THE TRUTH ABOUT TRINITY - Part 1

We are still on our series, Mystery Babylon. We are looking at the Wine of her fornication which are false and unscriptural doctrines that she has made the inhabitants of the earth drunk. 

In our last two articles, we looked at the Truth about Christmas. I believe you find it revelatory and also an eye opener to the Truth. 

The next false doctrine we are looking into is on Trinity. I will be going to the root and Origin of it so that a sincere and true born again child of God can know the Truth which will make him or her free. 

Many people assume that God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit form what is commonly known as the trinity. The doctrine of the trinity is usually summed up as a belief in one God existing in three distinct but equal persons. But did you realize that even though it is a common assumption among many sincere Christian people, the word

trinity does not appear anywhere in the Bible?

In fact, the word trinity did not come into common use as a religious term until centuries after the last books of the Bible were completed and long after the apostles of Christ were gone from the scene! Could the trinity doctrine have pagan origins?

Notice this admission in the New Bible Dictionary , “ The term trinity is not itself found in the Bible. It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century, but received wide currency [common use in intellectual discussion] and formal elucidation [clarification] only in the 4th and 5th centuries.” — (1996, “Trinity”)

The New Bible Dictionary goes on to explain that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity was the result of several inadequate attempts to explain who and what the Christian God really is ... To deal with these problems the Church Fathers met in [A.D.] 325 at the Council of Nicaea to set out an orthodox biblical definition concerning the divine identity.” However, it wasn't until 381, “at the Council of Constantinople, [that] the divinity of the Spirit was affirmed. ”

While Tertullian introduced the term “trinity,” what he taught and believed is different to what the trinity doctrine is today. And since he introduced this term, then that means the trinity doctrine as taught today did not exist in the time of Tertullian. And if it did not exist in his time, then it could never have existed in the time of Christ and the apostles.

Tertullian however did introduce pagan ideas into the worship service. He taught oblations for the dead and made the sign of the cross on the forehead of worshipers. He also dipped people three times to baptize them. Tertullian freely admitted that he had adopted these ideas from pagan teachings and could not support them from Scripture, but he thought that if Christians adopted some heathen rituals of the pagans that they would find it easier to join Christianity.

Wikipedia states what Tertullian believed on the Godhead:

Tertullian was just a forerunner of the Nicene doctrine and did not state the immanent trinity. His use of trinitas (Latin: 'Threeness') emphasised the manifold character of God. In his treatise against Praxeas he used the words, “Trinity and economy, persons and substance. ” The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. “These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance. ” In his book Tertullian against Praxeas, he also states that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father and did have a beginning as the begotten Son of God. He also did not teach that the Holy Spirit was a literal being. So the trinity doctrine as we know it today did not even come from the man who introduced the word Trinity. 

So the doctrine of the trinity wasn't formalized until long after the Bible was completed and the apostles were long dead in their graves, and long after the man who introduced the word Trinity was dead and in his grave. It took later theologians centuries to sort out what they believed and to formulate the belief in the trinity!

By no means are theologians' explanations of the trinity doctrine clear. Religious writer A.W. Tozer in his book

The Knowledge of the Holy states that the trinity is an “incomprehensible mystery” and that attempts to understand it “must remain forever futile. ” He admits that Churches, “without pretending to understand, ” have nevertheless continued to teach this doctrine (1961, pp. 17, 18) He then remarkably concludes, “The fact that it cannot be satisfactorily explained, instead of being against it, is in its favor. ”  (p. 23)

The New Unger's Bible Dictionary in its article on the trinity concedes that the Trinitarian concept is humanly incomprehensible, “It is admitted by all who thoughtfully deal with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us into the presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of necessity imperfect. ” — (1988, p. 1308)

Cyril Richardson, professor of Church history at New York's Union Theological Seminary, though a dedicated Trinitarian himself said this in his book The Doctrine of The Trinity , “My conclusion, then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct ... It produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems with which it deals are real ones, the solutions it offers are not illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless, because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms. ” —

(1958, pp. 148-149)

He also admitted, “Much of the defense of the Trinity as a 'revealed' doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it. ” — (p. 16)

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge states regarding the trinity, “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves. ” — (Lyman Abbott, editor, 1885, “Trinitarians”)

Why do even those who believe in the trinity doctrine find it so difficult to explain?

The answer is simple yet shocking. It is because the Bible does not teach it! One cannot prove or explain something from the Bible that is not Biblical. The Bible is our only reliable source of divine revelation. And the truth as we will see is that the trinity concept simply is not part of God's revelation to mankind.

These following admissions from a number of reputable sources and authors who, while themselves affirming the Trinity, acknowledge that the word Trinity and the doctrine is not found in the Bible.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that “'trinity' is a second-century term found nowhere in the Bible, and the Scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement. ” — (1988, Vol. 4, “Trinity,” p. 914). It further states that “church fathers crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centuries”—long after the apostles had passed from the scene.

Martin Luther who was the German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation said, “It is indeed true that the name 'Trinity' is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man. ” — (reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406)

Historian and science fiction writer H.G. Wells in his noted work The Outline of History stated, “There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity—at any rate from him. ” — (1920, Vol. 2, p. 499)

The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism says, “Today, however, scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the OT or the NT ... It would go far beyond the intention and thought-forms of the OT to suppose that a late-fourth-century or thirteenth-century Christian doctrine can be found there ... Likewise, the NT does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity. ” — (Richard McBrien, general editor, 1995, “God,” pp. 564, 565)

And the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary states, “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT. ” — (Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, “Trinity”)

Professor Charles Ryrie wrote, “Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists in three persons. ” — (Basic Theology, p. 89)

He goes on to say, “The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results . . . If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity. ” — (lbid, p. 90)

Shirley Guthrie, professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary wrote, “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word 'trinity' itself nor such language as 'one-in-three,' 'three-in-one,' one 'essence' (or 'substance'), and three 'persons,' is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy. ” — (Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76, 77). 

Millard Erickson who is a research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary writes that the Trinity “is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church. In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble. ” — (God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, p. 12)

He further states that the Trinity teaching “is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God. ” — (lbid, p. 20)

He also stated, “It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity's uniqueness ... how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? ... For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.

Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion. ” — (lbid, pp. 108, 109). 

Since the trinity is not found in the Bible as so many scholars and theologians admit, then how did it come to be viewed as such an important teaching?

Theology professors Roger Olson and Christopher Hall explain part of the puzzle in their book The Trinity, “It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture ... How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture? ...

The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the New Testament in the heat of controversy, but the church fathers who developed it believed they were simply exegeting [explaining] divine revelation and not at all speculating or inventing new ideas. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical (universal) councils: Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.). ” — (2002, pp. 1, 2)

To be continue...  Stay tuned... 

DOMINALTI for CHRIST 

On Behalf of End Time Hub!!! 

THE TRUTH ABOUT CHRISTMAS - The Final Part

Kindly read and Study carefully and prayerfully with your Bible. This is a teaching for an open hearted sons and daughters of God that are not drove to & fro by wind of false doctrines.

Can we even know when Jesus was born?

December 25th is universally celebrated as Jesus Christ’s birthday. Around the world Christians celebrate the season and the day by giving gifts, being with family and friends. Even for those who aren’t Christian it’s a season of joyous celebration.
So, When was Jesus Christ born? Let's find out...
Every year, we hear Christmas carols all about the baby Jesus in the manger and the winter wonderland associated with His birth. If we look at our calendar, chances are, right there on December 25th, it says Christmas Day. The birth of Jesus Christ is said to be the reason behind the season. But of course every year people worry about the fact that Christ is not in the season. But was Christ actually born on Christmas Day - on December 25th? It’s not as clear and simple as our calendars would suggest.
If we look into it, we find that December 25th wasn’t always considered Jesus’ birth date.

Although it is difficult to determine the first time anyone celebrated December 25th as Christmas Day, historians are in general agreement that it was sometime during the fourth century. Now this is an amazingly late date. Think about it! What this means is that Christmas - which most consider Jesus’ birthday - wasn’t observed by the Roman church until about 300 years after Christ’s death. Christmas cannot be traced back to either the teachings or the practices of the earliest Christians. That sounds almost impossible, doesn’t it? But it’s true.
So why did the Roman church adopt Christmas Day as the time to celebrate Jesus’ birth? The reason His birthday is celebrated now, at that time, is because religious leaders of the day wanted to give a pagan festival a name change and to make it easier for pagans to convert over to Christianity.

Listen to this quote from the Encyclopedia Americana which makes it very clear:
“In the fifth century, the Western Church ordered it [speaking of Christ’s birth] to be observed forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the birth of Sol [who is the sun god], as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ’s birth existed” (1944 edition, “Christmas”).
The reason for this confusion is not surprising. The Bible doesn’t actually tell us the exact date of Jesus Christ’s birth. There is no specific date given. What’s more, there aren’t any mentions of any celebrations being held honoring Christ’s birth date by the early church.
And by the early church we mean the church that we read about in the book of Acts. These people followed Jesus Christ’s example and teaching to the letter. And none of that included celebrating the day of His birth. There is no command to celebrate Christ’s birthday found in all of Scripture, certainly not in Christ’s teachings, nor in the letters of the apostles who founded the church.

As Christians, you and I should desire to follow Christ’s example and His teaching and that of His church. And nowhere do we find in Scripture that Jesus instructed us to celebrate His birthday - its just not there. And the apostles to whom the faith delivered, was given and who translated that and transferred it to the church, they followed Christ’s example in everything they did.
Again, there is no record of the early church celebrating Christmas or for that matter, the birth of Jesus Christ in any way shape or form.
Even so, it is possible that we can generally know the time or the season of the birth of Christ. Because there are distinct clues that give us an idea about the time of year that He was born.

So, what about December 25th? 

Is it possible the Roman church accidentally adopted the correct date for Jesus’ birth? Well, a careful Bible study shows that the middle of winter was absolutely not the time Christ was born.

There are two big reasons why Christmas or December 25th can’t be the time of Christ’s birth.

(1). We know from the Gospel accounts that the shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks at the time of the birth of Jesus.
Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus found in chapter 2 of the Gospel of Luke tells us a great deal of the details of many of the facts surrounding that birth. Here is what it says:
“And she brought forth her firstborn Son” - speaking of Christ’s mother, Mary - “and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them at the inn. Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night” ( Luke 2:7-8 ).

Listen to what Adam Clarke’s Commentary mentions about the significance of what we just read here in Luke’s account. It says:
“… Shepherds were not in the fields during December. According to [a book entitled]
Celebrations: The Complete Book of American Holidays , Luke’s account ‘suggests that Jesus may have been born in summer or early fall. Since December is cold and rainy in Judea, it is likely the shepherds would have sought shelter for their flocks at night’ (p. 309).”
Now, what do we have here? We have a recording. A historical fact about shepherds and the flocks in the cold, wet winter. They just weren’t there in the fields. The conditions were not appropriate for that to be taking place.

Now let’s look at what another source says. The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary says this passage argues “against the birth [of Christ] occurring on December 25th since the weather would not have permitted shepherds watching over their flocks in the fields at night.”
So the first reason we know He wasn’t born in December was that there were shepherds in the fields tending their flocks, something that wouldn’t have been happening in the cold Judean winter.

(2). The second reason we know Jesus wasn’t born in December is that His parents traveled to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census (Luke 2:1-4 ). Such censuses were not taken in winter, when the temperatures often dropped below freezing and the roads were in poor condition thus inhibiting travel. Taking a census under such conditions would have been self-defeating, since it would have been too difficult for Judean residents to travel and to be counted. Travel back then wasn’t as easy as it is today. We live in an age of heated vehicles and snow plowed roads.
We have to understand what it was like in the culture and the setting of that time in the first century.

Now based on these two facts alone, we see that it’s impossible that the biblical account of Jesus’ birth happened in the winter, let alone on the specific date of December 25th. More than being a simple incorrect guess, the December 25th date was really an attempt to synthesize pagan worship into Christian worship.
We’ve proven that He wasn’t born on Christmas day or December 25th.

So when was Jesus born? 

(1). We find the important clues about the real time of Jesus’ birth in what the Bible tells us about His cousin, John the Baptist.
Maybe you’ve read the Gospel of Luke and thought it was strange that the book and the story begins not with the story of the conception of Jesus, but with the story of the conception of John the Baptist. There’s a very good reason for this. Luke was sure to tell us in very specific detail when John the Baptist was conceived and born.

In Luke 1, it tells us that John’s mother, Elizabeth was six months pregnant when Jesus was conceived.
“In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary…” ( Luke 1:24-27 ).

Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, were cousins. That means that from this verse, we know that John was six months older than Jesus. So we can discover the approximate time of year Jesus was born if we know when John was born.

Now let’s look at what the Bible tells us about the time of John’s birth.
John’s father, Zacharias, was a priest serving in the Temple at Jerusalem. The Bible tells us that he and his wife were both righteous people who put their hearts into serving God. Zacharias, we’re told, was a priest ( Luke 1:5 ).

At this time, the Temple priests in Jerusalem were divided into several different “divisions” or what were called “courses” - or groups of priests that would take turns performing Temple service during the year. It’s like a yearly schedule for those serving at the Temple. There were so many priests at the time that they had to be set up on a schedule to have their time to serve in the Temple.
Now, here’s what’s important. Historians calculate that the course of Abia mentioned by Luke, during which Zacharias served, happened from June 13-19 in that year
(The Companion Bible , 1974, Appendix 179, p. 200).

The announcement therefore to Zacharias in the Temple as to the conception of John the Baptist took place between June 13-19 as our calendar has it today in that year.
During his Temple service, the angel Gabriel appeared to Zacharias and announced to him that he and his wife Elizabeth would have a child (Luke 1:8-13 ). After he completed his service and traveled home, Elizabeth conceived the cousin of Jesus; the child that would one day become John the Baptist ( Luke 1:23-24 ). It seems that John’s conception took place near the end of June which was after the division of Abia and Zecharias completed his Temple service, adding nine months brings us to the end of March the next year as the most likely time for John’s birth.
Adding another six months - the difference between the ages of John and Jesus ( Luke 1:35-36 ) - brings us to the end of September or early October as the likely time of Jesus’ birth.
Now, when we look back and we look at this timeframe, we learn some interesting facts.

Zacharias, remember, was serving during the course of Abia which was in the middle part of June of that year when he heard the announcement of his son’s birth. He went home, his wife conceived John the Baptist toward the end of June that year. Nine months later, John the Baptist was born in the spring, probably during the month of March as we know it today.
Six months later, Jesus Christ was born. Therefore, Christ is six months younger than his cousin and was born most likely in the fall sometime in the timeframe of September or early October of that year.

(2) Even the dates proves this as a lie from the pit of hell. Jesus Christ died in April 33AD, and record has it hat He lived for 33 and 1/2 years.
Now, let's do a quick calculation... 33 and 1/2 years means 33years and 6 months. 30 years will lead us back to month of April on the dot, but adding 6 more months to April leads us to...... What?...... Late September or early October of course. So where did they got their own date of December 25 from...
If they say Easter (Another false Doctrine and christianised Pagan festival), which they call the celebration of Christ's death and resurrection April, but the question is where the hell did December now became the month of Jesus Christ Birth? I'm not surprised, Babylon means Confusion.... They are confused and confusing many innocent souls but God is never an author of confusion.


What of A Red Santa and a Green Christmas Tree?

Among many today the central figure of Christmas is not Jesus but the man in the red suit. “Santa Claus, probably the most widely accepted of all the symbols of Christmas, arrived in Britain sometime during the 1880s from America, where he had long reigned as the gift-bringing St. Nicholas of the German and Dutch settlers.
“By the 1890s the English Father Christmas, originally a minor character in a mummer’s play, had been absorbed into the personality of his American counterpart [Santa Claus], and become the jovial figure that he is today … Santa Claus was accompanied and associated with ghosts and demons … Children are solemnly warned that only if they are very good will they receive their presents” (Cavendish, p. 483).

Why would Christian parents lie to their children in telling them Santa delivers gifts from the North Pole on Christmas Eve? How can Christians correlate the wise men’s meaningful gifts for the future King of Kings to Santa’s gifts for their children?

And what of the tradition of the Christmas tree? 

“Equally old was the practice of the Druids, the caste of priests among the Celts of ancient France, Britain and Ireland, to decorate their temples with mistletoe, the fruit of the oak-tree which they considered sacred. Among the German tribes the oak-tree was sacred to Odin, their god of war, and they sacrificed to it until St Boniface, in the eighth century, persuaded them to exchange it for the Christmas tree, a young fir-tree adorned in honour of the Christ child … It was the German immigrants who took the custom to America” (L.W. Cowie and John Selwyn Gummer, The Christian Calendar, 1974, p. 22).

Would Christ participate in Christmas today?

Would Jesus Christ take part in a festival that, while stated to be in His honor, actually diametrically opposes Him by celebrating the worship of false gods? If He did, He would be violating the laws of God He Himself had proclaimed—thus sinning (see, for example, Deuteronomy 12:29-32 ). If He sinned, we have no Savior and no salvation.
God is the Author of life-saving truths—not of immaculately coiffed falsehoods. “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” ( John 8:32 ). Lies are of Satan: “The devil … does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44 ).
Christmas blinds well-meaning people to its false narrative. We can’t put Christ back in Christmas, as many seek to do, because He was never there in the first place. Misguided people put Him there. What does that mean for us?

Jesus asked the religious leaders of His day: “Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3). And He further said: “These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” ( Matthew 15:8-9).
Satan wants to destroy many. He presents himself as an angel of light ( 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 ) but lives in and creates spiritual darkness (Ephesians 6 :12 ).
He promotes lies instead of truth, glittering lights instead of the true light of God, and mesmerizing music and false platitudes instead of the truth of salvation. He hopes to deceive humanity through holidays that honor a lie, not God.

Conclusion

Certainly Christmas is an intoxicating elixir, but you can break free from its debilitating addiction. You now have a choice to follow God’s instruction or to follow a holiday that originated in worship of ancient false gods. May God lead you to obey His holy will and honor Him always!

You may log on to  http://understandingeverywordofgod.blogspot.com.ng/2016/12/the-truth-about-christmas-part-1.html?m=1 for the Part 1 of this series for a better and thorough understanding. God bless you!

DOMINALTI for CHRIST
On Behalf of End Time Hub!!!

THE TRUTH ABOUT CHRISTMAS - PART 1

We are still on our series, Mystery Babylon. In our previous two articles we look into the wine of her fornication, which is interpreted as false doctrines and lies of the false church which has made the inhabitants of the earth drunk of. So, we want to start with the false doctrine of Christmas. In the next two or three teachings, I want to go into details about Christmas, it's Origin and why a true child of God should not celebrate it. Thank it's around the corner, so this is the best time to teach on it. 

Most also accept that Christmas traditions like a brightly ornamented tree and a red-suited Santa are acceptable ways of honoring our Savior. Does your Bible agree with these assumptions? There’s one way to prove it: Check your Bible and the many secular sources about Christmas.

Historical and biblical evidence clearly proves that Christmas is a Pagan festival that was christianised in order to accommodate many false religion into the church system, and that's Babylon for you. Babylon is the sum-total of all false religion. So, Christmas is not biblical, and it’s not of God. I'm not against celebrating the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, it's what we ought to celebrate everyday but, we have to put it right and sound it clear by the scriptures that Jesus was not born on December 25. The inarguable fact is that Christmas isn’t supported by your Bible. 

Was Jesus born on Christmas Day?

The first question to ask is whether Jesus was even born on the traditional date of Dec. 25. Luke’s Gospel records the event: “And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night” ( Luke 2:7-8 ). No mention of date so far. And does this scene fit with a winter birth?

Alexander Hislop wrote in his book The Two Babylons: “There is not a word in the Scriptures about the precise day of His birth, or the time of the year when He was born. What is recorded there implies that at what time … His birth took place, it could not have been on the 25th of December.

“At the time that the angel announced His birth to the shepherds of Bethlehem, they were feeding their flocks by night in the open fields. Now, no doubt, the climate of Palestine is not so severe as the climate of this country [England]; but even there, though the heat of the day be considerable, the cold of the night, from December to February, is very piercing, and it was

not the custom for the shepherds of Judea to watch their flocks in the open fields later than about the end of October. It is in the last degree incredible, then, that the birth of Christ could have taken place at the end of December” (1959, pp. 91-92).

Consider the highly improbable fact that a pregnant woman would travel a long distance, in wet and cold winter conditions, to be registered for a census to be taxed. “… The middle of winter was not fitting for such a business, especially for women with child, and children to travel in. Therefore, Christ could not be born in the depth of winter …

“And if any shall think the winter wind was not so extreme in these parts, let him remember the words of Christ in the gospel, ‘Pray that your flight be not in the winter.’ If the winter was so bad a time to flee in, it seems no fit time for shepherds to lie in the fields, and women and children to travel in” (ibid, p. 92, quoting scholar Joseph Mede). The better argument is that Jesus was likely born in late September through mid-October.

Where did Christmas come from?

If it can be shown that the historical birth of Jesus wasn’t the real root of the holiday, where did it come from?

Hislop explains this as well: “Long before the fourth century, and long before the Christian era itself, a festival was celebrated among the heathen [that is, the pagans], at that precise time of the year, in honour of the birth of the son of the Babylonian queen of heaven; and it may fairly be presumed that, in order to conciliate the heathen, and to swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity, the same festival was adopted by the Roman Church, giving it only the name of Christ. This tendency on the part of Christians to meet Paganism half-way was very early developed” (ibid., p. 93).

Secular and biblical evidence shows that the modern Christmas traditions came from the ancient winter solstice or Mithraic festival, adopted and celebrated by the Romans.

“Christmas has its origin in two ancient festivals, the great Yule-feast of the Norsemen and the Roman Saturnalia. During the Saturnalia, gifts were made by the wealthy to the poor in honor of the golden age of liberty when Saturn ruled the known world, and slaves were allowed to change places and clothing with their masters. They even elected their own king who, for the period of the festival, ruled as a despot. The Saturnalia involved the wildest debauchery, and was a festival of Pan himself” (Richard Cavendish, Man, Myth and Magic , 1983, Vol. 2, p. 480).

The Catholic writer Tertullian complained around A.D. 230 about the ancient festival period that led to Christmas: “‘By us … who are strangers to [Jewish] Sabbaths and new moons, and festivals, once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia, are now frequented; gifts are carried to and fro, new year’s day presents are made with din, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar; oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians’” (quoted by Hislop, p. 93).

“Upright men strove to stem the tide, but in spite of all their efforts, the apostacy went on, till the Church, with the exception of a small remnant, was submerged under Pagan superstition. That Christmas was originally a Pagan festival, is beyond all doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin” (ibid.).

The bottom line: Christmas came from a post-earlychutch, pagan festival.

Why was Christmas set on December 25?

Consider this surprising admission in the New Catholic Encyclopedia ’s explanation of why Christmas was set on December 25: “According to the hypothesis suggested by H. Usener, developed by B. Botte, and accepted by most scholars today, the birth of Christ was assigned the date of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar, January 6 in the Egyptian), because on this day, as the sun began its return to the northern skies, the pagan devotees of Mithra celebrated the dies natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the invincible sun).

“On Dec. 25, [A.D.] 247, Aurelian had proclaimed the sun-god principal patron of the empire and dedicated a temple to him in the Campus Martius. Christmas originated at a time when the cult of the sun was particularly strong at Rome. This theory finds support in some of the Church Fathers’ contrasting the birth of Christ and the winter solstice; indeed, from the beginning of the 3rd century ‘Sun of Justice’ appears as a title of Christ.

“Though the substitution of Christmas for the pagan festival cannot be proved with certainty, it remains the most plausible explanation for the dating of Christmas” (“Christmas and Its Cycle, History,” 1967, Vol. 3, p. 656).

The famed British anthropologist Sir James Frazer (1854-1941) adds to our understanding of the establishment of Christmas:

“Mithraic religion proved a formidable rival to Christianity, combining as it did a solemn ritual with aspirations after moral purity and a hope of immortality. Indeed the issue of the conflict between the two faiths appears for a time to have hung in the balance. An instructive relic of the long struggle is preserved in our festival of Christmas, which the Church seems to have borrowed directly from its heathen rival.

“What considerations led the ecclesiastical authorities to institute the festival of Christmas? … It was a custom of the heathen to celebrate on the same twenty-fifth of December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and festivities the Christians took part.

To be continue, stay tuned.. 

DOMINALTI for CHRIST!!!