Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Christmas FAQ

CHRISTMAS FAQ

Christmas and its traditions are said to come from many diverse origins - from ancient Babylon to Saturnalia to Druids - and this FAQ tells you what you need to know, in bite-sized chunks. There is also a list of additional sources at the end to help you find even more.


AsBereansDid has been studying and writing about Christmas since 2010. Over the years, one thing has become apparent – the need for a condensed FAQ on the topic.

When we first began writing about Christmas it was not apparent how very large a topic it is, nor how very wrong so many people were on the details, including ourselves. Most of the claims about Christmas found on the Internet in general are little other than a great cloud of utterly baseless and false claims repeated from popular but erroneous sources. A full-length and comprehensive study is absolutely necessary to root out the bad information. We have one! And more than just one or two articles on the topic. But comprehensive studies suffer from an inherent weakness in their length and dry, academic makeup. A condensed FAQ is needed as a companion piece to give all of the most popular details in a summary “sound bite” fashion. A FAQ addresses the weakness of the comprehensive study, but FAQs have their own weaknesses. So, we apologize in advance.

This FAQ represents our effort to summarize the highlights of several years of research done in the most thorough, unbiased, and honest way we could.

A brief note for the visitors to this page who are unfamiliar with Armstrongism:
As Bereans Did blog is authored by former members of the Worldwide Church of God and its splinter churches. For short, we refer to this movement as "Armstrongism", after its founder Herbert W Armstrong. That term is not intended to be derogatory, but merely a shorthand. This post was written primarily to counter the accusations against Christmas coming from Armstrongism, but was modified over time to be more general after we learned our biggest audience are non-Armstrongists. Those unfamiliar with Armstrongism may find some of our references confusing. We apologize in advance and are working to minimize this effect.

A brief note on tone:
Some sections of this FAQ are intentionally blunt or sharp. That is not carelessness, nor a lack of scholarly rigor. Certain claims are not merely false, but harmfully so. I think prioritizing neutrality in these cases would be irresponsible. This goes beyond a simple holiday celebration. Many readers who find their way here are searching for answers to things that are deeply affecting their faith, their conscience, and their lives. Where we break neutrality, it is to protect readers from repeating these mistakes. Yet, we always try to remain grounded in historical evidence and reason.


ORIGINS


Did the early church ignore the birth of Jesus?

 No. The early church did not ignore the birth of Jesus by any means. The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, and to a very lesser degree the Gospel of John (and some also say Revelation 12: 1-5) spend time discussing the incarnation of our Savior. You might as well include Daniel in there, too. All Judaea seemed interested about the details of the Messiah, as shown in the Gospels. Many details surrounding the birth demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah. Do you think that interest just evaporated? Whether one accepted Jesus or not, they would be parsing details of His life to see how they fit the prophecies. Mentions of Jesus in the Talmud and Josephus seem to prove that out. Widespread celebrations of the early events of Jesus' life are seen in the second century. This means they began earlier, possibly in the first century. By no means was it ignored.
I've heard people say "Christmas isn't in the Bible" but these ones might want to go back and re-read a few chapters. Direction to observe a holiday is not there (we discuss this later) but the event it pictures certainly is! Matthew and Luke go into great detail regarding the circumstances of Jesus' birth. Bear in mind that Luke had to research his material because he wasn't a disciple. The fact that it is written about demonstrates that the earliest Christians were curious about and honored Jesus' birth. They may not have set aside a feast day right away, but they did honor the miracle.
Consider before you move on how the timing is far, far less important than the fact that our God took on flesh and became like us. This is arguably the second greatest miracle in the history of mankind - second only to the death and resurrection. The birth is nothing without the resurrection, but without the birth there could be no resurrection. The birth points to the resurrection. The birth brings God to man; the cross brings man to God. Jesus was laid in a manger - a place where the sheep eat - which points to Jesus being spiritual food for us His sheep. Is the vague timing really enough to cause us not to pause and honor God for such a wondrous thing as the Incarnation?

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/12/plain-truth-about-december-25th.html


 Did the gospel writers tell us when Jesus was born?

 Yes. They did! Both Matthew and Luke leave details on when Jesus was born. The details are in the style of writers of that century and would have been understandable to the people of that place and time. We have unfortunately lost most ability to interpret them since. Just because those details aren't exactingly specific in the way our modern minds would like to see them doesn't mean that they didn't exist. The Bible does not leave us the day. That's true. However, it doesn't give us the day for most things. In the next century, many began attempting to pin down those exacting details.


Does Revelation 12 tell precisely when Jesus was born?

Inconclusive. Some scholars propose Revelation 12: 1-5 gives us an astronomical map to determine when Jesus was born. The imagery, they say, describes the constellation Virgo, with Jupiter at her middle and the moon at her feet, with another constellation like a dragon close by. According to this theory, the timing can be determined with great accuracy when the sun, Jupiter, and the moon cross Virgo at the same time. This claim provides a specific day and year for the birth. (Read the link below for details.)
There are problems with this interpretation - it is speculative, hinges on the timing of Herod's death which is contested, and most scholars interpret Rev. 12 as describing multiple actual events rather than star signs pointing to one event.
Some will take offense at the use of constellations at all, but the Bible says God Himself set the sky for determining times and seasons (GEN 1: 14). There is nothing unbiblical about using stars astronomically in the way proposed here. The Jews around Jesus' day put the zodiac on the floors of synagogues for this very reason. Using the stars as markers of time and events is an integral part of the nativity story, as the Magi followed stars. Possibly these very stars described in Rev. 12. IF that is indeed what Rev. 12 describes. What is unbiblical is astrology - when the stars control you and your fate. 
This Revelation 12: 5 star sign option is worth a mention here for its creativity, but it is not a strong argument and not widely accepted.


When Did Herod the Great die?

Uncertain. The Bible tells us Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. It also tells us Herod survived for some time after Jesus was born. As much as 2-3 years, given the ages of the Massacre of the Innocents (MAT. 2: 16). Josephus tells us there was a lunar eclipse when Herod died (Antiquities 17.9.3, Wars of the Jews 2.1.3). So, scholars have placed Herod's death at March 13, 4 BC. That is contested. There was another, arguably better, candidate of an eclipse on December 29, 1 BC.
The old date would put Jesus' birth anywhere from 6-4 BC. The new date would put Jesus' birth anywhere from 3-1 BC. Very close to the traditional date.
Either date of Herod's death would allow for a December 25 birth of Jesus. The year can be problematic, though. If Jesus were born in 1 BC, the Magi would arrive and Herod would die within 4 days. That does not seem to fit the Gospel narrative. Curiously, this new date of Herod's death fits perfectly with the timeline speculated in the "Revelation 12" section above.



Does the name Christmas come from a Roman phrase meaning, roughly, “The Death of Christ?”

No. That grossly misrepresents both the Mass and the phrase. Christmas comes from the phrase “Christes Maesse” or Mass of Christ. The word mass is derived from the final words of the liturgy: "Ite, Missa Est", which translates, "Go, it is dismissed." Some may say, “Mass means dismissed.” Except the word is an idiom, and that purposefully literal reading is not intellectually honest to the meaning of the idiom. Long story short, mass is just a nickname for the liturgy. Liturgy and mass are synonyms. And liturgy does not mean “death” or any such thing. The word mass first came into common use in the 600s AD, far too late to have anything to do with anything. An early name for Christmas was “Deis Natalis” or Birthday [of Christ]. Not to be confused with Natalis Invicti.
No, mass does not mean death. The singular focus of every mass is the Eucharist, and that remembers the death of Jesus, but it celebrates the death of our Savior because of life and grace, not death. If anyone has a problem with remembering Jesus' death then they really have a problem with Christianity. The word Eucharist comes from the Greek word for grace: "charis." So the word Eucharist has everything to do with grace, not death. We should ask, do any Catholics see Christmas as being “the death of Christ?” The answer is no.



Did Christmas begin in deep-ancient Mesopotamia?

No. There is no evidence for this in ancient primary source documents. There is no evidence for this in trustworthy secondary source documents. There is no valid evidence for this at all. All evidence in support of this claim has turned out to be fabricated. At the very best, such claims are strung together by preconceptions, amateurish methodology, and breathtaking violations of logic. The history of Christmas as a celebration can be traced back no farther than the mid-second century AD.

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-nimrod-and-christmas-trees-part-i.html
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-nimrod-and-christmas-trees-part-ii.html
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-nimrod-and-christmas-trees-part-iii.html
http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/assets/books/babylon.html


Was Christmas started by Nimrod?

No. The claim is not that Nimrod founded the holiday, but that Semiramis founded it in honor of Nimrod. But the answer is no to both. These claims were invented out of thin air in the 1800s by Alexander Hislop.

Nimrod is a character about which we know next to nothing for certain. The KJV Bible mentions Nimrod by name in four verses, with one additional verse speaking of him without naming him. Five verses. Both Genesis 10: 8 and I Chronicles 1: 10 speak to his lineage from Cush and are basically duplicate information so we can discount one of those, while Micah 5: 6 is really a place name. So of the five verses there are really only three with any unique information about Nimrod. The long and short of it is, the Bible says almost nothing about Nimrod.
There is no genuine, verifiable, unmistakable information outside of the Bible that clearly refers to Nimrod. Speculations abound. Is he Gilgamesh? Is he Marduk? Is he the Scorpion King? Is he Ninurta? Is he Sargon? Is he Hammurabi? Is Nimrod even his real name? <Begin Speculation> 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 Eridu, which was an older name for Babylon. Nin Eridu, King of Eridu, 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, and Xerxes is changed to Ahaserus. The Hebrews were known to change people's names (we do it, too). Or, the name might be purposefully wrong. The Hebrews would slightly alter names on purpose to change the meaning of a name. It's called a dysphemism. For example, Antiochus Epiphanes (God's Beloved) was called Epimenes (The Mad). For another example, Jonathan's son, Meribaal (man of Baal), had his name rewritten as Mephibosheth (mouth of shame). 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. Or, since Hebrew originally had no vowels, maybe future scribes got it slightly wrong. <End Speculation> There currently exists no strong record of the person Nimrod outside of the Bible. Note that I am not claiming there was no Nimrod. I believe there was. My entire point is simply that there is not enough extant information anywhere to make the highly detailed claims that float around the Internet about him.
We do have some records of Semiramis, though. History tells us Semiramis lived and died hundreds of years, or perhaps even 2,000 years, after the time when Nimrod would have lived. What can we conclude beyond a shadow of any doubt all claims about Semiramis inventing Christmas to honor her husband Nimrod are patently false. Baseless. Invented. The inventor of these tales is known, and that is Alexander Hislop, author of the thoroughly debunked book “Two Babylons.” Herbert Armstrong and others simply fell for a lie and plagiarized it as God's truth. The lie propagates to this day because it makes for such good confirmation bias.



Was Nimrod's birthday on the 25th of December?

Inconclusive. Who knows? The fact is, no one on earth has sufficient information about Nimrod to even tell us what his name really is, let alone such small details as on which day he was born. At that time, in such ancient antiquity, most cultures used a lunar calendar of 360-days or less. Could it really be that the year once had 360 days? If that is the case, then there are 5 days now that could not have been Nimrod's birthday because they didn't exist. Consider this. December 25th could be one of those. No one knows, however. 
But this we do know - Herman Hoeh said Nimrod was born on January 6th. Herman Hoeh was the leading Armstrongist "historian". Hoeh got greedy and tried to condemn both December 25th and January 6th as Nimrod's birthday by saying they were both solstice celebrations. Two birthdays? No! Every day the solstice has ever touched is Nimrod's birthday. Not two days but two weeks of birthdays! Some people are simply desperate to find evidence for the conclusions they've reached and they aren't above fabricating it. There would be a solid answer to Nimrod's birthday if there was any documented proof. There isn't. There is just pseudo-history, baseless conjecture, and spurious claims.

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/12/nimrods-birthday-was-january-6.html


Were the claims of Alexander Hislop and his book The Two Babylons trustworthy?

No. The Two Babylons is a textbook example of bad history produced from the 1500s through the 1800s: polemical, error-filled, and sophomoric. I have no hesitation in calling it what it is: a hateful anti-Catholic screed, and a sad example of how bad scholarship can cause real harm.
Hislop wrote his book decades before Babylon was excavated. Chaldean was barely even deciphered at the time. Where did he get his information, then? His claims were made up by stringing together pictures and utterly unrelated information into a pseudo-history the details of which turn out to be literally impossible. This FAQ is too brief for the details, so I refer you to Ralph Woodrow's thorough review of Hislop entitled "The Babylon Connection?"
A quote from ‘The Saturday Review’ printed September 17th, 1859 about Hislop's work: "We take leave of Mr. Hislop and his work with the remark that we never before quite knew the folly of which ignorant or half-learned bigotry is capable."

http://xhwa.blogspot.com/2008/12/babylon-connection.html


Was Isis, Horis, or Osiris' birthday on the 25th of December?

No. The Egyptian calendars did not correlate to the Roman calendar that we could match them up like this and say such and such Egyptian thing was always on a certain Roman date, like December 25th. The Egyptian calendar was reset every year in summer. Anciently, the Roman calendar was often changed for political reasons. See the issues? More importantly, the ancient record of the birthday for these Egyptian gods is not in December but in the summer. So, the answer is no.
Why all the confusion? In the late 1800's to mid-1900's, German religious historians assigned almost every aspect of Christianity, including Jesus Himself, to theft from pagan religions. Horus was a popular target. Armstrongism built its case against Christmas based on the work of these German historians. Since then, the theories have switched places. Now, evidence leads us to see that pagan religions copied from Christianity. Myths of pagan gods being born on December 25th do not crop up until after Jesus was associated with the date. That includes Sol Invictus.


Were Cybele and Attis worshiped on December 25th?

No. The major celebration days for Cybele and Attis (called “Hilaria”) were in the Spring, in March.

Was Mithra's birthday on December 25th?

No. The claims are not usually that Mithra was born on December 25, but that he was honored on that day. We reject this for several reasons.
There is more than one Mithra – the original Persian Mithra and the Roman mystery religion Mithra. The Persian version had no such birthday. Edwin Yamauchi, in "Persia and the Bible" p.494, claims the Persian Zoroastrians still to this day honor Mithra on the day of Mihr in the month of Mihr (which is roughly September-October). The Roman version also had no such birthday. Mithraism in Rome was a mystery cult, with secret rituals performed in caves and initiates sworn to secrecy. It wasn't a great public thing. Then Mithraism pretty much died out in the 400's. 
Mithra only became associated with December 25th during Emperor Julian' reforms in the mid 300s. In his poem Ode to King Helios, Julian associated Helios with Mithra (and several other gods besides, including Sol, Jupiter, etc). Clearly, Julian believed Helios/Sol/Mithra were all one and the same thing. That syncretism may be how he felt, but it wasn't historically accurate. Prior to Julian, they really were distinct things, so to conflate them backwards in time is improper. 
Finally, and Claims made by Franz Cumont, that Jesus came from Mithra and Christianity borrowed from Mithraism, have since been abandoned. The reality it would appear is quite the opposite. It was Mithraism that borrowed from Christianity.



Was Sol's birthday on December 25th?

Yes and no. Sol was not originally associated with December 25th. There are three things we need to explore: the Chronography, Emperor's Aurelian's dedication of a temple to the sun, and Emperor Julian's Ode to King Helios. 
Chronography: It all comes down to what Filocalus meant in his famous Chronography by the phrase “Natalis Invicti.” Filocalus wrote his Chronography in 354 AD. It consisted of several different parts, one of which was a calendar and another a list of martyrs with the dates of their deaths. In the calendar, Filocalus marked December 25th with the words “Natalis Invicti.” We don't know what it means. None of the other dates in the calendar were Christian holidays, so why would this one be? It seems reasonable this refers to Sol, but Sol is mentioned elsewhere by name, why not here? In the section called Commemoration of the Martyrs, Filocalus specifically states that Jesus was born on December 25th. One document, two mentions of December 25th, one directly associated with Jesus, the other a mystery. Most scholars think Natalis Invicti refers to games that happened every 4 years for Sol. Some scholars think it does not refer to Sol because Sol already had games in October.
Aurelian: We will go into detail about Aurelian elsewhere, but claims of Aurelian dedicating temples and establishing festivals on December 25 are highly contested. None are on any solstice or equinox. The Ludi Solus games in late October were instituted in 274 AD, according to Steven Hijmans, so they must belong to Aurelian.
Julian: The clearest association points to 362 AD, when Emperor Julian tried to return Rome to paganism and replace Christianity with sun worship. Emperor Julian specifically took points from Judeo-Christian thinking and applied them to the sun. Julian speaks of an ancient, annual winter festival for Sol near the New Year, but his details cannot be correct. Julian also speaks of games every four years on December 25, which he called relatively recent. Some scholars think Natalis Invicti refers to those games. Others do not.
Unfortunately, there are few clear answers here. So, we say 'yes and no' in this case because the answer is yes, it seems reasonable that Sol was eventually associated with December 25th, but no, not originally. It was quite late. But when did Jesus become associated with the day? Decades earlier!


Is Christmas a solstice holiday?

No. December 25th is not on the solstice. It could not have been regularly the solstice prior to Julius Caesar's calendar reforms. Caesar ordered December 25th to fall on the solstice in his reforms, but it only remained that way for about 130 years. December 25th was not on the solstice when Jesus' birth became associated with that date in the early 200s. The Romans did consider December 25th to be the solstice, because they were imprecise, but only as a matter of tradition, not fact, and as a matter of astronomy/astrology, not religion. Rome had no major solstice holidays until after the Nativity became associated with that date. Romans cared much more for the Saturnalia and the New Year. The Christian scholars who are credited with the December 25 date - Tertullian and Hippolytus - were trying to tie Jesus' death to prophecy and the 4th day of creation, and so that did tie the crucifixion to the spring equinox, which in turn tied Christmas to the winter solstice, but tying the nativity to a solstice was secondary.


Has December 25th been the focus of sun worship for millennia?

No. That claim doesn't even make sense. It would be closer to the truth that the winter solstice was the focus of sun worship for millennia. We must not confuse the two. December 25 was not and is not the date of the winter solstice, except for about a century or so after Julius Caesar reformed the calendar. Other cultures didn't have a December in their calendars, so December 25th couldn't be the focus for those cultures. One may ask, "Then what of the date on the other culture's calendar that matched December 25th?" The calendars of other cultures didn't align with the Roman calendar. At first, the Roman calendar had no winter months. That's right - no winter months. They had ten months then a huge gap. Before about 450 BC, December was an autumn month. It was the tenth month, not the twelfth. For the next several hundred years, the Roman calendar was unreliable and changed frequently and randomly. December 25 could have fallen practically anywhere in a wide range. When Julius Caesar reformed the Roman calendar in 46-45 BC, he finally declared December 25th to be the date of the solstice. However, we have two problems: 1) It didn't stay that way but for 130 years, and 2) Rome had no religious solstice observance. In Rome, December 25 was only the solstice in a traditional sense, not a literal one. There was no ancient solstice festival in Rome. December 25 was not a focus for sun worship in Rome until somewhere around 300 AD. Neither did the Druids nor the Germans, for that matter. They were lunar-focused cultures, and pinned their days to seasons and moon phases.


What of “Deis Natalis Solis Invicti”?

There is no such thing. The name is made up. There is no ancient day of that name. There is only Natalis Invicti. That "invicti" seems to point so Sol does make sense, as Sol was call Sol Invictus, but that is speculation. Several gods were called Invictus, for example Jupiter, Mars, and Hercules. That Natalis Invicti is about Sol is heavily debated, and rejected by Steven Hijmans. If it is about Sol, it appears to us here that it can only refer to some games which happened every four years. The key point is all these naming variations are invented; there is only Natalis Invicti.



Did Emperor Aurelian set up Natalis Invicti to honor the sun on December 25th in 274 AD?

Uncertain. That there is something called Natalis Invicti on December 25th is undeniably in the Philocalian Calendar. Who started it, when it was started, how often it occurred, or what it honored is not certain. It can be known that the day is not an older celebration, judging from the number of races ordered on that day - 30 chariot races instead of 12 or 24 - and judging from a complete lack of older evidence. No calendar or non-Christian author mentions anything on December 25 prior to the Philocalian Calendar . It could not have started any earlier than the latter-200's AD and no later than the mid-300s AD. Many speculate that Aurelian set up a birthday to the sun or dedicated a temple to the sun on this day, but that is mere conjecture. It could have been Constantine for all we know. Nothing solid ties Aurelian to December 25th. German scholar Hermann Usener appears to be where this claim begins. Steven Ernst Hijmans, currently a faculty member at the University of Alberta’s History and Classics department, disagrees with Usener. He wrote a book titled “Sol – the Sun in the Art and Religions of Rome”. In Volume I, chapter 9, page 588, he has this to say:
"...there is no evidence that Aurelian instituted a celebration of Sol on that day. A feast day for Sol on December 25th is not mentioned until eighty years later..."

"In short, while the winter solstice on or around the 25th of December was well established in the Roman imperial calendar, there is no evidence that a religious celebration of Sol on that day antedated the celebration of Christmas, and none that indicates that Aurelian had a hand in its institution. One might think that celebrating the sun on the winter solstice is so self-evident that we need hardly doubt that such a festival had a long tradition, but what evidence we have actually belies that notion."
Hijmans lists the known festivals of Sol as August 8 and/or 9, August 28, October 19 and 22, and December 11. Aurelian is suspected in this affair because from 274 AD onward, some games were held every four years to honor Sol. However, Hijmans argues these games were not in December but on the Ludi Solis from October 19-22. Sol was not honored on any solstice or equinox.

The Aurelian theory is based on another oddity. It was once believed that Sol worship was initially introduced to Rome by Emperor Elagabalus in 218-222, then it died out to be reintroduced by Aurelian in 274. Hijmans opposed that claim strongly, based on evidence in art and history which demonstrate Sol was present in Rome before Elagabalus. If we side with Hijmans, as it seems we should, this only makes the mystery deeper.

But what is the answer? No one knows for certain. Since lack of proof is not proof of lack, we answer this question with Uncertain.


Was there a Roman holiday on December 25th that was so popular the Christians absorbed it?

No. Not only was there no popular holiday, Rome had no solstice holiday at all for most of its history. Especially not when the Christian scholars in the late 100s or early-to-mid 200s were calculating the birth of Jesus. The oldest extant Roman calendar, the Fasti Antiates Maiores (approx. 84-55 BC) shows nothing on December 25, and neither do later copies of it. It was an acceptable day for political assemblies is all we can tell. By the way, it says nothing on January 6, either. It lists the Saturnalia right there on December 17 where it should be. Other holidays and temple dedication days are listed. For it to be completely silent about December 25 and January 6 is brutally telling. There were no ancient holidays on those dates.

Emperor Julian, in his Ode to King Helios, written in 362 AD, describes two December 25 celebrations: one every year, and one every four years.
As for the annual festival - 
We find this spurious because what Julian did to tie Helios/Mithra to it was to reach back to Roman King Numa Pompilius, the second King of Rome, who lived in the 700s BC. Julian claims that Numa honored the sun around the time of the new year. As we've explained elsewhere, at that time, December was an autumn month and Rome had no winter months at all. Julian also claimed the new year in Numa's time was January 1. That is not possible since January didn't exist yet, and the new year was in March. It seems Julian, who was obviously quite intelligent, was simply misinformed about Rome's ancient calendar. So, we reject Julian's claims about an ancient December 25 festival. And because of all this, we are not certain Julian's intent was to say there was a contemporary annual festival, or if he intended to say there was an ancient one. Clearly, there could not have been an ancient one, given what we've just shown. Steven Hijmans, as recorded on Roger Pearse's blog article "Was there no festival of Sol on 25 December before 354 AD?", says this, "I think that the fact that Julian attributes the annual winter solstice Sol-festival to Numa is simply to give it pedigree." We agree! If there was an annual feast on December 25, and there is no solid evidence at all there was, then it was very recent to Julian, not ancient, possibly originating but a few short decades before Julian's poem. But this is yet another mystery. Why did Julian try to pawn it off as ancient?
As for the games every four years - 
Julian claimed Aurelian's games for Sol were on December 25. He said, "before the beginning of the year, at the end of the month which is called after Kronos [December]." (Julian uses Greek names quite a bit.) According to Steven Hijmans, these games were not in December at all but on the Ludi Solis from October 19-22 (“Sol – the Sun in the Art and Religions of Rome”. In Volume I, chapter 9, page 588,). So, we find a choice: accept Hijmans or Julian.

We have a hypothesis. We are not convinced of this yet ourselves, so take it for what it is. 
The odd fact of the Philocalian Calendar of 354 is, by what seems to be pure luck, it was made for a year on the four-year cycle of games. Let us accept for sake of argument that Aurelian instituted games for Sol every four years on December 25 starting in 274 AD. If you count every four years from 274 you will land on 354.
274, 278, 282, 286, 290, 294, 298, 302, 306, 310, 314, 318, 322, 326, 330, 334, 342, 346, 350, 354.
What if the Natalis Invicti in the Philocalian Calendar refers to these quadrennial games?
We have no evidence Aurelian did anything on December 25, and we clearly contradict Hijmans here, but we are just speculating anyway.

At any rate, we can be certain Christians would never have absorbed December 25 from a set of games every four years. We can also be certain no historical record survives of an ancient annual festival on December 25 outside of a mention from Emperor Julian, which we here do not have any confidence in due to Julian's misunderstanding the ancient Roman calendar. Julian might have invented an ancient festival in some attempt to bolster the pedigree of the quadrennial games. The History of Religions School believed Christians absorbed December 25 from sun worshippers. The evidence is so lacking, it is every bit as fair to say the sun worshippers absorbed December 25 from the Christians. If we can get either conclusion from the evidence, then there is no conclusion at all.
Until we see something solid, we will stick with our No answer for this question.




Was Christmas stolen from pagans in ancient Rome?

No. Christmas is and always was a memorial of the birth of Jesus. Regardless of whatever else may or may not have happened on that day or where a decoration tradition may have come from. As we have demonstrated in detail in our article "The Plain Truth About December 25th", Christians in the late 100s and early 200s were calculating the date of Christmas. December 25 comes from March 25th, which was believed to be the date of His death. This was decades before there was an official, public Roman holiday on December 25th. In the early-to-mid 200's AD, there was no Roman solstice holiday. There was nothing at that time to steal from.

Another thing we need to consider here is that it doesn't make any sense that Christians in that time period were borrowing from pagans. At that formative time, Christians all but ignored paganism and were much more interested in Jewish thinking. The pagans had just spent decades trying to exterminate Christians. A main test given to identify Christians was to ask a person to put a pinch of incense in a bowl to Caesar. If they refused, then they were Christian and they were executed. Are a people who would die for refusing a pinch of incense going to be the people who adopt a pagan holiday? In Constantine's day, Christianity had finally become legal. By the end of the 300's, Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Paganism was then outlawed. Doesn't sound very conciliatory to me. Only at this time did pagans begin pouring into Christian churches. Yet Christians remained vigilant. In the 400's, Senator Andromachus petitioned Pope Gelasius I to reinstate the pagan festival of Lupercalia but the Pope refused, saying he had the authority to suppress the heathen observance and he would exercise his power to do so. He mentioned that if earlier Popes would have had the power, they would have done the same. Again, this doesn't sound conciliatory in the least. It just doesn't make any sense that Christians were so busy absorbing the pagan holidays at a time when they were very much opposed to them and working to abolish them. Ask yourself where are all of the other Roman holidays? Gone. All gone. If the Christians were absorbing all of these days, then they should all still be here. Yet they are not.



Were Christians threatened by the Sol cult?

No. This is the most popular theory to explain what motivated Christians to create Christmas, but it needs to be plainly stated there is absolutely no evidence for this at all. None. Zero. The idea is contradicted, in fact. Every time someone accuses Christians of adopting paganism, they are claiming that Christians are not threatened by it at all. We do not adopt what threatens us. Here is where people will change their claim to say Christians weren't adopting but destroying. Again, based on what evidence? All we have is a name on a calendar. We don't really know what it was. If we can't even prove from evidence exactly what it was, then how can we prove from evidence what Christian motivation was for putting a festival there? We can't. What do we find when we look for motivation? That they were calculating the day, completely regardless of anything pagan. So the explanation that Christians were adopting or destroying is directly contradicted by what little evidence we have. It's made up.


Does Christmas come from Saturnalia?

No. Let's be absolutely clear about something right up front: Saturnalia was December 17th. Period. It doesn't matter how many days the celebration lasted. When people say "Saturnalia was from x date to x date" that is not true. Saturnalia celebrations may have been, but Saturnalia itself was one day only. Same as Christmas. The date of Saturnalia was the date of Saturnalia. That date is the 17th. Full stop.
When we look at the oldest extant Roman calendar, the Fasti Antiates Maiores (84-55 BC), Saturnalia is on the 17th. When we look at the Philocalian calendar (354AD), Saturnalia is on the 17th.

Saturnalia is 14 days before January 1 (counting inclusively, which means we include Jan. 1 in the count). This puts it on December 17th originally. When Caesar reformed the calendar, he added two days to December. This moved Saturnalia to the 19th. Afterward, people celebrated some on the 17th and others the 19th. Soon, the celebrating lasted three days, from the 17th to the 19th. Over time, the celebration grew to encompass other close holidays, from the 17th to the 23rd, but was then legally limited to five days from the 17th to the 21st. The Saturnalia celebration was never at any time on the 24th or 25th of December. 

Saturnalia endured. It eventually migrated backwards, into November, and merged with the Buma celebration on November 24 to create the Brumalia. This is moving away from Christmas.
"The origin of Christmas should not be sought in the Saturnalia..."
-Martindale, C.C. (1908). Christmas. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved December, 2015 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm
Much has been said about the “great debauchery” of Saturnalia, in an attempt to associate Christmas with a very stylized picture of Roman paganism. This attempt to poison the well is desperate ignorance. People thoughtlessly conclude since some recent Christmas traditions resemble ancient Saturnalia traditions, it must have always been this way. Truth is, the original Christmas was a very somber event. People went to church, then people went home. Hence the name “Mass of Christ.” Modern people would likely be quite disappointed with it.



Does Christmas come from Brumalia?

No. The Bruma celebration was on November 24th. We can prove this from the Philocalian Calendar. In the Byzantine east, Bruma grew into a multi-day celebration from November 24th to December 17th and merged with the Saturnalia celebrations. This created a celebration season called Brumalia. Bruma is older than Christmas, but Christmas is older than Brumalia. If it's older, then it cannot come from Brumalia.

Groups will quote "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge" article on Christmas from 1952 at you to convince you Saturnalia and Brumalia were too popular to overcome and were thus absorbed by Christians. Notice the date of this publication: 1952. Do you think, perhaps, we have newer material to draw on 70+ years later? Yes. We do. Using this outdated source is shameful at this point.  The article referenced is factually incorrect. The date is wrong, the name is wrong, the time is wrong, and the location is wrong. How can anyone seriously hold this up as evidence? Yet they do.


Does Christmas come from Natalis Invicti?

No, but this is a tough one. The two main theories of how we the birth of Jesus was originally associated with December 25 are the calculation theory, and the adoption theory - meaning Christians adopted December 25 from the pagan day of Natalis Invicti. Although Natalis Invicti and Christmas were on December 25th, we see evidence the December 25th date of Jesus' birth was calculated decades before any known association of a pagan celebration on Dec. 25. The phrase Natalis Invicti comes from a calendar written in 354 AD by a Christian named Filocalus. The calendar does not directly say who Natalis Invicti honored. It most likely refers to Sol, but there are problems with that, too. Sol is mentioned by name in several other places in the calendar. Why not here? In another section of the same document, written 18 years earlier, Filocalus specifically mentions Jesus being born on December 25th. Two mentions of December 25 - one clearly about Jesus, and one somewhat ambiguous. That is why we say it's a tough one. So, is Natalis Invicti an early name for Christmas? We can't say for sure, but it doesn't make sense that it would be. We know the earliest name for Christmas was Deis Natalis. Fairly similar. Still, not exact. That Natalis Invicti honored the sun god Sol is speculative, but widely accepted. There is nothing obviously tying December 25th to Sol until decades later when Emperor Julian wrote a poem, Ode to King Helios, in 362 AD. Julian was attempting to return Rome to paganism. The most important takeaway from this is that Christians concluded Jesus was born on December 25 before there was a Natalis Invicti, therefore it doesn't really matter who Natalis Invicti honored.


Does Christmas come from Zagmuk?

No. Zagmuk is part of the Persian New Year festival, and that occurs in the Spring.


Did Christmas come from Yule?

No. Yule comes from Germania. Christmas and Epiphany come from Rome before Christianity spread into Germany/Scandinavia. Yule was likely not a single day. It was a winter festival named after the two-month season in which it fell, but could have possibly lasted for several days and fell anywhere from November to January. Before Charlemagne, the German calendar was lunar and did not match up with the Roman solar calendar. German years were counted as winter and summer (not summer and winter as we do now) therefore their year most likely began at the start of winter, likely in November. The year was divided into sixths, with several double-months in the year. They had no weeks prior to the invasions of the Romans, but observed moon phases. An ancient tomb found in the region was created to track the moon phases. German days began at night. There is very little real reason to suspect that the Germans observed the winter solstice and even less evidence that the Yule celebration had anything to do with the winter solstice. We know timing of Yule was changed to match Christmas. It was after Christmas, which is itself after the solstice. Given this, we can be confident Christmas did not come from Yule. The most likely reason why Christmas became so important in Germania is not because of Yule at all but because Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, and others were crowned on Christmas day.



Was Yule on December 25th?

No. Not originally. You must understand the Germanic year was very different than the Roman, and therefore our own. For example, their year was divided into sixths, which could then be combined into thirds or halves. This led to only three recognized seasons (they did not have an Autumn) and several double-months. Holidays were often named after the months in which they fell, therefore the holiday of Yule could fall anywhere in the double-month of Yule. Originally, Yule fell anywhere from mid-November to January in Germania, and mid-December to mid-January for the Anglo-Saxons. But that Yule was a solstice festival goes against what we understand of their reckoning of time.
"Modern research has tended to disprove the idea that the old Germans held a Yule feast at the winter solstice, and it is probable, as we shall see, that the specifically Teutonic Christmas customs come from a New Year and beginning-of-winter festival kept about the middle of November."
-Miles, Clement A., "Christmas in Ritual and Tradition", chapter 1 section IV, p.25
After Charlemagne, that changed. There were many attempts by kings and emperors to Christianize the pagans of northern Europe. Charlemagne (768-814) was one. Charlemagne was a scourge of German paganism and fought bitterly to wipe it out. He changed their entire method of reckoning time, renamed months, altered the beginning and ending points of months, and otherwise “Romanized” their reckoning of time. Haakon I of Norway (934-961) is another. Haakon rearranged pagan holidays to make them more like Christian holidays, in order to make Christianity more acceptable to pagans in the hopes of converting them in time. He had to balance his desire to introduce Christianity to Norway with the political expediency necessary to unite the realm. The following is a quote from the Saga of Haakon the Good:
“King Haakon was a good Christian when he came to Norway; but as the whole country was heathen, with much heathenish sacrifice, and as many great people, as well as the favor of the common people, were to be conciliated, he resolved to practice his Christianity in private. But he kept Sundays, and the Friday fasts, and some token of the greatest holy-days. He made a law that the festival of Yule should begin at the same time as Christian people held it, and that every man, under penalty, should brew a meal of malt into ale, and therewith keep the Yule holy as long as it lasted. Before him, the beginning of Yule, or the slaughter night, was the night of mid-winter, and Yule was kept for three days thereafter. It was his intent, as soon as he had set himself fast in the land, and had subjected the whole to his power, to introduce Christianity.”
The point of this quote is to show that an effort was made to bring the timing of Yule into line with Christmas in order to make Christianity more palatable to the pagan Norse. If the timing had to be brought into alignment, then it was not aligned at first. Yule was not on December 25 originally, despite what every single pagan website out there tells you.



Do the Twelve Days of Christmas come from Yule?

No. This can be demonstrated by a little math. Yule comes from the northern Europeans. St. Boniface was the first Christian missionary to establish Christian churches in many parts of Germania. He did this in the 700's AD. The Christianization of the Norse happened over the next 300-400 years. So, the northern Europeans were evangelized beginning in the 700's. When did the Twelve Days of Christmas start? Well before 400 AD. The Council of Saragossa (380 AD), act 4, declares the time between Christmas and Epiphany to be holy time. The Second Council of Tours (566-567 AD), cannons xi and xvii, proclaimed the importance of the fasts of Advent and the days between Christmas and Epiphany (Twelve Days of Christmas). If the Council of Saragossa declared the sanctity of these practices in 380, we can be assured the practices long predated the declaration by the Council. Therefore, the Twelve Days of Christmas originated in Christendom more than 300 years before missionaries were sent to Germany and Scandinavia. Therefore, it is simply not possible that the Twelve Days of Christmas was adopted from Yule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmastide


Doesn't the name "Yuletide" mean Christmas mixed with Yule?

No ...odd as that may sound. We need to know something about the Germans to understand why not. The Germans of that time had a peculiar habit of naming things after the month in which they fell. This is exactly the same thing that caused the Passover season to be named "Eastertide." The name Easter does not come from the name of any goddess. The name comes from the month in which the holiday fell - Eastermonath. (In Gernany, it was Ostar and Ostarmonath. Easter and Eastermonath are Saxon.) So it is with Christmas. Christmas falls in the double months named Yule, so it got the name Yuletide. It was natural for Germanic people to rename it after the month because that's just what they did. Since Christianity gained the forefront in the region, the name Yuletide has not referred to Yule at all. For example, see the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1912) article on "Yuletide." The article has almost nothing to do with Yule at all but is entirely about Christmas. Yule, as it was used long ago, often simply meant a time of celebrating. Or for another example, the earliest written record of a Yule Log is from the 1620-30s by a man named Robert Herrick, but he used the term "Christmas Log." The term Yule Log appears later. It seems apparent that the terms Yule and Christmas were simply interchangeable, not because of the celebrations, but because the English language is heavily influenced by the German. These German names made their way west into the British Isles and on into the Americas. When we hear the name Yuletide, our natural reaction is to think of Yule, not Christmas. This simply betrays our lack of familiarity with the peculiarities of history. So, the next time you hear the word Yule in the carol "Deck the Halls", try to resist the improper urge to assign a pagan connotation to the reference.



Does the Yule Log come from pagan Yule traditions?

Uncertain. The earliest potential mention is from 1184 AD in Germany, which had been quite Christianized by then. Alexander Tille's book "The History of the Christmas Festival" from 1889 (the English version is "Yule and Christmas - Their Place In The Germanic Year"), pp. 92-93. Tille says it is only an allusion, not a direct mention. So, the reference is in doubt. The earliest definite written record of a Yule Log is from the 1620-30s by a man named Robert Herrick, but he used the term "Christmas Log." Is it possible the Yule Log came from paganism? Maybe. Definite? No. It is equally possible that the log is indeed a Christmas log which later adopted the name Yule. It seems apparent that the terms Yule and Christmas were simply interchangeable.


Does the Yule Log come from Mithra worship?

No. The earliest potential written record of a Yule Log is from the 1184 AD. This is far too late for Mithras. There definitively was no such thing as a Mithra Log. This claim is patently false. 

Claims like these come from people who care less about truth than pushing a narrative. Blaming everything we don't like on Mithra is neither honest nor godly. If you come across claims like this, ask for evidence. Since there is none, you will most likely be summarily dismissed, accused of opposing God, or sent to a website that has many claims with very little if any source material. I originally got this claim from a website where the entire thing was a person writing on behalf of God, putting words into God's mouth, and condemning just about everything. It was pure fire and brimstone blasphemy. Be aware there are many out there who have no idea how to research, have an agenda to push, and are not above making things up as they go. Mind your source!



Aren't there many encyclopedias and sources that say Christmas is pagan origin?

Yes. This much is quite true. But are they right? That is highly debatable. Standing on the authority of an encyclopedia simply because it is an encyclopedia is the logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority. Any authority can be wrong (even ABD). What matters is the truth. Dig for the facts and mind your sources! People tell me fairly regularly, "I can cut and paste ALL day on the pagan origins of all these things." Appealing to the number of sources is a logical fallacy called Appeal to Popularity. Numbers are worthless. Quality is all that matters. It was Adolph Hitler who famously observed, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Mind your source material!
When we dig into the facts in the best sources we have, we find that most of these encyclopedias being referred to are very old. Take for example the oft-quoted New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1952) article on “Christmas.” Not only is the article vague and speculative, but the dates of Saturnalia and Brumalia are simply incorrect, and some of its information is contradicted by the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1912) article on “Yuletide”. An encyclopedia can only tell us what current learning is. If future evidence proves current thinking wrong, the wrong information cannot be un-published from encyclopedias past. This is the danger of old encyclopedias (and old encyclopedias are a mainstay of anti-Christmas enthusiasts.) For example, most older encyclopedia articles on Christmas, including the New Catholic Encyclopedia, relied heavily on the written works of what is called the "German History of Religions School". Members of this group include names such as James Frazer and Franz Cumont. Since the 1970s, their work has proven false or mostly abandoned. What do we do with those old encyclopedias? They are good for knowing where learning used to be but not good for knowing where learning currently is. If one wants accurate, reliable information, one should not go to old encyclopedias. 



Does Christmas come from Hanukkah?

Inconclusive. Some people think the dating of Christmas was influenced by the Jews keeping Hanukkah on the 25th of the month of Kislev, and Kislev usually falls in December. So when the Gentile Christians moved towards December as the date of Christ's birth (doing so based heavily on Jewish folklore), the 25th as a date may have been a natural choice as it already held significance. But whether or not this genuinely influenced the early Christians is inconclusive. We lean towards no, but still find it an interesting tidbit.


Did the switch from Julian to Gregorian calendars affect Jesus' birth day?

Yes and no. The Julian calendar is flawed and loses one day every 130 years. In time, this became an issue, mainly because it pushed the spring equinox backwards towards February, and Easter, which is tied to the equinox, was happening far too soon. In 1545, the Council of Trent decided to do something about it. A new, more accurate, calendar was devised which would fix the issue. Part of the plan was to correct the date by ten days and bring the equinox back into alignment with the year 325 AD, which was the year of the Council of Nicea. The calendar was first implemented in 1582. That year, the month of October was ten days shorter than it would have been (they deleted ten days that year - ten days that never happened). Now, in all countries that use the Gregorian calendar, the year aligns to how things would have been in 325 AD ...but not the year Jesus was born. Since this is the case, regardless of what calendar date Jesus was born on, that date on our calendar today and the one in the year Jesus was born still would not match. They are about 2-3 days off. 
It does affect the date. So we answer yes. However, a date is still a date (December 25 is still December 25). So we answer no. We really have a matter of opinion here. Which is going to be more important to you - the stellar alignment or the date?


So how did Christmas start, then?

Here is our version of why Christmas started, based on the best evidence we have seen.
By mid-first century, heresies arose concerning the nature of Jesus' humanity. Gnostics were claiming that human flesh is evil; some were denying that Jesus was truly a human being. (Some Gnostics even claimed Jesus never used the bathroom.) So, a great interest arose in the church regarding the details of Jesus early life. The Gospels, especially John's, contained many details in answer to these heresies, but they never said precisely when Jesus was born, and the ability to interpret clues was lost (for example, when the census occurred). A second problem arose when the Jews were ejected from the Holy Land - the Temple calendar became unworkable. This caused confusion about when events happened, such as the crucifixion. In the 100's AD, Christians began searching for answers. It started with multiple dates, but later was consolidated. At first, spring months were preferred, but eventually winter months won out.

In the eastern churches -- the Quartodecimans apparently decided to swap the 14th day of the Jewish calendar for the 14th day of their own Greek calendar - which translated to April 6. Nine months later, January 6th was the memorial of the incarnation and birth. This is known as Epiphany.
In the western churches -- in about 198, Clement of Alexandria calculated Jesus' birth to late November. In about 200 AD, Tertullian arrived at March 25 for the date of the crucifixion. In about 211 AD, Hippolytus (of Rome), also calculated Jesus' death to March 25th and then added 9 months. March 25th + 9 months = December 25th. This memorial of the birth was called the Nativity, and much later Christmas.
To make this leap from death to birth, early Christians employed an old Jewish tradition called "Integral Ages" that said important people die on the day they were conceived. Find the date of the death, add nine months, arrive at the date of the birth.

Hippolytus' dates caught on through the 200s. By 300, we have some evidence from the Donatists that Christmas was being observing across north Africa. By 336, Christmas had become the start of the liturgical year in Rome. By the mid-300s, Christmas was fully established in the west.
Eventually it was settled that Christmas would be held in honor of the birth and Epiphany in honor of early events of Jesus' life such as the presentation at the temple, the visit of the Magi, and the wedding at Cana. The time between Christmas and Epiphany came to be known as the Twelve Days of Christmas.

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/12/plain-truth-about-december-25th.html 


Is there a time difference between when Christmas was first calculate and first celebrated?

Yes. We know and can demonstrate that Christians in the second century were calculating the date of Jesus' death and birth. We can know Hippolytus' calculations were honored in the west because a statue of him has been found with his calculations inscribed on the side. These dates took a while to catch on with other Christian thinkers. It seems it took the entire third century for the idea of Jesus being born on December 25 to catch on and be turned from a date into a feast day. It wasn't until the late 200s, or immediately at the turn of the 300s AD, where we first see hints of religious services on December 25. And not until 336 when we see the first definite evidence of a feast day. So, the answer is yes, there is about a century between the time December 25 was calculated to the time Christians officially began honoring the day.


Do the Donatists prove Christmas was being celebrated in 300 AD?

Uncertain. Currently, a majority of scholars side with 'likely yes', but there is just enough uncertainty remaining that we cannot say 'definitely yes'. Due to strong disagreement over restoring bishops to office after they lapsed during the Great Persecution of Emperor Diocletian (303-313), a large group of people in north Africa, whom we call the Donatists, split away from the church. This split is dated to 311. They retained all traditions they had at that time, but refused to accept any new ones. So, they are like a snapshot of the church in that year. Augustine writes critically of the Donatists many times, and mentions they refused Epiphany, but he never mentions they refused Christmas. From this evidence, scholars conclude they did observe Christmas. But there is no document that states definitely that they did observe Christmas. If the Donatists did observe Christmas, that sets the time where Christmas became popular in the west to about 300 AD. It must predate the Great Persecution, but it likely did not predate it by very long.

 
Here is a quick timeline of events to help put things in perspective:

 This timeline only includes relevant milestones that we at ABD have personally verified.

·46 BC - Julius Caesar sets December 25 as the solstice. Due to errors in the calendar, the solstice moved 1 day every 130 years.
·90 AD - December 25 was no longer the solstice. Now only traditionally the solstice.
·150-190 AD - Christians begin celebrating Jesus' birth, eventually as Epiphany.
·190-200 AD - Clement of Alexandria calculates Jesus' birth to late in the year.
·200 AD - Tertullian sets Jesus' crucifixion on March 25.
·202-211 AD - Hippolytus uses the March 25 date to calculate Jesus’ birth as December 25.
·221 AD - Sextus Julius Africanus agrees with March 25 date for the conception.
·243 AD - Pseudo-Cyprian concludes the birth and the death are linked (demonstrating the idea really was popular in Christian scholarly thinking in that time).
·245-248 AD - Origen takes a stand against birthdays.
·274 AD - Aurelian elevates Sol worship. Dies the next year.
·300 AD - Estimated date when Donatists begin observing Christmas.
·336 AD - The Commemoration of the Martyrs is written. Contains an undisputed mention of Jesus born on December 25.
·354 AD - The Filocalian Calendar is written. Contains the only mention of "Natalis Invicti" on December 25.
·362 AD - Emperor Julian “the Apostate”, gives us the first explicit reference to a celebration of the sun on December 25.


Is March 25th the correct date of the crucifixion?

No. The March 25th date of the crucifixion cannot be correct because, barring some highly unusual incident, Passover was not on that date in any year close to when Jesus was crucified. We know beyond any doubt our Lord was crucified on Passover, and that Passover should be Nissan 14. The question is - when was Nissan 14? The date of Passover, according to the Julian Calendar of that time, would have been March 31 or April 1 (that's April 3 or April 7 in our calendar). Neither of those match the Passover dates of March 25 or April 6 that were popular starting points in the early calculations.
The date of Passover can be estimated (but we cannot know with 100% certainty because the Temple Priests were known to set the calendar by sight, and we have no record that definitely says what they did in those years). There are several different estimates, of course, but check any version for any year from the late-20's to the mid-30's AD, and you will see Passover is never on March 25/April 6, let alone never on a Friday on March 25/April 6. So, no, the March 25 date cannot be correct.
 

Why isn't Theophilus of Caesarea on your list?

Because I am convinced it's a fake quote. 
There are several people who say that around 180 AD, Theophilus of Caesarea  said something like, "We ought to celebrate the birth-day of our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen." That's a game changing quote. Why wouldn't I include it? The answer is because I can't confirm the source.

Every time I see the quote from Theophilus, the sources cited are the same, and it looks like this: (Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, de origen Festorum Christianorum). Note these two things: Magdeburg and Hospinian.
The Magdeburg Centuries is a scholarly work written by a group of eight Lutheran ecclesiastical scholars from Magdeburg Germany in the 1500s. It covers the first 13 centuries of church history, with the quote coming from century 2. This is a respected work in Protestantism. So, it isn't like this work is without merit.
Then there is Rudolph Hospinian, who was also a Lutheran scholar from the 1500s. Best as I can tell, Hospinian was not one of the authors of the Magdeburg Centuries.
So why does one quote appear to have two sources? Am I dealing with two separate works cited here and they say the same thing? I don't know. I can't find either of them in English. The real problem I have is that the Magdeburg Centuries supposedly cites a quote from Theophilus of Caesarea, but I can't find the original. Well, something about that makes me suspicious.

Roger Pearse quite convincingly argues the Theophilus quote is a fake.


CHRISTMAS TREES

Are all evergreens forbidden by God?

No. Absolutely not. God delights in the use of trees and greenery in His worship.

(ISA. 41: 19) I will plant in the wilderness the cedar and the acacia tree, the myrtle and the oil tree; I will set in the desert the cypress tree and the pine and the box tree together
(ISA. 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.

Note -- Isaiah 60: 13 is AFTER Isaiah 44: 14-17! Verses about these same trees being used to craft pagan idols. In Isaiah 41, God plants the trees. In Isaiah 44, man uses them as false gods. In Isaiah 60, God redeems them for His worship. It's a picture of our own redemption. Very much a Christmas lesson.

Evergreen trees (Cyprus) were used to build and finish the Temple. Evergreen branches (myrtle, palm) were used to build booths during the Feast of Booths. The tree is innocent! It is the quite specific use of the tree that makes the difference. If used to worship God, He is pleased. If used to make an idol god, He is displeased. More accurately, it's the heart that makes the difference.


Did the Christmas Tree originate in worship of Semiramis and Nimrod?

No. As stated earlier, Nimrod is missing from the historical record, so there is not a speck of evidence for this. None. In fact, there is ample evidence to disprove it. Ancient Mesopotamia recorded no such tradition. Not only is there no evidence for the tradition in the first place, there is no evidence trail leading from deep ancient Mesopotamia to Germany in the 1500s. It is not sufficient to claim that a certain ancient people found symbolism in trees. It is also necessary to prove a link to the modern Christmas Tree. We can no more say the Christmas Tree comes from ancient Mesopotamia than we can say evergreen swags come from the Feast of Booths. As it stands, history provides no similar ancient tradition and no clear link to the modern tradition. Until we see real evidence, we must conclude all such tales are fabrications.

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/11/falsely-accused-christmas-trees-and.html 
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/12/falsely-accused-christmas-trees-came.html
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/12/falsely-accused-catholics-rejected.html
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/12/falsely-accused-nazi-christmas.html
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/12/falsely-accused-you-decide.html


Did the Christmas Tree originate in worship of Isis and Osiris?

No. There is not a shred of evidence for this claim. It is based on creative modern reinterpretations of history, and repeated citation. There was a tree involved in the myth of Osiris, but exactly what kind of tree is in dispute. Most candidates were not even evergreen. None were pine. Even so, the Egyptians did not decorate with trees in response to the myth. The details surrounding this myth have absolutely nothing in common with the Christmas Tree. They are unrelated. Once again, it is not enough to claim a tree existed in a myth ergo Christmas Tree. We have to prove that they truly correlate. These do not.



Did Egyptians decorate their homes with evergreen trees in December?

No. Egypt isn't Germany. Egypt doesn't have a “winter.” Ancient Egypt recognized three seasons which were tied to the flooding of the Nile. December is in the rainy season, when the world is at its greenest. There is no psychological reason why anyone would bring evergreen into their homes in Egypt in the rainy season.


Did the Christmas Tree originate in worship of Cybele and Attis?

No. The historical record gives no support to this claim. The cult of Cybele would decorate a tree with violets at the Spring “Hilaria” festival. On March 22nd, the tree was then brought to the temple, the next day the tree was mourned for, then the next day the tree was given a funeral and sometimes even buried. This is a far cry from the Christmas Tree. These people did not bring trees into their homes to decorate. Correlation does not prove causality. There has to be an actual line of evidence leading from one place (Hilaria, spring, Rome, 100 AD) to another place (Christmas, winter, Germany, 1500's AD). What people seem to forget when they dig for things like this is that the Romans did not invent the Christmas Tree, the Germans did.



Did Virgil speak of decorating trees for the Bacchus festival?

Yes. Virgil, in "Georgics" [agricultural things], Book 2, said that they hung images of Bacchus on trees. "Thee with glad hymns, O Bacchus, and to thee Hang puppet-faces on tall pines to swing." And that is all that he said. The tradition apparently was one where people would tie ropes to trees and swing from them. However, to prevent from getting hurt they started tying images of Bacchus to the tree so he could hang there. Decorated trees is a similarity, but the other details are quite different. Correlation does not prove causation. We require a lot more than merely what barely even seems to be surface similarity. That a tree was involved is insufficient. There were several instances of trees being decorated in ancient times. There also needs to be an actual line of evidence leading from one place (Bacchus, Rome, 100 BC) to another place (Christmas, Germany, 1500's AD). What's more, if this is the true origin, then the source cannot be any of the other things people claim.

http://classics.mit.edu/Virgil/georgics.2.ii.html


Did Romans decorate their homes with evergreen trees in December?

No. Rome had no such tradition of decorating with evergreen trees. One would think if the tradition were really unbroken to the time of Nimrod that somebody in the Mediterranean would observe it. Rome did have a tradition of decorating with evergreen swags for the New Year. 
Tertullian, in his book "On Idolatry", chapter 15, written somewhere from 203-211, specifically stated that the Romans decorated with Laurels (a fragrant evergreen): "You will now-a-days find more doors of heathens without lamps and laurel-wreaths than of Christians." But, then again, this same Tertullian, in his book "Apology", chapter 35, written just a few years earlier in about 197 AD, says Christians did neither of those things: "Why, on the day of gladness, do we neither cover our door-posts with laurels, nor intrude upon the day with lamps?" So, we find ourselves understandably confused here. Did they, or didn't they? Bear in mind, decorating wasn't a pagan religious thing necessarily, but more a national event, it was swags not trees, it was laurels not pine, on doorways not indoors, and it was at New Year's not December 25th. The claim implies that all of these things happened anciently on December 25th but that simply is not the case. Know that before Julius Caesar reformed the calendar, Roman New Year was March 1, not January 1 (technically, the New Year was moved to Jan 1 in 153 BC, but most people ignored that until Caesar's reforms). So, if this was a New Year tradition, it originated as a spring tradition, but was carried to January. My point is, these things had nothing to do with December. The Christmas garlands of evergreen may have originated from this Roman practice as best as anyone can tell. 
But don't be too quick to condemn garlands. The Temple in Jerusalem was decorated in garlands of silver. Garlands, in and of themselves, are not pagan.


Does Jeremiah 10 condemn Christmas Trees?

No. Jeremiah 10 is neither for nor against Christmas Trees. Jeremiah 10 is not talking about Christmas Trees or any precursor to the Christmas Tree at all. There simply was no such tradition in that place at that time for Jeremiah to talk about, let alone one so pervasive that Jeremiah should actively warn against it. Jeremiah 10, just like Isaiah 40, talks about chopping down a tree then carving it into an idol to worship. Jeremiah and Isaiah speak about the useless futility of a hand-made god in comparison to the One Living God. What was Jeremiah talking about? Something much more like this, an Asherah:


This claim was popularized by Herbert Armstrong in the mid-1900s. Our article on Jeremiah 10 and Christmas Trees goes into far greater depth on this than we can do here. The entire issue is that one must read Christmas Trees into Jeremiah 10. One never reads Christmas Trees out of Jeremiah 10. We prefer to let the Bible interpret the Bible.

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/12/jeremiah-10-and-christmas-trees.html


Where did the Christmas Tree tradition come from, then?

The origin of Christmas Tree is not perfectly clear. The traditional story of Martin Luther is certainly just a legend. But the origin is without a doubt Germanic and from around Luther's time. Most likely, the Christmas Tree tradition comes from another peculiar German tradition. From the eleventh century to the fifteenth century, the medieval Germans had a tradition of putting on Biblically-themed plays. One of them, the “Paradise Play” which was held on the Feast of Adam and Eve on December 24th, had a prop called the “Paradise Tree.” This tree mimicked the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Apples, Communion wafers, and other items decorated the tree. By the time the plays were finally shut down, the people had already begun to copy the Paradise Tree in their own homes. The move from public to private seems to be spurred on by the Reformation. The first record we have dates to 1419, when the Fraternity of Baker's Apprentices set up a tree decorated with apples, wafers, gingerbread and tinsel in the local hospital at Freiburg. The decorated tree caught on slowly and only began to gain real popularity in Germany in the late 1500's. This tradition made its way into England in 1800 when the German wife of King George III imported the tradition. This is generally recognized as when the tradition truly caught on.

I have read so many people claiming their chosen pagan group (usually Druids) loved trees, therefore that's where the Christmas Tree comes from. We here at this blog demand a lot more than just that type of flimsy reasoning. Commonality does not prove causality. Since we are on the topic of Druids, they were mainly from the area of England/Scotland/Ireland and parts of France - notice Germany is missing - their preferred tree was oak, not pine, and they died out long before the 1500s. These facts make the druids a very poor source.

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/12/falsely-accused-christmas-trees-came.html


Didn't St. Boniface start the tradition of Christmas Trees?

No. St. Boniface evangelized the Germanic people in the early 700s. As the story goes, he was travelling in the area of Hessen when he came across some pagans worshipping at a large oak which he called the Tree of Jupiter. He cut it down - supposedly, he chopped once and a strong wind blew the tree over from there. Then he planted an evergreen as a symbol of Jesus. The pagans converted and a church was built from the wood. This is claimed by many Catholics as being the origin of the Christmas Tree tradition.
Is this even historical? We cannot know. But there doesn't seem to be any real or legendary connection between that story and the Christmas Tree. Why didn't the tradition catch on for another thousand years, and why did Catholics avoid Christmas Trees in favor of Nativities? From what we have found, we are more convinced that the origin of the Christmas Tree tradition descends from the Paradise Plays. 



Didn't Martin Luther start the tradition of Christmas Trees?

No. But he might be the origin of one of the decorations. As the story goes, Martin Luther was walking one night through the woods when he saw the starlight gleaming through the trees. This is claimed by many Protestants as being the origin of the Christmas Tree tradition.
Is this even historical? It is doubtful. There seems to be two differing opinions about this event. The first is that this story is the origin of Christmas Trees. The second is this is only the origin of lights on the Christmas Trees. Of these, the second is far more believable. Even though the timing is very good, with Martin Luther living around the time Christmas Trees began - the strongest claim to the first recorded Tree is in 1510 - the rest of the details do not fit. We find it hard to accept that Martin Luther went for a walk and that caused people to chop down trees, bring them home, and decorate them. It is far easier to believe that Martin Luther went for a walk and that caused people to add lights to their Christmas Trees. From what we have found, we are more convinced that the origin of the Christmas Tree tradition descends from the Paradise Plays.



Is the song "O Tannenbaum" secretly a worship song?

No. The song "O Tannenbaum" is not about a Christmas tree. Tannenbaum refers to any fir tree. A Weihnachtsbaum is a Christmas tree. The song isn't O Weihnachtsbaum. When the song was translated into English, they changed fir tree to Christmas tree and made it into a Christmas song.
The song is about the tree, not to the tree. Huge difference. People sing songs about things all the time. They sing about love, about home, and about hot dogs. No one accuses people of secretly worshipping hot dogs. If you are going to go around claiming songs about things are really secret forms of worship, you should hold to your own standard and stop listening to any song that isn't specifically about God.
Claims like this are particularly grieving, seeing as they are patently ridiculous on their face, yet people keep repeating them like they know something clever. It's not clever. It just makes you look silly when you say things like this.


SANTA CLAUS

Where does Santa Claus come from?

Santa Claus is a complicated mix of three previous things: the real Saint Nicholas the Bishop of Myra, German traditions of Saint Nicholas, and the Dutch traditions of Saint Nicholas particularly in America. When Bishop Nicholas died on December 6, 343, he became so beloved that he is arguably the most popular saint in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Germany and Scandinavia never had a Puritan movement, so even though they are Protestant they never lost their love for Saint Nicholas. He was particularly beloved by sailors. Even the Vikings, when they landed in America, named their Cathedral after him. It was inevitable that legends would develop. His generosity led to the custom of gift giving on his feast day, December 6.
In America's "great melting pot" is where these figures merged into a new one. In 1809, Washington Irving (of Headless Horseman fame) wrote a history of the Dutch in New York. In it, he shared many details about the Dutch Saint Nicholas. This St. Nicholas wore a wide-brimmed Dutch hat and trunk clothes, smoked a pipe, laid his finger on his nose, and drove a flying wagon. This poem was the inspiration for Clement Moore's infamous "A Visit From Saint Nicholas" (aka. Twas The Night Before Christmas) in 1823. It was a hit! Moore's St. Nick relied on popular Dutch imagery in his day - his clothes were either red or green fur, he rode in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, and due to the growing popularity of stoves and stove pipes over open hearths and chimneys, Santa was now miniaturized. This was the invention of Santa Claus.
The image changed again in 1862 when Thomas Nast (creator of the Republican Elephant and Democrat Mule) popularized Santa in red fur. The North Pole was introduced at this time; no doubt as a slight to the Confederate South. Until then, Saint Nicholas was often depicted as living in New Jerusalem or some other Heavenly estate.
Modern Santa Claus had arrived - just in time to almost die out because now even the stove pipes had been replaced by radiators and duct heating. The last step for our modern Santa was in the 1930s when Haddon Sundblom (creator of the Quaker Oats man) created the iconic image of the modern Santa Claus for a Coca Cola ad campaign. This ad campaign single-handedly saved Santa. The rest is history.



No and yes. Father Christmas started as resistance to the English Puritan movement and originally was completely separate from Santa Claus, but the two have since merged. In England, when King Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church, he ended veneration of saints. Saint Nicholas was out. Calvinist Presbyterian fundamentalists, called Puritans, were attempting to remove Christmas, because they saw it as being Catholic. In 1616, one Ben Johnson wrote a masque (a type of an elaborate play), called "Christmas, His Masque", where Christmas was personified, and wore a hat, and a beard. This was done at least partly as push-back against the Puritans. This Christmas figure appeared several more times, with various appearances. The name "Father Christmas" first appeared in 1652 in the text "The Vindication of Christmas", where the character was a symbol of resistance against the Puritan suppression of religious traditions. In the illustration, Father Christmas appears quite saintly. This character had no set appearance at this time and changed as the author/illustrator desired, but certain items such as a robe, beard, and hat were popular. The Ghost of Christmas Present we read about in Charles Dickens' classic "A Christmas Carol" is dressed for warmth, feasting, joy, and charity.
It is important to understand Father Christmas is technically not Santa Claus. There are some major differences:
  • He is the personification of Christmas itself; representing the day, its characteristics, and traditions.
  • He is the direct descendant of masques.
  • He is a pro-Christmas propaganda piece created in England.
  • He is not based on Saint Nicholas legends.
  • He is not a gift-bringer.
Father Christmas was (almost completely) absorbed by the Santa Claus tradition in the 1900s. So, no, Father Christmas was not originally the same as Santa Claus, but yes, Father Christmas has since become almost completely absorbed by Santa Claus.



Is Santa Claus the same as the Weihnachtsmann?

No and yes. The Weihnachtsmann started in a poem about a secular German gift bringer which particularly avoided Saint Nicholas, and originally was completely separate from Santa Claus, but the two have since merged. The earliest mention is in 1835 in the song "Der Weihnachtsmann" by Heinrich Hoffman (who also authored the German national anthem). And even this character is not based on old paganism as there is no real description of him. Any physical attributes appear later. So, no, the Weihnachtsmann was not originally the same as Santa Claus, but yes, the Weihnachtsmann has since become almost completely absorbed by Santa Claus.



Did Santa Claus evolve from Odin?

No. There are many claims that Santa evolved from Odin, but that is not the case. Santa Claus is entirely a product of Christianity, is very recent, and is an amalgam of German, Dutch, and American imagery. Every origin story which puts Odin in as the origin of Santa is pure conjecture based on vague similarities. That Odin was swapped out for Saint Nicholas in the distant past is a modern reinterpretation of history based on similarities in character traits rather than direct mentions from historical documents. For example, Odin wears a hat and cloak, has a horse, and is wise. That is what these Odin origins are built on. Frankly, it makes no sense due to 1) they conflate Santa and Father Christmas and the Weihnachtsmann, and 2) the multitude of Odin's other traits. Odin, the wandering, one-eyed God of Fury and Visions, spear-bearing warrior, and leader of the Wild Hunt, is not a gift-bringer in any medieval or older source, nor is he generous and kind, nor even particularly concerned with children. They used to sacrifice humans, including children, to him. In contrast, the attributes of Saint Nicholas, such as generosity, kindness, selflessness, care for people, etc etc, may be legend but they are historically demonstrable legends, and they are present in many cultures where there was no Odin at all. Plus, Nicholas is a gift-giver, and is closely associated with Christmas time. We talk about where Santa came from in another section.


No. The etymology of Santa is known and clear. This is schoolyard nonsense and too silly to seriously respond to.


Does Santa Claus come form the ancient Hittite god Santa?

No. This is based on false etymology. Just because words sound alike does not mean they are related. The etymology of Santa Claus is known and clear. Santa comes from a shortening of the word saint, and Claus comes from a shortening of the name Nicholas - specifically Saint Nicholas. This is its origin. There is no ambiguity here. 
There are no other connections between Saint Nicholas and the minor Bronze Age Anatolian warrior god of plagues and possibly the underworld from 1800 BC. Other names for this god include Sananta, Saanda, Sandes and Sandas. It is speculated the name comes from the word for anger. These details do not point toward any kind of a connection.


OTHER TRADITIONS

Aren't some Christmas traditions from pagan origin?

Yes. That much is not in dispute. But not the majority by any means. A few - ivy, swags of greenery - all of these definitely appear to have been borrowed from non-Christian sources. I say appear because the history is somewhat spotty. Their appearance could also be explained by the simple reality that people decorate with what is available at the season.
Mistletoe does not appear to be of pagan origin. According to Ronald Hutton:
"...there seems to be no reference to the use of mistletoe in medieval or Tudor English Christmases" p.73
"The custom of kissing under a bunch of foliage appears to have commenced in the late eighteenth century..." p.75
Hutton, Ronald. Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain. ch.4. Oxford Press, 2001.
So, even though mistletoe was without a doubt part of ancient Druidic ritual, its recent appearance in Christmas is so far removed from the extinction of the Druids that it is highly improbable that one is a continuation of the other. Even the way the Druids used mistletoe bears no resemblance to its use at Christmas. So, what at first appears to be pagan isn't so simple on closer inspection.


And what of gift giving, didn't that come from Saturnalia? Not likely. If it did, it took an indirect route. The more likely candidate is New Year. Few people remember the Feast of St. Nicholas on December 6. St. Nicholas Day and New Year were the two main medieval gift giving days, not Christmas. To a lesser extent, the Feast of St. Stephen was also a gift giving day. It wasn't until after the Protestant Reformation that Christmas became the primary gift giving day, as a result of Martin Luther discouraging the veneration of saints, and as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Prior to the reformation, Christmas was about going to Mass and having a nice family meal with some games and various festivities.

The idea we argue against here is this: a thing is used in paganism and also in Christianity, therefore Christians adopted it from pagans. (We speak on the "once pagan always pagan" claim elsewhere, so I will skip that.) Just because one thing comes after another thing doesn't mean they are related. This is the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" or "after this therefore because of this". Mistletoe was used by pagans. Mistletoe is used by some Christians. But what we do not have is a historically documented connection. The people are not the same, the time is not the same, the use is not the same. Are they genuinely related? Only in the barest surface sense.

Let's take a moment to understand the people who started using items like holly and ivy as Christian symbols. In a culture where most people are uneducated and illiterate, images and symbols hold a far greater place than what we may be used to today. These items were useful as symbols to teach about Jesus. Such things as these were all the learning tools many people had. If holly and ivy could be used to teach about the crown of thorns and the blood, then why not use it? Because it was also used by pagans? They might not have even known it was used that way. Just because we know about that doesn't mean they did.



Does God condemn Christmas traditions?

No. We find that people condemn these things on behalf of God ...despite what is in the Bible or Christian practice. Most of the traditions associated with modern Christmas can be found 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. It doesn't appear to matter if things are in the Bible. Some people just don't seem to care. Sadly, it seems all some people want is to maintain the narrative of condemnation. I get email and comments from people regularly who stretch beyond limit to condemn Christmas. One even claimed if there were any pagan holidays in December or the neighboring months then Christmas was pagan. By that standard, all things whatsoever are pagan!

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2018/12/3-reasons-why-i-stopped-keeping.html


Is "once pagan always pagan" a valid Biblical position to take?

Unlikely. God Himself used many things that were previously pagan in order to teach us about Him. Temples, a "holy of holies", priests, days of rest, feast days, harvest festivals, circumcision, alters, sacrifices, arks (ie. Ark of the Covenant), a mercy seat, prayers, music, incense, sacred documents, tithes, and many more things were all of pagan employ long before Moses wrote the Torah. Why the very Ark of the Covenant itself is patterned directly from the Egyptian palanquin. The Spirit of God was carried around for years on an Ark patterned directly after an Egyptian religious box. Did you know Hebrew originally had no vowels? Other languages had vowels. Are vowels pagan? Spacing between words and left-to-right orientation are both of pagan origin. There are a great many other things I could list here, but I will spare you. We can see that "once pagan always pagan" is neither practical nor Biblical. The phrase isn't in there; the implication isn't in there. Now consider the many inane claims that even Jesus himself came from pagan myths and you will see that pagan similarities do exist, and that some people are more than willing to take this line of thinking to a wild extreme in order to justify themselves.
Paul directly addressed the idea of 'once pagan always pagan'. People were worried meat offered to idols was still pagan and would contaminate them. Paul said no. 
(I COR. 10: 25-28) 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” 27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake.   
It was only when the meat was still being used in a pagan capacity that Paul said to avoid it. 
(I COR. 10: 28) 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.”
So we are left with some choices: 1) throw out the entire day because of a handful of incidentals, 2) enjoy the day but abstain from the particular traditions that make us uncomfortable, 3) enjoy the day and all of the traditions in their new, redeemed meanings.

Some people know Christmas decorations are nothing, while others are terribly afraid of these things defiling their conscience. Neither group is condemned by Paul, but both are commanded to live in peace and patience with one another. Paul goes through it again in I Corinthians 10: 23-33, and again in Romans 14: 5-13. Therefore, it is crystal clear that calling people "pagan" or "Nimrod worshipers" or whatever epithet is thrown around - from either side - is against the law of love and contrary to the Bible both in word and in Spirit.

Doesn't Deuteronomy 12:2-4 condemn anything of pagan origin?

 No. That is an attempt to proof-text a few verses and craft a new context for them.

(DEU: 12: 2-4) 2 You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations which you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. 3 And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place. 4 You shall not worship the Lord your God with such things.

In verses 2-4 God says to destroy the places where the heathen nations worshiped their gods. He did not want to be worshiped that way. In verses 5 to the end of the chapter, God speaks of a place where He will be worshiped. The focus in this chapter is the place. But why did God do this? In the Old Covenant, people and place are important. The point of the matter is to keep Israel separate and prevent them from turning to idolatry. God chose the people and land of Israel for Himself. The rest was given over to idolatry. Other laws were enacted for this very same reason - to keep Israel separate - such as meats laws, circumcision, and marriage prohibitions. This chapter has nothing to do with "once pagan always pagan." For evidence, consider God commands Israel to destroy temples and altars and images ... and then He turns right around and commands them to build a temple with altars and images [Yes, images! (EXO. 25: 18-22)]. If this chapter was about once pagan always pagan, God would not have done this. Once pagan always pagan does not factor in. Yet when the time came, Jesus obsoleted this chapter about place, explaining to the Samaritan woman that true worship would not be this way any longer (JON. 4: 20-24).


Doesn't Deuteronomy 12: 29-32 condemn making new Christian traditions?

No. That is an attempt to proof-text a few verses and craft a new context for them.

(DEU. 12: 29-31) 29 “When the Lord your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, 30 take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’ 31 You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way; for every abomination to the Lord which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

 This particular topic is far more complicated than we can cover here, but let's touch on some basics. First, these verses must be taken in the context of the chapter (also see the section about verses 2-4 above) which this claim completely ignores. The chapter is about Israel displacing the heathen nations in Palestine, it is about keeping Israel separate and distinct, it is regarding the practices of the abrogated Old Covenant, and it is directly about abominable practices that would draw Israel away from God. Second, neither the Jews nor the overwhelming Christian community in their combined history have taken these verses as a ban on new traditions. Third, the idea of banning novel traditions does not come from this chapter, it is read into this chapter. People who proof-text this selection of verses have already come to their conclusion regarding traditions and are looking for some form of justification. Fourth, the people who make stands on this proof-texted selection of verses are generally violating it themselves. Not a single one of them keep the tenets of the Old Covenant as written; legion are the excuses why not. All of them have their own novelties, quite a few borrowed from other religious groups. Sixth, this objection assumes Christmas in general comes from paganism, which we have and many others have demonstrated it does not.
Lastly, if creating new holidays and traditions without a direct command from God were indeed banned, we wouldn't see the Jews doing exactly that in Esther 22, and we wouldn't see Jesus observing Hanukkah in John 10.

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/12/established-and-imposed.html


Do Matthew 15: 9 and Mark 7: 7 condemn Christmas and its traditions?

No. That is an attempt to proof-text a few verses and craft a new context for them.

(MAT. 15: 9) And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
(MAR. 7: 7-8) And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men —the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

 What is the context of these verses? Jesus was accused of violating the law, so He turned the tables and accused the religious establishment in Israel of putting minutiae of law over and above the weightier matters of the law - love and the value of human life. Turns out it was not He but their legalism that had actually nullified the law - to the point where a person could give money to the temple and justify ignoring their elderly parents and thus violating the commandment to honor father and mother. Jesus was telling the Pharisees that their hands and cups were clean but their hearts were filthy. Jesus ultimately undoes the very point of the people who look to these proof-texted verses for aid against Christmas tradition. Nothing from the outside defiles a person, but what comes from inside can.

 (MAR. 7: 14-16) 14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”

 Christmas trees and holly cannot defile you, but a heart of false accusation and condemnation against your brother can. In the words of Jacob Marley:
"Business!" cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2018/12/3-reasons-why-i-stopped-keeping.html


Can I accidentally commit idolatry?

No. I am shocked by how often I have been asked this over the years. It is impossible to accidentally commit idolatry. Idolatry cannot come from outside of you. Idolatry must come from inside, from the heart. Idolatry is not a thing or a thoughtless act (such as stooping down to pick up a gift from under a tree equals kneeling in worship of the tree). Idolatry is an act of worship. Learn from the story of Naaman the Syrian who was healed of his leprosie by Elisha the prophet (II KIN. 5: 1-19). Naaman was obligated to kneel to the idol at the temple of Rimmon but his heart did not worship there (v. 18), and God pardoned him (v. 19).
My heart goes out to people who seriously ask questions such as this. The fear; the uncertainty in their Lord to love and keep them! False teachers have done this to people. But no incidental act is more powerful than God. No trinket can undo the victory Jesus gained on the cross. Listen to Him:

 (JON. 10: 27-30) 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.


Did a court case in Salon, Ohio in 1990 prove Christmas has no religious roots?

No. How can it have no religious roots of it was started by Christians? Or pagans for that matter? This claim is utterly ridiculous. The point made wasn't about its roots, anyway. It was about its current state. The least anyone could do is describe it correctly.
If you've never heard of this one, count yourself lucky. This is the first argument made against Christmas in the Restored Church of God's anti-Christmas booklet "The True Origins of Christmas" written by Dave Pack. The very few other places I've found this claim all copy the RCG's book. I can only assume this claim is largely ignored because anyone not motivated by confirmation bias finds it quite simplistic. 
What happened was the school board for Salon, Ohio, a small suburb outside of Cleveland, took it upon themselves to ban any Christmas celebration, claiming it violated church and state ...you know, because of its religious roots. The parents sued and based their defense on the current state of Christmas being a secular celebration observed around the world. The parents won, and Christmas was reinstated.
How does anyone write a book about true origins and completely misrepresent their very first point? It's not like 1990 is the ancient past and source material is hard to come by.

For more about Dave Pack, we recommend the Banned By HWA! blog:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/search?q=dave+pack


TIMING

Was Jesus born on December 25th?

No one knows. He could have been born on this day. He could have been born on another day. There is no definite answer. There are plenty of reasons both for and against. Some people say that astronomy proves Jesus was born on or near December 25th. The evidence is interesting, but ultimately inconclusive. There is too much guessing. December 25 is a serious option simply because of the Course of Abijah. The priests served twice, so the other Abijah date would place the nativity in either late June or early September. You end up with either Jesus Christ or John the Baptist being born at Christmas time. A third alternative is that Jesus was born on or very close to the Feast of Trumpets. That could even make Jesus' birthday September 11th. Imagine the implications of that!

The long and the short of the research here at As Bereans Did is not that December 25 is the correct date, but that it is not a pagan date. It can be innocent of paganism yet be incorrect. If it's right it's right, if it's not it's not, but it isn't borrowed from paganism. That's all we here have ever claimed.

http://www.bethlehemstar.com


Doesn't the Course of Abijah rule out December 25th?

No. There are so very many interpretations for when the Course of Abijah served that it is nearly impossible to tell which is the correct one. The courses also served twice per year. Which one was Luke referring to – the first or the second? I can't tell you how many websites I've read that say the course of Abijah ran in (pick a month .. let's go with June here) therefore Jesus was born in September. Not so fast! The timing of the Course of Abijah was one of the earliest supporting proofs given in defense of December 25th. John Chrysostom was known to have used it. Therefore it cannot preclude a December 25th date. There are ways to calculate the courses of Abijah that very much support a December 25th birth. Therefore, the course of Abijah can only support December 25th or be neutral about December 25th, it cannot rule December 25th out.

https://books.google.com/books?id=UCBBY_O88uYC&pg=PA128


Was Jesus born during the Feast of Tabernacles?

Unlikely. No one knows, but with Tabernacles there is valid reason to conclude the likeliest answer is no. If the time of year was Tabernacles, or Passover or Pentecost for that matter, every male should have been in Jerusalem. Luke doesn't say a thing about Tabernacles at all. Luke tells us why Joseph was in Bethlehem – he was there for the census. Luke appears to say people went to their homes for this census (LUK. 2: 3). If all people, or even some people, were in their home towns, then these people were not in Jerusalem. Hence why the Inn in Bethlehem was full. Joseph's ancestral home was Bethlehem. It is possible he may have owned land there. That is why he and others were there. Joseph should not have stayed in Bethlehem for the Feast, nor either should the other people who had filled the Inn before he got there, nor either should the people whose stable Joseph stayed in, nor either should the shepherds who were in the fields. None of them should have been in Bethlehem. They would have missed the Feast contrary to the law. If this were at Tabernacles then those people would be in and around Jerusalem. To put Jesus' birth at Tabernacles is too problematic to be a good option.


Do shepherds outside at night mean Jesus' birth could not be in the winter?

No. Bethlehem produced sheep for the sacrifices in Jerusalem. They had shepherds outside all year round. December is the rainy season, a prime time for feeding in the arid Israeli climate. That time period wasn't far from the peak of the Roman Warm Period, which made the climate warmer than we see it today. Now, bear in mind that Jerusalem is on the same latitude as Tucson, Arizona, Dallas, Texas, San Diego, California, Bermuda, the Sahara Desert, and etc, and you can see that their idea of "cold" is not at all the same as the white Christmas many people dream of.

https://bible.org/article/should-christians-celebrate-christmas


Does a birth in winter ruin the symbolism because sheep don't lamb in winter?

No. Sheep can lamb in winter.


Was the census of Luke 2 in the winter?

Uncertain. The census in Luke 2: 1-5 is one of the most heavily debated points in all of the New Testament. Some say the entire census itself was unlikely to have happened, and give reasons. Others say it was certain, and give reasons. For the purposes of this question, we are surprised to find the scholars so busy debating the fact of the census itself that virtually no discussion happens on the time of year a census would be held. I notice some in the anti-Christmas camp, like the United Church of God, quote Alexander Hislop for his position that the census absolutely would not have happened in the winter due to the bitter weather. We do not hold anything Alexander Hislop has to say in any positive regard. We have multiple articles explaining why Hislop is wholly unreliable. (Also, Read Ralph Woodrow's book The Babylon Connection for more detail.) Hislop's claim Rome would never have subjected its citizens to a census in winter because it was simply too cold does not convince us. We deal with shepherds in the field elsewhere here. But winter was unusually opportune time in Rome for such things. Romans did not go to war in winter. It is precisely this excess of down-time that led to winter being so filled with feast days. This is all circumstantial. We need something more solid here. The best information we can find merely indicates these events could last for months, sometimes years, and the citizens involved could appear for registration whenever it suited them. Therefore, it is not best to think of anyone calling a census or tax in winter, per se, but to think of it as a census or tax being called which might stretch for months and include the winter. Therefore, precisely when Augustus or anyone else commanded the registry is little help in knowing when Joseph decided to comply with it. In the end, we can confidently say we cannot make any definitive statement one way or the other at this time. Let's just leave it as - it's possible. 
Remember, our point here at ABD is not that December 25 is the day of Jesus' birth, just that it wasn't pagan. And it wasn't, even if Jesus was born at another time of year.



What are the Twelve Days of Christmas?

They were the twelve days between Christmas and Epiphany (Jan 6). Epiphany was not one of the twelve, but was seen as the natural end of them. Since there wasn't much to do in the dead of winter in medieval Europe, some celebrations could last well beyond Epiphany.


PURITANS

Did the English outlaw Christmas for a time?

Yes. After the Reformation, Protestant groups rushed to distance themselves from anything Catholic. Beginning around 1561, Protestants in Scotland removed any religious observation besides Sunday. Protestants in England at first only wanted to reduce the importance of Christmas, but later tried to remove it, but were prevented by the king. They began referring to the day as Christ-tide, to further remove Catholic elements. King Charles I oppressed the Puritans, but they rose up in a civil war and took power in England. The English government was heavily influenced by Puritans under their new leader, Oliver Cromwell. The Puritans were pious anti-Catholics who despised anything overly festive and anything Catholic. Since Christmas was both festive and came to us through the Catholics, they hated it. They followed the Scottish model and gradually outlawed it. In 1645, the Church of England removed Christmas from its liturgy. Two years later, Parliament outlawed it. Christmas played some part in the Second Civil War, but it was unsuccessful. Christmas was effectively gone in a religious sense. Not so much so in a secular sense. At first, people were still allowed to close shops and attend special church services. Christmas was ordered to be a day of fasting. Government officials were allowed to raid homes and confiscate goods and food upon the mere suspicion that people were celebrating Christmas privately in their homes. Suspicion that a family was eating a dinner that might be more fancy or larger than what is expected on a normal day was grounds for such a raid. It wasn't just Christmas that they banned, but most holidays. Eventually shops were ordered to remain open and the day commanded to be a normal day without special church services or other festivities. All of this was undone when the monarchy was restored in 1660. Everything done since the start of the Civil War in 1642 was reversed as if it had never been. Christmas was restored throughout England and Scotland by 1665.
The answer to this is yes. The question we ask is – is this really the example people should follow?

(Ronald Hutton, "Stations of the Sun", Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 25-31.)

Did the early colonialists in America outlaw Christmas?

Yes and no. Yes, some did, but not all early colonialists. It was the Puritans of New England that outlawed Christmas. Other Protestants, like the Dutch in New Amsterdam (New York City), loved Christmas. The Puritans in America were in most things exactly like their counterparts in England – except they were even more radical. These are the people who fled to America partly because they were oppressed and partly because they didn't think the anti-Catholic reformations in England went far enough. The Puritans in America banned Christmas. No enjoyment was allowed to be sought, not even the most mundane. Playing card games on the day brought penalties. Not the best example to follow, if you ask us.


Was Christmas shunned by early Americans?

Yes and no. Some did, but not all Americans. It was mainly the Puritans of New England that shunned Christmas. Some, like the Dutch of New Amsterdam (New York City), very much loved Christmas. Some anti-Christmas groups will tell you a great deal about the Puritans outlawing Christmas, but will not type a single word about the Dutch who brought us Santa Claus. I have heard a very big deal made of the first Capitol Christmas Tree being purchased in 1889, but that ignores the fact that Christmas Trees weren't popular until the latter 1800s, and ignores the fact that the first Christmas party in the Whitehouse was in 1800. That was the very year John Adams and his family moved into the Whitehouse as its first occupants. On November 1, 1800, John Adams moves in. Less than two months later, they have a Christmas party. So yes, some early Americans shunned Christmas but not all.

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/press-room/press-backgrounders/white-house-christmas-traditions


STATISTICS

Isn't Christmas the worst time of the year for crime?

No. According to modern statistics, crime rates are not higher in winter but lowest in winter. It only makes sense that people who turn to crime for gain are too lazy to face the elements. They would rather prey on their fellow man in the comfort of good weather.



Doesn't the suicide rate skyrocket at Christmas?

No. Suicide rates are not higher in winter but spring.


OBSERVANCE

Should I observe Christmas if I don't know the exact right day of Jesus' birth?

That's up to you. But let's examine whether this is actually a consistent standard to go by or a convenient excuse to use. We don't know the exact right day for many things. Take for example the decades-long argument in Armstrongism over when Pentecost should fall. There are several interpretations on how to calculate Pentecost. Would you say it is right to dump Pentecost? I doubt it. Or when is the exact right day for Passover? Armstrongism follows the modern Jewish calendar to determine Passover. Problem is, the modern Jewish calendar is different from the ancient Jewish calendar. They are not the same by any means. So we don't really know when the exact correct date of Passover should be. Would you advocate no longer celebrating Passover, then? I doubt it. Now think about this, if we don't know when Passover should be then we don't really know when any of the other Holy Days should be. What's even more, IF the Lunar Sabbath theory is correct, then people haven't been observing the weekly Sabbath on the right day. So I ask again, is it a consistent rule or a convenient excuse to reject something because we don't know the exact right day it should fall on? Appears to me to be an excuse.


Should I observe Christmas if it wasn't among the early feasts of the church?

That's up to you. Christmas was not among the earliest feasts, this much is true. The early feasts of the church were basically ordered around the weekly and annual gatherings to celebrate the death and resurrection and various fasts, and were different from area to area. The church was in its infancy and many things were not fleshed out at that point. Many people have an honest and well-meaning desire to "return to original Christianity" but most of those people have little real understanding of exactly what that means or all it entails. We recommend using your best judgment in faith and much prayerful consideration. But if your concern is that the church cannot make new annual feasts, please see the next point.


Should I observe Christmas if we aren't directly commanded in the Bible to celebrate Christmas?

That's up to you to decide. But let's look further into that. The Bible nowhere says to avoid holidays it does not command. This idea didn't come from the Bible. The Jews had days they were required to observe. They could observe no fewer, but nothing said they could observe no more. In fact the Bible shows the opposite. The Jews made up holidays and God not only recorded it in the Bible but personally took part in those days. Hanukkah is not commanded, but Jesus participated (JON. 10: 22). Or take Purim for example. Esther 9: 27 tells us, “The Jews established and imposed it upon themselves and their descendants and all who would join them, that without fail they should celebrate these two days every year, according to the written instructions and according to the prescribed time...”.  
Now look what else they did:

 (EST. 9: 22) "as the days on which the Jews had rest from their enemies, as the month which was turned from sorrow to joy for them, and from mourning to a holiday; that they should make them days of feasting and joy, of sending presents to one another and gifts to the poor."

 Sounds an awful lot like Christmas, doesn't it?
So what can we see here? It is not at all a sin to create a holiday to honor God. It is Biblical to do so. God apparently even participates.



Should I observe Christmas if, in the Bible, only pagans celebrate their birthdays?

That's up to you to decide. Let's investigate this claim a little more before you make up your mind.
The claim begins by stating the only birthdays mentioned in the Bible are ones being observed by pagans or bad people (Pharaoh in GEN. 40:20, Job's sons in JOB. 1:4-6, and Herod Antipas in MAT. 14: 6 and MAR.6: 21). The argument continues that since only pagans are seen doing it, and it wasn't a Jewish custom, it is a pagan practice and therefore is not allowed. Origen is usually cited in support. Now, let's look at some counter arguments.
  • Only Pharaoh was a pagan. Job's sons were neither pagan nor bad people. Herod Antipas was a practicing Jew. A bad Jew, yes, but a Jew none the less, and therefore not a pagan. Origen was simply mistaken.
  • Origen was expounding on moral uncleanness, but Leviticus 12 is about ritual uncleanness. His entire case is based on a mistaken understanding of Old Covenant ceremonial uncleanness. This is now his second major mistake.
  • Most of the people using Origen as a support disagree with Origen's other positions. He is one of two Early Church Fathers not canonized as a saint (Tertullian is the other), so even most mainstream Christians disagree with some of his ideas. So, are his opinions authoritative or is Origen being quoted simply because he says what some people want to hear?
  • The Bible says nothing specifically for or against birthdays, and only mentions them as part of the narrative of events. The claim that the Bible condemns birthdays is not accurate.
  • Birthdays are not religious observances and therefore are not technically pagan, regardless of who was or was not involved. A thing must be religious in order to be pagan in the context we are concerned with here. It is disingenuous to elevate something to a religious act in order to condemn it as pagan. This means anything and everything a pagan ever did is now a sin. Is that really wise?
  • To say a thing was not done in the Bible is, basically, to say it wasn't Jewish practice. The same people making these kinds of arguments don't really care what the Jews did or didn't do. This is just an argument of convenience.
  • Many of the people who argue against Jesus' birthday celebrate other birthdays.
  • Birthdays are anniversaries. Many of the people who argue against birthdays celebrate other anniversaries.
  • There is another birthday most people leave out: Jesus' own. There was a celebration. The angels sang and praised God and gave news of great joy, and the shepherds worshipped. The one and only birthday heaven itself celebrated is the one we should most resolutely avoid?
  • Jesus' birth is not like our own. Our birthdays mark us being one year older. Christmas does not. Christmas is not a "birthday" in the same respect as Pharaoh's or Herod's or anyone else's. It commemorates the incarnation of God - the miracle of God made flesh. Although every birth is a miracle in one sense, Jesus' birth is a miracle in quite another sense entirely. It is arguably the second most important event in the history of mankind.
If you are getting hung up on the birthday aspect, I humbly suggest you are missing the point. The early church was not so much interested in a birthday as they were the greater theological ideas of incarnation and nativity of God. Honoring this birth, specifically, is hardly comparable to a any other birthday. It isn't a birthday celebration quite so much as it is an honoring of the miraculous Incarnation of God in flesh, come to save us from ourselves.



Does Christmas distract from the death and resurrection?

No. What an odd thing it would be if the incarnation - which is necessary for the death - somehow distracted from the death. Was the incarnation of our Lord not a miraculous work of God, foretold by prophets, attended by angels, accompanied by signs (the star, the presence of John the Baptist, the visitations both to Mary and Joseph, born of a virgin, the death of the innocents), rich with prophetic imagery (the manger prophesying Jesus as true food from Heaven, the prophetic words of Elizabeth calling Mary the Mother of her Lord, the gifts of the Magi predicting Jesus' death), and did it not fulfill the specific timing as prophesied in Daniel?? The birth was no small event! Some have claimed that the birth distracts from the God's plan for mankind. The birth and the death are linked; they are mutually dependent. If the birth somehow distracts, then what doesn't? If the birth distracts, then so does the Old Testament - especially the Exodus - and so does His childhood, and so does His 3-year ministry, and all the Christian era after His resurrection, and all other things besides. OR! We can see all of these things as parts in a single story, all necessary, all linked, all wonderful, all bringing glory to God. Nothing distracts because it's all part and parcel of the glorious story that God has been authoring from the very beginning.


Doesn't Christmas make God look weak, focusing on a baby?

I don't think so at all. No more than remembering His death makes Him look weak, focusing on a corpse. Was Jesus once a baby? Yes. Then, He was once a baby. It is simply so. Was He once a wandering preacher? Yes. Then, He was once a man wandering about in the dust. It just is. Was He once dead? Yes. Then, He was once a corpse. Is what it is. To remember these things doesn't make God forever remain these things, it just remembers important milestones in history. Do you have children? Do you remember them as babies? Does that make your children become babies? No. (Some days I wish it did!) It's just an important milestone in their lives. We remember God in His glory before the incarnation, as a baby, as a man, as a corpse, and again in His glory today. We can remember it all! None of it takes away from anything else. All are necessary parts of His plan.


Doesn't the Bible say not to 'learn the way of the Heathen'?

Yes. The Bible says that. But what was the actual context of what the Bible means? Jeremiah was talking about learning the God-rejecting ways of Gentile pagan idolatry and the worship of false gods. “Learn not the way of the heathen” in this context begs the question that Christmas was heathen to begin with. The entire thrust of our research here at ABD leads us to conclude that Christmas (and Christmas trees, since we're talking about Jeremiah 10) was never pagan to begin with. Paganism must be assumed contrary to the evidence. Then, from that false starting point, all forms of accusation are heaped on top of these things. All of this in wanton abandonment of the fact that Christmas is meant to honor Jesus Christ, not some false god.


If it's Jesus' birthday, why give gifts to everyone but Him?

And how exactly do you propose we give Him gifts? His address is certainly not listed and everything belongs to Him already. Or, we could give to Him the way He told us to - by giving to others.

(MAT. 25: 40, 45) 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

Now, if anyone gives you grief about this response, perhaps you might ask them how they give money to God by cutting a check to their church. Why do we give money to everyone but Him?


Should I observe Christmas since Santa has replaced Jesus?

That's up to you to decide. I will not be so foolish as to argue that Santa has not replaced Jesus. In the secular Christmas, it is clear Santa has replaced Jesus! You would not be alone if you actively avoid Santa. Many Christians do. However, it hardly seems reasonable to also avoid Jesus in an attempt to avoid Santa. Avoiding Christmas to avoid Santa comes very close to this. Christmas predates Santa by well over 1,000 years. What would the difference be between your effort and the secular effort? Not much. Some people will claim Santa Claus is a lie and Christians do not lie - all the while lying about the origins of Christmas. Well, that moral superiority didn't long. Do what your conscience and faith demand. Only, please do not do it with judgment and condemnation in your heart towards your fellow Christian whose conscience and faith have led them to a different decision.


Should I observe Christmas when Santa is a lie?

That's up to you. Is Santa real? We all know the answer is no. If you don't like him, leave him out! But let's look at this love of truth just a little closer. A great deal of anti-Christmas material is based off of the claims of Alexander Hislop. Those claims are lies! So, no sooner have some groups explained their rejection of lies when they start handing out lies. That didn't go as intended! This entire FAQ was written to counter lies. You need to make a choice. Do you have a standard or don't you? Do you reject lies, or do you love some?


Should I observe Christmas since it has become so commercial?

That's up to you to decide. It has become quite commercial lately. Not because of Christians, mind you. It has become commercial despite Christians. I suggest rather than abandoning it we instead should reclaim it. Observe Christmas but turn it back into the holy memorial of our Savior's birth.


What if I take the word pagan out and put the word worldly in, now can I stop observing?

It's all up to you. You see the day isn't pagan, but you're still uncomfortable about the secular aspects. Look, if you dislike it so much, then by all means just stop. No need for the word games. Nothing in the New Covenant is forcing you to observe any day. If you don't observe, then to the Lord do not observe it. Simple as that. But, yet again, please leave the moral superiority at home. No one is any better or worse than anyone else if they abstain or observe, so long as they do it in faith. Is consumerism worldly? Yes! Bludgeoning your fellow Christian with the word "worldly" is no better than bludgeoning them with the word "pagan". Same act, different weapon. As the song goes, try a little tenderness. Here's an idea! Leave the worldly parts out of your celebration, retain the parts that benefit you, and let's retake the day together. We can sort out the details later.


ADDITIONAL RESOURCES


Here are some resources to aid you in finding the truth about Christmas:


Material on ABD:

 Falsely Accused? Christmas Trees and Germanic Paganism
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/11/falsely-accused-christmas-trees-and.html

 Falsely Accused? Christmas Trees Were Christian Theater Props
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/12/falsely-accused-christmas-trees-came.html

 Falsely Accused? Catholics Rejected Trees as Too Protestant?
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/12/falsely-accused-christmas-trees-came.html

 Falsely Accused? Nazi Christmas Propaganda Lives On
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/12/falsely-accused-nazi-christmas.html

Falsely Accused? You Decide
http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/12/falsely-accused-you-decide.html

 On Nimrod And Christmas Trees part 1

On Nimrod And Christmas Trees part 2

On Nimrod And Christmas Trees part 3

Nimrod's Birthday Was January 6?

Jeremiah 10 and Christmas Trees

A Dialogue On Jeremiah 10

The Plain Truth About December 25th

The Plain Truth About December 25th (full study)

The Quotes Before Christmas

Crazy About Christmas

Established And Imposed

Misinformed On Mistletoe








Material off-site from ABD
(We add to this list as we find new material we like. Just because something is on this list does not mean it was source material for this post. Some of these are more scholarly, some more conversational, and some tossed in for balance. We try to clean it up from time to time as well.):

"Calculating Christmas: Hippolytus and December 25" on Biblical Archaeology Review

"Calculating Christmas" on Touchstonemag.com

"Calculating December 25 as the Birth of Jesus in Hippolytus’ Canon and Chronicon" on JStor
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24754539

"Christianity Didn't Steal Its Holidays" on Theology In Five
https://johndaniels.substack.com/p/christianity-didnt-steal-its-holidays



"Christmas Day – Was Jesus Really Born On December 25th" on Hebrew4christians.com

"Christmas and Paganism"  [ep.148] on ChristIsTheCure.org

"Christmas In Rome Through The Ages" on Reginamag.com

"Christmas Is Not Pagan", on ORLutheran.com

"Christmas Isn't Pagan" on The Gospel Coalition

"Christmas: Pagan Festival or Christian Celebration?" on AnsweringIslam.org

“Christmas Reconsidered” (book) by Ralph Woodrow

"Christmas Was Never Pagan: The Historical and Theological Roots of December 25" on Medium.com
https://medium.com/%40jeffreybarlatier/christmas-was-never-pagan-the-historical-and-theological-roots-of-december-25-7455458b4a72

"Debunking Pagan Holiday Myths" on TheCultishShow.com

"Early Christian Chronology and the Origins of the Christmas Date: In Defense of the 'Calculation Theory'" by Philip Northraft on academia.edu

"Hebrew Roots Movement, the Law and Christmas", on Throwbackchristianity.com

"Have Yourself a Very Pagan Christmas! (not)" on RightReason.org
http://rightreason.org/2015/have-yourself-a-very-pagan-christmas-not

"Horus Ruins Christmas" on Lutheran Satire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI


"Is Christmas A Pagan Holiday?" Dr. Michael Heiser's podcast [ep.195] on NakedBiblePodcast.com

"Is Christmas Pagan? No!" on FreeRepublic.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2971709/posts

"Is Christmas Pagan?" on Stand To Reason
http://www.str.org/articles/is-christmas-pagan#.VoB1ALbyvcs

"Is Christmas Pagan? Discerning Fact From Fiction With R.L. Solberg" by Cultish on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiY4FsZ8_U

"Pagan Christmas, Again" on History for Atheists
https://historyforatheists.com/2024/12/pagan-christmas-again

"Pagan Origins of Christmas" on Pious Fabrications.com

"Redeeming Christian Holy Days: The Christians Stole December 25th" on steadfastlutherans.org

"Should Christians Celebrate Christmas" on Bible.org

Star of Bethlehem documentary, on YouTube.com

"St Nicholas of Myra: A Guide to the Real Santa Claus" on arthuriana.co.uk

"The Catholic Origins of the Christmas Tree" on UCatholic


"The Word Became Flesh" Vance Stinson, of the Church of God International (CGI) [an Armstrongist splinter church] gives a message affirming much of what we've said here for years, on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCCluUzKgeg&feature=youtu.be

"The Pagan Origin of Christmas?" on Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries (OODE)
http://oodegr.co/english/ekklisia/genika/pagan_origins_of_christmas.htm

"The Truth About Christmas and Saturnalia" on All Pro Pastors

"Was Christ Actually Born on December 25" on NCRegister.com
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/was-christ-actually-born-dec.-25?

"Was Christ Born on December 25th? Yes!" By Dr. Taylor Marshall on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7nuX2F_Cpo&feature=share

"What Day Was Jesus Born?" Dr. Michael Heiser's podcast [ep. 138] on NakedBibilePoscast.com

"Why Is Christmas On December 25th?" on Catholic.com
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-december-25



"25th of December: The Origins of Christmas and Its Potential Connections to Pagan Festivals" on FabrizioMusacchio,com
https://www.fabriziomusacchio.com/weekend_stories/told/2024/2024-12-08-25th_of_december





[Last updated: 7/25/2026]
Posted by at 9 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, November 20, 2015

Should Christians Celebrate Thanksgiving?

We here at As Bereans Did would like to take a moment in advance you wish you a happy Thanksgiving! We hope our readers in the United States will enjoy a meaningful day with family and friends giving thanks to the One from whom all blessings flow.

Speaking of Thanksgiving, I discovered something interesting while doing research for an upcoming post. Last week I was looking back at one of xHWA’s posts that refuted the pagan origins of Christmas. I found that one of the ancient festivals in question was really several weeks away from December 25th. Instead, it falls uncomfortably close to the American Thanksgiving holiday.

The ancient Roman festival Bruma – one the Churches of God associated with the “so-called” Christian Christmas holiday - was held on November 24. Some scholars believe that Bruma was a one-day celebration that marked the unofficial beginning of winter and heralded the coming solstice. Others believe that Bruma was the beginning of the Brumalia festival, which lasted until December 17.

Wait a minute. A November 24 Roman holiday associated with the solstice? Gasp! Could this possibly taint the American Thanksgiving holiday? Thanksgiving is November 26 this year. When you are gathered around the table with your turkey next week, it will be on the third day of the Brumalia! And next year, Thanksgiving will actually fall on Bruma! Gasp!

No, no, no, you say. Bruma was a Roman holiday. Thanksgiving is totally unrelated. It’s a uniquely American celebration.  Its roots only go as far back as the 1621, when the Pilgrims held a feast to thank the true God for a bountiful harvest. Sure, most did not worship God “in Spirit and truth,” since they kept a Sunday “Sabbath”. But that doesn’t make Thanksgiving wrong.

Hmmm. That’s an interesting point of view.  One which the COGs have used in reverse to criticize anything deceived “Christianity” does for decades. But anyway, back to that first Thanksgiving. Who else celebrated it with the Pilgrims?  Native Americans, of course! Specifically, the Wampanoag Indian tribe.

Now, accounts of how the Wampanoag warriors ended up at the Thanksgiving feast are mixed. We have the classic storybook explanation – that the grateful Pilgrims invited the Native American tribe to share in their harvest feast. Wampanoag historians tell it differently – they say the tribe heard celebratory gunfire and sent warriors to discover whether the Pilgrims were being attacked, or about to attack them. Either way, the Wampanoag warriors came back with their own contribution to the feast – venison and berries and corn and whatnot.

Perhaps the Wampanoag were quick to contribute because they themselves held similar festivals. In fact, the Wampanoag gave thanks many times a year, following each of their harvest seasons. These particular Native Americans held celebrations thanking both Mother Earth and the god Kehtannit at the end of each harvest season. Over time, some came to associate Kehtannit – the supreme deity and creator – with the Christian God.

One celebration during which the Wampanoag thanked the gods was Cranberry Day, an official tribal holiday that celebrates the ripening of the last wild berry.  On Cranberry Day, the Wampanoag thank the creator for this staple fruit that’s stored and used throughout the winter. Some tribal calendars place the celebration in the first week of October; while other Wampanoag experts place it, in antiquity, around the time of the winter solstice.

Many historians date the first Thanksgiving celebration to between September 23 and November 11, 1621. Could it have possibly overlapped with the pagan Wampanoag tribal holiday? If Cranberry Day was in October, then it definitely could have overlapped. And if it were around the time of the winter solstice… GASP!  Could the Wampanoag have subtly influenced the Pilgrims to participate in a solstice celebration? Does the fact that Kehtannit became associated with the true God redeem the celebration of the cranberry harvest? Or does the cranberry celebration’s association with earth-worship taint Thanksgiving?

Bruma, which occurred on November 24, looks forward to the solstice. Bruma kicks off the Brumalia season of debauchery. The Wampanoag tribe, which was a key part of the first Thanksgiving story, celebrated a harvest festival - sometimes associated with the solstice - around the time of Thanksgiving. It even featured a traditional Thanksgiving food! And oh, did I mention that modern researchers have determined Yule did not start as a solstice holiday, but instead was celebrated in mid-November?

There’s no getting around it. Sure, I'm speculating here. But the dates and subject matter do rise to the level of reasonable doubt. There's a good chance that Thanksgiving - or at least elements of it - could be pagan, if you use the same standards the Churches of God and Alexander Hislop use to malign Christmas.

No, Martha, you’re wrong! It doesn’t matter what the Romans, Germanic tribes or Wampanoag were doing! We are not worshiping Cronos, Saturn, Mother Earth or Kehtannit! We are giving thanks to the true God.

Hmmmm… now where have I heard that argument before? Oh right. In the United Church of God's latest issue of The Good News. According to UCG, no matter how well-intentioned a celebration is, worshiping the true God with practices taken from paganism is considered syncretism and an abomination to God.
"No matter how warm and family-oriented your festival is, it is futile and empty before God. Even if you don't care, He does." (The Good News, November-December 2015, p. 15)
So which is it, UCG? Can we create celebrations to honor the true God or can't we? If so, must they be 100 percent free of items that any pagan culture, anywhere, used for non-Christian celebrations on proximal dates? And if the humble cranberry isn't safe, then what is?

I hope by now you realize that I am not trying to discourage anyone from celebrating Thanksgiving. I am just showing how easy it is to create speculative associations with pagan symbols and holidays, superimpose them on an innocent celebration and malign anyone who celebrates it. Speculative associations and proximal dates alone do not make something pagan. There are only 365 days in the year (at least on our modern calendar) and thousands of years of pagan cultures. Put a calendar on the wall, throw a dart at it and you're bound to hit a date that was associated at some time with something pagan.

It is appropriate to thank God for your blessings on any day of the year, no matter what else may have occurred on that date. Just like it is appropriate to thank God any day of the year for sending His Son Jesus Christ to die in your place. And to rejoice in the fact that his birth, life and death make it possible for your sins to be forgiven and for you to inherit eternal life. I hope you’ll be just as generous and open-minded as you are about Thanksgiving when, in the coming weeks, we explore the speculative claims the COGs make about Christmas. For a head start, please read The Quotes Before Christmas and The Plain Truth About December 25th - after you emerge from your turkey coma, that is.

All joking aside, Thanksgiving is positive celebration that's consistent with Christian ideals. Scripture exhorts Christians to show thankfulness, engage in fellowship, share meals and praise God - all elements of a meaningful Thanksgiving holiday . This festival provides a wonderful opportunity for families to reconnect and offer gratitude to their Creator. We sincerely hope our readers enjoy a happy Thanksgiving.

Although you might want to pass on the cranberries. I’m just sayin’.


************
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
************
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, November 6, 2015

Dear COGWA: You're Still Not Israelites


I'm not the most sentimental gal in the world, but I've always had a soft spot for Sarmatians. Maybe it's because they rhyme with "dalmatians," which are undeniably cute, even to a tomboy like me. Maybe it's because, up until a few years ago, I believed they were my ancestors. Females are allowed to be indecisive, right?

Anyway, when I saw that COGWA just posted an article today discussing artifacts excavated from the tomb of a Sarmatian noblewoman,  I just HAD to read it:

"This past summer, an amazing discovery was made near Rostov-on-Don, a Russian port city on the north coast of the Black Sea," wrote COGWA blogger Erik Jones. "Archaeologists were excavating the 2,000-year-old tomb of a Sarmatian noblewoman. To their surprise, among the artifacts discovered in the tomb was an object they never expected to be there: a carnelian seal engraved in ancient Hebrew!"

Jones posits that archaeologists will probably explain away this discovery as an example of trade in the ancient world.

"But could there possibly be more to it?," he asks. "In fact, it is very possible that this discovery sheds light on an even greater ancient mystery."

Jones goes on to explain that this astounding finding supports COGWA's teaching, carried over from the theories of Herbert W Armstrong, that the "lost" 10 tribes of Israel migrated west and eventually settled in Europe and the United States of America.

Oh, THAT'S right. Now I remember why I like the Sarmatians so much. It's because they and their Scythian cousins totally ruin Armstrong's theory on the lost 10 tribes, also known as British Israelism.

Jones, COGWA and other Armstrong-inspired groups claim that the Scythians descended from the lost 10 tribes of Israel. The Sarmatians pushed the Scythians out of the Black Sea region into continental Europe.

It's true that the Sarmatians dominated and eventually displaced the Scythians from the Black Sea region, likely in the 2nd century B.C. But we aren't talking about a clash of cultures here. We are talking about a tribal rivalry. The Scythians and Sarmatians were closely related. Sarmatians even spoke Scythian.

What's more, we know that the Scythians were not related to Western Europeans. Oh yeah? How can you say that? What did you do? Dig up some Scythians and test their DNA?

In a word, yes. Not me, personally. But essentially, that's what happened. Tombs containing Scythian warrior bodies have been discovered in the Mongolian-Alatia mountains. Researchers excavated more than twenty tombs containing frozen and mummified human remains. Artifacts and possessions buried within them identified them as Scythians.

DNA testing proves that Scythians are closely related to the Sarmatians. Who, incidentally, worshiped fire, not Yahweh, according to the source Jones cited. And Sarmatians are Persians - Iranians. The Human Genome Project has determined that Palestinian Jews are and Arabs are related. While Persian DNA was a bit more diverse, likely due to the region being at the crossroads of ancient societies, testing showed many Persians came from the same genetic background as the Jews and Arabs. Which is in no way connected to the most prevalent genetic backgrounds in Western Europe. It's true that some Persians did migrate west into Europe. They were the predecessors of the Slavic peoples.

Please don't disregard these scientific findings just because they came from the same guys who brought you evolution. This is not biased scientists looking for the missing link. This is very specific research, done on a specific portion of human DNA, from actual people with proven ethnic and national origins who are walking the earth today. Or, at least, they were walking the earth during the Human Genome Project. Project research also included DNA gleaned from tribal artifacts and intact bodily remains. This scientific evidence is solid enough that it would be considered "proof in a modern court of law."

Jones' source promises to keep up with the Hebrew Seal mystery. We can be sure that COGWA will be checking in and using any discoveries to promote its failed theory of British Israelism. And you can be sure that we will be keeping an eye on COGWA.

For more information on the Human Genome Project and the disproven theory of the lost 10 tribes, please read our post, "Happy Thanksgiving, from my Gentile Family to Yours!".


************
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
************
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: ,

Thursday, October 29, 2015

What's Written Between the Lines in LCG's "Tomorrow's World"?

Man, LCG. You got me again. I don’t know how you do it. Maybe it’s the attractive mushroom cloud on the cover of your magazine. Maybe I have mommy guilt because I’ve let my emergency canned food supply dwindle. Either way, when the November-December issue of the Living Church of God’s Tomorrow’s World arrived in the mail this week, I couldn’t resist turning to the issue’s featured story, “Are You Ready for Christ’s Return?”

The thing I enjoyed most about this article was that it never actually mentioned how to be ready for Christ’s return. Instead, the author, Richard Ames, detailed the terrifying events that will lead up to the Battle of Armageddon - in between heart-warming pictures of fiery oil wells and abandoned gas masks lying in piles of rubble.

Now, I don’t mean to imply I think there’s a way to be physically prepared for the Second Coming. Bottled water, food rations, whatever – it isn’t going to cut it. But I would assume there would be some spiritual admonition given here, like “start keeping the Sabbath,” “Throw out your Christmas decorations” or even something vague like “Get right with God.” But there was none of that. It didn’t even mention contacting LCG.  Ames totally missed the point.

 Unless that wasn’t the point.

Once again, I’m inclined to believe that this article is largely intended to scare LCG’s disgruntled membership into staying with the embattled organization. Sure, it might frighten a few anxious newcomers into Rod Meredith’s cold, clammy embrace. But with no mention of the Sabbath, Holy Days or other standard COG doctrines, my guess is it’s intended for folks who already agree on these points.

When you consider that, just pages earlier in the magazine, Meredith warns that “within the next several years, a genuine ‘spirit’ war will break out,” after which Satan will finally be cast into the bottomless pit, we can almost certainly conclude the target audience is LCG members who are ready to jump ship. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “several” as more than two - but not very many more - which seems to undermine Meredith’s longstanding teaching that Christians cement their  salvation through a lifetime of obedience.  Are we to believe a human who joins LCG this year could prove him or herself trustworthy “not to become another Satan,” as the COGs teach, in just a few short years? Hardly. Fresh fish don’t seem to be his target.

Honestly, I struggled to find a true “action point” that would get me “ready” for Christ’s return. Ames warned that that our world will experience increasingly severe weather extremes “unless we wholeheartedly return to God.” Can’t do much more than I’m already doing with that one, although I’m sure Ames would disagree.  Still, I can’t do anything about the rest of humanity. What else? I should “wake up and heed what is happening around the world.” Check. “Be spiritually alert for signs of Jesus Christ’s second coming.” “Look forward to His return with confidence, hope and faith.” Besides that? Have a satchel packed for Petra? Buy extra can openers? A portable water filter? Anything?

And this is why I suspect this is article is intended more to control than to inform. It’s certainly in line with LCG’s track record and modus operandi: Don't look around. Don't ask questions. Don't prayerfully consider why God has led you to this blog. If it doesn't come out of Charlotte, it's heresy. 

Ames did have ONE helpful recommendations - to check up on LCG and all preachers by reading my Bible. Luckily, my “false Christian” preacher recently gave a message on the end times. That makes my job easy. Ok, Richard. Let’s see how my pastor is misleading me and the rest of his flock about Christ’s return. These are quotes directly from the sermon transcript:
“It (the Day of the Lord) will include what the Bible calls the Great Tribulation.  That's a seven-year period during which the anti-Christ will rule the earth as a self-proclaimed god.  And during the second half of those seven years, God will begin to pour out His wrath upon the earth.  That's part of the Day of the Lord.  The Day of the Lord also  includes the coming of Jesus Christ.  He'll come to the earth, and He'll rule on a throne in Jerusalem, and for a thousand years, Jesus Christ will rule the earth.  The Bible talks about that, not only in the book of Revelation, but also in Isaiah and other places in the Old Testament.” (Revelation 11:2; 13:5, Daniel 8:19, Daniel 12:7, Revelation 6, Revelation 8, Revelation 16, Revelation 20)
(Note: The COGs dispute that the Tribulation will be 7 years but agree that the destructive phase, when God pours out His wrath, will be a period of about 3-1/2 years)
“Now, you drive up to a railroad crossing, and as you drive up to that railroad crossing, the crossbars come down, the bells begin to ring, the lights are flashing, and you see the train coming  down the line.  When the train comes and crosses in front of your car, when you see that engine coming, there is something that you know for certain.  Now, think about this: When you see the engine coming, there's one thing you know for certain.  Here's what it is: Eventually, the last car on that train will pass by.  Would you agree with me on that?  If you see the engine, eventually, you're going to see the last car.  Now, it may come in five cars, or it may be 10 cars down the line, or it could be 100 cars down the line.  You don't know how long that train's going to be.  But eventually, the last train is going to come.  It's coming.  The Bible says the Day of the Lord comes.  It is coming.  It is certain.  It may come in 10 years.  It may come in 100 years.  It may come in 1,000 years.  It may come in 10,000 years.  I believe it's coming very soon, very shortly, but it is coming.  Time on earth is running out.  The Day of the Lord is coming.  The end of time is coming." (Matthew 24:32-33; 36)
“Do you know something?  The Bible shows us that the people who ridicule us or scoff at us or make fun of us because we believe that Jesus is coming and that judgment is coming and that the end is coming, those people themselves, and their mockery, is a sign that judgment is coming.  Look in your Bible over in 2 Peter, chapter 3.  I want you to see what the Bible has to say.  The Bible says that one of the signs of the end times is that people will mock those who believe that the end times are coming.  Isn't that something?  Look in 2 Peter, chapter 3, beginning in verse 3.  This is a picture of the world today.” (2 Peter 3:3)
Wow. That guy has some nerve. What twisting of God's Word. What distortions of scripture. I guess everyone outside LCG, certainly everyone outside the COGs, is totally deceived about Christ's return. I guess he's also deceived when he reads the following: 

 (2 Peter 3:9)  “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

Now wait a minute. Why would Jesus delaying His coming keep anyone from perishing? And how is this whole “perishing” thing necessarily a bad thing, eternally speaking? Why would He be concerned whether as many people as possible come to repentance before He returns? Wouldn’t they just come up in the second resurrection and get their chance to repent and accept God’s way? Out of all the Armstrongist teachings I was raised with, this is the one I desperately want to be true.  But the more I study, the more I come across stuff like this: 

(Hebrews 9:27) And as it is appointed for men to die once, then after this the judgment.

My pastor makes his reason for speaking on this topic clear - he cares about your eternal destiny:
“Why would God choose to warn us about the Day of the Lord?  Why would He choose to warn us about judgment? Does He do it to scare us?  Does he do it to frighten us?  Does He do it because He has a bad intent toward us?  No.  He warns us against the Day of the Lord, and He warns us against His judgment, because He does not want you to experience judgment and condemnation at the Day of the Lord."
You can nitpick him on the rapture (a theory on which I'm undecided) or scoff at him because he thinks unbelievers will go to hell immediately after they die (a theory which gains more credibility the more I look at it) rather than rising in a second resurrection. But in this discussion, my pastor, Ames and Meredith are all in agreement that the saints will rise; that Christ will return; that there will be a real Armageddon; and that there is a real hell. They're mostly in disagreement about the timing.  

 You can write off my pastor and others like him in the "so-called" Christian world as deceived loons because they disagree with the COGs about timing. But at least they are forthcoming about their motivations for preaching about the end times: they hope you will avoid the judgment and repent, place your full faith in Jesus Christ's sacrifice for salvation and then grow to be more like Him in the time you have. What is Richard Ames' reason for publishing his article? It's not to get anyone ready for Christ's return. It's not to implore them to leave "false" Christianity. So what is it? You can be sure they're not just spending their dwindling tithe dollars for the fun of it.

If you are happy in LCG, stay. If you believe it is God’s true church and you see the fruit of the Spirit there (Galatians 5:22-23), then stay. If you admire your leaders, aspire to be like them and desire the kinds of outcomes in your life that their conduct has produced in theirs, (Hebrews 13:7), then stay.  But don’t stay because Rod Meredith and Richard Ames tell you that anything outside LCG is Sodom and Gomorrah. Because they hint that the end is imminent, and that you just have to endure the miserable environment they’ve created a couple more years. Or risk the Lake of Fire. 

Don’t let Rod and his henchmen bully you. You are more than a tithe check. You are more than a backside in a chair, or a number LCG gets to claim in the ongoing COG grudge match for the most members. You are a human being. Jesus loved you enough to die a brutal death for you on the cross. And He still loves you that much today. Any message about the judgment or the terrifying times to come must be rooted in that love. That love is the reason the Lord gave us those sobering passages of Scripture in the first place. To reassure those who are His that He is still in control, no matter what unfolds on earth. To plead with those who are not yet His to turn to Him while they still can. Any message about Armageddon that is not grounded in God's love for you is nothing more than an attempt to scare you, manipulate you and control you.


************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************
Posted by at 5 comments:
Labels: , ,

Friday, October 9, 2015

Works, Faith and Salvation - or Faith and Parachutes, Part 2

We hope that those of our readers who just finished celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles enjoyed safe travels home and have been refreshed with meaningful worship and fellowship.

For those readers who have never celebrated this festival: The Churches of God, that have descended from Herbert W Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, teach that the Feast of Tabernacles looks forward to the time that true Christians who qualified for literal deification will rule with Jesus Christ after He returns to earth.

If you celebrated the Feast, you probably heard sermons that capture the joy of that message. Some that discuss the grace by which you'll find yourselves there. And, unfortunately, possibly some prideful ones that celebrate a foretaste "making it" into God's Kingdom.

In a recent post, we explored what salvation by grace through faith means and what it doesn't mean. In light of this recent festival, which pictures the time when "true Christians" will know they have "made it," let's consider whether we will "make it" into God's Kingdom by grace through faith or by our works. How do we safely get off the crashing airplane of humanity? How can we be sure we have a parachute and not a backpack?

Just how do the writings of the apostles fit in with what we've already discussed about salvation by faith? Publications from today's Churches of God regularly cite James 2 to criticize the Protestant Christian teaching that salvation comes through faith in the shed blood of Jesus alone.

(James 2:18-20) But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe - and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

Let's do our due diligence first. The word translated as "believe" in verse 19 is the Greek word pisteuo, which can mean "to believe," "to give credit to," or to be of an opinion (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study of the New Testament, p. 930). It comes from the Greek word pistis, which is translated as "faith" in verse 18. Pistis implies a knowledge of, assent to and confidence in divine truths, especially those of the gospel, as produces good works.  Pistis can mean a simple assent to religious truths without accompanying good works, or “false faith,” but it generally indicates a “lively faith in Christ.” (Zodhiates, p. 930).

But understanding pisteuo and pistis is not nearly as important as understanding the full context of James 2:14-20, as indicated by both the Expositor’s Bible Commentary and by theologian John MacArthur. One cannot just hone in on one or two verses in a vacuum and build an entire doctrine around them, as the COGs are so fond of doing.

The key to understanding the passage is found in verse 14 – “if someone says he has faith.” The NIV makes James’ implications even more clear – “if someone claims to have faith.”

(James 2:14) What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
“James does not say that this person actually has faith, but that he claims to have it.” (The MacArthur Bible Commentary, p. 1887). “Again, the verb’s form describes someone who continually lacks any evidence of the faith he routinely claims.”
“James is not disputing the importance of faith. Rather, he is opposing the notion that saving faith can be a mere intellectual exercise void of a commitment to active obedience.”  (The MacArthur Bible Commentary, p. 1888.)
When we take a step back and look at the whole passage, we can see that James is not contrasting salvation by faith with salvation with a component of works. He is contrasting the behavior of someone who has genuine, saving faith in Christ with that of someone who only claims to have placed his faith in Christ. The behavior of someone who is wearing a parachute with someone who is claims to have a parachute but is only wearing a backpack.

So what role do the works play, since they are a topic of concern in this passage? The works of which James speaks are not deeds performed to earn merit with God according to Expositor’s.  Instead, works are the manifestation – the fruit – shown in the life of someone who has genuine faith.

“Faith without works cannot save; it takes faith that proves itself in the deeds it produces,” according to the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Exposition of James.

The example James gives in verses 15 through 17 – of a man who claims to have compassion on a starving brother but who gives him no food – helps illustrate what James is saying about faith and works. Compassion isn't really compassion if it doesn't move one to action. And on the flip side, giving a hungry brother food doesn't create compassion. The compassion, the state of heart and mind are already there, and the action follows. It's the same with faith - it is already there, and the evidence of that faith is visible when the opportunity arises. And when the opportunity comes, one's actions - or lack thereof - indicate what's on the inside (Luke 6:45). It shows whether or not they truly have a parachute, so to speak.

And that is the key difference between the demons’ belief and Paul’s. The demons believe in God; they have more evidence than any of us. But their belief - their direct knowledge of His existence - has not changed them. In contrast, Paul’s belief changed him to the core, and his life after the road to Damascus was the evidence of that change.

(One side note before I leave James 2. Most of the COG magazines I read this summer that quoted James 2 cited the passage to support their stance on things like keeping the 10 Commandments and Holy Days. UCG vaguely linked it to commandment-keeping and baptism earlier this year. Yet James focuses his letter on things like showing favoritism, providing for the poor and taming the tongue - areas where the track record of COG leadership is poor. Don't blame me - comments on this blog and others tell me you guys know it's true. Like I said earlier, it's theologically unwise to hone in on an individual verse and ignore everything around it).


HOW DOES FAITH CHANGE YOU?

So why would faith change us? Does conviction simply make you choose to change your behavior in the future? Does a lack of works indicate that you just need to try harder?

Saving faith goes hand-in-hand with what mainstream Christianity calls regeneration - or what some call being "born again." Regeneration occurs when God imparts new spiritual life through the Holy Spirit. In terms of our analogy, it is when you are given your parachute. Some debate whether regeneration comes before saving faith and is what allows a Christian to place full faith in Christ or whether it occurs after a Christian places his faith in Christ. Regardless, it is evident that the two go hand in hand. The fruit of this faith and regeneration is physically invisible, but the evidence will show in a man's life, as James 2 indicates. And the fruit of empty claims of faith will show in the unregenerate heart too.

Traditional Christian teachings on saving faith, regeneration and sanctification harmonize the seeming contradictions between verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 and James 2:14-19. But the COGs reject traditional teachings on regeneration; insisting that Christians are like spiritual fetuses in this life are not born again until Christ returns to earth. This teaching forces them into uncomfortable cognitive dissonance - claiming that obedient works do not save you, but that they maintain your justified status with God:

“To remain justified after being forgiven, one must behave in a righteous or just manner from that time forward.” – UCG, The New Covenant: Does it Abolish God's Law?
“Integral to salvation is the matter of justification. This term refers to being made just, right or righteous. Literally, it means being made straight—perfectly lined up (with God). We are initially justified or aligned with God when, on repentance and faith in Christ’s shed blood for atonement, we are forgiven of sin and reckoned by God as righteous. This is referred to by Paul as “imputed” righteousness (see Romans 4:20-25). (Martha's personal note - UCG is using biblical language but does not accurately portray imputed righteousness, which we will see later on in this post). Justification in this sense is also known as reconciliation. It corresponds to the past sense of salvation—in which we have been saved from sin and death as long as we continue in God’s way.
                                             – UCG, The New Covenant: Does it Abolish God's Law?
“Now we just "accept Christ" and His righteousness is somehow "imputed" to us—without any requirement for righteous works” LCG, Rod Meredith, Who or What is the Anti Christ?
 “Even though we have not yet been changed from flesh and blood to spirit and must remain faithful to God’s instructions in order to have our mortal bodies transformed, God already considers us members of His future family and Kingdom because we are voluntarily living by the laws of His Kingdom.” COGWA, “Believe in the Gospel”

WHY FOCUS ON WORKS?

 So why are the COGs so preoccupied with works? I suspect it comes from the perennial fixation on the law. If your definition of righteousness largely comes from the Sinai Covenant, you trip over the same stumbling block as the Jews. 

 (2 Corinthians 3:12-16) Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech - unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away." 

The Sinai Covenant made the Jews prideful. They considered themselves better than everyone else. They were God's chosen people. They had special knowledge. They knew the path to righteousness! (Does any of this sound familiar? If you're not sure, think about the typical opening or closing prayer you heard last week). Righteousness - concretely defined in the Sinai Covenant - almost seemed attainable. If they just tried a little harder, they could "make it!".

But Martha, the New Testament is referring to the Jews, not us! We're not like them. We believe Jesus is the Son of God, that He died for our sins. We know we can't earn salvation. We are totally different.

No. It would seem that anyone who believes works are a component of salvation is vulnerable to this trap, according to Romans 10:2-3:

"For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God."

If we could become righteous by submitting"God's laws," then our obedience would make us righteous. So it would seem that the righteousness of God must come from somewhere else besides obedience. I would submit to you that this "righteousness of God" is the imputed righteousness discussed in Romans and other NT books. In short, imputed righteousness, explained in Philippians 3:8-9, is the process through which Jesus' righteousness is credited to those who place their faith in Him, just like it was to Abraham, and our sin is credited to Christ.

"Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ, and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith."

The Expositor's Bible Commentary expounds on Romans 10:1-3:

"In trying to establish their own righteous standing before God, they have refused submission to God's righteousness. By looking forward to verse 4 where the law is mentioned, we see that this attempt of Israel to achieve a standing in righteousness was related to finding satisfaction in their imagined success in meeting the demands of the law of Moses. Paul is able to analyze their trouble in expert fashion, for he has been over the same route in his spiritual pilgrimage. It was a great day for him when he gave up his cherished righteousness, based on service to the law, in exchange for the righteousness that comes from God and depends on faith (Philippians 3:9). Israel's covenant relation to God and reliance upon law keeping do not add up to salvation (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). For this reason Paul points to Christ and His righteousness as Israel's great need (verse 4).

Rather than scoffing at the doctrine of imputed righteousness as "cheap grace," or as a cheater's shortcut to artificial righteousness, we should cling to it with grateful thanksgiving. Because Israel couldn't establish their own righteousness through obedience. The COGs don't teach that Christians need to establish their righteousness based on law-keeping, but they certainly do teach that Christians must maintain it through law-keeping. But we can't, certainly not to a level that would qualify us for the Kingdom.


CONCLUSION

Focusing on a checklist only distracts us from realizing the true depth of our wickedness. It is the James 2:15-16 moments that cut us to the heart and shows us how desperately we need a Savior. When we look away from the checklist and look at our hearts and our true prognosis for righteousness, we have no choice but to cling to the cross as our only hope.

But if we fail to look into the mirror of the Law of Liberty (James 1:23-25), we will never see what kind of people we really are. We will fail to perceive our blindness, our nakedness, our bankruptcy. We will continue believing that we are almost there, that righteousness, or at least good-enough-ness, is right around the corner. We will remain fixated on the dirty rags of our works instead of praising Jesus in thanks that our salvation is not linked to our behavior.

Next time, we will look at the life of a Abraham - a man whom New Testament authors held us as an example of both faith and works. A closer look at Abraham's life will give us further insight into harmonizing Ephesians 2:8-10 and James 2:14-19




************
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
************
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)