. I do! And that means I deserve to be condemned by a righteous God. Because I have sinned and I have earned it. No, I pray for mercy, forgiveness, and for the Lord to remember His covenant with His people. One of the hardest things I have ever done in my entire life was to pray this for my enemies. A person close to me did me very, very wrong. Affected every facet of my life, including this blog, and will continue to do so for the rest of my life here. Though inside I screamed and cried and plotted for revenge, and I am still angry, I had to deny myself and give vengeance to the Lord. I set a standard as one of living by faith and now I had to live by it, or else by getting my way I would condemn myself. Jesus never said following Him would be easy.

Along with no standards comes no self-awareness.
People seem utterly incapable of understanding what they are doing anymore. They are blind to their double-standards. I might poke fun with commentary like, "I hate people who hate!", but is that not so? And are people not repaying hate with more hate? And are they not patting themselves on the back for how good they are? Do they not excuse themselves when someone points this out?

I read that U.S. Congressman Jerry Nadler just complained that demonizing people puts people in danger. His real point was that since people demonize him that he is in danger. Typical politician. Self-serving to the last. What is he really saying? "I can't defend my positions logically, so I hope painting your position as dangerous and myself as a victim will get me out of the need to be held accountable." That is what he's really saying. It's called DARVO. But is a Congressman who barely goes out of doors without a security detail close by really in much danger? Congress just gave themselves $10k per month for personal security. Tell me that story again about how Nadler is unsafe.
Demonizing people does put people in danger. It's true! Always has and always will. So, don't do it.

Are you inwardly complaining that I haven't also blamed "the other side" as well? Don't go to that "so's your old man" bit. I blame everyone! I started out this post as much. I don't see the point in going over every example in some attempt to be fair. People don't want fair, they want affirmation. So, the example of Nadler will suffice for today. Thinking of reasons "the other side" is unfair serves my point - because it's probably right, they probably are. But pointing out how dirty the plate is doesn't make the cup any cleaner.
Personally, I don't accept "they did it too!" as any kind of excuse. I don't accept it from my kids or myself, and the teachers I had didn't accept it from me when I did it.

No standards. No self-awareness. No accountability at all. No truth. No roots. No foundational, guiding philosophy. No mercy. Mob rule. Tyranny. Chaos. Confusion. That is Babylon the Great today. And we're all soaking in it.

That's why I still believe in end-times. Not because of nuclear proliferation or European Unions or lost tribes or time cycles or eras or any of that doomsday cultery. Because of Babylon. Because of Confusion. Because of Chaos, symbolized by beasts. Even the church is carried away by it. Spirits generally war in the realm of ideas and principles. If Satan has been released and is overcoming the faithful (REV. 20: 7-8), then this might just be it. (Yes, I fully realize Armstrongists will reject my reference to Rev. 20 right there. But that is for another post.)
Satan is overcoming. By and large, what good has Christianity been lately? Some good, sure! Here and there. The light yet shines. But I mean in general. Too caught up in money and politics and scandal and infighting and ancient rivalries and winning a proselyte only to make them twice the child of Hell as themselves. (God forgive me for using such strong language against my fellow Christians.)

It's this modern world, I say. It's Babylon.

(REV. 18: 4-6) 4 Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, so you will not take part in her sins and so you will not receive her plagues, 5 because her sins have piled up all the way to heaven and God has remembered her crimes. 6 Repay her the same way she repaid others; pay her back double corresponding to her deeds. In the cup she mixed, mix double the amount for her..."

Nietzsche was right. And so was Paul (II TIM. 3: 1-5).

Want to come out of her? Realize you're in her. Take accountability for your own part in all this. Have a standard and stick to it. Apply the same standards to yourself and "us" as you do "them". But first, learn the lesson of Nietzsche and put God back at the center - and accept the Gospel. It's the best way I can think of to start. "Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.", (John 18: 37b). Become a disciple and mirror the Teacher. No point in morality if it's just more of the same self-righteous situational ethics that we forget when it's convenient and which gets us nowhere.

(ISA. 27: 1) At that time the Lord will punish with his destructive, great, and powerful sword Leviathan the fast-moving serpent, Leviathan the squirming serpent; he will kill the sea monster.

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

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

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

Layers of Deception

As I said in my last post, "Some Background On Hislop", I have been reading Ronald Hutton's "Blood and Mistletoe: The History of Druids in Britain". The book devotes several chapters to deeply investigating the development of Druidism in the United Kingdom starting in the 1600s. Something occurred to me while reading it. It has to do with legitimizing something false by layering on. I think this applies to Armstrongism in many areas.

What do I mean? Let's say I write an essay about a topic and I use some truths but I embellish heavily with my own imagination. Then, let's say someone else reads my essay and uses it as a reference in their own essay where they also embellish with their own imagination. That happens a few times more until it gets to you. By that point, I look like a serious and reliable source.
But am I?

That's what happened in the book. One author writes something ridiculous based on half truths. Another reads that and gets inspired to take things a step farther. That goes on and on until two centuries later people are building societies and traditions based on old sources whose claims were mostly imaginary. There was even a person in the 1800s who came along and wrote critically about the whole thing. That person was dismissed.

This is all very similar to how so-called "intelligence" agencies use misinformation to bring about certain desired results. Just for example, the FBI might want a result, so they take a partial truth embellished with plenty of imagination and "leak" that to a media outlet. The media outlet publishes the misinformation as fact, citing an anonymous source. The FBI then turns around and uses the media outlet as their evidence in courts and elsewhere. The media published it, and they are a trustworthy source, so it must be true. Even though the information is fake, the information appears legitimate because it was layered.
It's like money laundering, but with information. False information.

This is the same kind of thing we see in Armstrongism and elsewhere. Alexander Hislop, or J. H. Allen, or C. T. Russel, or Ellen G. White, or G. G. Rupert, or A. N. Dugger and C. O. Dodd, or Steven M. Collins, or whomever you've got, will get some ball rolling. Any ball. Doesn't matter which, except to say it's not accurate. That gets picked up by someone inside the Armstrong-o-sphere, maybe someone like Herman Hoeh, or maybe even Herbert Armstrong himself, and published. That legitimizes things. Then, going forward, all you really need to do is quote that prior church literature. BAM! Doctrinal truth.

Now, you can't be a member and go against it. Do you hate God's church? Do you hate God's prophet? Do you hate God's truth? You seem like you have a spirit of pride. (Anyone viewed as a troublemaker in church has a 'spirit of' something). Perhaps you should stay home from church for the next few weeks and pray about this.
Do continue to tithe during this time, though. Thanks.

So, most people will not go against it. Ralph Woodrow read Alexander Hislop and decided to write his own book supporting and enhancing Hislop's claims. He was challenged about it. He decided to do something very different: he fact checked himself. He found out he was way off. He wrote an entirely new book destroying his earlier book. Guess what. People won't read it! Some people still cite Woodrow's first book even though the very author says it was all garbage. They don't care.

Let me ask you - at what point is a falsehood "God's truth"? Was it when it was first written? Or when it was borrowed (usually without credit)? Or when it was copied as a reliable reference later on? Or was it when it was repeated often enough? How many of these steps must we go through before something that starts out as not true becomes "God's truth"?
I don't think it ever becomes God's truth. And they say I am the problem.

How would a church member know what they're being fed is untrue? Certainly, the church isn't going to admit that. It comes from blogs like this one and others. The formers. The haters. The wounders. (Read the post "The Stab of Pain and Grief" over at the God Cannot Be Contained blog.) The troublemakers whom the church accuses of just being here to fight against God's work and His prophet. Again, not true! What is the conscientious member to do? It's not like they can admit they read formers' material. They can't share it. They can't just do nothing with it, either.

Do you see how this works, the layers?

I can't really speak for any of the other former's blogs or websites, etc, but so far as As Bereans Did goes, we have never tried to just cause trouble. All we've ever done is investigate what we've been told and report back on what we've found. We even admit when Armstrong was right. Sometimes he was. And we've tried our best to provide sources so you can retrace our steps on your own. We gave ourselves permission to ask questions. That's what we did. I recommend you do the same. Won't be easy! But it'll be worth it.

I have one last thing I want to say.

While reading Hutton's book, it became clear to me that the reason so many people created or consumed fantastical claims from the 1600s forward is because people simply did not know any better. If you read this post and think, "Well, duhh. This is so simplistic and obvious. Why bother writing this pablum?", then go in peace. If you have already learned why good sources and verifying claims is important to finding truth, then this post is beneath you. Not everyone knows this, though. It isn't instinctual in our species. I see examples all around the internet (not just in religious contexts) where people have no idea what a good source is, or what a well-formed argument is, or what a logical fallacy is, and etc. The other day, I saw a guy say, "False," and he really thought that was a solid argument. That was literally all he wrote. He refused to provide any support for his claim. When he finally did, he posted a video that contradicted him. That right there is a person who needs to learn how to research. This post is for people who don't recognize the layers. I am not trying to be condescending in this post, but I do hope something here is helpful.

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

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

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

Some Background On Hislop

I do apologize that today's post will be academic and boring. I never enjoy boring, but sometimes I find it useful.

Last year, I purchased a couple books by historian Ronald Hutton. I wanted to learn more about Halloween and Christmas, mistletoe and druids, and other such homely things long condemned in the extreme by Armstrongism. Turns out, as usual, we have been lied to by those busybody purveyors of paganism in the Church of God splinters (for example, read the posts "Samhain Was Not On October 31" and "Misinformed on Mistletoe").
Lately, I have been reading Hutton's "Blood and Mistletoe: The History of Druids in Britain". It is a difficult book, with long, tedious tracts of background information about authors since the 1600s who contributed to our [mis]understanding of Druids. It is packed with information. It was intentionally thorough, but its thorough nature makes it dry and laborious. By sheer force of will and natural stubbornness I am determined to finish it. I am only halfway through. Pray for me.
But it is not a bad book so far as it goes. Actually, it has some fantastic insights.

A curious thing occurred to me as I read it - this material applies to Alexander Hislop.

You might remember Alexander Hislop from such things as "The Two Babylons: Papal Worship Proved To Be the Worship of Nimrod And His Wife" - one of the most ridiculous pieces of anti-historical nonsense ever to waste paper and ink. A good amount of the garbage that came from Herbert Armstrong and "the most accurately informed historian in the world" Herman Hoeh was predicated on the toxic sludge left for us by Hislop.

Hislop was a Presbyterian minister who joined the Free Church of Scotland in 1843. Presbyterians and all Protestants are considered "daughters of the harlot church" (re. REV. 17: 5) by Armstrongism, and condemned. This one man gets a pass for purely utilitarian reasons. Notice that date there - 1843. What else was happening then? Why William Miller's Great Disappointment, of course. The 1800s were bad years for Christendom.
Hislop did consider the Catholic Church a harlot, but did not associate himself with being a daughter of it. His entire book was a condemnation of the Roman Catholic system. This was par for the course in the early 1800s. Hislop was not by any means alone. He was a product of his time. That is what Ronald Hutton's book makes clear.

In Hutton's book, he reviews several historians beginning in the 1600s who were instrumental in the study of the Druids of the British Isles. Hutton walks us through who these authors were, what their lives were like, who they knew, who inspired them, and other such details so that we can understand why they wrote what they did. Patterns emerge.

The authors of the 1600s were like babes in the woods. They had nothing to go on but ancient writers like Pliny and Julius Caesar, a scant few stone henges sticking out of the ground, some folklore, and the Bible. Every missing detail was filled in by pure imagination. But that wasn't abnormal in those days. That's how most everyone did most everything. It's not like the science of archeology was there to guide them.
The authors of the 1700s had the exact same resources, now colored by the fancies of earlier writers. Their main take was that the Druids were isolated and therefore kept a more pure form of the one true ancient religion of Noah's day. They lacked the divine revelation given to the Hebrews, but otherwise kept Noah's religion better than anyone else had. There was a sense of national pride here. That Britannia could be the home of such noble savages was uplifting to the national spirit. It was a tool to unify the United Kingdom yet provide a way to remain attached to old customs of Saxony, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales before they disappeared. It was also a poke in the eye of the Catholics. After Queen Elizabeth I solidified England as Protestant, and after the civil war "of three nations", the divide between Protestants and Catholics was growing. Anything and everything was fair game to use against Catholicism.
The authors of the 1800s yet had the same resources, yet again colored by earlier writers, but the Industrial Revolution and contact with the Far East afforded by the British Empire was changing their view of the Druids. In Wales and Ireland, the Druids maintained their positive perception, but in England, rather than a pure and proud people, the Druids were seen as murderous and thoroughly corrupt. The Druids were no better than the easterners who practiced head hunting, human sacrifice, and other various cruelties of rank paganism. These points were all used against Catholicism, but they had now begun to be used against Protestantism as well. Any organized and influential ministry was becoming fair game.

Bear in mind, none of these people knew what the Druids actually did outside of the details left by the Romans. Few of them actually trusted the Romans. Roman renditions were more likely propaganda than they were honest telling of wrote fact. We still today know barely more than they did and we still use mostly the same resources. We might know the stone henges predated the Druids by quite some time, but we don't know what the Druids did with them, if anything. We still have people who fill in the blanks with wild imagination. And we still use what we find in games of religious one-upmanship.
The more things change....

But here is what I've been driving at --
You might see in here the seeds of Alexander Hislop's approach. For example, Catholic bashing, an ancient single religion, beliefs and practices from the Middle East coming to Britain, precise details conjured from imagination built upon scant facts, and etc. You might also see in here the seeds of ideas such as we find in "The United States and Britain In Propehcy" - a book Herbert Armstrong plagiarized from J. H. Allen's "Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright". (We have articles on this. Go to the Categories page and look for British-Israelism.)

The notion that Alexander Hislop knew what he was talking is laughable. Babylon wasn't even unearthed yet and the language barely translated by the time he finished his book. Serious scholars were calling him out from the very beginning. He had very little facts to rely on and none of his claims line up with what we have learned since. Why would he do this? Why would he make things up whole cloth like this? Why would he fill entire books with little other than fanciful imaginations?
Because that's what most people did back then! They filled in details with imagination and attacked the Catholics with it. Hislop is a product of his time.

And why would Armstrongism give him a pass to this day; to this very minute ignoring everything that has been proven over and over and over again to be false? Because it's convenient.
God's truth? Not even close.

Let this be a lesson to use only the most reliable sources and to employ older material only with utmost caution.

I don't condemn Hislop. If we were born then and there, we'd probably be doing much the same things. I don't like this silly notion of moral superiority based on what time we live in. He wasn't evil. He did what he thought was right given what resources he had. It's just that the result of his works are entirely destructive. It's the works, not the man, that I criticize here. He is almost as much a victim of this as we are. His works should have been forgotten but they were abused by charlatans and false prophets.
Herbert Armstrong, on the other hand, knew good and well what he was doing and was a liar and a thief on purpose. Knowingly. Willfully. I will not extend him this same courtesy. To him, or to the present-day leadership in the COGs who have every resource at their fingertips to right past wrongs but refuse because it's too convenient to their bank accounts.

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

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

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

The History Channel Flubs Easter

I came across something today that burns me up. I am livid! And I'm only going to share it here today because it needs to be pointed out for the garbage it is.

I do not personally care for alien conspiracy theories, so I don't watch the History Channel very often. Apparently they have one-minute video shorts online. Somebody brought one to my attention called "Easter in 60." Well, I watched it, and I haven't been so shocked and aghast in quite a long time. People look at me funny when I tell them that the History Channel is wrong or that certain things in certain encyclopedias are wrong. Well, don't give me that look, I'm telling you how it is.

Anyone who reads this blog will already know every one of the claims of this video. I will relate them to you here:

Nimrod married his mother Semiramis, as enemy killed him and chopped him up, all parts were found except his genitals, Nimrod became Baal, Semiramis became Ishtar, she descended from the moon in a giant egg called "Ishtar's Egg," their son Tammuz was killed by a wild boar, Ishtar ordered no meat to be eaten for 40 days called Lent, and rabbits were celebrated as Temmuz loved rabbits.

The irresponsibility of this! The infantile claims! The utter lack of responsible research! The complete disregard for accuracy! How insulting that this would be associated with the word "history!"

POINT BY POINT

I was unable to find a single thing in that video that was correct. Not one thing! Let's subject this to the patented AsBereansDid fact-checker, shall we?

• Nimrod married his mother Semiramis - FALSE! 

There no record whatsoever for Nimrod in any historical record known to man, besides the Bible. That doesn't make the Bible wrong, it just makes Nimrod difficult to locate. Nimrod has the feel of being a title rather than a proper name. For example, it could be a joining of the ancient Semitic word 'Nin' which means King, and the city Marad, which was an important city in Kish. Nin Marad, King of Marad, would be a title, not a name. There is no hard evidence for this. I am just giving an example of what a title might look like. Or, Nimrod might be a birth name forgotten to history of an otherwise famous person who went by a different name. for example, no one knows the birth name of Hammurabi. Or, the name might be the Hebrew equivalent of a foreign name. For example, Pharaoh Shihanq is changed to Shishak, and Nabû-kudurri-uṣur is changed to Nebuchadnezzar. Or, the name might be purposefully wrong. The Hebrews would slightly alter names on purpose to change the meaning of a name. For example, Antiochus Epiphanes (God's Beloved) was called Epimenes (The Mad) as a slight. The Hebrew scribes would also leave the consonants alone but change vowels in names to the vowels in negative words to express animosity for the name. This should come as no surprise to anyone, but the real identity of Nimrod is sadly unknown. If we can't even find the real name, then there is no way on earth we know so much exacting detail about him. Neither Nimrod's mother nor his wife were ever mentioned in the Bible. Yet we can be confident that it was not Semiramis. How? Because there are some possible candidates for a Semiramis in history, except they lived after the time of David and Solomon. This makes them all more than 1,000 years too late. Hard to be born by a woman who lived over 1,000 years after you died.

• An enemy killed him and chopped him up - INCONCLUSIVE.

Again, there is simply no clear record of Nimrod outside of the Bible. The Bible doesn't say how he died. History might say how he died, but we don't know who in history he is. Therefore we cannot know. Herman Hoeh, historian to the Worldwide Church of God, a man about whom Herbert W Armstrong once wrote, "It is my personal opinion that he is today the most accurately informed historian in the world" (Plain Truth magazine, Aug. 1956, p.4), even disagrees with this. Herman Hoeh said Nimrod was killed in Italy by Shem. Yes, that Shem; Noah's son. Now, don't take our mention of Hoeh as some endorsement of his work. We think most of what 'the most accurately informed man in the world' wrote was just as useless as the video we now review. I just bring it up to point out that the claims about Nimrod are often contradictory.

• All parts were found except his genitals - FALSE!

Since we can't know how Nimrod died, we can't know if he was chopped up. But this one point here, the losing of his genitals, is a dead giveaway for something else entirely. Nimrod was entirely Babylonian, but this story isn't! The author of this video is so historically uneducated that they confused the legitimate myth of the Egyptian God Osiris with Nimrod of Mesopotamia. They are trying to take Egyptian images and apply them to Babylon. The reason Osiris was chopped up is because Osiris pictured the Nile river, which split up at its Delta. Nothing in the Bible or history shows Nimrod had anything to do with Egypt. Granted, this is something the Worldwide Church of God did all the time. They got it from the Seventh Day Adventists who got it from Alexander Hislop. Yes, there's the source of these ridiculous claims about Nimrod. Alexander Hislop - the most notorious purveyor of rubbish we know. We have plenty of articles on Hislop, dear reader, and we recommend you to them. I will forego my usual rant about the lack of source material in these claims, since it's a video and all. But if it were a written work, and if it had sources cited, I guarantee you the source material would trace straight back to this man Alexander Hislop.

• Nimrod became Baal the sun god - FALSE!

Baal was a Canaanite god, but not the sun god. Baal was a storm god. Baal is also a generic name that means something roughly the same as "lord." And there were many Baals. Now we've moved away from Egypt. Canaan was roughly the same area as Israel, but Nimrod's territory was far to the east and a bit north. We have no solid information about Nimrod, but he apparently was everything, everywhere. No information? No problem. Blame absolutely everything on him!

• Semiramis became Ishtar - FALSE!

Ishtar (also called Inana) predates Semiramis by thousands of years. Inana is one of the oldest goddesses there are. It is quite possible Inana predates the time of Nimrod. But Semiramis came much, much later. There is no way possible that Semiramis became Ishtar.

• She descended from the moon in a giant egg called "Ishtar's Egg" - FALSE!

Oh my! Where do I begin with this one? Ishtar was associated with the planet Venus, not the moon. In some myths she is the daughter of the moon goddess, but she is not the moon goddess. She did not descend to the earth in an egg. Neither eggs nor rabbits were part of her symbolism. Ishtar was a goddess of sexual attraction, but not of fertility. Ishtar had no direct affiliation with fertility or reproduction. It would make little sense that eggs would be associated with her. Ishtar’s main symbols were an eight-pointed star (probably representing the planet Venus), a pair of lions, a rosette or flower pattern, doves, and snakes. There was a peculiar creation narrative in certain cultures called the "World Egg". Creation started with an egg, from which the first gods hatched. The biggest problem here is, the creation narrative in Mesopotamia was not a World Egg.

• Their son Tammuz was killed by a wild boar - FALSE!

In the Babylonian myth of Tammuz/Damuzid, he was dragged to the underworld by demons from the netherworld to take the place of Ishtar so she could go free. He was not killed by a boar. The author confuses the Babylonian Tammuz with the Greek Adonis. It was Adonis who was killed by a boar, not Tammuz. But Adonis is from Greece, not Mesopotamia, and came far too late to have anything to do with anything. The earliest reference to Adonis is in the 600s BC. Tammuz was not the son of Ishtar at all. Only very rarely was Ishtar given a son. In some later myths, Ishtar was Tammuz's sister. Most of the time, Ishtar married Tammuz. Nor either was he a hunter as the video claimed. Tammuz was a shepherd and a gardener. Tammuz is associated with the crop cycle, and thus he had the usual myths about an annual descent into the netherworld and eventual release again.

• Ishtar ordered no meat to be eaten for 40 days called Lent - FALSE!

Not only is this false because it is completely made up whole cloth, but Lent is a German word. The Babylonians wouldn't know what a Lent is. Let's be clear here, this claim is 100% made up for the purposes of smearing Lent. The Lenting fast comes directly from the Jewish traditions of fasting before Passover, and it took three centuries to become a 40-day thing. At first there were a variety of lengths of the fast. One part of the Quartodeciman Controversy was a debate about how to keep the fast. Point being, Lent and its length was entirely a Christian thing. To claim that it originated from a pagan 40-day fast is sheer and utter nonsense. Ishtar had no such fast to begin with.

• Rabbits were celebrated as Tammuz loved rabbits - FALSE!

Rabbits were not a symbol associated with Tammuz. This claim is infuriatingly false. It has all the sophistication of a drive-by shooting. You can practically hear the author trying to figure out what to say about rabbits. No, the Easter Bunny is a German/French invention not a Babylonian one. The first known mention comes from Georg Franck von Frankenau in his writing “De Ovis Paschalibus” [“On Easter Eggs”] in 1682, some 4,000 years after the video's claim!! He said:

“In Alsace and the neighboring regions those eggs are called hare-eggs because of the myth that is told to make the simple-minded and children believe that the Easter Hare was laying and hiding them in the grass of the gardens, so the children search them even more eagerly, for the delectation of the smiling adults.”

Alsace is in France, but at the time was controlled by the Germans. Don't you think it's odd that the Easter Bunny supposedly comes from ancient Mesopotamia but the first known mention is 4,000 years later in northern Europe? And I just want to point out that if the Easter Bunny comes from Tammuz, then it can't come from Ishtar or Eostre/Ostara. Just sayin.

And that will about do it.

CONCLUSION

Strangely, I don't feel much better having gotten this all off my chest. I think the reason is because I know beyond any doubt that these lies will outlive me and for all the research and the writing we at ABD have done, I will never have made a dent in the zeal of the people who will stop at nothing to bash Easter. All the while telling us how very much they love truth and history.

Shame SHAME on the History Channel for allowing this garbage to be put out on their outlets. I notice several people jumping on them about it already. They deserve all of the negativity they will get over this. Stick to what you do best - stories on Bigfoot.

Even so, I pray that the truth is clear to you, dear reader, even if the lies are legion. And I pray now that you are armed with the truth you can go out and spread it confidently and effectively.

I would like to leave you with a link to help you find other material on this subject. Because we have so much material, I have started using the Easter FAQ article as my place holder for links. Please do read it, share it, and come back again to us soon.

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

Advent of Honesty

From all of us at As Bereans Did to all of you, our astute and honored readers --

MERRY FACTMAS

Factmas? What's that?

Why, that's the time of year that we devote to countering the fake news about Christmas that we find in Armstrongist literature each and every year that are, to be blunt, willfully dishonest.

Yes, I said it. I said Christmas. It's a scary topic to many people in the Armstrongist tradition. A lot of things can be overlooked but not sympathy to Christmas. Too much baggage is involved. Too much fear. But listen to me please. I am not here to trick you out of a crown. Quite the opposite. I am here to present facts. If I can give you even one truth, no matter how small, don't you want to know what that is?

Have you been told that Christmas is pagan? Have you been told that December 25th is the birthday of Nimrod? Have you been told that Christmas Trees began in ancient Egypt? Have you been told that Jeremiah condemns Christmas Trees?

Everybody knows these things. Right? I used to believe them too. Before I looked at the facts.

Well, what would you say if we told you that these things are fake news? What if we told you these things are in fact not true, and we can prove it? What if we told you that the very church leaders who have been telling you these things have known that these things are not true, and have known this for decades?

Scary? Yes. I can relate. Moves you too far out of your comfort zone? OK. I understand. Don't let that chase you away.

We encourage you to read through our catalog of articles to see just what the other side of the story really has to say. But not only what the other side has to say, but to see what your own side of the story has actually said over the years and how the story keeps changing in order to keep promoting a false narrative.

We've been doing this for almost ten years now. We've been drawing on materials that have been available for years, sometimes centuries. Why don't the leaders in the Armstrongist splinter churches pay any regard to these facts? They have access to the same source material we do. We suspect it has to do with money and control. Of course, I am referring to your money and control over you.

If anything I have said has piqued your curiosity in any way, I encourage you to dive into one of these recommended articles:

Christmas FAQ

Falsely Accused? Christmas Trees and Germanic Paganism
Falsely Accused? Christmas Trees Were Christian Theater Props
Falsely Accused? Catholics Rejected Trees as Too Protestant?
Falsely Accused? Nazi Christmas Propaganda Lives On
Falsely Accused? You Decide
Jeremiah 10 and Christmas Trees
The Plain Truth About December 25th
On Nimrod And Christmas Trees part 1
On Nimrod And Christmas Trees part 2
On Nimrod And Christmas Trees part 3
Unto You A Child Is Born
Nimrod's Birthday Was January 6?
A Dialogue On Jeremiah 10
The Quotes Before Christmas
Crazy About Christmas
Established And Imposed
Christmas On Trial

*The Christmas FAQ in particular has become our place to link to more Christmas articles on other sites that we've found useful.

Read one. Just one. Pick one out, read it, pray about it, think it over, come back and read another. Or by all means please take some time to check our facts.

You will find something odd within these articles, strange and curious to you no doubt, and that is referenced sources. I trust, in this age of fake news, that you will agree that not all source material is the same. If I quote propaganda, then what good is my quote? If I quote something that is known to be fake, then what good is my quote? If I make a statement today then use myself as a reference tomorrow, what good is my quote? Well, these are precisely the type of things done by Armstrongist authors over the years. These annual collections of alternate facts are what we call "intellectual dishonesty." (That's a fancy way of saying fake news.)

How can "God's Truth" be based on lies? It can't.

So we decided to do just the opposite and take the most rigorous approach we could and bring you quotes from primary sources or the best possible secondary sources we could find. Not just any confirmation-bias source, no! The best sources. We call this "intellectual honesty."

Read our articles. Verify our source material. Follow the trail of evidence. We have boldness to encourage you to this. Why? Because we love the truth. The truth will take care of itself. And the truth will set you free.

How do you fight fake news? FACTS! We got em. We want you to have em, as a free gift. And so we say...

MERRY FACTMAS

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

Superstitions, Be Gone!

As Bereans Did (ABD) is a blog about the flaws of Armstrongism. “Armstrongism” is shorthand for all of the churches that splintered off from the WorldWide Church of God, whose founder was Herbert W Armstrong. It’s easier to say “Armstrongism” than spell out a litany of various splinter groups and try to explain the whole situation every single time. We deal mainly in doctrine and that leads us necessarily into issues of their epicly flawed interpretations of history which they use to support their doctrine. Our readers are generally people who have had some contact with the doctrines or the flawed history of Armstrongism, or groups who share such things along with Armstrongism. Over the years ABD has had many questions come in either in comments or by email. As you can imagine, these questions tend to run along common themes. Some of our most common questions have to do with the grossly misrepresented history surrounding Christmas and Easter. We get those a lot. I want to talk about something that I see in these questions. A common thread runs throughout. I am going to call this “superstition.”

Superstition? Like throwing salt over your shoulder to avoid bad luck? Sort of. I mean superstition as in – some object or practice is more powerful than God.

Still too vague? Let me elaborate. There is an idea out there, and not just within Armstrongism, which can be summed up as “once pagan always pagan.” This claim, as popular as it may be, is simply not true. It puts an object or an act completely out of God’s reach, making it superior to the infinite power of the Living God who owns it. All things are God’s after all. Just as it is silly to believe broken mirrors have power over your destiny, it is equally as silly to believe possessing a holiday decoration has power over your faith and your relationship with God and ultimately your destiny. “Once pagan always pagan” is a superstition.

Anyone who still believes what Alexander Hislop wrote about Nimrod will be taken aback with what I’ve just said. Aren’t holiday decorations pagan?? Well, that’s where the fatally flawed doctrines and history comes in. Turns out, no, most of them absolutely are not. I myself once fully believed they were. I thought I looked into the situation and had proved it for myself. Turns out all I really did was read Armstrong-approved material and accepted what that said (this is called “confirmation bias”). While still believing that holidays were pagan, we at ABD set out to see what all of the best available evidence had to say. What we found was that we were taught things that are just plain wrong, and in some cases we found that we were purposefully lied to. ABD has many articles on this!

Perhaps the biggest surprise of all, at least for me, came after the research and the article writing. Even with all of the references and the evidence, people still refused to consider what was said. They still go on as if nothing ever happened. Alexander Hislop's book was dead wrong, it’s easily demonstrated, but rather than face that, people have preferred to attack the messengers. I say messengers because ABD isn’t the only group with this message. Go ask poor Ralph Woodrow how he feels. I never expected that people would want to be willfully ignorant! Behold the frightening power of superstition.

For example –- ABD has demonstrated over and over that the ancient Hebrews did not count days the way modern Americans do. We have shown that “three days and three nights” is not literal, and this can be seen in the pages of the very Bible itself. We’ve established how ancient Hebrews counted inclusively. We have explained over and over how you can easily fit Friday-Sunday in the timeline if you view it as an ancient Hebrew would. We have shown that Cleopas and Armstrong cannot be reconciled together. We have elaborately investigated why there are not two sabbaths in Matthew 28. We have illustrated how the events prior to the crucifixion make a Wednesday crucifixion all but impossible. In every last way, a Wednesday crucifixion is contraindicated. Yet we still get comments and email about how three days and three nights is literal therefore Easter is pagan.     ????

For another example – one question that I get a lot is, “If anything has pagan connections doesn't that mean I'm worshiping pagan gods?” The answer to that is absolutely not! Let’s say there is an object that at one time in the distant past was used in pagan worship ceremonies. Doesn’t matter what that object is. For sake of argument let’s just say that it just exists. How can this object possibly have more power than God does? Even after centuries of having been used almost exclusively in the worship of Jesus Christ, people are still laboring under the error of “once pagan always pagan” and therefore we must fear and reject and condemn powerless inanimate objects for fear that these objects can overpower Jesus and strip us of our salvation.     ????

At this point, this goes beyond reason. This is emotional. No, it’s more than emotion. It’s superstition.

This behavior is no different than that of any number of superstitious pagan religions. Sticking a pin in a doll does not affect a living being. Breaking a mirror does not wreak havoc on you for the next 7 years. Putting your thumb and forefinger together and having someone else break those connections while saying “evil be gone” does nothing whatsoever besides offering momentary amusement. And nothing has the power to take you from Jesus’ hand, except you. (And some don’t even believe you can do that either.)

“Once pagan always pagan” is a superstition. But what might be even more odd than that is that the very same people who say “once pagan always pagan” is true don’t really believe it themselves. Allow me to demonstrate.

If people who preach “once pagan always pagan” understood how many things they do which have "pagan" connections, they would be unable to function. (I am putting “pagan” in quotes because these things aren’t actually pagan. They are just falsely accused of being pagan.) There is nothing that you do that does not have a "pagan" connection except actually having faith in the Living God. You name it, it has "pagan" connections. Priesthoods, ministers, elders, sermons, temples, sacrifices, prayer, circumcision, sabbaths, holidays, religious rituals like baptisms, instructions on morality, special decorations, sacrifices, incense, hymns, psalms, choruses, ritual meals, religious texts, religious schools, religious heroes, marriage, honeymoons, wedding rings ... I could go on and on. All of these things and more have "pagan" connections. All of these can be found in pagan religions first. All of them. Yet they were all adopted in worship of God. God adopted "pagan" things into His worship??  YES! You might think I'm referring to the Catholic Church. I am not. I am referring to the Old Testament church - the ancient Jews. Almost every aspect of what God commanded Israel to do, right down to the Ark of the Covenant, had some counterpart in pagan religion. Many of these are things the “once pagan always pagan” crowd do regularly. Therefore I conclude that the “once pagan always pagan” people don’t even believe it themselves.

Undeterred, people will simply turn to making different excuses for their superstitions. “God never commanded me to do this or that thing,” they say. Perhaps He did or perhaps He didn’t, but either way if you avoided doing anything that isn’t directly commanded by God you would be unable to live. God never commands us to do most things. He never commands us to go to church (Paul never said 'do not forsake going to church'). The excuse falls completely apart for what it is – a simple excuse to justify superstitions.

But it’s not just about things that aren’t commanded. People condemn things that are unambiguously allowed in the scriptures. In addition to novel holidays (EST. 9: 20-28; JON. 10: 22-23), and gift-giving (EST. 9: 22), the Bible also lists the use of statues in God’s worship (EXO. 25: 17-19), garland, bells and fruit (EXO. 28: 33-34; 39: 25-26; II COR. 3: 16), lights, flowers and ornamentation (EXO. 25: 31-37), greenery (LEV. 23: 40; NEH. 8: 13-15) including evergreens, and etc. All of these are used in God’s worship in the Bible, and all of these things are condemned by superstitious people. 

Armstrongism goes out of its way to avoid talking about the birth of our Savior, and even more caution is taken to avoid talking about His mother Mary, because they have whipped themselves up into such a superstitious fervor. Can you imagine being so superstitious that you would avoid great people and events in the very Bible itself?

But it’s not just those things that are ignored. Paul is ignored as well! In I Corinthians 10, Paul is clear -- we should flee from idolatry. However, he when he describes idolatry he describes people sacrificing. What does that mean? It means they were actually participating in worship practices. They didn't simply possess a thing with long-lost pagan connections, they were participating. Paul goes on to mention things with pagan connections starting in verse 25. What does he say? He says don't worry about it! The meal described had "pagan" connections. Paul said eat it. This is precisely what he went over in chapter 8 of I Corinthians. He says not to worry about things with pagan connections! If "once pagan always pagan" was true, this is the exact opposite of what Paul should have said. Yet, there he is saying it. He is trying to get us to see that there is a gulf of difference between real idolatry and imagined superstition. However not all people understand not to worry about such things because their lives had been so steeped in superstition up to that point. For those people we should be cautious not to ruin their faith with our liberty. But clearly Paul is against “once pagan always pagan.”

Do you know what this image is:

This image is the seal of righteous King Hezekiah. Anyone who knows their kings of Israel/Judea will know that Hezekiah was an imperfect man, but had a close relationship with God. He might even be able to be called the third most righteous king of Israel/Judea. Yet in his seal there is an ankh and a winged sun. If "once pagan always pagan" was such a terror as we are to believe it is, then Hezekiah was a terrible man and an idolatrous pagan worshiper of Nimrod. Yet he wasn't. This is a clear example of where "once pagan always pagan" can be shown as the utter superstition it is.

To recap:

• People who preach “once pagan always pagan” are steeped in “paganism” and don’t believe their own rhetoric.
• People who preach that God didn’t command them to do something regularly do things God didn’t command.
• These same people still condemn things God clearly allows.
• Paul is against “once pagan always pagan” but people ignore him or reinterpret him into uselessness.
• Superstition is its own excuse!

What can it hurt avoiding things that affect our conscience? To be sure, under normal circumstances we should avoid things that affect our conscience. However, the judgmental and condemnatory attitude that usually accompanies these superstitions can have a very real and very negative affect on some people.

To those people who suffer under the anxiety of these superstitions unfairly burdened upon them, I say: you cannot accidentally worship.

Is Jesus your Savior or not? Does a shape or an object have more power than God? God is interested in actual idolatrous worship, not silly superstitions. In order to worship pagan gods you have to actually worship pagan gods -- adore them, trust them, expect help from them, replace God with them. That's what worship means. In every single instance of idolatry in the Bible, God was upset with people doing what I just described. God didn't want people to bow down to or worship idols in place of Him. It wasn't arbitrary. When Naaman the Syrian went to Elisha, he asked for God to excuse him for when he would have to go into the pagan temple and bow down with his master. Elisha told him to go in peace (II Kings 5: 17-19). Naaman is going to a pagan temple to bow down before an idol that he knew was nothing, and Elisha told him to go in peace. God knows the difference! God knows your heart!

Jesus is bigger than your flaws. He's bigger than your failures. He's greater than all of your fears. He's greater by far than any shape or object or word or tradition or superstition could ever be. Let go of your fears! Do not be afraid, just trust.

So, where do we go from here? I don’t know. Onward. This sort of superstitious nonsense will always exist so long as humans have imperfect knowledge and a fallen condition. Armstrongism will continue to pump out the same old claims that in this late day and age they have no excuse for (because they want money), and ABD will continue to call them out on it (for free), and people will continue to ignore us. It’s our lot in life. We praise the Lord our God for granting us some part in His great plan. If we can help even one person I personally feel it was all worth it.

But I would love it if all I had to say was, “SUPERSTITIONS, BE GONE!”

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

Falsely Accused? You Decide

All I wanted to do was leave this place and not come back. Not until January. Heck, maybe not until March, the way this day was going.

But I couldn't get to the door in time to escape the red-headed woman who was following me down the hallway.

"Excuse me," she said. "I heard what your daughter said in there. That she didn't have a Christmas tree. I assume it has to be a financial issue. Would you let us buy you one?"

I burst into tears for the second time that day. The first time had been only five minutes earlier, when I walked into a classroom to find my tearful, stammering child rejecting a gift from her beloved teacher - a glittery teal ornament - because she didn't have a Christmas tree to put it on. And she wasn't having a pity party. No, she wasn't sure that she wanted a tree. Or whether she should want one. Or whether she could trust this bubbly blonde teacher who unknowingly stumbled over the elephant in our living room.

Or maybe it was the lack of the elephant in our living room, so to speak. We had already decided that being thankful for Jesus' birth was acceptable for Christians. We had purchased a few modest presents to help smooth the transition. We had understood for some time that Jeremiah 10 did not refer to Christmas trees. But we were just not ready to welcome this long-demonized symbol into our home.

We eventually made peace with Christmas trees, after a lot of reading, praying and soul-searching. Ironically, now I spend many Decembers days reassuring troubled Christians who've just discovered that some believe their beloved tradition to be filthy paganism. But I feel it's a worthwhile discussion to have, since Christmas is one of the main issues that leads sincere mainstream Christians into cults like Armstrongism (the Churches of God) or the Hebrew Roots movement.

Every year, I get the chance to dig a little deeper, learn a little more and share what I've found on As Bereans Did and in my face-to-face relationships. This year, I've learned:

• Claims that Christmas trees came from Germanic paganism usually force any loose association with tree worship into the Christmas tree, regardless of the species or specific mythical significance. Some arguments are circular. Others ignored the historical record or even disregarded the historical timeline. Overall, they lack credibility. 

• Christmas trees most likely came from Christian mystery plays in medieval Europe. Many experts believe the Christmas tree came from the Paradise Tree – a prop used in plays that recounted the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The Paradise Play, which featured the Paradise Tree, was traditionally linked to December 24. Paradise Trees were decorated with apples, as were many early Christmas trees – which first appeared outside the meeting halls of trade guilds responsible for performing the plays each year.

• Christmas trees became more common around the time of the Reformation. Many believe that Protestants who were no longer welcome at Catholic Christmas mass capitalized on the tradition to transfer the focus of the holiday celebration to the home. This theory is bolstered by the fact that most German Catholics rejected the Christmas tree as a heretical Protestant invention until the late 1800s. It also deals a crippling blow to those who claim that Catholics appropriated the tradition from ancient pagan practices. There is no record of Catholics accepting Christmas trees throughout the Middle Ages, then purging them from their celebrations in the 1500s.

• National Socialist leaders capitalized on the tree as a historic German tradition when they rebranded Christmas in their efforts to rid Germany of Christianity. Nazi propagandists gradually divorced Christmas celebration from the story of Jesus' birth. They resurrected legends about Yule, Woden and sun worship. Eventually, the Third Reich even distributed Advent calendars that boldly proclaimed “Christmas is the Solstice.” These allegations didn't originate with the Nazis, but they certainly worked tirelessly to cement them as truth in the minds of Germans. Many of whom have been quoted as reliable sources on the origin of German Christmas traditions for decades after the war. 

Regardless of all this, I know that many of you will never be able to shake your negative feelings about Christmas trees. Well, guess what? 

I couldn't care less if you ever have a Christmas tree. No, seriously. I'm offended by outspoken leaders who make arrogant, demeaning pronouncements and simplistic claims. But I'm not offended by sincere individuals who aren't - and never will be - comfortable with Christmas trees. I know it's a hard step to take. It's not commanded. It's certainly not a matter of salvation. Please, stick to your houseplants. I don't mind. 

I don't even care if you ever celebrate Christmas. I know many of ABD's readers have adopted the Hebrew holy days. I understand your reasoning and know that you have sincere, noble intentions. I disagree with your reasoning, and believe it has hidden spiritual dangers. No, we don't have any carbon dated evidence or time-stamped video surveillance of the nativity. There are good reasons that ancient scholars pinpointed December 25th, largely based in Semitic cultural ideas to which we can't relate. But again, Christmas isn't a command. And it certainly isn't a matter of salvation.

So what do I want? 

I want you to think for yourself. I want you to consider something other the canned, reheated history offered by those who still embrace the rantings of a Depression-era ad-man. Who plagiarized from the rantings of a 19th-century Scotsman. And possibly bought into Nazi propaganda. A lot of discoveries have been made in the 175 years since Alexander Hislop compiled his volume, and even in the 75 years since Herbert Armstrong first, um, borrowed them.  

More importantly, I want you to fully appreciate why the birth of the Savior was so significant - why even the angels felt it was a reason to rejoice. Some groups downplay discussion of Jesus' birth because they say it's His death that was significant. That's partially true - even conservative Christian groups that put on elaborate Christmas productions continually point to the Cross.

The difference is, in most groups that downplay Christ's birth, His grace really isn't sufficient. Focusing entirely on His death allows these groups to preach that His sinless, righteous state was what qualified Him to rule as King of Kings. Likewise, they teach that it is the righteousness of our walk after accepting Christ's sacrifice that maintains our qualification for His Kingdom. 

This sounds good on paper. After all, is grace license to sin? Certainly not, wrote Paul. The New Testament is full of commands for the Christian walk, and faith without these works is dead. Who would argue that a Christian's conduct doesn't matter? 

Here's the problem. The Bible also tells us that these positive works and attributes are fruit of God's involvement in our lives. The evidence that we have been justified in God's sight. They are not a checklist  of items that coax His involvement, or our eventual victory. Unfortunately, most cults twist this misguided teaching to their own ends. They abuse it to control behavior and threaten those who object with shunning and loneliness in this lifetime and damnation in the next, making many followers vulnerable to depression and even suicide. 

There is a subtle, but important, difference between obeying because you have favor with God and obeying in order to obtain favor from God. In the theology of the former, we are led by the Holy Spirit and sanctified to God's glory. In the latter, we try to scrub ourselves clean of sin in hopes that we might obtain His glory.

Be honest. No one else is looking. Raise your hand if, deep down, you think you will ever be able to eliminate enough sin from your life to qualify for God's Kingdom.

(I'll pause and give you a minute to think).

That's what I thought. Behavior modification isn't easy. I know, I'm a mom. But even if you got all your bad behaviors under control, it wouldn't change your heart.

(Matthew 15:17-20, NIV) "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts - murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them."

The children of Israel had been trying to modify their behavior for centuries. It didn't work. Not with any lasting effect, anyway, because it didn't change their hearts. And it won't change yours, either. Only He can. Your only hope is placing your full faith in Jesus, in the gift of regeneration and eternal life, confirmed by the New Covenant in His blood.

This is why the birth of Jesus was such good news. It's good news this Sunday, next Tuesday, February 18th, June 23rd or any other day of the year. Understand who you are and Who He is. Appreciate the full measure of what He did for you. And give thanks, whenever it is that you're comfortable, just give thanks that Jesus came.

That's all I want. And you don't need a tree to do that.

----------
Other articles in this series:

Falsely Accused? Christmas Trees and Germanic Paganism
Falsely Accused? Christmas Trees Were Christian Theater Props
Falsely Accused? Catholics Rejected Trees as too ... Protestant?
Falsely Accused? Nazi Christmas Propaganda Lives On
----------

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